joeblast Posted March 7, 2009 We can do a lot of development in nuclear energy. But when speaking of ALL that COULD be ... why should we? We could easily dump all the energy technlogies that are currently in use. We might have to, if we get a decently sized CME blasted directly at us. But otherwise such a statement is pure fiction. Fact of the matter is, this climate science will not be settled anytime soon (much to the chagrin of the reverend goreacle) and until such time, we're going to have people spouting extrapolated opinions this way and that with no rock solid proof either way. Why shouldnt we speak of all that could potentially manifest, when considering future actions? We should, but we need to keep perspective and recognize that predicting things like 20 foot sea level rises is utterly preposterous and getting at the very least, twenty steps ahead of the game. At this point in our research, you'd at least think some people would understand things well enough to rule out such fallacies, but the fact that you keep seeing things like that pop up every so often is plenty of proof that there's far too many people out there taking bad data and extrapolating it out arbitrarily far into the future. Point is, every single one of those models that makes such wild and drastic predictions is a failure and needs to be re-calibrated to reality every so often - for in order to predict something of that scale, you pretty much need to make some major assumptions about events that have yet to happen (kinda like Mr Prez gauging his economic predictions on that upturn in our economy that he has absolutely zero way to predict happening, much less to any calculable extent, yet its part and parcel of the bill of goods that's trying to be forced past the country's closed lips...*digress*) - and we keep seeing that such processes are really just following their tao, and the long string of yucky predictions becomes quickly unraveled because too many parts of those incomplete models assume things built upon one another. If A then B then C then D then E then F then G....if B doesnt flow into C and D never happens, then logically we arent getting to G. Of course that's an oversimplification, albeit applicable... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wayfarer64 Posted March 7, 2009 Assumptions are no longer viable. Spring & Autumn are shorter, winter and summer are longer. All seasons have much wider variations than in decades past. The variations and swings in temp. are much more radical than in previous years. Five days ago it was 50+ degrees. Three days ago, here in central NJ - it snowed more than a few inches, today it is 60 degrees... Is this a reason for concern? I think so. Others may not. But those of us with concerns should just go about our biz addressing the situation as we see fit. Our observations may eventually get a valid hearing from sceptics - but why waste our breath trying to change minds that are reading things differently? Walk on past those whos' heads are in the sand, perhaps offer some advice for them to put sun-screen on their exposed butts... Experience with be the best teacher after all... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pietro Posted March 9, 2009 (edited) Edited March 9, 2009 by Pietro Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pietro Posted March 9, 2009 (edited) Edited March 9, 2009 by Pietro Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joeblast Posted March 9, 2009 Once again, the pot calls the kettle black Was I not correct in pointing out the author's bias? That I have added my opinion when describing these incomplete alarmist arguments is of little consequence, yet that's what you've decided to focus on - then once you're done focusing on that, you go back to spouting the same talking points, having addressed...pretty much nothing other than the presence of an opinion in the point of view you're attempting to disprove, and then attempt to tout the peer review process as some sort of gold standard. News for you, the peer review process is simply a minimum baseline standard by which an article is judged to have relevance within the field of study in question. In other words, of enough mathematical coherence to be deemed acceptable for consideration of serious discussion in the related field. By vastly elevating the significance of the peer review process, a loophole around the scientific method becomes apparent, especially when just by the mere fact that something is peer reviewed these days is taken by many to mean that it has withstood the full rigors of science. The two are a far cry from each other. For instance, there have been plenty of peer reviewed articles touting a variable speed of light in certain circumstances - a mathematical curiosity perhaps, albeit something very unlikely...but since there is no media involvement or interest in such things, nobody gives a crap! I'll skip the logical fallacies in your statments (i.e. Scientists agree on global warming, which is a logically false statement or that humans are causing global warming, which is an opinion justified by incomplete research...or your incorrect usage of attractor...then again perhaps it is that very usage that gives a clue as to the contextual mindset being dealt with here....) which...gets me right to the end of your post. The world is not always simple - so why rely on something overly simple that misses significant pieces of the puzzle, and plan on spending trillions of dollars playing solitaire with a deck of 51? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pietro Posted March 9, 2009 My use of the word attractor is absolutely rigorous, and mathematically based. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joeblast Posted March 9, 2009 I disagree with the logic of applying that word too liberally in this context Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pietro Posted March 9, 2009 I disagree with the logic of applying that word too liberally in this context The global weather is a chaotic dynamical system, lying in a strange attractor; and we do ignore how many other strange attractors are there. Nothing in this claim is applying words liberally; it is a precise statement, which I absolutely meant. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
