Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 1921 - 1940 of total 17219 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
August West

Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
Jun 23, 2011 - 07:32pm PT
I don't know much about Soros and this thread already has enough diversions. But would it really be socially more useful for him to say, donate large sums to the republican party in order to cut taxes on the superrich? If he did that, he might be less hypocritical. But more socially useful? I don't see it.

Same thing with Gore. You could pretty much level a charge of hypocrisy against anyone that doesn't take/keep a vow of poverty. If the rich want to spend some small fraction of their time/energy on attempting to make the world a better place, it seems rather strange to take them to task for it as compared to the rich who don't give a d*mn about anything/anyone else.
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jun 23, 2011 - 09:26pm PT
The US military, and security agencies, are spending quite a lot of money and time preparing for the consequences of global warming. They probably don't care a lot about the cause, but they are charged with dealing with some of the effects.
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jun 23, 2011 - 09:47pm PT
And if they don't prepare, when the US is caught flat-footed, what will you say? Their job is to be prepared for reasonably foreseeable eventualities, and global warming is one of them.

No doubt there are some inefficiences with what they're doing, and perhaps even pork barrelling - it's common to all large organizations. And maybe some of the effort will be wasted. That doesn't prove anything.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Jun 23, 2011 - 10:15pm PT
Chief, cut the "socialism" talk.

That is fear mongering, plain and simple, and beneath your own intellectual dignity.

"Socialism" is government ownership of the means of production.

There has been NO talk of "government" taking over and "owning" ANY private or

public company.

You are throwing around that word to conjure images of people working on state

owned farms in Communist Europe decades ago.

That kind of emotional fear mongering is irrelevant to this discussion.
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jun 23, 2011 - 10:18pm PT
No, the US military and security apparatus being involved in preparing for the results of global warming doesn't necessarily 'prove' anything. Still, it's interesting circumstantial evidence.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Jun 23, 2011 - 10:24pm PT
I'm not thrilled to see the luxurious lifestyle of the rich and superrich, but if somebody who is superrich (the Al Gores and George Soros) wants to support progressives causes even as they live a lifestyle commensurate with their wealth, I think that is preferable than the alternatives.

Even an American making an average to below average income of $25,000~$50,000 has a luxurious and wastefull life compared to the say 2 billion people in this world living on a few dollars a day.

If you ride your bike to work, great. But however, green your choices, most Americans find a way to essentially spend everything they make consuming resourses that are not sustainable in the long run.

peace

What a bunch of bullshit that is!

I think the bottom line is that you feel that whether MMGW is real or not, it makes you (et al.) feel really good about yourself because you're a self-important, arrogant fool. "I'm doing my part!"

And yet you give a pass to Gore and Soros for 'spewing' CO2 in the name of decreasing it??? Is that right?

In my world or ignorance and 'anti-science', that's what we used to call hypocrisy.


bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Jun 23, 2011 - 10:26pm PT
Oh yeah, and Hansen at GISS is totally busted.

Talk about politicizing an issue for profit??? Haha!!!

The house of cards known as MMGW.....

Isn't Hansen the Genesis of the Hockey Stick Theory?
corniss chopper

climber
breaking the speed of gravity
Jun 23, 2011 - 10:52pm PT
Difficult to avoid falling into the 'Grass is greener' syndrome thinking
the super rich are enjoying life more than we are because
they are able to buy happiness.

Just another urban myth.

bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Jun 23, 2011 - 11:23pm PT
Ed, using wikipedia for Soros beta is not really credible. C'mon...

Maybe I'll bump my Communists thread for better beta. It IS better.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Jun 23, 2011 - 11:32pm PT
Soros wants to install ‘his’ judges
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=201409

Soros gives Media Matters 1 million bucks, NPR gets 1.8 million
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/soros-donates-1-million-to-media-matters/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/business/media/18npr.html?_r=1


Soros’ epic fail!!!
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/you-know-who-was-a-big-loser-in-this-election-george-soros-106640398.html


And there is even better, more recent stuff...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/looming-soros-conference-will-focus-on-rearranging-global-financial-order/

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/04/21/soros-bretton-woods-conference-accelerates-push-new-global-economy/

The dude's a commie...(as long as HE is the one at the top)
dirtbag

climber
Jun 23, 2011 - 11:58pm PT
Soros...NPR...you forgot ACORN! (LOL!)
slayton

Trad climber
Here and There
Jun 24, 2011 - 12:02am PT
Fuk science. Let's party!!
corniss chopper

climber
breaking the speed of gravity
Jun 24, 2011 - 12:34am PT

Carbon dioxide accounts for only one in every 4000 molecules in the air;
water vapor accounts for one in every 20. Carbon dioxide absorbs only a
quarter as much energy from sunlight as water vapor, molecule for molecule;
water vapor is responsible for atmospheric heat retention.

CO2 can be ignored. Its insignificant....unless we lose the climate change
debate and these Warmists manage to trick enough voters into believing their
hell-on-earth scenario thus giving governments a taxation stick with which to beat us.


bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Jun 24, 2011 - 02:25am PT
TGT since you've thrown your hat into the ring here demanding that you "won't believe it until you see the math," I offered the Boeing 777 as an example of an aircraft designed and built entirely by computer model, faster and better than doing it "the old way." While the math is there, it is contained in the complex computer code that allowed the engineers to fully design the aircraft, fly it in simulation exploring the most rigorous flight training regime, designing the parts and manufacturing them, then fabricating the entire product. You might not "believe" in complex computer codes, but there is one that worked brilliantly. I hope you won't be hypocritical the next time you fly and actually get on that aircraft without first verifying that the computer model "got the math right."

I take this is, in particular, to be a scientific anomaly when compared to MMGW. Ed, designing an aircraft to fly through our (lower) atmosphere based on computers models that direct efficiency is much different than the "weather". Basing models on weather involves, probably, many variables that are f*#king guesses.

Solar Flares come to mind immediately. Very unpredictable in frequency and in magnitude. Wouldn't that devastate a model potentially? Especially with all the recent solar activity?

Also, if it isn't a solar problem, why are all of the measurable planets in our system getting warmer as well?

TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Jun 24, 2011 - 11:43am PT
Chief stands on Hartouni's shoulders. Calls himself tall.

A bit of background on the paraphrased quote.

Newton didn't originate it. It was in common use at the time.

His use of it was really an attempt to insult Hooke who was a short little guy with a crooked nose who had done original work Newton wanted the credit for.

(Hooke originated the inverse square law for gravity.)
justin01

Trad climber
sacramento
Jun 24, 2011 - 12:02pm PT
ED, please do not compare the empirical knowledge of the mechanics of materials to the lack of empirical knowledge regarding climate change. One is testable (empirical), the other is a giant untestable pile of assumptions and adjustments. In mechanics schientists can isolate one characteristic to test, limiting all other variables. There is not classical testing in climate science, in which one can limit variables.

They are not even near the same in terms of understanding. Any engineer knows how poorly we even understand the fatigue of aluminum, let alone the forcing of CO2.

They are not akin.
justin01

Trad climber
sacramento
Jun 24, 2011 - 01:37pm PT
I understand that scientists do reductionist studies on different global components which may or may not effect global climate. But this is far from the models that engineers use to design and airplane or a car bumper. And at the end of the day, those computer models are grounded by testing. Ford can design a car in a solid modeler, give each component a material property and boundary constraint. Assembly the model, and crash the virtual car into a wall. That model is worthless, completely ungrounded from reality, until they take their physically built car and crash it into a wall to see how the material deforms and responds. Climate models do not have that level of test-ability. It is the reactions of components that also matter, not just the material properties. In the FEA model of a car, we must set the relationships and interactions correctly, and they are not useful until the model is grounded. If you have ever made an FEA or CFD model, you will know how sensitive these things are to going off the rails. How one must constantly put things in perspective, and step back. Things like tipping points seem indicative of models "blowing up" not necessarily indicative of how things will actually be. Models always blow up, when subject to circumstances input data was not derived for. You can not take data from elastic deformation and apply it to plastic deformation.

Maybe I am taking the analogy too far, but I just wanted to point out that the science of materials is light years ahead in terms of understanding. The models employed in this field are only as good as the macro test the engineers used to ground their models.
justin01

Trad climber
sacramento
Jun 24, 2011 - 02:53pm PT
In some respects, the climate science is better known than that...

wow. There is nowhere to go from here. Are you really saying that climate scientists understand the climate better than aerospace engineers understand aerodynamics, or materiel engineers understand materials? Your delusion has clouded your self doubt. I am going to go back to leaving this thread alone, because the most reasonable of the pro AGW crowd here appears to be delusional. Where can one go from here?
justin01

Trad climber
sacramento
Jun 24, 2011 - 03:06pm PT
Bruce you are missing something crucial here.

Tipping points are highly suspect without testing. Just like you can not take elastic deformation response data to find the effects of a force capable of producing plastic deformation. You will get erroneous results. You would not know this of course unless you tested the scenario, and found the useful bounds of your model.

The climate models know no useful bounds. Climate scientists do test, by trying to predict future climate, they are proposing a hypothesis, and waiting for what happens. Fortunately for mankind and Unfortunately for the credibility of the models the results of these tests have not validated their hypothesis.

Tipping points usually show you were your model is no longer valid, and are not indicative of real world results given your inputs.

In the study of controls, engineers make models of physical systems and then tune their model according to where they were wrong after testing the system. It is valid if used appropriately, but often the word "tuning" is another way of saying..."screwing with your data to match results." You run into real problems when you then take your existing model tuned to your present input range, and apply it to data outside of your tested/tuned input range.

My point in all of this is that prudence may be the best way forward, but don't delude yourself into thinking that this thing we call climate science approaches the rigor that other fields of science achieve.
dirtbag

climber
Jun 24, 2011 - 03:42pm PT
So please stop with demeaning BS. I too can get nasty. Very nasty to be sure. But have done well to not lower myself to such BS tactics as some of your AGW amigos here on ST.



That last sentence is a joke, right?
Messages 1921 - 1940 of total 17219 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta