JustinW
-
Posts
689 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by JustinW
-
-
Swansont, I agree with that, but does the outcry for us to do something about global warming really reflect the amount of input that could be applied to the model so far? It seems to me, I admit this is just the feeling I have, is that the outcry far exceeds the the reliability of the model based on the amount of input to constitute a valid prediction. This is a reason why it is acceptable for those to question the motives behind this outcry. Not to say that co2 isn't a problem. I think any polutant released into the atmosphere should be looked at with a certain amount of concern.
I'm not saying it is or even should be. In the link you provided above one thing immediately stuck out. It said the IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action. This automatically puts the subject into the political arena and leads to questions concerning the motivation behind any suggestive actions to be taken. Also it states that the consensus for the warming of the last 50 years is attributed to the emmisions of green house gases. But wasn't the cooling throughout the 50's, 60's, and 70's also attributed to pollution? Same cause two different effects? Also it talks about the percentage of the 928 papers that were submitted under pier review. It claims that 75% of the papers submitted fell into the categories of explicit endorsement of the scientific consensus, evaluation of inpacts, and mitigation proposals. What I found interesting was that on the "deniers" sight I remember the mention of these 928 papers, and they broke down the fact that only 6 of the 928 papers actually endorsed the consensus. While in the link you provided they conveniently added that into the 75% category. I'm not saying that there is not a consensus on the fact that humans play a role. But you can see where some confusion might set in when people only lay down information that supports their point when leaving out things that might give people pause to be skeptical. Even in the link it says that the consensus might be wrong but then goes on to state what our grandchildren would think if it's right and we didn't act. Don't you think with as big of a change as is required to do something about this subject as there is, that we might want to at least make sure that we are certain? That this is as big of an issue as implied by the amount of activism in support?Nothing in science is ever certain, but we know what's happening to a rather high degree of accuracy, so I tend to disagree with your assertion here.
An analogy from the other side would be, would you sacrifice your new born child if the general consensus was that you would anger the Gods and die if you didn't? It seems like something like that has happened before. The nerve gas might be fine if the consensus was the same as it is for global warming. No one would know if it is, in fact, nerve gas. No one would know what the effect that pressumed nerve gas would be. All joking aside, I have already stated that any pollutant being emmited should be evaluated with a certain level on concern. Nobody can say that pollution is a good thing.Probably because you could learn more about how huge the impact and cascading / downstream effect of this is on other systems. Would you be equally unstirred if I said I was increasing the level of toxic nerve gas in your restroom by only 1 or 2 percent?
Well you might, but that is not the question I asked. I think you can decide if it is or isn't the liberal agenda, it just seems that you don't want to give a diffinative answer on the subject.I don't classify intelligent recommendations as being on a "liberal agenda" or a "conservative agenda." That's just not how I think. Sorry. I look at the evidence. I do a cost/benefit analysis. I form a conclusion. Whether it's liberal, conservative, independent or otherwise... I base my stance on the merit of the position, not on my ideological leaning.Maybe this doesn't apply to you, but there is a very real difference between an honest skeptic and a person who ignores valid conclusions. You don't get to hold on to the label of "skeptic" after your criticisms have all been addressed. At that point, you are a liar, an idiot, or some combination of both. Again, maybe not you, but most. We've been studying this stuff for over a century. It's hardly as controversial as you think among those who know what they're talking about.
But like I said earlier even the data can be arguable. With only a little over a hundred years of recorded data on temperature the fluctuations aren't that extreme and don't show a reason for all the excitement. Like I suggested to Swansont, the decline in temperature from the 40's through the early 70's was more extreme than the incline after. And even over the past several years it seems that the average temps have been steadier than with any other same legnth of time. Again I'm not denying climate change, just asking if it is not reasonable to assume that we need more physical data over a longer period of time to justify such a jurassic change in policy?Perhaps it impacts how hard they advocate, but it does nothing to debunk or falsify their data. The data and scientific conclusion stands independent from their desire to act on that knowledge.Sorry Swansont, I must have been typing while you posted.
Why has science become a party at all? Once you view the world a certain way and a seemingly neutral entity comes out to support an agenda that your opponents have been fighting for for decades, how would you look at it?All policy implementations is, by definition, political. So how can this not be politically motivated? There are ramifications to climate change, and people want the government to do something, because policing ourselves doesn't work. In this context, "politically motivated" translates as being a partisan issue. Why is it partisan? I think that's part of a broader question: Why has the GOP become the anti-science party?To answer the question of why the Dems would want to skew science in order to advance an agenda, you have to demonstrate that the have actually skewed the science. Because absent that, one need not have any agenda beyond "this is a problem, we need to do something about it." Was cleaning up pollution in the 70's a matter of partisan politics based on a hoax? e.g. was mercury not accumulating in fish, and/or consuming mercury (or lead) is not actually a health problem? Was there some hidden agenda of control and taxes that caused the legislation to be passed, or was there an actual problem of polluted air, soil and water?I agree, but was the evidence for such cases as arguable?
0 -
Destruct the American way? Uhhmmm... What?
Just some comment I heard one time. I forgot where, but I think I remember someone talking about Obama's intention to either create a crisis. . .or further the crisis... or something like, to further his political agenda. They then went on a rant to say that the liberal's intentions were to break down America's social structure to rebuild it in their own vision of social justice and equallity. Pretty far out there right? It's not like Marx said anything to this affect ever, right?
Good point, but still a little hard to believe that media leads popularity of the whole nation. Even because the media that bashes him aren't even main stream networks.Bad economy, and a 24/7 propaganda network and web of conservotard blogs trashing him 58 minutes out of every 60. His approval ratings are, however, four times better than Congress... Perspective is important, Justin.It seems weighted on the negative side with a lot of petty crap. I couldn't even find an article about Obama "attacking" Boehner about smoking.And personally, I'd put Libya in the win column. Anyone who objects to the money spent there should compare it to Iraq.
Yeah it does, but like I said earlier, most of the stuff I found on his achievements were too long to post. In hindsight I guess I could have posted some links to compare to. I remember something about Boehner smoking around the beginning of the term, but nothing specific. Boehner probably cried and had to be left alone about it, I don't know.
Hmm, I didn't know that. I have to automatically question if this is a feeling of a majority or a fringe perspective. Being from Texas I would have to say that the majority of people here don't really care what the world thinks, although I would like to keep an open mind about it as much as I would allow myself.Anyway, it's not my election, but I'd like to add my comment from the other side of the ocean. The PRO side should definitely contain "Winning Back Europe's Approval". With Bush in charge, many Europeans started to see America as part of the problem of this world, rather than part of the solution. That sentiment changed back in favor of the USA over the last couple of years.0 -
Well said and good point. One thing though. How do we know that the world sees us better now than under Bush? It seems like there has been far more threats under Obama from places like North Korea and Iran, not to mention other conflicts like Lybia. Maybe you're right though, I'm not commenting from any information, just some thoughts.
Hey you started this thread, what do you think about the state of the union speach? And was there anything wrong with my origional assessment?
0 -
iNow, I don't remember dismissing anything. I just recall asking a question. That was the first I read any thing from that "think tank" and was wondering if there might be some truth to matter. I have no doubt that humans play a part in the emission of gases that get trapped in our atmosphere. You only have to look at the smog over big cities to know that. But to what effect besides warming? Is there not any conclusive predictable power to these climate models? The only gripe I've got about the whole issue, after doing some reading recently, is that there isn't enough data to come to a conclusive answer. Sure it's getting warmer, but what will it be doing 50 years from now? I bet pre 70's a lot of people would have said it would be unimaginably colder in the future. We've only got a little over 100 years of instrumentally recorded data. The projected warming is only 1-2 degrees, if that, and all this put together doesn't stir my imagination of impending doom like it does others. So if not politically motivated, then why the wide spread activism? Is it not true that the corrective actions that need to be taken have been on the liberal agenda even before this crisis was recognized as such? I'm not dismissing anything. Not being as emotional about it as some think I should be doesn't automatically put me on the denier's side does it? Scepticism is alright so long as it is only to conform with the rest of the scientific arena, is that it? Not to mention that you kind of skipped around my question by saying that the science doesn't have anything to do with the political aspect. Which I agree that it should be like that, but is it in this case? Does the social or environmental agendas of these guys play a part in how hard they push the doom of global warming?
0 -
I might agree with you here except for one little detail. The scenario you discribe doesn't give them a choice because they haven't heard of or thought of a God yet. Atheists today make a choice establishing a belief. A belief opposite of someone elses belief is still a belief.No, it does not make sense at all when you understand that atheism can be defined as lack of belief. As such atheism is the default condition. Before anyone thought up the existence of gods everyone was an atheist but would not have understood the term. As soon as the first person to think up a god started believing in that god nothing changed for anyone else – they did not suddenly have a belief in the non existence of this god that someone just thought up. How could they before the idea was even communicated to them. Once this idea was communicated to them they then could take the position that they thought that it was true that this particular god did not exist, however, even before that decision they would still technically have been atheists.
This is exactly why I said it could be arguable. While I was going through the links looking for organized atheism, I thought about a scenario where atheism was the rallying point for a "free thinkers" movement. Here are some links that intail an organization of atheism. If organization doesn't inspire idealism, then what does?Then you should be able to explain what ideological comprehensive vision it is that all atheists hold because of their atheism. What philosophical tendencies or political ideologies that all atheists hold because of their atheism. What set of ideals all atheists hold because of their atheism. etc. etc. etc.http://relijournal.com/religion/organized-atheism-as-a-religion/
http://atheistwatch.blogspot.com/2011/08/if-atheism-is-not-organized-movment-why.html
http://www.secularstudents.org/highschoolsuccess
http://www.quora.com/Is-there-such-a-thing-as-organized-atheism
there is alot more.
0 -
I've heard the name Heartland Institute a few times now so I decided to check it out. It seems just like any other agenda driven social advocacy. Whether it be a conservative one or a liberal one like ACORN, they all sound pretty much the same. On their climate change page they gave a reason for scientific consensus.
The reason for the consensus among environmentalists is simple: If AGW is true, then stopping or preventing it requires higher taxes, more income redistribution, more wilderness preservation, more regulations on corporations, “smart growth,” subsidies for renewable energy, and on and on. In other words, many of the policies already on the liberal political agenda. Liberals have no reason to “look under the hood” of the global warming scare, to see what the real science says. They believe in global warming because they feel it justifies their ideological convictions (Hulme, 2009).Could there be any truth to this at all? Even if slight? Though I've heard some pretty good reasons to support some of those examples on the agenda.
Once you go through their explanations something else stuck out about the lack of predictability of certain scientific models concerning climate change. Also about what percentage was natural warming compared to man made. It seems that if you are going to institute a model that will have such an impact on the global economy, there should at least be a full model that has predictability and can answer some of these questions that haven't been answered yet.
0 -
Yeah I've asked similar questions about vacuum before and haven't gotten too many results. I think the fact of the matter is that we don't know too much about the vacuum of space. The closest solution I could come up with would be one of two things.
1- If the vacuum pressure in the cannister was strong enough to exceed the structural integrity of the cannister, it would inturn cause the cannister to collapse.
2- For that to happen you would have to assume that the pressure inside the cannister would have to greatly exceed the pressure on the outside of the cannister in order for it to collapse.
All this is speculative on my part though with me being the ameteur that I am. I have thought about this question before though, wondering if it is the pressure inside the cannister that allows it to collapse. Or if it is the outside pressure that forces the collapse once the vacuum inside crosses the threshold of the container's limits.
Rocket, I must have been writing while you posted. That makes sense.
0 -
I'm looking for an actual deffinitive answer because you've got me curious. I ran across this in doing so. It doesn't answer the question but is really cool anyway.
0 -
Here's another perspective I found interesting.
0 -
Let's open up the discussion with some controversy, shall we?
PROS1) Ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
2) Demolishing the leadership of al Qaeda
CONS
1) Poor reaction to the BP Gulf Spill
2) Extending the Bush tax cuts
3) Guantanamo is still open
4) Getting us involved in Libya, without Congressional approval
5) Failure of the DREAM Act
6) Failure to pass Cap and Trade
7) Failure to get single-payer health care through
8) Giving up the missile shield in Poland without getting anything in return from the Russians
9) Rather than halving the deficit, he increased it to $1.3 trillion
10) Increasing the national debt, which he previously called unpatriotic
11) Apologizing for how bad America is
12) Bowing to foreign leaders
13) Saying America is no longer a Christian nation, then going to Egypt and declaring America one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.
14) Attacking John Boehner for smoking, even though Obama himself is a smoker
15) In the aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti, Obama ran up to Massachusetts to campaign for the Democrat there. For big publicity, he should have gone to Haiti and helped pull people out of the rubble. That would have improved America's image to the world.
16) Giving a half a billion dollars to Solyndra, only to see them buckle up within a year
17) Under his administration weapons were put into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, and were used to kill an American agent. Hard to explain that one.
18) His $800+ billion stimulus, which was supposed to keep unemployment at seven percent, has not stopped it from rising to 9.1%
19) His $450 billion jobs plan is supposed to create a million jobs. Do the math, and that means government will spend $450,000 PER new job created. The private sector can hire ten workers for $450,000 - government possibly, perhaps hires one - maybe, and then only temporarily. Once the road or bridge is built, the worker is laid off. Herbert Hoover tried the same thing, using public works projects to spur employment - guess what, it didn't work. The Great Depression got worse.
20) Making Afghanistan his war, and a couple months ago was our deadliest month there in the 10-year war's history. Americans are still unsure exactly what our goal is over there, and how we are going to accomplish it.
21) Wasting his first two years, with Democratic control of the House and Senate, on a controversial health care reform bill that squandered his popularity. He might have been better served to focus on the economy!
22) Shutting Republicans, and the American public, out of the health care debate, by having closed-door meetings in the middle of the night and on weekends. Congress, similarly, tended to only discuss the issue on weekends, when CSPAN was not covering the events.
23) Saying he would post bills online for days before signing them, so Americans can see what he is signing. But that quickly ended, and he would sign favorable bills within hours.
24) Promising to be post-partisan, yet rather than uniting and leading, he has divided and sought to rule. From saying he doesn't want Republicans to do a lot of talking, to calling the TEA party a bunch of racists, terrorists and hostage-takers, to saying that Republicans "have to sit in the back".
25) Having a cabinet and advisers full of people who do not pay their taxes, and who talk about the inspirational speeches of Mao.
EDIT:
26) One of his first acts as President over-turned the Mexico City policy, allowing the federal government to fund abortions performed in other countries. He enters office with an economy going over the cliff, but priority number one is opening federal funding to abortions performed overseas. That is not exactly my idea of getting our financial house in order.
I found the above list just browsing. I wanted to also put another prospective with this but the list of campaign promises that were kept and achievements were too long to post. It was probably around seven pages long. So above is a short list of cons that were listed a little more than halfway through his term. If you look at the things that he has failed and accomplished you can really get a mixed feeling. Some of his accomplishments would be deemed failures by different ideologies. Some of his failures can be said to be accomplishments by other ideologies. So ultimately is the direction he has taken the country in for the better long term? Has he even moved our country in a different direction? Is there an underlying deception that drives his big leaps forward? Is it as ominous as some would have you believe? Are his intentions to destruct the american way in order to rebuild it in the way that better suits his ideology, like some would have you believe? Does this list of cons actually matter when compared to his accomplishments? Just some questions to kick this thread off into more of a possitive reflection rather than phantom jibberish.One more thing. . .If his accomplishments are really so benifitial to the American people in the long run, then why does he have an approval rating so low? I can't imagine that the majority of Americans are being swayed by rederict alone. What are some of your thoughts on why such disapproval?
0 -
I look at it this way. Before religious belief systems, no one had one. How can you claim that the first religion automatically spawned two belief systems? Village A comes up with this religious belief system, and just because Village B didn't you're saying Village B also has a religious belief system?!
Yeah I may be getting to technical with the terminology here. I don't think there was ever a time since the existance of imagination that a belief system didn't exist. A belief, like you said earlier, is to accept a statement as true. Whether that statement states the existance of something one way or another, it has no relevance to the fact that if you accept something as true it is a part of your belief system. Atheists say that a deity doesn't exist. They accept this as true, therefore affirming that as a part of their belief system. Does that make sense?
Now why I think atheism is also an ideological stance may be rather vague and can be argueable.
wiki,
"An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare worldview), as in several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a "received consciousness" or product of socialization). The main purpose behind an ideology is to offer either change in society, or adherence to a set of ideals where conformity already exists, through a normative thought process."
I think atheism fits in the context of this definition.
0 -
And the statement that atheists BELIEVE is true is "deities don't exist", right. I smell a belief system brewing.That's not fact, and isn't even a logical opinion. Belief is defined as acceptance that a statement is TRUE.If theism didn't exist, atheism wouldn't either.Aye and this is where the ideological part comes in to play.
This is one belief system and a stance by some that says I don't need that belief system.This is why I assert that the non-belief is actually a type of belief system. Are there atheist organizations that pull together to stand against persecution by religion? Yes there are many as a matter of fact. There are those who http://firstchurchofatheism.com/ oh wait. . . What the heck is that? It just sort of popped up on my screen. It's them damn fundamental atheists again.
I don't see what is so wrong with a non-belief becoming an actual type of belief system or ideological stance. Please don't blow me out of the water for the link. It was a joke and there were just so many atheist organizations to chose from I just had to throw that one in there. To me it is not just a belief system, but starting to look like it's becoming an organized one as well.0 -
Phi,
Something else that could be touched on, that you came close with above, is the criminal activity between the US and Mexico. A legalization of cannibus probably wouldn't break the cartels bank but it would put a hefty dent in it with that being their major cash crop. It would dramatically reduce the amount of attention spent on it when other areas could be covered with greater detail like harder drugs and gun traffickingAs far as an impact on society, CaptainPanic points out that usage doesn't necessarily increase with legalization. We already have all the laws in place for public intoxication, driving under the influence, littering (in case anyone is pitching those roaches on the street), you name it. There would be far greater impact in that the US would be able to grow hemp again. Hemp fields would also curb unauthorized outdoor growing of Cannabis sativa, in addition to providing a myriad of new products, industries and tax revenue.1 -
doG,
It is not an ideology or a belief system.But you have to admit that it is the general feeling when deists look at atheism. I think too that is because it is presented that way by a lot of atheists. The fact is that an atheist's non belief is a type of belief system. It's not like most atheists present there side as being a neutral stance of one way or the other. Most present their case from a standpoint that God DOESN'T exist. Usually it's "I don't believe and the possibility is irrelevant",or "let's see what we can do to sensically talk you out of your beliefs using logic". That sort of thing is ideological and could be classified as a sort of belief system couldn't it? Now don't get me wrong. If religious people want to come into a forum like this and discuss religion, logic and sensical discussion should be expected. And any rational religious person should already be under the assumption that this wouldn't be an argument that they could win based on factual evidence.
Just sayin'
0 -
Arete, I haven't followed this thread too close, frankly due to confusion, but I will have to disagree with the circularity of the bible. If not for anything else then just this one reason. Proof of God doesn't come from the bible. Those who have faith would say that faith alone is proof of God. I know in a science forum physical evidence is the delecreme, but something that needs no physical evidence for those that have faith, emotional and speculative thinking is the closest you're likely to get. Maybe along with a tiny amount of accuracy when it comes to people, places, and events throughout history.
0 -
To be fair the last graph provided was a trend of when the acclimation started. It didn't show the full scale graph and my point for commenting was that if you are trying to show evidence instead of persuade, then it is only right to show all of the info and not just that which can influence your point. This has been the case with most charts I've seen, although I'm definitely not an expert on these matters and am still wrapping my mind around the plethra of information to consider.
Slowly but surely.0 -
People HERE keep screaming "EVIDENCE!" at njaohnt because a) he states matters of faith as matters of fact, and b) this is a science forum where assertions like that need to be backed up with evidence. Some people have a hard time understanding this difference, and it's made more difficult when they also refuse to read what others have shown as evidence to support their arguments. When someone makes 78 posts and just keeps repeating the same things over and over, it's pretty easy to tell they aren't picking up any details from the discussions. These are usually the people who call US close-minded while they just continue to preach things that have been shown to be opinion and belief rather than a thesis with supportive evidence.
I agree with you here, JustinW. I respect a person's right to believe what they want when it comes to faith and opinion. When faith is held up as fact though, we can easily show that it's not. Keep your faith, be a better person for it, your religion probably wants it that way, but don't expect science to lend it any legitimacy by accepting shaky "evidence".
Agreed
I guess that a large number of Christians would consider the fact that the Vatican accepts evolution as being evidence to support it, but that's not really a valid reason. It's an appeal to authority.Actually most Christians I've ever met don't give a spit for what the Vatican thinks. Catholics may see it differently though. But as for evidence, I was raised a Baptist most of my life but will be one of the first to tell anyone that if it's evidence they're looking for they might want to try a museum or labrotory instead of a church.
edit: I just ran into the thread where njoahnt is posting. I see your point even clearer now Phi.
0 -
So I suppose that's one of the biggest advantages to becoming an atheist. You get to toss the dogma and misinformation out the window and build your knowledge on firm foundations rather than hearsay and ethereal wishes.
I think it's important to keep in mind that the stories in a religion are not what make up it's intirety. The stories, no matter how true or false, give basis to a religions meaning and intent. Too often I read people writing about the fallicy of the stories and how they don't see how anyone can believe such rubbish. It's the meaning and intent behind the stories and inbetween the lines that are what a religions purpose is, not the factual basis of the stories themselves.
Just sayin'.
0 -
Aye, but does that also go for the flip side of this issue? There is a general consensus on this data and the current model, but I still can't get over the fact of how little we are going on when compared to the time that there wasn't any record. The warming trend of the past 40 years could just as easily start to decrease just as the one before that time started to increase. Cause and projection make sense to point, but I still have hold my reservations on this impending doom scenario. One day it may overcome my stubbornness.
Oh I better add a comment about the " wasn't any record" tidbit. I know we can take core samples and what not to come to a simiconclusive record. I was reffering to an instrumental record.
0 -
More or less I agree, but it all depends on where you look on this sort of graph. On the same graph as above at the GISS site, if you picked the date 1942 to that dip I mentioned after 1973, the red line would be more extreme towards the decline than the trend up from 1975 on. So for someone to just look at this graph and say " AhHa I got it now" seems to be a little over the top. The graph even shows from 2008 the temps to be steadier for longer, without as big of fluctuation, than in any other period before. I mean it depends when you look at this graph. I think about 1960 or so if someone looked at this graph they would have to freak out about another impending ice age. Just sayin'.
Ilooked it up and did come across something to that effect on Wiki. Some were yelling ice age. Even this graph doesn't indicate an ice age to me. Just as the current models really don't spark the imagination for me as it does for some others.
0 -
What was it before 1973? Just at the beginning of the time line it looks to have dropped dramatically. What did it drop from and what was the trend before that for this particular subject of land temp? I have been following you and John's threads on this subject for a while and was hoping you were going to take him up on his offer. It would have been an interesting conversation for those who have been reading more than commenting.Several different views were offered in this other thread linked below. You might find what you're after there. If not, just let me know and I'll try to help you find what you're looking for to help eliminate the uncertainty in your understanding.http://www.sciencefo...30-year-trends/
In the meantime, this graphic gets to the heart of swansont's point:
0 -
Why do people keep screaming "EVIDENCE", when no logical Christian ever claims there is in fact evidence to support Christianity other than some historical accuracies. Any logical Christian will tell you that they aren't Christians based on evidence but faith. The only evidence anyone is likely to stumble upon are some accuracies dealing with people, places, and events of the times. These are mixed in with the stories of the bible with other things that can never be proven. It is peoples faith that lead their religion, not any based evidence found through scrutiny of that faith. So I agree with the confusion of the rest of this thread. What is the point in asking for evidence?
1 -
maybe. I never thought about any type of syphoning effect that could result. It would have to have the right circumstance to create such an effect, but could probably be stopped with relative ease depending on the specific circumstances. I think that we could catch such a problem pretty quickly, though I don't know what effect the blasting would do to the caldera itself. To stop something of that magnitude would take nothing short of blasting.
0 -
No it stands to reason that ice can break fissures into a rock basin by freezing and expanding, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to learn here though. The history of the caldera can be followed by it's path through the continent. The hot spot has stayed in the same place while the continent above has moved over it. I'm just not sure what kind of history you are looking for. You can find the dates of eruption easy enough, but I would think that a connection to solar activity would be a little harder to come by. I don't believe there would be any solar data to compare to that far back. The closest you might come is in weather conditions at the time and possible solar causes for those weather conditions, but I doubt you could find anything beyond speculative.IMO... the localized glaciation of the Rocky Mountains, basically on the same tome as Western Europe, perhaps some oscillation in that, should Yellowstone become subject to another maunder minimum, only localized, it is possible the caldera's plate could fracture more and sprout new geisers. Any thoughts to fail this? If that is possible, could this runaway?0
Global Warming is Not a Crisis
in Climate Science
Posted
This is from one of the articles that you provided in the link. This is what the IPCC states as uncertain.
Again I will have to say that this being from the IPCC, they were formed with the express goal of evaluating climate science for the expressed purpose of informed policy change. This puts them in a political arena, so why should their motivation not be question when it comes to a specific agenda?
With what the IPCC states as uncertain, don't you think that at least a couple of these things should be adressed and a more specific conclusion brought to the table before we go and remodel our entire system?
Why would we make such a big change when we are not even sure the amount of change that is contributed to human activity?
Why would we make such a change when we don't even understand the variations of natural climate?
Why would we make such a change when we don't understand the level of reaction of the climate to green house gases?
It seems like people want to readjust our whole system based on speculation, and damned if someone can question their motives. You didn't comment on the fact that one side says that only 6 out of 928 papers explicitly endorse man made global warming, while the other side lists that into the 75% group. Misinformation or did someone not think it was necessary to intale?
Why is a liberal's agenda not relevant while a republican's agenda is? You still didn't answer that question. Are the things that need to be changed to adress the problem part of a liberals agenda? If so, which I think they are in a general way, then why can't the motivation of the consensus be questioned? We know the republican's agenda is business motivated, and why shouldn't it be? If something were to change that would hurt your businesses financial structure with so many unknowns wouldn't you be skeptical as well?So tell me why this is a problem of which the validity and motivation should be taken at face value.