Bill Nye/SE Cupp

Page 2 of 3 [ 34 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

khaoz
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Apr 2013
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,940

08 May 2014, 5:36 pm

Raptor wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

In the article, Cupp had defended her position by stating that so many Americans didn't believe in global warming.

Climate change isn't what's being disputed, it's the cause of said change.

Quote:

Well, long ago when people thought that Kepler and Galileo were dead wrong for suggesting that the earth revolved around the sun, and was not the center of the universe, didn't mean that what people believed made it so.

Did Galileo or Kepler have politically driven motives or have people and a government with politically driven motives behind them with money?

Quote:

Science and facts are not dependent on popular opinion.

Climate change with pollution being highest contributing factor is a leftist belief.
Leftist who ironically are traditionally tree huggers and haters of big business and capitalism in general.

I believe it was Joseph Goebbels or Vladimir Lenin that said "A lie, when repeated by enough people, becomes truth" or words to that effect.

"Climate change with pollution being highest contributing factor is a leftist belief"

No, it is an intelligent, informed fact, not a leftist belief.

"Leftist who ironically are traditionally tree huggers and haters of big business and capitalism in general."

Environmentalists are not "haters of big business and capitalism" That is propaganda. Just like the right wing lie that Obama "hates big business and capitalism" is a lie>

If you cannot understand something, don't criticize it. Educate yourself. Learn the proper terminology.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,240
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

08 May 2014, 5:36 pm

Raptor wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

Raptor wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

In the article, Cupp had defended her position by stating that so many Americans didn't believe in global warming.

Climate change isn't what's being disputed, it's the cause of said change.

Quote:

Did Galileo or Kepler have politically driven motives or have people and a government with politically driven motives behind them with money?

Quote:

Science and facts are not dependent on popular opinion.

Are you seriously trying to argue that climate change deniers aren't motivated by a political agenda? Or that there isn't powerful financial motivation behind this propaganda coming from big oil and coal? PLEASE!

Everyone's motivated by their wallets, but which side brought up climate change first?

As to who brought up climate change in the first place - I freely admit, I don't know for sure, but I'll take a wild guess and say it was the side claiming climate change is man made.
But regarding the climate-change-is-natural side, which is supported by big oil and coal, it has to be remembered, the oil industry had originally paid a scientist to whore for them and claim that leaden gasoline fumes were not harmful, and that any further problems could be taken care of by industry self regulation. This being when a comparatively small degree of lead could kill a human being. When another scientist had contradicted the official corporate findings, they tried to buy him off, then failing that, they had tried to silence him with every sh*tty trick in the book. Luckily, the good guys won this one, and not only did the gasoline industry have to clean up their act, but so did every other industry using lead in their products. Now, if the same industries could try to cover their asses for the sake of dollar signs regarding lead, why should I believe them when regarding man made climate change?

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

NobodyKnows
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Jun 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 635

08 May 2014, 5:53 pm

Let's inject some actual facts into this debate:

1: Freeman Dyson pointed out that climate models are too inaccurate to be useful. He was hardly a geocentrist.

4: Temperature isn't easy to define of measure. It's a composite index of different types of energy (radiant, conductive, convective, and subtypes thereof) that propagate at different rates through different media. It's unlikely that a temperature probe has a uniform temperature from end to end, or from inside to outside. It's average temperature would easily rise 10 degrees Fahrenheit if you held it in your hand for 10-20 seconds. It would rise half that much from breathing on it briefly.

5: Averaging can't remove systematic error, and there are lots of point sources of heat that aren't evenly distributed. Certainty about small changes in global surface temperature has to come from the reliability of the weather stations, not from averaging their results.

6: Climate problems don't factor. That's one reason that Earth Simulator was based on a Cray-type vector architecture, the NEC SX-5, rather than a cluster of scaler processors. The algorithmic methods that you may have learned in other areas of science won't work well here.

2: Industry in the US only produces 20% of our CO2 emissions. Private homes are a bigger fraction.

3: GM did not kill the electric car. Even if they could have blocked battery advances, electric cars were still held back by the lack of an efficient variable speed motor control. PWM amplifiers didn't come in until the 90s, and even then they were expensive and tended to blow up. GM could not have held back PWM amp development even if they'd wanted to because there was strong demand for better motor control in many other industries.

Last edited by NobodyKnows on 08 May 2014, 6:43 pm, edited 3 times in total.

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

08 May 2014, 6:07 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

1. Pew research: 1/3 of Americans reject the 'science' of evolution
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publ ... evolution/

2 Americans have lived through some of the most cold, and snowy weather in memory. It has been so cold that it has its own name and wiki page ...

2013–14 North American cold wave was an extreme weather event extending from December 2013 to April 2014
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2%80 ... _cold_wave

Quoted: "Temperatures fell to unprecedented levels, and low temperature records were broken across the United States".

So, it should be no surprise that Americans are doubtful of 'science' and 'global warming'. At least when one believes in Santa Claws, one can see him at a mall.

_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.

Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

08 May 2014, 6:22 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:

2 Americans have lived through some of the most cold, and snowy weather in memory. It has been so cold that it has its own name and wiki page ...

2013–14 North American cold wave was an extreme weather event extending from December 2013 to April 2014
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2%80 ... _cold_wave

Quoted: "Temperatures fell to unprecedented levels, and low temperature records were broken across the United States".

So, it should be no surprise that Americans are doubtful of 'science' and 'global warming'. At least when one believes in Santa Claws, one can see him at a mall.

Indeed that was one seriously cold winter and with it came many popular doubts about global warming. But that wiki page you cite does have an explanation for the paradox of global warming>>>>incredibly cold 2014 winter.

Quote:

(from the wiki of the winter so cold it got its own wiki)
In more recent years scientists identified interactions with Arctic sea ice decline, reduced snow cover, evapotranspiration patterns, NAO anomalies or weather anomalies which are linked to the polar vortex and jet stream configuration.[29][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] However, because the specific observations are considered short-term observations (starting c. 13 years ago) there is considerable uncertainty in the conclusions. Climatology observations require several decades to definitively distinguish natural variability from climate trends.

Southern Hemisphere Ozone Concentration, February 22, 2012
The general assumption is that reduced snow cover and sea ice reflect less sunlight and therefore evaporation and transpiration increases, which in turn alters the pressure and temperature gradient of the polar vortex, causing it to weaken or collapse. This becomes apparent when the jet stream amplitude increases (meanders) over the northern hemisphere, causing Rossby waves to propagate farther to the south or north, which in turn transports warmer air to the north pole and polar air into lower latitudes.

That is a decent explanation of how warming at the pole could give a much colder winter. But it needs to be spiced up and given a proper narrative for public consumption. Neil deGrasse Tyson is the man for the job, I think.

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

08 May 2014, 7:01 pm

khaoz wrote:

If you cannot understand something, don't criticize it. Educate yourself. Learn the proper terminology.

You know, if I wanted to take the time I could go back and find several instances of you criticizing what you don't understand and using the wrong terminology. I wouldn't even have to resort to using voodoo science to prove my point, either.

BTW; at least learn how to use the quotation tool provided in the toolbar.

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

08 May 2014, 7:05 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

Raptor wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

Raptor wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

In the article, Cupp had defended her position by stating that so many Americans didn't believe in global warming.

Climate change isn't what's being disputed, it's the cause of said change.

Quote:

Did Galileo or Kepler have politically driven motives or have people and a government with politically driven motives behind them with money?

Quote:

Science and facts are not dependent on popular opinion.

Everyone's motivated by their wallets, but which side brought up climate change first?

As to who brought up climate change in the first place - I freely admit, I don't know for sure, but I'll take a wild guess and say it was the side claiming climate change is man made.

Someone would have had to claim that climate change was man made before it could be refuted by another party.

Quote:

But regarding the climate-change-is-natural side, which is supported by big oil and coal, it has to be remembered, the oil industry had originally paid a scientist to whore for them and claim that leaden gasoline fumes were not harmful, and that any further problems could be taken care of by industry self regulation. This being when a comparatively small degree of lead could kill a human being. When another scientist had contradicted the official corporate findings, they tried to buy him off, then failing that, they had tried to silence him with every sh*tty trick in the book. Luckily, the good guys won this one, and not only did the gasoline industry have to clean up their act, but so did every other industry using lead in their products. Now, if the same industries could try to cover their asses for the sake of dollar signs regarding lead, why should I believe them when regarding man made climate change?

Like I said, it all depends on what's in it for who.

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,240
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

08 May 2014, 8:18 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

I think Jannisy more than adequately answered the climate change question. As for 1/3 of Americans not believing in evolution - - again, they can believe what they want, but that doesn't make it so.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,240
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

08 May 2014, 8:22 pm

Raptor wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

Raptor wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

Raptor wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

In the article, Cupp had defended her position by stating that so many Americans didn't believe in global warming.

Climate change isn't what's being disputed, it's the cause of said change.

Quote:

Did Galileo or Kepler have politically driven motives or have people and a government with politically driven motives behind them with money?

Quote:

Science and facts are not dependent on popular opinion.

Everyone's motivated by their wallets, but which side brought up climate change first?

As to who brought up climate change in the first place - I freely admit, I don't know for sure, but I'll take a wild guess and say it was the side claiming climate change is man made.

Someone would have had to claim that climate change was man made before it could be refuted by another party.

Quote:

Like I said, it all depends on what's in it for who.

As for it depending on what's in it for who - the matter of leaden gasoline was championed by a scientist on the oil industry's pay roll, while the scientist who refuted him had actually stumbled on his findings accidentally while trying to give the earth an exact date. He had no other motivation than to tell the truth.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

08 May 2014, 8:44 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

What about lead in gasoline?
And while we're on climate change, how come it was so cold last winter? Oh, that's right. They conveniently found new scientific evidence :roll:

to justify going from from calling it global warming to calling it climate change. The house of cards is having to re-shuffle the deck.

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,484
Location: Aux Arcs

08 May 2014, 8:55 pm

Jesus,it's like trying explain something to a brick.Are you more informed on the subject than the scientists at NASA??All you have are opinions on the subject.
http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudent ... ge-58.html

_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

08 May 2014, 9:06 pm

I rest my case.

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

NobodyKnows
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Jun 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 635

08 May 2014, 9:27 pm

Misslizard wrote:

That NASA article is a lot more measured in its conclusions than similar arguments made here earlier.

There's also a lot of group think in science right now. This Stanford meta-analysis questioned the statistical power of behavioral research in the US, concluding that much of it was biased:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/08/ ... -research/

The sad thing is that a lot of behavioral research fails basic tests like Occam's Razor, and the requirement to rule out other explanations that would be equally consistent with the data. You don't need to do an elaborate meta-analysis to catch those mistakes. A smart high school kid could catch them by just looking at the abstract, but somehow the world's most elite scientists didn't.

Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,484
Location: Aux Arcs

08 May 2014, 10:34 pm

Raptor wrote:

I rest my case.

http://grist.org/news/how-to-respond-to ... l-warming/

_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi

Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,484
Location: Aux Arcs

08 May 2014, 10:49 pm