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.
Lol, I love it. Evidence that does not meet their conclusions is less "conclusive" to their own inconclusive findings. All the administrations agree though, good thing that is. I mean, as long as we all agree to hang the witch, it makes it right. /golfclap
Edit: Ive heard this line of reasoning before too. It follows the lines of an administration or group of people claiming everyone agrees with them as they can tell you because they all agree it is so. /boggle
Whatever Guy. Fascinating to see how Denial in the face of evidence works, looking through the inverted looking glass.
So you do not consider any of these major scientific institutions credible? The fact that they are in the vast majority of credible scientific opinion carries no weight for you...at all??
You are going to stick with the one or two dissenting bodies who just "happen" to be funded by major oil. Could you provide for us a comparitive list of credible scientific institutions that do not support the assertion of Global Warming?
Hint: Might want to see your own earlier post about belief trumping scientific reality
May I inquire...aside from your admittedly witty banter... what specifically do you find at issue with all of these scientific organizations that would lead you to conclude they are all so hopelessly misled in their findings?
I mean, is it all just a Leftist Global Al Gore Conspiracy in your mind, which is the standard dittohead line?
Or how/why are they all just so completely wrong? I mean, if all of these major credible scientific groups are just not getting it right, why have science at all? We can just say God is doing it to have fun with us and then channel all that money into helping the poor (never mind, something you might prefer...dumping into the War on Terror)?
It is obvious no amount of scientific bodies supporting the obvious will ever be "enough" for you. / golfclap
Lol, I love it. Evidence that does not meet their conclusions is less "conclusive" to their own inconclusive findings. All the administrations agree though, good thing that is. I mean, as long as we all agree to hang the witch, it makes it right. /golfclap
Edit: Ive heard this line of reasoning before too. It follows the lines of an administration or group of people claiming everyone agrees with them as they can tell you because they all agree it is so. /boggle
This doesn't follow from what you responded to. You need to look over the last paragraph again.
Whatever Guy. Fascinating to see how Denial in the face of evidence works, looking through the inverted looking glass.
So you do not consider any of these major scientific institutions credible? The fact that they are in the vast majority of credible scientific opinion carries no weight for you...at all??
You are going to stick with the one or two dissenting bodies who just "happen" to be funded by major oil. Could you provide for us a comparitive list of credible scientific institutions that do not support the assertion of Global Warming?
Hint: Might want to see your own earlier post about belief trumping scientific reality
May I inquire...aside from your admittedly witty banter... what specifically do you find at issue with all of these scientific organizations that would lead you to conclude they are all so hopelessly misled in their findings?
I mean, is it all just a Leftist Global Al Gore Conspiracy in your mind, which is the standard dittohead line?
Or how/why are they all just so completely wrong? I mean, if all of these major credible scientific groups are just not getting it right, why have science at all? We can just say God is doing it to have fun with us and then channel all that money into helping the poor (never mind, something you might prefer...dumping into the War on Terror)?
It is obvious no amount of scientific bodies supporting the obvious will ever be "enough" for you. / golfclap
Oh so I am a denier? Not a fascist imperialistic pig who bows down to the Hitler that is Bush and his cronies? Yes, it could be I am part of an evil conspiracy funded by big oil all in some super secret plan to oppress the people for profit so we can laugh at the end of the world while we count our money. Go ahead and start posting your Moveon.org consensus as well.
It is obvious you have not even discussed the "science" and choose to banter on about political features there my friend.
Lets be honest here. The issue of global warming is a cloudy one. The science is not ironed out. It is inconclusive for the purposes that you would use it. That is, I hate to break up your candle light vigil and daily hate bush conference, but the actual evidence doesn't support your position to the conclusions you draw from it.
From the 1st assessment to the latest IPCC report, they are starting to back peddle in their findings because "Hello, when you build your position on a false premise, using that data to further your outcomes, you find out that your results tend to avoid matching the direction of you're premise". Maybe you didn't take any science in school, or maybe it was a school that really didn't put any effort into teaching it properly, but if you do those things, you begin to find that you either 1) admit your conclusions were unfounded or 2) you keep doctoring them until you get your favored results.
Trust me, watch as these "studies" go on and you are going to see them digging themselves deeper and deeper. It doesn't help that the general public is sheeping along agendas. On one side you have people who are denying global warming completely and on the other side you have people claiming the end of the world to which we must sacrifice our first born to stop this danger. Both are so far wrong it isn't funny.
The fact is, we are having temperatures increasing to some extent. We are seeing a bit of "global warming", yet it isn't the end of the world. We also know that our emissions have "some" effect, but this is where it gets cloudy. We are not sure how much of an effect and the more we learn, the more we see it seems to be a very small effect. The problem is, we can't measure all the variables to be sure. We do not have the technology, nor a firm understanding of the science to be able to clearly identify all factors to which we could then point at a cause, relation, or conclusion.
If you say we do, then your are lying through your teeth. Even the IPCC's report doesn't state that "outright", but rather it likes to use "unscientific" wording such as "likely", "could be", "might be", etc... That type of wording is fine when you are creating a hypothesis, but it doesn't make it true. That takes verification, testing, validation, and evidence that CAN NOT be proven to be in doubt. If you are testing and it fails a test ONCE, it doesn't pass the muster. You have to go back to the drawing board and then build on what you learned.
You are telling me with your "well, all these guys agree here" that they have proven something? Care to show me what they have proven? They are GUESSING and doing some pretty rotten math in the process to do so and you know what? They are going to catch some serious backlash from it down the road here. Though, it won't stop the conspiracy theory nuts. You can slam them in the face with a bat of reason and they will act like they never saw it.
So, go ahead and give me crap about it. Claim what you like, but seriously, you have no clue about what you are talking about. Take care and enjoy that koolaid!
This doesn't follow from what you responded to. You need to look over the last paragraph again.
Tell me, if you state A and I state B and someone says B is less conclusive than A, does that not seem to indicate both are inconclusive, just one seems less so than the other?
All that last paragraph says is "Umm, theirs is less conclusive than what they said" and that does not make the other any more conclusive.
You missed this part at the bottom of that report.
Quote:
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it,
Ohh it might be wrong, but umm if we fail to act on what we don't know we could end up killing all of our children! Thats not science, thats politics. Pure and plain
Quote:
Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
So let me make this clear. They agree that temperatures vary on the earth. They say many details of climate interactions are "not well understood" and they also say that "The question of what to do about climate change is also still open." which basically means, umm that they can't act on anything because they don't know what to do as they really don't know what the problem is if there is even a problem they can fix.
Thats a pretty solid consensus there. Yep, as I said more political BS.
Oh and here is a bit of response to "anthropogenic" climate change.
You're just retreading over the same points that people have already responded to, and using way too many words to do so. The IPCC hasn't "stepped back" or become less conclusive, or more uncertain... they've always used the "likely," "very likely," type measures because nobody can predict the future with certainty... does evidence have to be 100% conclusive in order to take action? What if there was 90% certainty that your house would catch on fire tomorrow night, would you still choose to sleep in it, or would you accept the "outrageous cost" of fireproofing it, or getting a hotel room?
You're just retreading over the same points that people have already responded to, and using way too many words to do so. The IPCC hasn't "stepped back" or become less conclusive, or more uncertain... they've always used the "likely," "very likely," type measures because nobody can predict the future with certainty... does evidence have to be 100% conclusive in order to take action? What if there was 90% certainty that your house would catch on fire tomorrow night, would you still choose to sleep in it, or would you accept the "outrageous cost" of fireproofing it, or getting a hotel room?
1) 90% isn't good enough, 95% is the norm in most statistical measures.
2) Conclusive evidence requires tested results that are consistent and can not be objected via normal investigation. These are not, they are objectionable.
3) They even admit they don't know for sure, the field is new and there are a lot of unknowns. This is consistent with the points many who object have been making. As I mentioned in previous posts, models are not holding consistent with theory. They as I said are unpredictable because they do not account for enough variables.
You want to act on guesses, knock yourself out, but I refuse to. This isn't an issue of having to know everything exactly, but we honestly don't know even a good bit of the field.
If you ACT on that information and it is wrong, what happens then? Got an answer for that? What happens if we do put tons of money and expend tons of resources to fix a problem that may be completely out of our hands. Maybe you like wasting money, I don't . You want to do this, then follow PROPER scientific processes. Even that link that was given to me says they don't know enough to act, so why in the hell do you think we should? Didn' you say you know jack about the issue? Shouldn't we take your response with a grain of salt and brush it away as foolhardy emotional reaction?
Tell me, if you state A and I state B and someone says B is less conclusive than A, does that not seem to indicate both are inconclusive, just one seems less so than the other?
All that last paragraph says is "Umm, theirs is less conclusive than what they said" and that does not make the other any more conclusive.
You missed this part at the bottom of that report.
It said that the Mann "Hockey Stick" was not the MOST conclusive piece of evidence used to demonstrate the existence of AGW... it doesn't therefore follow at all that the rest of the evidence that they mention as "more conclusive" is somehow also inconclusive. Don't you realize how twisty and hard to follow your logic is getting? Or does action in your mind require absolute, 100% proof of every single piece of evidence used to support the theory, even if (as the researchers mention) the dubious existence of a warmer "Medieval Warm Period" still wouldn't disprove the existence of AGW, simply because of all the other evidence they'd gathered?
Let's see... my new position is "Moon creatures are going to invade earth tomorrow and steal all of our trees." You can't disprove it, 100%, can you? That means you must be wrong! You're a part of the conspiracy to make people think there aren't moon creatures.
Quote:
Ohh it might be wrong, but umm if we fail to act on what we don't know we could end up killing all of our children! Thats not science, thats politics. Pure and plain
90% certainty of devastating effects for many regions isn't a good enough reason to take action? I hope you were out on the streets protesting the Iraq war and are out on the streets protesting the coming war in Iran right now... way less than 90% certainty of devastation supporting those endeavors.
So let me make this clear. They agree that temperatures vary on the earth. They say many details of climate interactions are "not well understood" and they also say that "[/i]The question of what to do about climate change is also still open." which basically means, umm that they can't act on anything because they don't know what to do as they really don't know what the problem is if there is even a problem they can fix.
Thats a pretty solid consensus there. Yep, as I said more political BS.
It doesn't mean that at all. It means that scientists agree that there's a high enough likelihood that we're having a bad effect on the climate to justify reducing emmissions significantly, the question of how to achieve this still being open. There's still unanswered questions about nuclear physics, about the nature of light -- does that mean we should stop making lightbulbs and stop being worried about nuclear explosions, since we still "don't know all the answers?"
Quote:
Oh and here is a bit of response to "anthropogenic" climate change.
1) 90% isn't good enough, 95% is the norm in most statistical measures.
Are you saying there's no point in scientists trying to establish the likelihood of future outcomes, that any research that produces less than 95% certainty of a certain outcome should be discarded as useless political drivel? I really think you're just talking out of your ass now.
Quote:
2) Conclusive evidence requires tested results that are consistent and can not be objected via normal investigation. These are not, they are objectionable.
Yes, let's wait until we have absolute, 100% conclusive evidence of every aspect of AGW theory to take action, 90% isn't good enough, we need to wait and watch the "objective results" of Bangladesh and Taiwan sinking underwater first to make sure the scientists were telling the truth... there's no such thing as measuring the pros and cons, risk/danger, etc. The best option is always not to do anything. You make so much sense.
Quote:
3) They even admit they don't know for sure, the field is new and there are a lot of unknowns. This is consistent with the points many who object have been making. As I mentioned in previous posts, models are not holding consistent with theory. They as I said are unpredictable because they do not account for enough variables.
The IPCC acknowledges that they can't include every single possible variable but there is still a broad consensus of the immense likelihood of (see above, I'm not saying it again).
Quote:
You want to act on guesses, knock yourself out, but I refuse to. This isn't an issue of having to know everything exactly
Yes it is, for you. Although it's not for the FOS articles you trust because they confirm what you believed previously.
Quote:
If you ACT on that information and it is wrong, what happens then? Got an answer for that? What happens if we do put tons of money and expend tons of resources to fix a problem that may be completely out of our hands. Maybe you like wasting money, I don't . You want to do this, then follow PROPER scientific processes. Even that link that was given to me says they don't know enough to act, so why in the hell do you think we should? Didn' you say you know jack about the issue? Shouldn't we take your response with a grain of salt and brush it away as foolhardy emotional reaction?
I would rather face the (unlikely) possibility of "wasting" money on something that will nevertheless make the air cleaner and preserve more of our resources than the (far more likely possibility) of people dying and starving, being displaced from their homes in mass numbers and subject to all kinds of increased storms and weather extremes and having our ecosystems subject to mass extinctions because we did nothing. Have you really thought this through all the way? Or did you come into your research with a preconcieved opinion that you're defending through thick and through thin?
Is Anthropogenic Climate Change a Myth?: Sciam Observations (broken link)
Poor guy...not only does he still not know the difference between levels of confidence and confidence intervals, he can't create a link that works...
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.
The fact that they are in the vast majority of credible scientific opinion carries no weight for you...at all??
