The environment thread

[Balta1701]

I can say the same. There are papers on both sides right now. It's still not prooven fact. I can keep repeating this if you didn't yet understand it.

 

I can't cite any, so i'll just say my point louder and louder!

[StrangeSox]

I can say the same. There are papers on both sides right now. It's still not prooven fact. I can keep repeating this if you didn't yet understand it.

 

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=climat...amp;btnG=Search

 

Can you tell me which ones? Have you read any of them?

 

You're comparing thousands of papers to dozens.

 

Also, nothing in science is "proven fact." You'll never find a statement like "this proves" in a scientific paper. It's "the data shows" or "our findings suggest". Proof is left to the mathematicians.

Edited June 27, 2009 by StrangeSox

[Y2HH]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=climat...amp;btnG=Search

 

Can you tell me which ones?

 

You're comparing thousands of papers to dozens.

 

Also, nothing in science is "proven fact." You'll never find a statement like "this proves" in a scientific paper. It's "the data shows" or "our findings suggest". Proof is left to the mathematicians.

 

So then you admit it's all theory.

 

Thanks.

[Y2HH]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scien..._global_warming

 

Plenty of references cited -- I know, though, you'll just ignore them all.

[StrangeSox]

So then you admit it's all theory.

 

Thanks.

 

massive :facepalm:

 

All of science is theory. You have just effectively admitted that you don't understand scientific research.

 

I'll paste this from another discussion I had elsewhere:

Fundamental misunderstanding of science. Theory in the scientific sense is not the same as in the common usage. It doesn't mean "guess" or idea; that's a hypothesis. Theories are the most powerful parts of science. There isn't a hypothesis->theory->law hierarchy. Theories never become laws. In fact, theories explain more than laws do. Laws are simply statements of observations without explanations; f=ma, or pv=nrt. Useful, sure, but it doesn't actually explain why or how those things happen. Theories, on the other hand, do have explanatory power -- they make distinct, falsifiable predictions and explanations of natural phenomenon. If these predictions hold true, the theory is strengthened. If they fail, the theory is discarded or modified.

 

Relativity is "just a theory," even though the math works out quite well and its effects have been measured and observed. Hell, your GPS system wouldn't work without compensating for it.

 

Atomic theory is "just a theory," but we still have atomic bombs and nuclear power plants just the same. It won't ever be "elevated" to atomic law because there isn't a hierarchy like that.

 

Same for the germ theory of disease, gravitation, quantum mechanics, information, etc.

[Y2HH]

massive :facepalm:

 

All of science is theory. You have just effectively admitted that you don't understand scientific research.

 

I'll paste this from another discussion I had elsewhere:

Fundamental misunderstanding of science. Theory in the scientific sense is not the same as in the common usage. It doesn't mean "guess" or idea; that's a hypothesis. Theories are the most powerful parts of science. There isn't a hypothesis->theory->law hierarchy. Theories never become laws. In fact, theories explain more than laws do. Laws are simply statements of observations without explanations; f=ma, or pv=nrt. Useful, sure, but it doesn't actually explain why or how those things happen. Theories, on the other hand, do have explanatory power -- they make distinct, falsifiable predictions and explanations of natural phenomenon. If these predictions hold true, the theory is strengthened. If they fail, the theory is discarded or modified.

 

Relativity is "just a theory," even though the math works out quite well and its effects have been measured and observed. Hell, your GPS system wouldn't work without compensating for it.

 

Atomic theory is "just a theory," but we still have atomic bombs and nuclear power plants just the same. It won't ever be "elevated" to atomic law because there isn't a hierarchy like that.

 

Same for the germ theory of disease, gravitation, quantum mechanics, information, etc.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scien..._global_warming

 

Ignore it more.

 

Sorry I don't agree with you on the global warming myth, you've done nothing to convince me...nor anyone else here that opposes you.

 

This comes down to yet another case that those that agree with you need no explanation, and for those that do not agree (me) no explanation will do.

 

Why don't we just leave it at that? Feel free to keep beating your head against the wall, though.

Edited June 27, 2009 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scien..._global_warming

 

Plenty of references cited -- I know, though, you'll just ignore them all.

 

My forehead is going to start hurting. NSS already pointed out why that list isn't what you think it is.

 

Have you ever actually read a single scientific piece of literature on this topic, or are you basing your conclusions entirely on politics and polemics?

 

 

[StrangeSox]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scien..._global_warming

 

Ignore it more.

 

Sorry I don't agree with you on the global warming myth, you've done nothing to convince me...nor anyone else here that opposes you.

 

This comes down to yet another case that those that agree with you need no explanation, and for those that do not agree (me) no explanation will do.

 

Why don't we just leave it at that?

 

Because you don't know what you're talking about and have demonstrated that you don't understand the basic underlying science before declaring it a "myth".

[Y2HH]

Because you don't know what you're talking about and have demonstrated that you don't understand the basic underlying science before declaring it a "myth".

 

And you're the expert because you read a few papers? heh.

 

Whatever dude.

[Y2HH]

My forehead is going to start hurting. NSS already pointed out why that list isn't what you think it is.

 

Have you ever actually read a single scientific piece of literature on this topic, or are you basing your conclusions entirely on politics and polemics?

 

I have, and I don't think it adds up -- I remain unconvinced. I think it's natural, not man made.

 

Until I see reason to believe otherwise, I will not believe otherwise.

[StrangeSox]

Some > zero.

 

Let me add that, while I don't know the specifics of this bill, I don't like the way its being shoved through the Congress. Its being voted on fresh off the printers with hundreds of pages of amendments. It has the potential to be a complete disaster. This is no weight on the actual science, however.

[Y2HH]

Some > zero.

 

Let me add that, while I don't know the specifics of this bill, I don't like the way its being shoved through the Congress. Its being voted on fresh off the printers with hundreds of pages of amendments. It has the potential to be a complete disaster. This is no weight on the actual science, however.

 

The actual science remains in question even if you deny it does. I'll give you this -- they're studying it, but I think it's going to take more than a few decades of study to understand something as big as this, especially considering the sheer age of the earth, understanding changes over the span in which it's existed will require more than a few years of research, even more than a few decades. If in 10 or 20 years they're still on this, maybe then I'll change my mind as they'll have put enough into it to listen to both sides of the debate (and there IS a debate going on in scientific circles), but until then, it's infant science.

 

And the bill was something like 1300 pages -- ridiculous.

Edited June 27, 2009 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scien..._global_warming

 

Plenty of references cited -- I know, though, you'll just ignore them all.

After going through the list of citations to that list...there are exactly 2 papers that have appeared in scientific journals on there - the rest are press accounts. And frankly, both of them are pretty much garbage. One is by Jan Vezier, who has a weird theory which is getting funded to the tune of tens of millions of dollars (yeah, clearly all the funding out there goes to support the consensus) that Cosmic Ray abundances somehow affect the climate. He gave a talk here a couple years ago...it was terrible. The worst part of it was, he put up a graph saying "That's the temperature record I'm fitting", and the actual group of climatologists and geologists in the audience had no idea where it came from. After some checking, it turned out that it was a climate record for about 1/3 of the earth, and he was using it because it showed a cooling trend where no other proxy shows a cooling trend; he was basically trying to make his data look better without actually doing anything. It was quite literally cheating.

 

The other paper does a terrifically simplified version of the physics behind the interaction of CO2 with the atmosphere. It's just really bad, there are a hundred ways to do it better. Of course, part of that may be because the authors are petroleum geologists, but I"ll leave that to you to decide.

[Y2HH]

After going through the list of citations to that list...there are exactly 2 papers that have appeared in scientific journals on there - the rest are press accounts. And frankly, both of them are pretty much garbage. One is by Jan Vezier, who has a weird theory which is getting funded to the tune of tens of millions of dollars (yeah, clearly all the funding out there goes to support the consensus) that Cosmic Ray abundances somehow affect the climate. He gave a talk here a couple years ago...it was terrible. The worst part of it was, he put up a graph saying "That's the temperature record I'm fitting", and the actual group of climatologists and geologists in the audience had no idea where it came from. After some checking, it turned out that it was a climate record for about 1/3 of the earth, and he was using it because it showed a cooling trend where no other proxy shows a cooling trend; he was basically trying to make his data look better without actually doing anything. It was quite literally cheating.

 

The other paper does a terrifically simplified version of the physics behind the interaction of CO2 with the atmosphere. It's just really bad, there are a hundred ways to do it better. Of course, part of that may be because the authors are petroleum geologists, but I"ll leave that to you to decide.

 

Again, ignore the two because you think they're garbage. Because people who do research on global warming aren't getting funded, either, right? There is a lot of money in global warming, and so a lot of science will be there, for most of them, prooving it wrong cuts off their source of money, another catch 22.

 

I'm positive there are more than 2 papers or even a dozen out there with counter theory to global warming.

 

Doesn't make either of them right yet, still need to do a lot more.

[StrangeSox]

Doesn't matter. All science is equal. Still up for debate

[Y2HH]

Doesn't matter. All science is equal. Still up for debate

 

You're right, it still is up for debate. And although I'm not convinced, it doesn't mean that someday I won't look back and say wow, I was off the mark on that. I have no problem switching sides in the future -- I just think a lot more needs to be put into it before we start shoving bills like this through.

[StrangeSox]

Again, ignore the two because you think they're garbage. Because people who do research on global warming aren't getting funded, either, right? There is a lot of money in global warming, and so a lot of science will be there, for most of them, prooving it wrong cuts off their source of money, another catch 22.

 

How many times have these papers been cited in subsequent publications? That's a good indication of whether or not they're worth a damn.

 

I'm positive there are more than 2 papers or even a dozen out there with counter theory to global warming.

 

Then provide them. Lets try to discuss the science as best we can (because none of us here are experts in this field, as far as I know). Let's drop the pejoratives and polemics and demagoguery and discuss what actual objections you have to the mainstream interpretation.

 

[Y2HH]

Lets try to discuss the science as best we can (because none of us here are experts in this field, as far as I know). Let's drop the pejoratives and polemics and demagoguery and discuss what actual objections you have to the mainstream interpretation.

 

Let me clarify, because it's been lost in translation.

 

I don't care to prove it right or wrong, I'm not an expert in the field and I have no agenda on either side of the discussion. I'd like them to continue researching it, study it over a span of years and come up with some well thought (and politically disconnected) recommendations based on data from BOTH sides, and I'd like it done objectively, as all scientific research should be done. I see a lot of hidden agenda on this specific subject, and I'd like them to toss that, and rather than studying it from one side or the other, to study it from the middle.

 

My big issue/problem with this is that the government is shoving things like this climate bill through without knowing one way or the other. As it stands, they're guessing, based on politically charged science. The fact that debate still exists is what I have a problem with -- meanwhile we're taking drastic steps that may or may do absolutely nothing, and at what cost to the country, to the people, and to business?

 

That's my issue with this. I know I tend to come of as bullheaded when it comes to things like this, but politics really annoys me...I try to be objective, but when I see things like this happening, I have a problem with it. I've always been a devils advocate of sorts.

 

If the bill was really that solid, then Obama and his administration shouldn't have had to make phone calls and convince people to vote for it -- well written bills based on fact should need no push to get it signed...it should just happen.

Edited June 27, 2009 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

Then provide them. Lets try to discuss the science as best we can (because none of us here are experts in this field, as far as I know). Let's drop the pejoratives and polemics and demagoguery and discuss what actual objections you have to the mainstream interpretation.

I'm only months away from the degree, come on, give me some credit

[Balta1701]

My big issue/problem with this is that the government is shoving things like this climate bill through without knowing one way or the other. As it stands, they're guessing, based on politically charged science. The fact that debate still exists is what I have a problem with -- meanwhile we're taking drastic steps that may or may do absolutely nothing, and at what cost to the country, to the people, and to business?

 

That's my issue with this. I know I tend to come of as bullheaded when it comes to things like this, but politics really annoys me...I try to be objective, but when I see things like this happening, I have a problem with it. I've always been a devils advocate of sorts.

 

If the bill was really that solid, then Obama and his administration shouldn't have had to make phone calls and convince people to vote for it -- well written bills based on fact should need no push to get it signed...it should just happen.

Quite simply, you're wrong. The science is politically charged...because the natural conclusions of that science are going to cost a lot of very powerful people a lot of money. Basically that is the only reason there is "Debate" on this. The science about whether greenhouse gas emissions are driving a warming trend that will be bad for man is in, and has been for years. The Scientific community really has moved on to looking at things like mitigation and what the impacts of the changing climate on parts of the earth will be (did you know that melting ice caps will cause a decrease in volcanism at the mid-oceanic ridges?)

 

And really, you're also wrong on how the government works. People are allowed to have legitimate disagreements on the best way to make policy going forwards, and people are going to disagree on bills. Were the Bush Tax cuts bad because Bush had to whip hard to get them through, and then did so in reconciliation where the Dems couldn't filibuster? Was the Patriot Act good because it was 99-1 in favor of it?

[Y2HH]

Quite simply, you're wrong. The science is politically charged...because the natural conclusions of that science are going to cost a lot of very powerful people a lot of money. Basically that is the only reason there is "Debate" on this. The science about whether greenhouse gas emissions are driving a warming trend that will be bad for man is in, and has been for years. The Scientific community really has moved on to looking at things like mitigation and what the impacts of the changing climate on parts of the earth will be (did you know that melting ice caps will cause a decrease in volcanism at the mid-oceanic ridges?)

 

And really, you're also wrong on how the government works. People are allowed to have legitimate disagreements on the best way to make policy going forwards, and people are going to disagree on bills. Were the Bush Tax cuts bad because Bush had to whip hard to get them through, and then did so in reconciliation where the Dems couldn't filibuster? Was the Patriot Act good because it was 99-1 in favor of it?

 

I didn't agree with how Bush did it either. I think that's a separate issue and a big problem on this countries political landscape. This isn't about being wrong or right -- my opinions on how the government does things are not even valid in terms of right or wrong. So please, stop calling someones opinions wrong because they don't agree with your own.

 

And again, quite simply, I'm not wrong.

 

I think I made my case perfectly clear as to why I have issues with this thing. You obviously don't agree, and that's fine, but it doesn't make you wrong, either.

 

It seems that with you, if people don't agree with everything you say, they're wrong. I'm not wrong, I just see it differently than you do, and I don't need your permission to do so.

[Balta1701]

How many times have these papers been cited in subsequent publications? That's a good indication of whether or not they're worth a damn.

The Vezier paper has been cited 12 times. 3 are work by the same author citing his previous hypothesis. 1 is by some civil engineers trying to write a climate paper (seriously; bizarre). 2 appear to just be summary papers that wind up saying its worth testing his hypothesis (being done). 4 cite some of his geology. 2 are standard proposals for ways to deal with climate change.

 

The 2 petroleum geologists have been cited 7 times. 3 are by the same author(s). 2 are rebuttals. Then there's some other random stuff about free speech from the journal "Society". Here's a blog by the author of one of those rebuttals, if you're itnerested.

[BearSox]

Can someone explain to me how this bill will change anything except making everyone's financial situations tougher?

 

I really don't care if you believe in man-made global climate change or not. Quite simply, this subject is far from settled, and to shove a bill like this down our throats, a bill in which no one has read or understands, is bogus. If you have common sense, you know this bill was forced through in a poor manner, even if you want these things to pass.

 

There really needs to be a limit on how many pages a bill can be and that everyone has time to read and get a full understanding of the bill before voting occurs. This is ridiculous. Billions of tax payer dollars are at sake, and we are forcing this thing down everyone's throat when there still is plenty of time to be a lot more logical about this. Lets continue the research and be smart about this.

[NorthSideSox72]

Can someone explain to me how this bill will change anything except making everyone's financial situations tougher?

 

I really don't care if you believe in man-made global climate change or not. Quite simply, this subject is far from settled, and to shove a bill like this down our throats, a bill in which no one has read or understands, is bogus. If you have common sense, you know this bill was forced through in a poor manner, even if you want these things to pass.

 

There really needs to be a limit on how many pages a bill can be and that everyone has time to read and get a full understanding of the bill before voting occurs. This is ridiculous. Billions of tax payer dollars are at sake, and we are forcing this thing down everyone's throat when there still is plenty of time to be a lot more logical about this. Lets continue the research and be smart about this.

Good, back to the point. Let's talk about the bill. Here again is what I posted a few pages ago, about the bill, but no one seemed interested in the bill at that time...

 

 

So, about the bill itself, a few points for discussion...

 

1. CBO and EPA say this will cost households on average $100 or $200 a year, somewhere in that range. Spread that out over 80 million households, that is $8B to $16B, and is effectively a tax increase. That's an increase in cost that will be put directly on families, and that seems less than ideal. However... why is it that some people are OK with spending 100 times that amount of money fighting wars in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries, but they aren't OK with this amount of money spent on getting us out of their grip and-oh-by-the-way maybe making all our lives healthier? Seems like screwed up priorities to me.

 

2. GOP'ers are claiming the real costs will be much higher when you factor in passed-down costs. Probably true. But then, the CBO and EPA numbers also don't reflect the creation and sustaining of a lot of high-paying jobs that this will result in, with money going to that instead of out the door for oil. So, you need to really look at both sets of indirect cost/benefit pieces, not just the one that fits your views.

 

[BearSox]

Good, back to the point. Let's talk about the bill. Here again is what I posted a few pages ago, about the bill, but no one seemed interested in the bill at that time...

 

 

So, about the bill itself, a few points for discussion...

 

1. CBO and EPA say this will cost households on average $100 or $200 a year, somewhere in that range. Spread that out over 80 million households, that is $8B to $16B, and is effectively a tax increase. That's an increase in cost that will be put directly on families, and that seems less than ideal. However... why is it that some people are OK with spending 100 times that amount of money fighting wars in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries, but they aren't OK with this amount of money spent on getting us out of their grip and-oh-by-the-way maybe making all our lives healthier? Seems like screwed up priorities to me.

 

2. GOP'ers are claiming the real costs will be much higher when you factor in passed-down costs. Probably true. But then, the CBO and EPA numbers also don't reflect the creation and sustaining of a lot of high-paying jobs that this will result in, with money going to that instead of out the door for oil. So, you need to really look at both sets of indirect cost/benefit pieces, not just the one that fits your views.

So, all 1300 pages of the bill is just that?

 

Also, can anyone deny that this bill wasn't rushed and poorly put together. If the bill was basically those 2 points, than why in hell did it take the length of Les Miserables to explain it?