21st century kids

Woocash

Omono
Messages
1,607
Reaction score
2,263
Location
Oxford, UK
Way to skirt around the question.

Actually science is a belief or theory in the beginning. That's why they study theories, to prove or dis prove.
All science starts out as someone wondering why something acts the way it does.

As long as Albert Einstein has been dead they are still proving and or dis proving his theories.
Science is not about having beliefs or theories. It is a quest for truth. You ask the questions before theorising the answer and the theories are based on studies of data acquired. Einstein didn’t just pluck the theory of relativity out of thin air and say, “prove me wrong”. He studied all the data available to him first. For years.

This is the problem when someone like Trump, having no scientific background or any analytical background whatsoever can just disagree with what people have devoted their lives to in the wave of a hand and millions of people simply eat it up.
 

coh

Imperial Masterpiece
Messages
5,782
Reaction score
6,824
Location
Rochester, NY
USDA Zone
6
That's funny. I can tell you don’t spend much time online. Websites are pretty much self filtering for the user base. If you are frequenting places that people say things they wouldn’t say to your face, you are in 4chan or some Fan pages for eleventeen year olds.

People have written things they wouldn't say in person on this very site, many many times. I've done it myself. You probably have too.

As for 4 chan, I have no idea what that is.

As for the rest, we'll have to agree to disagree.
 

Nanuk

Shohin
Messages
392
Reaction score
552
Location
Warner Robins Georgia
USDA Zone
8A
bullet_pin1.gif
Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are...


former Vice President Al Gore
(now, chairman and co-founder of Generation Investment Management--
a London-based business that sells carbon credits)
(in interview with Grist Magazine May 9, 2006, concerning his book, An Inconvenient Truth)
 

Nanuk

Shohin
Messages
392
Reaction score
552
Location
Warner Robins Georgia
USDA Zone
8A
Science is not about having beliefs or theories. It is a quest for truth. You ask the questions before theorising the answer and the theories are based on studies of data acquired. Einstein didn’t just pluck the theory of relativity out of thin air and say, “prove me wrong”. He studied all the data available to him first. For years.

This is the problem when someone like Trump, having no scientific background or any analytical background whatsoever can just disagree with what people have devoted their lives to in the wave of a hand and millions of people simply eat it up.

What does Trump have to do with it.
I was a skeptic long before he became my president.
 

Nanuk

Shohin
Messages
392
Reaction score
552
Location
Warner Robins Georgia
USDA Zone
8A

An interesting read if you have a minute.
Of special interest to me are the outright lies quoted about 3/4 of the way down.

The post about Al Gore in post 63 came from that along with others.
 

Woocash

Omono
Messages
1,607
Reaction score
2,263
Location
Oxford, UK
What does Trump have to do with it.
I was a skeptic long before he became my president.
I was just citing an example of dangerous people with too much influence and zero clue about the truth.
 

Woocash

Omono
Messages
1,607
Reaction score
2,263
Location
Oxford, UK

An interesting read if you have a minute.
Of special interest to me are the outright lies quoted about 3/4 of the way down.

The post about Al Gore in post 63 came from that along with others.
In that case lets just burn it all to hell then.
 

eryk2kartman

Chumono
Messages
616
Reaction score
516
Location
Ireland
USDA Zone
8b
BTW
Al Gore invented manbearpig - half man, half bear and half pig
264980
264982
 

misfit11

Omono
Messages
1,329
Reaction score
2,253
Location
Petaluma CA -Zone 9b
USDA Zone
9b
If the situation weren’t so dire, I would find it absolutely comical that in 2019 people still think that there’s a debate about whether or not human caused climate change is a real thing. The science is out. 97% of climate scientists are in agreement that human activity is warming our planet. Sorry, but just because billionaires, right wing politicians, and oil industry CEOs refuse to accept reality that doesn’t make it reality.
This is such a bizarre time we live in. The age of Trump has convinced otherwise intelligent people that scientists, the intelligence community, academics, and journalists are the enemy of the state. Meanwhile, a man with decades long history of deception, fraud, abuse, racism, infidelity and debauchery is their beacon of truth.
 
Last edited:

Nanuk

Shohin
Messages
392
Reaction score
552
Location
Warner Robins Georgia
USDA Zone
8A
BTW
Al Gore invented manbearpig - half man, half bear and half pig
View attachment 264980
View attachment 264982


According to Al, he invented the internet also. LOL
He's a clown.

By the way, did anyone here see the letter to the U.N.
500 scientists sent a letter to the U.N. within the last few weeks.
They ALL stated that there is no CLIMATE EMERGENCY.

I'm sure that you probably didn't see it. The news media does not report on such because it clashes with their agenda.
Their agenda IS NOT the truth.
 

Nanuk

Shohin
Messages
392
Reaction score
552
Location
Warner Robins Georgia
USDA Zone
8A
If the situation weren’t so dire, I would find it absolutely comical that in 2019 people still think that there’s a debate about whether or not human caused climate change is a real thing. The science is out. 97% of climate scientists are in agreement that human activity is warming our planet. Sorry, but just because billionaires, right wing politicians, and oil industry CEOs refuse to accept reality that doesn’t make it reality.
This is such a bizarre time we live in. The age of Trump has convinced otherwise intelligent people that scientists, the intelligence community, academics, and journalists are the enemy of the state. Meanwhile, a man with decades long history of deception, fraud, abuse, racism, infidelity and debauchery is their beacon of truth.


That can go both ways.
I can't believe that in 2019 you still believe this crap.

As for Trump, I became a skeptic over 20 years ago. My opinion of climate change had nothing to do with him.
 

misfit11

Omono
Messages
1,329
Reaction score
2,253
Location
Petaluma CA -Zone 9b
USDA Zone
9b
That can go both ways.
I can't believe that in 2019 you still believe this crap.

As for Trump, I became a skeptic over 20 years ago. My opinion of climate change had nothing to do with him.
Anytime I encounter a climate change denier I tend to question their understanding of it. If you fully understand the science, it is undeniable.
 

misfit11

Omono
Messages
1,329
Reaction score
2,253
Location
Petaluma CA -Zone 9b
USDA Zone
9b
I’ve noticed that “belief” in climate change or denial of follows religious lines. It seems that if you’re a climate change denier then most likely you’re also a devout Christian. This isn’t always true obviously but generally this seems to be true.
Using history as a reference we see many times where religion was in direct opposition to science. Galileo was imprisoned by the Catholic Church for his “belief” that the earth wasn’t the center of the universe. Of course if you think that the earth is the center of the universe in 2019 I’ve got a few words to describe you.
 

Cattwooduk

Shohin
Messages
496
Reaction score
694
Location
Bristol, UK
This is not age related, it's Conservative versus Liberal, the world over. Liberals are always looking for someone to blame for whatever their issue is. Conservatives are more interested in solutions that are workable. Only stupid people think that the world as we know it will come to a catastrophic end by 2030, or 2100, or pick an era. The climate is always in a state of flux and is either warming or cooling, and can only be characterized historically, -looking at the past record. The climate models have never, ever, been able to predict the past, much less the future. That's because they still do not include all the factors, like the sun's effect on the columns of air and sunspots, which are undoubtedly more important than the Earth's wobble and volcanoes, with man's activities and plastic straws dead last. Mankind only has the power to screw-up the skinny portion of surface conditions we occupy, not weather, and certainly not climate. Smog is not weather. Beijing and Los Angles are two examples of cities poorly located, in geographic situations that do not provide enough ventilation for the pollutants the large populations put into the air. Hurricanes and cyclones are weather specific to some climate zones, not climate. They begin as tropical storms that gain strength as they move over very warm waters, all of which is generated by the sun's energy heating the oceans. We can see such storms on Jupiter. Does Mankind contribute to those great cyclones, too?

Mankind is a passenger aboard the great ship, Earth. We can mess our own little zone, our own cabin, -but the ship sails on without regard.


Just a few things I noticed in this post which I could use some clarification on as I got a bit lost.


You stated the climate is always in a state of flux based on past records - which I agree with. Then you said we cannot predict (?) the past... I'm not sure what predicting the past even means, but if you refer to the data we have for historical temperatures, atmospheric CO2 etc, then yes we can make very accurate models of future events. Most of the data we're currently pulling is actually ahead of the predictions made previously, so you could argue that the models are incorrect, but only because they're largely suggesting things are worse than the predictions made previously which I don't think helps your argument at all.

This is also intrinsically flawed argument anyway. You can't state that the data we have shows the climate alternates, or that the data "undoubtedly" shows one thing or another, then in the same instance argue that the models we have don't have enough data to prove one thing or another. Either the data we have is incomplete and thus cannot be used to argue fact one way or the other, or the data is sufficient to produce a very solid grounding for the models we have. At the moment the data is clearly showing anthropological climate change is real.

You stated that the models we have don't include all the factors. This is false - there are lots of models which include factors such as sun spot data among other things. Interestingly these data sets show that sun spots or TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) actually have very little impact on our climate temperatures. TSI measurements have been levelling out and slightly decreasing over the last few decades that have had the steepest rise in global temperatures. This would disprove your claim entirely. The science behind the sun's impact on our climate is by no means fully understood or universally agreed, but the data we do have doesn't show a big enough effect to be the "undoubtedly" bigger cause of the climate change we're seeing.

Humans have huge impact on surface conditions correct - to claim this has no effect on weather or climate is nonsensical. For the easiest to work with examples concerning localised weather - cities can create wind tunnels increasing air movement, intense urban hot spots which draw in and create vast air movements. Pollutant aerosol particles have direct impact on both increasing and decreasing rainfall. So when you say smog is not weather, smog can actually create and change weather entirely in a localised region. The climate is made up of the sum of it's parts, so on a small scale localised weather changes all over the place do have an impact on the overall climate. We have known for a long time about the impact of the gulf stream on global weather patterns, and how changes in salinity effect the stream - Freshwater ice melting in the arctic has an impact on the strength of the current through salinity variations and so on, which in turn impacts the temperatures induced by the gulf stream. Yada Yada you get my point.
 

Cattwooduk

Shohin
Messages
496
Reaction score
694
Location
Bristol, UK
bullet_pin1.gif

Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are...


former Vice President Al Gore
(now, chairman and co-founder of Generation Investment Management--
a London-based business that sells carbon credits)
(in interview with Grist Magazine May 9, 2006, concerning his book, An Inconvenient Truth)


Just because you over-represent something doesn't change the data or the facts you are presenting. You can show present data in loads of ways to make it appear to show something in far more dramatic terms than it would otherwise... that doesn't change the basic facts. Politicians and practically every advertisement you can imagine do this all the time.
 

Forsoothe!

Imperial Masterpiece
Messages
6,878
Reaction score
9,251
Location
Michigan
USDA Zone
6b
What comes through is the yada, yada, yada. I'm not going to spend more a few minutes on this because you already have the answers to everything. The sun, geography and the Earth's wobble are responsible for climate, as it has been forever. Throw in a few volcanoes to disturb the the atmosphere and you've got 99.99% of the inputs.

"...cities can create wind tunnels increasing air movement, intense urban hot spots which draw in and create vast air movements. Pollutant aerosol particles have direct impact on both increasing and decreasing rainfall." Look at these locales on a map of Earth. They are tiny dots, insignificant on the grand scale. How big of an area is affected? What is that as a percentage of the whole? If you can, "...have direct impact on both increasing and decreasing rainfall." lets see you do it somewhere. How about the Central Valley of California, -on a regular basis. ?? Let me know so I can watch. I think London would like to see a little less rain. Let me know so I can watch.

Your type of wisdom drives liberal bastions like California. Into the ground. You have all the answers, but none of them work. All they do is confound what does work. Mankind has been working on making things work since time immemorial and have gotten lots of them wrong and had to change this and that, over and over to get it right. Mistakes have been, are now being, and shall evermore be made by us improving our lot. The difference between my side and your side is that we have different ways of responding to problems. Your side screams, "The sky is falling, stop everything." Mine says, "let's look for a better way of doing things."
 

Woocash

Omono
Messages
1,607
Reaction score
2,263
Location
Oxford, UK
What comes through is the yada, yada, yada. I'm not going to spend more a few minutes on this because you already have the answers to everything. The sun, geography and the Earth's wobble are responsible for climate, as it has been forever. Throw in a few volcanoes to disturb the the atmosphere and you've got 99.99% of the inputs.

"...cities can create wind tunnels increasing air movement, intense urban hot spots which draw in and create vast air movements. Pollutant aerosol particles have direct impact on both increasing and decreasing rainfall." Look at these locales on a map of Earth. They are tiny dots, insignificant on the grand scale. How big of an area is affected? What is that as a percentage of the whole? If you can, "...have direct impact on both increasing and decreasing rainfall." lets see you do it somewhere. How about the Central Valley of California, -on a regular basis. ?? Let me know so I can watch. I think London would like to see a little less rain. Let me know so I can watch.

Your type of wisdom drives liberal bastions like California. Into the ground. You have all the answers, but none of them work. All they do is confound what does work. Mankind has been working on making things work since time immemorial and have gotten lots of them wrong and had to change this and that, over and over to get it right. Mistakes have been, are now being, and shall evermore be made by us improving our lot. The difference between my side and your side is that we have different ways of responding to problems. Your side screams, "The sky is falling, stop everything." Mine says, "let's look for a better way of doing things."
This is complete nonsense. That’s like me saying, “That side screams at your side to acknowledge something is wrong, but while the money rolls in there is no problem”. It’s not about liberals vs conservatives. I wish this political tribalism over everything could get put aside so things could actually move forward. This is the problem.

Your first paragraph simply dismisses what you don’t understand. Your second paragraph is laughable (see previous sentence), and your third paragraph is then indicative of exactly why problems escalate. Blame, deflect, ignore.

This is bigger than localised areas or individual countries.
 
Top Bottom