Weather and global warming
- Brenton C
- 100+ Posts
- Posts: 286
- Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 5:03 am
- Location: Calgary, AB
- Contact:
How have i missed out on his thread? Is it too late to post up?
I enjoy pondering the idea of global warmin, or at least the "sky is falling" reaction to it as being, at least in part, a collective delusion. What I think is happening here is that vague anxieties we all harbor, but dont understand very well are somewhat contained when we round them up and externalize them onto some target. Then, we get all busy trying to do something about 'it" in a desperate, misguided attempt to save ourselves. This is the root of scapegoating, as I understand it.
So here it is, in the form of global warming (whether true or not) hysteria (probably an over reaction).
Was it Dylan Thomas who said "This is how the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper"?
There you have it: the secular apocalypse! Not the dramatic scortching of the Good Book, but a slow roast, one plodding incremental degree after another. Just as tedious as some of the athiests I know.
I enjoy pondering the idea of global warmin, or at least the "sky is falling" reaction to it as being, at least in part, a collective delusion. What I think is happening here is that vague anxieties we all harbor, but dont understand very well are somewhat contained when we round them up and externalize them onto some target. Then, we get all busy trying to do something about 'it" in a desperate, misguided attempt to save ourselves. This is the root of scapegoating, as I understand it.
So here it is, in the form of global warming (whether true or not) hysteria (probably an over reaction).
Was it Dylan Thomas who said "This is how the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper"?
There you have it: the secular apocalypse! Not the dramatic scortching of the Good Book, but a slow roast, one plodding incremental degree after another. Just as tedious as some of the athiests I know.
-
- 100+ Posts
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:02 pm
- Location: Alaska
- Contact:
Ill throw two cents in ...
Over the last 60-70 years, the scientific community began to embrace many differing scientific theories and began to publish those theories as fact. Those theories were taught at the highest levels of learning and were not to be questioned. Years later, many of those "facts" have been dismissed and replaced with new "facts" which of course are more theories.
By now, of course, several generations of people have to deal with the contradictions produced by these educated guesses that happened years ago.
It seems to me that if science had stuck to objective research and left the theories to the philosophy classroom, they would have more credibility regarding issues like global warming.
Mikew
Over the last 60-70 years, the scientific community began to embrace many differing scientific theories and began to publish those theories as fact. Those theories were taught at the highest levels of learning and were not to be questioned. Years later, many of those "facts" have been dismissed and replaced with new "facts" which of course are more theories.
By now, of course, several generations of people have to deal with the contradictions produced by these educated guesses that happened years ago.
It seems to me that if science had stuck to objective research and left the theories to the philosophy classroom, they would have more credibility regarding issues like global warming.
Mikew
- Brenton C
- 100+ Posts
- Posts: 286
- Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 5:03 am
- Location: Calgary, AB
- Contact:
I really appreciate Don's weighing in here with the benefits of relevant scientific background combined with his thoughtful presentation of his views.
I have to say I'm surprised the matter of human-induced climate change is as settled as he portrays it, but I also must confess my own background is in social science, where there is almost nothing that is so clearly settled.
Further to that, let me add a gripe that is actually germane, that in social science, many times the spirit of the times changes, old ideas are thrown over for new ones, but not because science has solved the issue. To the contrary, it is often politics, opportunism or expediency which win out over what the scientific data have to say.
And about scientific data and the scientists who generate it . . . You would think they are driven by lofty principles of the pursuit of truth, knowledge, justice, liberty, the American way of life, whatever. But so often, positions become polarized and galvanized, motivated by the sheer preference of belief, and the need to defend it and discredit the other guy's research. Not to understand and explain the differences. Presentations of "facts" are misleadingly spun, deliberately abbreviated for the purpose of being persuasive, rather than revealing. I could name and explain researchers in my own area of expertise that are opportunistic to the point of (in my view) deliberate deceit -- a deceit that disadvantages vulnerable consumers of their product . . . . but I say this only to make the point that I'm not talking off the cuff.
There was a post, one or two comments back, venting on a not unrelated issue of distrust of scientific "knowledge" because it changes, but I would say this isn't necessarily bad, and can actually be looked at in a favourable light. Our "knowledge" is tempered by limitations at all times, subject to advances. If science is doing what it's supposed to do, then researchers recognized they ought to be open at all times to new observations that come along and reveal old conclusions were wrong, and that there is a better understanding that accounts for the new and the old observations.
Well, I could go on, but I'd probably just end up repeating myself.
I would like to only add that this discussion is very interesting because of it's diversity. Not just diversity in view points, but the levels of participation. Some are contributing highly technical expertise, others opinions of the so-called layman, others, their political concerns related to the question of climate change, and others perspectives partly influenced by issues of faith.
Despite the different levels, perspectives, backgrounds, it's a civil and enjoyable (at least for me as I've read it) conversation. No tempers, no threats, no dead bodies -- and I know some of you own guns!
I can't think of another forum I've been on that would remain so polite in the face of so many differences.
I have to say I'm surprised the matter of human-induced climate change is as settled as he portrays it, but I also must confess my own background is in social science, where there is almost nothing that is so clearly settled.
Further to that, let me add a gripe that is actually germane, that in social science, many times the spirit of the times changes, old ideas are thrown over for new ones, but not because science has solved the issue. To the contrary, it is often politics, opportunism or expediency which win out over what the scientific data have to say.
And about scientific data and the scientists who generate it . . . You would think they are driven by lofty principles of the pursuit of truth, knowledge, justice, liberty, the American way of life, whatever. But so often, positions become polarized and galvanized, motivated by the sheer preference of belief, and the need to defend it and discredit the other guy's research. Not to understand and explain the differences. Presentations of "facts" are misleadingly spun, deliberately abbreviated for the purpose of being persuasive, rather than revealing. I could name and explain researchers in my own area of expertise that are opportunistic to the point of (in my view) deliberate deceit -- a deceit that disadvantages vulnerable consumers of their product . . . . but I say this only to make the point that I'm not talking off the cuff.
There was a post, one or two comments back, venting on a not unrelated issue of distrust of scientific "knowledge" because it changes, but I would say this isn't necessarily bad, and can actually be looked at in a favourable light. Our "knowledge" is tempered by limitations at all times, subject to advances. If science is doing what it's supposed to do, then researchers recognized they ought to be open at all times to new observations that come along and reveal old conclusions were wrong, and that there is a better understanding that accounts for the new and the old observations.
Well, I could go on, but I'd probably just end up repeating myself.
I would like to only add that this discussion is very interesting because of it's diversity. Not just diversity in view points, but the levels of participation. Some are contributing highly technical expertise, others opinions of the so-called layman, others, their political concerns related to the question of climate change, and others perspectives partly influenced by issues of faith.
Despite the different levels, perspectives, backgrounds, it's a civil and enjoyable (at least for me as I've read it) conversation. No tempers, no threats, no dead bodies -- and I know some of you own guns!
I can't think of another forum I've been on that would remain so polite in the face of so many differences.
- 51598Rob
- 100+ Posts
- Posts: 282
- Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 1:45 pm
- Location: Eastern Oregon
- Contact:
As I read the posts on this issue, it occurs to me that it is not really relevant that there is global warming or cooling... The frustration comes from the ridiculous way that we are enabling governments and individuals to take our hard earned wealth and put it in their pockets without our consent! Maybe more importantly that we (U.S.) are squandering the hard earned wealth of our nation to solve a problem that is so elusive that it really can't even be identified.
Our State is on the edge of passing a "carbon" tax that will be so destructive to the business community, that when she is done with it, (and the $15per hour min wage) we will be a welfare state.....and I'm sure that the "environment" (ecologically speaking) will not change in the slightest!
DonLindsay. I'm sure that, by your posts, you hold "science" and scientists in the highest regards...you must climb off that horse! There is no credibility to the profession any more. That is the fault of all the trash scientists that have a sound bite opinion on everything from global warming to how horrible Monsanto is. Those, unlike you, have pillaged your industry so ruthlessly that it may never regain its ivory pillars. That truly is a shame!
Our State is on the edge of passing a "carbon" tax that will be so destructive to the business community, that when she is done with it, (and the $15per hour min wage) we will be a welfare state.....and I'm sure that the "environment" (ecologically speaking) will not change in the slightest!
DonLindsay. I'm sure that, by your posts, you hold "science" and scientists in the highest regards...you must climb off that horse! There is no credibility to the profession any more. That is the fault of all the trash scientists that have a sound bite opinion on everything from global warming to how horrible Monsanto is. Those, unlike you, have pillaged your industry so ruthlessly that it may never regain its ivory pillars. That truly is a shame!
Let Freedom Prevail
-
- 100+ Posts
- Posts: 748
- Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:24 pm
- Location: Central LA
- Contact:
I am not a scientist but I do happen to have a degree from Northwestern in biology with a minor in analytical chemistry, so I have interacted with the scientist community a wee bit. I certainly don't mind efforts to clean up anything that causes environmental harm or reduce harmful emissions from manufacturing or other things. I do think it is possible for our global impact to cause climate change but I am not in panic mode - like has been said already a few people have found a way to cash in on their interpretation of the data and perhaps have given the legit guys a black eye of sorts.
As for now, I have a really bad-ass sounding Franklin 220 on an engine stand swinging a 78" prop, I think Ill go chain it to something and blow some carbon out the tailpipes.
As for now, I have a really bad-ass sounding Franklin 220 on an engine stand swinging a 78" prop, I think Ill go chain it to something and blow some carbon out the tailpipes.
I can't remember if I fired six shots, or only five.....
M-5 220c, circa 1974
EAA #428061
M-5 220c, circa 1974
EAA #428061
- Brenton C
- 100+ Posts
- Posts: 286
- Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 5:03 am
- Location: Calgary, AB
- Contact:
-
- 100+ Posts
- Posts: 118
- Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 7:37 pm
- Location: southeast texas
- Contact:
Non-Maule
For those that are interested here's a couple of sites . I use one of the sites daily(which I find about 40% accurate) and the other I just found online. May be good reading/interaction for some.
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum
and here is a weater forecast site
http://www.weather.gov/
[/url]
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum
and here is a weater forecast site
http://www.weather.gov/
[/url]
- gbarrier
- 100+ Posts
- Posts: 1562
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:41 pm
- Location: 9NR4 North Carolina
- Contact:
Several years ago we had to buy carbon credits to cover the several trips a year we fly the jet to Europe. The admin. fees of the people regulating/handling us was considerably higher than the carbon credits. Now they have backed off, temporarily i'm sure, on the small users but the annual admin. fees goes on. Not sure how a single dollar of that money has made this world a better place.
-
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:22 pm
- Location: Scotland
- Contact:
-
- 100+ Posts
- Posts: 325
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:24 pm
- Location: Sydney Australia
- Contact:
At the last G20 meeting in Brisbane Australia, Obama signed you poor suckers up to a deal that entails the US industry having to meet restrictive carbon emission targets that will kill off your competitiveness whilst carbon pumping China does absolutely zip about any reduction in carbon emissions until 2030. At that point their carbon emission targets will be set in respect of their 2030 levels. I gather this will mean your balance of trade will skew toward greater imports of goods. China don't seem to be as worried about global warming as they are in securing more favourable trade positions.
- 51598Rob
- 100+ Posts
- Posts: 282
- Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 1:45 pm
- Location: Eastern Oregon
- Contact:
- crbnunit
- 100+ Posts
- Posts: 1890
- Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:42 pm
- Location: Alaska
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 2:58 pm
- Location: Country, New South Wales, Australia
- Contact:
- leo
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 4:24 pm
- Location: Baltimore, Maryland
- Contact:
OK, man made global warming is indeed a matter of belief, and more fundamentally a matter of trust in the scientific process. But what's been puzzling me in this thread is the arbitrary selectiveness that the distrust of climatology entails.
Every time we fly our Maules we trust the scientific process in some way or another. We trust for example that the alloys that our engine is made of were correctly engineered, correctly processed and that their strength and other properties were correctly calculated, we trust that the fuel we use was correctly engineered and manufactured, we trust that the statistical theory that goes behind quality control is valid, we trust that the floating point units of the computers that run all the necessary calculations for the above are correct, etc. We also trust that the models that were used to come up with the METARs, TAFs, and other weather products are going to be somewhat right...
We probably make these same assumptions in the medical field too. We trust that the drugs we take are not going to kill us, that they are properly formulated, dosed, tested, etc. We trust the research that goes behind vaccines, antibiotics, anesthetics, cancer drugs, etc.
I'm not saying we blindly trust, I'm just saying we trust up to a certain extent a vast amount of the scientific knowledge that has been produced.
Of course, the scientific process is not perfect and scientists are human. We know that some drug trial results were biased because of commercial imperatives, and we know some theories were incorrect and later falsified. But that doesn't make medical science invalid nor does it mean that all the scientists who work in that field are dishonest or idiots.
In the same way climate science is indeed imperfect and made by humans, but most climatologists are neither dishonest nor idiots and most of its theories are not invalid.
Every time we fly our Maules we trust the scientific process in some way or another. We trust for example that the alloys that our engine is made of were correctly engineered, correctly processed and that their strength and other properties were correctly calculated, we trust that the fuel we use was correctly engineered and manufactured, we trust that the statistical theory that goes behind quality control is valid, we trust that the floating point units of the computers that run all the necessary calculations for the above are correct, etc. We also trust that the models that were used to come up with the METARs, TAFs, and other weather products are going to be somewhat right...
We probably make these same assumptions in the medical field too. We trust that the drugs we take are not going to kill us, that they are properly formulated, dosed, tested, etc. We trust the research that goes behind vaccines, antibiotics, anesthetics, cancer drugs, etc.
I'm not saying we blindly trust, I'm just saying we trust up to a certain extent a vast amount of the scientific knowledge that has been produced.
Of course, the scientific process is not perfect and scientists are human. We know that some drug trial results were biased because of commercial imperatives, and we know some theories were incorrect and later falsified. But that doesn't make medical science invalid nor does it mean that all the scientists who work in that field are dishonest or idiots.
In the same way climate science is indeed imperfect and made by humans, but most climatologists are neither dishonest nor idiots and most of its theories are not invalid.
-
- 100+ Posts
- Posts: 325
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:24 pm
- Location: Sydney Australia
- Contact:
Much scientific research is based on grants. Without the right sort of published study results scientists can expect to remain unfunded. Any reason why we are sceptical.
The report that precipitated the common global warming debate, that the Himalayas were melting, was a false report. The figures show that if anything there is more freezing conditions in recent years than before. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ified.html
Charlatans such as Al Gore have made a tidy business from his selective claims which just go to show that we are all entitled to an opinion.
The report that precipitated the common global warming debate, that the Himalayas were melting, was a false report. The figures show that if anything there is more freezing conditions in recent years than before. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ified.html
Charlatans such as Al Gore have made a tidy business from his selective claims which just go to show that we are all entitled to an opinion.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests