PDA

View Full Version : OT: Global Warming takes some heat


UberBroncoMan
02-18-2010, 12:46 PM
http://dailycaller.com/2010/02/17/global-warming-skeptics-increase-ranks-in-wake-of-ipcc-reports/

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/18/the-science-behind-global-warming-not-so-irrefutable/

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/18315/Phil_Jones_Admits_Blunder_as_Climategate_Saga_Cont inues.html

Three years after Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman wrote, “Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers,” the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), its seminal 2007 report and the University of East Anglia all have come under attack for mistakes ranging from erroneous projections of when the Himalayan glaciers will melt to hiding and destroying contradictory data. - - - etc.

Well no ****ing ****. Humans amaze me by their consistent belief that they actually have more of an impact than they do. This planet is in the center of the universe, the world is flat.

All this proves is once again, history is written by the victors. Real or not... those who have the power and the biggest voice (media) create the truth.

Should we be more eco friendly sure. But not at the expense of creating taxes over it, or ****ing ourselves over because of it. Like China gives a **** about their "carbon imprint" lawl (hippy term). I'm in 100% support of going completely Nuclear myself. Dump the waist in some secure underground facility in Alaska.

Why does this planet seem to only have two people who get to the podium... the extreme left or extreme right. Either way we're stuck with ****ing idiots because they won't see any gray area.

Dukes
02-18-2010, 01:08 PM
According to Wigs, you're just an unimformed idiot for believing such nonsense

Rohirrim
02-18-2010, 01:31 PM
I guess some people just believe that science and opinion are two different things.

Smiling Assassin27
02-18-2010, 01:33 PM
I guess some people just believe that science and opinion are two different things.

Some people are too stupid to even know the difference, sadly.

chaz
02-18-2010, 01:35 PM
Why does this planet seem to only have two people who get to the podium... the extreme left or extreme right. Either way we're stuck with ****ing idiots because they won't see any gray area.

I agree whole-heartedly with this.

I think it's ignorant to say humans don't play any role in climate change though...who knows what that role is, but we've definitely altered the natural processes of the globe.

Elway777
02-18-2010, 01:49 PM
Gobal Warming or Climate change is pretty much a scientific fact just like evolution. The only people that deny it are people who have a policital agenda or people like oil companies that have a ecomomic agenda.

Rohirrim
02-18-2010, 01:54 PM
There's a floating island of plastic debris out on the Pacific Ocean the size of Texas and people argue that human beings can't have that big of an effect on the planet.

Welcome to Wonderland. A very merry unbirthday, to you.

SoDak Bronco
02-18-2010, 01:56 PM
Gobal Warming or Climate change is pretty much a scientific fact just like evolution. The only people that deny it are people who have a policital agenda or people like oil companies that have a ecomomic agenda.

scientific fact ? Have you heard about all these "facts" that were made up to help move this BS agenda ? This is all a scam to make money.

Elway777
02-18-2010, 02:16 PM
scientific fact ? Have you heard about all these "facts" that were made up to help move this BS agenda ? This is all a scam to make money.
I believe the 90% of scientists that say Gobal warming is real and not the Scienists that are employed by Oil Companies . Their might have been some mistakes comitted by some people but still does not chance the fact that Gobal warming is real.

ColoradoDarin
02-18-2010, 02:26 PM
Gobal Warming or Climate change is pretty much a scientific fact just like evolution. The only people that deny it are people who have a policital agenda or people like oil companies that have a ecomomic agenda.

First, you do know that evolution is still in 'theory' stage, right? The word has a specific meaning. Just like 'hypothesis' and 'law'. Climate change is more akin to plate tectonics - it's always happening.

So what to make of a guy like Phil Jones (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html)? You know, the guy who created the 'hockey stick' graph that showed WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!! Except now he's saying there hasn't been any warming since 1995, and it might have been warmer in the middle ages? I guess now that he has changed he's a oil company shill!

SonOfLe-loLang
02-18-2010, 02:32 PM
scientific fact ? Have you heard about all these "facts" that were made up to help move this BS agenda ? This is all a scam to make money.

ummm, so the unusual weather patterns, rise in global temperature, and melting glaciers are all a hoax. Uh huh. Right.

ColoradoDarin
02-18-2010, 02:34 PM
ummm, so the unusual weather patterns, rise in global temperature, and melting glaciers are all a hoax. Uh huh. Right.

Dude, you gotta keep up.


Turns out all that stuff was wrong. GIYF (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=climategate&aq=0&aqi=g10&oq=climate&fp=d95f0d161f018361)

Kaylore
02-18-2010, 02:44 PM
There's a floating island of plastic debris out on the Pacific Ocean the size of Texas and people argue that human beings can't have that big of an effect on the planet.

Uhh Fallacy of necessity much?

You can believe in climate change and in being responsible and still think global warming and what has been argued and "proved" is completely wrong.


The Earth has become cooler since 1995
There is no evidence that the Earth's overal temperature has been effected by anything man made.
The Earth has been much warmer and much cooler than it is right now. Climate change is a part of the Cosmos.
Admitting any of the above doesn't mean you still can't logically argue for reduced emissions, better energy sources and being enviormentally respoisible.


All this means is that South Park was right when they called it "Man Bear Pig" because the mythical monster that is global warming that scientists lied about for years isn't there. They can no longer scare the world into changing by predicting the apocalypse with all the world's ice melting.

Kaylore
02-18-2010, 02:49 PM
ummm, so the unusual weather patterns, rise in global temperature, and melting glaciers are all a hoax. Uh huh. Right.

There is no rise in global temperatures. Even the fiercest of global warming defenders admitted this recently. They of course have argued that it's a fluke and "any day now" things will really start heating up. Then the news broke that several of the top scientists have been outright lying about the results they submitted. Things like Himalayan galciers disappearing has been proved to false. Of course most climate scientists (not global warming experts) would have told you this years ago. An Inconvenient Truth actually doesn't have a single climate expert in it. Just global warming experts, and yes they are two very different things.

Dr. Broncenstein
02-18-2010, 02:53 PM
Gobal Warming or Climate change is pretty much a scientific fact just like evolution. The only people that deny it are people who have a policital agenda or people like oil companies that have a ecomomic agenda.

Evolution is hardly a scientific fact. It is a theory. Natural selection, the driving force behind the theory of evolution, is the only thing that has been objectively observed by the scientific method. Evolution hasn't. Humans haven't been around long enough to objectively record evolution. Personally it makes more sense to me than the creationist theory... but saying evolution is "scientific fact" is just incorrect. Ask any biologist.

Actual science does not have an agenda. It is a process of trying to understand soemthing by objective data collection, which can be reproduced with similar results by all scientists. Knowingly introducing bias by any means... especially with some pre-determined result as a goal hypothesis... is simply fraudulant science. What is even more fraudulant is the destruction of data. No data = no ability to reproduce the hypothesis = fraud.

I'm all for clean and renewable energy sources. IMO it is only a matter of economics as to why we continue to use such obsolete technology as the internal combustion engine. But climate change "science" is shaky at best. I'm a scientist at heart by training and I'm suprised at the lack of protest by the scientific community regarding climategate. It is the process that is supposed to matter, not the result.

barryr
02-18-2010, 02:56 PM
Just as so many scientists have done: believe a certain thing and do all one can to see that it's true, even making up numbers and not reporting anything that contradicts that belief. That's only considered "science" to the liberal dullards.

watermock
02-18-2010, 03:03 PM
BTW, Texas is considering withdrawing from the union, which is it's right under the law.

Maybe then they can drill offshore.

Dr. Broncenstein
02-18-2010, 03:04 PM
There's a floating island of plastic debris out on the Pacific Ocean the size of Texas and people argue that human beings can't have that big of an effect on the planet.

Welcome to Wonderland. A very merry unbirthday, to you.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eScDfYzMEEw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eScDfYzMEEw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Maybe our purpose on earth was to create plastic. Earth + Plastic.

chaz
02-18-2010, 03:05 PM
Uhh Fallacy of necessity much?

You can believe in climate change and in being responsible and still think global warming and what has been argued and "proved" is completely wrong.


The Earth has become cooler since 1995
There is no evidence that the Earth's overal temperature has been effected by anything man made.
The Earth has been much warmer and much cooler than it is right now. Climate change is a part of the Cosmos.
Admitting any of the above doesn't mean you still can't logically argue for reduced emissions, better energy sources and being enviormentally respoisible.




I'd love to see the primary research supporting the bolded claims.

Also, the fact that the temperature hasn't increased since 1995 means very little on an evolutionary time scale. 15 years is barely a hiccup. And saying it's cooled since 95 means very little without the context of what it was at and what it has cooled to...very misleading stat.

SonOfLe-loLang
02-18-2010, 03:12 PM
I'd love to see the primary research supporting the bolded claims.

Also, the fact that the temperature hasn't increased since 1995 means very little on an evolutionary time scale. 15 years is barely a hiccup. And saying it's cooled since 95 means very little without the context of what it was at and what it has cooled to...very misleading stat.

Agreed. That would be ignoring the severe upward trend since 1980

Archer81
02-18-2010, 03:19 PM
First, you do know that evolution is still in 'theory' stage, right? The word has a specific meaning. Just like 'hypothesis' and 'law'. Climate change is more akin to plate tectonics - it's always happening.

So what to make of a guy like Phil Jones (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html)? You know, the guy who created the 'hockey stick' graph that showed WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!! Except now he's saying there hasn't been any warming since 1995, and it might have been warmer in the middle ages? I guess now that he has changed he's a oil company shill!


In science, the word theory has a slightly different meaning. We know evolution happened and is happening. We simply do not have all the evidence to call it a fact. Climate change is natural. In the last thousand years we have had 3 warming and two cooling periods. It happens. We know the earth has been far warmer and far colder than it is right now. I just find it hard to believe that people can make a big enough impact on the planet to change weather. Its become a political tool of the extreme left to change how society functions. Its also slightly sickening when the Cassandra of "global warming" (Mr. Gore) owns a few private jets, a house the size of a small country and owns a home that nearly triples the carbon footprint of the town he lives in, all by itself.

I'll make the effort, try to recycle, find for efficient and eco friendly electronics and consumer products, but there is no ****ing way in hell I am going to be told what to do by people who wont live under the same restrictions they are suggesting. Its the same reason I oppose anything healthcare coverage related coming out of DC. Until Government lives under the same rules they apply to us, its bull****.

:Broncos:

Archer81
02-18-2010, 03:20 PM
Agreed. That would be ignoring the severe upward trend since 1980


Yes. 30 years is so much more telling of how climate is changing compared to just 15.


:Broncos:

barryr
02-18-2010, 03:23 PM
Why stop at 30? how about 40? Or how about 50? 100 Anyone? I can pick certain numbers too to back up any claim. It's called convenience. If the last 10 years show nothing, then that's not enough. Let's use 20, oh no, that didn't show what I want, so let's say 30 is that magical number and wow, I can show what I want. If 30 isn't enough, then hey, 50 sounds good. Bogus crap.

chaz
02-18-2010, 03:28 PM
Evolution is hardly a scientific fact. It is a theory. Natural selection, the driving force behind the theory of evolution, is the only thing that has been objectively observed by the scientific method. Evolution hasn't. Humans haven't been around long enough to objectively record evolution. Personally it makes more sense to me than the creationist theory... but saying evolution is "scientific fact" is just incorrect. Ask any biologist.



Hi. I'm a biologist. I think evolution can definitely be directly observed, albeit not in humans.

And creationism isn't science.

And I agreed with the rest of your post about unbiased science, although I refuse to let a minority of sideways research completely undermine a large body of work.

Hallside
02-18-2010, 03:28 PM
Gobal Warming or Climate change is pretty much a scientific fact just like evolution. The only people that deny it are people who have a policital agenda or people like oil companies that have a ecomomic agenda.

Just keep repeating this.

What Climategate showed is that it is the global warming alarmists who are more politically motivated than anyone.

SonOfLe-loLang
02-18-2010, 03:29 PM
Yes. 30 years is so much more telling of how climate is changing compared to just 15.


:Broncos:

there's definitely a sharp upward trend combined with an ever growing population, i dont think there's a coincidence there

steeledude
02-18-2010, 03:30 PM
Uhh Fallacy of necessity much?

You can believe in climate change and in being responsible and still think global warming and what has been argued and "proved" is completely wrong.


The Earth has become cooler since 1995
There is no evidence that the Earth's overal temperature has been effected by anything man made.
The Earth has been much warmer and much cooler than it is right now. Climate change is a part of the Cosmos.
Admitting any of the above doesn't mean you still can't logically argue for reduced emissions, better energy sources and being enviormentally respoisible.


All this means is that South Park was right when they called it "Man Bear Pig" because the mythical monster that is global warming that scientists lied about for years isn't there. They can no longer scare the world into changing by predicting the apocalypse with all the world's ice melting.

Global warming will create a cooling trend, or don't you keep up? That's why it's been more correctly labeled Climate Change.

But we can just sit here and do nothing because Americans love to collect their **** and hog the world's resources. It's our right as Americans, after all. Our God given right.

chaz
02-18-2010, 03:31 PM
Just keep repeating this.
What Climategate showed is that it is the global warming alarmists who are more politically motivated than anyone.

It is a disgrace that climate change has become so political. And it is an even bigger shame that 99% of Americans will never take the time to assess the primary research for themselves.

SonOfLe-loLang
02-18-2010, 03:32 PM
It is a disgrace that climate change has become so political. And it is an even bigger shame that 99% of Americans will never take the time to assess the primary research for themselves.

Add healthcare reform to this thought.

chaz
02-18-2010, 03:34 PM
there's definitely a sharp upward trend combined with an ever growing population, i dont think there's a coincidence there

It has little to do with population and everything to do with two things: destruction of carbon sinks and rising levels of greenhouse gases. It is a very small percentage of the world population responsible for these things. It is a matter of lifestyle.

Archer81
02-18-2010, 03:35 PM
there's definitely a sharp upward trend combined with an ever growing population, i dont think there's a coincidence there

Its tailed off the last 15. We are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere and the temperature is not rising at the same rate. There is more to it than saying more people = hotter temps. And honestly I doubt 1 degree of difference (59 is the average, +/- 2 degrees depending on what you read) is going to force ocean levels to rise 20 feet and cause the world to end. For every story saying this ice sheet is melting, or this glacier is retreating, you read another thing about ice thickening at the same rate its melting up north somewhere else. We have no idea of what is beneficial and what is not; and this overhype of climate change/global warming is killing an actual drive to find and use technologies that are less harmful to the environment. Shrieking hysterically that we are all gonna die and we all have to change pisses people off, and they stop listening. Even IF what they are shrieking is true.

:Broncos:

SonOfLe-loLang
02-18-2010, 03:40 PM
It has little to do with population and everything to do with two things: destruction of carbon sinks and rising levels of greenhouse gases. It is a very small percentage of the world population responsible for these things. It is a matter of lifestyle.

Fair enough, but an increase in population causes an increase in general need, especially in regards to food. I admittedly am uneducated when it comes to the global warming issue though i find the evidence for climate change pretty convincing.

slyinky
02-18-2010, 03:41 PM
Evolution is hardly a scientific fact. It is a theory. Natural selection, the driving force behind the theory of evolution, is the only thing that has been objectively observed by the scientific method. Evolution hasn't. Humans haven't been around long enough to objectively record evolution. Personally it makes more sense to me than the creationist theory... but saying evolution is "scientific fact" is just incorrect. Ask any biologist.

In science, the word theory has a slightly different meaning. We know evolution happened and is happening. We simply do not have all the evidence to call it a fact.:

Evolution is a fact (fact doesn't mean absolute certainty), the same way that Gravity is a fact. The "theory" of evolution is in regards to the mechanism in which evolution occurs, such as Darwin's idea that natural selection (theory) is the mechanism by which evolution (fact) occurs.

Archer81
02-18-2010, 03:42 PM
Fair enough, but an increase in population causes an increase in general need, especially in regards to food. I admittedly am uneducated when it comes to the global warming issue though i find the evidence for climate change pretty convincing.


Sure. The evidence that has not been ignored, marginalized, falsified or skewed.


:Broncos:

Majik
02-18-2010, 03:42 PM
But but Al Gore created the internets.

SonOfLe-loLang
02-18-2010, 03:44 PM
But but Al Gore created the internets.

I'm so sick of people bringing this up. 1) he never ever claimed this. Bush said it and for some reason Gore didnt attack him for it. 2) Al Gore's participation in the growth of the internet was essential (the person who is known as the godfather of the net even admits this). But sure, keep spreading the line.

SonOfLe-loLang
02-18-2010, 03:48 PM
Sure. The evidence that has not been ignored, marginalized, falsified or skewed.


:Broncos:

Because the reports refuting it are so full of honesty. Obviously we don't know the entire truth of whats happening and whats not, but from what ive personally read, i believe its happening. But even as you alluded to, the steps we should take to mitigate it are good ideas for the country anyway

TonyR
02-18-2010, 04:03 PM
For those who keep clinging to the "climategate" nonsense:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/


And for you people who keep making ridiculous statements that there is no warming, this from NASA GISS just last month:

2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880.

Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade -- due to strong cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean -- 2009 saw a return to near-record global temperatures. The past year was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest year on record, and tied with a cluster of other years -- 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 -- as the second warmest year since recordkeeping began.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html


Stop with the silly denial. We can argue all day about man's role, what can or cannot or should or should not be done about it, etc, as these are legitimate arguments. But the fact that the earth is warming cannot be argued. It is an observable, recordable scientific fact.

TonyR
02-18-2010, 04:07 PM
Here's a very recent NPR story on the subject.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123671588

Abqbronco
02-18-2010, 04:17 PM
Agreed. That would be ignoring the severe upward trend since 1980

So... The fifteen years from 1980 to 1995 are conclusive proof but the fifteen years from 95 to now... Merely a hiccup... Whatever.

Kaylore
02-18-2010, 04:22 PM
here's a very recent national communist radio story on the subject.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyid=123671588

fyp

TonyR
02-18-2010, 04:28 PM
Let me guess, you also stick to Faux News and listen to at least two of the following:
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Glenn Beck

Come on, you're better than that.

Kaylore
02-18-2010, 04:28 PM
I admittedly am uneducated when it comes to the global warming issue
What's hilarious about this is it hasn't stopped you from defending it.

This is exactly the problem. You and others like you found out which side your political system agrees with and immediately started defending. Your first post in this thread was defiant of the evidence and then you come forward and basically admit you have no idea one or the other about it. That didn't stop you from making your mind up, did it?

The whole thing is so ridiculous. First it's "global warming" and the ice is going to go away and we're all going to be living in deserts in fifty years. Then the evidence is exposed and the Earth has cooled over the last several years and now all the Snow is being argued as global warming. Basically any weather event is going to be a result "of global" warming now. Raining? Global warming. Snowing? Global warming. A rabbit craps in forest? Global warming. It has reached the point where they blame any and all phenomena on global warming and cite basic weather patterns as "proof" that it's working.

You know the climate and weather have been changing for a billion years! People didn't cause the weather.

MagicHef
02-18-2010, 04:28 PM
Here's a very recent NPR story on the subject.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123671588

If everything observable is caused by global warming, at what point does it become unfalsifiable?

Kaylore
02-18-2010, 04:30 PM
If everything observable is caused by global warming, at what point does it become unfalsifiable?

Exactly. It's turned into a complete joke.

colonelbeef
02-18-2010, 04:33 PM
Let me guess, you also stick to Faux News and listen to at least two of the following:
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Glenn Beck

Come on, you're better than that.

Anyone who takes any of these sources seriously is an imbecile, plain and simple.

SonOfLe-loLang
02-18-2010, 04:42 PM
So... The fifteen years from 1980 to 1995 are conclusive proof but the fifteen years from 95 to now... Merely a hiccup... Whatever.

its still on an upward trend, it just didnt continue up during that time period. but compared to 50 years ago, its still up

SonOfLe-loLang
02-18-2010, 04:44 PM
What's hilarious about this is it hasn't stopped you from defending it.

This is exactly the problem. You and others like you found out which side your political system agrees with and immediately started defending. Your first post in this thread was defiant of the evidence and then you come forward and basically admit you have no idea one or the other about it. That didn't stop you from making your mind up, did it?

The whole thing is so ridiculous. First it's "global warming" and the ice is going to go away and we're all going to be living in deserts in fifty years. Then the evidence is exposed and the Earth has cooled over the last several years and now all the Snow is being argued as global warming. Basically any weather event is going to be a result "of global" warming now. Raining? Global warming. Snowing? Global warming. A rabbit craps in forest? Global warming. It has reached the point where they blame any and all phenomena on global warming and cite basic weather patterns as "proof" that it's working.

You know the climate and weather have been changing for a billion years! People didn't cause the weather.

Sorry, i shouldn't have said uneducated. I've read plenty about it. I should say Im not an expert in it. Thats all i meant. I'm a believer in it, think its silly to deny it, and strongly believe that even if im wrong, the steps to fight it would still make this world a better place.

Also, you keep claiming that it's "cooled" but it hasn't gone back to normal. Its still on quite an upward trend from 50 years ago. its going to fluctuate.

Rohirrim
02-18-2010, 04:44 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eScDfYzMEEw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eScDfYzMEEw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Maybe our purpose on earth was to create plastic. Earth + Plastic.

Ha! Good ole George.

Kaylore
02-18-2010, 05:19 PM
Also, you keep claiming that it's "cooled" but it hasn't gone back to normal.

What is normal? The answer is there is no answer. The Earth has been hotter with more CO2 than now and much colder as well. The whole argument is based on a faulty premise; That the Earth is "supposed" to be some temperature and that temperature is actually a pretty arbitrary one. I'm with you on being responsible but I'm not the one ignoring the evidence, you are. Despite increased population and increased human CO2 output the Earth has cooled. Reducing emissions to stop global warming is stupid because it doesn't have any effect.

HILife
02-18-2010, 05:27 PM
i believe the 90% of scientists that say gobal warming is real and not the scienists that are employed by oil companies . Their might have been some mistakes comitted by some people but still does not chance the fact that gobal warming is real.

+1

TexanBob
02-18-2010, 05:37 PM
I'm so sick of people bringing this up. 1) he never ever claimed this. Bush said it and for some reason Gore didnt attack him for it. 2) Al Gore's participation in the growth of the internet was essential (the person who is known as the godfather of the net even admits this). But sure, keep spreading the line.

Amazing the Left never gets this. The reason this "Gore invented the internet" stuff happens is because Gore was full of **** about being involved in starting the internet, just like he has been full of **** about a lot of things, global warming being just the latest.

Only a fool believes Gore invented the internet but the line gets brought up routinely to point out that Gore was, is and always will be a self-serving liar and a hypocrite.

TexanBob
02-18-2010, 05:45 PM
Let's see if I have libtard logic correct:

Science produced by people paid by corporations, tainted and thereby false.

Science produced by people paid by governments, true and unassailable.

IOW, people paid by governments to produce a certain study have no biases or agendas, even though they exist to provide more studies requiring more government funds that produce even more studies and more government spending so there is a huge self-interest in always promoting that science as being more important, more of a threat if not heeded, more worthy for research grants than everyone else's research grants, etc.

How does this myth get perpetuated that government studies are more ethical and trustworthy that private studies? IMO, both are equally prone to corruption and self-preservation.

TonyR
02-18-2010, 05:50 PM
People didn't cause the weather.

That's a whole different argument and one I'd agree with you on for the most part. There's no conclusive evidence that man is responsible. But there is clear evidence that the earth is warming. Again, you can argue whether or not it matters but you can't argue with the science. Or you can just to be a contrarian and because "you just can't believe those libruls!"

TonyR
02-18-2010, 05:54 PM
Then the evidence is exposed and the Earth has cooled over the last several years...

Where is this evidence that the earth has cooled over the last several years? You clearly skipped over the recent NASA GISS info I posted above. I'm thinking they know just a little more about this than you do.

UberBroncoMan
02-18-2010, 05:59 PM
I agree whole-heartedly with this.

I think it's ignorant to say humans don't play any role in climate change though...who knows what that role is, but we've definitely altered the natural processes of the globe.

Snap this thread got big.

I don't believe human's play NO role in climate change. I just think it's completely over exaggerated. We're ants that think we're bigger than what we really are.

We're also overdue for an Ice Age (which when it happens will kill billions unless we can actually beat it technologically). Ice Age = frozen water = lowering sea levels = global climate change.



There's a floating island of plastic debris out on the Pacific Ocean the size of Texas and people argue that human beings can't have that big of an effect on the planet.

Welcome to Wonderland. A very merry unbirthday, to you.

Yeah the Ancient Chinese made a giant ass wall too.

The facts are these. Humanity WILL die off at some point and this planet will be "fine" while we're oil in the ground. Practically everything we make (plastic included) will return to the earth at some point



ummm, so the unusual weather patterns, rise in global temperature, and melting glaciers are all a hoax. Uh huh. Right.

Yeah I know right. I mean when has that ever happened in human history before! Hate to break it to you but this planet evolves, it changes, it goes through cycles. This is not a happy planet of hope and joy that's going to stay all fuzzy wuvvy wonderful forever. We live on the Earth, we can damage what's on it to a certain extent... we don't control it.

Global temperature has been higher, glaciers have melted before. This is not special, this is not unique, this is just scary to you... and like most humans you believe we can change the unchangeable so you convince yourself of a popular rational that will allow all of us to "change" what's happening.

It will change... we just don't have a damn say in how it's going to. There's other stuff beyond the Earth too... like that giant ball of Gas in the sky. Not that the Sun could cause the Earth to heat up or anything ridiculous like that right?

This **** will go through it's cycle and eventually we'll hit another Ice Age and a massive chunk of humanity will be wiped out due to starvation.

Heck... statistically we should be wiped out by a asteroid or something of that nature by now. We're actually overdue for a major hit (i.e. a world killer) - you know where a giant rock smashes into the Earth causing us all to die.

It's because of the fact we've yet to get wiped out that we've "evolved" to the point we have.

To use a Mass Effect analogy. We're overdue for the Reaper's coming to balance the chaos of organic evolution.

Besides as has been posted, I believe the planet has cooled overall for a decade + now.

Too me Global Climate fanatics are no different than the Dark Age Christians who thought the bible/faith was the end all. People they believed in told them to live in the past and ignore science.

All of it is predicated on fear and irrational trust in complete strangers who largely have no true validity outside of their degree (aka. priesthood).

So yeah... bunch of sheep. It's almost like fan boys defending Star Trek or Star Wars.

TonyR
02-18-2010, 06:02 PM
How does this myth get perpetuated that government studies are more ethical and trustworthy that private studies? IMO, both are equally prone to corruption and self-preservation.

That's fair. But how would you explain the fact that such a large majority of scientists and scientific organizations and universities support the global warming theory, and not just in this country?

You also need to keep in mind that just because you believe in globabl warming does not determine your political affiliation, nor does it mean you automatically support cap and trade or other warming mitigation initiatives.

And if someone with the name "TexanBob" had come out on the other side of this argument I'd have fallen off of my chair...

TonyR
02-18-2010, 06:10 PM
...Global Climate fanatics...

Here's something else that needs to be debunked. Not everyone who believes the preponderence of science on a subject is a "fanatic". Speaking for myself I'm not at all a fanatic about it. I don't drive a hybrid, I don't have solar panels or a windmill. Hell, I don't even have a garden. I'm not suggesting any political moves should be made based on this science. I do, however, believe it should be studied and considered, and things like nuclear power, efficiency and conservation, and green initiatives are well worth a look. And I'm stunned at the ignorance of people who think they know better than a large majority of the scientific body on the matter.

El Minion
02-18-2010, 06:15 PM
ummm, so the unusual weather patterns, rise in global temperature, and melting glaciers are all a hoax. Uh huh. Right.

It's really diabolical, these so called "scientists", they number 58k!, have been planning this for about 90 years. NINETY!!!!!

末末末末末末末末末末末末末末末
American Geophysical Union Position Statement

Human Impacts on Climate
Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system擁ncluding the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons預re now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6ーC over the period 19562006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century...[continues (http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/climate_change2008.shtml)]

ColoradoDarin
02-18-2010, 06:33 PM
I'm so sick of people bringing this up. 1) he never ever claimed this. Bush said it and for some reason Gore didnt attack him for it. 2) Al Gore's participation in the growth of the internet was essential (the person who is known as the godfather of the net even admits this). But sure, keep spreading the line.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BnFJ8cHAlco&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BnFJ8cHAlco&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

at :51

"I took the initiative in creating the Internet" - Al Gore March 9th 1999

He said it, he misspoke but however, your #2 is correct.

ColoradoDarin
02-18-2010, 06:39 PM
Where is this evidence that the earth has cooled over the last several years? You clearly skipped over the recent NASA GISS info I posted above. I'm thinking they know just a little more about this than you do.

NASA is not above reproach either:

NASA appeared to have inflated its U.S. temperatures beginning in the year 2000. My FOIA request asked NASA about their internal discussions regarding whether and how to correct the temperature error caught by McIntyre.

...

The emails show the hypocrisy, dishonesty, and suspect data management and integrity of NASA, wildly spinning in defense of their enterprise. The emails show NASA making off with enormous sums of taxpayer funding doing precisely what they claim only a 都keptic would do. The emails show NASA attempting to scrub their website of their own documents, and indeed they quietly pulled down numerous press releases grounded in the proven-wrong data. The emails show NASA claiming that their own temperature errors (which they have been caught making and in uncorrected form aggressively promoting) are merely trivial, after years of hysterically trumpeting much smaller warming anomalies.

As you examine the email excerpts below, as well as those which I will discuss in the upcoming three parts of this series, bear in mind that the contents of these emails were intended to prop up the argument for the biggest regulatory intervention in history: the restricting of carbon emissions from all human activity. NASA痴 activist scientists leave no doubt in their emails that this was indeed their objective. Also, please note that these documents were responsive to a specific FOIA request from two years ago. Recent developments combined with admissions contained in these documents beg further requests, which have both been already filed and with more forthcoming.

Lots more goodness (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-2-0-%E2%80%94-the-nasa-files-u-s-climate-science-as-corrupt-as-cru-pjm-exclusive-%E2%80%94-part-one/?singlepage=true)

Br0nc0Buster
02-18-2010, 07:01 PM
First, you do know that evolution is still in 'theory' stage, right? The word has a specific meaning. Just like 'hypothesis' and 'law'. Climate change is more akin to plate tectonics - it's always happening.

So what to make of a guy like Phil Jones (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html)? You know, the guy who created the 'hockey stick' graph that showed WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!! Except now he's saying there hasn't been any warming since 1995, and it might have been warmer in the middle ages? I guess now that he has changed he's a oil company shill!

um no evolution is a fact
The theory explains it

Scientific education in the country is freaking pathetic

Br0nc0Buster
02-18-2010, 07:03 PM
Evolution is a fact (fact doesn't mean absolute certainty), the same way that Gravity is a fact. The "theory" of evolution is in regards to the mechanism in which evolution occurs, such as Darwin's idea that natural selection (theory) is the mechanism by which evolution (fact) occurs.

this
this stuff isnt hard I am amazed how confused people are over it

Scientists study this stuff for a living, they have forgotten more about this stuff than any of these people ever will know

Same with global warming, its happening, deal with it

Drek
02-18-2010, 07:11 PM
The Earth has become cooler since 1995
There have been some cooler years, but there have also been exceptionally warm years. We'll continue to see this back and forth as the ocean temperatures decline due to ice calving and glacial melt.

There is no evidence that the Earth's overal temperature has been effected by anything man made.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we've dramatically increased CO2 in the atmosphere. What you're saying is the equivalent of arguing that wrapping up in a blanket will not make you warmer.
The Earth has been much warmer and much cooler than it is right now. Climate change is a part of the Cosmos.
Sure, and previous changes have happened over massive periods of time or related to major global events, most frequently volcanism. The earth didn't warm or cool for no reason then and it isn't now, at a faster rate than it did in previous events.


We're also overdue for an Ice Age (which when it happens will kill billions unless we can actually beat it technologically). Ice Age = frozen water = lowering sea levels = global climate change.
We're only overdue if you think that we're still in the Pliestocene and not the Holocene, as the boundary between the two is specifically defined as the end of ice ages.

Also, ice age = frozen water = lower sea levels?

FYI: Ice age = glaciation on continental crust = significant weight added to the continent resulting in depression of continental crust into mantle = rising sea levels.

This is taught in any decent Geology 101 course.

UberBroncoMan
02-18-2010, 07:39 PM
Also, ice age = frozen water = lower sea levels?

FYI: Ice age = glaciation on continental crust = significant weight added to the continent resulting in depression of continental crust into mantle = rising sea levels.

This is taught in any decent Geology 101 course.

Christ you went way too into that one in an attempt to insult my intelligence.

Rabble Rabble I R SUPER CIENTART... YOU AR DUM basic GEO 101 HAR HAR.

The fact anyone uses the old "subject 101" remark anymore is beyond me.

"During the most recent ice age (at its maximum about 20,000 years ago) the world's sea level was about 130 m lower than today, due to the large amount of sea water that had evaporated and been deposited as snow and ice, mostly in the Laurentide ice sheet. The majority of this had melted by about 10,000 years ago."

I don't know why but something went into my mind telling me that during Ice Ages the water levels tended to be lower. Going all super knowitall and saying retarded **** like ice ages and depression of continental crust in GEO 101 is hilarious considering I took GEO 101 and that wasn't talked about once... maybe I was in the one for idiots.

Damnit.

Again... I will never be surprised with fanboys. Thank goodness I didn't live in the Dark Ages because I would have been executed by now.

Rohirrim
02-18-2010, 07:59 PM
I'm feeling warmer.

chaz
02-18-2010, 08:00 PM
What's hilarious about this is it hasn't stopped you from defending it.

This is exactly the problem. You and others like you found out which side your political system agrees with and immediately started defending. Your first post in this thread was defiant of the evidence and then you come forward and basically admit you have no idea one or the other about it. That didn't stop you from making your mind up, did it?

I'm still waiting for your to show me your sources for all these facts you're spewing around. Even your "it was warm this decade" has gone out the window with the 2009 temps jumping back up--which is beside the point because your scope is so small. No research has ever been published in a peer-reviewed science journal that denies human-induced climate change. I'm smelling what you're stepping in.

AND, some food for thought: if you know anything about science you know it is much easier to prove (loosely termed) there is no correlation rather than to prove a correlation does exist...making the existing research even more impressive. And no, all the scientists in the world aren't conspiring even if there are a couple morons.


You know the climate and weather have been changing for a billion years! People didn't cause the weather.

That would be the ideal. People shouldn't alter the weather. But you really don't think we're capable of altering natural processes in the world? Wake up.

chaz
02-18-2010, 08:06 PM
What is normal? The answer is there is no answer. The Earth has been hotter with more CO2 than now and much colder as well. The whole argument is based on a faulty premise; That the Earth is "supposed" to be some temperature and that temperature is actually a pretty arbitrary one. I'm with you on being responsible but I'm not the one ignoring the evidence, you are. Despite increased population and increased human CO2 output the Earth has cooled. Reducing emissions to stop global warming is stupid because it doesn't have any effect.

No. There is a natural temperature the Earth should be at any given time. The fact that that temp may change doesn't alter the fact of a natural temperature existing. Human activity altering that temp from what the Earth would otherwise be at right now (within natural fluctuations) is the problem.

No one is arguing the Earth should be one temperature all the time.

Archer81
02-18-2010, 08:10 PM
No. There is a natural temperature the Earth should be at any given time. The fact that that temp may change doesn't alter the fact of a natural temperature existing. Human activity altering that temp from what the Earth would otherwise be at right now (within natural fluctuations) is the problem.

No one is arguing the Earth should be one temperature all the time.


It was suggested the earth has a "normal" temperature. It doesnt have one. It has an average, but even that changes year to year. I think that was the point being made.


:Broncos:

chaz
02-18-2010, 08:16 PM
There have been some cooler years, but there have also been exceptionally warm years. We'll continue to see this back and forth as the ocean temperatures decline due to ice calving and glacial melt.


CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we've dramatically increased CO2 in the atmosphere. What you're saying is the equivalent of arguing that wrapping up in a blanket will not make you warmer.

Sure, and previous changes have happened over massive periods of time or related to major global events, most frequently volcanism. The earth didn't warm or cool for no reason then and it isn't now, at a faster rate than it did in previous events.



Thank you Drek! This is on the mark.

chaz
02-18-2010, 08:18 PM
It was suggested the earth has a "normal" temperature. It doesnt have one. It has an average, but even that changes year to year. I think that was the point being made.


:Broncos:

Any data set has an average...this isn't math class. The Earth does have a "normal" temp, but it is not a static value. Of course that value will fluctuate, but it does so for natural reasons. Not because of Joe Oil and Danny Deforestation.

chaz
02-18-2010, 08:24 PM
How does this myth get perpetuated that government studies are more ethical and trustworthy that private studies? IMO, both are equally prone to corruption and self-preservation.

Because they are. Pretty simple. How many primary science journals have you read recently? I'm very curious how much research you've analyzed to form this golden opinion.

Archer81
02-18-2010, 08:32 PM
Any data set has an average...this isn't math class. The Earth does have a "normal" temp, but it is not a static value. Of course that value will fluctuate, but it does so for natural reasons. Not because of Joe Oil and Danny Deforestation.


The earth does not have a normal temperature. It never has. For all we know, the earth could have been going through a historically long cold snap, and returning to warmer temperatures, without men having anything to do with it.


:Broncos:

chaz
02-18-2010, 09:27 PM
The earth does not have a normal temperature. It never has. For all we know, the earth could have been going through a historically long cold snap, and returning to warmer temperatures, without men having anything to do with it.


:Broncos:

Weather is not that fickle...no matter how awful the local weatherman is. There IS a temperature the Earth would be at at any given time (although it may be different from one moment to the next) under unaltered natural conditions...that is unquestionable. The question is whether the current temperatures are near that natural temp or if our human activities have altered the weather.

ZONA
02-18-2010, 10:45 PM
I just hope most of the dumb ignorant MF'ers who don't think global warming is real, live very close to the coast, so they can one day surf the tide on their rooftop, hahahaha.

UberBroncoMan
02-18-2010, 11:27 PM
I just hope most of the dumb ignorant MF'ers who don't think global warming is real, live very close to the coast, so they can one day surf the tide on their rooftop, hahahaha.

Death to the non-believers! HAHAHAHA

Great state of mind there.


P.S. there's a difference between ****tarded Global Warming is going to kill all of us and believing it's real. Sure there is a human impact, but I for one think our impact is extremely small. We are not going to warm this planet up till we all die.

Again, we're overdue for an Ice Age. If anything IF ANYTHING... we're stalling it - if we really are the all powerful deities so many people think we are.

Thus everyone going chicken little and **** are a bunch of sheep buying into whatever they hear.

With enough money and power I could buy enough scientists to do whatever the **** I want and prove whatever the **** I want so long as it's technical enough and the data is capable of being fixed to fit my agenda.

I look at history. History trumps the present. History of this planet says in another million years we're no longer here and it's doing just dandy. History says we're not all that.

History says humans are ****ing idiots that overreact about everything.

Time and time again humans overreact. Lets go on a Crusade. Lets believe Marx and Communism will work. Lets blah blah blah.

No one ever lies to fit their agenda.

Tiger Woods never slept with anyone right? I mean he's the nicest perfect role model.

This is not a world filled with honest people in high places. People need to wake the **** up.


Do your part to help the environment, sure. Solar Panels are neat for new home/building construction. Nuclear Power kicks ass (I want more of it).

But it ends there. This is not the end of the world.


I swear this parallels Religion so much it's funny.


Either go 100% Eco or we all die so saith the honest scientist.

Either believe in our God or you go to hell so saith the honest clergyman.


Way to go.


It's the same ****, different topic, different backers... same stupid ****ing gullible humans.

Elway777
02-18-2010, 11:36 PM
Who care what Al Gore beleives. 90 % of all scientist beleive in Gobal Warming and that man is a major factor in Gobal Warmer.

UberBroncoMan
02-18-2010, 11:45 PM
Who care what Al Gore beleives. 90 % of all scientist beleive in Gobal Warming and that man is a major factor in Gobal Warmer.

90% of scientists think you're wrong. Man I love statistics... especially on the internet where they are all true. Dude I hear that there's a 100% chance we all die in 2012. Totally proven too. I took a poll from a bunch of Mayans... no bias at all I SWEARZ!

You also misspelled 20% of your words.

Elway777
02-19-2010, 12:03 AM
90% of scientists think you're wrong. Man I love statistics... especially on the internet where they are all true. Dude I hear that there's a 100% chance we all die in 2012. Totally proven too. I took a poll from a bunch of Mayans... no bias at all I SWEARZ!

You also misspelled 20% of your words. So what I'm a crappy speller that still does not chance the fact that 90 % of all scientist beleive in Gobal Warming and you are smarter then 90 % of the scientist.

Archer81
02-19-2010, 12:03 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html

Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified


<SCRIPT type=text/javascript src="http://scripts.dailymail.co.uk/js/diggthis.js"></SCRIPT>
By David Rose (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=y&authornamef=David+Rose)
Last updated at 12:54 AM on 24th January 2010

Comments (36) (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#comments)
Add to My Stories (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html)



The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/01/24/article-0-07E59752000005DC-892_468x286.jpg Chilling error: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wrongly asserted that glaciers in the Himalayas would melt by 2035

Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.
According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.
The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.
It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.
The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.
Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.
Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’
In fact, the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air.
Professor Graham Cogley, a glacier expert at Trent University in Canada, who began to raise doubts in scientific circles last year, said the claim multiplies the rate at which glaciers have been seen to melt by a factor of about 25.
‘My educated guess is that there will be somewhat less ice in 2035 than there is now,’ he said.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/01/24/article-0-07FAAF50000005DC-910_233x367.jpg Forced to apologise: Chairman of the IPCC Raj Pachauri

‘But there is no way the glaciers will be close to disappearing. It doesn’t seem to me that exaggerating the problem’s seriousness is going to help solve it.’
One of the problems bedevilling Himalayan glacier research is a lack of reliable data. But an authoritative report published last November by the Indian government said: ‘Himalayan glaciers have not in any way exhibited, especially in recent years, an abnormal annual retreat.’
When this report was issued, Raj Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, denounced it as ‘voodoo science’.
Having been forced to apologise over the 2035 claim, Dr Pachauri blamed Dr Lal, saying his team had failed to apply IPCC procedures.
It was an accusation rebutted angrily by Dr Lal. ‘We as authors followed them to the letter,’ he said. ‘Had we received information that undermined the claim, we would have included it.’
However, an analysis of those 500-plus formal review comments, to be published tomorrow by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the new body founded by former Chancellor Nigel Lawson, suggests that when reviewers did raise issues that called the claim into question, Dr Lal and his colleagues simply ignored them.
For example, Hayley Fowler of Newcastle University, suggested that their draft did not mention that Himalayan glaciers in the Karakoram range are growing rapidly, citing a paper published in the influential journal Nature.
In their response, the IPCC authors said, bizarrely, that they were ‘unable to get hold of the suggested references’, but would ‘consider’ this in their final version. They failed to do so.
The Japanese government commented that the draft did not clarify what it meant by stating that the likelihood of the glaciers disappearing by 2035 was ‘very high’. ‘What is the confidence level?’ it asked.
The authors’ response said ‘appropriate revisions and editing made’. But the final version was identical to their draft.
Last week, Professor Georg Kaser, a glacier expert from Austria, who was lead author of a different chapter in the IPCC report, said when he became aware of the 2035 claim a few months before the report was published, he wrote to Dr Lal, urging him to withdraw it as patently untrue.
Dr Lal claimed he never received this letter. ‘He didn’t contact me or any of the other authors of the chapter,’ he said.
The damage to the IPCC’s reputation, already tarnished by last year’s ‘Warmergate’ leaked email scandal, is likely to be considerable.
Benny Peiser, the GWPF’s director, said the affair suggested the IPCC review process was ‘skewed by a bias towards alarmist assessments’.
Environmentalist Alton Byers said the panel’s credibility had been damaged. ‘They’ve done sloppy work,’ he said. ‘We need better research on the ground, not unreliable predictions derived from computer models.’
Last night, Dr Pachauri defended the IPCC, saying it was wrong to generalise based on a single mistake. ‘Our procedure is robust


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0fy0rnFMM (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0fy0rnFMM)


:Broncos:

UberBroncoMan
02-19-2010, 12:06 AM
So what I'm a crappy speller that still does not chance the fact that 90 % of all scientist beleive in Gobal Warming and you are smarter then 90 % of the scientist.

... you're like a kid that still believes in imaginary friends.

POLLS ARE FIXED... AND STATISTICS like the **** you're spouting aren't real. What year was that in? Even more scientists are coming out against global warming now.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.


WELL NO ****ING ****.

(thanks for the link btw)

Again... proving my long post above.

Humans are ****ing retarded.

It's all about POWER & MONEY. That's all this is about. Controlling your lives. Seeing Green Industry go up and the players in them making **** TONS OF MONEY because humans are stuuuuuuuuuuuuupid.

BTW guess where I've invested my money. HAR HAR HAR.

Elway777
02-19-2010, 12:29 AM
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu9jFS35LlIQAFZdXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByMTNuNTZ zBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=133q6o6vp/EXP=1266654533/**http%3a//www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html

UberBroncoMan
02-19-2010, 12:38 AM
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu9jFS35LlIQAFZdXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByMTNuNTZ zBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=133q6o6vp/EXP=1266654533/**http%3a//www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html

/mega facepalm

Nice EcoSolutions ad by CNN right above that article btw.

Did you even comprehend the ****ing article BTW?

Two questions were key:

#1 Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels

#2 Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question #1

82 percent the second #2


So 82 of these polled scientists actually believe we cause it, not 90%. Again showing how people just don't read or comprehend wtf is going on.


Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.

"The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes," said Doran" Rabble Rabble bull**** yada yada.


Global Warming is the popular thing to say. If you're a climatologist and you vote against it you're an outcast.

It's like an young actor letting everyone know they're a conservative. Unless you're a megastar/old you're ****ed.


Bad news btw. In that job field (science) if you have no funding you have no ****ing job. Nothing gets published.

You have no ****ing idea how the politics of this stuff works.

Also who's to say which voters this group of scientists was made up of.

Again... you can prove any BS you want with polls.

I could round up a bunch of ultra-religious people - put in a few normal religious people - a small amount of athiests.

You'll get a nice poll saying the Bible is 100% real.

BTW how much of the audience was climatologists - were they from a specific union?


If you think this poll is a proper representation of the facts you're a fool. If you think repeating it over and over again makes it true, you're a fool. If you think this poll isn't bias or set up in any fashion to create likable numbers to help propel the GW hype... well then you're just a fool and a fanboy.

Look at the history of this planet. It says this is BS. This planet has undergone FAR FAR FAR worse than us and come out just dandy. It will continue to do so unless a space related catastrophe takes place.


Again... humans are idiots.

Anyone... and I mean anyone who takes all statistics seriously: especially in a topic where fraud is ever prevalent, and there is massive $ and political motivation... is stupid.


I'm spent on this topic. All the stuff I wrote pretty much sums up my feelings.

Humans are overactive, overly trusting, history repeating, idiot sheep.

Archer81
02-19-2010, 12:47 AM
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu9jFS35LlIQAFZdXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByMTNuNTZ zBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=133q6o6vp/EXP=1266654533/**http%3a//www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html


Oh thank God...CNN has this article I am totally convinced...Ha!

My opinion of climate change is this:

1. It does happen, and has happened, far longer than people have existed.

2. I doubt the validity of the argument that it is occuring now because of people.

3. Climategate admits to removing data and manipulating numbers. Scientists are perpetrating fraud to push a political agenda. If the science in regards to man driven climate change is accurate, why the shenanigans?

So I agree that climate change is occuring because it always has. Then again, is 3100 scientists in one country out of 210 of them automatically mean a world-wide consensus exists in regards to man-driven climate change? Why is China and India refusing to sign on to any cap of CO2 emissions or restrictions on their industry and power grids if the science is so accurate and the current trend so catastrophic? Maybe it isnt, and thats something to think about.


:Broncos:

Elway777
02-19-2010, 12:50 AM
/mega facepalm

Nice EcoSolutions ad by CNN right above that article btw.

Did you even comprehend the ****ing article BTW?

Two questions were key:

#1 Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels

#2 Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question #1

82 percent the second #2


So 82 of these polled scientists actually believe we cause it, not 90%. Again showing how people just don't read or comprehend wtf is going on.


Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.

"The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes," said Doran" Rabble Rabble bull**** yada yada.


Global Warming is the popular thing to say. If you're a climatologist and you vote against it you're an outcast.

It's like an young actor letting everyone know they're a conservative. Unless you're a megastar/old you're ****ed.


Bad news btw. In that job field (science) if you have no funding you have no ****ing job. Nothing gets published.

You have no ****ing idea how the politics of this stuff works.

Also who's to say which voters this group of scientists was made up of.

Again... you can prove any BS you want with polls.

I could round up a bunch of ultra-religious people - put in a few normal religious people - a small amount of athiests.

You'll get a nice poll saying the Bible is 100% real.

BTW how much of the audience was climatologists - were they from a specific union?


Again... humans are idiots.

Anyone... and I mean anyone who takes all statistics seriously: especially in a topic where fraud is ever prevalent, and there is massive $ and political motivation... is stupid.


I'm spent on this topic. All the stuff I wrote pretty much sums up my feelings.

Humans are overactive, overly trusting, history repeating, idiot sheep. That pretty funny but if 47 percent of people working in oil beleive in a human involvement in Global Warming that also should tell you that Gobal warming is real.

broncocalijohn
02-19-2010, 01:29 AM
Gobal Warming or Climate change is pretty much a scientific fact just like evolution. The only people that deny it are people who have a policital agenda or people like oil companies that have a ecomomic agenda.

lol! You dont think the GW (who now call it climate change) religious fanatics dont have an agenda? Are you kidding me? Green Peace, Al Gore, Puchari and countless others? Some arent in it for the money but will stretch any records to save Mother Earth even if it means killing millions of jobs and costing trillions of dollars. Check out the War room for some juicy stats on how far they are willing to go. The denialist arent the ones claiming that GW is happening. The denialist are those that still hold onto the belief that the earth is currently getting warmer. Over the last 12 years (and possibly 14 years), it has either been getting cooler or warmed at such a small fraction, it cannot be said to be GW (or global cooling for that matter).

WolfpackGuy
02-19-2010, 05:22 AM
We're between ice ages.

If someone figures out how to stop the Earth from wobbling on its axis, then we'll be talking about real climate change.

ColoradoDarin
02-19-2010, 05:37 AM
Imagine you're Al Gore (stop laughing, I'm serious here). And you believe that man is responsible for global warming with CO2 emissions and WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!11!1!!!

If it were me, I'd live in a tiny house, only fly commercial, take public transportation everywhere, etc etc. In sum, I'd change my lifestyle.

What does Gore do? None of that. He buys carbon offsets. He buys them from HIMSELF! Buying offsets is a ridiculous cop-out. "I can pollute all I want to as long as I have the money to buy offsets"

You're paying someone else to make a change and then polluting as much as you want to? Sounds good, I'm printing out some offsets right now to buy from myself and then I can all yell at you guys to do the same. I'll print off more for you when you hit up my paypal account. Hmmmmm.....

All these guys fly in private jets, take limos that keep the engine running for long periods of time and yet, they want YOU to curb your emissions.

I'll treat Global Warming like a crisis when those who are telling me it's a crisis act like it's a crisis.

chex
02-19-2010, 06:05 AM
How old is the Earth, and how far back do temperature records go?

DBroncos4life
02-19-2010, 06:10 AM
Al Gore is a hero. Without him the world wouldn't know the danger of man/bear/pig.

IndianaBronco
02-19-2010, 07:02 AM
Let's see if I have libtard logic correct:

Science produced by people paid by corporations, tainted and thereby false.

Science produced by people paid by governments, true and unassailable.

IOW, people paid by governments to produce a certain study have no biases or agendas, even though they exist to provide more studies requiring more government funds that produce even more studies and more government spending so there is a huge self-interest in always promoting that science as being more important, more of a threat if not heeded, more worthy for research grants than everyone else's research grants, etc.

How does this myth get perpetuated that government studies are more ethical and trustworthy that private studies? IMO, both are equally prone to corruption and self-preservation.

This is a bit of a misrepresentation. There really is not any accepted science that disputes climate change, and there is only a little that rejects human-induced climate change. Check out this article in Science:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

The author, Naomi Oreskes, reviewed 928 peer-reviewed scientific articles and found that not a single one disputed climate change, and not a single one disputed human-induced climate change. To be fair, since 2004, there have been a couple of studies that have disputed human-induced climate change (but not climate change itself). Even if businesses disagree with this science, they sure haven't managed to overcome the standards of scientific rigor to get these results published.

Look, the thing is that businesses no longer deny the connection. Exxon, for example has this on its website:

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx

Go to any big oil company and you can find something similar.

Now, everyone can have their own opinion on the matter, I suppose, once they weigh the evidence. What is dangerous, however, is when people say "I can't imagine that's true," but have taken no time to look at the scientific evidence. I was ambivalent about the issue until a few years ago and I started doing research. If you haven't done the research I just don't know how you can take a stance one way or the other. But, I think denying climate change, even if you don't understand the evidence, in the face of such a broad consensus both from science and industry, is baffling.

As for climate gate, Jones has admitted that he used faulty data in one paper in 1990 and he has retracted the article. The other person in the inquiry to climategate, that used a "trick" (a data analysis strategy, not an act of deception) has been investigated and his study was found to pass muster...there was no wrongdoing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/science/earth/04climate.html

Climategate had unfortunate timing (with Copenhagen) but it in no way implies that climate change science is inaccurate as a whole. In fact, I think if you had a study that showed that climate change is not in fact happening, Science or Nature would rush to publish it. If you had such evidence there would probably be a lot of prestige to join you as well (what academic care most about anyway). The fact is that this evidence simply has not been developed yet.

Garcia Bronco
02-19-2010, 08:11 AM
According to Wigs, you're just an unimformed idiot for believing such nonsense

And it has nothing to do with how WAGS makes a living.

Garcia Bronco
02-19-2010, 08:11 AM
I guess some people just believe that science and opinion are two different things.

LOL

Please explain the difference.

This should be good.

Garcia Bronco
02-19-2010, 08:12 AM
Gobal Warming or Climate change is pretty much a scientific fact just like evolution. The only people that deny it are people who have a policital agenda or people like oil companies that have a ecomomic agenda.

Which science would that be?

Garcia Bronco
02-19-2010, 08:12 AM
I believe the 90% of scientists that say Gobal warming is real and not the Scienists that are employed by Oil Companies . Their might have been some mistakes comitted by some people but still does not chance the fact that Gobal warming is real.

Which scientists?

Garcia Bronco
02-19-2010, 08:14 AM
ummm, so the unusual weather patterns, rise in global temperature, and melting glaciers are all a hoax. Uh huh. Right.

No one has said that these directly observable things are happening. It's more likely that's it is a part of a natural cycle.

I don't know who I think is the bigger dumb****

They guy that says we are warming the globe, or the guy that says we can do something about it.

Garcia Bronco
02-19-2010, 08:18 AM
I'd love to see the primary research supporting the bolded claims.

Also, the fact that the temperature hasn't increased since 1995 means very little on an evolutionary time scale. 15 years is barely a hiccup. And saying it's cooled since 95 means very little without the context of what it was at and what it has cooled to...very misleading stat.

Using your same logic we do not have enough data to claim the globe is warming due to man. We only have about 100 years of directly observed temperatures and certinaly not for the whole globe. Which is why asshats like to THINK they can find it in ice core sample, tree rings, but the reality is using any kind of data from ice cores or tree rings is a confounding variable in the entire study.

Garcia Bronco
02-19-2010, 08:19 AM
Yes. 30 years is so much more telling of how climate is changing compared to just 15.


:Broncos:

Exactly. You would needs thousands of years of directly observed data to even start to make a claim that man is warming the golbe.

Garcia Bronco
02-19-2010, 08:25 AM
Who care what Al Gore beleives. 90 % of all scientist beleive in Gobal Warming and that man is a major factor in Gobal Warmer.

If they have to "believe" in it, then it's a religion. I also believe your "90 percent" is made up. What kind of sciientists are they? The only ones I want to hear from are Chemists and Physicists.

Drek
02-19-2010, 08:39 AM
If they have to "believe" in it, then it's a religion. I also believe your "90 percent" is made up. What kind of sciientists are they? The only ones I want to hear from are Chemists and Physicists.

Why chemists or physicists? They in no way study the earth.

Geochemists, geophysicists, sure. But actual chemists and physicists are no more reliable on the topic than an engineer, high school science teacher, or anyone else with basic scientific skills.

sixtimeseight
02-19-2010, 08:59 AM
I'm not actually going to read this thread full of idiots and their uninformed garbage opinions, but lol at posting links from such reputable sources as "heritage.org" and "beforeitsnews.com." Post something from peer reviewed science journals if you want anybody other than the mouth breathers on here to take you seriously.

Br0nc0Buster
02-19-2010, 09:04 AM
I'm not actually going to read this thread full of idiots and their uninformed garbage opinions, but lol at posting links from such reputable sources as "heritage.org" and "beforeitsnews.com." Post something from peer reviewed science journals if you want anybody other than the mouth breathers on here to take you seriously.

havent you heard, apparently science is an opinion and these people are just as qualified as scientists who study it for a living

Garcia Bronco
02-19-2010, 09:11 AM
havent you heard, apparently science is an opinion and these people are just as qualified as scientists who study it for a living

Which science would that be? Because there is no such thing as "climate science". Is there a particular study you would like to discuss, please list it and I'll read it and we can debate it's merits. I promise you I'll find a number of confounding variables.


Also interesting is you said "study it for a living". Hmmmm...so if their study didn't say what they need grant money for they might be inclined to change things to keep that "living" going wouldn't they? Is your argument is they are completely deviod of all and any self-interest?

Garcia Bronco
02-19-2010, 09:12 AM
I'm not actually going to read this thread full of idiots and their uninformed garbage opinions, but lol at posting links from such reputable sources as "heritage.org" and "beforeitsnews.com." Post something from peer reviewed science journals if you want anybody other than the mouth breathers on here to take you seriously.

That's just it, peer-reviewed means absolutely nothing if all the peers are in collusion. The IPCC's reports supposedly had peer-review research in it. Turns out that much of it wasn't, yet world leaders use this report to make decisions. Mouth breathers indeed. LOL

Garcia Bronco
02-19-2010, 09:16 AM
Why chemists or physicists? They in no way study the earth.

Geochemists, geophysicists, sure. But actual chemists and physicists are no more reliable on the topic than an engineer, high school science teacher, or anyone else with basic scientific skills.

But they are experts in the disciplines that make up the climate. Call them geochemists or geophysicists, but when you get down to where the rubber meets the road they are physicists and chemists.

BoulderBum
02-19-2010, 09:23 AM
Why chemists or physicists? They in no way study the earth.

Geochemists, geophysicists, sure. But actual chemists and physicists are no more reliable on the topic than an engineer, high school science teacher, or anyone else with basic scientific skills.

I'm one semester away from a Chem degree at CU. There are MANY chemists who are studying this subject. Many do research here at CU, up at NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research, or at the Boulder Atmospheric Research Center (that huge antenna looking thing in Erie). Every process described in climate change is based on chemical reactions involving multiple molecules or a molecule and light. The findings the IPCC put out was all legitimate data. Unfortunately they did have an agenda (more money) and they have such little credibility now with the general public that the whole study has been disregarded by most. In reality, we know the kinetics behind these reactions, we know what CO2 does to the the infrared energy that the earth emits, we know how CO2 interacts with sunlight, we know what global emissions of CO2 are. Unfortunately, we don't know everything that will happen or even everything we could do to prevent it. That doesn't mean it's not an issue or worth putting money towards. There is little doubt that humans have changed the planet greatly in the last 3,000 years.

RocBronc
02-19-2010, 09:35 AM
Why I don't believe in man-made Global warming...

For man made global warming (caused by increasing CO2 levels from human activity) to be considered a "scientific fact":

1. We must understand all of the major factors that have a significant impact on global average temperature.

2. Have accurate measurements of all of these factors for the time frame in which the temperature is rising and then have the only significant factor that has changed in that time period being the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

You can't simply say that because there is an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and a rise in global temperature. that the cause of this rise in temperature is this rise in CO2 concentration. You also MUST disprove that the rise in temperature was not caused by some other factor. Without proving that all other factors were "constant" you can't assert man made global warming.

Do we understand all of the major contributers (both warming and cooling) that determine global temperature? No we don't, and no meterologist/climatologist would ever claim this. Also, we don't have the accurate measurements of all of the factors we do know about because the scale of the earth is just too large to do so in some cases.

Until we can both 1. and 2. (listed above) man made global warming will be a theory and not a fact...

Garcia Bronco
02-19-2010, 09:44 AM
Why I don't believe in man-made Global warming...

For man made global warming (caused by increasing CO2 levels from human activity) to be considered a "scientific fact":

1. We must understand all of the major factors that have a significant impact on global average temperature.

2. Have accurate measurements of all of these factors for the time frame in which the temperature is rising and then have the only significant factor that has changed in that time period being the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

You can't simply say that because there is an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and a rise in global temperature. that the cause of this rise in temperature is this rise in CO2 concentration. You also MUST disprove that the rise in temperature was not caused by some other factor. Without proving that all other factors were "constant" you can't assert man made global warming.

Do we understand all of the major contributers (both warming and cooling) that determine global temperature? No we don't, and no meterologist/climatologist would ever claim this. Also, we don't have the accurate measurements of all of the factors we do know about because the scale of the earth is just too large to do so in some cases.

Until we can both 1. and 2. (listed above) man made global warming will be a theory and not a fact...

Out of the park. Great post.

Br0nc0Buster
02-19-2010, 09:55 AM
Which science would that be? Because there is no such thing as "climate science". Is there a particular study you would like to discuss, please list it and I'll read it and we can debate it's merits. I promise you I'll find a number of confounding variables.


Also interesting is you said "study it for a living". Hmmmm...so if their study didn't say what they need grant money for they might be inclined to change things to keep that "living" going wouldn't they? Is your argument is they are completely deviod of all and any self-interest?

Its geology, I am not a scientist but it is science, it based off evidence and models

These scientists went to college to get degrees in this field, they are trying to figure out how the world works, not fit some sort of agenda

Point being they know their ****, it is is stupid to see people who cant even distinguish the difference between a fact and a theory try to discredit their conclusions

bombquixote
02-19-2010, 09:55 AM
A very balanced article from the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/climate-change-data-request-war

And another:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/feb/15/climate-science-ipcc-sceptics

"Whatever the details of this specific case, the studies in question represent a tiny fraction of the overwhelming scientific evidence that points to the reality and urgency of man-made climate change."

"Today's campaigners against action on climate change are in many cases backed by the same lobbies, individuals, and organisations that sided with the tobacco industry to discredit the science linking smoking and lung cancer. Later, they fought the scientific evidence that sulphur oxides from coal-fired power plants were causing "acid rain." Then, when it was discovered that certain chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were causing the depletion of ozone in the atmosphere, the same groups launched a nasty campaign to discredit that science, too."

Peace.

TonyR
02-19-2010, 10:07 AM
Until we can both 1. and 2. (listed above) man made global warming will be a theory and not a fact...

Okay, "man made" warming is theoretical. That's perfectly fair and reasonable although certainly can be debated. But how about warming/climate change in general? Because some people here won't even acknowledge the facts of warming regardless of the cause or implications.

MagicHef
02-19-2010, 10:18 AM
Okay, "man made" warming is theoretical. That's perfectly fair and reasonable although certainly can be debated. But how about warming/climate change in general? Because some people here won't even acknowledge the facts of warming regardless of the cause or implications.

Who is saying that the climate doesn't change? Do these people deny that there were ice ages?

BoulderBum
02-19-2010, 10:24 AM
Why I don't believe in man-made Global warming...

For man made global warming (caused by increasing CO2 levels from human activity) to be considered a "scientific fact":

1. We must understand all of the major factors that have a significant impact on global average temperature.

2. Have accurate measurements of all of these factors for the time frame in which the temperature is rising and then have the only significant factor that has changed in that time period being the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

You can't simply say that because there is an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and a rise in global temperature. that the cause of this rise in temperature is this rise in CO2 concentration. You also MUST disprove that the rise in temperature was not caused by some other factor. Without proving that all other factors were "constant" you can't assert man made global warming.

Do we understand all of the major contributers (both warming and cooling) that determine global temperature? No we don't, and no meterologist/climatologist would ever claim this. Also, we don't have the accurate measurements of all of the factors we do know about because the scale of the earth is just too large to do so in some cases.

Until we can both 1. and 2. (listed above) man made global warming will be a theory and not a fact...

Global Warming is absolutely theory! I agree 100% with your post, and more time/money/research needs to be put toward the subject.

On a different note, excess CO2 in the atmosphere has more implications than "just" global warming as well. Acid rain is carbonic acid which forms from a spontaneous reaction between water and CO2. CO2 is also lethal in high doses. CO2 also locks up O2 molecules (There are only x molecules of oxygen on earth, more CO2 = less O2.)

I know my takes may come off a bit "Bouldery" but I feel like I'm speaking from a scientific POV, I have attended lectures on Climate change, from both sides of the argument. I've found that educated scientists that don't believe in global warming still understand the benefits of a greener lifestyle for humans. CO2 increasing in the atmosphere has nearly no benefit to mankind or the environment.

chex
02-19-2010, 10:40 AM
Okay, "man made" warming is theoretical. That's perfectly fair and reasonable although certainly can be debated. But how about warming/climate change in general? Because some people here won't even acknowledge the facts of warming regardless of the cause or implications.

I certainly wouldn稚 doubt that the planet is currently undergoing some sort of climate adjustment. What I do doubt are the claims by people like Al Gore, who has profited immensely off this theory, as well as the scientists who profit off grants to such studies, who by the way, are losing a lot of credibility. I think when people say they don稚 believe in global warming, (or 祖limate change, as it is now known as), they mean they don稚 believe what they are being told to believe.

The Earth is projected as roughly 4.5 billion years old. Weather records go back, what, 150 years? How can anyone conclusively estimate the how痴 and why痴 based on such a small amount of data related to our history? Do the math and look at the number you come up with, percentage wise. Why don稚 we start by learning more about the Sun and its cycles? There have been more than a few Ice Ages in our planet痴 history; what caused the Earth to heat up to end them time and again? This is what frustrates me about the whole thing. Everyone is quick to accept the first thing thrown out there, what they池e told to believe, without taking into account anything else. Even worse, most people I know who believe in this theory are impossible to debate, as they are sure they are right and don稚 want to hear one word to the contrary.

Mars had an atmosphere at one time, with water flowing on its surface. Are we to blame Mankind for the shift that planet took to its current state?

Garcia Bronco
02-19-2010, 10:43 AM
Its geology, I am not a scientist but it is science, it based off evidence and models

These scientists went to college to get degrees in this field, they are trying to figure out how the world works, not fit some sort of agenda

Point being they know their ****, it is is stupid to see people who cant even distinguish the difference between a fact and a theory try to discredit their conclusions

Geology isn't a scientific disicipline. There are only 4 and many would debate on the 4th one. At the end of the day you are either talking about Physics, Chemistry, or Biology and maybe Psychology. Anything else is some subset of the 4. Geology in this context is observations that may or may not indicate what the temperature might be at a specific time.

And no. They don't know their "****".

So please...lis some of these things you personally consider a "fact". I'll bet it isn't actually a fact at all but a conclusion from one study. If you have ever taken a research methods class you would understand the fundamental axioms of research.

Garcia Bronco
02-19-2010, 10:49 AM
Okay, "man made" warming is theoretical. That's perfectly fair and reasonable although certainly can be debated. But how about warming/climate change in general? Because some people here won't even acknowledge the facts of warming regardless of the cause or implications.

WAGS has told us that is based on a equation deduced that says as CO2 levels increase the surface temperature increases. c02 is increasing yet surface temperatures aren't. How can this be? So there has been no significant warming over the past 15 years. Further our data sets with sat technology is only 50 years old, roughly. No ethical "scientist" would make a conclusion on global temps with such a limited data set. 50 years is a tear drop in an ocean. WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH DATA ONE WAY OR THE OTHER TO DRAW ANY CONCRETE CONCLUSIONS ON ANY OF IT. But these guys need funding...which is why the IPCC and CRU fudged their conclusions to world leaders.

BoulderBum
02-19-2010, 10:51 AM
Mars had an atmosphere at one time, with water flowing on its surface. Are we to blame Mankind for the shift that planet took to its current state?

Mars lost its atmosphere when its molten core became solid (all magnetic fields surrounding the planet disappeared) and solar wind stripped away the atmosphere. We are in no danger of that here on earth, and if that happens, global warming is the last of our worries.

chex
02-19-2010, 10:53 AM
Mars lost its atmosphere when its molten core became solid (all magnetic fields surrounding the planet disappeared) and solar wind stripped away the atmosphere. We are in no danger of that here on earth, and if that happens, global warming is the last of our worries.

OK, so then you agree that atmospheric and climate changes cannot only be caused by man?

Br0nc0Buster
02-19-2010, 10:56 AM
Geology isn't a scientific disicipline. There are only 4 and many would debate on the 4th one. At the end of the day you are either talking about Physics, Chemistry, or Biology and maybe Psychology. Anything else is some subset of the 4. Geology in this context is observations that may or may not indicate what the temperature might be at a specific time.

And no. They don't know their "****".

So please...lis some of these things you personally consider a "fact". I'll bet it isn't actually a fact at all but a conclusion from one study. If you have ever taken a research methods class you would understand the fundamental axioms of research.

and physics, chemistry, etc... are just applied math
Doesnt mean geology isnt backed by evidence and models like physics and biology

please you or anyone on this message board does not understand climate change better than a geologist or a scientist studying the effects of things lik CO2 emmissions and deforrestation on the planet.

This kind of narcissim is the problem, not the scientists

There are peer reviewed journals that address how things like glaciers melting and sea levels rising support global warming, im not going to let you drag me into an argument of specifics when the scientists have already spoken on the matter

Drek
02-19-2010, 11:13 AM
Geology isn't a scientific disicipline. There are only 4 and many would debate on the 4th one. At the end of the day you are either talking about Physics, Chemistry, or Biology and maybe Psychology. Anything else is some subset of the 4. Geology in this context is observations that may or may not indicate what the temperature might be at a specific time.

And no. They don't know their "****".

So please...lis some of these things you personally consider a "fact". I'll bet it isn't actually a fact at all but a conclusion from one study. If you have ever taken a research methods class you would understand the fundamental axioms of research.
Mathematics is the foundation of all scientific knowledge. With mathematics we can extrapolate physics. With known physical theory we can then establish chemistry, and that begets biology.

Psychology is not a hard science, it is a soft science, or pseudo-science if you're looking to piss psychologists off.

Geology is a science that encompasses physics, chemistry, and biology in much the same way that biology borrows from chemistry, which in turn borrows from physics, which in turn borrows from mathematics.

People who study climate change are called climatologists. It is a specific scientific subset within the geological and earth sciences. The unique aspect of the geological and earth sciences that sets them apart and makes them uniquely suited for large scale problems is the complex and holistic approach taken within the field. While chemists study the chemical reactions that might lead to global climate change they do not study it in a global scale relative to all other phenomena. While physicists might study the thermodynamics of climate over even the entire earth they do not study it in relation to the other changes going on in the world at large.

Case in point: The recent snowfalls along the Atlantic seaboard. It was predicted by several climatologists well in advance because this is an El Nino year with cooler oceans than we had during the previous El Nino event. The end result is greater evaporation into the atmosphere as warm El Nino air passes over colder oceans headed towards the U.S..

Why are those oceans colder? Because the Antarctic ice sheet is calving at the fastest rate in recorded history, and from what ice cores taken on the continent suggest the fastest in a very, very long time. Greater amounts of sea ice results in colder oceans.

Its an interconnected chain and there happens to be a scientific field that focuses specifically on studying interconnected chains as they apply to the earth we live on. They're geologists. This particular problem happens to be the domain of climatology, a sub-discipline in that field. Much like how earth quakes are the domain of structural geologists, geophysicists, and seismologists. Or how groundwater flow is the domain of hydrogeologists.

Garcia Bronco
02-19-2010, 11:26 AM
and physics, chemistry, etc... are just applied math
Doesnt mean geology isnt backed by evidence and models like physics and biology

please you or anyone on this message board does not understand climate change better than a geologist or a scientist studying the effects of things lik CO2 emmissions and deforrestation on the planet.

This kind of narcissim is the problem, not the scientists

There are peer reviewed journals that address how things like glaciers melting and sea levels rising support global warming, im not going to let you drag me into an argument of specifics when the scientists have already spoken on the matter

But I do understand research and the inferences one can actually make. First and foremost the thing you have to understand is just because there is a cause it does not mean that it is "THE CAUSE". Since researchers cannot possibly satisfy all the confounds or indentify all the variables any conclusion is an estimate. Another word for "estimate" is "guess". An educated guess to be sure, but a guess none-the-less.

Peer reviewed research in a journal is only as good as the peers reviewing it and anybody can write anything down.

The point is don't thumb your nose at people that do not believe what you believe...because you or your scientists can't actually prove their conclusions.

Rohirrim
02-19-2010, 11:28 AM
The tobacco institute wanted everybody to keep smoking until science could prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that smoking causes cancer. Smart people took the hint and quit early.

:puff:

ColoradoDarin
02-19-2010, 11:40 AM
The tobacco institute wanted everybody to keep smoking until science could prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that smoking causes cancer. Smart people took the hint and quit early.

:puff:

Climate = smoking? SCIENCE!


bwhahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahaha


PS - you let us know when Al Gore and all the other private jet using, limo riding believers 'quit smoking'

Thanks

gyldenlove
02-19-2010, 11:48 AM
Why I don't believe in man-made Global warming...

For man made global warming (caused by increasing CO2 levels from human activity) to be considered a "scientific fact":

1. We must understand all of the major factors that have a significant impact on global average temperature.

2. Have accurate measurements of all of these factors for the time frame in which the temperature is rising and then have the only significant factor that has changed in that time period being the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

You can't simply say that because there is an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and a rise in global temperature. that the cause of this rise in temperature is this rise in CO2 concentration. You also MUST disprove that the rise in temperature was not caused by some other factor. Without proving that all other factors were "constant" you can't assert man made global warming.

Do we understand all of the major contributers (both warming and cooling) that determine global temperature? No we don't, and no meterologist/climatologist would ever claim this. Also, we don't have the accurate measurements of all of the factors we do know about because the scale of the earth is just too large to do so in some cases.

Until we can both 1. and 2. (listed above) man made global warming will be a theory and not a fact...

That is all good, but really there are lots of things you have to stop believing in then: gravity, electricity, the atom, evolution, quantum mechanics, DNA, galaxies.

None of those things have been proven to the level you require, but I bet you still think gravity is a pretty good idea.

All empirical sciences are just best guesses, there is no way to prove beyond any doubt that gravity exists for instance. Some things are accepted because there is no other fitting explanation, some things are accepted because they are known to mostly fit, some things are accepted because they are easy to understand even though they are known to be wrong, some things are chosen because it is the most likely but only partially correct of the known scenarios.

For many obvious reasons it would be self defeating to get into a hunt for falsificiation in a Popperian way. Improvement does to a large extend not come from falsifying current theories and likewise current theories can not be thrown aside simply because they do not fit every measurement, a partial explanation is better than no explanation, so until a new theory is devised that is radically different from the current one and explains more without creating more questions we are stuck with what we have.

Rohirrim
02-19-2010, 11:51 AM
Climate = smoking? SCIENCE!


bwhahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahaha


PS - you let us know when Al Gore and all the other private jet using, limo riding believers 'quit smoking'

Thanks

Yep. Metaphors are difficult to grasp sometimes.

gyldenlove
02-19-2010, 11:57 AM
Mathematics is the foundation of all scientific knowledge. With mathematics we can extrapolate physics. With known physical theory we can then establish chemistry, and that begets biology.

Psychology is not a hard science, it is a soft science, or pseudo-science if you're looking to piss psychologists off.

Geology is a science that encompasses physics, chemistry, and biology in much the same way that biology borrows from chemistry, which in turn borrows from physics, which in turn borrows from mathematics.

People who study climate change are called climatologists. It is a specific scientific subset within the geological and earth sciences. The unique aspect of the geological and earth sciences that sets them apart and makes them uniquely suited for large scale problems is the complex and holistic approach taken within the field. While chemists study the chemical reactions that might lead to global climate change they do not study it in a global scale relative to all other phenomena. While physicists might study the thermodynamics of climate over even the entire earth they do not study it in relation to the other changes going on in the world at large.

Case in point: The recent snowfalls along the Atlantic seaboard. It was predicted by several climatologists well in advance because this is an El Nino year with cooler oceans than we had during the previous El Nino event. The end result is greater evaporation into the atmosphere as warm El Nino air passes over colder oceans headed towards the U.S..

Why are those oceans colder? Because the Antarctic ice sheet is calving at the fastest rate in recorded history, and from what ice cores taken on the continent suggest the fastest in a very, very long time. Greater amounts of sea ice results in colder oceans.

Its an interconnected chain and there happens to be a scientific field that focuses specifically on studying interconnected chains as they apply to the earth we live on. They're geologists. This particular problem happens to be the domain of climatology, a sub-discipline in that field. Much like how earth quakes are the domain of structural geologists, geophysicists, and seismologists. Or how groundwater flow is the domain of hydrogeologists.

Dr Perry Cox disagrees:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WrjwaqZfjIY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WrjwaqZfjIY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

You can't extrapolate language from the alphabet, if I gave you a-z could you from that come up with the English language? You would be much better off having the English language and then making an alphabet to fit it.

Math is just an alphabet, math has never and will never provide any insight into physics or any other science that could not more easily be deduced the other way around.

I will give you an example: the Schwarzschield vacuum solution to Einstein's field equation, it clearly shows there is a singularity at the event horizon, however no such singularity actually exists. Math gives an unequivocal answer that is blatantly wrong, using other coordinate definitions it is possible to eliminate that singularity, but in that case the math is clearly not self consistent in that a singularity exists in one representation but not the other. Only non math can solve a problem like that.

ColoradoDarin
02-19-2010, 11:59 AM
Yep. Metaphors are difficult to grasp sometimes.

Yes, yes they are....

PS - you let us know when Al Gore and all the other private jet using, limo riding believers 'quit smoking'

Garcia Bronco
02-19-2010, 12:04 PM
The tobacco institute wanted everybody to keep smoking until science could prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that smoking causes cancer. Smart people took the hint and quit early.

:puff:

However, you nor anyone can say the smoking causes lung cancer. You can only say? you know the answer.

bombquixote
02-19-2010, 12:29 PM
Geology isn't a scientific disicipline. There are only 4 and many would debate on the 4th one. At the end of the day you are either talking about Physics, Chemistry, or Biology and maybe Psychology. Anything else is some subset of the 4. Geology in this context is observations that may or may not indicate what the temperature might be at a specific time.

And no. They don't know their "****".

So please...lis some of these things you personally consider a "fact". I'll bet it isn't actually a fact at all but a conclusion from one study. If you have ever taken a research methods class you would understand the fundamental axioms of research.


Science isn't defined by field, it's defined by METHOD. Geology absolutely is science, in the purest sense. The study of the earth through disciplined observation and testing.

Maybe you've heard of the geologic record? It's the concrete evidence for our model of how the earth formed and behaves. It provides the framework for natural history, anthropology and biology. It's how we know the earth went through different phases (e.g., Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, etc.), or that it has phases at all. It's how we have any semblance of an idea of how the landscapes in which we live came to be, and where they're going. It's how we know there were ice-ages and warm ages and, in fact, a long period when the earth was completely frozen over.

Without geology there's no fossil record, so no theory of evolution. No way to contextualize an archaeological or anthropological find, no way to contextualize evidence of a new species. No way to contextualize our own history.

Applied, we use geology to know where and how to drill for gas and oil, where and how to mine for every mineral we use. The lithium in the battery in your laptop? Without geology, we don't have it. The alloy frame of your computer. Without geology, you don't have it. Same with the plasma in the screen, the copper and platinum on the motherboard, the plastic and other petrochemicals used through and through. Without geology, none of that.

Arbitrarily deciding an entire field of science doesn't exist simply because it doesn't suit your argument in the moment is like standing in the middle of St. Paul's Cathedral and denying the existence of architecture because you want to believe only clouds provide shade. Basically, your couldn't be more wrong.

Carry on.

Rohirrim
02-19-2010, 12:40 PM
Science isn't defined by field, it's defined by METHOD. Geology absolutely is science, in the purest sense. The study of the earth through disciplined observation and testing.

Maybe you've heard of the geologic record? It's the concrete evidence for our model of how the earth formed and behaves. It provides the framework for natural history, anthropology and biology. It's how we know the earth went through different phases (e.g., Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, etc.), or that it has phases at all. It's how we have any semblance of an idea of how the landscapes in which we live came to be, and where they're going. It's how we know there were ice-ages and warm ages and, in fact, a long period when the earth was completely frozen over.

Without geology there's no fossil record, so no theory of evolution. No way to contextualize an archaeological or anthropological find, no way to contextualize evidence of a new species. No way to contextualize our own history.

Applied, we use geology to know where and how to drill for gas and oil, where and how to mine for every mineral we use. The lithium in the battery in your laptop? Without geology, we don't have it. The alloy frame of your computer. Without geology, you don't have it. Same with the plasma in the screen, the copper and platinum on the motherboard, the plastic and other petrochemicals used through and through. Without geology, none of that.

Arbitrarily deciding an entire field of science doesn't exist simply because it doesn't suit your argument in the moment is like standing in the middle of St. Paul's Cathedral and denying the existence of architecture because you want to believe only clouds provide shade. Basically, your couldn't be more wrong.

Carry on.

Don't argue with GB. He's insane. In another thread he's arguing that we should round up all the homeless people and put them to work at hard labor in prisons. I still haven't figured out if he's just an insane troll, in the mode of Andy Kaufman, or if he really thinks like this, which would be more unsettling.

Garcia Bronco
02-19-2010, 12:44 PM
Science isn't defined by field, it's defined by METHOD. Geology absolutely is science, in the purest sense. The study of the earth through disciplined observation and testing.

Maybe you've heard of the geologic record? It's the concrete evidence for our model of how the earth formed and behaves. It provides the framework for natural history, anthropology and biology. It's how we know the earth went through different phases (e.g., Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, etc.), or that it has phases at all. It's how we have any semblance of an idea of how the landscapes in which we live came to be, and where they're going. It's how we know there were ice-ages and warm ages and, in fact, a long period when the earth was completely frozen over.

Without geology there's no fossil record, so no theory of evolution. No way to contextualize an archaeological or anthropological find, no way to contextualize evidence of a new species. No way to contextualize our own history.

Applied, we use geology to know where and how to drill for gas and oil, where and how to mine for every mineral we use. The lithium in the battery in your laptop? Without geology, we don't have it. The alloy frame of your computer. Without geology, you don't have it. Same with the plasma in the screen, the copper and platinum on the motherboard, the plastic and other petrochemicals used through and through. Without geology, none of that.

Arbitrarily deciding an entire field of science doesn't exist simply because it doesn't suit your argument in the moment is like standing in the middle of St. Paul's Cathedral and denying the existence of architecture because you want to believe only clouds provide shade. Basically, your couldn't be more wrong.

Carry on.

Ultimately though it is? Physics and Chemistry. But please...list one "Law of Geology"

Garcia Bronco
02-19-2010, 12:46 PM
Don't argue with GB. He's insane. In another thread he's arguing that we should round up all the homeless people and put them to work at hard labor in prisons. I still haven't figured out if he's just an insane troll, in the mode of Andy Kaufman, or if he really thinks like this, which would be more unsettling.

I did not say that like that. That's your spin in your own mind..

bombquixote
02-19-2010, 01:52 PM
Ultimately though it is? Physics and Chemistry. But please...list one "Law of Geology"

Original Horizontality: sedimentary layers are initially deposited in horizontal layers.

Now shush.

Eldorado
02-19-2010, 01:53 PM
Ultimately though it is? Physics and Chemistry. But please...list one "Law of Geology"

Law of superposition establishes that within a series of layers and interfacial features, as originally created, the upper units of stratification are younger and the lower are older, for each must have been deposited on, or created by the removal of, a pre-existing mass of archaeological stratification.

Dedhed
02-19-2010, 02:34 PM
Just as so many scientists have done: believe a certain thing and do all one can to see that it's true, even making up numbers and not reporting anything that contradicts that belief. That's only considered "science" to the liberal dullards.
And of course every pharmaceutical company and lobbyist, but I'm sure the GOP isn't in bed with any of them.

sixtimeseight
02-19-2010, 02:49 PM
Law of superposition establishes that within a series of layers and interfacial features, as originally created, the upper units of stratification are younger and the lower are older, for each must have been deposited on, or created by the removal of, a pre-existing mass of archaeological stratification.

haha. pwned.

Archer81
02-19-2010, 03:25 PM
And of course every pharmaceutical company and lobbyist, but I'm sure the GOP isn't in bed with any of them.


Someone should tell Obama he has close to 40 former lobbyists in his administration...you know, so he doesnt look like a hypocrite.


:Broncos:

TexanBob
02-19-2010, 03:48 PM
I certainly wouldn稚 doubt that the planet is currently undergoing some sort of climate adjustment. What I do doubt are the claims by people like Al Gore, who has profited immensely off this theory, as well as the scientists who profit off grants to such studies, who by the way, are losing a lot of credibility. I think when people say they don稚 believe in global warming, (or 祖limate change, as it is now known as), they mean they don稚 believe what they are being told to believe.

What I resent is those advocating the use of government force to affect political goals in the guise of science. If YOU think the earth is warming, if YOU think the planet is dying without major changes, then LIVE your beliefs instead of using the government to force your morality on the rest of us.

Go drive your Priuses and eat your tofu and screw your flourescent lightbulbs in and carry your cloth sacks with you to and from the store but LEAVE THE REST OF US THE HELL ALONE, okay?

That's why environmentalists are often compared to a religious cult because they blindly follow their religion and want a theocracy to *make* everyone else live according to their god-like demands.

I don't need charts and graphs to know when I'm being conned. Global Warming is a con. That's all I need to know about it. Because the people feeding us this con are the same ones that hysterically fed us con after con after liberal con for decades now and they've always either been flat out wrong or greatly exaggerated and the "solution" to every one of these cons is more government control and less freedom for the rest of us.

TonyR
02-19-2010, 04:32 PM
I don't need charts and graphs to know when I'm being conned. Global Warming is a con. That's all I need to know about it. Because the people feeding us this con are the same ones that hysterically fed us con after con after liberal con for decades now and they've always either been flat out wrong or greatly exaggerated and the "solution" to every one of these cons is more government control and less freedom for the rest of us.

How are you being "conned", exactly? What changes have been foisted upon you by climate change science? How have you personally been impacted, negative or otherwise?

And you're going to blame the "liberals" for being the bad guys? Because god knows the neocons never conned anybody... Hilarious how astoundingly befuddled some people are.

Archer81
02-19-2010, 04:38 PM
How are you being "conned", exactly? What changes have been foisted upon you by climate change science? How have you personally been impacted, negative or otherwise?

And you're going to blame the "liberals" for being the bad guys? Because god knows the neocons never conned anybody... Hilarious how astoundingly befuddled some people are.


I dont know, a federal mandate, based on EPA rulings will have government monitored thermostats in our homes at some point in the future to ensure energy efficency. This is an example I can think of right off the top of my head of something that will affect everybody. If cap & trade passes, energy costs will increase as powerplants are forced to comply with new federal standards. Industry will be forced to close down or move out of country, costing more jobs. The bill itself admits this. All based on something faulty, that man has a major contribution to global climate fluctuations.

:Broncos:

TonyR
02-19-2010, 04:49 PM
...government monitored thermostats in our homes at some point in the future to ensure energy efficency...

If cap & trade passes...


I hear ya, but I don't think the thermostat thing will happen and I don't think cap & trade will pass.

sixtimeseight
02-19-2010, 05:26 PM
lol @ Garcia Bronco going from posting about once a minute in this thread to not at all after embarrassing himself.

Now hopefully Texan Bob will embarrass himself and disappear like he did in the Herschel Walker thread...

brother love
02-19-2010, 06:32 PM
Mathematics is the foundation of all scientific knowledge. With mathematics we can extrapolate physics. With known physical theory we can then establish chemistry, and that begets biology.

Psychology is not a hard science, it is a soft science, or pseudo-science if you're looking to piss psychologists off.

Geology is a science that encompasses physics, chemistry, and biology in much the same way that biology borrows from chemistry, which in turn borrows from physics, which in turn borrows from mathematics.

People who study climate change are called climatologists. It is a specific scientific subset within the geological and earth sciences. The unique aspect of the geological and earth sciences that sets them apart and makes them uniquely suited for large scale problems is the complex and holistic approach taken within the field. While chemists study the chemical reactions that might lead to global climate change they do not study it in a global scale relative to all other phenomena. While physicists might study the thermodynamics of climate over even the entire earth they do not study it in relation to the other changes going on in the world at large.

Case in point: The recent snowfalls along the Atlantic seaboard. It was predicted by several climatologists well in advance because this is an El Nino year with cooler oceans than we had during the previous El Nino event. The end result is greater evaporation into the atmosphere as warm El Nino air passes over colder oceans headed towards the U.S..

Why are those oceans colder? Because the Antarctic ice sheet is calving at the fastest rate in recorded history, and from what ice cores taken on the continent suggest the fastest in a very, very long time. Greater amounts of sea ice results in colder oceans.
Its an interconnected chain and there happens to be a scientific field that focuses specifically on studying interconnected chains as they apply to the earth we live on. They're geologists. This particular problem happens to be the domain of climatology, a sub-discipline in that field. Much like how earth quakes are the domain of structural geologists, geophysicists, and seismologists. Or how groundwater flow is the domain of hydrogeologists..

Logic tells me that this doesn't make sense. If 3/4 of the planet is covered in water and Ice is melting from the antarctic ice sheet, wouldn't that be like dropping an ice cube into my swimming pool. Its not going to really affect the overall temperature.

gyldenlove
02-19-2010, 07:33 PM
Law of superposition establishes that within a series of layers and interfacial features, as originally created, the upper units of stratification are younger and the lower are older, for each must have been deposited on, or created by the removal of, a pre-existing mass of archaeological stratification.

That is just application of superposition from electro statics to another concept, superposition in electrostatics is that the total field is a sum of the individual constituent fields.

gyldenlove
02-19-2010, 07:33 PM
Original Horizontality: sedimentary layers are initially deposited in horizontal layers.

Now shush.

Except on hills.

wandlc
02-19-2010, 07:56 PM
I hear ya, but I don't think the thermostat thing will happen and I don't think cap & trade will pass.

It is coming sooner than you think, just look at what CA is doing. They have banned the sale of new cars that are painted black, putting a tax on big screen TVs to limit the size, the thermostat monitoring is almost here in CA, and there are more on the way that we haven't heard about yet. Whether we like it or not a lot of this environmental garbage is tried in CA and then it spreads to the rest of the nation.

ton80
02-19-2010, 07:59 PM
ummm, so the unusual weather patterns, rise in global temperature, and melting glaciers are all a hoax. Uh huh. Right.

The state of Nebraska used to covered by a glacier long before the invention of the automobile.

Eldorado
02-19-2010, 08:03 PM
That is just application of superposition from electro statics to another concept, superposition in electrostatics is that the total field is a sum of the individual constituent fields.

Coulombs law was first postulated in the 18th century. The law of superposition in the 17th.

You must be EE.

ton80
02-19-2010, 08:25 PM
What I resent is those advocating the use of government force to affect political goals in the guise of science. If YOU think the earth is warming, if YOU think the planet is dying without major changes, then LIVE your beliefs instead of using the government to force your morality on the rest of us.

Go drive your Priuses and eat your tofu and screw your flourescent lightbulbs in and carry your cloth sacks with you to and from the store but LEAVE THE REST OF US THE HELL ALONE, okay?

That's why environmentalists are often compared to a religious cult because they blindly follow their religion and want a theocracy to *make* everyone else live according to their god-like demands.

I don't need charts and graphs to know when I'm being conned. Global Warming is a con. That's all I need to know about it. Because the people feeding us this con are the same ones that hysterically fed us con after con after liberal con for decades now and they've always either been flat out wrong or greatly exaggerated and the "solution" to every one of these cons is more government control and less freedom for the rest of us.

Brilliant!!!

gyldenlove
02-19-2010, 08:57 PM
Coulombs law was first postulated in the 18th century. The law of superposition in the 17th.

You must be EE.

The superposition principle goes way back to the greeks as it was originaly formulated for harmonic waves. The law of superposition was postulated vaguely in the 11th century, it was however Steno who in the 17th century gave a more accurate formulation.

Both are certainly old and most likely entirely unrelated except by name.

gyldenlove
02-19-2010, 09:04 PM
What I resent is those advocating the use of government force to affect political goals in the guise of science. If YOU think the earth is warming, if YOU think the planet is dying without major changes, then LIVE your beliefs instead of using the government to force your morality on the rest of us.

Go drive your Priuses and eat your tofu and screw your flourescent lightbulbs in and carry your cloth sacks with you to and from the store but LEAVE THE REST OF US THE HELL ALONE, okay?

That's why environmentalists are often compared to a religious cult because they blindly follow their religion and want a theocracy to *make* everyone else live according to their god-like demands.

I don't need charts and graphs to know when I'm being conned. Global Warming is a con. That's all I need to know about it. Because the people feeding us this con are the same ones that hysterically fed us con after con after liberal con for decades now and they've always either been flat out wrong or greatly exaggerated and the "solution" to every one of these cons is more government control and less freedom for the rest of us.

So what else shouldn't the government get involved in? who can marry who? who can vote? who can own land? what kind of substances you can sniff? what kind of additives and polutants can be put into consumer products? what tests drugs have to pass to be sold to the public?

What I resent is those advocating the use of government force to affect political goals in the guise of religion. If YOU think the men having buttsecks, if YOU think abortions are sinful, then LIVE your beliefs instead of using the government to force your morality on the rest of us.

Go worship your crosses and say your prayers and build your churches and sing your psalms LEAVE THE REST OF US THE HELL ALONE, okay?

That's why religious people are often compared to a cult because they blindly follow their religion and want a theocracy to *make* everyone else live according to their god-like demands.

I don't need charts and graphs to know when I'm being conned. Religion is a con. That's all I need to know about it. Because the people feeding us this con are the same ones that hysterically fed us con after con after conservative con for decades now and they've always either been flat out wrong or greatly exaggerated and the "solution" to every one of these cons is more government control and less freedom for the rest of us.

broncocalijohn
02-19-2010, 11:58 PM
I just hope most of the dumb ignorant MF'ers who don't think global warming is real, live very close to the coast, so they can one day surf the tide on their rooftop, hahahaha.

Go join the sky is falling crowd. You ate this **** up and you better be the one living like it is. Guess what? It isnt happening. Want to burn jobs on this doomsday crap? The proposed inititives will do just that. Millions of jobs are going to be lost. 1.1 million just in California if their GW bs bill gets inacted. Over 2.2 jobs will be lost for every 1 green job be created. It happened in Spain and it can happen just as easy in California. Want to stop CO2? Stop breathing and save the earth for us trying to live in this world.

TonyR
02-20-2010, 08:35 AM
It is coming sooner than you think, just look at what CA is doing. They have banned the sale of new cars that are painted black...

Not true, according to this.

The California Air Resources Board said Friday that it has no plans 殿t this time to regulate car paint as part of a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and never intended to outlaw black cars in the first place.


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/03/the-great-california-black-car-crisis-is-over-for-now-at-leastthe-california-air-resources-board-said-friday-that-it-has.html

Rausch 2.0
02-20-2010, 08:39 AM
The state of Nebraska used to covered by a glacier long before the invention of the automobile.

So my Wal-Mart purchases don't impact global temperatures?...

Rock Chalk
02-20-2010, 10:27 AM
Gobal Warming or Climate change is pretty much a scientific fact just like evolution. The only people that deny it are people who have a policital agenda or people like oil companies that have a ecomomic agenda.

No, Global Warming/Climate change, like evolution, is a theory based on data gathered. Neither has been unequivocally proven to be "fact".

Data, is information before it is processed. Process data wrong, you can come to inaccurate information. Draw the wrong conclusions from the data given. It happens quite frequently in science.

People assume that any theory that has a wide base is fact, but that is incorrect. The wide base of theory prior to the 1940s was that it was impossible through physics to travel faster than the speed of sound. That the pressure of the air would crush whatever craft attempted to do so. That was "fact", but later proven to be inaccurate as you can indeed move faster than the speed of sound.

Here is fact: Climatology is something that occurs over thousands of years. With less than 50 years of reliable, accurate data on the climate, there is not enough data to surmise humans are the cause of climate change or if climate change is occurring naturally. There just is not enough data to support it either way.

We do not yet know the all the variables and conditions of the climate and what drives it. We have a pretty good overall idea, but with so many factors, we do not yet have the computing power or necessary amount of data to draw any concrete conclusions one way or the other.

Is it possible humans are involved in climate change? Yes. Is it possible that the current climate would be the same with or without humans? Yes. It is certainly possible that humans have made a disaster of the ecology and that ecology is spiraling out of control, but it is also equally (and more likely) possible that this is just a natural trend of how Earth's climate works.

There have been at least 5 major Ice ages on this planet and here are some of the causes of them:

Volcanism
Variations in Earth's Orbit
POsition of the continents
Georgraphical makeup of the continents
Changes in the atmosphere
Fluctuations in the ocean currents.

Of the possible causes of major climate change (an Ice Age) the only one we could possibly have an impact on is the change in atmosphere. However, prior ice ages that have occurred due to change in atmosphere have occurred from super volcanic eruptions that put more greenhouse gases into the air in a single week than Humans have done in their entire existence.

What does green house gases and ice ages have to do with one another, and global warming? The warming of the globe, melts ice in the North Atlantic, ice that is freshwater which sinks in the ocean. The deep water current that dries the oceanic currents which distribute heat all over the world starts in the north atlantic. When too much freshwater enters this current, the deep water current shuts off which has a domino effect of shutting off the upper currents of the ocean which in turn shuts off the heat distribution of the planet. That leads to an ice age. (Global Warming in the past has ALWAYS led to an ice age within a few decades after it occurs)

This is the theory. By no means fact but it is the conclusion scientists have drawn from the empirical data gathered from ice cores in the North and South Poles and various other methods of gathering data about historical climate change.

As you can see, the Earth's climate processes are extremely complex and tied together and unequivocally stating that humans are at fault is foolish.

Should we attempt to be more eco-friendly? Absolutely. Not because of some bogus science that states without a doubt everything is our fault, but because its better for us if we do in the long run. Cleaner environments lead to healthier ecosystems which leads to a better life, not just for humans but for all creatures.

slyinky
02-20-2010, 11:08 AM
No, Global Warming/Climate change, like evolution, is a theory based on data gathered. Neither has been unequivocally proven to be "fact".

If evolution is not "unequivocally proven to be fact", than neither is gravity or the notion that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

No1BroncoFan
02-20-2010, 12:58 PM
First, you do know that evolution is still in 'theory' stage, right? The word has a specific meaning. Just like 'hypothesis' and 'law'. Climate change is more akin to plate tectonics - it's always happening.

You're kidding right? So, what's your take on gravitational theory and the germ theory of disease. If you really doubt evolution because it's "just a theory" then you must doubt gravity and the idea that germs can make you sick.

On topic - The earth is warming up. The only questions left are the causes and those are being answered as fast as scientific method will allow.

Kaylore
02-20-2010, 01:09 PM
If evolution is not "unequivocally proven to be fact", than neither is gravity or the notion that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Um that is a pretty terrible comparison.

No1BroncoFan
02-20-2010, 01:33 PM
Um that is a pretty terrible comparison.

No, actually it's a spot on comparison.

brother love
02-20-2010, 01:38 PM
Mathematics is the foundation of all scientific knowledge. With mathematics we can extrapolate physics. With known physical theory we can then establish chemistry, and that begets biology.

Psychology is not a hard science, it is a soft science, or pseudo-science if you're looking to piss psychologists off.

Geology is a science that encompasses physics, chemistry, and biology in much the same way that biology borrows from chemistry, which in turn borrows from physics, which in turn borrows from mathematics.

People who study climate change are called climatologists. It is a specific scientific subset within the geological and earth sciences. The unique aspect of the geological and earth sciences that sets them apart and makes them uniquely suited for large scale problems is the complex and holistic approach taken within the field. While chemists study the chemical reactions that might lead to global climate change they do not study it in a global scale relative to all other phenomena. While physicists might study the thermodynamics of climate over even the entire earth they do not study it in relation to the other changes going on in the world at large.

Case in point: The recent snowfalls along the Atlantic seaboard. It was predicted by several climatologists well in advance because this is an El Nino year with cooler oceans than we had during the previous El Nino event. The end result is greater evaporation into the atmosphere as warm El Nino air passes over colder oceans headed towards the U.S..

Why are those oceans colder? Because the Antarctic ice sheet is calving at the fastest rate in recorded history, and from what ice cores taken on the continent suggest the fastest in a very, very long time. Greater amounts of sea ice results in colder oceans.

Its an interconnected chain and there happens to be a scientific field that focuses specifically on studying interconnected chains as they apply to the earth we live on. They're geologists. This particular problem happens to be the domain of climatology, a sub-discipline in that field. Much like how earth quakes are the domain of structural geologists, geophysicists, and seismologists. Or how groundwater flow is the domain of hydrogeologists.

If the warming is melting this ice wouldn't the same warming warm the ocean temperature as well.

Baba Booey
02-20-2010, 01:43 PM
People don't realize that the sun itself goes through cycles, hence the fact that there was an ice age long before the term "carbon imprint".

http://blogol.hu/pikz/merlin/bscap0002.jpg

Kaylore
02-20-2010, 01:45 PM
No, actually it's a spot on comparison.

Um no it isn't, and anyone who thinks it is is a complete moron that doesn't know about either.

Laws of physics and human history aren't even the same field. You're talking about a daily event (the motion of the planets) that is proved unequivocally in a single observation, and a fundamental law of the universe that is understood in a moment and proven with mathematics and somehow that's comparable to human history which is extremely nebulous and missing lots of critical evidence because many of the species are dead?

The theory of evolution is constantly being re-written as new evidence on genetics and historical data is gathered and analyzed. There is no "closed book" about it and anthropologists will be the first to tell you that.

It is the stupidest comparison you could use because they have nothing in common, how either is proved is completely different, and evolution is a billion year old problem still being worked out.

It's one of the worst comparisons in this thread, actually.

ColoradoDarin
02-20-2010, 01:45 PM
You're kidding right? So, what's your take on gravitational theory and the germ theory of disease. If you really doubt evolution because it's "just a theory" then you must doubt gravity and the idea that germs can make you sick.

On topic - The earth is warming up. The only questions left are the causes and those are being answered as fast as scientific method will allow.

Geez, all I said was that theory has specific scientific meaning. It's not really a controversial statement, you just inferred everything beyond that :)

TexanBob
02-20-2010, 03:25 PM
So what else shouldn't the government get involved in? who can marry who? who can vote? who can own land? what kind of substances you can sniff? what kind of additives and polutants can be put into consumer products? what tests drugs have to pass to be sold to the public?

What I resent is those advocating the use of government force to affect political goals in the guise of religion. If YOU think the men having buttsecks, if YOU think abortions are sinful, then LIVE your beliefs instead of using the government to force your morality on the rest of us.

Go worship your crosses and say your prayers and build your churches and sing your psalms LEAVE THE REST OF US THE HELL ALONE, okay?

That's why religious people are often compared to a cult because they blindly follow their religion and want a theocracy to *make* everyone else live according to their god-like demands.

I don't need charts and graphs to know when I'm being conned. Religion is a con. That's all I need to know about it. Because the people feeding us this con are the same ones that hysterically fed us con after con after conservative con for decades now and they've always either been flat out wrong or greatly exaggerated and the "solution" to every one of these cons is more government control and less freedom for the rest of us.


Hilarious! Thanks for proving my point. Environmentalism is a religion. The dirty little secret is that people are wrong who say "you can't legislate morality". ALL legislation is morality. They wouldn't be busy banning behavior if they didn't believe there was a moral superiority in their position. I should be able to drive a gas guzzler, use incandescent light bulbs, jack up my A/C in the summertime and toss my garbage in the landfill without separating my plastics from my bottles and cans if I DAMN WELL FEEL LIKE IT. Eco-Nazis like you are trying to force your religion on me which is what I resent. Go have buttsecks with some of Al Gore's polar bears!

sixtimeseight
02-20-2010, 03:27 PM
Dude, I haven't seen you embarrass yourself like this since that Herschel Walker thread.

bombquixote
02-20-2010, 03:28 PM
Here is fact: Climatology is something that occurs over thousands of years. With less than 50 years of reliable, accurate data on the climate, there is not enough data to surmise humans are the cause of climate change or if climate change is occurring naturally. There just is not enough data to support it either way.

Actually that's not a fact. The fact is this: we have a thousands of years worth of climate data gleaned from glacial ice samples, the geologic record and the fossil record. As for actual human data keeping, we have 150 to 200 years worth of reliable records for North America, more for Europe.

Climate change is fact. There are enough records to support it. Sea levels have risen in the last hundred years; global temperatures have risen in the last hundred years. Through ice core samples and the fossil record, we know that global temperatures have correlated exactly with CO2 levels in the atmosphere for thousands of years. CO2 levels are measurable. So are temperatures. Both are rising.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere right now is higher than at any other time we have been able to measure. That rise corresponds exactly with industrialization and the widespread use of fossil fuels.

That mid-sized truck you drive a modest 500 miles per month? It puts conservatively 2 tons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere. Now put that to scale. Think of rush hour in LA. Think of rush hour all over the country. Think of rush hour in India. In China. How many tons of CO2 do we put per day into the atmosphere with just our cars. Per year? And that's to say nothing of coal-fire power plants and manufacturing, or the refining of the gas we use.

That humans are causing or at least greatly exacerbating climate change is only debated in the media, because lobbyists hired by the likes of Exxon hire rogue "experts" to appear on FOX and obfuscate the facts. Among members of the scientific community, the debate has long been over.

As for evolution, it remains a theory because the actual mechanism by which it works has up to now been impossible to identify (though genome mapping is getting very close). But the theory is supported by overwhelming, cross-disciplinary evidence. Meaning it's an indisputable reality, we just don't quite know how it works. Like gravity.

No1BroncoFan
02-20-2010, 04:10 PM
Laws of physics and human history aren't even the same field. You're talking about a daily event (the motion of the planets) that is proved unequivocally in a single observation, and a fundamental law of the universe that is understood in a moment and proven with mathematics and somehow that's comparable to human history which is extremely nebulous and missing lots of critical evidence because many of the species are dead?
WTF are you talking about? Evolution = Human History? Sorry, didn't know human history went back 4.5 BILLION years.

The theory of evolution is constantly being re-written as new evidence on genetics and historical data is gathered and analyzed. There is no "closed book" about it and anthropologists will be the first to tell you that.
Gravitation theory is constantly being re-written as new evidence is discovered and because of the need to explain gravitation forces at the very small scale where the entire theory collapses. There is no "closed book" about it and physicists will be the first to tell you that.

It is the stupidest comparison you could use because they have nothing in common, how either is proved is completely different, and evolution is a billion year old problem still being worked out.
The comparison is apt because neither theory is complete an like all theories are not likely to ever be "complete."

It's one of the worst comparisons in this thread, actually.
No, dismissing one as "only a theory" while accepting another that is "only a theory" is the worst argument you can make.

And to address this point:
Um no it isn't, and anyone who thinks it is is a complete moron that doesn't know about either.
Kaylore, you used to be one of the better posters here. I can see you've now become just another flamer. Have fun with that.

Ben

gyldenlove
02-20-2010, 05:14 PM
Hilarious! Thanks for proving my point. Environmentalism is a religion. The dirty little secret is that people are wrong who say "you can't legislate morality". ALL legislation is morality. They wouldn't be busy banning behavior if they didn't believe there was a moral superiority in their position. I should be able to drive a gas guzzler, use incandescent light bulbs, jack up my A/C in the summertime and toss my garbage in the landfill without separating my plastics from my bottles and cans if I DAMN WELL FEEL LIKE IT. Eco-Nazis like you are trying to force your religion on me which is what I resent. Go have buttsecks with some of Al Gore's polar bears!

None of concern, fortunately I come from an area of the world where we don't kill each other and where our testicles aren't looking like raisins because we have been spoonfed preemptive antibiotics and hormone injected beef.

Just remember next time some mexican steals your job, spits in your burger, keys your car or spills your beer, he has just as much right as you to be there, government has no job regulating based on morality - right.

slyinky
02-20-2010, 05:27 PM
Um no it isn't, and anyone who thinks it is is a complete moron that doesn't know about either.

Wow. Yeah, you're right. I'm a moron... and so are the following scientists and countless others who would agree with the comparison. Each and everyone are complete morons. Thanks for showing me the way genius. :thumbs:

World-renowned scientist, Douglas Futuyma: "The statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors葉he historical reality of evolution擁s not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun."

Stephen Jay Gould writes, "Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

Biology professor at Brown University and a Roman Catholic, Kenneth R. Miller writes, "evolution is as much a fact as anything we know in science."

etc. etc. etc.

slyinky
02-20-2010, 05:32 PM
Kaylore, you used to be one of the better posters here.

I find that hard to believe...

TonyR
02-20-2010, 05:45 PM
ALL legislation is morality. They wouldn't be busy banning behavior if they didn't believe there was a moral superiority in their position. I should be able to drive a gas guzzler, use incandescent light bulbs, jack up my A/C in the summertime and toss my garbage in the landfill without separating my plastics from my bottles and cans if I DAMN WELL FEEL LIKE IT.

So you should just be able to do what you want, when you want, and how you want, all else be damned, right? Because you FEEL LIKE IT!?! No rules, no limits, no regulations, no standards? Anarchy, is that your utopian state? Do you realize how ignorant you sound while trying to sound smart?

enjolras
02-20-2010, 05:58 PM
Hi, physicist by training here with a post-graduate degree.

People assume that any theory that has a wide base is fact, but that is incorrect. The wide base of theory prior to the 1940s was that it was impossible through physics to travel faster than the speed of sound. That the pressure of the air would crush whatever craft attempted to do so. That was "fact", but later proven to be inaccurate as you can indeed move faster than the speed of sound.

This is the most blatantly false statement I've seen on the mane in quite awhile. In your specific example there was very little scientific question about our ability to travel at supersonic speeds. Hell we had observed, much earlier, objects moving at well above the speed of sound. That was an engineering problem. The question was around our ability to build a craft that could withstand the pressure generated at that speed.

The consensus was that we could, which is why we actually attempted it in the first place. Where there scientists who thought it was a dangerous exercise? Absolutely. It was not a widely held view, even if every documentary the history channel tries to turn it into that.

People should absolutely assume that theory is widely based in fact, because it unquestionably is. Theories are derived and tested by empirical observations (IE: 'facts'). Scientific theories represent our best understanding of how things work based on empirical facts. In that way theory and fact are inextricable.

Not all theories are on equal footing. Einsteins theory of relativity has withstood incredible scrutiny. String theory, on the other hand, continues to show logical gaps. It's a theory that is likely to be changed, refined, or discarded altogether in the coming years.

Anthropogenic global warming is our best current explanation of observed empirical fact. Skepticism is great. I consider myself to be something of a global warming skeptic (it reminds me far to much of the saturated fats debacle of the 80's). As a scientist, whenever someone puts a stake in the ground and declares something as 'fact', my alarms immediately go off. It's not fact, but it's widely supported science. To simply ignore it would be foolish.

We need a reasoned response to global warming. This is very serious stuff, and burying our collective heads in the sand is incredibly risky. Could the current theory be wrong? Yes it could, but given the volume of evidence it seems unlikely. Continuing to pump C02 in the air just to save a few bucks just doesn't make any sense.

Archer81
02-20-2010, 06:03 PM
So you should just be able to do what you want, when you want, and how you want, all else be damned, right? Because you FEEL LIKE IT!?! No rules, no limits, no regulations, no standards? Anarchy, is that your utopian state? Do you realize how ignorant you sound while trying to sound smart?


While pure anarchy would not be recommended, neither would communism. There is such a thing as too much regulation, too many limits, too many standards, too many rules.


:Broncos:

TonyR
02-20-2010, 06:45 PM
There is such a thing as too much regulation, too many limits, too many standards, too many rules.


Fully agree. But to use an example from the post I responded to above, is separating your recyclables really all that much of a burden?

Archer81
02-20-2010, 06:50 PM
Fully agree. But to use an example from the post I responded to above, is separating your recyclables really all that much of a burden?


Nope. But is it necessary to mandate it in local law?


:Broncos:

Dedhed
02-20-2010, 07:09 PM
Globing warming is the least of our environmental concerns.

No1BroncoFan
02-20-2010, 07:14 PM
Globing warming is the least of our environmental concerns.
So, what are the greater concerns?