|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..27..51..75..99..121~122~123~124~125..146..166..186..206..224~225~226 [Next] | ||||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Yea that conversion is tricky.
But 32 seems much scarier.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Gorlzax New user 39 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 30, 2016, tommy wrote: I wouldn`t call it blind faith in authority but rather trusting the huge amount of scientific research and evidence on this matter. Who do you trust? And did you tell the freezing tears story as a counter argument to the statements that also here the climate is changing and even comparatively fast? I tell you about 200 organizations across the world that agree on the matter and you tell me about your friend who got his face frozen. Cool. (Pun intended) Also sounds about right statistically speaking. And I want to be clear that I do believe your friends story. It is a wonderful feeling when it is cold enough and little bit windy so that your eyes tear up and then immediately freeze in your eyes or on your cheeks. I can recommend it warmly! |
|||||||||
Gorlzax New user 39 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 30, 2016, Dannydoyle wrote: Very true! So many things are affected by the way we perceive them to be. Little bit off topic, but do you guys know about this page: www.thetruesize.com Some time ago it blew my mind! |
|||||||||
danaruns Special user The City of Angels 808 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 30, 2016, RNK wrote: Let's be clear, here: 1. I have not trotted out my bona fides regarding my scientific knowledge (if any), so you're merely farting into the wind on that assumption. 2. No matter what my qualifications, it would still not change your opinion, so it's futile to get into a "measuring contest." (Such a guy thing.) 3. Your science background is meaningless in this discussion, because you are not a climatologist. While you may understand general scientific principles, you do not understand what climatologists do. As a scientist, I might be a great physicist, but have no deep understanding of chemistry, except for basic principles that overlap into my discipline. And while you might have a deep understanding of chemical processes, you could not hang with me in a discussion of wave diffraction and condensed matter. Neither of us, nor anyone here, is a climatologist. So quit trotting out your science credentials, as they are meaningless in this discussion. What you are doing is a logical fallacy called an "appeal to authority," which basically says, "I know more than you, so I'm right and you're wrong." Quote:
So in agreement- you are correct that believers who are aligned to a certain political side will never change their minds regardless of facts that are found to be contradicted (which there have been many cases and manipulated hockey puck graphs to give one example), many end of the world predictions along with animal extinction predictions that have not come true that were intended to scare the less informed who have no understanding of the real science. Again: 1. Some of us (particularly in the political middle and middle-left) adjust our politics based on evidence, and are more than willing to fashion our politics to match the facts; while others, such as yourself, seem to want to fashion the facts to fit your politics. 2. Your statement about predictions is untrue and is used in another logical fallacy. Many such predictions have come true; many have not come true because the warnings were heeded and changes were made (e.g., DDT); many were overtaken by technology but would have come true absent such advances. You offer no evidence to support your statement that these unnamed predictions were made without regard to their truth (or with knowing falsity) for the purpose of frightening "the less informed." So, again, you argue a logical fallacy. You state a false fact and then argue that because some predictions (which were merely intended to frighten) did not come true, climate predictions are not true. That may or may not be the case, but it does not follow from your logical fallacy.
"Dana Douglas is the greatest magician alive. Plus, I'm drunk." -- Foster Brooks
|
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
I have a question. Would anything convince you that it is not man made?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
It is true that a lot of the 97% have changed their minds.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
Gorlzax New user 39 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 30, 2016, Dannydoyle wrote: I'm not sure was this question for me, but I think that if the majority of scientific research and evidence would suggest that it is not man made, I would trust that. I go one further, If even few serious scientific organizations would take the opposite position in this matter I would think there might be possibility it was not man made. But again, I feel the ball is in the other corner: if not even the overwhelming majority of studies cant convince you that it is man made - can anything? What would need to happen for you to think the opposite? 100% agreement in the matter? Not likely going to happen, when there still pops up even this kind of gems: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/26/entert......-theory/ And I want to emphasize that I most deffinitely am not comparing you to these guys. its just a funny observation what you can find in this world. |
|||||||||
rockwall Special user 762 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 30, 2016, Gorlzax wrote: Gorlzax, I'm afraid your math is worse than your knowledge of global warming. You're confusing absolute temperature with rise in temperature. If it's 0 degrees Celsius, it's 32 degrees Fahrenheit. If the temperature raises by 1 degree Celsius, it is also raised by about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, not by 33.8 degrees Fahrenheit. If, over the past 166 years, the average temperature in Finland has risen by more than two degrees Celsius, it has risen by around 3.2 degrees Fahrenheit, not 35 degrees! If the average temperature has risen .14 degrees Celsius in the last decade, that means it has risen only about .25 degrees Fahrenheit, not 32 degrees! What's sad is that no one else dared to even question this outrageous quote that Pop posted but that many of you just took it for granted as truth because it supports your position. This illustrates quite clearly which side accepts anything as an 'article of faith'. |
|||||||||
0pus Inner circle New Jersey 1739 Posts |
I suspect that the 32 degree calculation was done by the news outlet, not by scientists.
But it was pretty funny. |
|||||||||
rockwall Special user 762 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 30, 2016, 0pus wrote: I'm sure. But it illustrates how willingly the true believers will swallow anything fed to them. |
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 30, 2016, rockwall wrote: This is my point about the conversion being difficult. I don't even know if you are right LOL! But it is indeed difficult!
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Gorlzax New user 39 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 30, 2016, tommy wrote: I'll just leave this here because it sums the whole thing so nicely: https://youtu.be/j1dvNPfvl80 |
|||||||||
Gorlzax New user 39 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 30, 2016, rockwall wrote: It seems, rockwall, you are right. My further investigations led me to see that I in fact did confuse absolute temperature with rise in temperature. My apologies. I have never understood the fahrenheits, gallons, miles, feet and what ever you guys got going there. Very confusing. And for my benefit I can just say that remember that I am having this discussion with basically my third language. Actually I would prefer if you could write all the following posts in finnish. Thank you. 😊 So now that we got that potato, patato thing out of the way what do you people think about the fact that the temperature has risen about 2 celsius degrees (what ever that is in fahrenheit - I give up) which was basically the point in the article pop shared? Any comments or does somebody have more photos of finnish hole fisher? Which sounds little bit kinky but I don' t know the english word for the thing. |
|||||||||
RNK Inner circle 7492 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 30, 2016, danaruns wrote: 1). Um, Yea. Sure. Based on evidence. Evidfence that you don't even understand. Ok. 2)Read below: and this is just the tip of the iceburg (no pun intended) Ten years after Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" guilt/fear producing predictions, let's close by examining just how accurate his "science" proved to be on his way to the bank. 1. Rising Sea Levels—inaccurate and misleading. Al was even discovered purchasing a beachfront mansion! 2. Increased Tornadoes—declining for decades. 3. New Ice Age in Europe—they've been spared; it never happened. 4. South Sahara Drying Up—completely untrue. 5. Massive Flooding in China and India—again, didn't happen. 6. Melting Arctic—false—2015 represents the largest refreezing in years. 7. Polar Bear Extinction—actually they are increasing! 8. Temperature Increases Due to CO2—no significant rising for over 18 years 9. Katrina a Foreshadow of the Future—false—past 10 years, no F3 hurricanes; "longest drought ever!" 10. The Earth Would be in a "True Planetary Emergency" Within a Decade Unless Drastic Action Taken to Reduce Greenhouse Gasses—never happened. A while back, the Washington Post stated in an expose that, "Al Gore has thrived as a green-tech investor." Coincidental? In conclusion: MANY failed predictions! Take your political agenda elsewhere Danaruns.
Check out Bafflingbob.com
|
|||||||||
Gorlzax New user 39 Posts |
"This illustrates quite clearly which side accepts anything as an 'article of faith'"
Still I have to disagree with this thought. Come on rockwall. Seriously. You know just as well as I do that there are gullible people on both sides of this matter. And it really doesn't make your opinion shine brighter when you say this kind of generalizations. Or would you like me really to use my whole night searching examples to you of sources and people, deniers, who are quoted and referred to but don' t stand closer look into their thinking? And still I notice that nobody has answered me to this question: "Tommy: As you now Legates is a very controversial figure who was fired from his position as Delaware State Climatologist. I would refer to my earlier post. "This being the situation I feel it is not my or our duty here to explain RNKs teachers (who remains anonymous) views but rather it would be interesting to hear how RNKs and his teachers views can differ so much from most of the scientific community". That quote may be adapted so that "RNKs teacher" is replaced with "David Legates". And also I am 100% sure that the guys and girls at Nasa and at those many, many socities and organizations now to the detail the basic processes that cause Earth’s climate to vary from poles to equator, from coasts to the center of continents, from the Dead Sea or Death Valley depression to the top of Mount Everest or Denali. You give me Legates, I give you almost 200 organizations around the world who hold the position that climate change has been caused by human actions. https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php" The short and sweet answer to this was: "What is really scary is your blind faith in authorities" by tommy. Nothing more or nothing less. Or yes, there was the story about the frozen indian. I really would like to hear some of you put it into words, how the 200 organizations are wrong and/or give me one serious organization that disagrees with these results. Educate me! |
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
Well you might not think it is a miracle to change the climate by driving around.
According to the climate hysterics `Finland is receiving the brunt of global warming, as temperatures across the Nordic country climb faster than anywhere else in the world`. Despite the fact that there the temperature can vary greatly from day to day; one day it could be a toasty 0°C, the next day it could be -30°C. Sometimes there can be extremes of temperature, such as one night in 1999 when the mercury dropped to -51°C.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
NYCTwister Loyal user 267 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 29, 2016, RNK wrote: I....am suitably impressed. I didn't know. You obviously have what it takes to understand the science. However, that doesn't mean that the conclusions you, or your teacher, have come to, are correct. Quote:
So, as to your first question, Yes, you cannot make such a claim using 100 years of data. Throughout history there has been so many climate changes, some dramatic and some not so dramatic. I think here is where we have the biggest disagreement. You seem to equate the last 100 years as being equal to any other 100 years in the past. To answer your previous question - "How do you explain all the changes that happened before mankind existed?" The answer is, they happened. Probably as part of what the earth goes through, and has gone through, just being a planet. Also, many were part of the settling that the planet has gone through. But they're moot as far as the question - "Have the activities of mankind changed, and continue to to change, the climate?" - since we weren't here. (In fact, the beginning of the industrial revolution is the point where we need to consider the fact that we were here at all. Pre-industry we didn't really pollute, and the earth seemed quite capable of supporting however many of us the were, and absorbing the negative practices we engaged in.) To say that the last hundred years are the same as any other, is to ignore many facts which are unique to this particular century. Facts such as - In the last hundred years two of the most destructive species ever to have existed, humans and cows, have increased their numbers hundreds fold. The cows through no fault of their own. (1912 - 1.5 billion humans, 2012 - 7.3 billion. Cows? Who knows, probably thousands fold.) I could throw up a wall of text showing the effect of what these unprecedented increases in the population of just these two species has done, but only if your position is that they have had no real effect can you use the small sample size as an argument. If your position IS that they have had no effect, then you have to provide evidence to support that claim. No effect would necessarily mean no lasting damage. I could also throw up a wall of text citing all the other ways we've had detrimental effects; but I'm a little tired, and throwing up walls of text is exhausting. Since you don't seem to be denying that greenhouse gases exist, and that they are detrimental, I guess my next question to you is - "Has mankind's contribution to the amount of those gases become more than the earth can bear, over the long run?" Quote:
We have to understand the position of our current gov't. And please everybody, what I am about to say is NOT meant to start a political discussion. Please, please do not take this as such. Look at how all the Republicans that are considered the "Establishment Group", they including the Democrats who have been in Government forever like how things are today. They enjoy all the perks/benefits and money they are making by being in government. And look how the "Establishment" Republicans are acting when a non-establishment candidate (Trump) got the nomination. They all are scared to death that their free reign and cushy positions are in jeopardy. What does this have to do with GW? GW is a position that can be used to pass more regulation with in turn puts more money back in "the establishments" pockets. I agree to the sentiment. The concept of a "career politician" makes me sick. It's an open secret that the government, and what it can do, is being bought and sold. However, acknowledging that makes your next argument a little shaky. Quote:
Again, if GW WAS a dire position/reality then you better believe that something would have been done about it. Heck, the House and Senate were a Democratic majority Obama's first two years in office and legislation passing carbon emission regulations and such could have easily been passed just like the ACA was, but this did not happen. Given to what you've already admitted to, it doesn't follow that - "because it makes sense it would have been done" - if your argument is that those with an interest in the status quo will act in that interest. A more probable explanation is that the industries which have an interest in squashing those proposals simply threw money at those that could be bought. Don't get me started on the clusterfock that is the ACA. Quote:
Why? If GW was so threatening as Al Gore has been stating along with his "end of the world/civilization" predictions that of which none have come true, then why did they not pass anything when they easily could have? Why? Because the coal, oil, gas, manufacturing, and agriculture industries didn't want those measures passed. Arguments about the make-up of the legislative body are specious, since they are all the same. Quote:
Am I a proponent of not doing anything to help our environment? Absolutely NOT! I believe we should take necessary steps to reduce emissions from manufacturing processes and study ways that can reduce identified contaminants in these emissions before they are released into the atmosphere. To me, the fact that you advocate the reduction of emissions is admission that harmful gases do exist. Correct me if I'm wrong. Would you support the dismantling of the coal, oil, gas and animal agriculture industries, by the process of capitalism; if evidence existed that the long term disadvantages outweighed the short term advantages, given that alternatives exist? Would you advocate for the elimination of all the subsidies and give-aways that make it possible for a Big Mac to cost only $3.00 instead of the $20.00 it should cost? Would you advocate such a paradigm shift? What keeps outdated practices alive when they're no longer needed? Money and politics, neither of which have anything to do with science, or should. Quote:
I am a huge fan of keeping our environment as clean as we can. That being said, we can do that without the added expense to tax paying citizens. There are SO MANY non-effective and wasteful government programs that are benefitting "the establishment" and "lobbyists" that can be eliminated and the monies from those programs could be used to invest more so in Climate Studies in relation to man and our industry processes. Agreed. Programs like the U.S military, our for profit prison system, the war on drugs, on and on. All the money wasted on those things, et.al., could be used for a lot of different important things. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any money to be made by saving people - only in killing them. What you seem to be saying by your last sentence is that you agree that mankind has had an effect, you just don't agree to what an extent that effect has mattered. If that's the case then I have to ask you, as a scientist, knowing that there are AT LEAST theoretical limits to what this planet can absorb - wouldn't you rather believe in change and be wrong; than to not believe in change and be wrong? If you believe in change and are wrong you've lost nothing. But if you don't believe, and you're wrong, than we're all suffering...eventually.
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
|
|||||||||
NYCTwister Loyal user 267 Posts |
This just in -
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/......e_btn_fb Of course the Guardian is trash, as is NASA, so it must be nonsense.
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
|
|||||||||
R.S. Regular user CT one day I'll have 184 Posts |
RNK, what is your take on my previous post regarding the NOAA Paleoclimatology perspective, which is in agreement with the consensus scientific climate change view?
Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » New Report on Global Warming » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (153 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..27..51..75..99..121~122~123~124~125..146..166..186..206..224~225~226 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.18 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |