Total Posts:69|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Global Warming

Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 1:39:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Can someone please explain to me why there is so much global warming denial on DDO? Even people that are otherwise quite rational seem to think that the human impact on global warming is insignificant. What is it, I wonder, that goes into the psychology of being out of touch with reality?
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 1:42:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 1:39:23 PM, Freeman wrote:
Can someone please explain to me why there is so much global warming denial on DDO? Even people that are otherwise quite rational seem to think that the human impact on global warming is insignificant. What is it, I wonder, that goes into the psychology of being out of touch with reality?

Science.

Sometimes, its just outright denial on the part of a lot of individuals who look to NOAA temperatures as the basis of "world is cooling!" and think they're being scientifically correct, even though they aren't. Others, like myself, agree that the world is on a warming trend, but as the grandson of an opinionated geologist, I'm inclined to believe it is the product of natural cycles as shown throughout history.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 1:45:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 1:39:23 PM, Freeman wrote:
Can someone please explain to me why there is so much global warming denial on DDO?

I've heard that the past couple of years has seen a lack of warming, or maybe even a little cooling, in most places.

I understand the ideas, and understand that there are many factors that go into Global temps.

It would make sense that, all other things being equal, the temp would rise, but being that the most recent figures (from what I've heard) says it hasn't been, I wonder if all other things are equal.

And there are lots of "other things" to account for.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 1:53:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
To note to those that deny global warming:

It exists. I agree, it isn't man-made, but it exists. It isn't solar activity; it isn't man-made; its natural. Its cyclical. But, it exists. Even the IPCC is saying starting to say that its predicated more on natural occurrences - the IP-freaking-CC.

Read this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk... It explains all.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 1:54:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 1:51:51 PM, Nags wrote:
See: this winter.

Yeah, this winter... hm. Oh, you mean the winter where snow didn't come until mid-January for me?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 1:56:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 1:53:57 PM, Volkov wrote:
To note to those that deny global warming:

It exists. I agree, it isn't man-made, but it exists. It isn't solar activity; it isn't man-made; its natural. Its cyclical. But, it exists. Even the IPCC is saying starting to say that its predicated more on natural occurrences - the IP-freaking-CC.

lol.

can't it be both??

And how bout those recent (stable/low) temps I've heard so much about?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 2:01:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 1:54:43 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/22/2010 1:51:51 PM, Nags wrote:
See: this winter.

Yeah, this winter... hm. Oh, you mean the winter where snow didn't come until mid-January for me?

Wow. In Texas, it snowed in mid-early December. Earliest snowfall ever in our area.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 2:02:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 1:56:58 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
lol.

can't it be both??

And how bout those recent (stable/low) temps I've heard so much about?

There is two popular explanations.

One, while solar activity doesn't have an overall trending effect on temperatures, it does affect it in ways, especially with sunspots. But for the past couple of years, the sun has had zero sunspots. Seriously, its kinda freaky, though its normal: http://science.nasa.gov... . There is some speculation that the last time this happened, it coincided with the Little Ice Age in the 1800's.

Another idea is that we're oscillating between mini-cycles - though I don't know much about this, so I can't go into detail.

However, to note, the Arctic and Antarctic are still shrinking, people. They're continuously shrinking. Do you have any idea how much ice the Arctic has lost? Some are saying that this decade might be the time when the Northwest Passage opens up, free of ice in the summer completely. Thats scary, folks.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 2:03:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 2:01:15 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 1/22/2010 1:54:43 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/22/2010 1:51:51 PM, Nags wrote:
See: this winter.

Yeah, this winter... hm. Oh, you mean the winter where snow didn't come until mid-January for me?

Wow. In Texas, it snowed in mid-early December. Earliest snowfall ever in our area.

I know, I heard about that. In fact, it snowed in New York and New England heavily in December and October, and I'm light, right beside there... yet we got nothing. It was ridiculous.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 2:11:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 2:02:28 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/22/2010 1:56:58 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:

One, while solar activity doesn't have an overall trending effect on temperatures, it does affect it in ways, especially with sunspots. But for the past couple of years, the sun has had zero sunspots. Seriously, its kinda freaky, though its normal: http://science.nasa.gov... . There is some speculation that the last time this happened, it coincided with the Little Ice Age in the 1800's.

Yeah that would be one of the other factors I'd been talking about, and I heard that they do think such a lull might be fairly lasting too... brrr....
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 2:12:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 2:03:25 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/22/2010 2:01:15 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 1/22/2010 1:54:43 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/22/2010 1:51:51 PM, Nags wrote:
See: this winter.

Yeah, this winter... hm. Oh, you mean the winter where snow didn't come until mid-January for me?

Wow. In Texas, it snowed in mid-early December. Earliest snowfall ever in our area.

I know, I heard about that. In fact, it snowed in New York and New England heavily in December and October

It was a cool summer, so I wasn't too surprised.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 2:16:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 2:11:35 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Yeah that would be one of the other factors I'd been talking about, and I heard that they do think such a lull might be fairly lasting too... brrr....

Well, if I remember the Economist article correctly, the longest time this was observed was in the 1800's, and it was a span of about 15 years. Thats chilling. Others have been shorter, though.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 2:22:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 2:21:09 PM, OreEle wrote:
Any chance this could be moved to the science forum?

You expect the Moderator to do something about misplaced threads? Ha!
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 2:24:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Actually, I was hoping you could just start a thread in science and continue there.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 5:50:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 2:24:25 PM, OreEle wrote:
Actually, I was hoping you could just start a thread in science and continue there.

It really doesn't matter. Very little intrinsic benefit to complaining about misplaced threads, imo.

Anyway, the vast majority of climate scientists agree that humans have had a significant impact on climate change: http://en.wikipedia.org...

None of us here (I'm assuming) are really qualified to voice an opinion. You need a PhD for this stuff. I doubt Volkov is noticing stuff nearly everyone in academia has just overlooked.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 8:14:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 5:50:25 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 1/22/2010 2:24:25 PM, OreEle wrote:
Actually, I was hoping you could just start a thread in science and continue there.

It really doesn't matter. Very little intrinsic benefit to complaining about misplaced threads, imo.

Anyway, the vast majority of climate scientists agree that humans have had a significant impact on climate change: http://en.wikipedia.org...

None of us here (I'm assuming) are really qualified to voice an opinion.
We all have opinions, mines built of my understanding of the facts, the theory, and the fact that lot's of stuff I don't know too much about can go into what the climate is.
You need a PhD for this stuff.
I betcha even lots of PhD's would have a hard time coming by absolute knowledge on this as there are so many factors yet unstudied.

I doubt Volkov is noticing stuff nearly everyone in academia has just overlooked.
Me too.
He's mentioned stuff that I would think is discussed in Academia, but is rather difficult to prove/explain, and, as such, I would assume has been sidelined in favor of a logical theory (other factors neglected) of Global warming do to Co2 emissions.

I think anyone who says "global warming ABSOLUTELY will happen", phd or not, is ignoring the limits of their knowledge, for they really don't know wtf is up with sunflares.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 8:21:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 8:14:39 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/22/2010 5:50:25 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 1/22/2010 2:24:25 PM, OreEle wrote:
Actually, I was hoping you could just start a thread in science and continue there.

It really doesn't matter. Very little intrinsic benefit to complaining about misplaced threads, imo.

Anyway, the vast majority of climate scientists agree that humans have had a significant impact on climate change: http://en.wikipedia.org...

None of us here (I'm assuming) are really qualified to voice an opinion.
We all have opinions, mines built of my understanding of the facts, the theory, and the fact that lot's of stuff I don't know too much about can go into what the climate is.

Perhaps I should have clarified. What I meant was, "None of us here are really qualified to voice original opinions that are contrary to scientific consensus, unless we are part of that scientific community or are otherwise legitimately qualified."

You need a PhD for this stuff.
I betcha even lots of PhD's would have a hard time coming by absolute knowledge on this as there are so many factors yet unstudied.

Right. And that's why we should leave up to them to debate. And so far, they seem to agree that humans have had a significant impact on climate change.

I doubt Volkov is noticing stuff nearly everyone in academia has just overlooked.
Me too.
He's mentioned stuff that I would think is discussed in Academia, but is rather difficult to prove/explain, and, as such, I would assume has been sidelined in favor of a logical theory (other factors neglected) of Global warming do to Co2 emissions.

Well, I wouldn't know about that.

I think anyone who says "global warming ABSOLUTELY will happen", phd or not, is ignoring the limits of their knowledge, for they really don't know wtf is up with sunflares.

Sure, I think we can all agree with that.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 8:29:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 8:21:07 PM, PoeJoe wrote:

And being that the point of this thread is to respond to this:

At 1/22/2010 1:39:23 PM, Freeman wrote:
Can someone please explain to me why there is so much global warming denial on DDO? Even people that are otherwise quite rational seem to think that the human impact on global warming is insignificant. What is it, I wonder, that goes into the psychology of being out of touch with reality?

I think spouting the reasoning for all of these "unqualified" opinions is quite relevant as that was the exact point of this thread.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 8:38:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 8:21:07 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 1/22/2010 8:14:39 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/22/2010 5:50:25 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 1/22/2010 2:24:25 PM, OreEle wrote:
Actually, I was hoping you could just start a thread in science and continue there.

It really doesn't matter. Very little intrinsic benefit to complaining about misplaced threads, imo.

Anyway, the vast majority of climate scientists agree that humans have had a significant impact on climate change: http://en.wikipedia.org...

None of us here (I'm assuming) are really qualified to voice an opinion.
We all have opinions, mines built of my understanding of the facts, the theory, and the fact that lot's of stuff I don't know too much about can go into what the climate is.

Perhaps I should have clarified. What I meant was, "None of us here are really qualified to voice original opinions that are contrary to scientific consensus, unless we are part of that scientific community or are otherwise legitimately qualified."

You need a PhD for this stuff.
I betcha even lots of PhD's would have a hard time coming by absolute knowledge on this as there are so many factors yet unstudied.

Right. And that's why we should leave up to them to debate. And so far, they seem to agree that humans have had a significant impact on climate change.

I disagree. Unfortunately, scientists, just politicians, can be "bought" and they'll say whatever the person signing the checks wants them to say (not saying they ARE bought, but they can be). So I believe it is extremely important for each and every individual to look over the science, look over the evidence, and make your own decision, not one told to you by radio talk show hosts, or talking heads or even scientific commitees.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 9:12:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 8:38:39 PM, OreEle wrote:
I disagree. Unfortunately, scientists, just politicians, can be "bought" and they'll say whatever the person signing the checks wants them to say (not saying they ARE bought, but they can be). So I believe it is extremely important for each and every individual to look over the science, look over the evidence, and make your own decision, not one told to you by radio talk show hosts, or talking heads or even scientific commitees.

Well, I agree to an extent. But science is extremely rational. Remember this. The scientific community respects the scientific method. Those who cheat on their science are shunned. Proof is always required. It's quite a stretch to say that the vast majority of climate scientists have been bought off by environmentalists whose motivation it is to wreck terrible havoc, by making the Earth a better place to be, by making our food and water safer, and by making the environment cleaner. I trust scientists more than I trust oil companies which shell out billions of dollars to combat science. Real science. True science.

On the issue of global warming, the evidence is pretty damning from what I can understand. Of course, I don't understand the math behind it, but insofar as the basic concepts go, they're reasonable.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 9:24:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 9:12:59 PM, PoeJoe wrote:

On the issue of global warming, the evidence is pretty damning from what I can understand.
Hey, hey, hey... Wheres the PhD?? no opinions without a Phd please...
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 9:25:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 9:12:59 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 1/22/2010 8:38:39 PM, OreEle wrote:
I disagree. Unfortunately, scientists, just politicians, can be "bought" and they'll say whatever the person signing the checks wants them to say (not saying they ARE bought, but they can be). So I believe it is extremely important for each and every individual to look over the science, look over the evidence, and make your own decision, not one told to you by radio talk show hosts, or talking heads or even scientific commitees.

Well, I agree to an extent. But science is extremely rational. Remember this. The scientific community respects the scientific method. Those who cheat on their science are shunned. Proof is always required. It's quite a stretch to say that the vast majority of climate scientists have been bought off by environmentalists whose motivation it is to wreck terrible havoc, by making the Earth a better place to be, by making our food and water safer, and by making the environment cleaner. I trust scientists more than I trust oil companies which shell out billions of dollars to combat science. Real science. True science.

On the issue of global warming, the evidence is pretty damning from what I can understand. Of course, I don't understand the math behind it, but insofar as the basic concepts go, they're reasonable.

What do the oil companies use for their arguments? Bought off scientists. While scientists are generally more trust worthy then any other profession (and I hope they stay that way), they are human and their experiments need money from somewhere.

I prefer trusting yourself over others if possible (though scientists are a great #2, while politicians are about #9,184).

http://atmoz.org...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 9:56:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 9:24:10 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/22/2010 9:12:59 PM, PoeJoe wrote:

On the issue of global warming, the evidence is pretty damning from what I can understand.
Hey, hey, hey... Wheres the PhD?? no opinions without a Phd please...

Quoting myself: "None of us here are really qualified to voice original opinions that are contrary to scientific consensus, unless we are part of that scientific community or are otherwise legitimately qualified."

At 1/22/2010 9:25:07 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/22/2010 9:12:59 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
Well, I agree to an extent. But science is extremely rational. Remember this. The scientific community respects the scientific method. Those who cheat on their science are shunned. Proof is always required. It's quite a stretch to say that the vast majority of climate scientists have been bought off by environmentalists whose motivation it is to wreck terrible havoc, by making the Earth a better place to be, by making our food and water safer, and by making the environment cleaner. I trust scientists more than I trust oil companies which shell out billions of dollars to combat science. Real science. True science.

On the issue of global warming, the evidence is pretty damning from what I can understand. Of course, I don't understand the math behind it, but insofar as the basic concepts go, they're reasonable.

What do the oil companies use for their arguments? Bought off scientists. While scientists are generally more trust worthy then any other profession (and I hope they stay that way), they are human and their experiments need money from somewhere.

I prefer trusting yourself over others if possible (though scientists are a great #2, while politicians are about #9,184).

I'm just saying that the mathematics and true nitty gritty science behind the obvious is stuff we normal folk can't understand without training, and that normal folk don't really have a say.

It's like evolution. The vast majority of biologists believe in the theory. I, as a commoner, can understand the basic facts and arguments. But I don't know the nitty gritty science behind it. And if I want to voice a contrary position to scientific consensus, I have to get qualified to do so first.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 10:00:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Oh, you're right about big-oil-bought scientists.

But the vast majority of scientists cannot be bought off, and subsequently believe humans have had a significant impact on climate change.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 10:00:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 9:56:24 PM, PoeJoe wrote:

Quoting myself: "None of us here are really qualified to voice original opinions that are contrary to scientific consensus, unless we are part of that scientific community or are otherwise legitimately qualified."

I'm plenty qualified to voice my opinions, I know them rather well.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 10:06:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 10:00:28 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
Oh, you're right about big-oil-bought scientists.

But the vast majority of scientists cannot be bought off, and subsequently believe humans have had a significant impact on climate change.

Anyone "can" be bought, it's just a matter of finding to correct price.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"