Page 4 of 7
Re: Do Republicans hate American values?
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 3:53 am
by Obvious Leo
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
The 80s is characterised by high unemployment, falling wages, and dependancy on welfare. We also have minimum wage - which acts more like the only wage or the maximum wage for millions; zero hours contracts; the end of job security; no protection against sacking; no obligation to offer contracts; and let's not forget an increase in charity. This trend has gone pretty much unabated.
At a tragic social cost, one can't help but observe. Practically every indicator of overall social well-being has followed a downwards trajectory ever since. I speak obviously of such things as family breakdown, domestic violence, child abuse, substance abuse, mental illness, violent and non-violent crime, etc. The free market does not come cheap for those who are trampled under foot by it but in the long run everybody pays.
Re: Do Republicans hate American values?
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 11:28 am
by Hobbes' Choice
Obvious Leo wrote:Hobbes' Choice wrote:
The 80s is characterised by high unemployment, falling wages, and dependancy on welfare. We also have minimum wage - which acts more like the only wage or the maximum wage for millions; zero hours contracts; the end of job security; no protection against sacking; no obligation to offer contracts; and let's not forget an increase in charity. This trend has gone pretty much unabated.
At a tragic social cost, one can't help but observe. Practically every indicator of overall social well-being has followed a downwards trajectory ever since. I speak obviously of such things as family breakdown, domestic violence, child abuse, substance abuse, mental illness, violent and non-violent crime, etc. The free market does not come cheap for those who are trampled under foot by it but in the long run everybody pays.
Poverty leads to poor nutrition; leads to poor cognition and development never to be recovered; leads to poor life prospect, a tendency to violence; leads to crime; leads to poverty. Ghettoisation, no-go areas; low generational expectations, more poverty, more crime; poor housing, low school achievement, in embattled schools deal with abused kids. Welfare systems penalise families providing for the single parent, and not encouraging stability.
This shit is cyclic.
Why we are all following the USA into social oblivion is a fucking tragedy.
Re: Do Republicans hate American values?
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:14 pm
by raw_thought
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/opinions/trump-isis/
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/ ... r-christie
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ump-inhofe
As you can see, the majority of republicans is helping ISIS and are ignorant of even basic science. Note, that I did not say all Republicans. I said the majority of republicans and it is also the official stance.
Re: Do Republicans hate American values?
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:18 pm
by raw_thought
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
FYI skepticism about the degree of GW is not anti-science.
Actually to deny the fact of global warming is to be anti-science. Also, to deny that GW is having a major impact is also anti science.
Or are you saying that when one thinks EVERY scientific organization in the world is falsifying data, one still believes in science????
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global ... ediate.htm
Perhaps we have a semantic disagreement here. I would say that anyone that says the earth is flat and that science is lying is anti-science.
Re: Do Republicans hate American values?
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 6:38 pm
by Hobbes' Choice
raw_thought wrote:Hobbes' Choice wrote:
FYI skepticism about the degree of GW is not anti-science.
Actually to deny the fact of global warming is to be anti-science..
Nope. All science relies on skeptical inquiry.
You need to distinguish between the empirical data and reality; and always be aware of a range of competing causalities.
You might also consider making a distinction between climate change and global warming.
Oh yes, and BTW the usual moronic mantra "all the big science guys think you are a p****" is also bullshit. The fact is that there is only one or two institutions that specifically investigate climate change, and the rest just give them the nod, based on faith. So give it a rest. You ought to consider that with each scientific paradigm "All the major science institutions agree" is a mantra that always applies even to beliefs that turn out to be proven false.
This is a species of fallacy known as Argumentum Verecundiam.
Re: Do Republicans hate American values?
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 9:20 pm
by Obvious Leo
Hobbes. It's important to maintain the scientific distinction between the fact of global warming and the potential impacts of global warming. The former is based on a physical science which is unassailable because it is the composition of the atmosphere which determines how much E/M radiation from the sun is reflected back into space and how much is retained on the planetary surface. This is also dependent on the wavelength of the light since light from the red end of the spectrum is more sensitive to atmospheric retention in this way and red light is hotter. It is only the possible impacts of this effect which are in dispute and not the effect itself, and neither should it be because this property of the planetary atmosphere has been known for almost 200 years.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:You ought to consider that with each scientific paradigm "All the major science institutions agree" is a mantra that always applies even to beliefs that turn out to be proven false.
This is a species of fallacy known as Argumentum Verecundiam.
This has escalated into a very serious problem throughout the 20th century and the burgeoning evolution of the science academia. The way that science research is funded, along with the peer review system, is a certain guarantee for the propagation of group-think.
Re: Do Republicans hate American values?
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 12:15 am
by Hobbes' Choice
Obvious Leo wrote:Hobbes....It is only the possible impacts of this effect which are in dispute and not the effect itself, and neither should it be because this property of the planetary atmosphere has been known for almost 200 years.
The earth is a complex even chaotic system. It does not have an arse where you can conveniently stick a thermometer. You are wrong to suggest the composition and properties of the atmosphere have been know for 200 years -
no where near it. The more we have learned about it the more we know we are lacking. There is a continual tension between temperature measurements taken with modern and improving technology and the comparison we like to make with proxy data, and with less reliable data from less efficient forms of measurement from the past. There is no comparable data that qualifies as a valid comparison gathered more than 30 years ago. Since then we have added more weather stations, more accuracy more balloons and more orbital observation.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:You ought to consider that with each scientific paradigm "All the major science institutions agree" is a mantra that always applies even to beliefs that turn out to be proven false.
This is a species of fallacy known as Argumentum Verecundiam.
This has escalated into a very serious problem throughout the 20th century and the burgeoning evolution of the science academia. The way that science research is funded, along with the peer review system, is a certain guarantee for the propagation of group-think.
Sadly true. The IPCC's job is primarily to promote the idea of GW and anthropogenic GW. During its life there have been so many exaggerated claims and false trails that little can be trusted in detail. We can talk about the hockey stick or the numberour false predictions. In their early days they suggested sea level rises to significant that it ought to have put most of London under water by 2010- oh dear it never happened.
I'm not trying to pretend that the world is not warmer; nor that CO2 has some significance, but I fear that factors like de-forestation, the the farting cattle that replace the forests, are not considered nor given the weight they deserve.
The political imperative it the international control of fossil fuels, and the trading of carbon credits is more like a whore trading favours at a brothel.
Re: Do Republicans hate American values?
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 1:01 am
by Obvious Leo
Hobbes' Choice wrote:You are wrong to suggest the composition and properties of the atmosphere have been know for 200 years - no where near it.
That's not what I said and I don't take kindly to having my words misrepresented. What I said was that it has been known for almost 200 years that the relative amounts of heat retained and reflected by the planetary surface are in a large part determined by the composition of the atmosphere. Indeed it was suggested as early as the 1850s that the burning of fossil fuels could theoretically increase atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to such a point that the planet would warm up as a result. At the time this was treated as a throwaway line, even though it was accepted as a valid statement, because in the mid-nineteenth century nobody could possibly imagine the sheer tonnage of fossil fuels which the next few generations would burn.
Hobbes' Choice wrote: I fear that factors like de-forestation, the the farting cattle that replace the forests, are not considered nor given the weight they deserve.
Not so. These variables are all factored into climate predictions. However I agree with you that making so many speculative predictions which have subsequently been found to be bogus has done nothing to enhance the credibility of the climate scientists. In my view they're another mob who should just "shut up and calculate" because they damage the entire validity of science in the public mind as much as physics does with its multiple universes and hidden dimensions. Nowadays a significant percentage of otherwise reasonably well-informed people regard science as something which one is free to believe or disbelieve in accordance with one's personal conceptual taste. We even had such a one for a prime minister.
Re: Do Republicans hate American values?
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 2:35 am
by bobevenson
Obvious Leo wrote:Indeed it was suggested as early as the 1850s that the burning of fossil fuels could theoretically increase atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to such a point that the planet would warm up as a result.
Please cite a reference for that statement.
Re: Do Republicans hate American values?
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 3:08 am
by Obvious Leo
I've got no idea where I picked that up from, Bob. I've known it since I was in high school and that was half a century ago, but it's a point I've encountered many times since. The chemistry and physics of global warming is very simple indeed and any high school science student would be expected to understand it. However this is not true for climate science more generally, which is a very complex science and would be effectively impossible without the benefit of modern high-speed data crunching. That the planet is warming is beyond question but what the consequences of this will be for the biosphere remains very much an open question. The consensus opinion is that the consequences will be severe over the long term and in all likelihood the climate scientists are underestimating these effects rather than overestimating them.
Re: Do Republicans hate American values?
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 1:56 pm
by Hobbes' Choice
Obvious Leo wrote:Hobbes' Choice wrote:You are wrong to suggest the composition and properties of the atmosphere have been know for 200 years - no where near it.
That's not what I said and I don't take kindly to having my words misrepresented. What I said was that it has been known for almost 200 years that the relative amounts of heat retained and reflected by the planetary surface are in a large part determined by the composition of the atmosphere.
It is not in debate what you said. Stop squirming. " It is only the possible impacts of this effect which are in dispute and not the effect itself, and neither should it be because this property of the planetary atmosphere has been known for almost 200 years. "
Stop elaborating. You are just making your case weaker.
Indeed it was suggested as early as the 1850s that the burning of fossil fuels could theoretically increase atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to such a point that the planet would warm up as a result. At the time this was treated as a throwaway line, even though it was accepted as a valid statement, because in the mid-nineteenth century nobody could possibly imagine the sheer tonnage of fossil fuels which the next few generations would burn.
Duh. Please cite! And address you maths. 200 years ago is 1815, not 1850. But what you claim is not even known today. The rise from 0.038% - 0.048% the actual change in 100 years does not support any claim amount significant temperature increases. CO2 is a trace amount and a 25% of next to nothing is still next to nothing.
Hobbes' Choice wrote: I fear that factors like de-forestation, the the farting cattle that replace the forests, are not considered nor given the weight they deserve.
Not so. These variables are all factored into climate predictions. However I agree with you that making so many speculative predictions which have subsequently been found to be bogus has done nothing to enhance the credibility of the climate scientists. In my view they're another mob who should just "shut up and calculate" because they damage the entire validity of science in the public mind as much as physics does with its multiple universes and hidden dimensions. Nowadays a significant percentage of otherwise reasonably well-informed people regard science as something which one is free to believe or disbelieve in accordance with one's personal conceptual taste. We even had such a one for a prime minister.
Re: Do Republicans hate American values?
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 1:59 pm
by Hobbes' Choice
Obvious Leo wrote:I've got no idea where I picked that up from, Bob. I've known it since I was in high school and that was half a century ago, but it's a point I've encountered many times since. The chemistry and physics of global warming is very simple indeed and any high school science student would be expected to understand it. However this is not true for climate science more generally, which is a very complex science and would be effectively impossible without the benefit of modern high-speed data crunching. That the planet is warming is beyond question but what the consequences of this will be for the biosphere remains very much an open question. The consensus opinion is that the consequences will be severe over the long term and in all likelihood the climate scientists are underestimating these effects rather than overestimating them.
My information was that Co2 as a possible factor of GW was not know until the early 20thC.
200 years my arse!
It was only by 1850 that Heat Theory was sorted. That heat was no longer thought of as a substance but as energy.
Re: Do Republicans hate American values?
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 7:20 pm
by Obvious Leo
Kindly re-read my statement. I said that the heat entrapment properties of the atmosphere were known as early as the 1850s, even though the precise composition of the atmosphere was only roughly known. I'm not certain whether or not CO2 had been identified as a greenhouse gas at this time but it was suspected that the combustion products of fossil fuels would act in this way and these also include NO, CO, and NO2. In fact methane and water vapour are more effective greenhouse gases than any of the above but they are not significant combustion products. The global warming argument is not just about CO2 but it has been correctly identified as the biggest SINGLE factor merely because of the sheer tonnage of it which is being put into the atmosphere annually and no longer being taken up by photosynthesising plant. The normal outgassing of CO2 from the planet's interior has for at least the past billion years been maintained in a state of equilibrium by the biosphere and this equilibrium state has now been disturbed. That's what the global warming argument is about and we dare not pretend it's not happening because ice core samples clearly show that global temperatures rise as CO2 levels increase and in the past these sporadic natural volcanic outgassings have sometimes taken thousands of years to biologically self-correct.
Re: Do Republicans hate American values?
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 8:56 pm
by Hobbes' Choice
Obvious Leo wrote:Kindly re-read my statement. I said that the heat entrapment properties of the atmosphere were known as early as the 1850s,
If that is all you are saying then what you are saying is not relevant. Aristotle knew about 'atoms", this has no significance for atomic energy.
But whilst we are on the subject- why not cite what it is you think you know, if you think it is significant. Otherwise stop playing games.
even though the precise composition of the atmosphere was only roughly known. I'm not certain whether or not CO2 had been identified as a greenhouse gas at this time but it was suspected that the combustion products of fossil fuels would act in this way and these also include NO, CO, and NO2.
lat time I looked CO2 as a greenhouse gas circe 1910, but such tiny concentrations still stretch physics if you want to believe it is a significant greenhouse gas.
In fact methane and water vapour are more effective greenhouse gases than any of the above but they are not significant combustion products.
Yes they are;
and what the fuck?
The global warming argument is not just about CO2 but it has been correctly identified as the biggest SINGLE factor merely because of the sheer tonnage of it which is being put into the atmosphere annually and no longer being taken up by photosynthesising plant.
Bullshit. As any horticulturalist will tell you, plants grow quicker and stronger with more CO2. You can increase CO2 to a full 1% to improve the growth of your plants. Are you just making shit up as you go along?????
The normal outgassing of CO2 from the planet's interior has for at least the past billion years been maintained in a state of equilibrium by the biosphere and this equilibrium state has now been disturbed.
Crock of shit Equilibrium is for morons. Prehistoric CO2 has been as high as 2%. Equilibrium is a theistic myth. Earth does not give a rat's arse for you idea level of CO2.
That's what the global warming argument is about and we dare not pretend it's not happening because ice core samples clearly show that global temperatures rise as CO2 levels increase and in the past these sporadic natural volcanic outgassings have sometimes taken thousands of years to biologically self-correct.
No. Ice core samples do not say that at all. Ice core sample demonstrate clearly that increased in temperature CAUSE increases in CO2; NOT the other way round.
There is no equilibrium. The planet has been warming for the last 18,000 years.. Before that it had been cooling for tens of thousands of years.
I'm rather shocked that a person of your intelligence can offer such a concept into discussion.
Re: Do Republicans hate American values?
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 9:45 pm
by Obvious Leo
Hobbes. Your ignorance of this subject is breathtaking and your enthusiasm to regard global warming as some sort of conspiracy theory is alarming, to say the least. The earth's atmosphere is part of the earth's biosphere and outweighs the physical biomass by many orders of magnitude, which means that even slight variations in the composition of the atmosphere will have significant biological consequences. However I personally don't give a fuck whether you accept this as true or not.