U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 11-18-2007, 02:18 PM
 
Location: Your mind
2,923 posts, read 4,568,199 times
Reputation: 590

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poptech View Post
Man-made global warming has never been proven. The age of a scientific paper is irrelevant, what matters is the science. If science is proven it does not get old. The other link is fully sourced (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279m.html - broken link) to peer-reviewed papers.
Anyone can make a specious argument and "source" it to peer-reviewed papers. To discover how much merit the argument has you have to delve into all of the citations, see whether the cited articles are legitimate/accepted science and whether the citations are accurate, and whether the article in question draws conclusions from the cited papers that don't necessarily follow, logically. All of these fallacies are likely when the article in question is produced by a right-or-left wing think tank (NCPA, Heritage Foundation on the right, or the EPI and the CBPP on the left), which is why I don't feel like taking the time to comb through the article and examine the legitimacy of the arguments anymore than I would attach credibility to their arguments about the "nonexistence of American poverty," or how great sweatshops are or how the rich are too highly taxed or how "99% of illegal immigrants are drunk driving murderers," or whatever other biased "research" they come up with.

As for the old paper, it's doubtful that it's "debunking of global warming" was "proven" as, if so, that would seemingly have worked its way into the scientific literature and opinion via the peer-review process, would it not have? Or are you one of those types who think the climate scientists are all in some big conspiracy to keep their grant money coming by "promoting alarmism," or something?

Quote:
They are ALL skeptical of any catastrophy, man-made CO2 being the primary driver of climate and any draconian legislation needed to "stop global warming" or whatever that means. It varies from there from fully believing it is a natural cycle to believing man is contributing in "some" way. None of them endorse Gore's ridiculous position which has been proven to be lies in a UK court:

UK Court finds 9 Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth
You might want to read a little more about the court's decision... hold on

UK judge: 'Alarmism' in Gore film - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/10/12/britain.gore.ap/ - broken link)

You left out that the judge also admitted that the film was "substansially grounded in science and fact."

Last edited by fishmonger; 11-18-2007 at 02:27 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-18-2007, 02:22 PM
 
114 posts, read 124,070 times
Reputation: 28
Gore Deserves Nobel Prize for Propaganda (broken link) (CNSNews)

Maybe he got it for flying around in his private jet:

Hannity's America - Al Gore and Global Warming (Video) (10min)

Or for owning a Zinc Mine and polluting a river:
Al Gore, Environmentalist and Zinc Miner (The Wall Street Journal)

Maybe for his dump:
Al Gore's Inconvenient Toxic Waste Dump (NewsMax)

I bet using 20 times more energy than the average American made him the top pick:
Gore home's energy use: 20 times average (WorldNetDaily)
- Al Gore's residence uses considerably more energy than the average American home = True (Snopes)

Without a doubt making money off of the Hysteria he created is why he won:
Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns (WorldNetDaily)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2007, 02:28 PM
 
Location: Your mind
2,923 posts, read 4,568,199 times
Reputation: 590
What's with all the right-wing propaganda sites? I really don't care what they have to say and I also don't particularly like Al Gore and am perfectly willing to acknowledge his hypocrisy in terms of not sufficiently practicing what he preaches. But Al Gore isn't the subject of discussion, is he?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2007, 02:29 PM
 
114 posts, read 124,070 times
Reputation: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmonger View Post
Anyone can make a specious argument and "source" it to peer-reviewed papers. To discover how much merit the argument has you have to delve into all of the citations, see whether the cited articles are legitimate/accepted science and whether the citations are accurate, and whether the article in question draws conclusions from the cited papers that don't necessarily follow, logically. All of these fallacies are likely when the article in question is produced by a right-or-left wing think tank (NCPA, Heritage Foundation on the right, or the EPI and the CBPP on the left), which is why I don't feel like taking the time to comb through the article and examine the legitimacy of the arguments anymore than I would attach credibility to their arguments about the "nonexistence of American poverty," or how great sweatshops are or how the rich are too highly taxed or how "99% of illegal immigrants are drunk driving murderers," or whatever other biased "research" they come up with.
That is nice now you just wave a magic wand and "dismiss things" because you do not like the source. Sorry but the paper is fully source to Peer-Reviewed papers. Including these:

1,500-Year Climate Cycle:

A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice
(Nature 316, 591 - 596, 15 August 1985)
- C. Lorius, C. Ritz, J. Jouzel, L. Merlivat, N. I. Barkov


A Pervasive Millennial-Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates
(Science, Vol. 278. no. 5341, pp. 1257 - 1266, 14 November 1997)
- Gerard Bond, William Showers, Maziet Cheseby, Rusty Lotti, Peter Almasi, Peter deMenocal, Paul Priore, Heidi Cullen, Irka Hajdas, Georges Bonani


A Variable Sun Paces Millennial Climate
(Science, Vol. 294. no. 5546, pp. 1431 - 1433, 16 November 2001)
- Richard A. Kerr


Cyclic Variation and Solar Forcing of Holocene Climate in the Alaskan Subarctic
(Science, Vol. 301. no. 5641, pp. 1890 - 1893, 26 September 2003)
- Feng Sheng Hu, Darrell Kaufman, Sumiko Yoneji, David Nelson, Aldo Shemesh, Yongsong Huang, Jian Tian, Gerard Bond, Benjamin Clegg, Thomas Brown


Decadal to millennial cyclicity in varves and turbidites from the Arabian Sea: hypothesis of tidal origin
(Global and Planetary Change, Volume 34, Issues 3-4, Pages 313-325, November 2002)
- W. H. Bergera, U. von Rad


Late Holocene approximately 1500 yr climatic periodicities and their implications
(Geology, v. 26; no. 5; p. 471-473, May 1998)
- Ian D. Campbell, Celina Campbell, Michael J. Apps, Nathaniel W. Rutter, Andrew B. G. Bush


Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model
(Nature 438, 208-211, 10 November 2005)
- Holger Braun, Marcus Christl, Stefan Rahmstorf, Andrey Ganopolski, Augusto Mangini, Claudia Kubatzki, Kurt Roth, Bernd Kromet


The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change
(PNAS, vol. 97, no. 8, 3814-3819, April 11, 2000)
- Charles D. Keeling, Timothy P. Whorf


The origin of the 1500-year climate cycles in Holocene North-Atlantic records
(Climate of the Past Discussions, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp.679-692, 2007)
- M. Debret, V. Bout-Roumazeilles, F. Grousset, M. Desmet, J. F. McManus, N. Massei, D. Sebag, J.-R. Petit, Y. Copard, A. Trentesaux


Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 30, NO. 10, 1510, 2003)
- Stefan Rahmstorf


Timing of Millennial-Scale Climate Change in Antarctica and Greenland During the Last Glacial Period
(Science, Volume 291, Issue 5501, pp. 109-112, 2001)
- Thomas Blunier, Edward J. Brook


Widespread evidence of 1500 yr climate variability in North America during the past 14 000 yr
(Geology, v. 30, no. 5, p. 455-458, May 2002)
- André E. Viau, Konrad Gajewski, Philippe Fines, David E. Atkinson, Michael C. Sawada


Quote:
You might want to read a little more about the court's decision... hold on
Yawn, please do not deny the court decision. These points were found to not be scientifically sound:
  • The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
  • The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
  • The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
  • The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
  • The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
  • The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
  • The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
  • The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
  • The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
So in effect you have:

Polar Bears dying = Lie
20 ft of Sea-Level Rise = Lie
CO2 drives Temperature = Lie
Hurricanes caused by Global Warming = Lie
Species Extinction caused by Global Warming = Lie

ect...

The bottom line is Al Gore lied and now everyone is hysterical for nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2007, 02:31 PM
 
114 posts, read 124,070 times
Reputation: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmonger View Post
What's with all the right-wing propaganda sites? I really don't care what they have to say and I also don't particularly like Al Gore and am perfectly willing to acknowledge his hypocrisy in terms of not sufficiently practicing what he preaches. But Al Gore isn't the subject of discussion, is he?
Except there is no propaganda only facts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2007, 02:40 PM
 
Location: Your mind
2,923 posts, read 4,568,199 times
Reputation: 590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poptech View Post
That is nice now you just wave a magic wand and "dismiss things" because you do not like the source. Sorry but the paper is fully source to Peer-Reviewed papers. Including these:

1,500-Year Climate Cycle:

A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice
(Nature 316, 591 - 596, 15 August 1985)
- C. Lorius, C. Ritz, J. Jouzel, L. Merlivat, N. I. Barkov


A Pervasive Millennial-Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates
(Science, Vol. 278. no. 5341, pp. 1257 - 1266, 14 November 1997)
- Gerard Bond, William Showers, Maziet Cheseby, Rusty Lotti, Peter Almasi, Peter deMenocal, Paul Priore, Heidi Cullen, Irka Hajdas, Georges Bonani


A Variable Sun Paces Millennial Climate
(Science, Vol. 294. no. 5546, pp. 1431 - 1433, 16 November 2001)
- Richard A. Kerr


Cyclic Variation and Solar Forcing of Holocene Climate in the Alaskan Subarctic
(Science, Vol. 301. no. 5641, pp. 1890 - 1893, 26 September 2003)
- Feng Sheng Hu, Darrell Kaufman, Sumiko Yoneji, David Nelson, Aldo Shemesh, Yongsong Huang, Jian Tian, Gerard Bond, Benjamin Clegg, Thomas Brown


Decadal to millennial cyclicity in varves and turbidites from the Arabian Sea: hypothesis of tidal origin
(Global and Planetary Change, Volume 34, Issues 3-4, Pages 313-325, November 2002)
- W. H. Bergera, U. von Rad


Late Holocene approximately 1500 yr climatic periodicities and their implications
(Geology, v. 26; no. 5; p. 471-473, May 1998)
- Ian D. Campbell, Celina Campbell, Michael J. Apps, Nathaniel W. Rutter, Andrew B. G. Bush


Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model
(Nature 438, 208-211, 10 November 2005)
- Holger Braun, Marcus Christl, Stefan Rahmstorf, Andrey Ganopolski, Augusto Mangini, Claudia Kubatzki, Kurt Roth, Bernd Kromet


The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change
(PNAS, vol. 97, no. 8, 3814-3819, April 11, 2000)
- Charles D. Keeling, Timothy P. Whorf


The origin of the 1500-year climate cycles in Holocene North-Atlantic records
(Climate of the Past Discussions, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp.679-692, 2007)
- M. Debret, V. Bout-Roumazeilles, F. Grousset, M. Desmet, J. F. McManus, N. Massei, D. Sebag, J.-R. Petit, Y. Copard, A. Trentesaux


Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 30, NO. 10, 1510, 2003)
- Stefan Rahmstorf


Timing of Millennial-Scale Climate Change in Antarctica and Greenland During the Last Glacial Period
(Science, Volume 291, Issue 5501, pp. 109-112, 2001)
- Thomas Blunier, Edward J. Brook


Widespread evidence of 1500 yr climate variability in North America during the past 14 000 yr
(Geology, v. 30, no. 5, p. 455-458, May 2002)
- André E. Viau, Konrad Gajewski, Philippe Fines, David E. Atkinson, Michael C. Sawada


Yawn, please do not deny the court decision. These points were found to not be scientifically sound:
  • The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
  • The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
  • The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
  • The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
  • The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
  • The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
  • The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
  • The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
  • The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
So in effect you have:

Polar Bears dying = Lie
20 ft of Sea-Level Rise = Lie
CO2 drives Temperature = Lie
Hurricanes caused by Global Warming = Lie
Species Extinction caused by Global Warming = Lie

ect...

The bottom line is Al Gore lied and now everyone is hysterical for nothing.
Which of those abstracts debate the conclusion that man has caused much or most of the climate change of the past century? Nobody's arguing that other factors don't influence the climate, or that man is currently the only influence -- that's a straw man argument. Presumably those who study man's influence on the globe take these factors into account and adjust for them, do they not? And... as for Al Gore, I don't care so much about what he says as I do what the IPCC says, which is an extensively peer-reviewed body of work produced by climate scientists and is the best approximation of the scientific "consensus" available for our reading.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2007, 02:42 PM
 
Location: Your mind
2,923 posts, read 4,568,199 times
Reputation: 590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poptech View Post
Except there is no propaganda only facts.
WorldNetDaily, Sean Hannity, and NewsMax have certainly never produced any propaganda before. Would you be so skeptical of global warming if you weren't conservative? If you had no political views? Think for a second.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2007, 02:48 PM
 
114 posts, read 124,070 times
Reputation: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmonger View Post
Which of those abstracts debate the conclusion that man has caused much or most of the climate change of the past century? Nobody's arguing that other factors don't influence the climate, or that man is currently the only influence -- that's a straw man argument. Presumably those who study man's influence on the globe take these factors into account and adjust for them, do they not? And... as for Al Gore, I don't care so much about what he says as I do what the IPCC says, which is an extensively peer-reviewed body of work produced by climate scientists and is the best approximation of the scientific "consensus" available for our reading.
Show me the evidence that man has caused much or most of the climate change in the past century and do so without using a computer climate model. The only Straw man is the "evidence" for man-made global warming.

The IPCC is a Political Body and is hardly independently Peer-Reviewed. The IPCC is not a 'consensus' of anything since you have no vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2007, 02:52 PM
 
114 posts, read 124,070 times
Reputation: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmonger View Post
WorldNetDaily, Sean Hannity, and NewsMax have certainly never produced any propaganda before. Would you be so skeptical of global warming if you weren't conservative? If you had no political views? Think for a second.
Nope they do not produce propaganda they just relentlessly hammer certain positions and facts you don't want to hear.

The reason I am skeptical is because ALL the evidence for man being the cause is based on worthless computer models.

All the computer illiterates are convinced that because something is done on a "super computer" that costs "millions of dollars" it is infallible. Plugging in biased, incomplete or flat out wrong data combined with poorly understood systems into a "model" that includes god knows how many guesses and assumptions will give you junk. Garbage in = Garbage out. I am a computer analyst and can make a computer model do whatever I want by "tuning" it (adjusting variables until I get the answer I want or think is right). The more complex the model the more "mysterious" it seems. Processing more complex data in more complex ways via guessing gives you more complex junk results. But since the models have been "tuned" (guesstimated or deliberately altered to get the results you want) they get results that "seem" likely, except it is based on a complex serious of junk calculations and data.

The problem is computer models need exact information (accurate data and the correct procedure to process the data) to get exact answers, without that you get junk results, period. The public gives computer climate models this mystical aura because they are largely computer illiterate about how they actually work and when they hear the term "computer" they do not want to sound or feel stupid, so they nod their heads and go along with it.

Nothing is emotional about computers they are pure logical machines, 1 + 1 must = 2. Imagine trying to use random numbers to get a right answer on a calculator but you do not know if you are to add or multiply those numbers and that "right answer" you have no way to confirm because it is 50 years from now. Sound crazy? Welcome to Global Climate Modeling.

What the modelers do is they keep playing with the numbers in a much more complex way until they think they guess right. A useless exercise. These same climate models computers are used to predict your weather and you know how accurate they are. But damn! Al Gore and Gavin Schmidt can certainly tell your what the climate will be 50-100 years from now! Give me a break.

Why are we not turning to models to predict the future for everything? Because they can't, not even remotely. Some of them work "sort of" for the weather in very, very short term results (1-3 days) until all the data they are processing that is wrong combined with all the data they are missing and the millions of variables they are not accounting for start to kick in and grow exponentially the farther out the model runs and wham - the model is wrong. No kidding.

Modeling 50-100 years in the future when they cannot even give you accurate weather 3 days out? Don't be fools, I do this for a living, Computer Models cannot predict the future with anything as complex as the Earth's climate.

"Man-Made" Global Warming is an invented hysteria and Al Gore is largely responsible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2007, 02:57 PM
 
Location: Your mind
2,923 posts, read 4,568,199 times
Reputation: 590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poptech View Post
That is because it is not a small number, that is propaganda and not verifiable. There is no majority and no poll has ever been taken to prove one. On the contrary every poll available shows the exact opposite that there is no consensus. I suggest reading:

NO 'Consensus' on "Man-Made" Global Warming

It is very comprehensive and includes:

19,000 Scientists declare that "man-made" global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever (OISM)
Propaganda... the petition didn't say that "global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever," although it did express opposition to the Kyoto protocol. However it turns out they weren't all that strenous in verifying the signatories

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsourc...okers+petition

"While the petition has been portrayed by global-warming skeptics as authoritative evidence that many scientists reject the catastrophic scenario of global climate change, Robinson acknowledged that little attempt was done to verify credentials of those who responded."


500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares (Heartland Institute)

ect... [/quote]

Another right-wing think tank. The "study's" criteria are vague and broad enough to make it likely that many of the "500 scientists with doubts" don't disagree with the "consensus" much at all, but are rather simply fulfilling their purpose as scientists by addressing issues related to it with articles that have either partially or completely survived the peer-review process, apparently without "debunking the consensus" in doing so. But like I've said, I don't put much stock in research done by biased conservative/libertarian think tanks whose only concern is to give a legitimate/intellectual backing to their various political views, by any means (and any half-truths) necessary.
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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top