Alaska Darin Posted April 12, 2007 Author Share Posted April 12, 2007 I do believe it is compelling, but that's not my point - this isn't fertile ground for a discussion of global warming. You're right. We should leave it between the UN and Al Gore. Are you kidding me? It's not fertile ground to just hand over so much power to something that is being driven by an entity and a person that are so disgustingly untrustworthy. I'm sorry that the counterpoints mean so little to you. Rather, I'm making a technical point about your example. In chaotic systems individual behavior may be impossible to predict, but the collective behavior quite predictable. Think gas dynamics, or Brownian motion. Sorry, can't say as I agree with you. You know, since virtually nothing they've predicted to date has come even close to true. As far as the science being compelling, it just isn't. There is so much estimation going on and being passed as science that it's frightening how easily so many people are buying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 The work in the seventies were based on the emerging understanding of the earths long-term trends. They realized that (1) for the past two million years the earth was swinging between glacial periods and warm periods, and (2) within that cycle we were in a warm period that had gone on about as long as the longest. Ergo, if the pattern holds, we should swing back into a glacial period within the next 1,000 years at most. I'll buy that. So why is the trend now all of a sudden man made? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 I'll buy that. So why is the trend now all of a sudden man made? It may or may not be. Most people agree that the short-term data points to an unexpected warming and an acceleration of the trend. If you believe it's man made, you point to deforestation, carbon, etc. If you don't, you point to the plethora of natural alternatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 Sorry, can't say as I agree with you. You know, since virtually nothing they've predicted to date has come even close to true. Then I don't think you understand me. I'm only finding fault with the idea behind the counter-example. I am not arguing that they are good at predicting weather, only that an inability to predict short-term events in a given subject doesn't neccessarily make impossible long-term projections. I can't predict the day to day swings of individual stocks, but I'm on pretty safe ground predicting what the Dow will do if you lower interest rates, all things being equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 There is *nothing wrong* with this reasoning, as long as you bother to understand the basis. It is based on a past pattern, and implicitely assumes both that the pattern will hold and that there are no extranous forces. If I watch a clock march towards midnight and predict that in a few minutes it will read 12:01, only Silver&Red would stop the clock and use it to discredit the scientific method.Thanks for letting us know that even though the alarmists were waaay off, they could have been right. That makes a huge difference. A clock? Yeah, I guess the only difference is that people have successfully been able to predict a clock before, as opposed to climate change predictions which have been a monumental failure as evidenced by the alarmist reports in the 70s. Other than that small difference, that was a great comparison. Your life insurance comparison was better than this one, and it was still completely terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 And like I said before... What does all this (this discussion) do for the "Joe Schmuckatelly"/"Joe Schmuckatelly Company" out there? Again... Give him/them a license to consume & pollute till they puke? In a perfect libertarian utopia like the one AD lives in... AD's advice would be followed: "I do not begrudge that as a species we absolutely suck at taking care of the environment and should be doing a hell of a lot more where that is concerned. That much is completely clear." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 Thanks for letting us know that even though the alarmists were waaay off, they could have been right. That makes a huge difference. A clock? Yeah, I guess the only difference is that people have successfully been able to predict a clock before, as opposed to climate change predictions which have been a monumental failure as evidenced by the alarmist reports in the 70s. Other than that small difference, that was a great comparison. Your life insurance comparison was better than this one, and it was still completely terrible. So you are saying that if you discover that temperature has followed a sine curve for a million years, and we are at the peak, then your prediction that the temperature will go down is groundless and a monumental failure? Your hindsight reasoning reminds me of the liberals who want Clinton - based on what she knows now - to say that her support for the war - based on what she knew then - was a mistake. If all the evidence points towards Saddam trying to develop WMD, you vote accordingly, and that turns out not to be the case, does that invalidate your reasoning? No. If you are approaching it scientifically then the same assumptions should lead to the same inference. Whether the assumptions are valid or sufficient is a different question. That is simply logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 So you are saying that if you discover that temperature has followed a sine curve for a million years, and we are at the peak, then your prediction that the temperature will go down is groundless and a monumental failure?My point is that they didn't find that temperature follows a nice, neat sine curve but they sort of acted like they did anyway. Scientists don't know enough to predict the long term weather patterns on our planet. Saying that, instead of the alarmist guesses we get, would be logical. Your hindsight reasoning reminds me of the liberals who want Clinton - based on what she knows now - to say that her support for the war - based on what she knew then - was a mistake. If all the evidence points towards Saddam trying to develop WMD, you vote accordingly, and that turns out not to be the case, does that invalidate your reasoning? No. If you are approaching it scientifically then the same assumptions should lead to the same inference. Whether the assumptions are valid or sufficient is a different question. That is simply logic. It's not hindsight reasoning, it's reasoning based on results. Based on Vladimir Guerrero's career statistics, I can predict what he'll do this season with some success. But even those predictions aren't always successful when you factor in injuries or how the batters protecting him in the lineup will hit or if he just slumps. Even the best baseball experts are wrong most of the time even with all the statistics and scouting reports they have at their disposal. And that's just baseball. Scientists are trying to understand how thousands of years' worth of weather patterns can predict Earth's temperature in the next 10 years. That is several orders of magnitude more difficult and complicated than, say, baseball but we're supposed to freak out and jump to conclusions when they think they understand something? When they've failed consistantly in the past? When we know that more outlandish results can result in more funding? No thanks. My point is I don't need to listen to the crazy alarmists who need a reason to talk to Newsweek. The only appropriate climate headline right now is "We Don't Understand this Crap Yet." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 My point is that they didn't find that temperature follows a nice, neat sine curve but they sort of acted like they did anyway. Scientists don't know enough to predict the long term weather patterns on our planet. Saying that, instead of the alarmist guesses we get, would be logical.It's not hindsight reasoning, it's reasoning based on results. Based on Vladimir Guerrero's career statistics, I can predict what he'll do this season with some success. But even those predictions aren't always successful when you factor in injuries or how the batters protecting him in the lineup will hit or if he just slumps. Even the best baseball experts are wrong most of the time even with all the statistics and scouting reports they have at their disposal. And that's just baseball. Scientists are trying to understand how thousands of years' worth of weather patterns can predict Earth's temperature in the next 10 years. That is several orders of magnitude more difficult and complicated than, say, baseball but we're supposed to freak out and jump to conclusions when they think they understand something? When they've failed consistantly in the past? When we know that more outlandish results can result in more funding? No thanks. My point is I don't need to listen to the crazy alarmists who need a reason to talk to Newsweek. The only appropriate climate headline right now is "We Don't Understand this Crap Yet." No! You are criticizing science on the basis of findings from the seventies, and it is disingenous to associate them with the current global warming research. They were making a pattern-based prediction about natural geologic processes, looking 500+ years out, and based on the patterns of the past million years. They were *not* looking at the weather of the last 50 years. Your claims to the contrary, the climate did follow a clear pattern of ice ages separated by warm periods each lasting about 8,000 years - we are about 10,000 years into the current one. There is not a single scientist that denies the historical pattern, outside of creationists. And even they would concede that the trickster laid down some pretty convincing false evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 My point is that they didn't find that temperature follows a nice, neat sine curve but they sort of acted like they did anyway. Scientists don't know enough to predict the long term weather patterns on our planet. Saying that, instead of the alarmist guesses we get, would be logical.It's not hindsight reasoning, it's reasoning based on results. Based on Vladimir Guerrero's career statistics, I can predict what he'll do this season with some success. But even those predictions aren't always successful when you factor in injuries or how the batters protecting him in the lineup will hit or if he just slumps. Even the best baseball experts are wrong most of the time even with all the statistics and scouting reports they have at their disposal. And that's just baseball. Scientists are trying to understand how thousands of years' worth of weather patterns can predict Earth's temperature in the next 10 years. That is several orders of magnitude more difficult and complicated than, say, baseball but we're supposed to freak out and jump to conclusions when they think they understand something? When they've failed consistantly in the past? When we know that more outlandish results can result in more funding? No thanks. My point is I don't need to listen to the crazy alarmists who need a reason to talk to Newsweek. The only appropriate climate headline right now is "We Don't Understand this Crap Yet." Never thought I'd see a Vlad alanogy in a discussion on global warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 No!Yes! You are criticizing science on the basis of findings from the seventies, and it is disingenous to associate them with the current global warming research. They were making a pattern-based prediction about natural geologic processes, looking 500+ years out, and based on the patterns of the past million years. They were *not* looking at the weather of the last 50 years. Your claims to the contrary, the climate did follow a clear pattern of ice ages separated by warm periods each lasting about 8,000 years - we are about 10,000 years into the current one. There is not a single scientist that denies the historical pattern, outside of creationists. And even they would concede that the trickster laid down some pretty convincing false evidence. Thank you for telling me what I'm doing even though I used my last post to explain what I was saying and it was something different from all this. Are there climate patterns? Yes. Do I think we're at the point where we can accurately predict what will happen? No. And what the hell are the creationists doing in your post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 Never thought I'd see a Vlad alanogy in a discussion on global warming. Angels fever......catch it! What can I say? I watch their games and I love their logo. There's just something about the red A with the silver halo on top..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 Angels fever......catch it! What can I say? I watch their games and I love their logo. There's just something about the red A with the silver halo on top..... Makes you feel holy 'eh? ONLY KIDDING SILVER!... I couldn't resist... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 Angels fever......catch it! What can I say? I watch their games and I love their logo. There's just something about the red A with the silver halo on top..... Been an Angels fan ever since I moved to CA in 1983. I remember exactly where I was when Donnie Moore (RIP) threw that fateful pitch to Dave Henderson in the 1986 ALCS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 Monckton's Analysis of the IPCC Report Last month he challenged Al Gore to an internationally televised debate on Global Warming. Gore has yet to acknowledge the challenge (big surprise). Now, ask yourself why the "Mass" Media here in the U.S. hasn't reported a single word on the challenge (yeah, I know Pasta Joe - it's because they're only interested in the truth )? Climate Chaos? Don't Believe It The Sun is Warmer Now than it Was 11,400 Years Ago More Contrarian Global Warming Information Why don't they also address means of removing the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, instead of how to cut down on emmissions....everyone has an agenda..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 Been an Angels fan ever since I moved to CA in 1983. I remember exactly where I was when Donnie Moore (RIP) threw that fateful pitch to Dave Henderson in the 1986 ALCS. I've been a fan since 1993, when my uncle took me to my first major league game at the Big A. Back then it was still a mega-stadium that was also home to the Rams. I still have my California Angels hat that he bought me from that game and since we bought it big, it still fits. Unfortunately, I got on board just in time for 1995 to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 I've been a fan since 1993, when my uncle took me to my first major league game at the Big A. Back then it was still a mega-stadium that was also home to the Rams. I still have my California Angels hat that he bought me from that game and since we bought it big, it still fits. Unfortunately, I got on board just in time for 1995 to happen. You are lucky you clarified this post (blue)... I was just about to deconstruct it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 I've been a fan since 1993, when my uncle took me to my first major league game at the Big A. Back then it was still a mega-stadium that was also home to the Rams. I still have my California Angels hat that he bought me from that game and since we bought it big, it still fits. Unfortunately, I got on board just in time for 1995 to happen. Damn, I do NOT what to know how old, I mean young, you were in 1993 when your uncle took you to the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HBSS151 Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 Damn, I do NOT what to know how old, I mean young, you were in 1993 when your uncle took you to the game. You can speculate about the relative age of SilverNRed, but I really want to know how much an Angels' ticket was in 1993 - let alone 1983 ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 You can speculate about the relative age of SilverNRed, but I really want to know how much an Angels' ticket was in 1993 - let alone 1983 ! No speculating... A little research points to he was 12... A wee 12... That must be ONE big jersey his uncle bought... Or else?... Silver! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts