Marijuana.com

Higher Logic

*shrug* I'm a programmer too, so as one I know there is more than one way to solve a problem. There's two sides to global warming, neither have offered conclusive evidence, without a doubt, that either side is right.

__________________
Crucial Web Hosting · Garden's Cure · Marijuana Recipes · Drug Testing Facts

Dilution · Substitution · Urine Testing · Hair Testing · Drug Testing FAQ

 

goldberry

Hmm ... then I don't see why his certainty turns you off. Programmers do it all the time. If someone asked you to review their algorithm, and you were certain there was flaw in it, what would you do?

Scientific things are true or false, scientists usually don't try to convince someone by "appealing" to them, they try to do it with evidence.

Which part of his study did you find inconclusive?

__________________
"Is our children learning?" George W. Bush

MickityMike

Is that the principle which governs scientific research and implementation?? What if we're wrong, and our acts of safety **** **** up even worse? Then who's sorry?

Anyhoo, it's interesting to note that of the 1.8 degree increase in temperature during the last 100 years, the vast majority of that increase took place in the first 20 years of the previous century. The fact is that the current data on "global warming" doesn't jive scientifically with other data collected, and all existing models have been shown to be flawed.

It could be happening, and it could be a result of man's activity. But we don't know either way, and to react in any direction without sufficient information would be incredibly irresponsible, IMHO.

__________________
I'd be delighted to live in a country where happily married gay couples had closets full of assault weapons. - Glenn Reynolds

Higher Logic

That's a little different, you are dealing with pure math right there. Let's say I want a script that prints out my name 3 times in a row. There is more than one way to do this, thus no right answer.

I can think of 3 ways to do this off the top of my head.

Not true. Most scientific things are true, logically. However, the rest of the "facts" in science are only true because a group of people have agreed on it. And even then these "facts" change as time goes on. A true statement would be something like "the air we breath is 21% oxygen." The general consensus on global warming is still not 100%, therefore it cannot be a true or false scenario at the moment.

Just the idea that humans are the reason global warming is happening and that it is a bad thing.

The point I'm trying to make is the scientific community is not in unity on this "decision" concerning global warming, otherwise you wouldn't have two drastically different sides saying opposite things. This article is trying to appeal, not prove, their case for global warming. That's not science. I've seen this type of appeal in other global warming documents, and it just doesn't fly. You cannot "prove" that humans are responsible for global warming, more so than you can prove that it's a natural occurance.

goldberry

I don't see how that relates to the question at hand. Either humans are or are not causing global warming, there is no other answer.

The scientific report should be published soon so I guess we'll find out whether Barnett was able to prove it or not. Taking into account that the study was government funded, used data collected over 40 years, and was based on a (IMO) solid idea, I believe the report will convey the same thing he did.

 

MickityMike

It's the part in bold that's my biggest problem with "global warming." We're trying to analyze and model the behavior of a system that's billions of years old based only upon accurate data for the, at best, last 100. Especially when taking into account that 99% of the increase in temperature occurred from 1900-1920, I already have difficulty treating Barnett's claims with anything other than derision.

...But then again, I can be a bit of a bastard.

^_^truth

Let me just make something clear for you: The plants that would thrive in the situtations predicted by global warming are, essentally: some grasses, cotton, and cactus. (So for you biology types, mostly C4 plants).

Oh and I have little doubt that the world had been warming prior to human interaction; what we are arguing is that this spike in the rate of temperature increase is most likely caused by human intervention because we have no evidence of something this possibly cataspohic happening following the begining of human history.

__________________
Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.
Nietzsche

S2

my bad, it is mentioned

could there be a beneficial aspect to it? the delayed ice age theory seems to indicate that yes, there could- the current Scientific American carries that same resaerch as a cover story this month and goes into more detail than the link I cited

I challenge the assertion that it is irrational to continue the debate-There is considerable scientific evidence that we are in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850, as we emerged from a 400 year cold spell known as the Little Ice Age. Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be a natural phenomenon and nobody knows how much of the present trend might be man-made. Michael Mann's "hockey Stick" graph has seen some serious challanges, Barnett claims that its not the air but the oceans that show indications of glbal warming-- yet it is due to the greenhouse effect of CO2 emissions which needs to heat the atmosphere first and those data are not there-

You really want a scare? Think about this line of S2's thinking: If the whole world farmed as efficiently as Americans—using fossil fuels, productive cultivars, and modern tillage techniques—and most of the population lived in cities, as in America, there would be no environmental problems. People would have plenty to eat, even in the Third World, and tropical forests everywhere would be expanding, instead of getting slashed and burned for primitive agriculture. The air would be clean, as it is even in America’s industrial cities, instead of choked with ozone, as it is in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Austria. Instead of trying to shackle enterprise in rich countries the greens should be promoting American-style democracy and entrepreneurship in the Third World—which is fast becoming the source of most of the world’s pollution. How is it that the US is the Great Satan for refusing Kyoto and not a peep is emitted by the Greens over China's exemption from it?

Does it not seem unusual to anyone that climate predictions for next week can not be relied upon but climate models for the next 100 years can not be challanged by any but the irrational?

solutions

This was a new one for me, Global Dimming:

The good news is that polution has moderated the effects of global warming so far, the bad news that the earth will heat up when we reduce polution.

I'm hoping for a Green Revolution soon... in the meantime Nuclear Power is very much an issue in Dutchland too, already 60% of electricty is Nuclear, and the "Borselle" power plant's scheduled termination may be postponed... the theory that "global warming is real, but not human induced" is not lost in the debate, but the other side has terms like "point of return" not to mention "global transmutation or extinction in 2012" for mankind...

Hope to read your sci-fi soon MamaBudz, the thesis that cannabis will save the earth still seems pretty credible.

__________________
3 monkeys sitting under a coconut tree
discussing things as they are set to be
Said one to the other, now listen you two
there's a strange rumor that can't be true
they say man was descended from our noble race
but the very idea is a big disgrace
no monkey ever deserted his wife
or her baby to ruin their lives.
Damian Marley - Educated Fools

Mamabudz

I'll toke to that !

Hugz,

Mama Budz