[quote]100meters wrote:
Yes C02 lags but so what? This is known issue and has nothing to do with whether C02 causes global warming. This is something brought up by skeptics to deliberately “play havoc with the facts”. It’s a classic case of skeptics “twisting the facts” to fit their (false) point of view. [/quote]
What do you mean so what? How can it cause global warming before it exists?
How can an effect exist before the cause?
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
I’m surprised that you aren’t looking for reliable sources about the truth about global warming. You don’t know shit about it, but you have already figured out what you want to believe.
It looks like you want someone to “twist the facts to your point of view”.[/quote]
Wow, what an intelligent and scientific argument.
I found this information simply because I was looking for the truth. I would discuss further, but what is the point as your mind is closed.
If you want to change my mind, present a real argument, not just an attack on anyone who disagrees with you.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
100meters wrote:
Junkscience is factually junk, but you’d prefer it over sound scientific consensus? Odd.
Consensus is not a scientific term, it is a political one.[/quote]
So this guy(Steve Milloy creator of junkscience) is a credible(non-political) source for you?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_J._Milloy
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
I’m surprised that you aren’t looking for reliable sources about the truth about global warming. You don’t know shit about it, but you have already figured out what you want to believe.
It looks like you want someone to “twist the facts to your point of view”.
Wow, what an intelligent and scientific argument.
I found this information simply because I was looking for the truth. I would discuss further, but what is the point as your mind is closed.
If you want to change my mind, present a real argument, not just an attack on anyone who disagrees with you.[/quote]
LOL!! Meet Wreckless! His ‘argument’ will consist of: “If you don’t agree with me, then you are a dumb fuck!!”
Its right up there with Modus Ponens!!!
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
I’m surprised that you aren’t looking for reliable sources about the truth about global warming. You don’t know shit about it, but you have already figured out what you want to believe.[/quote]
Suddenly you’re an expert on what other people do and don’t know? What Katz is experiencing is an intellectual gag reflex. Al Gore and company shoot a load in your mouth and people like you swallow and shower praise them with awards.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
I’m surprised that you aren’t looking for reliable sources about the truth about global warming. You don’t know shit about it, but you have already figured out what you want to believe.
Suddenly you’re an expert on what other people do and don’t know? What Katz is experiencing is an intellectual gag reflex. Al Gore and company shoot a load in your mouth and people like you swallow and shower praise them with awards.[/quote]
If you believe gore shot a load, then didn’t you swallow a load to believe it?
I mean since Gore and Co. are just shooting what the real world calls science.
[quote]100meters wrote:
If you believe gore shot a load, then didn’t you swallow a load to believe it? I mean since Gore and Co. are just shooting what the real world calls science.[/quote]
Your pathology affects your thought process right down to simple logic and causality. You’re so predisposed to swallowing anything that you can’t even fathom someone gagging without swallowing.
So, where did Gore do his post-doc?
[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
I am happy for Al Gore. Didn’t know that a Nobel, any Nobel, was awarded on a work of fiction. [/quote]
Yeah, except for that pesky Nobel Prize for Literature. Please play again.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
100meters wrote:
Junkscience is factually junk, but you’d prefer it over sound scientific consensus? Odd.
Consensus is not a scientific term, it is a political one.[/quote]
Consensus could easily be a scientific term. Why don’t you just take a poll of all the PhD holders in the world?
I like to just listen to the findings of the ICPP, read the relevant articles, and evaluate the criticism.
Good thing top scientists are ego-driven - genuinely debunking climate change (i.e. winning the debate vs millions of scientists) would land you a sweet job at the school of your choice, along with some uber-hot grad students.
[quote]100meters wrote:
If you believe gore shot a load, then didn’t you swallow a load to believe it?
I mean since Gore and Co. are just shooting what the real world calls science.[/quote]
Yup, he shot that science dead.
Funny how you cannot trust somebody you say is biased because an obviously biased website says so.
If Junkscience is incorrect, tell me how it is wrong. Quit using the attack the person instead of the science ploy.
Nowhere here have you heard me say I didn’t believe in Global Warming because Al Gore was a doody head.
Instead I actually look at what is being said, and find out if it is true or not. And what I find is that it is completely lacking in science.
The funny thing is how you are not even aware of your hypocrisy. Junkscience is biased, but Gore is not. Nor is that website you brought up.
Maybe the science is over your head, but if not, prove the link information wrong. Based on science, not on political hate websites.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Two words:
Yasser Arafat
If that doesn’t kill the meaning of “peace” nothing does.
Naah, Arafat was ok. Their biggest mistake was Kissinger. That guy lied like others breathe.
[/quote]
You can go back further than that. I love the man, but Teddy fucking Roosevelt won the Peace Prize. Huh?!
mike
[quote]HoratioSandoval wrote:
The Mage wrote:
100meters wrote:
Junkscience is factually junk, but you’d prefer it over sound scientific consensus? Odd.
Consensus is not a scientific term, it is a political one.
Consensus could easily be a scientific term. Why don’t you just take a poll of all the PhD holders in the world?
I like to just listen to the findings of the ICPP, read the relevant articles, and evaluate the criticism.
Good thing top scientists are ego-driven - genuinely debunking climate change (i.e. winning the debate vs millions of scientists) would land you a sweet job at the school of your choice, along with some uber-hot grad students.
[/quote]
It is just that the ICPP really can`t tell you how that man made global warming really works, so there is nothing to debunk.
[quote]HoratioSandoval wrote:
Consensus could easily be a scientific term. Why don’t you just take a poll of all the PhD holders in the world?
[/quote]
What I don’t understand is, why would a poll necessarily make the consensus any more scientific?
In any case, of course it wouldn’t prove that the consensus on global warming theory is infallible. Unless you believe the scientific majority are infallible. But they never are, nor ever were. The history of science is riddled with examples of the majority of scientists being in broad agreement about theories which subsequently turned out to be false.
That global warming seems to be so hysterically believed in, that dissent is not tolerated, that exploring alternative theories is discouraged, that there is an air of infallibility about the pronouncments of the scientific majority - these things are not only evidenced on this board, but they all suggest that the global warming consensus is, whatever else and even if ultimately true, also an ideology and even a religion.
This is precisely why it is important for both scientists and laymen to engage in serious critique of this consensus, and why we need therefore to explore alternative theories.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
100meters wrote:
If you believe gore shot a load, then didn’t you swallow a load to believe it? I mean since Gore and Co. are just shooting what the real world calls science.
Your pathology affects your thought process right down to simple logic and causality. You’re so predisposed to swallowing anything that you can’t even fathom someone gagging without swallowing.
So, where did Gore do his post-doc?[/quote]
Again, excepting one example where there is a problem with tense, His documentary is scientifically sound and it’s premise is universally accepted as very likely by outrageously huge numbers of scientists. Now compare to the laughable “Swindle”.
I really don’t see the problem with swallowing science, but it seems funny how eager skeptics are to swallow anything supporting their side most of which is totally false/ or meant to intentionally decieve like Swindle, or Hansen “paid” by Soros, Medieval Warming Period, 9 “Lies” in Gore’s movie, and god just on and on and on.
With their track record of deceit how can you not look at the skeptics with anything other than skepticism. (Note: skeptic supporters also in general lie, or are dead wrong about just about everything else too.)
[quote]The Mage wrote:
100meters wrote:
If you believe gore shot a load, then didn’t you swallow a load to believe it?
I mean since Gore and Co. are just shooting what the real world calls science.
Yup, he shot that science dead.
Funny how you cannot trust somebody you say is biased because an obviously biased website says so.
If Junkscience is incorrect, tell me how it is wrong. Quit using the attack the person instead of the science ploy.
Nowhere here have you heard me say I didn’t believe in Global A.Warming because Al Gore was a doody head.
Instead I actually look at what is being said, and find out if it is true or not. And what I find is that it is completely lacking in science.
The funny thing is how you are not even aware of your hypocrisy. Junkscience is biased, but Gore is not. Nor is that website you brought up.
Maybe the science is over your head, but if not, prove the link information wrong. Based on science, not on political hate websites.[/quote]
What part was lacking in science? The countless models done countless ways showing the same result?
A.Gore bias towards science
B.Junkscience bias towards slandering science.
I prefer A.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
That global warming seems to be so hysterically believed in, that dissent is not tolerated, that exploring alternative theories is discouraged,
[/quote]
Pure Horsesht.
[quote]100meters wrote:
The Mage wrote:
100meters wrote:
If you believe gore shot a load, then didn’t you swallow a load to believe it?
I mean since Gore and Co. are just shooting what the real world calls science.
Yup, he shot that science dead.
Funny how you cannot trust somebody you say is biased because an obviously biased website says so.
If Junkscience is incorrect, tell me how it is wrong. Quit using the attack the person instead of the science ploy.
Nowhere here have you heard me say I didn’t believe in Global A.Warming because Al Gore was a doody head.
Instead I actually look at what is being said, and find out if it is true or not. And what I find is that it is completely lacking in science.
The funny thing is how you are not even aware of your hypocrisy. Junkscience is biased, but Gore is not. Nor is that website you brought up.
Maybe the science is over your head, but if not, prove the link information wrong. Based on science, not on political hate websites.
What part was lacking in science? The countless models done countless ways showing the same result?
A.Gore bias towards science
B.Junkscience bias towards slandering science.
I prefer A.
[/quote]
If you create a model with the built in assumption that CO2 raises the earths temperature, it will show you a rise in earths temperature when you “simulate” a rise in CO2.
That makes the assumption neither more nor less true.
Interesting WSJ Op-ed piece from this morning
Global Warming Delusions
By DANIEL B. BOTKIN
October 17, 2007; Page A19
Global warming doesn’t matter except to the extent that it will affect life – ours and that of all living things on Earth. And contrary to the latest news, the evidence that global warming will have serious effects on life is thin. Most evidence suggests the contrary.
Case in point: This year’s United Nations report on climate change and other documents say that 20%-30% of plant and animal species will be threatened with extinction in this century due to global warming – a truly terrifying thought. Yet, during the past 2.5 million years, a period that scientists now know experienced climatic changes as rapid and as warm as modern climatological models suggest will happen to us, almost none of the millions of species on Earth went extinct. The exceptions were about 20 species of large mammals (the famous megafauna of the last ice age – saber-tooth tigers, hairy mammoths and the like), which went extinct about 10,000 to 5,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age, and many dominant trees and shrubs of northwestern Europe. But elsewhere, including North America, few plant species went extinct, and few mammals.
We’re also warned that tropical diseases are going to spread, and that we can expect malaria and encephalitis epidemics. But scientific papers by Prof. Sarah Randolph of Oxford University show that temperature changes do not correlate well with changes in the distribution or frequency of these diseases; warming has not broadened their distribution and is highly unlikely to do so in the future, global warming or not.
The key point here is that living things respond to many factors in addition to temperature and rainfall. In most cases, however, climate-modeling-based forecasts look primarily at temperature alone, or temperature and precipitation only. You might ask, “Isn’t this enough to forecast changes in the distribution of species?” Ask a mockingbird. The New York Times recently published an answer to a query about why mockingbirds were becoming common in Manhattan. The expert answer was: food – an exotic plant species that mockingbirds like to eat had spread to New York City. It was this, not temperature or rainfall, the expert said, that caused the change in mockingbird geography.
You might think I must be one of those know-nothing naysayers who believes global warming is a liberal plot. On the contrary, I am a biologist and ecologist who has worked on global warming, and been concerned about its effects, since 1968. I’ve developed the computer model of forest growth that has been used widely to forecast possible effects of global warming on life – I’ve used the model for that purpose myself, and to forecast likely effects on specific endangered species.
I’m not a naysayer. I’m a scientist who believes in the scientific method and in what facts tell us. I have worked for 40 years to try to improve our environment and improve human life as well. I believe we can do this only from a basis in reality, and that is not what I see happening now. Instead, like fashions that took hold in the past and are eloquently analyzed in the classic 19th century book “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds,” the popular imagination today appears to have been captured by beliefs that have little scientific basis.
Some colleagues who share some of my doubts argue that the only way to get our society to change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe, and that therefore it is all right and even necessary for scientists to exaggerate. They tell me that my belief in open and honest assessment is naïve. “Wolves deceive their prey, don’t they?” one said to me recently. Therefore, biologically, he said, we are justified in exaggerating to get society to change.
The climate modelers who developed the computer programs that are being used to forecast climate change used to readily admit that the models were crude and not very realistic, but were the best that could be done with available computers and programming methods. They said our options were to either believe those crude models or believe the opinions of experienced, data-focused scientists. Having done a great deal of computer modeling myself, I appreciated their acknowledgment of the limits of their methods. But I hear no such statements today. Oddly, the forecasts of computer models have become our new reality, while facts such as the few extinctions of the past 2.5 million years are pushed aside, as if they were not our reality.
A recent article in the well-respected journal American Scientist explained why the glacier on Mt. Kilimanjaro could not be melting from global warming. Simply from an intellectual point of view it was fascinating – especially the author’s Sherlock Holmes approach to figuring out what was causing the glacier to melt. That it couldn’t be global warming directly (i.e., the result of air around the glacier warming) was made clear by the fact that the air temperature at the altitude of the glacier is below freezing. This means that only direct radiant heat from sunlight could be warming and melting the glacier. The author also studied the shape of the glacier and deduced that its melting pattern was consistent with radiant heat but not air temperature. Although acknowledged by many scientists, the paper is scorned by the true believers in global warming.
We are told that the melting of the arctic ice will be a disaster. But during the famous medieval warming period – A.D. 750 to 1230 or so – the Vikings found the warmer northern climate to their advantage. Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie addressed this in his book “Times of Feast, Times of Famine: A History of Climate Since the Year 1000,” perhaps the greatest book about climate change before the onset of modern concerns with global warming. He wrote that Erik the Red “took advantage of a sea relatively free of ice to sail due west from Iceland to reach Greenland. . . . Two and a half centuries later, at the height of the climatic and demographic fortunes of the northern settlers, a bishopric of Greenland was founded at Gardar in 1126.”
Ladurie pointed out that “it is reasonable to think of the Vikings as unconsciously taking advantage of this [referring to the warming of the Middle Ages] to colonize the most northern and inclement of their conquests, Iceland and Greenland.” Good thing that Erik the Red didn’t have Al Gore or his climatologists as his advisers.
Should we therefore dismiss global warming? Of course not. But we should make a realistic assessment, as rationally as possible, about its cultural, economic and environmental effects. As Erik the Red might have told you, not everything due to a climatic warming is bad, nor is everything that is bad due to a climatic warming.
We should approach the problem the way we decide whether to buy insurance and take precautions against other catastrophes – wildfires, hurricanes, earthquakes. And as I have written elsewhere, many of the actions we would take to reduce greenhouse-gas production and mitigate global-warming effects are beneficial anyway, most particularly a movement away from fossil fuels to alternative solar and wind energy.
My concern is that we may be moving away from an irrational lack of concern about climate change to an equally irrational panic about it.
Many of my colleagues ask, “What’s the problem? Hasn’t it been a good thing to raise public concern?” The problem is that in this panic we are going to spend our money unwisely, we will take actions that are counterproductive, and we will fail to do many of those things that will benefit the environment and ourselves.
For example, right now the clearest threat to many species is habitat destruction. Take the orangutans, for instance, one of those charismatic species that people are often fascinated by and concerned about. They are endangered because of deforestation. In our fear of global warming, it would be sad if we fail to find funds to purchase those forests before they are destroyed, and thus let this species go extinct.
At the heart of the matter is how much faith we decide to put in science – even how much faith scientists put in science. Our times have benefited from clear-thinking, science-based rationality. I hope this prevails as we try to deal with our changing climate.
Mr. Botkin, president of the Center for the Study of the Environment and professor emeritus in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, is the author of “Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the Twenty-First Century” (Replica Books, 2001).
[quote]The Mage wrote:
100meters wrote:
Yes C02 lags but so what? This is known issue and has nothing to do with whether C02 causes global warming. This is something brought up by skeptics to deliberately “play havoc with the facts”. It’s a classic case of skeptics “twisting the facts” to fit their (false) point of view.
What do you mean so what? How can it cause global warming before it exists?
How can an effect exist before the cause?[/quote]
Sorry Mage, but I asked him some similar questions in the “arctic thaw” thread, to no avail. Apparently when you introduce a concept that is outside of a persons ability to comprehend, You are an idiot that doesn’t know about “science”.
100meters wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
100meters wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
I’d like to here how we reversed the ice age and destroyed the glaciers with our industrialized society that didn’t exist at that time. Or maybe we do have warming and cooling microcycles cycles that are part of much larger cycles, that we have very little to no control over.
Maybe geological time scales are just a bit too big for the Now generation.
And maybe people who know what they’re talking about are able to take this all into consideration.
Sure they can. Thing is- my idea of people who know what they are talking about are the ones that BB quoted. Global warming alarmists idea of people who know what they are talking about is Al Gore, Woody from Cheers, and a bunch of hippie who use the “I feel” perspective way too freakin much, and mistake it for fact.
Oh gawd…just so stupid, I’m pretty sure “alarmists” refer to this thing called “science”, but yes reduce it down to right-wing punching bags…
What is this “science” you speak of? Forming an opinion then finding questionable evidence to support it?
Or is it effect based on the implication of cause?
Maybe it is the conservative in me that requires direct proof of cause and effect.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Again, excepting one example where there is a problem with tense, His documentary is scientifically sound and it’s premise is universally accepted as very likely by outrageously huge numbers of scientists. Now compare to the laughable “Swindle”.[/quote]
Incorrect, lack of consensus aside, his presentation lacks basic research into historical literature (usually the first step in research) and makes use of some rather unreliable and unusual proxy data. Documents from the era show that Polar Bears have been drowning and eating each other long before the Industrial Revolution. The snows of Kilimanjaro were receding before Hemingway put pen to paper. Gore has cherry-picked factual data and used it out of historical and statistical context to support his preconceived notions of what would ‘cause/fix the problem’. Considering this and the fact that you’d like to exclude people who have actually studied climate based on funding I can only assume you view the topic as more political or religious than actually scientific.
1.) I know it’s hard for you to grasp this, but, nobody’s swallowing anything, that’s what make one a skeptic. Not swallowing.
2.) I have yet to see/hear/read ‘Swindle’. AIT was in my local theater despite that being on of the most carbon inefficient ways to distribute information. You can rest assured that I did my part to minimize the damage.
3.) What was false about the MWP?
4.) I said this in another thread, Hansen’s a nutjob, I don’t (in this context) care who paid him. However, it is interesting to note, in your eyes, that minuscule oil payoffs invalidate sound science on one side but investment banking/political activism payoffs don’t stick in the other.
Aside from your mental pathologies, here’s your problem. When I say skeptic, I mean skeptic. Not denier, not schill or whore or politico, skeptic. You use skeptic interchangeably with the others and impugn people who would almost otherwise be believers and tear down those who only seek accuracy and truth. Just because someone asks if they could be a little more precise about the 10 cm to 25 m sea level rise doesn’t mean they’re paid by Exxon to drive their SUVs into the forest and start wildfires.