Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@n of data alright. Personally, I find it amusing deniers are so skeptical about the motives of scientists, but think Exxon is telling them the truth. Especially given the fact that coal and oil interests have funneled millions of dollars to climate skeptics in order to create the illusion of disagreement--to, according to their own documentation, "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact."
Lets take your opinion on global warming at face value. The climate is warming/changing and we're all going to suffer. What would you change that has any chance of even happening.
(Example: you could get rid of all the cars but nobody is willing to do that because we all like/need to travel)
Where is the line in the sand as far as things that we can change that will actually make one iota of difference yet allow humans to live like we've become comfortable doing? For this example lets stick to individuals. Its kind of a cop out to say it all has to happen at a corporation level when those corporations are supplying individuals with the goods and services that individuals are asking for.
This is a ridiculous post. You build an extreme, artificial position ("we're all going to suffer, get rid of all cars") and then mock it. And then you set limitations for the debate: Give you one change that will make one iota of difference, but restrict it to "individual changes." Changes that will, granted, not make one iota of difference. Climate change, obviously, is a problem that must be tackled globally with policies that reduce emissions and promote renewable energy on a large scale.
So you're all for change as long as you don't have to do it? I'm well
aware if we are to make changes it would require a global change but you
can't just point at Exon and say "See!! Bad corporation!!!" When
you're using the gasoline they're supplying.
I'm
all for renewables. Sign me up for some massive solar panel farms.
Heck if we could afford drop $20-30k (which is what it would take) right
now we'd have already put a system in place at our house/farm. It
might seem like all conservatives are these evil planet killing monsters
to you but I can assure you we're not. Personally we've explored
geothermal, solar and even some minor wind for our personal and business
needs. We'll likely proceed with solar in the next 2-5 years because
the numbers work. I spent more time shopping fuel economy on our
vehicle purchases then anything and unless theres a reason to drive a
larger vehicle we're always in our economy car. We grow the vast
majority of our own food.
These are
examples of what doing something look like. Not getting some poster and
a pussy hat and marching on Washington. Or holding up some idol of a
celebrity who says the right things but flies on their private jet
between their 15 mansions while consuming 1000x what the average person
does. Quit bitching and do something if you believe in it.
Quote: @greediron said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ SFVikeFan said:
@ medaille said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ greediron said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ greediron said:
Lizard People? Come on, have you seen Hillary?
Yes, pollution has an effect. Breathing has an effect. Plants and trees have an effect on the environment. Politicians flying their private jets to an environmental gathering have an effect. What is up for debate is what that effect is, what the proper response is and should the response be forced.
What isn't up for debate is that people will manipulate the data to prove their point. That people will use that manipulated data to make money and raise funding. And to combat that blowback on those items, they will call people all sorts of names to shut down debate.
Yes, there's manipulation of data alright. Personally, I find it amusing deniers are so skeptical about the motives of scientists, but think Exxon is telling them the truth. Especially given the fact that coal and oil interests have funneled millions of dollars to climate skeptics in order to create the illusion of disagreement--to, according to their own documentation, "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact."
I am skeptical of any side that stands to profit off the manipulation of data. Right now that has been the side of the "scientists" that claim consensus is good enough. That fake data still matters. I don't put much stock into a scientist that tells everyone they should stop asking questions and accept a consensus. That speaks of money and politics, not science.
Do you feel the same way about evolution? Gravity? The idea that the earth revolves around the sun?
Can the minority be right? Of course it can. Truth is not determined by majority vote. But when they're outnumbered 10 to 1, don't you need a pretty compelling reason to side with the minority? You're probably as tired of this analogy as I am, but if 9 out of 10 mechanics say your car needs new brakes, isn't the burden now on you to prove to your family that the 1 dissenter is right and the 9 are wrong before you let them in the car?
The 9 out of 10 mechanics example isn’t really a 1-1
comparison. Neither is Gravity or orbits
or whatever. In the mechanics example,
the mechanics can look at your brakes, measure the pad thickness, etc. They can functionally verify that they are
working. They have seen thousands of
different sets of brakes, and the system has a handful of moving parts that all
work in a simple manner. With regards to
gravity and planetary orbits, we have centuries of observations and data to
more or less confirm that the theories are accurate enough to use. We’ve used those equations to send men to the
moon, we’ve sent probes and slingshotted them around planets on carefully
planned routes. We have thoroughly tested those equations.
With climate change, we only have computer models that are
trying to model a living planet with millions of variables that interact with
each other in complex ways and they’re trying to figure out which variables are
the ones that really matter. But how do
you know a computer model is accurate? You
have to test it and see if it correctly predicts the outputs based on the
inputs. How do you test something that
will take decades or centuries to provide an answer to you?
You just answered your own question. Theres a reason China abandoned coal plants. Theres a reason NASA, the military and numerous government agencies agree on climate change theory.
The earth has gone through changes of warming and cooling. However those changes took place over tens of thousands, millions of years. Now its happening over decades and centuries. It is the accelerated rate of change that's alarming. Coral reefs are dying for a reason. Ecosystems are being destroyed as the rapid change doesn't allow them to gradually adapt over time.
By the time Pumpf gets his necessary demand for 100% scientific proof it will be too late.
Pumpf also missing the irony here ... a man of faith, with no proof God exists but revolves his entire life around this concept and a story he can not prove is true, refuses to accept any information from scientists and climatologists without proof that they are 100% accurate.
Christians reject the accuracy of modern science but ask everyone to believe the validity of a 2000 year old book of eye witnesses as gospel.
Lets take your opinion on global warming at face value. The climate is warming/changing and we're all going to suffer. What would you change that has any chance of even happening.
(Example: you could get rid of all the cars but nobody is willing to do that because we all like/need to travel)
Where is the line in the sand as far as things that we can change that will actually make one iota of difference yet allow humans to live like we've become comfortable doing? For this example lets stick to individuals. Its kind of a cop out to say it all has to happen at a corporation level when those corporations are supplying individuals with the goods and services that individuals are asking for.
This is a ridiculous post. You build an extreme, artificial position ("we're all going to suffer, get rid of all cars") and then mock it. And then you set limitations for the debate: Give you one change that will make one iota of difference, but restrict it to "individual changes." Changes that will, granted, not make one iota of difference. Climate change, obviously, is a problem that must be tackled globally with policies that reduce emissions and promote renewable energy on a large scale.
So the biggest offenders must make the biggest changes? Until that happens, it is just a political tool to control people.
And your brake post wasn't ridiculous?
Of course. And how was my brakes analogy ridiculous?
Quote: @SFVikeFan said:
What freedoms do you stand to lose exactly? You keep throwing this term out like big brother and his solar panels are going to take away your coal furnace.
You're a riot dude. You cant trust NASA, because they are gov't funded and they're totally shady and suspect, all that man on the moon conspiracy theory and shit. But big oil interests on the other hand, now they make a legit unbiased case because they'renot government funded. LOL!
You can believe the story of an ark loaded with animals 2 by 2 surviving a catastrophic flood, but the notion that man polluting the planet is having an impact on the planet's health and its climate is not believable ... all cause it's gov't funded and trying to take your freedoms away.
God bless you Christian conservatives ... the mental gymnastics you endure to get through life must be exhausting.
Does Agenda 21 count for you?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ greediron said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ SFVikeFan said:
@ medaille said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ greediron said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ greediron said:
Lizard People? Come on, have you seen Hillary?
Yes, pollution has an effect. Breathing has an effect. Plants and trees have an effect on the environment. Politicians flying their private jets to an environmental gathering have an effect. What is up for debate is what that effect is, what the proper response is and should the response be forced.
What isn't up for debate is that people will manipulate the data to prove their point. That people will use that manipulated data to make money and raise funding. And to combat that blowback on those items, they will call people all sorts of names to shut down debate.
Yes, there's manipulation of data alright. Personally, I find it amusing deniers are so skeptical about the motives of scientists, but think Exxon is telling them the truth. Especially given the fact that coal and oil interests have funneled millions of dollars to climate skeptics in order to create the illusion of disagreement--to, according to their own documentation, "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact."
I am skeptical of any side that stands to profit off the manipulation of data. Right now that has been the side of the "scientists" that claim consensus is good enough. That fake data still matters. I don't put much stock into a scientist that tells everyone they should stop asking questions and accept a consensus. That speaks of money and politics, not science.
Do you feel the same way about evolution? Gravity? The idea that the earth revolves around the sun?
Can the minority be right? Of course it can. Truth is not determined by majority vote. But when they're outnumbered 10 to 1, don't you need a pretty compelling reason to side with the minority? You're probably as tired of this analogy as I am, but if 9 out of 10 mechanics say your car needs new brakes, isn't the burden now on you to prove to your family that the 1 dissenter is right and the 9 are wrong before you let them in the car?
The 9 out of 10 mechanics example isn’t really a 1-1
comparison. Neither is Gravity or orbits
or whatever. In the mechanics example,
the mechanics can look at your brakes, measure the pad thickness, etc. They can functionally verify that they are
working. They have seen thousands of
different sets of brakes, and the system has a handful of moving parts that all
work in a simple manner. With regards to
gravity and planetary orbits, we have centuries of observations and data to
more or less confirm that the theories are accurate enough to use. We’ve used those equations to send men to the
moon, we’ve sent probes and slingshotted them around planets on carefully
planned routes. We have thoroughly tested those equations.
With climate change, we only have computer models that are
trying to model a living planet with millions of variables that interact with
each other in complex ways and they’re trying to figure out which variables are
the ones that really matter. But how do
you know a computer model is accurate? You
have to test it and see if it correctly predicts the outputs based on the
inputs. How do you test something that
will take decades or centuries to provide an answer to you?
You just answered your own question. Theres a reason China abandoned coal plants. Theres a reason NASA, the military and numerous government agencies agree on climate change theory.
The earth has gone through changes of warming and cooling. However those changes took place over tens of thousands, millions of years. Now its happening over decades and centuries. It is the accelerated rate of change that's alarming. Coral reefs are dying for a reason. Ecosystems are being destroyed as the rapid change doesn't allow them to gradually adapt over time.
By the time Pumpf gets his necessary demand for 100% scientific proof it will be too late.
Pumpf also missing the irony here ... a man of faith, with no proof God exists but revolves his entire life around this concept and a story he can not prove is true, refuses to accept any information from scientists and climatologists without proof that they are 100% accurate.
Christians reject the accuracy of modern science but ask everyone to believe the validity of a 2000 year old book of eye witnesses as gospel.
Lets take your opinion on global warming at face value. The climate is warming/changing and we're all going to suffer. What would you change that has any chance of even happening.
(Example: you could get rid of all the cars but nobody is willing to do that because we all like/need to travel)
Where is the line in the sand as far as things that we can change that will actually make one iota of difference yet allow humans to live like we've become comfortable doing? For this example lets stick to individuals. Its kind of a cop out to say it all has to happen at a corporation level when those corporations are supplying individuals with the goods and services that individuals are asking for.
This is a ridiculous post. You build an extreme, artificial position ("we're all going to suffer, get rid of all cars") and then mock it. And then you set limitations for the debate: Give you one change that will make one iota of difference, but restrict it to "individual changes." Changes that will, granted, not make one iota of difference. Climate change, obviously, is a problem that must be tackled globally with policies that reduce emissions and promote renewable energy on a large scale.
So the biggest offenders must make the biggest changes? Until that happens, it is just a political tool to control people.
And your brake post wasn't ridiculous?
Of course. And how was my brakes analogy ridiculous?
Brakes are a simple system.
The parameters are well known and easy to measure and verify. A better example would be if google sent the
accelerometer data from your phone and then the 10 mechanics analyzed the data
and came to the conclusion that you have a sticky brake caliper pin and that if
you don’t replace your brakes, your brakes will fail within 3 months.
Global Climate change is a complex system that has many variables that influence the
outcomes, furthermore most of the data we’re relying on isn’t directly
measured, we’re making assumptions that what we can measure in the ice
correlates to temperature changes.
Quote: @AGRforever said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@n of data alright. Personally, I find it amusing deniers are so skeptical about the motives of scientists, but think Exxon is telling them the truth. Especially given the fact that coal and oil interests have funneled millions of dollars to climate skeptics in order to create the illusion of disagreement--to, according to their own documentation, "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact."
Lets take your opinion on global warming at face value. The climate is warming/changing and we're all going to suffer. What would you change that has any chance of even happening.
(Example: you could get rid of all the cars but nobody is willing to do that because we all like/need to travel)
Where is the line in the sand as far as things that we can change that will actually make one iota of difference yet allow humans to live like we've become comfortable doing? For this example lets stick to individuals. Its kind of a cop out to say it all has to happen at a corporation level when those corporations are supplying individuals with the goods and services that individuals are asking for.
This is a ridiculous post. You build an extreme, artificial position ("we're all going to suffer, get rid of all cars") and then mock it. And then you set limitations for the debate: Give you one change that will make one iota of difference, but restrict it to "individual changes." Changes that will, granted, not make one iota of difference. Climate change, obviously, is a problem that must be tackled globally with policies that reduce emissions and promote renewable energy on a large scale.
So you're all for change as long as you don't have to do it? I'm well
aware if we are to make changes it would require a global change but you
can't just point at Exon and say "See!! Bad corporation!!!" When
you're using the gasoline they're supplying.
I'm
all for renewables. Sign me up for some massive solar panel farms.
Heck if we could afford drop $20-30k (which is what it would take) right
now we'd have already put a system in place at our house/farm. It
might seem like all conservatives are these evil planet killing monsters
to you but I can assure you we're not. Personally we've explored
geothermal, solar and even some minor wind for our personal and business
needs. We'll likely proceed with solar in the next 2-5 years because
the numbers work. I spent more time shopping fuel economy on our
vehicle purchases then anything and unless theres a reason to drive a
larger vehicle we're always in our economy car. We grow the vast
majority of our own food.
These are
examples of what doing something look like. Not getting some poster and
a pussy hat and marching on Washington. Or holding up some idol of a
celebrity who says the right things but flies on their private jet
between their 15 mansions while consuming 1000x what the average person
does. Quit bitching and do something if you believe in it.
Dude, you're caught in the weeds. Like Trump and so many on the extremes you see this as part of the left/right game. Listen to yourself: "Evil corporations, pussy hats, evil planet killing monsters." It's not about punishing Exxon, and it's not about private jets and it's not about whether I recycle or not or you grow your own food. It's about setting long term, achievable emissions and renewables standards across the globe, many of which we're well on our way to achieving.
In the 70s, my family used to drive through Denver on the way to the farm in Kansas. You could see Denver 100 miles away because of the brown cloud above it. There's no longer a brown cloud, despite the fact that Denver has 10 times the amount of cars on the road. And it's not because I chose to ride my bike one day instead of drive. It's because vehicles run 99% cleaner now due to fuel restrictions prompted by the Clean Air Act. These are the kind of changes that have a real impact. Talking about hypocrisy and private jets and pussy hats is just playing in the weeds.
Quote:
Brakes are a simple system.
The parameters are well known and easy to measure and verify. A better example would be if google sent the
accelerometer data from your phone and then the 10 mechanics analyzed the data
and came to the conclusion that you have a sticky brake caliper pin and that if
you don’t replace your brakes, your brakes will fail within 3 months.
Global Climate change is a complex system that has many variables that influence the
outcomes, furthermore most of the data we’re relying on isn’t directly
measured, we’re making assumptions that what we can measure in the ice
correlates to temperature changes.
No no no. You're missing the whole point. It's not about the brakes, it's about the mechanic. My point is that I'm not a climate scientist and I suspect you aren't either. And so I find it ridiculous whenever I see data about tree rings and ocean currents and polar ice cores brought up on a football board full of truck drivers and IT admins. I don't know any more about the science of climate than I know about the way my brakes work. It's why I listen to people who do those things for a living. In other words, if 9 out of 10 experts in any given field (climate, brakes, football) agree about something important, and you side with the "1" dissenter, don't you need a pretty compelling reason for doing so?
Think of it another way. The Vikings have tapped you, Greediron, to be GM for draft day. The pressure's on. You have to get it right. A lot is at stake. Having not watched a lot of college football, you don't know a lot about the players, but you like Player A. So you consult the 10 scouts in the war room to get their opinion. 9 out of the 10 tell you that Player A is going to be a complete bust. You take Player A. You damn well better have a pretty good reason for it.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
Brakes are a simple system.
The parameters are well known and easy to measure and verify. A better example would be if google sent the
accelerometer data from your phone and then the 10 mechanics analyzed the data
and came to the conclusion that you have a sticky brake caliper pin and that if
you don’t replace your brakes, your brakes will fail within 3 months.
Global Climate change is a complex system that has many variables that influence the
outcomes, furthermore most of the data we’re relying on isn’t directly
measured, we’re making assumptions that what we can measure in the ice
correlates to temperature changes.
No no no. You're missing the whole point. It's not about the brakes, it's about the mechanic. My point is that I'm not a climate scientist and I suspect you aren't either. And so I find it ridiculous whenever I see data about tree rings and ocean currents and polar ice cores brought up on a football board full of truck drivers and IT admins. I don't know any more about the science of climate than I know about the way my brakes work. It's why I listen to people who do those things for a living. In other words, if 9 out of 10 experts in any given field (climate, brakes, football) agree about something important, and you side with the "1" dissenter, don't you need a pretty compelling reason for doing so?
Think of it another way. The Vikings have tapped you, Greediron, to be GM for draft day. The pressure's on. You have to get it right. A lot is at stake. Having not watched a lot of college football, you don't know a lot about the players, but you like Player A. So you consult the 10 scouts in the war room to get their opinion. 9 out of the 10 tell you that Player A is going to be a complete bust. You take Player A. You damn well better have a pretty good reason for it.
No you are missing the point. There's probably 50 million people in this country that understand how brakes work more completely than the most well educated climate scientist understands climate change. If you put a gun to a mechanics head and said, if you can't fix my brakes, I'll kill you and your family, he'd probably laugh at how stupid you sound questioning whether he'd be able to fix it. If you asked a climate scientist to bet his families life depending on how accurately they could predict the average global temperature in the 2030 decade, I think you'd get much less confidence in their ability to predict the outcome.
Quote: @medaille said:
No you are missing the point. There's probably 50 million people in this country that understand how brakes work more completely than the most well educated climate scientist understands climate change. If you put a gun to a mechanics head and said, if you can't fix my brakes, I'll kill you and your family, he'd probably laugh at how stupid you sound questioning whether he'd be able to fix it. If you asked a climate scientist to bet his families life depending on how accurately they could predict the average global temperature in the 2030 decade, I think you'd get much less confidence in their ability to predict the outcome.
But we're not talking about "accurately predicting the average global temperature in the 2030 decade," are we? Because that would be ridiculous. Because you just made that up. We're talking about "is the earth warming and is man contributing to it?" This is the central point of contention. This is what 9 of 10 climate scientists agree on. And this is what the whole debate has been about for the past 20 years. Jesus.
Yes, you're right. I completely agree that 50 million people in this country understand how brakes work more completely than the most well educated climate scientist understands climate...as if that has anything at all to do with the central point.
My goodness, where is that banging your head against the wall emoji...?
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ medaille said:
No you are missing the point. There's probably 50 million people in this country that understand how brakes work more completely than the most well educated climate scientist understands climate change. If you put a gun to a mechanics head and said, if you can't fix my brakes, I'll kill you and your family, he'd probably laugh at how stupid you sound questioning whether he'd be able to fix it. If you asked a climate scientist to bet his families life depending on how accurately they could predict the average global temperature in the 2030 decade, I think you'd get much less confidence in their ability to predict the outcome.
But we're not talking about "accurately predicting the average global temperature in the 2030 decade," are we? Because that would be ridiculous. Because you just made that up. We're talking about "is the earth warming and is man contributing to it?" This is the central point of contention. This is what 9 of 10 climate scientists agree on. And this is what the whole debate has been about for the past 20 years. Jesus.
Yes, you're right. I completely agree that 50 million people in this country understand how brakes work more completely than the most well educated climate scientist understands climate...as if that has anything at all to do with the central point.
My goodness, where is that banging your head against the wall emoji...?
Nobody is arguing with you that the earth is warming. I’ve literally already said that in this
thread. I would also agree that man is
contributing some percentage to the warming.
I would suggest that very few people are arguing that man is zero
percent responsible for global warming.
You are making up enemies to fight against and you’re pretending that I
am your imaginary enemy.
You’re banging your head against the wall because you don’t
listen to what people are actually saying, you just take whatever anybody says
and you pretend that they are saying something that is the most polarized
viewpoint possible. I say that the earth
is warming. You say that I don’t think
the earth is warming. I say that I think
natural causes are the driving factors with global climate change. You say that I think manmade causes have
nothing to do with climate change.
We really don't understand gravity either... but that's for another thread. Could our theories on gravity be wrong. You bet. In fact I'd wager they in some ways are. We know how it behaves... we do not know what it is.
We are only here due to global warming.... we should be using our time to learn how to survive off of this planet that likes to cycle thru warming and cooling periods every 150,000 years or so. Our future lies away from this blue marble.
|
