Just a rant

[trainboysd40]

If there's one thing I can't stand, from either side of any debate regardless of whether I agree with it or not, it's the line that everyone who disagrees with you is a sheep or paid off. If you've done some research (and not research on conspiracy theory websites) and found enough data to convince yourself of something, you should be able to share the data with others and potentially be able to convince them also.

Personally, it seems that a volcano that erupts every 20 years or so could be equaled in total greenhouse gas yield by a medium to large industrial city, but since you've done the research, let's see some numbers.

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by troy12n

Like I said, a lot of people have degrees in a subject they are not active in or too grossly incompetent to practice in.

Yes. My degree isn't in a climate change-related science; I presume most of us on this forum don't have that background. We can still debate and disagree, and in disagreeing we can discuss things intelligently, and make arguments, and cite sources, and what not.

Or we can do the Chris thing.

[Chris Z]

That is funny. I get the impression that if we go green, we control the weather.

Chris Z

[travsirocz]

Originally Posted by JimThias

Charles, can you provide a link to the list of 97% of scientists?

Last I heard those 97% of scientists have been back tracking the last couple of years. Real science does not have to show the city of New York under 100 feet of water to show their findings. Last I heard, it is cloud cycles that cause the global cooling and warming.

Also, scientists change their minds all the time.

Example.

They said that Lake Superior was losing large amounts of water over the years. Lake Superior was made by a glacier. They now have evidence that the weight of the glacier compressed the land around the lake and that land is slowly rebounding making it look like the lake is going down when actually the land is going up.

Better example.

Remember when fat was what caused you to get fat? Then it was sugar. Then it was carbs. Now it is calories. Science has a hard time proving much smaller and short term things as in human weight gain. I mean they even redid the food pyramid. Apparently human food intake is more rocket science then rocket science.

I think predicting earth climate change is silly at this time. It is hard to predict something like this that goes in thousands of year cycles or maybe even million year cycles when we are going off of data that is only 50 years old and going off of older "made up" data. They are like glorified weathermen. Also, as with any profession, you have to come up with something good to keep your J O B.

quick fact: humans only produce .5% of the CO2. The other 99.5% naturally occurs. Nature does removes CO2 and we don't. I do think we need to make changes also but I guarantee you facts will continue to change about global warming, again and again and again and again. Again, as humans, we think we are bigger and more important to the Earth then we are.

[troy12n]

I just find it real funny that the teabaggers and most republicans (yes, I am going to call out a specific political group) after a couple above average snowfall winters proclaim global warming and climate change as bunk science, and then are completely silent when the country is in the middle of a record setting heat wave. Coincidance? Well, mostly silent. One blowhard, Rush Limbaugh said on his show the other day that this heat wave is a government created conspiracy and there is no such thing as the heat index.

You cant make this stuff up...

I am no scientist, but I think the facts are, certain parts of the world ARE getting warmer year after year. Is it due to CO2? I don't know. Again, i'm not a scientist, but from what I have seen, the "global warming is real" crowd seems to make a better arguement than the "nothing to see here" (pro-business, anti-EPA, anti-regulation coincidentally) crowd...

And I mirror Januz's comments that Chris' reply on the subject is laughable.

[Chris Z]

If what you are seeing is global warming, and it's getting worse and worse, and the difference is that we are going more and more green. Then wouldn't it be logical that going green is causing global warming. I'm sure a lot of political blow hards (I think all of them) must be contributing to this problem as well, as they are full of hot air.

Wasn't the UN recently asking for 75 trillion dollars to go green?

Chris

[Freericks]

Originally Posted by JimThias

Charles, can you provide a link to the list of 97% of scientists?

Here you go, Jim. If this doesn't work, it's USA Today -

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...imate-change/1

[Freericks]

Originally Posted by travsirocz

Last I heard those 97% of scientists have been back tracking the last couple of years. Real science does not have to show the city of New York under 100 feet of water to show their findings. Last I heard, it is cloud cycles that cause the global cooling and warming.

[cut]

quick fact: humans only produce .5% of the CO2. The other 99.5% naturally occurs. Nature does removes CO2 and we don't. I do think we need to make changes also but I guarantee you facts will continue to change about global warming, again and again and again and again. Again, as humans, we think we are bigger and more important to the Earth then we are.

I'm not a scientist and wouldn't come on line and say that I know Climate Change is man-made or that it isn't. I don't have Ween's degree.

Now, if you want to understand dramatic structure, I'm likely your man, but I simply don't have the education to aver as to what is true and what is not in science. What I do have, however, is the education to understand that when I need advice I'm better off asking an expert than my dad or my neighbor (unless they happen to be an expert).

Your figures above, for example, can be confirmed only on anti-global warming sites. Global warming is real sites have a different number, but are supported by the 97% of experts. (The main point there being that the additional CO2 caused by man has been building in the atmosphere now for decades and decades, and because it is trapped, is in fact the cause - prior to that additional CO2, there was balance).

Is this true? How the heck would I know? I'll let you know where the character reveals and the dénouement go.

As to your line, that they have been backtracking the last couple of years, it has only been a single year since that report came out.

[Ween]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

Chris, I am embarrassed for you, you say you have an education related to the topic and that is the best you can do?

Thanks, but I'll be okay. No matter what I write, what data I provide, how much "proof" I come to the table with, people are going to believe what they want to believe.

Regardless of what I wrote, regardless of how weak it seems, no one here has offered a counterpoint other than Charles' 3% of other scientists being paid off to disprove the theory. I guess when the e-mails among certain "scientists" were exposed and their agenda for providing false data in favor of Global Warming last year came to light that they were on the up and up, even though they were peer reviewed? It would be like saying that 97% of Christian leaders say their way is the only way...and that's for certain because other Christians peer reviewed them.

I have no agenda, no money to be made, but I can take a look at all the factors that could contribute to higher temperatures globally and I'm comfortable with my point of view. Now as for people who tout wind energy and electric cars and solar power...do you think they really care about the planet or do you think they just want some of that money that goes to big oil? Hmmmm...

[Freericks]

Originally Posted by Ween

Thanks, but I'll be okay. No matter what I write, what data I provide, how much "proof" I come to the table with, people are going to believe what they want to believe.

Regardless of what I wrote, regardless of how weak it seems, no one here has offered a counterpoint other than Charles' 3% of other scientists being paid off to disprove the theory. I guess when the e-mails among certain "scientists" were exposed and their agenda for providing false data in favor of Global Warming last year came to light that they were on the up and up, even though they were peer reviewed? It would be like saying that 97% of Christian leaders say their way is the only way...and that's for certain because other Christians peer reviewed them.

I have no agenda, no money to be made, but I can take a look at all the factors that could contribute to higher temperatures globally and I'm comfortable with my point of view. Now as for people who tout wind energy and electric cars and solar power...do you think they really care about the planet or do you think they just want some of that money that goes to big oil? Hmmmm...

Two quick things -

1) You haven't provided any empirical data, and you have provided nothing that demonstrates you earned your degree. I am not attacking you, I am asking you to step up to the plate as you suggested you were capable of in your first post.

2) The climate-gate issue with the e-mails was debunked something like a week after it came out. They were angry e-mails and stupidly written, but they have been absolutely 100% researched and vetted and there is not a single case of someone fudging data. But I'm not sure what the point is of posting this, as all you'll do is disagree. I can see this with your religion comparison. As you are a scientist and you believe that faith and research are fair comparisons, then I couldn't prove to you that the world is made up of molecules either.

I'm done... the great thing about science is that it's true whether you believe it or not.

[travsirocz]

You tell me.

[Freericks]

What's the source of the graph, Travis?

[Ween]

Charles, I'm not going to show you my transcripts, but I earned my degree from the U.S. Air Force Academy, not exactly a light-weight place for education (and other things). 154.0 credit hours for a Bachelor's is more than I'd ever want to experience again.

I'm simplistic. What provides our energy? The sun. And that's where I tend to focus. This sums up my views pretty well:
http://www.oneminuteastronomer.com/1...lobal-warming/

[Ween]

The argument is that sun spot activity is decreasing, so why are the temperatures still getting warmer?!? Could it be for the same reason that the northern hemisphere receives the most direct solar radiation 21/22 Jun yet we don't see the warmest temperatures until late July into August? Hmmmm...

[travsirocz]

Originally Posted by Freericks

What's the source of the graph, Travis?

http://www.google.com/search?q=globa...w=1680&bih=935

I'm sure they're from ani global warming sites just as the hocky sticks you will find will be on the pro global warming sites. The difference is looking at the past 100 years compared to looking at something that makes more sense on earths scale.

Fact: the temperature change on Earth is mirrored on Mars. So the real alarming issue to figure out is how did our CO2 get to Mars.

http://www.dailyplunge.com/2007/04/m...ors-the-earth/

[Freericks]

Originally Posted by Ween

Charles, I'm not going to show you my transcripts, but I earned my degree from the U.S. Air Force Academy, not exactly a light-weight place for education (and other things). 154.0 credit hours for a Bachelor's is more than I'd ever want to experience again.

I'm simplistic. What provides our energy? The sun. And that's where I tend to focus. This sums up my views pretty well:
http://www.oneminuteastronomer.com/1...lobal-warming/

Ween - I don't need your transcript and I was never attacking your degree.

You and I also both know that no one is going to convince anyone of anything on an internet forum that is about train photography, so in a way, I agree with you that there's not all that much of a point in trying.

Can I ask though, does your mentioning where your degree is from mean that the better the school, the more we should trust the data and opinion from the scientist? You went to an amazing and damn fine university, so I'm curious what your thought is.

[Freericks]

Originally Posted by travsirocz

http://www.google.com/search?q=globa...w=1680&bih=935

I'm sure they're from ani global warming sites just as the hocky sticks you will find will be on the pro global warming sites. The difference is looking at the past 100 years compared to looking at something that makes more sense on earths scale.

Fact: the temperature change on Earth is mirrored on Mars. So the real alarming issue to figure out is how did our CO2 get to Mars.

http://www.dailyplunge.com/2007/04/m...ors-the-earth/

I like this response... can't say I agree - but I appreciate where you're coming from.

Again - however, I think it comes down to, am I going to believe the guys with the best education and best credentials or the naysayers with less. I'll make my decision based on what I believe makes sense and you will do the same. I'm cool with that.

Here's some pretty good data on a flat earth and the sun going around the earth.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

http://www.geocentricity.com/

The flat earthers and the geocentrics have lots of pretty damn good looking proof too.

[travsirocz]

Did you know many of the readings that we use to calculate and come to the conclusion of global warming are located on roof tops, next to A/C units and in cities where it will always be warmer do to the buildings, cars, concrete, and so on.

[Ween]

Originally Posted by Freericks

Can I ask though, does your mentioning where your degree is from mean that the better the school, the more we should trust the data and opinion from the scientist? You went to an amazing and damn fine university, so I'm curious what your thought is.

Not really. But like anything in life, what your views are on things are influenced by what surrounds you. Example:

Take the subject of, say, America's founding. One course taught at a predominantly liberal university and another course taught at a predominantly conservative university. Do you think they'd be teaching and emphasizing the same things? So take that for what it's worth, but you can't just blindly trust someone based on the school they went to...

[Freericks]

Originally Posted by Ween

Not really. But like anything in life, what your views are on things are influenced by what surrounds you. Example:

Take the subject of, say, America's founding. One course taught at a predominantly liberal university and another course taught at a predominantly conservative university. Do you think they'd be teaching and emphasizing the same things? So take that for what it's worth, but you can't just blindly trust someone based on the school they went to...

In the end, there is both conscious manipulation and unconscious perceptual screening of information. The latter is always there, and there's not much we can do about it. The former seems to be becoming more of an issue in recent years than I remember it being in the past. It's a shame.

But I am not sure that anything can be done about it. Even if you managed to find some truly honest and unbiased judges to go through written history and create a course based purely on the most salient and most likely true events - there would be a huge chorus out there calling them reactionaries or calling them radicals. These folk would go through line by line and fine evidence to prove their conspiracy theory. There would be folk on the right and folk on the left doing this.

Having studied history, I am always surprised, for example, when those with a strong Christian Conservative background cite Thomas Jefferson as a hero, Jefferson who was a deist, and thus a cultist to their beliefs.

At the same time, I am surprised when Progressives speak so endearingly of John F. Kennedy, who engaged in illegal wars (by the Constitution, not opinion), was pro-life, and had many other views that would be perceived as to the right today.

Please don't take this wrong. I consider both Jefferson and Kennedy to be great men in our history. I am simply agreeing with you - we all have our own perceptions of history.

[travsirocz]

Originally Posted by Freericks

Again - however, I think it comes down to, am I going to believe the guys with the best education and best credentials or the naysayers with less. I'll make my decision based on what I believe makes sense and you will do the same. I'm cool with that.

The people (scientists) you trust the most have made many mistakes and errors over the years.

the earth is flat
the sun circles the earth
reptiles do not exist
tomato a vegetable
dinosaurs
pluto a planet?
Since 1994, six new elements have been discovered
all living organism derive their energy from the sun (poor bottom of the ocean dwellers)
human caused global warming?

the list can go on.



http://science.discovery.com/top-ten...-mistakes.html

[Freericks]

Originally Posted by travsirocz

The people (scientists) you trust the most have made many mistakes and errors over the years.

the earth is flat
the sun circles the earth
reptiles do not exist
tomato a vegetable
dinosaurs
pluto a planet?
Since 1994, six new elements have been discovered
all living organism derive their energy from the sun (poor bottom of the ocean dwellers)
human caused global warming?

the list can go on.



http://science.discovery.com/top-ten...-mistakes.html

Travis - I'm sorry to call BS, but this is just a truly nonsensical post. You're better than this.

Science is what basically disproved the majority of information you just posted.

What are you doing, trolling the internet to find the weakest arguments you can find?

Tomato is a vegetable? Honestly? The definition of a fruit is the seed bearing part of a plant. The definition of a vegetable is the rest of the plant (root, stalk, leaf, etc.). Show me think link where a scientist thought differently.

[travsirocz]

I am just stating that science disproves older science all the time. So what they tell you today may not be what they tell you tomorrow. Facts are facts but facts can be put together with other facts that can be misleading. Facts can also turn out not to be facts as new fact disprove the old facts.

[Freericks]

Originally Posted by travsirocz

I am just stating that science disproves older science all the time. So what they tell you today may not be what they tell you tomorrow. When facts are facts but facts can be put together with other facts that can be misleading. Facts can also turn out not to be facts as new fact disprove the old facts.

I agree. Science is an on-going process and things we believe to be true today will be disproved tomorrow.

Where I am at odds with your logic is that if we are to simply not believe science because it gets better over time, we have nothing to believe. We know nothing. We don't know what causes the tides. We don't know why poison ivy makes us itch. We don't know why we breathe.

At some point, going back to my original point, you need to make a personal decision as to who you want to believe.

EDIT - Just want to add, Travis, that if you gave me advice on train photography or criticized my train photography, I would sit up and listen. You have demonstrated skills and knowledge far beyond mine in that realm. But, based on what I know about your background, I am not going to be swayed by your opinion on a scientific question (just as you SHOULD NOT be swayed by mine - I 'm not a scientist either). Sorry.

[troy12n]

For the record, never did I ever think that I would see the flat earth society ever referenced on railpictures.net

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-We8ogMQ-U