| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
It might not be wise to call out people for "still" worshipping ancient deities on the same page as proposing divine creation.
I will post more after I have digested some of these articles. But Scythia? The whole world or nearly all of it discarded the false gods for the real one. If the real one claims to have created us then we should accept that. If evolution was God's tool to craft us as it seems to be the case, then it does nothing to lessen God's majesty.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will post more after I have digested some of these articles. But Scythia? The whole world or nearly all of it discarded the false gods for the real one. If the real one claims to have created us then we should accept that. If evolution was God's tool to craft us as it seems to be the case, then it does nothing to lessen God's majesty.
Way to insult millions of people
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, we really don't need a religious debate on top of the climate change one.
Unfortunately, the 'debate' against the existence of climate change (and indeed most of modern politics) is largely religious in nature. That is, some religious faiths and the religious preference for 'received wisdom' have been co-opted to promote corporate agendas.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will post more after I have digested some of these articles. But Scythia? The whole world or nearly all of it discarded the false gods for the real one. If the real one claims to have created us then we should accept that. If evolution was God's tool to craft us as it seems to be the case, then it does nothing to lessen God's majesty.Yeah, we really don't need a religious debate on top of the climate change one.
Well, it's largely irrelevant. As Laplace is famously supposed to have said, "I have no need for that theory." If I'm trying to understand why my car won't turn over, the useful solution probably lies in the battery or the starter, not in Heaven. If I need to know what the weather will be tomorrow, I should talk to a meteorologist, not a bishop.
Questions about the nature of God aren't really relevant to the thermochemical properties of atmospheric carbon dioxide, any more than they're relevant to questions of whether leaving my lights on all last night drained the battery.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to leave that one on the table. I'll get in trouble otherwise.
Uh-oh. That's double plush en gold.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some people question man made global warming because of this graph....
Perhaps, but if so, they're idiots. The question of interest isn't whether global temperatures have ever been as high as they are today. The question is why temperatures are at the level they are today.
First, the causes of the Medieval warm period are well understood. First, the data shown is taken largely from the temperature records for Europe, because the amount of global data available in the late 1980s was much more limited more than 25 years ago than it is today. The available evidence suggests the overall global temperature average was more typical than data only from Europe would suggest.
But more importantly, "the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). In other words, climate varies -- which we already knew. The major causes of natural climate variation are also well-known, and those causes appear to be the source of the MWP. Those causes are not active today -- in fact, solar radiation is actually dropping slightly as global temperatures are rising dramatically. There is also no unusually low level of volcanic activity.
So if the usual causes for climate variation aren't causing the current warming period, what is? The IPCC graph doesn't address that question at all, which means it doesn't actually say anything much about the current dispute.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hottest modern age in the US was in the 1930's....
I don't know what makes you think that was relevant,.... but the US isn't the world.
It's also factually wrong. The hottest years in the United States were 2012, 2006, and 1998, and then 1934.
But given that the US is only something like 2% of the world, I don't see why we should take this particular factoid seriously as representative of global climate.
The link you posted is
... actual third-party evidence backed up by citations.
It is either relevant in both or irrelevant in both.
Not really. The questions are different, and more important, the underlying causes and explanations for the answers are different.
Some people question man made global warming because of this graph....
First, the causes of the Medieval warm period are well understood. First, the data shown is taken largely from the temperature records for Europe, because the amount of global data available in the late 1980s was much more limited more than 25 years ago than it is today. The available evidence suggests the overall global temperature average was more typical than data only from Europe would suggest.
But more importantly, "the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming).
The link you posted is yet more pseudoscience stating a reason why back then there were places it was hotter and or colder with evidence explained away....yet the same arguments of it is cooler in places has no relevance to the religion of man made climate change in the now. It is either relevant in both or irrelevant in both.
"Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period may have been warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific. All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming"
I love how a place that links to sources and studies that are generally accepted is considered psudoscience.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love how a place that links to sources and studies that are generally accepted is considered psudoscience.
I'm more interested in how pointing out that the cause of one known event has been ruled out in a different case is somehow irrelevant.
I can only imagine crime dramas in KK's world:
* "Well, the shop was burglarized again. Someone picked the lock and made off with the contents of the cash register as well as much of the merchandise. When this happened three years ago, it was the work of Jimmy the Fish. Better charge him with the crime."
* "Um, Sarge, this isn't Jimmy's M.O. He doesn't pick locks, he just smashes windows. And he's never before bothered with grabbing merchandise. But, also, Jimmy the Fish is currently serving a ten year sentence in the state pen. You know that; you just testified against him at the parole hearing. How could he have done this?"
* "That's pseudoscience! It's obviously not possible for there to be two different causes for a burglary in this town. What you just said isn't relevant, O'Malley."
That pretty graph stopped in 1950. The same data now would show an increase well past the Medieval peak. With no end in sight.
But,.... recent data would show that KK's completely wrong! It must be pseudoscience. Obviously, the same group of scientists working for the IPCC in 1990 got that one single graph right (despite the fact that it doesn't actually say what KK thinks it did), but every other bit of information wrong. And the IPCC has been engaged in the religion of man made climate change in the now" ever since.
It had to be Jimmy the Fish! Who else could have committed a burglary?!
The other fact is that the solar radiation had increased,
... except that it hasn't.
due to chemtrails blocking the higher solar radiation....
From Wikipedia:
According to the chemtrail conspiracy theory, long-lasting trails left in the sky by high-flying aircraft are chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed for sinister purposes undisclosed to the general public. [...] Although proponents have attempted to prove that the claimed chemical spraying does take place, their analyses have been flawed or based on misconceptions.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
chemtrails blocking the higher solar radiation....
.... and KK is concerned about climate change research being pseudoscience.....
|
|
Some people question man made global warming because of this graph....
Meaning that all our "hottest ever" months were in medieval times, not post industrial times.
In addition to the other problems pointed out with that chart...
1: It is a chart of temperatures in central England. Not the globe.
2: The first ~800 years were based on 'guesstimates' derived from written accounts. As in, if someone wrote in a 1400 letter that the river near their home froze earlier than usual then that might be interpreted as a colder year.
So, yeah... anyone questioning man made global warming 'because of this graph' simply does not know what they are talking about.
|
|
The other fact is that the solar radiation had increased, but the reason the levels did not show an increase at ground level was due to chemtrails blocking the higher solar radiation....
We're in the deep tin foil now.
For the record... decreased incoming solar radiation has also been measured by satellites (not just surface stations)... before it ever gets to the chemtrails. Not that it matters... if chemtrails were causing less sunlight to reach the surface then we'd see cooling due to the decreased radiation warming the planet. Since we have actually observed warming that would just mean that chemtrails were a GOOD thing... slowing down the rate of warming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok...
With chemtrails he's either trolling (kendering?) or there's no point in this because you can't fix irrational beliefs with rational discourse.
Much like a wedding or a funeral a debate is for the audience, not the people on stage.
Tell that to forensics teams.Much like a wedding or a funeral a debate is for the audience, not the people on stage.Ok...
With chemtrails he's either trolling (kendering?) or there's no point in this because you can't fix irrational beliefs with rational discourse.
Not all of us invite Lobo to our weddings.
Remember, conspiracy theories almost never come in single doses. Conspiracy theory-oriented thought is systemic. If someone subscribes to one conspiracy theory, they almost certainly subscribe to many. (or will eventually subscribe to many, given time)
Forensics means formal debate.
That's one of the meanings, yes. But even formal debates are for the audience, and in this case specifically the competition judges. That's one reason that formal debates are often opened with a coin flip, with the winner getting to decide whether or not she will take the positive or negative side of the question.
Clearly, this structure ensures that the people on stage don't care about the question itself (I wouldn't expect a rabbi to be willing to take either side of the Holocaust denial question). The whole structure is has nothing to do either with the content of the resolutions, or with the search for truth.
(The National Forensic League's statement of "core values" is actually rather damning:
[W]e share a commitment to:
* Promote ethics in research and competition
* Promote respect for diversity of ideas and of community
* Promote seriousness of purpose and demeanor
* Promote empowerment gained through knowledge
* Promote the tools of effective and ethical leadership
* Promote active participation in Democratic [sic] processes
* Provide an opportunity for developing higher level thinking skills and critical analysis of issues
* Develop interaction skills and cooperative decision making skills used in an assembly or in a committee
* Learn the basic principles of Parliamentary Procedure and its use in a democratic society.
Nothing about public understanding, truth, justice, or any support for the idea of rejecting nonsense and pseudoscholarship.)
With chemtrails he's either trolling (kendering?) or there's no point in this because you can't fix irrational beliefs with rational discourse.
In KK's defense, about 20 years ago, NASA Langley was very hot and bothered about the potential effects of "contrails" (not "chemtrails") on climate, because they are very similar to cirrus clouds, and there are a lot of them at any given time. They were actually asking schoolkids from all over, as a class project, to go outside and count them at various times, then report them in an on-line form, as ground truth for the satellite data.
I would hope that they've learned something since, though.
|
|
In KK's defense, about 20 years ago, NASA Langley was very hot and bothered about the potential effects of "contrails" (not "chemtrails") on climate, because they are very similar to cirrus clouds, and there are a lot of them at any given time. They were actually asking schoolkids from all over, as a class project, to go outside and count them at various times, then report them in an on-line form, as ground truth for the satellite data.
I would hope that they've learned something since, though.
Actually, like clouds in general, they have both warming and cooling impacts and this is still an area of considerable uncertainty.
There is a fairly strong consensus that contrails have a net warming effect (confirmed by models, comparisons of heavy air traffic areas to nearby clear areas, and a temperature drop coinciding with the grounding of US air traffic after Sept 11, 2001), but the magnitude is widely contested between 'virtually nil' and 'nearly as much as CO2'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, like clouds in general, they have both warming and cooling impacts and this is still an area of considerable uncertainty.In KK's defense, about 20 years ago, NASA Langley was very hot and bothered about the potential effects of "contrails" (not "chemtrails") on climate, because they are very similar to cirrus clouds, and there are a lot of them at any given time. They were actually asking schoolkids from all over, as a class project, to go outside and count them at various times, then report them in an on-line form, as ground truth for the satellite data.
I would hope that they've learned something since, though.
Protip: starting your post with "Actually," implies you're contradicting me in some pedantic way, rather than simply adding information, and also makes you sound like a total tool.
|
|
Protip: starting your post with "Actually," implies you're contradicting me in some pedantic way, rather than simply adding information, and also makes you sound like a total tool.
Alrighty then. Personal interpretation and hostility to the word 'actually' duly noted.
Actually, in that case, it was "used to suggest something unexpected"... as your stated hope that understanding has improved has not been fully realized.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I actually like to use "actually" so often that it's actually too often. I rarely actually mean to imply that I'm actually contradicting someone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personal interpretation and hostility to the word 'actually' duly noted.
Nothing wrong with the word itself. There's nothing wrong with the definition you linked. Using it to preface the sentence, rather than appearing in a place more logically suited to the syntax, is what I objected to.
Forensics means formal debate.That's one of the meanings, yes. But even formal debates are for the audience, and in this case specifically the competition judges. That's one reason that formal debates are often opened with a coin flip, with the winner getting to decide whether or not she will take the positive or negative side of the question.
Clearly, this structure ensures that the people on stage don't care about the question itself (I wouldn't expect a rabbi to be willing to take either side of the Holocaust denial question). The whole structure is has nothing to do either with the content of the resolutions, or with the search for truth.
(The National Forensic League's statement of "core values" is actually rather damning:
[W]e share a commitment to:
* Promote ethics in research and competition
* Promote respect for diversity of ideas and of community
* Promote seriousness of purpose and demeanor
* Promote empowerment gained through knowledge
* Promote the tools of effective and ethical leadership
* Promote active participation in Democratic [sic] processes
* Provide an opportunity for developing higher level thinking skills and critical analysis of issues
* Develop interaction skills and cooperative decision making skills used in an assembly or in a committee
* Learn the basic principles of Parliamentary Procedure and its use in a democratic society.Nothing about public understanding, truth, justice, or any support for the idea of rejecting nonsense and pseudoscholarship.)
It doesn't say public understanding, but it does mention understanding and knowledge and providing opportunities for higher thinking skills.
It doesn't say justice, but it does mention ethics twice. Ethics being what is morally right and wrong, justice being what is legally right and wrong.
And by promoting ethics in research, it is rejecting pseudoscholarship.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing wrong with the word itself. There's nothing wrong with the definition you linked. Using it to preface the sentence, rather than appearing in a place more logically suited to the syntax, is what I objected to.
I think you're placing too much importance on word sequence rather than intent. From the article;
"Every time I start a sentence with “actually,” I’m about to say something snarky or drop a backhanded compliment."
The sentence in question was neither snarky, a backhanded compliment, or indeed in any way insulting. Just, as you noted, providing information.
Sure, sometimes 'actually' is meant to be snarky... but that isn't always the case, and assuming otherwise is in and of itself just as much a linguistic faux pas as nasty use of the word.
Sure, sometimes 'actually' is meant to be snarky...
A prime example!
Actually you are both wrong!!!
as a kender you should appreciate the lack of challenge in impersonating a climate denier. Poes law is not only in effect its the high law of the land.
In for a quick comment and then out again.
On another side note, the stuff hasn't all been compiled, but from the limited trips I made, it seems that this year is one for extremes. We've gone to one where there were colder than averages, to one over the past month that has had hotter than averages in our area from a quick glance.
Could be be a precursor for a more interesting rest of the year.
Snowpack is still high currently.
I'm wondering what the official snowpack count is looking like in some parts of California. It was pretty high in mid-winter, but it's going to be the measurement in about a month (I think that's the predictor) that helps know better on how it's going to affect the water situation there. (it was around 130% about a month ago, but some things have changed since then...could still be very high though).
However, some areas I think may be a lot lower than they were a month ago. I think it's decreased to the 120% with some areas perhaps falling far lower. Less expected rainfall than normal from what I gather. Nothing official from me, that's just some thoughts on that.
Odd year thus far.
I suppose we'll see what March's recordings show.
In for a quick comment and then out again.
On another side note, the stuff hasn't all been compiled, but from the limited trips I made, it seems that this year is one for extremes. We've gone to one where there were colder than averages, to one over the past month that has had hotter than averages in our area from a quick glance.
Could be be a precursor for a more interesting rest of the year.
Snowpack is still high currently.
I'm wondering what the official snowpack count is looking like in some parts of California. It was pretty high in mid-winter, but it's going to be the measurement in about a month (I think that's the predictor) that helps know better on how it's going to affect the water situation there. (it was around 130% about a month ago, but some things have changed since then...could still be very high though).
However, some areas I think may be a lot lower than they were a month ago. I think it's decreased to the 120% with some areas perhaps falling far lower. Less expected rainfall than normal from what I gather. Nothing official from me, that's just some thoughts on that.
Odd year thus far.
I suppose we'll see what March's recordings show.
I love the pictures comparing Boston this time last year to this year