I'm not going to pretend that I'm an expert on the subject matter, but having a PhD in Physics doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about here.


He's using data given to him to form an opinion. He's doing exactly what the opposing position is doing with the information given to them. MalabarJag made a good point earlier and no one addressed it. There are problems and inconsistencies with the studies on both sides.

What point? What inconsistencies?

---

That guy has a PhD in Physics. The only thing I could possibly imagine you having a PhD in is willful ignorance. I've witnessed you posting an actual attempt at refutation exactly 0 times on this board. Try it sometime, maybe other people will actually respect you enough to have a decent conversation.

It was refuted by me, using facts in an earlier thread discussing the same thing. Pay attention.

 

And I'll gladly put my pedigree up against yours anytime. As far as a PhD goes, I'm a lot closer to one than you may think, and I will bet a hell of a lot closer than you.

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

I'm not going to pretend that I'm an expert on the subject matter, but having a PhD in Physics doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about here.

 

He's using data given to him to form an opinion. He's doing exactly what the opposing position is doing with the information given to them. MalabarJag made a good point earlier and no one addressed it. There are problems and inconsistencies with the studies on both sides.

Seriously? You don't think that a guy with a PhD in Physics (and physics is <i>pretty</i> important when it comes to climate change) has any degree of credibility beyond the likes of Dakota (or this entire board for that matter)? At the very least a PhD in physics means that he has a far better understanding of the data and the effects of greenhouse gases (physics is the branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy).

---

It was refuted by me, using facts in an earlier thread discussing the same thing. Pay attention.

 

And I'll gladly put my pedigree up against yours anytime. As far as a PhD goes, I'm a lot closer to one than you may think, and I will bet a hell of a lot closer than you.

Actually your attempt at refutation IIRC was "humans only output x which is less than natural processes". That point is addressed in that very video.


Then show it! You've done nothing to suggest as much.

---

Seriously? You don't think that a guy with a PhD in Physics (and physics is <i>pretty</i> important when it comes to climate change) has any degree of credibility beyond the likes of Dakota (or this entire board for that matter)? At the very least a PhD in physics means that he has a far better understanding of the data and the effects of greenhouse gases (physics is the branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy).

 

That wasn't my point. I believe, undoubtedly, that he understands the information that he's talking about better than we do. My point was that he didn't personally obtain the information. Like all of us, he received the information from a different group that, as MalabarJag pointed out, has an interest in perpetuating certain truths. 

---

That wasn't my point. I believe, undoubtedly, that he understands the information that he's talking about better than we do. My point was that he didn't personally obtain the information. Like all of us, he received the information from a different group that, as MalabarJag pointed out, has an interest in perpetuating certain truths. 

Seriously? Do you trust your doctor? They are basing their diagnosis and treatment of any medical issues you've had on data collected by other parties with plenty of interest in perpetuating certain 'truths'. There will always be data sets that are interested in perpetuating certain (mis)information, but that's why peer reviewing is a thing and that's why people should draw from multiple sources of information whenever possible.

---

Seriously? Do you trust your doctor? They are basing their diagnosis and treatment of any medical issues you've had on data collected by other parties with plenty of interest in perpetuating certain 'truths'. There will always be data sets that are interested in perpetuating certain (mis)information, but that's why peer reviewing is a thing and that's why people should draw from multiple sources of information whenever possible.

 

Honestly, I don't trust Dr's.  A lot of them are legal drug dealers.

---

 

Honestly, I don't trust Dr's.  A lot of them are legal drug dealers.

 

Lol.

---

Honestly, I don't trust Dr's.  A lot of them are legal drug dealers.

Legalized drug cartel is what a lot of the pharmaceutical companies are.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

Legalized drug cartel is what a lot of the pharmaceutical companies are.

And the Dr's push their products. Amazing how we are still debating weed when much more powerful drugs are being over prescribed by Dr's every single day.

---

And the Dr's push their products. Amazing how we are still debating weed when much more powerful drugs are being over prescribed by Dr's every single day.

QFT

---

Seriously? Do you trust your doctor? They are basing their diagnosis and treatment of any medical issues you've had on data collected by other parties with plenty of interest in perpetuating certain 'truths'. There will always be data sets that are interested in perpetuating certain (mis)information, but that's why peer reviewing is a thing and that's why people should draw from multiple sources of information whenever possible.

 

... how many times are doctors wrong? All the time.  My girlfriend is a nurse, and she tells me stories all the time where a nurse will guide and direct the doctors because they're absolutely clueless. Sometimes even to the point where patients would have died had he not considered their opinions. It happens so often apparently that it seems that it would question your faith in the average doctor. 

 

I admit that I don't know as much about this topic as many of you. I think we agree more than you know, but I believe both sides have valid points. When you have a government that believes in certain aspects of global warming, and they give money for these "studies", then we shouldn't be naive enough to believe that those "studies" will be influenced by whatever routinely gives them money. 

 

Honestly, I don't trust Dr's.  A lot of them are legal drug dealers.

 

There's a lot of truth to this... especially in those small doctor's offices where it's only the doctor and a couple nurses.

---

... how many times are doctors wrong? All the time.  My girlfriend is a nurse, and she tells me stories all the time where a nurse will guide and direct the doctors because they're absolutely clueless. Sometimes even to the point where patients would have died had he not considered their opinions. It happens so often apparently that it seems that it would question your faith in the average doctor. 

 

I admit that I don't know as much about this topic as many of you. I think we agree more than you know, but I believe both sides have valid points. When you have a government that believes in certain aspects of global warming, and they give money for these "studies", then we shouldn't be naive enough to believe that those "studies" will be influenced by whatever routinely gives them money. 

 

 

There's a lot of truth to this... especially in those small doctor's offices where it's only the doctor and a couple nurses.

OK, let's put it like this:

 

So you walk into a hospital with a fever thinking it's nothing more than a fever. The first doctor you see tells you it's ebola (nice and topical). You ask for a second opinion; the second doctor says it's ebola. You ask a nurse, she says it's ebola and she makes sure to keep at least 20 feet away from you. People start showing up in hazmat suits and you are moved to a quarantined room. A team of doctors all come in (all in hazmat suits) and show you the test results and they all say it's ebola. 

 

Do you still think it's a fever or do you wait until you are literally bleeding from every orifice?

---

OK, let's put it like this:

 

So you walk into a hospital with a fever thinking it's nothing more than a fever. The first doctor you see tells you it's ebola (nice and topical). You ask for a second opinion; the second doctor says it's ebola. You ask a nurse, she says it's ebola and she makes sure to keep at least 20 feet away from you. People start showing up in hazmat suits and you are moved to a quarantined room. A team of doctors all come in (all in hazmat suits) and show you the test results and they all say it's ebola. 

 

Do you still think it's a fever or do you wait until you are literally bleeding from every orifice?

 

I get it, DragonFury. I understood his use of the example, too.

 

My point was that when there's someone out there paying a lot of money to tell people they have Ebola, considering your example, then the reliability isn't exactly there. 

---

Here's always been my big problem with the climate control thing. For the sake of argument let's say popular theory is right, man is a major contributor to global warming by the avenue of our CO2. If all of Europe and America goes 'Green' regardless of any other consequences economically we're all in, does it matter if India, China and Russia say no thanks. Wouldn't that just essentially kill our economies for nothing?

 

I'm all for going greener when possible, I love solar tech, I think we're close to it being feasible for normal people to use. But it's not there yet, and shutting down coal plants for the greater good does more harm then anything. When an alternative power source is developed I'll be the first in line to do it, but until we figure out battery tech I don't see any of it happening.

 

I do think it's beneficial as a society that we keep encouraging people to recycle, I think that's one way to clean everything up, regardless of man made or natural global warming no one wants to live in a dump.

---

Here's always been my big problem with the climate control thing. For the sake of argument let's say popular theory is right, man is a major contributor to global warming by the avenue of our CO2. If all of Europe and America goes 'Green' regardless of any other consequences economically we're all in, does it matter if India, China and Russia say no thanks. Wouldn't that just essentially kill our economies for nothing?


I'm all for going greener when possible, I love solar tech, I think we're close to it being feasible for normal people to use. But it's not there yet, and shutting down coal plants for the greater good does more harm then anything. When an alternative power source is developed I'll be the first in line to do it, but until we figure out battery tech I don't see any of it happening.


I do think it's beneficial as a society that we keep encouraging people to recycle, I think that's one way to clean everything up, regardless of man made or natural global warming no one wants to live in a dump.

A pinch of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.salon.com/2014/10/10/how_america_can_help_save_the_planet_and_still_come_out_ahead/'>http://www.salon.com/2014/10/10/how_america_can_help_save_the_planet_and_still_come_out_ahead/</a>


Vs

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.startribune.com/business/274841511.html'>http://www.startribune.com/business/274841511.html</a>

---

A pinch of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.salon.com/2014/10/10/how_america_can_help_save_the_planet_and_still_come_out_ahead/'>http://www.salon.com/2014/10/10/how_america_can_help_save_the_planet_and_still_come_out_ahead/</a>


Vs

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.startribune.com/business/274841511.html'>http://www.startribune.com/business/274841511.html</a>

 

The first just claims that alternative energy will save money. These claims come from the same people who overestimate the energy produced by wind and solar by a factor of ten.


 

The second is based on models that have already failed spectacularly to predict the global temperature trend this century, much less the effects of warming, which has reduced extreme weather events.


 

In neither case are their any actual, you know, measurements. Just speculation from people feeding off taxpayer money, money that would disappear if it was discovered that there were no problem.


 

EDIT: In monetary terms it's more like a pound of prevention for a pinch of cure. Even assuming the prophets of doom are correct, the current spending on things to prevent global warming is like paying twice what your house is worth every year for fire insurance.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I do think it's beneficial as a society that we keep encouraging people to recycle, I think that's one way to clean everything up, regardless of man made or natural global warming no one wants to live in a dump.

 

Recycling aluminum is reasonable. Recycling paper and plastic is a waste of money.


 

In my neighborhood, a guy in a pickup comes around and takes the aluminum from the recycling bins before the truck arrives. So why exactly are we paying for the trucks?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

OK, let's put it like this:

 

So you walk into a hospital with a fever thinking it's nothing more than a fever. The first doctor you see tells you it's ebola (nice and topical). You ask for a second opinion; the second doctor says it's ebola. You ask a nurse, she says it's ebola and she makes sure to keep at least 20 feet away from you. People start showing up in hazmat suits and you are moved to a quarantined room. A team of doctors all come in (all in hazmat suits) and show you the test results and they all say it's ebola. 

 

Do you still think it's a fever or do you wait until you are literally bleeding from every orifice?

 

The first astrologer tells you that you are going to come into some big money tomorrow. So do the second and the third. Do you run out and by a Ferrari?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

The first astrologer tells you that you are going to come into some big money tomorrow. So do the second and the third. Do you run out and by a Ferrari?

I do when the field of astrology is confirmed by peer reviewed studies. It never will be, but still. 

---