OMG "All the scientist" were WRONG.

[Lord of Planar]

I know Zell Miller, so yes.

He seems like one wise man. Liked his bit in Farenhype 911.

 

[humbolt]

Don't u take dat tone wif me, college boy. I say it one mo' time. I. Hain't. No. Munkee!

Oh yeah. Ya are one. Done come from one. Makes ya one. Don't go 'sultin me bout no college, neither. No call for that. Leroy! Get me a nanner. We'll get to the bottom of this'n.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

In college one of my research papers I did was on the Mt. St. Helens eruption. The focus was largely on how it changed our way of thinking about volcanic eruptions, what we didn't know at the time, what we know now, etc. I read the newspaper link and its somewhat off from what my understanding was.

They didn't even know about the impact blast which killed some scientists who were directly in its path. Later they would realize this was likely what caused the Kamchatka disaster in Russia, not aliens or an atomic bomb test. Whether a species survived or died was mostly based on luck. Most species directly hit by the blast were wiped out. Animals that were away by accident survived, those that were underground or underwater often survived.

The recovery is highly varied across the region. In some areas the recovery was incredible, the ecological output is better than it previously was. Others did not fare so well and have been stubbornly stagnant. Many species that were held back by natural order pre-blast flourished and quickly dominated as this created a new opportunity to compete and thrive. The old-growth forest of course is no longer in part of that area. The flows of debris running down the rivers caused all kinds of problems. They found that leaving some timber had a positive outcome, though most of it was salvaged for use.

Kind of sad all this interesting science is being pooped on.

Science pooped on itself when it proclaimed MT St Helens would take hundreds of years to recover. They were proven wrong in every prediction and the scientist that said they were wrong 50% of the time was being very generous it was more like 99% of the time. The lesson you refuse to learn here is so called scientific consensus can be and often is very wrong so basing our economy and way of life on the AGW hypotheses is ludicrous. Having said that I worked on the mountain after the eruption salvaging timber and I too would have thought the mountain was dead for a hundred years, it is amazing how resilient nature is. I recently went back there to where I once worked in a moon scape of knee deep ash and it's beautiful with trees brush flowers birds etc. So there is another lesson here too, the earth is far tougher than we give it credit for and will likely deal with our C02 just fine and in fact as C02 has increased dramatically over the past decade the climate has warmed very little.

 

[mak2]

So let's just pollute to beat hell, spill oil into the gulf, whatever, even MtStHelens regenreated in a few years. Is that your point?

Science pooped on itself when it proclaimed MT St Helens would take hundreds of years to recover. They were proven wrong in every prediction and the scientist that said they were wrong 50% of the time was being very generous it was more like 99% of the time. The lesson you refuse to learn here is so called scientific consensus can be and often is very wrong so basing our economy and way of life on the AGW hypotheses is ludicrous. Having said that I worked on the mountain after the eruption salvaging timber and I too would have thought the mountain was dead for a hundred years, it is amazing how resilient nature is. I recently went back there to where I once worked in a moon scape of knee deep ash and it's beautiful with trees brush flowers birds etc. So there is another lesson here too, the earth is far tougher than we give it credit for and will likely deal with our C02 just fine and in fact as C02 has increased dramatically over the past decade the climate has warmed very little.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

So let's just pollute to beat hell, spill oil into the gulf, whatever, even MtStHelens regenreated in a few years. Is that your point?

My point is in the OP. I'll repeat it for the dim witted. So called scientific consensus can be and often is wrong so using that as an argument to alter our entire economy, way of life and social structure is a fools errand.

 

[mak2]

Which leads you to what conclusion? We can pollute like hell, science might be wrong. Say what you mean instead of calling people dim wits.

My point is in the OP. I'll repeat it for the dim witted. So called scientific consensus can be and often is wrong so using that as an argument to alter our entire economy, way of life and social structure is a fools errand.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

You see that is the beauty of science and scientists. When they are wrong they will freely admit it, take the new knowledge and move on with the fresh information and make better predictions the next time.
Religions and republicons will never learn as they stubbornly cling to obviously wrong conclusions and revel in their dogmatic ignorance of the world.
It should be noted that there never was an agreed consensus among scientists about a recovery time for the Mt St Helens forest. The predictions were disparate and varied in timeline and mechanisms for recovery.

Republicans cling to obviously wrong conclusions? How about Democrats?

 

[mak2]

Politics has not buisness in science. The republicans dont get that.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Which leads you to what conclusion? We can pollute like hell, science might be wrong. Say what you mean instead of calling people dim wits.

If you think C02 is pollution, quit breathing, NOW!:lol:

 

[Threegoofs]

If you think C02 is pollution, quit breathing, NOW!:lol:

And that, my friends, sums up sawyers understanding of science.

 

[Dittohead not!]

OK, so science is wrong, and its predictive ability worthless.
But, the chicken entrails before me clearly show that there will be yet another thread on global warming, and that its premise will be just as absurd as the premise in the OP.

Count on it. Chicken entrails never lie.

 

[Verax]

Science pooped on itself when it proclaimed MT St Helens would take hundreds of years to recover. They were proven wrong in every prediction and the scientist that said they were wrong 50% of the time was being very generous it was more like 99% of the time. The lesson you refuse to learn here is so called scientific consensus can be and often is very wrong so basing our economy and way of life on the AGW hypotheses is ludicrous. Having said that I worked on the mountain after the eruption salvaging timber and I too would have thought the mountain was dead for a hundred years, it is amazing how resilient nature is. I recently went back there to where I once worked in a moon scape of knee deep ash and it's beautiful with trees brush flowers birds etc. So there is another lesson here too, the earth is far tougher than we give it credit for and will likely deal with our C02 just fine and in fact as C02 has increased dramatically over the past decade the climate has warmed very little.

Your statements in bold are all lies. You don't seem to care about being honest, only about running your ignorant, lying mouth.

So because the scientists didn't know as much about volcanic eruptions as we do now and some of their ideas proved wrong... that means we should throw out AGW because it could be wrong too? This is really how you think? Shouldn't we apply it going the other way also? Since scientists don't know everything... maybe the scientific minority that rejects AGW are the ones that are wrong? Why does it only apply going the direction you want?

I really think the difference between conservatives and liberals are critical thinking skills and honesty. You guys repeatedly make thinking errors over and over while lying and never seem to realize it.

 

[Diogenes]

So because the scientists didn't know as much about volcanic eruptions as we do now and some of their ideas proved wrong... that means we should throw out AGW because it could be wrong too? This is really how you think? Shouldn't we apply it going the other way also? Since scientists don't know everything... maybe the scientific minority that rejects AGW are the ones that are wrong? Why does it only apply going the direction you want?

So, you are suggesting that we should slaughter the horses so the sun will rise tomorrow?

 

[Verax]

So, you are suggesting that we should slaughter the horses so the sun will rise tomorrow?

Science gave you the computer you're using to complain about science. Maybe you should unplug it and throw it away since it doesn't fit with your belief system.

 

[Diogenes]

Science gave you the computer you're using to complain about science. Maybe you should unplug it and throw it away since it doesn't fit with your belief system.

Science is all about testable hypotheses. Until you can come up with a testable hypothesis to demonstrate AGW, you have no business calling it "science."

 

[Verax]

Science is all about testable hypotheses. Until you can come up with a testable hypothesis to demonstrate AGW, you have no business calling it "science."

Where do you people come from? AGW isn't science? How many thousands of individual hypothesis make up AGW? AGW crosses dozens if not hundreds of separate scientific fields. Yet you think we should be able to boil the whole thing down to a single "hypothesis" that is testable in the classic form? I don't think you understand how science works. I don't think you understand climate change theory.

I think this is where the arguments against direct democracy come from.

 

[longview]

Where do you people come from? AGW isn't science? How many thousands of individual hypothesis make up AGW? AGW crosses dozens if not hundreds of separate scientific fields. Yet you think we should be able to boil the whole thing down to a single "hypothesis" that is testable in the classic form? I don't think you understand how science works. I don't think you understand climate change theory.

I think this is where the arguments against direct democracy come from.

I think you are incorrect.
At the center of all of the discussion about AGW, is a single hypothesis,
that the observed rise in Co2, and the observed warming are linked.
It is still a hypothesis, because no one has proposed a scientifically testable link
between the two observations.

 

[Threegoofs]

I think you are incorrect.
At the center of all of the discussion about AGW, is a single hypothesis,
that the observed rise in Co2, and the observed warming are linked.
It is still a hypothesis, because no one has proposed a scientifically testable link
between the two observations.

You mean except for the reproducible experiments showing CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the models that predicted warming due to this mechanism turning out to be true after 40 years of observation?

 

[Verax]

I think you are incorrect.
At the center of all of the discussion about AGW, is a single hypothesis,
that the observed rise in Co2, and the observed warming are linked.
It is still a hypothesis, because no one has proposed a scientifically testable link
between the two observations.

Co2 is only a single part of AGW, though yes it is generally the centerpiece. As I explained in other threads it is part of climate change theory that is tested through modeling which itself takes into account thousands of individual hypotheses, data, observations, etc.

You do not understand what you're talking about.

 

[longview]

Co2 is only a single part of AGW, though yes it is generally the centerpiece. As I explained in other threads it is part of climate change theory that is tested through modeling which itself takes into account thousands of individual hypotheses, data, observations, etc.

You do not understand what you're talking about.

Without a link between Co2 and the predicted warming of between 3 to 4 degrees C
for a doubling of Co2, all the modeling and axillary predictions become void.
We know a doubling of Co2 could produce between 1 to 2 degrees C in warming.
To get to the higher temperature, one would need to explain what energy interactions
are occurring with Co2.
The forcing described by the IPCC, would need to be defined in a testable theory.

 

[Mustachio]

We were right about those scientists after all, Violent J

 

[Lord of Planar]

Co2 is only a single part of AGW, though yes it is generally the centerpiece. As I explained in other threads it is part of climate change theory that is tested through modeling which itself takes into account thousands of individual hypotheses, data, observations, etc.

You do not understand what you're talking about.

Once you have more than three variables, a model is useless without quantification of all but three.

 

[Verax]

Once you have more than three variables, a model is useless without quantification of all but three.

Here you go again spreading nonsense all over these forums. Pretending like you have some secret knowledge that climate scientists don't know about.

So now that you've read about Dyson you're going to go on this kick where you complain the scientists haven't nailed down every single variable perfectly with 100% guaranteed accuracy thus the models are completely null and void.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Here you go again spreading nonsense all over these forums. Pretending like you have some secret knowledge that climate scientists don't know about.

So now that you've read about Dyson you're going to go on this kick where you complain the scientists haven't nailed down every single variable perfectly with 100% guaranteed accuracy thus the models are completely null and void.

Then do us a favor.

Tell us all, specifically how I am wrong.

 

[Verax]

Then do us a favor.

Tell us all, specifically how I am wrong.

Its not my job to walk you through the models and assure you they are good. The scientific consensus says they are right. If you don't agree with it you go ahead and start a thread where you tear into their models and explain to us all why they are bad.