Global Warming SOLAR-made not MAN-made

[Dichotomy]

Look at the monkey  

Simba say 'give peace a chance'

[lazs2]

moot...  good luck on pinning one of the acolades down.

We can look at this on a strictly odds way...  we can play the odds.   the global climate scientists have been right a grand total of 0% of the time in their long range predictions and they predict massive climate change that will be caused by man..

The Farmers almanac has been right over 80% of the time in their long range weather predictions and they don't predict any real disasters.

lazs

[JB88]

Originally posted by lazs2
moot...  good luck on pinning one of the acolades down.

We can look at this on a strictly odds way...  we can play the odds.   the global climate scientists have been right a grand total of 0% of the time in their long range predictions and they predict massive climate change that will be caused by man..

The Farmers almanac has been right over 80% of the time in their long range weather predictions and they don't predict any real disasters.

lazs

well, considering that global climate change (in terms of global warming) is a relatively new science, and taking into further consideration that some of the recent anomolies in global weather patterns and increased activity in violent meteoroligical activity have actually brought the possibility of global warming to the forefront and has swayed general opinion in favor of the possibility that it exists...i would say that you are wrong about the 0% accuraccy rate.  the data only spans a short period of time and will take much longer to prove or disprove based on this data.  thats a pretty bold statement, i would like to see you back that up, or convince me that they have been 0% accurate for any other reasons than a lack of longterm data.



as for the farmers almanac.

i found this particularly interesting.  its a little snippet from their website.

    



Best Days         
   
Here are a few of the most popular best days as published in the Farmers' Almanac. Each activity is followed by the best day of the current month.

It's widely believed by many long-time Almanac followers that when the Moon occupies a particular place in the Zodiac each day at 7:00 a.m. EST, it can play an important role in achieving the best possible results for certain activities.

As a service to our Web visitors, we share some of these best days each month. You can find more activities and get 12 months worth in the 2006 Farmers' Almanac sold in many stores throughout the US. Or, you can order a copy from our online store


--March 2007

• Bake 19, 20, 25-27
• Can Fruits and Vegetables 8, 9, 17
• Dry Fruits and Vegetables 10
• Cut Firewood 1, 2, 18-31
• Cut Hair to Increase Growth 18, 21, 22, 25-27
• Cut Hair to Retard Growth 6, 7, 10-12, 15, 16
• Mow to Increase Growth 1, 2, 18-31
• Mow to Retard Growth 3-17
• Castrate Farm Animals 10-18
• Harvest 11-17
• Prune Trees 8, 9, 13, 14
• Wean 10-18
• Hunt 18-24
• Fish Mornings: 25, 26, 27 Evenings: No Best Days
• Quit a Habit or Smoking 3-5, 10-12, 15, 16
   


i suppose you think that the zodiac is a good indicator for global warming as well?  

should i be suggesting that you connect with your high priest astrologer when considering your positions on these matters?



as for the article that started this thread, the author took great pains to suggest that there were alternate theories as to why mars is undergoing climate change and provides a plausible explaination which involves the lack of a moon and shifts in its axis...you read that right?  or did you just jump on the bandwagon and take a contrary position because the very thought of you having to sacrifice your outmoded concepts for new ideas a bit too hard to swallow?

is it not possible that there are other ways to create warming in an amosphere?

the issue is larger than just global warming btw.  its about limited resources and the management of those resources in a way which will reduce the potential for danger, both now and in the future.

as for your question moot.  

what am i doing about it?  right now i am reading both sides.  right now i am trying to convince others that environmentalism is deeper than just an issue of global warming.  its about CONSERVATION.  

i have never been able to understand how anyone who considers themselves a conservative could be so quick to spend the limited material that this earth has given us for things that mean so very little to so few.

its not the most being done around here, but it certainly ain't the least and it ain't half empty.

[moot]

JB88,

You (we) know definitely neither that we're the cause, nor that we're not the cause.
We don't know how it works, (and therefore) nor how to fix it.

Do we need to know what the problem is, and/or what the solution is, to apply common sense like not wasting, and keeping things in good shape?
I don't think so.  In fact the two are the same methods but different issues.

The least you waste, the more "buying" power you have left.. everyone knows that.

By analogy, would you know, if a neuroscientist BS'ed you, that you'd just been made to agree to something that's BS?
Would anything else than (with a regular brain and regular resources) as much or more than the amount of time and work spent by the existing specialists guarantee certainty about the whole matter?

If you want to know the truth, you'll have to find it yourself, (i.e. not just repeating anyone else's reports), and correct me if I'm wrong, you have a lot of work to do.. this isn't arts and crafts... it's on the same order as worldwide geopolitics.

It makes good conversation, but who here is qualified authority?
It's like (just poking at you laser.. sort of) lasersailor saying architectural this or that is true or false, because he read transcripts off a world renowned architectural egghead.

We can just talk, and it's going to stay talk, unless we admit we're ready to take action without anything more than speculation to back it up.

So like I was asking you - what are you going to do about it?
It's not being brash or proving you wrong or uninformed or foolish, it's really the only thing I'm interested in: constructive action.

[JB88]

Originally posted by moot
JB88,

You (we) know definitely neither that we're the cause, nor that we're not the cause.
We don't know how it works, (and therefore) nor how to fix it.

Do we need to know what the problem is, and/or what the solution is, to apply common sense like not wasting, and keeping things in good shape?
I don't think so.  In fact the two are the same methods but different issues.

By analogy, would you know, if a neuroscientist BS'ed you, that you'd just been made to agree to something that's BS?
Would anything else than (with a regular brain and regular resources) as much or more than the amount of time and work spent by the existing specialists guarantee certainty about the whole matter?

If you want to know the truth, you'll have to find it yourself, (i.e. not just repeating anyone else's reports), and correct me if I'm wrong, you have a lot of work to do.. this isn't arts and crafts... it's on the same order as worldwide geopolitics.

It makes good conversation, but who here is qualified authority?

i am all for common sense moot.  

i am also all for letting the proponents of global warming speak and be heard because they have been trying to get thier message out for a long time and it is only now becoming evident that there may be something to it.

i am also for the creation of opposing theories, but i think that it is foolhardy to dismiss the work of all of the original few scientists who have fought hard to bring it to the forefront because one scientist comes up with a pretty thin theory, or because one of the messengers is politically unpopular with a segment of the population who also happens to side more often with creationists than i am generally comfortable with.

gore is doing something about it.  i respect that.  i dont see his stance on global warming as a political issue.  i see it as a conservation issue.  one that teddy roosevelt might be better at delivering, but deliver it he would.  i truly believe that.

conversation is the precursor to action...

so yes.  i think it matters.  even here.

[moot]

I'm only saying it is not feasible to reach a real conclusion without, you know.. actually doing the research first-hand

So far, there is no doctor for us to reliably take a diagnosis from, so I'm just not going to make a hypochondriac out of myself about it.
I could start the proverbial med school studies to make my own diagnosis, but it's just not feasible.

There's too much politics involved to trust anyone enough; just like the oil market, and its direct relations and dependent sectors, are "rigged".

[Dadano]

Originally posted by moot
Well come on, speak your mind.. Global warming's no laughing matter is it?

Sure thing...no laughing matter.

They say,

"The earth is warming...we know this,

 why the earth is warming is in debate."

My question is, why not clean our act up and maybe save some coastline/glaciers/crops/species while we're at it?

What do we have to lose?

Enlighten me...

[JB88]

Originally posted by moot
I'm only saying it is not feasible to reach a real conclusion without, you know.. actually doing the research first-hand
 

i am not an environmental scientist.  i am an artist.

people seem to find value in my doing it without having to be doing it themselves.  you should be grateful for that.  trust me.

[moot]

JB88.. why do you try to make this into something it's not?  Or rather, try to deduce something from what I've said, which I don't think?
I'm only saying we can talk all we want, but we will have no effect.   I'm not saying you or anyone should not feel it worthwhile to take the opportunity to learn more rather than less.
I'm agnostic, as it were.  All I care for is concrete results, and I see none on this matter.

Dadano - have we met?  "Enlighten" yourself.

[JB88]

Originally posted by moot
JB88.. why do you try to make this into something it's not?  Or rather, try to deduce something from what I've said, which I don't think?
I'm only saying we can talk all we want, but we will have no effect.   I'm not saying you or anyone should not feel it worthwhile to take the opportunity to learn more rather than less.
I'm agnostic, as it were.  All I care for is concrete results, and I see none on this matter.
 

and i disagree.  

now that we have that settled.  you can have the bunny.

[moot]

Well hold that thought, and let me know the next time the subject comes up, why there is something concrete to gain from discussing the matter here.

[Dadano]

Originally posted by moot
JB88.. why do you try to make this into something it's not?  Or rather, try to deduce something from what I've said, which I don't think?
I'm only saying we can talk all we want, but we will have no effect.   I'm not saying you or anyone should not feel it worthwhile to take the opportunity to learn more rather than less.
I'm agnostic, as it were.  All I care for is concrete results, and I see none on this matter.

Dadano - have we met?  "Enlighten" yourself.

Now now...I was simply seeking a thoughtful argument, not philosophical guidance:aok

BTW...nice to meet ya MOOT

[Angus]

Solar activity is measured into the Earth equation. The effects are rather small.
On Mars, mostly deprived of atmosphere (and thereby greenhouse gases), Solar activity will weight a lot more.
And guess what. Since colonizing Mars is a pet speculation project, the main trick is actually to apply greenhouse gases in enough quantity to heat the atmosphere up to acceptable temperatures.

[storch]

Originally posted by JB88
thesis regarding the use of the farmer's almanac and it's referrance to the zodiac

  probably not too different from the "scientific method" applied to the all of the natural sciences beginning with darwinism and this offshoot.  I'd bet we can obtain similar results by blindfolding you and giving you some darts and a dartboard labelled warming trend, cooling trend, ice age and polar ice caps meltdown.

[Saintaw]

Originally posted by JB88
just out of curiousity...

who here has actually watched "an inconvenient truth"?

While sitting comfortably on what is here called the 'alarmistlibrulz' side, I saw it and wasn't impressed... most of the screen time is more an advertising for the author than the subject itself.