- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
1
Posted on 11/17/16 at 9:39 pm to bhtigerfan
quote:
How many times have we asked this of the global warming nuts?
It's irrelevant. The issue isn't what is the 'right' temperature, the issue is the temperature is rising an order of magnitude faster than ancient and recorded history.
Posted on 11/17/16 at 9:45 pm to BobBoucher
quote:
BobBoucher
Interesting link which gives needed perspective.
Looks like a smart, clever site as well!
Posted on 11/17/16 at 9:48 pm to djmicrobe
I think Obama and those making similar arguments, are wrong in their level of certainty regarding (1) causation, (2) their prediction of the future climate, and (3) the effects of the future climate--especially the disproportionate focus on negative effects. These have been troubling themes for decades.
My problem is that the counter argument seems to have moved away from a healthy and justifiable skepticism to a similar level of certainty that the other side's arguments are completely wrong.
So now both sides have embraced an irrational level of certainty, and any reasonable middle-ground is drowned out.
My problem is that the counter argument seems to have moved away from a healthy and justifiable skepticism to a similar level of certainty that the other side's arguments are completely wrong.
So now both sides have embraced an irrational level of certainty, and any reasonable middle-ground is drowned out.
This post was edited on 11/17/16 at 9:51 pm
Posted on 11/17/16 at 9:49 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
Interesting link which gives needed perspective.
24 dowvotes. First reply. Lol. Yeah, that really puts it in perspective for those who say "the climate has always changed". You can see it there, compared to the recent change.
I haven't looked at the rest of the site. I just thought the chart is really hard to dismiss, which is probably why I don't have any negative replies.
This post was edited on 11/17/16 at 9:50 pm
Posted on 11/17/16 at 9:51 pm to BobBoucher
People just know that they're right. It doesn't matter how it happens or what the source.
Posted on 11/17/16 at 9:52 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
So now both sides have embraced an irrational level of certainty, and any reasonable middle-ground is drowned out.
Absolutely. In general, humans tend to do this..and that is why we have the EXACT same situation regarding Left vs. Right. And that is why positive change is impossible in the current political environment. Hopefully we get some change, but I doubt it since we are a decaying civilization. All great civs have decayed from within, we are no different...just hope to extend it as long as possible.
Posted on 11/17/16 at 9:53 pm to BobBoucher
Why is the temperature variation in that graph based on the average temperature during the oddly specific date range between 1961 and 1990? Could it be because that produces the most dramatic results to support a conclusion that was made before testing? What a joke.
Posted on 11/17/16 at 9:55 pm to Dick Leverage
quote:Clearly Giaevar should be better than most people in his ability to judge a complex topic like climate.
How long ago was that you won a Nobel prize in physics? I am sure you are a better source of info about climate change but just want to get your resume before I just decide to believe you.
HOWEVER, the ridiculous "global warming consensus" argument is a logical fallacy (Appeal to Authority), so appealing to Giaevar's authority is also a fallacy.
This post was edited on 11/17/16 at 9:56 pm
Posted on 11/17/16 at 9:56 pm to BobABooey
quote:
Why is the temperature variation in that graph based on the average temperature during the oddly specific date range between 1961 and 1990? Could it be because that produces the most dramatic results to support a conclusion that was made before testing? What a joke.
Not sure I follow. You're referring to the solid line versus the dotted line? My guess is that's from when it was measured compared to what can be deduced from geology (dotted line).
Posted on 11/17/16 at 9:58 pm to Stagg8
quote:
FYI, he won the Nobel in physics like 40+ years ago.
Has his breakthrough been discredited in that span?
Posted on 11/17/16 at 10:00 pm to ManBearTiger
quote:
Has his breakthrough been discredited in that span?
Was his breakthrough in any way-shape-or-form even tangentially related to climate? I'll save you the trouble - no.
This post was edited on 11/17/16 at 10:01 pm
Posted on 11/17/16 at 10:01 pm to philter
quote:Maybe this is correct, but there are too many great things about present day civilization for me to buy it.
but I doubt it since we are a decaying civilization
That's not dismissing our problems, but I think we are in a unique place where we can see the problems immediately via the Internet, social media, 24 hour news. And since negative news sells--presumably because we must be more interested in it--we get an asymmetric view into the world.
Posted on 11/17/16 at 10:02 pm to Stagg8
quote:
he's going head-to-head (contrarily) with a huge number of other very, very bright folks whose careers depend on continued massive amounts of wasted tax dollars being dumped into the farcical realm of climate science;
Fify simp.
Posted on 11/17/16 at 10:03 pm to ManBearTiger
quote:
Fify simp
And let me guess, we cured cancer years ago and are holding on to the cure, right?
Posted on 11/17/16 at 10:03 pm to Kashmir
quote:
didnt bore gore say the polar caps would be melted by 2010?
I think this is part of the reason people don't believe it. There have been so many "HOLY shite. CLIMATE. ACID RAIN. NEXT ICE AGE. GLOBAL WARMING. MUST ACT NOWWWWWWWWWWW" moments that people are just numb to it. So many radical predictions, even if they're BS, have made headlines and not come to fruition. Especially when the solution seems to involve giving the government more money.
Posted on 11/17/16 at 10:04 pm to BobBoucher
So you're buying into a chart that supposedly tracks 1000's of years of temperature readings based on less than 30 years of actual readings? Come on.
Go back and look at the chart and get a better understanding of what it's saying.
Hysteria wrapped in the cloak of fake science is still hysteria.
Go back and look at the chart and get a better understanding of what it's saying.
Hysteria wrapped in the cloak of fake science is still hysteria.
Posted on 11/17/16 at 10:04 pm to ManBearTiger
quote:This is really an irrelevant argumen, save for the fact that he has a unique ability to understand complex system that most of us don't posses.
Has his breakthrough been discredited in that span?
That being said, the veracity of the message and the evidence used to support it, is all that truly matters.
Posted on 11/17/16 at 10:06 pm to BobABooey
quote:
BobBoucher
quote:Your names are making this argument much harder to follow than usual.
BobABooey
Posted on 11/17/16 at 10:06 pm to BobABooey
quote:
So you're buying into a chart that supposedly tracks 1000's of years of temperature readings based on less than 30 years of actual readings? Come on.
You're going to dispute geology and the fossile record? Scientists have been able to figure out past climate conditions by looking at what lived at the time and where. If you're disputing that, you're disputing an entire field of science that has been around a lot longer than the climate change theory.
Page 2 of 9
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News