HOME  |  NEWS  |  BLOGS  |  MESSAGES  |  FEATURES  |  VIDEOS  |  WEBINARS  |  INDUSTRIES  |  FOCUS ON FUNDAMENTALS
REGISTER   |   LOGIN   |   HELP
Blogs
Captain Hybrid

Global Warming: Are the Skeptics Right?

Page 1 / 3 Next >
View Comments: Newest First|Oldest First|Threaded View
<<  <  Page 12/54  >  >>
CharlesM
User Rank
Silver
Re: Several comments
CharlesM   5/1/2013 11:31:22 AM
NO RATINGS
Nice straw man work, WilliamK. It's a lot easier to win an argument when you fabricate the opposing view.

None of your remarks have scientific basis.

Did you know that water, like CO2, is actually an essential life substance? That doesn't mean you can't have too much of it, as any flood victim knows. If water were odorless, colorless, and invisible, like CO2 is, how would you know you're in a flood or a drought? You'd be forced to look at real evidence instead of relying on jokes, political demagoguery, and "thinking" with your gut.

Mankind has produced a continual CO2 flood with real and deadly implications for the planet. This is not a hypothetical guess about the future, maybe yes or maybe no. The effects of AGW are already happening almost exactly as predicted decades ago. Ignore, lie, and joke about it at your own peril as much as mine.

eeisgood
User Rank
Iron
Re: The debate and the skeptics.
eeisgood   4/30/2013 11:06:07 PM
NO RATINGS
William thanks for your posts.  One of the questions the article asks is why all the ridicule and personal abuse from the proponents of believe-global-warming towards those who disagree.  In my almost forty years of engineering such unprofessional behavior is unacceptable, like the unacceptable behavior shown in lots of the believe-global-warming posts here.  One reason for such egregious behavior is the fear of loss.  Politicians fear loss of votes from special interest groups and loss of power.  Researchers fear loss of taxpayer funded grants for studies.  Groups and individuals who have taken up a cause because it feels good to them have made the issue an integral part of their being and fear loss of self-esteem.  Then in online discussions like this there are what one might call hired seminar posters and trolls who post for personal gain or just to cause a fuss.
 
This is an old article, it was interesting looking back at some of the posts from February 2012.
 
No matter what the basis of a disagreement in a technical field is, there is no legitimacy in that kind of behavior.  Though I expect the behavior to continue in the posts here unless there is strict enforcement of professional behavior by moderators.  I get involved in the emotions of the moment as well, so I know anyone can get a little over enthusiastic...
 
All the best,
Charles S

William K.
User Rank
Platinum
The debate and the skeptics.
William K.   4/30/2013 9:27:01 PM
NO RATINGS
Quite a few years ago, after watching a debate teams competition, I asked a judge about the criteria for winning the debate, particularly abouthow winning related to the validity of the side taken. The judge explained that winning a debate was not about the correctness of the side's point of view, but that winning the debate was dependant on the debaing skill of the team, and, then the judge added, "which , of course, the team with the best skills should win". So with debates and with "scientific" arguments, so very frequently the most elequant speaker is the one believed. 

As in any fight or battle, the winner is not determined by who is right, but by who is the better fighter, and the most determined fighter.

BrainiacV
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Global warming
BrainiacV   4/30/2013 4:24:10 PM
NO RATINGS
I'm not a climate scientist, I just play one in front of my computer.

However, I find it difficult to believe that the rapid release of carbon that has been sequestered for millions of years in only a few hundred has not had an effect on the atmosphere and the climate.

To claim otherwise is like those that thought they could dump industrial wastes into the rivers and Mother Nature would cleanse itself.

We saw how well that worked out.

jeffbiss
User Rank
Gold
Where's your evidence?
jeffbiss   4/30/2013 9:45:53 AM
NO RATINGS
So, you think that the researchers have an agenda behind their data. Where's your evidence? More importantly, if they are cooking the numbers, then you should be able to show that as the numbers wouldn't stand scrutiny as they would be fabricated and not from the real world.

Do us a favor and stop this nonsense unless you can support your disbelief with your own evidence that refutes their data.

William K.
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Driving versus driven
William K.   4/29/2013 11:12:06 PM
NO RATINGS
A persons personal agenda affects everything that they say and do, much like their religion. So there is no way that a individuals motivations and wants can help but color the way they utilize data and science in general. In short, one is what one believes. Not what they believe in, that is different, but the personal agenda is the motivation for most of what most people do.

jeffbiss
User Rank
Gold
Driving versus driven
jeffbiss   4/29/2013 10:30:31 PM
NO RATINGS
William,

 

You really need to read the existing climate change literature as the scientists discuss the CO2 driver/driven issue.

As for misrepresentation of data, that is exposed in the greater discussion as a letter to the editor, new research refuting previous research, etc. Bad science can't hide.

As for the accuracy of the data, your belief isn't good enough. You must support your position, which questioning doesn't do. Where's your data that refutes the data you can't accept?

Cap and Trade is an economic issue and has nothing to do with the global warming science. But I'm glad that you brought it up as it illustrates where the real problem lies with regards to the global warming science, in economics andeconomic ideology.

A person's agenda is irrelevant as an agenda cannot support bad or contrived data. So, if you're "cynical", then support your cynicism with data that refutes that which you don't accept or believe in. There's absolutely no other path than supporting your hypothesis or theory with evidence. Science is about evidence, not belief.

William K.
User Rank
Platinum
Re: you've got to be kidding
William K.   4/29/2013 9:50:39 PM
NO RATINGS
It is also quite probable that global warming causes increased carbon dioxide levels. In fact it is quite probable. 

It is possible that you have never seen data misrepresented to back an in-valid supposition, while I have seen data mistreated that way on a number of occasions. The Chrysler Corp Elecronic fuel metering project was one of them. The "method of selected data points" is another way that data is used to seemingly validate assertions that are incorrect. 

And the answer is NO, I don't believe that older solar energy data is as accurate as the current data, and probably the solar energy data from a hundred years ago is probably less accurate than that. How could it be as accurate?

One other thing is that I forgot to mention how incredibly much profit a few individuals would reap if "cap and trade" ever gets into law. 

Of course I am quite cynical about the whole thing, and I almost always consider a persons personal agenda when I listen to them making claims about almost anything. What I do trust most people to do is to cheat when they can and lie when they need to, in order to get what they want. Of course some have higher standards and some have lower standards, and just because somebody is a very elequant and persuasive speaker does not mean that they have a clue as to what they are talking about.

jeffbiss
User Rank
Gold
you've got to be kidding
jeffbiss   4/29/2013 5:31:45 PM
NO RATINGS
William,

So you don't think that solar measurements were accurate enough? It's obvious that you haven't read any of the published scientific literature. Why post then, if you're not informed enough to know?

Thanks for providing an example of what I posit drives deniers, that they on't like the implications of global warming (that redistribution of wealth thing). The fact is that our behavior has affected the earth's system and is driving the equilibrium to a different point than we evolved in as well as other negative effects on the life that we share this planet with but choose to disregard as we satsify our desires.

jeffbiss
User Rank
Gold
Solar output is the source...
jeffbiss   4/29/2013 5:24:44 PM
NO RATINGS
It's important that you read up on this issue because we just had some of the hottest temperatures during a solar minimum (see 2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade). The sun is the source of the energy that heats the planet with the oceans, atmosphere, and land holding that energy to varying degrees.

That you would claim that the global warming "movement" has discounted the possibility of natural causes indicates that you have not read the research. So, do yourself a favor and read the research before you start trying to discuss issues that are covered very well in that research.

<<  <  Page 12/54  >  >>
Partner Zone
More Blogs from Captain Hybrid
A pure electric car with a lithium-ion battery can lose as much as 57% of its range when the temperature dips and 33% when the mercury rises, a new AAA study says.
Volkswagen AG is developing a lithium-air battery that could triple the range of its electric cars, but industry experts believe it could be a long time before that chemistry is ready for production vehicles.
After reading all the recent news reports about Tesla Motorsí proposed ďGigafactory,Ē itís hard not to wonder about the future of battery-electric cars, and how low their costs can really go.
Californiaís plan to mandate an electric vehicle market isnít the first such undertaking and certainly wonít be the last. But as the Golden State ratchets up for its next big step toward zero-emission vehicle status in 2018, it might be wise to consider a bit of history.
Tesla Motors plans to build a huge battery factory in hopes of making electric cars affordable for the general public.
Design News Webinar Series
3/27/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York / 7:00 p.m. London
2/27/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York / 7:00 p.m. London
12/18/2013 Available On Demand
11/20/2013 Available On Demand
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Apr 21 - 25, Creating & Testing Your First RTOS Application Using MQX
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5


Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Next Class: April 29 - Day 1
Sponsored by maxon precision motors
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Sponsored Content

Technology Marketplace

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Copyright © 2014 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service