Cut the argument about democracy, please. It's irrelevant to this discussion.
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.
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
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.
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.
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 ----------
-Sorry. I'll take an infraction if necessary, but to leave a common misconception on the table seemed untenable.Infracted; I'm not kidding. --Sunshine
Last edited by bergmann620; 2013-01-14 at 07:10 PM.
indignantgoat.com/
XBL: Indignant Goat | BattleTag: IndiGoat#1288 | SteamID: Indignant Goat[/B]
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.
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.
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.
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.It's why Katrina flooded New Orleans
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?Scientists say that AGCC is real
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
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.Focus on the science
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.
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.
Me, me!
Climate change, man made or not, dont give a fuck.
Im in the ground long before this will affect us/me. Call me egoistic, but i really wont care what happends on this planet after im dead, since I wont even know i once was here...
But Im sure evolution has a plan for the coming milleniums.
Fact: All major scientific bodies around the world, including all the national academies of science in every 1st and 2nd world nation recognizes and are aware of the implications of rising temperatures.
Fact: The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.[1]
Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. David Dunning and Justin Kruger conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others" -Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Fact: 2012 was the warmest year on record for the contiguous US.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/ncdc-a...-contiguous-us
http://www.skepticalscience.com/natu...l-warming.html
---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 07:41 PM ----------
So you have the hubris to say that the world's brightest and most intelligent scientific bodies, are all wrong, and are pursuing this for a global carbon tax to make us all subservient to an "enviro-terrorist" doctrine?
No thanks, I will stick with the scientists.
Not only NOT a fact, but when the Daily Mail wrote an article claiming such, the Met Office specifically responded to address that claim, and point out that it was false and misrepresented that study.
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2...2012/#comments
Seriously, it would help if you actually factchecked your own sources. Since you apparently read the same Daily Mail article, and didn't catch that the Met office had responded and called it out for misleading the public as to what their report actually showed.