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.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,456,964 times
Reputation: 6670
Advertisements
Hey, if folks don't believe in Global Warming, fine (although a little weird given all the body of evidence). But if they're right, and they've got proof, then why do they always end up stooping to the childish "neener-neener" stuff and personal attacks? Whenever anyone is obviously so emotionally invested like that, you have to wonder..... what are they so afraid of anyway, that they have to go to such great lengths for denial? Actually, it kinda reminds me of the Holocaust Deniers.
Is it just too scarey and threatening to contemplate the possibility we might have to change our "disposable" culture somehow? Or maybe it's "guilt by association" because Al Gore said it's so? Or do they think it's some kind of "liberal gateway idea"... buy into "Global Warming", and next thing you'll become a (gasp!) "Socialist"! Why is it even a "political" thing to begin with? Honestly, I don't get it..... !
Hey, if folks don't believe in Global Warming, fine (although a little weird given all the body of evidence). But if they're right, and they've got proof, then why do they always end up stooping to the childish "neener-neener" stuff and personal attacks? Whenever anyone is obviously so emotionally invested like that, you have to wonder..... what are they so afraid of anyway, that they have to go to such great lengths for denial? Actually, it kinda reminds me of the Holocaust Deniers.
Is it just too scarey and threatening to contemplate the possibility we might have to change our "disposable" culture somehow? Or maybe it's "guilt by association" because Al Gore said it's so? Or do they think it's some kind of "liberal gateway idea"... buy into "Global Warming", and next thing you'll become a (gasp!) "Socialist"! Why is it even a "political" thing to begin with? Honestly, I don't get it..... !
I don't care about the politics, but those you claim that have the "body of evidence" in fact use it at every angle.
Have you been living under a rock? Do you not read whats going on in the science or is the extent of your knowledge on the subject relegated to your favorite political sites and the mainstream media?
The simple fact, if we are discussing the science and not resorting to fallacious support through political angle is that the science is not settled, not even remotely. The fact remains that the bulk of this evidence you purport actually consists mainly of using predictive models.
These models by the way are simply weather forecast models that must also account for numerous other extremely complex variables to make their predictions. As you know, the standard for weather forecast models is roughly 24 hours for a "fairly" accurate assessment. Anything past that and the simple laws of randomness render them mostly incorrect. Yet for some reason, these same models in a long term prediction to which have much more variables to consider are supposed to be accurate? Please explain the logic in this to me?
Here is another catch to the issue. All of those models? You know, the ones that are predicting long term results? They have all been wrong. That's right, not a single one has predicted even close to that which they had claimed.
Lets move on though, there is more, oh boy is there more.
Now we find that the main support for the AGW claim, to which the IPCC based the bulk of its findings on was research by those who have been found to have violated freedom of information acts, worked to bar any research from non-supportive positions, and have manipulated the very core of the research used to proclaim the position. Oh, and we can't check their claims because they deleted all of the raw data to which led them to their results.
Pay no heed though to the fact that it can be shown that thier methods are not statistically sound (not a single usage of their methods is replicated in statistical analysis ANYWHERE) and their application of the data and display of its results are beyond reasonable position specifically showing a need to lean to a bias.
No, please do not look behind the curtain, this is important stuff. Please avert all of your attention to the shiny acronyms of the official agencies to which use political ploy and slant to proclaim their truths, which are evident, trust them, but they just can't be bothered to show you why.
Please excuse us if we do not take your claim seriously as the fact of the matter is that you are so ignorant of the issue, so out of touch with the actual happenings of the topics, that you look beyond silly coming in here attempting to use fallacious claims to appeals of authority of organizations and bogus common sense claims to localized effect being passed off as a globalized occurrence.
Oh, and we didn't even get into the surface records which are currently shown to be basically worthless or even the IPCC being caught using non-peer reviewed political literature as the basis of support for their claims.
do yourself a favor and don't respond. Just back away and save yourself the embarrassment.
Or... don't and we can go step by step through all of the science while consistently making you look like an idiot sheep for thinking you can walk into a topic to which you have absolutely no understanding of using break room chat as evidence to your claim.
Who was there to put out the massive forest fires that would rage all year long, before the white man hit the shores of the USA? More soot and CO2, than that of all the factories today, combined. Soot and dust particles is what rain droplets collect on and then fall to Earth, Clouds and rain, cool the earth.
All those cars and factories 10,000 years ago made the ice sheet that covered the east coast and Midwest, disappear.
No, the magnetic north pole is not moving towards Russia.
Russia and Sweden's winter are getting colder, our summers are getting warmer.
It's so sad that people think this disproves ANYTHING about global warming.
Did I say that? Matter of fact I provided a quote from the article that says the same thing. You must of missed it, here it is again:
Quote:
It may be winds pushing ice further southwards in the Bering Sea, it may be fresh ice. It may be a combination. While this event isn’t by itself an about-face of the longer downward trend we’ve seen, it does seem to suggest that predictions assuming a linear (or even spiral) demise aren’t holding up.
The only one saying it disproves Global Warming is you and someone else trying to put words in mouth. My original point of course was when an ice cube falls off a sheet of ice MSM is all over like flies on ****. Since it's the exact opposite of what they want to report on you won't hear anything about it. From what I'm reading this actually very abnormal... like real news.
Quote:
Coalman, I'm calling you out. Show us some links to real, published peer-reviewed science that can stand up to the empirical body of work linked in the skeptic arguements above.
I can think for myself on most of them, let's start with number 3 on your list as it's the first one I'm very familiar with. It's cites a poll which says 82% of scientists answered yes to this:
Quote:
"Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
The first problem is the question itself. What is significant? 1%? 50%? 100%? See the issue here? There is no quantity for "significant", what could be significant in one scientists eyes may be insignificant in someone else.
The next issue is that this poll was sent to about 10K scientists and about 3300 responded (if I remember correctly). Where I would suggest there is an issue is who is responding. For example if I send out poll to 10K people asking a question about abortion you're going to get responses from those that feel most strongly about the issue which means you'll have a very large number of Catholics responding to it which of course would skew the results considerably.
Lastly there is some technical issues involved with this, specifically the poll itself cited blocking IP's of those that already voted as a "security measure". Not only does it provide no security but could in fact prevent others from voting. Computers on the same network inside of larger building like offices and Universities often share the same IP address, so if this poll was sent to few people working in the same building one person voting could cancel out the ability of others to do it.
I'll await your response and we can move on to another one.
Last edited by thecoalman; 04-03-2010 at 02:11 AM..
Hey, if folks don't believe in Global Warming, fine (although a little weird given all the body of evidence). But if they're right, and they've got proof, then why do they always end up stooping to the childish "neener-neener" stuff and personal attacks? Whenever anyone is obviously so emotionally invested like that, you have to wonder..... what are they so afraid of anyway, that they have to go to such great lengths for denial? Actually, it kinda reminds me of the Holocaust Deniers.
Is it just too scarey and threatening to contemplate the possibility we might have to change our "disposable" culture somehow? Or maybe it's "guilt by association" because Al Gore said it's so? Or do they think it's some kind of "liberal gateway idea"... buy into "Global Warming", and next thing you'll become a (gasp!) "Socialist"! Why is it even a "political" thing to begin with? Honestly, I don't get it..... !
Don't worry we are all still building our Arks.
But if you want to see real earth climate history, not just an insignificant time frame, science that is conveniently ignored by all of the climate change nitwits with an agenda.
I'll await your response and we can move on to another one.
You likely won't get one. He did this in the last thread where 3 people responded with the exact science that refuted his claim and he never posted again. His appearance to this thread has the exact same cut and paste, and the exact condescending response.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,456,964 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
I don't care about the politics, but those you claim that have the "body of evidence" in fact use it at every angle.
Have you been living under a rock? Do you not read whats going on in the science or is the extent of your knowledge on the subject relegated to your favorite political sites and the mainstream media?
The simple fact, if we are discussing the science and not resorting to fallacious support through political angle is that the science is not settled, not even remotely. The fact remains that the bulk of this evidence you purport actually consists mainly of using predictive models.
These models by the way are simply weather forecast models that must also account for numerous other extremely complex variables to make their predictions. As you know, the standard for weather forecast models is roughly 24 hours for a "fairly" accurate assessment. Anything past that and the simple laws of randomness render them mostly incorrect. Yet for some reason, these same models in a long term prediction to which have much more variables to consider are supposed to be accurate? Please explain the logic in this to me?
Here is another catch to the issue. All of those models? You know, the ones that are predicting long term results? They have all been wrong. That's right, not a single one has predicted even close to that which they had claimed.
Lets move on though, there is more, oh boy is there more.
Now we find that the main support for the AGW claim, to which the IPCC based the bulk of its findings on was research by those who have been found to have violated freedom of information acts, worked to bar any research from non-supportive positions, and have manipulated the very core of the research used to proclaim the position. Oh, and we can't check their claims because they deleted all of the raw data to which led them to their results.
Pay no heed though to the fact that it can be shown that thier methods are not statistically sound (not a single usage of their methods is replicated in statistical analysis ANYWHERE) and their application of the data and display of its results are beyond reasonable position specifically showing a need to lean to a bias.
No, please do not look behind the curtain, this is important stuff. Please avert all of your attention to the shiny acronyms of the official agencies to which use political ploy and slant to proclaim their truths, which are evident, trust them, but they just can't be bothered to show you why.
Please excuse us if we do not take your claim seriously as the fact of the matter is that you are so ignorant of the issue, so out of touch with the actual happenings of the topics, that you look beyond silly coming in here attempting to use fallacious claims to appeals of authority of organizations and bogus common sense claims to localized effect being passed off as a globalized occurrence.
Oh, and we didn't even get into the surface records which are currently shown to be basically worthless or even the IPCC being caught using non-peer reviewed political literature as the basis of support for their claims.
do yourself a favor and don't respond. Just back away and save yourself the embarrassment.
Or... don't and we can go step by step through all of the science while consistently making you look like an idiot sheep for thinking you can walk into a topic to which you have absolutely no understanding of using break room chat as evidence to your claim.
The choice is yours.
OK, we disagree, I got that part. And I don't want to argue it because I'm not an expert on climate (and I doubt you are either). But for my part, I choose to accept the conclusions of virtually every major scientific academy of nearly every industrialized country in the world, peer-reviewed, not funded by self-interested petroleum companies, that anthropogenic global warming is real. If that's not enough, I dunno what is.
So unless you've got legitimate credentials to match that, then why should I (or anyone else) accept your "opinion", "common sense", whatever? But more to the point, how is being angry, bitchy and just plain insulting to anyone who disagrees with you, supposed to make you more effective (or convincing)?
Hey, if folks don't believe in Global Warming, fine (although a little weird given all the body of evidence).
We know the planet gets warmer and cooler, that is not in dispute here. But there is no proof that any warming is caused by man, all you have is an unproven theory and badly tainted research that has been corrupted trying desperately to prove it.
We do understand that fossil fuels cause pollution, and we would like to see a new form of energy too, who wouldn't.
What we do not want to see is government punishing the living crap out of us with global warming taxes. As if we can herald in a new form of energy by legislating it into existence, or increasing our taxes and and adding new restrictive regulations on industry, manufacturing will suddenly create this new form of energy.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,456,964 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
We know the planet gets warmer and cooler, that is not in dispute here. But there is no proof that any warming is caused by man, all you have is an unproven theory and badly tainted research that has been corrupted trying desperately to prove it.
We do understand that fossil fuels cause pollution, and we would like to see a new form of energy too, who wouldn't.
What we do not want to see is government punishing the living crap out of us with global warming taxes. As if we can herald in a new form of energy by legislating it into existence, or increasing our taxes and and adding new restrictive regulations on industry, manufacturing will suddenly create this new form of energy.
I agree that "punishment" and "scolding" is entirely the wrong approach. But even if all you say is true, what do we do in the meantime, just keep arguing about it? Or worse, take the chance and do nothing...!?
No one disputes there are natural cycles. But among other things, it's the "rate" of increase in warming, that's unprecedented until the emergence of human industrialization (as your graph indicates). Besides, even if it's all just part of some "natural cycle", do you think we're helping things?
But thanks for pointing out the broken link. And BTW, if Global Warming is part of some "global conspiracy", what's the "motivation"? 'Cuz it's gotta be a helluva good one that can get all these countries to agree (on anything!):
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.
