By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Increased Number Think Global Warming Is “Exaggerated”

TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
He's right. One or two years is irrelevant when looking at an aggregate trend. Its like saying that because you have one warm day in the winter that the rest of the winter will be warm.

 

or 100 years is irrelevant when looking at a million.

Not when you are trying to draw conclusions about that particular set of data.  You can't make conclusions about a particular set of data without considering it.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network

How can the rate slow down if the factors that we are producing is going up?

If I press more on the gas pedal of a car, and accelerate at a slower speed then I was before, would you think the reduced acceleration was from providing the car with more power?



TheRealMafoo said:
How can the rate slow down if the factors that we are producing is going up?

If I press more on the gas pedal of a car, and accelerate at a slower speed then I was before, would you think the reduced acceleration was from providing the car with more power?

I don't know, I'm not a scientist!

Also don't argue by analogy, it's generally taken as a weakness.

Edit: And once you get up to a certain speed your rate of acceleration will go down no matter how hard you floor it, yes.



Khuutra said:
TheRealMafoo said:
How can the rate slow down if the factors that we are producing is going up?

If I press more on the gas pedal of a car, and accelerate at a slower speed then I was before, would you think the reduced acceleration was from providing the car with more power?

I don't know, I'm not a scientist!

Also don't argue by analogy, it's generally taken as a weakness.

 

Only weak analogy's should be taken as a weakness.

I only use the analogy to emphisise the corilation between data that you're not seeing. Not sure why that's a weakness on my part.



Once you get up to a certain speed your rate of acceleration will go down no matter how hard you floor it, yes.

So it's not a very strong analogy anyway!



Around the Network
TheRealMafoo said:
How can the rate slow down if the factors that we are producing is going up?

If I press more on the gas pedal of a car, and accelerate at a slower speed then I was before, would you think the reduced acceleration was from providing the car with more power?

I'll draw a comparable analogy.

The modern theory of evolution states that any specific adaptation will almost always evolve only once in the evolutionary chain.  This is why you have incidences of mammals and birds both evolving four-chambered hearts independently, and birds and bats evolving wings independently.  That doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is wrong.

Even the laws of physics are more probabalistic than rigid.  Time is supposed to always go forward.  But the laws of physics don't say that it has to move forward.  They just say that it is highly unlikely that it will move backward.  Its the same thing about the interaction of particles.  A lot of bizarre and seemingly improbable things happen at the quantum level.  But at the macroscopic level things seem relatively stable.

The graphs posted earlier show that the peak temperatures in this recent spell of climate change have been higher than in comparable upward shifts in the past.  Isn't it the slightest bit concerning that it has happened at the exact same time as the largest man-made surge in CO2?  

And the dumbest thing is that people act like there is some grand conspiracy that is designed to destroy the economy.  Most of the things we would be doing to reduce man-made CO2 contribution would help out our economy anyways and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.  We would be sending less money to terrorists.  Iran, for instance, is incredibly dependent on its oil exportation.  Reducing man-made CO2 emissions is helpful in just about every way socially, politically, and economically.  And that's completely outside the environmental issue.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

akuma587 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
How can the rate slow down if the factors that we are producing is going up?

If I press more on the gas pedal of a car, and accelerate at a slower speed then I was before, would you think the reduced acceleration was from providing the car with more power?

I'll draw a comparable analogy.

The modern theory of evolution states that any specific adaptation will almost always evolve only once in the evolutionary chain.  This is why you have incidences of mammals and birds both evolving four-chambered hearts independently, and birds and bats evolving wings independently.  That doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is wrong.

Even the laws of physics are more probabilistic than rigid.  Time is supposed to always go forward.  But the laws of physics don't say that it has to move forward.  They just say that it is highly unlikely that it will move backward.  Its the same thing about the interaction of particles.  A lot of bizarre and seemingly improbable things happen at the quantum level.  But at the macroscopic level things seem relatively stable.

The graphs posted earlier show that the peak temperatures in this recent spell of climate change have been higher than in comparable upward shifts in the past.  Isn't it the slightest bit concerning that it has happened at the exact same time as the largest man-made surge in CO2?  

And the dumbest thing is that people act like there is some grand conspiracy that is designed to destroy the economy.  Most of the things we would be doing to reduce man-made CO2 contribution would help out our economy anyways and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.  We would be sending less money to terrorists.  Iran, for instance, is incredibly dependent on its oil exportation.  Reducing man-made CO2 emissions is helpful in just about every way socially, politically, and economically.  And that's completely outside the environmental issue.

 

It is amazing how little we know about particles still. I'm wondering if we will be able to discover super-particles of some form soon with our newest particle accelerator. Sadly I think we would need to build one around the moon in-order to accomplish it any truly amazing discoveries.

What I want to know is when the US can ditch foreign oil. I think the Earth will run nearly dry before it happens.



PC gaming is better than console gaming. Always.     We are Anonymous, We are Legion    Kick-ass interview   Great Flash Series Here    Anime Ratings     Make and Play Please
Amazing discussion about being wrong
Official VGChartz Folding@Home Team #109453
 

Yeah, if they actually discover a "God" particle with the Hadron Collider we will definitely hear about it. It will really change the way we think of matter in general. Hopefully we don't destroy ourselves trying to make the discovery!



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

akuma587 said:
Yeah, if they actually discover a "God" particle with the Hadron Collider we will definitely hear about it. It will really change the way we think of matter in general. Hopefully we don't destroy ourselves trying to make the discovery!

 

we dont need the "god" particle for a smashing discovery. Even a super-proton, super-neutron, or super-electron would be amazing.

 

As for destroying ourselves, I doubt we could. We would need a blackhole the size of New York City to do any damage. Any small blackholes would appear than vanish in seconds.



PC gaming is better than console gaming. Always.     We are Anonymous, We are Legion    Kick-ass interview   Great Flash Series Here    Anime Ratings     Make and Play Please
Amazing discussion about being wrong
Official VGChartz Folding@Home Team #109453
 

I blame Margareth Thatcher. She made a bond with the left winged green groups. She embraced Global Warming to start developing Nuclear Reactions and closing the coal mines.