Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#5,031
#5,031
TennTradition said:
Wouldn't you think this is true for most professions?
Click to expand...

Why would you assume something to be true just because someone says it is true? If someone comes to you and says this is the solution to this problem do you trust them? Don't you want to fully understand the problem and their solution first?
 
#5,032
#5,032
Since this ozone issue has been brought up I have reread some of the claims made from NASA, EPA, National Geo, Scientific American, Wiki, etc. I was not really clued into it back then and like many assumed it must be a real problem since apparently a non political entity like NASA was a believer of man-caused ozone depletion. It is possible that this is and was a problem. But it is also possible that this is an example of crony capitalism-leftist environmentalists-statists (including scientists) cartel. I am skeptical and would have a lot of questions. We (presumptively speaking for a lot of us) do not tacitly believe this cartel any longer.
 
#5,033
#5,033
Sandvol said:
Why would you assume something to be true just because someone says it is true? If someone comes to you and says this is the solution to this problem do you trust them? Don't you want to fully understand the problem and their solution first?
Click to expand...

I don't think it is laughable for someone to accept experts' understanding even if that person doesn't fully understand it.

I'm not suggesting someone shouldn't try to understand it. That's better. But it isn't laughable if they don't. I accepted long ago that I wasn't going to be able to understand everything as much as is like without diluting myself to non-productivity. So, I choose my battles and trust SMEs when I need to.

I think it is much more laughable to legitimately question whether free radical chlorine initiated chemistry leads to ozone depletion than it is to accept that the sea of atmospheric chemists are right when you don't understand it.

Asking questions to better understand is one thing. Asking questions as if 5th grade science must hold the answer that is contrary to accepted understanding (presumably because if it leads to regulation it must be a hoax) is another.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,035
#5,035
Sandvol said:
Why would you assume something to be true just because someone says it is true? If someone comes to you and says this is the solution to this problem do you trust them? Don't you want to fully understand the problem and their solution first?
Click to expand...

The go to attitude of if I don't/can't understand it then it must not be true/a hoax is what I'm laughing at. It's narcissistic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,037
#5,037
TennTradition said:
The go to attitude of if I don't/can't understand it then it must not be true/a hoax is what I'm laughing at. It's narcissistic.
Click to expand...

I don't know if the science is understood or fully developed. It seems the cartel want governments to create treaties, enact new taxes and regulations, alter the free market , grow government on some environmental catastrophe that might occur "if" it were true.
 
#5,038
#5,038
TennTradition said:
I don't think it is laughable for someone to accept experts' understanding even if that person doesn't fully understand it.

I'm not suggesting someone shouldn't try to understand it. That's better. But it isn't laughable if they don't. I accepted long ago that I wasn't going to be able to understand everything as much as is like without diluting myself to non-productivity. So, I choose my battles and trust SMEs when I need to.

I think it is much more laughable to legitimately question whether free radical chlorine initiated chemistry leads to ozone depletion than it is to accept that the sea of atmospheric chemists are right when you don't understand it.

Asking questions to better understand is one thing. Asking questions as if 5th grade science must hold the answer that is contrary to accepted understanding (presumably because if it leads to regulation it must be a hoax) is another.
Click to expand...

"Sea of atmospheric chemists." I don't question the fact that free radicals, whether they are chlorine or other atoms can react with ozone just like I don't question the fact that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared.
 
#5,042
#5,042
mrorange211 said:
Reached 64 degrees in Antartica today. Nothing to see here.
Click to expand...

And...here's the source:

Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog : 63.5°F in Antarctica: Possible Continental Record; 14 Years of Rain in 1 Day in Chile | Weather Underground

The warmest temperature ever recorded on the continent of Antarctica may have occurred on Tuesday, March 24, 2015, when the mercury shot up to 63.5°F (17.5°C) at Argentina's Esperanza Base on the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula.

Prior to this week's remarkable heat wave, the hottest known temperature in Antarctica was the 62.8°F (17.1°C) recorded at Esperanza Base on April 24, 1961.
Click to expand...

So 40+ years between the records. Isn't that kind of counter to the whole argument?

But I love the comments in the CNBC article:

Obamacare is the real reason the ice caps are melting. Once Obamacare and the Democrats runs its toll with the White House, the ice caps will form again and eliminate global warming altogether.
Click to expand...
 
#5,043
#5,043
Sandvol said:
Maybe they can build a golf course down there. Golf in Antarctica. Awesome.
Click to expand...

Cool story bro and all, but I got to play a round of golf in Iceland with a tee time of 11:45 PM. I was working nights at the time and we headed out to the course (where we weren't really supposed to be) and got in 15 holes before the Icelandic Police found us and told us to leave.
 
#5,044
#5,044
Grand Vol said:
Cool story bro and all, but I got to play a round of golf in Iceland with a tee time of 11:45 PM. I was working nights at the time and we headed out to the course (where we weren't really supposed to be) and got in 15 holes before the Icelandic Police found us and told us to leave.
Click to expand...
At least you broke 80. If you had played the last 3.....
 
Last edited:
#5,045
#5,045
1972 Grad said:
At least you broke 80. If had played the last 3.....
Click to expand...

I don't recall what the score was. All I do remember was the "rough" consisted of rocks and grass up to about your knees. And one of the out of bounds was literally a cliff and the ocean.

What cracked me up were the police when they came driving up the fairway and told us to leave since we could "tear up the grass."

As if the tread marks from the tires weren't bad enough lol
 
#5,046
#5,046
Grand Vol said:
I don't recall what the score was. All I do remember was the "rough" consisted of rocks and grass up to about your knees. And one of the out of bounds was literally a cliff and the ocean.

What cracked me up were the police when they came driving up the fairway and told us to leave since we could "tear up the grass."

As if the tread marks from the tires weren't bad enough lol
Click to expand...
Sounds like Whittles or Wallace Hills back in the old days.
 
#5,047
#5,047
Grand Vol said:
Cool story bro and all, but I got to play a round of golf in Iceland with a tee time of 11:45 PM. I was working nights at the time and we headed out to the course (where we weren't really supposed to be) and got in 15 holes before the Icelandic Police found us and told us to leave.
Click to expand...

It seems like their police have the same response time as our police.
 
#5,048
#5,048
TennTradition said:
I'm still having a good chuckle over the notion that the free radical reactions caused by CFCs that lead to ozone depletion aren't well understood and that the hole** thing could be a hoax.

** :)
Click to expand...

What baffles me is how the anti-environmentalists believe guys like Fred Singer who just so happen to oppose the scientific consensus on every issue that is inconvenient for industry (aka "junk science"). And they call themselves "skeptics"

I mean, this guy a cold war physicist who claims he should've gotten credit for inventing the satellite. Do you really think he can also simultaneously be an expert on tobacco, acid rain, ozone, asbestos, climate, etc.? Do you really think he knows more about epidemiology than, say, someone who has trained their entire life in epidemiology? Do you think he knows more about atmospheric chemistry than atmospheric chemists?

The charade is just so painfully obvious sometimes
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,050
#5,050
Grand Vol said:
Oh, imagine that. You reaching yet again for the big tobacco conspiracy theory...
Click to expand...
No, just pointing out the obvious logical fallacy in that dumb denier talking point.

...but we can go there if you like. Do you not believe that the fossil fuel industry is employing many of the same PR tactics, actors, and organizations as tobacco? It's not a theory; it's a real-life conspiracy. They do exist, but it can (understandably) be hard to tell the difference. Would you like to see documentation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top