Page 17 of 161 FirstFirst ... 71314151617181920212767117 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 425 of 4001
  1. #401
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    so much shady behavior by the climate science community
    I would find your arguments so much more credible if you held the deniers you agree with to the same ethical and intellectual standards.

    That you hold double standards for the side you agree with, mostly by simple silence, does not lead me to be convinced of your cause.
    RandomGuy is offline

  2. #402
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    I would find your arguments so much more credible if you held the deniers you agree with to the same ethical and intellectual standards.

    That you hold double standards for the side you agree with, mostly by simple silence, does not lead me to be convinced of your cause.

    I'll take your arguments more seriously when you start using the term skeptic instead of denier.
    DarrinS is offline

  3. #403
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Republican Global Warming Deniers Funded By Energy Industry
    @ the amounts of money quoted in that article.

    How much did BP give Obama?
    DarrinS is offline

  4. #404
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    I'll take your arguments more seriously when you start using the term skeptic instead of denier.
    So you admit the possibility that they are correct and if so what chance do you give it?
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  5. #405
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    I'll say it again. Once the people who claim there is a climatological crisis start acting like there's a climatological crisis, I'll start paying attention.


    Europe on track for Kyoto targets while emissions from imported goods rise


    The European Environment Agency reported that by the end of last year emissions produced by the current 27 member countries have fallen by more than 17% since 1990, putting them "well on track" to meet the target to meet the EU's own pledge of a 20% reduction by 2020 . The original 15 EU member states who signed Kyoto have dropped their emissions by 6%, giving them "a headstart to reach and even over-achieve" their target under the treaty of an 8% reduction. Emissions from the current 27 member countries have fallen by more than 17% since 1990, putting them "well on track" to meet the target to meet the EU's own pledge of a 20% reduction by the same date, added the report.

    However a report due to be published soon by the Policy Exchange thinktank has measured the emissions generated by goods and services consumed by those countries and found that it has increased by more than 40%.

    As a result, "demonstrating success in reducing carbon levels is questionable," said Simon Less, the thinktank's head of environment and energy.
    It's a sham. From Al Gore and his million-man-equivalent carbon footprint to Nancy Pelosi and the rest of them in Congress who fly around on military jets as if they were riding a bike to the corner store.
    Yonivore is offline

  6. #406
    i hunt fenced animals clambake's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    25,031
    next thing you know, they'll be landing on a carrier.
    clambake is offline

  7. #407
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,598
    next thing you know, they'll be landing on a carrier.
    Did they recycle the "Mission Accomplished" banner?
    ChumpDumper is online now

  8. #408
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    I'll say it again. Once the people who claim there is a climatological crisis start acting like there's a climatological crisis, I'll start paying attention.
    No one here believes that.

    Even if they did, you would still deny there is anything to worry about.
    RandomGuy is offline

  9. #409
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    No one here believes that.

    Even if they did, you would still deny there is anything to worry about.
    I think his point is things like Al Gore living in a smaller, energy efficient home and not using multiple large computer monitors. Using more fuel efficient transportation. just one example. If the leader of the AGW movement doesn't live by his own words, why should we?
    Wild Cobra is offline

  10. #410
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    I did not ask if Henry's law was direct.

    I asked:

    Is it possible that the processes involved in planetary atmospheres/oceans are too complex to apply Henry's law without some heavy modifications to that calculation?

    If you refuse to answer this question, I will simply assume it is possible that a simple application of Henry's law might not be entirely appropriate, although useful.
    No. Not as you imply.
    So the entire complex planetary atmosphere, with all the oceans currents, biological processes and so forth, boil down to one simplifying assumption.

    The entire ocean behaves exactly like a small beaker in a laboratory under carefully controlled conditions?

    I find that a bit of a stretch.
    RandomGuy is offline

  11. #411
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Have we seen massive levels of vulcanism in the last 200 years? 50 years [that might cause our current run up in Co2]?

    As for volcanic activity triggering that e? No, I doubt it.
    So, essentially, you have not eliminated vulcanism as the source of the Co2 e?

    You have attributed the entire e in concentration, to my knowledge to an increase in temperature in the oceans.

    You have stated that the increase in CO2 is NOT due to any human activity.

    Is that correct?
    RandomGuy is offline

  12. #412
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Consenus = weak science
    By that definition the consensus concerning gravitational, chemical, and electrical constants of the universe is weak science.

    There is a huge degree of consensus concerning the atomic weight of the elements that comprise the current periodic table.

    Is that consensus weak science?
    RandomGuy is offline

  13. #413
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    So the entire complex planetary atmosphere, with all the oceans currents, biological processes and so forth, boil down to one simplifying assumption.

    The entire ocean behaves exactly like a small beaker in a laboratory under carefully controlled conditions?

    I find that a bit of a stretch.
    No, it's not that simple either. Just not as complex as i think you are trying to say. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your intent.

    We know all but certain that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere rise and fall with ocean temperature. The science we know dictates this, and the data shows such trends. Henry's law has not been proven wrong, and has no controversy about how it works. We know that the ocean system has a long lag period. We know that the data points for CO2 in proxy data is far enough apart that there is only about about a 5% chance of seeing a CO2 peak similar to ours should there be a 50 year occurrence in the past. Now CO2 is complex in the aspect that it goes through various chemical changes more so than most absorbed gases, but this works both ways, and is under temperatures and pressures with depth and location than a laboratory experiment.

    Solution:

    CO2(atmospheric) ⇌ CO2(dissolved)

    Conversion to carbonic acid:

    CO2(dissolved) + H2O ⇌ H2CO3

    First ionization:

    H2CO3 ⇌ H+ + HCO3− (bicarbonate ion)

    Second ionization:

    HCO3− ⇌ H+ + CO3−− (carbonate ion)
    Everything we know as valid science is strong enough that I believe the AGW theory is still just a hypothesis. Anyone who understands more than just the basics of the carbon cycle can positively state that the CO2 levels we see could be natural.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  14. #414
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    We know all but certain that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere rise and fall with ocean temperature.
    Nobody disputes the correlation.

    What is in question is causation.

    Have you determined a testable hypothesis in order to research this?

    What would your null hypothesis be?
    RandomGuy is offline

  15. #415
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Everything we know as valid science is strong enough that I believe the AGW theory is still just a hypothesis.
    Just as the values for certain aspects given are also hypothesis.

    I fully agree the data is somewhat ambiguous, and we need more testing, data, and research.

    Can we form reasonable courses of action, based on incomplete data?
    RandomGuy is offline

  16. #416
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Also, by the by, here is the scoreboard so far:

    Yonivore:
    One question asked. Completely ignored.
    One logical fallacy.

    Obstructed view:
    Five questions asked.
    Two questions dodged without honest answers.
    Two questions answered fairly.
    One ignored.

    DarrinS:
    Nine logical fallacies
    One false assertion
    One question pending, probable second false assertion

    OV did the best so far. Darrin... not so much.
    RandomGuy is offline

  17. #417
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Also, by the by, here is the scoreboard so far:

    Yonivore:
    One question asked. Completely ignored.
    One logical fallacy.

    Obstructed view:
    Five questions asked.
    Two questions dodged without honest answers.
    Two questions answered fairly.
    One ignored.

    DarrinS:
    Nine logical fallacies
    One false assertion
    One question pending, probable second false assertion

    OV did the best so far. Darrin... not so much.
    (still in the process of combing through thread, by the way)

    Cobra, you are doing fairly well, actually. Kudos to sticking to the science in a fairly reasonable manner.

    There is still some "hand-wavy" dismissals though. Get to that in a bit.
    RandomGuy is offline

  18. #418
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    We can go back and forth with graphs and arrows and quibbling over details, but we do have a way to short-circuit the argument:



    The conclusions the guy makes are pretty much logically sound.

    I can spell them out if'n nobody wants to watch a youtube, and we can examine them.

    What is the wisest thing to do, given the uncertainties and risks?
    RandomGuy is offline

  19. #419
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    The video's premise is dumb. Not all probabilities are created equal.

    Worst case extremes are not even remotely the most probable outcomes. I cut it off halfway through it was so worthless.

    That is poor risk management.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  20. #420
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    The video's premise is dumb. Not all probabilities are created equal.

    Worst case extremes are not even remotely the most probable outcomes. I cut it off halfway through it was so worthless.

    That is poor risk management.
    He actually addresses the scope of risk towards the end.

    It is most definitely not poor risk managment.

    The follow up videos in the series are very comprehensive discussions about the entire subject.

    He also has a very interesting background lecture concerning the physical impossibility of increasing our usage of fossil fuels for much longer. It is mathmatically impossible to indefinitely increase our consumption of fossil fuels by 2% per year.

    In and of itself that is glaringly obvious if one thinks about it, but it has some real implications for depletion factors that need to be considered, when weighing options.

    One thing that WC, Darrin, Yoni, and a host of other right-wing ideologues consistantly seem to not want to address is the implications of what happens when you approach depletion of fossil fuels.
    RandomGuy is offline

  21. #421
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    By that definition the consensus concerning gravitational, chemical, and electrical constants of the universe is weak science.

    There is a huge degree of consensus concerning the atomic weight of the elements that comprise the current periodic table.

    Is that consensus weak science?

    It would be ridiculous to say there is "consensus" on any of those things because they are directly measureable. Consensus has to do with OPINION.
    DarrinS is offline

  22. #422
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Consensus=weak science
    By that definition the consensus concerning gravitational, chemical, and electrical constants of the universe is weak science.

    There is a huge degree of consensus concerning the atomic weight of the elements that comprise the current periodic table.

    Is that consensus weak science?

    It would be ridiculous to say there is "consensus" on any of those things because they are directly measureable. Consensus has to do with OPINION.
    So consensus doe NOT equal "weak science"?

    Are you abandoning your earlier statement?
    RandomGuy is offline

  23. #423
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    It would be ridiculous to say there is "consensus" on any of those things because they are directly measureable. Consensus has to do with OPINION.
    Indeed it does have to do with opinion.

    Definition of CONSENSUS
    1a : general agreement : unanimity
    b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus

    It would seem to be there is a "general agreement" on the Planck Constant, and the actions of gravity on mass.

    It is ridiculous, Darrin, to say there is a general agreement on the value of the Planck Constant?
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 10-18-2010 at 12:25 PM.
    RandomGuy is offline

  24. #424
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Indeed it does have to do with opinion.



    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus

    It would seem to be there is a "general agreement" on the Plank Constant, and the actions of gravity on mass.

    It is ridicdulous, Darrin, to say there is a general agreement on the value of the Plank Constant?
    •agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole

    There is no "judgement or opinion" on the definition of Planck's constant, just as there is no "judgement or opinion" that there are 12 inches in a foot.
    DarrinS is offline

  25. #425
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    •agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole

    There is no "judgement or opinion" on the definition of Planck's constant, just as there is no "judgement or opinion" that there are 12 inches in a foot.
    Pseudoscientist to the last. Unable to answer simple yes or no questions, and desperately attempting to weasel out of owing up to his own dogma. Nine logical fallacies, one abandoned assertion, and still won't bother to think logically.

    The defintion of a foot is that it is twelve inches.

    Tell me Darrin, how would a physical constant of the universe, such as Plancks Constant, first be determined?

    (quick background here)
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 10-18-2010 at 12:26 PM.
    RandomGuy is offline

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •