Using the risk management approach to global warming is just....
Genius =)
Staying home and hoping for that frozen black finger to get pink and healthy again by somekind of miracle is very humane thing to do but it will not solve any problems. Instead one should accept the fact that he has one less finger and go to chop it off at hospital.
It would be good time for people to open their eyes and accept the facts. Maybe we still have the time to fix it before the shit hits the fan.
People...don't listen to the 'skeptics' on this issue...they are simply oil company representatives planting this bullshit. Why would anyone purposely argue that we should use more energy rather than less...how can using less fossil fuels and more renewable energy be bad? Why would these people troll You Tube to write this bullshit all over the place? These 'made up' people posting on here just try to discredit the 'science' referring to oil company set-up critic websites.
the economic harm brought about to families,children and people on the ground if carbon taxation is put forward would be devastating...the cost of food,clothing,EVERYTHING goes up immeasurably=poverty,.they may as well be dead, it results in less suffering
even if the argument for is true, carbon percentage has risen only 100th of a percent in 30 years to a grand total percentage in total atmosphere of 0.038%...measurements of 0.040% were common in the early 1800's where was their disaster?????
My reply to you here is the same as on the other vid.
You need to provide evidence not fear tactics. You need to demonstrate how the earth is NOT warming due to polution (which we have known since the CFC situation in the 70-80's) and yes, pity for you some of us are old enought to remember how the fear game works ;) You say it right here - "even if the argument is true" - convince yourself 1st please!
@MilitantPeaceist the facts i have stated, i.e percentages of carbon etc are all very well documented, which is proof in itself that the earth is not warming due to pollution, obviously. it is now cooler than the medieval warm period, where they didnt have industrial pollution like we have today...speaks for itself quite simply.
as for cfc and the ozone hole, at the time it was only known about for 50 years, yet we were told we were headed for disaster, now the hole is closing.........
@MilitantPeaceist .....the icecaps are growing, the southern hemisphere has been cooling for the last 15 years. the northern hemisphere has been cooling for the last 9 years (i have an email from the tyndal center stating this, and not one of the leaked ones) yet where is the news about this? why are we still being shown footage of warming only? that in itself is demonstration enough that earth is NOT warming due to pollution
Climate change and what the gov's spin into it are two different things - the reason why you are a fearmongerer are 2 fold.
1 - you are scared yourself!
2 - you are not using critical thinking at all!
As I said, there is 2 different things happening here and you confusing them together is not only making you feel that the whole world seems against you, it also makes you go off on a tangent that is not 'reality'!
PS GISP also show it was this low 1200 and 4800 years ago but in both those cases the temp rapidly rose a couple degrees C.
The fact is in the last 10,000 years since the last ice age the northern hemisphere has on average been much warmer than today, look at the ice cores yourself.
PS -Volstok ice core which shows no extended time period of flat temps, matter of fact the last 800 years it has had 3 major temp changes over 2.5 degrees C. How is it CO2 only effects temps in the NH ?
That is funny you do the same thing the IPCC does in ignoring the 100s of drastic and sudden temp change seen in the Vostok and GISP ice core records.
You try to paint a picture any temp change is unusual and detrimental to our environment. The IPCC does this also in Chap 6 Palaeoclimate by citing 1300 years of plant data trying to prove the temp only increased happened in the last 100 years, but not even this is right as the forgot the medieval warming period and little ice age.
Shame there is no direct proof of man made global warming as a few 100 ppm increase in CO2 in the lab has no effect, nada, none, nothing, zero. Now 200,000 ppm increase does raise temp a few C but that is from .01% to 20%. Now the IPCC claims their virtual incomplete positive loopbacked biased models show CO2 has an amplifying effect over time, problem is these BS models could not predict the last 10 years so now we are to believe the can predict 100s of years out?
Well you can do this at home, simple high school experiment. The IPCC knows this and that is why they use incomplete models that claim CO2 has an amplfying effect over time, that is their proof, but their models just blew the last 10 years as the predicted a for sure temp increase of .2 C to .4 increase with no chance of temp going down the last 10 years,
oppps wrong as the models are proved wrong again. The temp went down the last 10 years and ocean temps are dropping even more.
Great maybe you can explain why GISP shows 1 degree C higher 1000 yrs ago, 2 degree C higher 2000 yrs ago and 3 degree C higher 3300 yrs ago with many ups and downs in between. GISP also show it was a low as today 1200 and 4800 years ago but in both those cases the temperature rapidly rose a couple degrees C.
Vostok shows temp changes are just as drastic and sudden in the southern hemisphere.
The IPCC 4th report just ignores this data, criminal as they cant explain any past changes either
Funny the IPCC cant explain any of the 100s of past temp changes, hell they dont even bring them up, but somehow they conclude the current increase must be man because they cant explain it, cracks me up.
No, an engineer for Motorola for over 20 years who has followed this subject for 30 year when I was fooled a certian ice age was coming because the models said in 1970s
I have been following their argument for 30 years and if there really is proof of man made global warming I would like to find it.
Problem today is I do not believe these models can predict some amplyfing effect CO2 has over 100s of years.
I also know from the ice core sudden and drastic natural temp change is the norm,
Funny the IPCC 4th report is not that hard to understand. I would suggest Chapter 1 Historical Overview of Climate Change Science, Chapter 6 Palaeoclimate, Chapter 9 Understanding and Attributing Climate Change all in IPCC 4th report Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Those 3 chapters explain their argument clearly in about 250 pages,
I am sure you could read the report in a day and after you do let me know what part of the science convinces you of man made global warming?
You really have no clue, maybe you should read the IPCC's 4th report and let me know what convinces you?
If you want to believe in these models then the IPCC has a story for you.
Free country you can believe in the models all you want but know this is all you have if you believe in man made global warming as this is the IPCC only real argument.
Note the other argument of the IPCC saying it cant explain the current temp increase so it must be man is not proof either.
Let me guess you believe in man made global warming because all scienists say it is true but you have no idea what their argument even it is?
Ill save you some trouble the 4th reports is about ignoring anything that shows temp change is the norm and incomplete virtual positive loopback models that could not even predict the last 10 years.
A belief in man made global warming is a belief in IPCC models that could not even predict the last 10 years, good luck with that
The IPCC does claim the current temp rise must be man because the cant explain it, but they cant explain any of the 100s of drastic and sudden temp changes seen in the GISP and Vostok ice cores since the last ice age, as much as 3 degree C in 200 years is common but the IPCC makes no mention of this data and simply ignores it in their 4th report as they want you to believe any temp change is abnormal, that is a lie. See the ice cores graphs at my site, same as my name.
Silly you look at this issue like playing the lottery, how about just looking at their proof of man made global warming as the IPCC spells it out clearly?
Yes militant, the correct name for the term escapes me at this moment, however the basic arguement is this.
The existance of Jesus Christ, God, Allah or whomever you choose, is difficult to prove. So what is the best and worst thing that can happen if you believe or don't believe? If you believe and they don't exist, then nothing happens. If you don't believe and they do exist, then all hell breaks loose, you fry in hell, and so forth.
Either way, this arguement for GW is a total cop-out.
I spent over 3 months deciding which side of the debate to add to this channel.
Consulted many scientists and points of view. Read many peer reviewed papers and non peer reviewed papers. Studied at length the 'leaked emails' situation.
This channel is about truth and information & does not pander to idealistic observations.
This playlist is still incomplete yet has accurate information that all humans must take on board, be them religious or not, skeptic or not, scared or not.
If you listen to fucking religious idiots. like POX NEWS, they want you to buy more petrochemical products and sit on our FAT FUCKING ARSES and do nothing!
I think he thoroughly explained why it isn't like Pascal's wager at all. There is data that is universally accepted and verifiable. The data tips the decision to what is likely happening, which means that global warming is likely happening.
How does it cause more damage to people's well beings? A country like Maldives (which is a few feet below sea level) will be wiped off the map if sea levels do rise. A rise will displace millions, effecting everyone and the economy.
Based on the IPCC predictions countries like Maldives will STILL be wiped off the map. So I don't get your point on mentioning Al Gore. As for Al Gore, he is simply an activist of Global Warming. He didn't present data, he didn't claim to do research, he only supports the data which is widely known.
Now for your question on what is better to deal with. Do you think water and displacement is the only thing we will be dealing with when it comes to flooding? That's silly.
There are many other factors that play into flooding. The pollution that results from flooding is one concern. There will be debris, chemicals, and so forth that flood waters will take up. This will effect people and local wildlife.
I look at all this like a medical problem. A person has a medical problem in which the doctor gives him pills. The problems are eased but there is evidence of something deeper. Is it better to leave as is and deal with complications or solve the main problem.
This will have an effect on water only. With the way fishing limits are set right now the sea economy of my country and many other EU members is nonexistent. No effect, sorry.
Yes, if it was a medical problem and your leg hurt and you went to dcotor and he said "it could be an infection, no time to waste!" and proceeded to amputate it - would you agree?
There is a "Primum non nocere" principle in medical practice. It's because ignorance is USUALLY more dangerous than inaction.
So we shouldn't care about the environment AT ALL!? This is what you are saying: "It will only have an effect on the water." The problems only
If he did a significant amount of tests and there was no other option. Yes. There is a significant amount of data on GW, should action be taken, yes.
This isn't about ignorance. You are claiming that the problems that are predicted are not severe enough to do anything about them as a whole. Your solution (local management of the problems)....
..... is like the doctor who gives pill after pill when each problem arises. Good luck on that. Our economy will suffer still after these problems become bigger and harder to handle. I say if we have to suffer a little bit for a better future, so be it.
Keep patient in good condition till the time you figure out what is the correct treatment.
"Let's open up the patient and see what's inside" is what a novice would do. There is a significant amount of data on GW, should action be taken, yes.
You have computer models which mismatch actual temperature readings and have failed to make correct predictions in span ofeven a decade so far.
The real temperature readings are rising, model is dropping. So...
Yes I know about the model issues which scientists have been dealing with, but I also know that they made significant improvements on trying to correct the issues. There is still a consensus among all scientists dealing with the issue and there is still significant data backing it up. You might not be satisfied but science is an ongoing process as the video explained.
We must also take into consideration that some of the predicted behavior of GW is happening. Rising sea-levels for one.
In some places it dropps thou. It is relative to the land level. Most people will not realise it and will treat the values as absolute.
In case of my coastal waters (Baltic sea) I have red actual recorded data from the last 200 years and the trend is constant, slow rise at 1/3 the rate predicted by models. This applies to last 50 years aswell.
For me that's ok. If some island is sinking and another is rising... luck.
When making a model you discard the model if the results are not consistent with real data.
This is because model is based on physical modelling of event AND NEVER ON STATISTICAL DATA.
The statistical data is there for critique of your method.
If you need to mendle with what arbitrary multipliers and arbitrary filters in order to "adjust" the model... It means you have made an error on the stage of physical modelling of the system and you are back to the board.
Oh don't even mention those emails. They were talking about tree ring data that hasn't shown the correct temperature since the 1960s. They didn't want to add bad data to the model. Several people on youtube have debunked the claimed conspiracies those email supposedly shows.
Over ten years worth of emails and only two or three are at all mentioned and all out of context.
Could you not read the board? One consequence was harm, one was disaster. That's a false choice because the consequences are the same. Do I really need to point this out to you?
Try knowing what a Pascalian wager is before you try and call someone on making one.
Of course, the real Pascal's wager is pitted EVEN MORE towards affirmative.
If you do a straight and simple expected result calculation in its case you end up with loss in one collumn versus benefit in the other, no matter what the probabilities are.
In case of this one the result is dependent on probabilities and expected losses in upper left and lower right.
In total the table he drew is meaningless unless he presents data (not appeal to authority of group WITHOUT studies results).
Using the risk management approach to global warming is just....
Genius =)
Staying home and hoping for that frozen black finger to get pink and healthy again by somekind of miracle is very humane thing to do but it will not solve any problems. Instead one should accept the fact that he has one less finger and go to chop it off at hospital.
It would be good time for people to open their eyes and accept the facts. Maybe we still have the time to fix it before the shit hits the fan.
Exiletheheretic 1 year ago
People...don't listen to the 'skeptics' on this issue...they are simply oil company representatives planting this bullshit. Why would anyone purposely argue that we should use more energy rather than less...how can using less fossil fuels and more renewable energy be bad? Why would these people troll You Tube to write this bullshit all over the place? These 'made up' people posting on here just try to discredit the 'science' referring to oil company set-up critic websites.
salsalover69laters 1 year ago
the pascal's wager of global warming
stevenoring 1 year ago
the economic harm brought about to families,children and people on the ground if carbon taxation is put forward would be devastating...the cost of food,clothing,EVERYTHING goes up immeasurably=poverty,.they may as well be dead, it results in less suffering
even if the argument for is true, carbon percentage has risen only 100th of a percent in 30 years to a grand total percentage in total atmosphere of 0.038%...measurements of 0.040% were common in the early 1800's where was their disaster?????
whackitov 1 year ago
@whackitov
My reply to you here is the same as on the other vid.
You need to provide evidence not fear tactics. You need to demonstrate how the earth is NOT warming due to polution (which we have known since the CFC situation in the 70-80's) and yes, pity for you some of us are old enought to remember how the fear game works ;) You say it right here - "even if the argument is true" - convince yourself 1st please!
MilitantPeaceist 1 year ago
@MilitantPeaceist the facts i have stated, i.e percentages of carbon etc are all very well documented, which is proof in itself that the earth is not warming due to pollution, obviously. it is now cooler than the medieval warm period, where they didnt have industrial pollution like we have today...speaks for itself quite simply.
as for cfc and the ozone hole, at the time it was only known about for 50 years, yet we were told we were headed for disaster, now the hole is closing.........
whackitov 1 year ago
@MilitantPeaceist .....the icecaps are growing, the southern hemisphere has been cooling for the last 15 years. the northern hemisphere has been cooling for the last 9 years (i have an email from the tyndal center stating this, and not one of the leaked ones) yet where is the news about this? why are we still being shown footage of warming only? that in itself is demonstration enough that earth is NOT warming due to pollution
whackitov 1 year ago
@MilitantPeaceist and i fail to see where i am providing fear tactics, i am providing the antidote to fear, for there IS nothing to fear
whackitov 1 year ago
@whackitov
Climate change and what the gov's spin into it are two different things - the reason why you are a fearmongerer are 2 fold.
1 - you are scared yourself!
2 - you are not using critical thinking at all!
As I said, there is 2 different things happening here and you confusing them together is not only making you feel that the whole world seems against you, it also makes you go off on a tangent that is not 'reality'!
MilitantPeaceist 1 year ago
Very interesting and informative! Could have done with a science teacher like you
thejonny18 1 year ago
PS GISP also show it was this low 1200 and 4800 years ago but in both those cases the temp rapidly rose a couple degrees C.
The fact is in the last 10,000 years since the last ice age the northern hemisphere has on average been much warmer than today, look at the ice cores yourself.
PS -Volstok ice core which shows no extended time period of flat temps, matter of fact the last 800 years it has had 3 major temp changes over 2.5 degrees C. How is it CO2 only effects temps in the NH ?
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
TYVM for pushing this topic into the honors list.
Again I suggest you either take this up with the original author or a scientific body - you are completely wasting your time here.
Unless, wasting your time, is something you aspire to.
MilitantPeaceist 2 years ago
Y are you worried about my time? Dont
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
Your call, lmao, you are the one wasting it and it is your to waste.
goodbye 8)
MilitantPeaceist 2 years ago
Comment removed
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
That is funny you do the same thing the IPCC does in ignoring the 100s of drastic and sudden temp change seen in the Vostok and GISP ice core records.
You try to paint a picture any temp change is unusual and detrimental to our environment. The IPCC does this also in Chap 6 Palaeoclimate by citing 1300 years of plant data trying to prove the temp only increased happened in the last 100 years, but not even this is right as the forgot the medieval warming period and little ice age.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
Shame there is no direct proof of man made global warming as a few 100 ppm increase in CO2 in the lab has no effect, nada, none, nothing, zero. Now 200,000 ppm increase does raise temp a few C but that is from .01% to 20%. Now the IPCC claims their virtual incomplete positive loopbacked biased models show CO2 has an amplifying effect over time, problem is these BS models could not predict the last 10 years so now we are to believe the can predict 100s of years out?
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
Very interesting.
Predictions, well, we shall leave that up to snake oil salesmen, as far as gathered data, it is sound.
I am sure if your hypothisis were demonstrable, you would win a nobel prize.
I wish you luck.
ps - it is not that they have no explaination about it, it is the fact that the ONLY explaination of it is human activity.
That, in itself, is a huge difference.
MilitantPeaceist 2 years ago
Well you can do this at home, simple high school experiment. The IPCC knows this and that is why they use incomplete models that claim CO2 has an amplfying effect over time, that is their proof, but their models just blew the last 10 years as the predicted a for sure temp increase of .2 C to .4 increase with no chance of temp going down the last 10 years,
oppps wrong as the models are proved wrong again. The temp went down the last 10 years and ocean temps are dropping even more.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
Great maybe you can explain why GISP shows 1 degree C higher 1000 yrs ago, 2 degree C higher 2000 yrs ago and 3 degree C higher 3300 yrs ago with many ups and downs in between. GISP also show it was a low as today 1200 and 4800 years ago but in both those cases the temperature rapidly rose a couple degrees C.
Vostok shows temp changes are just as drastic and sudden in the southern hemisphere.
The IPCC 4th report just ignores this data, criminal as they cant explain any past changes either
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
Funny the IPCC cant explain any of the 100s of past temp changes, hell they dont even bring them up, but somehow they conclude the current increase must be man because they cant explain it, cracks me up.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
Are you a scientist?
MilitantPeaceist 2 years ago
No, an engineer for Motorola for over 20 years who has followed this subject for 30 year when I was fooled a certian ice age was coming because the models said in 1970s
I have been following their argument for 30 years and if there really is proof of man made global warming I would like to find it.
Problem today is I do not believe these models can predict some amplyfing effect CO2 has over 100s of years.
I also know from the ice core sudden and drastic natural temp change is the norm,
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
Well, considering your amature status, I would sugest you stfu or go lobby someone, other than a tranny!
MilitantPeaceist 2 years ago
Funny the IPCC 4th report is not that hard to understand. I would suggest Chapter 1 Historical Overview of Climate Change Science, Chapter 6 Palaeoclimate, Chapter 9 Understanding and Attributing Climate Change all in IPCC 4th report Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Those 3 chapters explain their argument clearly in about 250 pages,
I am sure you could read the report in a day and after you do let me know what part of the science convinces you of man made global warming?
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
no - if it was a fact - it would be a fact
goodbye
MilitantPeaceist 2 years ago
You really have no clue, maybe you should read the IPCC's 4th report and let me know what convinces you?
If you want to believe in these models then the IPCC has a story for you.
Free country you can believe in the models all you want but know this is all you have if you believe in man made global warming as this is the IPCC only real argument.
Note the other argument of the IPCC saying it cant explain the current temp increase so it must be man is not proof either.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
Let me guess you believe in man made global warming because all scienists say it is true but you have no idea what their argument even it is?
Ill save you some trouble the 4th reports is about ignoring anything that shows temp change is the norm and incomplete virtual positive loopback models that could not even predict the last 10 years.
A belief in man made global warming is a belief in IPCC models that could not even predict the last 10 years, good luck with that
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
BTW - take your concerns to the authors channel, I am sure you will have more educated people there to play with.
Good Luck 8)
MilitantPeaceist 2 years ago
The IPCC does claim the current temp rise must be man because the cant explain it, but they cant explain any of the 100s of drastic and sudden temp changes seen in the GISP and Vostok ice cores since the last ice age, as much as 3 degree C in 200 years is common but the IPCC makes no mention of this data and simply ignores it in their 4th report as they want you to believe any temp change is abnormal, that is a lie. See the ice cores graphs at my site, same as my name.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
Silly you look at this issue like playing the lottery, how about just looking at their proof of man made global warming as the IPCC spells it out clearly?
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
This is the same arguement used for religion.
TheTruthHurtsYou 2 years ago
TTHY
could you please elaborate on your stement.
What specific arguement are you refering to?
MilitantPeaceist 2 years ago
Yes militant, the correct name for the term escapes me at this moment, however the basic arguement is this.
The existance of Jesus Christ, God, Allah or whomever you choose, is difficult to prove. So what is the best and worst thing that can happen if you believe or don't believe? If you believe and they don't exist, then nothing happens. If you don't believe and they do exist, then all hell breaks loose, you fry in hell, and so forth.
Either way, this arguement for GW is a total cop-out.
TheTruthHurtsYou 2 years ago
TTHY
ok - this is how you wipe the already proven 'risk management' lesson 1 in any 'risk management' course?
So you think GW is a scam and that because pascal's wager is involved it proves the scam. I am making an assumption here I suppose.
Do you realise we have lost 20% of the polar caps & Greenland over .75 degrees C global increase in temp?
I dunno - I'll leave all the intelligent decisions to you i suppose.
MilitantPeaceist 2 years ago
No militant, unlike most here who get their info from a Gore movie, I have examined both sides of the GW debate extensively.
TheTruthHurtsYou 2 years ago
what the fuck has this got to do with atheism ??
DC44101 2 years ago
Channel owner thinks it does.
MarcinP2 2 years ago
I spent over 3 months deciding which side of the debate to add to this channel.
Consulted many scientists and points of view. Read many peer reviewed papers and non peer reviewed papers. Studied at length the 'leaked emails' situation.
This channel is about truth and information & does not pander to idealistic observations.
This playlist is still incomplete yet has accurate information that all humans must take on board, be them religious or not, skeptic or not, scared or not.
AtheistArchives 2 years ago
DC44101
"what the fuck has this got to do with atheism?"
Well GOD'S not going to fucking fix it, is it?
If you listen to fucking religious idiots. like POX NEWS, they want you to buy more petrochemical products and sit on our FAT FUCKING ARSES and do nothing!
MilitantPeaceist 2 years ago
i dont listen to them chill the fuck out you angry hippie !!! lol im not going to do anything because to be honest i dont care
DC44101 2 years ago
Atheist proposing Pascal's wager.
Oh, the irony.
Here is one for you:
what if it was shown preventing sea level rise causes more dammage to people's well being and economy than actually accepting it?
MarcinP2 2 years ago
I think he thoroughly explained why it isn't like Pascal's wager at all. There is data that is universally accepted and verifiable. The data tips the decision to what is likely happening, which means that global warming is likely happening.
How does it cause more damage to people's well beings? A country like Maldives (which is a few feet below sea level) will be wiped off the map if sea levels do rise. A rise will displace millions, effecting everyone and the economy.
Beelze 2 years ago
You are alternating between global and local scale?
People and their wealth can be mover -at a cost.
If the costs of moving people and their goods is lower tahn fighting global climate change the choice is obvious.
When calculating dammage people assume man will not migrate.
With warmer atmosphere the crops will also increase, so the lost lands will not be a problem.
Have you red how much the IPCC predicts the seal level to rise? Or do you go by Al Gore's numbers?
MarcinP2 2 years ago
does it matter?
Al Gore overestimated
Fox News wants you to do nothing
The line is clear from these two extreems.
MilitantPeaceist 2 years ago
Besides all that. Would you rather to deal with global energy crisis or local floods?
Doesn't take a genius to figure it out.
MarcinP2 2 years ago
Based on the IPCC predictions countries like Maldives will STILL be wiped off the map. So I don't get your point on mentioning Al Gore. As for Al Gore, he is simply an activist of Global Warming. He didn't present data, he didn't claim to do research, he only supports the data which is widely known.
Now for your question on what is better to deal with. Do you think water and displacement is the only thing we will be dealing with when it comes to flooding? That's silly.
Continue...
Beelze 2 years ago
"Silly" is all you've got?
What other problems are there?
The warming is mainly on the poles, thus tornadoes and other extreme climatinc stuff should be weaker if earth warms as predicted.
Yes, people adapt to changes in climate, they allways have.
Yes, if you run out of luck or mismenage your country your country sucks.
It's natural and people and resources will be moved elsewhere.
MarcinP2 2 years ago
There are many other factors that play into flooding. The pollution that results from flooding is one concern. There will be debris, chemicals, and so forth that flood waters will take up. This will effect people and local wildlife.
I look at all this like a medical problem. A person has a medical problem in which the doctor gives him pills. The problems are eased but there is evidence of something deeper. Is it better to leave as is and deal with complications or solve the main problem.
Beelze 2 years ago
This will have an effect on water only. With the way fishing limits are set right now the sea economy of my country and many other EU members is nonexistent. No effect, sorry.
Yes, if it was a medical problem and your leg hurt and you went to dcotor and he said "it could be an infection, no time to waste!" and proceeded to amputate it - would you agree?
There is a "Primum non nocere" principle in medical practice. It's because ignorance is USUALLY more dangerous than inaction.
MarcinP2 2 years ago
So we shouldn't care about the environment AT ALL!? This is what you are saying: "It will only have an effect on the water." The problems only
If he did a significant amount of tests and there was no other option. Yes. There is a significant amount of data on GW, should action be taken, yes.
This isn't about ignorance. You are claiming that the problems that are predicted are not severe enough to do anything about them as a whole. Your solution (local management of the problems)....
Beelze 2 years ago
..... is like the doctor who gives pill after pill when each problem arises. Good luck on that. Our economy will suffer still after these problems become bigger and harder to handle. I say if we have to suffer a little bit for a better future, so be it.
Beelze 2 years ago
That's what good doctor does. :|
Keep patient in good condition till the time you figure out what is the correct treatment.
"Let's open up the patient and see what's inside" is what a novice would do. There is a significant amount of data on GW, should action be taken, yes.
You have computer models which mismatch actual temperature readings and have failed to make correct predictions in span ofeven a decade so far.
The real temperature readings are rising, model is dropping. So...
MarcinP2 2 years ago
Yes I know about the model issues which scientists have been dealing with, but I also know that they made significant improvements on trying to correct the issues. There is still a consensus among all scientists dealing with the issue and there is still significant data backing it up. You might not be satisfied but science is an ongoing process as the video explained.
We must also take into consideration that some of the predicted behavior of GW is happening. Rising sea-levels for one.
Beelze 2 years ago
Yes, it is happening. Sea rise.
It's been happening for last 200 years.
In some places it dropps thou. It is relative to the land level. Most people will not realise it and will treat the values as absolute.
In case of my coastal waters (Baltic sea) I have red actual recorded data from the last 200 years and the trend is constant, slow rise at 1/3 the rate predicted by models. This applies to last 50 years aswell.
For me that's ok. If some island is sinking and another is rising... luck.
MarcinP2 2 years ago
When making a model you discard the model if the results are not consistent with real data.
This is because model is based on physical modelling of event AND NEVER ON STATISTICAL DATA.
The statistical data is there for critique of your method.
If you need to mendle with what arbitrary multipliers and arbitrary filters in order to "adjust" the model... It means you have made an error on the stage of physical modelling of the system and you are back to the board.
Do you know how models work?
MarcinP2 2 years ago
...Will you dropp the real measurements or will you abandon the models?
The current discrepancy is too great and significant.
Yet the scientists decided to merge the two and smooth the transition. As proven by the leaked emails.
Remeber the "hide the decline"? He was talking about combining the data which is otherwise contradicting itself.
MarcinP2 2 years ago
Oh don't even mention those emails. They were talking about tree ring data that hasn't shown the correct temperature since the 1960s. They didn't want to add bad data to the model. Several people on youtube have debunked the claimed conspiracies those email supposedly shows.
Over ten years worth of emails and only two or three are at all mentioned and all out of context.
Beelze 2 years ago
Don't mention blackmailing peer review journals? Or breaking the Freedom of Information Act?
Are you really an educated person? Or did you finish Gender Studies?
Using such backdoor methods discredits any work the scientist has ever done.
"bad" data? Because? They added it all the way before the recent period.
Even if you have faulty data you need to explain how it originated and change the method. Not just discard part of series.
How can you tell the data was OK before 60s?
MarcinP2 2 years ago
MarcinP2 You love conspiracies, don't you.
This is a video that explains what the religious nutjobs are saying and the lies they are pushing.
/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
If you eant to act like a nredy scientist, you have to drop god 1st!
God does not come into the equations of science no matter how hard you pray.
MilitantPeaceist 2 years ago
MarciP2
Religious nutjobs are the ones who are holding this up.
Do you believe in self fulfilled prophecies or just prophecies.
"Judgement day" - Now we have a real problem - I wcan tell you 1 thing for certain
GOD IS NOT DOING A FUCKING THING!
MilitantPeaceist 2 years ago
Could you not read the board? One consequence was harm, one was disaster. That's a false choice because the consequences are the same. Do I really need to point this out to you?
Try knowing what a Pascalian wager is before you try and call someone on making one.
FUCKYOURGODINTHEASS 2 years ago
Of course, the real Pascal's wager is pitted EVEN MORE towards affirmative.
If you do a straight and simple expected result calculation in its case you end up with loss in one collumn versus benefit in the other, no matter what the probabilities are.
In case of this one the result is dependent on probabilities and expected losses in upper left and lower right.
In total the table he drew is meaningless unless he presents data (not appeal to authority of group WITHOUT studies results).
MarcinP2 2 years ago
marchinP2
Is that how you logically think?
&
Have you taken time to actually do research to know what you are talking about?
MilitantPeaceist 2 years ago