Moonbox
-
Posts
8,464 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
37
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Moonbox
-
-
Looks like you measure knowledge and qualifications by the number of negative epithets you're able to stuff in a sense. And not much else. Why am I not surprised that your findings are published here, and not e.g. in "The Nature"?
My epithets (you feel smart using that word don't you?) are directed at your comments and your broken excuse for logic.
Perhaps, you're asking them in the wrong place? Or don't care to see the answer? Or unable to understand it?Who knows? There's a miriad ways to ask a dumb question, and only a few - meaningful one. That is purely statistical, btw. When a bunch of clueless people start talking high scince, the result is guaranteed to be random noise.
So why are you here talking about climate change with us? We're talking and disagreeing. That's what you do on a political forum.
I'm not trying to make you believe one way or another - it's the job of preachers climate scientists.Fixed that for ya.
That is a general statement, and as general statements go, it's either trivial, or obviously wrong. If all climate changd science is "unthinking and panicky", then it's obviously wrong. If some specific cases are (which you, btw forgot to mention), it's trivial. In either case, there isn't much else to discuss.What's unthinking and panicky is the reaction of the 'mob' towards the statements made by climate scientists. The science itself I'm sure is very planned and deliberate. Even with my limited background in science, however, I can see the GIGANTIC assumptions being made by the climatoligists and the enormous variables being ignored by their models. You still haven't addressed that and I've made that point about 100 times.
Simply saying, "We're not experts and therefore we should just believe them and not bother talking/thinking about it" doesn't cut it either. If you're not prepared to use your brain and partake in the discussion, then why are you posting on this thread?
I think that I'll go with the opinion of leading experts in the subject field, who, in my understanding, indeed consider the matter proven. BTW and FYI, "proven" in science always means "to the best of our knowledge today", rather than an eternal, fixed in stone postulate.The language being used today by the media and by the layman and climate-scientist alike is that man-made Global Warming is a proven fact. I could support the legitimacy of climate scientists if they were saying, "Our studies suggest..." or "We believe this shows," etc... I would even support further research and investment and incentives in climate-friendly technology.
The opposite is happening, however. We've got a bunch of fools running around screaming that the oceans are going to boil unless we throw billions and billions at third world countries and shut down the oil sands. It's a joke.
-
So many problems with these two sentences so little time.
Suffice it to say that if you're not a big fan of deficits you are ipso facto not a Mike Harris conservative. You are perhaps 1 of about 5 people in all of Ontario, if not Canada, that is a Harris Fan.
If however you believe in cooking the books, selling off crown assets to cover up fiscal shortfalls and leaving your province in worse shape than you found it in, well then by all means carry on.
Other than the 407 sell off, which was a fiasco, he did a good job. Mike Harris is well liked and and still supported by the vast majority of the people who voted for him. It took Ernie Eves and John Tory (both political idiots) to give crybaby Dalton a chance. Look how he's done...
-
Yes D as well. There are many types of corporate taxes. They Americans may have higher corporate income taxes, but much of Canada has higher capital investment taxes. Ontario has one of the worst rates in the world.
A tax grab is a tax grab and any way you slice it it would drive business out of Canada.
-
The level of an average layman in the matters scientific would be pretty close to that. And for those not entirely clueless, there's always professional media, to present their findings, ideas, research, where they would be judged by other not entirely clueless people. There's no way to distinguish obvious bs. from a meaningful statement in a general web forum, because anybody can say anything.
The professional media?
They're the ones we should be turning to for objective criticism? My god man. That's dense. Of course you don't need anything like that to "question" in a general forum like this one. Whether the "question" has any relation to meaning or reality is a very different story.The questions we ask are simple ones that the climate scientists are refusing to answer or account for. The Earth has always warmed and cooled over time. We've seen this even over the last century. Is it not then possible that natural factors are causing the Earth to warm up all by itself, or at least mostly by itself? Do air currents, ocean currents and a million other terrestrial and solar factors not cause massive climate change all by themselves? How are they being accounted for? Nobody is answering these questions.
No need to further confuse matters by mixing up professional misconduct, or bad policy with lack of qualifications.Don't be stupid. Climate scientists are just as human, have just as much of an agenda and are equally susceptible to bad conclusions and professional misconduct.
Of course they can "see" and say anything, here, in this general forum. What you are posting these ideas here, should tell us quite a bit about what happened last time you tried to present them to qualified peers (if ever). Only a logical conclusion, that's all.Use proper English and intelligent sentences and maybe then we can talk about logic okay?
If your choice is not of acquiring knowledge and making informed arguments on the matter, then "skepticism" is just as good as blind belief. Pick one, whatever suits you better.Another brainless comment. Skepticism is not automatically believing what you're told. I'm not denying man-made global warming. I'm questioning the unthinking and panicky bandwagon that's automatically believing everything the climate 'scientists' say. Maybe you should do a little research yourself and find out what sort of people actually call themselves climatologists.
No, unlike the matters of faith, science can be learned and mastered. It can also be proven right or wrong. It does take a lot of time, hard work and determination. Short of that, there are always web forums.You're absolutely wrong and I'm dumbfounded at how naive you're sounding. Chemistry can be proven. Math and physics can be proven. Even medicine can be proven. On the other hand, how do you 'prove' what the weather and climate is going to be like in 25 years? Right now they can't. Like economics, you can guess and hope you're right, but there are millions of inter-related variables that nobody can control and without accounting for them NONE of the computer models or predictions can be accurate.
Global warming may indeed be happening, but only an idiot/liar would tell us that it's been proven. Take your pick.
-
But having one does not yet guarantee having a clue. And clueless discussion of science is as good as believing a priest (or whoever or whatever else), for all practical means.
The irony of your statement is once again flying right over your head.
Not being an expert doesn't make someone 'clueless' about a subject. You don't need to have a PhD or an MBA to question the methods, conclusions and motives of someone who does. Look how well following the 'experts' worked out in the US financial crisis. You didn't need a heavy education in finance or banking to figure out that fully financing a 40-year variable rate mortgage on a tight income was a bad idea. You similarly didn't have to be a finance guru to understand that investing in commercial paper backed by previously mentioned mortgages was also not so wise. The 'experts' however, convinced everyone it was all very safe.
The climate has warmed and cooled on a cycle for millions of years for reasons we do not yet fully understand. The research being done on the subject is in its infancy yet the 'experts' are presenting it to us as if it's an exact science when anyone with a brain can see it is not. These two reasons alone are enough to question their motives, methods and conclusions.
Unfortunately, we have people like you mocking and ridiculing those of us with a healthy dose of skepticism. Blindly believing what the 'experts' are telling you and declaring that those of us without their 'scientific'
background have neither the intelligence or legitimacy to question their conclusions is nothing short of dogmatic. You can directly compare this with the blind faith of a religious fundamentalist. Mock us if you want, but we're not the ones sounding stupid right now.
-
Pretty sure Bob Rae is a Liberal Party member. Might have been NDP at the time but he didn't run the fiscal responsible that the NDP are known for he acted like a Liberal, or a Conservative now.
Hey I at least admire him for finally clamping down on the teacher's union. That wasn't very NDP of him but it was fiscally responsible.
-
Of course it's not. We have real experts, right here.
The priests are all telling me Jesus is the son of God and who am I to question the experts?
Not being a climate science 'expert' isn't an excuse for not having a brain. Apparently you think so.
-
And so, I (and, in my opinion, every rationally thinking individual) would only have the meaningful choices of 1) deferring to the prevailing opinion of qualified professional in the subject; OR 2) themselves becoming experts, analysing existing research and presenting their findings to the attention of qualified professionals in the subject.
The problem is that the 'qualified professional' is working in a field of research that has proven it cannot predict anything accurately. Our weather experts can't accurately predict weather one week from now yet you and the 'mob' have decided that they can accurately predict long term future climate patterns. The 'science' is about as accurate as throwing a bottle into the ocean and predicting what beach it will eventually wash up on.
You and the bandwagon are VASTLY over-estimating the qualifications and capabilities of 'experts' in an unexact science and this foolishness is compounded when you lash out at people who actually use their brains and question the conclusions.
Climate science is not anything like a normal professional science. This isn't medicine, chemistry/physics or engineering. There's no way to demonstrate cause/effect or treatment results. There are too many radical variables to provide statistically significant data. The problem with climate science right now is that it's DELIBERATELY ignoring these variables and encouraging self-serving knee-jerk reactions to conclusions that they still haven't come close to proving.
-
You think a conflict of interest, or lying, coverup or just plan illegal boring. Was the adscam boring too. No, I think you think its was wrong and I agree and so is this.
Add a bunch of zeros and it becomes interesting. Talking about a few hundred thousand being spent because the PM wants to be visible across the country every once in awhile is pretty freaking small potatoes.
The adscam wasn't boring because it was outright fraud. This isn't at all. You've chosen to cry about it but that's because you cry about everything and anything Harper does pretty much no matter what it is.
-
Topaz man come on...this is some of the most boring and uninteresting sort of stuff you could possibly post here. There are a lot of other things you could be complaining about.
-
One can only critically question something that they actually know and understand.
Dude are you even thinking before you're writing???? You're not allowed to critically question something you don't understand? Thinking that comment over again a couple of times. I sincerely hope you'll realize how brainless it is.
If someone at NASA told me that the best rocket fuel is ethanol I wouldn't need to be an aerospace engineer or rocket scientist to question that.
Understanding professional research in science usually requires years of study, and continuous professional involvement thereafter. Anything less would very likely result in bs questioning, having nothing to do with the science in question, and very little - with critical thinking.Absolutely false. Idiots can get PhD's. It's a matter of hard work. To say that we shouldn't at least 'question' the experts is so foolish I won't even get into it any further. Those PhD's may help people get into the nitty gritty on how to research and write articles, but they really don't help if the writer's fundamentals are totally out of whack, which appears to be the case in many global warming articles.
-
Are you implying that of thousands of professionally trained scientists, virtually nobody would have the skills, knowledge and/or courage to accept and support the ideas that are just so plainly obvious to the merited veterans of general Web forums like us here? If so, we can't really trust anybody and anything anymore (how would you know that e.g. your dentist isnt' complicit in some long reaching professional dentistry plot?).
Myata listen man. We're not flat out denying global warming. We're questioning the logic, motives and conclusions of a group of people involved in a VERY inexact science. They're presenting conclusions as fact when they have not accounted for VERY important natural variables that have as much or probably even more impact on the climate than any man-made factor.
Do you not think that it's possible that the Earth's climate changes naturally and temperatures cycle over the years? That's been proven by fact and research that nobody is denying it. If this is true then any conclusion based on relatively short term data is shakey at best.
In that situation the best choice would be to retire deep in the woods, where possibility to encounter conspiracies of all kinds will be greatly reduced, and publish our valuable thoughts in our own private blogs (keeping interactions with hostile conspiracy prone environment to the minimum), that perhaps somebody somewhere and sometime would care to read.No. Not at all. You seem to think that critically questioning what you read and hear in the news equates to bible-thumping and conspiracy theorizing. Wake up. It's called skepticism and some people use their brains and actually try and decide whether or not what they're being told makes sense before they believe it. Try it some day.
-
So far, science remains one of a few domains where clueless pop has not been able to decide matters by popular vote (or, only to some extenet, and indirectly), and when it does (things seem to be moving in that direction, gradually), it'll probably mark the end to our short (in historical terms) period of relative prosperity.
It's already happened. That's the problem with climate science. It's become conventional wisdom and not science anymore for the majority of people.
-
We'll now, you either need to present something, anything, to make us believe that all the qualified professionals in the US academy of Science (and all the other academies around the world that support that view), who went through years of studies, training and peer examined research to be "blind", while Harper, yourself, and other selected few granted with (Godly?) gift of sight (without any need for costly and time consuming education).
I don't have a science background, but I have a lot of education and we're talking basic logic here. You don't need a PhD to understand that ALL current climate models are based largely on assumptions. Major and overwhelmingly important variables are being excluded from the possible causes of climate change. These are things that no scientist can account for and most of the ones declaring global warming is caused by man for certain are either lying or aren't worth the paper their degrees are printed on.
How do they explain regular and cyclical climate shifts over the last thousand years? How do they decide whether global warming isn't caused by air and ocean currents? How do they explain that while ice is melting in the arctic, it's actually growing in large areas of the Antarctic? The point is that this is not really a science like chemistry or physics.
Just like behavioural science, there are too many variables to be certain. Like I said before, bad mothers may turn men gay, but is that all that's happening? Could it be genetics? Personal experience? How can you say for sure?
Seriously. For scientific debate, there're peer reviewed scientific fora. What can be discussed here, is not the validity of the science of climate of change, but willingness and committment of people of this country (first of all), and its current government (to follow) to effect any meaningful, non trivial act to improve our own record. For our own sake as much as posterity.Peer-reviewed means nothing if the logic behind the science is questionable. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be making efforts to improve the environment. I'm questioning the mass-hysteria and the bangwagon that everyone has jumped on. I can't say global warming isn't man-made, but I do know the dangers of mob-logic and can go over a good number of examples if you like.
This has become a religion all in itself and it makes me sick to see how eager people are to believe everything they see on the news and read without thinking about it for a second.
-
What has been posted in the earlier thread, is a report by the US Academy of Science in which human caused climate change was stated to be a theory confirmed by multiple research and observations.
It must be 100% true then. I mean, declaring speculative theories that cannot be proven as inarguable fact is totally intelligent. It's not like the Earth hasn't shown us thousands of years worth of temperature cycles right?
"You're not a scientist therefore you're wrong to not believe what they're telling you." is about the dumbest statement you can make Myata, and that's exactly what you're doing. The 'concensus' that you and others talk about is not as strong as you think either. There are thousands and thousands of dissenting scientific views. They're just not popular on TV because of mainstream media.
I'm not flat out denying global warming. I'm questioning the hysteria behind unproven theories and the clamour to spend trillions on questionable environmental initiatives. The blind are leading the blind here, and like sheep everyone is following what they say without question.
-
But is that not part of the problem that was being addressed in Kyoto, the idea behind carbon credits? Yes it was- in Kyoto, so called developed countries have the opportunity to gain carbon credits (to offset the penalty of not meeting their carbon reduction target) if they develop carbon reducing technologies and provide them to developing nations such as India and China.
Kyoto was a non-binding treaty signed by indifferent politicians and drafted by worthless bureaucrats. Kyoto meant nothing then, it still means nothing and so will Copenhagen. Until pretty much the whole world agrees to play by the SAME RULES all similar treaties will be worth less than dust. All they'll be is tools for suckers to have their industries relocate to the third world.
-
Riverwind you said it right. Bravo
-
Climate change is happening the real question is what effect it will have on us and the answer to that question is we have no idea. I'm not worried about CO2 I'm worried about the things that have been proven to be harmful. Yes CO2 raises temperature but we can't be sure what effect it will have. We can't even be sure if the effect will be negative. Some of the hottest times in earths history were also the most diverse and healthy.
If you deny climate change you're an idiot, but if you blow the effect out of proportion you are a fear monger.
Thank you. My thoughts exactly. The climate is always in a state of flux and will always be changing.
-
Obscure, but based on scientific research, isn't as convincing as unconfirmed blabber of somebody who has no clue about the subject?
It's not just obscure. It's totally hypothetical and interpretive research. Drawing and confirming 'conclusions' in this field of research without understanding the natural effects of things like air and ocean currents is idiotic. You can't ignore probably the biggest variable of them all and just say, "It's man made". That's like saying kids with abusive mothers end up gay. There probably is a correlation, but can you ignore the genetic factor? No. Just like you can't ignore Mother Nature herself when trying to come up with environmental theories.
And of course, the records of melting ice and retracting glaciers are recorded over at least several hundred years.and proven to be cyclical over many thousands of years.
And the levels of CO in atmoshere and their correlation with temperature and water levels have been researched.Anyways. Human caused global warming is the dominant conclusion of scientific community at this time (links have been posted in another thread earlier), and of course, anybody, yourself or even Harper, are free to enter the debate at any time, with scientific argument and data to confirm their position..
The problem is that Co2 in the atmosphere and temperature cause each other. Temperature can increase Co2 levels, and vice versa. The cause has still not been determined. The dominant conclusion of the time is irrelevant by the way. A lot of dominant conclusions in the past have been totally bogus. The earth being flat, the next Ice Age in the 1970's, God and intelligent design, they were all conventional wisdom at the time and they were all wrong. I know enough about the scientific method to know that climatology is AT BEST an incredibly inexact and unproven science. Any scientist worth his salt, therefore, should be caveating their research papers with that fact. They don't know enough to understand and neither do you or I.
Short of such scientific breakthrough though, the statements like "no credible evidence" have to be disregarded as pretty much meaningless blabber, very common here on the Web, in case you haven't noticed.That's a pretty tall claim haha. It's meaningless blabber to question 'scientists' who have no control over their research environment? This is really highlighting your critical thinking skills Myata.
They1) still have much lower standard of living, and it's understandable that much of their resources will be dedicatd to improving it; and,
by over-polluting? Their population and birth rates alone are threats to the environment. Their rate of pollution is lower than ours because half the country is still medieval. The part that isn't pollutes far worse than us. Know anybody who's ever been to Shanghai? Maybe you should look into it.
2) had much less contribution to creating the problem (again, references to stats on GHG emissions has been posted, and if I recall them correctly, even now as we speak emission per capita are multiple times higher in countries like US or Canada).Emissions per capita is a pretty useless measurement when comparing Canada to China, for reasons stated above. If we had 30 million Inuits living up north in Igloos, would that mean that our environmental record was better?
Unlike real "savants", like us. It only takes saying it, and it becomes true. Who cares about going to school, taking exams, doing research, defending degree, publishing peer reviewed research, and things such? Anybody can say anything, it's free and doesn't cost (and mean) anything. Like that UFO that just flew over your head.Remember, the dinosaurs.
The irony of your statement I think is escaping you.
-
It has been found and reported that the last time in history similar levels of CO concentration in the atmosphere were observed, ocean levels were 30-45 m higher, and there were no ice caps in Arctics and Antarctics: New CO levels research (also reported by BBC)
The paper was written by an obscure assistant prof and a couple of Phd students. Pretty questionable but nice try.
Melting of glaciers and polar ice is an established fact confirmed by numerous research.The melting isn't being argued. Cause and effect is what's in question. There's also RECORDS confirming that the warmest years on record in the Arctic were in 1937-1938. Similar records also suggest that between 1917-1937 the pace of warming was faster than it is today. Then in the 1940's -> 1970's it cooled.
Of course there's always a question as to what "science" one should find "credible", e.g. some (not excluding high level government politician) find it "credible" that dinosaurs walked this Earth alongside modern humans, regardless of what established (debated, fact based and peer reviewed) science would say on the matter.Straw man argument. Dinosaurs have been dug up out of the ground and carbon dated. We have bones as proof. Denying that is a little different than questioning the scientific method of 'proving' a hypothesis that doesn't and cannot account for countless natural variables.
Indeed, we should. And unlike many others, we can actually afford doing it. And yet, we don't.I was talking about things like tailing ponds and water pollution. We shouldn't be crapping our own beds but at the same time we shouldn't be hold ourselves to a higher standard than the rest of the world. It's a prisoner's dilemna.
It is also a fact (posted earlier) that this country is among highest (if not highest) per capita GHG emitters on the planet.We're also the coldest and biggest of the rich industrialized nations of the world and this should be taken for granted. We have ~30 million people living in an area the size of Europe. Our weather is extreme, our transportation requirements are greater and there is enormous demand for our raw materials, particularly our oil. You can't hold us to the same standard.
Despite already pointed fact that unlike many others, we here actually have the resources to work on the problem, that we though collectively decided to "consume" instead. It certainly makes us responsible for global warming as much as anybody else, especially the industrialized nations of planet, and our pathetic finger pointing and absolute void of any action, only shows how well, really pathetic we are on this agenda, no matter Harpers government noble efforts (mostly invested in hot air polemics).China and India have the resources to work on the problem is well. They don't because they like the idea of industry moving there because of huge cost advantages. We should make it easier for them right? Let's screw our own industry over so that the polluting is done in China instead okay? There's no point in talking about global warming unless the initiative to prevent it is also global. Don't talk about leading by example either, because we all see how well China and India follow our examples on human rights.
Finally, global warming is still at best now a theory. It's a theory that ignorants have adopted as conventional wisdom.
-
With violent youth crime on the rise as was pointed out earlier, its far to big of a gamble throwing them in for a year, and hoping they are magically cured.
I speak from experience from my profession. I deal with clients all the time who I see right before they go to jail. They come to me after they go to jail, and I find out from their spouses a month later that they're right back in. I'm one person. I can easily name you three kids I know (by kids I mean early-mid 20's) who have been to prison twice this year for violent crimes. Rehabilitation ---- 50% of the time it works every time.
-
The fact that parity with the green back has far more negative consequences than positive ones
Depends on who you are and what you do for a living and what the economic conditions are at the time. It's helping me. My job is not in any way tied in with the export market, I buy things from China and inflation is negated. I'm perfectly happy with the rising dollar.
It's the same for a lot of people.
The people who are hurt by the rising dollar are exporters who depend on a cheap dollar to be competitive rather than on stong/novel business models.
-
And abortion if you believe in Freakanomics.
So the Tories will support increased abortion?
What does this have to do with anything Jdobbin? Are you trying to participate in the discussion or are you just plugging the Liberal slogan of the day? Thanks for stopping by.
-
What we need is an educated populace that can recognize hype, spin and B.S. If politicians were punished for this behavior, rather than being rewarded, things might change, but psychology is against honesty. People are easily manipulated by fear.
Thank you. I've been saying this on this forum for over a year now. If people were smarter and cared more, good things can be done. Sadly they're largely stupid, uneducated and apathetic, and thus we are where we are now.
I don't agree with a ton of things you and other people say here on this forum, but at least I really respect that you're interested in your own fate and the fate of Canada in general.
Nations walk out on Canada
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
Then what you're saying is that since you are clueless in matters pertaining to climate science, you're belief in the studies being done is a matter of simple faith in the climate science 'experts'. Blind faith...hmmm...
So because you're ignorant in things pertaining to climate science, you automatically believe what they tell you? I already told you what my questions were with the 'science'. Nobody has been able to explain or predict the Earth's natural PROVEN tendency to warm and cool on its own (a trend which has been observed even over the last century). They don't need me to tell them that glaring fault in their 'science'.
Would you trust a diagnosis from a doctor who didn't understand human anatomy? Probably not. So why are we trusting climate scientists without question when they have shown they cannot predict even short term weather patterns? They don't understand how the world's weather works very well and yet you're willing to fully trust them with long term climate predictions and trillions of dollars?
I think we've already established your sentence structure and grammar/spelling need work, but nice try sounding clever. I find, however, that it works better when you write like an educated adult. Some of the meaning gets lost while decyphering fragmented sentences, garbage punctuation and verbosity. I know this is the interweb and all, but come on.
This is not how the media is presenting it, nor is it how people are interpreting it. This is my issue with the 'science'. That is why I'm not talking to the scientists themselves, but rather the people like you that seem to blindly believe everything they say when even the layman can see some rather obvious faults.
I question the reliability of ALL the models, because I know enough about programming to understand that no computer in the world right now could account for all the important weather dynamics like air and ocean currents, solar output etc...