|
On July 26 2012 04:24 thrawn2112 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 04:17 nkr wrote:Lets say we can never convince the doubters that we are 100% the cause of global warming. I used my incredible paint skills to illustrate why "taking action" against global warming should be the obvious choice, regardless of if we can proove that humans are the sole cause. + Show Spoiler + an argument such as that suggests that each potential outcome has the same probability of occurring which skews the risk/reward decision. my first thought when i saw the picture was of pascal's wager, and it falls apart for the same reason. my position is the same as yours, but i think that argument isn't going to get you very far
But if the probabilites are unknown (both sides seem very sure on their arguments), regarding it as 50/50 seems like the safest bet 
|
Could one of the reasons, or factors, be that europe lately have been hit by a massive heat wave?
In most countries, southern as northern, the weather has been extremely hot.
If it somehow has been carried further north, to Greenland, it could explain the sudden change in melting speed.
I am no where near an expert, but it seems like a logical reason, for me.
|
On July 26 2012 04:28 nkr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 04:24 thrawn2112 wrote:On July 26 2012 04:17 nkr wrote:Lets say we can never convince the doubters that we are 100% the cause of global warming. I used my incredible paint skills to illustrate why "taking action" against global warming should be the obvious choice, regardless of if we can proove that humans are the sole cause. + Show Spoiler + an argument such as that suggests that each potential outcome has the same probability of occurring which skews the risk/reward decision. my first thought when i saw the picture was of pascal's wager, and it falls apart for the same reason. my position is the same as yours, but i think that argument isn't going to get you very far But if the probabilites are unknown (both sides seem very sure on their arguments), regarding it as 50/50 seems like the safest bet
how sure somebody seems on their argument shouldn't be your basis for accepting that argument, and the safest bet is to not reduce it down to a coin flip decision and instead base the decision off of facts
|
On July 25 2012 09:50 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 09:49 starfries wrote:
Huh... weird...
It's definitely not a result of solar activity, the amount of activity you would need for something of this magnitude would knock out communications everywhere, and NASA would definitely have said something. Sounds more like climate destabilization (possibly from global warming), basically a big blob of warm air going where it's not supposed to go. I just ignore the denialists. Evidence hasn't worked until now, it likely won't work now.
That's pretty much where I am at too.
|
I hope they discover why it only took 4 days for this increase of 57% of ice melt area.
Of course, political blowhards will go straight to global warming or acceleration due to global warming. They are doing the movement a disservice. An unknown phenomenon causing melting lends an easy hand towards, "This process might have occurred later, if not due to higher average world temperatures." But that's not science, any more than pointing your finger at a manufacturing plant and saying that THIS PLANT is responsible for a certain species disappearance without any investigation. Gut-response sayings of hot years corresponding to omg global warming and cool years ... well we predicted that too ... cmon let the investigation go on, get scientists measuring and analyzing the data, and look at "gee whiz it was actually this." Even naysayers would have their trouble if melt zones in ice sheets suddenly doubled every 4 days ... but they don't
2000-2009 corresponded to a bit of stagnation in world temperatures (source, meteorologists) and then it picked up again. A period of homeostasis is by no means a single thing to disprove global warming any more than a single instance of rapid melting is enough to blame on it. So calm down and wait for the real stories on how gradual changing become slightly/moderately accelerated under increasing global temperatures.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly all of Greenland's massive ice sheet suddenly started melting a bit this month, a freak event that surprised scientists.
Even Greenland's coldest and highest place, Summit station, showed melting. Ice core records show that last happened in 1889 and occurs about once every 150 years.
Yep, about once every 150 years is pretty directly attributable to global warming and is a necessary cause to spur on political action.
|
On July 26 2012 04:17 nkr wrote:Lets say we can never convince the doubters that we are 100% the cause of global warming. I used my incredible paint skills to illustrate why "taking action" against global warming should be the obvious choice, regardless of if we can proove that humans are the sole cause. ![[image loading]](http://i50.tinypic.com/24fbn0o.jpg)
This is ridiculous. If I did the same thing for religion, would you buy it? If Christianity true, then you burn in hell for eternity, if not, you're dead anyway.
Of course not.
Same for eating peanuts. If I tell you eating peanuts could cause cancer would you stop eating them? Because if I'm right, you're going to die of cancer. If I'm wrong, well, you just can't have peanuts, No big
Which is completely fucking ridiculous.
|
On July 26 2012 04:28 nkr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 04:24 thrawn2112 wrote:On July 26 2012 04:17 nkr wrote:Lets say we can never convince the doubters that we are 100% the cause of global warming. I used my incredible paint skills to illustrate why "taking action" against global warming should be the obvious choice, regardless of if we can proove that humans are the sole cause. + Show Spoiler + an argument such as that suggests that each potential outcome has the same probability of occurring which skews the risk/reward decision. my first thought when i saw the picture was of pascal's wager, and it falls apart for the same reason. my position is the same as yours, but i think that argument isn't going to get you very far But if the probabilites are unknown (both sides seem very sure on their arguments), regarding it as 50/50 seems like the safest bet
So we should jump on every "end of the world"-theory that can't be unproven and throw money at it? Remember that in form of proofs the global warming side has absolutely nothing. It can't be unproven, but that's because the theory is made that way.
And no, spending this kind of money doesn't hurt mostly first world countries. It's the exact opposite. It's the same as killing off a few percent of the poorest people. But I guess that's worth it, huh? Round 'em up!
|
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
|
Quit trying to argue science on a friggin starcraft forum people.
|
|
|
On July 26 2012 04:39 polyphonyEX wrote:
Quit trying to argue science on a friggin starcraft forum people.
But this is the general forum..
|
On July 26 2012 04:37 Felnarion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 04:17 nkr wrote:Lets say we can never convince the doubters that we are 100% the cause of global warming. I used my incredible paint skills to illustrate why "taking action" against global warming should be the obvious choice, regardless of if we can proove that humans are the sole cause. This is ridiculous. If I did the same thing for religion, would you buy it? If Christianity true, then you burn in hell for eternity, if not, you're dead anyway. Of course not. Same for eating peanuts. If I tell you eating peanuts could cause cancer would you stop eating them? Because if I'm right, you're going to die of cancer. If I'm wrong, well, you just can't have peanuts, No big Which is completely fucking ridiculous.
The difference between what your propose and global warming is that global warming is supported with evidence. If you had evidence I would get cancer from peanuts, I'd stop eating peanuts(I can't eat atm anyway, allergic, but you get the point). If religion proved to be true I'd start praying and all that jazz, assuming it works. But now, as we sit, global warming remains true and the other things remain complete bullshit.
The matrix is poorly constructed in that it allows the reader to be biased. It should include the fact that there are lots of evidence for one of the columns.
Also, this stuff is way beyond a single individual. The fact that the collective mind of the fucking denialists is screwing what is likely the only planet we will ever inhabit pisses me off.
|
On July 26 2012 04:39 amazingxkcd wrote:+ Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKiq5EwkzDg
pretty bad example, it only accounts for ice in the water
|
On July 26 2012 04:46 sirkyan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 04:37 Felnarion wrote:On July 26 2012 04:17 nkr wrote:Lets say we can never convince the doubters that we are 100% the cause of global warming. I used my incredible paint skills to illustrate why "taking action" against global warming should be the obvious choice, regardless of if we can proove that humans are the sole cause. This is ridiculous. If I did the same thing for religion, would you buy it? If Christianity true, then you burn in hell for eternity, if not, you're dead anyway. Of course not. Same for eating peanuts. If I tell you eating peanuts could cause cancer would you stop eating them? Because if I'm right, you're going to die of cancer. If I'm wrong, well, you just can't have peanuts, No big Which is completely fucking ridiculous. The difference between what your propose and global warming is that global warming is supported with evidence. If you had evidence I would get cancer from peanuts, I'd stop eating peanuts(I can't eat atm anyway, allergic, but you get the point). If religion proved to be true I'd start praying and all that jazz, assuming it works. But now, as we sit, global warming remains true and the other things remain complete bullshit. The matrix is poorly constructed in that it allows the reader to be biased. It should include the fact that there are lots of evidence for one of the columns. Also, this stuff is way beyond a single individual. The fact that the collective mind of the fucking denialists is screwing what is likely the only planet we will ever inhabit pisses me off.
Calling people "denialists" because they don't believe the latest fad that will soon be forgotten is pretty hilarious. What about the people that didn't believe the ice age was coming in the 70's? What about the people that didn't believe the world will end in the year 2000? What about the people that didn't believe SARS would kill us all? Or the bird flu? What about the people that didn't believe snow would be a thing of the past by the late 90's? Stupid denialists, huh?
The "scientific community" (whatever that is) were as agreed on many of these things as they are about this. The proof now is NOT better.
To me and many others it just seems like a big, convenient lie. Of course HUMANITY is destroying the planet (again), and of course POLITICIANS can save it (again)...
|
Anyone else remember all those Y2K denialist....those fools, look at them now with that egg on their face.
|
On July 26 2012 05:43 Ramanujan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 04:46 sirkyan wrote:On July 26 2012 04:37 Felnarion wrote:On July 26 2012 04:17 nkr wrote:Lets say we can never convince the doubters that we are 100% the cause of global warming. I used my incredible paint skills to illustrate why "taking action" against global warming should be the obvious choice, regardless of if we can proove that humans are the sole cause. This is ridiculous. If I did the same thing for religion, would you buy it? If Christianity true, then you burn in hell for eternity, if not, you're dead anyway. Of course not. Same for eating peanuts. If I tell you eating peanuts could cause cancer would you stop eating them? Because if I'm right, you're going to die of cancer. If I'm wrong, well, you just can't have peanuts, No big Which is completely fucking ridiculous. The difference between what your propose and global warming is that global warming is supported with evidence. If you had evidence I would get cancer from peanuts, I'd stop eating peanuts(I can't eat atm anyway, allergic, but you get the point). If religion proved to be true I'd start praying and all that jazz, assuming it works. But now, as we sit, global warming remains true and the other things remain complete bullshit. The matrix is poorly constructed in that it allows the reader to be biased. It should include the fact that there are lots of evidence for one of the columns. Also, this stuff is way beyond a single individual. The fact that the collective mind of the fucking denialists is screwing what is likely the only planet we will ever inhabit pisses me off. Calling people "denialists" because they don't believe the latest fad that will soon be forgotten is pretty hilarious. What about the people that didn't believe the ice age was coming in the 70's? What about the people that didn't believe the world will end in the year 2000? What about the people that didn't believe SARS would kill us all? Or the bird flu? What about the people that didn't believe snow would be a thing of the past by the late 90's? Stupid denialists, huh? The "scientific community" (whatever that is) were as agreed on many of these things as they are about this. The proof now is NOT better. To me and many others it just seems like a big, convenient lie. Of course HUMANITY is destroying the planet (again), and of course POLITICIANS can save it (again)... You people are god damn fucking amazing. Even in the face of fucktons of proof by the entire climatology field of science you still have the audacity to deny it. My fucking god...
|
On July 26 2012 05:52 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 05:43 Ramanujan wrote:On July 26 2012 04:46 sirkyan wrote:On July 26 2012 04:37 Felnarion wrote:On July 26 2012 04:17 nkr wrote:Lets say we can never convince the doubters that we are 100% the cause of global warming. I used my incredible paint skills to illustrate why "taking action" against global warming should be the obvious choice, regardless of if we can proove that humans are the sole cause. This is ridiculous. If I did the same thing for religion, would you buy it? If Christianity true, then you burn in hell for eternity, if not, you're dead anyway. Of course not. Same for eating peanuts. If I tell you eating peanuts could cause cancer would you stop eating them? Because if I'm right, you're going to die of cancer. If I'm wrong, well, you just can't have peanuts, No big Which is completely fucking ridiculous. The difference between what your propose and global warming is that global warming is supported with evidence. If you had evidence I would get cancer from peanuts, I'd stop eating peanuts(I can't eat atm anyway, allergic, but you get the point). If religion proved to be true I'd start praying and all that jazz, assuming it works. But now, as we sit, global warming remains true and the other things remain complete bullshit. The matrix is poorly constructed in that it allows the reader to be biased. It should include the fact that there are lots of evidence for one of the columns. Also, this stuff is way beyond a single individual. The fact that the collective mind of the fucking denialists is screwing what is likely the only planet we will ever inhabit pisses me off. Calling people "denialists" because they don't believe the latest fad that will soon be forgotten is pretty hilarious. What about the people that didn't believe the ice age was coming in the 70's? What about the people that didn't believe the world will end in the year 2000? What about the people that didn't believe SARS would kill us all? Or the bird flu? What about the people that didn't believe snow would be a thing of the past by the late 90's? Stupid denialists, huh? The "scientific community" (whatever that is) were as agreed on many of these things as they are about this. The proof now is NOT better. To me and many others it just seems like a big, convenient lie. Of course HUMANITY is destroying the planet (again), and of course POLITICIANS can save it (again)... You people are god damn fucking amazing. Even in the face of fucktons of proof by the entire climatology field of science you still have the audacity to deny it. My fucking god...
There is no proof. No, computer simulations that show different things in the most complex system we have ever tried to understand or simulate and where only the simulations that show a warming are presented aren't proof. Try again.
It's a wonder you are even here to type this since the world should already have been destroyed a couple times over, based on even better "proof" that you believe in now.
|
On July 26 2012 05:43 Ramanujan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 04:46 sirkyan wrote:On July 26 2012 04:37 Felnarion wrote:On July 26 2012 04:17 nkr wrote:Lets say we can never convince the doubters that we are 100% the cause of global warming. I used my incredible paint skills to illustrate why "taking action" against global warming should be the obvious choice, regardless of if we can proove that humans are the sole cause. This is ridiculous. If I did the same thing for religion, would you buy it? If Christianity true, then you burn in hell for eternity, if not, you're dead anyway. Of course not. Same for eating peanuts. If I tell you eating peanuts could cause cancer would you stop eating them? Because if I'm right, you're going to die of cancer. If I'm wrong, well, you just can't have peanuts, No big Which is completely fucking ridiculous. The difference between what your propose and global warming is that global warming is supported with evidence. If you had evidence I would get cancer from peanuts, I'd stop eating peanuts(I can't eat atm anyway, allergic, but you get the point). If religion proved to be true I'd start praying and all that jazz, assuming it works. But now, as we sit, global warming remains true and the other things remain complete bullshit. The matrix is poorly constructed in that it allows the reader to be biased. It should include the fact that there are lots of evidence for one of the columns. Also, this stuff is way beyond a single individual. The fact that the collective mind of the fucking denialists is screwing what is likely the only planet we will ever inhabit pisses me off. Calling people "denialists" because they don't believe the latest fad that will soon be forgotten is pretty hilarious. What about the people that didn't believe the ice age was coming in the 70's? What about the people that didn't believe the world will end in the year 2000? What about the people that didn't believe SARS would kill us all? Or the bird flu? What about the people that didn't believe snow would be a thing of the past by the late 90's? Stupid denialists, huh? The "scientific community" (whatever that is) were as agreed on many of these things as they are about this. The proof now is NOT better.To me and many others it just seems like a big, convenient lie. Of course HUMANITY is destroying the planet (again), and of course POLITICIANS can save it (again)...
No they weren't. You're talking out of your ass.
|
On July 26 2012 05:57 Ramanujan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 05:52 Thorakh wrote:On July 26 2012 05:43 Ramanujan wrote:On July 26 2012 04:46 sirkyan wrote:On July 26 2012 04:37 Felnarion wrote:On July 26 2012 04:17 nkr wrote:Lets say we can never convince the doubters that we are 100% the cause of global warming. I used my incredible paint skills to illustrate why "taking action" against global warming should be the obvious choice, regardless of if we can proove that humans are the sole cause. This is ridiculous. If I did the same thing for religion, would you buy it? If Christianity true, then you burn in hell for eternity, if not, you're dead anyway. Of course not. Same for eating peanuts. If I tell you eating peanuts could cause cancer would you stop eating them? Because if I'm right, you're going to die of cancer. If I'm wrong, well, you just can't have peanuts, No big Which is completely fucking ridiculous. The difference between what your propose and global warming is that global warming is supported with evidence. If you had evidence I would get cancer from peanuts, I'd stop eating peanuts(I can't eat atm anyway, allergic, but you get the point). If religion proved to be true I'd start praying and all that jazz, assuming it works. But now, as we sit, global warming remains true and the other things remain complete bullshit. The matrix is poorly constructed in that it allows the reader to be biased. It should include the fact that there are lots of evidence for one of the columns. Also, this stuff is way beyond a single individual. The fact that the collective mind of the fucking denialists is screwing what is likely the only planet we will ever inhabit pisses me off. Calling people "denialists" because they don't believe the latest fad that will soon be forgotten is pretty hilarious. What about the people that didn't believe the ice age was coming in the 70's? What about the people that didn't believe the world will end in the year 2000? What about the people that didn't believe SARS would kill us all? Or the bird flu? What about the people that didn't believe snow would be a thing of the past by the late 90's? Stupid denialists, huh? The "scientific community" (whatever that is) were as agreed on many of these things as they are about this. The proof now is NOT better. To me and many others it just seems like a big, convenient lie. Of course HUMANITY is destroying the planet (again), and of course POLITICIANS can save it (again)... You people are god damn fucking amazing. Even in the face of fucktons of proof by the entire climatology field of science you still have the audacity to deny it. My fucking god... There is no proof. No, computer simulations that show different things in the most complex system we have ever tried to understand or simulate and where only the simulations that show a warming are presented aren't proof. Try again. It's a wonder you are even here to type this since the world should already have been destroyed a couple times over, based on even better "proof" that you believe in now. You are comparing religious end of world predictions/conspiracy theories with scientific studies. Get the fuck out. Seriously, I don't know how old you are but for your sake I hope you're 50+ because else you're going to experience the effects of global warming when it really hits.
Scientific studies are "no proof". What are you smoking? Did you even try to educate yourself in this or did you just listen to Fox News?
|
On July 26 2012 05:52 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 05:43 Ramanujan wrote:On July 26 2012 04:46 sirkyan wrote:On July 26 2012 04:37 Felnarion wrote:On July 26 2012 04:17 nkr wrote:Lets say we can never convince the doubters that we are 100% the cause of global warming. I used my incredible paint skills to illustrate why "taking action" against global warming should be the obvious choice, regardless of if we can proove that humans are the sole cause. This is ridiculous. If I did the same thing for religion, would you buy it? If Christianity true, then you burn in hell for eternity, if not, you're dead anyway. Of course not. Same for eating peanuts. If I tell you eating peanuts could cause cancer would you stop eating them? Because if I'm right, you're going to die of cancer. If I'm wrong, well, you just can't have peanuts, No big Which is completely fucking ridiculous. The difference between what your propose and global warming is that global warming is supported with evidence. If you had evidence I would get cancer from peanuts, I'd stop eating peanuts(I can't eat atm anyway, allergic, but you get the point). If religion proved to be true I'd start praying and all that jazz, assuming it works. But now, as we sit, global warming remains true and the other things remain complete bullshit. The matrix is poorly constructed in that it allows the reader to be biased. It should include the fact that there are lots of evidence for one of the columns. Also, this stuff is way beyond a single individual. The fact that the collective mind of the fucking denialists is screwing what is likely the only planet we will ever inhabit pisses me off. Calling people "denialists" because they don't believe the latest fad that will soon be forgotten is pretty hilarious. What about the people that didn't believe the ice age was coming in the 70's? What about the people that didn't believe the world will end in the year 2000? What about the people that didn't believe SARS would kill us all? Or the bird flu? What about the people that didn't believe snow would be a thing of the past by the late 90's? Stupid denialists, huh? The "scientific community" (whatever that is) were as agreed on many of these things as they are about this. The proof now is NOT better. To me and many others it just seems like a big, convenient lie. Of course HUMANITY is destroying the planet (again), and of course POLITICIANS can save it (again)... You people are god damn fucking amazing. Even in the face of fucktons of proof by the entire climatology field of science you still have the audacity to deny it. My fucking god...
Proof really doesn't matter if you don't play by the same set of rules of logic, proof to you is not proof to someone who won't make the same conclusions as you.
In a way this is good, the only things that changes public opinion as results in action is a sudden change, slow change simply doesn't cut it. Take the ozone hole for example, suddenly, giant hole over the antarctic, news media can put a picture of a giant red spot on the south pole, and people are really worried and thus change happens.
Maybe if greenland just suddenly melts it might help us in the long run put pressure on governments to care about climate. Usually it takes a disaster before something happens, humans are usually pretty bad at prevention and foresight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
