Did I miss something??

[Geof]

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

[fizzissist]

Gee. I didn't know yuz guys was so much smarter than me.

I'd bet you guys could even measure stuff like spectral dependence of the angular distributions of photoelectrons, when you cross a laser beam and a aluminum, phosphorus, or silicon anion (that's the negative one, I know, I Googled it..) beam and get single-photon detachment, and measure 'em at 5 discrete wavelengths too!

I'm certain I can ask Friedwardt Winterberg if he can explain the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to me.

So much to learn.....

[braidmeister]

Nobody has yet to answer this simple question:

IF global warming is real and the scientific proof is irrefutable...

What ACTION are you going to take to correct it?

One would think that the age old 'Chevy vs. Ford' type argument could be overshadowed by a SOLUTION. Despite all of the 'accredited' and 'non-accredited' intellectuals offering opposing points of view, nobody has posted a solution to this proposed global conundrum.

Why is that?

-B

[NinerSevenTango]

http://www.junkscience.com/Ozone/ozone_seasonal.html

[jetski]

Hey I have a good one. About a year ago a guy was working for me (2nd generation hippy vegian). Nice guy, fun to debate with. Went to a some anti polution bike ride 10 miles from his house. Got in his 85 cutlass with a hopped up big block he rebuild. Chucked his bike in the back and parked 5 blocks away where nobody would see he drove pulled out the bike and went to the event. When he told me all I could do was laugh my butt off. He though I was being very harsh. I had to ask if that was like setting a brush fire to save the trees. Oh I forgot to tell you he has a leather coat. Don't ask about drugs it's ok to rip the environment to pieces for that purpose you know risk blowing up a neighbor hood to make Meth, you know all the safe gasses there are not hurting nothing. But God forbid you crush one styrofoam cup and destroy one cubic inch of ozone. I wait for the comments on this.

[NinerSevenTango]

Rhodan,

Surely in all that education you mention, there was at least one class where a professor remarked that the burden of proof is on the one who posits a scenario, and that trying to prove a negative is a pointless exercise.

Pointing out that correlation does not necessarily imply causality, and pointing out that effects don't occur before the purported cause is not demagoguery. Pointing out that there is not enough information given to make a definitive conclusion is not the same as claiming it can't be true if someone doesn't understand it.

The accusations of demagoguery and arguing from a position of ignorance cut both ways.

Claiming that something is so complicated that it is beyond everyone else's understanding is a religious argument. It might intimidate most people into silence. But it should be used carefully -- if you fall for the premise that everyone else is irredeemably corrupt and stupid, you might run across someone who is not, leaving you vulnerable to the same attack -- and it is a singularly bad tactic for persuasion, convincing and impressing none but the most gullible.

It amounts to a personal attack instead of information and reasoning. How about we trade information and lines of reasoning instead?

We are all fallible, and that is all the more reason to be careful with epistemology, lest we make very expensive mistakes. At the least, we should be willing to share the information that leads us to our conclusions.

The argument from authority instead of reason always comes from 'the man behind the curtain'.

--97T--

[Rekd]

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Ouch!

Great debate, guys!

[jetski]

Ninerseventango Wow my mouth wont stretch that far. I was trying to read what you said, and man...you know I move my lips when I read and well, first I tore my lip, and then I threw my jaw out! Canundrum..? is that a drum with a 40mm round in it. Ninerseventango I just had to add some fun. Don't take it personal I agree with you I think. Rekd I have strict rules on what goes in my sippy cup. W. C. Fields I drink nothing stroger than Gin before noon. Any thing more than that and my sippy cup melts.

[Rhodan]

Rhodan,

Surely in all that education you mention, there was at least one class where a professor remarked that the burden of proof is on the one who posits a scenario, and that trying to prove a negative is a pointless exercise.

Correct, and 20 years ago the scientific community said "Not enough proof". Today, thats turned around and the scientific community says "climate change is real and is most likely due to human activity.

Pointing out that correlation does not necessarily imply causality, and pointing out that effects don't occur before the purported cause is not demagoguery. Pointing out that there is not enough information given to make a definitive conclusion is not the same as claiming it can't be true if someone doesn't understand it.

Dismissing evidence out of hand then claiming there is not enough evidence to support the assertion and claiming that presenters of such evidence are politically, religiously, or financially motived for thier own gain is demagoguery.

The accusations of demagoguery and arguing from a position of ignorance cut both ways.

Claiming that something is so complicated that it is beyond everyone else's understanding is a religious argument. It might intimidate most people into silence. But it should be used carefully -- if you fall for the premise that everyone else is irredeemably corrupt and stupid, you might run across someone who is not, leaving you vulnerable to the same attack -- and it is a singularly bad tactic for persuasion, convincing and impressing none but the most gullible.

It amounts to a personal attack instead of information and reasoning. How about we trade information and lines of reasoning instead?

Show me where I said this is so complicated that it is beyond everyone elses understanding. I said no such thing. I said if someone didn't understand then they should either give the nod to those that do OR learn the topic themselves.

We are all fallible, and that is all the more reason to be careful with epistemology, lest we make very expensive mistakes. At the least, we should be willing to share the information that leads us to our conclusions.

The argument from authority instead of reason always comes from 'the man behind the curtain'.

--97T--

And for the other folks using the "if you're so much smarter than me then" dodge - show me where I said any such thing? If the word "ignorance" is confusing you, try looking it up at an online dictionary. Ignorance means lack of knowledge. Being ignorant of a topic means lack of knowledge of a topic and has nothing to do with lack of intelligence. If you choose to be insulted that is unfortunate but, that's your choice.

[Geof]

Nobody has yet to answer this simple question:

IF global warming is real and the scientific proof is irrefutable...

What ACTION are you going to take to correct it?

-B

In post 26 I implied an answer, which in my opinion is: Nothing because there is nothing I, you or anybody can do. Anybody who denies global warming is being foolish; the folks in the Northern States and Canada would be living under or above a few thousand feet of ice and Miami would be many many miles from the coast due to lowered sea levels if global warming had not occurred over the past many thousands of years. Yes it overshot around 5000 or 6000 years ago and then possibly went a bit lower than at present but oscillations in any complicated feedback system are not unusual.

Anybody who claims it is due to human activity and can be corrected by anything we do is dreaming.

[braidmeister]

Geof,
Thanks for chiming in...I forgot about the 'entertainment' aspect of this thread that to me, is analogous to coporate meetings I used to attend when I worked in the saltmines...I keep forgetting that most would rather whine, complain and just talk about problems rather than solving them, because they get something out of it...This is of course if the problem is actually solvable. Mountain climbing over molehills that we cannot change is just a waste of time.

I guess now that I run my own business, there is no time for peanut galleries...only time for solutions that work and taking action.

-B

[Geof]

...I guess now that I run my own business, there is no time for peanut galleries...only time for solutions that work and taking action....-B

If you only have time for solutions that work to quote Kipling 'you're a better man than me Gungha Din'. I always seem to find the time to come up with two or three solutions that don't work first. But I do find tme for peanut galleries.