So....the "consensus" on global warming was a crock all along? - Page 92 - E46Fanatics E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Go Back   E46Fanatics > Everything Else > The Off-Topic > Political Talk

Political Talk
You may discuss anything regarding politics in this forum ONLY. If you cannot respect others opinions, your access to this forum will be removed.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11-19-2014, 04:49 PM   #1821
Foxtrot_Uniform
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: 15 acres on the river
Posts: 1,679
My Ride: 325Xi
Quote:
Originally Posted by ti317 View Post
Like Ronald Wilson Reagan said, "Trust but verified". Until we know how much money the "scientists" are making and where the money comes from, they have as much or less credibility as the API guys.
I literally laughed out loud when I read this. You made it sound like there was some college professor climatologist putting stacks of hundred dollar bills in his safe for writing fake reports.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Foxtrot_Uniform is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2014, 04:51 PM   #1822
ti317
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: S. Florida
Posts: 932
My Ride: 02 330ci coupe 5 spd
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Rick View Post
I literally laughed out loud when I read this. You made it sound like there was some college professor climatologist putting stacks of hundred dollar bills in his safe for writing fake reports.
And we all know that college professors would never sell the outcome of their analysis. The only scientists for sale are those the oil companies buy. The rest are "independent".
__________________
The only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn't get any worse every time Congress meets. - Will Rogers
ti317 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2014, 04:59 PM   #1823
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 148
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
lol

I have no idea, but the concept of "average" temperatures is a logical fallacy when it comes to planet earth.
Why is that?
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2014, 05:07 PM   #1824
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In your gf's front hole
Posts: 356
My Ride: Longboard
Send a message via ICQ to Act of God Send a message via AIM to Act of God Send a message via Yahoo to Act of God
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
Why is that?
Because, as I've said 100 times, climate has never been static in earth's billions of years of existence. It was hotter, then it was colder, then it was hotter again, then it was colder again, then it was hotter again, then it was colder again, then it was hotter again, then it was colder again. There is no set climate and there never has been a set climate. As such, any references to "average" are arbitrarily set.
__________________
The left hates 3 things: Racism, Sexism and White Men
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2014, 07:04 PM   #1825
Foxtrot_Uniform
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: 15 acres on the river
Posts: 1,679
My Ride: 325Xi
Quote:
Originally Posted by ti317 View Post
And we all know that college professors would never sell the outcome of their analysis. The only scientists for sale are those the oil companies buy. The rest are "independent".
I am not saying that is true... But it would be more likely.

I am sure there are scientists that would say the sky is yellow if you paid them enough. But there are too many reputable scientists that say there is an issue with global warming. Most reputable scientists state this is true and they are not all on the take. I know there are some that deny global warming but they are in the minority.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Foxtrot_Uniform is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2014, 07:07 PM   #1826
WDE46
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Old Greg's Cavern
Posts: 13,052
My Ride: '13 128i STX
Quote:
Originally Posted by ti317 View Post
And we all know that college professors would never sell the outcome of their analysis. The only scientists for sale are those the oil companies buy. The rest are "independent".

Who are these college professors selling their outcomes to?
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
WDE46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2014, 09:01 PM   #1827
Black///M
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 58
My Ride: 2004 M3 Coupe
Most scientist with PhD's do not work 9-5 jobs. The majority make their living of grants to study whatever. A minority teach and those are mostly the ones that are published with a catchy subject. Regarding the rest, who wants a scientist on paper only? It would be like going to a cardiologist who "read about it" and now is a subject matter expert and ready to cut you open for a heart transplant.

When I was doing the water map of the mid-Atlantic, some of the guys had more than one PhD. They had to get money pay those students loan somehow. 20 years ago the budget for grants to study global warming was 6 billions. I have no idea how much it is now, but I can be certain is not less than it was 20 years ago.
Black///M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2014, 10:05 PM   #1828
ti317
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: S. Florida
Posts: 932
My Ride: 02 330ci coupe 5 spd
Quote:
Originally Posted by WDE46 View Post
Who are these college professors selling their outcomes to?
They would never sell their outcomes but it hey did it would be by tailoring their conclusions to suit the agenda of the people doling out grant money.
__________________
The only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn't get any worse every time Congress meets. - Will Rogers
ti317 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2014, 10:18 PM   #1829
Cabrio330
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Dallas
Posts: 173
My Ride: 2013 F30 335i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
Obviously, not being an author/researcher of that study/graphic, I don't know. I might suggest directing your questions to [email protected].

UPDATE: I went on the University of Maine's Climate Reanalyzer site and found this about the data set they used for their daily summary graphic.
Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR) | NOAA National Climatic Data Center
  • State-of-the-art 3rd generation reanalysis with robust physics and data assimilation. Includes coupled ocean and sea ice models.
  • 0.5x0.5 global grid with 64 vertical levels.
  • Well suited for climate study within the satellite era.
Your comments seems to be leading to the implication that ANY baseline is somehow so arbitrary as to be useless. Cherry picking start and end dates can produce misleading conclusions, as is a common tactic for AGW deniers regarding Arctic ice extent for example -- some tried to disingenously claim that Arctic sea ice was recovering after the anomalously low extent of 2012. Longer periods to form "baselines" are obviously better in general, whether 22 years is sufficiently long is a question better left to statisticians.
It's clear there is A LOT you don't know. Nice that you've finally realized what many of us have known about you for some time.

But yeah, you can conclude that my point is that ANY 22 year period is pointless as a baseline given the age of the earth or even man's tenure on it. It is only slightly more absurd to use 22 minutes as a baseline.

And you're right - AGW derps like you cherry - pick analysis periods and other data to fit their view of "settled science" all the time.

Last edited by Cabrio330; 11-19-2014 at 10:20 PM.
Cabrio330 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2014, 10:21 PM   #1830
ti317
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: S. Florida
Posts: 932
My Ride: 02 330ci coupe 5 spd
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Rick View Post
I am not saying that is true... But it would be more likely.

I am sure there are scientists that would say the sky is yellow if you paid them enough. But there are too many reputable scientists that say there is an issue with global warming. Most reputable scientists state this is true and they are not all on the take. I know there are some that deny global warming but they are in the minority.
Follow the money. It's not like they go on Craig's list and offer to produce outcomes for money but they are aware that the money is given out with the expectation of a pro AGW result. Grants are not given out by government or academic sources to disprove the theory of man made climate change.

Conversely, I would not expect too many research projects funded by Koch Industries to make the case for AGW. The difference is that the Kochs are billionaires while the government is a trillionaire.
__________________
The only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn't get any worse every time Congress meets. - Will Rogers
ti317 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2014, 10:28 PM   #1831
Cabrio330
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Dallas
Posts: 173
My Ride: 2013 F30 335i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
Why is that?
Also, I'm guessing you also "don't know" how or for how long scientists have been measuring ocean temperatures since you didn't respond to my question a couple of pages back. I mean, it's not all that relevant since oceans only cover 70% of the earth's surface so how could it possibly be a factor in AGW, right?
Cabrio330 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2014, 11:04 PM   #1832
WDE46
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Old Greg's Cavern
Posts: 13,052
My Ride: '13 128i STX
Quote:
Originally Posted by ti317 View Post
Follow the money. It's not like they go on Craig's list and offer to produce outcomes for money but they are aware that the money is given out with the expectation of a pro AGW result. Grants are not given out by government or academic sources to disprove the theory of man made climate change.

Conversely, I would not expect too many research projects funded by Koch Industries to make the case for AGW. The difference is that the Kochs are billionaires while the government is a trillionaire.

Except the government isn't really a single minded entity. They also stand to lose far less than someone like the Kochs over AGW. And researchers have been making the same conclusions regardless of who is in control of the government. If it's as you say, then surely when the republicans control funding, the results will skew away from AGW and then opposite for democrats.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
WDE46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2014, 11:36 PM   #1833
ti317
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: S. Florida
Posts: 932
My Ride: 02 330ci coupe 5 spd
Quote:
Originally Posted by WDE46 View Post
Except the government isn't really a single minded entity. They also stand to lose far less than someone like the Kochs over AGW. And researchers have been making the same conclusions regardless of who is in control of the government. If it's as you say, then surely when the republicans control funding, the results will skew away from AGW and then opposite for democrats.
You can't test that theory because we have not had a long enough period of Republican control of both chambers to make an evaluation. Also you seem to think that is it a party idea. It is more of a Progressive idea to gain leverage on the public using the responses to AGW.

I can assure you, there are many Republican Progressives.
__________________
The only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn't get any worse every time Congress meets. - Will Rogers
ti317 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2014, 11:42 PM   #1834
Foxtrot_Uniform
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: 15 acres on the river
Posts: 1,679
My Ride: 325Xi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cabrio330 View Post
Also, I'm guessing you also "don't know" how or for how long scientists have been measuring ocean temperatures since you didn't respond to my question a couple of pages back. I mean, it's not all that relevant since oceans only cover 70% of the earth's surface so how could it possibly be a factor in AGW, right?
The temps of the oceans have been measured for centuries along with the currents and magnetic data. These were not measured by scientists in all cases but by mariners who plied their trade on the oceans as well as explorers.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Foxtrot_Uniform is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2014, 11:43 PM   #1835
Foxtrot_Uniform
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: 15 acres on the river
Posts: 1,679
My Ride: 325Xi
Quote:
Originally Posted by ti317 View Post

I can assure you, there are many Republican Progressives.
Maybe 30-40 years ago... Not too many today.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Foxtrot_Uniform is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2014, 02:32 AM   #1836
5ynd1cat3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 513
My Ride: pisses off liberals
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Rick View Post
Maybe 30-40 years ago... Not too many today.

I think you have that backwards. There are PLENTY of progressive Republicans meandering tither and fro across the amber Waves of fuel.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
5ynd1cat3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2014, 07:11 AM   #1837
ti317
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: S. Florida
Posts: 932
My Ride: 02 330ci coupe 5 spd
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Rick View Post
The temps of the oceans have been measured for centuries along with the currents and magnetic data. These were not measured by scientists in all cases but by mariners who plied their trade on the oceans as well as explorers.
So like many "scientists", you want to incorporate crude measurements taken by non scientific methods, with high precision remote sensing, to form hard and fast conclusions about the climate?
Considering that no quantitative assessment of surface currents could be made until the ability to determine longitude was developed, we only have about three centuries of any sort of data, most of it crudely gathered. We have even less deep current data and if you know anything about ocean currents, you will know that they run three dimensionally, not just along the surface.
Similarly for temperature and magnetic data.
I guess these samples make sense if you think the earth is only 5000-6000 years old. Other than that, the sample set is about equivalent to taking you blindfolded to an entirely strange location, having you open you eyes for one blink and then asking you to describe the flora, fauna, geology and topography of the region.
__________________
The only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn't get any worse every time Congress meets. - Will Rogers
ti317 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2014, 07:13 AM   #1838
ti317
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: S. Florida
Posts: 932
My Ride: 02 330ci coupe 5 spd
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ynd1cat3 View Post
I think you have that backwards. There are PLENTY of progressive Republicans meandering tither and fro across the amber Waves of fuel.
A prime example of that would be the bipartisan support for the ethanol fuel boondoggle.
__________________
The only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn't get any worse every time Congress meets. - Will Rogers
ti317 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2014, 07:33 AM   #1839
WDE46
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Old Greg's Cavern
Posts: 13,052
My Ride: '13 128i STX
So....the "consensus" on global warming was a crock all along?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ti317 View Post
A prime example of that would be the bipartisan support for the ethanol fuel boondoggle.

Ethanol appeals to republican representatives because of the corn subsidies. That means more money for their rural constituents. It appeals to democrats because it is touted as being environmentally friendly, but it is not. And also it's sold as reducing our dependence on foreign oil which is agreeable to both sides.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by WDE46; 11-20-2014 at 07:34 AM.
WDE46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2014, 07:43 AM   #1840
Foxtrot_Uniform
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: 15 acres on the river
Posts: 1,679
My Ride: 325Xi
Quote:
Originally Posted by ti317 View Post
So like many "scientists", you want to incorporate crude measurements taken by non scientific methods, with high precision remote sensing, to form hard and fast conclusions about the climate?
Considering that no quantitative assessment of surface currents could be made until the ability to determine longitude was developed, we only have about three centuries of any sort of data, most of it crudely gathered. We have even less deep current data and if you know anything about ocean currents, you will know that they run three dimensionally, not just along the surface.
Similarly for temperature and magnetic data.
I guess these samples make sense if you think the earth is only 5000-6000 years old. Other than that, the sample set is about equivalent to taking you blindfolded to an entirely strange location, having you open you eyes for one blink and then asking you to describe the flora, fauna, geology and topography of the region.
While I agree that mariners from centuries ago didn't have access to GPS to plot course and speed exactly... And they didn't have analysis of CO2 data... Their methods were hardly crude. They needed to trust their data and analysis with their lives. Their temperature readings, while not calibrated among a group, were accurate. Their magnetic data was spot on. If you read up on how they produced maps back then, many of which you could easily navigate with today, you would see they were correct. Their measurements on magnetic declination have also been verified as spot on. Scientists of today can go back to verify these readings.

You are correct, they only knew of surface currents. They had no idea of thermohaline circulation.

I do not have "hard and fast" conclusions about global warming. The Earth's climate and weather patterns change from century to century and millennia to millennia. This is a fact. But any scientist and certainly anyone with any level of intelligence would know that unlocking CO2 that has been stored away for millions of years and pumping it back into the atmosphere is a game you can only play for a while until the Earth reacts to it.

Scientists do have data that shows what the Earth's natural emissions have been over time. The pattern has been relatively steady for the past several thousand years. The CO2 that had been created naturally was almost perfectly offset by natural carbon sinks that store it away.

But if we keep pumping billions upon billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year while at the same time we keep up deforesting large areas of the Earth and changing/destroying the natural carbon sinks that nature provides... I don't see where any rational, intelligent person wouldn't think that would cause some sort of change... And not for the better!
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Foxtrot_Uniform is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Censor is ON



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
(c) 1999 - VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.