U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 08-10-2010, 11:48 AM
 
108 posts, read 87,423 times
Reputation: 32

Advertisements

Emotional? Me? Hardly

The Senate adjourned last week without passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill. Yes, the worst environmental accident in U.S. history was still unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico, attesting to our need to curb our nation’s oil addiction. And yes, this summer senators sweltered through record-breaking heat, which climate scientists warn will become the norm if we don’t deeply reduce global warming emissions. None of that seemed to matter, and I am far from alone in feeling that the Senate’s inaction is infuriating and inexcusable.

From the Hill August 10th 2010

 
Old 08-10-2010, 12:39 PM
 
13,074 posts, read 6,891,740 times
Reputation: 2586
Quote:
Originally Posted by shelby93 View Post
Emotional? Me? Hardly

The Senate adjourned last week without passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill. Yes, the worst environmental accident in U.S. history was still unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico, attesting to our need to curb our nation’s oil addiction. And yes, this summer senators sweltered through record-breaking heat, which climate scientists warn will become the norm if we don’t deeply reduce global warming emissions. None of that seemed to matter, and I am far from alone in feeling that the Senate’s inaction is infuriating and inexcusable.

From the Hill August 10th 2010
I thought you were gone? If you wish to respond, go back to the points of our discussion that is quantifiable. I have no interest in discussing your opinion, or that of anyone's opinion as it concerns the politics. Answer to the science of the issue, then... maybe... we can discuss the issues of politics and the position of societal need.

I am not your agenda puppet. You have not earned the position to skip the science and jump to the conclusion of politics. Attend to the science, or move on... like you said.

Last edited by Nomander; 08-10-2010 at 01:42 PM..
 
Old 08-10-2010, 04:12 PM
 
108 posts, read 87,423 times
Reputation: 32
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics...rints_1024.jpg

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries
 
Old 08-10-2010, 04:49 PM
 
13,074 posts, read 6,891,740 times
Reputation: 2586
Pretty pictures and administrative brochures don't help much. Here we go again, you asking me to take their word for it. They link to no research, they are "summaries" with no references to which they claim validates them.

It says "according to scientists", well which ones? What research are we talking about? Seriously, they don't even mention names.

Again, please go back and provide me something with actual citations.

Do you even understand what proper citation is?

Let me explain.

You make a claim with your pretty picture and NOAA summary. I have no way to even verify their claims. I don't know what data they used, what research they relied on, who did the research, the sources to which they obtained the data or even an explanation of the methodology they used to come to their conclusion.

Understand now? Or can I post pretty pictures and make unsupported claims as a rebuttal?

Also, none of that even deals with my previous points? Do you really not know what we are discussing? Because based on your responses, it appears you really have no idea what we are talking about. You are all over the place.

Sea Ice... Arctic, Antartic. Respond to the data.

After that, we can move on to something else. Ok?
 
Old 08-10-2010, 05:43 PM
 
13,074 posts, read 6,891,740 times
Reputation: 2586
Here is what I am looking for when you discuss this:

I admit, I can be guilty of such at times (especially number 6), but I make an effort to try and accomplish these. This is a nice little list of guides to discussing science issues such as these that I picked up and I must say it really hits the nail on the head for proper discussion of this topic.

Quote:

1. Numbers trump assertions. If you don’t provide numbers, you won’t get much traction.


2. Ad hominems are meaningless. Saying that some scientist is funded by big oil, or is a member of Greenpeace, or is a geologist rather than an atmospheric physicist, is meaningless. What is important is whether what they say is true or not. Focus on the claims and their veracity, not on the sources of the claims. Sources mean nothing.


3. Appeals to authority are equally meaningless. Who cares what the 12-member Board of the National Academy of Sciences says? Science isn’t run by a vote … thank goodness.


4. Make your cites specific. “The IPCC says …” is useless. “Chapter 7 of the IPCC AR4 says …” is useless. Cite us chapter and verse, specify page and paragraph. I don’t want to have to dig through an entire paper or an IPCC chapter to guess at which one line you are talking about.


5. QUOTE WHAT YOU DISAGREE WITH!!! I can’t stress this enough. Far too often, people attack something that another person hasn’t said. Quote their words, the exact words you think are mistaken, so we can all see if you have understood what they are saying.


6. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS!!! Repeat after me. No personal attacks. No “only a fool would believe …”. No “Are you crazy?”. No speculation about a person’s motives. No “deniers”, no “warmists”, no “econazis”, none of the above. Play nice.
 
Old 08-10-2010, 05:50 PM
 
7 posts, read 16,525 times
Reputation: 11
I call bs on Nomander's rhetoric.

1. What evidence would convince you that global warming does indeed exist?
2. If you believe climate models are wrong, which model is the least wrong?
3. If all climate models are wrong, wouldn't that be an argument for taking precautions until there is more certainty?
4. A peer reviewed survey of scientists found that 97% of climatologists said that AGW exists and that is caused by humans. 97% of Climatologists believe human activity is a significant factor in changing global mean temperature.
http://www.imaginaryplanet.net/weblo...n-temperature/
If that is the case, why should a person listen to a viewpoint by a minority of people in the field? If 97% of cancer doctors said you had breast cancer, but your neighbor down the street said he talked to a doctor who told him it didn't, would that will be a rational basis for rejecting treatment?

Finally, you are not only talking about risk to YOU, but RISKS to me as well. Sure, you may not believe that AGW is true, yet you are insisting on the right to expose all of us to risk on the basis of your minority position. Please explain why you have this right to continue imposing this risk on all of us! Maybe I could hold a gun at your head and say, "No, this bullet will not injure you one bit!" My stubborn belief that firing the gun will not damage your brain will not give me the right to do it.. or make it right.

6. Finally proportionality. (See this vid
YouTube - ‪The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See‬‎ ).
 
Old 08-10-2010, 06:05 PM
 
7 posts, read 16,525 times
Reputation: 11
One final point. Nomander keeps asking for proof. That is disingenuous. Evidence is everywhere. Take a look here.

A summary of the arguments are here:
An introduction to global warming impacts: Hell and High Water « Climate Progress

The counterarguments are here and rebutted
Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

This "where is the evidence" is simply an argument from ignorance. "I do not know the answer. Therefore, it is your obligation to show me what the answer is." Whether you can be persuaded is irrelevant. The key question is what is the best method to avoid risk. You have not presented a credible way of dealing with the possibility/probability of risk.
 
Old 08-10-2010, 07:18 PM
 
13,074 posts, read 6,891,740 times
Reputation: 2586
Quote:
Originally Posted by idiotprogrammer View Post
I call bs on Nomander's rhetoric.

1. What evidence would convince you that global warming does indeed exist?
2. If you believe climate models are wrong, which model is the least wrong?
3. If all climate models are wrong, wouldn't that be an argument for taking precautions until there is more certainty?
4. A peer reviewed survey of scientists found that 97% of climatologists said that AGW exists and that is caused by humans. 97% of Climatologists believe human activity is a significant factor in changing global mean temperature.
97% of Climatologists believe human activity is a significant factor in changing global mean temperature | Idiotprogrammer
If that is the case, why should a person listen to a viewpoint by a minority of people in the field? If 97% of cancer doctors said you had breast cancer, but your neighbor down the street said he talked to a doctor who told him it didn't, would that will be a rational basis for rejecting treatment?

Finally, you are not only talking about risk to YOU, but RISKS to me as well. Sure, you may not believe that AGW is true, yet you are insisting on the right to expose all of us to risk on the basis of your minority position. Please explain why you have this right to continue imposing this risk on all of us! Maybe I could hold a gun at your head and say, "No, this bullet will not injure you one bit!" My stubborn belief that firing the gun will not damage your brain will not give me the right to do it.. or make it right.

6. Finally proportionality. (See this vid
YouTube - ‪The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See‬‎ ).
I am sorry idiotprogrammer, but your video is not a scientific position concerning the issue. It is a political one on action.

None of the response you have provided attends to any of the actual science of the issue and revolves around making subjective arguments and attacking personally.

I would appreciate it if you actually discussed the issues rather than using fallacious talking points to skirt the fact that you aren't attending to the actual evidence I have provided.

For instance, if you go back through the posts here until you see a long list of data from the various agencies, you will notice we are coming up on a possible 3rd year growth in sea ice in the Arctic. Notice also that thickness is much more dense than it was in 2007. Also note the trend lines to which this year is tracking.

Take a look at the DMI and notice that over the course of the melt season, the temperature in the arctic has actually been below normal for this time of year.

Another important thing to consider is the effect of wind on the ice. During 2007 we experienced wind variations which it is believed had the larger contribution on melt. Something that seems to match the temperature data during that time.

Also, if you look at the antarctic, notice it is well above the average and has been gaining 5% per year for the last several years. Not only that, but if you look at the growth, this year is showing a record growth.

What does this mean? /shrug

I have no long term predictions. I am merely looking at the past data and noticing its trends as well as what has been observed so far this year. We will know fully this years results come September.

Now would you care to attend to the actual science or is it your goal to violate every guideline to discussion noted above?
 
Old 08-10-2010, 07:22 PM
 
13,074 posts, read 6,891,740 times
Reputation: 2586
Quote:
Originally Posted by idiotprogrammer View Post
One final point. Nomander keeps asking for proof. That is disingenuous. Evidence is everywhere. Take a look here.

A summary of the arguments are here:
An introduction to global warming impacts: Hell and High Water « Climate Progress

The counterarguments are here and rebutted
Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

This "where is the evidence" is simply an argument from ignorance. "I do not know the answer. Therefore, it is your obligation to show me what the answer is." Whether you can be persuaded is irrelevant. The key question is what is the best method to avoid risk. You have not presented a credible way of dealing with the possibility/probability of risk.
There is no point in discussing solutions when one has no understanding of a problem or if it is a problem or what is causing a problem if it is. Your position is an evasion of the issue. Anyone can make arguments on the need for a solution while disregarding the facts of the issue. It isn't a valid position. First identify what is a valid problem, then after it is properly shown, solutions can be considered. Skipping the problem identification in order to jump to a solution is not merely impractical, it is foolish. Since you refer in your name as programmer, do you also program? If so, do you see a problem and start designing a solution without assessing the problem? Not a very good programming approach.

Again, pick a topic and discuss it. I did not ask for "proof" of anything, I asked for the people here making claims to defend their positions.

The poster before you claimed record warming. A good start is providing the temperature records that support such a position and the research and methodology used.

She mentioned Co2 as a primary driver, not an entirely uncommon or invalid position to make, but she failed to support it and then lept to dramatic conclusions without support.

You can link all of your favorite sites that try to coach people on how to dismiss someone you contest, but that isn't a discussion, its pushing political agenda.

So rather than you linking a site and expecting me to discuss every point in it, how about you pick a certain focus and we can discuss that? This way, you actually get to involve yourself in the discussion rather than simply being a messenger who lacks any responsibility for their links. Fair enough you think? Or is attacking me really what you are all about?

edit:

I find your choice of name a bit poorly sought. I have a tendency on long names to shorten them when referring to someone. So please do not take offense if I refer to you as idiot as it is a name of your choosing. /shrug

Last edited by Nomander; 08-10-2010 at 07:31 PM..
 
Old 08-10-2010, 08:02 PM
 
7 posts, read 16,525 times
Reputation: 11
Nomander, again, you assume the burden is on us to rescue you from your ignorance.

You need to spend a few hours examining the skepticalscience.com site before throwing out random remarks. Skepticalscience addressed all that.

If you're looking for a science discussion, check out James Hansen's Storms for my Grandchildren, the IPCC A4 Synthesis Report IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4) , and (seriously) the book "Global Warming and Climate Change Demystified". It reads like a boring high school textbook, but it covers the issues very well. For heaven's sake, read the wikipedia page for climate change. Don't pretend that the evidence doesn't exist, unless your motivation is simply to troll and waste people's time. For a humorous but academic treatment of the subject, watch the Climate Crock of the Week vids (20 total) Start here
YouTube - ‪What We Know about Climate Change‬‎

I admit that as a purely academic exercise it can be helpful to discuss why the earth is not flat and have a debate about that. But if that is your purpose, then the video link I provided would be really relevant.

You claimed falsely that the video I provided was "political." No this is a dispassionate (though humorous) look at decision making for climate change. (The narrator is a high school teacher who wrote a book about scientific logic and how you analyze scientific evidence -- see his other youtubes).

The problem is that you are not really making any claim or suggesting any method for managing potential risk. Therefore, having a discussion with you seems futile. Look at this previous post by you:
Quote:
More politics from self proclaimed scientist. This is a witch hunt to specify the list of those that may disagree with the "Consensus (tm)" and set them up for a major campaign of character assassination. Why this paper is even a part of NAS is beyond me, but this is nothing new in science. The Church of AGW is simply attacking to protect their belief in the face of science that does not agree with them. And you wondered why many scientists were afraid to object to some of the shoddy science publicly? They either toe the line or they are black listed in the community. It is ok though, they are digging their own graves here.
These remarks seems irrational and absurd and frankly undermine your credibility.

If after reading the literature you still have questions, you should ask it here
Earth Forum

Last edited by idiotprogrammer; 08-10-2010 at 09:31 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top