Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
eyeno wrote:Jones could have at least said something similar to "hey gang, the latest data looks more promising, perhaps we are not doomed but the jury is still out, we will keep you informed."
eyeno wrote:Jones could have at least said something similar to "hey gang, the latest data looks more promising, perhaps we are not doomed but the jury is still out, we will keep you informed."
wintler2 wrote:
Simulist wrote:Ben, you've already stated that I'm one of "them" — and you've emphasized your silly remark to me with actual quotation marks around the word.
Nordic wrote:There ya go.
Doesn't get much more clear than that.
Ben D wrote:Simulist wrote:Ben, you've already stated that I'm one of "them" — and you've emphasized your silly remark to me with actual quotation marks around the word.
Yes, and you've already commented of my use of 'them' for yourself in your last post, got it then,..so why are you still going on about it while offering no response to my questioning of your curious interpretation of the Jones comments in the email.
Look Simulist, it doesn't matter to me in the least what you want to believe about AGW, but don't try and waste my time. Either address me on the basis of genuine interest and context of my posts, or just babble on concerning your own personal views about AGW without me.
Simulist wrote:eyeno wrote:Jones could have at least said something similar to "hey gang, the latest data looks more promising, perhaps we are not doomed but the jury is still out, we will keep you informed."
Well, yeah; he "could" have said that — if he really thought "the jury is still out."
rory wrote:If General Electric came out with the miracle energy system tomorrow, and made this available, the planet would collapse due to resource overconsumption, even more quickly than before. It would act as an accelerant
eyeno wrote:I've already designated myself as a person that has no passionate obsessive interest in this subject so perhaps my comments are not welcome and I should just butt out. Butt, when it comes to science and models, science being the inexact science that it is, for me the jury is usually out until the model or theory has proven itself by a realization of the model and conjectures of those who participate in science.
The very phrase "peer review" means absolutely nothing to me because "peers" are a group that does not include all data from all people that may be applicable. In this day and age "peer review" often includes only those allowed into the accepted peer group and only those peer opinions are accepted as science, which is not at all science.
There was a time in history when people thought the earth was flat and that all revolved around the earth. After it was discovered that the earth was round and that the earth revolved around the sun those who divulged this fact were considered heretics.
Considering the huge financial stakes involved in this issue, and the ability of technology to manipulate perception, the jury is still out for me. I have some background with charts and models. I know how easy it is to simply change time frames in charting and modeling software and produce a reverse perception of reality which is what makes this game so complicated to people that do not understand this. I can take a 200 year chart that shows an obvious down trend, change the time frame to 100 years, and show an obvious uptrend. Those who do not have experience with this will not know this is possible.
Then when you take "smoothing factors" that average out the data to create smooth trend lines from jagged data it become yet another animal. By tweaking these smoothing factors a chart can become what it is or its opposite. Data input stations also have to be considered. From where do the data come from and how accurate is it? Who controls the data collection stations?
There are many variables in this equation and only those who control the variables know the truth. If I am not allowed to know all the details behind the data collection and how the data is manipulated I have no idea what it has become from its collection to its distribution as presented fact.
Climate change data, some of it anyway, has been kept out of the public domain. Therefore I am only left asking the obvious question "why?" I can make no firm conclusion from what I cannot see, and only question the motives behind secrecy. This attitude has served me well over time.
For me, the jury is out of the building.
Nordic wrote:Justy because the PTB want to profit from every event on earth doesn't mean that they are creating every event, whether they literally create it or create the fiction that it exists. IOW I doubt climate scientists dreamed up the idea of a carbon tax. That's not exactly their area of expertise.
My take on the hysteria we see on thgis issue is that if, say, the Pentagon's globval warming scenario turns out to be what's really gonna happen, we are so incredibly fucked that there is literally nowhere you can go, and nothing you can do, to escape it. That freaks people out to the point where a hysterical level of denial kicks in. Thus we have people who are complete dilletants presuming to draw conclusions based on what thety want to see.
Really the only thing to do is to zen out and see what happens. We're all utterly powerless to change anything -- just try changing one person, then wonder why tyou can't change society or culture. We're all along for the ride here, and only history will know.
Nordic wrote:Well the jury is indeed NOT out as to whether global warming is happening -- the data proves that it is -- the only thing you can argue about is whether or not its being caused by man, or whether its part of a naturally occurring cycle.
I've seen data that suggests its part of a naturally occurring cycle, at the same time its difficult to believe that 300 years of burning everything we could get our hands on would not have an affect.
You do realize that burning a couple pounds of gasoline produced something like 20 pounds of CO2? Just dwell on that for a while.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests