Home Music Articles Forums Blog Chat More...      

add to bookmarks
Prev Topic | Next Topic

Author
Posts
(Read 2500 times)
particledots
Forum Full Member


Registered: 05/25/09
Posts: 1528
Location: , United States
 
Re:global warming
Tuesday, July 25 2017 @ 06:05 PM CDT

dont forget the thawing anthrax as well
MikeRobinson
Forum Full Member


Registered: 08/29/11
Posts: 717
Location: Chattanooga, TN United States
 
Re:global warming
Tuesday, July 25 2017 @ 09:04 PM CDT

Quote by: Calchas
Anyway Mike, I just want to thank you for trying to inject a bit of balance in the discussion. I just don't expect it will do any good. Balance is just not politically expedient to a drooling fanatic.

And now folks, you may proceed (as per usual) to grab your torches and pitchforks!



Hey, I will not pick up that glove, thank you just the same.   We are all musicians, gathered communally around the same water-cooler, and we all bring our opinions with us.   No one here, so far as I can see, is drooling.

I think that Al Gore made a spectacular(!) use of his well-seasoned political expertise (and, position) to present a very well-reasoned argument.   (In doing so, he exhibited a political maturity(!) that I frankly have not seen before nor since.)   In this, he showed that he is a superlative statesman.   I am very grateful for what he did, and for how he did it, and for what he has accomplished by it.   (I wish that we had more “statesmen ...” )

However, it so happens that I do not immediately embrace his conclusions, since I am by nature a skeptic.   Even when presented with a “compelling and Inconvenient Correlation,” such as the one which Mr. Gore presented to us all, I am still not persuaded that we actually know everything that we need to know, to assert that it is, in fact, an Inconvenient “Truth.”   There are alternative viewpoints, and these viewpoints are also(!) supported by what appear to be compelling empirical observations ... as interpreted, of course, by their respective proponents.

And do notice, please, that I am entertaining these alternative viewpoints, without embracing them nor asserting that they are “Truth.”   (How the hell would I know?   And, my point is simply that I don’t know.)   Even as some people jump headlong onto the CO2 bandwagon, I remain standing beside the road, still wondering.   I am not saying that they are wrong.   Rather, I am saying that I am not persuaded that they are necessarily right.
VicDiesel
Forum Full Member


Registered: 02/14/06
Posts: 2949
Location: Austin, TX
 
Re:global warming
Tuesday, July 25 2017 @ 10:51 PM CDT

Quote by: MikeRobinson
I am not saying that they are wrong.   Rather, I am saying that I am not persuaded that they are necessarily right.



Have you made any attempt to understand the science?

Victor.

-- My CD.
SmokeyVW
Forum Full Member


Registered: 06/13/06
Posts: 7050
Location: N/A
 
Re:global warming
Thursday, July 27 2017 @ 07:22 AM CDT

Ed Hannifin
Forum Full Member


Registered: 05/24/05
Posts: 3459
Location: , MA USA
 
Re:global warming
Thursday, July 27 2017 @ 11:07 AM CDT

Quote by: VicDiesel
Quote by: Calchas

Changes in the Sun ARE generating physical changes throughout the solar system (as far away as Jupiter). This is documented fact.



Yes. And it has been measured. And no significant relation has been found with the earth's temperature.

Look, you can keep rehashing plausible talking points forever, but when you're doing so in the face of all scientific analysis I can not but conclude that you're not interested in the truth.

Victor.



Politely, accurately and reasonably said, Victor, and again, much appreciated.

"We have to remember...when it's surrender that's called for, it's not surrender of your brains. It's surrender of your ego. It's a different thing." --Bruce Cockburn
Ed Hannifin
Forum Full Member


Registered: 05/24/05
Posts: 3459
Location: , MA USA
 
Re:global warming
Thursday, July 27 2017 @ 11:27 AM CDT

Quote by: Calchas

Is it any wonder that MJ continues to melt along with the ice caps!

Anyway Mike, I just want to thank you for trying to inject a bit of balance in the discussion. I just don't expect it will do any good. Balance is just not politically expedient to a drooling fanatic.

And now folks, you may proceed (as per usual) to grab your torches and pitchforks!



Let's look at this objectively and reasonably.

One person, and only one, in this thread has stooped to rude name calling.

"Drooling fanatics."

Aimed at the people who are citing vetted and peer reviewed research in their arguments, or who are supporting those who are, none of whom has chosen to name call.

Seems to me that the guy with the pitch forks and torches is the guy lobbing the accusation. There's a name for that...


"We have to remember...when it's surrender that's called for, it's not surrender of your brains. It's surrender of your ego. It's a different thing." --Bruce Cockburn
magnatone
Forum Full Member


Registered: 02/08/08
Posts: 4383
Location: N/A
 
Re:global warming
Thursday, July 27 2017 @ 12:09 PM CDT

Quote by: Ed Hannifin
Quote by: Calchas

Is it any wonder that MJ continues to melt along with the ice caps!

Anyway Mike, I just want to thank you for trying to inject a bit of balance in the discussion. I just don't expect it will do any good. Balance is just not politically expedient to a drooling fanatic.

And now folks, you may proceed (as per usual) to grab your torches and pitchforks!



Let's look at this objectively and reasonably.

One person, and only one, in this thread has stooped to rude name calling.

"Drooling fanatics."

Aimed at the people who are citing vetted and peer reviewed research in their arguments, or who are supporting those who are, none of whom has chosen to name call.

Seems to me that the guy with the pitch forks and torches is the guy lobbing the accusation. There's a name for that...



my most recent song: "First Light (solo piano)"
VicDiesel
Forum Full Member


Registered: 02/14/06
Posts: 2949
Location: Austin, TX
 
Re:global warming
Thursday, July 27 2017 @ 01:22 PM CDT

Quote by: Ed Hannifin


Let's look at this objectively and reasonably.

One person, and only one, in this thread has stooped to rude name calling.

"Drooling fanatics."



Name calling, per the generalized Godwin theorem, is proof of the bankruptcy of a person's argument.

Victor.

-- My CD.
bronco
Forum Full Member


Registered: 05/31/04
Posts: 563
Location: N/A
 
Re:global warming
Saturday, July 29 2017 @ 01:18 PM CDT

Quote by: VicDiesel
Quote by: Calchas

Changes in the Sun ARE generating physical changes throughout the solar system (as far away as Jupiter). This is documented fact.



Yes. And it has been measured. And no significant relation has been found with the earth's temperature.

Look, you can keep rehashing plausible talking points forever, but when you're doing so in the face of all scientific analysis I can not but conclude that you're not interested in the truth.

Victor.

Well Vic, not up on this like your guys but doesn't this scientific analysis consist of computer programs that supposedly can predict climate change and they have been tweaked several times to get the results they wanted? I have been neck deep in the computer age long enough to know that algorithms are only as good as the people that program them and the data that goes into them. Especially when they are going back many centuries as their starting point.

That there is climate change in both directions over the centuries, I have no doubt. That man made creation of CO2 has caused this to accelerate in modern times is still just an unproven theory to me. What a "scientist" believes is often influenced greatly by where his funding comes from. This is true if they are funded by an oil company or by a US government agency who has a political reason for wanting the data to conform.

Don't get me wrong. I am against Pollution in all of it's forms and the cleaner the energy the better. But don't except me to be in favor of treaties that are not enforced fairly across all countries. Or to except a world where the rich (Al Gore) can demand that we sacrifice while they fly everywhere in their private jets and produce much more CO2 while buying their way out of responsibility with a "carbon tax' which they can well afford as the rest of cannot.
 
Les_Kloo
Forum Full Member


Registered: 06/24/11
Posts: 216
Location: City in My Head, USA
 
Re:global warming
Saturday, July 29 2017 @ 05:07 PM CDT

Hating Al Gore for political or personal reasons is irrelevant. “I hate Al Gore. He’s grandstanding and trying to make a buck. I don’t believe a word he says.” Al Gore did not convince the world of climatologists to change their research focus. Al Gore did not invent the concept. There is really no need at all to bring him into the discussion. If Charles Manson said, “Hey, eating bacon every day is not healthy,” it would be pretty careless to say, “I hate Manson. He’s a murdering criminal. I don’t believe a word he says.”

Bronco: “What a "scientist" believes is often influenced greatly by where his funding comes from.”

I often see the dismissive quotes around the word “scientist.” I happen to know a lot of scientists. They certainly have some of the same negative traits as the rest of humanity (imagine that!). They go where the funding is, by necessity, since they have bills to pay. However, realize that the funding agencies are prone to fund projects that are promising in one way or another. The big funding agencies are also partly staffed (and sometimes led) by scientists. They do not throw money at projects that involve misinformation and data fudging. It’s not in their DNA. One thing the scientific community at large does not do is lie about their work. Sure, there are the occasional cases of fraud and plagiarism, but those eventually get exposed, and their careers are ruined as a consequence.

Now, industrial scientists, that has often been another matter. Without going off onto another tangent, I’ll give you that. If a Monsanto scientist says, “Nothing to worry about,” be careful. There’s financial self-interest in play. They are not subject to peer review, and they don’t need to publish in open journals, since there are trade secrets involved. This should be contrasted to a scientist at say, Penn State, who very much works in the open. You might notice that the funding for (mis)information on climate change originates from the corporate world (see Koch, etc.). Also useful to type “Richard Muller” into the youtube window and see what he has to say (Vic referred to him above).

Scientists at universities and federally funded research organizations don’t have a particular financial interest in pushing this or that project. They are interested in what they are interested in, whether it’s studying cataclysmic variable binary star systems or the evolution of blood clot formation. Their salaries fall into a fairly narrow range, from about $45K (post-doc-ish) to maybe $250K (at the top universities). Scientists don’t get rich. Wealth is not their yardstick for success and fulfillment.

One thing about scientists (on average) is that they have huge egos. They are motivated by the possibility that they will figure out something to show their colleagues and competitors just how smart they are. And that works out well. That’s how progress is made. There is a self-correcting mechanism built into the scientific community, a system of checks and balances that corrects errors and outright falsehoods. That can be called peer review, but it’s really the ego at work. If scientist A finds that scientist B has done something better that scientist A, then scientist A will spend time and energy going over the work of scientist B, looking for flaws. Competition. If you accept that, then you can easily imagine that the scientist who comes along and says, “The global temperature is increasing, but it’s not because of us! It’s the polar-wandering induced re-orientation of the Earth’s magnetic field and its interaction with cosmic rays, and that just happens to coincide with the perpendicular migration of the Sun’s orbit around Galactic Central, thereby allowing more cosmic ray heating from extragalactic particle accelerators!,” and can demonstrate it to the satisfaction of the experts, well, then, that scientist becomes a superstar, and calls his/her shots from then on. That’s the legend of Einstein and Newton and Darwin. That’s ego at work. There is nothing more sought after in science than overthrowing consensus. You can bet that a lot of those people are hunting for alternative explanations for the temperature rise.

The “skeptic” talking point seems to be that there is a global warming party line to toe, and that the vast majority of climatologists will sheepishly toe it under pressure from ideological funding agencies. The people who support this idea do not understand scientists or the funding process.

My music is much better than it sounds.