• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W:478]

Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

I did answer that.

1) It has nothing to do with the science.

2) we can do nothing.

3) we can lessen out contribution.

And we can decide based on best evidence or political beliefs.

It's not really a 5, 10, or 15 year problem. It's long term, hundreds of years. No serious person expects any turn on a dime type approach, but just a commitment to plan based on BEST evidence.

So there is a clear answer there. Likely not the one you want. I suggest you stop anticipating what you want to here, and address the answer you get. Novel approach, granted, but give it a shot.

The question I asked is absolutely proper in terms that most people look at what is being done in AGW through regulation, law, and taxes as a short term problem, or an immediate problem if you will...The EPA goes wild, taxes rising, dumb expenditures on things like Solyndra....All of these things effect our lives today, not a hundred years in the future.....So, the question stands....

The answer I am getting from you is that you want to ignore those immediate things for the larger argument, however, the things being done now effect us now....it is up to future generations how they handle the stupid propositions of their time.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

The question I asked is absolutely proper in terms that most people look at what is being done in AGW through regulation, law, and taxes as a short term problem, or an immediate problem if you will...The EPA goes wild, taxes rising, dumb expenditures on things like Solyndra....All of these things effect our lives today, not a hundred years in the future.....So, the question stands....

The answer I am getting from you is that you want to ignore those immediate things for the larger argument, however, the things being done now effect us now....it is up to future generations how they handle the stupid propositions of their time.

Because those things need to be talked about individually. Most of which is overblown.

You asked a general question which means a general answer. Solyanda didn't turn out well, but what would have been the response if it had? And it could have.

And the EPA response to issues brought to it by people, people BTW who don't beleive they've gone wild. Understand that how we present they're actions largely depends on our own views, not reality. Notice I said we and not you. It's human nature to assume our own view is just the gospel. We ignore how things happen, what led to them, and anything that doesn't fit our personal biases.

So, no one wants to ignore anything. But to get specific answers, you need to ask specific questions. There are no mind readers here.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

Because those things need to be talked about individually. Most of which is overblown.

You asked a general question which means a general answer. Solyanda didn't turn out well, but what would have been the response if it had? And it could have.

And the EPA response to issues brought to it by people, people BTW who don't beleive they've gone wild. Understand that how we present they're actions largely depends on our own views, not reality. Notice I said we and not you. It's human nature to assume our own view is just the gospel. We ignore how things happen, what led to them, and anything that doesn't fit our personal biases.

So, no one wants to ignore anything. But to get specific answers, you need to ask specific questions. There are no mind readers here.

:doh Why do academics have to make things so complicated? IOW, why does it take an average of three times asking a question in order for you to answer the original question?

Look Joe, it really is a simple question....You are a proponent of AGW, and I am asking

1. What do you think should be done about it today

and

2. What are the consequences to average people in terms of their standard of living, of your solutions, or actions taken today?

Now, can you just answer?
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global ...

Really? You guys think peer reviewed papers don't cite AGW as a theory?

Try IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change There's one real long one referencing hundreds of others that say its a theory.

You're all embarrassing yourselves.



You'll need to cut and paste the nugget you claim is there. A cursory glance did not reveal the words "scientific theory".

I suppose you are asking us to believe that this skipped from being an unfounded notion straight to being a theory, but let's go ahead and play your silly game.

What is the test they have proposed to falsify the hypothesis before this was made into a theory?
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global ...

That is so inaccurate that I can only assume you haven't read anything posted. I've given peer reviewed journals and a list of scientific (not political) organizations that accept that man plays a role in GW.

You continued to be factually challenged.



You have done this.

However, when asked to provide the Scientific organization that has classed this notion as a scientific theory, you claim that you have done this also. You have not.

You are free to do so now.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global ...

You have done this.

However, when asked to provide the Scientific organization that has classed this notion as a scientific theory, you claim that you have done this also. You have not.

You are free to do so now.

I think that Joe believes that a group of like minded scientists all getting together, and agreeing on their own opinions as to what is happening concerning climate is automatically theory....It saddens me, I thought Joe was a whole lot smarter than that, being an educator and all...
 
Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global ...

They use peer reviewed papers and grey material, then pal review their report.

In other words. You dont accept peer review.

Why would you, when it doesn't support your pre-decided position?

It's good enough for every other scientific discipline for the last century.
 
Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global ...

I think that Joe believes that a group of like minded scientists all getting together, and agreeing on their own opinions as to what is happening concerning climate is automatically theory....It saddens me, I thought Joe was a whole lot smarter than that, being an educator and all...

Can you explain what you think constitutes a official theory? (Or do I need to type Theory?)
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

P
:doh Why do academics have to make things so complicated? IOW, why does it take an average of three times asking a question in order for you to answer the original question?

Look Joe, it really is a simple question....You are a proponent of AGW, and I am asking

1. What do you think should be done about it today

and

2. What are the consequences to average people in terms of their standard of living, of your solutions, or actions taken today?

Now, can you just answer?

I'm not a policy maker. We should heed the best evidence available. We should lower our impact as much as possible. We should pursue alternatives. Which ones should be burden e based.

Consequences? What are the consequences if we don't? But seriously, very little. Work force moves from one industry to another. Over all a push, just as regulations have been - loss in one area and gain in another.


J, I find it funny you call me an academic and old guy and swaggerlogin say I'm not. But here's the thing. We've been larger giving way to business for a long time now and seen the standard of living decrease. Automation, outsourcing, and anti-working person sentiment has led us to lower standards of living. A very religious conservatives here calls t he Mexicanizing of America. I believe you focus your energies in the wrong areas.

The consequences of addressing our contributions to GW are minor. But, if the science holds, better than not. If the science doesn't hold, were not worse off by caring for our environment. It's really a fools game to fight for amounts to pollution.

I must repeat, you continue to get answers to what you ask.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global ...

Threegoofs said:
In other words. You dont accept peer review.
Your bias in believing such things about matters is why you will never learn. You assign reasoning to me and others which is so wrong. What other thoughts of yours are wrong?


Threegoofs said:
Why would you, when it doesn't support your pre-decided position?
Again, I understand what they are saying and can read between the lines. their deceit is largely by facts of omission. They only portray the parts that support their aganda.


Threegoofs said:
It's good enough for every other scientific discipline for the last century.
Maybe in your field, but look at all the medical lawsuits all the time.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global ...

Can you explain what you think constitutes a official theory? (Or do I need to type Theory?)
Here's somethiong better.

How can it be a theory when models prove to be unreliable in outcome?
 
Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global ...

Here's somethiong better.

How can it be a theory when models prove to be unreliable in outcome?

Hmm. Models have predicted warming. Models have predicted warming especially in the arctic.

That has happened. Models look right on.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global ...

Hmm. Models have predicted warming. Models have predicted warming especially in the arctic.

That has happened. Models look right on.
Once again, you fail to understand anything relevant, and follow the agenda leaders.
 
Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global ...

Once again, you fail to understand anything relevant, and follow the agenda leaders.

By 'relevant' you mean guys in the earlier part of the century predicting today's record heat?

The models were right on.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global ...

By 'relevant' you mean guys in the earlier part of the century predicting today's record heat?

The models were right on.
If the guys in the earlier part of the century predicted a rise in average Temperature,
their models were wrong.
We were rising before about 2000, but since then, things have been almost flat.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201201-201212.png
 
Last edited:
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

I'm not a policy maker.

:doh Are you kidding me here? No **** sherlock, you're not a policymaker...Thank God for that one Captain Obvious. :roll:

We should heed the best evidence available.

I think we do. And if the best evidence is that AGW is a scam though, you would ignore it. So, you really don't think that, rather just pay lip service to the notion.

We should lower our impact as much as possible.

I also think we do that....Maybe you missed that there are no longer muscle cars on the road, no longer leaded gas to buy, and a host of other things that have changed over the years....But it is never great enough, nor fast enough for you is it?

We should pursue alternatives.

If alternatives are profitable and make sense, then the private sector would do far better than governmental force.

Which ones should be burden e based.

Don't know what you mean here.

Consequences? What are the consequences if we don't?

We don't know for a certainty because the science has been manipulated to accommodate a political agenda.

But seriously, very little.

Are you saying that life doesn't change much for the poor, and middle class, if what you want is fully implemented? Either you don't read much, or you only read what agrees with your view then.

Work force moves from one industry to another.

What? And the 50 year old guy that has been working in one area for 25 years, building for retirement, has to retrain to shift? That is IF he can find a company willing to invest in a worker that is only working for another 15 years? Good grief, you have no idea do you?

Over all a push, just as regulations have been - loss in one area and gain in another.

We've seen the loss, with the job participation numbers lowest in decades, where is the gain? Because I don't see it.

J, I find it funny you call me an academic and old guy and swaggerlogin say I'm not.

You've always told me that you were in education....Although it took me 10 years to find out the truth. You started out telling me that you were a Professor, and taught "rhetoric", remember that one? Then you dropped the professor tag, and told me you taught English at a college. Then it was revealed that although you did produce some local highlight clipping from the local free paper showing you seemingly teaching to an empty classroom, it was determined that you taught at the local VoTech, or Community College although what I don't know yet....But the empty classroom in the pic you provided was telling....Maybe sawyer is right, but I give you the benefit of the doubt for now...

But here's the thing. We've been larger giving way to business for a long time now and seen the standard of living decrease.

Nonsense....Progressives like you have been tightening the screws on business to the point that it is easier to get a licence to do business in China than it is here.

Automation, outsourcing, and anti-working person sentiment has led us to lower standards of living.

The "anti working person sentiment" comes from the progressive side of things...That much we see here.

A very religious conservatives here calls t he Mexicanizing of America.

What do his religious beliefs have to do with anything? Or do you just despise religious people?

I believe you focus your energies in the wrong areas.

Why should I care what you believe about me? I do just fine trust me....

The consequences of addressing our contributions to GW are minor.

What do you call "minor"? When a poor person can't afford to get gas to work if they wanted to? When a middle class person can't buy enough groceries to get through the week because your policies have raised those prices? When your policies say that 7-8% unemployment is the new norm? Pfft....Minor....Yeah right...:roll:

But, if the science holds, better than not. If the science doesn't hold, were not worse off by caring for our environment.

"If the science holds"????? What the hell is that? :shock: Well, I thought that it was settled? Are you saying now that it isn't?

It's really a fools game to fight for amounts to pollution.

That is a strawman argument, set up politically to paint those that disagree with you as something nefarious....It's BS Joe, and you know it.

I must repeat, you continue to get answers to what you ask.

Oh yeah, I get answers all right....That's because myself, along with a few others won't let you get away with your nonsense.....Your answer above is very telling....:(
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

:doh Are you kidding me here? No **** sherlock, you're not a policymaker...Thank God for that one Captain Obvious. :roll:



I think we do. And if the best evidence is that AGW is a scam though, you would ignore it. So, you really don't think that, rather just pay lip service to the notion.



I also think we do that....Maybe you missed that there are no longer muscle cars on the road, no longer leaded gas to buy, and a host of other things that have changed over the years....But it is never great enough, nor fast enough for you is it?



If alternatives are profitable and make sense, then the private sector would do far better than governmental force.



Don't know what you mean here.



We don't know for a certainty because the science has been manipulated to accommodate a political agenda.



Are you saying that life doesn't change much for the poor, and middle class, if what you want is fully implemented? Either you don't read much, or you only read what agrees with your view then.



What? And the 50 year old guy that has been working in one area for 25 years, building for retirement, has to retrain to shift? That is IF he can find a company willing to invest in a worker that is only working for another 15 years? Good grief, you have no idea do you?



We've seen the loss, with the job participation numbers lowest in decades, where is the gain? Because I don't see it.



You've always told me that you were in education....Although it took me 10 years to find out the truth. You started out telling me that you were a Professor, and taught "rhetoric", remember that one? Then you dropped the professor tag, and told me you taught English at a college. Then it was revealed that although you did produce some local highlight clipping from the local free paper showing you seemingly teaching to an empty classroom, it was determined that you taught at the local VoTech, or Community College although what I don't know yet....But the empty classroom in the pic you provided was telling....Maybe sawyer is right, but I give you the benefit of the doubt for now...



Nonsense....Progressives like you have been tightening the screws on business to the point that it is easier to get a licence to do business in China than it is here.



The "anti working person sentiment" comes from the progressive side of things...That much we see here.



What do his religious beliefs have to do with anything? Or do you just despise religious people?



Why should I care what you believe about me? I do just fine trust me....



What do you call "minor"? When a poor person can't afford to get gas to work if they wanted to? When a middle class person can't buy enough groceries to get through the week because your policies have raised those prices? When your policies say that 7-8% unemployment is the new norm? Pfft....Minor....Yeah right...:roll:



"If the science holds"????? What the hell is that? :shock: Well, I thought that it was settled? Are you saying now that it isn't?



That is a strawman argument, set up politically to paint those that disagree with you as something nefarious....It's BS Joe, and you know it.



Oh yeah, I get answers all right....That's because myself, along with a few others won't let you get away with your nonsense.....Your answer above is very telling....:(

I have neither the time nor the inclination to play the every sentence game. But I will note the best evidence is not that GW is a scam. That's your political bias guiding you.

And yes, I'm in education. That doesn't change what has been said by others. And yes, the term anti-worker comes from progressives as the terms leeches comes from conservatives. But the fact remains that policies have favored business for a long time and that your side spends more time demonizing people who work for a living. That's just a fact.

And there was no strawman. You really do need to learn your fallacies better. Most the regulations by the EPA are anti-pollution and not anti puppies.

And j, I always answer what you ask, you just can't seem to grasp what is being said, and often misrepresent it. Only you know if you do that on purpose or not.
 
UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W:478]

I have neither the time nor the inclination to play the every sentence game. But I will note the best evidence is not that GW is a scam. That's your political bias guiding you.

And yes, I'm in education. That doesn't change what has been said by others. And yes, the term anti-worker comes from progressives as the terms leeches comes from conservatives. But the fact remains that policies have favored business for a long time and that your side spends more time demonizing people who work for a living. That's just a fact.

And there was no strawman. You really do need to learn your fallacies better. Most the regulations by the EPA are anti-pollution and not anti puppies.

And j, I always answer what you ask, you just can't seem to grasp what is being said, and often misrepresent it. Only you know if you do that on purpose or not.

Thanks for the predictable cliche response.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global ...

By 'relevant' you mean guys in the earlier part of the century predicting today's record heat?

The models were right on.
When the models are 100% right, I think we can entertain their ideas as a theory. Until then, hell no.
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global ...

Can you explain what you think constitutes a official theory? (Or do I need to type Theory?)



You should have saved that "Let Me Google That For You" thingy you are so find of posting when asking others to do your research for you.

This is not top secret stuff.

Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Characteristics of theories[edit source | editbeta]

Essential criteria[edit source | editbeta]
The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is hardly applicable.


A central prediction from a current theory: the general theory of relativity predicts the bending of light in a gravitational field. This prediction was first tested during the solar eclipse of May 1919.[6]
A body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory if it has fulfilled these criteria:
It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.
It is consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results. (Its predictions may differ slightly from pre-existing theories in cases where they are more accurate than before.)
It can be adapted and modified to account for new evidence as it is discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time.
It is among the most parsimonious explanations, sparing in proposed entities or explanations. (See Occam's razor. Since there is no generally accepted objective definition of parsimony, this is not a strict criterion, but some theories are much less economical than others.)
The first three criteria are the most important. Theories considered scientific meet at least most of the criteria, but ideally all of them. This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, evolution, etc.
Definitions from scientific organizations[edit source | editbeta]
The United States National Academy of Sciences defines scientific theories as follows:
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.[7]
From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.[2]
Note that the term theory would not be appropriate for describing untested but intricate hypotheses or even scientific models.
 
Re: UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W:478]

Thanks for the predictable cliche response.

I'm sorry if its predictable and as you most certainly have heard this before, and have not effectively challenged, there's really little way for it not to be predictable. Once you grasp that it is also accurate, you might not have to be told again. :shrug:
 
Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global ...

You should have saved that "Let Me Google That For You" thingy you are so find of posting when asking others to do your research for you.

This is not top secret stuff.

Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Characteristics of theories[edit source | editbeta]

Essential criteria[edit source | editbeta]
The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is hardly applicable.


A central prediction from a current theory: the general theory of relativity predicts the bending of light in a gravitational field. This prediction was first tested during the solar eclipse of May 1919.[6]
A body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory if it has fulfilled these criteria:
It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.
It is consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results. (Its predictions may differ slightly from pre-existing theories in cases where they are more accurate than before.)
It can be adapted and modified to account for new evidence as it is discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time.
It is among the most parsimonious explanations, sparing in proposed entities or explanations. (See Occam's razor. Since there is no generally accepted objective definition of parsimony, this is not a strict criterion, but some theories are much less economical than others.)
The first three criteria are the most important. Theories considered scientific meet at least most of the criteria, but ideally all of them. This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, evolution, etc.
Definitions from scientific organizations[edit source | editbeta]
The United States National Academy of Sciences defines scientific theories as follows:
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.[7]
From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.[2]
Note that the term theory would not be appropriate for describing untested but intricate hypotheses or even scientific models.

Which GW theory fits. There is little debate on it outside of political hacks.
 
UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W:478]

I'm sorry if its predictable and as you most certainly have heard this before, and have not effectively challenged, there's really little way for it not to be predictable. Once you grasp that it is also accurate, you might not have to be told again. :shrug:

I think you are arguing just to argue at this point. Beyond that, we will not see eye to eye on this, and that IS a fact. So you can either continue to call names, and boost your ego telling yourself that only your opinion matters, or you can look for points of agreement and build from there. Which will it be?
 
Re: UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W:478]

I think you are arguing just to argue at this point. Beyond that, we will not see eye to eye on this, and that IS a fact. So you can either continue to call names, and boost your ego telling yourself that only your opinion matters, or you can look for points of agreement and build from there. Which will it be?

J, I'm not calling any one any names. It is you, and not me, who always leaves the topic to interject something about me.

however, I have given you points you could address if you choose to. Or, perhaps a new one:

Yet this approach can only work if people are prepared to acknowledge that they have a problem. But for those of us who understand that climate change is a problem yet make little effort to cut the number of overseas trips we make or the amount of meat we consume, neither apathy nor denial really explains the dissonance between our actions and beliefs. Lertzman has come to the conclusion that this is not because of apathy — a lack of feeling — but because of the simple fact that we care an overwhelming amount about both the planet and our way of life, and we find that conflict too painful to bear. Our apparent apathy is just a defense mechanism in the face of this psychic pain.


Read more: Climate-Change Denialism and the Problems of Psychology | TIME.com
 
UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W:478]

J, I'm not calling any one any names. It is you, and not me, who always leaves the topic to interject something about me.

however, I have given you points you could address if you choose to. Or, perhaps a new one:

Yet this approach can only work if people are prepared to acknowledge that they have a problem. But for those of us who understand that climate change is a problem yet make little effort to cut the number of overseas trips we make or the amount of meat we consume, neither apathy nor denial really explains the dissonance between our actions and beliefs. Lertzman has come to the conclusion that this is not because of apathy — a lack of feeling — but because of the simple fact that we care an overwhelming amount about both the planet and our way of life, and we find that conflict too painful to bear. Our apparent apathy is just a defense mechanism in the face of this psychic pain.


Read more: Climate-Change Denialism and the Problems of Psychology | TIME.com

"The amount of meat I eat?" Are you serious? But you don't want to control anyone do you?
 
Back
Top Bottom