If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
Gary Evans wrote:
To get off of religion for a minute it is amazing how many people believe contrails are evidence that the government is spraying the population with something. Maybe it’s just the loons out here in the west but I caught a call-in radio program a while back discussing contrails and people were calling in expressing their belief in the conspiracy. Part of there proof that it wasn't a natural occurrence was because the planes only sprayed at certain times. Hard to argue with that logic. I live in cotton country, which as you probably don't know, is Oklahoma. Cotton spraying is the largest single vector for agri chemicals. We get contrails. They are about 20 feet off the ground. Unfortunately, they blow into town - specially the small towns like the one where I live. People start complaining about their allergies, and asthmatics stay indoors. People get headaches. Others walk round carrying small oxygen bottles. The cotton business is heavily subsidized. In this locality, there is a pretty lake - actually a reservoir 20 miles north, with a big canal system to carry irrigation water. This is a popular tourist destination. The lake water is drained for irrigation, carrying sport fish to their final destinations. The tourists fade away. The fish are uneatable if caught in the irrigation ditches. You know - the crop sprays. Brian W |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
T8 wrote:
I am after truth. Yes, I am naive. -Evan Ludeman / T8 Not only Evan, but some researchers think they are about seeking truth. It's the most amusing thing. If you mention that their business is about making models, improving models, and contradicting models, they are aghast. But models are all we have. And the process works very, very nicely. You know: Evolution by Natural Selection: General & Special Relativity. Thermodynamics. the Germ Theory of Disease. Brian W |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
On Dec 25, 11:06*am, T8 wrote:
On Dec 24, 8:09*pm, Tom Gardner wrote: On Dec 24, 11:38*pm, T8 wrote: No, I want the opportunity for people to test, and disprove your theory. Is there any possibility that it might "prove" the theory? Or is that out of the question? Sounds like you mind is (almost completely?) decided! The way I look at it, the burden of proof is on the researcher to prove the theory which upsets the status quo, in this case AGW. However, I believe that burden also includes providing every opportunity for his skeptics to prove him wrong by checking his assumptions, raw data, reasoning, models, results and conclusions. These responsibilities are amplified by the rush to public policy and the extreme costs of such policy. *In my view this is absolutely required. *My impression, exemplified by JohnC's response, is that the AGW community is not interested in being found in error, even if such errors are factual and provable. I am after truth. *Yes, I am naive. *This was driven home very nicely by JohnC's comment and although he obviously does not speak for the community, it was a revelation to me that anyone would be so plain faced about this. *But it fits. *We don't share the same scientific ethics. Because I am after truth, I am deeply suspicious of those who claim to have found "truth" who are clearly on board with the political agenda that follows and all the more so when a) their support for the political agenda appears to be independent of the truth or falsity of AGW -- exemplified by the "well, there are plenty of *other* good reasons to regulate carbon" thoughts that are expressed again and again -- and b) they deny opportunity to their skeptics to rigorously check their work. *To deny that a great number of researchers in the AGW community fit this description would be to invite gales of laughter. *Hence, my skepticism of the AGW research community as a whole. *I distrust the "management", the agenda setters. *They've earned this. * I hold them in contempt. If AGW is provably real, then I agree it would be necessary to consider the range of possible consequences and appropriate actions/ costs/benefits, the range of which also includes "no action necessary or economically desirable". *But if the current state of the art in AGW research can be shown to be significantly in error, or much less than certain -- which is my sense of where we are currently -- then no, I absolutely will not support the creation of whole new regulatory agencies and the dismantling of entire industries, etc. -Evan Ludeman / T8 Really appreciate your point of view Evan. Mike Carris |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
T8 wrote:
On Dec 24, 8:09 pm, Tom Gardner wrote: On Dec 24, 11:38 pm, T8 wrote: No, I want the opportunity for people to test, and disprove your theory. Is there any possibility that it might "prove" the theory? Or is that out of the question? Sounds like you mind is (almost completely?) decided! The way I look at it, the burden of proof is on the researcher to prove the theory which upsets the status quo, in this case AGW. However, I believe that burden also includes providing every opportunity for his skeptics to prove him wrong by checking his assumptions, raw data, reasoning, models, results and conclusions. These responsibilities are amplified by the rush to public policy and the extreme costs of such policy. In my view this is absolutely required. My impression, exemplified by JohnC's response, is that the AGW community is not interested in being found in error, even if such errors are factual and provable. Just curious -- what is your position on the theory of evolution? Have the scientists carried their burden of proof there despite a lot of opposition? |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
On Dec 25, 12:11*pm, Mike wrote:
On Dec 25, 11:06*am, T8 wrote: On Dec 24, 8:09*pm, Tom Gardner wrote: On Dec 24, 11:38*pm, T8 wrote: No, I want the opportunity for people to test, and disprove your theory. Is there any possibility that it might "prove" the theory? Or is that out of the question? Sounds like you mind is (almost completely?) decided! The way I look at it, the burden of proof is on the researcher to prove the theory which upsets the status quo, in this case AGW. However, I believe that burden also includes providing every opportunity for his skeptics to prove him wrong by checking his assumptions, raw data, reasoning, models, results and conclusions. These responsibilities are amplified by the rush to public policy and the extreme costs of such policy. *In my view this is absolutely required. *My impression, exemplified by JohnC's response, is that the AGW community is not interested in being found in error, even if such errors are factual and provable. I am after truth. *Yes, I am naive. *This was driven home very nicely by JohnC's comment and although he obviously does not speak for the community, it was a revelation to me that anyone would be so plain faced about this. *But it fits. *We don't share the same scientific ethics. Because I am after truth, I am deeply suspicious of those who claim to have found "truth" who are clearly on board with the political agenda that follows and all the more so when a) their support for the political agenda appears to be independent of the truth or falsity of AGW -- exemplified by the "well, there are plenty of *other* good reasons to regulate carbon" thoughts that are expressed again and again -- and b) they deny opportunity to their skeptics to rigorously check their work. *To deny that a great number of researchers in the AGW community fit this description would be to invite gales of laughter. *Hence, my skepticism of the AGW research community as a whole. *I distrust the "management", the agenda setters. *They've earned this. * I hold them in contempt. If AGW is provably real, then I agree it would be necessary to consider the range of possible consequences and appropriate actions/ costs/benefits, the range of which also includes "no action necessary or economically desirable". *But if the current state of the art in AGW research can be shown to be significantly in error, or much less than certain -- which is my sense of where we are currently -- then no, I absolutely will not support the creation of whole new regulatory agencies and the dismantling of entire industries, etc. -Evan Ludeman / T8 Really appreciate your point of view Evan. Mike Carris Ditto............ |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
On Dec 25, 3:36*pm, Greg Arnold wrote:
Just curious -- what is your position on the theory of evolution? *Have the scientists carried their burden of proof there despite a lot of opposition? (!!!!!) Weirdly, this leads to a good point, so I'll answer publicly: My 'position' is the same as my 'position' on AGW or just about any other contentious issue: You can believe what you choose to believe and I will not object in the slightest right up until I get the idea that your belief system is going to be used to ram public policy down my throat. If you want to discuss science, email me. -T8 |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
T8 wrote:
On Dec 25, 3:36 pm, Greg Arnold wrote: Just curious -- what is your position on the theory of evolution? Have the scientists carried their burden of proof there despite a lot of opposition? (!!!!!) Weirdly, this leads to a good point, so I'll answer publicly: My 'position' is the same as my 'position' on AGW or just about any other contentious issue: You can believe what you choose to believe and I will not object in the slightest right up until I get the idea that your belief system is going to be used to ram public policy down my throat. If you want to discuss science, email me. -T8 Ah, so this really is about politics. You don't want one public policy (dong something), and others don't want the opposite public policy (doing nothing). In both cases, one side would be ramming their policy down the throat of the others, right? |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
On Dec 25, 5:11*pm, Greg Arnold wrote:
T8 wrote: On Dec 25, 3:36 pm, Greg Arnold wrote: Just curious -- what is your position on the theory of evolution? *Have the scientists carried their burden of proof there despite a lot of opposition? (!!!!!) Weirdly, this leads to a good point, so I'll answer publicly: My 'position' is the same as my 'position' on AGW or just about any other contentious issue: You can believe what you choose to believe and I will not object in the slightest right up until I get the idea that your belief system is going to be used to ram public policy down my throat. If you want to discuss science, email me. -T8 Ah, so this really is about politics. *You don't want one public policy (dong something), and others don't want the opposite public policy (doing nothing). *In both cases, one side would be ramming their policy down the throat of the others, right? Of course it's political! Not solely, but.... There's a non-trivial asymmetry in those two cases politically. Hope that's obvious. I don't think we should argue that here.... -T8 |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
Alan wrote:
In article Tom Gardner writes: Are you going to answer my other question? (repeated below for ease of reference) Is there *any* evidence/argument that would convince you that climate change is an *imminent* problem? I emphasis *imminent* to avoid the possibility that you'll only be convinced after it is too late to mitigate the effects. *If* there is no such evidence/argument, then there is no point in having a discussion with someone with a closed mind. And what evidince or argument is needed to convince you of the opposite? Perhaps closed minds call the kettle black? There are a number of things that would do it: * evidence that the cloud models seriously understate the amount of cloud that will form as the global temperatures rise * someone finally figuring out a way for cosmic rays to produce the clouds the proponents think they do * the discovery that satellite measurements have under-reported incoming energy * adding more measurement stations to the sparsely instrumented polar regions determines the warming there is much less than previously estimated. * a new theory, supported by measurements, the CO2 forcing is significantly lower than current theories require * a study demonstrating each method used to determine sea level rise has flaws widening the error bands significantly. * deep sea measurements showing the ocean circulation currents are much different than thought, requiring significant changes in heat transfer and dissolved CO2 parameters. A climate scientist, or even a knowledgeable lay person, could name a lot more, of course. There are a lot factors in climate dynamics, so there are many places a person can look for potential errors in theory and measurements. -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
delboy wrote:
2) There is geological and fossil evidence to suggest that it has been hotter in previous eras, but life on earth was not wiped out. Even the alarmists with the widest eyes aren't suggesting life on earth will be wiped out, only that "business as usual" will result in significant and substantial changes in the climate and sea level that will affect all of us. 3) Reasonably accurate temperature measurement has only been possible for a few hundred years, so to say that there is a trend of increasing temperatures may only be looking at a very short term and natural variation in terms of the entire history of the planet. In any case the average global temperature seems to have stabilised again, "Seems" ignores the science and the data. That claim is usually based on the HadCRUT3 data, which tends to under report the warming because it ignores the polar regions; the other datasets "seem" to show more warming. The current decade still shows rising temperatures despite natural warming events like el Nino are at minimums, and the heat content of the oceans continues to rise at about the same rate, and that's a lot of heat. which is probably why 'global warming' seems to have been relabelled as 'climate change'! An artifact of uninformed media coverage, and some relabeling effort a few years ago by people that wanted to direct attention away from global warming and thought "climate change" didn't sound so scary. The scientists were never confused about what the words meant. 4) Better technology and better insulated buildings are reducing each person's carbon footprint. Yes, and even China has declared important per capita energy reduction goals, but that will still not stop the rise in their emissions, nor are these changes elsewhere happening fast enough, and it is unlikely to without somehow pricing CO2 (and equivalent) emissions. 5) Eventually the coal and oil reserves will run out, so we won't be able burn any more anyway, which is the best case for conserving them as much as possible. "Eventually" is hundreds of years for coal, far beyond the current danger timelines. 6) Sooner or later, something such as nuclear war, a metorite strike, famine, an untreatable disease, or another ice age will decimate or wipe out the human population. I bet the big dinosaurs thought they had it made! And all of these will be easier to deal with if we aren't already in big trouble with climate problems. -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
contrails | No Name | Aviation Photos | 3 | June 22nd 07 01:47 PM |
Contrails | Darkwing | Piloting | 21 | March 23rd 07 05:58 PM |
Contrails | Kevin Dunlevy | Piloting | 4 | December 13th 06 08:31 PM |
Contrails | Steven P. McNicoll | Piloting | 17 | December 10th 03 10:23 PM |