Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Nature
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-02-2011, 02:04 PM
 
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,298 posts, read 14,134,421 times
Reputation: 8104

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
So, the these are not abnormal occurrences, but their current existence is the cause of man? How can you use the occurrences of such as evidence to mans cause, when they are not abnormal?
I didn't say that the OP article was some sort of incontrovertible evidence in and of itself. The rapidity of this and other changes is alarming, and especially alarming since the consensus of climatologists (based on enormous amounts of data of several kinds) is that there is a significant man-made component to it that drives it above and beyond any natural changes.

There are scientists whose job is observing, analysing, and predicting climate. They've spent years or decades of their lives studying it. These people are the experts. Not you, not me, not Rush, not Penn and Teller - the climatologists are the experts on climate.

As the video shows, the overwhelming consensus of climatologists has been for quite a while now that there is global warming on average, going at a worryingly rapid pace, and that there is a large contribution to that from the activities of man.

Please, watch at least the first video. Remember that if you are wrong in your viewpoint, you will have joined forces with a group of businessmen who will be responsible for destroying entire ecosystems and ravaging the human economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-02-2011, 02:15 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,928,755 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof View Post
I didn't say that the OP article was some sort of incontrovertible evidence in and of itself. The rapidity of this and other changes is alarming, and especially alarming since the consensus of climatologists (based on enormous amounts of data of several kinds) is that there is a significant man-made component to it that drives it above and beyond any natural changes.

There are scientists whose job is observing, analysing, and predicting climate. They've spent years or decades of their lives studying it. These people are the experts. Not you, not me, not Rush, not Penn and Teller - the climatologists are the experts on climate.

As the video shows, the overwhelming consensus of climatologists has been for quite a while now that there is global warming on average, going at a worryingly rapid pace, and that there is a large contribution to that from the activities of man.

Please, watch at least the first video. Remember that if you are wrong in your viewpoint, you will have joined forces with a group of businessmen who will be responsible for destroying entire ecosystems and ravaging the human economy.
Consensus is not science.

Alarming is unsubstantiated.

I do not care what political pundits think.

I am interested in the science specifically, not commentary.

Faith is something that is reserved for religions, not science.

Evidence must be provided and properly supported. Speculations and assumptive claims of correlation is not a proper establishment of the validity of a hypothesis.

/shrug
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2011, 03:36 PM
 
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,298 posts, read 14,134,421 times
Reputation: 8104
Agreed, Nomander, that's why I urged you to watch the video and get informed about what the scientific consensus and debate is about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2011, 03:56 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,928,755 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof View Post
Agreed, Nomander, that's why I urged you to watch the video and get informed about what the scientific consensus and debate is about.
Informed?

I have followed the issue (the science) for over 7 years. Your videos argue not the science, but a specific CAGW position under the guise of science. This is why I do not educate myself with videos of explanations which exist to purport a specific point of view (or attempt to summarize one side and then knock down their positions without rebuttal or clarification to the position).

There is no consensus to your videos position. Many of the arguments made in your videos are contested (several with new research have shown them to be invalid) and are outdated to their position (I believe the first one was made several years ago). It is why I also do not provide you rebuttal videos to them which are of equal merit, designed to pick arguments and positions of the other side where they hack them down.

If you want to discuss the science, then you need to get your hands dirty (start discussing the details and providing specific points to the research through original citations to the authors) and deal with the fact that your video is old, does not even consider the fact that observed data has invalidated many of its claims.

I have no interest in arguing with your videos or any other fast links you might provide through your surface level understanding of the issue. That is the political arena, if you want to discuss science, start actually referring to it specifically rather than linking me silly videos which amazingly destroy the other position without even providing a single verified position of value. /shrug
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2011, 07:13 PM
 
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,298 posts, read 14,134,421 times
Reputation: 8104
If you have carefully viewed the video and have read widely in science magazines, and have decided there is no consensus among the world's climate scientists that there is AGW, then you are simply not very intelligent in my opinion. One does not START with cherry-picking a few studies commissioned by Exxon (because you don't know the lingo unless you have been trained in climatology), one starts by getting an overview by REAL, independent, climatologists - such as in the video.

Politics only enters because the only people who outright deny AGW are US conservatives and libertarians, with very few exceptions. A few scientists are SKEPTICAL about the amount humans contribute, some think almost none, but they are greatly in the minority.

Everyone else in the industrialized first world is deeply concerned and rightly so.

You've chosen to be a part of the problem. I hope you'll forgive me if I don't wish you well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2011, 08:46 AM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,928,755 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof View Post
If you have carefully viewed the video and have read widely in science magazines, and have decided there is no consensus among the world's climate scientists that there is AGW, then you are simply not very intelligent in my opinion. One does not START with cherry-picking a few studies commissioned by Exxon (because you don't know the lingo unless you have been trained in climatology), one starts by getting an overview by REAL, independent, climatologists - such as in the video.

Politics only enters because the only people who outright deny AGW are US conservatives and libertarians, with very few exceptions. A few scientists are SKEPTICAL about the amount humans contribute, some think almost none, but they are greatly in the minority.

Everyone else in the industrialized first world is deeply concerned and rightly so.

You've chosen to be a part of the problem. I hope you'll forgive me if I don't wish you well.
What a surprise!

The old... "if you do not agree with me, it is because you are stupid" response. /golf clap

From the CRU emails and data release, the IPCC's issues (political motives, false summaries, and grey literature), the multiple re-investigations into East Anglia, the continued failure of model predictions by observed data and the numerous research that has come out (CERN, Spencer/Braswell, etc...) that creates huge problems for CAGW, claiming the issue is certain is nothing but a political position.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof View Post
You've chosen to be a part of the problem. I hope you'll forgive me if I don't wish you well.
We are aware of your groups position on this. We saw your "threat" (commercial) from 1010.org where you blew up children and others into bloody bits who did not toe the line of your ideology. I am not surprised you wouldn't "wish me well". Your movement is radical, emotional, and agenda driven. There is no discussion with your group, there is only servitude which is why you insult and threaten those who do not accept your argument blindly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2011, 09:16 AM
 
Location: Boston, MA
14,466 posts, read 11,245,012 times
Reputation: 8983
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asheville Native View Post
Climate change is clear and can be measured. The cause is not clear. Those that so vehemently deny the change are probably just exhibiting the knee jerk reaction that they don't or won't acknowledge man might be the cause.
And those that so vehemently support the change are probably just exhibiting the knee jerk reaction that they don't or won't acknowledge man might not be the cause.

Quote:
They probably drive an SUV getting 6 - 8 MPG to bring home 20 pounds of groceries.
I live in a very liberal state (MA) and there are a lot of big SUVs here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2011, 02:25 AM
 
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,298 posts, read 14,134,421 times
Reputation: 8104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
What a surprise!

...............We are aware of your groups position on this. We saw your "threat" (commercial) from 1010.org where you blew up children and others into bloody bits who did not toe the line of your ideology. I am not surprised you wouldn't "wish me well". Your movement is radical, emotional, and agenda driven. There is no discussion with your group, there is only servitude which is why you insult and threaten those who do not accept your argument blindly.
WTF? I am not a "group", I'm a person ...... nor do I belong to any group except for a Medicare part D plan. I have no idea which commercial you saw on 1010.org, nor have I ever visited that site. If it involves kids being blown up, I doubt it was placed by the world's climatologists.

Of course I insult those who disagree with what the vast majority of climate scientists have said, (talk about being brainwashed by corporations) - but I certainly don't threaten them. It's the climatologists' field of study, not yours and not that of the politicians of the GOP, nor Rush Limbaugh's field of study (I don't listen to him anymore, but I'm sure he rants about this, and has disproportionate sway over the folks on the left side of the IQ bell curve just as with so much else).

Here's an analogy - it's like those people who campaign against modern medicine - not just some part of it, but the entire institution. Without any serious systemic study of why most people choose it over shamanism, without any real training or education in the health sciences, they delve into a bunch of studies and cherry-pick those that show "allopathic medicine" in a bad light. They will moan about how many people have died in hospitals, without stopping to think about the overwhelming majority that were helped and went back to their lives. They have list after list of deadly mistakes in the administering of medication, again without any concern for comparing to those overwhelming majority who were helped by such medications that were given properly. They talk about long lists of side effects without considering that it shows great truthfulness to print out reported side effects, which you rarely see in herbology tomes.

If the experts in a field mostly say one thing, and the amateurs and corporate interests say another, then I choose to believe the experts. That subject is what they've spent their lives studying and mastering. My opinion of those who disregard the great majority of expert opinions in ANY field of study and choose to believe the amateurs and corporate propaganda instead, is very low. Yes, I generally believe they are unintelligent if they hold on to their opinions in the face of overwhelming evidence.

I had a similar opinion to yours at one time, but it was because I hadn't studied the issues thoroughly at the time. I'd read or heard a few things about how climate change happened all the time, and how volcanoes put out way more pollution than the human race, and that was enough - until someone rather abrasive pointed out that most climatologists believe in AGW, and then pointed out a number of other facts that ExxonMobile and businessmen had neglected to mention.

The difference between you and I, is that I didn't obstinately cling to my former viewpoint after I had read further in an even-handed, rational way.

OK, now I'm waiting to hear about how "so-called" experts are usually wrong, because Galileo and Copernicus proved the experts of their time to be wrong, and how scientists have made some mistakes ......

Scientific American:

Experto Crede: Climate Expertise Lacking among Global Warming Contrarians
A majority of scientists who dispute global warming lack the climatological expertise to do so ......... Experto Crede: Climate Expertise Lacking among Global Warming Contrarians: Scientific American
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2011, 09:50 AM
 
16,294 posts, read 28,470,166 times
Reputation: 8383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua View Post

I live in a very liberal state (MA) and there are a lot of big SUVs here.
As irrelevant as the fact that $5 will get you a cup of crappy coffee at $tarbuck$
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2011, 02:38 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,928,755 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof View Post
WTF? I am not a "group", I'm a person ...... nor do I belong to any group except for a Medicare part D plan. I have no idea which commercial you saw on 1010.org, nor have I ever visited that site. If it involves kids being blown up, I doubt it was placed by the world's climatologists.

Of course I insult those who disagree with what the vast majority of climate scientists have said, (talk about being brainwashed by corporations) - but I certainly don't threaten them. It's the climatologists' field of study, not yours and not that of the politicians of the GOP, nor Rush Limbaugh's field of study (I don't listen to him anymore, but I'm sure he rants about this, and has disproportionate sway over the folks on the left side of the IQ bell curve just as with so much else).

Here's an analogy - it's like those people who campaign against modern medicine - not just some part of it, but the entire institution. Without any serious systemic study of why most people choose it over shamanism, without any real training or education in the health sciences, they delve into a bunch of studies and cherry-pick those that show "allopathic medicine" in a bad light. They will moan about how many people have died in hospitals, without stopping to think about the overwhelming majority that were helped and went back to their lives. They have list after list of deadly mistakes in the administering of medication, again without any concern for comparing to those overwhelming majority who were helped by such medications that were given properly. They talk about long lists of side effects without considering that it shows great truthfulness to print out reported side effects, which you rarely see in herbology tomes.

If the experts in a field mostly say one thing, and the amateurs and corporate interests say another, then I choose to believe the experts. That subject is what they've spent their lives studying and mastering. My opinion of those who disregard the great majority of expert opinions in ANY field of study and choose to believe the amateurs and corporate propaganda instead, is very low. Yes, I generally believe they are unintelligent if they hold on to their opinions in the face of overwhelming evidence.

I had a similar opinion to yours at one time, but it was because I hadn't studied the issues thoroughly at the time. I'd read or heard a few things about how climate change happened all the time, and how volcanoes put out way more pollution than the human race, and that was enough - until someone rather abrasive pointed out that most climatologists believe in AGW, and then pointed out a number of other facts that ExxonMobile and businessmen had neglected to mention.

The difference between you and I, is that I didn't obstinately cling to my former viewpoint after I had read further in an even-handed, rational way.

OK, now I'm waiting to hear about how "so-called" experts are usually wrong, because Galileo and Copernicus proved the experts of their time to be wrong, and how scientists have made some mistakes ......

Scientific American:

Experto Crede: Climate Expertise Lacking among Global Warming Contrarians
A majority of scientists who dispute global warming lack the climatological expertise to do so ......... Experto Crede: Climate Expertise Lacking among Global Warming Contrarians: Scientific American
Hogwash.

You are spewing the same garbage as they are with your silly references to "denial" and constant demands to an appeal to authority.

You link a bunch of old videos filled with propaganda garbage that are simply spin hit pieces.

You go on as if you are simply being rational, and yet you use the exact same playbook as those pushing CAGW.

Look at your link, its an editorial piece on a "survey" that does not answer to the science, but goes on to attack those in the field who do not worship the position of CAGW, claiming they lack the qualifications.

That isn't science, its politics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Nature

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:34 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top