• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Globval warming reality check

ricksfolly

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
232
Location
Grand Junction, CO 81506
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Ok, all BS aside, all the G W scientists have going for them is a rising temperature trend, and, as those who have invested in the stock market have found out the hard way, trends change up and down and there's no way to predict what they it will do tomorrow, a year from now, or ten years from now.

Horses are also picked by past performance records, and as we all know, no matter how many scientific charts are made, and how much effort is put into figuring out all all 24 measurable variables, the odds-on favorite still only wins 1/3 of the time.

What it all comes down to is GW scientists expect us to bet our life style on only ONE measurable variable (rising temperature trend) that they might be right.

No thanks. If I bet on anything, it'll be the Yankees. If I lose, it's only ten bucks.

ricksfolly
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,275
Reaction score
32,389
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ok, all BS aside, all the G W scientists have going for them is a rising temperature trend, and, as those who have invested in the stock market have found out the hard way, trends change up and down and there's no way to predict what they it will do tomorrow, a year from now, or ten years from now.

Horses are also picked by past performance records, and as we all know, no matter how many scientific charts are made, and how much effort is put into figuring out all all 24 measurable variables, the odds-on favorite still only wins 1/3 of the time.

What it all comes down to is GW scientists expect us to bet our life style on only ONE measurable variable (rising temperature trend) that they might be right.

No thanks. If I bet on anything, it'll be the Yankees. If I lose, it's only ten bucks.

ricksfolly
Temperature is not the stock market.
Temperature is not horses.
There's a lot more data than temperature trends.

Here, read this!
http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...-some-basic-empirical-evidence-favor-agw.html
 
Last edited:

ricksfolly

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
232
Location
Grand Junction, CO 81506
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Deuce;1058870480]Temperature is not the stock market.
Temperature is not horses.>>

No but it's still scientific gathering of measurable data in essentially the same way and drawing conclusions on what they find out the same way... These scientists are just as smart as as your GW ones, maybe even smarter because they examine five times as many usable data variables and measure them by conventional means.

There's a lot more data than temperature trends.>>

Maybe so but they're not measured by standard conventions, only theoretical ones.

ricksfolly
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,275
Reaction score
32,389
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Deuce;1058870480]Temperature is not the stock market.
Temperature is not horses.>>

No but it's still scientific gathering of measurable data in essentially the same way and drawing conclusions on what they find out the same way... These scientists are just as smart as as your GW ones, maybe even smarter because they examine five times as many usable data variables and measure them by conventional means.

There's a lot more data than temperature trends.>>

Maybe so but they're not measured by standard conventions, only theoretical ones.

ricksfolly
Define "standard conventions" and explain to me how measuring wavelength absorption of CO2, the sun's output, and glacier melting rates don't fall under it, to name a few examples.
 

ptif219

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The temp has moved up and down since the start of time. Did man also create the ice age?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,275
Reaction score
32,389
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The temp has moved up and down since the start of time. Did man also create the ice age?
Answer my question and I'll answer yours.
 
Last edited:

ptif219

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Answer my question and I'll answer yours.
No you won't you will spin as you do every GW thread. Just like you claim a panel that has a person from the departnent being investigated on it is independent. The panel was a sham and got the results the university paid them to get.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,275
Reaction score
32,389
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No you won't you will spin as you do every GW thread. Just like you claim a panel that has a person from the departnent being investigated on it is independent. The panel was a sham and got the results the university paid them to get.
You always do this. Whenever you are asked to explain your argument you can't so you just make up a new one, proof that it's all just lies and speculation. You're just another skeptic with no facts and no information trying to spread lies.
 

ptif219

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
You always do this. Whenever you are asked to explain your argument you can't so you just make up a new one, proof that it's all just lies and speculation. You're just another skeptic with no facts and no information trying to spread lies.
What argument? I said the temp has gone up and down since the start of time
 

ricksfolly

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
232
Location
Grand Junction, CO 81506
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Define "standard conventions" and explain to me how measuring wavelength absorption of CO2, the sun's output, and glacier melting rates don't fall under it, to name a few examples.
No matter what I write you'll find a way to rationalize it into your beliefs, but I'll try.

Conventional means commonly accepted measuring devices everyone uses and understands, as opposed to theoretical measurements only utilized by scientists and understood by scientists, somewhat like an exclusive club for scientists only.

ricksfolly
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,275
Reaction score
32,389
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No matter what I write you'll find a way to rationalize it into your beliefs, but I'll try.

Conventional means commonly accepted measuring devices everyone uses and understands, as opposed to theoretical measurements only utilized by scientists and understood by scientists, somewhat like an exclusive club for scientists only.

ricksfolly
If scientists operated this way we wouldn't have commercially usable airplanes, nuclear power, computers, medical research of any kind, or space travel/satelites.

Sorry ricksfolly, the world does not work that way. Scientists are smarter than you and they're sometimes going to work with things you don't understand.

As for your question, no, mankind did not cause ice ages in the past. That doesn't mean we can't affect temperature now. Your logic is faulty. Here, I'll give you an example of your own logic:

People got lung cancer before cigarettes were invented.
Therefore, tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer.

See the problem?
There are sometimes multiple possible causes of a single outcome!
 
Last edited:

ricksfolly

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
232
Location
Grand Junction, CO 81506
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If scientists operated this way we wouldn't have commercially usable airplanes, nuclear power, computers, medical research of any kind, or space travel/satelites. >>

Scientists theorize and sometimes engineers can make it work, been there done that.

Sorry ricksfolly, the world does not work that way. Scientists are smarter than you and they're sometimes going to work with things you don't understand.>>

Not smarter, just on a different wavelength. I've made more things work by engineering than all their dreams put together.

As for your question, no, mankind did not cause ice ages in the past. That doesn't mean we can't affect temperature now. Your logic is faulty. Here, I'll give you an example of your own logic: >>

Huh! You lost me...

People got lung cancer before cigarettes were invented.
Therefore, tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer. >>

Lost me again...

See the problem?
There are sometimes multiple possible causes of a single outcome!>>

Doesn't work that way, specific causes always precede specific effects, at least that's the way it is in the real world of engineering.

ricksfolly
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,275
Reaction score
32,389
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Doesn't work that way, specific causes always precede specific effects, at least that's the way it is in the real world of engineering.

ricksfolly
Yes, I lost you. Which is amusing and also sad.

Effect: Generator stopped working
Cause: Out of fuel
Cause: Broken fuel line
Cause: Clogged filter
Cause: Failed ignition system
Cause: Loss of oil pressure
Cause: Somebody turned it off
and so on...

Effect: My room gets brighter.
Cause: Turned on the lights.
Cause: Sunrise.
Cause: Turned on the computer.
Cause: My room is on fire.
and so on and so forth.

Effect: World got warmer.
Cause: Increase in greenhouse effect via natural source of gases.
Cause: Increase in greenhouse effect via man-made source of gases.
Cause: Increase in solar output.
Cause: El Nino warming cycle.
Cause: Milankovitch cycle warming period. (regular changes in earth's orbit)
Cause: Reduction in energy reflected to space. (usually, due to lower volcanic activity)
Cause: Change in continental configuration.

Tell me, Ptif, if you don't believe climate scientists, why do you believe them when they tell you there were ice ages at all? How do you know there was an ice age?
 

hallam

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
620
Reaction score
114
Location
Philly
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
If scientists operated this way we wouldn't have commercially usable airplanes, nuclear power, computers, medical research of any kind, or space travel/satelites.

Sorry ricksfolly, the world does not work that way. Scientists are smarter than you and they're sometimes going to work with things you don't understand.

As for your question, no, mankind did not cause ice ages in the past. That doesn't mean we can't affect temperature now. Your logic is faulty. Here, I'll give you an example of your own logic:

People got lung cancer before cigarettes were invented.
Therefore, tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer.

See the problem?
There are sometimes multiple possible causes of a single outcome!
I wouldn't call climatologists smarter. They are just predicting. You can do the same thing with an excel spread sheet or SPSS if you had the raw data and the time. It is kind of easy actually. Now getting the raw data, that is the hard part. Frankly, I put anyone trying to predict the future farther than a couple of months to be no better than the "scientist" of myth-busters or deadliest warrior. No one is psychic, not to that extent. The far extreme positions for CC is a money play, nothing more.
 

iangb

Lurker
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
2,927
Reaction score
2,112
Location
Birmingham, UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I wouldn't call climatologists smarter. They are just predicting. You can do the same thing with an excel spread sheet or SPSS if you had the raw data and the time. It is kind of easy actually. Now getting the raw data, that is the hard part.
I agree 'smarter' was the wrong term - but 'more knowledgable about their subject than non-specialists' is definitely (even tautologically) accurate. I wouldn't agree with the other, though - the amount of work that goes into that 'just predicting' is immense, whereas getting the raw data is very dependant on the method - using a temp probe is easy; designing a spececraft to take thermal readings from low orbit is less so.

Frankly, I put anyone trying to predict the future farther than a couple of months to be no better than the "scientist" of myth-busters or deadliest warrior. No one is psychic, not to that extent. The far extreme positions for CC is a money play, nothing more.
I suppose that depends upon what you'd classify as 'extreme'...
 

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
32,214
Reaction score
21,106
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The OP admits it. "Ok, all BS aside, all the G W scientists have going for them is a rising temperature trend"

If the world is tending to get warmer, as the trend indicates, then that's global warming right there.
 

hallam

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
620
Reaction score
114
Location
Philly
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I agree 'smarter' was the wrong term - but 'more knowledgable about their subject than non-specialists' is definitely (even tautologically) accurate. I wouldn't agree with the other, though - the amount of work that goes into that 'just predicting' is immense, whereas getting the raw data is very dependant on the method - using a temp probe is easy; designing a spececraft to take thermal readings from low orbit is less so.
Prediction is not that hard with current technology and computer systems. it used to be much harder when we had to crunch the numbers by hand. Now, you just need to know statistics. I will agree though that they do get more time to become knowledgeable. However, I think anyone with a base mathematical/statistical background could see same trends with a couple of days/weeks of data review.


I suppose that depends upon what you'd classify as 'extreme'...
I would classify anyone who says the world wont look similar to the way it does now 50 years from now as extreme. Anyone who thinks that there is going to be on mass chaos in the future simply doesn't understand human behavior.
 
Last edited:

iangb

Lurker
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
2,927
Reaction score
2,112
Location
Birmingham, UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Prediction is not that hard with current technology and computer systems. it used to be much harder when we had to crunch the numbers by hand. Now, you just need to know statistics. I will agree though that they do get more time to become knowledgeable. However, I think anyone with a base mathematical/statistical background could see same trends with a couple of days/weeks of data review.
To a certain extent, you're right. But you miss out the other half of 'prediction' - making the climate models which match those statistics. That theoretical work has the potential to get incredibly in-depth, depending on how precise you want to be - and you have to be very precise in order to stay accurate, otherwise chaos theory throws you a wobbly.
 

ricksfolly

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
232
Location
Grand Junction, CO 81506
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Effect: Generator stopped working

Cause: Out of fuel
Cause: Broken fuel line
Cause: Clogged filter
Cause: Failed ignition system
Cause: Loss of oil pressure
Cause: Somebody turned it off
and so on... >>

Yes, all of those causes are possibilities, but one and only one made it happen.

BTW, effect is the cause of the next effect and they're all linked together in a chain of endless events.

Cause - effect/cause - effect/cause - effect/cause -

...A player hits a ball (cause), the shortstop fields it (effect), throws the ball (Cause) first baseman catches it (effect)

<<Tell me, Ptif, if you don't believe climate scientists, why do you believe them when they tell you there were ice ages at all? How do you know there was an ice age?>>

At one time I accepted all educated theories because everyone else did, and I wanted to be like them. But that all changed after I retired. Now, I don't accept anything I can't prove to myself by my own experience and my own logic.

ricksfolly
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,215
Reaction score
1,702
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Tell me, Ptif, if you don't believe climate scientists, why do you believe them when they tell you there were ice ages at all? How do you know there was an ice age?
This is what I don't get. I hear people say all the time, "the temp has moved up and down since the start of time." They know that because climatologists told them. But when these same climatologists say the current trends are abnormal, suddenly the climatologists are not credible anymore.

It's akin to telling Bill Gates how to do floating-point arithmetic, or telling your doctor how to put on a band-aid. "You've only spent the better part of your life studying this stuff, but my G.E.D. says you're wrong!!1!11!one"

Ridiculous.
 

iangb

Lurker
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
2,927
Reaction score
2,112
Location
Birmingham, UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Effect: Generator stopped working

Cause: Out of fuel
Cause: Broken fuel line
Cause: Clogged filter
Cause: Failed ignition system
Cause: Loss of oil pressure
Cause: Somebody turned it off
and so on... >>

Yes, all of those causes are possibilities, but one and only one made it happen.
So if a generator has no fuel, and[/d] is switched off, which one is the 'cause'? You can have more than one cause per effect.

Let's look at a another example. There is a bag of 20 sweets; Deuce eats 10, you eat 8, and I eat 2 myself. Who caused the number of sweets to go down?

At one time I accepted all educated theories because everyone else did, and I wanted to be like them. But that all changed after I retired. Now, I don't accept anything I can't prove to myself by my own experience and my own logic.
So you don't think something is true if you don't fully understand it and you haven't experienced it for yourself?
Given that no-one fully understands anything; You don't think something is true if you haven't experienced it yourself? Solipsism is fun, but impractical for anything other than philosophy...

This also doesn't answer the question. How do you know that there were ice ages?
 
Last edited:

hallam

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
620
Reaction score
114
Location
Philly
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
To a certain extent, you're right. But you miss out the other half of 'prediction' - making the climate models which match those statistics. That theoretical work has the potential to get incredibly in-depth, depending on how precise you want to be - and you have to be very precise in order to stay accurate, otherwise chaos theory throws you a wobbly.
I disagree. Climatologists models are not complicated nor are they precise nor are they even remotely accurate. They may look complicated but the vast majority amount to not much more than a line of best fit with temperature over time. Frankly, I would give these scientist more credit if their models were more complicated. However, all models fail to encompass the main engine of CC which is human behavior. And human behavior can't be predicted to the extent that they need. Further, they try to slip past significant difference. Although statistically 3 degree is significant for some models and a cg map or graphic looks nice, the reality is that 3 degrees isn't a change at all to our current temperatures.

Mind you, I have no problem stopping polluting or creating better fuels than oil. The goal is fine; climatologists fear mongering on Red Scare levels is not.
 
Last edited:

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,275
Reaction score
32,389
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I disagree. Climatologists models are not complicated nor are they precise nor are they even remotely accurate. They may look complicated but the vast majority amount to not much more than a line of best fit with temperature over time. Frankly, I would give these scientist more credit if their models were more complicated. However, all models fail to encompass the main engine of CC which is human behavior. And human behavior can't be predicted to the extent that they need. Further, they try to slip past significant difference. Although statistically 3 degree is significant for some models and a cg map or graphic looks nice, the reality is that 3 degrees isn't a change at all to our current temperatures.

Mind you, I have no problem stopping polluting or creating better fuels than oil. The goal is fine; climatologists fear mongering on Red Scare levels is not.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that you actually have no idea how complicated or simple the models are. When the goal is to predict global average temperatures, your outcome of the model is going to be a line of temperature. That doesn't mean the model is simple.
 
Top Bottom