The coming Ice Age

Hardline Crawlers - Rock Bouncer Builds, Tech & Off-Road Trail Talk

Help Support Hardline Crawlers:

whatthe? said:
Because they're taking a small snap shot of process that takes thousands of years and has a lot of variability year to year. Then using that data to try and make policy based on what they think they know. You must not work in government. I have three immediate relatives who do. Here's how it works a lot of the time. They decision is made what they want to do, then they decide what data they need to support it, then a study is done which gives them the "proof" they need. Another instance, a study is done by an agency, it shows that what they're doing is useless but they have funding/jobs to protect so the study disappears. I have dozens of these stories about gov "scientists" who first and foremost protect their job and next move their agenda. They just use "science" to do it. You believe in these studies, I believe that people want to keep their job and move an agenda. You have more faith in people than I do.
Click to expand...

That's exactly right, and the point I've been trying to make, there is so much policy being made because of junk science. More and more data is coming out showing that the climate scientists were so far off it's almost laughable, if any one of us was that far off in our jobs we would be fired, if not jailed, but I guess it was just "an order of magnitude" :haha: The sad thing is that all the policy was made BEFORE we had REAL data, and now everyone is being punished. Unlike science, politics and policy WILL NOT CORRECT THEMSELVES.

Here's one thing that pisses me off that happened recently, I was in the market for a new top handled chainsaw, there is a really good saw that I like, but due to the EPA standards on a 34cc engine they are no longer available in the US :mad:
 
Jaydog said:
More and more data is coming out showing that the climate scientists were so far off it's almost laughable...
Click to expand...
30% is what the paper cited for the total error in global ice loss excluding Greenland and the Antarctic. 534 billion tons per year was the revised figure for total annual global ice loss, and you're concerned about a measly 46 billion tons? That's "just an order of magnitude" less than the total loss... less than 10% error on total global ice loss because of an extrapolation that turned out to be off. Less than 10% error is laughable, huh? Wow...
 
There is only one motive behind trying to prevent the innevitable, and that is standing to win or lose, a large amount of money or resources. These people have hired scientists to tell them what they want to hear, and convince everyone to get on the bandwagon.

Let's say there is a new idea called slavery. Then we start an economy based on slavery. Later we figure out this was a bad idea. Do you think slave owners would say, "you know, you're right, we were wrong" and set their slaves free?
 
Clark said:
Let's say there is a new idea called slavery. Then we start an economy based on slavery. Later we figure out this was a bad idea. Do you think slave owners would say, "you know, you're right, we were wrong" and set their slaves free?
Click to expand...

Check Mate
 
Clark said:
There is only one motive behind trying to prevent the innevitable, and that is standing to win or lose, a large amount of money or resources. These people have hired scientists to tell them what they want to hear, and convince everyone to get on the bandwagon.
Click to expand...
Now you're getting into the politics of it... let's stick to the science.

Clark said:
Let's say there is a new idea called oil. Then we start an economy based on oil. Later we figure out this was a bad idea. Do you think oil owners would say, "you know, you're right, we were wrong" and stop selling their oil?
Click to expand...
Just sayin'...
 
yeah we know oil isn't the answer, and neither is salvery and niether is this "global warming"......

I think you really hit it spot on about politics, global warming seems to me like a political matter. Not in the sense that the earth is or isn't warming up, but the "problem" is political. We resist change, like it's the AIDS.

One day, we will all be gone, the oil all burnt up, and the earth will continue it's cycles like we were never here. Then one day in a couple hundred million years, someone will discover huge reservoirs of our society consolidated in black sludge, burn it, and complete the cycle.

I'm not saying we should be negligent with our use of resources. I'm saying we don't even know what is going on, and we are acting like experts. It's funny how the more you learn, the more you realize you don't know anything at all.

Zed Mikey, I think you have more learning still ahead of you. :beer:
 
Clark said:
yeah we know oil isn't the answer
Click to expand...
Who's we? There are lots of people who actually do think oil is the answer. Jaydog is one of them.

There are people who believe that oil is a RENEWABLE resource :rofl:

I'm OK with the global warming thing because I believe there's truth to it. I don't know if New York is going to be under water by 2025, or what, but I know we're digging carbon up that's been buried for millions of years, I know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and I know that global temperatures are changing in a way that doesn't seem to fit past patterns. It all kind of seems to add up.

I also hate oil. It's non-renewable, it's dirty (full of useless **** like sulfur that cause problems), its a source of massive international tension, and because of where we get a lot of it, it's caused some pretty nasty environmental disasters. I don't want to use another drop of the **** if I don't have to. I'd rather pay more at the pump and burn something that is renewable, clean, and that was manufactured right here in the U.S., that maybe I could even manufacture myself. I'd also prefer to leave the oil we do have left under our own soil right where it is as a hedge against a SHTF scenario where we might need a huge amount of hydrocarbons right damn now.

So if all the greenies care about is the polar bears, and that makes them hate oil too, I am fine with that :D
 
Last edited:
whatthe? said:
The two cannot be separated. There are people in this area of science that have an agenda. Just like oil and politics, good example.
Click to expand...
Sure... there are people in any field that have agendas. That doesn't mean all of them do; hell, it doesn't even mean many of them do. It certainly doesn't mean there is some global conspiracy trying to hoodwink the entire world.

Clark said:
yeah we know oil isn't the answer, and neither is salvery and niether is this "global warming"......

I think you really hit it spot on about politics, global warming seems to me like a political matter. Not in the sense that the earth is or isn't warming up, but the "problem" is political. We resist change, like it's the AIDS.

One day, we will all be gone, the oil all burnt up, and the earth will continue it's cycles like we were never here. Then one day in a couple hundred million years, someone will discover huge reservoirs of our society consolidated in black sludge, burn it, and complete the cycle.
Click to expand...
The oil will be gone long before we will be. :awesomework: Barring some global catastrophe such a nuclear war, of course.

Clark said:
I'm not saying we should be negligent with our use of resources. I'm saying we don't even know what is going on, and we are acting like experts. It's funny how the more you learn, the more you realize you don't know anything at all.

Zed Mikey, I think you have more learning still ahead of you. :beer:
Click to expand...
The only thing we can do is make predictions on the best data we have available to us. We have a much better understanding of what is going on than you apparently believe (so much for you not being on either side of this argument :;), and our understanding is growing stronger every day.

Everybody always has more learning still ahead. If they don't think so, they are already lost. :beer:
 
It is renewable, every couple hundred million years, just off an "order of magnitude" :redneck:
 
CrustyJeep said:
Who's we? There are lots of people who actually do think oil is the answer. Jaydog is one of them.

There are people who believe that oil is a RENEWABLE resource :rofl:
Click to expand...
It IS renewable, Crusty! For every gallon of oil I use, I plant 2 dinosaurs 100 million years ago... totally sustainable! :redneck:
 
Clark said:
It is renewable, every couple hundred million years, just off an "order of magnitude" :redneck:
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should double check what an "order of magnitude" is. 100 million years versus, say, 100 years for a renewable resource (yay trees!)... that's 6 orders of magnitude.
 
Looks like a lot of opinions. Don't let ZM read it. He's not into opinions or what we should or shouldn't do, the politics of it. This sounds like a guy with an agenda. A scientist with an agenda, who would have thought. Hey ZM, you need to be telling japerry to keep to the science.
 
CrustyJeep said:
Who's we? There are lots of people who actually do think oil is the answer. Jaydog is one of them.

There are people who believe that oil is a RENEWABLE resource :rofl:
Click to expand...

If we have it, then we might as well use it, there is no other alternative at the moment and we have 100yrs left, we will run out when I'm dead so they have plenty of time to come up with something, Fossil fuels are not renewable, but oils from algea is :fawkdancesmiley:

japerry said:
A writeup about AGW from someone who might know something about this stuff..

http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2012/02/will-we-do-anything-about-global.html
Click to expand...

Science to the highest bidder please! Just another AGW blog, too bad they didn't list their sponsors.
 
whatthe? said:
Looks like a lot of opinions. Don't let ZM read it. He's not into opinions or what we should or shouldn't do, the politics of it. This sounds like a guy with an agenda. A scientist with an agenda, who would have thought. Hey ZM, you need to be telling japerry to keep to the science.
Click to expand...

What is science today might not be science tomorrow, maybe that blog was written before all the secrets came out about data fixing, climate models with all the wrong info, climate gate, solar influence on the Earths weather, the increase in Co2 emissions from natural sources and such. :haha:
 
ZedMikey said:
30% is what the paper cited for the total error in global ice loss excluding Greenland and the Antarctic. 534 billion tons per year was the revised figure for total annual global ice loss, and you're concerned about a measly 46 billion tons? That's "just an order of magnitude" less than the total loss... less than 10% error on total global ice loss because of an extrapolation that turned out to be off. Less than 10% error is laughable, huh? Wow...
Click to expand...

They stated the Himalayan glacier was loosing 50 billion tons per year, and it ended up being 4 billion tons....they were off by 92%

To answer your question 10% isn't laughable, but 92% is, watch -----> :haha:
 
cliff mass is a well respected, well known Climatologist (Meterologist) professor at UW. Hes one of the best sources on weather in northwest, highly intelligent, and makes good points. But I guess I'm not surprised you've heard of him; hes one of those 'smart' people.
 
Jaydog said:
They stated the Himalayan glacier was loosing 50 billion tons per year, and it ended up being 4 billion tons....they were off by 92%

To answer your question 10% isn't laughable, but 92% is, watch -----> :haha:
Click to expand...
Well, you should stop laughing, then. Because they were off by less than 10% on the number that matters. As usual, you are cherry picking your numbers and overlooking the big picture. Like I said, they were off by an order of magnitude (i.e., a factor of ten, for those that still haven't picked up on the terminology) on one part, and that's a large error. That part, however, was about 9% of the whole. 92% of 9% is 8%... there's your error. 8%.

What you're doing is akin to laughing because someone was aiming at your head, but ended up hitting you in the chest, instead. They completely missed their target (your head)! How laughable! :awesomework:
 
Jaydog said:
What is science today might not be science tomorrow, maybe that blog was written before all the secrets came out about data fixing, climate models with all the wrong info, climate gate, solar influence on the Earths weather, the increase in Co2 emissions from natural sources and such. :haha:
Click to expand...
It sure was, Jay. Scientists didn't know anything when that blog was written... two days ago on Sunday, 12 February 2012. :rolleyes:
 
ZedMikey said:
Well, you should stop laughing, then. Because they were off by less than 10% on the number that matters. As usual, you are cherry picking your numbers and overlooking the big picture. Like I said, they were off by an order of magnitude (i.e., a factor of ten, for those that still haven't picked up on the terminology) on one part, and that's a large error. That part, however, was about 9% of the whole. 92% of 9% is 8%... there's your error. 8%.

What you're doing is akin to laughing because someone was aiming at your head, but ended up hitting you in the chest, instead. They completely missed their target (your head)! How laughable! :awesomework:
Click to expand...

I know, this is your usual defense strategy, instead of defending it point by point you convolute all the numbers to come out with a more favorable percentage number, but the difference between 50 and 4 will never be 8% in the real world. :awesomework:
 
Jaydog said:
I know, this is your usual defense strategy, instead of defending it point by point you convolute all the numbers to come out with a more favorable percentage number, but the difference between 50 and 4 will never be 8% in the real world. :awesomework:
Click to expand...
There is nothing to defend here, Jay. I agree with you; it's a big error. I've been saying that the whole time. Have you not seen that? I've only said it... what... 5 times now?

What you don't seem to understand is that it is a big error that has a small effect in the end. You're arguing about the error in the smallest piece of the puzzle that paper is talking about. You're arguing about 8%. We are talking about GLOBAL climate change... not HIMALAYAN climate change.
 
ZedMikey said:
Total loser... PhD in Atmospheric Science in 1978, researcher from 1974 to present, and around a hundred peer-reviewed publications. Psh... what does he know?
Click to expand...

How to stay in good with the system and not bite the hand that feeds him. :stirpot: You should email him and tell him to keep his opinions and policy ideas to himself. Just let the science do the talking.:;
 
whatthe? said:
How to stay in good with the system and not bite the hand that feeds him. :stirpot: You should email him and tell him to keep his opinions and policy ideas to himself. Just let the science do the talking.:;
Click to expand...
This isn't even good trolling.

~100 peer-reviewed scientific papers... that IS letting the science do the talking.
 

Latest posts

Random media

486509961206_0_BG.jpg
26.jpg
20200725_174850.jpg
34304_1501922224638_6783505_n.jpg
20200215_135941.jpg
IMAG0136.jpg
IMAG0021.jpg
Evans creek with Bob and Ted 038.jpg
IMG_7163624206587.jpeg
Back
Top