Modded Mustang Forums banner

221 - 240 of 462 Posts

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts
Interesting article. Sounds like a government agency fund raiser.

So they are saying that they have to use models for their data because real world measurement are not accurate enough (for them). But how do you prove the models are correct without verifying its output to real world data?

The author appeared to be frustrated because he believe there is fairly accurate real world data and he suspects he will be force to buy more expensive equipment.
 

·
Pawsitively sexy
Joined
·
10,564 Posts
The reason much of the historical data was omitted was primarily because they are looking to recreate global scale issues and for decades you had readings from maybe 2 or 3 locations around the globe(his data is from the World Ocean Atlas).

I admittedly know nothing about hydrology but the criticisms I continually see about Wallace's findings are that a) his data isn't consistent enough to make such a global mean ph graph and b) ocean ph variability is all over the place, which is what makes issue a such a major problem.

Allegedly (I use that word because I don't know enough about this to be for sure about it), it's commonly accepted among hydrologists that the raw data alone isn't sufficient.
 

·
He of Long Wind
Joined
·
2,172 Posts
Okay, but I don't feel like we really had proper closure on acid rain and ozone depletion. Before we move on to another environmental cataclysm, I think we should hold hands in a circle and discuss our feelings about those.
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
Okay, but I don't feel like we really had proper closure on acid rain and ozone depletion. Before we move on to another environmental cataclysm, I think we should hold hands in a circle and discuss our feelings about those.
Acid rain happens and ozone depletion is slowly being reduced and stabilized due to awareness and action and regulation of **** going into the air? Not much to discuss.
 

·
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
Joined
·
5,055 Posts
Discussion Starter #227
Okay, but I don't feel like we really had proper closure on acid rain and ozone depletion. Before we move on to another environmental cataclysm, I think we should hold hands in a circle and discuss our feelings about those.
Care to expand on this? :)
 

·
He of Long Wind
Joined
·
2,172 Posts
Care to expand on this? :)
I guess I was sarcastically making the point that environmentalism seems to often include an emotional/alarmist context that needs to be refreshed from time to time. The public's attention span for any particular environmental cause is finite. Every so often we need new slogans, new documentaries and movies, new studies and reports, etc. to keep the public interested.

I'm not suggesting the causes are necessarily phony, but like most projects that require the support of political do-gooders, the actual merits must be dramatically inflated for proper effect. For without ongoing melodramas, such causes fail to motivate people to action. Of course, I'm not talking about the obvious problems. I don't want to see a city like Beijing, blanketed in a layer of thick smog. I don't want lead and mercury in my water. I don't want to see streams polluted by raw sewage or forests clear-cut. I like a beautiful clean earth like anybody else.

Nevertheless, when the contemporary environmental drama takes a turn for the absurd, we know it's about time to close one show and begin another. When scientists are actually attempting to quantify the effects of cow farts and we all have to buy CO² scrubbers for our backyard BBQ grills, we know this cause is hitting saturation. And in 10 or 20 years, we'll have a new environmental cause and another imperative call-to-action to save the planet (again) ... along with new movies, slogans, scientific reports, and activists to match.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
I guess I was sarcastically making the point that environmentalism seems to often include an emotional/alarmist context that needs to be refreshed from time to time. The public's attention span for any particular environmental cause is finite. Every so often we need new slogans, new documentaries and movies, new studies and reports, etc. to keep the public interested.

I'm not suggesting the causes are necessarily phony, but like most projects that require the support of political do-gooders, the actual merits must be dramatically inflated for proper effect. For without ongoing melodramas, such causes fail to motivate people to action. Of course, I'm not talking about the obvious problems. I don't want to see a city like Beijing, blanketed in a layer of thick smog. I don't want lead and mercury in my water. I don't want to see streams polluted by raw sewage or forests clear-cut. I like a beautiful clean earth like anybody else.
While it's great to see your concern for a clean environment your prior posts don't reflect the same sentiment. Your continued refusal that climate change is an issue that deserves it's due attention is what is suspect. You seem to feel that it is still not conclusively a problem and a wait and see attitude is what is the answer regardless of the fact that a majority of climate scientists are saying that we need to take action now.

Nevertheless, when the contemporary environmental drama takes a turn for the absurd, we know it's about time to close one show and begin another. When scientists are actually attempting to quantify the effects of cow farts and we all have to buy CO² scrubbers for our backyard BBQ grills, we know this cause is hitting saturation. And in 10 or 20 years, we'll have a new environmental cause and another imperative call-to-action to save the planet (again) ... along with new movies, slogans, scientific reports, and activists to match.
I agree that the whole "too much smoke" issue was way overblown but your condescending attitude about it makes the first part of your post disingenuous.

John
 

·
He of Long Wind
Joined
·
2,172 Posts
While it's great to see your concern for a clean environment your prior posts don't reflect the same sentiment. Your continued refusal that climate change is an issue that deserves it's due attention is what is suspect. You seem to feel that it is still not conclusively a problem and a wait and see attitude is what is the answer regardless of the fact that a majority of climate scientists are saying that we need to take action now.

I agree that the whole "too much smoke" issue was way overblown but your condescending attitude about it makes the first part of your post disingenuous.

John
You may have me mistaken for JohnC. I haven't really said much about global warming. To be honest, I haven't really made my mind up about it - but that has nothing to do with being a conservative. I'm basically undecided because A) even if I had all the data, and assuming that data was 100% accurate and reliable, trying to draw any conclusions about the entire planet's climate - all in fractions of a degree - is surely beyond my personal powers of analysis. and B) I have no idea if anyone else's conclusions are accurate, free from political bias, or motivated by economics. In a nutshell, it's a conceit to think we can really understand it - and even if we could, who would we trust to tell us the truth?

From what I see, many people seem to formulate their opinions based on political solidarity - sorting through the various studies, articles, and conclusions and cherry-picking what they wish to believe and later regurgitate as fact. So it seems to me, the vast VAST majority of people who are pontificating about carbon dioxide are literally just blowing hot air. They don't know what it all means any more than I do - assuming it means anything at all.

The melting glaciers though ... hard to argue against those time-lapse photos. I'm not sure it has anything to do with cow farts and power plants, but it's pretty frightening. Well, at least I think it seems frightening.
 

·
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
Joined
·
5,055 Posts
Discussion Starter #231
You may have me mistaken for JohnC. I haven't really said much about global warming. To be honest, I haven't really made my mind up about it - but that has nothing to do with being a conservative. I'm basically undecided because A) even if I had all the data, and assuming that data was 100% accurate and reliable, trying to draw any conclusions about the entire planet's climate - all in fractions of a degree - is surely beyond my personal powers of analysis. and B) I have no idea if anyone else's conclusions are accurate, free from political bias, or motivated by economics. In a nutshell, it's a conceit to think we can really understand it - and even if we could, who would we trust to tell us the truth?

From what I see, many people seem to formulate their opinions based on political solidarity - sorting through the various studies, articles, and conclusions and cherry-picking what they wish to believe and later regurgitate as fact. So it seems to me, the vast VAST majority of people who are pontificating about carbon dioxide are literally just blowing hot air. They don't know what it all means any more than I do.

Add that some of the Govt funded climate scientists have already admitted that with billions spent on Global Warming aka Climate Change initiatives, it would have little effect, if any, at reducing global temps, but long term it will cause a very negative economic impact on our jobs and economy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
While I can say that bias lives in science, I can also say that the scientific method is probably the closest thing we have to being able to discern the truth or as close to it as we can get. Science, in most instances, is about discovery so inherent political underpinnings usually are secondary, at best. You all may not believe in science or you may feel that science, in general, is liberal in its purview but 2 + 2 = 4.

John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,592 Posts
While I can say that bias lives in science, I can also say that the scientific method is probably the closest thing we have to being able to discern the truth or as close to it as we can get. Science, in most instances, is about discovery so inherent political underpinnings usually are secondary, at best. You all may not believe in science or you may feel that science, in general, is liberal in its purview but 2 + 2 = 4.

John
Yet a month ago a group of "scientists" sent a letter to Obama (now it has been redacted) asking him to prosecute global warming skeptics. That's something real scientists don't do. Real scientists will used doubt and debate to further strengthen their theory. Doubt is used to test for holes and held harden the conclusion. That assumes it's the correct theory. If it's incorrect, it will show to real scientists who will then go back and form a new theory/conclusion. Real scientists are after the actual answer.

But these "scientists" clearly are not real and are under major bias. Their answer to skepticism is to make it illegal to question their conclusion. That doesn't sound like something real scientist would do. Thus is one of the major problems here. You have people who claim and are accepted as scientist who clearly aren't being real scientists and are too heavily swayed by bias.

You say 2+2=4 but if I argue that answer, does it seem logical for you to call on the president to prosecute anyone who says otherwise? It doesn't to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
Yet a month ago a group of "scientists" sent a letter to Obama (now it has been redacted) asking him to prosecute global warming skeptics. That's something real scientists don't do. Real scientists will used doubt and debate to further strengthen their theory. Doubt is used to test for holes and held harden the conclusion. That assumes it's the correct theory. If it's incorrect, it will show to real scientists who will then go back and form a new theory/conclusion. Real scientists are after the actual answer.

But these "scientists" clearly are not real and are under major bias. Their answer to skepticism is to make it illegal to question their conclusion. That doesn't sound like something real scientist would do. Thus is one of the major problems here. You have people who claim and are accepted as scientist who clearly aren't being real scientists and are too heavily swayed by bias.

You say 2+2=4 but if I argue that answer, does it seem logical for you to call on the president to prosecute anyone who says otherwise? It doesn't to me.
I agree with you that it is incorrect for "scientist" to be involved in things outside their scope just like I think it's wrong for religion to be involved in government.

Can you direct me to where and when this happened? I hadn't heard of this.

John
 

·
He of Long Wind
Joined
·
2,172 Posts
I agree with you that it is incorrect for "scientist" to be involved in things outside their scope just like I think it's wrong for religion to be involved in government.

John
Yet, ironically, the issue of climate change has many of the same tells as organized religion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
Yet, ironically, the issue of climate change has many of the same tells as organized religion.
There are many things that I can compare and say that they are the same tell without them actually having any relation.

Yes there are "scientist" on both sides of the aisle that have politicized this but the fact remains. The climate is changing and the majority of qualified scientist agree that man made pollutants are appreciably contributing to it.

A better explanation to my argument....

http://www.moddedmustangs.com/forums/politics/572946-sierra-club-president-aaron-mair-climate-change.html

John
 

·
He of Long Wind
Joined
·
2,172 Posts
There are many things that I can compare and say that they are the same tell without them actually having any relation.

Yes there are "scientist" on both sides of the aisle that have politicized this but the fact remains. The climate is changing and the majority of qualified scientist agree that man made pollutants are appreciably contributing to it.

A better explanation to my argument....

http://www.moddedmustangs.com/forums/politics/572946-sierra-club-president-aaron-mair-climate-change.html

John
Yes, there are "philosophers" on both sides of the aisle that have politicized this, but the fact remains. Jesus died for your sins. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

The majority of qualified Christian theologians agree that whosoever shall deny Christ before men, him will Christ also deny before the Father which is in heaven.

A better explanation to my argument....

Why did Jesus have to die? | Bibleinfo.com

Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,562 Posts
The way I look at it, it's very difficult to nail down what's "going to happen" because the models are all based on very limited sets of data. We don't have the knowledge of how big the ice caps were 150 years ago, 1000 years ago, etc. There is currently a "cold blob" in the Atlantic that they say will affect the climate in "many" ways (meaning, we don't exactly know) for the foreseeable future.

What we need to do is stop politicizing climate change, stop the fear mongering, and just be responsible. This means, keep things clean, don't dump oil in the ocean, don't dump garbage in the ocean, don't throw a ton of chemicals into the air. We don't need to drastically change the way everyone lives by doing such stupid and overblown things like carbon credits, wasting food crops on Ethanol based fuels that do not actually do what was intended, and force the taxpayers to pay for every "green energy" concept that can be thought up. Do research, come up with actual, applicable things that can work (fuel cells anyone) and go from there.

Don't panic, don't overreact, don't use computer models as crystal balls.
 

·
He of Long Wind
Joined
·
2,172 Posts
The way I look at it, it's very difficult to nail down what's "going to happen" because the models are all based on very limited sets of data. We don't have the knowledge of how big the ice caps were 150 years ago, 1000 years ago, etc. There is currently a "cold blob" in the Atlantic that they say will affect the climate in "many" ways (meaning, we don't exactly know) for the foreseeable future.

What we need to do is stop politicizing climate change, stop the fear mongering, and just be responsible. This means, keep things clean, don't dump oil in the ocean, don't dump garbage in the ocean, don't throw a ton of chemicals into the air. We don't need to drastically change the way everyone lives by doing such stupid and overblown things like carbon credits, wasting food crops on Ethanol based fuels that do not actually do what was intended, and force the taxpayers to pay for every "green energy" concept that can be thought up. Do research, come up with actual, applicable things that can work (fuel cells anyone) and go from there.

Don't panic, don't overreact, don't use computer models as crystal balls.
For crying out loud ... what do you think you're trying to pull? That sounded a lot like common sense and intelligent reasoning.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
Yes, there are "philosophers" on both sides of the aisle that have politicized this, but the fact remains. Jesus died for your sins. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

The majority of qualified Christian theologians agree that whosoever shall deny Christ before men, him will Christ also deny before the Father which is in heaven.

A better explanation to my argument....

Why did Jesus have to die? | Bibleinfo.com

Mike
Yes. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Two parallels that have nothing to do with the other. I would offer that the bible has faith and faith alone to substantiate it's claim while climate change can offer up measurable, quantifiable, empirical data.

Like I've said before, I don't believe the bible is the word of God. If you told me that the bible is the word of God through his having endowed us with the gift of reason then I can agree but to say that the words in the bible came directly from God? Sorry......

The way I look at it, it's very difficult to nail down what's "going to happen" because the models are all based on very limited sets of data. We don't have the knowledge of how big the ice caps were 150 years ago, 1000 years ago, etc. There is currently a "cold blob" in the Atlantic that they say will affect the climate in "many" ways (meaning, we don't exactly know) for the foreseeable future.

What we need to do is stop politicizing climate change, stop the fear mongering, and just be responsible. This means, keep things clean, don't dump oil in the ocean, don't dump garbage in the ocean, don't throw a ton of chemicals into the air. We don't need to drastically change the way everyone lives by doing such stupid and overblown things like carbon credits, wasting food crops on Ethanol based fuels that do not actually do what was intended, and force the taxpayers to pay for every "green energy" concept that can be thought up. Do research, come up with actual, applicable things that can work (fuel cells anyone) and go from there.

Don't panic, don't overreact, don't use computer models as crystal balls.
I agree with you on the part of us being responsible stewards. Perhaps where you and I are divergent is in what the definition of "clean" is. You may feel that a particular level of clean is good enough while I may disagree and say that it needs to be a higher standard. I think this is where a lot of people disagree.

I've been on the receiving end of having to deal with the EPA and clean air standards since I live in one of the most stringent states in the nation so I know what that's like and, honestly, once I incorporated it into the business it really didn't affect it in any appreciable way. Did it suck that I had to spend money twice? Yes but, again, it didn't hurt the business.

You and I are probably much closer in how we feel about climate change. What may divide us is your belief seems to be that we just need to keep it at a tolerable level whereas from all the research I've done I feel we've blown past that level and we need to start reacting now rather than wait and see if further damage to the environment is going to affect us.
 
221 - 240 of 462 Posts
Top