Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Lennox
climber
just southwest of the center of the universe
|
|
|
May 24, 2011 - 12:49am PT
|
Yes, yes.
Likewise, a diagnosis of cancer is just a doomsday "scientific gloss," not based on any "real science," since we can't really know whether it will be responsive to treatment, whether it will metastasize or how long the patient will live.
So have a smoke with your glass of benzene while you drive your Hummer, because all this superstition about cancer and global warming just fulfills some psychological need (unlike the denial of such), and can have no basis in reality because I hereby ridicule it.
|
|
justin01
Trad climber
sacramento
|
|
|
May 24, 2011 - 01:33am PT
|
haha,
You guys are a stich, I knew what i was in for when I posted on a 2500 post topic. I have done a lot of research in the matter (sadly that has not included supertopo). I am also an engineer as many of you are. It seems lots of climbers are engineers. So please do not ad hominum me. I am not a stupid meme.
I have a hard time with anthropomorphic global warming because I have an innate distrust of statistics. I have a hard time believing that we can quantifying tenths of degrees over an entire globe accurately.
what is the quote?
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
furthermore I have a harder time quantifying man's contributions to things that are unquantifiable. I am not saying we do not play a part. Nor am I saying global warming is not happening, I just think the doomsdayers are without a scientific leg to stand on.
Now if we are talking religion, well that is a whole different ballgame.
Carry on.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
May 24, 2011 - 01:51am PT
|
Justin,
I think the issue with statistical analysis of physical data is one of determining the proper confidence intervals. Anthropogenic global warming has a basis in controlled chemical and physical experiments, so I find it different from, say the "nonsense" correlations that find, for example, a negative correlation between per capita Scotch consumption and infant mortality.
I personally, as a Bayesian econmetrician, think we underestimate our confidence intervals when we are performing "specification searches." A specification search is using nonexperimental data analysis to arrive at the form of a model, not merely its parameters. If you're interested, I'd recommend Specification Searches: Ad Hoc Inferences with Nonexperimental Data by Ed Leamer. It was published by Wiley in the late 1970's, so I don't know if it's still in print. Although written in the econometric context, its conclusions hold true for any statistical models using nonexperimental data, such as global temperatures.
That said, the fact that our coefficients may be imprecise doesn't mean they're useless. If I know it's going to be between 90 and 100 degrees tomorrow, I may not know the exact amount of energy I'm likely to use to cool down, but I know not to wear a sweater.
The climate predictions aren't nearly as far off as the U.N. "climate refugee" predictions, but the latter prediction was an economic, sociological and, frankly, political one. We don't forecast all that well in those areas. I think we make a mistake disregarding the science because the social "scientists" don't know as much as we think we do.
John
|
|
justin01
Trad climber
sacramento
|
|
|
May 24, 2011 - 02:10am PT
|
I am not here to state that all statistical models of global warming are bunk...To say that would require some serious graduate degrees in a science I am not <b> that </b> interested in.
Nor am I saying that those who propose that fossil fuels consumption is of no consequence to the environment are correct. They have an equally shaky ground to stand on.
The fact is that CO2 is a green house gas. But what is not well understood is how the globe balances an increase in CO2. Water vapor formation is a clear and obvious mitigating factor. Solar radiation is another. The planet is complicated more complicated than subject of hard or soft science, and it is well advised not to screw it up. But one must balance that with progress and the need to better the lives of those who do not have the luxury of preservation.
I linked the article, because I have a bone to pick with the doomsdayers of the AGW believers. They are not as smart or complete in knowledge as they claim to be.
Surely you can agree to that. They are hucksters of the doomsday cult.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
May 24, 2011 - 02:46am PT
|
Surely you can agree to that. They are hucksters of the doomsday cult.
Many of the social scientists -- including some real scientists who hold forth on economic issues -- that have latched on to climate change as a vehicle to drive their political and social agendas are, indeed, hucksters. Not so most of the scientific work. While I'm sure there's some, as there is in any discipline, I haven't found them.
While I have only undergraduate courses in physical sciences, I have enough graduate courses in statistics (as well as decades of experience) to tell good statistics from bad. There are also plenty of people on this forum (Chiloe and Ed H come to mind) who will gladly steer those with a healthy skepticism to objective sources of information in areas where they have doubts.
John
|
|
Lennox
climber
just southwest of the center of the universe
|
|
|
May 24, 2011 - 03:01am PT
|
justin01,
You make it hard to not "ad hominum" (sic) you.
Your last post starts out fairly sensibly, but, by your own admission, you have come to this site without reading the hundreds of posts by DrDeeg, Chiloe, Ed Hartouni, et al--I have no idea what "research" you have investigated (DrDeeg is a climate researcher by the way, and many others have delved deeply into the available research)--and you insultingly state that those who are trying to raise awareness and seek solutions are "hucksters of the doomsday cult."
So maybe you're confused by the overwhelming evidence and have decided that skepticism is a more dignified stance than befuddlement, or maybe you are a corporate shill--I have a tailpipe you can suck on while you decide, but I can't readily measure your CO levels in my ER without the lab's analysis (CO2 and O2 sats, BP, HR, RR, and heart rhythm yes), but from what you've written I would take it that you wouldn't want us to pull you off the pipe or make any efforts to revive you anyway unless you were actually asystole or maybe even starting to decompose a bit.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
May 24, 2011 - 11:47am PT
|
furthermore I have a harder time quantifying man's contributions to things that are unquantifiable. I am not saying we do not play a part. Nor am I saying global warming is not happening, I just think the doomsdayers are without a scientific leg to stand on.
Of course it's all modeling and statistics. Meteorologists often screw up the forecast for the next week, nevermind the next couple decades of climate. But IMO in all likelihood we are changing the climate to some degree. You know where the greenhouse gas idea comes from right? Venus. When we change the amount of co2 by a significant degree of course we'll see a change. We see evidence of it already. So we should do what we can to reduce our impacts without significantly impacting our lifestyles. The people who sow doubt are the people who stand to lose money (e.g Exxon paying the same PR firm who sowed doubt about cigarettes causing cancer) and then the bone head puppets (right wingers) who buy into their B.S. Are there some hucksters who make money trying to stop global warming? Sure but it is a FRACTION of the money from the denial crowd.
And with regards to doomsayers. It's just like Camping and his rapture. Christians say "camping doesn't represent us, he's way out there, he makes Christians looks crazy". Most people concerned with global warming are saying it's an economic issue, deal with it now with better efficiency, reduced emissions, etc. or deal with it later at a much higher cost, e.g. flooding, storms, crop damage, etc. But of course the right wing will find the crazy left wingers who talk of the end of the earth. The earth will be here no matter what, what global warming is really about is keeping the climate good for HUMANS.
Maybe thousands of years from now how we live will effect the survival of our descendants, but that's not really the issue. Most people concerned with global warming are talking about the economic future of our children and grandchildren.
|
|
justin01
Trad climber
sacramento
|
|
|
May 24, 2011 - 11:56am PT
|
I love this bit...
So maybe you're confused by the overwhelming evidence and have decided that skepticism is a more dignified stance than befuddlement, or maybe you are a corporate shill--I have a tailpipe you can suck on while you decide, but I can't readily measure your CO levels in my ER without the lab's analysis (CO2 and O2 sats, BP, HR, RR, and heart rhythm yes), but from what you've written I would take it that you wouldn't want us to pull you off the pipe or make any efforts to revive you anyway unless you were actually asystole or maybe even starting to decompose a bit.
The last bit is classic, particularly the corporate shill bit. Yup, everyone who disagrees with you is either stupid or paid off by the oil industry. You then go into a bizarre type scenario with me dying and you not helping me. Very classic.
For the record, I have never worked in any energy sector, green or otherwise.
I am sorry for the disturbance.
|
|
justin01
Trad climber
sacramento
|
|
|
May 24, 2011 - 12:30pm PT
|
Ed, I appreciate your response, and I guess I knew I would be stirring the pot. I just thought it would provide some interesting perspective, even if people dismissed it out of hand. That is fine. Maybe it would temper people from making wild claims.
I think I would probably agree with many of your studies regarding climate change. Admittedly, I have not read much on the subject in the last year, and so am probably missing some great new findings. To put it as stupid simple as I can. I too expect a changing climate to change stuff.
My resentment is born from this kind of journalism. A piece this morning in the Washington post is a great example.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-link-between-climate-change-and-joplin-tornadoes-never/2011/05/23/AFrVC49G_story.html
There is little we know about the anthropomorphic causative link regarding many if not all of the manifestations of global climate change stated in this article. (Is this a true statement?)
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
May 24, 2011 - 03:19pm PT
|
Are Global Warming believers and Doomsday adherents demonstrating the same
common human trait?
http://www.ourcuriousworld.com/WhyWeBelieve.htm
...
But that doesn't entirely answer the question as to why intelligent men and
woman—many often holding PhDs—are so quick to accept the most outrageous
claims as a matter of course and hold to them with such tenacity. It seems
that common sense would quickly expose the fallacious nature of most
doomsday claims and limit their adherents to only the most fringe elements
of society, but we often see it evident within large segments of mainstream
America as well. How can this be?
...
...tendency to conform to "group think"...
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
May 24, 2011 - 04:04pm PT
|
FortMental - You Warmists and the Doomsday folk are 2 sides of the same coin.
Your ilk believe in a future climate doomsday but claim to be able to stop
it if only you have enough of our money
while the other side readily accepts doom without any thought of stopping it.
fyi
dooms·day/ˈdo͞omzˌdā/Noun
1. The last day of the world's existence.
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
May 24, 2011 - 06:12pm PT
|
The money 'is' whats its all about.
The smirking media hype and then the failure of Doomsday to happen last Saturday brought to our attention those who believe in such predictions.
Climate Change Global Warming Doomsday Prediction Believers are definitely several magnitudes more annoying than the religious end of the world types because they want to fight to keep it from happening by Carbon taxing the money out of our pockets to develop energy sources that will save the world.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
May 24, 2011 - 06:20pm PT
|
Okay KKKorniss...whatever you say.
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
May 24, 2011 - 11:52pm PT
|
Dr F - did you just confuse typical tornado weather with climate?
This link will help you.
NOAA – No link between tornadoes and global warming!
A top official at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) rejected claims by environmental activists that the outbreak of tornadoes ravaging the American South is related to climate change brought on by global warming.
http://co2insanity.com/2011/04/28/noaa-no-link-between-tornadoes-and-global-warming/
|
|
Lennox
climber
just southwest of the center of the universe
|
|
|
May 25, 2011 - 11:24am PT
|
My choice is as Lao Tzu recommended well over 6k years ago. And those rec's counter everything that modern day science dictates.
You're a few thousand years off. He lived about 2500 years ago, give or take a century.
And he reputedly said, "Do the difficult things while they are easy and do the great things while they are small."
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
May 25, 2011 - 12:50pm PT
|
6,000 years ago, humans used to keep dozens of human effigies in various parts of their huts... ancestors whose "voices" were still heard and that required talking to
And 4000 years ago (give or take a few hundred years)the value of the sqrt of 2 was known to 5 decimal places and there were tables of pythagorean triples to <4000.
The laws of physics, and economics are imutable.
Human nature and intelectual capacity if they change do so on such time scales as to make them practicaly as invariant.
That's the failure of the "progressive" view of human nature.
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
May 25, 2011 - 01:07pm PT
|
Ed - your idea that human behavior needs to be modified to prevent climate
change is so similar to religious teachings of 'don't make the gods angry or
the crops will fail, or the hunt will be unsuccessful, or sickness will
be your doom is just amazing.
And while we're behaving correctly the priest needs money to support
himself while doing all this hard work for us, so hand over the cash.
Right.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
May 25, 2011 - 01:23pm PT
|
The Chief: Can you clarify something for me? In reading your posts here, I think you are saying that while it is possible that the earth is currently undergoing a period of warming, that past human activity is not part of the cause, and that present and future human activity can not change the outcome.
You also seem to be saying (as does Corniss Chopper) that those who say human activity has been part of the cause of the warming (if there even is any warming) are either charlatans trying to trick people into giving them money, or conspirators using the false bogeyman of "global warming" as one more step toward ending the American ideal and imposing a new world order. Is that about right?
The reason I ask is that your voice is often very angry, and it's hard to separate what you're really trying to say from the way in which you're saying it.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!