|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
....It Doesn't Matter if Global Warming is a Fact or Not!
Why? Quite simple really. Since Katrina and the 2005 hurricane season the world now...believes...global warming is a fact. As a result our biosphere will become managed, probably by regulating Co2 content. This means the predicted futures by either side of the debate will ....NO LONGER HAPPEN. And we'll never know which side was correct. Who cares? The new belief in global warming has altered our future. It has rendered all the predictions moot. Whether by anecdotes, facts or flat our distortions, the new belief in global warming is the 'fact' that counts. Here's the thing most people can't and won't accept. The future cannot be predicted very well at all. Like the weather we can have some short-lived predictability. But the long term is beyond our objective scientific methods. For the simple reason that life and intelligence will conspire to build their own future based not on the facts on the ground (inputs), but on things such as our needs, desires and beliefs. Wrong or right such things shape our reality and future while defying rational methods of prediction. All the time this debate has been political, not scientific. In politics the facts are not as important as opinions and what matters is who wins, not who was correct. In the battle for public opinion global warming has won hands down. And since this means a managed biosphere where no catastrophe happens, the world is better for it. It no longer matters if global warming is a fact or not. Never did. Facts are for understanding the past. Opinions are for shaping the future. It's always the future the matters the most. Jonathan s |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
....It Doesn't Matter if Global Warming is a Fact or Not!
On Dec 5, 6:14 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
As a result our biosphere will become managed, probably by regulating Co2 content. This is by no means certain. Right now, there are some very powerful special interests against it: fossil fuel, automobile, and electric power interests to name a just a few. [ . . . ] The future cannot be predicted very well at all. Yet, you offer your own predictions! LOL! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
....It Doesn't Matter if Global Warming is a Fact or Not!
On Dec 5, 9:36 pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Dec 5, 6:14 pm, "Jonathan" wrote: As a result our biosphere will become managed, probably by regulating Co2 content. This is by no means certain. You finally got something correct, co2puke. The lunatic fringe ain't got the juice. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
....It Doesn't Matter if Global Warming is a Fact or Not!
On Dec 5, 6:14 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
It no longer matters if global warming is a fact or not. Never did. Facts are for understanding the past. Opinions are for shaping the future. It's always the future the matters the most. Jonathan But if the future is based so entirely upon past disinformation, lies and/or the cultivated exclusion of evidence that might rock our fleet of mainstream status quo boats, then what has that future got to behold but other than new and improved lies? Shouldn't there ever be a truthful history or basis for anything? - Brad Guth |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
....It Doesn't Matter if Global Warming is a Fact or Not!
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message ... On Dec 5, 6:14 pm, "Jonathan" wrote: As a result our biosphere will become managed, probably by regulating Co2 content. This is by no means certain. Right now, there are some very powerful special interests against it: fossil fuel, automobile, and electric power interests to name a just a few. I think the last straw for even these powerful hold outs will come during the Beijing Olympics next August. When the world gets to see first hand what it's like to live in the most polluted city in the world. Pollution caused mostly by burning coal. Which the third world is burning more all the time. If developing another clean replacement for fossil fuels is neglected even the west may resort to using more and more coal as oil continues to climb in price. [ . . . ] The future cannot be predicted very well at all. Yet, you offer your own predictions! LOL! Your point is well-taken about my predicting the future. But I believe I've done nothing more than take an existing pattern of human behavior and make a short term extrapolation into the future. Which is a bit like predicting the weather, some predictability can be found, but only so much. It's not much of a prediction to say the biosphere will be managed when the wheels are already in motion. In my state of Florida all kinds of initiatives are moving ahead such as a plan to use ocean currents to power up to half the energy needs of the state. And so on. It's been a constant drumbeat for over a year now. s |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
....It Doesn't Matter if Global Warming is a Fact or Not!
"Bawana" wrote in message ... On Dec 5, 9:36 pm, Roger Coppock wrote: On Dec 5, 6:14 pm, "Jonathan" wrote: As a result our biosphere will become managed, probably by regulating Co2 content. This is by no means certain. You finally got something correct, co2puke. The lunatic fringe ain't got the juice. The lunatic fringe is now those that deny global warming exists. Wake up and smell the political reality of ...today. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
....It Doesn't Matter if Global Warming is a Fact or Not!
"BradGuth" wrote in message ... On Dec 5, 6:14 pm, "Jonathan" wrote: It no longer matters if global warming is a fact or not. Never did. Facts are for understanding the past. Opinions are for shaping the future. It's always the future the matters the most. Jonathan But if the future is based so entirely upon past disinformation, lies and/or the cultivated exclusion of evidence that might rock our fleet of mainstream status quo boats, then what has that future got to behold but other than new and improved lies? Misinformation and lies? That's one way of putting it I suppose. But this debate is trying to predict the long term future of the most complicated and unpredictable system that nature has to offer....the biosphere. Which involves not just geology and meterology, but life processes and even politics considering human effects on the environment. This is, and was, a debate that cannot be won by scientific methods...facts. It's just too complex. From my perspective of complexity science, I would say the system being studied has near infinite uncertainty. No amount of facts is going to change that, or bring certainty where there's none to be found. Think of it this way. The Mona Lisa. What makes it art? It's the total system uncertainty displayed by painting the primary emotional features so that they express ....neither...endpoint in expression. The corners of the eyes and mouth are left hazy, so no one can tell if the turn up or down. Her hair flowing and soft on one side, harsh and angular on the other. And so on, and so on it goes. Uncertainty elegantly displayed in every major system 'variable'. This leaves it to the....observer...to decide her emotions. Is she devious, sexy, or what? As it is very deliberately NOT defined by the 'facts' or painting. So it is with global warming, the uncertainty in predicting the near infinite variables of the biosphere is overwhelming. So that only the ...observer...can define the future, as it cannot define its future for us. Shouldn't there ever be a truthful history or basis for anything? NO! And I keep trying to get this point across about nature. Evolution is the result of a system that displays the total uncertainty as I've tried to describe in the Mona Lisa. When all the primary system variables are complex at the same time, complex meaning uncertain or unpredictable. Then, and only then, does the system evolve. Creation, and nature itself, is driven by the level of complexity of the system. If we can precisely define something, it's not life. If it cannot objectively be defined, it tends to self organize and evolve. You have to get that relationship to understand why using objective methods to understand nature is futile. Which means any naturally evolving system cannot be defined objectively..by the facts. In the ...real world.. there is no such thing as objective reality. Only on the blackboard. Nature moves too fast and behaves too critically to be precisely defined. As for the long term prediction of the most complex system on earth, that truth holds with ....absolute certainty. The only truth in the universe is that there is no truth. Everything evolves, even the universal constants. But since objective methods define the exact opposite way in which we should define nature. Inversing classical methods, rigorously, should allow another way. Which is what complexity science is doing. Using...subjective...methods based on the outputs, not inputs. Based on effects, not cause. And so on. Complexity science has figured out how to mathematically define ....uncertainty. Or complexity. And voila! Nature becomes knowable... for the first time. As does the future. That we should stop trying to predict the future, and instead start /creating/ the one we desire. That's the only way to bring predictability to the future. And that's what the debate is really about. Should we plan/control our future biosphere or not? Or just hope for the best? The world just answered that question, we should take control of our own destiny and create the future we need. Self Organizing System Faqs http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm Dynamics of Complex Systems http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/index.html s - Brad Guth |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
....It Doesn't Matter if Global Warming is a Fact or Not!
On Dec 6, 4:52 am, "Jonathan" wrote:
"Bawana" wrote in message ... On Dec 5, 9:36 pm, Roger Coppock wrote: On Dec 5, 6:14 pm, "Jonathan" wrote: As a result our biosphere will become managed, probably by regulating Co2 content. This is by no means certain. You finally got something correct, co2puke. The lunatic fringe ain't got the juice. The lunatic fringe is [left-tards with brain cancer and other mental maladies.] That's better, you ****ing left-turd-loon. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
....It Doesn't Matter if Global Warming is a Fact or Not!
"Jonathan" wrote in message ... Why? Quite simple really. Since Katrina and the 2005 hurricane season the world now...believes...global warming is a fact. As a result our biosphere will become managed, probably by regulating Co2 content. This means the predicted futures by either side of the debate will ....NO LONGER HAPPEN. And we'll never know which side was correct. I'm afraid that's simply not the case. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
....It Doesn't Matter if Global Warming is a Fact or Not!
On Dec 6, 2:29 am, "Jonathan" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message ... On Dec 5, 6:14 pm, "Jonathan" wrote: It no longer matters if global warming is a fact or not. Never did. Facts are for understanding the past. Opinions are for shaping the future. It's always the future the matters the most. Jonathan But if the future is based so entirely upon past disinformation, lies and/or the cultivated exclusion of evidence that might rock our fleet of mainstream status quo boats, then what has that future got to behold but other than new and improved lies? Misinformation and lies? That's one way of putting it I suppose. But this debate is trying to predict the long term future of the most complicated and unpredictable system that nature has to offer....the biosphere. Which involves not just geology and meterology, but life processes and even politics considering human effects on the environment. This is, and was, a debate that cannot be won by scientific methods...facts. It's just too complex. From my perspective of complexity science, I would say the system being studied has near infinite uncertainty. No amount of facts is going to change that, or bring certainty where there's none to be found. Nothing is too complicated for honestly replicated scientific facts. Those laws of physics are simply not as faith-based skewed or as nearly hocus-pocus as you claim, and sufficient supercomputers do exist that can put it all together in one do-everything interactive format. But then why have you folks continually excluded the horrific gravity/ tidal force of our moon, or even that of its IR albedo? Don't bother giving me any of that crapolla that it has always been with Earth, because there is no such replicated science that's objective enough to support that notion for other than having been with us since the last ice-age. Humanity may be at least 10% responsible for AGW, but it's highly unlikely that we're worth 25% or much less entirely because, there's simply too much global energy involved, of which our nearby and unusually massive moon is simply a very big part of our global environment that's still in the process of going AWG postal ever since the very last ice-age this world is ever going to see, or at least as long as Earth holds so tightly onto that physically dark and so unusually massive moon of ours. - Brad Guth |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What about global warming? | [email protected] | Misc | 0 | June 12th 07 06:05 PM |
dinosaur extinction/global cooling &human extinction/global warming | 281979 | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 17th 06 01:05 PM |
Solar warming v. Global warming | Roger Steer | Amateur Astronomy | 11 | October 20th 05 01:23 AM |
Global warming v. Solar warming | Roger Steer | UK Astronomy | 1 | October 18th 05 10:58 AM |