What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

climate change times are a changin'

Status
Not open for further replies.
huskyfan said:
and does anyone know why the name was changed from global warming to climate change. help me out here. I'm trying to learn.
Click to expand...

To combat the type of idiocy that dismisses climate change every time there's a few cold weeks in winter.

And because the impacts are greater than just temperature: it impacts her streams, rainfall, etc.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

Slap Shot said:
I don't think it's anywhere close to 60/40.
Click to expand...

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf

Doran & Zimmerman (2009) relied upon 79 self-selected earth scientists (qualifications unstated) who claimed to have published something on climate change recently [Figure 5].

These were drawn from a field of 3,146 respondents, many of whom protested the style of questionnaire on grounds that it is inherently unscientific to ask an opinion question, with no scientific parameters, on an empirical topic. The actual survey numbers are broken down below. [Figure 6]
Click to expand...

The figures, found on page 7, breakdown like this:
7,111 non-respondents to the survey
3,069 ignored responses
75 affirmed responses
2 negative responses

75/77 = 97%

Total surveys submitted to field scientists, 10,257. 3,146 respondents to the survey yet only 75 of the 77 is the pool of response they cherry picked is creates that 97% figure people like to bandy about.

The survey with the highest affirmation % of AGW by scientists in the field was a 66/34 split. My 60/40 wasn't so far off.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

Slap Shot said:
The fact the climate has regularly warmed and cooled doesn't invalidate the scientific evidence that man is negatively influencing the climate like at no other time in history. Why do draggers continue to roll with this line of defense?
Click to expand...

I think it absolutely does. How do you explain the Earth going in and out of an ice age with no humans around to impact the climate? If the Earth can warm and cool to that extreme without us around to negatively influencing the climate, how could we possibly make it any worse than that by driving, burning coal, or exhaling?


unofan said:
Who needs drastic action?

I'd start with a simple elimination of the "derp, 'dem elite librul scientists R so stooped. I'll show them by burning extra gas and buying the biggest incandescent light bulbs I can find out of spite" demographic.

We're not going to eliminate coal and oil for our energy needs anytime soon, nor should we until there is a viable option. But doing things like indexing the gas tax to inflation, funding railroads, funding alternative energy, and otherwise not acting like spiteful dumbasses for political reasons would be a sufficient start. I don't particularly like Al Gore either, but let's not forget the national parks were created by Teddy Roosevelt and the EPA was started by Richard Nixon. Instead of running from that past, I wish the modern day GOP would embrace it.
Click to expand...

So throwing money at technology will make this problem go away? We've been doing that. How much is enough? There has to be a better option. If there is a technology breakthrough that makes this more cost effective, all of this will change.


Foxton said:
It's amazing how well you've illustrated your scientific illiteracy in a single line. Kudos
Click to expand...

What am I missing then? Please enlighten me. It seemed to me that many were missing a step and assuming climate change as gospel so thought I'd help by pointing that out.
 
Last edited:
Re: climate change times are a changin'

The fact that Foxton doesn't comprehend that in science, you start with a hypothesis, then develop a theory, based on that hypothesis, and if that theory proves true, due to applicable tests, the theory becomes fact (or law, as was stated earlier), is a bit alarming, and actually, very telling.
 
Tiggsy said:
So throwing money at technology will make this problem go away? We've been doing that. How much is enough? There has to be a better option. If there is a technology breakthrough that makes this more cost effective, all of this will change.
Click to expand...

I see. You aren't willing to concede even minor points like not wasting gas for the hell of it. You just want to argue.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

bigblue_dl said:
The fact that Foxton doesn't comprehend that in science, you start with a hypothesis, then develop a theory, based on that hypothesis, and if that theory proves true, due to applicable tests, the theory becomes fact (or law, as was stated earlier), is a bit alarming, and actually, very telling.
Click to expand...

And yet I'm somehow the science illiterate one. Strange. :confused:
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

Priceless said:
We shouldn't throw any money at the problem. We just need to teach our kids to tread water. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

So you think we're going to be underwater in our kids' lifetime? Wow, talk about being an alarmist. How much longer do we have?


unofan said:
I see. You aren't willing to concede even minor points like not wasting gas for the hell of it. You just want to argue.
Click to expand...

Please point out where you mentioned that. You were making broad statements about your plan. I was making broad statements in response.
 
Last edited:
Tiggsy said:
So you think we're going to be underwater in our kids' lifetime? Wow, talk about being an alarmist. How much longer do we have?
Click to expand...

No, we have to jump start evolution. Hopefully by the time the oceans cover the eastern seaboard our descendants will have adapted gills. If we're still walking on two feet human beings won't have a chance.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

The Earth is too small to keep.all its eggs in one basket (or something like that).

We need a genius to discover a better way to power a spaceship than using chemicals.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

Priceless said:
No, we have to jump start evolution. Hopefully by the time the oceans cover the eastern seaboard our descendants will have adapted gills. If we're still walking on two feet human beings won't have a chance.
Click to expand...

If the oceans increase 10', which is the biggest number I've heard or read on this topic, how far inland will that take the oceans from the current shorelines?
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

Priceless said:
No, we have to jump start evolution. Hopefully by the time the oceans cover the eastern seaboard our descendants will have adapted gills. If we're still walking on two feet human beings won't have a chance.
Click to expand...

You're right. But it has nothing to do with walking. It has to do with the gills. If we stop exhaling CO2 from breathing with our lungs, we will save the world. So get on this and let us know how we can get it moving too.

EDIT: Wait! If we develop gills, how long will it be until we have oceanic climate change from our gills diffusing CO2 into the water?

St. Clown said:
If the oceans increase 10', which is the biggest number I've heard or read on this topic, how far inland will that take the oceans from the current shorelines?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter since we're all doomed anyways.
 
Last edited:
Re: climate change times are a changin'

Tiggsy said:
You're right. But it has nothing to do with walking. It has to do with the gills. If we stop exhaling CO2 from breathing with our lungs, we will save the world. So get on this and let us know how we can get it moving too.

EDIT: Wait! If we develop gills, how long will it be until we have oceanic climate change from our gills diffusing CO2 into the water?



Doesn't matter since we're all doomed anyways.
Click to expand...

Pfft, the elevation around here is in the region of 600' above mean sea level. Priceless may need to learn to swim, but we're good.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

Tiggsy said:
And yet I'm somehow the science illiterate one. Strange. :confused:
Click to expand...
Because if you were scientifically literate, you would not be using those terms like that or agreeing with that dolt bigblue. A theory and law are two different things not stages to be taken on a path.

A theory is an explanation for how and why that incorporates facts, laws, and testable hypothesis. And it will only be accepted as a theory if it conforms to those facts, laws, and the hypothesis that make it up. After a certain point, a theory becomes so strongly supported that new information that could have falsified it before is instead used to refine and make it more correct. It can never be proven, only falsified because nothing can be 100% tested for every possible circumstance.

To quote Einstein, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

While a law is a generalization that will be true with given circumstances. Like the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it's going to be true so long as it's in a closed system. Or Ohm's Law for an electrical circuit, which is one of the laws that make up electromagnetic theory. The key point is that they are only said to be true given specific conditions they are not universal.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

unofan said:
I see. You aren't willing to concede even minor points like not wasting gas for the hell of it. You just want to argue.
Click to expand...

That's been evident for a little while now. Conservatives tend to find comfort in being stupid or in denial, and hey that's cool. Climate change just doesn't get me going much, so I can't be bothered to get into a brawl over it. As long as we have an Admin that keeps raising fuel standards, expanding green energy, and burning cleaner fuel (gas instead of coal - BTW wasn't Clown supposed to post a link showing how natural gas is as dirty as coal).

Now if I DID want to argue, I'd bring up that huskyfan bought into the Unskewed Polls guy hook, line, and sinker last year, as was SURE Romney was going to be elected President, and how her arguments here sound eerily familiar....but again, I don't want to argue. :D ;)
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

Foxton said:
Because if you were scientifically literate, you would not be using those terms like that or agreeing with that dolt bigblue. A theory and law are two different things not stages to be taken on a path.

A theory is an explanation for how and why that incorporates facts, laws, and testable hypothesis. And it will only be accepted as a theory if it conforms to those facts, laws, and the hypothesis that make it up. After a certain point, a theory becomes so strongly supported that new information that could have falsified it before is instead used to refine and make it more correct. It can never be proven, only falsified because nothing can be 100% tested for every possible circumstance.

To quote Einstein, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

While a law is a generalization that will be true with given circumstances. Like the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it's going to be true so long as it's in a closed system. Or Ohm's Law for an electrical circuit, which is one of the laws that make up electromagnetic theory. The key point is that they are only said to be true given specific conditions they are not universal.
Click to expand...
Maybe since you're so literate, you can read what we're talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top