Other Resources The Political Joe » Global warming - once more into the breach.... Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 5
 
 
2018-02-06 10:27 AM
in reply to: Oysterboy

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....
Originally posted by Oysterboy

OK Francis, do yourself a favor.

I do agree that climate change is far more of a political argument than a scientific one. The science is largely settled, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and by continuing the burn fossil fuels we are driving more CO2 into the atmosphere and this is warming the planet. What is debatable is what to do about it, and as I have said before, doing nothing is an option.

With this said, why do the conservatives willingly choose to fight the science? This "article" that you cited attempted to discredit the notion of climate change with the argument that the modeling is flawed. Apples and oranges. But they continue to throw up sand in the air in an attempt to discredit the science. We should have the discussion on what policies to adopt, not on the merits of the science. And again, doing nothing is an option.


I vote to do nothing because I am not convinced of the science. I think the science has been too biased by money. I simply do not believe this is "settled science".....even if the majority of climatologist believe in man-made climate change, I do not. And just because I talk slow does not mean I'm stupid.

The idea of a "carbon tax" is an attempt to extort money and the only thing it will accomplish is make some people rich while hurting poor people. You are not going to hurt me with a carbon tax, nor am I going to reduce my 'carbon footprint'. If I can afford a $60k gas-guzzling, 6.2L Raptor then I can afford a carbon tax. So who you hurt is lower income people. But all of this stupid anyway. You have 1.3 billion Indians and 1.4 billion Chinese who are just now coming into the 20th (sic) century and will not be denied their right to drive cars and use electricity.

IF climate change is real then we'd be better served with figuring out how to live in a warmer/colder climate with higher sea level than we are trying to hold back the tide. (pun intended)

BTW, Hope you recognized the 'Francis' movie quote?



2018-02-06 10:28 AM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

there is way more money on the side against the science bud. that argument is old, tired, and stupid. 

2018-02-06 10:36 AM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

Originally posted by dmiller5

there is way more money on the side against the science bud. that argument is old, tired, and stupid. 

OK, here's a question for you.  Of all the peer reviewed science that's out there pushing the AGW agenda, where is the majority of the funding coming from?

2018-02-06 10:42 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Oysterboy OK Francis, do yourself a favor. I do agree that climate change is far more of a political argument than a scientific one. The science is largely settled, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and by continuing the burn fossil fuels we are driving more CO2 into the atmosphere and this is warming the planet. What is debatable is what to do about it, and as I have said before, doing nothing is an option. With this said, why do the conservatives willingly choose to fight the science? This "article" that you cited attempted to discredit the notion of climate change with the argument that the modeling is flawed. Apples and oranges. But they continue to throw up sand in the air in an attempt to discredit the science. We should have the discussion on what policies to adopt, not on the merits of the science. And again, doing nothing is an option.

Whenever a scientists (or anyone else) brings up the "settled science" argument, it immediately shows that it's not science.  Science is never settled and the term "settled science" is the most anti-science term a person can say.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas (true) and we are burning more fossil fuels and driving more CO2 into the atmosphere (true).  It is true to say it's having a warming effect on the planet, but it is absolutely false to say it "is warming the planet" which implies it's the primary forcing agent.  This is where climate science is struggling and it couldn't be further away from "settled science". 
There have been numerous models created in an attempt to forecast the temperature increases, but they've all shown too much warming attributed to CO2 when compared to real world observations, which by the very nature of the scientific method proves them to be incorrect.
Global temperatures have absolutely been increasing for thousands of years (millions of years).  Man has absolutely contributed to the increase in temperature.  The question that is still unanswered is how much has man contributed.  As the science continues to mature, the anthropogenic contribution appears to be far less than anyone originally thought.

You're also correct that there's a ton of politics involved in the AGW field.  It's causing a lot of problems for everyone and makes it near impossible to get to the bottom of it. 
My non-peer reviewed scientific opinion is that there's a big ball of gas in the sky that drives our global temperature far greater than anything we could ever do.    The earth is an amazing terrarium that has many abilities to equalize the temperature that we know very little about.






"From the time of Aristotle, 2,300 years ago, scientific theory held the universe to be eternal. The unchanging stellar pattern of the heavens was a shining evidence of this eternity. Through the early 1960s in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, two thirds of leading U.S. scientist surveyed believed it.4"

4. S. Brush, "How Cosmology Became a Science" Scientific American, August 1992.

The Science of God, Gerald L. Schroeder, 1997.


So 2/3rds of scientist believed the universe was eternal....it just has always been here and always will be. Then the idea of a big bang theory started to catch on and I'd venture to say the vast majority of scientist no longer believe the universe is eternal.


On a side not, I have always found it amusing that religious people - almost every religion - all claimed there was a beginning but science scoffed. So maybe.....just maybe the religious people were right....that the Creator said, "Be!" and the universe went BANG very bigly. ;-)
2018-02-06 11:06 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Expert
2373
20001001001002525
Floriduh
Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Oysterboy OK Francis, do yourself a favor. I do agree that climate change is far more of a political argument than a scientific one. The science is largely settled, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and by continuing the burn fossil fuels we are driving more CO2 into the atmosphere and this is warming the planet. What is debatable is what to do about it, and as I have said before, doing nothing is an option. With this said, why do the conservatives willingly choose to fight the science? This "article" that you cited attempted to discredit the notion of climate change with the argument that the modeling is flawed. Apples and oranges. But they continue to throw up sand in the air in an attempt to discredit the science. We should have the discussion on what policies to adopt, not on the merits of the science. And again, doing nothing is an option.

Whenever a scientists (or anyone else) brings up the "settled science" argument, it immediately shows that it's not science.  Science is never settled and the term "settled science" is the most anti-science term a person can say.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas (true) and we are burning more fossil fuels and driving more CO2 into the atmosphere (true).  It is true to say it's having a warming effect on the planet, but it is absolutely false to say it "is warming the planet" which implies it's the primary forcing agent.  This is where climate science is struggling and it couldn't be further away from "settled science". 
There have been numerous models created in an attempt to forecast the temperature increases, but they've all shown too much warming attributed to CO2 when compared to real world observations, which by the very nature of the scientific method proves them to be incorrect.
Global temperatures have absolutely been increasing for thousands of years (millions of years).  Man has absolutely contributed to the increase in temperature.  The question that is still unanswered is how much has man contributed.  As the science continues to mature, the anthropogenic contribution appears to be far less than anyone originally thought.

You're also correct that there's a ton of politics involved in the AGW field.  It's causing a lot of problems for everyone and makes it near impossible to get to the bottom of it. 
My non-peer reviewed scientific opinion is that there's a big ball of gas in the sky that drives our global temperature far greater than anything we could ever do.    The earth is an amazing terrarium that has many abilities to equalize the temperature that we know very little about.



I don't want to nit-pick because I think we are not very far off on our thinking, but what I highlighted above is a bit overstated. Note that in my original statement I said "largely settled science". This is to reflect that while we understand the broad arguments, there are some aspects we are still grappling to understand. Much like evolution, it is broadly accepted that humans evolved from early life forms, however some of the aspects of evolution are not well understood. For example, you would expect evolution to occur on a linear path but actually it occurred more like a set of steps (see figure below), what made the evolutionary process occur quickly during some eons but more slowly in others is still a topic for debate, but not the broader theory of evolution - that is settled. The only science that is "settled" per your definition are laws of physics.



(stair_step_large.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
stair_step_large.jpg (13KB - 5 downloads)
2018-02-06 11:25 AM
in reply to: Oysterboy

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

Originally posted by Oysterboy
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Oysterboy OK Francis, do yourself a favor. I do agree that climate change is far more of a political argument than a scientific one. The science is largely settled, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and by continuing the burn fossil fuels we are driving more CO2 into the atmosphere and this is warming the planet. What is debatable is what to do about it, and as I have said before, doing nothing is an option. With this said, why do the conservatives willingly choose to fight the science? This "article" that you cited attempted to discredit the notion of climate change with the argument that the modeling is flawed. Apples and oranges. But they continue to throw up sand in the air in an attempt to discredit the science. We should have the discussion on what policies to adopt, not on the merits of the science. And again, doing nothing is an option.

Whenever a scientists (or anyone else) brings up the "settled science" argument, it immediately shows that it's not science.  Science is never settled and the term "settled science" is the most anti-science term a person can say.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas (true) and we are burning more fossil fuels and driving more CO2 into the atmosphere (true).  It is true to say it's having a warming effect on the planet, but it is absolutely false to say it "is warming the planet" which implies it's the primary forcing agent.  This is where climate science is struggling and it couldn't be further away from "settled science". 
There have been numerous models created in an attempt to forecast the temperature increases, but they've all shown too much warming attributed to CO2 when compared to real world observations, which by the very nature of the scientific method proves them to be incorrect.
Global temperatures have absolutely been increasing for thousands of years (millions of years).  Man has absolutely contributed to the increase in temperature.  The question that is still unanswered is how much has man contributed.  As the science continues to mature, the anthropogenic contribution appears to be far less than anyone originally thought.

You're also correct that there's a ton of politics involved in the AGW field.  It's causing a lot of problems for everyone and makes it near impossible to get to the bottom of it. 
My non-peer reviewed scientific opinion is that there's a big ball of gas in the sky that drives our global temperature far greater than anything we could ever do.    The earth is an amazing terrarium that has many abilities to equalize the temperature that we know very little about.

I don't want to nit-pick because I think we are not very far off on our thinking, but what I highlighted above is a bit overstated. Note that in my original statement I said "largely settled science". This is to reflect that while we understand the broad arguments, there are some aspects we are still grappling to understand. Much like evolution, it is broadly accepted that humans evolved from early life forms, however some of the aspects of evolution are not well understood. For example, you would expect evolution to occur on a linear path but actually it occurred more like a set of steps (see figure below), what made the evolutionary process occur quickly during some eons but more slowly in others is still a topic for debate, but not the broader theory of evolution - that is settled. The only science that is "settled" per your definition are laws of physics.

I wouldn't even say the laws of Physics are settled.  Einstein challenged the "settled science" of Newtonian Physics with his theory of relativity.



2018-02-06 11:57 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Oysterboy
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Oysterboy OK Francis, do yourself a favor. I do agree that climate change is far more of a political argument than a scientific one. The science is largely settled, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and by continuing the burn fossil fuels we are driving more CO2 into the atmosphere and this is warming the planet. What is debatable is what to do about it, and as I have said before, doing nothing is an option. With this said, why do the conservatives willingly choose to fight the science? This "article" that you cited attempted to discredit the notion of climate change with the argument that the modeling is flawed. Apples and oranges. But they continue to throw up sand in the air in an attempt to discredit the science. We should have the discussion on what policies to adopt, not on the merits of the science. And again, doing nothing is an option.

Whenever a scientists (or anyone else) brings up the "settled science" argument, it immediately shows that it's not science.  Science is never settled and the term "settled science" is the most anti-science term a person can say.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas (true) and we are burning more fossil fuels and driving more CO2 into the atmosphere (true).  It is true to say it's having a warming effect on the planet, but it is absolutely false to say it "is warming the planet" which implies it's the primary forcing agent.  This is where climate science is struggling and it couldn't be further away from "settled science". 
There have been numerous models created in an attempt to forecast the temperature increases, but they've all shown too much warming attributed to CO2 when compared to real world observations, which by the very nature of the scientific method proves them to be incorrect.
Global temperatures have absolutely been increasing for thousands of years (millions of years).  Man has absolutely contributed to the increase in temperature.  The question that is still unanswered is how much has man contributed.  As the science continues to mature, the anthropogenic contribution appears to be far less than anyone originally thought.

You're also correct that there's a ton of politics involved in the AGW field.  It's causing a lot of problems for everyone and makes it near impossible to get to the bottom of it. 
My non-peer reviewed scientific opinion is that there's a big ball of gas in the sky that drives our global temperature far greater than anything we could ever do.    The earth is an amazing terrarium that has many abilities to equalize the temperature that we know very little about.

I don't want to nit-pick because I think we are not very far off on our thinking, but what I highlighted above is a bit overstated. Note that in my original statement I said "largely settled science". This is to reflect that while we understand the broad arguments, there are some aspects we are still grappling to understand. Much like evolution, it is broadly accepted that humans evolved from early life forms, however some of the aspects of evolution are not well understood. For example, you would expect evolution to occur on a linear path but actually it occurred more like a set of steps (see figure below), what made the evolutionary process occur quickly during some eons but more slowly in others is still a topic for debate, but not the broader theory of evolution - that is settled. The only science that is "settled" per your definition are laws of physics.

I wouldn't even say the laws of Physics are settled.  Einstein challenged the "settled science" of Newtonian Physics with his theory of relativity.




You beat me too it. Laws of physic are considered 'laws' because we cannot explain them. We can define their characteristic but the why behind it is theory. e.g. Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. We can define the force between two objects as being a function of the their mass and the inverse square of their separation. But WHY this force exists is, in theory, because of the bending of space-time. And of course quantum mechanics blows up a lot of classical science.

BTW, I also do not believe evolution is settle science either. I read a couple of books my an MIT phd micro-biologist and he wrote about evolution on the molecular level. Much of it went over my head and some of it was almost spooky stuff when you talk about how atoms and molecules can combine in such a way as to have self awareness and consciousness. Anyway, he said it's one thing to look at a dog and see how he could evolve from to or from a bigger dog or do with different physical features but, from a microbiological level there is no evolution across species. Not starting an evolution debate, just pointing out that settled science, rarely is. Heck we can't even fully understand light.....electromagnetic wave? Yes. Particle? Yes. Huh? Wonderful world we live in with lots to think about and explore....




2018-02-06 12:29 PM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

To grossly oversimplify evolution and origin science, there are a LOT of holes.
With the big bang theory you essentially have everything being created out of nothing, but there's never been another instance of matter being created from nothing in our universe.  So that's a major hole in the big bang theory.
I often joke that as a Christian I believe God created everything out of nothing where science believes everything formed out of nothing.  So we're basically in agreement at the core, it's just a matter of who got the ball rolling so to speak.  ;-)

2018-02-06 12:48 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Expert
2373
20001001001002525
Floriduh
Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....
Boyle's law that explains the relationship between gas pressure and volume is expressed like this. Yeah, not a lot left for argument or interpretation:




(Boyle.png)



Attachments
----------------
Boyle.png (5KB - 4 downloads)
2018-02-06 1:03 PM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

Originally posted by Rogillio
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Oysterboy
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Oysterboy OK Francis, do yourself a favor. I do agree that climate change is far more of a political argument than a scientific one. The science is largely settled, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and by continuing the burn fossil fuels we are driving more CO2 into the atmosphere and this is warming the planet. What is debatable is what to do about it, and as I have said before, doing nothing is an option. With this said, why do the conservatives willingly choose to fight the science? This "article" that you cited attempted to discredit the notion of climate change with the argument that the modeling is flawed. Apples and oranges. But they continue to throw up sand in the air in an attempt to discredit the science. We should have the discussion on what policies to adopt, not on the merits of the science. And again, doing nothing is an option.

Whenever a scientists (or anyone else) brings up the "settled science" argument, it immediately shows that it's not science.  Science is never settled and the term "settled science" is the most anti-science term a person can say.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas (true) and we are burning more fossil fuels and driving more CO2 into the atmosphere (true).  It is true to say it's having a warming effect on the planet, but it is absolutely false to say it "is warming the planet" which implies it's the primary forcing agent.  This is where climate science is struggling and it couldn't be further away from "settled science". 
There have been numerous models created in an attempt to forecast the temperature increases, but they've all shown too much warming attributed to CO2 when compared to real world observations, which by the very nature of the scientific method proves them to be incorrect.
Global temperatures have absolutely been increasing for thousands of years (millions of years).  Man has absolutely contributed to the increase in temperature.  The question that is still unanswered is how much has man contributed.  As the science continues to mature, the anthropogenic contribution appears to be far less than anyone originally thought.

You're also correct that there's a ton of politics involved in the AGW field.  It's causing a lot of problems for everyone and makes it near impossible to get to the bottom of it. 
My non-peer reviewed scientific opinion is that there's a big ball of gas in the sky that drives our global temperature far greater than anything we could ever do.    The earth is an amazing terrarium that has many abilities to equalize the temperature that we know very little about.

I don't want to nit-pick because I think we are not very far off on our thinking, but what I highlighted above is a bit overstated. Note that in my original statement I said "largely settled science". This is to reflect that while we understand the broad arguments, there are some aspects we are still grappling to understand. Much like evolution, it is broadly accepted that humans evolved from early life forms, however some of the aspects of evolution are not well understood. For example, you would expect evolution to occur on a linear path but actually it occurred more like a set of steps (see figure below), what made the evolutionary process occur quickly during some eons but more slowly in others is still a topic for debate, but not the broader theory of evolution - that is settled. The only science that is "settled" per your definition are laws of physics.

I wouldn't even say the laws of Physics are settled.  Einstein challenged the "settled science" of Newtonian Physics with his theory of relativity.

You beat me too it. Laws of physic are considered 'laws' because we cannot explain them. We can define their characteristic but the why behind it is theory. e.g. Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. We can define the force between two objects as being a function of the their mass and the inverse square of their separation. But WHY this force exists is, in theory, because of the bending of space-time. And of course quantum mechanics blows up a lot of classical science. BTW, I also do not believe evolution is settle science either. I read a couple of books my an MIT phd micro-biologist and he wrote about evolution on the molecular level. Much of it went over my head and some of it was almost spooky stuff when you talk about how atoms and molecules can combine in such a way as to have self awareness and consciousness. Anyway, he said it's one thing to look at a dog and see how he could evolve from to or from a bigger dog or do with different physical features but, from a microbiological level there is no evolution across species. Not starting an evolution debate, just pointing out that settled science, rarely is. Heck we can't even fully understand light.....electromagnetic wave? Yes. Particle? Yes. Huh? Wonderful world we live in with lots to think about and explore....

i just don't know where to start in how inaccurate and how much you just outed yourself as to having no understanding of these subjects.  The republican motto. If I can't understand it, it must not be true! #goddidit

2018-02-06 1:17 PM
in reply to: Oysterboy

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....
Originally posted by Oysterboy

Boyle's law that explains the relationship between gas pressure and volume is expressed like this. Yeah, not a lot left for argument or interpretation:



Been a few years since I had thermodynamics but I remember Boyle's law. It is settled now but, if memory serves, he came up with:

P1V1 = P2V2

It was someone else who added temperature. And so it was expanded to be:

P1V1/T1 = P2V2/T2

So it was settled but not complete.

Funny story.....60 years or so ago my dad was working at Sikorski in CT and one of the engineers was doing an experiment with liquids and told my dad he could not get the calculations to work out. He was using Byole's law in his calculations. My dad looked and said, "You are using Byoles GAS law?!" The guy put palm to forehead.

OK, it was funnier when dad told it.

My own war story. I was working out the process to fill the Thermal Cooling System (TCS) lines in the US Lab module before the US Lab was sent to orbit to become part of ISS. I told a co-worker that we would fill the lines on the ground and leave 40psi on the lines before it was loaded in the Shuttle. My friend/coworker said but when they try to connect to the QDs on orbit water will spray all over everything. I said no it won't! He insisted it would because of the 40 psi. I said maybe drop or two might spill out but it won't spray. He insisted it would spray out. I said, "Kevin, we have an incompressible fluid in stainless steal lines! This is not a garden hose! There will be no spraying." The light finally went on and he put his palm to his forehead. I razzed him about that for a long time afterwards....especially since he was a mechanical engineer and I am an electrical engineer.









2018-02-06 1:18 PM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

One day humans will no longer inhabit the Earth and, in time,  the Earth will barely show wear and tear,  if any at all, from their time here......get over it.

2018-02-06 4:48 PM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....
Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by Rogillio
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Oysterboy
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Oysterboy OK Francis, do yourself a favor. I do agree that climate change is far more of a political argument than a scientific one. The science is largely settled, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and by continuing the burn fossil fuels we are driving more CO2 into the atmosphere and this is warming the planet. What is debatable is what to do about it, and as I have said before, doing nothing is an option. With this said, why do the conservatives willingly choose to fight the science? This "article" that you cited attempted to discredit the notion of climate change with the argument that the modeling is flawed. Apples and oranges. But they continue to throw up sand in the air in an attempt to discredit the science. We should have the discussion on what policies to adopt, not on the merits of the science. And again, doing nothing is an option.

Whenever a scientists (or anyone else) brings up the "settled science" argument, it immediately shows that it's not science.  Science is never settled and the term "settled science" is the most anti-science term a person can say.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas (true) and we are burning more fossil fuels and driving more CO2 into the atmosphere (true).  It is true to say it's having a warming effect on the planet, but it is absolutely false to say it "is warming the planet" which implies it's the primary forcing agent.  This is where climate science is struggling and it couldn't be further away from "settled science". 
There have been numerous models created in an attempt to forecast the temperature increases, but they've all shown too much warming attributed to CO2 when compared to real world observations, which by the very nature of the scientific method proves them to be incorrect.
Global temperatures have absolutely been increasing for thousands of years (millions of years).  Man has absolutely contributed to the increase in temperature.  The question that is still unanswered is how much has man contributed.  As the science continues to mature, the anthropogenic contribution appears to be far less than anyone originally thought.

You're also correct that there's a ton of politics involved in the AGW field.  It's causing a lot of problems for everyone and makes it near impossible to get to the bottom of it. 
My non-peer reviewed scientific opinion is that there's a big ball of gas in the sky that drives our global temperature far greater than anything we could ever do.    The earth is an amazing terrarium that has many abilities to equalize the temperature that we know very little about.

I don't want to nit-pick because I think we are not very far off on our thinking, but what I highlighted above is a bit overstated. Note that in my original statement I said "largely settled science". This is to reflect that while we understand the broad arguments, there are some aspects we are still grappling to understand. Much like evolution, it is broadly accepted that humans evolved from early life forms, however some of the aspects of evolution are not well understood. For example, you would expect evolution to occur on a linear path but actually it occurred more like a set of steps (see figure below), what made the evolutionary process occur quickly during some eons but more slowly in others is still a topic for debate, but not the broader theory of evolution - that is settled. The only science that is "settled" per your definition are laws of physics.

I wouldn't even say the laws of Physics are settled.  Einstein challenged the "settled science" of Newtonian Physics with his theory of relativity.

You beat me too it. Laws of physic are considered 'laws' because we cannot explain them. We can define their characteristic but the why behind it is theory. e.g. Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. We can define the force between two objects as being a function of the their mass and the inverse square of their separation. But WHY this force exists is, in theory, because of the bending of space-time. And of course quantum mechanics blows up a lot of classical science. BTW, I also do not believe evolution is settle science either. I read a couple of books my an MIT phd micro-biologist and he wrote about evolution on the molecular level. Much of it went over my head and some of it was almost spooky stuff when you talk about how atoms and molecules can combine in such a way as to have self awareness and consciousness. Anyway, he said it's one thing to look at a dog and see how he could evolve from to or from a bigger dog or do with different physical features but, from a microbiological level there is no evolution across species. Not starting an evolution debate, just pointing out that settled science, rarely is. Heck we can't even fully understand light.....electromagnetic wave? Yes. Particle? Yes. Huh? Wonderful world we live in with lots to think about and explore....

i just don't know where to start in how inaccurate and how much you just outed yourself as to having no understanding of these subjects.  The republican motto. If I can't understand it, it must not be true! #goddidit




Brilliant retort. Guess you never figured out where to start with the inaccuracies so you just lobbed a a few insults. Says more about you than me Dave. Why don’t you debate Maxwell’s equations vs the slits experiment? Or explain the motive force behind evolution at the micromilogical level or even the cellular level. You obviously are an educated man. Explain how DNA splits and joins with another DNA string to form a genetically unique life in such as way that evolves an eyeball. Or, if you got nothing, just throw some insults. Try not to follow the herd.....do your own research.
2018-02-07 9:05 AM
in reply to: 0

User image


1502
1000500
Katy, Texas
Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....
Geez.....ya'll are blowing up my email with updates on this post...

Things certainly are getting......



  • ...wait for it....




  • ....wait.....for....it.....





  • ....almost there.........


  • ....HEATED in here (bang...zoom!)


  • Ok, so seriously; the reason you can argue this to high heaven is that you're all correct. It's just not black and white or right or wrong. That's the beauty of boundary conditions!! The question is not whether a scientific principle is absolutely correct or incorrect, or a theory is absolutely correct or incorrect, it is a question of whether or not the current theory or principle is sufficient to get the answer you NEED. So arguing absolutes is just dumb...but it does make the work day go by faster.

    Here's an example; how much do we know about quantum mechanics? Could we argue that a lot of our current theories are wrong, and will likely change? Totally! Could we point to where one scientist or another was wrong or there was a total paradigm shift in the past? You betcha!! Does this discount everything about quantum mechanics? Heck no!! Because within certain boundary conditions, we DO know enough to apply it and make it work for what we need it to. How can you tell? Well, are you reading this? Yes. And you are doing so on a device that uses quantum mechanical principles to make zillions of 1's and 0's into a pretty picture on a screen. So yeah, you can argue that scientists have been wrong and changed their minds a hundred times about quantum mechanics. You can blow hole after hole based on this change or that. But the fact of the matter is that within the boundary conditions of getting a processor to function, we DO know enough and that is absolute fact. Why....because you're able to read this, that's why.

    So the argument isn't whether scientists are absolutely right or absolutely wrong (but if you're bored, keep arguing), it's about whether or not we have enough knowledge to answer the question that we need to answer, or do the thing we need to do.



    Edited by 3mar 2018-02-07 9:06 AM
    2018-02-07 9:29 AM
    in reply to: 0

    User image

    Extreme Veteran
    3025
    2000100025
    Maryland
    Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

    Originally posted by Rogillio
    Originally posted by dmiller5

    Originally posted by Rogillio
    Originally posted by tuwood

    Originally posted by Oysterboy
    Originally posted by tuwood

    Originally posted by Oysterboy OK Francis, do yourself a favor. I do agree that climate change is far more of a political argument than a scientific one. The science is largely settled, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and by continuing the burn fossil fuels we are driving more CO2 into the atmosphere and this is warming the planet. What is debatable is what to do about it, and as I have said before, doing nothing is an option. With this said, why do the conservatives willingly choose to fight the science? This "article" that you cited attempted to discredit the notion of climate change with the argument that the modeling is flawed. Apples and oranges. But they continue to throw up sand in the air in an attempt to discredit the science. We should have the discussion on what policies to adopt, not on the merits of the science. And again, doing nothing is an option.

    Whenever a scientists (or anyone else) brings up the "settled science" argument, it immediately shows that it's not science.  Science is never settled and the term "settled science" is the most anti-science term a person can say.

    CO2 is a greenhouse gas (true) and we are burning more fossil fuels and driving more CO2 into the atmosphere (true).  It is true to say it's having a warming effect on the planet, but it is absolutely false to say it "is warming the planet" which implies it's the primary forcing agent.  This is where climate science is struggling and it couldn't be further away from "settled science". 
    There have been numerous models created in an attempt to forecast the temperature increases, but they've all shown too much warming attributed to CO2 when compared to real world observations, which by the very nature of the scientific method proves them to be incorrect.
    Global temperatures have absolutely been increasing for thousands of years (millions of years).  Man has absolutely contributed to the increase in temperature.  The question that is still unanswered is how much has man contributed.  As the science continues to mature, the anthropogenic contribution appears to be far less than anyone originally thought.

    You're also correct that there's a ton of politics involved in the AGW field.  It's causing a lot of problems for everyone and makes it near impossible to get to the bottom of it. 
    My non-peer reviewed scientific opinion is that there's a big ball of gas in the sky that drives our global temperature far greater than anything we could ever do.    The earth is an amazing terrarium that has many abilities to equalize the temperature that we know very little about.

    I don't want to nit-pick because I think we are not very far off on our thinking, but what I highlighted above is a bit overstated. Note that in my original statement I said "largely settled science". This is to reflect that while we understand the broad arguments, there are some aspects we are still grappling to understand. Much like evolution, it is broadly accepted that humans evolved from early life forms, however some of the aspects of evolution are not well understood. For example, you would expect evolution to occur on a linear path but actually it occurred more like a set of steps (see figure below), what made the evolutionary process occur quickly during some eons but more slowly in others is still a topic for debate, but not the broader theory of evolution - that is settled. The only science that is "settled" per your definition are laws of physics.

    I wouldn't even say the laws of Physics are settled.  Einstein challenged the "settled science" of Newtonian Physics with his theory of relativity.

    You beat me too it. Laws of physic are considered 'laws' because we cannot explain them. We can define their characteristic but the why behind it is theory. e.g. Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. We can define the force between two objects as being a function of the their mass and the inverse square of their separation. But WHY this force exists is, in theory, because of the bending of space-time. And of course quantum mechanics blows up a lot of classical science. BTW, I also do not believe evolution is settle science either. I read a couple of books my an MIT phd micro-biologist and he wrote about evolution on the molecular level. Much of it went over my head and some of it was almost spooky stuff when you talk about how atoms and molecules can combine in such a way as to have self awareness and consciousness. Anyway, he said it's one thing to look at a dog and see how he could evolve from to or from a bigger dog or do with different physical features but, from a microbiological level there is no evolution across species. Not starting an evolution debate, just pointing out that settled science, rarely is. Heck we can't even fully understand light.....electromagnetic wave? Yes. Particle? Yes. Huh? Wonderful world we live in with lots to think about and explore....

    i just don't know where to start in how inaccurate and how much you just outed yourself as to having no understanding of these subjects.  The republican motto. If I can't understand it, it must not be true! #goddidit

    Brilliant retort. Guess you never figured out where to start with the inaccuracies so you just lobbed a a few insults. Says more about you than me Dave. Why don’t you debate Maxwell’s equations vs the slits experiment? Or explain the motive force behind evolution at the micromilogical level or even the cellular level. You obviously are an educated man. Explain how DNA splits and joins with another DNA string to form a genetically unique life in such as way that evolves an eyeball. Or, if you got nothing, just throw some insults. Try not to follow the herd.....do your own research.

    I don't have the time or energy it would take to be your tutor.  What you said about micro and macro evolution didn't make sense. You could start here, or is berkley fake news too?

    https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evoscales_01

    and this should help with understanding how it works on a molecular level, aka how the actual DNA strands resequence.

    http://www.sns.ias.edu/~tlusty/courses/landmark/Kimura1968.pdf

     



    Edited by dmiller5 2018-02-07 9:32 AM
    2018-02-07 10:03 AM
    in reply to: dmiller5

    User image

    Champion
    10154
    500050001002525
    Alabama
    Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....
    Originally posted by dmiller5

    Originally posted by Rogillio
    Originally posted by dmiller5

    Originally posted by Rogillio
    Originally posted by tuwood

    Originally posted by Oysterboy
    Originally posted by tuwood

    Originally posted by Oysterboy OK Francis, do yourself a favor. I do agree that climate change is far more of a political argument than a scientific one. The science is largely settled, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and by continuing the burn fossil fuels we are driving more CO2 into the atmosphere and this is warming the planet. What is debatable is what to do about it, and as I have said before, doing nothing is an option. With this said, why do the conservatives willingly choose to fight the science? This "article" that you cited attempted to discredit the notion of climate change with the argument that the modeling is flawed. Apples and oranges. But they continue to throw up sand in the air in an attempt to discredit the science. We should have the discussion on what policies to adopt, not on the merits of the science. And again, doing nothing is an option.

    Whenever a scientists (or anyone else) brings up the "settled science" argument, it immediately shows that it's not science.  Science is never settled and the term "settled science" is the most anti-science term a person can say.

    CO2 is a greenhouse gas (true) and we are burning more fossil fuels and driving more CO2 into the atmosphere (true).  It is true to say it's having a warming effect on the planet, but it is absolutely false to say it "is warming the planet" which implies it's the primary forcing agent.  This is where climate science is struggling and it couldn't be further away from "settled science". 
    There have been numerous models created in an attempt to forecast the temperature increases, but they've all shown too much warming attributed to CO2 when compared to real world observations, which by the very nature of the scientific method proves them to be incorrect.
    Global temperatures have absolutely been increasing for thousands of years (millions of years).  Man has absolutely contributed to the increase in temperature.  The question that is still unanswered is how much has man contributed.  As the science continues to mature, the anthropogenic contribution appears to be far less than anyone originally thought.

    You're also correct that there's a ton of politics involved in the AGW field.  It's causing a lot of problems for everyone and makes it near impossible to get to the bottom of it. 
    My non-peer reviewed scientific opinion is that there's a big ball of gas in the sky that drives our global temperature far greater than anything we could ever do.    The earth is an amazing terrarium that has many abilities to equalize the temperature that we know very little about.

    I don't want to nit-pick because I think we are not very far off on our thinking, but what I highlighted above is a bit overstated. Note that in my original statement I said "largely settled science". This is to reflect that while we understand the broad arguments, there are some aspects we are still grappling to understand. Much like evolution, it is broadly accepted that humans evolved from early life forms, however some of the aspects of evolution are not well understood. For example, you would expect evolution to occur on a linear path but actually it occurred more like a set of steps (see figure below), what made the evolutionary process occur quickly during some eons but more slowly in others is still a topic for debate, but not the broader theory of evolution - that is settled. The only science that is "settled" per your definition are laws of physics.

    I wouldn't even say the laws of Physics are settled.  Einstein challenged the "settled science" of Newtonian Physics with his theory of relativity.

    You beat me too it. Laws of physic are considered 'laws' because we cannot explain them. We can define their characteristic but the why behind it is theory. e.g. Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. We can define the force between two objects as being a function of the their mass and the inverse square of their separation. But WHY this force exists is, in theory, because of the bending of space-time. And of course quantum mechanics blows up a lot of classical science. BTW, I also do not believe evolution is settle science either. I read a couple of books my an MIT phd micro-biologist and he wrote about evolution on the molecular level. Much of it went over my head and some of it was almost spooky stuff when you talk about how atoms and molecules can combine in such a way as to have self awareness and consciousness. Anyway, he said it's one thing to look at a dog and see how he could evolve from to or from a bigger dog or do with different physical features but, from a microbiological level there is no evolution across species. Not starting an evolution debate, just pointing out that settled science, rarely is. Heck we can't even fully understand light.....electromagnetic wave? Yes. Particle? Yes. Huh? Wonderful world we live in with lots to think about and explore....

    i just don't know where to start in how inaccurate and how much you just outed yourself as to having no understanding of these subjects.  The republican motto. If I can't understand it, it must not be true! #goddidit

    Brilliant retort. Guess you never figured out where to start with the inaccuracies so you just lobbed a a few insults. Says more about you than me Dave. Why don’t you debate Maxwell’s equations vs the slits experiment? Or explain the motive force behind evolution at the micromilogical level or even the cellular level. You obviously are an educated man. Explain how DNA splits and joins with another DNA string to form a genetically unique life in such as way that evolves an eyeball. Or, if you got nothing, just throw some insults. Try not to follow the herd.....do your own research.

    I don't have the time or energy it would take to be your tutor.  What you said about micro and macro evolution didn't make sense. You could start here, or is berkley fake news too?

    https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evoscales_01

    and this should help with understanding how it works on a molecular level, aka how the actual DNA strands resequence.

    http://www.sns.ias.edu/~tlusty/courses/landmark/Kimura1968.pdf

     




    Wise up Dave. You took the bait, hook, line and sinker and did exactly what I baited you would do. You posted someone else's arguments instead of your own.

    In truth, I don't really care what you or anyone else thinks about evolution. I was just yanking your chain. LOL Sorry.



    2018-02-07 10:08 AM
    in reply to: 3mar

    User image

    Pro
    9391
    500020002000100100100252525
    Omaha, NE
    Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

    Originally posted by 3mar Geez.....ya'll are blowing up my email with updates on this post... Things certainly are getting...... ....wait for it.... .....wait.....for....it..... .....almost there......... .....HEATED in here (bang...zoom!) Ok, so seriously; the reason you can argue this to high heaven is that you're all correct. It's just not black and white or right or wrong. That's the beauty of boundary conditions!! The question is not whether a scientific principle is absolutely correct or incorrect, or a theory is absolutely correct or incorrect, it is a question of whether or not the current theory or principle is sufficient to get the answer you NEED. So arguing absolutes is just dumb...but it does make the work day go by faster. Here's an example; how much do we know about quantum mechanics? Could we argue that a lot of our current theories are wrong, and will likely change? Totally! Could we point to where one scientist or another was wrong or there was a total paradigm shift in the past? You betcha!! Does this discount everything about quantum mechanics? Heck no!! Because within certain boundary conditions, we DO know enough to apply it and make it work for what we need it to. How can you tell? Well, are you reading this? Yes. And you are doing so on a device that uses quantum mechanical principles to make zillions of 1's and 0's into a pretty picture on a screen. So yeah, you can argue that scientists have been wrong and changed their minds a hundred times about quantum mechanics. You can blow hole after hole based on this change or that. But the fact of the matter is that within the boundary conditions of getting a processor to function, we DO know enough and that is absolute fact. Why....because you're able to read this, that's why. So the argument isn't whether scientists are absolutely right or absolutely wrong (but if you're bored, keep arguing), it's about whether or not we have enough knowledge to answer the question that we need to answer, or do the thing we need to do.

    Well stated.  I know I get labeled as the "denier" and such, but it's not that at all.  I simply try to point out that the science isn't settled and can't be spoken of as absolute fact.  We know a lot of things about the climate and there's a lot of things we don't know and are learning every day. 

    2018-02-07 10:13 AM
    in reply to: Rogillio

    User image

    Extreme Veteran
    3025
    2000100025
    Maryland
    Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

    I don't have time to educate you and spend eons explaining the nuances of evolutionary theory while you plug your ears and say GOD GOD GOD, UNSETTLED SCIENCE, TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP.  I can provide you things to read, but you've clearly shown you will only read what shills write because it makes you feel right.  Thats the problem with the world today.  People can't get their own ideologies and egos out of the way long enough to face reality.  In science, when someone has a different theory, and then they can demonstrate it, and others can repeat that experiential independently, the new theory replaces the old as more accurate.  In politics, we design an experiment to say what i want, and they shove it in everyone's faces to confuse the issue.

    Global warming, evolution, gravity, they are all very real, and very happening, and burying your head in the sand is going to screw those of us who are going to have to live in this world after you die.

    2018-02-07 10:19 AM
    in reply to: dmiller5

    User image

    Pro
    9391
    500020002000100100100252525
    Omaha, NE
    Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

    Originally posted by dmiller5

    I don't have time to educate you and spend eons explaining the nuances of evolutionary theory while you plug your ears and say GOD GOD GOD, UNSETTLED SCIENCE, TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP.  I can provide you things to read, but you've clearly shown you will only read what shills write because it makes you feel right.  Thats the problem with the world today.  People can't get their own ideologies and egos out of the way long enough to face reality.  In science, when someone has a different theory, and then they can demonstrate it, and others can repeat that experiential independently, the new theory replaces the old as more accurate.  In politics, we design an experiment to say what i want, and they shove it in everyone's faces to confuse the issue.

    Global warming, evolution, gravity, they are all very real, and very happening, and burying your head in the sand is going to screw those of us who are going to have to live in this world after you die.

    The problem is Dave you are doing exactly what you're complaining about.  What does "global warming is real" even mean?  Of course the Globe is warming, and it has been for millions of years.  You're taking your own ideology where you're absolutely convinced in the religion aspect of "Global Warming" and accusing anyone who doesn't subscribe to everything you believe as burying their heads in the sand.

    2018-02-07 10:21 AM
    in reply to: tuwood

    User image

    Extreme Veteran
    3025
    2000100025
    Maryland
    Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

    Tony, becaues when you look at the body of evidence saying its due to us, you say, no, its not settled, I disagree.

     

    That isn't intellectually honest, THAT is ideology. 

    2018-02-07 10:31 AM
    in reply to: dmiller5

    User image

    Pro
    15655
    5000500050005001002525
    Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

    Originally posted by dmiller5

    That's the problem with the world today. 

    Nah, the "problem" with the world today is all the people who think there is a problem with the world today.  We're doing fine, just like always.  People are going about their lives and enjoying them as they see fit.  

    Just stay out of the way and don't tell me how I'm supposed to think.



    2018-02-07 10:31 AM
    in reply to: 0

    User image

    Champion
    10154
    500050001002525
    Alabama
    Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....
    Originally posted by dmiller5

    I don't have time to educate you and spend eons explaining the nuances of evolutionary theory while you plug your ears and say GOD GOD GOD, UNSETTLED SCIENCE, TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP.  I can provide you things to read, but you've clearly shown you will only read what shills write because it makes you feel right.  Thats the problem with the world today.  People can't get their own ideologies and egos out of the way long enough to face reality.  In science, when someone has a different theory, and then they can demonstrate it, and others can repeat that experiential independently, the new theory replaces the old as more accurate.  In politics, we design an experiment to say what i want, and they shove it in everyone's faces to confuse the issue.

    Global warming, evolution, gravity, they are all very real, and very happening, and burying your head in the sand is going to screw those of us who are going to have to live in this world after you die.





    Yes, you will have to fix the world after we muck it all up. LOL

    The difference in my and you Dave is I don't really care what other people believe or don't believe. If you believe or don't believe that gravity is caused by objects bending space-time I don't care. I try to live and let live and try my best to not get upset about puszy hats or liberals or illegal aliens. I follow the news and enjoy different idea and opinions - even opinions totally divergent from my own. You can ask 10 people the same question and you will get 15 different answers.

    Here you go: http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=82

    Is this some nut-job Christian? You tell me:

    Gerald Schroeder is a scientist with over thirty years of experience in research and teaching. He earned his Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctorate degrees all at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, with his doctorate thesis being under the supervision of physics professor Robley D. Evans. This was followed by five years on the staff of the MIT physics department.



    BTW, I read two of his books 10 years ago and found them fascinating! He talk about life at the molecular level and the things that kinda just make the hair stand up on the back of your neck as you marvel at the complexities of life. You don't have to believe in God or believe in evolution to enjoy his books...they are absolutely fascinating. As a microbiologist he talks about DNA that will just blow your mind. People see the double-helix and think we got it all figured out.....we do not. There is so much we don't know.

    I used to have a EE prof that said, "When I got my bachelors degree in electrical engineering I thought I had a pretty good handle on electricity. When I got my masters I realized there were still a lot of things we did not know. By the time I got my phd I realized we really do not understand this phenomena of electricity!"








    Edited by Rogillio 2018-02-07 10:46 AM
    2018-02-07 10:38 AM
    in reply to: Rogillio

    User image

    Extreme Veteran
    3025
    2000100025
    Maryland
    Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

    Originally posted by Rogillio
    Originally posted by dmiller5

    I don't have time to educate you and spend eons explaining the nuances of evolutionary theory while you plug your ears and say GOD GOD GOD, UNSETTLED SCIENCE, TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP.  I can provide you things to read, but you've clearly shown you will only read what shills write because it makes you feel right.  Thats the problem with the world today.  People can't get their own ideologies and egos out of the way long enough to face reality.  In science, when someone has a different theory, and then they can demonstrate it, and others can repeat that experiential independently, the new theory replaces the old as more accurate.  In politics, we design an experiment to say what i want, and they shove it in everyone's faces to confuse the issue.

    Global warming, evolution, gravity, they are all very real, and very happening, and burying your head in the sand is going to screw those of us who are going to have to live in this world after you die.

    Yes, you will have to fix the world after we muck it all up. LOL The difference in my and you Dave is I don't really care what other people believe or don't believe. If you believe or don't believe that gravity is caused by objects bending space-time I don't care. I try to live and let live and try my best to not get upset about puszy hats or liberals or illegal aliens. I follow the news and enjoy different idea and opinions - even opinions totally divergent from my own. You can ask 10 people the same question and you will get 15 different answers. Here you go: http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=82Is this some nut-job Christian? You tell me: Gerald Schroeder is a scientist with over thirty years of experience in research and teaching. He earned his Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctorate degrees all at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, with his doctorate thesis being under the supervision of physics professor Robley D. Evans. This was followed by five years on the staff of the MIT physics department.

    Gerald Schroeder is an orthodox Jew that has spent a great deal of his time trying to posit that physics in fact proves the existence of god.  I met him on a trip to israel in college where he gave a lecture.  He let me keep his diagrams and notes that he drew for us.  It was impressive.  Yet upon further learning and research etc I came to the conclusion that it looked nice on the surface, but didn't hold water when you really dug into his evidence.

    2018-02-07 10:39 AM
    in reply to: dmiller5

    User image

    Pro
    9391
    500020002000100100100252525
    Omaha, NE
    Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

    Originally posted by dmiller5

    Tony, becaues when you look at the body of evidence saying its due to us, you say, no, its not settled, I disagree.

     

    That isn't intellectually honest, THAT is ideology. 

    What is this "it" that you're referring to.  What is settled?

    2018-02-07 10:40 AM
    in reply to: tuwood

    User image

    Extreme Veteran
    3025
    2000100025
    Maryland
    Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

    that global warming is being cause by humans.

    New Thread
    Other Resources The Political Joe » Global warming - once more into the breach.... Rss Feed  
     
     
    of 5