"hard science" is bullshit nowadays kid. The ice cores these "scientists" use for history of temperatures have changes in their appearance, color bands, dark/light areas, assumed to each represent a year. They keep them in Colorado somewhere. That science has been debunked and it has been very well proven that the colorations can occur as often as a few times a day!! Nobody cares about that, they go right on with their analyses like they know what they are doing. My postulations and conclusions are as good as anybody's, I would say that undersea volcanos are warming the ice at the poles. We have a lot more volcanic activity on land where we can see it than we did 50 to 100 years ago, it follows that we would have more volcanic activity under the sea. Those land masses aren't floating on the ocean you know.
This is too funny!
- Thread starter Maverick74
- Start date
"hard science" is bullshit nowadays kid. The ice cores these "scientists" use for history of temperatures have changes in their appearance, color bands, dark/light areas, assumed to each represent a year. They keep them in Colorado somewhere. That science has been debunked and it has been very well proven that the colorations can occur as often as a few times a day!! Nobody cares about that, they go right on with their analyses like they know what they are doing. My postulations and conclusions are as good as anybody's, I would say that undersea volcanos are warming the ice at the poles. We have a lot more volcanic activity on land where we can see it than we did 50 to 100 years ago, it follows that we would have more volcanic activity under the sea. Those land masses aren't floating on the ocean you know.
Well, first off, let me thank you for calling me "kid". Always a pleasure to know that there are those of you older and presumedly wiser than me.
"Hard science is bullshit nowadays". OK, what are your qualifications to be so sure that this has been "debunked"?
My friend at NOAA seems to me to be a little too intelligent, and certainly more than qualified to be fooled. He's had his doctorate in this field since quite a number of years before I met him (which was almost 30 years ago). He has been working in this field since the late 60's or early 70's. (Not sure exactly, just judging by his age).
If new theories come about, I assure you he is not one to deny changes in accepted science. He is far from a "stubborn" scientist. (which is a contradiction in terms anyway). So even if what you say is true (certainly beyond my scope of knowledge), the bottom line is my friend still feels that global warming is a threat and a challenge to be studied at the very least.
Bye the way, it would not surprise me in the least if the "somewhere in Colorado" you refer to is right in the NOAA labs. This is what NOAA is about. So I think his access to the materials and the science (and any arguments against previously accepted theory) is readily available to him. Whatever you believe, I assure you he has read every dissenting opinion. As I said in the previous post, this is not about politics at all. It is strictly about science. He has ZERO interest in politicizing his beliefs. That is NOT what scientists do. Politicians may try and "debunk" science if it suits their agenda (usually having to do with MONEY), but it is not a two way street. Scientists are only interested in the science. Not in the politics. NOAA goes on about it's business no matter who is running the government. The first time I was up there, Nixon was in office. As far as I can tell, aside from the computer hardware, not much has changed up there. The very futuristic building (used as a background in Woody Allen's movie "Sleeper) stands in the same place atop Table Mesa Road (a very beautiful place, which anyone who has been in Boulder will attest to) since it was built in 1970 (I think), and it is NOT a facility that is filled with political appointees at all.
Of all the government agencies, I truly cannot think of one other that comes close to being as apolitical as NOAA. (National Bureau of Standards comes to mind, which was also in Boulder, but no longer exists as such). That just is NOT what it is about. Research it and tell me I am wrong!
Now unless your qualifications are similar, I think I will trust what he has to say rather than what you do. While I am sure your intentions are good, and your beliefs sincere, somehow I just feel more confident in his conclusions than in yours. This study is his life. Is it yours? If it IS indeed what you have devoted your life to as he has, how then are you able to trade and post to ET? My friend at NOAA.....I know for a fact has about as much understanding of financial markets as I do of geothermal physics. Which is nil.
But no matter which of you is right, again, thanks for the "kid" comment pops
Peace,
RSHi RS. I'll just cut to the chase here, kid, and say that's a load of horse doo-doo.
Scientists are human, too. And if this particular scientist (your friend) believes global warming to be a problem then he certainly has an interest in "politicizing" his beliefs.
That's one of the problems I have with the greenie brigade of scientists. To them, some obscure Amazonian tree frog becoming extinct is a matter of cosmic urgency, whereas I would scarcely bat an eyelid. So when I read about the newest "scientific" prognostications on the state of the planet I can't help but wonder whether it's just more scaremongering.
Of course, our environment is something we should all be concerned about. Maverick's claim that politicans don't care about the environment is just not true. They do care, even if only because their constituents care.
The bigger problem, I think, may not be so much the "politicization" of science as the commercialization of science. Something akin to what the meat industry is trying to do in employing "scientists" to challenge the well established evidence of the health hazards of meat consumption.
No matter what Gore says, I find the debate on global warming to be interesting.
I read some years ago that the models used to predict global climate changes could not be run backwards, making them highly suspect.
It seems most of the attention is in reducing CO2 emmissions. Whether that goal is one that will reduce temperature or not is very debateable. I also read (forgot the source) that even if Kyoto is implemented it will have no effect on global temperatures. Kyoto is really an economic treaty that punishes developed nations and favors underdeveloped ones like China, as if they needed it.
I think the story goes something like this: The US has the best energy efficiency per unit of output because of strict environmental regulations and other factors. Kyoto will drive up the cost of doing business in the US and so companies will send even more manufacturing to China where they will be exempt from Kyoto.
More interesting is a recent article on diesel soot which may have a much more important role:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/12/23/soot.climate.ap/
IMO, the science is not done and before we jump off the deep end as Gore wants, we need to take the politics out of this whole subject.
DS
I read some years ago that the models used to predict global climate changes could not be run backwards, making them highly suspect.
It seems most of the attention is in reducing CO2 emmissions. Whether that goal is one that will reduce temperature or not is very debateable. I also read (forgot the source) that even if Kyoto is implemented it will have no effect on global temperatures. Kyoto is really an economic treaty that punishes developed nations and favors underdeveloped ones like China, as if they needed it.
I think the story goes something like this: The US has the best energy efficiency per unit of output because of strict environmental regulations and other factors. Kyoto will drive up the cost of doing business in the US and so companies will send even more manufacturing to China where they will be exempt from Kyoto.
More interesting is a recent article on diesel soot which may have a much more important role:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/12/23/soot.climate.ap/
IMO, the science is not done and before we jump off the deep end as Gore wants, we need to take the politics out of this whole subject.
DS
Now here are FACTS, not opinions based on nothing (like yours).
Yes, indeed "scientists are human too". But in this particular case if my friend is concerned with global warming as being a potential problem, on what basis do you assume that his interest in the subject qualifies it as "politicizing his beliefs"?
I would love to know how you came to this conclusion....(never mind, I know perfectly well it is about disagreeing, not about any real belief, since you are not qualified to have a belief regarding this topic).
You are the clearly the one that is politicizing this issue. Your implication is clear. You have a problem with "the greenie brigade of scientists". This is a joke. You know NOTHING of this guy's politics. I do, and he is pretty much apolitical, just as NOAA itself is.
He does not have a "cause" at all. If his research showed that global warming was not a threat to the planet, I assure you nothing would make him happier. He has absolutely no reason to care what his results show in a political sense. None.
He is not a "tree hugger" or a "save the whales" activist. He is a government employee. Pure and simple. He does a job, and he publishes his results and submits them to the Department of Commerce. He studies weather. That's it. Is he concerned with the environment as a whole? I would imagine he is. Who isn't?
Take a good look at yourself. Look what you wrote. You don't like the the results of scientific research, so you make it into an adversarial political issue. This is not rational. You use a term: "greenie brigade" without any facts or knowledge about who you are talking about. You just make assumptions based on a need to disagree with what I stated. And all I stated was a concern expressed to me by someone in a position to understand the subject a lot better than you or me.
I admit to being ignorant about the science involved. However, I do know enough to realize that there is a lot of lost profit in complying with efforts to curb pollution.
You don't need to be a "tree hugger", or a "greenie brigade" soldier, or a member of the Sierra Club to be concerned with our limited natural resources. You only need to be sane.
When I was a kid, we drank water out of the tap. We played ball and would drink water out of a garden hose. Now bottled water costs more than gasoline. This should not be a concern of everyone?
If people want a clean atmosphere and clean water, they are fanatics?
Get a clue. This issue is beyond politics. Only the greediest of the greedy don't care about our air and water. This is not a political issue at all. This is about preservation of limited resources. Nothing more and nothing less.
Do you yourself own an oil refinery? Do you yourself suffer financially because you cannot dump raw sewage into our rivers, lakes and oceans?
Find another issue to argue about. You seem to have no problem doing that.
No one is in favor of pollution.
Peace,
RS
Now here are FACTS, not opinions based on nothing (like yours).
Yes, indeed "scientists are human too". But in this particular case if my friend is concerned with global warming as being a potential problem, on what basis do you assume that his interest in the subject qualifies it as "politicizing his beliefs"?
I would love to know how you came to this conclusion....(never mind, I know perfectly well it is about disagreeing, not about any real belief, since you are not qualified to have a belief regarding this topic).
Oh, you know "perfectly well" do you? Lol.
Look, it's all very well for your friend to reach a scientific conclusion. Nothing political in that.
However, if your friend considers his conclusion a grave problem or potential problem, then, yes, he does have an interest in "politicizing" it. Now, it may be I'm using the term 'politicize' incorrectly here. However, my point is that if he considers what his science uncovers a problem, then he does have an interest in seeing that the problem is solved. Isn't that logical?
Well, in the case of global warming, your friend must have been living in a cave if doesn't realize what a hot button issue global warming is. So, from that point of view, any attempt to solve the problem (that he perceives) involves looking it at it from the political angle too, doesn't it?
You are the clearly the one that is politicizing this issue. Your implication is clear. You have a problem with "the greenie brigade of scientists". This is a joke. You know NOTHING of this guy's politics. I do, and he is pretty much apolitical, just as NOAA itself is.
He does not have a "cause" at all. If his research showed that global warming was not a threat to the planet, I assure you nothing would make him happier. He has absolutely no reason to care what his results show in a political sense. None.
My problem with greenies is "a joke"? Why?
Look, I wasn't even referring to your friend with my greenie brigade comment. I simply meant that because such scientists exist (who blow the smallest environmental problem out of all proportion) I find it hard to trust the verdict of scientists when it comes to environmental issues. No judgement of your friend at all. So go to your corner and take ten deep breaths and calm down.
Take a good look at yourself. Look what you wrote. You don't like the the results of scientific research, so you make it into an adversarial political issue. This is not rational. You use a term: "greenie brigade" without any facts or knowledge about who you are talking about. You just make assumptions based on a need to disagree with what I stated. And all I stated was a concern expressed to me by someone in a position to understand the subject a lot better than you or me.
Mind reading again are we?
I have "a need to disagree" do I?
Lol.
It's not that I don't like the results of scientific research. That's baloney. I welcome whatever science can tell us about our world. I am all in favor of scientific research. And if I had my way, the scientific literacy of joey six would skyrocket. However, I do have a problem with the credibility of the implications some make regarding their scientific research. May I suggest a book entitled The Skeptical Environmentalist to enlighten yourself on the topic?
You don't need to be a "tree hugger", or a "greenie brigade" soldier, or a member of the Sierra Club to be concerned with our limited natural resources. You only need to be sane.
When I was a kid, we drank water out of the tap. We played ball and would drink water out of a garden hose. Now bottled water costs more than gasoline. This should not be a concern of everyone?
If people want a clean atmosphere and clean water, they are fanatics?
Get a clue. This issue is beyond politics. Only the greediest of the greedy don't care about our air and water. This is not a political issue at all. This is about preservation of limited resources. Nothing more and nothing less.
Um, I think I stated quite clearly that caring for our environment is something we are all concerned about? Miss it? Go back.
Find another issue to argue about. You seem to have no problem doing that.
Lol. You're all smiles while making your bubbly musings. So funny to see the way you suddenly start clutching at all manner of straws the moment someone challenges them. Your mind reading seems to be the most consistent tactic.
No way any "sane" person could disagree (without having "a need to") with ole Rs7 hey? There's gotta be some deep, dark pyschological issues they're just playing out, right?
Can't wait to see what else you "uncover" about my personality after reading this. In the meantime, I'll go find someone else to disagree with.
Yes, indeed "scientists are human too". But in this particular case if my friend is concerned with global warming as being a potential problem, on what basis do you assume that his interest in the subject qualifies it as "politicizing his beliefs"?
I would love to know how you came to this conclusion....(never mind, I know perfectly well it is about disagreeing, not about any real belief, since you are not qualified to have a belief regarding this topic).
Oh, you know "perfectly well" do you? Lol.
Look, it's all very well for your friend to reach a scientific conclusion. Nothing political in that.
However, if your friend considers his conclusion a grave problem or potential problem, then, yes, he does have an interest in "politicizing" it. Now, it may be I'm using the term 'politicize' incorrectly here. However, my point is that if he considers what his science uncovers a problem, then he does have an interest in seeing that the problem is solved. Isn't that logical?
Well, in the case of global warming, your friend must have been living in a cave if doesn't realize what a hot button issue global warming is. So, from that point of view, any attempt to solve the problem (that he perceives) involves looking it at it from the political angle too, doesn't it?
You are the clearly the one that is politicizing this issue. Your implication is clear. You have a problem with "the greenie brigade of scientists". This is a joke. You know NOTHING of this guy's politics. I do, and he is pretty much apolitical, just as NOAA itself is.
He does not have a "cause" at all. If his research showed that global warming was not a threat to the planet, I assure you nothing would make him happier. He has absolutely no reason to care what his results show in a political sense. None.
My problem with greenies is "a joke"? Why?
Look, I wasn't even referring to your friend with my greenie brigade comment. I simply meant that because such scientists exist (who blow the smallest environmental problem out of all proportion) I find it hard to trust the verdict of scientists when it comes to environmental issues. No judgement of your friend at all. So go to your corner and take ten deep breaths and calm down.
Take a good look at yourself. Look what you wrote. You don't like the the results of scientific research, so you make it into an adversarial political issue. This is not rational. You use a term: "greenie brigade" without any facts or knowledge about who you are talking about. You just make assumptions based on a need to disagree with what I stated. And all I stated was a concern expressed to me by someone in a position to understand the subject a lot better than you or me.
Mind reading again are we?
I have "a need to disagree" do I?
Lol.
It's not that I don't like the results of scientific research. That's baloney. I welcome whatever science can tell us about our world. I am all in favor of scientific research. And if I had my way, the scientific literacy of joey six would skyrocket. However, I do have a problem with the credibility of the implications some make regarding their scientific research. May I suggest a book entitled The Skeptical Environmentalist to enlighten yourself on the topic?
You don't need to be a "tree hugger", or a "greenie brigade" soldier, or a member of the Sierra Club to be concerned with our limited natural resources. You only need to be sane.
When I was a kid, we drank water out of the tap. We played ball and would drink water out of a garden hose. Now bottled water costs more than gasoline. This should not be a concern of everyone?
If people want a clean atmosphere and clean water, they are fanatics?
Get a clue. This issue is beyond politics. Only the greediest of the greedy don't care about our air and water. This is not a political issue at all. This is about preservation of limited resources. Nothing more and nothing less.
Um, I think I stated quite clearly that caring for our environment is something we are all concerned about? Miss it? Go back.
Find another issue to argue about. You seem to have no problem doing that.
Lol. You're all smiles while making your bubbly musings. So funny to see the way you suddenly start clutching at all manner of straws the moment someone challenges them. Your mind reading seems to be the most consistent tactic.
No way any "sane" person could disagree (without having "a need to") with ole Rs7 hey? There's gotta be some deep, dark pyschological issues they're just playing out, right?
Can't wait to see what else you "uncover" about my personality after reading this. In the meantime, I'll go find someone else to disagree with.
Yup, I know you will. Nobody does it better DM.
Such a bright young man. Why waste your efforts with this?
So many arguments to make. So many people to argue with.
Is pollution bad? Yeah, I am pretty sure it is.
Do you disagree? If you do, then we can debate that. But I know you too well. So don't make an argument you don't believe in.
Global warming? Neither of us knows enough about it to make an informed case one way or the other.
Find another subject.
"a grave problem"? How did you manage to make what I said into this? I said it was, according to him, a fact. Probably not a good thing. Who knows? Maybe global warming will be helpful to the environment. What I said was it exists. What I implied was that it is probably not a good thing. But you never know.
Maybe all the chromosome damage they said LSD caused turned out to be a benefit, and created superior offspring to those who took the stuff. Sometimes "change" is assumed to be bad. (Almost always by "conservatives") When in reality, change is just change. The results can't always be anticipated. It's all just guesswork.
So perhaps you should be more concerned about global warming than Gore is..LOL
Peace,
RSI don't know how in the world you could possibly think I'm arguing that pollution isn't bad. Especially when I've (twice now) said exactly the opposite. Oh well, not much point replying to someone that doesn't even read the whole of my posts (or lacks the basic comprehension skills required to understand them).
"a grave problem"? How did you manage to make what I said into this? I said it was, according to him, a fact. Probably not a good thing. Who knows? Maybe global warming will be helpful to the environment. What I said was it exists. What I implied was that it is probably not a good thing. But you never know.
Oh, of course. How silly of me. No, you're right: Who knows whether global warming is a good thing? I'd forgotten about the multitudes of scientists in favor of it, who think it's a wonderful thing. Stupid me. I thought the argument was about whether global warming was taking place.
Such a bright young man. Why waste your efforts with this?
So many arguments to make. So many people to argue with.
You know, if I could try on what you do for a second, I might claim that you come across like you believe you're better than all of us. It's only us that "waste" our "efforts". Not you. You've got it all worked out. So kind of you to take some time out to set the rest of us straight.
Good ole uncle RS. He's "knows" you aren't "really" interested in the debate. He sees right through all that, ole RS does. That's why he'll ignore all that waffle and focus on that inner child crying out for help. God bless ya RS.
RS,
I don't doubt that your friend is well-informed and means well. However, there are equally well-informed scientists who are just as well-meaning who have shot huge holes in the whole theory of global warming. It is all based on models that include enormous fudge factors and that are not reliable when backtested on historical data.
Ultimately, it is a political issue. For one thing, we will not live long enough to know if it is accurate or not. For another, the Kyoto treaty was so unfair and ineffectual, even accepting the theories, that it made no sense whatsoever. For Gore and other politicians to be criticizing the administration on this is disingenuous if not demagogic. The Senate voted something like 97-2 that they would not accept it, and the Clinton/Gore administration did not even bother to submit it for ratification.
The analogies to air and water pollution do not hold because it was very clear that they were polluted and that abating that pollution would be beneficial. There were arguments about cost and technology, but no one doubted the basic sccience involved. Global warming is totally different. The halfway measures that have been proposed will involve enormous costs on the economy, and there is a very real likelihood that they will produce nothing of benefit, except to make some enviros feel good about themselves. Oh yeah, and keep a lot of otherwise not very busy government scientists gainfully employed. It is also far from clear that global warming would have the catastrophic results that have been predicted. We are talking about one or two degrees at most in like 100 years. You experienced a lot worse when you moved to Boca.
I don't doubt that your friend is well-informed and means well. However, there are equally well-informed scientists who are just as well-meaning who have shot huge holes in the whole theory of global warming. It is all based on models that include enormous fudge factors and that are not reliable when backtested on historical data.
Ultimately, it is a political issue. For one thing, we will not live long enough to know if it is accurate or not. For another, the Kyoto treaty was so unfair and ineffectual, even accepting the theories, that it made no sense whatsoever. For Gore and other politicians to be criticizing the administration on this is disingenuous if not demagogic. The Senate voted something like 97-2 that they would not accept it, and the Clinton/Gore administration did not even bother to submit it for ratification.
The analogies to air and water pollution do not hold because it was very clear that they were polluted and that abating that pollution would be beneficial. There were arguments about cost and technology, but no one doubted the basic sccience involved. Global warming is totally different. The halfway measures that have been proposed will involve enormous costs on the economy, and there is a very real likelihood that they will produce nothing of benefit, except to make some enviros feel good about themselves. Oh yeah, and keep a lot of otherwise not very busy government scientists gainfully employed. It is also far from clear that global warming would have the catastrophic results that have been predicted. We are talking about one or two degrees at most in like 100 years. You experienced a lot worse when you moved to Boca.
AAA;
I am sure you are right. This is a subject that hasn't enough interest for me to really respond to in a serious way. Mainly because I know squat about it.
It is very clear that you are better informed on the subject than I am, so I defer to your opinions.
It's just so much fun to spar with my little marsupial friend that sometimes I forget I need some substance. After all, he is like a son to me, and I feel compelled to indulge his adversarial nature.
I hope you understand.
Peace,
RS