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.
You are full of it. I have already showed you that this is not the case. Continue to believe your own ignorance. Seriously, you "act" as if you are attempting to "find truth" but all you do is cling to your view.
Here is how silly you sound. You INSIST that they are correct, they are fact, they are right and REFUSE to accept any objection to the science EVEN when it attempts to show where these issues are.
Your position:
The matter is settled, we have all the facts we need to come to a conclusion. We should act on these conclusions!
My Position:
We do not know the facts of the issue. The results are in contest. The science is new in this field and subject to mistakes and misleading results. We should make sure we have proven the results via scientific principals before we attempt to make judgment or act on what we "believe".
Sorry, but you are irrational. You are biased to the point of extremist measures. You follow the folly of biased thought throughout history which takes a "want" of something to be true and ignores all else to make sure it is exists as true.
That again as I said is not science, that is pure stupidity. Wallow in it.
you speak of ignorance yet have not demonstrated that you do not suffer from the same. which results are "in contest"? we know many of "the facts", and most if not all of them point to some very significant possibilities - even facts - that seem very unwise to ignore; things that could take a toll on you, personally, or on your children. that's not mushy, impassioned hyperbole. that is what is based mountains of evidence, anecdote, predictive data, paleodata, and here-and-now observation.
You are full of it. I have already showed you that this is not the case. Continue to believe your own ignorance. Seriously, you "act" as if you are attempting to "find truth" but all you do is cling to your view.
Here is how silly you sound. You INSIST that they are correct, they are fact, they are right and REFUSE to accept any objection to the science EVEN when it attempts to show where these issues are.
Your position:
The matter is settled, we have all the facts we need to come to a conclusion. We should act on these conclusions!
My Position:
We do not know the facts of the issue. The results are in contest. The science is new in this field and subject to mistakes and misleading results. We should make sure we have proven the results via scientific principals before we attempt to make judgment or act on what we "believe".
Sorry, but you are irrational. You are biased to the point of extremist measures. You follow the folly of biased thought throughout history which takes a "want" of something to be true and ignores all else to make sure it is exists as true.
That again as I said is not science, that is pure stupidity. Wallow in it.
Chill, dude, no need to get all emotional. I'm not saying any of the things that you say that I'm saying. For all we know you could be totally right. Maybe the world's getting colder. Maybe bacteria from Jupiter are going to descend from the heavens in a month and give us superpowers. Maybe all the Christians will be raptured tomorrow and the rest of us will be stuck in those Left Behind books. Who knows? Nobody knows. I never claim to have "absolute knowledge" or "indisputable facts" about anything because everything is vunerable to dispute within a person's own mind... maybe I'm not looking at a computer screen right now, maybe I'm just dreaming, right? Maybe I'll wake up tomorrow as a gorilla and discover that my whole human life was just some science experiment performed on me by the real intelligent race, mastadons from 2,000,000 BC.
I don't know. But if the vast majority of people who study something are saying that their studies say that we're doing some bad **** and should cut down on it some, or risk people being hurt, displaced, and starved down the line, then I'm going to put some degree of faith in their expertise because I can't do the studies myself. Could they be wrong? Yes, they could be wrong. But I put more faith in the process of peer review, revision, and scientific progress than I do in the arguments of a minority of contrarians whose arguments, for whatever reason, have not been accepted or legitimized by most of the scientific community. Could the contrarian arguments be right? I don't know. I don't have the knowledge or the skill to come to my own solid, well-founded conclusions from the "data" alone, and despite what whoever is reading this may think, neither do you. For all of us laymen what it really comes down to is who you're more likely to trust. The conservative, pro-business types among us, such as Nomander and tnbound, are going to be more likely to trust the people who say that we shouldn't do anything about it, that more government regulation is bad. The other side is going to be more likely to trust the majority of scientists who disagree with those views.
Look in the links there Hello, seriously. It is there. I am not making claims and failing to back them up. I make a claim and provide links that have brought those claims to the front. Read them.
Why do you need to know "what I think"? I told you he is in question, and if you read the reports, you will see the details as to why. Do you want me to do all the research for you? Are you looking for me to post my summary on it so you can nitpick how I may have translated it? Read it yourself, seriously, this isn't a hard issue. The information is there. READ.
Edit:
Also Hello, read the post I responded to Bily about. It has a tidbit about Hansen from that site. There is more in the site, but what do you really want me to do? I can't make you think, I can only respond to your conclusions. So how about YOU tell me what you think is true and I will provide you with anything that might question it.
you are not backing "your claims" (i.e., your pointing to contrarian, cherry picking headlines) up at all. but then, that's probably obvious to anyone reading this...
Have you read anything I linked? No offense, but I really don't want to waste my time organizing a bunch of data into neat little chunks so you can disregard it at will. Notice Bily did that. Heck, he didn't even know the name of the researcher who he was quoting from and got confused about my response to that researcher.
Look in my links. For one, Hansens claim of 1998 as the warmest day is in contest. I even linked out some of the response with a graph to bily. There is much more in there and while the lingo can be a little daunting at times, he does do a good job of explaining some issues.
Also, if you look at the blog responses at the bottom, the posters ask questions and he tries to explain them to them. That is where that graph on hansen came from.
I also contested the "consenus" claim. It is not a consensus. There is much issue with the data and scientist are not all on board with this. The IPCC is beginning to step back from their hard push. Look at the 4th assessment and their "attempt" to explain their results lacking details to form conclusions.
There are also lots of issues with the "conduct" of many researchers. You can read about that in the Steve McIntyre site. He covers many areas and there is obvious conflict with him getting information from authors in question. He has corrected the IPCC's claims many times (They had to change them), yet he points out they are playing political games with the data.
You can read this. You read it and decide. I won't be baited into a discussion that only turns into a debate of semantics. I am not the researcher, would you agree that it best to hear what they say directly from them rather than listen to me?
what you linked points to a lot of things already covered in this thread (which i couldn't know without having read what you linked), and if you go back you'll see i - and many others - have read it, considered it, and commented on it.
I put more faith in the process of peer review, revision, and scientific progress than I do in the arguments of a minority of contrarians whose arguments, for whatever reason, have not been accepted or legitimized by most of the scientific community. Could the contrarian arguments be right? I don't know. I don't have the knowledge or the skill to come to my own solid, well-founded conclusions from the "data" alone, and despite what whoever is reading this may think, neither do you. For all of us laymen what it really comes down to and who you're more likely to trust. The conservative, pro-business types among us, such as Nomander and tnbound, are going to be more likely to trust the people who say that we shouldn't do anything about it, that more government regulation is bad. The other side is going to be more likely to trust the majority of scientists who disagree with those views.
Fish that is a beautiful summarization.
I noticed the current "poll" results show 70% of those polled agree global warming is occurring to different degrees, with the 25% opposed.
I can't help but notice...that is suspiciously equivalent to the amount of those who still support the Iraq War.
It would be fascinating to see how close a correlation exists between the two.
My suspicion is that almost every person that does not acknowledge global warming are the same ones marching along with Rush and Hannity on every other topic.
It is sad to see how politics can trump common sense, sometimes.
you're digging yourself a hole and typing nonsense. e.g., "Much of these estimates are problems with models. That is why the hockey stick was in contest." is simply vague and easily arguably nonsense. what models? "much of these estimates"? which ones? what's incorrect about them, and how "incorrect" are they? take the evidence as a whole - not just observed glacial retreat, not just temperature trends, not just emissions trends and the fact that CO2 IS a significant greenhouse gas attributable to us, not just the timing with industrialization and human population. do your homework rather than reading and regurgitating spinster headlines - or simply making things up - and there might be something worth talking about. "All of your questions are actually explained in several of my links as to what they question about the issue. As I said, they do a much better job of explaining them than I do."; if you can't begin to explain what you're reading, might it seem to the rest of us that you haven't a clue what you're talking about?
And you have not been honest in your pursuit of the issue.
Did I not tell you didn't want this to get into a discredit attempt to claim that the information was false because you picked at everything I said?
Grow Up, seriously. I said READ, read what I gave you. If you feel so educated and INCLINED, then go ahead and use your perfect understanding of the issue to "explain" why it is all false.
I watched your persistence to the questions and had a feeling you were just waiting to pull this crap and low and behold you did. You didn't read ANYTHING I gave you. You didn't RESPOND to any of the information I pointed you to.
What you did do is lie in wait, hoping, praying, and expecting me to say something that would lead this into YET ANOTHER political side issue. Read, then READ SOME MORE and if you still don't agree, then go ahead and put a brownie badge on you for AT LEAST weighting the information.
I told you I wasn't going to waste my darnn time trying to explain something that is explained quite well in the links I provided. You CAN READ can you not? You CAN THINK can you not? So please forgive me if I don't fall for your stupid ruse on how I didn't explain things that the reports explained in a way that you could accept me handing you the dang information.
It is simple. Believe whatever the hell you like. Sink in your own wonderfully perceived truth for all I care. I could give rats behind if you understand, I will merely right you off as yet another person who puts what they WANT TO BELIEVE ahead of actually finding some sort of truth.
I can't educate you, you need to educate yourself. Take some dang responsibility and quite excusing away your position on stupid irrelvant positions.
Has there been any "official" agreement between a large body of SCIENTISTS only that global warming has been caused by man? I mean, I know we have the InterGOVERNMENTal Panel on Climate Change that said there's a 90% chance we caused it. This is a governmental controlled body that doesn't even allow all of its contributing authors to have an equal voice in the final drafts and assessments. QUOTE]
tnbound, can you provide your data suggesting that the IPCC research is being manipulated or controlled by governments in any way? I ask because their website suggests they proceed using only peer reviewed and credible science, that their research prior to publishing goes through several levels of reviews by other teams of scientists, with governments allowed only to "provide comments" on the results. It makes it clear they look for any credible opposing views to consider and include in their reports.
So if you have something that suggests this is not in fact the case, that would be interesting to review.
*chuckle* Grasping at straws ehh? What happened to your news paper? Seriously, give it up and go watch some reality TV. Seems it would best fit your style of understanding facts.
what you linked points to a lot of things already covered in this thread (which i couldn't know without having read what you linked), and if you go back you'll see i - and many others - have read it, considered it, and commented on it.
What links, ohh you say? You missed them? Ohh pooh, darn. Nice try, read and find them. I did more than enough to point out some issues. If you can't find them, that is your problem.
I noticed the current "poll" results show 70% of those polled agree global warming is occurring to different degrees, with the 25% opposed.
I can't help but notice...that is suspiciously equivalent to the amount of those who still support the Iraq War.
It would be fascinating to see how close a correlation exists between the two.
My suspicion is that almost every person that does not acknowledge global warming are the same ones marching along with Rush and Hannity on every other topic.
It is sad to see how politics can trump common sense, sometimes.
Wow, I find it so interesting to see your hypocritcal views.
On one hand, we have "We CAN NOT TRUST THE EVIL GOVERNMENT, THEY LIE!"
And on the other hand you believe foolish tin foil hat theories on just about everything and put your faith completely in an organization who has been SHOWN to lie about issues and contains countries that have been caught in so many unethical issues.
I am floored (not really). Preach on the faith holy man! Change the tin foil hat out, I think its leaking through some radiation that bush has been using to kill all those who oppose him in his holy war.
What links, ohh you say? You missed them? Ohh pooh, darn. Nice try, read and find them. I did more than enough to point out some issues. If you can't find them, that is your problem.
??
i read what you linked. it covers things already covered here, by and large.
this is not about "discrediting" you. i asked specific questions and you ignored them. so i ask again, sometimes in another way in case you didn't understand the first time. but then, again, likely obvious to all here, including yourself i can only guess.
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.
