|
Muzzard
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 1,843
|
|
+ now we have fuck all land to fit 6-7billion heads on with the icecaps melted :-s
|
|
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
Land /= fertile land
It takes thousands of years for thawed soil to become arable. Agriculture can only shift so much before it dies.
|
|
|
|
Muzzard
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 1,843
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Land /= fertile land
It takes thousands of years for thawed soil to become arable. Agriculture can only shift so much before it dies.
|
Your not getting my point. Probably because I'm not even trying to explain
I never said land=fertile land. Neither did I say that climate and CO2 levels have no correlation.
What I'm saying is it doesn't really matter whether it caused by this or that, natural change or change caused by humans or whatever. If it's natural fuck all we can do, if it's because of human action then it's obv coz we have far too many ppl on the planet. Yeah we can cut CO2 emmisions here and there, but we are still fucked. Cut population by 6billion or more, then we might have enough resources/space etc to actually have some sort of sustainable living.
I say bring on the climate change, let's bring down that population.
|
|
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
While the globe is indeed massively overpopulated, bringing the numbers down via pumping out CO2 will reap results nobody can fathom. Things like loss of almost all sea life, loss of majority of plant and animal life, massive desertification, massive human suffering, possibly even total extinction caused by oceanic anoxia, and much more.
|
|
|
|
Muzzard
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 1,843
|
|
moar aids then!
|
|
|
|
a500lbgorilla
|
|
JESUS TAKE THE KEYBOARD
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: This room is a good place to be
Posts: 8,379
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Muzzard
moar aids then!
|
Finally, someone is making some damn sense!
|
Smithers, use the amnesia ray.
You mean the revolver, sir?
Precisely.
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
http://www.physorg.com/print178178343.html
Quote:
|
In a provocative new study, a University of Utah scientist argues that rising carbon dioxide emissions - the major cause of global warming - cannot be stabilized unless the world's economy collapses or society builds the equivalent of one new nuclear power plant each day.
|
Quote:
|
Energy conservation or efficiency doesn't really save energy, but instead spurs economic growth and accelerated energy consumption.
|
Well, duhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
All this garbage about battling global warming without accounting for global economic activity pisses me the hell off. Nobody seems to realize that if the first-world suddenly stopped using coal/oil then there would be skyrocketing demand in the third-world, and nothing would actually change. The real change will come from forcing levels and sources of consumption, but that won't happen until it's too late
Meanwhile, nobody predicted that the impregnable East Antarctic would be losing mass (yet it now is), every year sets some new record, worst-case scenario predictions in 1997 were more mild than the current most-likely scenario predictions, ALL trends of discovery point towards more and worsening positive feedback loops and severe underestimating of the problem on a yearly basis, etc etc
The Copenhagen garbage going on right now is a laughingstock. Fiddling with numbers and cherry picking data, thinking that hypothetical 10% reduction in a decade will mean anything when predictions are that without INSANE levels of change we'll be living worst-case scenario by 2100, and that new evidence is suggesting that even with complete and immediate curbing of emissions, we'll still see sub-worst case scenario due to lag effects.
They say the East Antarctic can't completely melt for another thousand years, but I guaranfuckingtee that by 2100 they'll be saying that it has about 100 more to go till it's all gone (or something of the like). 100 meters of sea-level rise by 2200 yaa hooo
I am just absolutely baffled at the complacency in the scientific community. I mean it makes no fucking sense that geophysicists can look at the data development over the last couple decades yet not infer that the exact same trends over that time aren't likely to continue when all signs point towards them continuing. We'll find that in 2020 our 2010 predictions were way too mild, and everybody's gonna act like they didn't see it coming, and I'll be sitting here with my thumb up my ass going hurr durr im a durr
|
|
|
|
Muzzard
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 1,843
|
|
http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Arti..._is_based.html
|
|
|
|
boost
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 706
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Muzzard
http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-c-2009-11-29-240479.112112_Climategate_They_have_lost_the_data_ upon_which_the_theory_of_global_warming_is_based.h tml
|
*sigh*.. its been posted before, and its been refuted as nonsense.
|
|
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
That's like saying that your HEM or PT3 database has nothing but false HHs since they're not the raw HH
That's also like saying that plywood isn't wood because it's been 'adjusted'
It's called idiots not knowing what 'jargon' means, idiots assuming that all things are antipodal dichotomies, idiots thinking that science is a monumental conspiracy, and idiots disregarding the fact that without the super small level of 'climategate' data, 100% of unrelated data still come to the same conclusion. Kinda like how even if geology was entirely bunk, the phylogenetic tree of common descent (evolution) would still hold true since all other independent sciences still come up with the exact same conclusions
In other news: you don't owe any taxes. Why? Because the IRS uses rounded numbers, not the real raw numbers; and since they adjust their data in such a way to actually be understandable, that data is entirely false, taxes are a conspiracy, and the IRS is just a secret gubmint building erected by the Jews in 1926 at the behest of Al Gore in exchange for candied peeps
|
|
|
|
mcatdog
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 3,654
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wufwugy
It's called idiots not knowing what 'jargon' means, idiots assuming that all things are antipodal dichotomies, idiots thinking that science is a monumental conspiracy, and idiots disregarding the fact that without the super small level of 'climategate' data, 100% of unrelated data still come to the same conclusion. Kinda like how even if geology was entirely bunk, the phylogenetic tree of common descent (evolution) would still hold true since all other independent sciences still come up with the exact same conclusions
|
The argument being made is that almost all published climate studies come to the same conclusion because those that come to the opposite conclusion are unlikely to be published or to receive grant money (other than from oil companies themselves).
Even though the "Climategate" scientists were leaders in the field, if we ignore their data then yes, we still have plenty of other data to rely on. But if those scientists were also able to stack the peer review and grant process against other scientists who didn't share their agenda, that skews things a lot more than any research that may have come from these specific scientists. And the e-mails show that these scientists were persistently attempting to do this.
I obviously don't think science is a massive conspiracy but certain branches of science can move in that direction if they get hijacked by special-interest politics, corporations or government agencies with an agenda. If a global warming skeptic posted a study that was funded by Exxon Mobil you would rightly point out that that study should not be taken seriously. For the same reason to just say "Well, ignore these guys' data and just focus on everyone else's that says the same thing" is completely missing the point of why what happened was so bad.
|
|
|
|
CoccoBill
|
|
Flush
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Finding my game
Posts: 423
|
|
I like how this guy puts it:
http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=886
|
|
"Honesty is for the most part less profitable than dishonesty."
-Plato
"God has a lot to answer for when standing before me in the last judgment."
-E.Valtaoja
|
|
CoccoBill
|
|
Flush
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Finding my game
Posts: 423
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ilikeaces86
Co2 levels historically go up after temperature rises. So temperature increases cause Co2 to rise not vice versa.
|
Like omg, we have an unanswered comment.
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidere...-not-leads.php
|
|
|
|
a500lbgorilla
|
|
JESUS TAKE THE KEYBOARD
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: This room is a good place to be
Posts: 8,379
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
|
great link
|
Smithers, use the amnesia ray.
You mean the revolver, sir?
Precisely.
|
|
CoccoBill
|
|
Flush
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Finding my game
Posts: 423
|
|
This is also a good read:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...risis-response
|
|
"Honesty is for the most part less profitable than dishonesty."
-Plato
"God has a lot to answer for when standing before me in the last judgment."
-E.Valtaoja
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mcatdog
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wufwugy
It's called idiots not knowing what 'jargon' means, idiots assuming that all things are antipodal dichotomies, idiots thinking that science is a monumental conspiracy, and idiots disregarding the fact that without the super small level of 'climategate' data, 100% of unrelated data still come to the same conclusion. Kinda like how even if geology was entirely bunk, the phylogenetic tree of common descent (evolution) would still hold true since all other independent sciences still come up with the exact same conclusions
|
The argument being made is that almost all published climate studies come to the same conclusion because those that come to the opposite conclusion are unlikely to be published or to receive grant money (other than from oil companies themselves).
Even though the "Climategate" scientists were leaders in the field, if we ignore their data then yes, we still have plenty of other data to rely on. But if those scientists were also able to stack the peer review and grant process against other scientists who didn't share their agenda, that skews things a lot more than any research that may have come from these specific scientists. And the e-mails show that these scientists were persistently attempting to do this.
I obviously don't think science is a massive conspiracy but certain branches of science can move in that direction if they get hijacked by special-interest politics, corporations or government agencies with an agenda. If a global warming skeptic posted a study that was funded by Exxon Mobil you would rightly point out that that study should not be taken seriously. For the same reason to just say "Well, ignore these guys' data and just focus on everyone else's that says the same thing" is completely missing the point of why what happened was so bad. |
Is that really the argument being made? It may be your argument, but all the hysteria this has generated has been more about idiots being idiots, not a legitimate attempt to understand.
You're right that there are legitimate concerns, as there are always within all things science. As far as I can tell, 'climategate' has nothing to do with actually attempting to understand the situation, but instead has everything to do with idiots misunderstanding everything yet pretending that they don't
As for more legitimate concerns, I'll just mildly address this
Quote:
|
But if those scientists were also able to stack the peer review and grant process against other scientists who didn't share their agenda
|
First off, in order for this to become a big deal there needs to be evidence of foul play. AFAIK, there is none. There appears to only be a bunch of people who don't understand jargon and logic and are blowing it up into something it's not.
And one conclusion, the 'grant process against other scientists who didn't share their agenda' statement could be an easy misunderstanding. IDers and birthers and truthers and flat-earthers and faked moon landingers all think that they're being unjustly pushed out of the peer review process, when in reality they're being pushed out because they're idiots who don't even engage in adequate peer review. It could be like a biologist not paying attention to a creationist then the creationist screaming bloody murder and that he's being unjustly treated, when in reality he's being pushed out because he's a fucking moron who only wants to screw shit up
Here's my bottom line: I have yet to see any appearance of criticism from those who are actually qualified to provide criticism i.e. from those who understanding the jargon and the process and are accredited in the field etc etc. Until I see this the case is closed for me. On the flip side, what I do see is the hoax machine flinging their shit everywhere. Anti-climate agenda is big tobacco all over again, except 10x more difficult, entrenched, and skilled in propaganda.
|
|
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
|
I did actually address this I think in a couple somewhat unrelated posts and links, but really I was a little flustered at first because I find it difficult to respond to a syllogistic nightmare that clearly has no understanding of the situation nor any desire to develop said understanding
|
|
|
|
mcatdog
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 3,654
|
|
I do think there's evidence of the Climategate people having tried to bias the peer-review process, for example from one of the links that CoccoBill posted,
Quote:
|
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!
|
You can't argue that "jargon" is responsible for a statement like that. In any case, the person who wrote that just resigned today so hopefully it'll be a non-issue from here on out.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wufwugy
And one conclusion, the 'grant process against other scientists who didn't share their agenda' statement could be an easy misunderstanding. IDers and birthers and truthers and flat-earthers and faked moon landingers all think that they're being unjustly pushed out of the peer review process, when in reality they're being pushed out because they're idiots who don't even engage in adequate peer review. It could be like a biologist not paying attention to a creationist then the creationist screaming bloody murder and that he's being unjustly treated, when in reality he's being pushed out because he's a fucking moron who only wants to screw shit up
|
This is a really good argument.
|
|
|
|
boost
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 706
|
|
mcat, you also are ignorning the complete lack of motive. What reason do all these scientist have for this conspiracy?
|
|
|
|
mcatdog
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 3,654
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by boost
mcat, you also are ignorning the complete lack of motive. What reason do all these scientist have for this conspiracy?
|
I don't see any reason to think their motive was money or fame or anything like that. They probably just decided that convincing politicians and the general public, and getting legislation passed, was so important that dirty tactics were justified in order to accomplish that goal. If 90% of studies say one thing and 10% say the other thing, the scientific community is capable of drawing conclusions, but the rest of the public may not be. Therefore these scientists elected to squash some legitimate studies that disagreed with their own research.
I think this sort of conspiracy can happen pretty easily whenever science gets entangled with politics, but it's just so dumb because it's 100% certain to get discovered sooner or later, like it did here, and will end up hurting your cause more than it helps.
|
|
|
|
CoccoBill
|
|
Flush
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Finding my game
Posts: 423
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mcatdog
I do think there's evidence of the Climategate people having tried to bias the peer-review process, for example from one of the links that CoccoBill posted,
Quote:
|
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!
|
You can't argue that "jargon" is responsible for a statement like that. In any case, the person who wrote that just resigned today so hopefully it'll be a non-issue from here on out. |
Let's look at the whole snippet with the aforementioned quote in the article:
Quote:
It is true that much of what has been revealed could be explained as the usual cut and thrust of the peer review process, exacerbated by the extraordinary pressure the scientists were facing from a denial industry determined to crush them. One of the most damaging emails was sent by the head of the climatic research unit, Phil Jones. He wrote "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
One of these papers which was published in the journal Climate Research turned out to be so badly flawed that the scandal resulted in the resignation of the editor-in-chief. Jones knew that any incorrect papers by sceptical scientists would be picked up and amplified by climate change deniers funded by the fossil fuel industry, who often – as I documented in my book Heat – use all sorts of dirty tricks to advance their cause.
|
Again, taken out of context it may look bad, but all he is saying is that they want to stop publications that have been proven faulty from appearing in a report that's used pretty much as a definitive guideline for how to deal with climate change. They're having a hard time convincing world leaders to act as it is, they don't need any additional distractions. Unethical/unprofessional? Somewhat. Condemning or making anything related to their research questionable? Hardly.
|
|
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mcatdog
Quote:
|
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!
|
You can't argue that "jargon" is responsible for a statement like that. In any case, the person who wrote that just resigned today so hopefully it'll be a non-issue from here on out. |
Yeah that does appear to be a damning statement.
However, it is also quote-mined, not devoid of ambiguities, and in need of context to provide adequate understanding of what he meant. That's why reasonable people are not going crazy, yet unreasonable people are. I mean isn't it entirely possible that the line was tongue-in-cheek? I'm not sure if that's actually been ruled out.
But anyways, this type of thing is standard, and we're seeing the peer-review process working at its finest. If this is a conspiracy, it's not the first, and like they few other scientist conspiracies in history, the real impact will likely be very minor.
Piltdown Man was a conspiracy. 100% legitimate conspiracy, yet the peer-review process worked correctly and eventually weeded it out. In fact, Piltdown Man wasn't really even getting much attention from scientists in the first place because it didn't fit the fossil record one bit
See that's the thing. If climategate is a real conspiracy, then in what way is a conspiracy? If the data is highly skewed then the entire scientific community would hear about it and start looking into it, and if it didn't make sense in relation to all other data, it would be put on the back burner or so to speak, which is what happened with Piltdown Man. Then eventually the truth would likely get weeded out, then it would be classified as a hoax, yet there wouldn't be much problems because it was already considered an ambiguous anomaly and didn't attribute anything to standard scientific discovery. Which is exactly what happened with Piltdown Man.
This is why I don't care about the opinions of those who are not entrenched within the peer-review process itself. Because they actually understand that if climategate was a fraud, if it was a big fraud it would be obvious because the results would be insane, and if it was a little fraud it wouldn't really change anything since the results would have to agree with other independent sources.
Lay people do not understand this, and they need to shut the hell up. It's like me telling UG how to teach his classes. I don't fucking know how because I don't know anything about teaching classes, but for some weird reason every yahoo on the planet thinks they know everything about anything related to scientific and political issues
Which reminds me in a recent interview, Fedor Emelianenko said that before a fight he often gets calls from people he knows who give him advice. During the interview, he smirked at this like it was a bunch of dummies pretending like they understood his profession better than he did.
But anyways, I know you know all or most of this. I just want to make the point that this isn't logistically adding up to some kind of big internal problem. It his, however, a huge PR problem
P.S. Would like to add that the peer-review is working quite well. Like you said, the guy who wrote that text has already resigned (even though he could be easily justified). That's a very important aspect of the peer-review. It is, as it should be, one strike and you're out. Which is waaaaaaaaaaaay more than can be said for just about any other profession. Not to mention that people on the deniers side get special privileges, whereas those on the scientists side do not. If this wasn't the case then people like Sanford and Ensign would have been fired a long time ago, but miraculously they're not because they're on the right team
|
|
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mcatdog
I do think there's evidence of the Climategate people having tried to bias the peer-review process, for example from one of the links that CoccoBill posted,
Quote:
|
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!
|
You can't argue that "jargon" is responsible for a statement like that. In any case, the person who wrote that just resigned today so hopefully it'll be a non-issue from here on out. |
Let's look at the whole snippet with the aforementioned quote in the article:
Quote:
It is true that much of what has been revealed could be explained as the usual cut and thrust of the peer review process, exacerbated by the extraordinary pressure the scientists were facing from a denial industry determined to crush them. One of the most damaging emails was sent by the head of the climatic research unit, Phil Jones. He wrote "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
One of these papers which was published in the journal Climate Research turned out to be so badly flawed that the scandal resulted in the resignation of the editor-in-chief. Jones knew that any incorrect papers by sceptical scientists would be picked up and amplified by climate change deniers funded by the fossil fuel industry, who often – as I documented in my book Heat – use all sorts of dirty tricks to advance their cause.
|
Again, taken out of context it may look bad, but all he is saying is that they want to stop publications that have been proven faulty from appearing in a report that's used pretty much as a definitive guideline for how to deal with climate change. They're having a hard time convincing world leaders to act as it is, they don't need any additional distractions. Unethical/unprofessional? Somewhat. Condemning or making anything related to their research questionable? Hardly. |
Headshot!
This is why I like logical principles and fallacies so much. They provide an excellent guideline by which to not get fooled. For example: quote-mining is a logical fallacy. Knowing this immediately tells me that any time I ever see a quote being mined without a ton of context, it is logically false for me to give heed to the assertions of said quote
It makes figuring stuff out so much easier when you have a basic outline. I recall hearing in a lecture once something along the lines of 'You wouldn't spend time in the jungle without understanding the basics of what to eat, where to sleep, how to not get killed, etc; so why would you engage in logical discussion without a basic understanding of logical principles and fallacies?'
|
|
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
As he usually does, Potholer fitty fo clears up the hacked emails thing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
Rule of thumb: if idiots like something, it's usually wrong. So next time something like this hits the media, check to see what the idiots think, then just assume the opposite is correct.
|
|
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
Perfection
|
|
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
Can't say I'm surprised
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...y-1846161.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1216131747.htm
Articles basically discuss the recent publications about how the last time the Earth was about ~3C above current, sea levels were ~7 meters higher. I consider it virtually impossible that we don't achieve 3C by 2100 (actually, I fully expect to be closing in on 10C by 2100). It is interesting to note that recent research is saying that even if we stopped all emissions today, we would probably hit 4C warming eventually. I find it rather strange that that research is not getting way more attention because it is among the most devastating
|
|
|
|
CoccoBill
|
|
Flush
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Finding my game
Posts: 423
|
|
UK government science and technology committee's report of the investigation on the CRU leaks, read at least the summary page:
http://www.publications.parliament.u...h/387/387i.pdf
|
|
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
Like has been said, the story of climate change and global ecology is the story of the oceans. Very scary video about what has happened to the ocean and where we're going. I was sort of pleased to see the ecologist gave a much more accurate illustration of what the oceans will be like in 20-50 years than you find in 'mainstream' climate science. I'm still not quite sure why scientists seem paralyzed when it comes to making reasoned, statistical predictions. At least this guy isn't
YouTube - Jeremy Jackson: How we wrecked the ocean
|
|
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
Yikes. At first they said it would take 100 years, then 50, then 20, then just a decade, but don't be surprised when summer Arctic is ice-free in just a few more years. As usual, even the most dire predictions are wussy
As Arctic sea ice shrinks faster than 2007, NSIDC director Serreze says, “I think it’s quite possible? we could “break another record this year.” Climate Progress
|
|
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
I guess this isn't really news since we already know it's 100% fact that the oceans will become lifeless deserts in our lifetime. Maybe some things will be growing here or there....
That aside, this is pretty awful news. Plankton is an essential building block to nearly all life on Earth
The dead sea: Global warming blamed for 40 per cent decline in the ocean's phytoplankton - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent
|
|
|
|
a500lbgorilla
|
|
JESUS TAKE THE KEYBOARD
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: This room is a good place to be
Posts: 8,379
|
|
Give it 6 months and things'll cool down, just you wait and see.
|
Smithers, use the amnesia ray.
You mean the revolver, sir?
Precisely.
|
|
a500lbgorilla
|
|
JESUS TAKE THE KEYBOARD
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: This room is a good place to be
Posts: 8,379
|
|
Professor Emiritus Hal Lewis Resigns from American Physical Society – reasonmclucus - My Telegraph
I wish there were a Richard Feynman-esque mind to explain the physics behind global warming. That'd clear some stuff up.
|
Smithers, use the amnesia ray.
You mean the revolver, sir?
Precisely.
|
|
a500lbgorilla
|
|
JESUS TAKE THE KEYBOARD
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: This room is a good place to be
Posts: 8,379
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
As he usually does, Potholer fitty fo clears up the hacked emails thing
YouTube - 6. Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails
Rule of thumb: if idiots like something, it's usually wrong. So next time something like this hits the media, check to see what the idiots think, then just assume the opposite is correct. |
And this one: YouTube - 7. Climate Change - "Those" e-mails and science censorship (considering it rebuts this video YouTube - Potholer54 is a Denier of Scientific Corruption)
I found pretty good. I still don't understand how a retiring emeritus professor would believe so fervently that AGW was a hoax and that his society of scientists was actively silencing valid debate.
|
Smithers, use the amnesia ray.
You mean the revolver, sir?
Precisely.
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
I still don't understand how a retiring emeritus professor would believe so fervently that AGW was a hoax and that his society of scientists was actively silencing valid debate.
|
The vast majority of people do not understand issues outside their area of expertise, yet think they do. It's that simple. There are literally uncountable different areas of expertise, and some of the rules always change with every different area. We expect to find something like nuclear physicists who do not understand geophysics, yet still express opinions as if they're qualified. People routinely fool themselves into thinking that they can understand things via proxy or analogy. This is the primary reason I refused to engage in that economic island retard scenario in that other abortion of a thread. No matter how you slice it, you cannot explain modern econ using a stupid island, and no matter how you slice it, you do not have authority to explain climate science unless you're a leading climate researcher.
And the physics has been explained. It's very, very simple stuff. People are just really, really, really stupid and let themselves get fooled into thinking things that aren't true. The AGW debate was over decades ago, and it was never even a debate in the first place; it was a data gathering process and logical determination. But then liars and retards didn't like that so they started voting Republican.
Either potholer or greenman has a video showing the most basic of the physics and chemistry. It's not that we don't have a Feynman to explain it, it's that it's been explained over and over and over and over but we miss it due to the misdirection tactics of propagandists. Propagandists are not much different than magicians. The latter uses visual misdirection, the former uses psychological misdirection, or however you want to describe it.
Another thing to note is that the most logical analysis of global warming strongly suggests that it is a doomsday scenario i.e. the human world comes to an end. This is extremely hard for people to swallow, and even most climatologists tend to ignore this truth. However, as each year goes by, several more climatologists are coming out saying it really is a going to be the apocalypse, yet they're still mistakenly thinking in terms of mass displacement and ecological destruction. That's baby stuff compared to the real levels of heat trapped in the biomass we're returning to the earth's surface
My prediction, for which I fortunately will not be around to witness, is that AGW turns the earth into one of the hottest and most toxic climates its had since formation. Given the amount of GHG we're releasing, this is almost undeniable. I say "almost" because it's possible that some time in the future we may have some super sci fi artificial sequestration technology that can bring us back from the brink. The bottom line, though, is that we can't open up the coal mines and the permafrost without facing the consequences, and we know those consequences are several magnitudes beyond what humans are capable of dealing with under current and theoretically practical technology
AGW denialism will almost never disappear. Most people are not prepared to admit that everything they are and everything they ever will be, the entire progeny of their entire being, is finished. 150 years from now, when the globe is 10 degrees hotter, be fully prepared for that times' rendition of the teabagger fundie xtians screaming how nothing is wrong or it's god's will or whatever. One of the natures of humankind is that our egos know no bounds. Our egos are adamant in making us subconsciously believe that we are unbeatable and will go on forever.
On the bright side, global warming is awesome. I fully support it, and have zero desire to try to go green or whatever. Nothing imposes suffering as massive and horrible as humans, this suffering increases exponentially with technology, and I believe that given full technological development, the amount of evil in the world will be unfathomable and virtually infinite. AGW annihilation may be the only thing that could stop the sensory havoc we wreak upon ourselves. 30k years ago, the weak died; today, the weak suffer imprisonment, starvation, depression, etc for decades; in the future, the weak will likely suffer limitless misery due to extreme technologies like agelessness and virtual reality.
What do you think is going to happen when the technology exists to trap a sensory perceptive network in a virtual self-replicating and self-sustaining system of torture? It will happen, just like the equivalent happens today to the greatest degree that technology allows. I say bring on the global warming and its total environmental collapse. At least then human suffering will be extinguished once and for all.
|
|
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
Figured I might revive thread since I've been looking at some climate change stuff again
Just an FYI buzzkill to the max, there is a zero percent chance humans survive this. That sounds crazy, but it's not because if we were viewing the last 200 years as a matter of geologic record from like a billion years ago, we would call this a very, very, very rapid extinction event
We already know that we're locked in for a few degrees warming, we already know that that warming triggers insanely incredible feedbacks, and we already know that the only negative feedback is an extinction event. It has happened many times in geologic history, but not nearly as quickly as it is currently happening
|
|
|
|
a500lbgorilla
|
|
JESUS TAKE THE KEYBOARD
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: This room is a good place to be
Posts: 8,379
|
|
0% chance on what time scale?
|
Smithers, use the amnesia ray.
You mean the revolver, sir?
Precisely.
|
|
bikes
|
|
a hot damn mess
Administrator
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,449
|
|
Hi, I'm wufwugy.
|
|
I damage threads that may actually benefit some posters
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
That's anybody's guess, even if the method of chemical shifts and warming was the exact as before. But the method is really different now, and normal heating/extinction events take many millions of years. Our pace is lightning compared to snail though. As to how bad an extinction event would be, nobody knows, and as to how it would happen, nobody knows, but we do know we're mimicking what it takes to make extinction events. Technically, we're already in an extinction event. The amount of ecological destruction of just our last few generations is off the charts high in geologic terms. Way off the charts.
I think we're already in unstoppable feedback area, it just takes fucking forever for shit to manifest. I do think that within our lifetime we will understand the doomsday for what it really is though. Most of the oceans and rainforests will be dead by the time we're old
The thing is that extinction events don't really take that much to be triggered. We going waaaaaaaaay beyond what we think they should take. Things like mass burning of vegetation are thought to have caused anoxic events. That's nothing compared to what we're doing. By the time humans are done, we will have taken the energy of virtually uncountable eons and dumped them onto the surface of the Earth. The consequences can't really be anything other than ming-bogglingly bad
|
|
|
|
Penneywize
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 885
|
|
whatever wuf
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News
|
|
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penneywize
|
This was dealt with when it first came about, and I'm not really interested in going back over it thoroughly. Bulletpoints are 1) ten years timespan lol 2) it doesn't matter in the slightest because it's ocean uptake that matters 3) alarmist alarmist alarmist alarmist alarmist showing up that many times in a yahoo article means the credibility is next to zero
|
|
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
Also, I realize in a way I didn't answer rilla's inquiry
I don't know how long an extinction event along the lines of oceanic anoxia will take. Could be 50k years, could be 5 million, could be 2k. The feedbacks to achieve around 10+C warming and 1000PPM should be triggered within a few hundred years at most. I think they're already triggered, but if they're not they will definitely be triggered at 2C warming given the descriptions of what that would do. Regardless, a sociological understanding of this makes the feedbacks already triggered. If, however, the global chemical death scenario like anoxia would take a really really long time to fully bloom, there might be some geo-engineering solutions.
And as to the severity, I'm sure some humans will be able to survive somehow. Not all species died during GHG induced extinction events
|
|
|
|
CoccoBill
|
|
Flush
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Finding my game
Posts: 423
|
|
Peak oil to the rescue.
|
|
"Honesty is for the most part less profitable than dishonesty."
-Plato
"God has a lot to answer for when standing before me in the last judgment."
-E.Valtaoja
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
The thing about peak oil is that it's not about quantity, but rate. We're gonna be pumping a ton of oil out of the ground for an extremely long time, we just won't be able to ramp production up much beyond what it's at to meet demand. Peak oil is about the supply/demand dynamic, not reserves
Even without oil, coal will be overall responsible for way more damage
Even without any fossil, mass livestock and logging will still get the job done all on their own. Hell, I bet logging without replanting is worse than burning coal. Gotta keep in mind that high degrees of global warming have happened before without any fossil release
|
|
|
|
BennyLaRue
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 646
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Peak oil to the rescue.
|
Worldwide famine to the rescue first.
They mocked Soylent Green. They were wrong to do so.
|
|
|
|
bikes
|
|
a hot damn mess
Administrator
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,449
|
|
Que IN TIME where everyone is genetically modified to age to 25 and then get a year to live unless they can afford it. BUT NO ONE BUT THE RICH LIVES BEYOND 50 MUHAHAHAHAHHAHA
EVISCERATE THE PROLETARIAT
|
|
I damage threads that may actually benefit some posters
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Pусский
Svenska
05-26-2012, 03:08 PM Australia Legalized Online Poker coming up in next 6 to 12 Months
Linear Mode
