[Kazan]

There is no reason for them to restrict information on this rictor - the essence of science is access to the information to be able to verify it

It isn't one shared by the majority of climatologists though.

the majority of climatologists are being reactionary

i'm not advocating ignoring a possible problem - i'm saying don't go chicken little

[Flipside]

I seem to recall deep-ice samples from the Antartic proving that global warming always preceeded an Ice Age anyway?

I won't say that the crap we are pumping into our atmosphere, not just CO2 but all kinds of stuff, isn't having a negative effect. But I would say that people, far more than the environment itself, will pay the price first.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kazan
Nico: i was implying that it is a merely whimiscal theory with modest support at best - not enough support to start chicken-littling
 

NB:  Should also point out that a lot of key scientific discoveries started out as little supported (by the scientific community) theories - tectonic plates being a notable example IIRC.  So maybe 'modest support' isn't the most relevant qay to quanitfy its scientific value.

[Kazan]

aldo_14: however people didn';t start "chicken-litting" about tectonic plates

"OH GNOES! THE EARTH IS LIKE AN EGG! THE CRUST IS CRACKED! THE INSIDES ARE GOING TO OOZE OUT UNLESS WE ..."

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kazan
aldo_14: however people didn';t start "chicken-litting" about tectonic plates

"OH GNOES! THE EARTH IS LIKE AN EGG! THE CRUST IS CRACKED! THE INSIDES ARE GOING TO OOZE OUT UNLESS WE ..."

I didn't say that, though, did I? *shrugs*

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Kazan
There is no reason for them to restrict information on this rictor - the essence of science is access to the information to be able to verify it

The real hard evidence the scientific journals are hard to get at however. Not many of us could understand anything beyond the abstracts anyway but that means that it is actually hard to find the info quickly.

Looking for data for this thread has proved that to me

 

Originally posted by Kazan
the majority of climatologists are being reactionary

i'm not advocating ignoring a possible problem - i'm saying don't go chicken little

Or maybe you're sticking your head in the sand and hoping it all goes away. For a man of science I've not been hugely impressed with your attitude on this thread Kazan.

 The fact that I've had to correct you time and time again makes me think that you don't actually know that much about the subject. Certainly not enough to have a informed opinion on the matter.  Almost all your assertions could have been shown to be incorrect had you bothered to do 5 minutes research on the matter, which makes me wonder how hard you've actually looked at all the data on global warming, how hard you've looked at the alternative data and how well you understood it.

But what really gets on my nerves is that on top of being wrong you've been condesending with it.

Originally posted by Kazan
the claim that human CO2 emissions are GREATER than Volcanic CO2 emissions is pure total and complete BS, you would get laughed at by thousands of geologists

Really? Well here's a vulcanologist  who wouldn't find it so funny. In case you're wondering I make the figure given by Gerlach to work out as 112Mt of CO2 a year from volcanos.  That's less than the output of South Africa.  Even if the estimate is an order of magnitude wrong it would still be less than the US puts out.

The simple fact is that I'm not a climatologist. Like you I'm just someone who knows the general science behind the matter. I'm more than happy to let the people who do understand the subject give reccomendations because I know that they understand the subject better than I do.

[Kazan]

As you can tell i haven't kept up _recent_ because no hard evidence has come forth and if it was it's certain that i would hear about it - so i haven't heard about the minor details


Until hard evidence [more than just correlation] comes up i'm going to advise moderation in the reation - no chickenlittling, going chickenlittle gets you ignored even when you're right

[aldo_14]

I wasn't aware there was such thing as a minor detail in science.

[karajorma]

Bah. Go on about chicken littling all you like. To not act on the best evidence you have is irrational

Besides I really don't hold a lot of faith in your ability to realise the difference between chicken-littling and honest fear and frustration at the fact that nothing is being done about a clear and present danger.

Even if you disagree with where the problem is coming from surely you agree that taking steps to cool the planet would be a good idea.

[Martinus]

[color=66ff00]GWB and his flunkies undermining your religion K?[/color]

Sorry, couldn't resist -_^

[Genryu]

Originally posted by Kazan
As you can tell i haven't kept up _recent_ because no hard evidence has come forth and if it was it's certain that i would hear about it  - so i haven't heard about the minor details
 

Glad to se we've got an omnipotent scientist here
Wonder how would you have reacted to Einstein theory in his day, after all, it was only a theory, nothing proved it

[Rictor]

Originally posted by karajorma
Even if you disagree with where the problem is coming from surely you agree that taking steps to cool the planet would be a good idea.

OK, so what we do is...first we build a machine, based on the crackpot theories os some shut-in scientist. We'll pay him like 15 billion dollars, cause hey - its the Earth. Alright, next, we need to recruit a pimple-faced teenager, but he's like the best hacker ever. We need to put him in a cave somewhere, cause he's allergic to sunlight, and we need to feed his ass some pop-tarts. But again, its all worth it, cause that dude can like totally HAXXORS THE PLANET.

So, whats next? Oh right, right, the crew. So, we need a beautiful yet intelligent woman onboard - gender equality and all that, besides, the mission to save the Earth can't be a sausage-fest. Oh, and we need some sort of "brave leader" type guy in there, but luckily they're a dime a dozen. And the round it all off, we can throw in some minorities, for comic relief you understand. A Russian would be good, they talk funny. Well, we'll think of something.

So, in order to save the Earth, what we do is - we have to drill to the centre of the Earth. Past the dinosaur bones and rock-hard granite and Morlocks. And then, we drop a few nukes in there, at the centre of the Earth, and that will just fix everything up. Cause nukes are good you see, they're like tape, you can fix anything with them. The nuclear blast will cause the molten centre of the Earth to spin faster...or was the slower, and then the magnetic interference patterns in the neutrino spectrum will produce exactly the effect we're after. Anyway, everything goes smoothly, despite the odds being spectacularly stacked against the mission, except someone, maybe the Russian or the crazy scientist, they get stuck at the centre of the Earth, and in order to save everyone else, they make a noble sacrifice to die, so that the ship can outrun the nuclear blast.

Upon returning to the surface, everyone is a hero and they all become hundredaires - no, thousandaires - and the Earth lives happily ever after. And we can all get back to our rampant, unchecked production and consumption, our air conditioners and SUVs, safe in the knowledge that the Earth is finally safe fromthe tyranny of nature.

[Flipside]

ROFL Do I detect just a smidgeon of sarcasm slipped in there?

[Rictor]

No, look, I'm totally serious. I already have a prototype of the craft built, I can show it to you if you want. NASA won't return my calls, but I'm having some high-level talks with the Russians.

I'm afraid recruiting is going a bit slowly though. People want payment before the mission, but I keep telling them that one or more of them are not expected to survive, so why should I waste my precious money?

*sigh*

True genius in never appreaciated.

[Kazan]

karajorma: chickenlittling is when the response is disproportionately reactionary

MAeglamer: sorry but science is not religion, go pick up a dictionary bub

[aldo_14]

Oh ****, here we go again..........

[Kazan]

yeah maeglamor had to choose to start that argument

I'll preempt him

"Science requires faith!!!!!!1111oneone"

Nope, sorry - science systematic skepticism, it tells explicity not to have faith (belief without evidence) and faith proves nothing

Since there is no faith involved it's not a religion


End Of Story


This flamewar preemption brought to you by "Logic: It not jsut for nerds anymore"

[aldo_14]

RIGHT!  Before this goes any further;

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Kazan
karajorma: chickenlittling is when the response is disproportionately reactionary

I know what chickenlittling is. But lets say that Chicken Little actually had evidence that the sky was falling then there would be nothing wrong with what he did. What made it a story is that he blew a tiny event into a big problem. If the sky had been falling telling everyone about it would have been a damn good idea.

You're denying that there is a problem at all or saying lets spend 20 years studying the problem even though we have plenty of evidence until it's too late to do anything about it. What's more you don't even understand the evidence. This thread has made that plainly clear so I really don't know what makes you think you're qualified to claim it's an over reaction.

65 Million years ago you'd probably have been the one telling the other dinosaurs that they had nothing to worry about from that bright new star in the sky.

[Kazan]

karajorma: i'm saying NEITHER - i saying people's reaction is disproportionate -- too many hollywood apocolyptic films -- the science supporting global warming is being consumed in the emotional frenzy


stop the attacks on my intelligence simply because i am pointing out the lack of hard evidence, and the overreaction of certain people