This is where Ashton makes some vague reference to society being overrun by bureaucracy and/or bullshit and that this somehow satisfactorily deflects the majority of scientific research on the subject.
This is where Ashton makes some vague reference to society being overrun by bureaucracy and/or bullshit and that this somehow satisfactorily deflects the majority of scientific research on the subject.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
I hate global warming debates. OFFTOPIC
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
Oh I guess I'll add, since it was mentioned, I am not a drug user but I agree with most here. Agreed with ashton about taxing. Just so you know that it's not only drug users lol
Our small drug legalizing organisation actually has a streight edge dude. Wish there'd be more of those.Originally Posted by Jenna
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
Part of the problem with geologists is how significanly deep time factors into their work. That said, any review of the current literature makes a very convincing case for AGW; dissenting views really have no basis in the present-day dataset.
SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype
It's impossible to make a convincing case for AGW if you know a little bit of statistics. The data is simply not enough - 1 century is an extremely, immensely small amount. I'm a meteorology enthusiast and I'm subscribed to more than one "official" meteorology group (italian & european - nerdy, I know, but what can you do) and every conference I've attended basically ends with scientists admitting that while we have evidence that global warming might be antrophogenic, current statistical methods and theoretical results tell us that we would need at least 1000 times the amount of data in order to obtain a 90% certainty (which is still statistically very low).
That said, it's obvious that pollution has a negative effect on climate, barring global warming. However, it's impossible to make a legitimate claim of statistical significance of such research results. In my opinon lots of governmental (and private) funds have been misdirected towards AGW rather than trying to understand other effects of human activity on climate, potentially much more dangerous (i.e. very little thought is devoted to building infrastructure and housing in such a way to accomodate ever-increasing population and changing rain patterns, often with disastrous results - entire cities might be destroyed by torrential rain).
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Ive always considered it a fad. I believe that there are more important research to be had and focused on. I do not even know who or what started this crap. Maybe the Earth will freeze over when Al Gore passes away.
Exactly. And too many influencing factors to account for.
Thanks for splitting. Appreciated.
Global warming debates rarely go anywhere. They're lot more stuck than most debates
Nowadays hard to talk about something so innocent as weather without it going political.
Well, when you live in Finland you'll be real happy for some extra heat. Our farming industry will bloom if it gets more warmer. By the way, this is the warmest Autumn here in 50 years. This is pretty nice.
But as I have no clue which side to believe, I'll be careful with my carbon footprint (i hate that concept).
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
Youre Finnish? We have the same nose ridge, lol. I noticed in the pics.
"As the temperature pattern changed, global cooling was of waning interest by 1979.[28]"
Best part, lol.
This troll thread is the only reason Rick still hangs around.
This debate is heating up.
Threads just do that on their own.This debate is heating up.
There's not enough posts to determine if posters are the cause.
SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype
Definitely. Thanks for reminding me! I always appreciate a good debate with Ashton and FDG.
Actually, I'm less interested these days in global warming, although I am still very interested in the science of climatology and meteorology, the physics and chemistry behind processes, and stuff like that. The science sometimes blows my mind. For instance, the contradictory role of clouds in reflecting both incoming sunlight and heat radiation from the Earth surface, continent placement, whether land masses are near poles or far from poles (which determines probability of ice accumulation and albedo-related feedback loops), size of landmasses (which affects average precipitation over the landmass as precipitation tends to decrease with increasing distance from seas), particulates in the atmosphere (blocks sun and causes cooling, but decreases albedo and causes warming if it falls onto ice and snow). There are so many different interesting processes going on all at the same time. Climatology and earth science in general is an intellectual feast
My attitudes towards AGW and a host of related topics have changed quite a bit, mostly as a result of listening to >100 hours of seminars from The Long Now Foundation (extremely highly recommended — another intellectual feast). First of all, one gains an understanding that the processes of societal evolution are poorly understood and largely beyond the control of governments, institutions, and individuals. So I am less interested in investing emotional energy in somehow trying to influence the course of events. Also, there is always (almost always?) a "greater wisdom" in the way things are right now, and large changes occur organically and fundamentally and generally not for the reasons we tend to believe (e.g. "so-and-so introduced a policy and things turned around"). I do admit I don't understand politics terribly well.
I guess this attitude must be what tcaudilllg calls "conformism" (vs. progressiveness). However, it's a philosophical attitude only, and often a person's actual behavior strongly promotes various progressive causes that he/she embodies.
Basically, there are a number of different realistic climate scenarios, their effects will be unpredictable in many ways (while being predictable in others), societal action or inaction is yet more difficult to predict, and it is possible that government policies will actually not make much difference either way. I believe collective behavior will essentially be determined by economics, which is in turn largely determined by resources, demographics, preexisting conditions, etc. Many statements made by climatologists and other scientists have already been overturned, and many others will turn out to be incorrect as well. For instance, it was widely assumed that Himalayan glaciers accounted for the lion's share of river volume coming from the region. Recently I read a research summary showing that that was the case only for one or two (Ganges perhaps?) rivers; the rest were primarily monsoon-fed. Statements about policy responses to AGW have an even lower likelihood of proving correct; worse yet, pure experiments and data collection in politics and policy is nigh impossible, so very little accumulation of wisdom takes place.
So, let the warming continue (or not continue)! And may governments and economies respond however they want! How's that for a political slogan?
It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Global warming works like this -- the sun emits radiation, it moves outwardly in a spherical pattern, part of that radiation hits earth's surface is absorbed and warms it, part of that radiation is reflected back, the radiation that is reflected back travels through the atmosphere on the way out, as it travels through the atmosphere some of that radiation is re-reflected back by certain chemicals and thus causes more radiation to return to be absorbed and reflected off the earth and thus increases the heat. The more chemicals there are in the atmosphere that cause this reflection back towards the earth, the more the overall temperature increases globally. That much is scientific fact, and can easily be simulated in a laboratory. There is a more nuanced description of this effect, but I don't really feel like bothering going into that level of detail.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
The question is if humans are causing global warming or not -- which I think is irrelevant, the question is if human can cause global warming and the answer is yes, so... it's probably worthwhile to invest a little effort into solving the problem if it should arise. Which means collecting of data from satellites on the earth's albedo and temperature, using computer simulation to predict trends and validate them, and develop small scale prototypes of systems to help deal with global warming or cooling if it should arise, and some effort towards calculating the cost and feasibility of a full scale system being implemented.
There's no debate; we've already caused a lot of damage. The very concept that people think that this topic can be debated at this point in time, is just ridiculous.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
It's too difficult to have people sold on the idea of global warming when they see their own bad habits marked for blame. Maybe explaining the benefits of cleaner, greener methods of living, like cleaner air, natural hair, and polar bears might suffice in place of their vice?
I dont think ppl really care as much now that the economy is tanking for the majority of the world. The green fad is just being consumed into mega-corps, just like the "no fat" fat was over a decade ago. Its all marketing bullshit.
I have to admit, though, the huge windmills are pretty cool. I do not know their total efficiency, and sometimes they creep me out when driving at night (they have blinking red "eyes"!) on the interstate, but theyre interesting. Sadly enough, I live by SolarWorld, and theyre laying people off. Intel isnt, however!
"We could have saved the Earth but we were too damned cheap." Kurt Vonnegut
That says it all.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
NyTimes recently posted an article about how cities are going to have to find a way to store the excess energy powered by the windmills.
Kuwait sez, "Sup? Where am I?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
