Is this happening due to global warming?

[Klytus]

It's like world leaders can find no interest from illegal Usury.

Such a world summit on Global Usury is most unlkely to occur within the lifetime of anyone alive today,or ever.

Very strange,you would think it would be first on the agenda for an New World Government,but no,the opposite is true.

One does not have to wonder at the clever people who now call themselves Nasa,they gave up looking for intelligent life on earth some time back.

These days they look to Earth for funding and Space for intelligent life,it doesnt work for them the other way around.

 

[Attila Soos]

" Certain outcomes cannot be verified--so the scientist is hedging his absolute statement, knowing he's not 100 percent correct.

Certain outcomes cannot be duplicated in a controlled setting. For example, a volcanic eruption cannot be exactly duplicated in a lab, right? This doesn't mean that we don't know what's going to happen. In the contrary, we can predict the statistical probalility of the various events that will happen. But we cannot speak in terms of "absolute certainty".

The scientist is not hedging his absolute statement. There IS NO absolute statement. It is all about likely outcomes. This is the difference between a dogmatic view and science. In a dogma, everything is absolute. God and Evil, Right and Wrong. God kows everything, past and future, he can change everything in a whim. Pretty cool, I would say.
In science, we don't see the future in absolute terms. We make statistical predictions based on our understanding of the phenomenon. We are not God, so we don't have a crystal ball. But we have other tools and gadgets, almost as good as God's.

If you want to dispute these findings, you can do it by challenging specific findings or assumptions, and presenting your own research. Your points have to stand on their own merits. Anything else that you say is irrelevant, including judging others, your feelings, other people's feelings, jokes, etc.

It's interesting how people sometimes dismiss these findings, just because "they don't like it", or they "don't find an emotional connection". I would think that a rational person would dismiss an information if the person is in the possession of another set of information that is deemed to be of better quality. How can you dismiss something based solely on "emotional ground", or based on "convenience"? We are not talking here about shopping for a pair of shoes. We are talking about understanding reality.

 

[greerhw]

Certain outcomes cannot be duplicated in a controlled setting. For example, a volcanic eruption cannot be exactly duplicated in a lab, right? This doesn't mean that we don't know what's going to happen. In the contrary, we can predict the statistical probalility of the various events that will happen. But we cannot speak in terms of "absolute certainty".

The scientist is not hedging his absolute statement. There IS NO absolute statement. It is all about likely outcomes. This is the difference between a dogmatic view and science. In a dogma, everything is absolute. God and Evil, Right and Wrong. In science, we don't see the future in absolute terms. We make statistical predictions based on our understanding of the phenomenon.

If you want to dispute these findings, you can do it by challenging specific findings or assumptions, and presenting your own research.

People will look back on this in 50 years and think what a bunch of fools we were, just like the EXPERTS predicting the next Ice Age about 50 or so years ago.

keep it green
Harry

 

[rockm]

"If you want to dispute these findings, you can do it by challenging specific findings or assumptions, and presenting your own research.

It's interesting how people sometimes dismiss these findings, just because "they don't like it". I would think that a rational person would dismiss an information if the person is in the possession of another set if information that is deemed to be of better quality. How can you dismiss something based solely on "emotional ground", or based on "convenience"? We are not talking here about shopping for a pair of shoes. We are talking about understanding reality."

You know as well as I do I cannot present my own research. I have neither the public funding, the education, the intelligenc, nor the time to prepare such research. That's why I rely on scientists, publicly or privately funded not to play cute with their research. I want a straight answer. I'm don't think I'm getting one --especially in light of some of the revelations of how data is handled.

Reality and rationality extends beyond the laboratory. Outside the lab, things are not so bloodless. Things are messy. Politics invades "quality" science. Politics twists meaning both ways. It can also suppress data, encourage "herd" thinking in scientists seeking funding and publication

I am not disputing something on "emotional grounds." I am questioning why the hedging, suppression of data, tweaking of data, hiding of data, etc. Those actions are inconvenient for the absolutists in the crowd.

I have dismissed nothing ---only asked "what's up with the data?" and "why the dodging and hectoring attitudes?"

 

[Attila Soos]

People will look back on this in 50 years and think what a bunch of fools we were, just like the EXPERTS predicting the next Ice Age about 50 or so years ago.

keep it green
Harry

I have to correct that. I was a University student 25 years ago, studying geology, and the ice age, amongst others. As far as I know, no teacher of mine was wasting his time, predicting the next Ice Age in absolute terms. We only talked about the global cycles of cooling and warming, that always happened in the past, and will always happen in the future. The only difference betwen then and now, was that we were not aware of the escalation in climate change, that has happened during the last few decades.

 

[greerhw]

I have to correct that. I was a University student 25 years ago, studying geology, and the ice age, amongst others. As far as I know, no teacher of mine was wasting his time, predicting the next Ice Age in absolute terms. We only talked about the global cycles of cooling and warming, that always happened in the past, and will always happen in the future. The only difference betwen then and now, was that we were not aware of the escalation in climate change, that has happened during the last few decades.

No offence Attila, but you and I must have lived in parallel universes at the time.

keep it green,
Harry

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/global cooling.htm

 

[Klytus]

Events dear boy,who said that?

It was like Kapo and Slave to the delegates who walked away from the massers table.

I guess someone had a plan for exactly that eventuality.

They say there is no good or evil,merely shades of grey.

Still,there are some really nasty folks out there,which kinda makes it difficult to discuss.

 

[Attila Soos]

You know as well as I do I cannot present my own research. I have neither the public funding, the education, the intelligenc, nor the time to prepare such research. That's why I rely on scientists, publicly or privately funded not to play cute with their research. I want a straight answer. I'm don't think I'm getting one --especially in light of some of the revelations of how data is handled.

Fair enough. We can't do our own research, so instead, we rely on the works of scientists. From time to time, some of these people lose their credibility. This is why we don't just rely on one source, or one set of findings. These days, we do have the means to diversify our information sources a great deal.

The answer that I hear, is pretty straigtforward: the Earth cannot process the amount of emmissions that we release into the air. The knowledge that some scientists are corrupt bastards, will not change this. Some have high integrity, some don't. What else is new?

 

[Vance Wood]

"That's NASA, as in the people smart enough to take humans to the moon and bring them back, the rocket scientists who send probes to the far reaches of our solar system and beyond. NASA is a science agency with no political affiliation."

This is wholly naive. NASA has long been an EXTREMELY political organization. It depends on funding from the government and a continuing government mandate to exist.

This provides only a glimpse of the pressures it is under:
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/politics.html

Obfuscation and avoiding FOIA requests suggests to me that NASA might not be playing it as straight as you assume:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/

Or read here, if you think Wash. Times is too biased:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...83216723794.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular

Don't kid yourself, NASA knows what side it's bread is buttered on. The congress giveth and the congress taketh away. NASA is going to come down on what ever side it deems necessary to insure its financial survival understanding that what they do is probably more likely to be cut in hard times than anywhere else. All that is needed is an excuse-----

 

[greerhw]

Fair enough. We can't do our own research, so instead, we rely on the works of scientists. From time to time, some of these people lose their credibility. This is why we don't just rely on one source, or one set of findings. These days, we do have the means to diversify our information sources a great deal.

The answer that I hear, is pretty straigtforward: the Earth cannot process the amount of emmissions that we release into the air. The knowledge that some scientists are corrupt bastards, will not change this. Some have high integrity, some don't. What else is new?

Money talks and Bull Shit walks !

keep it green,
Harry

 

[Klytus]

The real question i have not seen Nasa ask is could a Beacon signal be broadcast as a piggyback on the worlds diet of Soaps,Sitcoms,News and other entertainments?

Would you use analogue or digital broadcasts for your synchronous array?

 

[ghues]

How about Bugs in this?

Fair enough. We can't do our own research, so instead, we rely on the works of scientists. From time to time, some of these people lose their credibility. This is why we don't just rely on one source, or one set of findings. These days, we do have the means to diversify our information sources a great deal.

The answer that I hear, is pretty straigtforward: the Earth cannot process the amount of emmissions that we release into the air. The knowledge that some scientists are corrupt bastards, will not change this. Some have high integrity, some don't. What else is new?

Attila, here’s another point of interest.
Heard yesterday from "an expert" that we also need to factor in and acknowledge other forms of emissions, such as the those that are given off by the Mountain pine beetle attack (in British Columbia, now moved into Alberta and the US), which (by his estimates) are more than (on an annual basis) the total of all the emissions from all other sectors with the province (total of approx 3 million people).
Cheers Graham

 

[greerhw]

Just another country trying to get in on the cash cow !!!

keep it green,
Harry

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...anipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/

 

[Attila Soos]

Attila, here’s another point of interest.
Heard yesterday from "an expert" that we also need to factor in and acknowledge other forms of emissions, such as the those that are given off by the Mountain pine beetle attack (in British Columbia, now moved into Alberta and the US), which (by his estimates) are more than (on an annual basis) the total of all the emissions from all other sectors with the province (total of approx 3 million people).
Cheers Graham

Pine beetles, eh?
Pine beetles will be the straw that broke the camel's back.