So that's it for the election.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Considering that's precisely what I said, I'd say you're embarrassing yourself in RnF again . . .

Actually its not. Did you read what you wrote?

You put out conjecture, and claimed sources without linking and then talked about what you "believe". Poor kid

[Lucky]

I can prove earth has 004/100 of 1% (390ppm) of co2 in the atmosphere, and venus has 96%, and is only 8x hotter while being 6/10 the distance from the sun. QUITE AN EXPONENTIAL LEAP TO CLAIM CO2 IS A MAJOR ISSUE

[Hasbinlulz]

Originally Posted by Lucky [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I can prove earth has 004/100 of 1% (390ppm) of co2 in the atmosphere, and venus has 96%, and is only 8x hotter while being 6/10 the distance from the sun. QUITE AN EXPONENTIAL LEAP TO CLAIM CO2 IS A MAJOR ISSUE

i lol'd irl

[Hasbinlulz]

737 degrees Kelvin y'all, NBD.

[Hasbinlulz]

How come every time I try and get someone who doesn't think mankinds shit stinks to explain why they tell me "it's complex bro, go look it up lol" ?

But then whenever I ask some environmentalist hippie to explain why shit is wrong, they are able to easily cite a laundry list of facts and studies that support what they are saying?

[pasi]

Originally Posted by Hasbinlulz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

How come every time I try and get someone who doesn't think mankinds shit stinks to explain why they tell me "it's complex bro, go look it up lol" ?

But then whenever I ask some environmentalist hippie to explain why shit is wrong, they are able to easily cite a laundry list of facts and studies that support what they are saying?

For the most part, people are (usually) knowledgeable about what they care about. The knowledge pool combined with our life expectancy sort of rules out the notion of being a renaissance man.

Originally Posted by Splorf22

Now, what we know for a fact is that the planet has become somewhat warmer over the past 150 years. What we don't know is why. The earth and its weather are a very complicated system, not to mention changes in solar activity. Unfortunately we cannot use science here (= do controlled experiment, create 100 earths with 50 that have strict green house gas laws and 50 that do not and measure the differences). We only have one planet.

There are many fields like this where it is beneficial to connect the dots before something is scientifically proven. As you mentioned - this is not a case where we can run traditional controlled experiments on. In fact, very few fields are so raw that we have the mathematical capabilities to create an isolated model. Other fields must rely on a steady accumulation of results that support a hypothesis. HBB mentioned you're in medicine, I believe?

I think you can draw a parallel to drug development (and medicine in general) here in the sense that we are observing the effect on a system with more variables than we know how to properly model in vivo. We are also acting against a clock that does not always allow us to wait. The idea is weighing the pros of acting now versus the cons of acting without complete knowledge. For the most part, I think the consensus (I say consensus because you will always have people willing to champion an opposing viewpoint for the spotlight) among scientists in the field means that our knowledge base (although incomplete) is sufficient to act on this matter. I think people underestimate the effects a 1-3 degree difference has on the environment. Even in this thread, you had some idiot try to prove his point by saying that Venus is only 8x hotter than the Earth.

Then again, this isn't my field so grain of salt and all.

[Splorf22]

Originally Posted by pasi [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

For the most part, people are (usually) knowledgeable about what they care about. The knowledge pool combined with our life expectancy sort of rules out the notion of being a renaissance man. For the most part, I think the consensus (I say consensus because you will always have people willing to champion an opposing viewpoint for the spotlight) among scientists in the field means that our knowledge base (although incomplete) is sufficient to act on this matter.

Oh I agree. An expert's opinion is a very useful thing, and a consensus of a group of experts is even more valuable. Unfortunately the science part of climate science has been corrupted by the government in the same way as economics as a way to justify their continued expansion of state power.

As I just posted I know basically how climate "science" works. And like economics, they are trying to make math and statistics do things that you just can't do. Is it better than rule of thumb estimation? Sure it is. But its not nearly accurate to spend trillions of dollars on.

[Hasbinlulz]

Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

As I just posted I know basically how climate "science" works.

Yet you quote businesspeople fronting as scientists and think CO2 is the only harmful greenhouse gas (apparently).

[Hasbinlulz]

INTERESTING, ISN'T IT BROS?

[Splorf22]

You must also believe that hurricanes come from God when people sin. Is it really so hard to believe that we just don't understand the weather well enough to justify fucking with the lives of billions of people?

I was about to congratulate you on successfully trolling me out of 10 minutes of my time, but then I realized you had just trolled yourself 4 times in a row.