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.
Faith would be more like religious belief...something that cannot be proven, replicated, scientifically explained, etc etc. Global warming has been proven by all those scientific models and by reasoning. Algorithms, models of scale, replication, and all the means of science is indeed not faith but scientific observation and conclusions. This is how theories are proven true; thus Global Warming is no longer a theory.
Quote:
No, the peer review showed that there was a logical fallacy: Just because they both rose, doesn't mean that one caused the other or, if one did cause the other, which one. So, no, we don't know, and have never known.
There are no "peer reviews" only objections from a VERY SMALL community of "researchers" paid by industry and vested financiers. We DO know how gaseous compounds work as we can create them in a lab and have proven this creation method over, and over, and over, for nearly a century.
Quote:
When and by whom?
I will say again, there is no consensus in science. If you see the word consensus, it automatically means theory.
The question isn't when and by whom, but by how many and how often...Harvard Researchers, Oxford, NOAA, NASA, and now even pentagon researchers, LOL, who are preparing for cataclysmic events due to Global Warming and shifting weather patterns.
Quote:
Absolutely.
However, there is a difference between naturally occurring shifts in cycles and anthropogenic induced events that are happening over decades instead of centuries or millennia.
Quote:
I think it has been pretty well documented and proven. Did you not open the link I provided? (Of course you didn't).
I did read and open the links, but again, this is an opinion and not something I can extrapolate from occurring because we use one energy source over another. The logic for such thinking is misconstrued and alarmist. This is like people saying if we allow gays to marry soon people will want to marry kids or animals; such thinking is unfounded and alarmist. It would deem that humans are not capable of mitigation or rationalization. As in, two gay adults are consenting whereas a child and animal are not. Same here. We are capable of implementing change in technology without revamping our government or having to establish a socialist form of economy.
Frankly, I'm tired, and I'm ready to stop the back-and-forth. I have plenty of respect for you, fcorrales80, and I think we agree on plenty.
However, before I stop, I'll post one more link. This came out yesterday. Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, one of the most respected scientists out there who is constantly peer reviewing other's work, and his own work is flawless in peer reviews. There is not a more reputable person out there, in my opinion. You can read an article about what he says, and you can also download a PDF of his paper. It is quite informative and compelling, and I doubt anything out there exists that is closer to the actual truth than what he says. I hope you choose to read it, and keep an open mind. Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist
The debate was fun and insightful, but I'm just tired.
Frankly, I'm tired, and I'm ready to stop the back-and-forth. I have plenty of respect for you, fcorrales80, and I think we agree on plenty.
However, before I stop, I'll post one more link. This came out yesterday. Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, one of the most respected scientists out there who is constantly peer reviewing other's work, and his own work is flawless in peer reviews. There is not a more reputable person out there, in my opinion. You can read an article about what he says, and you can also download a PDF of his paper. It is quite informative and compelling, and I doubt anything out there exists that is closer to the actual truth than what he says. I hope you choose to read it, and keep an open mind. Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist
The debate was fun and insightful, but I'm just tired.
I understand your tiring as this discussion is extremely important for people to understand. One thing about Dr. Lindzen is that much of his research has been funded by the oil industry to the tune of more than $2500 a day. All the World's most important scientific communities disagree with him:
Quote:
Well every major scientific society on the entire planet with relevant expertise disagrees with him. Even the National Academy of Sciences, which he is a member of, disagrees with him. Here is a press release released in 2005 which opens with the words “Climate Change is real”. It’s conclusion begins with “We urge all nations, in the line with the UNFCCC principles, to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change, adapt to its impacts and ensure that the issue is included in all relevant national and international strategies.” It is signed by:
He is one of the few oil industries "scientists" who go against the rationale of founded research. However, I have continued off topic AGAIN...so back to energy bill shockers. I think however that this is related to the electric bill discussion given that an effect can occur which will hit our electric bills and pocket books without some change in thinking. But, about this summer. I am hopeful for my August bill as well. So far so good this summer.
But his research is peer reviewed. He's extremely highly respected in the scientific community and is regarded as being especially reputable. Nobody has disproven his paper (despite his paper disproving many other's papers). Does that not matter?
But his research is peer reviewed. He's extremely highly respected in the scientific community and is regarded as being especially reputable. Nobody has disproven his paper (despite his paper disproving many other's papers). Does that not matter?
Peer review doesn't mean much as it could be anyone that has the same academic background and the same funding from industry related to his studies. He is respected for his academic accomplishments but that has dwindled given his funding sources and research ties to that industry. He is a sound scientist outside of this debate but has lost credibility, especially when every scientific community, even the one he is a member of disagrees with his research on Global Warming and question his motives.
"One thing about Dr. Lindzen is that much of his research has been funded by the oil industry... Peer review doesn't mean much as it could be anyone that has the same academic background and the same funding from industry related to his studies."
But couldn't the same arguement be said about other scientists who are funded by Green Peace and other "environmental" groups? It's a weak arguement, because funding bias can be found both ways, I'm sure. One thing that can't be argued is that no one has refuted Dr. Lindzen findings. People have only said "Well, look where his money comes from."
"All the World's most important scientific communities disagree with him"
Who declares who "the most important scientific communities" are? Besides, I've already posted a link that refutes the claim that more than half of climatologist even believe the "Global Warming Theory". Over half of climatologists don't buy into the "Global Warming Theory." Do I need to post it again?
But couldn't the same arguement be said about other scientists who are funded by Green Peace and other "environmental" groups? It's a weak arguement, because funding bias can be found both ways, I'm sure. One thing that can't be argued is that no one has refuted Dr. Lindzen findings. People have only said "Well, look where his money comes from."
No, one reason is that green peace doesn't fund research, especially on the scale of the oil industry! While the oil industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, Green Peace and other groups have barely enough to fund their own ventures much less VERY expensive scientific inquiry. Actually, many have refuted Dr. Lindzen findings as most are based off misconstrued computer generated models and not actual models of scale and research in the field. He hasn't collected samples of ice sheets which contain way too high CO2 levels, measured the thickness of polar ice caps, etc. etc. His research is very lacking.
Quote:
Who declares who "the most important scientific communities" are? Besides, I've already posted a link that refutes the claim that more than half of climatologist even believe the "Global Warming Theory". Over half of climatologists don't buy into the "Global Warming Theory." Do I need to post it again?
This isn't a serious question is it? The most important scientific communities have been established and recognized for centuries in many cases. They are the communities were research has come out of that has lead to advances in medicine, chemistry, engineering, biology, etc etc. These communities have members who've discovered cures for diseases, helped NASA scientists land on the moon, created satellite technology, etc etc...Global Warming is NOT a theory.
Quote:
That's why I said you have a lot of faith.
There is no faith in sound science. If religion could be proven it would be a science as well. However, one must have faith to believe in such a concept. This isn't true and not the scientific reality of proven and replicated research and science. If it can be seen, touched, felt, replicated, reproduced, shown as a model of scale, etc it is science.
"Dr. Lindzen findings as most are based off misconstrued computer generated models and not actual models of scale and research in the field. He hasn't collected samples of ice sheets which contain way too high CO2 levels, measured the thickness of polar ice caps, etc. etc. His research is very lacking."
Says you and a few green-energy-funded scientists who's work has probably never passed a single peer review, who's computer based models are full of inacurate data. (Do you see how the arguement can go both ways? Can you now see why it is a weak arguement?). And you don't honestly think there's "very little money" funding these "green scientists", do you? How about the three million dollar grant given to the U of A professor to study the placement of a sun-shade in outer space?! There's a heck-of-a-lot of money going around to these guys, and that's a part of the reason there are so many.
(A side note: the majority of the "consensus of scientists" are not climatologists--or people who are studying whether or not the "Global Warming Theory" is real--but scientist in other fields who are studying the effects of "The Global Warming Theory". See the difference?)
"This isn't a serious question is it?"
Absolutely it is a serious question. Who says who the most important scientific groups are? You?
I can list a number of highly reputable scientific groups who have made all sorts of important advancements, that don't go along with the "Global Warming Theory", and say "they're the most important". But who really decides which ones are "most important?" It's a flawed arguement, and a logical fallacy. (And I don't want to hear, "Well, this one received "big oil" money and this one didn't, that's what decides." What if the TRUTH was discovered using "big oil" money? Would that automatically discredit the TRUTH? Another logical fallacy.)
"There is no faith in sound science. If religion could be proven it would be a science as well. However, one must have faith to believe in such a concept. This isn't true and not the scientific reality of proven and replicated research and science. If it can be seen, touched, felt, replicated, reproduced, shown as a model of scale, etc it is science."
Ah, I think you've hit the nail on the head. The "Global Warming Theory" in and of itself is not science. It may be a small part of the scientific process, but, in the end, is just a theory and not actual science. Since you have such a strong belief that the "Global Warming Theory" is real, despite the fact that it has never been "replicated or reproduced" (a.k.a. proven), and since several of the sub-theories have failed peer reviews or have flat-out been proven wrong by reputable and peer reviewed work--don't you think that it is faith that you have?
Now don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with faith. I have lots of faith in many different things (as I'm sure you do). But I wanted to point out the difference between faith and fact. You have a lot of faith in the "Global Warming Theory" and there is nothing wrong with that. Just like there is nothing wrong with faith in anything else--including that the "Global Warming Theory" is a huge scam that has no real credible grounds.
(However, as I've studied the data, I think it strongly shows the "Global Warming Theory" to be wrong. I'm sure, as you've studied the data, you've reached the opposite conclusion.)
Last edited by Ritchie_az; 08-22-2009 at 11:50 PM..
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.
