Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:57 am    Post subject: Real Science at work Reply with quote

From Celestial Junk:

Paul wrote:
The Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper is on it's way, moving through the standard workflow of Physics which usually involves conference contributions, lectures, discussions then pre-prints with citation, more submission(s), more publication with citation ... and so on.


This is how real science works, as opposed to the positive feedback loop of media releases and government panels. The paper has been published in the International Journal of Modern Physics. This is important, because the research disproves the theoretical basis of the greenhouse effect, as well as the methodology of global 'temperature' averages.
905 Tory





Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 267
Reputation: 79.4Reputation: 79.4
votes: 2

PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 1:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is where I disagree with most conservatives. I don't know about you but all groups of scientists agree with the greenhouse effect. Its just these few pseudo-scientists questioning it to make a name out of it. The media has made a big deal out of it but you should also pay attention to actual journals at your local university library.

Oh yeah, one more thing about science. One paper can't prove or disprove any theory. It can present alternate hypotheses. A bunch of papers from a variety of backgrounds eventually turns that into a theory. and the whole global warming thing is bull anyways. Its not necessarily global warming as it is climate change. That is the one thing a lot of people don't understand. With climate change, the intensity of weather increases over time. Just look at Europe in the past 15 years.

I just took a peak at the paper as well. It pretty much sums up that physical laws can't explain the mechanism. That's obvious since mechanisms are just proposal and can never be proven or disproven. However, there is no actual experiment being done. Its pretty much old science at work (ala Aristotle), if you were to take this as something that changes the whole field. However, its just a commentary or review which really don't have much status in the field. I also took a peak at what people are writing about this and most are just arguing with counter-formulas, so an actual experiment would have to be done before anyone even cares about it--its an FYI paper pretty much.

This gets me to my actual point. I think that many conservatives have really lost the fight on this. Its time for our community to concede and get involved in the fight of fights. We may have differing views with the left on how to fight it but we will have the same intention--to heal this planet.
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 8:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="905 Tory"
This gets me to my actual point. I think that many conservatives have really lost the fight on this. Its time for our community to concede and get involved in the fight of fights. We may have differing views with the left on how to fight it but we will have the same intention--to heal this planet.[/quote]

First of all, I would not say that "conservatives" have chosen the anti-AGW side. There is certainly a very vocal minority that makes a lot of noise though.

As for losing the fight...I think the conservatives who oppose the AGW view have lost in a big way. When you choose to fight the views of mainstream science in a public forum, you are generally going to lose.

I think you have to focus on cost benefit analysis question. How bad will AGW be ? Well though out research showing how the effects will be manageable are a lot better than the loads of incoherent crap that the hard core anti-AGW types put out now.

When you sit there trying to argue what the public and scientific community views as a silly positing, you lose all credibility when dealing with the true costs of AGW
Jordan Alcock





Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Posts: 6
Reputation: 1.8
Location: Ottawa

PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah... we should drop the fight.

Even though scientists are now saying global warming is "on hold" for 30 years (and they can't explain why)...

Oh, and this little Gore moment:
http://dailymail.com/Opinion/D.....0902250614

I think I'll stick with my principles... it's going to be nice to rub it in someone's face one day 8)
Forward





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 293
Reputation: 59.2
votes: 2

PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 1:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow, drop the fight. Good plan - y'know (POLITICALLY that is :wink: ).

Umm, let's see . . . . SSM, Pulling out of Afhanistan, fiscal conservitism, pushing the gun registry to the backburner, and now, wow (big surprise here), global warming.

There aren't a lot of fights you WON'T drop are there?

For a few years now I've been told that as a right winger I must hold my nose at the leftward drift of the party in order to achieve that ever-elusive goal, the fabled majority.

But as I hold my nose tighter & tighter I find that issues I care about are always deemed expendable.

Now, it's global warming (aka "climate change" - it's more palatable, face saving alias). We are supposed to surrender on that.
Fuck this. Everything is for sale in this joke of a party.
lucamanfredi





Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 170
Reputation: 41.3Reputation: 41.3Reputation: 41.3Reputation: 41.3
votes: 2

PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The AGW fight is not over for the simple reason that there's no definitive proof that AGW exists. What we know is that the greenhouse effect exists (it's kinda what keeps us from freezing), CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is produced by man and nature alike.

We also know things have been changing recently climate-wise. It would take guts to say climate is the same as 20 years ago.

We DO NOT know whether we've had a major part in it or not. We also DO NOT know whether any effort at curbing our emissions will influence the process.

What we DO know is that the environment is a resource, and as such requires wise use, stewardship and care. This can be accomplished through big government or property rights, as it is general consensus that the average man will not crap in his own backyard.

Concede what, and to whom? Concede that a superstition is scientific truth to a bunch of people grossly unqualified to pass judgment? Is this how low we have to sink just because it will make us feel good about ourselves? Give up the greatest chance to combine conservative thought with environmental consciousness?

We want to concede that A is not A? Whether or not AGW exists or not, our ideas are RIGHT and FEASIBLE. And we want to hand this high ground over to the fearmongers? Over my dead body.
905 Tory





Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 267
Reputation: 79.4Reputation: 79.4
votes: 2

PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow I thought that there would at least a few people not ignorant enough to read actual papers from academic journals. People from across a variety of disciplines feel that human-made climate change exist. This is the type of things that have stopped the conservatives in recent years from experiences mass success. We are tied to our preconceptions. I remember a fellow conservative once telling me that climate change is blown out of proportion because the temperature has increased only a little bit. However, they don't realize that with a fast increase in temperature like that, things start to fall out of order, environmentally.

Oh yeah, one more thing, disagreeing with the MSM's view on climate change is not a conservative tenet. That's attributable to a backlog in thinking.
lucamanfredi





Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 170
Reputation: 41.3Reputation: 41.3Reputation: 41.3Reputation: 41.3
votes: 2

PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 3:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Oh yeah, one more thing, disagreeing with the MSM's view on climate change is not a conservative tenet. That's attributable to a backlog in thinking.


Agreeing with it blindly is attributable to a backlog of anything but.

Some scholars think AGW is as serious as Gore wants us to believe. Others deny it. Models come out by the day proving either theory.

Thesis: AGW exists. Antithesis: AGW does not exist. Synthesis: free-market environmentalism.
Rusty Bedsprings





Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 1629

votes: 5

PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

905 tory:
Quote:
This is where I disagree with most conservatives. I don't know about you but all groups of scientists agree with the greenhouse effect. Its just these few pseudo-scientists questioning it to make a name out of it.


:roll: here we go again, the scientists/deniers (who outnumber the believers) are not real scientists (because they are denyers) and just because they claim to not think global warming in real, they really think it is real, they just won't admit it. :roll:

After all how could great minds like Suzuki and Gore be wrong? :lol:
905 Tory





Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 267
Reputation: 79.4Reputation: 79.4
votes: 2

PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lucamanfredi wrote:


Agreeing with it blindly is attributable to a backlog of anything but.

Some scholars think AGW is as serious as Gore wants us to believe. Others deny it. Models come out by the day proving either theory.

Thesis: AGW exists. Antithesis: AGW does not exist. Synthesis: free-market environmentalism.


I am not agreeing with it blindly. I have read papers, more and more over the years. The single field of physics that has grown the most is on this subject matter. In the 80s and 90s there was disagreement among scientist but now there is wide consensus. Most of us are not scientists, so how can we interpret the data. That is up to the scientists and only the scientists. A lot of political commentators have even said that once the scientific debate is over, the political debate should be over too since most people do not have the authority to disclaim it.

More and more scholars are coming out. I currently am a student at UofT (the top in Canada). At first, I felt that climate change wasn't a big deal or even fake. But after reading about a number of experiments and that data dating back all the way to the 60's and 70's show a sharp exponential increase in both CO2 emissions (highest in 750000 yrs) and temperature. This is the biggest and fastest temperature rise in millennia. Its very logical to connect two and two together as our energy usage has increased dramatically over the decades. Hell, our rise in temperature is comparable to estimates of the rise after the last ice age (which is the time when we have our sharpest increases--making this more than chance).
lucamanfredi





Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 170
Reputation: 41.3Reputation: 41.3Reputation: 41.3Reputation: 41.3
votes: 2

PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 5:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Most of us are not scientists, so how can we interpret the data. That is up to the scientists and only the scientists


Most of us pay taxes, and we care A LOT about whether or not the Government will take more of our money to pursue economically damaging policies at our expense warding off a calamity whose proportion keeps being shrunk and delayed to a more distant future.

Quote:
A lot of political commentators have even said that once the scientific debate is over, the political debate should be over too since most people do not have the authority to disclaim it.


Most people do not have the authority to do anything by your standards. The political debate is never over on almost anything because, duh, we live in a democratic country where every opinion counts and free expression is a treasured right.

I will not let anyone take away my right to say anything just because I haven't got a degree in advanced quantum mechanics. One can tell me all they want about how my farts damage the environment, but I will not let anyone tell me to bend over and be corked just because they say so. And neither should anyone else.

Quote:
Its very logical to connect two and two together as our energy usage has increased dramatically over the decades.


Correlation does not equal causation. Though climate IS changing, I still have to see a reliable proof that our energy production has indeed caused it. What I know for sure is that we aren't using a resource wisely, that being our environment. And that wise use equals less pollution.
905 Tory





Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 267
Reputation: 79.4Reputation: 79.4
votes: 2

PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What I am trying to say is that when a politician is dealing with science, he just can't pick and choose which experiment best suits his position because in most cases, the minority are exceptions to the rules. An overwhelming majority of scientists think climate change is caused by human CO2 emission. I don't think there is any argument against that. That plus all primary scientific articles that I have had the pleasure of reading have converted me from my position years ago--and believe you me, I have spent many a night reading them, frustrated.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It would be an error to assume that those of us on other sides of the issue haven't done our own research, as well. I have read books, and papers, and lectures - and by estimation, opposition to AGW is mounting, within and without the scientific community.

Irrespective of that, surely you'll concede that science is not a matter of majorities? It's a process where centuries of years of common belief and 'known facts' can be overturned in less than a decade. You say that a reasonable politician must side with the majority, rather than think for himself - Galileo Galilei might disagree, among others.

Besides, that 'vast majority' is itself highly fractured; there are some who think it merely possible, many who are unsure of the consequences, some who believe it will be of net benefit to mankind, some who can't and won't say what will happen, and I think only a very few who believe in catastrophic yet somehow easily preventable change. The kind of unity that you suggest should galvanize politicians into action does not exist, even if such criteria were appropriate.

Really, it comes down to fact that every time the AGW proponents make a prediction, they've been wrong. They revise their model, add new variables, change formulae, to make what has been observed consistent with their theory; the model fails, and rather than look to the basic assumptions of their theory, they add yet another caveat to their unwieldly theory (I've read some impressive work by an expert in computer modeling that explains how the models actually can't do what they're trying do with them).

Putting all that aside, it should be easy to understand why AGW deniers will not 'concede the point' - we're rational people, who having examined the evidence, do find AGW to be credible theory for explaining climate change; We see untold billions being spent now, and untold trillions in lost productivity in the future, in the name of a theory on very shaky ground. We see people impoverished, the dreams of developing nations shattered, while emerginc economies in China, Inda, and South America laugh at our folly.

Even if one were to accept the tenets promoted by Gore and Hanson, does it make sense to sacrifice so much to achieve nothing - if you wish to lead by example, you may do so; forceing others to be your example is not leadership but despotism.
905 Tory





Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 267
Reputation: 79.4Reputation: 79.4
votes: 2

PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The whole politicians siding with the majority is the best thing. What are we to do, side with the one scientist thinking that he may be right? We can only go on chances and right now that is what's left. We can't be assuming that if Galileo was correct, all going against the grain have to be correct.

Opposition is actually falling to the idea. I remember in 1995, there was actually a reputable oppostion to this theory. However, this theory is now accepted among most people. Again, I just don't see why the correlation between rising temperatures and rising human made CO2 emission can't point us into the right direction, when science has accepted Arrhenius's pioneering findings from the 19th century.

I have met a lot of physicistsan, geologistd s, ecologists. They have all claimed similar claims. One might emphasize one aspect and another may site another. Remember, this is a new science and people will go at it in different directions. Some go and find exceptions and what not but we can only move on the findings and consensus right now. We can't wait centuries to see if someone will disprove it.

I haven't met many recently who have said that climate change will be of benefit to mankind. It will cause water levels to rise, droughts to occur, weather to be extreme. At least, we can agree on that since all meterologists, even on the weather network know that.

The vast majority I talk about is consensus on the basic tenets. There is some variety of opinion on the specifics (like when we'll reach this level or that level) and about the actual mechanism (which doesn't matter because mechanisms can never actual be proven or disproven). Also, as for political work, the message is quite clear from experts: reduce CO2 levels and you'll reduce human impact on climate change. I can see at least 95% of scientists saying that. So, what is it about that, that is so complicated?
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

905 Tory wrote:
The whole politicians siding with the majority is the best thing. What are we to do, side with the one scientist thinking that he may be right? We can only go on chances and right now that is what's left. We can't be assuming that if Galileo was correct, all going against the grain have to be correct.

What an artful way of dodging the point, and inserting an argument I have not made. Truth is not a matter of concensus - it is not the exclusive domain of the majority, nor of the minority. 2+2 does not equal 5 if 80% of scientists think so; Despite Rosie O'Donnells protestations, fire can indeed melt steel. Gravity existed before there was a theory for 'at least 95%' of scientists to agree too.

The whole of my point is that concensus is entirely irrelevant to whether or not any scientific theory, including AGW, is true or not. Science must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on the environmental impact of predatism.

905 Tory wrote:
Again, I just don't see why the correlation between rising temperatures and rising human made CO2 emission can't point us into the right direction, when science has accepted Arrhenius's pioneering findings from the 19th century.

Probably because correlation is not causation, and even if it were, the correlation runs counter to the way AGW proponents say it should. Increased temperatures liberate increasing levels of C02 from the oceans, where most of it is stored. It is, in fact the very same research used famously by Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth that demonstrates this.

What is it with Arrhenius, anyways? Am we supposed to be shocked and awed into silence by the fact that a scientist proposed parts of the AGW regime a 100 years ago? If you'd like to see some work by atmospheric physicists that haven't been dead for almost a century, check this paper: LINK. I'd recommend reading the whole thing, but the first 1/4 lays out the case against C02 as an important driver of climate change. There a more scholarly paper here: LINK (PDF).

I'm not going to address the rest of your points, as they're just anecdotal references to the concensus fallacy.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2

Goto page 1, 2  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Real Science at work

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB