12-20-2012 poll
I may have misunderstood you. I thought you were referring to a few scientists in the seventies who were advancing a theory that pollution would hasten the next ice age. If that wasn't your intent, then I'm sorry for jumping to a conclusion.The Mastiff wrote:To think man is a driving factor in earths climate history seems a bit bizarre to me. We are of no more consequence than one ant to the earth taking the long view.
Just got home from all day in Olympia, so will answer the rest tomorrow. In the meanwhile do you really believe that the scientific consensus on global warming is because of stupidity or a vast conspiracy?
good night
Our reason is quite satisfied, in 999 cases out of every 1000 of us, if we can find a few arguments that will do to recite in case our credulity is criticized by someone else. Our faith is faith in someone else's faith, and in the greatest matters this is most the case.
- William James, from The Will to Believe, a guest lecture at Yale University in 1897
- William James, from The Will to Believe, a guest lecture at Yale University in 1897
I just want to know what about us immortals? What will we do if the world ends. I mean do i have to go hang out on mars or should i see about investing in a space ship. Being immortal isn't easy ya know. Living forever is hard work. I like that show on the History channel Life After People. It's pretty cool how everything pans out just they forget to include me in the series. All I know is Louisiana loves to party and if the world is coming to an end in 2 years and 8 months we'll be throwing a **** of a party. I don't buy this end of the world stuff though. I think everyone whos calendar ends at 2012 just got tired. We still have to wait til 2020 to see flying cars HOW CAN THE WORLD END BEFORE WE GET FLYING DELOREANS?
-
The Mastiff
- Member
- Posts: 6070
- Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:53 am
- Location: raleigh nc
Just got home from all day in Olympia, so will answer the rest tomorrow. In the meanwhile do you really believe that the scientific consensus on global warming is because of stupidity or a vast conspiracy?
Conspiracy? Like aliens and roswell, JFK, the Illuminati? Sorry, I'm not much for conspiracies. What I do see is the left pushing the AGW theory for their own gains before the science has been settled.
Despite the claim there is no consensus about AGW. The claim that there is now, or ever has been a "consensus" is false. There has been an attempt to attack the people in the business that don't agree and do things like label them as "deniers" rather than the scientists they are who have differing viewpoints on this issue. Claiming a consensus does not make it so.
More work needs to be done before conclusions can be made. All the catastrophic rhetoric that has been stuffed down peoples throats hasn't helped the pro AGW'ers case IMO. It makes it look like they have an agenda other than finding out the truth.
The current scandals have woke some up though as to how the whole process was done. Here, the left seems to be trying to go on as if nothing has happened, and all is well. That's their business though.
Whether AGW is true or not is irrelevant to the fact that we need to find better and more economical technologies and lifestyles if there are going to be so darn many of us humans sharing the earth. There are getting to be quite a lot of us.
"A Mastiff is to a dog what a Lion is to a housecat. He stands alone and all others sink before him. His courage does not exceed temper and generosity, and in attachment he equals the kindest of his race" Cynographia Britannic 1800
"Unless you're the lead dog the view is pretty much gonna stay the same!"
"Unless you're the lead dog the view is pretty much gonna stay the same!"
-
The Mastiff
- Member
- Posts: 6070
- Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:53 am
- Location: raleigh nc
Yes, their theory then is about as half baked as the current AGW theory. This one now has better PR though. Just some of the many we've seen.I may have misunderstood you. I thought you were referring to a few scientists in the seventies who were advancing a theory that pollution would hasten the next ice age. If that wasn't your intent, then I'm sorry for jumping to a conclusion.
I know that's not what you meant, or wanted to hear but that's my view on it. :)
Growing up in Ohio, then Michigan i always had a curiosity about the past glaciations and history of the weather in North America. The evidence and detrius of the past glaciation and melting were everywhere around us, just laying there. I learned everything I could then, and still do.
The biggest thing I have learned is that our science is still just in it's infancy. We are all just kids learning and relearning when new things are discovered. The changes in science canon in my lifetime are astounding, and I'm only in my 40's.
Depending on your age you might be amazed what we were taught in school about dinosaurs, astronomy, geology, vulconology, even ( maybe especially) physics. It bears no resembleance almost to what is accepted canon now.
Start out looking at what we don't know, and know what we don't know about the driving forces of the climate in earths past history. Not the easy stuff like the cooling after Tambora, but why the earth snowballed up. When I was in school they didn't even know it had happened, but I digress.
Why have there been ice ages. Why do they end? What makes them come back?
We have bits and pieces of the puzzle. Oceanic currents, tectonic movement, etc., etc, etc. What about the Sun, the single largest driver of our climate? What do we know of it's effects, it's fluctuations and cycles. How about the next biggest driver, Our earths Precession and wobble in it's orbit?
Bits and pieces. Much more work by all the combined disciplines needs to be done before it's settled IMO. Right now it's too politicized, and thousands of scientists have stated politics are and have affected their research, jobs, grants etc.
Lets look back in 20, then again 40 years at what we now know as fact, and what they think of the supposed "consensus" on AGW.
"A Mastiff is to a dog what a Lion is to a housecat. He stands alone and all others sink before him. His courage does not exceed temper and generosity, and in attachment he equals the kindest of his race" Cynographia Britannic 1800
"Unless you're the lead dog the view is pretty much gonna stay the same!"
"Unless you're the lead dog the view is pretty much gonna stay the same!"
-
The Mastiff
- Member
- Posts: 6070
- Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:53 am
- Location: raleigh nc
I never really did speak to this either:
If any scientists were found to have accepted public funds and falsified data, prosecution should be looked at. Likewise for any politicians that have tried to enrich themselves, or media companies that used their influence to promote the theory while squashing info not in line with their pro AGW position ( ie: the BBC investing over 30% of their pension funds in firms that will make money from AGW while doing everything in their power to squash the scandal from being known, not to mention their obvious years of pro AGW propaganda ) should be investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
This is potentially the largest monetary scam in history that also reaches deep into politics and some well known , powerful people. It should be investigated in the same manner an insider trading investigation, for instance is done.
__________________
Yes, more research should be done, as I indicated earlier. We are no where near the point where we should legislate, tax, or begin forced social changing policies and laws. I don't agree with the AGW'ers position on the "size of the potential threat" so other than cleaning out the rubbish, and scientists that have muddied up the process there's not much to be done other than to continue to research.As for global warming, I'm not surprised by the number of deniers, but I am surprised that they always state the issue as black or white, 100% certainty in either case. Shouldn't we be able to agree that even if the odds are longer than scientific research and analysis indicates, the size of the potential threat demands that it be taken seriously.
If any scientists were found to have accepted public funds and falsified data, prosecution should be looked at. Likewise for any politicians that have tried to enrich themselves, or media companies that used their influence to promote the theory while squashing info not in line with their pro AGW position ( ie: the BBC investing over 30% of their pension funds in firms that will make money from AGW while doing everything in their power to squash the scandal from being known, not to mention their obvious years of pro AGW propaganda ) should be investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
This is potentially the largest monetary scam in history that also reaches deep into politics and some well known , powerful people. It should be investigated in the same manner an insider trading investigation, for instance is done.
__________________
"A Mastiff is to a dog what a Lion is to a housecat. He stands alone and all others sink before him. His courage does not exceed temper and generosity, and in attachment he equals the kindest of his race" Cynographia Britannic 1800
"Unless you're the lead dog the view is pretty much gonna stay the same!"
"Unless you're the lead dog the view is pretty much gonna stay the same!"
Mastiff,
My own scientific background is as an amateur. I've been keenly interested in most aspects of current scientific research. I went to college thinking I would have a career in science and loved the few courses I took, especially the lab work. Instead though, I went for the bucks, getting a business degree and then a CPA certificate. My favorite science class was actually high school Physics with an incredible teacher, Dr. George Bedard. We went through the whole history of Physics from the ancient Greeks to quantum mechanics. It was a great experience, for instance, to be given a set of solar observations in order to plot the orbit of the sun around the earth.
I've spent at least as much time studying ontology(breaking the universe into systems. This used to be called metaphysics before the term was co-opted to mean mysticism) and especially epistemology, (how we can know things). I've had a few articles published in a quarterly philosophy publication on the epistomology of William James.
Now that I've reciprocated on background, I'll eat breakfast and come back to get into the specifics.
My own scientific background is as an amateur. I've been keenly interested in most aspects of current scientific research. I went to college thinking I would have a career in science and loved the few courses I took, especially the lab work. Instead though, I went for the bucks, getting a business degree and then a CPA certificate. My favorite science class was actually high school Physics with an incredible teacher, Dr. George Bedard. We went through the whole history of Physics from the ancient Greeks to quantum mechanics. It was a great experience, for instance, to be given a set of solar observations in order to plot the orbit of the sun around the earth.
I've spent at least as much time studying ontology(breaking the universe into systems. This used to be called metaphysics before the term was co-opted to mean mysticism) and especially epistemology, (how we can know things). I've had a few articles published in a quarterly philosophy publication on the epistomology of William James.
Now that I've reciprocated on background, I'll eat breakfast and come back to get into the specifics.
Our reason is quite satisfied, in 999 cases out of every 1000 of us, if we can find a few arguments that will do to recite in case our credulity is criticized by someone else. Our faith is faith in someone else's faith, and in the greatest matters this is most the case.
- William James, from The Will to Believe, a guest lecture at Yale University in 1897
- William James, from The Will to Believe, a guest lecture at Yale University in 1897
Mastiff,
Is there scientific consensus on global warming? I could list pages of supporting data, but will just give one example until you present contrary evidence.
Is there scientific consensus on global warming? I could list pages of supporting data, but will just give one example until you present contrary evidence.
A new poll among 3,146 earth scientists found that 90 percent believe global warming is real, while 82 percent agree that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.
The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments*, "found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role".
Doran said wide support among climatologists does not come as a surprise.
"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."
Writing in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Doran and Zimmerman conclude, "the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."
The remaining challenge, they write, "is how to effectively communicate this to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."
*The authors contacted 10,200 scientists listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments and received 3,146 responses to their two questions: "have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels?" and "Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
Our reason is quite satisfied, in 999 cases out of every 1000 of us, if we can find a few arguments that will do to recite in case our credulity is criticized by someone else. Our faith is faith in someone else's faith, and in the greatest matters this is most the case.
- William James, from The Will to Believe, a guest lecture at Yale University in 1897
- William James, from The Will to Believe, a guest lecture at Yale University in 1897
2012 is just another end of the world conspiracy IMO. In my count from people I have known who believe this kind of mumbo jumbo, the world should of ended 6 times since I was born :rolleyes: . But if and or when it ever did/does happen, give me a front row seat to watch :D Besides, human kind will be gone long before the earth is no longer habitable. Its in our nature to destroy everything (including ourselves).
As far as AGW, by left you mean the bulk of the global scientific community I hope as this is not just an American issue. Are humans to blame? Of course we are but not solely. But you can't burn as much of the natural resource we do and say it doesn't have an effect on the environment.
My feeling is why not change our bad habits now. It certainly can't hurt and if anything help the future generations. Doing nothing changes nothing. If we wait till a time when it is difinetively proven then it would be to late to do anything about it.
As far as AGW, by left you mean the bulk of the global scientific community I hope as this is not just an American issue. Are humans to blame? Of course we are but not solely. But you can't burn as much of the natural resource we do and say it doesn't have an effect on the environment.
My feeling is why not change our bad habits now. It certainly can't hurt and if anything help the future generations. Doing nothing changes nothing. If we wait till a time when it is difinetively proven then it would be to late to do anything about it.
-John
-
Jim Malone
- Member
- Posts: 1439
- Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 5:31 pm
- Location: Absurdistan E.U.
The thought of the world ending on 12-20-2012 is ludicrous. Remember the Y2K hoax? The Mayas used a different math system and, and a math system based on the number 20 instead of 10.
So thinking that the Maya's would use the birthdate of a Jewish carpenters son born 13000 km away on what is know as 01/01/00 for Christians that had no connection with their religious belief and calendar is rather hmmm shortsighted.
it's already 5770 for jews, 4707 in the Chinese calendar, 2138 in the Tibetan Calendar but it is still 1431 according to the Islamic calendar.
And where will the "beginning of the end of the world as we know it" begin? Where will it start? Will the day start on 00/00 our in Kiritimati on the Christmas islands or in Pago Pago?
So thinking that the Maya's would use the birthdate of a Jewish carpenters son born 13000 km away on what is know as 01/01/00 for Christians that had no connection with their religious belief and calendar is rather hmmm shortsighted.
it's already 5770 for jews, 4707 in the Chinese calendar, 2138 in the Tibetan Calendar but it is still 1431 according to the Islamic calendar.
And where will the "beginning of the end of the world as we know it" begin? Where will it start? Will the day start on 00/00 our in Kiritimati on the Christmas islands or in Pago Pago?
It's better to be judged by 12 than to be carried by 6
Whether or not global climate change pans out as predicted or not--which we won't know with certainty until it is entirely too late--shifting away from oil and other carbon based energy can only be a good thing. 1) getting oil, coal, n. gas out of the earth and transporting it is responsible for poisoning and/or contaminating water supplies, oceans, beaches, creeks, streams, estuaries etc. 2) north americans sending 80 to 100 billion a month out of the country can't be a good thing 3) being reliant upon nations with dramatically different value systems is likely not a good thing.Tank wrote: My feeling is why not change our bad habits now. It certainly can't hurt and if anything help the future generations. Doing nothing changes nothing. If we wait till a time when it is difinetively proven then it would be to late to do anything about it.
The only plus to a continued addiction to fossil fuels is simplicity and comfort over the short term (and continued wealth streams for the currently wealthy).
I'd give this a big thumbs-up but we don't have a smilie for that. :p2cha wrote:Whether or not global climate change pans out as predicted or not--which we won't know with certainty until it is entirely too late--shifting away from oil and other carbon based energy can only be a good thing. 1) getting oil, coal, n. gas out of the earth and transporting it is responsible for poisoning and/or contaminating water supplies, oceans, beaches, creeks, streams, estuaries etc. 2) north americans sending 80 to 100 billion a month out of the country can't be a good thing 3) being reliant upon nations with dramatically different value systems is likely not a good thing.
The only plus to a continued addiction to fossil fuels is simplicity and comfort over the short term (and continued wealth streams for the currently wealthy).
-
The Mastiff
- Member
- Posts: 6070
- Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:53 am
- Location: raleigh nc
Sorry, This isn't supporting Data. There is plenty of dissent from scientists. There are a few statements here that show a decided pro AGW perspective, not a neutral one.
example: "have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levelses?"
levelses? :) Of course they have. We were/are still coming out of a "little ice age. Temp's would have risen even if no human walked the earth. Where is this evidence from?
In addition, 3146 out of 10,200 responded by stating what? It doesn't state anything about their response there. What about the ones that didn't respond, the majority?
The first sentence states it all. Their agenda, despite the fact there is plenty of dissent.
In addition, how many scientists are now working off skewed or falsified data? How many are merely going with the flow to ensure an income? We need to figure this stuff out before making any changes with far reaching consequences to our and the worlds economies.
By the way, don't look for a bunch of "supporting data". This is the wrong forum for that. To be honest I've generally found these type discussions to be a major waste of time anyway. It's gotten very much like talking religion. I have other interests than online arguments too , BTW. :)
example: "have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levelses?"
levelses? :) Of course they have. We were/are still coming out of a "little ice age. Temp's would have risen even if no human walked the earth. Where is this evidence from?
In addition, 3146 out of 10,200 responded by stating what? It doesn't state anything about their response there. What about the ones that didn't respond, the majority?
The first sentence states it all. Their agenda, despite the fact there is plenty of dissent.
In addition, how many scientists are now working off skewed or falsified data? How many are merely going with the flow to ensure an income? We need to figure this stuff out before making any changes with far reaching consequences to our and the worlds economies.
I sure do agree it would be nice not to have to send huge chunks of our wealth to cultures that want nothing more than to bleed us dry, then destroy us. Likewise polluting our planet.The remaining challenge, they write, "is how to effectively communicate this to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."
*The authors contacted 10,200 scientists listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments and received 3,146 responses to their two questions: "have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levelses?"
By the way, don't look for a bunch of "supporting data". This is the wrong forum for that. To be honest I've generally found these type discussions to be a major waste of time anyway. It's gotten very much like talking religion. I have other interests than online arguments too , BTW. :)
"A Mastiff is to a dog what a Lion is to a housecat. He stands alone and all others sink before him. His courage does not exceed temper and generosity, and in attachment he equals the kindest of his race" Cynographia Britannic 1800
"Unless you're the lead dog the view is pretty much gonna stay the same!"
"Unless you're the lead dog the view is pretty much gonna stay the same!"
-
The Mastiff
- Member
- Posts: 6070
- Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:53 am
- Location: raleigh nc
No. I mean the political left. The ones that have decided they were going to "own" this issue and get political mileage out of it as the parties that want to save the world.As far as AGW, by left you mean the bulk of the global scientific community
The same way the political left thinks they own womens issues, human rights, race relations, etc.
"A Mastiff is to a dog what a Lion is to a housecat. He stands alone and all others sink before him. His courage does not exceed temper and generosity, and in attachment he equals the kindest of his race" Cynographia Britannic 1800
"Unless you're the lead dog the view is pretty much gonna stay the same!"
"Unless you're the lead dog the view is pretty much gonna stay the same!"
To keep shiny a shiny footprint and respect the forum rules I am going to leave this one alone. :DThe Mastiff wrote:No. I mean the political left. The ones that have decided they were going to "own" this issue and get political mileage out of it as the parties that want to save the world.
The same way the political left thinks they own womens issues, human rights, race relations, etc.
-John
-
The Mastiff
- Member
- Posts: 6070
- Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:53 am
- Location: raleigh nc
"A Mastiff is to a dog what a Lion is to a housecat. He stands alone and all others sink before him. His courage does not exceed temper and generosity, and in attachment he equals the kindest of his race" Cynographia Britannic 1800
"Unless you're the lead dog the view is pretty much gonna stay the same!"
"Unless you're the lead dog the view is pretty much gonna stay the same!"
-
Toad310
- Member
- Posts: 587
- Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 4:59 pm
- Location: Palm Desert, Beverly Hills, California
- Contact:
All of this sounds so cool. I want to take an many photos as I can, especially the vampires, and the nuclear war!Sequimite wrote:My wife and I are great Coast to Coast fans and as I understand it, in 2012 there will be a rain of meteorite, super-volcanos erupting, massive tidal waves, recording setting earthquakes, tidal waves, unprecedented winds, attacks from yettis, various water monsters, vampires, aliens and killer bees, plus EMP and nuclear war.
I know I'm forgetting some, but that should do the trick.
To photograph the nuke war in 2012, I just need to figure out the f-stop for the initial flash, then re-set to get the mushroom cloud.
For now I guess I could run tests on an Arc Welder?
Would I apply to the UN for Media Credentials?
Can't wait...sounds like 2012 is going to be a fun year!
Also, it will finally be nice to meet the aliens, I am tired of people anyway. Maybe some of the alien females will be hot!
I hate bees, so I will stay clear of that. The water monsters will be great.
This is going to be really fun. I am going to train for this by renting all the disaster movies.
You know, I normally use just my camera equipment, but I may need my Glocks, and UZI, and AR with the clips in them...the vampires could give me trouble. I better watch that Will Smith movie again to get ready for the vampires!
After all this, I am going to go to Hawaii to relax...if it is still there.
Come on 2012!!!
This will, be better than photographing Tiger woods at the Masters!
I doubt the forum will survive, so I just want to take this opportunity to say that it has been a wonderful experience here with you guy's , and I will miss Spyderco. Unless Spyderco can bribe a high level General at NORAD. That is close to them. All I ask is the do not forget to take some Toads, and a few Co-pilots with them.
Good night, and good luck!