Troy Posted December 19, 2015 Report Share Posted December 19, 2015 I was sitting in an auto body repair shop yesterday, and noticed a few issues of National Geographic and read through an article on climate change. The article was brilliantly done, completely engaging with graphs, images, diagrams--so very informative, and completely accessible. National Geographic really explained a lot of the issues dealing with global warming and the resulting impact on the planet, issues that get muddled by the mainstream media. After reading the article I decided to subscribe, especially after looking at two other issues of the magazine that were just as brilliantly done. I also decided to try to ignore what politicians and mainstream media, have to say about this issue. They really make things unnecessarily confusing. One reason is that the media give WAY much attention to man made climate change deniers; which gives folks the false impression that the issue is up for debate, or a matter of opinion. Learn more at http://www.nationalgeographic.com/climate-change/special-issue/ NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE NOVEMBER 2015 (online at ngm.com, and on print newsstands Oct. 27, 2015) Cool it: The Climate Issue is a special, single-topic issue on the subject of climate change. The science is clear: Our planet is warming. Weather patterns are shifting. Ice caps are melting and sea levels are rising. And it affects all of us. Now more than ever, everyone needs to understand this critical subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynique Posted December 19, 2015 Report Share Posted December 19, 2015 Hummm that's interesting. Especially since the scientific community has been apprehensive about the future direction of this iconic magazine which was recently purchased by Fox media mogul Rupert Murdoch who, incidentally, has been referred to as "anti-climate". 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shirley Gale Posted December 19, 2015 Report Share Posted December 19, 2015 I absolutely love National Geographic Magazine. Troy, I am going to resubscribe as well. It is absolutely informative. I used to subscribe to it for my students. We know that climate change is real. Our planet and everything on it is impacted as a result of it. Why this phenomenon is being denied by so many is simply beyond me. Climate Warming is denied as readily as the coming of Christ. Sorry, I don't mean to bring religion into the discussion. This is my belief. Cynique, here is something else that I was not aware of. This is quite interesting--how ironic is this?!!! How is that folks who know the truth, often hide behind their lies, only to have their truths revealed in their actions? This is just hilarious to me. I would love to hear Rupert Murdoch's position on this one. You know with climate change, we can see the evidence with our own two eyes. This brings me to this: "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" I love it! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Posted December 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 19, 2015 The scientific community should be concerned. One person should not control all of the media we have access to--unless of course that person is me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shirley Gale Posted December 20, 2015 Report Share Posted December 20, 2015 Okay, Dude, you've got my vote on that. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delano Posted December 22, 2015 Report Share Posted December 22, 2015 I did a statistical analysis from about 1700 to 1980. I looked at yearly data. And there's a stronger link between population and CO2 than production and CO2. You will never see a regression model linking CO2 and production because it doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Posted December 22, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 22, 2015 I bet if you continued the analysis to include the most recent 30 years the trend would continue, more likely accelerate. Del I don't have the magazine in front of me, and I don't have time to check the website right now, but I would have bet money the article included a regression model, and almost certainly projected the impact out to at least 2050 (could be wrong). I would not be surprised to see a positive correlation between population and C02 emissions. Though I don't the mere presence of more humans is causing the problem, it is their activity that is problematic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delano Posted December 26, 2015 Report Share Posted December 26, 2015 Okay but my podition is from looking at the data. You will never see a regression model. Because the data diesnt tell a story that will motivate people to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delano Posted December 26, 2015 Report Share Posted December 26, 2015 Okay but my position is from looking at the data. You will never see a regression model. Because the data doesn't tell a story that will motivate people to change. What I find interesting is that neither scientist diacyaa the link. Climate is also different than weather. How much do you want to bet? I conducted a statiatical analysis of the data because I wanted to make up my own mind. So I had to look at the factors that effect weather. I stopped discussing it because most people are debating it from an uninformed emotional position. And they are adamant either for or against. Even the scientists are making unscientific arguments on both sides. Ponder or figure it out: The Sun's activities effects weather on earth; Why did they change the name from Global Warming to climate change. I am not trying to convince anyone. Just encouraging some research or fact finding then thinking or questioning. I happen to have time to do so others may be time poor. It takes up to much time to become informed because it cuts into Entertainment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delano Posted December 26, 2015 Report Share Posted December 26, 2015 You may find a future predictive model, but not a historical descriptive model that links production to temperature. Which subtly is infirmative. I just took ten minutes. And I couldn't find one. Take the challenge. Don't believe me don't believe the scientist the sceptics. Just take ten minutes and search for a climate change regression model. If you do find it post the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delano Posted December 26, 2015 Report Share Posted December 26, 2015 This is what "scientist" say according to the Great Wiki. The models do not assume the climate will warm due to increasing levels of greenhouse gases. Instead the models predict how greenhouse gases will interact with radiative transfer and other physical processes. Warming or cooling is thus a result, not an assumption, of the models.[127] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delano Posted December 27, 2015 Report Share Posted December 27, 2015 On 22/12/2015 at 0:25 AM, Troy said: I bet if you continued the analysis to include the most recent 30 years the trend would continue, more likely accelerate. I would not be surprised to see a positive correlation between population and C02 emissions. Though I don't the mere presence of more humans is causing the problem, it is their activity that is problematic. No its not. You would think there would be an increase at the beginning of the Industrial revolution. But there isn't. You would think you'd sew a appeared me in WW I or WW II. You think you would sww a spike with increase production but you don't. There are some nice graphs but no science. However I did skim it So I'd you cam across some interesting numbers. Or even a scientific sounding argument please post it. And cows. I could post the analysis or raw data. In the absence of science most have swcuses one way or the other Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Posted December 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 27, 2015 Hey Del I guess you ave to actually read the National Geographic article. Also I would be very careful about using Wikipedia as a source of anything. It might be a good starting point, The best approach would be to access the actual source documents directly and see what they actually say. I not in a position to debate the subject as it boils down to whose information one believes. The National Geographic information was very compelling. If you want to say they are lying or otherwise factually in accurate, I can't debate you on that as I have neither the data or the intellect to do so I do however trust the scientists, journalists and reporters at National Geographic over anything in Wikipedia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delano Posted December 27, 2015 Report Share Posted December 27, 2015 I came to the project without an opinion . In the help with intervening years I have not persuaded anyone to Dig a bit deeper. Or to examine their position . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now