Page 61 of 65 FirstFirst ...
11
51
59
60
61
62
63
... LastLast
  1. #1201
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,210
    Quote Originally Posted by oblivionx View Post
    That's the real question isn't it?
    If we're not able to decide on it via the will of the majority, wouldn't a number of conservative ideologies be at fault? Couldn't it be rationalized that, despite a majority of citizens owning a gun, that gun laws should be enacted? It doesn't matter if a majority of the populace wants it, if it is decided to be right then it would follow that it should happen.

  2. #1202
    Moderator Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Waterloo, ON
    Posts
    21,936
    Quote Originally Posted by Gheld View Post
    Ice cores and tree rings are not empirical data.
    I'm not sure you understand what "empirical" means.


    In the realm of empirical science, if you want to say "I have proven anthropogenic global warming" you have to be able to make a PRECISE mathematical prediction.
    This is also not true, and hasn't been true for, literally, centuries. It's a grade-school understanding of "science".

  3. #1203
    Moderator Kasierith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    10,809
    Quote Originally Posted by bergmann620 View Post
    Isn't that how Republicans justify putting gays' civil rights on the ballot?
    Doesn't the Bill of Rights kind of interfere with the will of the majority in terms of the US legal system?
    “…the whole trouble lies here. In words, words. Each one of us has within him a whole world of things, each man of us his own special world. And how can we ever come to an understanding if I put in the words I utter the sense and value of things as I see them; while you who listen to me must inevitably translate them according to the conception of things each one of you has within himself. We think we understand each other, but we never really do.”

  4. #1204
    The Unstoppable Force Rukentuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Mini Soda
    Posts
    24,335
    Quote Originally Posted by bergmann620 View Post
    Isn't that how Republicans justify putting gays' civil rights on the ballot?
    It's also why the US Supreme Court is hearing cases on marriage bans and constitutionality this coming spring.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatOak View Post
    Hey, as a transabled, transethnic, non-binary, genderqueer, neo-communist, indoor-capable republican otherkin I am offended by your callous display of ignorance.

    Cycling Logs: 2012, 2013, 2014 (YTD-9.30).

  5. #1205
    Over 9000! Gheld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,371
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasierith View Post
    We'll be able to look forward to plenty more of that when the ice caps and glaciers are completely gone.
    So what you're saying is that Volume(icecaps) is proportional to 1/rainfall in Scotland ?

  6. #1206
    Miss Doctor Lady Bear Sunshine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    15,036
    Cut the argument about democracy, please. It's irrelevant to this discussion.

  7. #1207
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasierith View Post
    Did I ever say that? No, I didn't. If the purpose of a democratic-based system is to base the legal system on the will of the majority, than the right thing to do is to follow the will of the majority. The Bill of Rights exists to protect the minority, making this not an absolute in terms of the United States, but that essential, fundamental fact still stands.
    How do you feel about the Iraq war?

    eh?

    Yah thought so.
    The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities.

  8. #1208
    Quote Originally Posted by oblivionx View Post
    That's the real question isn't it?

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 06:40 PM ----------



    Claiming that might makes right is equally insane.
    Claiming that your twisted perception of the current system and equating it to pre-nazi germany is also insane, unless you really do wish to insist that we're all little sheeple of the obama tyranny who would gladly support genocide, and that you and a small group of people are the only ones who can "see the system for what it really is"... well that's also equally insane. It's called conspiracy theory.



    I'm going to ignore this and the post before as possibly not having seen my warning, but don't continue this conversation. --Sunshine
    Last edited by Sunshine; 2013-01-14 at 06:59 PM.

  9. #1209
    Field Marshal
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by phatpat View Post
    I'm 21. When I was smaller (the age where you loved building snow forts and playing in the snow) I distinctively remember huge mountains of snow piling up in my front yard...I mean huge, 7-10 feet piles that had to be plowed consistently from my driveway. I also remember halloweens where there was snow ( although not every one).
    21 years isn't long enough to be significant and when you were smaller, you were...smaller. So snow piles would have seemed bigger. Same phenomena that makes the chocolate bars you enjoyed as a child seem to shrink over time, Human memory isn't a HD recording - it's basically rubbish.

    More seriously though it's not a question of belief but evidence and that takes time to collect, especially when dealing with something as complicated as the climate. There's just no way to really know yet whether any perceived warming is human induced or part of some larger natural cycle. The planet has been both colder AND warmer in prehistory.

  10. #1210
    The Unstoppable Force Rukentuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Mini Soda
    Posts
    24,335
    Quote Originally Posted by arcadius View Post
    21 years isn't long enough to be significant and when you were smaller, you were...smaller. So snow piles would have seemed bigger. Same phenomena that makes the chocolate bars you enjoyed as a child seem to shrink over time, Human memory isn't a HD recording - it's basically rubbish.
    It's not "rubbish" when it's corroborated with historical weather data.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatOak View Post
    Hey, as a transabled, transethnic, non-binary, genderqueer, neo-communist, indoor-capable republican otherkin I am offended by your callous display of ignorance.

    Cycling Logs: 2012, 2013, 2014 (YTD-9.30).

  11. #1211
    Quote Originally Posted by Aleros View Post
    Claiming that your twisted perception of the current system and equating it to pre-nazi germany is also insane, unless you really do wish to insist that we're all little sheeple of the obama tyranny who would gladly support genocide, and that you and a small group of people are the only ones who can "see the system for what it really is"... well that's also equally insane. It's called conspiracy theory.
    I was just pointing out that National Socialist German Workers party was democratically elected.

    Not insinuating what you imagined in YOUR conspiracy regarding what I said.


    Infracted; I'm not kidding. --Sunshine
    Last edited by Sunshine; 2013-01-14 at 07:03 PM.
    The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities.

  12. #1212
    The Lightbringer bergmann620's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Stow, Ohio
    Posts
    3,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasierith View Post
    Doesn't the Bill of Rights kind of interfere with the will of the majority in terms of the US legal system?
    It does, but the Bill of Rights can be changed through the democratic process

    I don't think that tax policy revolving around subsidies can be called tyranny, by the majority or minority.

    I'm merely saying that policies of this nature cause resentment, with no real benefit environmentally. Add in the green job flops left and right on the news... There has to be a better way.

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 02:08 PM ----------

    Infracted; I'm not kidding. --Sunshine
    -Sorry. I'll take an infraction if necessary, but to leave a common misconception on the table seemed untenable.
    Last edited by bergmann620; 2013-01-14 at 07:10 PM.
    Life: bergmannity.com/ | Gaming: indignantgoat.com/
    XBL: Indignant Goat | BattleTag: IndiGoat#1288 | SteamID: Indignant Goat

  13. #1213
    Banned Daelak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    4,542
    Quote Originally Posted by bergmann620 View Post
    It does, but the Bill of Rights can be changed through the democratic process

    I don't think that tax policy revolving around subsidies can be called tyranny, by the majority or minority.

    I'm merely saying that policies of this nature cause resentment, with no real benefit environmentally. Add in the green job flops left and right on the news... There has to be a better way.
    Reduction of CO2 is the only way to achieve equilibrium once again. By sheer universal luck, we live on a planet with 75% ocean covering it. If it wasn't for the absorption powers of them, this increase in temperature would of been even more dire and faster.

    We either reduce the CO2, or we find something to hedge/neutralize it in the atmosphere. Those are the two options. There is no better way, the programs will have to affect everyone on this planet, or nature will affects our lifestyles a lot harder than any CO2 reduction program would entail.

  14. #1214
    Some people don't seem to understand that global warming doesn't mean the temperature will rise in every part of the planet equally. And how saying 'welp, here in the Netherlands it's still freezing so nope, global warming doesn't exist!' is a fallacy.

    Especially in Europe, that argument is of no value whatsoever, since one of the predicted effects of global warming (have no source at hand as of right now) is, as an example, the disruption of the Gulf Stream which brings hot air from the Carribean to Western-Central Europe. Global warming might actually bring a freakish European Ice Age, doesn't mean the expression 'GLOBAL warming' is false.

    And I'm sure the Gulf Stream example isn't the only one out there.

  15. #1215
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,210
    Quote Originally Posted by bergmann620 View Post
    I'm merely saying that policies of this nature cause resentment, with no real benefit environmentally. Add in the green job flops left and right on the news... There has to be a better way.
    I'm sorry, all I can think of is an infomercial with politicians all flabbergasted and papers everywhere.

  16. #1216
    Quote Originally Posted by Deadvolcanoes View Post
    The fact that you added ecosystem and environment to that mix scares the absolute shit out of me. Go outside and pour some bleach on the ground. Congratulations, you just negatively effected both the environment and ecosystem.

    The fact that you said it with such conviction...just wow.
    Sakes alive. Total solar irradiance can be shown to account for 100% of any perceived difference in temperatures yoh think you are measuring. 100%.

    1957- warmest year on record til '96. Fact. '97 to 2012- no discernible rise in temps. Fact. Many actually argue after '96, temps fall. Fact. In August of 2012, the meteorlogical Office in Great Britain released a report of the collected findings of three-thousand meteorlogical research units placed around the globe. This data shows NO temperature change over that period. Fact.

    And Endus, I've read your posts, I like your style, but being in the field is a logical fallacy. But I do like how you present your arguments; I wish others on here had your decorum.

  17. #1217
    Brewmaster The Riddler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    I'm tall, and thin, with a bright red head but strike me once and I'm black instead...
    Posts
    1,451
    It's why Katrina flooded New Orleans
    AGW acolytes also use a lot of "correlation = causation" arguments. NO flooded not because of "Global Warming". It flooded because it was beneath sea level when they built it, and it has stayed there ever since. Also, it flooded because of a cascade of stupid management and politics within its own government. They didn't reinforce their levees even though they'd been given millions of dollars to reinforce them.

    Scientists say that AGCC is real
    No - they don't. That is simply a perception that is based on a couple of faulty reports that have been repeatedly debunked. The truth is that these so-called 'consensuses' are based on very dodgy, highly questionable secondary sourcing essays which had to be compiled in very specific ways so as to eliminate all the "scientists" who disagreed. When you throw out the 100,000+ scientists who disagree with you and refuse to acknowledge them, then it's awfully easy to focus on the 9,000 scientists who you DO say are "scientists" and say that only 6% disagree with you. See how that works?

    And that's where the whole "97% consensus" myth came from. The author hand-picks a bunch of (surprise!) "climatologists". Many of these guys don't have PhDs or even Masters, but are really just undergrads writing thesis, or are ancillary workers in tangental fields to the climate (IE activists) who all agree with exactly what the author wants. They throw out the bulk of other real scientists, and then claim an imaginary consensus. How convenient. At the risk of playing duelling-websites, here's an interesting paper showing exactly how the trick is achieved... Doubtless the character of the speaker will be attacked, rather than the reality and accuracy of his data, but that's what the issue has come to - sadly.

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im.../consensus.pdf

    Focus on the science
    I've seen the IPCC data, the NOAA data, and reports, studies, and the SAPs (stat analysis plans) of many others. The data is junk. They routinely overweight human C02 emissions in their models, while completely ignoring or underweighting other known variables - many of which are far more powerful. You know - stuff like land cover, oceanic currents, El-nino/nina events, solar radiation, cloud cover, rain, water vapor - all those insignificant factors that get swept under the carpet in a typical stats model.

    As a professional statistician, it is quite annoying to see the routine abuse my profession has to suffer through because of the politicization of this subject. Whenever you put together a statistical model, you have to justify the nature of its construction. If you weight a variable strongly, there must be a valid statistical reason for doing so. In every report I've read to date, the model artificially inflates the C02 variable while artificially minimizing (or eliminating) other more potent variables. And the reason for it? Well - so far all I've been able to see is ... ??? because the model just DOES it and never bothers justifying the underlying assumption.

    When an analysis does that, the resulting conclusions are junk. Period.
    Last edited by The Riddler; 2013-01-14 at 07:37 PM.

  18. #1218
    Moderator Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Waterloo, ON
    Posts
    21,936
    Quote Originally Posted by The Riddler View Post
    AGW acolytes also use a lot of "correlation = causation" arguments. NO flooded not because of "Global Warming". It flooded because it was beneath sea level when they built it, and it has stayed there ever since. Also, it flooded because of a cascade of stupid management and politics within its own government. They didn't reinforce their levees even though they'd been given millions of dollars to reinforce them.
    And because as temperatures increase, sea level rises, both through melting of land-based icecaps and glaciers adding to the liquid water, and through thermal expansion of the oceans. This, along with increased severity in storm activity, leads to record-setting storm surge events, like the one that hit with Katrina.

    Yes, the levees were failing, but if Katrina's storm surge hadn't been a record-breaker, they'd have been fine.

    In short, yes, because of global climate change. Storm surges are one of the most critical factors to consider in the short term, here. Same thing that hit New York during Sandy, and for the same reasons.

  19. #1219
    Quote Originally Posted by tenzing21 View Post
    Sakes alive. Total solar irradiance can be shown to account for 100% of any perceived difference in temperatures yoh think you are measuring. 100%.

    1957- warmest year on record til '96. Fact. '97 to 2012- no discernible rise in temps. Fact. Many actually argue after '96, temps fall. Fact. In August of 2012, the meteorlogical Office in Great Britain released a report of the collected findings of three-thousand meteorlogical research units placed around the globe. This data shows NO temperature change over that period. Fact.

    And Endus, I've read your posts, I like your style, but being in the field is a logical fallacy. But I do like how you present your arguments; I wish others on here had your decorum.
    Oh, this shit yet again.




  20. #1220
    Elemental Lord Masark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,548
    Quote Originally Posted by tenzing21 View Post
    Sakes alive. Total solar irradiance can be shown to account for 100% of any perceived difference in temperatures yoh think you are measuring. 100%.
    Bullshit.



    Solar radiance is varying by about 0.07%. This comes nowhere close to explaining the far greater increase in the global mean temperature.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •