Allegro.cc - Online Community

Allegro.cc Forums » Off-Topic Ordeals » And now it's global COOLING

This thread is locked; no one can reply to it. rss feed Print
 1   2   3   4 
And now it's global COOLING
Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

I'm pretty sure he's trolling at this point.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

Gideon Weems
Member #3,925
October 2003

Even so, I'm still looking forward to the next video response...

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

He's not trolling. He's just ignorant. Trolling specifically refers to somebody that knows what they're saying is bullshit, but says it specifically to upset you. There are always people that care about the truth and strive to uncover it whatever it is, and people that prefer to side with what gives them comfort. He just falls into the second category based on past experiences with him (i.e., religion comes to mind).

While having a discussion with somebody that is ignorant and closed-minded is annoying, it's equally annoying to have a conversation with somebody that accuses you of trolling just because you don't agree with them. That is ignorant in itself.

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

Global warming is a farce.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

Matthew never trolls[1].

References

  1. Ohhh, I can make these kinds of statements too!!!

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

About that hockey stick graph...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/27/quote-of-the-week-20-ding-dong-the-stick-is-dead/

Depending on what data you cherry pick, it's easy to misrepresent extreme temperature rises.

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

axilmar said:

Don't look at this so narrowly. You have to have data over a long period of time to see if we have global warming or not.

Perhaps you are correct, but in that case, you can't say we are having it without the long term data. In the 80s and 90s they were talking about global cooling, this is a very recent idea.

Also, if you did have data indicating warming, then you have to figure out where it is coming from. There is no evidence at all CO2 causes warming, actually, the evidence points to warming causes an increase in CO2, the opposite. Did you know in 2012 there was a news report that scientists thought any warming trends we had were caused 80% by increased solar activity? We have had much more solar activity lately, but I don't see the warming at all, quite the opposite.

In any event, if you are correct and we need longer term data, and we haven't had that, than they still shouldn't be saying we have global warming (or cooling for that matter) without it. And even then, we would need much more study to determine the cause, which seems to be solar if there is any warming at all.

---
“I love you too.” - last words of Wanda Roy

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

NiteHackr said:

In the 80s and 90s they were talking about global cooling, this is a very recent idea.

Who is "they"? Actual Scientists have been talking about an average rise in temperature since the 70s or even before that.

Quote:

There is no evidence at all CO2 causes warming, actually, the evidence points to warming causes an increase in CO2, the opposite.

Where did you get this information? Last I heard, there IS evidence. But you are right on the second point. Warming causes more C02 to be released (in some cases), and more C02 causes warming. Its a really nice run-away process. One reason why the balance is so delicate.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
avatar

As a general rule: whenever you read that "scientists" are saying something, remember that no matter how fringe a hypothesis is, you can always find someone endorsing it. What you should do is check what the scientific consensus is. And here, the scientific consensus is pretty darned clear:
{"name":"3Mo5fEv.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/3\/437c34a72fe40fcfe1c512b6bbd19be7.jpg","w":1222,"h":1222,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/3\/437c34a72fe40fcfe1c512b6bbd19be7"}3Mo5fEv.jpg
{"name":"a0gL6Rc.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/a\/5aaa70cd081d3f0ede92e4e529e69eb0.png","w":1391,"h":940,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/a\/5aaa70cd081d3f0ede92e4e529e69eb0"}a0gL6Rc.png

Ah, WUWT. The NaturalNews of climate change.

http://skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

NiteHackr said:

In the 80s and 90s they were talking about global cooling, this is a very recent idea.

Nope.

video

NiteHackr said:

there is no evidence at all CO2 causes warming

Seriously? Carbon dioxide's role in warming the planet has been known since Arrhenius in the late 1800s, and you can test the basic principle at home.

NiteHackr said:

Did you know in 2012 there was a news report that scientists thought any warming trends we had were caused 80% by increased solar activity?

[citation needed]

Quote:

We have had much more solar activity lately, but I don't see the warming at all, quite the opposite.

Dead wrong.

--
Move to the Democratic People's Republic of Vivendi Universal (formerly known as Sweden) - officially democracy- and privacy-free since 2008-06-18!

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

That article reads like they hand picked the group of people to talk to. Looking for a specific sub set of people that have sciency sounding job titles that may possibly be skeptical.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

The survey the author cites isn’t “scientists” as stated in the title of the op-ed, it is a survey of the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta. That’s like surveying tobacco company CEO’s about the dangers of smoking. It would be a reasonable piece about the opinion of petroleum engineers in Alberta if that was made clear, instead that was hidden. I wonder why?

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

The article also referred to a study where a majority of American meteorologists reject AGW. It isn't surprising to me that climate scientists usually argue in favor of the existence of AGW, that's a particular special interest of theirs.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

Most scientists are about science. No matter where it leads. There are some people that have an agenda, but I argue they aren't scientists if they let something get in the way of evidence and truth.

Anyone at this point who is going against the grain of peer consensus needs clear and convincing evidence to show that everyone else is wrong. It is up to them to prove their point. So far, that hasn't happened. The most you get is dodgy papers with flawed reasoning that eventually get yanked from the journal they were published in due to improper data handling or clearly skewed hypothesis. Sometimes those papers are even published in journals created specifically for that paper... Talk about sketchy.

Actually, ANY scientist that wants to show ANYTHING needs clear and convincing evidence. It doesn't matter what you're trying to show. Anything less than that is not proof of anything. If the science is sound, it might show a hint in a new direction.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

You really lose credibility with "American" these days (there's a whole WORLD outside of the USA, and Americans tend to be stupid, lazy, and greedy, by stereotype), but you're also siding with the people that practice existing knowledge instead of expanding knowledge. You're trusting a group of people that doesn't have that knowledge.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

bamccaig said:

You really lose credibility with "American" these days

And isn't that particularly sad? Just because say for example, half of Americans don't believe in evolution, doesn't mean the other half are stupid warmongerers. The USA still has a majority of science development--so it's sad to lop them in with the vocal idiots. When I was in academia, it was a completely different world from the Fox News zealots. Every STEM Ph.D. I talked to thought nuclear energy was the obvious choice and everyone who didn't believe it doesn't understand numbers.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

I like nuclear energy. The main problem is stupid operators. The power plants need to be made idiot proof. Most of the modern designs are very close to idiot proof though. It's harsh that it takes like 20 years to build one.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

Vanneto
Member #8,643
May 2007

Even if they aren't idiot proof, I think the number of accidents happening at nuclear powered reactors is insignificant compared to how much shit coal powered plants cause.

It's like this thread. gnolam wins it by a long stretch, but you can still argue. People don't care about numbers and facts, they just care about arguing.

Numbers don't lie to people. People lie to people. :-X

In capitalist America bank robs you.

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

Global Cooling articles...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/

Scroll down a bit and check out the lengthy list of news articles from 1970 to 1979. It's quite extensive.

From 1978, "In Search of The Coming Ice Age"...

video

---
“I love you too.” - last words of Wanda Roy

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

I'm sure they all have proper citations and references to peer reviewed papers that haven't since been yanked?

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

I hope global warming kills us all so we don't have to talk about global warming anymore.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

kikabo
Member #3,679
July 2003
avatar

I've been confused about this for a while, can someone clear a question up for me?

Why is it that any discussion on climate change always ends up debating whether it is caused by man or not? , I sort of look at that logic as like saying "if you got lung cancer naturally instead of through smoking then it's not really an issue worth worrying about"... isn't it irrelevant?

Is it suggesting that if we aren't totally to blame for the inevitable consequences of climate change then there is no need for us to change our behaviour to prevent it or even just lessen the severity ?

Governments, individuals, documentary makers and seemingly anyone whoever discusses climate just end up in circles debating blame ... flip a coin ... heads: not mans fault ... ok, now it is an inevitable looming natural disaster that threatens millions of people's lives, what next?

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Well if it occurs entirely naturally and humans aren't responsible for it then there is an argument to "let nature take its course". Albeit, certainly, it makes sense that if it threatens our own lives, and we know about it, and are able to influence it one way or another, it's fair to do what we must to survive.

In any case, knowing that it was us that caused it shows that by changing our behavior we most certainly can influence it in major ways. We may be too late to stop it, but we can at least slow it down or maybe lessen the severity. At least we can try.

The truth is that we don't need everything that we have today anyway. In fact, I have a sneaking suspicion that having everything that we have makes our lives less fulfilling, and that having to work a little harder would actually make our lives more meaningful.

Many of the things that we have are great and we shouldn't get rid of them. For example, the Internet, and a global network of information sharing. However, other things, like SUVs that never leave the paved roads, and people becoming addicted to automated messages generated by the Facebook engine on behalf of people that they vaguely knew 10 years ago constantly bombarding their mobile phones that they don't make calls on ever... No, no, no, we can let these things go.

I digress.

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

kikabo said:

Why is it that any discussion on climate change always ends up debating whether it is caused by man or not?

If the cause isn't due to things humans are doing with regards to CO2, then changing how much CO2 we emit isn't going to have any effect.

The argument isn't "if it's natural, then we should let it kill us."

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

The argument isn't "if it's natural, then we should let it kill us."

Mine is. Minus the nature part.

I used to believe in evolution too, but I'm hoping a God exists that'll kill everyone so I don't have to keep participating in the same debate over and over.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

 1   2   3   4 


Go to: