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.
Yawn. As I suspected. Nothing to bring to the table. A few remarks....
Trust me, watch as these "studies" go on and you are going to see them digging themselves deeper and deeper. It doesn't help that the general public is sheeping along agendas. On one side you have people who are denying global warming completely and on the other side you have people claiming the end of the world to which we must sacrifice our first born to stop this danger. Both are so far wrong it isn't funny.
Nice use of hyperbole to mask what is truly going on. I agree that those who deny Global Warming is occurring in the face of all the credible science and nature events being headlined on an almost daily basis is indeed laughable. On the other hand, I would suggest that asking our government to take a responsible leadership global role in combating this is not too much too ask. If Kyoto does not do the job, then retool it and get to work, bringing China and India onboard as well. And trust you? Why on earth should I trust Nomander about Global Warming?
The fact is, we are having temperatures increasing to some extent. We are seeing a bit of "global warming", yet it isn't the end of the world. We also know that our emissions have "some" effect, but this is where it gets cloudy. We are not sure how much of an effect and the more we learn, the more we see it seems to be a very small effect. The problem is, we can't measure all the variables to be sure. We do not have the technology, nor a firm understanding of the science to be able to clearly identify all factors to which we could then point at a cause, relation, or conclusion.
If you say we do, then your are lying through your teeth. Even the IPCC's report doesn't state that "outright", but rather it likes to use "unscientific" wording such as "likely", "could be", "might be", etc... That type of wording is fine when you are creating a hypothesis, but it doesn't make it true. That takes verification, testing, validation, and evidence that CAN NOT be proven to be in doubt. If you are testing and it fails a test ONCE, it doesn't pass the muster. You have to go back to the drawing board and then build on what you learned.
Well Duh. It is called Science. You create hypotheses and conduct tests to prove and disprove these hypotheses. Science is by its nature a journey of exploration and discovery. Nothing is certain except for Death and Taxes, my Friend.
I have simply provided you with several of the leading scientific agencies and suggested there is a striking degree of close to universal consensus among all major US and international scientific agencies that this is a real occurrence, and that in fact it cannot be explained by just "natural cycles of the earth." Almost unheard of amongst the scientific community. You have asked me to "trust you". For me to do that, could you please provide the agencies and methodologies that you are using to support your contrary position. I don't see them in any of your posts.
You are telling me with your "well, all these guys agree here" that they have proven something? Care to show me what they have proven? They are GUESSING and doing some pretty rotten math in the process to do so and you know what? They are going to catch some serious backlash from it down the road here. Though, it won't stop the conspiracy theory nuts. You can slam them in the face with a bat of reason and they will act like they never saw it
Yes but they are not just "guys"...they are credible scientific organizations. I provided the links to their research already. How about you point out where they have gone wrong in their analyses and where you see the "rotten math" ?
Again, sorry... I don't know you and you could be a world renowned scientist, but then you probably wouldn't be spending so much time in this forum. So I'll go with the safe bet and consider you an Average Joe who is making some pretty wild generalizations attempting to discredit decades of academic research. So I must ask you again, looking from afar, who is acting like the nut here?
It said that the Mann "Hockey Stick" was not the MOST conclusive piece of evidence used to demonstrate the existence of AGW... it doesn't therefore follow at all that the rest of the evidence that they mention as "more conclusive" is somehow also inconclusive. Don't you realize how twisty and hard to follow your logic is getting? Or does action in your mind require absolute, 100% proof of every single piece of evidence used to support the theory, even if (as the researchers mention) the dubious existence of a warmer "Medieval Warm Period" still wouldn't disprove the existence of AGW, simply because of all the other evidence they'd gathered?
You aren't following me because you are not understanding the point. The point is, they use FLAWED data. I don't care if it is only ONE peice of their claims, it is USED in their report.
You are making excuses to avoid the simple fact that there is faulty work in the the evidence. It is in question and you CAN NOT build a theory that has some holes, but still holds water for a bit. If it has ONE whole, it is flawed.
That aside, this is not the ONLY problem with the report. I knew this is where this would go. You will cling on to your point and claim since I didn't eradicate ALL and EVERY point in your claim, that it somehow still makes your valid. A logical position can not be built on a faulty premise.
I loathe having to use the following site because I know that you will immediately pull out your "biased wand" and dismiss it. but... here is another issue with the 4th assessment report. Before you attack the source, keep in mind they link to the actual reports and point out flaws in the report itself.
GloWarming Skeptics: Objections to the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers Report (http://glowarmers.blogspot.com/2007/07/objections-to-ipcc-summary-for-policy.html - broken link)
Sceince is not "guess work". A hypothiss is an educated guess. It is not tested, it is not proven. It is merely a "what if" or a "could be". A theory is taking that hypothesis and then putting it to rigours testing. If it does not fail, then it is considred a valid theory until it can be contested with a fail. It can't be "good enough" as that is not science.
Quote:
Let's see... my new position is "Moon creatures are going to invade earth tomorrow and steal all of our trees." You can't disprove it, 100%, can you? That means you must be wrong! You're a part of the conspiracy to make people think there aren't moon creatures.
90% certainty of devastating effects for many regions isn't a good enough reason to take action? I hope you were out on the streets protesting the Iraq war and are out on the streets protesting the coming war in Iran right now... way less than 90% certainty of devastation supporting those endeavors
I don't have to disprove it at first, you have to prove a consistency to your positions. Who are these moon creatures, what evidence do you have that suggests they exist? Why do they need trees? Where do they come from?
The burden of proof is upon you, not for those to disprove you. You must test your claim and provide evidence as to why this is true. Your evidence must then pass the rigors of testing. We find a fault, you must then search to find why that fault exists and then adjust your position to properly hold consistency.
Global warming being caused by man to the extent to which people and the IPCC is claiming is not proven. It has wholes. The Mann Hockey stick has holes and inconsistencies. The method to which their other models achieve their data are also weak and lack an account for important variables.
Why is 90% not good enough? Look up confidence intervals and why it is important. Lower your requirements too much and things become true that normally would not be. Seriously, science not politics and there is no room for subjective opinion in the field. Thats for liberal arts majors.
This is science, not public mob opinion. You can't feel your way on something. Your feelings and subjective opinions are irrelevant. Only what can be proven to be true and consistent is. If there are wholes in the claim, then there is a problem.
We should act on what we know to be true, not what we think or guess to be true.
I don't have to disprove it at first, you have to prove a consistency to your positions. Who are these moon creatures, what evidence do you have that suggests they exist? Why do they need trees? Where do they come from? The burden of proof is upon you, not for those to disprove you.
Another U-turn there. You've made so many now, it's starting to look like you're...spinning...
I guess we will have to wait and see the truth of the sitution. If I am wrong, I am willing to accept it if the science truly achieves its conclusion.
If you are all wrong, well I doubt you will blink an eye and it will either be pushed into some blame of whatever political enemy you have or swept under the table while you seek out your next cause to sheep through.
Enjoy what life you have left, the world is ending soon you know!
I give up, this is getting way too circular. Nomander, I really don't even get what you're trying to say half the time unless I pore over your tomes for 10 minutes to decipher your weird logical somersaults.
I give up, this is getting way too circular. Nomander, I really don't even get what you're trying to say half the time unless I pore over your tomes for 10 minutes to decipher your weird logical somersaults.
Wow. You just described exactly the way Saggy's posts make me feel.
Wow. You just described exactly the way Saggy's posts make me feel.
Harumph! Here, I try to take the time and trouble to be thorough and precise and to connect all the dots, and this is the thanks I get. But if I do get too far afield and you start to get lost, the short-form is probably 'You're wrong.' Not always, of course, but pretty many times. On the bright side, if you were to turn into a far left-wing liberal socialist, all that would probably change...
A lot of what I was trying to say, neatly and organized into categories. Agree or disagree, I could care less. If anything, all of this information says "it isn't all said and done", "all scientists do not agree on the issue", and "we know enough to know we really don't know enough at all". You decide, though some I know will already have without even bothering to look at the link much.
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.
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.
