joffer
Footballguy
well, the bolded is just silly.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter NCCommish
- Start date
renesauz
IBL Representative
I don't think it's meaningless at all. It's a clear demonstration regarding the failure of our government and our two parties to work together to solve problems, instead tending to discredit anything done by the other party simply because it was the other party.
Sand
Footballguy
We can now all witness how accurate ABC was in their predictions from 2008 for what would happen by June 2015. Glad they're on the case. Spot on, guys.
Dr Oadi
Footballguy
Thankfully the American people elected Obama and He receded the waters and saved the economy from destruction.
Jim11
Footballguy
Gore's been predicting devastation for what, 15 years? He's been about as accurate as ABC.
Galileo
Footballguy
cstu
Footballguy
Sand
Footballguy
Another very interesting article here. I'm glad to see that we're installing pristine weather stations where there are no questions about the vagaries of changing urbanization. What's missing is a direct comparison to the "standard" adulterated data set that NOAA is using for the US over the last decade. I recall that the adulterated set shows warming, but really want to see a one-to-one there to see what the data says. In a vacuum this data set doesn't say a huge amount.
It's a good start...it sounds like we need these to be evenly distributed across the globe....just getting an accurate gauge of global temperature is a difficult problem....
Doug B
Footballguy
You're posting in jest, but it makes me think of something.NY is not under water yet?
Damn that settled science is wrong.
If, over the course of a few hundred years, the current low land underneath NYC, MIami, etc. was simply ceded to the sea piece by piece while the cities organically grew towards higher land ... it wouldn't be a singular organized engineering project, of course, but is it broadly feasible?
To borrow a meme from Eastern philosophy ... could humanity "bend like a reed" in the face of climate change's "gusting wind"?
jonessed
Footballguy
Yes. Poorer nations might struggle though.You're posting in jest, but it makes me think of something.NY is not under water yet?
Damn that settled science is wrong.
If, over the course of a few hundred years, the current low land underneath NYC, MIami, etc. was simply ceded to the sea piece by piece while the cities organically grew towards higher land ... it wouldn't be a singular organized engineering project, of course, but is it broadly feasible?
To borrow a meme from Eastern philosophy ... could humanity "bend like a reed" in the face of climate change's "gusting wind"?
New Orleans provided the model for building a city under sea level. What could possibly go wrong?You're posting in jest, but it makes me think of something.NY is not under water yet?
Damn that settled science is wrong.
If, over the course of a few hundred years, the current low land underneath NYC, MIami, etc. was simply ceded to the sea piece by piece while the cities organically grew towards higher land ... it wouldn't be a singular organized engineering project, of course, but is it broadly feasible?
To borrow a meme from Eastern philosophy ... could humanity "bend like a reed" in the face of climate change's "gusting wind"?
Last edited by a moderator:
msommer
Footballguy
I think the Dutch were actually pioneers in thisjon_mx said:New Orleans provided the model for building a city under sea level. What could possibly go wrong?Doug B said:You're posting in jest, but it makes me think of something.NY is not under water yet?
Damn that settled science is wrong.
If, over the course of a few hundred years, the current low land underneath NYC, MIami, etc. was simply ceded to the sea piece by piece while the cities organically grew towards higher land ... it wouldn't be a singular organized engineering project, of course, but is it broadly feasible?
To borrow a meme from Eastern philosophy ... could humanity "bend like a reed" in the face of climate change's "gusting wind"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands#/media/File:The_Netherlands_compared_to_sealevel.png
msommer
Footballguy
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/06/a-town-on-the-move/392078/Doug B said:You're posting in jest, but it makes me think of something.NY is not under water yet?
Damn that settled science is wrong.
If, over the course of a few hundred years, the current low land underneath NYC, MIami, etc. was simply ceded to the sea piece by piece while the cities organically grew towards higher land ... it wouldn't be a singular organized engineering project, of course, but is it broadly feasible?
To borrow a meme from Eastern philosophy ... could humanity "bend like a reed" in the face of climate change's "gusting wind"?
But likely not feasible on a grander scale unless it was known that the area would be flooded (no impetus).
Even then it would be economically devastating to the people living there - house values wiped out, never to recover - and the cost of high ground would skyrocket, meaning only the really affluent could move there
joffer
Footballguy
culdeus
Footballguy
Rich Conway
Footballguy
You say that like porn is a bad thing.
OK, I'll read the link and get back to you on this one.
renesauz
IBL Representative
On the contrary, I would think this would be much easier in poorer areas where the builkdings are cheap/worn out/easy to replace.Yes. Poorer nations might struggle though.You're posting in jest, but it makes me think of something.NY is not under water yet?
Damn that settled science is wrong.
If, over the course of a few hundred years, the current low land underneath NYC, MIami, etc. was simply ceded to the sea piece by piece while the cities organically grew towards higher land ... it wouldn't be a singular organized engineering project, of course, but is it broadly feasible?
To borrow a meme from Eastern philosophy ... could humanity "bend like a reed" in the face of climate change's "gusting wind"?
Rich Conway
Footballguy
The article you linked certainly doesn't make it porn yet. The article itself doesn't explain how they isolated the effects of the sun versus the effects of carbon-based fuels versus other effects, so no, by itself, the article offers no proof whatsoever, just assertions.joffer said:
Obviously, those assertions are based on some study, but I had a difficult time getting to the actual science behind it. Doesn't make the article's claims untrue, of course.
Rove!
Footballguy
http://time.com/3945630/lindau-nobel-laureates-meetings/
so, only 36 out of 65 attendees signed the declaration....That doesn't seem like an overwhelming consensus...
Joe Summer
Footballguy
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Good post!
I've had the same skepticism about the Nobel Prize too ever since Obama won it for being black.
Gawain
Footballguy
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html
Maybe it's a good thing. I'd prefer to avoid wide-spread famines and an iced over river in London.
Maybe it's a good thing. I'd prefer to avoid wide-spread famines and an iced over river in London.
jonessed
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
http://m.snopes.com/2015/07/08/nobel-ivar-giaever-obama-climate-change/
Shortly after Dr. Giaever delivered his speech, his comments about President Obama began appearing on conservative web sites, cited as proof that global warming is a “hoax” and a “conspiracy.” However, Dr. Giaever (a physicist, not a climatologist) has given the same type of global warming speech in the same setting before, and by his own admission he doesn’t know much about the subject:
I am not really terribly interested in global warming.
Like most physicists I don’t think much about it.
But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so — half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I’m going to try to explain to you why that was the case.
Skeptical Science noted of Dr. Giaever back in 2012 that:
While Giaever is certainly a highly accomplished physicist, that does not automatically make him a climate expert as well. As Giaever himself has admitted, he has spent very little time researching the subject, and it shows.
He simply bounces from one climate myth to the next, demonstrating a lack of understanding of Climate Science 101,
and then insults the entire scientific field by comparing it to a religion.
Giaever has used his position of scientific authority as a Nobel Laureate to misinform people about a subject on which h
e has not even done the most basic research
. That is not how a good scientist should behave, and that is why Giaever has rightfully and deservedly been criticized.
Climate change conspiracy buffs focused solely on Dr. Giaever while ignoring others who also addressed the issue of global warming at the 65th Nobel Laureate Meeting. On the final day of the meeting, 36 Nobel laureates signed the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change, an emphatic appeal for climate protection, stating that “that the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015 to take decisive action to limit future global emissions”:
We undersigned scientists, who have been awarded Nobel Prizes, have come to the shores of Lake Constance in southern Germany, to share insights with promising young researchers, who like us come from around the world. Nearly 60 years ago, here on Mainau, a similar gathering of Nobel Laureates in science issued a declaration of the dangers inherent in the newly found technology of nuclear weapons — a technology derived from advances in basic science. So far we have avoided nuclear war though the threat remains. We believe that our world today faces another threat of comparable magnitude.
Successive generations of scientists have helped create a more and more prosperous world. This prosperity has come at the cost of a rapid rise in the consumption of the world’s resources. If left unchecked, our ever-increasing demand for food, water, and energy will eventually overwhelm the Earth’s ability to satisfy humanity’s needs, and will lead to wholesale human tragedy. Already, scientists who study Earth’s climate are observing the impact of human activity.
In response to the possibility of human-induced climate change, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide the world’s leaders a summary of the current state of relevant scientific knowledge. While by no means perfect, we believe that the efforts that have led to the current IPCC Fifth Assessment Report represent the best source of information regarding the present state of knowledge on climate change. We say this not as experts in the field of climate change, but rather as a diverse group of scientists who have a deep respect for and understanding of the integrity of the scientific process.
Although there remains uncertainty as to the precise extent of climate change, the conclusions of the scientific community contained in the latest IPCC report are alarming, especially in the context of the identified risks of maintaining human prosperity in the face of greater than a 2°C rise in average global temperature. The report concludes that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the likely cause of the current global warming of the Earth. Predictions from the range of climate models indicate that this warming will very likely increase the Earth’s temperature over the coming century by more than 2°C above its pre-industrial level unless dramatic reductions are made in anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases over the coming decades.
Based on the IPCC assessment, the world must make rapid progress towards lowering current and future greenhouse gas emissions to minimize the substantial risks of climate change. We believe that the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015 to take decisive action to limit future global emissions. This endeavor will require the cooperation of all nations, whether developed or developing, and must be sustained into the future in accord with updated scientific assessment.
Read more at http://m.snopes.com/2015/07/08/nobel-ivar-giaever-obama-climate-change/#PXvUb7OyQpXFYy2o.99
Shortly after Dr. Giaever delivered his speech, his comments about President Obama began appearing on conservative web sites, cited as proof that global warming is a “hoax” and a “conspiracy.” However, Dr. Giaever (a physicist, not a climatologist) has given the same type of global warming speech in the same setting before, and by his own admission he doesn’t know much about the subject:
I am not really terribly interested in global warming.
Like most physicists I don’t think much about it.
But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so — half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I’m going to try to explain to you why that was the case.
Skeptical Science noted of Dr. Giaever back in 2012 that:
While Giaever is certainly a highly accomplished physicist, that does not automatically make him a climate expert as well. As Giaever himself has admitted, he has spent very little time researching the subject, and it shows.
He simply bounces from one climate myth to the next, demonstrating a lack of understanding of Climate Science 101,
and then insults the entire scientific field by comparing it to a religion.
Giaever has used his position of scientific authority as a Nobel Laureate to misinform people about a subject on which h
e has not even done the most basic research
. That is not how a good scientist should behave, and that is why Giaever has rightfully and deservedly been criticized.
Climate change conspiracy buffs focused solely on Dr. Giaever while ignoring others who also addressed the issue of global warming at the 65th Nobel Laureate Meeting. On the final day of the meeting, 36 Nobel laureates signed the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change, an emphatic appeal for climate protection, stating that “that the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015 to take decisive action to limit future global emissions”:
We undersigned scientists, who have been awarded Nobel Prizes, have come to the shores of Lake Constance in southern Germany, to share insights with promising young researchers, who like us come from around the world. Nearly 60 years ago, here on Mainau, a similar gathering of Nobel Laureates in science issued a declaration of the dangers inherent in the newly found technology of nuclear weapons — a technology derived from advances in basic science. So far we have avoided nuclear war though the threat remains. We believe that our world today faces another threat of comparable magnitude.
Successive generations of scientists have helped create a more and more prosperous world. This prosperity has come at the cost of a rapid rise in the consumption of the world’s resources. If left unchecked, our ever-increasing demand for food, water, and energy will eventually overwhelm the Earth’s ability to satisfy humanity’s needs, and will lead to wholesale human tragedy. Already, scientists who study Earth’s climate are observing the impact of human activity.
In response to the possibility of human-induced climate change, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide the world’s leaders a summary of the current state of relevant scientific knowledge. While by no means perfect, we believe that the efforts that have led to the current IPCC Fifth Assessment Report represent the best source of information regarding the present state of knowledge on climate change. We say this not as experts in the field of climate change, but rather as a diverse group of scientists who have a deep respect for and understanding of the integrity of the scientific process.
Although there remains uncertainty as to the precise extent of climate change, the conclusions of the scientific community contained in the latest IPCC report are alarming, especially in the context of the identified risks of maintaining human prosperity in the face of greater than a 2°C rise in average global temperature. The report concludes that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the likely cause of the current global warming of the Earth. Predictions from the range of climate models indicate that this warming will very likely increase the Earth’s temperature over the coming century by more than 2°C above its pre-industrial level unless dramatic reductions are made in anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases over the coming decades.
Based on the IPCC assessment, the world must make rapid progress towards lowering current and future greenhouse gas emissions to minimize the substantial risks of climate change. We believe that the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015 to take decisive action to limit future global emissions. This endeavor will require the cooperation of all nations, whether developed or developing, and must be sustained into the future in accord with updated scientific assessment.
Read more at http://m.snopes.com/2015/07/08/nobel-ivar-giaever-obama-climate-change/#PXvUb7OyQpXFYy2o.99
joffer
Footballguy
quantum tunneling / climate science....same thing
Sam Quentin
Footballguy
And yet, only 36 out of 65 of those attendees signed off on that declaration...
trogg78
Footballguy
His criticism was more directed at the scientific method used in this debate, which he is more than qualified on.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Well at least the oil companies were well ahead of the curve.
Thanks Exxon for being responsible at least that one time.
Thanks Exxon for being responsible at least that one time.
Sam Quentin
Footballguy
Saying you are for alternative energy is like saying you are against rape. Everybody is for it. Renewable sustainable energy is most people's dream. I'm confident we will get there in before 2100. The outlandish predictions are doing serious damage to the credibility of the institution of science.
Last edited by a moderator:
snoopes, some poster names dana1981 on SlepticalScience and Tim do not think it is outlandish.ETA: Tim attacks the credibility of a source by cutting and pasting from some kookie website.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Snopes.com /ˈsnoʊps/, also known as the Urban Legends Reference Pages, is a website covering urban legends, Internet rumors, e-mail forwards, and other stories of unknown or questionable origin.[2] It is a well-known resource for validating and debunking such stories in American popular culture,[3] receiving 300,000 visits a day.[4]
cstu
Footballguy
If it was most people's dream they'd be more willing to put money into it. When Obama did and some things didn't work out it was 'Solyndra this, Solyndra that".
Been pretty quiet though since the program started making a profit.
Last edited by a moderator:
So you readily admit Snopes is far less qualified to comment on the science than a well respected scientist? they have zero expertise in science.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sam Quentin
Footballguy
The problem with Solyndra wasn't the program, it was the appearance of favoritism towards a company with an investor that was an Obama fundraiser and had visited the White House a number of times. In issuing the loan, the ignored misgivings from outside rating agencies, the office of management and budget and the U.S. treasury, amongst others. They fast tracked the loan without legal or marketing review, for which they got dinged by the GAO...
shader
Footballguy
I read an interesting comment on reddit yesterday. He said that global warming deniers were the most dangerous group of people in the history of the world because their beliefs actually put the entire human race at risk of extinction.
A bit dramatic for me, but interesting.
A bit dramatic for me, but interesting.
timschochet
Footballguy
It not quite that drastic. The reason that we don't take enough action on this is not the deniers, but that nobody wants to do anything that's going to cause pain to our economy in the short term. Is the same reason we don't do anything about the debt. Politicians are terrified to take any action that causes short term pain for fear of being thrown out of office. It's a key problem with are democratic system, always has been, but it's getting worse. That being said the skeptics are both wrong and annoying.
cstu
Footballguy
Sam Quentin
Footballguy
And when you make the choice to be dishonest, you lose credibility for yourself and the institution of science. You are no longer a scientist, but an advocate. That's the dangerous path we are on. We already destroyed journalism, and that has had horrible consequences....
bagger
Footballguy
Nancy Grace?
