The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » New Report on Global Warming » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (153 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..30..57..84..111..134~135~136~137~138..156..173..190..207..224~225~226 [Next]
Gorlzax
View Profile
New user
39 Posts

Profile of Gorlzax
Quote:
On Sep 18, 2016, Dannydoyle wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 18, 2016, danaruns wrote:
Good grief. I'm thankful that Magnus Eisengrim is taking the laboring oar here, or there would be no sense in this thread whatsoever. I agree with everything he has said in the last few pages, including his answer to Danny Doyle's restatement of my question.

Now, what evidence would it take for climate deniers to believe that man made global warming is occurring, and is dangerous to human economies and life? Anything? Or is there nothing at all because it is a matter of dogma, as I suspect.


Why do you not answer my questions? What evidence would it take for you to change your position at all?

See my point in asking is to show that it is not relevant. Who cares if anyone agree 100%? The right thing is the right thing and if progress happens in spite of people then so be it.

But by the same token blind adherence to ideology is also bad.

So I think if we reframe the debate to just moving forward it is more productive than look at me I am smarter than you.

Also I think giving government a blank check to fix this is a horrific idea. We do need to be smart about this. So much has been a power and money grab. Certainly you can not deny this can you?



I think this is constructive comment from Dannydoyle about reframing the debate to moving forward. So, question to all: what are the best ways that, we as humans can take care of this earth and help it to feel better? Because, if I understand you all correctly, everybody here thinks that we should take as good care of this planet as we can. And when we find the best possible way to do that, we will also find out that does that have an positive impact on the climate. So, actually no need to argue about Is GW man made or not, because like Dannydoyle said, right thing is right thing and we should move forward and do the absolute best we can as humans.

So rockwall, tommy, RNK, Dannydoyle and the rest of you, if you allow, I would like to kind of quote one certain presidential candidate: how will we make this planet great again?
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
763 Posts

Profile of rockwall
To those of you who have such high faith in 'experts', you might want to catch Sully at the local theater. This movie is a "thrilling portrait of heroic airline pilot Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, re-enacting his incredible successful emergency landing of an Airbus A320 full of passengers on the Hudson River." and has received high praise for its story telling.

Not to give too much away but all the 'experts' and 'expert modeling' proved that Sully could have turned the plane around and landed back at the airport instead of putting the life of the passengers at risk and destroying a multi-million dollar plane. The movies ending should be instructive to those who put blind faith in the 'experts'.
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
763 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Quote:
On Sep 20, 2016, Gorlzax wrote:
....

I think this is constructive comment from Dannydoyle about reframing the debate to moving forward. So, question to all: what are the best ways that, we as humans can take care of this earth and help it to feel better? Because, if I understand you all correctly, everybody here thinks that we should take as good care of this planet as we can. And when we find the best possible way to do that, we will also find out that does that have an positive impact on the climate. So, actually no need to argue about Is GW man made or not, because like Dannydoyle said, right thing is right thing and we should move forward and do the absolute best we can as humans.

So rockwall, tommy, RNK, Dannydoyle and the rest of you, if you allow, I would like to kind of quote one certain presidential candidate: how will we make this planet great again?


Here's a suggestion. Let's euthanize all of China. This will immediately decrease the worlds carbon footprint by about a third, just in regards to CO2 output, not to mention all the food available for other people on the earth. I am sure that this will help the earth to feel better and we will find that this will have a positive impact on the climate. It may sound drastic but I doubt you will find a better way to actually cut down on that much CO2 and think of the alternative where everyone on the earth dies instead of just one country of mostly very poor people. I hope you give this serious consideration and realize that this is probably the absolute best we can do as humans to make our planet happy again.
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
173 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Sep 20, 2016, Dannydoyle wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 20, 2016, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
I guess I don't understand the whole picture. I believe that geologists are the best judges of geology. That entomologists know the most about insects. That surgeons know more about surgery than some blogger on the internet. That climate scientists are the most expert analysts of climate data.

Clearly I am wrong. I need to read more right-wing, Christian Kock-funded blogs to truly understand the world.

How could I have been so foolish as to believe that climate scientists know more about climate than rockwall and RNK.

Finished and out.


Not the most persuasive argument I have seen.


Actually, Magnus's admirable intellectual honesty aside (we should all have his intellectual honesty), it's quite persuasive when you consider this list of major scientific organizations that "hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action":
https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

1.Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
2.Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
3.Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
4.Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
5.Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
6.Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
7.Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
8.Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
9.Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
10.Académie des Sciences, France
11.Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
12.Academy of Athens
13.Academy of Science of Mozambique
14.Academy of Science of South Africa
15.Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
16.Academy of Sciences Malaysia
17.Academy of Sciences of Moldova
18.Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
19.Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
20.Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
21.Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
22.Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
23.Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
24.African Academy of Sciences
25.Albanian Academy of Sciences
26.Amazon Environmental Research Institute
27.American Academy of Pediatrics
28.American Anthropological Association
29.American Association for the Advancement of Science
30.American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
31.American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
32.American Astronomical Society
33.American Chemical Society
34.American College of Preventive Medicine
35.American Fisheries Society
36.American Geophysical Union
37.American Institute of Biological Sciences
38.American Institute of Physics
39.American Meteorological Society
40.American Physical Society
41.American Public Health Association
42.American Quaternary Association
43.American Society for Microbiology
44.American Society of Agronomy
45.American Society of Civil Engineers
46.American Society of Plant Biologists
47.American Statistical Association
48.Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
49.Australian Academy of Science
50.Australian Bureau of Meteorology
51.Australian Coral Reef Society
52.Australian Institute of Marine Science
53.Australian Institute of Physics
54.Australian Marine Sciences Association
55.Australian Medical Association
56.Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
57.Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
58.Botanical Society of America
59.Brazilian Academy of Sciences
60.British Antarctic Survey
61.Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
62.California Academy of Sciences
63.Cameroon Academy of Sciences
64.Canadian Association of Physicists
65.Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
66.Canadian Geophysical Union
67.Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
68.Canadian Society of Soil Science
69.Canadian Society of Zoologists
70.Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
71.Center for International Forestry Research
72.Chinese Academy of Sciences
73.Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
74.Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
75.Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
76.Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
77.Crop Science Society of America
78.Cuban Academy of Sciences
79.Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
80.Ecological Society of America
81.Ecological Society of Australia
82.Environmental Protection Agency
83.European Academy of Sciences and Arts
84.European Federation of Geologists
85.European Geosciences Union
86.European Physical Society
87.European Science Foundation
88.Federation of American Scientists
89.French Academy of Sciences
90.Geological Society of America
91.Geological Society of Australia
92.Geological Society of London
93.Georgian Academy of Sciences
94.German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
95.Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
96.Indian National Science Academy
97.Indonesian Academy of Sciences
98.Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
99.Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
100.Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
101.Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
102.InterAcademy Council
103.International Alliance of Research Universities
104.International Arctic Science Committee
105.International Association for Great Lakes Research
106.International Council for Science
107.International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
108.International Research Institute for Climate and Society
109.International Union for Quaternary Research
110.International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
111.International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
112.Islamic World Academy of Sciences
113.Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
114.Kenya National Academy of Sciences
115.Korean Academy of Science and Technology
116.Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
117.l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
118.Latin American Academy of Sciences
119.Latvian Academy of Sciences
120.Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
121.Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
122.Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
123.Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
124.National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
125.National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
126.National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
127.National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
128.National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
129.National Aeronautics and Space Administration
130.National Association of Geoscience Teachers
131.National Association of State Foresters
132.National Center for Atmospheric Research
133.National Council of Engineers Australia
134.National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
135.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
136.National Research Council
137.National Science Foundation
138.Natural England
139.Natural Environment Research Council, UK
140.Natural Science Collections Alliance
141.Network of African Science Academies
142.New York Academy of Sciences
143.Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
144.Nigerian Academy of Sciences
145.Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
146.Oklahoma Climatological Survey
147.Organization of Biological Field Stations
148.Pakistan Academy of Sciences
149.Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
150.Pew Center on Global Climate Change
151.Polish Academy of Sciences
152.Romanian Academy
153.Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
154.Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
155.Royal Astronomical Society, UK
156.Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
157.Royal Irish Academy
158.Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
159.Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
160.Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
161.Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
162.Royal Society of Canada
163.Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
164.Royal Society of the United Kingdom
165.Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
166.Russian Academy of Sciences
167.Science and Technology, Australia
168.Science Council of Japan
169.Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
170.Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
171.Scripps Institution of Oceanography
172.Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
173.Slovak Academy of Sciences
174.Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
175.Society for Ecological Restoration International
176.Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
177.Society of American Foresters
178.Society of Biology (UK)
179.Society of Systematic Biologists
180.Soil Science Society of America
181.Sudan Academy of Sciences
182.Sudanese National Academy of Science
183.Tanzania Academy of Sciences
184.The Wildlife Society (international)
185.Turkish Academy of Sciences
186.Uganda National Academy of Sciences
187.Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
188.United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
189.University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
190.Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
191.World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
192.World Federation of Public Health Associations
193.World Forestry Congress
194.World Health Organization
195.World Meteorological Organization
196.Zambia Academy of Sciences
197.Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences


Is that persuasive enough for you? NASA? NOAA? The American Meteorological Society? The Geological Society of America? The American Physical Society? The International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences? The National Academy of Sciences, United States of America? And 190 other scientific bodies?

If you disagree with their conclusions, you'd have to demonstrate that either they all don't know what they're doing, or that they have all entered into some sort of nefarious conspiracy. Personally, I think it's much more reasonable to accept the consensus scientific view than to extrapolate to claims of ineptness or conspiratorial behavior on such a grand scale.


Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20613 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
I didn't say I disagree with anything did I?

But why i? NOT ONE of those vaunted organizations Wii answer my questions
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
173 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Sep 20, 2016, rockwall wrote:
To those of you who have such high faith in 'experts', you might want to catch Sully at the local theater. This movie is a "thrilling portrait of heroic airline pilot Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, re-enacting his incredible successful emergency landing of an Airbus A320 full of passengers on the Hudson River." and has received high praise for its story telling.

Not to give too much away but all the 'experts' and 'expert modeling' proved that Sully could have turned the plane around and landed back at the airport instead of putting the life of the passengers at risk and destroying a multi-million dollar plane. The movies ending should be instructive to those who put blind faith in the 'experts'.


Apparently, yes, he could have turned the plane around and landed back at the airport:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ntsb-sully-c......guardia/

But because he chose the better of 2 options doesn't mean the expert modelling was wrong.

Quote:
US Airways Flight 1549 could have made it back to New York's LaGuardia Airport after colliding with geese last year, but under the circumstances the captain's decision to ditch into the Hudson River was the better choice, documents released Tuesday by a federal safety panel said.

The documents, released as the National Transportation Safety Board prepared to consider safety lessons from the accident, show that if pilot Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger had immediately attempted to return to LaGuardia after ingesting geese into both engines the Airbus A320 would have made it - barely.

In simulators at Airbus's training center in Toulouse, France programmed to recreate the conditions faced by US Airways Flight 1549 on that fateful day, pilots were repeatedly able to turn the airliner around after the engines lost power and successfully land on a runway back at LaGuardia, reports CBS News producer Carter Yang.

But that scenario would have required Sullenberger to make an immediate decision with little or no time to assess the situation. He also would have had no way of knowing that he would be successful, and therefore would have been risking the possibility of a catastrophic crash in a densely populated area.

"Although an emergency return to La Guardia Runway 13 was technically feasible from an aircraft flight performance point of view, the emergency landing on the Hudson seems the most appropriate decision," Airbus said in an assessment submitted to the board.

Sullenberger chose instead to glide the plane into the river, where a rupture near the plane's tail sent water gushing into the cabin. All 155 passengers and crew aboard managed to escape the sinking aircraft.



So an airport landing, although risky, was indeed possible. That being said, IF Sully had chosen to turn around and did land safely at the airport (which we'll never know), one could have used the same argument - i.e., he made the better decision than ditching in the river. Hindsight is 20/20.


Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
173 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Sep 20, 2016, Dannydoyle wrote:
I didn't say I disagree with anything did I?

But why i? NOT ONE of those vaunted organizations Wii answer my questions


Which organizations did you try to contact? And what questions were you asking?

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
Pop Haydn
View Profile
Inner circle
Los Angeles
3543 Posts

Profile of Pop Haydn
Here's a list of organizations of experts that don't believe in Global Warming:

American Enterprise Institute

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has routinely tried to undermine the credibility of climate science, despite at times affirming that the “weight of the evidence” justifies “prudent action” on climate change.

For years, AEI played a role in propagating misinformation about a manufactured controversy over emails stolen from climate scientists, with one AEI research fellow even claiming, “There was no consensus about the extent and causes of global warming.” A resident scholar at AEI went so far as to state that the profession of climate scientist “threatens to overtake all” on the list of “most distrusted occupations.”
AEI received $3,615,000 from ExxonMobil from 1998-2012, and more than $1 million in funding from Koch foundations from 2004-2011.

Americans for Prosperity

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) frequently provides a platform for climate contrarian statements, such as “How much information refutes carbon dioxide-caused global warming? Let me count the ways.”

While claiming to be a grassroots organization, AFP has bolstered its list of “activists” by hosting “$1.84 Gas” events, where consumers who receive discounts on gasoline are asked to provide their name and email address on a “petition” form. [8] These events are billed as raising awareness about “failing energy policies” and high gasoline prices, but consumers are not told about AFP’s ties to oil interests, namely Koch Industries.

AFP has its origins in a group founded in 1984 by fossil fuel billionaires Charles and David Koch, and the latter Koch still serves on AFP Foundation’s board of directors. Richard Fink, executive vice president of Koch Industries, also serves as a director for both AFP and AFP Foundation.

Koch foundations donated $3,609,281 to AFP Foundation from 2007-2011.

American Legislative Exchange Council

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) maintains that “global climate change is inevitable” and since the 1990s has pushed various forms of model legislation aimed at obstructing policies intended to reduce global warming emissions.

ALEC purports to “support the use of sound science to guide policy,” but routinely provides a one-sided platform for climate contrarians. State legislators attending one ALEC meeting were offered a workshop touting a report by a fossil fuel-funded group that declared “like love, carbon dioxide's many splendors are seemingly endless." Another ALEC meeting featured a Fox News contributor who has claimed on the air that carbon dioxide “literally cannot cause global warming.”

ALEC received more than $1.6 million from ExxonMobil from 1998-2012, and more than $850,000 from Koch foundations from 1997-2011.

Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University

From its position as the research arm of the Department of Economics at Suffolk University, the Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) has published misleading analyses of clean energy and climate change policies in more than three dozen states.

These economic analyses are at times accompanied by a dose of climate contrarianism. For example, BHI Director David Tuerck has claimed that “the very question of whether the climate is warming is in doubt…” Claims such as “wind power actually increases pollution” can be found in many of BHI’s reports.

BHI has publicly acknowledged its Koch funding, which likely includes at least some of the approximately $725,000 the Charles G. Koch foundation contributed to Suffolk University from 2008-2011.

Cato Institute

Cato acknowledges that “Global warming is indeed real…” But when it comes to the causes of global warming, Cato has sent mixed messages over the years. Cato's website, for instance, reports that “… human activity has been a contributor [to global warming] since 1975.” [23] Yet, on the same topic of whether human activity is responsible for global warming, Cato’s vice president has written: “We don’t know.”

Patrick Michaels, Director of Cato’s Center for the Study of Science, has referred to the latest Draft National Climate Assessment Report as “the stuff of fantasy.” The most recent edition of Cato’s “Handbook for Policymakers” advises that Congress should “pass no legislation restricting emissions of carbon dioxide.”

Charles Koch co-founded Cato in 1977. Both Charles and David Koch were among the four “shareholders” who “owned” Cato until 2011, and the latter Koch remains a member of Cato’s Board of Directors. Koch foundations contributed more than $5 million to Cato from 1997-2011.

Competitive Enterprise Institute

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has at times acknowledged that “Global warming is a reality.” But CEI has also routinely disputed that global warming is a problem, contending that “There is no ‘scientific consensus’ that global warming will cause damaging climate change.”

These kinds of claims are nothing new for CEI. Back in 1991, CEI was claiming that “The greatest challenge we face is not warming, but cooling.” More recently, CEI produced an ad calling for higher levels of carbon dioxide. One CEI scholar even publicly compared a prominent climate scientist to convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky.

CEI received around $2 million in funding from ExxonMobil from 1995-2005, though ExxonMobil made a public break with CEI in 2007 after coming under scrutiny from UCS and other groups for its funding of climate contrarian organizations. CEI has also received funding from Koch foundations, dating back to the 1980s.

Heartland Institute

While claiming to stand up for “sound science,” the Heartland Institute has routinely spread misinformation about climate science, including deliberate attacks on climate scientists.

Popular outcry forced the Heartland Institute to pull down a controversial billboard that compared supporters of global warming facts to Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, bringing an early end to a planned campaign first announced in an essay by Heartland President Joseph Bast, which claimed “… the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.”

Heartland even once marked Earth Day by mailing out 100,000 free copies of a book claiming that “climate science has been corrupted” – despite acknowledging that “…all major scientific organizations of the world have taken the official position that humankind is causing global warming.”

Heartland received more than $675,000 from ExxonMobil from 1997-2006. Heartland also raked in millions from the Koch-funded organization Donors Trust through 2011.

Heritage Foundation

While maintaining that “Science should be used as one tool to guide climate policy,” the Heritage Foundation often uses rhetoric such as “far from settled” to sow doubt about climate science. One Heritage report even claimed that “The only consensus over the threat of climate change that seems to exist these days is that there is no consensus.”

Vocal climate contrarians, meanwhile, are described as “the world’s best scientists when it comes to the climate change study” in the words of one Heritage policy analyst.

Heritage received more than $4.5 million from Koch foundations from 1997-2011. ExxonMobil contributed $780,000 to the Heritage Foundation from 2001-2012. ExxonMobil continues to provide annual contributions to the Heritage Foundation, despite making a public pledge in 2007 to stop funding climate contrarian groups.

Institute for Energy Research

The term “alarmism” is defined by Mirriam-Webster as “the often unwarranted exciting of fears or warning of danger.” So when Robert Bradley, CEO and founder of the Institute for Energy Research (IER), and others at his organization routinely evoke the term “climate alarmism” they do so to sow doubt about the urgency of global warming.

IER claims that public policy “should be based on objective science, not emotion or improbable scenarios …” But IER also claims that the sense of urgency for climate action is due not to the science that shows the real and growing conequences of global warming. Rather, IER suggests that researchers “exacerbate the sense [that] policies are urgently needed” for monetary gain, noting that “issues that are perceived to be an imminent crisis can mean more funding.”

IER has received funding from both ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers.

Manhattan Institute for Policy Research

The Manhattan Institute has acknowledged that the “scientific consensus is that the planet is warming,” while at the same time maintaining that “… accounts of climate change convey a sense of certitude that is probably unjustified.”

“The science is not settled, not by a long shot,” Robert Bryce, a Manhattan Institute senior fellow has written in the Wall Street Journal. At other times Bryce has expressed indifference to the science on climate change. “I don’t know who’s right. And I really don’t care,” he wrote in one book.

The Manhattan Institute has received $635,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998, with annual contributions continuing as of 2012, and nearly $2 million from Koch foundations from 1997-2011.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sol......SlfArI-U
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16261 Posts

Profile of tommy
Nobody disagrees with the position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action, what some disagree about is the amount and if it is significant or not and so your assertion is irrelevant to the issue.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
NicholasD
View Profile
Inner circle
1460 Posts

Profile of NicholasD
I may be simplifying this, but if the science were settled, we wouldn't be on the 91st page of this, would we? Just sayin'.
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16261 Posts

Profile of tommy
That also explains why the 97% poll is just another childish parlour trick being passed off as science by that bunch of utter charlatans commonly known as climate hysterics.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
763 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Quote:
On Sep 20, 2016, R.S. wrote:
...

So an airport landing, although risky, was indeed possible. That being said, IF Sully had chosen to turn around and did land safely at the airport (which we'll never know), one could have used the same argument - i.e., he made the better decision than ditching in the river. Hindsight is 20/20.


Ron


I'm going to hazard a guess and bet you didn't watch the movie.

The movie doesn't disagree with what the NTSB stated, just made it clear why their statement is fairly meaningless.
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
763 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Quote:
On Sep 20, 2016, R.S. wrote:
...
Is that persuasive enough for you? NASA? NOAA? The American Meteorological Society? The Geological Society of America? The American Physical Society? The International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences? The National Academy of Sciences, United States of America? And 190 other scientific bodies?

If you disagree with their conclusions, you'd have to demonstrate that either they all don't know what they're doing, or that they have all entered into some sort of nefarious conspiracy. Personally, I think it's much more reasonable to accept the consensus scientific view than to extrapolate to claims of ineptness or conspiratorial behavior on such a grand scale.


Ron


And another "intellectually honest" poster completely misses the point of the entire discussion here and ignores the fact that nearly every skeptic here has also stated that they agree that some of global warming can be attributed to humans.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20613 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On Sep 20, 2016, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 20, 2016, ?ydoyle wrote:
I didn't say I disagree with anything did I?

But why i? NOT ONE of those vaunted organizations Wii answer my questions


Which organizations did you try to contact? And what questions were you asking?

Ron


They have not published solutions have they?

Asking the same questions for 59 pages.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
173 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Sep 20, 2016, rockwall wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 20, 2016, R.S. wrote:
...

So an airport landing, although risky, was indeed possible. That being said, IF Sully had chosen to turn around and did land safely at the airport (which we'll never know), one could have used the same argument - i.e., he made the better decision than ditching in the river. Hindsight is 20/20.


Ron


I'm going to hazard a guess and bet you didn't watch the movie.

The movie doesn't disagree with what the NTSB stated, just made it clear why their statement is fairly meaningless.



No, I haven't seen the movie. I was just responding to your characterization of "expert modelling" and your implication that turning the plane around was not realistically possible/feasible.

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
173 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Sep 20, 2016, Dannydoyle wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 20, 2016, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 20, 2016, ?ydoyle wrote:
I didn't say I disagree with anything did I?

But why i? NOT ONE of those vaunted organizations Wii answer my questions


Which organizations did you try to contact? And what questions were you asking?

Ron


They have not published solutions have they?

Asking the same questions for 59 pages.


Danny, this does not answer my questions of which organizations you tried to contact and what questions you were asking them.


Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
173 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Sep 20, 2016, NicholasD wrote:
I may be simplifying this, but if the science were settled, we wouldn't be on the 91st page of this, would we? Just sayin'.


Yes, you're simplifying this. This is a lay discussion amongst non-climate scientists. Some of whom insists/imply that the vast majority of actual experts are misguided, or worse, involved in some sort of conspiracy.

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
173 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Sep 20, 2016, rockwall wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 20, 2016, R.S. wrote:
...
Is that persuasive enough for you? NASA? NOAA? The American Meteorological Society? The Geological Society of America? The American Physical Society? The International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences? The National Academy of Sciences, United States of America? And 190 other scientific bodies?

If you disagree with their conclusions, you'd have to demonstrate that either they all don't know what they're doing, or that they have all entered into some sort of nefarious conspiracy. Personally, I think it's much more reasonable to accept the consensus scientific view than to extrapolate to claims of ineptness or conspiratorial behavior on such a grand scale.


Ron


And another "intellectually honest" poster completely misses the point of the entire discussion here and ignores the fact that nearly every skeptic here has also stated that they agree that some of global warming can be attributed to humans.


Do YOU agree with the consensus view of the 197 scientific organizations that I listed?

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
RNK
View Profile
Inner circle
5484 Posts

Profile of RNK
Quote:
On Sep 20, 2016, NicholasD wrote:
I may be simplifying this, but if the science were settled, we wouldn't be on the 91st page of this, would we? Just sayin'.


Exactly NicholasD! People just brush over this because they want so badly for their side and agenda to be right. This is not a major problem, as you said, if it was, SOMETHING would have been done by now. But nothing is done because their is to much conflicting evidence and faked hockey graphs along with NO doomsday predictions coming true. So the mudslinging will continue......and....nothing will be done about it because their is NO consensus that GW is happening and especially that man is causing it. Just silly. Maybe, just maybe, if ONE of Al Gore's (The Planet has a fever, LOL) doomsday predictions came true, then others would start thinking about this topic being serious. But you can still hear the crickets........
0pus
View Profile
Inner circle
New Jersey
1739 Posts

Profile of 0pus
It occurs to me that the population needs to press the scientific community to come up with an indicator, a prediction that will validate whether or not the proposition is true. It would need to be unequivocal.

I think that there is a risk that if global warming is a fact, but it is a natural phenomenon, and we "do" something about it, it may cause more problems.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » New Report on Global Warming » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (153 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..30..57..84..111..134~135~136~137~138..156..173..190..207..224~225~226 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.44 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL