Say what you will about the W administration, we at least avoided Gore

• Heretic

  

  iclfan2;1490503 wrote:You're nuttier than he is. And it is impossible for you to look at anything with an impartial view apparently.

  Well, that means he's about the same as 75+ percent of the right-wing poli forum regulars.
• QuakerOats

  ptown_trojans_1;1490211 wrote:I am not, but I question we have no control on to limit the impact.
  I suggest Gore is awful at speaking as he is so polarizing now.
  The story shouldn't be the cause, it should be now that we know this is happening, sure the cause is debatable, but honestly what can we do to limit the damage?
  How can be build up shoreline defenses, establish adequate storm drainage centers, do research into how extreme weather may impact trade, commerce, crops, and technology.
  Those things we can look into so we can limit and hell maybe even stop some of the effects of the change.
  I do not accept we cannot do anything to stop it. We can, and should.

  
  Apparently you cede to the far-fetched notion that we can impact climate change; and that is the false premise from which you create a cascade of folly. We must merely adapt to the changes, over eons, or go by the wayside eventually. It is adaptation that is of interest, not the absurdly irrational idea that we are the cause of climate change, or can somehow cure it (which is even more preposterous).
• believer

  

  QuakerOats;1490529 wrote:Apparently you cede to the far-fetched notion that we can impact climate change; and that is the false premise from which you create a cascade of folly. We must merely adapt to the changes, over eons, or go by the wayside eventually. It is adaptation that is of interest, not the absurdly irrational idea that we are the cause of climate change, or can somehow cure it (which is even more preposterous).

  C'mon, Quaker. We both know that if we would just give up our gas-guzzlers for a Prius, plant a few trees, ask for paper rather than plastic, and wear hemp sandals the skies will open up, the birds will sing, and Mother Nature will kiss our enlightened asses.
  
  Or maybe not.
• gut

  To 90% of us, Gore is buffoon...To the 10% he's making his money off of, he's a hero. Maybe not so looney after all. Straight off the liberal elite playbook.
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1490478 wrote:The amount of fraud and conspiracy that must be true for this statement to be true is simply staggering. ZERO scientific academies/organizations hold your opinion.
  
  The conservative position on AGW is exhibit A for the paranoid style....heated exaggeration, suspicion and conspiratorial fantasy.

  You are so wrong about the "zero" part it's laughable. I won't even do the google search for you it's that laughable.
• QuakerOats

  PRUDEN: Gore and his traveling medicine show...
  
  Pounding pulpit good business for ex-Veep...
• majorspark

  

  BoatShoes;1490513 wrote:he simply was suggesting that AGW denial would go out of fashion in the same way other worldviews that were once widely held have.

  He is attempting to make his point by using world views based on evolving moral values. Not past views corrected and proved true by solid and undeniable scientific evidence. There is no correlation. A real example would be the flat earth believers of the past. Maybe Al is not that bright or he is pushing an agenda through modern day popularly perceived politically correct social positions. Likely a combination of both. Either way he comes off as buffoonish and this argument hes made has no chance at all to get any thinking person on the fence concerning AGW from crossing to his side.
  
  Boat if I recall you live in the Cleveland area. Take a short trip up to the lake shore. Its a beautiful view. Be thankful 10's of thousand of years ago no living being on the earth had the power to stop the glaciers from receding, melting, and filling the basins with fresh water. One can only imagine the carnage.
  
  Its quite interesting to me that those that believe we evolved by the great forces of nature over billions of years on this ball of mass hurtling through space in equilibrium with this ball of flame; given the massive geographic changes that have occurred on the earth during its history they can now somehow be altered in any significant way by the current inhabitants who have populated it for a minuscule fraction of time in the scope of its history.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "To 90% of us, Gore is buffoon"
  
  That's the scary part. We know he is nuts and yet he almost became President. People have to know that Gore isn't a scientist, and he generally was a poor student, yet he still has an audience.
• believer

  

  majorspark;1490680 wrote:Its quite interesting to me that those that believe we evolved by the great forces of nature over billions of years on this ball of mass hurtling through space in equilibrium with this ball of flame; given the massive geographic changes that have occurred on the earth during its history they can now somehow be altered in any significant way by the current inhabitants who have populated it for a minuscule fraction of time in the scope of its history.

  Spot on
• BoatShoes

  majorspark;1490680 wrote: Its quite interesting to me that those that believe we evolved by the great forces of nature over billions of years on this ball of mass hurtling through space in equilibrium with this ball of flame; given the massive geographic changes that have occurred on the earth during its history they can now somehow be altered in any significant way by the current inhabitants who have populated it for a minuscule fraction of time in the scope of its history.

  It's interesting because both conclusions come from the aggregate collection of empirical investigation into the matters. It might be intuitive that man collectively cannot alter the earth's climate in any real sense just like it was intuitive for all those years that man didn't evolve from primordial ooze. The preponderance of the evidence that we've obtained from these empirical investigation appears to falsify these intuitions.
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1490599 wrote:You are so wrong about the "zero" part it's laughable. I won't even do the google search for you it's that laughable.

  Incorrect. Zero scientific academies hold Believer's opinion that AGW is a hoax, untrue, and that is an artifice to facilitate the redistribution of wealth to the p00rz.
  

  No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[SUP][10][/SUP] which in 2007[SUP][11][/SUP] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[SUP][12][/SUP] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

  At best, a few organizations are non-committal...none openly deny it as a fraud and a hoax like the millions and millions in the conservative movement.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1490591 wrote:To 90% of us, Gore is buffoon...To the 10% he's making his money off of, he's a hero. Maybe not so looney after all. Straight off the liberal elite playbook.

  Like I said...even if this true...there was nothing totally outrageous in that interview. MB just wanted to start a thread ranting about how loony Al Gore is.
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1490700 wrote:Incorrect. Zero scientific academies hold Believer's opinion that AGW is a hoax, untrue, and that is an artifice to facilitate the redistribution of wealth to the p00rz.
  
  
  
  At best, a few organizations are non-committal...none openly deny it as a fraud and a hoax like the millions and millions in the conservative movement.

  Again, wrong.
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1490702 wrote:Again, wrong.

  Name one academy of scientists that has issued a formal dissenting opinion against AGW. It shouldnt be such an inconvenience to search for and post one.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  BoatShoes;1490701 wrote:Like I said...even if this true...there was nothing totally outrageous in that interview. MB just wanted to start a thread ranting about how loony Al Gore is.

  How anyone with any type of science background can't tell that Gore is full of #^&* is amazing. The entire interview was outrageous because he's just making stuff up, and the Left eats it up. Gore has zero scientific background. I'm guessing he didn't even take a calculus or chemistry class in college - and we know he dropped out of divinity and law school.
  
  He's a charlatan.
• believer

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;1490714 wrote:He's a charlatan.

  And the leftists love it.
• jmog

  http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
  
  Boy, that was hard. Same wiki where you got your graphs.
  
  But I guess your next lie will be "but they are not of good scientific report" huh?
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1490756 wrote:http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
  
  Boy, that was hard. Same wiki where you got your graphs.
  
  But I guess your next lie will be "but they are not of good scientific report" huh?

  Jmog...nothing in the link provided satisfies my question;
  

  Name one academy of scientists that has issued a formal dissenting opinion against AGW. It shouldnt be such an inconvenience to search for and post one.

  I never denied that there were a few scientists here and there (hence my posting the link showing 97% of scientists believe in AGW as opposed to 100%).
  
  Again, please find one academy of scientists/researchers that have issued a formal dissenting opinion and/or believe that the support for AGW is a widespread liberal hoax as Believer suggested. As I said, there is no academy/collection of scientists who agree with these claims.
• BoatShoes

  Manhattan Buckeye;1490714 wrote:How anyone with any type of science background can't tell that Gore is full of #^&* is amazing. The entire interview was outrageous because he's just making stuff up, and the Left eats it up. Gore has zero scientific background. I'm guessing he didn't even take a calculus or chemistry class in college - and we know he dropped out of divinity and law school.
  
  He's a charlatan.

  What a failure...he left law school to become a Congressmen, Senator, Vice President of the U.S. and Multi-Millionaire.
  
  Guess he should've finished and wound up ranting about democrats on the internetz like MB.
• gut

  I'm sure there are highly technical and "innovative" (read: excuses/justifications for departing from the scientific method) reasons for the obvious failings of climate research. Anyone with the least bit of research/statistical knowledge knows something like below smells like bullshit from a mile away:
  1) The theory gets major revisions, if not completely turned upside down, every 10 years or so
  2) The model used to form all your conclusions has no predictive power. Most honest researchers would immediately recognize that as manipulating data / overfitting a model (read: junk).
  
  It's kind of a nascent field, like econometrics and a lot of social science stuff. Lots of problems and challenges facing those fields of research - in terms of proven, reliable methods it's like the rookie league of science. To say nothing of other issues that also plague far more established fields of research.
• gut

  On a related note, you really have to admire Bill Maher's ability to shamelessly pander to his audience - every time the subject comes up, he'll use the air quotes or some other mocking derision as he says "oh, my bad, it's not global warming it's climate change now"...before launching into ridicule of a Repub he claims denies science.
• BGFalcons82

  

  gut;1490797 wrote:I'm sure there are highly technical and "innovative" (read: excuses/justifications for departing from the scientific method) reasons for the obvious failings of climate research. Anyone with the least bit of research/statistical knowledge knows something like below smells like bullshit from a mile away:
  1) The theory gets major revisions, if not completely turned upside down, every 10 years or so
  2) The model used to form all your conclusions has no predictive power. Most honest researchers would immediately recognize that as manipulating data / overfitting a model (read: junk).
  
  It's kind of a nascent field, like econometrics and a lot of social science stuff. Lots of problems and challenges facing those fields of research - in terms of proven, reliable methods it's like the rookie league of science. To say nothing of other issues that also plague far more established fields of research.

  Curious, how do these scientists - what is it...97% of them?... predict sun spot activity 5, 10 20 years down the road? Do evil capitalist CEO's flying aircraft around the planet have any cause/affect for sun spots?
  
  How about volcano eruptions? How accurate is the 97% gang in predicting not only when they'll erupt, but how many carcinogens and filth they'll spew into momma earth's air?
  
  When's the next meteor going to plummet into Russia creating decades of global cooling? Do they know?
  
  The major problem I have with the climate change gang is that they cannot predict the future with any degree of accuracy. Sun spots and volcanos play a huge role in the climate, and yet, they don't count. But they sure know how cold it was in the Arctic Circle a couple centuries ago. Now THAT'S important.
• gut

  ^^^you hit on a lot of issues with this type of research.
  
  I wasn't necessarily accurate when I implied this area and a few others are not established. What I meant was it is not nearly as exact nor straightforward as the petri dish stuff in a controlled lab environment.
  
  There are so many uncontrollable factors, and probably nearly infinite unknowns, that these areas have been developing new approaches and methodologies. That is very imperfect and evolving.
  
  Now here is my primary issue: a 95% confidence interval is pretty standard, though some things such as medicine/disease will even focus on 99% because the stakes are so high. Typically the higher error in your methodology, the more you must constrain the CI. This SHOULD dictate a 99% CI, but the areas I mention (and others) can't prove anything at a 99% CI, so they make rather dubious justifications for a 90% CI. And it's typically done after-the-fact (an egregious, if not dishonest, approach) in order to "prove" a result.
  
  It is not surprising, then, that their models prove to lack predictive power. That's a huge, huge thing. It says conclusions about the past based on that model are incomplete at best, or what many would label "invalidated".
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1490784 wrote:Jmog...nothing in the link provided satisfies my question;
  
  
  
  I never denied that there were a few scientists here and there (hence my posting the link showing 97% of scientists believe in AGW as opposed to 100%).
  
  Again, please find one academy of scientists/researchers that have issued a formal dissenting opinion and/or believe that the support for AGW is a widespread liberal hoax as Believer suggested. As I said, there is no academy/collection of scientists who agree with these claims.

  I am not going into the detail of th statistical models they falsely use to predict or the fact the weather and climate is the most complicated mathematical system know to man. It is a mathematical model with 1000s of bifurcating systems which by definition is chaos theory. Chaotic problems are ones that by definition can not be solved...period.
  
  Everyone who has ever taken a chaos theory PhD math course as I have knows this, but they will continue to pull the wool over people's eyes as long as it is profitable and political gains can be made.
  
  Here is another group...and they also explain why more dont come out.
  
  http://news.yahoo.com/16-scientists-declare-no-compelling-scientific-argument-drastic-183255794.html
• gut

  jmog;1490920 wrote: Everyone who has ever taken a chaos theory PhD math course as I have knows this..

  OK, you've got me beat...But I feel like I know enough to agree with everything you said.
  
  But the financial motivation might be a bit overstated. However, tenure and grants are typically not given for people proving the status quo. Ignoring the politics, funding, etc...it's not in one's particular career interest for your research to conclude nothing. And that's why you see people moving the bar to falsely attach statistical significance to their findings.