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 always thought there was a lot of sensationalism with Global Warming Believers. Now its been proven the data itself has been distorted. And if NASA has fudged figures, what's the chances that the United Nations IPCC is being honest?
Right. Also the accuracy of thermometers 100 years ago and where the thermometers are located- back then and now.
There's sensationalism on both sides of the issue, and it's to the point that results get sensationalized -- and, too often, misquoted and/or misrepresented -- independent of what the researcher actually said.
Unfortunately, humans don't deal well with conditions that change on timescales comparable or longer than a human lifetime, especially when it's change in the average of an inherently oscillatory system. And getting a good representative measurement for such a system is far from easy in the first place.
There's sensationalism on both sides of the issue, .
No, the sensationalism comes 100% from the pro Global Warming side. Their tactic seems to be to scare people into action. The press picks up on this puts forward these worst case scenarios over and over.
The people questioning Global Warming are actually trying to do the opposite.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
At least Rush came clean and didnt feel the need to lie to 100s of millions of people. Libs will always find ways to bash conservatives, even if it means overlooking their own problems.
Ah, the Left vs. Right debate, it always degenerates into that.
Couple notes on global warming and science:
1. The warming is based on global average measurements, not local readings. Your mileage may vary.
2. The hypotheses comprising the theory are constantly changing and are still beyond our ability to nail down with the same kind of certainty as, say, Newton's falling apple. We're all in agreement that an apple falling from a tree won't get suspended mid-air, nor will it wander around terrorizing people, breaking into their homes, stealing their televisions, etc. This type of certainty is impossible with weather, which results from a ginormous chaotic system. We have no capacity to be certain about anything with respect to climate predictions.
3. In the absence of certainty, we look at cumulative evidence, dozens of hypotheses, corroboration between different forms of science, and arrive at a general hunch about what's going on.
What's clear to me is that nobody cares about anything I just said. People either believe in global warming or they don't. GW isn't Truth, it isn't religion, it's not even a temporary "fact."
It's just science, constantly having to revise its findings to accommodate new information. It's ridiculous for us to argue as though someone knows the Truth about this stuff. Currently, a majority of scientists agree that humans are warming the climate. If you want to disagree with them, that is your right, you can believe whatever you want.
But don't lie about what scientists generally agree on. I attend their seminars and read their journals and there's no evidence to support the anti-GW claims that scientists don't agree on this. They do. And they might be wrong! It's not fact or truth, it's only science, an educated guess. If you have an alternative guess then you, too, can be a scientist and you can work on proving YOUR viewpoint as being the "correct" explanation for why the world's ice cover is disappearing. Let us know what you find. Warning to would-be scientists: your opinion doesn't matter. Your ability to produce credible, replicable, easily-corroborated evidence is key to your credibility. So you might want to stick to politics and religion, where there are no rules other than the rule of faith that you're right and everyone else is wrong.
Default
Ah, the Left vs. Right debate, it always degenerates into that.
You made the Rush Limbaugh comments, you were the one stirring the pot.
1. The warming is based on global average measurements, not local readings. Your mileage may vary.
Very questionable measurements at this point. Lots of money in fudging the numbers. I really doubt the 1930's were the hottest decade in the U.S. but not elsewhere. The blogger who caught Hansen believes the global numbers are even more suspicious. It will be interesting to see those findings.
2. The hypotheses comprising the theory are constantly changing and are still beyond our ability to nail down with the same kind of certainty as, say, Newton's falling apple. We're all in agreement that an apple falling from a tree won't get suspended mid-air, nor will it wander around terrorizing people, breaking into their homes, stealing their televisions, etc. This type of certainty is impossible with weather, which results from a ginormous chaotic system. We have no capacity to be certain about anything with respect to climate predictions.
More than 10 days out, the predictions are pretty worthless. Therefore predicting future warming just cannot be trusted.
3. In the absence of certainty, we look at cumulative evidence, dozens of hypotheses, corroboration between different forms of science, and arrive at a general hunch about what's going on.
What's clear to me is that nobody cares about anything I just said. People either believe in global warming or they don't. GW isn't Truth, it isn't religion, it's not even a temporary "fact."
But you want and hope it to be true, don't you? Come on admit it.
It's just science, constantly having to revise its findings to accommodate new information. It's ridiculous for us to argue as though someone knows the Truth about this stuff. Currently, a majority of scientists agree that humans are warming the climate. If you want to disagree with them, that is your right, you can believe whatever you want.
But don't lie about what scientists generally agree on. I attend their seminars and read their journals and there's no evidence to support the anti-GW claims that scientists don't agree on this. They do. And they might be wrong! It's not fact or truth, it's only science, an educated guess. If you have an alternative guess then you, too, can be a scientist and you can work on proving YOUR viewpoint as being the "correct" explanation for why the world's ice cover is disappearing. Let us know what you find. Warning to would-be scientists: your opinion doesn't matter. Your ability to produce credible, replicable, easily-corroborated evidence is key to your credibility. So you might want to stick to politics and religion, where there are no rules other than the rule of faith that you're right and everyone else is wrong.
The point is even if temps turn out to be up a bit, its no big deal. We survived the warmer 1930's, we survived the Medieval Warming Period and we will do fine now. And in 10 years when things get cooler it will all be forgotten.
But I know for people like you Global Warming is the vehicle to get what you have always wanted, control of the evil United States, evil Republicans, evil Corporations, etc and do your Robin Hood routine. Socialism failed, but now there is Global Warming. [/b]
And they might be wrong! It's not fact or truth, it's only science, an educated guess.
Never were truer words spoken! Too many people put science on a pedestal, when in fact is really is just an educated guess. As far as I'm aware, science is however one of the best methodologies/philosophies that we got going for us. Science aside, my gut tells me that the scientists are probably right about the global warming issue, and just like the scientists I could be wrong. I've been wrong before, and I hope I live long enough to be wrong many times in the future. I wouldn't mind at all being wrong about global warming. In fact, I hope I am.
But you want and hope it [global warming] to be true, don't you? Come on admit it...
...I know for people like you Global Warming is the vehicle to get what you have always wanted, control of the evil United States, evil Republicans, evil Corporations, etc and do your Robin Hood routine. Socialism failed, but now there is Global Warming.
Wow.
I have no idea what you're talking about, but you've certainly outed your own political motivations by portraying me, a science geek, as some kind of power-hungry commie who wants to destroy the USA through his casual reading of Discover Magazine...
Wow.
Can anyone help me decipher where this bizarre tirade came from? And, for the record, why would I want global warming theory to be true? Oh, that political stuff... uhh... right.....
"And you're heaping praise upon a drug addict --- err --- Rush Limbaugh for his brilliant analysis. Yes, I'm sure he's much smarter than anyone at NOAA or NASA. Can you point me to any scientific articles he's written that aren't scripted by the right wing propagandists who bought his independence 20 years ago when he used to be an interesting talk show host?"
Just based on some of your comments above. You just seem to want it to happen. You also seem to have a huge hatred of the far right, meaning you are on the far left. I didn't say you were a communist, I said a socialist.
I by the way am very middle of the road, not a Limbaugh fan at all.
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 rest of the story!
