Sarah Palin not running for president?
-
The term "global warming" has been considered innacurate for a while. The term now being coined is "climate change" which can explain not just rises in temperature, but also drops in temperature and the radical weather that seems to have cropped up lately (Hurricanes and the like).
While the argument of self preservation does make sense, claiming that is what is going on is assuming a bit much if you ask me.
Here's the point I've been stressing over the whole argument which has lasted several years. I think it is possible we have evidence that can support both claims. So without more tested and factual observations, we simply don't know for sure. If this is the case, then there are two choices. Ignore the possible "imaginary" problem, or take certain steps to help alleviate potential problems.
-
While the Earth was heating up, for a few decades, it has been cooling for the last ten years. This is despite that man made greenhouse gases have been on the increase into the atmosphere. In particular China and India have been industrialising at break neck speed.
Therefore if the hypothesis that: Releasing greenhouse increased the Earth's temperature was correct and so therefore fact, the Earth should not only have continued to heat up, but the rate of its heat up should also have increased.
In Great Britain, last Winter we should have boiled, we had on the record one of the coldest winters of the last few decades. This is something all Britis could see with their own two eyes, as being true. It is wrong headed to suggest that the Earth is getting warmer and we are on our way to environmental Armageddon when people can see for themselves, it is getting colder.
Sorry, mate, but having seen the data first-hand and performed the statistical analysis with my own two hands, I can say with a 3.33σ certainty that central Great Britain has been heating up over the last 40 years.
Yes, occasionally certain periods were outside of the general trend. But that's just statistics for you.But even if it weren't, nothing would change. The problem is not the Earth warming up, it's the climate in general changing, as AAG has pointed our.
Real science means starting with an hypothesis, testing an hypothesis through experimentation and when an hypothesis is shown to be consistently true, only then does it become fact. Instead what actually happened was when the East Anglia University academics found themselves to be incorrect in their original hypothesis, was that they covered it up.
Actually, real science is taking a hypothesis, and showing that the inverse is very unlikely to be true. And what actually actually happened was that someone went through over a thousand e-mails and could only cherry-pick half a dozen of sentences from all of them which, if ripped brutally from context, would seem to support their claims.
I'd expect that among a thousand e-mails, there would be more than a dozen sentences if any of these allegations would be accurate.
That they covered it up isn't part of some conspiracy theory or anything colourful, I think their reasons, are a lot more basic, those of self preservation.
Lets be frank, not many people at all, working at a academic institution, which is dependent on the state for grants, will turn around to the state and say 'Hi guys, sorry seems we were wrong all along about this global warming business, the Earth is now cooling, we don't need any grants or our salaries paying.'
Turkeys do not vote for Christmas, academics who depend on the belief of the state that global warming is real for their livelihoods, will not try and change the states mind and make themselves unemployed.
Clearly, you don't understand how the scientific community works. Just because your earlier conclusions were wrong, does not mean they stop paying you.
If any scientist who got it wrong, would lose their grant, then there would be no scientists left. Take, for instance, the recent neutrino experiments. If the real world were anything like what you just said, every physicist in the world would be doing everything they could to cover the results up, since if they are correct, currently accepted scientific theories are wrong.
Yet they're not. Because even if every physicist in the last 200 years were wrong, grants or salaries will not be diminished.Finally socialism has never been shown 'in practice' to benefit everyone and society as a whole. Communism is really socialism taken to its full conclusion and communism has also been shown to be the most evil and murderous ideology ever imagined, with a total death count, somewhere in the region of 100 million souls, and that is of other communists.
Three things are wrong in this paragraph alone.
The first is, communism was never successfully implemented. What you're likely referring to, namely the USSR, was not a communist state, it merely called itself that, and the murders you quoted were not the consequence of the political system so much as the paranoia of one particular individual, though granted, the fact a mentally ill person could amass so much power was caused by it.
The second is, communism relates to socialism as patriotism (which you applaud) is to fascism. If you're going to say that, because an extreme related to socialism leads to such atrocities -which has not been proven-, socialism itself is bad, then please also apply the same logic to your own side of the spectrum.
The third is, this entire paragraph is a slippery slope argument, which is a formal fallacy, and hence your conclusion would be invalid even if your initial assumptions were correct.
-
That they covered it up isn't part of some conspiracy theory or anything colourful, I think their reasons, are a lot more basic, those of self preservation.
Lets be frank, not many people at all, working at a academic institution, which is dependent on the state for grants, will turn around to the state and say 'Hi guys, sorry seems we were wrong all along about this global warming business, the Earth is now cooling, we don't need any grants or our salaries paying.'
Turkeys do not vote for Christmas, academics who depend on the belief of the state that global warming is real for their livelihoods, will not try and change the states mind and make themselves unemployed.
Clearly, you don't understand how the scientific community works. Just because your earlier conclusions were wrong, does not mean they stop paying you.
If any scientist who got it wrong, would lose their grant, then there would be no scientists left. Take, for instance, the recent neutrino experiments. If the real world were anything like what you just said, every physicist in the world would be doing everything they could to cover the results up, since if they are correct, currently accepted scientific theories are wrong.
Yet they're not. Because even if every physicist in the last 200 years were wrong, grants or salaries will not be diminished.A scientist finding out he is wrong I would hope is just as exciting to find out he was correct. The point of science is to understand "how things work". Being right OR wrong succeeds at just that.
-
Replying to these word walls is frankly a daunting task. I have no hope of replying to every point. I'll just make my own word wall and call it even.
Small sets of data do not prove/disprove any theory, especially when it comes to overall climate change. One cold winter that's unexpected (or even a turn around for a few years) doesn't mean anything when it's the long term trend that's really important.
The same is true for vegetation, it's not a surprise to me that vegetation is experiencing rapid growth in places where it's allowed to- more CO2, more plants.
Also, in general, before telling me how science works, please get it right. A theory never becomes a fact. There's two things that science looks at, data and explanations. How and What are data, explanations are Why. Mathematical models can do a really good job predicting how and what. Generally these end up being called "laws", which many people misguidedly think is a "proven theory" or "proven hypothesis". Laws and Theories are separate. For example: we have a Law of Gravity that's really pretty good, it tells us how objects are going to move when influenced by the mass of other objects (assuming there aren't too many and the math doesn't get too hard). We have a theory of why that happens that's not so good, really, and is generally left to theoretical types who don't actually do much looking at data. Why is a much more complicated thing, and can never really be "proven", no real scientist has it as a goal. The hope is to find the best answer you can until more information comes along to make you reevaluate things.
The four things I outlined are still true, styxx, you didn't directly address any of them.
CO2 levels are increasing in the atmosphere, just because it doesn't have the predicted effect doesn't mean it has zero effect. Our atmosphere is a extremely complicated beast that I'd expect models to be constantly wrong about. Hell, our weather modeling is pretty awful, and that has easily identifiable short term data that it generates. Climate change is not so helpful in that regard.
Some increase in biomass doesn't mean the current biomass can sustain the levels of O2 and CO2 present in the atmosphere before we started oil combustion. There were times when there was much more CO2 and less O2 on this planet- it wasn't very comfy habitat for humans.
Your links for the last point don't actually say anything- sea levels not rising as much or as expected for a period of time doesn't mean they aren't or won't, it's very much like arguing that one cold winter means global warming isn't happening. In any case, my fact simply stated that sea level rise would lead to huge implications to our society. If we can pump all the oil into the atmosphere until we run out and the sea levels don't rise at all, then I'll be cheering with everyone else.
Also, why is it that right wingers need to call any little bit of socialism communism, or take it to the extreme? Western democratic industrialized society is quite socialist, and we enjoy a much higher standard of living than any in human history, and much of it is because in general, we help each other out and work together. Does that mean we're communist or even "socialist"? I don't know, but trying to use a descriptive word as a negative label doesn't make for reasonable debate. I don't look at the right and start spouting about people hoping for anarchy. There's obviously a line (hell, an optimal zone, likely) between ensuring good for all and personal freedom. I don't expect that everyone has the same opinion of where that line should be. However, pointing at the extremes all the time just makes one look like they have an axe to grind and no real substance.
-
However, pointing at the extremes all the time just makes one look like they have an axe to grind and no real substance.
Compared to other threads similar to this, I think very few here are grinding axes.
-
The term "global warming" has been considered innacurate for a while. The term now being coined is "climate change" which can explain not just rises in temperature, but also drops in temperature and the radical weather that seems to have cropped up lately (Hurricanes and the like).
The Term was "Anthroprogenic Global Warming" The Theory that Manmade Co2 Emisions were trapping heat in the Climate system. This has never been proven. In fact the empirical observations in now way support the AGW Theory. Moving the Goal Posts to "Climate Change" and claiming absolutely every kind of weather proves AGW is nonsense. For a theory to be Scientific it must be Falsifyable.
![]([url][img]http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/7159/slide53u.jpg[/img][/url]
Uploaded with [url]ImageShack.us[/url] Temperatures since the Little Ice Age. Note the rise prior to 1944, it's the same as the rise from 1970-2010. Same rate, same time period. What's different? Man's Co2 didn't begin to accumulate in any meaningfull way untill 1945. The point when a 30 year cooling trend began. [quote]Sorry, mate, but having seen the data first-hand and performed the statistical analysis with my own two hands, I can say with a 3.33σ certainty that central Great Britain has been heating up over the last 40 years.
Yes, occasionally certain periods were outside of the general trend. But that's just statistics for you. But even if it weren't, nothing would change. The problem is not the Earth warming up, it's the climate in general changing, as AAG has pointed our.
[/quote] [img][url][img]http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/3391/centralenglandtemperatu.jpg[/img][/url]And the Correlation between Co2 and temperatures? )http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Correla ... Decade.pdf Simply put Temperatures correlate with solar not Co2. [img][url][img]http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/6431/svensencosmicraystropos.gif[/img][/url][/img][/img]" />
-
Also, why is it that right wingers need to call any little bit of socialism communism, or take it to the extreme?
Things like this? http://notrickszone.com/2011/10/11/germ ... evolution/
The four things I outlined are still true, styxx, you didn't directly address any of them.
You claim Co2 acts as a greenhouse gas. I showed you that there is "Zero" empirical evidence for the Tropospheric Hot Spot "ALL" the IPCC AGW models predicted. It's a Falsifyed Theory. How much more direct do you need?
I'll show you Peer Reviewed science that show's what does correlate with observations. It aint Co2. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_Temp ... e_1895.pdf
Biomass can't keep up? Since we already see that Co2 cannot be correlated with temperatures is it alarming? Rising Co2 correlates with increased crop yields and forest density.
![]([url][img]http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/7936/seasiariceyields.jpg[/img][/url] -
The Term was "Anthroprogenic Global Warming"
I for one have never heard that term before, whereas I've heard 'global warming' regularly, so we can argue what we would call it for days and days. But let's get to the core.
The Theory that Manmade Co2 Emisions were trapping heat in the Climate system.
That's a gross oversimplification of the situation. Nuance is key when working with such complicated systems.
This has never been proven. In fact the empirical observations in no way support the AGW Theory.
Absolutely, let's go with that. Global Warming as a theory has been discredited. This means, on the one hand, that you can stop showing all these graphs trying to disprove it, because you're only pointing out the glaringly obvious, and not too elegantly may I add, and on the other hand, that we needed a new climate model.
Enter the Global Climate Change model. It's what serious people have been using for a while now… you should really stay up to date on these things.
Moving the Goal Posts to "Climate Change" and claiming absolutely every kind of weather proves AGW is nonsense.
Wow. Ain't it awesome nobody did that, then? Nobody claims that 'absolutely every kind of weather proves AGW'. They've moved on to a new system.
This is no more 'moving the goalposts' than going from Dalton's model of the atom to Bohr's, than going from Newton's laws of motions to Einstein's theory relativity, than going from the theory of the Phologiston to modern chemical relationships. Around here, it's called scientific progress.Also, why is it that right wingers need to call any little bit of socialism communism, or take it to the extreme?
Things like this? http://notrickszone.com/2011/10/11/germ ... evolution/
Wow. Congratulations. That's really quite the feat. You found one guy among all socialist politicians of the Western World who said something stupid. That's some solid evidence that anyone with socialist views secretly wants to be Stalin, right there.
-
Replying to these word walls is frankly a daunting task. I have no hope of replying to every point. I'll just make my own word wall and call it even.
Small sets of data do not prove/disprove any theory, especially when it comes to overall climate change. One cold winter that's unexpected (or even a turn around for a few years) doesn't mean anything when it's the long term trend that's really important.
The same is true for vegetation, it's not a surprise to me that vegetation is experiencing rapid growth in places where it's allowed to- more CO2, more plants.
Also, in general, before telling me how science works, please get it right. A theory never becomes a fact. There's two things that science looks at, data and explanations. How and What are data, explanations are Why. Mathematical models can do a really good job predicting how and what. Generally these end up being called "laws", which many people misguidedly think is a "proven theory" or "proven hypothesis". Laws and Theories are separate. For example: we have a Law of Gravity that's really pretty good, it tells us how objects are going to move when influenced by the mass of other objects (assuming there aren't too many and the math doesn't get too hard). We have a theory of why that happens that's not so good, really, and is generally left to theoretical types who don't actually do much looking at data. Why is a much more complicated thing, and can never really be "proven", no real scientist has it as a goal. The hope is to find the best answer you can until more information comes along to make you reevaluate things.
The four things I outlined are still true, styxx, you didn't directly address any of them.
CO2 levels are increasing in the atmosphere, just because it doesn't have the predicted effect doesn't mean it has zero effect. Our atmosphere is a extremely complicated beast that I'd expect models to be constantly wrong about. Hell, our weather modeling is pretty awful, and that has easily identifiable short term data that it generates. Climate change is not so helpful in that regard.
Some increase in biomass doesn't mean the current biomass can sustain the levels of O2 and CO2 present in the atmosphere before we started oil combustion. There were times when there was much more CO2 and less O2 on this planet- it wasn't very comfy habitat for humans.
Your links for the last point don't actually say anything- sea levels not rising as much or as expected for a period of time doesn't mean they aren't or won't, it's very much like arguing that one cold winter means global warming isn't happening. In any case, my fact simply stated that sea level rise would lead to huge implications to our society. If we can pump all the oil into the atmosphere until we run out and the sea levels don't rise at all, then I'll be cheering with everyone else.
Also, why is it that right wingers need to call any little bit of socialism communism, or take it to the extreme? Western democratic industrialized society is quite socialist, and we enjoy a much higher standard of living than any in human history, and much of it is because in general, we help each other out and work together. Does that mean we're communist or even "socialist"? I don't know, but trying to use a descriptive word as a negative label doesn't make for reasonable debate. I don't look at the right and start spouting about people hoping for anarchy. There's obviously a line (hell, an optimal zone, likely) between ensuring good for all and personal freedom. I don't expect that everyone has the same opinion of where that line should be. However, pointing at the extremes all the time just makes one look like they have an axe to grind and no real substance.
Entropy I wasn't intending my words as a personal slur, nor meaning that I thought everyone who holds a left wing view must be a bad person. For clarity I don't consider it the case at all. I think there are probably as many good and bad left and right wingers.
My argument is that socialism as a system will always be inherently hostile to individualism and liberty, even if the advocates and individuals within that system are not.
The reason why I think this is because one of the central pillars of socialism in practice, if basically for the state to be doing more in society. As the state is doing more in society and so thus drawing more power into itself, it can only do this by taking power away the individual.
I think the more the state does for society, the less society is able to do for itself, which I think can enfeeble people, if such a system is left in place for too long. With regards to communism, when I state that communism is socialism taken to its natural conclusion, such is not meant as an arbitrary slur, more so that when society enables the state to do everything for it, it doesn't end in utopia, but more so a dystopian hell.
For any service there are three basic options:
- State controlled and governed centrally - Local service controlled by a bureaucrat
- State controlled and governed locally - Local service controlled by elected official (elected sheriffs)
- Controlled by the market - Local services controlled by 'competing' businesses
When I am taking a stab at socialism from a economic and organisational point of view, I am meaning society arranged with all the power in the centre of the state, or point one in the three given options.
The moral issue I have with such, is when power is so far removed from the individual, that individual is left relatively powerless and from an economic point of view, a state controlled monopoly is at least as bad as a market monopoly, as it removes choice and competitive pressure, therefore sub optimum results tend to be the case. Furthermore if the state has a monopoly over a service and it is a bad local service, that individual is stuck with that service.
If the market provides a service and an individual is unhappy with that service, that individual can choose another provider and is empowered through choice and as the market must compete, it does mean that the individual is far more likely to get a higher quality service.
With elected officials running services, it is the same story that power is given to the individual. For if an individual and society at large has a direct choice on how a service is run they are thus empowered because if they don't like how a service is run, they can change it.
While it is correct that conservative thinking is in general favour of markets over the state running services, as much as possible, this is down to the power dynamic that allowing the market to run things gives more choice and so thus power to the people.
With regards to global warming I think that these scientists confessing between each other that they are manipulating data and suppressing debate is compelling. No one put those words in their mouths, they spoke them themselves, therefore their words were taken in precisely the correct context, the correct context being what they sincerely thought and what they actually did.
Spartan
-
I for one have never heard that term before, whereas I've heard 'global warming' regularly, so we can argue what we would call it for days and days.
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary. ... al+warming
Enter the Global Climate Change model. It's what serious people have been using for a while now… you should really stay up to date on these things.
Despite keenly following this subject i have yet to hear about this new theory. I would love to hear all about this new Climate Model and what role you belive man has in "Climate Change"? Still man's Co2 emissions?
There is a distinction between Natural Climate Variability, IE:"Climate Change". And Man Made or "Anthroprogenic" Climate Change. Step one in determining Man's Role if any in "Climate Change" is to determine what is Natural Climate Variability and what is Man Made.
This has never been done. "
Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record." http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/02/a-c ... community/ -
Does this thread serve a point other then allowing four or five people to argue the same points over and over, annoy the other 99% of us and generally just create a bigger divide between the player base?
-
Does this thread serve a point other then allowing four or five people to argue the same points over and over, annoy the other 99% of us and generally just create a bigger divide between the player base?
-
Wow. Congratulations. That's really quite the feat. You found one guy among all socialist politicians of the Western World who said something stupid. That's some solid evidence that anyone with socialist views secretly wants to be Stalin, right there.
Here's just a few dredged up simply scratching the surface. What are the odds there are alot more.?
Lets see.
Maurice Strong the Godfather of the IPCC and prime suspect in the Oil for Food Scandal. "Licences to have babies incidentally is something that I got in trouble for some years ago for suggesting even in Canada that this might be necessary at some point, at least some restriction on the right to have a child. “Isn’t it the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?" http://climatephysics.com/2008/06/23/ba ... itics-101/
Ottmar Edenhofer Co-chair of IPCC Working Group III "Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated."
– Ottmar Edenhofer describes one of his Working Group’s immediate tasks as the necessity to “state what it costs to stabilize the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at a low level."
If all Co2 is doing is making trees grow and increasing crop yields one wonders why lower it? Not that that has even a remote chance of happening.
James Hansen, Serial Data manipulator, http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010 ... the-world/ NASA Alarmist, Climate Gatekeeper and Activist Loon. "The House on June 26, 2009, passed a bill limiting carbon-dioxide emissions and getting into just about every aspect of our lives. The Senate did nothing of the sort. The nation’s most prominent publicly funded climatologist is officially angry about this, blaming democracy and citing the Chinese government as the “best hopeâ€
-
So..how about that Sarah Palin and not running for President..
-
She was probably never electable. Despite the fact she had a good fiscal record as Governer. http://pa4palin.blogspot.com/2011/08/pa ... or-is.html
-
-
-
Does this thread serve a point other then allowing four or five people to argue the same points over and over, annoy the other 99% of us and generally just create a bigger divide between the player base?
If you don't like what is being posted on this forum topic simply ignore it and don't engage in it, no one is twisting your arm to read.
Also I consider discussion and debate healthy, especially between individuals or groups which might have very different points of view, as it enables scrutiny of both sides of an argument.
Nor should having a different political point of view from someone else cause personal conflict, among my family and friends there is a mix of political views, as I am sure there is among most of the people on this server. More of my circle at home is left wing, than conservative.
Finally no one is getting personal with one another, they are merely debating their points of view.
Spartan
-
Jared, discussing politics and economics is like wrestling with a pig in the mud. After a while you realise the pig enjoys it. :lol:
http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/2011 ... s-raw.html
http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/2011 ... tions.html
These total correction curves clearly show that the climatologists think that the raw data is as many as 3-5 degrees in error, which is why they correct it that much, yet they tell us that the observations are good enough to measure to the accuracy of a tenth of a degree. I always learned that if you have to make a degree correction, you can't claim that you have tenth of a degree precision.
NOAA Adjustments. http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/06/how ... -adjusted/
Since the total corrections for the US look so similar to the claimed temperature anomaly, it begs the questions as to what the raw data looks like without any corrections. Does it show the claimed rapidly accelerating warming trend claimed by the AGW advocates? To determine this I took the raw data from the USHCN graph shown in Figure 1 and plotted this using a 5 year mean (blue trace), matching the smoothing in the NASA GISS profile shown in Figure 4. The result is shown in Figure 5. Please note that while the plot is one that I generated, the data comes directly from the raw data from Figure 1 published by NOAA.
It would appear that the temperature rise profile claimed by the adjusted data is largely if not entirely an artefact arising from the adjustments applied (as shown in Figure 3), not from the experimental data record. In fact, the raw data does not in any way support the AGW theory.
Based on this data, the US temperature data does not correlate with carbon dioxide levels. The warming over the last 3 decades is completely unremarkable and if present at all is significantly less than occurred in the 1930’s. It is questionable whether any long term temperature rise over the 20th century can be inferred from the data but if there is any it is far less than claimed by the AGW proponents.
The corrected data from NOAA has been used as evidence of anthropogenic global warming yet it would appear that the rising trend over the 20th century is largely if not entirely an artefact arising from the “correctionsâ€
-
Stix, I'm not sure I agree with the way you justify a claim that socialism is communist. Perhaps I am misreading, but it seems like you are using extreme examples. I for one like concepts of socialism, but I wouldn't want to see it so widely implimented.
In theory, we are already socialist, or more aptly put have socialist programs like Social Security and welfare.
You actually touch too on a very big problem of socialism I agree with, which is that it leads to people doing less because the government will take care of them. Sadly, this is already being done. It's also a slipery slope argument, and not sound in logic. Unless you possess the ability to see into the future, I'll never take the justification of "Is x happens, then y is certain" seriously.
I'm not trying to support socialism really, but more pointing out sticking points that are, what I would consider, flimsy.