Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[explod]

1) Did not infer any link between GW scientists and tobacco backers. I stated that reports commissioned by lobby/interest/political groups, such as "The Climate Institute" ( a left wing political org), should be taken with a huge shovel of salt and used tobacco industry reports as an example.

2) E) Misguided.

3) The globe will be exactly the same temp as today and the sea will lap the shores at exactly the same height in 2012.
Hell, you can even lock me in for 2021.

And finally...lol, no, I do not work for the oil industry, although I do have money invested in oil stocks as part of my balanced portfolio.

Why is it that anyone who does not follow the GW bible is accused/suspected of being in the oil industry?? Talk about paranoia.

Not one fact in that reply. And what gives you the great insight to 2012, let alone 2021.

If that is the best you can come up with then we should have two bob each way and support the global warming thingo, just in case. Being cursed by the Grandchildren may well prove to be worse than being down below with old nick.

 

[chops_a_must]

Not one fact in that reply. And what gives you the great insight to 2012, let alone 2021.

If that is the best you can come up with then we should have two bob each way and support the global warming thingo, just in case. Being cursed by the Grandchildren may well prove to be worse than being down below with old nick.

In his defence, I don't think he is saying to hell with it.

Just that he thinks there are kinds of stabilisers out there, that will automatically keep things in check.

Not passing comment on that yet...

 

[The Ferret]

Not one fact in that reply. And what gives you the great insight to 2012, let alone 2021.

If that is the best you can come up with then we should have two bob each way and support the global warming thingo, just in case. Being cursed by the Grandchildren may well prove to be worse than being down below with old nick.

One thing I have learnt over the years is that "fact" is subjective. It's different things for different people.

Take a car accident for example. 5 people see it but each statement is slightly different.

Whats fact for one person is not always fact for others. Whats important is that people recognise that and accept thats how humans are. Its both a weakness and strength, all in one. A riddle, wrapped in an enigma, you may say.... The Pope for example... for him, JC is a fact... to others? no...

 

[explod]

One thing I have learned over the years is that "fact" is subjective. It's different things for different people.

Take a car accident for example. 5 people see it but each statement is slightly different.

Whats fact for one person is not always fact for others. Whats important is that people recognise that and accept thats how humans are. Its both a weakness and strength, all in one. A riddle, wrapped in an enigma, you may say.... The Pope for example... for him, JC is a fact... to others? no...

Yep, a lot of shades of grey, however the subjective can create wonderful covers for truth. In the old metphysics we could be convinced that the potential of a rock was limitless in theory. However when I burnt my hand as a child, I knew it and every other child of enquiry came to the same conclusion. Not an absolute granted, as this existence (all) may be a figment of my mind exclusively.

Since the cold wet winters, plentiful tadpoles and lush pasters on my Dad's farm 50 years ago we have come a long way and I feel the diffence.

Perhaps the conundrum of ones philosophical discourse is that at the end of infinity ones loses feeling.

 

[wayneL]

One thing I have learnt over the years is that "fact" is subjective. It's different things for different people.

Take a car accident for example. 5 people see it but each statement is slightly different.

Whats fact for one person is not always fact for others. Whats important is that people recognise that and accept thats how humans are. Its both a weakness and strength, all in one. A riddle, wrapped in an enigma, you may say.... The Pope for example... for him, JC is a fact... to others? no...

'zactly

I have read enough scientific extracts to conclude that:

1/ Most science is biased. It starts with a hypothesis and corrupts the the process to support the hypothesis. Anyone who reads exercise physiology science will reach this decision almost immediately.

Very few projects acid test themselves.

2/ Scientists are human and often have agendas (whether psychological or financial in basis) other than the "absolute" truth; social proof is just as prevalent in the scientific community as anywhere else.

Cutting through all that crap is jolly difficult, especially when the pro-AGW is using an "Argument From Adverse Consequences"

As you observe, original thought is not common.

 

[Wysiwyg]

One thing I have learnt over the years is that "fact" is subjective. It's different things for different people.

I know what you mean, kinda like the sky is blue only via agreement.

 

[The Ferret]

'zactly

I have read enough scientific extracts to conclude that:

1/ Most science is biased. It starts with a hypothesis and corrupts the the process to support the hypothesis. Anyone who reads exercise physiology science will reach this decision almost immediately.

Very few projects acid test themselves.

2/ Scientists are human and often have agendas (whether psychological or financial in basis) other than the "absolute" truth; social proof is just as prevalent in the scientific community as anywhere else.

Cutting through all that crap is jolly difficult, especially when the pro-AGW is using an "Argument From Adverse Consequences"

As you observe, original thought is not common.

Very true Wayne. Also science, true science, is about theory and then PROVING the theory based on replication and observation. Anything that is theory only is not science. We can only prove what we can replicate over and over in controlled conditions. Until we have managed to build another earth, replicate the "damage" we have done, and then compare it with a control earth for comparison I'll keep driving my car and flushing the toilet. Of course, we cant do these things because we are so powerless.. which simply reinforces the arrogance of "modern" man who believes we can

 

[The Ferret]

I know what you mean, kinda like the sky is blue only via agreement.

It's only blue because we have been taught it is blue. If you isolated and raised child telling them that blue was green and vice versa, they would swear it was green and never accept otherwise.

 

[chops_a_must]

The inverted [colour] spectrum is a dilly of a pickle.

 

[explod]

'zactly

I have read enough scientific extracts to conclude that:

1/ Most science is biased. It starts with a hypothesis and corrupts the the process to support the hypothesis. Anyone who reads exercise physiology science will reach this decision almost immediately.

Very few projects acid test themselves.

2/ Scientists are human and often have agendas (whether psychological or financial in basis) other than the "absolute" truth; social proof is just as prevalent in the scientific community as anywhere else.

Cutting through all that crap is jolly difficult, especially when the pro-AGW is using an "Argument From Adverse Consequences"

As you observe, original thought is not common.

Playing on crap. Research papers are required in the preamble to encapsulate a brief outline of the body. This is often misunderstood and of course an outline cannot possibly connect all of the knots. The proper reading and uderstanding of a comprehensive piece of research, most often years in the making is usually outside the patience and scope of those, who for example, want to say that the fire is not hot.

Untill one has run the full gaunlet and is clearly not acting on hearsay then we may have something.

To be convinced.

 

[explod]

It's only blue because we have been taught it is blue. If you isolated and raised child telling them that blue was green and vice versa, they would swear it was green and never accept otherwise.

Description, i.e. language and feeling/touch are very different matters.

Being taught green over blue is the start of conditioning, to conform, to be indoctrinated. Feeling the hot fire is the beginning of experience.

Global warming more and more is being experienced, it is louder than words.

 

[Wysiwyg]

'zactly

I have read enough scientific extracts to conclude that:

1/ Most science is biased. It starts with a hypothesis and corrupts the the process to support the hypothesis.

Waynel, why don`t you check out the Large Hadron Collider open day next month.(you can drive on the right hand side of the road can`t you.)

Just a thought as it is certainly a mammoth project financially with the best scientific human knowledge applied.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Description, i.e. language and feeling/touch are very different matters.

Being taught green over blue is the start of conditioning, to conform, to be indoctrinated. Feeling the hot fire is the beginning of experience.

Global warming more and more is being experienced, it is louder than words.

We are conditioned from birth and later in the piece start to question what we are being told.

 

[2020hindsight]

Just out of curiosity...

1. ... do you guys think that "Global Warming", or even specifically excess carbon emissions, is just a symptom of more substantial environmental problems?

2. And IFF so, (from your point of view) do you think that the GW debate will run its course

3. and ultimately be replaced by matters that are arguably more central to the crux of the matters. i.e. massive energy resource depletion.

4. .. most people would agree that we are at or near peak oil production. Therefore the moves to combat this, in turn target carbon emissions. ...

5. The follow up questions are then: do policies and initiatives towards reducing CO2 specifically, although desirable (maybe? maybe not?), go only part of the way in doing their job, because of this?

6. And if so, what do you propose we target, or not target?

1. ... No , to me it is a simple extension of the pollution problem. But GW is a major problem in its own right. Millions of implications too numerous to mention. Anything from locust plagues due to the warm winters .. to polar bears eating human children (on news the other night).

2. ... No because the world is getting hotter. With current trends, GW will only "run its course" after man intervenes - because he is causing the difference between the green line and the red line.

3. resource depletion ? - totally different matter - fortunately it will force us to abandon fossil fuels eventually.

4. True, as above.

5. yes,

6. we target what can be achieved by maximum human involvement - given the politics of the times - within the constraints of the inertia and the stupidity of an unscientific community intent on chasing dollars.

Attenborough

 

[explod]

We are conditioned from birth and later in the piece start to question what we are being told.

Absolutely, as we are doing.

I feel the environment, from my own experience has led me to the view, that it is changing for the worse.

However what we a conditioned to and what we question is still different from the sense of touch. Touch, sight, smell/taste, cognition are different and seperate parts of our experience.

To some degree the direct experience is reality and language is the abstract. From experience to expression if you like. Speak, write, sketch and gestulate back to express.

Strewth, its getting too late for this stuff.

 

[spooly74]

Also science, true science, is about theory and then PROVING the theory based on replication and observation. Anything that is theory only is not science. We can only prove what we can replicate over and over in controlled conditions. Until we have managed to build another earth, replicate the "damage" we have done, and then compare it with a control earth for comparison I'll keep driving my car and flushing the toilet. Of course, we cant do these things because we are so powerless.. which simply reinforces the arrogance of "modern" man who believes we can

True science! So scientific theory is false science

The most active knowledge gathering is, and has been for the last 4 centuries, science. Nothing else comes close in human history. While there are other forms of knowledge gathering, such as economics and literature, none of them can tag genes or make polymers that never existed before.

It`s common the hear those who oppose this or that with - "but it`s only a theory" - like global warming or evolution (which btw is an observable fact). No higher accolade can be given to a scientific claim than that it is a theory, unless to say it is a confirmed theory, and theories, when they are abandoned in the light of new evidence, are often as not replaced by some theory that at least looks very much like the original.

"Nobody goes into a gravel pit and counts stones to do geology" - Darwin.
You know from past experience/experiments what sort of protocols will deliver good results, and you apply them.

 

[wayneL]

Playing on crap. Research papers are required in the preamble to encapsulate a brief outline of the body. This is often misunderstood and of course an outline cannot possibly connect all of the knots. The proper reading and uderstanding of a comprehensive piece of research, most often years in the making is usually outside the patience and scope of those, who for example, want to say that the fire is not hot.

Untill one has run the full gaunlet and is clearly not acting on hearsay then we may have something.

To be convinced.

You are making some unverifiable insinuations there explod.

Here is an example of what I mean. I read a paper which was the basis for which a large part of the horse racing fraternity started feeding corn oil and other fats.

The experiments were conducted on high speed treadmills at sub maximal speeds and found that corn oils reduced lactate production and increased anaerobic stamina.

The elephant in the room is that most horse races are run at 95% to 100% maximum speed on terrain vastly different to a treadmill, with ~ 55kg on their back.

It reduced lactate production alright, but somehow was responsible for the locking up of cellular glycogen. The implication of ketone bodies in this was unmistakable via the smell of acetone post race.

This was never picked up in the study because the parameters were not relevant to the end result... one can only gues as to the motivation for using sub maximal tests, but it was just plain wrong.

I dissed it straight off the bat, because I actually read the extract, but it took those who believed in "science" unquestioningly, bitter experience to find out it was rubbish.

Now... lets not leap to conclusions eh?

 

[wayneL]

FYI

video

 

[The Ferret]

FYI

video

There's money in them thar cars.....

The desire for profit drive technology and advancement yet again....... (regardless of 10m dollar prize).

 

[2020hindsight]

Wayne
this is an excerpt from that video..

This is big issue…
Regulators in Washington
and environmentalists
are clamping down on the industry.

The industry argues that all these vehicles,
hybrids, electric vehicles, diesels you name it
could add up to $5ooo to the price tag of a car
and consumers won’t pay for it

Kinda doesn’t matter any more what they think about that
everybody is saying they have to get with it
on energy efficiency
so that’s where they have to go.

Note the phrase "Regulators and environmentalists" (the latter influence the former right?)

I would argue that
a) Regulators go where the public leads them to some extent at least , and hence
b) both directly and indirectly, environmentalists should take a lot of the credit for this change of direction of vehicles.

ferret
Of course there is economic advantage in being the first with new power methods.!
What do you think Nicholas Stern or Ross Garnaut have been hinting at ? - as loudly as they can. ?
sheesh

I used to import photovoltaic cells in the early 80's - albeit novelties only - little windmills etc - unfortunately ahead of their time. But Australia should be world flaming leaders in solar power by now. ...

except for the stupidity of Johnny Howard in winding back on the csiro and the OPPORTUNITIES (now almost missed) of global warming -
or Johnny Rotten as wayne likes to call him