nijato
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2011
- Messages
- 417
- Reaction score
- 198
- Location
- Charm City, USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
Then continue to stop pipelines, stop building dams, stop nuclear plants, and stop drilling for oil. You're stopping it all and then wonder why your prices go up and availability goes down, and all the while protesting that businesses are moving overseas. Meanwhile you mire yourselves in unsustainable debt.
Do you see a healthy future in any of this?
What that research did was pop the pompous declarations that GCM were science, that the science was settled and that there was nothing to debate. Well, those were indefensible positions for GCM were not accounting for this phenomenon, the science clearly was not settled, and there was plenty room to debate many aspects of climate science. The fact that we know how individual processes work doesn't mean that GCM were accurately modeling the system. They couldn't accurately model the system because the scientists writing the code clearly didn't understand how the system worked for they were completely ignorant of a major subsystem in the climate.
The models are the product of the best science on the subject and nobody has ever suggested that climate research is somehow complete, or that the climate models have been perfected.
So, why are you bringing any of this up?
What that research did was pop the pompous declarations that GCM were science, that the science was settled and that there was nothing to debate. Well, those were indefensible positions for GCM were not accounting for this phenomenon, the science clearly was not settled, and there was plenty room to debate many aspects of climate science. The fact that we know how individual processes work doesn't mean that GCM were accurately modeling the system. They couldn't accurately model the system because the scientists writing the code clearly didn't understand how the system worked for they were completely ignorant of a major subsystem in the climate.
Which country do you believe is better equipped to address the consequences which arise from various forms of pollution, the US or Mexico?
You think that I'm arguing some strawman?
The Environmental Protection Agency counts as an important player? Don't they?
December 7, 2009
The question of the science is settled. The debate that should be taking place now is how to address this challenge and take advantage of the opportunity it offers.
I'd be crucified if I did in my professional life what I see many climate scientists doing in their professional lives.
Well, I have some misgivings about what "pollution" might entail... but I'll bite. I'll go with the US, generally.
The philosophical question is how much sacrifice does the present generation endure in order to make life easier for a future wealthier generation and if we create conditions today which make the environmental problems of the future worse, will the conditions we create today, which are wealth enhancing, create enough compounded wealth over time to offset the increased environmental problems of the future.
We know from the world of today that wealthier societies are better able to bear the burden of repairing the environmental damage that has been created by industrialization.
It would seem that you assume economic growth is a permanent condition. I think infinite growth on a finite planet is an impossibility.
Sent from my SGH-T589 using Tapatalk
There are hard, physical limits to human knowledge on SGH-T569? Wow, I feel for you guys. Here on Earth, that's the planet I live on, we manage to make ourselves wealthier by doing things in smarter ways.
AHA! So he has a profit motive! And this make you suspicious, huh?, and unwilling to accept the what is being said. It seems you share the same closed mind shared by many little lefty brains and can't absorb information which conflicts with their beliefs, usually gained from an article which they first read on any subject.I've read teh actual article by CERN, not the misinterpretations by people trying to sell more books.
No, do you need help learning the difference between a journalist who has an open agenda and a scientist? Obviously you do since you are clearly under the asinine belief that Solomon is a scientist.
I do not get any of my scientific information from journalists because journalists are so often clueless about science.
Depends on how you define media. If you define media to include real scientific publications, I will get my scientific information from them from time to time.
Scientific American, for example, is a publication I will read. I usually go to the primary sources anyway, though.
I only come across as thick to those who prefer to wallow in ignorance.
It seems you share the same closed mind shared by many little lefty brains and can't absorb information which conflicts with their beliefs
( a word a moron like yourself can't even spell)
but an ignorant piece of cow dung like yourself apparently can't process that into your poorly educated head.
I'll wager a 'moron' like yourself just looks at the pictures.
No you'll be a thick, stupid and rude buffoon in any environment.
AHA! So he has a profit motive! And this make you suspicious, huh?, and unwilling to accept the what is being said. It seems you share the same closed mind shared by many little lefty brains and can't absorb information which conflicts with their beliefs, usually gained from an article which they first read on any subject.
No, he is a "journaist" (sic) ( a word a moron like yourself can't even spell) in a national newspaper, He refers to scientists in his column and the studies which have been done. These studies are available to everyone, but an ignorant piece of cow dung like yourself apparently can't process that into your poorly educated head.
He is writing about the science, the background and the consequences. Can't you even decipher that much?
How do you suppose the word "media" is defined? You don't know that either? Does this have to be explained to you as well?
I'll wager a 'moron' like yourself just looks at the pictures.
No you'll be a thick, stupid and rude buffoon in any environment.
AHA! So he has a profit motive! And this make you suspicious, huh?, and unwilling to accept the what is being said. It seems you share the same closed mind shared by many little lefty brains and can't absorb information which conflicts with their beliefs, usually gained from an article which they first read on any subject.
No, he is a "journaist" (sic) ( a word a moron like yourself can't even spell)
in a national newspaper, He refers to scientists in his column and the studies which have been done.
These studies are available to everyone, but an ignorant piece of cow dung like yourself apparently can't process that into your poorly educated head.
He is writing about the science, the background and the consequences. Can't you even decipher that much?
How do you suppose the word "media" is defined? You don't know that either? Does this have to be explained to you as well?
I'll wager a 'moron' like yourself just looks at the pictures.
No you'll be a thick, stupid and rude buffoon in any environment.
Moderator's Warning: |
You think that I'm arguing some strawman?
The Environmental Protection Agency counts as an important player? Don't they?
December 7, 2009
The question of the science is settled. The debate that should be taking place now is how to address this challenge and take advantage of the opportunity it offers.
I'd be crucified if I did in my professional life what I see many climate scientists doing in their professional lives.
And what was that?
Some do say that the debate is over, but IMO what they mean is that there is now more than enough evidence to justify responding to the problem -- particularly given the fact that time is of the essence.
If you get a diagnosis and multiple second opinions telling you with 97% confidence that you have a fast-growing brain tumor, do you keep seeing additional doctors in the hopes that you can get a 100% certain diagnosis, or do you go ahead and treat your condition as if it's a fast-growing brain tumor?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?