Is Global Warming Real? · Page 7

Free Fall
Auctions

Specials
Auctions

QuickBuy
Auctions

Newly Added
Auctions

Ending Soon
Auctions

Welcome Guest

Forum Terms & Conditions | My Topics

DrafterX
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#121

victor, your apparent disdain for someone beliefs does not make any of your arguments any stronger. Its one thing to argue point vs. counter point its a whole other mater to make a mockery of their beliefs, that's just low. I myself respect others beliefs even though I do not necessarily agree with them. And from what I read in no way did he try to force his beliefs on you, simply made a statement.

SweetHavok wrote:

it's much easier to not take anyone seriously in here..... 😟

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#122

SweetHavok wrote:

Not sure what you're referring to, but if it's potts, you have to realize he and I have a very long history. Thousands of pages worth of "discussion". I can tell you every argument he will make, none of it has ever changed. point vs counterpoint is moot at that point (badum bum!).

Now, regardless of who you're referring to, "beliefs" are ridiculous within a discussion which should have a scientific basis (whether you agree with global warming or not, I'd like to think that everyone can agree that it is a scientific topic)... one can have assumptions, suppositions, educated guesses, estimations and even the occasional fact...

I mean, if I'm sitting on the dock with a temperature sensor in the water and you tell me you "believe" the water is 34F, while my temperature sensor is telling me its 55F, I'm going to mock you for your beliefs.

SweetHavok
Aficionado

13 years ago

#123

ok, seems I jumped the gun on this one a bit, my bad.

And as far as relying on instruments, for reliable data, apparently you haven't heard of faulty equipment. Personal experience and beliefs have led me not to always rely on instruments. Don't know how many times I have seen mechanics in the Army work on a vehicle because it doesn't start. I immediately check the gas tank itself, knock it a few times and realize its empty. Then tell the mechanics its out of fuel and thats why it doesn't start. But they say its reading full, half or whatever the gauge says. I repeat the knocking on the gas tank so they can hear the hollow sound of an empty tank. Mind you I'm no mechanic I usually work in a warehouse, logistics.

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#124

SweetHavok wrote:

Of course an instrument can be bad... you're kind of missing the point though. You double checked an instrument, using another instrument (your ears... not as accurate as a gauge, but still going to give you a ball-park). At no time are you simply relying on "belief".
Belief would be if the gauge said full, knocking on it suggested it was full, cameras installed in the tank showed it to be full, and the engine was running... yet you still said it was empty. Belief is absent of fact, supposition, estimation or assumption....

DrafterX
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#125

I blame ethanol.... 😠

SweetHavok
Aficionado

13 years ago

#126

victor my poor victor

1) I made an assumption, which is otherwise known as a belief

2) relying on my senses instead of instruments validated my assumption

simple enough for you?

SweetHavok
Aficionado

13 years ago

#127

I blame ethanol.... 😠

DrafterX wrote:

yup, only ethanol I like is the one I can 🍺

Brewha
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

13 years ago

#128

That is ridiculous. That would be like blaming the shooter and not the gun.

HockeyDad wrote:

Nice try HD, but your attempt at misdirection are as thin as the vial on an 18 year old belly dancer.
In heals.
With one of those big rhinestones in her belly.
And castanets. . . . .

Edited by user 13 years ago | Reason: Not specified

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#129

victor my poor victor

1) I made an assumption, which is otherwise known as a belief

2) relying on my senses instead of instruments validated my assumption

simple enough for you?

SweetHavok wrote:

as·sump·tion [uh-suhmp-shuh n] Show IPA
noun
1.
something taken for granted; a supposition: a correct assumption. Synonyms: presupposition; hypothesis, conjecture, guess, postulate, theory.

be·lief [bih-leef] Show IPA
noun
1.
something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

These are similar words, and many times are interchangeable but not in this case. The assumption you made was that the gauge was incorrect, this was postulated, and then verified. "Belief" in this case would be that you believe all gauges to be incorrect all the time, without any need to verify. Either was, I suppose we are splitting hairs.

If you don't think your senses are instruments, then contemplate the idea of a microscope.

SweetHavok
Aficionado

13 years ago

#130

victor809 wrote:

Apparently you've never taken a science class. When you want to test a idea, you must first form a hypothesis, in which you state an assumption of how you believe things will turn out. Then you go about trying to find out if your hypothesis is correct.Assumptions play a key role in science so don't be so quick to discredit them, and although not all assumptions that are made will turn out to be true, much can be learned from them as well.

And yes senses are a type of instrument, just not the type you can pick up and put in your coat pocket, they are the intangible type.

As far as beliefs, relying on my beliefs has saved my life on numerous occasions, stayed clear of a situations when everything seemed normal and everyone else thought nothing could go wrong. Did I have to take out a beaker, microscope, thermometer. No, I believed in the intangibles such as my instincts.

*Just on a personal note so no one makes an assumption because of my profession, the situations in which my life was spared had nothing to do with combat, as stated before I normally work in a warehouse, just work hazards in what was supposed to be a routine work day. Not trying to take credit for something I don't do.

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#131

SweetHavok wrote:

Trust me, I've taken many science classes...

This is semantics, but your use of the word "believe" in the first paragraph is significantly different than "relying on my beliefs". Do you see the difference?

If two instruments are giving me two different readings, I can believe that a particular one is accurate vs the other (based on maintenance history, calibration, age of the instrument etc etc). That does not make it a "belief". that is closer to an assumption. (Yes, I know this is semantics, but how one phrases things is very important).

You did not rely on your beliefs ... you believed your instincts. Your instincts are not "beliefs" they are an undefined feeling one gets, which may or may not have a basis in reality. For the purpose of our discussion, the validity of instincts is irrelevant... you believed in your instincts.

For your "beliefs to save your life" statement to be accurate would require one of the following: Divine intervention from whatever deity you believe in; non-divine intervention from an individual who saved your life because they approved of one of your beliefs; or a happy coincidence where your belief that all gauges in the world are faulty caused you to refuse to board a plane which subsequently crashed.

.... I get hung up on details, I have to admit.

SweetHavok
Aficionado

13 years ago

#132

Maybe for you instincts are not beliefs but they are for me. Think about it, when you have nothing tangible to support your intuition that something is unsafe, is a belief in itself.

Edited by user 13 years ago | Reason: Not specified

yardobeef
Aficionado

13 years ago

#133

Clearly you need to find a deeper belief in your instinct to believe. A greater belief will allow you to validate your instinctive intangibles to a greater degree of reliability, I believe.

DrMaddVibe
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#134

Clearly you need to find a deeper belief in your instinct to believe. A greater belief will allow you to validate your instinctive intangibles to a greater degree of reliability, I believe.

yardobeef wrote:

I believe Vikki needs a Chick-Fil-A sammich!

Brewha
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

13 years ago

#135

victor809 wrote:

I have always considered myself a man of science. Best facts over best wishes. I can't even enjoy Lord of the Rings because it's too mystical. If the hero had a plasma rifle in the 40 watt range, he would've need some flakey ring to rule 'em all . . . .

Just say'n

SweetHavok
Aficionado

13 years ago

#136

Clearly you need to find a deeper belief in your instinct to believe. A greater belief will allow you to validate your instinctive intangibles to a greater degree of reliability, I believe.

yardobeef wrote:

Trust me I do have deeper beliefs than just instinct alone, but the converstation turned to instincts being a form of belief or not, I was simpy stating that I believed it is ONE form of my beliefs.

Brewha
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

13 years ago

#137

Trust me I do have deeper beliefs than just instinct alone, but the converstation turned to instincts being a form of belief or not, I was simpy stating that I believed it is ONE form of my beliefs.

SweetHavok wrote:

'Belief' is kind of a weasel word. All it really means is that you hold some idea to be true.
People always seen to assign more meaning to it though . . . .

DrMaddVibe
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#138

Ever since the Ice Age we've been thawing out. Now it looks like we're slipping back again. Given the historic nature that's played itself out I believe we'll have another Ice Age before the Manbearpig's catastrophic delusions destroy the globe.

Then there's the whole lying to make facts from the scientific community to deal with too. Seems they ALL want in on the swindle.[frypan]

DrMaddVibe wrote:

:-k

Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled

The fact that global surface temperatures have not followed the expected global warming pattern is now widely accepted.

Debate about the reality of a two-decade pause in global warming and what it means has made its way from the sceptical fringe to the mainstream.

In a lengthy article this week, The Economist magazine said if climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, then climate sensitivity - the way climate reacts to changes in carbon-dioxide levels - would be on negative watch but not yet downgraded.

Another paper published by leading climate scientist James Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the lower than expected temperature rise between 2000 and the present could be explained by increased emissions from burning coal.

For Hansen the pause is a fact, but it's good news that probably won't last.

International Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently told The Weekend Australian the hiatus would have to last 30 to 40 years "at least" to break the long-term warming trend.

But the fact that global surface temperatures have not followed the expected global warming pattern is now widely accepted.

Research by Ed Hawkins of University of Reading shows surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range projections derived from 20 climate models and if they remain flat, they will fall outside the models' range within a few years.

"The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations," says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

"If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change," he says.

Whitehouse argues that whatever has happened to make temperatures remain constant requires an explanation because the pause in temperature rise has occurred despite a sharp increase in global carbon emissions.

The Economist says the world has added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010, about one-quarter of all the carbon dioxide put there by humans since 1750. This mismatch between rising greenhouse gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now, The Economist article says.

"But it does not mean global warming is a delusion."

The fact is temperatures between 2000 and 2010 are still almost 1C above their level in the first decade of the 20th century.

"The mismatch might mean that for some unexplained reason there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-2010.

"Or it might mean that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period."

The magazine explores a range of possible explanations including higher emissions of sulphur dioxide, the little understood impact of clouds and the circulation of heat into the deep ocean.

But it also points to an increasing body of research that suggests it may be that climate is responding to higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before.

"This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy," the article says.

There are now a number of studies that predict future temperature rises as a result of man-made carbon dioxide emissions at well below the IPCC best estimate of about 3C over the century.

The upcoming IPCC report is expected to lift the maximum possible temperature increase to 6C.

The Research Council of Norway says in a non-peer-reviewed paper that the best estimate concludes there is a 90 per cent probability that doubling CO2 emissions will increase temperatures by only 1.2C to 2.9C, the most likely figure being 1.9C.

Another study based on the way the climate behaved about 20,000 years ago has given a best guess of 2.3C.

Other forecasts, accepted for publication, have reanalysed work cited by the IPCC but taken account of more recent temperature data and given a figure of between 1C and 3C.

The Economist says understanding which estimate is true is vital to getting the best response.

"If as conventional wisdom has it, global temperatures could rise by 3C or more in response to a doubling of emissions, then the correct response would be the one to which most of the world pays lip service; rein in the warming and the greenhouse gases causing it," the article says.

"If, however, temperatures are likely to rise by only 2 degrees Celsius in response to a doubling of carbon emissions (and if the likelihood of a 6 degrees Celsius is trivial) the calculation might change," it says.

"Perhaps the world should seek to adjust to (rather than stop) the greenhouse-gas splurge.

"There is no point buying earthquake insurance if you don't live in an earthquake zone."

According to The Economist, "given the hiatus in warming and all the new evidence, a small reduction in estimates of climate sensitivity would seem to be justified." On face value, Hansen agrees the slowdown in global temperature rises can be seen as "good news".

But he is not ready to recalculate the Faustian bargain that weighs the future cost to humanity of continued carbon dioxide emissions.

Hansen argues that the impact of human carbon dioxide emissions has been masked by the sharp increase in coal use, primarily in China and India.

Increased particulate and nitrogen pollution has worked in the opposite direction of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

Another paper published in Geophysical Research Letters on research from the University of Colorado Boulder found small volcanoes, not more coal power stations in China, were responsible for the slowdown in global warming.

But this did not mean that climate change was not a problem.

"Emissions from volcanic gases go up and down, helping to cool or heat the planet, while greenhouse gases from human activity just continue to go up," author Ryan Neely says.

Hansen's bottom line is that increased short-term masking of greenhouse gas warming by fossil fuel particulate and nitrogen pollution represents a "doubling down" of the Faustian bargain, an increase in the stakes.

"The more we allow the Faustian debt to build, the more unmanageable the eventual consequences will be," he says.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/twenty-year-hiatus-in-rising-temperatures-has-climate-scientists-puzzled/story-e6frg6z6-1226609140980

pdxstogieman
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#139

Global Warming? That's code for UN commissars telling Americans what the temperature's going to be in our outdoors. I say let the world warm up. Let's see what Boutros Boutros Ghali Ghali has to say about that. We'll grow oranges in Alaska!

jpotts
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#140

Yes potts, I'm sure categorically deciding that anyone who has put the effort, research and years into a topic required for a PhD is "dumb" is definitely the direction to go. No way that can go wrong.

Give me a study showing IQ vs years education rather than your worthless anecdotes, and then you can start to sound less like a crazy bearded homeless man. Of course, the study will probably be developed by someone with a PhD, so I'm sure it must be wrong.... 😣

victor809 wrote:

Now THIS I like. Because it demonstrates just how frickin' clueless you are as to the drivel that passes for higher educatgion these days. Please let me refer you to this article:

http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/the-most-persuasive-case-for-eliminating-black-studies-just-read-the-dissertations/46346

You’ll have to forgive the lateness but I just got around to reading The Chronicle’s recent piece on the young guns of black studies. If ever there were a case for eliminating the discipline, the sidebar explaining some of the dissertations being offered by the best and the brightest of black-studies graduate students has made it. What a collection of left-wing victimization claptrap. The best that can be said of these topics is that they’re so irrelevant no one will ever look at them.

That’s what I would say about Ruth Hayes’ dissertation, “‘So I Could Be Easeful’: Black Women’s Authoritative Knowledge on Childbirth.” It began because she “noticed that nonwhite women’s experiences were largely absent from natural-birth literature, which led me to look into historical black midwifery.” How could we overlook the nonwhite experience in “natural birth literature,” whatever the heck that is? It’s scandalous and clearly a sign that racism is alive and well in America, not to mention academia.

Then there is Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, author of “Race for Profit: Black Housing and the Urban Crisis of the 1970s.” Ms. Taylor believes there was apparently some kind of conspiracy in the federal government’s promotion of single family homes in black neighborhoods after the unrest of the 1960s. Single family homes! The audacity! But Ms. Taylor sees that her issue is still relevant today. (Not much of a surprise since the entirety of black studies today seems to rest on the premise that nothing much has changed in this country in the past half century when it comes to race. Shhhh. Don’t tell them about the black president!) She explains that “The subprime lending crisis, if it did nothing else, highlighted the profitability of racism in the housing market.” The subprime lending crisis was about the profitability of racism? Those millions of white people who went into foreclosure were just collateral damage, I guess.

But topping the list in terms of sheer political partisanship and liberal hackery is La TaSha B. Levy. According to the Chronicle, “Ms. Levy is interested in examining the long tradition of black Republicanism, especially the rightward ideological shift it took in the 1980s after the election of Ronald Reagan. Ms. Levy’s dissertation argues that conservatives like Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, John McWhorter, and others have ‘played one of the most-significant roles in the assault on the civil-rights legacy that benefited them.’” The assault on civil rights? Because they don’t favor affirmative action they are assaulting civil rights? Because they believe there are some fundamental problems in black culture that cannot be blamed on white people they are assaulting civil rights?

Seriously, folks, there are legitimate debates about the problems that plague the black community from high incarceration rates to low graduation rates to high out-of-wedlock birth rates. But it’s clear that they’re not happening in black-studies departments. If these young scholars are the future of the discipline, I think they can just as well leave their calendars at 1963 and let some legitimate scholars find solutions to the problems of blacks in America. Solutions that don’t begin and end with blame the white man.

The article she was commenting on was one that was promoting the new "young gun" upcoming PhDs os some black studies department. Showing, all to easily, how you can be a total brainless slob, but with the right funding you too can get a PhD. And that's because the PHDs running these institutions are breainless slobs themselves. Otherwise, these people would be hard-pressed to get a job in the university cafeteria.

Sorry, but I'll stick with the guys who actually make stuff. Not the ones who think they are intelligent because some moron gave them a piece of paper for spending several months of their life "studying" a subject that no one really actually cares about.

And only someone like you would defend them.

Face it Victor: that higher education you got is not as wonderful as you think it is...

Users browsing this topic

Important Information: