Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 8521 - 8540 of total 20264 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Sep 20, 2013 - 10:53am PT
I see no example of any "sustainable" civilization in human history.

So why do you bother participating in this one?

DMT
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Sep 20, 2013 - 11:05am PT
DMT- Bruce was asking of our interpretation and/or acceptance of Chuffian Darwinism. I'm just providing my interpretation and affirming my acceptance of it's finer points.
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Sep 20, 2013 - 11:20am 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.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Sep 20, 2013 - 11:57am 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.
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
La Mancha
Sep 20, 2013 - 12:23pm 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 - 12:38pm PT
The principles have changed and many of us are the soon to be extinct dinosaurs.

soon to be...?


Credit: charles darwin barkley
jonnyrig

Trad climber
formerly known as hillrat
Sep 20, 2013 - 01:08pm 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 - 01:16pm 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.
jonnyrig

Trad climber
formerly known as hillrat
Sep 20, 2013 - 02:06pm 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 - 02:32pm 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 - 02:33pm 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

Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
La Mancha
Sep 20, 2013 - 03:02pm 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.
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Sep 20, 2013 - 03:32pm PT
I see that ideology as completely skewed and absolutely contrary to any premise and ideals in which this country was founded upon.

Again an ideology promoting full on socialism is a small fraction of the US. Far less than the fraction of the people who would like to see a national religion. Both are fringe and in no real danger of taking hold.

BUT some of the most important ideals of this country are those of balance and compromise. There were liberals, conservatives, and centrists all fighting for their ideals when the country was founded and they were wise enough to figure out a system that helped balance their ideals and lead to compromise so everyone could be happy with the outcome. Contrast that with the current crop of republicans in congress, not willing to compromise, not willing to see the other side, not willing to admit that there are legitimate differences and you should respect the other side and try to compromise. Again they are willing to risk default on our debts and risk our credit rating because they won't compromise. Yeah that's ideals but it's a bigoted, selfish way to stick to you ideals, and screw over the ideal of compromise that is so important to this country. Yes the democrats are just as corrupt and dishonest, but the republicans have gone way more extreme in the last 20 years.

Wow. I dint realize it was a choice between being a liberal socialist or a christian conservative.

It's an echo chamber out of the right wing press, websites,and chain emails promoting that view. I can't believe that people I have known for years see things as a choice between liberal socialist and conservative. I hear them parroting bullshit from the right and correct them on it and they immediately think I'm liberal, and even when I say no I'm a radical centrist, I can tell it doesn't compute for them. I have to be one or the other.

Can't I believe (based on scientific evidence) that humans are changing the climate, that it will be cheaper to deal with lowering CO2 emissions that dealing with it's consequences, that we can deal with it by improving efficiency, using alternative energy, and other things that won't impact our freedoms or lead to socialism?
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Sep 20, 2013 - 03:48pm PT
Cheef..Your expertise is needed on the Datura Thread.
bobinc

Trad climber
Portland, Or
Sep 20, 2013 - 03:51pm PT
I'd like to refocus our current "socialism" so we spend way less on aircraft carriers and tanks and more on actual legitimate alternatives to fossil fuels.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Sep 20, 2013 - 03:53pm PT
Your a neo marxist ,socialist ,commie ,utopian,liberal,warmist.




















































































Just had to see what that feels like. Feels like nothing.Really.
Great post the Fet
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Sep 20, 2013 - 04:10pm PT
durp
bobinc

Trad climber
Portland, Or
Sep 20, 2013 - 04:17pm PT
This is a species question, Chief, isn't it?

Modern life is comfortable, at least for some, and the comfortable folks don't want to give it up. How many of those folks feel like it's okay to deny the comfort to others? That's the (insert dollar sign here) question, and you yourself have hit the nail on the head on this issue for a long time.

So... it's a species question, isn't it?
command error

Trad climber
Colorado
Sep 20, 2013 - 04:36pm PT
The warmist gangs are crumbling under their cognitive dissonance.
Their fantasy of believing that CO2 is heating up the planet
is fighting with the knowledge of all the new ice in the Arctic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance


JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Sep 20, 2013 - 04:44pm PT
how much does a rise in CO2 concentration raise global temperature. That answer requires a calculation, not a model.

FortMental,

That statement is true for a laboratory experiment, because we have a localized, isolated area in which to measure temperature changes, and we have control over all of the inputs.

For the earth, however, I can't tell you how much the earth's temperature will change for a given change in CO2 concentration without modeling, for at least two reasons. First, we cannot even measure "the earth's temperature" in any meaningful way without a model. There is no one location that can provide a meaningful point of measurement. Second, determination of the earth's temperature requires knowing more than greenhouse gas concentrations. We need to know initial conditions, solar activity, volcanic activity, etc. etc. Put another way, we lack a "control earth" where we can keep everything constant other than atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.

If the relationship between global temperature and atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations merely required solving an equation with known parameters, we would know with certainty that about which we only have probabilistic knowledge. We know the process, and we know what happens in the small scale. Unfortunately, it's the big scale that matters.

John
Messages 8521 - 8540 of total 20264 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews