|
Post by Mister Buch on Feb 17, 2013 16:18:18 GMT 1
I just wanted to start a massive fight and ruin friendships post this quote from Neil Degrasse 'Please Hire Me For Cosmos 2' Tyson. The guy has some wisdom. If ever there was a way to sum up the point of scientific and anti-religious / anti-superstitious viewpoints, that's it.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Feb 17, 2013 16:27:29 GMT 1
I'm gonna kick off by saying Tyson is one of the most awesome guys in science....ever.
|
|
|
Post by Lily Ariel Linders on Feb 17, 2013 16:32:53 GMT 1
;D I like that guy...
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Feb 17, 2013 21:25:25 GMT 1
*smiles politely, waves, then leaves*
|
|
|
Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on Feb 18, 2013 0:12:47 GMT 1
Ah, but on the matter of global warming, how much of the "science" is actual science and how much of it is bunk? Most of the studies I've seen published weren't peer reviewed, the data didn't jive with the stated findings, etc.
Also, per NASA, the rest of the planets in the Solar System are heating up at a rate comparable to that of Earth. So there's either a lot of SUVs and the like on the other planets or something else is responsible.
|
|
|
Post by Warhammer Gorvar on Feb 18, 2013 0:21:58 GMT 1
Aliens are planning a invasion, hence the warming up on those planets. But when they attack our planet we will unleash our secret weapon. Cyborg dinosaurs with machine guns and rocket launchers.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Feb 18, 2013 0:49:25 GMT 1
I was a climate change skeptic until recently.
The science is lining up. The last holdouts who were opposing the idea in the scientific community are acknowledging that there is something going on. It is pretty hard to be a denier these days.
Gore and company are a pack of hacks, but the list of those who signed against climate change is downright thin these days.
|
|
|
Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on Feb 18, 2013 1:08:28 GMT 1
I was a climate change skeptic until recently. The science is lining up. The last holdouts who were opposing the idea in the scientific community are acknowledging that there is something going on. It is pretty hard to be a denier these days. Gore and company are a pack of hacks, but the list of those who signed against climate change is downright thin these days. Oh, I'm not saying climate change isn't happening. I am saying the source isn't what most of the hacks say it is. Looking at solar activity over the past few decades, the sun's been getting hotter bit by bit which would jive with the warming of all the planets in the Sol system. Also, volcanic activity is responsible for the majority of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, though cars don't help matters (nor do Chinese industrial plants). I find it's pure hubris to think that mankind is capable of "doing something about global warming/climate change". These forces are well beyond our control.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Feb 18, 2013 1:09:23 GMT 1
I always regret speaking around here.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Feb 18, 2013 1:11:54 GMT 1
The science moving closer to working on that one as well. The "man made part" was my last holdout as well. The smoking gun has not yet been found but by damn they are working on it. I won't accept it from anyone associated from Gore though. His financial stake in the green industries is too high to accept anything he says at face.
I'm not a climatologist. but when the majority of them are saying a thing is happening and there is no research that can stand up to peer review to oppose it, it has to be taken seriously.
|
|
|
Post by A Normal Pathfinder on Feb 18, 2013 15:17:37 GMT 1
I'm for Tyson....
|
|
MEdiscovery
Gunnery Chief
The discovery of a life time.
Posts: 93
|
Post by MEdiscovery on May 25, 2013 13:02:21 GMT 1
Oh, I'm not saying climate change isn't happening. I am saying the source isn't what most of the hacks say it is. Looking at solar activity over the past few decades, the sun's been getting hotter bit by bit which would jive with the warming of all the planets in the Sol system. Also, volcanic activity is responsible for the majority of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, though cars don't help matters (nor do Chinese industrial plants). I find it's pure hubris to think that mankind is capable of "doing something about global warming/climate change". These forces are well beyond our control. Are most of these "hacks" the majority of the scientific community? The reason anthropogenic global warming has such weight in politics is because it has a scientific consensus. Before you begin to cite individual scientists and exercise the classic appeal to authority, I'd like to point out that 95-97% climatologists agree that global warming is man-made or, at least, that heavy industry contributes to a notable, sizable, and dangerous amount of it. Ah, but on the matter of global warming, how much of the "science" is actual science and how much of it is bunk? Most of the studies I've seen published weren't peer reviewed, the data didn't jive with the stated findings, etc. Can you please provide me with evidence that these studies were not peer review, or lacked substantial evidence to support the conclusion? Also, per NASA, the rest of the planets in the Solar System are heating up at a rate comparable to that of Earth. So there's either a lot of SUVs and the like on the other planets or something else is responsible. Again, can you provide me with the evidence to support this claim? Unless, of course, you want to debate with an overwhelming amount of experts on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on May 25, 2013 14:55:47 GMT 1
Here's a fact for you: you know that eruption of that volcano in Iceland a few years back? That spewed out enough greenhouse gasses to negate just about every effort of people trying to stop global warming for the prior 10 years. Not to mention a sharp decrease in solar activity is the most likely culprit of the "little ice age" from 1650-1850. Now human activity does have an effect on global warming, when I see things like the recent announcement of "we now have more CO2 in our atmosphere than ever before" but we've only been taking measurements since about the 1950s, I'm going to be very suspicious of the claim. As it sits we cannot predict with any degree of serious reliability what the weather will be like two weeks from now. How are we to be able to accurately and reliably predict what it will be like a century from now? Also, I've seen claims that the average recorded temperature over the past couple hundred years has increased by .1 degree C. I'm pretty sure the instruments used to record those temperatures were cruder, less precise, and less reliable than what we have now. We also have to consider how many people abuse science in the name of pushing a political view (not that uncommon throughout history). Once again, I'm not going to deny human factors in environmentalism. In recent memory, rivers were so polluted that it wasn't unknown for them to catch fire and I'm glad we've gotten past it. What I am saying is I'm highly skeptical of many of the alarmist-sounding claims given reports like this one: www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603 . Bottom line: the overall equation is far more complex than simply "we need to burn less fossil fuels" (which I agree with, I prefer nuclear, geothermal, and hydroelectric sources of energy myself).
|
|
MEdiscovery
Gunnery Chief
The discovery of a life time.
Posts: 93
|
Post by MEdiscovery on May 25, 2013 15:12:36 GMT 1
Here's a fact for you: you know that eruption of that volcano in Iceland a few years back? That spewed out enough greenhouse gasses to negate just about every effort of people trying to stop global warming for the prior 10 years. Not to mention a sharp decrease in solar activity is the most likely culprit of the "little ice age" from 1650-1850. I find no relevance in these unsubstantiated statements. Can you please hyperlink your claims so I can look at actual studies that suggest such things? Now human activity does have an effect on global warming, when I see things like the recent announcement of "we now have more CO2 in our atmosphere than ever before" but we've only been taking measurements since about the 1950s, I'm going to be very suspicious of the claim. As it sits we cannot predict with any degree of serious reliability what the weather will be like two weeks from now. How are we to be able to accurately and reliably predict what it will be like a century from now? Also, I've seen claims that the average recorded temperature over the past couple hundred years has increased by .1 degree C. I'm pretty sure the instruments used to record those temperatures were cruder, less precise, and less reliable than what we have now. We also have to consider how many people abuse science in the name of pushing a political view (not that uncommon throughout history). We began to record temperatures far before 1950. Said evidence already suggests that the overall temperature has been gradually climbing over several decades. Once again, I'm not going to deny human factors in environmentalism. In recent memory, rivers were so polluted that it wasn't unknown for them to catch fire and I'm glad we've gotten past it. What I am saying is I'm highly skeptical of many of the alarmist-sounding claims given reports like this one: www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603 . I have already stated that these claims are in the scientific minority, and are therefore less creditable than those findings accepted by the majority. Bottom line: the overall equation is far more complex than simply "we need to burn less fossil fuels" (which I agree with, I prefer nuclear, geothermal, and hydroelectric sources of energy myself). Nor did I say that the resolution to the issue was simplistic. There are many economic precautions to take consideration of. I am afraid, however, that you are part of a small scientific fringe group that denies the overwhelming amount of evidence suggesting that anthropogenic global warming is true.
|
|
|
Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on May 25, 2013 15:19:02 GMT 1
First off, since when is "being in a minority" equate to "being incorrect"? Galileo was in the scientific minority of his time. He was proven correct in many of his assertions.
Second of all, I'm going to go over the actual data (not the interpretations of data) I can find and re-evaluate my claims. I know from prior experience that many people have been using climate change as a stalking horse to push their political agendas, hence my skepticism.
|
|