Always respected you most because of this.
I don't engage idiocy or dishonesty. Claim "victory" all you want with your adolescent "arguments", I don't give a .
exactly ing right
its why i cant stand political discussions because its all partisan bull . people follow their party platform to death and its impossible to have middleground. makes discussion maddening with shills like boutons or cobra
obama could ban gay marriage tomorrow and booboo would find a way to spin it into a good thing
You Lie
There's several areas where Obama has clearly failed, not acted, but miles ahead of an Repug Exec in the past 35 years.
Seems to me the real answer to that question is different.
Says 9/11 twoofer
Leave the old man in peace, senile folk are people too.
You did both in a single thread, need me to link you to it for a refresher?
Who is op voting for
Uriel get your get ass in here partner
I'd add randomguy and fromwaydowntown.
With a few exceptions, a pretty solid list of contributors to the political forum tbh.
If you put a similar thread together for conservative posters it would be littered trolls, actual morons, emotional unstable and illogical ideologues with very few exceptions. And the exceptions would be what I'd consider to be very moderately conservative.
Lol messageboard partners
Seriously?
He's got to keep his wingnut cred and avoid being labeled a liberal. It's the EN style of don't hate me I'm just like you on most issues
Doesn't own a gun but supports the "2nd amendment", etc
Yeah, I expressed my thoughts on the matter a long time ago on the appropriate thread.
I'm ok with people doing what they can and want on their own to conserve the planet. I think there are extreme cases, like those landfills in China that are a disgrace and something should be done about it.
But overall, I just can't back up the alarmist reaction. As a guy that has worked with highly complex computer models, I just can't buy the projections. Not to the level of forcing people/companies to do things they don't want to do (again, the exception would be the extreme cases, which already stand out on their own, for reasons that go beyond global warming).
but, but, I thought I was a liberal
I'm just me, tbh... have been wrong before, will probably be wrong again, and I've changed my mind plenty of times...
So you know more than 97% of the world scientists. Got it.
There's no such thing as 97% consensus amongst "world scientists" on the topic.
That said, I don't claim to know more than anybody. That's simply my opinion based on what I've read about the topic and my own experience. It could be wrong.
Ultimately, I've not encountered enough compelling reasons to change my opinion on the subject (yet)
According to NASA, there is. But obviously NASA is made up of a bunch of anti-coal, politically active shills who put partisanship before facts and the scientific method. A big no-no for "centrists" such as yourself.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Meh, that's not "world scientists", that's "publishing climate scientists"... and the consensus is that "climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities", which is fine.
This is a lot simpler. The state of the art computer climate models can barely forecast over 4 days of weather with any degree of accuracy. Which is actually a pretty amazing improvement compared to weather forecasts from 20 years ago.
There are reasons for that, the typical issues with highly complex computer models: limited historical data, limited real time data, error rate in statistical reduction when you have too many variables, tradeoffs between processing power and accuracy, etc.
You can take just the historical data, and come to the conclusion that human activities have been warming up the planet (what you posted above). But to then take that and project 10-20 years down the road is ridiculous, there's no means to do that with any degree of accuracy at this point in time. The error rate alone on such a projection is risible.
That's why the alarmist part just can't be taken seriously, IMO. That doesn't mean we can't do better. I think bringing awareness to try to do better for our planet is a good thing. But trying to use fear and coercion over the alleged impending doom is just silly.
Last edited by ElNono; 08-07-2015 at 02:20 AM. Reason: typo
"But to then take that and project 10-20 years down the road is ridiculous"
you conflating weather, highly, locally variable, with climate, with 100s, 1000s of years of historical data, with the overwhelming consensus pointing to a AGW much hotter, much different future.
That makes no sense. Climate *is* weather. Global climate is the sum of all those "highly, locally variable" measures. Measures that comes from a lot of different sources: direct temperate samples, sediments, fauna, etc.
They're volatile sources, which is what makes the model extremely complex.
The "100s, 1000s of years of historical data" can only get you a 5 day forecast with any degree of quality, tops, on a state of the art model.
You can't trust Accuweather to tell you what's the weather going to be next week, but we gotta take your 10-20 year projection seriously? Ridiculous.
Now, if your argument is "from a risk assessment perspective, we should probably strive to be good to our planet", then sure, that makes sense.
But there's a big jump from "strive" to "force"... and the error rate on the projection simply does no warrant that jump, IMO.
you're conflating SHORT-TERM weather, highly, locally variable, with LONG-TERM climate, with 100s, 1000s of years of historical data, with the overwhelming consensus pointing to a AGW much hotter, much different future.
What? Point me to any serious short or long term climate model that doesn't use historical data. Don't look too hard, they don't exist anymore.
Explain what do you think the data points on the "LONG-TERM" projection are if not the "SHORT-TERM weather, highly, locally variable" data points, constrained to make them manageable and projected.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)