|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..14..25..36..47..57~58~59~60~61..85..108..131..154..175~176~177 [Next] | ||||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
The fear campaign spreading paranoia effect of the great white labcoats.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Skeptical or incredulous? Skeptical is not a bad thing. Neither is cynical, as both look to the roots of the matter as presented.
it may be generations before the reputation earned by FDA withdrawn drugs, the publicity over evolution and cyclamates, tobacco, nine out of ten dentists etc. lifts and we can distinguish science from funded statistics presented by labcoats and test tubes in the language of double blind drunken walks.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
"I have always been sort of a climate sceptic. I do not consider this in any way as negative but in fact as a natural attitude for a scientist."
Lennart Bengtsson their leading and most eminent expert said. Only one in four Americans are leading and most eminent experts on climate perhaps?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Http://boingboing.net/2014/05/28/tom-the......l-2.html
Maybe it's a coming of age thing- looking for a cause to feel righteous about. Something to "do good for everyone" just seems so meretricious. This one is a well funded/marketed item designed for folks with a little science background. Other "end is nigh" causes, you can find in the fossil record of our literature, rise and fall like hemlines in fashion. But this time it's got labcoats and test tubes. Still gonna drive to work tomorrow, right? Is it worth a metric ton of carbon emissions if just one person changes their mind and truly believes in the cause?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
This thread has become totally sophomoric and inane.
|
|||||||||
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
It's the ultimate green thread, due to the efficient recycling of arguments.
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Hot air, out gassing hydrocarbons, test tubes and lots of fertilizer. Seems to make for a climate change.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Here is an article written by a physicist and member of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-boslo......438.html I recommend reading the whole piece, but here is a brief excerpt which addresses much of the misunderstanding about the so-called "debate" about climate change: Quote:
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On Jan 19, 2014, Dennis Michael wrote: Available evidence has recent history looking unlike other periods.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Apart from which, the orbit and tilt of the earth have nothing to do with the known effects of greenhouse gases.
|
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
Quote:
On May 29, 2014, Jonathan Townsend wrote: :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGIds7cSf3U
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
Payne Inner circle Seattle 4571 Posts |
This
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
|
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
"This is also true for concepts such as climate and climate forecasts. Climate is nothing but the sum of all weather events during some representative period of time. The length of this period cannot be strictly specified, but ought to encompass at least 100 years. Nonetheless, for practical purposes meteorologists have used 30 years. For this reason alone it can be hard to determine whether the climate is changing or not, as data series that are both long enough and homogenous are often lacking. An inspection of the weather in Uppsala since 1722 exemplifies this. Because of chaos theory it is practically impossible to make climate forecasts, since weather cannot be predicted more than one or several weeks. For this reason, climate calculations are uncertain even if all model equations would be perfect."
-Lennart Bengtsson Do you refute your own experts opinion?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
@tommy: folks are not claiming to predict tomorrow's weather but are claiming that increased greenhouse gasses are and will continue to raise our trapped solar radiation and so warm our average general planetary ecosystem's temperature.
This is not about the Lyapunov Exponent for weather prediction so much as about basic thermal conservation of energy and its impact on our shorelines, farms, lakes, cities and oceans.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
"Is there according to you a “climate consensus in the community of climate scientists and if so what is it?
I believe the whole climate consensus debate is silly. There is not a single well educated scientist that question that greenhouse gases do affect climate. However, this is not the issue but rather how much and how fast. Here there is no consensus as you can see from the IPCC report where climate sensitivity varies with a factor of three! Based on observational data climate sensitivity is clearly rather small and much smaller than the majority of models. Here I intend to stick to Karl Popper in highlighting the need for proper validation." -Lennart Bengtsson This expert says just what I have been aying above. So what is the point of saying "folks are not claiming to predict tomorrow's weather but are claiming that increased greenhouse gasses are and will continue to raise our trapped solar radiation and so warm our average general planetary ecosystem's temperature."? When we well educated scientists all know that already? My question is do they refute what their own expert is telling them above and below: Lennart Bengtsson: My View On Climate Research Date: 22/05/14 Lennart Bengtsson, Uppsalainitiativet As a result of chaos theory, weather and climate cannot be predicted, and how future climate will turn out will not be known until future is upon us. During the last weeks there has been a lot of speculation regarding my views and my scientific standpoint on climate research. I have never really sought publicity and it was with a great deal of reluctance that I began writing articles for public media. A large part of my unwillingness to partake in public debate is connected to my friend Sven Öhman, a linguist who wrote about semantics and not least about the difficulties specialists run into when attempting to communicate with the public. Words and concepts have different meanings and are interpreted differently depending on one’s background and knowledge. Sometimes such misunderstanding can be disastrous. This is also true for concepts such as climate and climate forecasts. Climate is nothing but the sum of all weather events during some representative period of time. The length of this period cannot be strictly specified, but ought to encompass at least 100 years. Nonetheless, for practical purposes meteorologists have used 30 years. For this reason alone it can be hard to determine whether the climate is changing or not, as data series that are both long enough and homogenous are often lacking. An inspection of the weather in Uppsala since 1722 exemplifies this. Because of chaos theory it is practically impossible to make climate forecasts, since weather cannot be predicted more than one or several weeks. For this reason, climate calculations are uncertain even if all model equations would be perfect. Despite all these issues, climate research has progressed greatly, above all through new revolutionary observations from space, such as the possibility to measure both volume and mass of the oceans. Temperature and water vapor content of the atmosphere are measured by occultation with GPS satellites. Our knowledge of earlier climate has increased substantially. It is not surprising that the public is impressed by this and that this trust transfers to climate forecasts and the possibility to predict the earth’s future climate. That all this occurs within a context of international cooperation under the supervision of the UN, and with an apparent unity among the scientists involved has created a robust confidence in IPCC’s climate simulations, in Sweden not the least. SMHI’s [Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute] down-scaled climate simulations for 100 years are impressive and show in detail and with splendid graphics how the climate will turn out both in Östergötland [the Swedish province of East Gothland] and in Västerbotten [West Bothnia]. This is invaluable for municipality climate experts and planners who are working feverishly to avoid future floods and forest fires. The public is in good hands in the benevolent society. Unfortunately, things are not as splendid as they seem. As a result of chaos theory, weather and climate cannot be predicted, and how future climate will turn out will not be known until future is upon us. It would not help even if we knew the exact amount of greenhouse gases. Add to this the uncertainty about the future of the world. This should be clear to anyone, simply by moving back in time and contemplating what has unfolded from that viewpoint. As Daniel Boorstin put it: “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge”. I’m concerned that this is the problem of the present, and the real reason for me to choose to partake in the climate debate over the last couple of years. I don’t think anyone disputes that I have been highly critical of those who completely reject the effects of greenhouse gases on the earth’s climate. This is however not the problem, but rather how much, how soon and to what extent “climate change” will happen. There is no 97% consensus about this, and even less concerning how weather and climate will turn out in Västerbotten [West Bothnia] in 80 years. This is why it unfortunately is misleading of SMHI to show their beautiful maps, because people may actually believe that this is the way the climate will turn out. The climate scientists of SMHI know this, of course, but for the users this is not clear. My colleague in Hamburg, Guy Brasseur, told me the other day that an insignificant change on about 70 km height in a climate model’s mesosphere, made the weather systems relocate from north Germany to the Alps, consequently with radical regional climate change as a result. Even more alarming is the tendency of giving people the impression that weather events are becoming more extreme, and that this has actually already occurred. Apart from a possible increase in precipitation and a possible intensification of tropical hurricanes that has not yet been detected, there are no indications of extreme weather in the model simulations, and even less so in current observations. This has convincingly been demonstrated and also held up by the IPCC. Damages are increasing, as are damages from earth quakes, but this due to the growing economy. It is also important to stress that injuries suffered by humans during extreme weather has decreased substantially due to better weather forecasts. What is perhaps most worrying is the increased tendency of pseudo-science in climate research. This is revealed through the bias in publication records towards only reporting results that support one climate hypothesis, while refraining from publishing results that deviate. Even extremely cold weather, as this year’s winter in north Eastern USA and Canada, is regarded as a consequence of the greenhouse effect. Were Karl Popper alive today we would certainly have met with fierce critique of this behavior. It is also demonstrated in journals’ reluctance to address issues contradicting simplified climate assessments, such as the long period during the last 17 years with insignificant or no warming over the oceans, and the increase in sea-ice cover around the Antarctic. My colleagues and I have been met with scant understanding when trying to point out that observations indicate lower climate sensitivity than model calculations indicate. Such behavior may not even be intentional but rather attributed to an effect that my colleague Hans von Storch calls a social construct. That I have taken a stand trying to put the climate debate onto new tracks has resulted in rather violent protests. I have not only been labeled a sceptic but even a denier, and faced harsh criticism from colleagues. Even contemplating my connections with GWPF was deemed unheard of and scandalous. I find it difficult to believe that the prominent Jewish scientists in the GWPF council appreciate being labeled deniers. The low-point is probably having been labeled “world criminal” by a representative of the English wind power-industry. I want to stress that I am a sworn enemy of the social construction of natural science that has garnered so much traction in the last years. For example, German scientists have attempted to launch what they call “good” science to ensure that natural science shouldn’t be driven by what they view as anti-social curiosity-research by researching things that might not be “good”. Einstein’s “anti-social behavior”, when he besides his responsible work as a patent office clerk in Bern also researched on the theory of relativity and the photoelectric effect, was of course reprehensible, and to do this during work-time! Even current labor unions would have strongly condemned this.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
We're almost on the same page here "has convincingly been demonstrated and also held up by the IPCC. Damages are increasing, as are damages from earth quakes, but this due to the growing economy. It is also important to stress that injuries suffered by humans during extreme weather has decreased substantially due to better weather forecasts.
What is perhaps most worrying is the increased tendency of pseudo-science in climate research." I too feel some arguments, as presented by mass media, are essentially pseudo-science where the term "scientist" is used in place of where folks might have used the word "prophet" till recently - where "theory" is used in place of "revelation". It's arguing from authority rather than on the merits of reason backed with information. The very presence of "denier" in the dialog - making none too subtle parallel to "holocaust denier" raises the working temperature way above where reason flows like current is superconductor. The line elsewhere about nobody publishing a cooling theory was telling - as there is much politics in journal publication. How many studies for how many years before tobacco and cancer were "scientifically" linked? I don't see the much benefit in discussing science arguments in political context in an environment where the operating notions of "hypothesis" and "falsification" are alien - and where basic education devalues the notion of theory to "mere". Zeus says we'd be better off a little warmer. You got something to say to Zeus?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
The God of the system of this world “Zeus” is not its Creator according to the elite, who believe themselves to be Zeus. The God of the system of this world, says not that we would be better off a bit warmer but better off a bit colder. That it is we the people who are the source of the heat. Thus it is that “Zeus” is about to reduce our number. 'The real enemy is humanity itself' “Zeus” says.
Bengtsson: No. I think the best and perhaps only sensible policy for the future is to prepare society for change and be prepared to adjust. In 25 years, we'll have a world with some 9 to 10 billion people that will require twice as much primary energy as today. We must embrace new science and technology in a more positive way than we presently do in Europe. This includes, for example, nuclear energy and genetic food production to provide the world what it urgently needs. No! says Zeus. Reduce the population! I say to “Zeus” The God of the system of this world, **** off! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0PjKJ9nHS4
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Anyone else here recall some comments by Clarke about society in the near future in his book Profiles of the Future? The matter of population in particular. There's also comment about invisibility that I feel pertains but he does not connect the matters.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
MaxfieldsMagic Inner circle Instead of practicing, I made 3009 Posts |
Haven't read the Clarke book, but Harry Harrison's 1966 novel "Make Room! Make Room!" paints a dystopian future of overpopulation, environmental collapse and climate change that makes New York City a hazy, humid home to 35 million mostly poor and miserable people. That came out almost 50 years ago. Not the greatest name for a story, though, so they changed the name to "Soylent Green" when the movie came out in 1973.
Now appearing nightly in my basement.
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
The Clarke book is not science fiction but rather exploring where some technologies could reshape society.
Anyone do the math on the soylent green modest proposal utility? good for perhaps 10 years ?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Scientists agree on Global Warming » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (191 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..14..25..36..47..57~58~59~60~61..85..108..131..154..175~176~177 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.12 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 < |