| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
SkyCrawler
United States69 Posts
On September 25 2012 09:29 Souma wrote: Not believing in global warming when the vast majority of climatologists tell us otherwise is pretty  as well.Come to think of it, there hasn't been much discussion on that.. Do the republicans here think global warming is real, not, don't think there isn't enough evidence, etc.? | ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
On September 25 2012 09:32 SkyCrawler wrote: Come to think of it, there hasn't been much discussion on that.. Do the republicans here think global warming is real, not, don't think there isn't enough evidence, etc.? I think most - and maybe the ones here can chime in - think that it might be possible, but it's not worth the cost and effort to fix it. They will also say - look at China. | ||
|
SnK-Arcbound
United States4423 Posts
On September 25 2012 09:29 Souma wrote: Not believing in global warming when the vast majority of climatologists tell us otherwise is pretty as well.Well people don't believe in buddha even when the vast majority of buddists tell us otherwise. But climatologists telling us the world is warming has nothing to do with whether it has a statistically significant casuational relationship correlation to carbon dioxide. Statisical correlation is really fucking easy too. That they have to use laughable science like the IPCC doesn't help their cause either. | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
And 22,000 years ago, Canada..the North East part of the USA, northern Europe and Russia were under ice. 300 feet of ice. All year round. And I don't want to go back. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NYBmK.jpg) | ||
|
SkyCrawler
United States69 Posts
On September 25 2012 09:39 SnK-Arcbound wrote: Well people don't believe in buddha even when the vast majority of buddists tell us otherwise. But climatologists telling us the world is warming has nothing to do with whether it has a statistically significant casuational relationship correlation to carbon dioxide. Statisical correlation is really fucking easy too. That they have to use laughable science like the IPCC doesn't help their cause either. Please describe this laughable science you speak of. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On September 25 2012 09:29 Souma wrote: Not believing in global warming when the vast majority of climatologists tell us otherwise is pretty as well.Climate science is such a two-way trap at the moment: If you believe in global warming you will have most science on your side, but If you go all in on there needing to be done a lot, you end up with the first generation bioethanol situation, massive abuse of the CO2-quota system and lot of still inefficient technologies. On the other hand: If you claim that climate change doesn't exist you are ending up being labeled as dilusional or naive. However, the effects of not doing anything from federal political side except for prioritizing research and letting the local mayors control how to factor in environment in the budget is a pretty reasonable approach. | ||
|
SkyCrawler
United States69 Posts
On September 25 2012 09:41 RCMDVA wrote: I believe in Physics, Geology and Milankovitch cycles. And 22,000 years ago, Canada..the North East part of the USA, northern Europe and Russia were under ice. 300 feet of ice. All year round. And I don't want to go back. We don't have to go all the way back to 22,000 years ago. Global cooling is no better than global warming. We want the porridge that is juuuust right. | ||
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
| ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 25 2012 09:43 radiatoren wrote: Climate science is such a two-way trap at the moment: If you believe in global warming you will have most science on your side, but If you go all in on there needing to be done a lot, you end up with the first generation bioethanol situation, massive abuse of the CO2-quota system and lot of still inefficient technologies. On the other hand: If you claim that climate change doesn't exist you are ending up being labeled as dilusional or naive. However, the effects of not doing anything from federal political side except for prioritizing research and letting the local mayors control how to factor in environment in the budget is a pretty reasonable approach. What does it matter if there's a lot that needs to be done? First, let's all get on the same page and admit that global warming exists. That's all I ask. | ||
|
GT350
United States270 Posts
| ||
|
sinii
England989 Posts
On September 25 2012 09:41 RCMDVA wrote: I believe in Physics, Geology and Milankovitch cycles. And 22,000 years ago, Canada..the North East part of the USA, northern Europe and Russia were under ice. 300 feet of ice. All year round. And I don't want to go back. It's reasonable to assume another ice age will come regardless of what we do, the question is if we are speeding up how quickly it comes with global warming. Global warming is incredibly difficult to judge, it's easy to see it exists, it's much much harder to accurately see what effect it is having. | ||
|
SnK-Arcbound
United States4423 Posts
On September 25 2012 09:41 SkyCrawler wrote: Please describe this laughable science you speak of. Normally in statistics you get a data set, you put it into your calculator, select the proper test for what you're measuring, and you get an answer. Then after that, if it's statistically significant, you try and show which of the two populations is the independent variable, and which is the dependent variable. The IPCC gets a group of scientists, who all think global warming is happening, and then they take data sets, which they choose, and assign the statistical significance to it. At they end, they then look at their assigned statistical significance, and decide how statistically significant it is. Amazing, the panel who all think global warming is real, and looked at data they choose to use and assume the statistical significance of, found that it was statistically significant that CO2 causes global warming. That's some brilliant science right there. To give an example, I want to find out what 4+4 is. I think the answer is 6. Now I could just calculate it and let the answer be what it is, or I could get people to form a panel, and poll them to declare a consensus for what the answer is. I also pick people who think the answer is around 5 and 7, but definately not 8. The IPCC discarded other normal statistical practices that are used to safeguard the integrity of their calculations, if you want me to keep going though. | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8004 Posts
![[image loading]](http://imgs.isidewith.com/results-image/128565601.jpg) | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On September 25 2012 09:47 Souma wrote: What does it matter if there's a lot that needs to be done? First, let's all get on the same page and admit that global warming exists. That's all I ask. I agree that is a reasonable start, but I am of the opinion that the republicans have to change or die anyway: Their transition will be seamless from not existing, to not relevant and to something not worth doing anything about. The practical difference between those positions are almost nothing except for the science budget. If I understand it correctly, Mitt Romney do hold the not worth doing a lot about it position already and thus the presidential opinion of climate change will likely be minimal. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
Welcome to scandinavia, sir! :-P | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 25 2012 09:53 SnK-Arcbound wrote: Normally in statistics you get a data set, you put it into your calculator, select the proper test for what you're measuring, and you get an answer. Then after that, if it's statistically significant, you try and show which of the two populations is the independent variable, and which is the dependent variable. The IPCC gets a group of scientists, who all think global warming is happening, and then they take data sets, which they choose, and assign the statistical significance to it. At they end, they then look at their assigned statistical significance, and decide how statistically significant it is. Amazing, the panel who all think global warming is real, and looked at data they choose to use and assume the statistical significance of, found that it was statistically significant that CO2 causes global warming. That's some brilliant science right there. To give an example, I want to find out what 4+4 is. I think the answer is 6. Now I could just calculate it and let the answer be what it is, or I could get people to form a panel, and poll them to declare a consensus for what the answer is. I also pick people who think the answer is around 5 and 7, but definately not 8. The IPCC discarded other normal statistical practices that are used to safeguard the integrity of their calculations, if you want me to keep going though. wot. The IPCC does not do their own original research, they merely build on and replicate research from other leading scientists in the field (and god are there a lot). If I remember correctly, that's what science is about, isn't it? Replicating results to prove accuracy and validity. The example you should be giving is, you read a textbook that tells you 4+4 = 8, but instead of blindly believing the textbook, you do the math yourself. In the end, you get the same result: 4+4 = 8. So 4+4 must be 8. The IPCC is not a good argument against global warming. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On September 25 2012 09:29 Souma wrote: Not believing in global warming when the vast majority of climatologists tell us otherwise is pretty as well.For the record, xDaunt used to defend the idea that there currently was a global cooling trend instead of global warming. I distinctively remember replying to him with data proving he was wrong and him ignoring my posts. That was actually the first time I was confronted to his refusal to face facts :p | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8004 Posts
maybe someday, good sir :D | ||
|
SnK-Arcbound
United States4423 Posts
On September 25 2012 10:04 Souma wrote: wot. The IPCC does not do their own original research, they merely build on and replicate research from other leading scientists in the field (and god are there a lot). If I remember correctly, that's what science is about, isn't it? Replicating results to prove accuracy and validity. The example you should be giving is, you read a textbook that tells you 4+4 = 8, but instead of blindly believing the textbook, you do the math yourself. In the end, you get the same result: 4+4 = 8. So 4+4 must be 8. The IPCC is not a good argument against global warming. Except that's not what the IPCC did. They didn't recalculate anything, they assinged what the significance was without calculating it. It even has the guidelines in which values they are allowed to assign. And even if they did, their entire body of work can be thrown out for failing scientific guidelines that mandate you must attempt to disprove your theory, not prove it, in order to avoid the self fulfilling prophecy fallacy. I don't think you've actually read their work. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
OSC
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Korean StarCraft League
Afreeca Starleague
RSL Revival
Serral vs SHIN
herO vs Solar
Online Event
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
