Tuna
 
  1  
Fri 4 Dec, 2015 03:48 pm
@layman,
Quote:
All the laymen arguing about this issue want to act like it's a scientific issue and that THEIR side has the right "science."

It aint about that. It's a political issue, that's all.

Best book I'm come across for understanding the challenges to long range predictions is The Long Thaw by David Archer. He also wrote a textbook on global warming. He used to allow non-students to audit his class for free. Don't know if he still does that.
layman
 
  0  
Fri 4 Dec, 2015 04:00 pm
@Tuna,
Quote:
Best book I'm come across for understanding the challenges to long range predictions is The Long Thaw by David Archer. He also wrote a textbook on global warming.


Never heard of the guy and, needless to say, aint read his book. I just skimmed an online book review which suggests he aint that sure about nuthin neither, though:

Quote:
...understanding that requires an understanding of ice sheet dynamics... which were explicitly excluded from the scope of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report....Uncertainties about ice sheets mean it is difficult to know what a "safe" CO₂ concentration might be.


http://dannyreviews.com/h/Long_Thaw.html
Tuna
 
  1  
Fri 4 Dec, 2015 04:13 pm
@layman,
Quote:
Never heard of the guy and, needless to say, aint read his book. I just skimmed an online book review which suggests he aint that sure about nuthin neither, though:

He agrees with the IPCC assessment. But that's just about whether we are presently experiencing anthropogenic global warming and some short range predictions. Most of the warming is expected to come after the end of this century.... so the IPCC doesn't really speak to the threat in a significant way (except maybe as a way to get the attention of global leaders.)
layman
 
  0  
Fri 4 Dec, 2015 04:24 pm
@Tuna,
Quote:
He agrees with the IPCC assessment.


I don't have an opinion. I don't have the qualifications to make a worthwhile assessment.

But I've read enough from IPPC members complaining about the UN officials rewriting their reports so as to distort them, about IPPC members themselves complaining about the biased policies and procedures inherent in the system (many resigning in protest), and about "climategate," etc. to conclude that I don't trust any of them.

There is BIG money at stake here for both sides. Every criticism of IPPC reports is quickly dismissed by the faithful as somehow "funded by big oil." In the meantime, guys like Al Gore have become filthy rich off this scam and many others who want to do so. While Al leaves all the lights on in his 10,000 square foot mansion for "security" and flies a jet across country for a game of golf where he can talk about "business" he is anointed as the patron saint of disinterested environmentalism.
Setanta
 
  2  
Fri 4 Dec, 2015 04:27 pm
@Thomas,
Indeed, it would be foolish to ignore the political motivations involved.
layman
 
  -1  
Fri 4 Dec, 2015 04:44 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
Indeed, it would be foolish to ignore the political motivations involved.


Especially when, as Thomas so astutely pointed out, it's coming from THEM, eh?

Quote:
In America at least, there is an organized assault on anything related to fact-finding, including science, and its organizers are predominantly political conservatives.


Typical hack partisanship. It's them guys what does it, never US!

Yeah, right, eh?

There's a reason why, after a thorough review, the courts refused to let Al Gore's book be used as a classroom text, eh?

The reason? Aint it obvious? It was all done by right-wing facists pigs, that's why!
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  4  
Fri 4 Dec, 2015 04:45 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:
Many highly respected and eminqualified climatologists have severely criticized IPPC reports.

That is simply not true. Check the facts and you will see it's blatantly false.
layman
 
  -1  
Fri 4 Dec, 2015 04:52 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
That is simply not true. Check the facts and you will see it's blatantly false.


Check them yourself, Ollie.
layman
 
  -1  
Fri 4 Dec, 2015 04:54 pm
Imma touchy-feely kinda dude, ya know? This gives me a big advantage.

Whatever the issue, political, scientific, economic, legal, you name it, I always INTUITIVELY know which side is right. It's a benefit that comes with being sensitive and caring. Your heart tells you what's right, and it is NEVER wrong.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Fri 4 Dec, 2015 04:55 pm
I can't imagine why someone would bring up Al Gore--this thread is about science and scientists, and i believe i am correct in saying that Gore is not a scientist. Would anyone bring him up for partisan, polemical reasons? Heaven forfend!
layman
 
  0  
Fri 4 Dec, 2015 04:58 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
I can't imagine why someone would bring up Al Gore--this thread is about science and scientists, and i believe i am correct in saying that Gore is not a scientist.


Ya don't say.

Quote:
@Thomas,

Indeed, it would be foolish to ignore the political motivations involved.
0 Replies
 
Tuna
 
  0  
Fri 4 Dec, 2015 05:02 pm
@layman,
Quote:
I don't have an opinion. I don't have the qualifications to make a worthwhile assessment.

Me neither. One thing I like about Archer is that he doesn't preach, he explains. What's going to happen is that the earth's climate will experience a temperature spike that will last a thousand years or so. It's a spike because the oceans will eventually start absorbing the CO2 and things will get back close to normal, but won't really return to baseline for about 100,000 years. Nobody is sure how big the spike will be because so far, we rely on computer models to provide answers. Nobody has yet discovered how to model how the clouds will be. If they're tall and columnar, warming will be greater. Nobody knows a reason humans couldn't survive it, but it would be warmer than it has been since Homo Sapiens evolved, so something unexpected could arise.

If the clouds are flat and broad, that will reflect light back out to space and reduce surface warming.

Fascinatingly, the earth's climate is headed now into what Archer calls a "trigger point" for reglaciation, which means the glaciers could descend again in something like 1-3 thousand years. BUT, every now and then the trigger is missed (it has to do with how circular the earth's orbit is.) It looks like without increased CO2, the climate would come close to missing it.

If we burn all the coal reserves, then most likely we will miss it and the glaciers won't come back for... I don't remember.. 40,000 years? Anyway, that's my short book review. If you're interested in geo-history, it's definitely worth checking out.

Long story short: no matter what you do with your carbon footprint, the earth's climate is going to be a wild ride for a while. Short of the collapse of human civilization, I don't see how we could avoid burning the coal.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Fri 4 Dec, 2015 05:02 pm
I do say. I also say that you bring up Gore for polemical effect. I also say that your only object here is to trash the thread--probably because it too closely describes your motives.
layman
 
  -1  
Fri 4 Dec, 2015 05:11 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
That is simply not true. Check the facts and you will see it's blatantly false.


Ya stopped a little short when ya quoted me, eh, Ollie? The next sentence said:

Quote:
The faithful don't pay a bit of attention to them.


And then right after that:

Quote:
Why should they? They have already gone on record announcing that they know the TRUTH.


I'm sure you have no reason or inclination to check the facts before you make such flat assertions. Why should you?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Fri 4 Dec, 2015 05:12 pm
Melt lakes on Greenland glaciers:

http://www.whoi.edu/cms/images/mediarelations/dasnr_en3_66874.jpg

http://www.valuewalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/greeland.jpg

http://s.ngm.com/2010/06/melt-zone/img/melt-zone-615.jpg

http://www.utahpeoplespost.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Sub-glacial-Lakes-May-Cause-Greenland-Ice-Sheet-to-Melt-Faster.jpg

Yeah, that global warming ****, that's just made up by Al Gore and his leftist cronies!
layman
 
  -2  
Fri 4 Dec, 2015 05:15 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
I also say that your only object here is to trash the thread


VICTIMIZED, yet again, sho nuff!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Fri 4 Dec, 2015 05:19 pm
You just wish you could victimize people. What are you gonna do, tough guy, throw electrons at me? What a maroon . . .


0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -3  
Fri 4 Dec, 2015 05:40 pm
@layman,
I'll simply repeat what I first said about all this:

Quote:
"Science" is the new religion. It's like sectarian and denominational branches of the church. Everybody has god on their side, they all quote selectively from scriptural passages which "prove" that their narrow interpretation is absolutely correct, and nobody really knows what they're talking about. For about 90% of the population, their approach to science is faith-based.

As popularly used, the term "science," is about as well defined as "god" and is just as omnipotent, so long as it is "properly" understood to support the position I want to take. The modern approach to using and "understanding" science does not involve critical thinking. It involves adherence to dogma and is a tool for sophism.


I'm kinda like some damn atheist here, who happened to stumble into a fundy website, know what I'm sayin?

Ya can't argue with faith.
layman
 
  -2  
Fri 4 Dec, 2015 06:16 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
Yeah, that global warming ****, that's just made up by Al Gore and his leftist cronies!


Heh, well, now that ya mention it:

Quote:
Global warming fraud: Iconic polar bear on melting ice cap a hoax

Images of periled polar bears sinking into arctic seas because of melting polar ice caps have become an iconic symbol of the devastating consequences of so-called global warming. But a new government investigation into the supposed science surrounding this now-infamous urban legend has revealed that it was likely nothing more than a pseudoscientific hoax...

...everyone remembers the scene from the 2005 Al Gore science fiction movie An Inconvenient Truth, where Gore had an animated clip of the polar bear in danger of drowning, trying to get onto a tiny ice flow made smaller, presumably by global warming.

Al Gore made movie stars out of drowning bears in his 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth with an animation sequence depicting a small patch of floating ice disintegrating under a struggling polar bear until it was left swimming alone in a vast expanse of open ocean. One couldn’t help to get a little teary-eyed at the notion.

So where does this now omnipresent notion come from that polar bears—famously strong swimmers—will perish in droves under the warming waves as the distance between the ice edge and the shore becomes too great to overcome? Let’s have a look-see.

...there were reports of drowning polar bears in 2007, and they were directly attributable to human activities. But they didn’t drown because of global warming, instead, they drowned because they had first been shot with tranquilizer darts and then slipped into the sea and were unable to be recovered.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/28/al-gores-drowned-polar-bear-ait-source-under-investigation/

Setanta
 
  1  
Fri 4 Dec, 2015 06:29 pm
Hehehehehe . . .

Wanna buy a bridge?
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 4.9 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 08:12:04