Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 14201 - 14220 of total 25067 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Riley Wyna

Trad climber
A crack near you
Sep 20, 2013 - 08:20am PT
[quote I see no example of any "sustainable" civilization in human history. Why do you think we could accomplish this impossible feat now?[/quote]


There have been quite a few but they were wiped out by POS cultures that practice the kind if idiocy you champion.


Chief wrinkle tits - if you had any idea how many millions of very honest scientists you slander. People who have an integrity concerning their work that you can obviously not comprehend. Many who spend their lifetimes working hard with statistics and science trying to be as honest as possible.

More than anything you guys have proven to us you are utterly incapable of learning.
There is absolutely no reason to continue this thread or conversation.
What a waste of so me many people's time.

Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Sep 20, 2013 - 08:20am PT
I see no example of any "sustainable" civilization in human history
Haven't read Toynbee, have you?

And maybe you should work on sentence structure, so you don't look like an uneducated lout who mixes tenses.

Anyway, villages of the First Nations of the Canadian Pacific Coast have been carbon dated to 5000 years ago.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Sep 20, 2013 - 08:27am PT
Chief - if you had any idea how many millions very honest scientists you slender. People who have an integrity concerning their work that you can obviously not comprehend. Many who spend their lifetimes working hard with statistics and science trying to be as honest as possible.

That goes proportionately along with the "EVER" claim.

Got it.


BTW: That 97% Consensus gig you so go along with, ah, that was determined via some 9K reviewed papers done over a period of ten or o years by all them MILLIONS of scientist you claim I have "slendered".

Nice.

YABADADOOOOOOO!



BREWSKY???? No answer. Hmmmmmmm.

Must definitely mean you have done absolutely NOTHING personal to do your part in the mitigation process. Just like the rest.

How wonderful.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Sep 20, 2013 - 08:40am PT
chuff - we can get to that topic later. Right now we are talking about your principle of self reliance and we would appreciate you sticking to the subject rather than try to lure us away from it.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Sep 20, 2013 - 08:45am PT
we can get to that topic later. Right now we are talking about your principle of self reliance ...

Ah, THAT is part of the topic of SR. So let's get to it now Brewsky.

Like I posted up thread, I did not implement (solar, septic, well etc) all the shet I have in my home to mitigate a damn thing. I did it all based on SR!!


And will do so on any future properties I plan on owning and residing in.

Why??

Cus I do not want to pay a dime of extra inflated taxes nor half my and my Wife's income/retirements on power, water nor sewage that is under the direction of any Corp or local gov't entity based on any MMGW mitigation bullshet carbon taxation or regulation/fines etc

I can see old Dem GOV Brown utilizing that money to expand his Bullet Train Project throughout CA instead of subsidizing any alternative energy programs nor building any desal stations along the coast for the common good of humanity in CA or the world.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Sep 20, 2013 - 08:52am PT
high 30s here this am,, brrrrrrrrr.. So this part of the globe is cooling for sure. And seasonably early..
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Sep 20, 2013 - 08:57am PT
So you subscribe to the notion of environmentally forced limitation of the individual as described by Ed et al when they blazonly decloseted their "principles", eh Bruce? Ed et al should recuse themselves from this discussion because it is obvious their presentation of science is biased by principles- hardly scientific purity.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Sep 20, 2013 - 09:22am PT
chuff - what you have done is in that regard is admirable and is something to aspire to. You have my whole hearted support. In the context of your specific environment and circumstances I can't find any significant fault with it and much to advocate. You still drive a car. Is this a reason to blame you? No. In the context of how you still must compete and relate to your society it is difficult for anyone to live without a car. I don't and now that my kids are leaving the coop I anticipate actually riding a bike more or even using public transit - because it will not unduly put me or my kids at a competitive disadvantage. It will put me at some disadvantage but for the sake of minimizing my carbon foot print and no small amount of satisfying my principle of self reliance I will take that risk.

If I can afford a hybrid or electric car that may be a possibility as well. I live in a townhouse complex and they forbid my installation of solar panels. I could move and I may but.....

The point is individual effort is significant, but it is ultimately reliant on the opportunities that your society provides. Your solar panels are a result of their availability, just like your truck or bike. You did not create those panels, you bought them. The principle of self reliance is great - I don't dismiss it at all. It is practical only to the extent that it is available to you.

I agree with the concept and worth of self reliance, don't suggest that I don't. The point I am getting at is that its application has limits. You have limits and others have theirs. I don't begrudge you your intent to push those limits to the max either. It is fantastic that people like you do that as a representation of what is possible. However to ignore the realities of limitations that the vast majority of other live with is ridiculous .... and just a tad arrogant.
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
La Mancha
Sep 20, 2013 - 09:23am PT
Nice try pulling that one outta yur ass

What is this preternatural obsession you have with the anus and feces? Very disturbing.

Do you have any clue what a rhetorical question is?

You try to frame the issue as being black & white and only accept absolutes as evidence. That's why you have no credibility in this issue. You should abandon this thread.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Sep 20, 2013 - 09:38am PT
The principles have changed and many of us are the soon to be extinct dinosaurs.

soon to be...?


Credit: charles darwin barkley
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Sep 20, 2013 - 09:43am PT
You try to frame the issue as being black & white and only accept absolutes as evidence

It is called reality.

Consistently utilizing verbiage such as "IF", "COULD", "MAY", just doesn't cut it. Not when you all want to take money out of the commons mans pocket to "TRY" and mitigate something that you all still have no clue WTF is going on.


Obsession with ANUSES and ASSES?? Nope. Not atal. But ya'll are spending tons of time on my supposed MAN TITS.

Niiiiiiiiiiiice.
jonnyrig

Trad climber
formerly known as hillrat
Sep 20, 2013 - 10:08am PT
Well there you have it. Greed. You dont want to spend your money on science you dont like.

By the same token, its been said that money motivates the science... when you disagree with the conclusion, follow the funding and you'll discover the source of the money dictates the conclusion.

I guess nobody really gives a damn what's really going on so long as it's not on your dime.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Sep 20, 2013 - 10:16am PT
jonny, I hope I read that correctly as sarcasm. Otherwise I'd be compelled to say you don't know jack sh#t about science or funding for scientific studies.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Sep 20, 2013 - 10:16am PT
I noticed that as well Chief..

I remember back to a Forest Service Forester i worked for that appeared to be a little chunky. I remember someone once saying,, is he going to make it on this stand exam,, fairly steep country.. I laughed robustly and didnt answer them.. Cuz i knew by the end of the day that person would be draggin arse in an attempt to keep up with him. And bygolly, thats just what happened lol!
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Sep 20, 2013 - 10:35am PT
Well there you have it. Greed. You dont want to spend your money on science you dont like.

I do everything I can to not spend money on science I do like. Why should I start spending it on that I don't like.



RILEUP and FRONTALOBOTOME, here's your modern I-Phone science at work. Has killed more people that any MMGW "EVER" has. I know that both of you are guilty of doing just this thing. DO NOT EVEN try stating you don't.

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/school-bus-driver-suspended-cellphone-video-shows-her-133738455--abc-news-topstories.html


jonnyrig

Trad climber
formerly known as hillrat
Sep 20, 2013 - 11:06am PT
Yeah, lots of sarcasm. Im getting pessimistic again in my old age.

Seems there's a kernel of truth in some of it though. But it's the truth that gets flushed like yesterday's corn when you don't like the flavor anymore.
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
La Mancha
Sep 20, 2013 - 11:32am PT
It is called reality

No, that's called immaturity and ignorance. There is not one issue on any subject you could come up with that is only black & white. That you can't discriminate that is further evidence of your lack of credibilty. You should abandon this thread to the people who can actually think rationally and understand the scientific literature. You have zero credibility on this issue.

BTW- I have never attacked your boobs. Your ignorance & puerile rants are another matter.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Sep 20, 2013 - 11:33am PT
If it's from a blog surreptitiously funded by a large corporation, it's likely BS

I would modify that slightly. Any study made under the auspices of a group or institution that has a pre-existing agenda usually isn't worth reading if the study purports to support that agenda. This would hold for a climate study by, for example, either Greenpeace or the Heartland Institute. It would be important news, however, if a Heartland study confirmed significant anthropogenic climate change, or a Greenpeace study cast doubt on anthropogenic climate change.

Otherwise, I guess we need to evaluate studies the old fashioned way -- by reading them and verifying their results independently.

Bruce,

I just now saw your question about statisticians and models from yesterday. Answering that question requires me to go a little deeper into my very brief exchange with El Cap, and involves a wee bit of technical discussion, and some matrix algebra. I seek forgiveness in advance.

My own view of modeling is strongly Bayesian, through frequent, bitter, experience. In addition to the chaotic system problem to which El Cap alluded, the lack of experimental data creates a second bit of uncertainty over the exact specification of the model. In classical statistics, we know the specification of the models, we just don't know their numerical values.

Suppose we have a model that says y= b X, where y is the vector of dependent variables (i.e. the values we want our model to predict), X is the matrix of independent variables (i.e. the variables whose values we know, and based upon that knowledge, think we can predict the values of y). We want to estimate b, being the vector of the coefficients (e.g., how much does a rise in CO2 concentration raise global temperature, etc.) If I use classical statistical estimation, I will not only get values for b, but I will generate statistics of fit that tell me the statistical significance of each of the rows (i.e. independent variables) making up the matrix X.

Re-translated into English, if I know that global temperature depends on concentrations of various greenhouse gases, volcanic activity and solar activity, say, I can use classical statistical methods to tell me how much the climate depends on each of these factors. Of equal importance, I can use those same methods to tell me how much confidence I have in each of the relationships.

In reality, though, if we cannot determine the full mechanism of what we model ahead of time, we are not only estimating coefficients, we're also searching for the correct model in the first place. Bayesian statistical inference can deal with measuring this additional uncertainty. Classical inference cannot.

So What? Well, it means that when I see models used to try to determine what factors belong in the model in the first place, the historical statistics of fit overstate how much confidence we should place in the models. In climate science, we frankly have much better models than those I work with for macroeconomic forecasting, but the problem is the same.

Before those who denigrate the current models get too happy, however, they need to think about the implications of broad confidence intervals. They mean, in the case of anthropogenic climate change, that we are uncertain of the precise relationship in both directions. We may be overstating the effect, but we are just as likely to be understating it.

To anyone willing to wade through this, I hope I've helped. To the others, I'm sorry.

John

The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Sep 20, 2013 - 11:55am PT
No, that's called immaturity and ignorance.

Really.

Now that put tears in my eye....


NOT!



Questioning everything about the or ANY science is a very intricate component of science. Kissing ass and going along with the consensus cus it's cool, brings a pay check etc, aint.
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
La Mancha
Sep 20, 2013 - 12:02pm PT
Kissing ass and going along with the consensus cus it's cool, brings a pay check etc, aint.

Which shows just how little you know about the cutthroat world of science. Just about every other researcher in a given field is competing for the same dollars, especially when the gov't reduces science funding, so everyone is your enemy and they will find any reason to give you a low score on a grant.

You have less than zero credibility in this subject; you should abandon this thread now.
Messages 14201 - 14220 of total 25067 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews