2015 Warmest Year on Record

BuzzStone

BuzzStone

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,430
Location
Landrum SC
AE 87 said:
If you don't know the difference between changes within a species as it adapts to its environment and the changes which result in a new species, then you may be out of your depth in a conversation about the science.

Consequently, you've accepted the "answers" of some who claim the label science by faith whether you admit it or not.

Let me say it again. There is no consensus scientific theory of macro evolution which the facts have not falsified. Therefore, any belief in macro evolution is faith.
Click to expand...


I am trying to determine what your talking about. I have not started any conversations about macro evolution or molecular evolution and there are probable more people here who are much better at explaining evolution. If you think evolution is faith then the conversion is pointless. If you want to discuss the details that would be a different thread which could be very entertaining.
 

JorgeJonas

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,147
With respect to global warming, it's possible to accept the science but reject the efficacy of proffered solutions made by climate alarmists (my word, of course).
 
AE 87

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,016
BuzzStone said:
I am trying to determine what your talking about. I have not started any conversations about macro evolution or molecular evolution and there are probable more people here who are much better at explaining evolution. If you think evolution is faith then the conversion is pointless. If you want to discuss the details that would be a different thread which could be very entertaining.
Click to expand...

If you want to start a new thread, that would be fine. I was simply responding to your assertion about evidence for evolution and lack of everyone accepting it.

I very much agree that that issue has great correspondence to the climate change debate. However, I think the correspondence rests in the fact that true believers, apparently like yourself, accept by faith what you are told "science" says.

If you can't explain your understanding of evolution, then you should at least admit that it is faith for you. It's nothing to be embarrassed about. Most of us hold a lot of beliefs based on faith in some authority. The difference between solid thinkers and bigots, is the latter use their faith to mock the faith of others.
 
Northeast Stinger

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,649
Frankly, this strikes me as pretty smarmy on the part of Mr. Cruz. He is spending his effort trying to make a guy look bad based on a lawyer's bag of tricks not trying to understand an issue.

I think his line of questioning raises the very real question as to whether the Drexel University report, which says $558 million in "dark money" has been funneled into candidates and organizations that will deny global warming, is having an influence on him. Looks like Mr. Cruz's leadership has gone to the highest bidder.
 
AE 87

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,016
JacketFromUGA

JacketFromUGA

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,895
He wasn't the only scientist in this exercise.

Also most of the hockey stick controversy was found to be almost purely defamatory against Mann and other scientists. Even without the data in question the models all reached the same conclusions.


None of this changes the fact that Cruz either has or portrays an understanding of science lower than most 8 year olds.
 
AE 87

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,016
JacketFromUGA said:
He wasn't the only scientist in this exercise.

Also most of the hockey stick controversy was found to be almost purely defamatory against Mann and other scientists. Even without the data in question the models all reached the same conclusions.


None of this changes the fact that Cruz either has or portrays an understanding of science lower than most 8 year olds.
Click to expand...

LOL, "almost purely defamatory" according to whom?

Comparison-charts-1024x443.jpg


Seven of the following charts were created using Mann's processing on random data. The eighth is Mann's actual hockey stick graph on temperature data:
Red-Noise-Graphs-1024x282.jpg


Last year, GT's Judith Curry acknowledged the possibility that federal funding was inducing a bias into the science.

Now consider how much the reported temperatures of the last hundred years have changed in the last 15, 30:

2015-12-07-08-37-47-1024x584-1024x584-1.png


Now, I don't know anything about what Ted Cruz knows about science, but most 3rd graders only know what their teachers tell them, and their teachers probably just tell them the PARTY line.
 

Declinometer

Banned
Messages
1,178
Northeast Stinger said:
Frankly, this strikes me as pretty smarmy on the part of Mr. Cruz. He is spending his effort trying to make a guy look bad based on a lawyer's bag of tricks not trying to understand an issue.

I think his line of questioning raises the very real question as to whether the Drexel University report, which says $558 million in "dark money" has been funneled into candidates and organizations that will deny global warming, is having an influence on him. Looks like Mr. Cruz's leadership has gone to the highest bidder.
Click to expand...
LOL!
 
AE 87

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,016
Northeast Stinger said:
Frankly, this strikes me as pretty smarmy on the part of Mr. Cruz. He is spending his effort trying to make a guy look bad based on a lawyer's bag of tricks not trying to understand an issue.

I think his line of questioning raises the very real question as to whether the Drexel University report, which says $558 million in "dark money" has been funneled into candidates and organizations that will deny global warming, is having an influence on him. Looks like Mr. Cruz's leadership has gone to the highest bidder.
Click to expand...

C'mon, there was no bag of tricks here. The panelist claimed his position was based on scientific data and evidence, and Cruz's questioning forced him to admit that it was instead based on his faith commitment in the answers of big science. Don't take this the wrong way, but your post strikes me as reflecting the soft bigtree of lower expectations. I'm not a huge Cruz supporter, but when we're talking about making budgetary decisions, clarifying the source of a panelist's testimony is part of the gig.

With respect to the money, I've seen reports where it seems that ~2.5 Billion dollars/year have been going to research which supports the climate change narrative. So, if you want to consider money as an influence in the discussion, it's not even close as to what side it's on.
 
Northeast Stinger

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,649
AE 87 said:
C'mon, there was no bag of tricks here. The panelist claimed his position was based on scientific data and evidence, and Cruz's questioning forced him to admit that it was instead based on his faith commitment in the answers of big science. Don't take this the wrong way, but your post strikes me as reflecting the soft bigtree of lower expectations. I'm not a huge Cruz supporter, but when we're talking about making budgetary decisions, clarifying the source of a panelist's testimony is part of the gig.

With respect to the money, I've seen reports where it seems that ~2.5 Billion dollars/year have been going to research which supports the climate change narrative. So, if you want to consider money as an influence in the discussion, it's not even close as to what side it's on.
Click to expand...
Your opinion has been duly noted. And, I might add, you seem to be bending over backwards these days to find ways to disagree with people without being disagreeable. I am impressed.
 
Whiskey_Clear

Whiskey_Clear

Banned
Messages
10,486
Say what you want about Judith Curry....hmmm...let me rephrase that thought. I have found Judith Curry to be one of the most scientific seeming and least ideologically driven experts in this debate. As time has gone by she seems to have changed her position based on science she has studied. That is my perception anyway. She seems pretty politically neutral. And it wouldn't surprise me if she flipped her position again based on new opposing information. That doesn't necessarily mean I'll agree with her, but I'm pretty damn likely to respect her reasoning.
 
Whiskey_Clear

Whiskey_Clear

Banned
Messages
10,486
Is the climate changing? Yes. It has been for millennia. Are humans affecting climate change? Yup, have been doing so since our beginning. Everything living affects our climate to one degree or another. A butterfly's fart affects the climate if only minimally. Does human activity have a large affect on the climate? Certainly more than a butterfly fart but to what degree is debatable despite alarmists attempts to stimey debate.

But if human activity does have a large affect, can we not change climate to our hearts content? If we can cause global warming then logic says we could also cause global cooling if we desired. Climate alarmists say no though. We can cause warming but would be powerless to reverse warming. So they are arguing human activity is leading to a runaway greenhouse effect? No. Even the most ardent alarmists can't claim that silliness.

So, if not a runaway greenhouse effect what is the largest concern? Changing coastlines perhaps as sea level rises? How much will it rise then? What would be the economic cost of such regarding lost property etc? The alarmists can throw out some guesses on this but their prognostications have been less than accurate thus far. Some scientists actually claim global warming would benefit the world with longer growing seasons increasing agricultural production to battle world hunger.

So how much money should we spend to reduce our impact on climate change? How much more onerous can the government make power production? Why do so many political leaders wish to keep America energy dependent on the Mideast? How many more millions can Al Gore earn off government programs and subsidies?

One other question. If humans have a large and dangerous affect on climate....doesn't volcanic activity also affect climate dangerously? If so maybe we should shut down all utility companies for 12 months every time there is a large eruption. Let's just freeze in the dark together.

Rant over.
 
Top