If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS News)   Finally   (cbsnews.com) divider line 111
    More: Cool, David Pogue, Pachauri, climate change, extreme weather, greenhouse gases, global warming, Arctic ice  
•       •       •

11109 clicks; posted to Geek » on 11 Nov 2012 at 8:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



111 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-14 03:07:51 AM  
PS Throughout this whole exchange you never even bothered to ask me for data or directly channellenge the alternative points of view Ive expressed. If you would really like to debate this topic I'd can point you in the direction of a couple actual geology professors who's professional opinions I've been using to formulate my arguments. I'm sure they would love to hear how their opinions make them climate deniers and could explain them much better than I a nonscientist.
 
2012-11-14 03:33:25 AM  

DerpHerder: A good scientist is always open to discussing and review of his work.


Yes. With someone qualified to discuss it intelligently. This does not mean having to address every talking-point endlessly repeated from right-wing blogs.

The discussions are happening at a level way beyond you. All of the history has been considered and the conclusion is that the natural forcings cannot account for our current warming.

You can spew all of your "muddy the waters" and "you can not be 100% sure" crap you want but it doesn't change the fact that you are just a political shill pretending to talk science.
 
2012-11-14 04:26:00 AM  

Farking Canuck: DerpHerder: A good scientist is always open to discussing and review of his work.

Yes. With someone qualified to discuss it intelligently. This does not mean having to address every talking-point endlessly repeated from right-wing blogs.

The discussions are happening at a level way beyond you. All of the history has been considered and the conclusion is that the natural forcings cannot account for our current warming.

You can spew all of your "muddy the waters" and "you can not be 100% sure" crap you want but it doesn't change the fact that you are just a political shill pretending to talk science.


What are your qualifications, and the tests you've conducted that prove human influence on current warming so they can verify the results and test them as well as be informed about what you'll be discussing. You are after all a scientist and not a political shill pretending to talk about science right?
 
2012-11-14 05:13:32 AM  
HighZoolander: dready zim: current warming is unprecedented and novel which is the stated reasoning behind the statement that there is an anthropogenic cause for the current warming

No. This is simply wrong. Factually incorrect.


Your assertion that I am wrong is simply wrong. Factually incorrect (unless your point relies on `unusual` not meaning `novel or unprecedented. I`ll concede that the claim that the warming is unprecedented is only one of the stated proofs.). Please edit the WIKI page if you think you are correct. See how far you get there...

"Attribution of recent climate change to human activities is based on multiple lines of evidence:[4]

A basic physical understanding of the climate system: greenhouse gas concentrations have increased and their warming properties are well-established.[4]
Historical estimates of past climate changes suggest that the recent changes in global surface temperature are unusual.[4]
Computer-based climate models are unable to replicate the observed warming unless human greenhouse gas emissions are included.[4]
Natural forces alone (such as solar and volcanic activity) cannot explain the observed warming.[4]
"

A previous rapid large unexplained warming invalidates these two points which are part of the evidence attributing warming to an anthropogenic cause. Failure to model is not proof of anything (being logically similar to proof of god, can`t explain it so GOD!, god being the default explanation). Failure to model previous warming would invalidate the models. The current understanding of the natural forces is unable to explain the current warming but then the current understanding is unable to explain (or model) the previous warmings either. There isn`t much to argue with as far as point one goes but it is not in isolation, it is regarded as proof when combined with the other dubious points.

of course, if they could model the previous warming then it would validate the position that their failure to model the current warming demonstrates an anthropogenic cause.

My assertion is that the statement "Historical estimates of past climate changes suggest that the recent changes in global surface temperature are unusual" is incorrect because the evidence of the older peron and other transgressions appear to show warming sufficient to cause meters of sea level change in a timeframe of a century or so which if accurate means MORE warming than we are experiencing. This would show the current warming is not unusual. A failure to model normal changes in the past would invalidate the model for modelling normal changes in the present

Care to show me how my assertion is incorrect?
 
2012-11-14 08:37:47 AM  

DerpHerder: What are your qualifications, and the tests you've conducted that prove human influence on current warming so they can verify the results and test them as well as be informed about what you'll be discussing. You are after all a scientist and not a political shill pretending to talk about science right?


I do not claim to be a climate scientist ... I am telling you what the climate scientists are saying.

You are telling us that the climate scientists are wrong because they somehow forgot to look at climate history.

See the difference??
 
2012-11-14 11:34:34 AM  

Farking Canuck: I do not claim to be a climate scientist ... I am telling you what the climate scientists are saying.

You are telling us that the climate scientists are wrong because they somehow forgot to look at climate history.

See the difference??



Yes, you are saying climate scientists are right because they are climate scientists and he is saying they may be wrong because they are human and he would like more proof to be convinced.

Before Einstein published his paper on relativity, people thought you could just go faster and faster. It was so obvious. There was you might say, a scientific consensus. After the theory of relativity was published people now say you cannot go faster than the speed of light. It is so obvious. There is a consensus.

Infinite speed was a concept that was seen as completely right until a patent clerk went "Hang on a minute".
 
2012-11-14 12:00:34 PM  

dready zim: Yes, you are saying climate scientists are right because they are climate scientists and he is saying they may be wrong because they are human and he would like more proof to be convinced.


An example:

I take my car into the mechanic. He examines the car thoroughly, does some test, gets very clear results and then concludes I need a new O2 sensor.

Derpherder walks into the garage off the street, declares that the Model-T did not need an O2 sensor so the mechanic must be wrong or part of a world-wide mechanic conspiracy. So I should do nothing to repair my car until I have examined all of Derpherder's concerns and the concerns of every other provider of derp out there.

You feel that I should give this opinion from the unqualified guy who walked in off the street equal footing with the theories and evidence scientific community. 

If we listen to people like you and the derpster then I don't have a functioning car and we have a planet who's ability to support human life is falling rapidly.

But you keep on spreading the derp.
 
2012-11-14 12:14:39 PM  

dready zim: HighZoolander: dready zim: current warming is unprecedented and novel which is the stated reasoning behind the statement that there is an anthropogenic cause for the current warming

No. This is simply wrong. Factually incorrect.

Your assertion that I am wrong is simply wrong. Factually incorrect (unless your point relies on `unusual` not meaning `novel or unprecedented. I`ll concede that the claim that the warming is unprecedented is only one of the stated proofs.). Please edit the WIKI page if you think you are correct. See how far you get there...

"Attribution of recent climate change to human activities is based on multiple lines of evidence:[4]

A basic physical understanding of the climate system: greenhouse gas concentrations have increased and their warming properties are well-established.[4]
Historical estimates of past climate changes suggest that the recent changes in global surface temperature are unusual.[4]
Computer-based climate models are unable to replicate the observed warming unless human greenhouse gas emissions are included.[4]
Natural forces alone (such as solar and volcanic activity) cannot explain the observed warming.[4]
"

A previous rapid large unexplained warming invalidates these two points which are part of the evidence attributing warming to an anthropogenic cause. Failure to model is not proof of anything (being logically similar to proof of god, can`t explain it so GOD!, god being the default explanation). Failure to model previous warming would invalidate the models. The current understanding of the natural forces is unable to explain the current warming but then the current understanding is unable to explain (or model) the previous warmings either. There isn`t much to argue with as far as point one goes but it is not in isolation, it is regarded as proof when combined with the other dubious points.

of course, if they could model the previous warming then it would validate the position that their failure to model the curr ...


So you believe that climate scientists are looking at the current data and saying: "Well, golly, that sure looks unusual. It must be humans who are causing it. Well, it looks like our work here is done, there couldn't possibly be any predictions we could make or tests we could do to confirm that, so we'll just assert it and see how many gullible idiots believe us."

No, that's not how it works. And you haven't addressed any of the actual evidence for a human fingerprint. I'm not disputing whether the current warming is anomalous or not - it simply does not matter if there have been rapid climate changes in the past that definitely were not caused by humans (whether or not there were, and whether or not it can be modelled). Logically of course that suggests the possibility that the current change is natural, but as you cite, natural forcings don't explain the current warming, and don't take into account the other evidence for human causes.

What you are seeming to refuse to understand is that the models inability to account for the current warming without human factors is not the only evidence for a human contribution. So so what if they fail to account for warming in other periods? Yes, that would suggest that the models are missing something, but a) that in no way means that the models are missing the same something for two different time periods, and b) it in no way addresses the other evidence for a human contribution (which you are steadfastly ignoring).

So do you care to address the evidence for human causes, or would you like to continue with nonsense?
 
2012-11-14 08:09:22 PM  

Farking Canuck: dready zim: Yes, you are saying climate scientists are right because they are climate scientists and he is saying they may be wrong because they are human and he would like more proof to be convinced.

An example:

I take my car into the mechanic. He examines the car thoroughly, does some test, gets very clear results and then concludes I need a new O2 sensor.

Derpherder walks into the garage off the street, declares that the Model-T did not need an O2 sensor so the mechanic must be wrong or part of a world-wide mechanic conspiracy. So I should do nothing to repair my car until I have examined all of Derpherder's concerns and the concerns of every other provider of derp out there.

You feel that I should give this opinion from the unqualified guy who walked in off the street equal footing with the theories and evidence scientific community. 

If we listen to people like you and the derpster then I don't have a functioning car and we have a planet who's ability to support human life is falling rapidly.

But you keep on spreading the derp.


Show me where I have stated innacuracies or used faulty logic. It is other people who wish to change my talking point into theirs and wish to ignore fairly important things.

HighZoolander: So so what if they fail to account for warming in other periods?


like this. It is really important if climate models fail to model known events in the global climate, it means their predictions are invalid. If we don`t know why it got warm before, how do we know it is not a factor we are unaware of today?

The adult way to reply would be to show that the models HAVE accurately reproduced these events, the cause and why said cause is not happening now or concede the point but instead we get

Farking Canuck: people like you


Farking Canuck: keep on spreading the derp


HighZoolander: continue with nonsense


And yet

HighZoolander: Yes, that would suggest that the models are missing something



HighZoolander: Logically of course that suggests the possibility that the current change is natural


So what is it? Is my logic sound or am I talking nonsense? Is there a possibility that the current warming started naturally or not? Are the models flawed? I think there are some things we are not aware that we do not know. It would be folly to think otherwise. It`s the insults and rigidity of thought on both sides that taints these threads. If you think you already know, sometimes that stops you finding out. Always question. If the questions make people angry you know they are the right ones.
 
2012-11-14 09:11:35 PM  

dready zim: So what is it? Is my logic sound or am I talking nonsense? Is there a possibility that the current warming started naturally or not? Are the models flawed? I think there are some things we are not aware that we do not know. It would be folly to think otherwise. It`s the insults and rigidity of thought on both sides that taints these threads. If you think you already know, sometimes that stops you finding out. Always question. If the questions make people angry you know they are the right ones.


Logic does not necessarily relate to reality. There are many logical possibilities, not all of which are consistent with evidence.

What you want to do is suppose that there is some magic factor X that operated in the past (which is currently unknown), and could possibly be operating today (despite no evidence for it).

If a magic unknown factor is responsible for the warming today, then the models would grossly overshoot the current warming, because some additional magic factor X would not replace human warming in the model - why should it? Why should a new factor that causes warming also cause human causes to be irrelevant?

The fact is though that we have ample evidence for a human fingerprint on the warming, and none for your mystery factor. So you want to replace good information with vague mysteries. That's probably not going to be helpful, but if that's the math you need to do to make yourself feel better, knock yourself out (and good luck with that).

And you still haven't addressed the question I've now asked you three times - do you have any arguments against the evidence of the anthropogenic part of AGW?

dready zim: It is other people who ... wish to ignore fairly important things.


Yeah, not so much....
 
2012-11-14 10:12:33 PM  

dready zim: Show me where I have stated innacuracies or used faulty logic


How about the part where you pretend that you've discovered something that the scientific community has missed?

Or the hypocrisy where you use a scientific result you like to forward a claim that science doesn't work?

You are employing typical misdirection techniques. Claiming to introduce something new (when we all know it is not) to imply that your ignorant speculation is on par with the overwhelming evidence supporting the scientific theories. The goal is to delay action to keep the profits high for those who profit from the status quo.

You are part of the 'Cult of Ignorance' described by Issac Asimov in the following quote:

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
― Isaac Asimov

/in case you aren't clear ... your ignorance is not as good as the knowledge of the scientists currently working in the field
 
Displayed 11 of 111 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report