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.
The EPA this week called Global Warming real and harmful.
NOAA confirms it.
OK. Throughout we hear supportors proclaim that there is global warming and "everyone" who knows anything knows that it exists. Maybe you can help the rest of us out. Will you please define excatly what global warming means in scientific terms and what in scientific terms is required to do whatever it is that you believe should be done to keep the earth at some "magic" temperature where the world is in perfect harmony and what that means in specific terms and why that is the only rational course of action that man should take if in fact man is even able to control what one eruption of Kracatoa did to the temperature of the earth in one short year.
The EPA this week called Global Warming real and harmful.
NOAA confirms it.
Some of the most heavily peer-reviewed reports in scientific history confirm it.
Some scientists may argue over how much of it is caused by humans, and how harmful it is, and that sort of thing, but extremely few scientists argue that global warming isn't real. A vast minority.
That's especially true among climate scientists. It's a virtual certainty among many that warming exists and man is exacerbating it.
You mean the IPCC AR4 report? Go ahead, since you are so informed, call it by its name. By the way, much of that reports claims are in question. Everything from shoddy paperwork to unethical practices in the research. It isn't conclusive and to claim it is shows you have some server ignorance of the issue.
Second, the EPA is a garbage organization. It has a track record of poor research. It has been taken to court in the past and lost due to its practices on other issues. It is a political organization and administration much like the UN.
Your list of scientists are also contested and you probably didn't realize that real scientist view climate research as a joke right now. It has terrible practices in holding to proper policy. It does not exercise due diligence in its work (those claiming the doom and gloom, hockey stick anyone, 1998 and 2005 warmest year sham) and it criticies those who attempt to verify their work by hiding the data they use to make their public statements.
Now if you want to discuss the science and step away from "My dad is better than your dad" arguments so we can discuss some of the actual problems I mention, I am willing, yet do you even have a CLUE about what I am talking about? Nope, you are too busy picking up your talking points from earthdoom.com and drooling over the idiocy they program on the TV for the sheep.
OK. Throughout we hear supportors proclaim that there is global warming and "everyone" who knows anything knows that it exists. Maybe you can help the rest of us out. Will you please define excatly what global warming means in scientific terms and what in scientific terms is required to do whatever it is that you believe should be done to keep the earth at some "magic" temperature where the world is in perfect harmony and what that means in specific terms and why that is the only rational course of action that man should take if in fact man is even able to control what one eruption of Kracatoa did to the temperature of the earth in one short year.
Then we can continue the discussion.
I'm not a "supporter" of anything except for an acceptance of the general consensus of people who have devoted their professional careers to studying something as nuanced as climate. I don't claim to know anything more than anyone else. That's the difference. I'm inclined to believe the consensus of literally thousands upon thousands of experts, and that consensus is that the earth is getting warmer and that means lots of changes.
Perhaps these changes won't be cataclysmic, but evidence seems to suggest that they will occur.
The studies of people who know far more than me is the foundation of my belief that global warming is real. Just like I trust very smart people who tell me that atoms and oxygen and far-off galaxies are real.
Maybe that's not much, but I'd endeavor that those who constantly doubt have even less backing them up.
You mean the IPCC AR4 report? Go ahead, since you are so informed, call it by its name. By the way, much of that reports claims are in question. Everything from shoddy paperwork to unethical practices in the research. It isn't conclusive and to claim it is shows you have some server ignorance of the issue.
Second, the EPA is a garbage organization. It has a track record of poor research. It has been taken to court in the past and lost due to its practices on other issues. It is a political organization and administration much like the UN.
Your list of scientists are also contested and you probably didn't realize that real scientist view climate research as a joke right now. It has terrible practices in holding to proper policy. It does not exercise due diligence in its work (those claiming the doom and gloom, hockey stick anyone, 1998 and 2005 warmest year sham) and it criticies those who attempt to verify their work by hiding the data they use to make their public statements.
Now if you want to discuss the science and step away from "My dad is better than your dad" arguments so we can discuss some of the actual problems I mention, I am willing, yet do you even have a CLUE about what I am talking about? Nope, you are too busy picking up your talking points from earthdoom.com and drooling over the idiocy they program on the TV for the sheep.
Hmmm. You assume a lot about me.
The organizations I've mentioned are hardly fringe. NOAA. The UN IPCC. The EPA.
Who are the "real scientists" you're talking about? Bjorn Lomborg?
Once again, I've never claimed to be an expert. That's why I shy away from condemning experts when I know precisely squat. Just as you know precisely squat, unless you'd like to flash your credentials.
I'm not a "supporter" of anything except for an acceptance of the general consensus of people who have devoted their professional careers to studying something as nuanced as climate. I don't claim to know anything more than anyone else. That's the difference. I'm inclined to believe the consensus of literally thousands upon thousands of experts, and that consensus is that the earth is getting warmer and that means lots of changes.
Perhaps these changes won't be cataclysmic, but evidence seems to suggest that they will occur.
The studies of people who know far more than me is the foundation of my belief that global warming is real. Just like I trust very smart people who tell me that atoms and oxygen and far-off galaxies are real.
Maybe that's not much, but I'd endeavor that those who constantly doubt have even less backing them up.
You have consensus. News flash, consensus isn't science. Thats the new science created by the people today who have no clue what science is and rather than learning what it is, they decided they would just redefine it.
No, evidence does not suggest. People suggest it and they pick out the data they like to proclaim it.
Hansen needed 1998 and 2005 to be the warmest years, he has had a bug up his rear for a warming claim for many years now. Picked out some samplings from surface stations and low and behold, he was able to proclaim we are in a warming trend. Well... That is until someone checked his math, checked is data analysis and stated find weird calculations and errors that somehow supported his claim. Now those dates are not longer the warmest and we are back to 1934 being the warmest.
Not only that, but anytime he was questioned about his data and methods, he became extremely defensive and refused to even partake in other peoples evaluation of his findings (a practice that is very odd for a scientist).
Also, there is Mann's wonderful world of hockey sticks who also likes to use creative math and noise to come to conclusions with tree ring data. Something that also was found to be lacking and most recently, a white paper by Briffa (one who was part of it) claiming that tree ring data isn't sufficient to find any climate conclusions with. The same guy who publicly claimed it was sufficient in the AR4 report, yet privately concedes it isn't in a white paper that was not meant to be public?
And how could we forget the wonderful claims of the ice melting to which no conclusive data can be found without tailoring the results to ignore its own global claims by using regional focus.
Then there is the little fact that the surface stations are in complete disarray and through recent surveys of the sites they are finding warming biases in their readings due to placement and condition. Funny ain't it?
And how could we forget the wonderful responses of inquiry from Phil Jones concerning a request for data. A classic response of any true scientist to a request is always followed by:
Quote:
We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider.
So please excuse me if I don't buy into your claims of consensus or the herding barks of sheep dogs.
The organizations I've mentioned are hardly fringe. NOAA. The UN IPCC. The EPA.
Who are the "real scientists" you're talking about? Bjorn Lomborg?
Once again, I've never claimed to be an expert. That's why I shy away from condemning experts when I know precisely squat. Just as you know precisely squat, unless you'd like to flash your credentials.
Come off it.
All of your beloved agencies and their track records are neatly recorded on this site. Look on the left side of the site there and pick a topic.
Nomander is full of BS. Because he knows a LITTLE BIT he claims to know more than virtually EVERY scientific organization WORLDWIDE that has studied the issue. He cites a handful of dissident scientists - some of which seriously doubt global warming, and some of which have merely prostitited themselves to the oil companies in the same way tobacco companies found hack scientists to "disprove" that tobacco is harmful (Exxon/Mobile spent $16 million to fund global warming skeptics between 1998 and 2005)
ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.
“ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer,” said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Director of Strategy & Policy. “A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years.”
Nomander is one of those who have been successfully "confused" - probably because he was ripe for it - so I would pay him no mind.
Again, when EVERY major scientific organization on the entire planet who has studied the issue comes to the same conclusion, the odds are pretty darned good they are RIGHT.
Here's just a few:
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Research Council (US)
European Science Foundation
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Federation of American Scientists
World Meteorological Organization
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
American Chemical Society
American Statistical Association - and yet Nomander will claim "the math is bad" - Yeah, RIGHT!
Etc, Etc, Etc. The list of concurring professsion scientific organization is HUGE.
It's a who's who of scientific organizations.
And yet according to Nomander we are suppose to dismiss all them in favor of a handful of dissident (most of which most people have never heard of, and most of which are not trained in meteorology)
Sorry Nomander, I just don't buy it.
The fact that YOU may know more about the arguments than myself does not mean that your few scientist champions (many of whom are likely scientific prostitutes) know more than the established scientific community.
And yet somehow, EVERY ONE of those high-profile scientific organizations somehow incredibly have a secret political agenda - more like YOUR folks do if you ask me.
So, Who's funding THEIR research?
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 07-16-2008 at 08:06 PM..
Nomander is full of BS. Because he knows a LITTLE BIT he claims to know more than virtually EVERY scientific organization WORLDWIDE that has studied the issue. He cites a handful of dissident scientists - some of which seriously doubt global warming, and some of which have merely prostitited themselves to the oil companies in the same way tobacco companies found hack scientists to "disprove" that tobacco is harmful (Exxon/Mobile spent $16 million to fund global warming skeptics between 1998 and 2005)
ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.
“ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer,” said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Director of Strategy & Policy. “A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years.”
Nomander is one of those who have been successfully "confused" - probably because he was ripe for it - so I would pay him no mind.
Again, when EVERY major scientific organization on the entire planet who has studied the issue comes to the same conclusion, the odds are pretty darned good they are RIGHT.
Here's just a few:
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Research Council (US)
European Science Foundation
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Federation of American Scientists
World Meteorological Organization
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
American Chemical Society
American Statistical Association - and yet Nomander will claim "the math is bad" - Yeah, RIGHT!
Etc, Etc, Etc. The list of concurring professsion scientific organization is HUGE.
It's a who's who of scientific organizations.
And yet according to Nomander we are suppose to dismiss all them in favor of a handful of dissident (most of which most people have never heard of, and most of which are not trained in meteorology)
Sorry Nomander, I just don't buy it.
The fact that YOU may know more about the arguments than myself does not mean that your few scientist champions know more than the established scientific community (many of whom are likely scientific prostitutes).
And yet somehow, EVERY ONE of those high-profile scientific organizations somehow incredibly have a secret political agenda - more like YOUR folks do if you ask me.
So, Who's funding THEIR research?
Ken
They hide nothing. The errors they find in the calculations and findings are public for all to see. If they are wrong, it is easily shown.
Your only position is that of a logical fallacy. All you can do is attack the source, not the content. You don't contest their data. Everything in your post here is an appeal to authority, an attack at source validity and not one counter to the evidence.
We should believe you because of your weak arguments as to why these people are superior and that they have a consensus and well, we just ought to believe them because they wouldn't have any ulterior motives, etc... etc...
All of it, a logical fallacy. Try again.
You are welcome to pick anything you like out of this site and prove it wrong though.
Oh wait, you don't need to, you will merely look up any possible past relation or even shaking hands with a distant relative of an oil company as grounds for disregarding the information. How very convenient of you.
I'm not a "supporter" of anything except for an acceptance of the general consensus of people who have devoted their professional careers to studying something as nuanced as climate. I don't claim to know anything more than anyone else. That's the difference. I'm inclined to believe the consensus of literally thousands upon thousands of experts, and that consensus is that the earth is getting warmer and that means lots of changes.
You are making my point. You say you are a supporter of a believed general concensus of something that you describe as "something as nuanced as climate". So tell us exactly what concensus? I and others like me are struggling to understand what is your definition of climate change and how that definition can be translated into, let's say, the economic and scientific paramaters of exactly what it is that you propose we do.
And please do not let that explanation be something as nuanced as "we need to develop alternatives".
Not so easy there expert Lord Balfor, come on back and show us our errors. Post the wonderful knowledge you have about the situation. Whats next? Maybe you can proclaim a conspiracy that anyone and everyone who objects to global warming doom is affiliated with an alien organization that is hell bent on the destruction of planet earth! Keep on coming back with your fallacies about how the person themselves is more relevant than what they say! Maybe you can get all the idiot sheep to surround your position and ignore everything except high school fad based popularity claims! Hey look, thats Fred, he has plad pants on and wears glasses, never mind what he says, he is a loser, all the cool people listen to what the rest of us have consensus on! Brilliant, golf clap, bravo!
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.
