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.
That's just the dillitante talking. It was established early in the 20th Century that there is a fundamental limit to the "knowability" of anything, and no such thing as certainity.
It's like the "Aha! It's just a theory!", as if the rest of science were not a theory. That's actually a darned good reference in modern science, but they interpret as meaning "unproven" or "controversial".
But it isn't a theory, it is still a hypothesis that has not past validation because it contains deviations that can not be explained. Socially and politically it is claimed as a theory, but claiming it to be and actually being it are two different things.
Global temperature has been conclusively shown to have a positive correlation with Carbon Dioxide concentration in the Atmosphere. As the planet has not provided a significant amount of CO2 and people have been burning a huge amount of stored carbon over the last 400 years, I conclude that anthropogenic sources are the principle cause of global climate change and warming that has been measured over the last century.
I found a correlation of the stock market with the climate in an eastern European region. I ran it through some GCM's and have concluded that the stock market is responsible for the climate there.
1) Those graphs still make use of proxy methods to which have ALREADY been proven inconclusive (Mann, Brifta, Hansen).
2) The surface station records have been under an ongoing investigation which shows they have severe bias within their reading due to being improperly maintained.
Conclusion: Garbage in, Garbage out. Though if the end result is all that is important, to hell with the data right?
That's just the dillitante talking. It was established early in the 20th Century that there is a fundamental limit to the "knowability" of anything, and no such thing as certainity.
It's like the "Aha! It's just a theory!", as if the rest of science were not a theory. That's actually a darned good reference in modern science, but they interpret as meaning "unproven" or "controversial".
Manufacturing doubt is big business too. Reminds me of an article I read in Environmental Sci and Tech a couple years ago about the Weinberg Group. They were hired by companies like DuPont and Phillip Morris to create doubt in the scientific community to downplay the dangers of their products...PFOA, BPA, PCBs, TCE and tobacco of course.
The same thing was recently happening with the oil industry in regards to global warming. The parallels of the oil industry with global warming and the tobacco companies with cancer are remarkable.
ExxonMobil spent $16 million from 1998 to 2005 funding 43 different advocacy groups that seek to muddy the waters of the global warming debate. This in effect stalls and misdirects funds that should go into innovation and technology, in both the private and public sector.
Manufacturing doubt is big business too. Reminds me of the the Weinberg Group that was hired by DuPont and Phillip Morris to create doubt in the scientific community to downplay the dangers of their products.
The same thing was recently happening with the oil industry in regards to global warming. The parallels of the oil industry with global warming and the tobacco companies with cancer are remarkable.
ExxonMobil spent $16 million from 1998 to 2005 funding 43 different advocacy groups that seek to muddy the waters of the global warming debate.
Amen. And one misguided soul quoting another isn't a theory "proven inconclusive".
This is one of my favorites. Don't like the surface station temperature readings? Opinion shaped by pictures on the internet? Well my advice is ignore them. They aren't in the least needed to prove the theory. They didn't have them at the end of WWII, yet they knew about global warming then. The important thing to know is what they knew by the 1880's: the physical universe we live in doesn't permit global warming theory to not be true. And no, it isn't an hypothesis. It was an hypothesis until radar was invented.
Quote:
The surface station records have been under an ongoing investigation which shows they have severe bias within their reading due to being improperly maintained.
Amen. And one misguided soul quoting another isn't a theory "proven inconclusive".
This is one of my favorites. Don't like the surface station temperature readings? Opinion shaped by pictures on the internet? Well my advice is ignore them. They aren't in the least needed to prove the theory. They didn't have them at the end of WWII, yet they knew about global warming then. The important thing to know is what they knew by the 1880's: the physical universe we live in doesn't permit global warming theory to not be true. And no, it isn't an hypothesis. It was an hypothesis until radar was invented.
Another straw man. I am not arguing global warming.
So, I post the NAS report, I post the NAS Panel's own words concerning the objections that Mcintyre and Mckitrick had, I even comment on how their own summary seems to contridict the evidence they use to claim their conclusion. That doesn't matter to you though, you have the simple claim of:
"climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems.”
And you claim I am in denial?
You are clinging to words of a claim that are not supported. NAS can't even explain their conclusion, they simply take a bunch of inconclusive evidence and come to a conclusion. They use slippery words like "plausible" to suggest their inconclusive evidence is conclusive, yet do not provide actual verifiable methods that support that claim.
What is wrong with you? Can you not think on your own? Can you not question or is "appeal to authority" the only thing you can do? Seriously, did you even read what I provided? It seems that you didn't as if you had, you would at least have been able to comment to some extent on the information and would realize how silly you look merely cutting and pasting an unfounded conclusion.
Nothing is wrong with me. You're try to assert something in interpreting an NAS statement that they totally repudiate in their highest level statement from the organization. It's like the comments of a mail room clerk compared to those by the Chairman of the Board.
Nothing is wrong with me. You're try to assert something in interpreting an NAS statement that they totally repudiate in their highest level statement from the organization. It's like the comments of a mail room clerk compared to those by the Chairman of the Board.
Not a statement, an entire report. You are the one using a simple statement, I linked the entire report, the congressional hearings on the issue and multiple clarifying statements from their own representatives.
Moderator cut: please discuss the topic, not other members
Last edited by katzenfreund; 02-17-2009 at 07:27 PM..
For those overly concerned about global warming, can you explain to me why in the last 5 years Ocean temperatures haven't risen at all and, in fact, have slightly declined????
Not trying to stir the pot, I've yet to hear a decent answer about it. Personally, I'm on the fence about the issue since it seems each new data that comes out contradicts the last one.
This one is an interesting one. I expect the answer will turn out to be that the oceans are an effective heat sink, and the temperature can be expected to stay more or less constant until all the ice has melted. Once that happens one would expect a rapid rise. No way to know for certain until then, but it doesn't look like we'll have to wait long.
This one is an interesting one. I expect the answer will turn out to be that the oceans are an effective heat sink, and the temperature can be expected to stay more or less constant until all the ice has melted. Once that happens one would expect a rapid rise. No way to know for certain until then, but it doesn't look like we'll have to wait long.
And look on the bright side, if the observational data comes back completely in contradiction to your speculation, you can simply state that it doesn't change the big picture and continue on with a broken hypothesis ridiculing anyone who points out the inconsistencies. Climate science is new age science, without the science part.
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.
