Thread: Well, that's a conflict of interest

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

Sure.....whatever, bro.
http://www.inhofe.senate.gov/downloa...831&download=1
Maybe you can Verify The facts in this report, I cannot, because ALL the links are broken.

"don't bother to reply" was directed at you, not Grayman, Therefor it has no bearance on me or his proof.
The next qualifier I set was directed towards the relativity of what the Antarctic ice levels in that area has to do with climate change.

Who you aimed what at is not only irrelevant its ridiculous. Your claim is there is nothing to discuss on this topic when it appears quite obviously there is and what makes that even more laughable is you haven't even demonstrated that you understand what the actual debate is.

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

you wanna rehash wtf a theory is too? How about the theory of Gravity? I'll wait...

We can if you want because the definitions held my argument all on their own.

Originally Posted by AetheLove

Ok, well, maybe you can tell me more about the 60s.

Insisting that we call it cooling, or warming, or change(ing), is what turns any reasonable discussion into an idiot argument.

I was referring to ocean acidification, which (as far as I know) was first noticed, measured, and linked potentially with human activity, in the 60s. That is (again, as far as I know) the first time there was any direct evidence that human activity might have significant effect on the global environment.

Humans have learned a lot since then. Plate Tectonics - as an idea - is barely 100 years old, and it's less than 50 years since it became generally accepted. The idea of the biosphere is only a little older. It wasn't very long ago that you'd be considered a lunatic for suggesting that the climate on earth had ever been any different. I think we're mostly past that stage of human ignorance.

Ironically, it's general acceptance of the idea that the climate has changed in the past that gives charlatans a fig leaf when they deny that human activity is having an effect. "Oh, sure, maybe the climate is changing, but is that new? The climate changed before too - and it changed before there were even humans."

So the point of friction has moved. Deniers used to argue about whether the climate had ever been any different over the entire history of the earth (which is to say, over the last 6,000 to 12,000 years that have passed since the creation). Now we're arguing about whether human activity matters.

... and the people who aren't helping are the people who think that calling it "warming" or "changing" means fuck-all. "It can't be warming because yesterday there was snow!"

It's a complex, dynamic system. Change propagates in many ways over short, medium, and very long times. Mapping the past is hard. Predicting the future is harder. But I think it's safe to say that anyone who thinks that last month's local weather is a good indicator of anything is an idiot, and anyone who says that humans aren't having some effect is a dangerous idiot.

I trust paleogeologists when they tell me how many hundreds of millions of years it took for primitive plant life on Earth to oxygenate the atmosphere and sequester sufficient carbon for animal life to evolve. Hundreds of Millions of years is what it took the Earth, working on its own, to create an atmosphere that would allow the existence of humans.

Now there's lots of humans. For about 200 years they've been working hard to get that carbon back out. That's not a very long time, but I think we're pretty efficient when we want to be.

I'd like prominent people who don't know what the hell they're talking about to shut up. But they're not going to. So instead I'd like them to help me immortalize their prominence.

Maybe Senator Inhofe will step up and be the first to be listed among the righteous.


Æ

60's was before my time but i do remember the 70's if that helps. While i can see your point on what its named i also see why it matters. Then we were prepping for the next ice age because we were over due and it was getting "cooler". Then it got warmer and here we are. So yeah its just a stupid name but in itself it shows the lack of understanding science has on this issue.

Not for nothing but plate tectonics was taught when i was in middle school. Not quite 50 years ago but our books weren't exactly new either. I am willing to say i get what you're implying but that in itself is barely relevant and easier to prove then our impact on climate change.

The point of friction has always leaned far more to our impact versus does it change. Even those that dont grasp the topic still thought short term and could tell winter was colder then summer.

As for predicting the future well you have to understand we all know if we're counting on science to call it right on this we better not hold our breath because they haven't gotten 1 right yet.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

60's was before my time but i do remember the 70's if that helps. While i can see your point on what its named i also see why it matters.

I agree that the name matters. If there's something going on it'd be nice for there to be an appropriate name. Bad names mean that easily distracted people (ie: all of us) get bogged down in meaningless arguments. Bad names subvert our attention. "Global Stinking" is a bad name even though current trends mean that some of the changes taking place will result in bad smells.

But that feels to me like a secondary consideration. The people who do serious work on this aren't spending most of their time arguing about a name. They're busy mapping change over time, trying to sort out complex interactions, and figuring the extent to which humans might be the source of (or have control over) some of the causes.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Then we were prepping for the next ice age because we were over due and it was getting "cooler". Then it got warmer and here we are. So yeah its just a stupid name but in itself it shows the lack of understanding science has on this issue.

Science The people who study this stuff will always have a lack of understanding. There will always be uncertainty on the point of attack because that's always where science goes. If we wait until we understand everything we will always wait too long.

That pattern repeats itself. Dozens of examples come to mind, but this is among the best:

1854 Broad Street cholera outbreak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[John Snow's map is, in my mind, the second greatest info-graphic ever created. also, it's a short article. lastly, there is so much learning to be had in such a short space that it should be taught in every school]

John Snow's map showed exactly what the problem was, and also what was needed to fix the problem. The fix would be very expensive. No one knew the mechanism by which the disease actually spread. There were 100 (stupid) arguments to be made which focused on what 'science' didn't yet know nor even have a clue how to begin to describe.

All of those arguments about what 'science' didn't know and couldn't describe were completely correct and absolutely pointless. Yes - there was still more to learn. Yes - a better understanding might lead to a better (or cheaper) solution. Yes - everyone making those arguments had no fucking clue what the existing evidence meant and everyone making those arguments could best help the situation by shutting up (and maybe also helping to support research).

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Not for nothing but plate tectonics was taught when i was in middle school. Not quite 50 years ago but our books weren't exactly new either. I am willing to say i get what you're implying but that in itself is barely relevant and easier to prove then our impact on climate change.

The point of friction has always leaned far more to our impact versus does it change. Even those that dont grasp the topic still thought short term and could tell winter was colder then summer.

As for predicting the future well you have to understand we all know if we're counting on science to call it right on this we better not hold our breath because they haven't gotten 1 right yet.

I also learned about plate tectonics in middle school. What I didn't learn until much later was that the theory was relatively new. Reading about how the theory came to be, and the process by which so many prominent people scoffed at it even as evidence grew, and kept scoffing right up to the point where the evidence became irrefutable, taught me a lot.

What I learned in middle school was facts. I learned the explanations for why this and why that. Because it was presented to me in a way that seemed to have all the answers, and because I embraced it all, I became a person who thought about the world in those terms and was very skeptical of incompleteness. I valued consistency and mistrusted inconsistency. I still do.

But I was lucky enough to go on learning after that, and what I learned (both in school and in the real world of doing things) is that all the most interesting and fun and useful things happen in the messy reality of uncertainty.

[it's also possible that I was, back in middle and high school, just a bit insufferable about how much I knew - but I got over that and am now insufferable about other things]

Consistency and correctness still matter, and are very useful, but among the many good questions to be asked this one is important:

What should we do in the face of uncertainty and incomplete knowledge?


Æ

Originally Posted by AetheLove

I agree that the name matters. If there's something going on it'd be nice for there to be an appropriate name. Bad names mean that easily distracted people (ie: all of us) get bogged down in meaningless arguments. Bad names subvert our attention. "Global Stinking" is a bad name even though current trends mean that some of the changes taking place will result in bad smells.

But that feels to me like a secondary consideration. The people who do serious work on this aren't spending most of their time arguing about a name. They're busy mapping change over time, trying to sort out complex interactions, and figuring the extent to which humans might be the source of (or have control over) some of the causes.

See but here's the problem. At the time those were the appropriate names. Global cooling was used because of a cooling trend and an expected ice age that was over due. Global warming was used because they figured out the cooling was a temp thing. Climate change was used not because it was appropriate but because they already looked liked fools twice over.

Now while I agree those that are serious about it are doing those things i feel that is the much smaller part of the group. The larger group is far more concerned with making money off of the current trend.

Originally Posted by AetheLove

Science The people who study this stuff will always have a lack of understanding. There will always be uncertainty on the point of attack because that's always where science goes. If we wait until we understand everything we will always wait too long.

That pattern repeats itself. Dozens of examples come to mind, but this is among the best:

1854 Broad Street cholera outbreak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[John Snow's map is, in my mind, the second greatest info-graphic ever created. also, it's a short article. lastly, there is so much learning to be had in such a short space that it should be taught in every school]

John Snow's map showed exactly what the problem was, and also what was needed to fix the problem. The fix would be very expensive. No one knew the mechanism by which the disease actually spread. There were 100 (stupid) arguments to be made which focused on what 'science' didn't yet know nor even have a clue how to begin to describe.

All of those arguments about what 'science' didn't know and couldn't describe were completely correct and absolutely pointless. Yes - there was still more to learn. Yes - a better understanding might lead to a better (or cheaper) solution. Yes - everyone making those arguments had no fucking clue what the existing evidence meant and everyone making those arguments could best help the situation by shutting up (and maybe also helping to support research).

There can't be a lack of understanding. As Smokin already stated these are facts and they are not disputable or open for discussion. Well at least thats how they are treated while people like him spew the garbage they have been sucked into. Not sure if comparing medical science for a disease treatment carries over to climate change but i believe i get your point even though i don't think it works well.

Originally Posted by AetheLove

I also learned about plate tectonics in middle school. What I didn't learn until much later was that the theory was relatively new. Reading about how the theory came to be, and the process by which so many prominent people scoffed at it even as evidence grew, and kept scoffing right up to the point where the evidence became irrefutable, taught me a lot.

What I learned in middle school was facts. I learned the explanations for why this and why that. Because it was presented to me in a way that seemed to have all the answers, and because I embraced it all, I became a person who thought about the world in those terms and was very skeptical of incompleteness. I valued consistency and mistrusted inconsistency. I still do.

But I was lucky enough to go on learning after that, and what I learned (both in school and in the real world of doing things) is that all the most interesting and fun and useful things happen in the messy reality of uncertainty.

[it's also possible that I was, back in middle and high school, just a bit insufferable about how much I knew - but I got over that and am now insufferable about other things]

Consistency and correctness still matter, and are very useful, but among the many good questions to be asked this one is important:

What should we do in the face of uncertainty and incomplete knowledge?


Æ

We viewed school for a different set of eyes. School did not teach me certainty, it taught me to question everything and look for multiple answers to the same question even then because my school was probably more advanced then most at that time. So to cut the question at the end you make multiple variable answers and acknowledge we don't truly know the question much less the answer. With that it should be clear we most certainly cant act like we have facts sitting in front of us when at best we have a theory.