S550 may be eliminated sooner rather then later...

[wilkinda65]

have a snickers

Which one of them? Or both?

Sponsored

 

[K4fxd]

Ignore me all you want. I did lots of research.

The biggest contributors to the Earth warming or cooling is the Sun and the Earth wobbling on its axis, you know like a spinning top. When it slows to a certain point it starts to wobble. The wobble changes the relationship to parts of the Earth and the amount of direct sunlight the areas receive.

The Sun goes through warming and cooling cycles that also cause the Earth and all the inner planets to warm and cool.

Is the Earth warming, maybe but there is nothing we can do about it one way or the other.

 

[K4fxd]

have a snickers

I'd rather have a Guinness and a steak.

 

[Oryx]

Which one of them? Or both?

The Hangry one!

 

[K4fxd]

Like all people who have no real facts to back their argument, he started calling me names.

 

[Gregs24]

Ignore me all you want. I did lots of research.

Q

 

[Norm Peterson]

Have you read any of the links I posted or are you just a deliberately obtuse troll. Literally a handful of posts above shows data confirming sea levels are rising, the earth is warming (due to the effects of man) at a rate well above normal fluctuations

Going to pause this right here . . . do we know anything about historical abnormal fluctuations?

, but oh no - you just keep banging on it is a 'religion' 'all made up' etc etc. Proven facts make no difference to your deluded views and your mind is closed no matter what.

For me at least, it's not about whether issue itself is 'a religion' or a scientific likelihood. More that the tone of urgency that comes along with the message seems overly strident at times, comparable to, ummm . . . religious fervor.

I suspect that today's instant-communication, sound-bite world has something to do with it.


Norm

 

[shogun32]

I'd rather have a Guinness and a steak.

I tell my friends I'm a vegan. I eat plants post-processed by cow, sheep and chicken.

 

[K4fxd]

I suspect that today's instant-communication, sound-bite world has something to do with it.

They did the same thing in the 1970's with DDT, said it was killing birds by making the egg shells so weak they were breaking when the mother sat on them.

Complete and utter BS that was distributed by school magazines like Ranger Rick and the weekly reader.

I'm sure there were things before that but I am old enough to remember the war on DDT and CFC's. I was AC certified in 1982 and I remember R-12 being heavier than air. It sank to the ground when released from a refrigerant line.

We were supposed to be in an ice age by 1985. Somewhere around 1980 when it wasn't getting colder they switched to global warming. When it was discovered it was not warming at the rate they claimed they switched to climate change.

If London has air quality simular to Bejing and you have banned most hydrocarbon fuels, maybe the problem lies elsewhere.

 

[Gregs24]

Going to pause this right here . . . do we know anything about historical abnormal fluctuations?



For me at least, it's not about whether issue itself is 'a religion' or a scientific likelihood. More that the tone of urgency that comes along with the message seems overly strident at times, comparable to, ummm . . . religious fervor.

I suspect that today's instant-communication, sound-bite world has something to do with it.


Norm

I did post a load of links / graphs previously and I am inclined to believe NASA and thousands of other experts in their fields. If you refuse to accept scientific experts in their fields when it is something you don't like the idea of the world is doomed. Scientific progress is well documented with hypotheses that are then proven correct or incorrect in a logical and defined way. Science works - planes fly, boats float, medicines work - not because of guesswork and assumption but because of rigorous scientific method. Climate change, it's links to human activity, sea level change, pollution levels in cities are all proven rigorously. Again I have provided some links but there is a huge amount of data on the subject.

Anybody who challenges this has to come up with equally rigorously produced data and evidence, and if they had done NASA and others would have been professionally forced to consider it - that is how scientific progress happens.

I agree there will always be extremists who bang the environmental drum, but also the deniers who do just the opposite, but the overwhelming weight of evidence is that all these things are happening. 98% of climate scientists agree on climatic change and what is causing it, 2% don't and their 'evidence' is either cherry pick data to 'prove' their point, or are just plain proven wrong.

My snarky comments were directed at one person in particular who just trolls these forums and not yourself.

 

[Norm Peterson]

I did post a load of links / graphs previously and I am inclined to believe NASA and thousands of other experts in their fields. If you refuse to accept scientific experts in their fields when it is something you don't like the idea of the world is doomed. Scientific progress is well documented with hypotheses that are then proven correct or incorrect in a logical and defined way. Science works - planes fly, boats float, medicines work - not because of guesswork and assumption but because of rigorous scientific method. Climate change, it's links to human activity, sea level change, pollution levels in cities are all proven rigorously. Again I have provided some links but there is a huge amount of data on the subject.

Anybody who challenges this has to come up with equally rigorously produced data and evidence, and if they had done NASA and others would have been professionally forced to consider it - that is how scientific progress happens.

I spent most of a career in engineering, so I understand the point about science over guesswork with little or no basis.

What I tend to question isn't the science itself. It's more about things like the extent of change rather than its mere presence and the likelihood that we don't know where the current direction of change might no longer sustain itself. Obviously, motor vehicles can't possibly bear sole responsibility here. More basically, you could probably blame global human population.

However. I do have a few questions involving the lack of directly observed data in real time over the millions of years. We're stuck with data implied from measurements that we hope didn't change much over geologic time (and humans haven't been around nearly long enough to have been able to measure that, either). In short, there's likely a few things we don't even know that we don't know them. And if NASA and such don't know what information they may be missing, it's a sure thing that nobody like me is ever going to be able to enlighten them.

I agree there will always be extremists who bang the environmental drum, but also the deniers who do just the opposite, but the overwhelming weight of evidence is that all these things are happening. 98% of climate scientists agree on climatic change and what is causing it, 2% don't and their 'evidence' is either cherry pick data to 'prove' their point, or are just plain proven wrong.

As with many things where there is dispute, my take is that the truth probably lies somewhere between the extremes. And I rather strongly suspect that academia - where the sciences tend to be developed (industry applies the sciences as engineering) - is not free of politics.


Norm

 

[Gregs24]

However. I do have a few questions involving the lack of directly observed data in real time over the millions of years.


Norm

There are ways of measuring stuff from thousands of years ago either directly or by extrapolation such as ice core samples, carbon dating, tree growth from peat bogs etc. There are some surprisingly old data sets going back hundreds of years that can be used to correlate data.

 

[Oryx]

There's literally millions of examples of science, scientists, engineers, scholars and the like being absolutely sure that they were correct, but in the long run were incorrect and I don't think that a scientific method itself is being questioned. The fact that 98% of climate scientists agree doesn't necessarily make it so. Who do all of the client scientists work for and is their work funded by governments, and companies with a driven agenda?

This planet was violently evolved over time and has gone through countless warming and cooling trends over time ... some rapid, some slow all without any human intervention. We all know that populations and human technologies can impact measurable levels of this and that, but they still cannot undeniably say that "global warming and cooling" are 100% in the control of mankind. Any prediction of the future based on science is still a prediction. If science and data analysis was always correct Vegas wouldn't be what it is today

As was mentioned previously all of the scientists were pushing the fact that we were headed into an ice age. we were also told that many of the coastal cities would be under water by now ... all by the same environmental experts.

Make no mistake about it, the current climate war is politically and financially driven. That said, it doesn't necessarily mean that bad practices happen on a daily basis, but it also doesn't mean that 1+1=3 .... There's far more to the equation

The real answer is we'll be debating this forever and it has almost nothing to do with the accelerated demise of the S550 platform.

.... my $0.02 from the 2%. Carry on!

 

[shogun32]

The fact that 98% of climate scientists agree doesn't necessarily make it so.

that 'statistic' is a bald-faced LIE which puts paid to all the so-called "science" purported to buttress their position. A couple of flunkies sent out a survey to a bunch of climate "scientists" and 98% of those who RESPONDED to the survey agreed with the nonsense assertion.

The media are bald-faced liars and composed exclusively of STUPID people who can't be bothered to actually dig for details and report honestly.

 

[Norm Peterson]

There are ways of measuring stuff from thousands of years ago either directly or by extrapolation such as ice core samples, carbon dating, tree growth from peat bogs etc. There are some surprisingly old data sets going back hundreds of years that can be used to correlate data.

I understand that.

But even perfectly thought out science can't deal with what it can't know. IOW, how do we know what we can measure today from those samples is the entirety of what went into them X number of ice ages ago? How many ice ages ago was that, anyway? And if we're trying to predict any very-long-period climate cycle, a few hundred years worth of better knowledge might not be a good enough snapshot to extrapolate out to the next peak. It might be like trying to predict an unknown car's quarter mile ET with hard knowledge of nothing but the time it takes to accelerate from, say, 60.000 to 60.001 mph.

Keep in mind that I'm not saying that either side is wrong here.


Norm

Sponsored