- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Here's a nice "f*ck you" to the Climate Change apostles (caution: sciency shite)
Posted on 11/19/14 at 9:29 am to udtiger
Posted on 11/19/14 at 9:29 am to udtiger
well the comments in the OP are right
the models are obviously very wrong
but there is legit science in the errors realized in trying to make those models much more accurate
i don't think many people are arguing that climate is changing. however, the fact that we had to call it "climate change" instead of "global warming" to adjust for new information is a big deal. the causation is also not settled, and it is likely varied, so the division of causation is certainly not settled.
my stance on AGW has been pretty consistent for a few years. i think humans have an impact on global climate. i don't think we have any idea of what that impact is, yet. i think that we are very egotistical and we like to imagine our effects as greater than they are. this leads to emotional thinking and fear mongering. self-serving scientists see the economic incentives and are riding the financial gravy train, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy and confirmation bias with any results.
the models are obviously very wrong
but there is legit science in the errors realized in trying to make those models much more accurate
i don't think many people are arguing that climate is changing. however, the fact that we had to call it "climate change" instead of "global warming" to adjust for new information is a big deal. the causation is also not settled, and it is likely varied, so the division of causation is certainly not settled.
my stance on AGW has been pretty consistent for a few years. i think humans have an impact on global climate. i don't think we have any idea of what that impact is, yet. i think that we are very egotistical and we like to imagine our effects as greater than they are. this leads to emotional thinking and fear mongering. self-serving scientists see the economic incentives and are riding the financial gravy train, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy and confirmation bias with any results.
6
Posted on 11/19/14 at 9:33 am to SlowFlowPro
Agreed. I object to the fear mongering by the media which has been around since the 70's.
And obviously "Climate Change" has been around since the history of earth.
Otherwise we wouldn't have had an "Ice Age" and came out of it.
And obviously "Climate Change" has been around since the history of earth.
Otherwise we wouldn't have had an "Ice Age" and came out of it.
Posted on 11/19/14 at 9:34 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i don't think many people are arguing that climate is changing. however, the fact that we had to call it "climate change" instead of "global warming" to adjust for new information is a big deal.
That ALONE should have made EVERYONE sit back and say, WHAT THE F*CK!
When these whackjobs just kept spewing the same old sh!t - as though NOTHING had happened - with the same old liberal solution to every f*cking problem that ever existed (i.e., tax the living f*ck out of it), THAT was the point when you knew that this whole sh!t show was a complete f*cking money grubbing SCAM of the highest order.
This post was edited on 11/19/14 at 9:35 am
Posted on 11/19/14 at 9:54 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:this narrative is false
however, the fact that we had to call it "climate change" instead of "global warming" to adjust for new information is a big deal.
Climate Change was used more in the scientific lexicon for most of the last century and global warming has always been a subset of climate change.
Posted on 11/19/14 at 9:57 am to SlowFlowPro
I find it humorous that the Rand Paul disagrees with his followers on GW. In fact most Republican leaders did including Bush until they realized the knuckledraggers weren't on board. Will be interesting if Paul goes the way of the others.
Posted on 11/19/14 at 11:31 am to SlowFlowPro
"i don't think we have any idea of what that impact is, yet."
This is very similar to my view on it. It is beyond my spare time and scientific knowledge to have an opinion based on primary sources. I have to read secondary sources and do the best I can. AGW would, in a perfect world, be the subject of intense scientific debate, especially as to causation and coming up with models that are more predictive, but I don't believe we should be making big policy decisions on carbon reduction when we don't know what it will accomplish. We risk wasting big resources on a problem that may not be as bad as predicted or (even more likely?) that we can't do much to change. The forgotten problem with all of this is that it will likely tend to retard things like rural electrification, which is now taken for granted in the developed world but produces huge quality of life gains for poorer parts of the world. In short, I'm no "denier" but I would love to see more debate on whether we're doing more harm than good.
This is very similar to my view on it. It is beyond my spare time and scientific knowledge to have an opinion based on primary sources. I have to read secondary sources and do the best I can. AGW would, in a perfect world, be the subject of intense scientific debate, especially as to causation and coming up with models that are more predictive, but I don't believe we should be making big policy decisions on carbon reduction when we don't know what it will accomplish. We risk wasting big resources on a problem that may not be as bad as predicted or (even more likely?) that we can't do much to change. The forgotten problem with all of this is that it will likely tend to retard things like rural electrification, which is now taken for granted in the developed world but produces huge quality of life gains for poorer parts of the world. In short, I'm no "denier" but I would love to see more debate on whether we're doing more harm than good.
Posted on 11/19/14 at 12:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i think humans have an impact on global climate
We are definitely polluting the oceans and causing significant problems in air pollution and deforestation - those are the top 3 off the top of my head. We are also fouling our fresh water supply, although we've gotten a lot better in the West (I think China and India will ultimately grow out of their fresh water supply and this will trigger a sudden, huge crisis - but I digress).
But - CO2 is not a pollutant, period. It is a trace element REQUIRED for life to exist on this planet. They have focused on this issue like a laser beam - Why? He who controls the sources of energy controls everything, ultimately.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News