Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

    Honestly? I think the models are still insufficient to make a good determination. We can barely tell the local populace what the weather will be like 5 days from now with any reliability. How are we going to tell the entire world what the weather is going to be like 200 years from now?

    Should we reduce our pollution? Sure. But I think we've still got a lot to learn before we can start accurately predicting Global Warming or another Ice Age.

    Comment


    • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

      Maybe, but like you said reducing polution should become much more of a priority and it's getting MUCH harder to deny the effect of human doings on climate changes, but I'm sure there will be those who will deny that again.

      Regards,

      Mourning
      2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

      2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

      2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

      Comment


      • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

        Originally posted by Mourning View Post
        Maybe, but like you said reducing polution should become much more of a priority and it's getting MUCH harder to deny the effect of human doings on climate changes, but I'm sure there will be those who will deny that again.

        Regards,

        Mourning
        Actually it's very easy to deny because the science is so lousy. Frex, in the latest report they attribute a future increase in hurricane strength to global warming despite the fact that meteorologists have repeatedly said that ocean temps are a minimal factor (about 10%) in affecting hurricane strength.

        I don't deny that there's global warming and I don't even deny that it's caused - or at least heavily impacted by - Human activity. But the science involved needs to clean itself up or it becomes extremely easy to deny - all you have to do is point at the goofy assumptions some scientists use that somehow finds its way into publication.

        And of course then there's the whole issue of whether global warming's actually a bad thing or not - if you live on a coastline it is, potentially. If you live anywhere else it probably isn't - up to a point (if you take air pollution out of the equation).
        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

        Comment


        • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

          Originally posted by Eindar View Post
          Honestly? I think the models are still insufficient to make a good determination. We can barely tell the local populace what the weather will be like 5 days from now with any reliability. How are we going to tell the entire world what the weather is going to be like 200 years from now?

          Should we reduce our pollution? Sure. But I think we've still got a lot to learn before we can start accurately predicting Global Warming or another Ice Age.
          Actually, it turns out that meteorologists are spectacularly accurate. The reason is: they know how likely they are to be wrong. Study after study has shown that when meteorologists say that there is a 20% chance to rain, over time it rains 20% of the time. Nobody is predicting whether it will rain February 3rd, 2207.

          Comment


          • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

            Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
            Actually, it turns out that meteorologists are spectacularly accurate. The reason is: they know how likely they are to be wrong. Study after study has shown that when meteorologists say that there is a 20% chance to rain, over time it rains 20% of the time. Nobody is predicting whether it will rain February 3rd, 2207.
            I understand what percentages mean. What I'm saying is they look at their model, it says that 5 days from now, it's 80% likely that the weather out West will hit us. And I believe in that number. But what I'm saying is that we're not at the point where we can say anything about the weather 5 days from now with 100% certainty, meaning, our regional models aren't that precise/accurate, how are we supposed to be able to zero in on a worldwide trend? The model becomes exponentially more complicated and harder to predict/analyze on that kind of scale.

            I guess what I'm saying is that those who claim Global Warming is a major problem are claiming that with 100% certainty, yet the simplified version of weather analysis, your local forecast, never, ever, ever claims to 100% know what the weather is going to be like.

            Comment


            • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

              Originally posted by Eindar View Post
              I understand what percentages mean. What I'm saying is they look at their model, it says that 5 days from now, it's 80% likely that the weather out West will hit us. And I believe in that number. But what I'm saying is that we're not at the point where we can say anything about the weather 5 days from now with 100% certainty, meaning, our regional models aren't that precise/accurate, how are we supposed to be able to zero in on a worldwide trend? The model becomes exponentially more complicated and harder to predict/analyze on that kind of scale.

              I guess what I'm saying is that those who claim Global Warming is a major problem are claiming that with 100% certainty, yet the simplified version of weather analysis, your local forecast, never, ever, ever claims to 100% know what the weather is going to be like.
              They haven't. In fact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that were 90% sure that "global warming since 1950 has been driven mainly by the buildup of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, and that more warming and rising sea levels are on the way." The same group said they were 60% sure a decade ago.
              http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/21/news/climate.php

              Comment


              • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                The real deal?
                Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists
                Lawrence Solomon, National Post
                Published: Friday, February 02, 2007


                Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming.

                Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.

                Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.

                Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause.

                Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.

                "In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."

                Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.

                All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.

                "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."

                The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.

                Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."

                The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate.

                In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.

                CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.

                "I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue." His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."

                http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...6fef8763c6&k=0
                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                ------

                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                -John Wooden

                Comment


                • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                  Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                  And of course then there's the whole issue of whether global warming's actually a bad thing or not - if you live on a coastline it is, potentially. If you live anywhere else it probably isn't - up to a point (if you take air pollution out of the equation).
                  Well ... given that by far the majority of my country and an even bigger part of its population lies beneath sea level and that the expected sea level rise is expected to be higher then average elsewhere (around 80-85cm) you might have an idea what some of my thoughts are about some of the bigger nations on planet earth which are polluting it by far the most and seem to care the least (US, PRC, India, Russia) or atleast not as much as they should.

                  I don't care if the percentage of all this due to man made action is a little lower, I care about actually doing something about it. Even though the report isn't flawless or whatever, there's been so many reports and instances before this one. We are trying to do reduce pollution and stricter rules basically apply every year here, which is hard given the territory and location we have, yet so many powerfull countries don't give a *****.

                  Regards,

                  Mourning
                  2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                  2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                  2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                  Comment


                  • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                    Originally posted by Bball View Post
                    The real deal?
                    Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists
                    Lawrence Solomon, National Post
                    Published: Friday, February 02, 2007


                    Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming.

                    Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.

                    Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.

                    Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause.

                    Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.

                    "In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."

                    Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.

                    All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.

                    "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."

                    The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.

                    Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."

                    The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate.

                    In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.

                    CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.

                    "I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue." His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."

                    http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...6fef8763c6&k=0
                    That's what I mean, nothing going wrong, proceed as usual, please.

                    Oh, btw I'm sure the Oil industry is going to be really helpfull in aiding the efforts of getting things such as cars that don't run on oil. I'm sure they won't be using lobby groups to try to work against that.

                    Regards,

                    Mourning
                    2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                    2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                    2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                    Comment


                    • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                      Why do a few WAY out of the mainstream scientists get as much weight as BY FAR the majority of scientists in the field? There will and should always be scientists who disagree with majority. That is how everyone is kept honest. But you don't make policy decisions based on a tiny number of dissenters.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                        The fact of the matter is the media has made up their mind on this issue, so any scientific evidence to support the media's belief is trumpeted, while any dissenting scientific evidence to the contrary is reported as a couple of loons.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                          Originally posted by Mourning View Post
                          Well ... given that by far the majority of my country and an even bigger part of its population lies beneath sea level and that the expected sea level rise is expected to be higher then average elsewhere (around 80-85cm) you might have an idea what some of my thoughts are about some of the bigger nations on planet earth which are polluting it by far the most and seem to care the least (US, PRC, India, Russia) or atleast not as much as they should.

                          I don't care if the percentage of all this due to man made action is a little lower, I care about actually doing something about it. Even though the report isn't flawless or whatever, there's been so many reports and instances before this one. We are trying to do reduce pollution and stricter rules basically apply every year here, which is hard given the territory and location we have, yet so many powerfull countries don't give a *****.

                          Regards,

                          Mourning
                          Actually, your country's in better shape than almost anyone - you already know how to deal with the situation and you can build the seawalls a bit higher. The US East coastline though ...

                          Since I happen to not put a lot of stock in the global warming "scientists" and what they have to say, this doesn't concern me.

                          But if I did, I wouldn't buy any ground that's below 50' above sea level. Why? Because rising greenhouse gas levels is an unfixable problem. For all the "turn off your lights when you leave the room buy a hybrid unplug your chargers when the light turns green buy new light bulbs" advice that's out there, it doesn't change the baseline facts.

                          Those facts are that the industrial world is based on coal-fired power. Converting can be done - except nobody has the money to shut those down and/or to convert to clean energy - and nobody has the political will anyway. Agriculture is intensive and extremely counter to the natural processes of the Earth - and pretty much nothing can be done about that either.

                          These minor adjustments are all nice but even with them greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise for at least the next half-century. Heck, if you believe the "scientists" we could shut off every emitter and they'd rise anyway because of a positive feedback loop.

                          Fix it? Kill half the population of the world so you can instantly transform society to become less industrial and utilize less intensive agriculture. But since I don't believe the "scientists" have much of a clue anyway, I'm a long way from buying into the apocalypse.

                          I really shouldn't post on these threads - my soapbox is so big it doesn't even fit into the room.
                          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                          Comment


                          • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                            I didn't read all this thread and don't intend to. This is an issue that divides between what someone believes and whoever disagrees is an idiot. I've long been a sceptic of global warming, but I'm less convinced now.

                            For those of you who are mathmatically inclined, do as I just did and calculate the size of the glacier that has to melt for the level of the oceans to rise even one stinking inch. No, a handheld calculator won't do. Perhaps you will be as surprised as I at how humongous a thing that is. Think in hundreds of miles and you get the idea. Of course this doesn't take into consideration that there are places on earth where ice is getting bigger.

                            One thing I do know. Things happen very slowly on planet earth. Nobody's going to be under water in our lifetimes. That said, it does appear to be happening relatively quickly.
                            Don't thank me, I'll kill ya.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                              Moving a little quickly with that delete axe I see....

                              I don't recall anything that myself or 3Ball said that was over the line. Surely 3Ball didn't take offense... I know I didn't...

                              -Bball
                              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                              ------

                              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                              -John Wooden

                              Comment


                              • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                                As a Geology minor 25 years ago I was taught that there was going to be a cataclysmic earthquake along the coast of California within 50 years. 100% certainty...where's the hue and cry over the possibility of millions dying and billions of $ being wasted? Where's the event???

                                It's all fuzzy science. As I tell my school teacher wife, anytime somebody writes a PhD thesis somebody else gloms onto it as the "New Math" or the next greatest way to assure everybodies kid will be a genius. It is tabloid science coupled with tabloid journalism. Remember the scientists that assured us the way to lower pollution was to put catalytic converters on cars and convert CO2 emissions to SO2. Only problem is SO2 in the presence of water (H2O) converts to Sulfuric acid....also known as Acid Rain.
                                Geologic events take 10's of thousands of years to develop (except the cataclysmic events) and within these time periods variations occur.
                                1950 to 2007, 57 years to develop an atmospheric model???? Yeah right. OK, 1900 to 2007....107 years...big whoopie.
                                Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X