Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Monday, September 19, 2011 18:34
VIEWED: 4620
PAGE 7 of 7
Quote:
Just adding my 2 cents, which ain't exactly 'inconvertible' but I suspect the real argument for most folk is whether or not the climate change is the problem we think it is and if our CO2 emissions are really the cause. That would be my argument anyway.
It's my understanding we have some evidence of a 'Medieval Climatic Anomaly' from around 950–1250 and much evidence of a 'Little Ice Age' that occurred from around 1550-1850. I think it's evident that the Earth's climate has and will change, but how much of that is the fault of our CO2 emissions? Is it really more closely linked to destruction of forest and the like or is it something that's just going to happen anyway, with or without our help?
Actually the things you cite that would make it appear all the recent climate change is natural convince me that humankind has had some influence.
The Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a period of very warm temperatures that led to the proliferation of the bubonic plague.
The Little Ice Age was due to something called the Maunder Minimum, which relates to cyclical variations in solar output.
But ultimately, the Climactic Anomaly was the outlier, while the Little Ice Age was a tiny taste of what the earth SHOULD have been like. According to ice age cycles relating to earth solar orbital periods that fluctuate over 20,000 years, every ten thousand years there should be a new ice age. Ten thousand years ago, something stopped the new ice age from occurring. Ten thousand years ago, humans discovered of slash and burn agriculture and the cultivation of rice paddies.
I do not believe these are unrelated.
So I see the Little Ice Age as was what should have actually be the peak of the last ten thousand years that should have been a MAJOR Ice Age period and wasn't. For a brief while, nature made a resurgence over the influence of man and expressed itself as it should.
But then, instead of deepening into a true Ice Age... The industrial revolution happened, and broke the Little Ice Age. You'll notice how well the timeline corresponds to that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Happy, my point was that we have enough evidence that what we are doing now is bad for the planet that, tho' the investigation and debate of climate change should probably go on, we should be taking action to reverse the negative effects we pretty much KNOW are happening in the meantime. If we just go on debating whether climate change is natural or man made, what we're doing to cause it if it IS man made, before acting, it will probably be too late (which it already may be anyway).
I'm not really up for whether climate change is man made or not, to me it's irrelevant for the most part. We already know our actions are having massive negative effects globally in one form or another, those should be important enough to change.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Unless they are proved wrong"
There is always a small chance - no matter how infinitesimally small - that something will fall away from urth. That boiling water will get hotter while the ice cube in it will get colder. That all the temperature measurements will be found to be wrong because the statistical errors found in all measurements just all happen to line up in the same direction - every time. Not a really big chance, mind you. Do you want to hang your skepticism on that?
Thing is, Kiki, that climate change deniers *DO* want to hang their skepticism on the 1-in-a-million chance that they're right. These are the same kinds of people who, if you pointed at an asteroid on a direct course to impact Earth and wipe out 95% of life on the planet and with a 99.999% certainty of such a hit, would still say "You will NOT raise my taxes one single penny as long as there's even the slightest chance this asteroid won't hit us!"
This is how wedded they are to their ideology.
Now, if we were to say that MUSLIMS are responsible for global climate change, Rappy and his tea-bagging no-nothings would be clamoring for the government to hurry up and do something about it!
As Rappy points out, this guy quit his job over the use of the word "incontrovertible". And Rappy says that this guy's claims are "absolutely right", which is no different than claiming that his own claims are "incontrovertible".
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree that whether people are causing, or contributing to, climate change isn't the main importance, either way we need to curb our negative effect on the earth so we can keep living on it successfully and it keeps giving us what we need.
The main thing I got from this conversation is that in some ways I'm glad there aren't any faeries because when something is pretend we can imagine it however we like, I can imagine them my way, Byte and Frem can imagine them their way and so on. But I do wish such things were real. I guess I'm torn. Oh well my musings aren't going to change anything, but I can still wish and imagine anyways.
That has nothing to do with incontrovertability, but that's what I got from this discussion nonetheless.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Now, if we were to say that MUSLIMS are responsible for global climate change ..."
That is effin' BRILLIANT! Plus it made me lol.
Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?
Yeah, me neither....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
As Rappy points out, this guy quit his job over the use of the word "incontrovertible". And Rappy says that this guy's claims are "absolutely right", which is no different than claiming that his own claims are "incontrovertible".
Actually, I was the one who used the phrase "absolutely right."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:Quote:
As Rappy points out, this guy quit his job over the use of the word "incontrovertible". And Rappy says that this guy's claims are "absolutely right", which is no different than claiming that his own claims are "incontrovertible".
Actually, I was the one who used the phrase "absolutely right."
You weren't the only one using that phrase. Rappy used it here, which is what I responded to:
Quote:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"It's poor science, and he's absolutely right."
Except he's a proponent of equally poor science in the other direction. Do you dismiss HIS poor science as well, based on it being poor science?
He has no 'poor science', in the least. He's absolutely right. You not liking to hear the truth does not make it any less valid.
Deal w/ it.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME