starting strength gym
Page 44 of 54 FirstFirst ... 344243444546 ... LastLast
Results 431 to 440 of 535

Thread: Commentary #6: Global Warming

  1. #431
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Posts
    3,239

    Default

    • starting strength seminar april 2024
    • starting strength seminar jume 2024
    • starting strength seminar august 2024
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    He knows more about it than I do, but everything he said agrees with what I know.
    I’ve gone through it too. It’s sound.

    One of the branch of physics I have direct experience with is radiation transfer and hydrodynamics. Both of these are deeply modeled with full experimental verification. The investment in these models is for the prediction of the performance and safety of nuclear weapons in the absence of testing real weapon's (test ban treaty).

    The supercomputers and the field of supercomputing is almost entirely a product of the US Nuclear weapons program. Has it been tempting to brand these exa and peta flop behemoths as multi purposed? Of course. The obvious is climate modeling. Dual use. Swords into plowshares.

    But the fact that climate modeling does occur and is funded doesn’t mean jack shit. Every aspect of nuclear weapon modeling is tested against old data AND verified using actual experiments. Climate modeling does neither, and, at best, overestimates the “bad” news.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frivillesid View Post
    Perhaps once they are able to break free from circular logic. The cited study was published by the heartland institute, which is a conservative think tank that is funded through oil and gas companies. Obviously they are going to have a bias. They are not so much of a research organization, but more of a well funded internet blog that holds conferences to push through their agenda. The post you responded to contained an article written by them while referencing themselves to enforce their own viewpoint.

    .
    We’ve all heard about how Big Oil pushed the name natural gas for methane. Some grand marketing ploy. That they felt it would sound cleaner and be more acceptable to their consumers

    The problem is the existence of natural gas coming out of the ground has been known for thousands of years and commercially sold as far back as 1850.

  2. #432
    Join Date
    Jan 2024
    Posts
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Charles View Post
    We’ve all heard about how Big Oil pushed the name natural gas for methane. Some grand marketing ploy. That they felt it would sound cleaner and be more acceptable to their consumers

    The problem is the existence of natural gas coming out of the ground has been known for thousands of years and commercially sold as far back as 1850.

    Sure, but this addresses nothing about what I said in my previous post.

  3. #433
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Garage of GainzZz
    Posts
    3,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frivillesid View Post
    Perhaps once they are able to break free from circular logic. The cited study was published by the heartland institute, which is a conservative think tank that is funded through oil and gas companies. Obviously they are going to have a bias. They are not so much of a research organization, but more of a well funded internet blog that holds conferences to push through their agenda. The post you responded to contained an article written by them while referencing themselves to enforce their own viewpoint.

    This type of article reminds me of the time I got into an argument with a religious nut job regarding the age of the earth who then provided me a book written by a man who referenced themselves as evidence of his claim that the earth was only a few thousand years old. Albeit, I will admit that the heartland institute is significantly slicker in their presentation. Referring to anything written by the heartland institute as the gospel truth is like referencing a marathon runner about the dangers of strength training as they only cite their own experiences as a reference.
    Every professional organization does this as does the government. Do you not believe they do not have an “agenda?”

    (Wrong answers only.)

    I don’t care anymore if you receive funding to advocate for one side of an argument. The bad guys are very open about it, but somehow we’re supposed to not be hypocrites. Fuck that.

  4. #434
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frivillesid View Post
    Sure, but this addresses nothing about what I said in my previous post.
    And this fails to address my question: Do you have a specific issue with the geologist's presentation that you'd like to address, or is it sufficient to merely taint the credibility of the website?

  5. #435
    Join Date
    Jan 2024
    Posts
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    And this fails to address my question: Do you have a specific issue with the geologist's presentation that you'd like to address, or is it sufficient to merely taint the credibility of the website?
    Just because you asked so nicely I will respond. But first, the reason I did not respond to your question was because you failed to grasp the actual point being made. In your prior post I was addressing another posters assertion that the problem with education is that we don't teach people how to think for themselves and that people are now being spoon fed information from social media in place of thinking for themselves. The irony is that many of the right wing blog posts that masquerade as legitimate news/research contain convenient links to social media sites to allow for this information to be easily disseminated. It is a bit ironic. My point would have remained regardless of what information was provided in the presentation or what was mentioned in the internet blog that was posted.

    To be honest, I did not really watch much of the presentation. When reviewing information I first take into account the source, and it was a presentation presented at a conference from the heartland institute, which is far from a credible source. I don't waste a lot of time getting worked up over information from severely biased sources that is designed to create angry responses. This includes information from both liberal and conservative sites. I did watch some of it, however, and his central thesis appeared to be that since there were ice ages before in the past, human induced climate change did not occur. I did not see a lot of evidence from what I did view other than a man consistently reiterating this point. I also had no interest in comparing what the atmosphere of the earth was like billions of years ago when the earth was first forming and comparing it to now. Yes, the earth was much hotter billions of years ago compared to now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Satch12879 View Post
    Every professional organization does this as does the government. Do you not believe they do not have an “agenda?”

    (Wrong answers only.)

    I don’t care anymore if you receive funding to advocate for one side of an argument. The bad guys are very open about it, but somehow we’re supposed to not be hypocrites. Fuck that.
    This is a strange response. Why do you view the world through the lens of us vs them? Is this useful or practical? Are you suggesting that the best way to fight disinformation is to create a equal disinformation response on the other side? You appear to have already chosen a side and are fine with anything that validates your set of beliefs whether it is true or not. People like you are the problem, regardless of what political stripe or belief systems they hold.

  6. #436
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frivillesid View Post
    To be honest, I did not really watch much of the presentation.
    Perfect!

  7. #437
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frivillesid View Post
    People like you are the problem, regardless of what political stripe or belief systems they hold.
    Yeah, people like Satch are the problem. We need less of those!

  8. #438
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frivillesid View Post
    In your prior post I was addressing another posters assertion that the problem with education is that we don't teach people how to think for themselves and that people are now being spoon fed information from social media in place of thinking for themselves.
    That was me who wrote that schools here are turning out students who cannot think, it is not the social media that is turning this generation of children into blockheads, but hard left socialists teachers and governments. The whole education system has been white anted for decades. Social media is just the icing on the cake.

  9. #439
    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frivillesid View Post
    Just because you asked so nicely I will respond. But first, the reason I did not respond to your question was because you failed to grasp the actual point being made. In your prior post I was addressing another posters assertion that the problem with education is that we don't teach people how to think for themselves and that people are now being spoon fed information from social media in place of thinking for themselves. The irony is that many of the right wing blog posts that masquerade as legitimate news/research contain convenient links to social media sites to allow for this information to be easily disseminated. It is a bit ironic. My point would have remained regardless of what information was provided in the presentation or what was mentioned in the internet blog that was posted.

    To be honest, I did not really watch much of the presentation. When reviewing information I first take into account the source, and it was a presentation presented at a conference from the heartland institute, which is far from a credible source. I don't waste a lot of time getting worked up over information from severely biased sources that is designed to create angry responses. This includes information from both liberal and conservative sites. I did watch some of it, however, and his central thesis appeared to be that since there were ice ages before in the past, human induced climate change did not occur. I did not see a lot of evidence from what I did view other than a man consistently reiterating this point. I also had no interest in comparing what the atmosphere of the earth was like billions of years ago when the earth was first forming and comparing it to now. Yes, the earth was much hotter billions of years ago compared to now.



    This is a strange response. Why do you view the world through the lens of us vs them? Is this useful or practical? Are you suggesting that the best way to fight disinformation is to create a equal disinformation response on the other side? You appear to have already chosen a side and are fine with anything that validates your set of beliefs whether it is true or not. People like you are the problem, regardless of what political stripe or belief systems they hold.
    The central claim is that the measuring stations are in locations which taint the results.

    How does the source of funding of the guy who observes and records change this fact?

  10. #440
    Join Date
    Jan 2024
    Posts
    24

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by Subby View Post
    The central claim is that the measuring stations are in locations which taint the results.

    How does the source of funding of the guy who observes and records change this fact?
    There are 2 distinct posts that are being referenced. Please keep them straight if you are going to respond to me. One post cited an internet blog from the heartland institute. That is the one that discussed the location of the measuring stations. The other post, which is the one I referenced regarding the central thesis, did not discuss the measuring stations at all. It was a presentation by Ian Plimer from a conference set up by the heartland institute. Most of what I saw was him discussing the time period between ice ages. But as I said, I did not watch it in its entirety. I briefly skimmed through it. If he did mention anything at all about the weather stations it would have been pretty brief.

    I find it amusing that the source of the funding does not matter when it is someone defending whatever it is that you believe. What about the funding of the vast overwhelming majority of the scientific community who believe in and study climate change? Suddenly when their arguments are presented others are always quick to point out that they don't want to give up their perceived gravy train of funding for their research. People cannot have it both ways. If there are conflicts of interest they should be presented regardless of your own personal beliefs about an issue. It should go without saying that oil and gas companies, who fund the heartland institute, have a substantial bias. But more specifically, Ian Plimer has been accused by many scientists for falsehood, misrepresenting data and spreading misinformation.

    The author attempts to paint a picture of current climate change as simply a continuation of natural changes that have occurred in the past. But this neglects the clear evidence that climate change over the last two centuries has been shown to be largely man-made, that it is much more rapid that anything we have seen in the last two thousand years if not longer, and that it is occurring in the context of a globe with more than 7 billion human inhabitants.

    The author makes incorrect claims about climate models failing (against what metric?), that climate change cannot be driven by a trace gas (how did we get out of the ice covered state called “snowball Earth”, not to mention the role of carbon dioxide in many examples of climate change over Earth’s history?), that carbon dioxide concentrations were higher at the beginning of the last ice age (they weren’t).

    Interspersed with these falsehoods are various long interludes about how carbon dioxide is essential for life and helps plants grow. This doesn’t change the fact that the planet is getting warmer, and it doesn’t change the fact that most studies expect agricultural yields to suffer as the world becomes increasingly warmer in spite of the carbon dioxide fertilisation effect.

    The facts are that human activity has increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to levels not seen for close to a million years. Multiple lines of evidence from observations, modelling, and theory shows us that this increase in greenhouse gas concentrations leads to warming of the globe. As this warming continues, it will lead to sea-level rise, changes to rainfall patterns, and, for higher levels of warming, it may render parts of the world essentially uninhabitable for humans without air conditioning. To deny this strong and robust evidence is irresponsible in the extreme.

    Katrin Meissner, Professor, University of New South Wales:
    Virtually every single scientific statement in this article is either misleading or downright wrong. Some statements are almost amusing, such as, “there are no carbon emissions. If there were, we could not see because most carbon is black”.
    The Australian should be ashamed of itself. What next? An opinion piece on the flat Earth theory?

    Willem Huiskamp, Postdoctoral research fellow, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research:
    This article is an absurd collection of non-sequiturs, distortions, and outright falsehoods that have been thoroughly debunked over the past decade. This is obvious propaganda from someone with close financial ties to the fossil fuel industry.

    Dan Jones, Physical Oceanographer, British Antarctic Survey:
    This article contains a large number of inaccurate and misleading statements. It is not grounded in our understanding of the Earth system.

    Mark Eakin, Scientist, Coordinator of NOAA’s Coral Reef Watch, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
    There are a few points he makes that are true. The other 95% are not. Even those that are true are used to mislead the reader.

    Alexis Berg, Research Associate, Harvard University:
    Just like previous pieces by the same author (some of which were already addressed by Climate Feedback), this piece is an unorganized collection of the same old misleading “arguments” from climate change deniers that have been addressed thousands of times before, of which there are too many to summarize here.
    It is frankly appalling that any newspaper that would like to retain some credibility would continue to publish such pieces.

    Ian Plimer op-ed in The Australian again presents long list of false claims about climate – Climate Feedback

Page 44 of 54 FirstFirst ... 344243444546 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •