quote:

Originally posted by Pharmdudeoh: Increases in co2 lags by close to 400 years vs the increase in temp.

Actually, CO2 stays in the atmosphere for roughly 100 years(CH4 is roughly 10, I believe), but that's why they don't use equilibrium models which wait to give readings until after the excess CO2 has left the atmosphere and the atmosphere reaches eqilibrium. They now use transient models which are more acurate and give all sorts of information on current CO2, how it's changing, and can tell us what the future will be like if CO2 and CH4 emissions continue to be emitted at the current rate.

quote:

Originally posted by Scottological:

quote:

Originally posted by jms2788:
Scott, I'm curious to know what philosophy courses you found to be as hard as math because that wasn't my experince at all, but of course everybody and every school is different.

Philosophy of language, symbolic logic, and any course that required me to read Hegel.

Not to sound like a pompous d-bag, but the courses I'm referring to were typically taken by seniors majoring in philosophy (which I was at the time) and first year grad students. This wasn't freshmen level "if a tree falls in the forest..." type stuff.

No, you don't sound pompous. Hegel is tricky sometimes, but I like his Philosophy of History. Logic wasn't too hard for me, but my second logic course was much harder. I haven't taken PHI of language, but I probably will in the future.

I've only taken 3 upper level PHI courses(Political PHI(300's), Symbolic Logic(300's), and Plato(400's)), so we'll see how the rest go.

Out of those 3, the logic course was the hardest, but imo, it wasn't as hard as math courses in the mathematics deparment. Of course, everybody is different as you might have a stronger natural ability than myself in math.

Do you have much experince with Wittenstein? I know few people who have trouble with him, but I haven't had the opportunity to look at his stuff too much(not read his whole book), so I can't really form a judgement first hand.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jms2788,

Let me ask you a simple question.
Has Global Warming occurred or is it going to happen?

You can regurgitate all the flawed data based on flawed a foundation all you want. More meaningless dribble on how organizations are predicting global warming. It is unproven theory that has no consensus. Until then you will have political opportunists that need grant or campaign money unlocked if they join the cause. And by the way I'm an independent.

http://www.globalwarming.org/node/2072
http://www.globalwarming.org/



Weather Channel founder on Glen Beck
This video speaks truth.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2007/11/13/gl...k.global.warming.cnn

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/...al-warming-myth-beck

Ok, see now we're getting somewhere. Thanks for posting some actually information.

First, all theories are "unproven" to some extent. If they weren't, they would be laws. Therefore, there will be some people who don't agree, but shouldn't we look at it like majority rules? You can still find people who think the Earth is flat, but should we listen to them over the majority? Second, right off the bat Beck make a statement that is flawed. He said deaths due to weather have decreased as some sort of evidence the storms are less dangerous, but don't you think it's due to better building practices and safety measures? Maybe a little? Third, the weather channel guy is stating that all these scientists are in it to make money, but is that really truly the case? Maybe it is, but that is unproven. That's clearly a unsupported generalization.

There are other problems and I'll post sources when I have a few minutes, but let me just ask you a simply question. If global warming cannot be proven without a reasonable doubt, is it really best to continue to increase emissions rates. What happens if it does turn out to be 100% true? Wouldn't it better to compromise and take precautions? Think about it, you have home and car insurance, don't you?

I'm not saying this is 100% fact, but neither are many things. That's why Scotto said it's kind of like faith. With all the information and the majority of scientists telling us this is real, don't you believe it is better to be safe than sorry? Remember, the cost of alternative fuels is decreasing when compared to the cost of fossil fuels. Yes, people are rightly concerned it would be more expensive at this moment, but it probably will not be in the years to come when gas hits $5,$6,or more.

Yes, there are flaws, as there are with any theory, but I do not see how anybody can say it's not happening at all. I think the big debate should be how much money we should be spending on precautionary measures. Should we spend like a trilion dollars? No, of course not. Should we continue to look into aternative energy sources just in case the majority of scientists are correct? I don't see how anybody disagree.

Forget about warming for a second. The pollution and deforsestaion are not good in themselves and are causing problems in ecosystems and health problems in large cities that have crazy amounts of smog. For that reason alone we should look into alternative fuels. How can you disagree? I just don't understand.

quote:

Originally posted by Scottological:

Another thing: the truth or falsehood of climate change theory says nothing about the intrinsically political solutions to it - if any.

Can we stop the trend by driving Priuses and separating our newspapers from our glass on recycling day? Of course not.


Ought we grind the whole of industry to a halt and go live under trees? Of course not.


Or maybe we should just build 10,000 nuclear reactors and forget all this coal and oil nonsense.

Remember when the words "rabbit hutch" were used to describe Japan's method of housing some of its citizens.

Look at the size of the automobiles in Europe and compare them to those in North America.

Look at the mass transit situations. Some cities are pedestrian friendly with subways, tubes, metro, buses, trains going every place one needs to. Other cities are a disgrace. Everything thing is for cars.


Look at the average male. I remember when I was ten years old, gluing together model cars, talking about dragsters, jet cars on the salt flats etc etc.
I grew up. Those are not my toys.

Last time I went to southern California I went to the Getty Museum, the San Diego Museum and Zoo and Seaworld.
Where did some of my work colleagues go?.. To the Ferrari and Lamborghini dealers...just to see. That was some of their goals.


And look at life now. Hunting, fishing, camping... the people that have a down to earth view of the environment. These are less and less popular. Mocked by animal rights activists who see rabbits, seals and deer as pets and lovers, mocked by asphalt living city folk who consider nature to be a tidy rock garden next to a wall but could not tell north from south or downstream from upstream in a forest.

The gun lobby prones guns as if they are needed for self defense (against crime, the government and you neighbour).
Agri-business would turn everything into corn and soybean fields.

The energy business likes to pay its minions well (unions have something to do with it to.) An army of self interested workers, engineers, managers and stock holders all pulling one way.

Where is the medical field? Sitting on a fence.

Lawyers. Bankers. Stock brokers. Accountants. Just waiting to grab a small percentage of a big amount so as to enrich themselves. No value added. Tantamount to parasites in our societies.

Success is defined as having a big car, a big house and a big vacation. Who doesn't want those?
Who said that these are success. I didn't.

Who said that poverty is a virtue? I didn't.

One thing is sure. We have people living in places that "require" heating for parts of the year.
We also have people living in areas that "require" airconditioning for parts of or for all of the year.
"Require" is a big word.

Humans got along just fine without HVAC and automobiles.
We had a hell of a lot less parasites in our societies then. We called them clergy and nobility.

Of course I'm not against lower emissions or making our environment better or leaving our planet a better place. Just because I'm against the politicized scam does not mean I'm against the environment. That is a line that won't work on me. Anti-global warming = anti-environment, not.

Now I feel you have changed the issue. Now suddenly I'm against alternative fuels, clean fuel technology, reducing our reliance petroleum fuels, etc. Of course not and now you are over generalizing and make assumptions on a general array of energy related topics that have no bearing on the global warming argument.
Just because I am for cleaner burning fuels and power generation, fuel efficient transportation, technological energy breakthroughs, etc is not an affirmation or in any way leads to the credibility of global warming. So I am to assume you ride a bicycle to work, have solar panels for your home, eat only food from your garden? Because if not, you are part of the problem and a hypocrite. Of course not and I know you and I want the same exact things for our planet.

Now go tell China to stop all coal fired plants and stop polluting their environment leaving billions powerless. Tell the African nations they can not exploit their resources for the betterment of their people for its not good for the environment. Just tell them to stay in the third world poverty and that their quality of life will stay stagnant for even more generations under global corruption.

In 10-20 years affordable, clean energy will be plentiful in my opinion(I believe our cars will require only batteries the size of a cell phone for power generation in the future). But the emerging markets need energy now to grow. Its easy for us in the US because many of us skipped the industrialization phase of our country which was in fact dirty as hell. This is the phase most countries are trying to accomplish at the present. Once you give societies affordable energy they prosper and if you keep it from them the deteriorate. I optimistically see this as the next step in the autonomous betterment of all.
I see no problem but the problems we are creating for ourselves. Keep politics and all government intervention minimal or non-existent.

So we agree and all points except global warming.

Oh, no, I wasn't trying to say you were against alternative fuels and such, I assumed you weren't, but I wanted to be clear.

Incidently, because I believe GW is happening does not mean I think it can really be stopped. It's going to be extremely difficult. I think we should try, but it's going to take a lot more than everybody driving Prius' and changing light bulbs. Industry would have to change as well and I'm not sure that it would change or if it's even possible at all.

quote:

Originally posted by Pharmdudeoh:

Now go tell China to stop all coal fired plants

I believe our cars will require only batteries the size of a cell phone for power generation in the future).

China. What about Ohio? Your coal fired plants pollute us all the way to New York, New England and Canada.


Batteries? A fcking disgrace of R&D.

Batteries the size of a cell phone to power an automobile?
Unfortunately chemical energy does not have that energy density. As for atomic chain reactions need a critical size, good for big equipment, not for cars. Radio-isotope sources are weak, good for small space vehicles far from the sun. Hot fusion needs high pressures and hot temperatures that require big equipment and so far success eludes us.

That leaves cold fusion. And so far it has been a hoax.

Fuel cells are a possibility but they will be as large a todays gas tanks.
And they will require a hydrocarbon fossil fuel or hydrogen which must be made from coal or from electricity (which is made from coal, oil, gas, nuclear, hydropower, windpower or solar)

quote:

Originally posted by jms2788: but it's going to take a lot more than everybody driving Prius' and changing light bulbs.

Where I live, changing a light bulb does almost nothing!

I heat my house from September to May.
Any heat coming from light bulbs simply subsidizes my heating bill. Nothing gained...nothing lost.

However someone that airconditions most of the year saves double the energy. He saves on the light bulb electricity comsumption and he saves because his AC does not have to extract all that extra light bulb heat.

Wow, I got off of here for a few days and I was called about every name in the book there during the first couple of pages. All because I decide not to believe that MAN is causing the majority of the GW problems and all the so-called scientific "theories".

Many scientific theories have been proven wrong over the years, and for me to just fall in line and believe something blindly (as in I don't have that background) just because a person has a title after or before their name would be ridiculous. Do I believe there is GW of some sort? Yes. Just as I also believe during times the Earth goes through cooling periods. I don't suppose the folks in the "business" of education are willing to admit to this since it's where most of your sources come from. No I didn't go to college for science or geography courses that are taught from a consensus of what is to be included in the curriculum. I went to learn other things that are more useful to me instead. Not that these aren't useful to someone, just not to me and my interests and the direction I wanted to take.

BTW, you can get any scientific community to come to any conclusion if you are willing to give them enough funding to do so. For every dollar that is spent to conclude that man is a major contributor to GW, you can spend the same to get the opposite response.

quote:

Many scientific theories have been proven wrong over the years, and for me to just fall in line and believe something blindly (as in I don't have that background) just because a person has a title after or before their name would be ridiculous. Do I believe there is GW of some sort? Yes. Just as I also believe during times the Earth goes through cooling periods. I don't suppose the folks in the "business" of education are willing to admit to this since it's where most of your sources come from. No I didn't go to college for science or geography courses that are taught from a consensus of what is to be included in the curriculum. I went to learn other things that are more useful to me instead. Not that these aren't useful to someone, just not to me and my interests and the direction I wanted to take.

Ok, but in all aspects of life we usually look to professionals for advice if you do not have the qualifications yourself, which neither of us really do. Look, when you go to the doctor, you listen to him because you have faith he's trained in medicine. You listen to your lawyer, accountant, boss, etc because they're trained in their fields.
Scott was right, it is a matter of faith in a certain sense. You take advice from trained, qualified individuals based on the faith that they know what they're taking about. It starts from when you're a child, you listen to your parents when they tell you to look both ways when you cross the street because you assume they know what they're talking about and are trying to do what is best for you. If you're adimitting to not have the backround, then you really shouldn't make a judgement either way. You shouldn't believe or not believe in anthropogenic GW because a scientists tells you that you should or should. Making a decision either way in that case isn't a good idea.
Should you follow the majority as an adult if you have strong evidence that indicates they are wrong? No, mostly likely not. However, all the evidence I read that was anti-anthropogenic global warming was pretty flawed and I decided to believe in anthropogenic global warming. In fact, when I first started studying GW, I was a skeptic because I did believe that the effect man had was negligible, but after more than a year of classes and reading study after studty, I concluded that man has a large role in GW.


Of course people in education admit the earth goes through natural cooling and warming cycles, what they're saying is that the rate we're warming is almost unprecidented and the only logical explanation they can find is that it's being caused my man. See, the last time such a great change occured there was massive continental drift, plate tectonic activity, and silicate formation. How many continents do you see breaking away from one another? So could they be wrong? Of course, but as of now, this is really the only good explaination they have because nothing like this has ever happened before.

quote:

Originally posted by brewerc:
Many scientific theories have been proven wrong over the years, and for me to just fall in line and believe something blindly (as in I don't have that background) just because a person has a title after or before their name would be ridiculous.

A couple questions. 1) Who is asking you to fall in line and believe something blindly? There are plenty of peer reviewed publications that address this issue as well as respected commercial publications that simplify the issue as much as possible. Most of them are available for you to read. 2) No one should take someone's word simply based on their title. I don't think anyone would argue in favor of that kind of thinking. However, someone with a PhD in climatology from a respected institution is much more likely to have more knowledge and a significantly better understanding than the local weather guy with a meteorology degree.

quote:

Do I believe there is GW of some sort? Yes. Just as I also believe during times the Earth goes through cooling periods. I don't suppose the folks in the "business" of education are willing to admit to this since it's where most of your sources come from.

I don't think I've ever read a credible source who claimed that the climate changes Earth is experiencing is not at least partially due to the cyclical nature of the climate of this planet.

quote:

No I didn't go to college for science or geography courses that are taught from a consensus of what is to be included in the curriculum. I went to learn other things that are more useful to me instead. Not that these aren't useful to someone, just not to me and my interests and the direction I wanted to take.

Considering the statement above and others you have made in the quoted post how do you form your opinions? What evidence do you base said opinions on?

quote:

BTW, you can get any scientific community to come to any conclusion if you are willing to give them enough funding to do so. For every dollar that is spent to conclude that man is a major contributor to GW, you can spend the same to get the opposite response.

www.theearthisflat.com and www.gravityisahoax.com agree with you.

Hey, if anybody would like a textbook on Earth systems and climate, let me know, I don't need mine anymore. It explains everything from the basics of the Earth to the complex issues. It's very well written and will tell you about how climate has changed since the very beginning. It was written by three guys at Penn State. I just got the the second highest grade on the final exam(98.5) and that's out of 220 people .

Global warming is a complete scam, the warming is mostly caused by sunspots. Those who want to buy into the global warming scam can have at it. However, ethanol is causing massive problems on grocery shelves and for farmers all over the world. Ethanol was suppose to be one answer to breaking our reliance on foreign oil and to combat "global warming". In reality, if we started drilling off-shore as well as building refineries and nuclear power plants, our country could be totally self-sufficient and free of the requirement for foreign oil.
It makes me sick to see people like John McCain and Newt Gingrich buying into the global warming farce. Makes me wanna puke.
BTW-sunspots indicate solar activity. More solar activity=more solar radiation, thus heating the earth. This means that any global warming would not be man-made.

quote:

Originally posted by Presley:
Global warming is a complete scam, the warming is mostly caused by sunspots.

And how do you KNOW that to be fact? How are those who say this more credible than the majority who says it ain't so (aside from the fact that they say what you want to hear)?

quote:

Originally posted by flashman:

quote:

Originally posted by Presley:
Global warming is a complete scam, the warming is mostly caused by sunspots.

And how do you KNOW that to be fact? How are those who say this more credible than the majority who says it ain't so (aside from the fact that they say what you want to hear)?

Because there is really very little proof that we are causing any of the temperature changes.

Activity on the sun's surface does vary some as well. Scientists have long known that sunspot activity runs on approximately 11-year cycles, with the most recent peak being in 2001. Though sunspots themselves are cooler than the surrounding sun surface, their presence corresponds with increased sun activity overall, which produces a slightly brighter sun. The brighter the sun is, the more it warms the earth.

Scientists know that the sun has been abnormally active the last 60 years when compared to previous observations. But it's only been since the invention of the telescope that people have been able to regularly examine and document the sun's activity. Until fairly recently, it wasn't possible to determine what the sun's activity was before the year 1610.

quote:

And how do you KNOW that to be fact?

BTW-How do you know the man-made global warming theory to be fact?