Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 53 to 65 of 86
  1. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Houston area
    Posts
    1,493
    Quote Originally Posted by printer2 View Post
    ...............Funny if it was Freon that is decreased the ozone layer which causes the upper atmosphere to cool and the lower atmosphere to warm rather than CO2 being the cause of global warming.
    DuPont caused all this. Why don't we just sue them?
    The picture in my avatar is of the Houston Ship Channel and was taken from my backyard. I like to sit outside and slap mosquitos while watching countless supertankers, barges and cargo ships of every shape and size carry all sorts of deadly toxins to and fro. It's really beautiful at times.....just don't eat the three eyed fish....

    ¯`·.¸¸ .·´¯`· .¸>÷÷(((°>

    `·.¸¸..· ´¯`·.¸ ¸.·´¯` ·.¸>÷÷(((°>

    .·´¯`· .¸>÷÷(((°>

    LMAOSHMSFOAIDMT

  2. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Atlanta GA area
    Posts
    21,724
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    Ah, but evolution has no choice but to be the prevailing view, since it, as a fact, was established by observation. AGW was not established as a fact via human senses. It has not been established as a fact at all.



    Most other sciences do not use models to predict the future. Intead they use known and not estimated data. For example, in the latest shuttle accident report they used a fluid flow dynamics model to show how super-heated plasma likely entered the wing and destroyed it. In that report the researchers were very careful to state that the model alone was not "a smoking gun" in terms of evidence, it simply agreed with other data points.

    Model the past, sure. Fine.

    Of course, some do use theoretical models as that's the only way. Like astro-phyisics. We do call these "theoretical sciences" for a reason.



    Historically, there is no doubt that consensus has been invoked many times. Particularly when science is being improperly used as a tool to enable social change.

    Take the EPA when it first classified second-hand smoke as a class A carcinogen in 1993. As a follow-up, in 1998 The Christian Science Moniter announced that "second hand smoke was the third leading preventable cause of death in the US". Then the American Cancer Society said that "53,000 people died every year from second hand smoke". The evidence for these claims was non-existent, yet they served as the basis for laws that curtailed smoking. That the evidence does NOW exist does not excuse them from making claims based on openly fraudulent science at the time.

    In 1998 a federal judge concluded that the EPA had acted improperly coming to a conclusion before science had begun.

    How did Carol Browner, the head of the EPA at the time react?

    She invoked consensus. ""We stand by our science; there's wide agreement. The American people certainly recognize that exposure to second hand smoke brings a whole host of health problems."

    Note, again, the invocation of consensus where proper science was weak. Amusingly, Browner in this instance did not even evoke a scientific consensus, but rather a consensus of the people!

    Of course, we all know how this works. Speak out against openly fraudulent science and you get branded a shill of RJ Reynolds in the greatest example of an attempt to attack the source rather than addressing the argument that possibly exists.

    Consensus was also invoked during the pellgra epidemic, for Nuclear Winter, and after the bombs dropped on Japan where the consensus held that nothing would grow there for decades. In fact, melons grew the following year.

    Again, the most famous example is likely Pastuer, but the historical record of scientific consensus leaves a lot to be desired.

    Science is about repeatable observations and repeatable experiments. Not consensus, except for peer review of proplerly conducted empirical science.

    The matter here is not whether or not consensus is invoked, it clearly is and has been for a while. This has replaced proper science and I seem to be in the minority view that this is not ok.

    You know what I really hate about all this? I think you'll relate even if we disagree on some things here. I hate it when Joe Public views science as a joke. Here in the office today someone offered another employee a pain reliever (Motrin I think) that had gotten some bad consensus press, to which the offering person smirked and said "don't worry... they said it's good again".

    Reminds me of the margerine debacle among many others.

    How did we arrive here? Yep, you guessed it!
    Excellent post!

    The only thing I would add is: For a couple of decades, I have traded markets. I read a HUGE amount of stuff, both from established sources (The Economist, WSJ, Forbes), semi-established sources (WMD, National Review, etc), and non-established sources (fringe websites). It is clear as a cloudless Spring day to me govts (since the beginning of time) have intentionally used ANY means to manipulate and control the public. Usually this control is to sell the public a product the folks financing the polecat profit from.

    Now IMO we need to ask ourselves; Do we want our lives polluted (not as in EPA pollution, rather political pollution) by this corrupt govt... or are we willing to put them out of office and elect honest folks who have OUR best interest at heart?

    We might remember that to TRULY have the citizens interest at heart, we need a society of folks who are willing to take care of themselves; rather than live on the govt dole (teet?).
    GA-HVAC-Tech

    Quality work at a fair price with excellent customer service!

    Romans Ch's 5-6-7-8

    2 Chronicles 7:14

  3. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by glennac View Post
    Come on printer with all the doctored data that these so call "environmental scientists" have doctored up to make their case for man-made GW why would you still want to listen to them. Most of them are no better than prostitutes selling their souls to their paymasters in order to promote man made GW.

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-t...-warming-panel

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-...lobal-warming/
    And one of the key skeptic groups looked at the data out there and concluded, yes we really are in Kansas now Dorthy (the data is not false).

    Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real

    WASHINGTON — A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.

    The study of the world's surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of "Climategate," a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists.

    Yet he found that the land is 1.6 degrees warmer than in the 1950s. Those numbers from Muller, who works at the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, match those by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.
    Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. —Mark Twain

  4. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by ga-hvac-tech View Post
    Your debate technique has turned into subtle shaming and put-downs; usually what happens when folks know they are cornered.

    Obviously winning the discussion is more important than learning and growing mentally... IM(maybe not so humble)opinion, a questionable attitude.

    Intellectual high-mindedness, while it feels good to the one doing it, looks just plain silly to the rest of the world...

    Time to and
    When all I ask is for you to show what you base your conclusions on I am cornered? It is not a question of winning, I really would like to know, in part because I can not understand how you come to the conclusion that you do. I know you are a bright guy, I would not have spent so many words with you in the past if you were not. Other than saying it is all a conspiracy I really do not know what information you are trusting to be true (relatively speaking).
    Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. —Mark Twain

  5. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Atlanta GA area
    Posts
    21,724
    Quote Originally Posted by printer2 View Post
    When all I ask is for you to show what you base your conclusions on I am cornered? It is not a question of winning, I really would like to know, in part because I can not understand how you come to the conclusion that you do. I know you are a bright guy, I would not have spent so many words with you in the past if you were not. Other than saying it is all a conspiracy I really do not know what information you are trusting to be true (relatively speaking).
    Please do not take this personally Printer... it is not meant as a put down... just an objective statement:

    You really need to get your mind outside the box and think freely... rather than be stuck on assumptions you seem to not be willing to question.

    Scrog made what IMO is a CLEAR explanation of what is wrong with GW/CC thinking... so far I have not read your input to Scrog's posts.

    Seeing the bigger picture requires letting go of the little picture... not easy for either an over-structured or fixated mind to do... (Something I struggled with for a LONG time until I learned to listen and think outside the box).

    Hint: You would not have made it in the 1960's in the USA... your mind is too structured and not flexible enough... <grin>
    GA-HVAC-Tech

    Quality work at a fair price with excellent customer service!

    Romans Ch's 5-6-7-8

    2 Chronicles 7:14

  6. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    From the very start of our discussions on this matter, if you'll kindly remember, I've more or less beaten a single drum;

    There is no such thing as science by consensus.

    The only time consensus has value in science is when EMPERICAL (not variables, models and estimates) data is used to conduct experiments. Consensus means that science agrees on the interpretation of the experiement.

    But now for the last few decades, and in more scientific areas that just GW, it is ok for a consensus of scientists to believe a thing that has nothing to do with peer reviewed experiments conducted using empirical data. This has more or less replaced "hard" science.

    Here, see what I mean; "a majority consensus of scientists say that c02 generated by man is a major cause of global warming".

    It would not be unusual to read something like that if not exactly that.

    Ok, now let's move the example to other areas of science;

    "a majority consensus of scientists believe that E=mc2".

    "a majority consensus of scientists believe that atoms are the basic building blocks of the universe".

    You don't exactly hear that, right? That's because those things were determined by empirical science, not consensus. It would never occur to someone to speak like that when the science has been determined in the proper way.

    So the reverse of that concept is, consensus science is invoked only when the science is too weak to be presented in the traditional way.

    However, let's be clear, that does NOT mean that the AGW proponents are wrong. They may well be right.

    It is only that hard science does not properly support that view at this time.
    Eating barbeque can be a factor in giving you cancer. It is not a forgone conclusion you will get cancer but your risk factor does go up. Is this science? Can it be statistically measured in the population?

    The funny thing with a complex organism or something like the Earth. You could probably find out how much it takes to kill it but when you do find that point, well the experiment is not a healthy one.

    So do we just ignore the risk factors of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, the list goes on, just because we do not have a simple formula like E = MC2?
    Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. —Mark Twain

  7. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by ga-hvac-tech View Post
    Please do not take this personally Printer... it is not meant as a put down... just an objective statement:

    You really need to get your mind outside the box and think freely... rather than be stuck on assumptions you seem to not be willing to question.

    Scrog made what IMO is a CLEAR explanation of what is wrong with GW/CC thinking... so far I have not read your input to Scrog's posts.

    Seeing the bigger picture requires letting go of the little picture... not easy for either an over-structured or fixated mind to do... (Something I struggled with for a LONG time until I learned to listen and think outside the box).

    Hint: You would not have made it in the 1960's in the USA... your mind is too structured and not flexible enough... <grin>
    Just getting to Scrog's, I am a one finger typer and I think even slower.


    Actually I would put less faith in GW if I did not live in a country where we are seeing the effects.
    Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. —Mark Twain

  8. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by Cooked View Post
    DuPont caused all this. Why don't we just sue them?
    I am not a lawyer, don't know what is involved. Actually I think we should sue the Indians for tobacco.
    Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. —Mark Twain

  9. #61
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Atlanta GA area
    Posts
    21,724
    Quote Originally Posted by printer2 View Post
    Eating barbeque can be a factor in giving you cancer. It is not a forgone conclusion you will get cancer but your risk factor does go up. Is this science? Can it be statistically measured in the population?

    The funny thing with a complex organism or something like the Earth. You could probably find out how much it takes to kill it but when you do find that point, well the experiment is not a healthy one.

    So do we just ignore the risk factors of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, the list goes on, just because we do not have a simple formula like E = MC2?
    And there are documented cases of Russians living in Siberia who smoke and drink like fishes... yet live to be over 100 years. Defies what we think is healthy and not healthy.

    Back to our discussion: Is science by concensus, or is it by repeatable proof of facts?

    And 'general welfare' is NOT science.
    GA-HVAC-Tech

    Quality work at a fair price with excellent customer service!

    Romans Ch's 5-6-7-8

    2 Chronicles 7:14

  10. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Atlanta GA area
    Posts
    21,724
    Quote Originally Posted by printer2 View Post
    Just getting to Scrog's, I am a one finger typer and I think even slower.


    Actually I would put less faith in GW if I did not live in a country where we are seeing the effects.
    So just because Canada is hot today... means GW is real? Try looking at temp patterns over the last 500 years... then get back to me. THIS (looking at 500 years rather than 30 minutes) would be thinking OUTSIDE the box.
    GA-HVAC-Tech

    Quality work at a fair price with excellent customer service!

    Romans Ch's 5-6-7-8

    2 Chronicles 7:14

  11. #63
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Houston area
    Posts
    1,493
    Quote Originally Posted by ga-hvac-tech View Post
    And there are documented cases of Russians living in Siberia who smoke and drink like fishes... yet live to be over 100 years........
    Do they have any openings?
    The picture in my avatar is of the Houston Ship Channel and was taken from my backyard. I like to sit outside and slap mosquitos while watching countless supertankers, barges and cargo ships of every shape and size carry all sorts of deadly toxins to and fro. It's really beautiful at times.....just don't eat the three eyed fish....

    ¯`·.¸¸ .·´¯`· .¸>÷÷(((°>

    `·.¸¸..· ´¯`·.¸ ¸.·´¯` ·.¸>÷÷(((°>

    .·´¯`· .¸>÷÷(((°>

    LMAOSHMSFOAIDMT

  12. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    126
    If global warming is not as drastic as stated originally, is it really such a bad thing that it resulted in a push for energy efficiency and sustainability? It's a huge strategic advantage for north America to reduce its energy imports. Not to mention the health benefits of reduced pollution. The technology is all there, it's just not being utilized yet. Government should be ending oil and gas subsidies and pushing to get research and implementation of green technologies out and in use IMO.

  13. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    Ah, but evolution has no choice but to be the prevailing view, since it, as a fact, was established by observation. AGW was not established as a fact via human senses. It has not been established as a fact at all.
    The global average temperature is rising. FACT

    Greenhouse gases cause a warming effect. FACT

    Man is pumping co2, a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. FACT

    AGW is a theory which best explains the evidence. Fact

    There is no other theory which explains the evidence as completely and as robustly as AGW. Fact.

    All of these facts are observable, quantifiable and open to experimentation and in fact AGW was and is established by these observations, by experimentation.

    You speak of empirical science. Have a look at climate papers which are literally eaten up with advanced mathematics, physics, geology, and numerous other fields of science that support AGW.

    The physics alone constitute a clear and proper use of scientific methodologies which are shared by all other branches of science.


    No my friend, AGW is pure science with all that entails.







    Most other sciences do not use models to predict the future. Intead they use known and not estimated data. For example, in the latest shuttle accident report they used a fluid flow dynamics model to show how super-heated plasma likely entered the wing and destroyed it. In that report the researchers were very careful to state that the model alone was not "a smoking gun" in terms of evidence, it simply agreed with other data points.

    Model the past, sure. Fine.
    Actually you are speaking of engineering which is at best an applied science. Even so, they used modelling as does science.


    Take the EPA when it first classified second-hand smoke as a class A carcinogen in 1993. As a follow-up, in 1998 The Christian Science Moniter announced that "second hand smoke was the third leading preventable cause of death in the US". Then the American Cancer Society said that "53,000 people died every year from second hand smoke". The evidence for these claims was non-existent, yet they served as the basis for laws that curtailed smoking. That the evidence does NOW exist does not excuse them from making claims based on openly fraudulent science at the time.
    I fail to see what this has to do with AGW. AGW has evidence supporting it. Evidence strong enough to convince the brightest minds in science.

    In 1998 a federal judge concluded that the EPA had acted improperly coming to a conclusion before science had begun.

    How did Carol Browner, the head of the EPA at the time react?

    She invoked consensus. ""We stand by our science; there's wide agreement. The American people certainly recognize that exposure to second hand smoke brings a whole host of health problems."

    Note, again, the invocation of consensus where proper science was weak. Amusingly, Browner in this instance did not even evoke a scientific consensus, but rather a consensus of the people!

    Of course, we all know how this works. Speak out against openly fraudulent science and you get branded a shill of RJ Reynolds in the greatest example of an attempt to attack the source rather than addressing the argument that possibly exists.

    Consensus was also invoked during the pellgra epidemic, for Nuclear Winter, and after the bombs dropped on Japan where the consensus held that nothing would grow there for decades. In fact, melons grew the following year.

    Again, the most famous example is likely Pastuer, but the historical record of scientific consensus leaves a lot to be desired.

    Science is about repeatable observations and repeatable experiments. Not consensus, except for peer review of proplerly conducted empirical science.

    The matter here is not whether or not consensus is invoked, it clearly is and has been for a while. This has replaced proper science and I seem to be in the minority view that this is not ok.

    You know what I really hate about all this? I think you'll relate even if we disagree on some things here. I hate it when Joe Public views science as a joke. Here in the office today someone offered another employee a pain reliever (Motrin I think) that had gotten some bad consensus press, to which the offering person smirked and said "don't worry... they said it's good again".

    Reminds me of the margerine debacle among many others.
    Your words: "except for properly conducted empirical science." The majority by far of the properly conducted, empirical science supports AGW.
    Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

    Chapman Cohen

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event