Ramen087 Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said: Yes, remember when EVERYONE in the whole world believed the earth was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth, and anyone saying otherwise was a heretic? The climate cause debate is far from settled. Dude, I'm old, but not THAT old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyJ Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 3 hours ago, Ramen087 said: Take a deep breath and relax, please. All I am saying is that sometimes the widely accepted explanation is occasionally overturned by a person with a gut feeling and the will to go the extra mile to show the establishment it was incorrect. This is not an unknown. "...sometimes the widely accepted explanation is occasionally overturned by a person with a gut feeling..." Nonsense - argue with your "gut feeling" all you wish - I suggest it's indigestion or flatulence - global warming is accepted scientific fact. Arguing against it is like arguing against evolution or gravity or the earth revolving around the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maewang99 Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 12 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said: Yes, remember when EVERYONE in the whole world believed the earth was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth, and anyone saying otherwise was a heretic? The climate cause debate is far from settled. that the Earth is flat or not flat is not very nuanced. it either is or isn't. now think about climate and Co2, as one green house gas. there is a 10 to 40 year lag between emissions of Co2 and it's effect, because of how long it takes to reach the upper atmosphere but more significantly how the trapped infrared heating affects ocean currents... and the oceans are very deep. as long as 40 years before what we did.... affects the planet. that the Earth is flat or not flat is a constant reality. it either is or isn't flat. climate is very very nuanced. when I made an effort to get up to speed on this... I had to read at least 20 or more books and many many Youtube videos.... because it is very nuanced and, as Bill Gates now puts it.... "how it all maps out in mindblowing". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heybruce Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 1 hour ago, RickBradford said: Climate scientists, if they are scientists, would never say "the science is settled." If it's "settled", then why waste money doing more research on it? Climate scientists would say (and have said, many times) something like: "We have an approximate understanding of how climate works, and how humans can affect the climate, but there are still several important factors we don't fully understand." Indeed, climate scientist Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report chapters, made exactly this point when he wrote in the science journal Nature, in 2007: “None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state”. But it is the activists who set the policy, and whose actions affect the mass of ordinary people. They include Christina "Tinkerbell" Figueres, (Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, who wants to do away with capitalism), and Ottmar Edenhofer (former co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who wants to redistribute the world's wealth according to his own specifications). There are hundreds more of these "science is settled" activists in positions of considerable influence. Did you know that the exact mechanisms by which smoking cause cancer is far from fully understood, but the statistical correlation is too strong to ignore? Just because science isn't settled doesn't mean that correlation has not been linked to causation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramen087 Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 4 minutes ago, JimmyJ said: "...sometimes the widely accepted explanation is occasionally overturned by a person with a gut feeling..." Nonsense - argue with your "gut feeling" all you wish - I suggest it's indigestion or flatulence - global warming is accepted scientific fact. Arguing against it is like arguing against evolution or gravity or the earth revolving around the sun. The gut feeling the person has is only part one of the statement, it is the will to follow up and gather the scientific evidence that completes the process. At one time, everyone on this planet accepted the fact the earth was the center of the universe. Except for a few people with little doubt, a gut feeling and the will to suggest something different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 3 minutes ago, attrayant said: Then Bill Gates is your hero. He has advocated reducing the birth rate (through proper sanitation, improved medical facilities in the developing world and the widespread use of vaccines) to reduce stressors on the already overburdened planet. But what has that gotten him? All sorts of cranks who accuse him of being in favor of "forced depopulation through sterility" or "a person who supports death panels as a means of depopulation", or similar nutty conspiracy theories. Damned if you do/don't. It's probably too late. Population has gone wayyyyyyy beyond the capacity of the planet to support indefinitely, so Gaia will kill most ( ?all ) humans anyway. Given the growth of antibiotic resistant bacteria, the next "black death" plague will probably be something that would be easily cured before. A classic case of humanity shooting itself given the widespread misuse of antibiotics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace of Pop Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 Where are you imagining this happened? Get a Life there are many examples on You Tube.,does it upset your mindset for some odd reasonSent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maewang99 Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 as for Thailand....... the biggest thing to think about... besides the Chao Phraya dam letting more fresh water out than they would like at all to be letting out because they must stop salt water intrusion into tap water plants..... for Bangkok drinking and washing water supplies.... but it is only March.... 2017..... the biggest is to question why 1.5 was tacked into COP21 along with 2.0.... the answer was 100% political.... India.... because if we don't get a major breakthrough in negative emissions technology.... veiling is the next and last resort. and that would probably mean cooling but with disruption or smoothing out of the normal variations that in turn control climate cycles such as wind and ocean flow patterns.... and might mean no more monsoons... which for SE Asia would be read as no more Rainy Seasons... just the two other ones. and the primo book on this topic is Oliver Morton, A Planet Remade. COP21 is in Wikipedia. along with the 1.5 degree goal.... which only makes sense politically (India). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilostmypassword Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 2 minutes ago, Ace of Pop said: Get a Life there are many examples on You Tube.,does it upset your mindset for some odd reason Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect And I'm sure every one of the examples you don't actually cite has been subjected to scientific peer review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyJ Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 9 minutes ago, heybruce said: Did you know that the exact mechanisms by which smoking cause cancer is far from fully understood, but the statistical correlation is too strong to ignore? Just because science isn't settled doesn't mean that correlation has not been linked to causation. Interesting - I was just thinking about the decades of "Tobacco causes cancer" deniers. I understood where it was coming from in those cases - they didn't want to deal with the reality of their addiction and disgusting habit. But denying global warming which is accepted fact. What is the driving force for the deniers who are almost exclusively not scientists? "I just have a gut feeling..." OK. Good for you. We would still be bleeding people with leaches when they get sick and reading chicken entrails to predict the future if not for science. Despite the gut feelings of the leach bleeders... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heybruce Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said: They already know how to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The question all the believers should be asking is why all the governments that subscribe to man made CC are not building a lot of such plants as we speak. Remove the CO2 and problem solved, surely? BTW, population as a whole is increasing dramatically, and I believe is going to be 8 billion or so in the lifetime of young people today. Then you'll have to convince the poor of the world that they can't have the lifestyle associated with wealth. The reason they can't have the lifestyle of the wealthy is that they have corrupt governments that steal the resources so the few can be wealthy, and too many people usually means there isn't enough to go around. Reduce the population and everyone will be better off. Cost effective removal of CO2 from the atmosphere on a scale to reverse global warming has not been demonstrated. I didn't dispute that the global population is increasing, I pointed out that most of the increase is occurring in Africa. Solving the problem of corrupt government in that continent will be a good first step to getting women in schools then jobs, and producing fewer children. If you can pull that off, go right ahead. How are we to reduce the population? Already many countries facing a demographic crisis in which the number of young entering the workforce is insufficient to support the number of old out of the workforce. Much of Europe, China, Japan, and even Thailand face this problem in the future. Reducing birthrates will make the problem worse. I suppose eliminating people too old to work would help. Do you advocate that? Or will you refuse to acknowledge the difficulties and continue to insist that all we have to do is reduce the global population without specifying how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 7 minutes ago, JimmyJ said: "...sometimes the widely accepted explanation is occasionally overturned by a person with a gut feeling..." Nonsense - argue with your "gut feeling" all you wish - I suggest it's indigestion or flatulence - global warming is accepted scientific fact. Arguing against it is like arguing against evolution or gravity or the earth revolving around the sun. global warming is accepted scientific fact. Climate Change theory ( it's not been called GW since the planet stopped getting hotter ) is far from settled science. Not all scientists believe it is caused by mankind, so it isn't accepted scientific fact. Gravity is gravity so it is a fact and not a scientific theory. Man made C C is a theory, so not a fact. C C as caused by nature is a fact, of course, but that's not the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heybruce Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 1 minute ago, JimmyJ said: Interesting - I was just thinking about the decades of "Tobacco causes cancer" deniers. I understood where it was coming from in those cases - they didn't want to deal with the reality of their addiction and disgusting habit. But denying global warming which is accepted fact. What is the driving force for the deniers who are almost exclusively not scientists? "I just have a gut feeling..." OK. Good for you. We would still be bleeding people with leaches when they get sick and reading chicken entrails to read the future if not for science. Despite the gut feelings of the leach bleeders... "What is the driving force for the deniers who are almost exclusively not scientists?" Speaking only for my non-scientist self (my background is engineering), credible reports of record high temperatures, record high carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, and glaciers and ice caps in retreat all over the world, along with papers from respected scientific organizations, are my grounds for believing man-caused global warming is happening, even if all the details are unclear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyJ Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said: global warming is accepted scientific fact. Climate Change theory ( it's not been called GW since the planet stopped getting hotter ) is far from settled science. Not all scientists believe it is caused by mankind, so it isn't accepted scientific fact. Gravity is gravity so it is a fact and not a scientific theory. Man made C C is a theory, so not a fact. C C as caused by nature is a fact, of course, but that's not the same thing. There is a big problem amongst the scientifically illiterate with using the word "theory". Gravity is a scientific theory. It has never been seen/smelled/heard/tasted/touched. Evolution is a scientific theory. Those are both accepted fact. " It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory".[4][Note 1] In everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, idea, or, hypothesis;[4] such a usage is the opposite of the word "theory" in science. " -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory " A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] " - Ibid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heybruce Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said: global warming is accepted scientific fact. Climate Change theory ( it's not been called GW since the planet stopped getting hotter ) is far from settled science. Not all scientists believe it is caused by mankind, so it isn't accepted scientific fact. Gravity is gravity so it is a fact and not a scientific theory. Man made C C is a theory, so not a fact. C C as caused by nature is a fact, of course, but that's not the same thing. You are demonstrating that you don't understand the difference between "theory" when used in casual conversation, and "scientific theory". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 2 minutes ago, JimmyJ said: Interesting - I was just thinking about the decades of "Tobacco causes cancer" deniers. I understood where it was coming from in those cases - they didn't want to deal with the reality of their addiction and disgusting habit. But denying global warming which is accepted fact. What is the driving force for the deniers who are almost exclusively not scientists? "I just have a gut feeling..." OK. Good for you. We would still be bleeding people with leaches when they get sick and reading chicken entrails to predict the future if not for science. Despite the gut feelings of the leach bleeders... We still bleed people with leaches for medical treatment- just google it . BTW, I met a lot of scientists in my time and some of them are right tossers, just like some of non scientists. Just saying someone is a scientist doesn't prove anything. Someone that looks at rocks for a living is called a scientist, but they know as much about C C as I do about rocket motors, even though I fixed I C engines for a living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramen087 Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 5 minutes ago, JimmyJ said: Interesting - I was just thinking about the decades of "Tobacco causes cancer" deniers. I understood where it was coming from in those cases - they didn't want to deal with the reality of their addiction and disgusting habit. But denying global warming which is accepted fact. What is the driving force for the deniers who are almost exclusively not scientists? "I just have a gut feeling..." OK. Good for you. We would still be bleeding people with leaches when they get sick and reading chicken entrails to predict the future if not for science. Despite the gut feelings of the leach bleeders... I'm not saying I feel that way about this issue. What I am saying is that it should be a scientific issue only, and not an issue of political leaning. The debate should be left open for the unpopular opinion, because that is when some of the most important scientific breakthroughs occur. Your inference wasn't accurate and the comparison to older medical techniques was unwarranted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 Just now, heybruce said: You are demonstrating that you don't understand the difference between "theory" when used in casual conversation, and "scientific theory". Man made C C is still a theory and not a fact, whatever anyone says. Labeling something "scientific" means nothing, if it isn't proven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heybruce Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said: global warming is accepted scientific fact. Climate Change theory ( it's not been called GW since the planet stopped getting hotter ) is far from settled science. Not all scientists believe it is caused by mankind, so it isn't accepted scientific fact. Gravity is gravity so it is a fact and not a scientific theory. Man made C C is a theory, so not a fact. C C as caused by nature is a fact, of course, but that's not the same thing. You're a little behind on you information, the planet is definitely getting hotter. The brief pause is over. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyJ Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 2 minutes ago, Ramen087 said: I'm not saying I feel that way about this issue. What I am saying is that it should be a scientific issue only, and not an issue of political leaning. The debate should be left open for the unpopular opinion, because that is when some of the most important scientific breakthroughs occur. Your inference wasn't accurate and the comparison to older medical techniques was unwarranted. "The debate should be left open for the unpopular opinion, because that is when some of the most important scientific breakthroughs occur." I'd be interested in some post WWII examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace of Pop Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 Possibly,they would say the water is still there ,and the Tanker walked up the beach ,in true academic fashion. The owners would say the Water pissed off though.[emoji925]?Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 4 minutes ago, heybruce said: "What is the driving force for the deniers who are almost exclusively not scientists?" Speaking only for my non-scientist self (my background is engineering), credible reports of record high temperatures, record high carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, and glaciers and ice caps in retreat all over the world, along with papers from respected scientific organizations, are my grounds for believing man-caused global warming is happening, even if all the details are unclear. So, how do you explain the hot ages and the ice ages when humans were not around to "cause" them? Antarctica used to be ice free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heybruce Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 3 minutes ago, heybruce said: You are demonstrating that you don't understand the difference between "theory" when used in casual conversation, and "scientific theory". 1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said: Man made C C is still a theory and not a fact, whatever anyone says. Labeling something "scientific" means nothing, if it isn't proven. And you demonstrated it again. " In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 3 minutes ago, heybruce said: You're a little behind on you information, the planet is definitely getting hotter. The brief pause is over. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record LOL. The debate has only been going on for a few years ( in the 80s they were saying it would be getting cooler now ). Measurements over 20 or so years are insignificant and can't be used to estimate long term trends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heybruce Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said: So, how do you explain the hot ages and the ice ages when humans were not around to "cause" them? Antarctica used to be ice free. Nobody denies that climate is constantly changing due to natural forces. It is the unprecedented rate of climate change, caused my human activity and at a rate that the environment and society can't adapt to, that is the concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heybruce Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said: LOL. The debate has only been going on for a few years ( in the 80s they were saying it would be getting cooler now ). Measurements over 20 or so years are insignificant and can't be used to estimate long term trends. Ok, here you demonstrate that you don't understand the generally accepted definition of the word "few". I give up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramen087 Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 7 minutes ago, JimmyJ said: "The debate should be left open for the unpopular opinion, because that is when some of the most important scientific breakthroughs occur." I'd be interested in some post WWII examples. You have never heard of a single scientific discovery since 1945 that hasn't contradicted a previously accepted principle or previous finding? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyJ Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 15 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said: global warming is accepted scientific fact. Climate Change theory ( it's not been called GW since the planet stopped getting hotter ) is far from settled science. Not all scientists believe it is caused by mankind, so it isn't accepted scientific fact. Gravity is gravity so it is a fact and not a scientific theory. Man made C C is a theory, so not a fact. C C as caused by nature is a fact, of course, but that's not the same thing. "Climate Change theory ( it's not been called GW since the planet stopped getting hotter )..." Wrong again. This is simply willful ignorance on your part. " Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal. - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1" https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 10 minutes ago, JimmyJ said: There is a big problem amongst the scientifically illiterate with using the word "theory". Gravity is a scientific theory. It has never been seen/smelt/heard/tasted. Evolution is a scientific theory. Those are both accepted fact. " It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory".[4][Note 1] In everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, idea, or, hypothesis;[4] such a usage is the opposite of the word "theory" in science. " -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory A scientific Last time I looked gravity can be measured, so it's a fact. If it wasn't, we would be falling off the planet. They knew that the moon had less gravity than the earth before the first moon landing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyJ Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 3 minutes ago, Ramen087 said: You have never heard of a single scientific discovery since 1945 that hasn't contradicted a previously accepted principle or previous finding? Really? That's not what I asked. "The debate should be left open for the unpopular opinion, because that is when some of the most important scientific breakthroughs occur." I'd be interested in some post WWII examples. A few examples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.