myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Global cooling
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 192, 193, 194 ... 347, 348, 349  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
pueno



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2708

PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

swchandler wrote:
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

Feynman was among the finest scientists and smartest people to have lived. The world is poorer by his passing.

"What does that convey?"

It depends on how the reader interprets the meaning of his words, such as "the experts."


Mr. Fick-shun wrote:
Hedy Lamarr was, of course, not a mathematician nor a complexity theorist. She was one of the great movie actresses of all time, and was once “voted” the most beautiful woman in the world. She was also an inventor whose creation is still used today.

Spread spectrum, Mikey, or frequency-hopping. You're allowed to say it. Her patent shows she's bright and creative.


keycocker wrote:
It is certainly true that Global warming is treated like a religion by most deniers as well as most supporters.

Deniers are certainly zealous in their beliefs and often without an understanding of the underlying physics. Supporters seem more grounded in those physics and the rationale for why GW may be occurring just as scientists claim.
.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jpbassking



Joined: 19 May 1998
Posts: 2386
Location: Leo

PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="isobars"].....Hedy Lamarr was, of course, not a mathematician nor a complexity theorist. She was one of the great movie actresses of all time, and was once “voted” the most beautiful woman in the world. She was also an inventor whose creation is still used today.



It's Headly!

_________________
{JP:}====****


Last edited by jpbassking on Wed May 01, 2013 4:22 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5387

PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The physics don't matter do deniers. There was, of course, no response to my posting that solar cycles only change the amount of energy reaching the earth by one part in 1000. They don't care. Anything that gives the carbon industry a chance to make money without mitigating their impacts is their program.

The difference between the introduction of energy into the earth's atmosphere by the sun--which could be affected, slightly, by solar cycles, and the impact of greenhouse gases reducing the re-radiation of that energy back into space is also lost on the deniers. I reserve my particular scorn for those who cling to incredible sources, and scorn peer review, so they can argue that the science is "not settled."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1367

PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am sick of the way expressed doubts are misrepresented in a stupid way. Am I really supposed to be so stupid as to need it pointing out that I'm unable to tell the difference between a weeks weather, and a complete decade (predicted) of very cold Winters, of which we have already had four, the last of which has been the longest and worst since records began 200+ years ago? Am I the only one who thinks that it hasn't gone to script over the last decade?

Clearly, the past 'mini Ice Age' could not possibly have been caused by the solar 250 year cycle. The sun is unable to make any but a very small difference to Earths climate, which we have on the authority of this forum. Those Russian 'scientists' must be delusional and zealous deniers without any understanding of the underlying physics of those grounded in global warming rationale. The authorities on this forum clearly have such an advantage. (Which institute did they work from again, and what were their qualifications?)

There seems little point in contributing further to this thread. Events over the next 30/40 years will settle that which those idiots (I'm one such) still believe is NOT yet settled. I leave it at that!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
slinky



Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 429
Location: Old Saybrook Ct.

PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GT. I and many others here are with you, many of us are not convinced one way or the other, except maybe a few. Always keep an open mind! Some here have their blinders on. The true sign of intelligence is to continually question everything. Accept nothing as fact until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

"Every great truth begins as blasphemies" George Bernard Shaw

How long have we been able to accurately monitor the sun's output? A few hundred years or maybe three? Is this long enough to determine a pattern?

We should all be skeptical of all we see and read.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
windoggie



Joined: 22 Feb 2002
Posts: 2406

PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

slinky wrote:

How long have we been able to accurately monitor the sun's output? A few hundred years or maybe three? Is this long enough to determine a pattern?

We should all be skeptical of all we see and read.
I think scientists who deal with tons of evidence from many sources can go back much farther than a few hundred years. Also, I'm in total agreement about the skepticism thing. Science accepts and builds upon error.
_________________
/w\
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 5906

PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pueno, I have to admit to knowing absolutely nothing about Feynman. However, after reading your post, I read a bit about him in Wikipedia. No doubt, he was every bit the scientist and intellectual that you said he was. I guess if I ever took a physics class, I would have learned about Feynman a long time ago.

Nevertheless, I didn't think much about the Real Science website. Although I had no real issues one way or another on the referenced article that NW posted (it was simply data), it was quite clear that the point of it was trying to throw a blanket on the issue of global warming. It only takes a quick tour around to website to see where the politics are coming from.

But back to Feynman, I'm thinking that I missed the humor in his quote. However, I still have wonder a bit about the quote, and why the Real Science website selected it. Maybe they also missed the humor in Feynman's quote.

It was interesting to learn that Feynman experimented with LSD and smoked pot. One has to wonder what those on the right think about that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14335

PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 9:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

slinky wrote:
GT. I and many others here are with you, many of us are not convinced one way or the other, except maybe a few. Always keep an open mind! Some here have their blinders on. The true sign of intelligence is to continually question everything. Accept nothing as fact until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

"Every great truth begins as blasphemies" George Bernard Shaw

How long have we been able to accurately monitor the sun's output? A few hundred years or maybe three? Is this long enough to determine a pattern?

We should all be skeptical of all we see and read.

Not one of the 30 or so lefties on my killfile demonstrates as much as a peephole opening in his mind regarding AGW. EVERY snippet and whole book of research the deniers present in support of their side is dismissed as radical rhetoric BECAUSE it strengthens the case against AGW. Even Bjorn Lomborg's very extensive global research by scores of professionals in many relevant fields is dismissed or distorted.

I had no opinion on GW, let alone, AGW, until I began studying it a few years ago. That and many subsequent books swung me to Lomborg's camp, essentially that any G warming includes some A contribution, but only ranks abut 18th in the world's problems, all of which are almost infinitely more quickly, more effectively, and more cheaply solvable by man than GW, A or not A, and that even GW's effects can be mitigated far sooner, better, and cheaper than by carbon crap or greenhouse gas alarmism.

No sane nation spends trillions of dollars on something like that.

I've been watching new evidence unfold, and so far, on balance, it reinforces the first two or three books I read (Gore's crap broke that trend). Several people here generally concur.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5387

PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GT--I did not mean to get your knickers in a twist over your initial posting. The little that is available about the study by the Russian scientists is interesting, and is of a very different nature than the garbage found on the Real Science site.

I do mean to take issue with postings by NW and mrgybe that make no effort to ascertain the credibility, or credentials, of their sources. Or Iso, who misquotes them liberally, missing the point entirely. None of these three has even the remotest understanding of the importance of credibility.

When I tried to find out the basis of the Russian study, the first ten listings on Google were right-wing denier sites, showing the traffic as the right wing denial machine gins up its efforts. None of these postings gave much detail about the nature of the data analyzed by Nagovitsyn, or whether the study was peer reviewed, or what the research question and null hypothesis were. I seriously doubt that your conclusion, "the coming cooling solar cycle, for which they claim there are already indications, will override global warming by a considerable order of magnitude" can be reached on the basis of data. As I explained, changes in solar cycles
have an insignificant impact on the amount of energy that reaches the earth. It is entirely possible that a solar cycle could have an impact on surface temperature that would increase, or decrease, average temperature. But it wouldn't change whether or not warming is occurring. If it was in sync with other temperature signals it would make it look like warming is happening faster. If out of sync it might look like cooling. Neither is the case; these are independent phenomena. It is why we look at temperature changes over periods of time that are long enough for short term perturbations to be detected and removed. That is precisely why we cannot, as yet, draw any earthshattering conclusions about the so-called fifteen year period of little or no change. The ability to look at data with some understanding of statistics, and error bands, does not require a degree in atmospheric science, and makes an opinion piece more credible. My degree was in coastal engineering, and we have over a hundred years of data showing sea level rise, which was my path to study the issue.

By the way, many of the climate change modelers have predicted more violent weather, including colder winters. None have predicted a steady rise in average temperature--so some theories account for both increased storms and colder winters.

I do long for the days when newspapers had science editors, and they made a concerted effort to explain complicated subjects. But the internet age has made that too expensive, and has shown conclusive that those who base their view of the world on faith will glom onto any piece of propaganda to prop up their faith and conclude that warming is a hoax. So they will find, or get e-mails, taking them to the sites like "Real Science" and think they are credible.

Aren't some of these the same folks who were all gung ho on buying gold, based on the recommendations of the right wing talk show hosts, some of whom were making money on the transactions and some of whom were manipulating the price? When will they ever learn?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3468

PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 11:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Much advice on Talk is wildly stupid, but buying gold because Beck tells you to do it means you a world class sucker.
He has been employed by a major gold seller for ten plus years and has been telling people to buy gold in ALL financial situations because they pay him to make fools out of his listeners.
Like any true mark, his listeners will tell you it is still going over $3000 very soon.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 192, 193, 194 ... 347, 348, 349  Next
Page 193 of 349

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group