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 jump from the question to the answer is based on common sense. I guess you don't deny that human with all their cars, factories etc. are emitting billions of tons of CO2 and other gases every year. Now, there are just three possible ways to go from here:
1. all those gases won't have any effect whatsoever on the climate and earth in general
2. they will have a negative effect
3. they will have a positive effect
Common sense is not a logical process of science. Common sense does not always translate well in scientific realms. Some things are not explainable though common sense evaluation.
There is a list in there, feel free to check yourself on them.
Quote:
Common Sense:
unfortunately, there simply isn't a common-sense answer for many questions. In politics, for example, there are a lot of issues where people disagree. Each side thinks that their answer is common sense. Clearly, some of these people are wrong. The reason they are wrong is because common sense depends on the context, knowledge and experience of the observer. That is why instruction manuals will often have paragraphs like these:
When boating, use common sense. Have one life preserver for each person in the boat. When towing a water skier, use common sense. Have one person watching the skier at all times.
If the ideas are so obvious, then why the second sentence ? Why do they have to spell it out ? The answer is that "use common sense" actually meant "pay attention, I am about to tell you something that inexperienced people often get wrong." Science has discovered a lot of situations which are far more unfamiliar than water skiing. Not surprisingly, beginners find that much of it violates their common sense. For example, many people can't imagine how a mountain range would form. But in fact anyone can take good GPS equipment to the Himalayas, and measure for themselves that those mountains are rising today.
I can't deny anything that is evident. The position that climate change is unprecedented and it is due to man is an assumption, it is not evident. Models are simply guesses on guesses. They are worthless in conclusive realms. Do you know much about them? Read up on how GCM's work and how many variables they have to guess at. You might be surprised that these "models" are just clever magic 8 balls. Garbage in, Garbage out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
I guess one would have to be rather naive to agree with position 1. So, it's 2 or 3. Which one do you agree with? No matter which option you pick, you can't prove it. At best you can refer to historic data, but you can't know the long-term consequences unless you use models, which you have spoken out against earlier on because of their lack of certainty.
It is an opinion poll, simply to assess peoples opinions on the topic, not a "tells us which is fact" poll. There is no right or wrong answer in the context it is provided. Like I said, take it with a grain of salt, my point is that opinions have and are changing.
What does it mean? Nothing really other than it suggests that opinions are changing from what they once were. That is, people are starting to question the position rather than blindly accepting it out of a position of authority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Frankly, your survey link only reflects the mindset of the majority of the people asked, probably the American mob gathered at a Tea Party I guess if they had asked students at the MIT the results would have been quite different
Good thing you got your insult in there. I always heard that the best way to deal with something that contradicts your own view is to insult it. I like your added speculation on result with the MIT and your manipulation that it would result in supporting your own position. Look in that link I gave you again, I bet you can find a few in your response here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Killing children?! Like the Iraqi soldiers killed Kuwaiti children, right?
Regards from Bhopal
I am sorry, were we talking about Iraq? I could have sworn we were discussing climate science and related positions.
No, like promoting the killing of children who do not conform to the green view. You know, the 1010 video in this thread "No pressure"? So do you agree with killing children and others because they don't follow your green policies?
By "it doesn't change the end result" he probably meant that the difference that error makes only changes the result to a minor extent, but it doesn't change the tendency or invalidate his models, theories, hypotheses, or whatever. (I don't know much about the 1930s, but something unusual must have happened back then, wasn't that also the time of the Dust Bowl?)
It's like when you have a race between a bicycle and a Corvette. No matter if the Corvette goes 240 or 200 or 260mph, it will win just the same
As to the rest, no time for small talk, still working
What video? Link please. I don't support the killing of anyone and no decent person does, no matter what their political views are.
It was no insult. It is just what I think is typical of Americans. If you did such a survey in Europe, the results would be quite different, even within Europe Germans would yield different results than Brits. And within the US it's the same thing. The more intelligent and educated, the more people tend to realize our life style is causing problems for the world.
That effectively invalidates your position on the issue.
I know you are just giving your opinion, but this is one of those moments that I explained to you in a previous discussion which makes your opinion invalid when considered under objective form.
Scientists are not activists. There is a reason why they are not, it is because it can greatly effect their ability to properly discern the facts. Bias is a huge problem, even for scientists that do not hold a specific view, but in a case where one is an activist, it becomes a very dangerous mix as they will constantly be seeing what they wish to conclude.
That is, they create a hypothesis and then set out to confirm it by selecting that which supports it. This is contrary to proper practice and is an issue Hansen has already been caught on with his poor data selection methods.
Did you know that Hansen even stated when McIntyre showed him his errors that "it doesn't change the end result"? That is a strong indication of bias as it shows his results are more important than the process. The thing is, he stated such, yet he was found to be wrong as it did change the end result. His dates were wrong and because they were, 1998 was no longer significant as it had been hotter (even if slight) in the 1930's. That changes the entire conclusion of his work which was to promote that we are showing unprecedented warming within the US record. His conclusion was false because he allowed bias to drive his methods and he resulted in what he wanted to be the conclusion, not what actually was.
His activism (strong emotional position) compromised his work. So it certainly is a problem, but then as you said, you have no problems with double standards, so like him, you are also rushing to the conclusion and selectively picking your result. It is a self fulfilled prophecy.
'Scientists' are not activists? Really? Who sez? If they are an activist that says global warming is a 'hoax' that's ok right (but there are so few of them-3%) So if we have the vast preponderance (97%) Who are activists- that makes their research fake or a hoax- or is politically against the arguments of the fossil fuel industry or YOU?
C'mon Norm- you can fool others here with your misinformation, confusion- The data from a wide plethora of sources from NASA, to the NOAA- the National Academy of Sciences have empirical evidence to dispute everything you have ever said here - and what are your sources? Roy Spencer, Moncton, Anthony Watts----- hardly a widely respected group- anywhere- except in the fairyland of denial.
You'll consider them but blow off the CRU documents and emails? Consider this for a second, with those documents as evidence the head of the CRU could have been brought up on criminal charges except the statute of limitations ran out. Criminal charges.
...
The CRU received funding from Shell and many alternative energy companies both of whom would substantially benefit from the curbing of CO2 emissions including some here in the US, does this discount all their research?
You either understand there's scientific consensus, or you don't. You either understand that some fossil fuel companies are more fully vested into alternative energy, or you don't.
This isn't hard, people.
Oh, and speaking of consensus, did Al Gore somehow pull this off too?
PARIS — Global warming exists and is unquestionably due to human activity, the French Academy of Science said in a report published Thursday and written by 120 scientists from France and abroad.
It is ok for the scientists responsible for the validity of the research to be activists and yet even the slightest hint of a past relationship to a mineral exploration company automatically disqualifies the research due to a claim of bias?
The problem is the fossil fuel companies aren't funding any research which is debunking that humans are responsible for climate change.
Researchers publicizing the results of their research isn't even remotely the same thing.
Shall I repeat that a few hundred times until it sinks in?
By "it doesn't change the end result" he probably meant that the difference that error makes only changes the result to a minor extent, but it doesn't change the tendency or invalidate his models, theories, hypotheses, or whatever. (I don't know much about the 1930s, but something unusual must have happened back then, wasn't that also the time of the Dust Bowl?)
It's like when you have a race between a bicycle and a Corvette. No matter if the Corvette goes 240 or 200 or 260mph, it will win just the same
As to the rest, no time for small talk, still working
The point is how he was looking at it. He was in defense mode, defense of his position and that isn't what happens in science. Remember, the goal is to try and invalidate your hypothesis. You want to find anything you can to try and break it. It isn't about being mostly right, that isn't how it works. That is what a bias provides as the focus is to the result, not the process.
He should have been happy at what McIntyre found and asked for him to provide it so he could run the tests and see what was going on. He didn't, from the very first response, he was defensive, refused to discuss it and did not want to release any of his own work to explain it.
Now you can have a divergence, but it has to be properly explained. He didn't explain it, he simply disregarded it. This is evidence of bias to a position and considering he also is a major activist, well... you do the math.
What video? Link please. I don't support the killing of anyone and no decent person does, no matter what their political views are.
It was no insult. It is just what I think is typical of Americans. If you did such a survey in Europe, the results would be quite different, even within Europe Germans would yield different results than Brits. And within the US it's the same thing. The more intelligent and educated, the more people tend to realize our life style is causing problems for the world.
'Scientists' are not activists? Really? Who sez? If they are an activist that says global warming is a 'hoax' that's ok right (but there are so few of them-3%) So if we have the vast preponderance (97%) Who are activists- that makes their research fake or a hoax- or is politically against the arguments of the fossil fuel industry or YOU?
Well, maybe you can tell me? I know the answer, but I want you to show me that you know what scientific process is. This would tie in with a previous question you avoided. Explain to me the scientific method? Now, you point out to me how an activist is even remotely compatible with such a process? Remember, the goal is to be completely objective, to not weight in any direction, rather to try and disprove ones own hypothesis.
An activist is a complete adherence to a position. You don't see how someone who is an activist, so much to the point of being arrested may have a bit of a bias to a conclusion? The two are incompatible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shelby93
'
C'mon Norm- you can fool others here with your misinformation, confusion- The data from a wide plethora of sources from NASA, to the NOAA- the National Academy of Sciences have empirical evidence to dispute everything you have ever said here - and what are your sources? Roy Spencer, Moncton, Anthony Watts----- hardly a widely respected group- anywhere- except in the fairyland of denial.
Double standard ehh? *chuckle*
You don't see it do you? Look, I am not claiming those you listed as what you claim is my "sources" are right. They are asking questions, pointing out issues, etc... I do not hold them as an authority, I only care about what is evident, what can be shown to be true.
You on the other hand are relying on a position of authority. That is, my sources could be lying cheating, etc... and it would not have even the slightest effect on my position because... if they can not show it to be evident, I don't buy it. Besides, can you point how many times I cited those you mention as my source for something? Go ahead, look through the thread. I am using a wider variation of the official agencies than you are. You simply use one source and mostly summaries from administrative pages. *chuckle*
You on the other hand can be easily duped. You only require authority as proof which is why you continuously argue using poisoning the well.
You either understand there's scientific consensus, or you don't. You either understand that some fossil fuel companies are more fully vested into alternative energy, or you don't.
This isn't hard, people.
Oh, and speaking of consensus, did Al Gore somehow pull this off too?
PARIS — Global warming exists and is unquestionably due to human activity, the French Academy of Science said in a report published Thursday and written by 120 scientists from France and abroad.
I am confused...
You didn't respond to a single thing he said. Are you even reading?
So do you deny that Jones was guilty of an FOIA violation? As he said, you do realize that he was found guilty, but could not be prosecuted?
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.
I guess if they had asked students at the MIT the results would have been quite different 
