Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Global Warming Debate, Split From ANWR Drilling Thread
#41
WmLambert Wrote:Then shame on you, Matrix, for not spending the few moments necessary to go through the scientific reviews in the Science and the General Resources sections of this forum. I doubt anything ever published was missed. The information is comprehensive - and very daunting for any AGW supporter.
Looks good. Unfortunately, I didn't see any scientific reviews of Little Ice Age: Big Chill. I have done quite a bit of research on this topic, but these resources go beyond my own data. Thanks for the tip.
Quote:"The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it." -- Voltaire
Reply
#42
Matrix Wrote:In the case of AGW, it seems to me, a minority of doubting toms are simply trying to introduce an alternative hypothesis, without going to the trouble of dismantling the existing one

But that is exactly what the AGW/CO2 did.

Quote:In any case, I am not interested in debating the specifics of global warming. I am quite willing to guide deniers to scientific links that deal with issues that they raise -- but I assume they already know how to find them. My main concern here is that the objections raised to this global consensus on the probable causes of global warming are being driven more by ideological leanings than by scientific facts.

The deniers know more about the science than you do. They base everything they do on science. Real science actually.
As Gary Lloyd said, "When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence."
Reply
#43
Matrix the Global Warming Conspiracy theorists are just like all the other whackos, afraid to debate in pure science.

There is no Global warming model that works. There is no database of facts that support the whackos.
Reply
#44
Matrix Wrote:
John L Wrote:
Matrix Wrote:That is my impression, but of course I could be wrong.

In this case, you will be. I am not much of a betting man, but I would bet my life on this one. The amount of influence man is playing on the environment is no more than 1-2%. The rest is natural.

Another thing I would bet my life on is that a warmer planet is far better than a cooler one? Tell me Matrix, have you taken the time to watch Little Ice Age: Big Chill yet?
"You will be" is not a scientific statement, John. As you should know, science works with probabilities, not certainties.

Geez, wish I wasn't away and not able to participate properly in this conversation.

However, I must say -

"That is my impression" is not a scientific statement, Matrix. As you should know, science does not work with improbabilities, only possibilities.


Just my observation.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#45
Matrix, if the movie is just too simplistic and not a science journal, why not meet half way, and read what REAL Scientists have to say on this. Go to The Deniers Series, which I just so happen to have linked here at Jane and read what they have to say on the subject.

Now, don't you suppose they know more than you do about climate science? I realize it will be a hard sell for a Statist to swallow. Wink1
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it" - Jonathan Swift, 1710
Reply
#46
Matrix:

Quote:With your comments on the third link, you said that you had "skimmed through it" and would comment on the other two links in due course.

Yes I did state that.However I then went on to post specific counterpoints to the third link.Meaning obviously I did more than skim it.I replied to almost the entire article.How did you miss that? S1

Quote:When I get more time, i will return to your "skimming" comments, which could explain your response. You failed to comment on the sources posted in that link. Attacking the messenger instead of the message?


:lol:

Oh man you failed to notice that I posted a FULL counterpoint reply to the third link.

No I was replying to the article that was allegedly based on the sources listed at the bottom.I cared less to comment on the sources themselves because the article was dumb enough.If the article that was based on the sources was stupid.How can the sources themselves be any better?

No I was exposing the stupid attack they made in the article with incredibly shallow attempts to discredit people.How can anyone fall for these lines?:

"dr frederick seitz initiated the study; was also a paid consultant to RJ REYNOLD TOBACCO Co, from 1979."

" dr. arthur robinson also does not believe in evolution. he believes in intelligent design."

" dr. arthur robinson previously concluded that high doses of vitamin C might actually be harmful. he was wrong."

"dr. arthur robinson was forced to resign from the LINUS PAULING inst. of Sc + Med, his research labeled as “amateurish” and inadequate."
dr. arthur robinson wrote 2 books on surviving nuclear war, noting that “the dangers from nuclear weapons have been distorted and exaggerated”."


You could not realize how stupid and shallow this is? :oops:

They completely avoided attacking the petition itself (and the 2 science presentations) and his part in developing it.Not only that Dr. Seitz was not the writer of either science presentations.Or that he signed the OTHER 30,999 petitions.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Here is one part of the link they hope you would not read.This is an excerpt:

Qualifications of Signers

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,697 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 903 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,691 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,796 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,924 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,069 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 9,992 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,697)

1. Atmosphere (578)

I) Atmospheric Science (114)
II) Climatology (40)
III) Meteorology (341 )
IV) Astronomy (58)
V) Astrophysics (25)

2. Earth (2,148)

I) Earth Science (107)
II) Geochemistry (62)
III) Geology (1,601)
IV) Geophysics (334)
V) Geoscience (23)
VI) Hydrology (21)

3. Environment (971)

I) Environmental Engineering (473)
II) Environmental Science (256)
III) Forestry (156)
IV) Oceanography (86)


More in the link if finally YOU Matrix read the contents of the link.The one DR SEITZ help create.The one your teen critics who never read this.Making total fools of themselves in the process.

If YOU Matrix had read through the entire link.You would not have fallen for childish criticism against the roll call of the petitioners themselves. Wink1

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabas...gners.html

This roster is already way better than the roster of the so called 2500 scientists of the IPCC. :lol:

Then we have this.An excerpt:

5. Does the petition list contain names other than those of scientist signers?

Opponents of the petition project sometimes submit forged signatures in efforts to discredit the project. Usually, these efforts are eliminated by our verification procedures. On one occasion, a forged signature appeared briefly on the signatory list. It was removed as soon as discovered.

In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists.

color my emphasis

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabas...tions.html

I could go on with more excerpts from the petition website.The one YOU and those morons who never read it. :oops:

I have known about this website since 1998.When will YOU finally read it?

Quote:As for the above comments on the first two links, I see a great many characterizations and name-calling, but no specifics. It's hard to direct you to scientific links that discuss certain issues, when you fail to specify the issues

I did not make a specific post against the other two links.Because I was waiting for your breathtaking reply to my criticism of the one link I did specifically responded to in detail.

Nope you did not.So why should I waste my time tearing apart two more dumb petition criticisms?

You now have to put something on the table in defending that incredibly bad third link I laughed at.
Reply
#47
Matrix:

Quote:In any given scientific issue, there will always be disagreement about methodologies, interpretation of findings, etc. In the case of a scientific theory or widely accepted hypothesis, the accepted practice is work within a peer-reviewed vetting system to raise questions about these things or to present new findings.


I have to ask you this question.One I am sure you never considered:

The many IPCC reports are a peer review process or a meta analysis process?
Reply
#48
Matrix:

Quote:In the case of AGW, it seems to me, a minority of doubting toms are simply trying to introduce an alternative hypothesis, without going to the trouble of dismantling the existing one -- much the way intelligent design advocates approach evolutionary theory.

The existing one has already been dismantled.

The Hockey Stick is dead.

The Oceans are cooling.

The atmosphere is cooling.

The upper atmosphere is barely warming.

No warming trend since 2001.

The South polar region cooling and gaining ice mass.Direct contradiction of the AGW hypothesis.

The North polar region losing ice mass primarily because of changing wind patterns.Appears to be cyclic in nature.Warming is only regional.

Greenland is cooling and gaining ice mass.

Several science papers published via your precious peer review process.Shows that CO2 increases and decreases FOLLOWS world temperture increases and decreases by at least 400 years.

All the while we have a growing CO2 level in the atmosphere.A growing contradition.It was contradicted from 1940-1976 too.

Why do you think alternative explanations have been growing in numbers the last few years?

Could it be because there is a growing vacuum being built on the backs of a dying AGW hypothesis?

S1

I am not a doubting tom.I am a SKEPTICAL TOM!

There is a difference fella.........
Reply
#49
It looks to me that we will have to break up this thread, which started out to be about drillin' for oil, but has taken an AGW turn. I'm just giving an alert to this, so everyone will not lose the link, when it breaks up.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it" - Jonathan Swift, 1710
Reply
#50
Maybe we could change the thread titile to "Majority of Americans favor drilling for truth"?

S2
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#51
John L Wrote:It looks to me that we will have to break up this thread, which started out to be about drillin' for oil, but has taken an AGW turn. I'm just giving an alert to this, so everyone will not lose the link, when it breaks up.

Oh oh,

You will have to inform Matrix about it since he is not always reading the contents of links. S1
Reply
#52
John L Wrote:It looks to me that we will have to break up this thread, which started out to be about drillin' for oil, but has taken an AGW turn. I'm just giving an alert to this, so everyone will not lose the link, when it breaks up.

don't be so anal.
As Gary Lloyd said, "When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence."
Reply
#53
scpg02 Wrote:
John L Wrote:It looks to me that we will have to break up this thread, which started out to be about drillin' for oil, but has taken an AGW turn. I'm just giving an alert to this, so everyone will not lose the link, when it breaks up.

don't be so anal.

Nothing 'anal' dear, it is just that we have two topics here that need to be seperated, for clarity. Besides, I am not into anything anal anyway. Not my style. Wink1
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it" - Jonathan Swift, 1710
Reply
#54
John L Wrote:
scpg02 Wrote:don't be so anal.

Nothing 'anal' dear, it is just that we have two topics here that need to be seperated, for clarity. Besides, I am not into anything anal anyway. Not my style. Wink1




*backs out of the topic*

Shock
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#55
scpg02 Wrote:The deniers know more about the science than you do. They base everything they do on science. Real science actually.
And so do the AGW scientists. That's why this is a debate among scientists, not Internet posters. While it's important to point out errors or inconclusive data, there is no reason at this stage to think that the scientific community as a whole has got it wrong -- and a small group of deniers (even if they do not work for the energy industry or propagate ideologies that call for deregulation of business) have not yet proved their case.

And, of course, it doesn't help when they use tactics such as The Great Global Warming Swindle or "31,000" scientists in denial.

S1
Quote:"The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it." -- Voltaire
Reply
#56
Matrix Wrote:
scpg02 Wrote:The deniers know more about the science than you do. They base everything they do on science. Real science actually.
And so do the AGW scientists. That's why this is a debate among scientists, not Internet posters. While it's important to point out errors or inconclusive data, there is no reason at this stage to think that the scientific community as a whole has got it wrong -- and a small group of deniers (even if they do not work for the energy industry or propagate ideologies that call for deregulation of business) have not yet proved their case.

And, of course, it doesn't help when they use tactics such as The Great Global Warming Swindle or "31,000" scientists in denial.

S1

Soooo, it is beneath your dignity to even bother reading about to The Deniers Series, "M"? Does it violate your idea of the way the universe is structured?

Or is it just plain intellectual laziness?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it" - Jonathan Swift, 1710
Reply
#57
John L Wrote:
Matrix Wrote:
scpg02 Wrote:The deniers know more about the science than you do. They base everything they do on science. Real science actually.
And so do the AGW scientists. That's why this is a debate among scientists, not Internet posters. While it's important to point out errors or inconclusive data, there is no reason at this stage to think that the scientific community as a whole has got it wrong -- and a small group of deniers (even if they do not work for the energy industry or propagate ideologies that call for deregulation of business) have not yet proved their case.

And, of course, it doesn't help when they use tactics such as The Great Global Warming Swindle or "31,000" scientists in denial.

S1
Soooo, it is beneath your dignity to even bother reading about to The Deniers Series, "M"? Does it violate your idea of the way the universe is structured?

Or is it just plain intellectual laziness?
Perhaps it's because most of these sources are old hat.

Here is a list of every skeptic argument encountered online as well as how often each argument is used.

One wonders how many skeptics' arguments meet the requirements of Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit. S1
Quote:"The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it." -- Voltaire
Reply
#58
Matrix Wrote:Perhaps it's because most of these sources are old hat.

Here is a list of every skeptic argument encountered online as well as how often each argument is used.

One wonders how many skeptics' arguments meet the requirements of Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit. S1

In other words, "Don't Confuse Me With The Facts, I've Got My Mind Made Up." :lol: :lol:

My guess, even two years from now, when the Real cooling has begun in earnest, you will still think of all this as "Old Hat". So much for knowledge, for knowledge's sake.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it" - Jonathan Swift, 1710
Reply
#59
And, as usual, The sun is blank--no sunspots. Credit: SOHO/MDI. I have gone back several days, to where I last reported, and there has been no further sunspot activity to report.

Just more fuel to the "It's the Sun" argument, which you will be forced to live with very soon. Enjoy your enforced Intellectual Laziness "M". Wink1
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it" - Jonathan Swift, 1710
Reply
#60
John L Wrote:
Matrix Wrote:Perhaps it's because most of these sources are old hat.

Here is a list of every skeptic argument encountered online as well as how often each argument is used.

One wonders how many skeptics' arguments meet the requirements of Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit. S1

In other words, "Don't Confuse Me With The Facts, I've Got My Mind Made Up." :lol: :lol:
Facts are open to interpretation, as you can see from the comments posted on RealClimate.

John L Wrote:My guess, even two years from now, when the Real cooling has begun in earnest, you will still think of all this as "Old Hat". So much for knowledge, for knowledge's sake.
Anything's possible, John. Most scientists think differently. I'm willing to go with mainstream science until it's shown to be wrong. What is going on at the moment is a debate about methodology, observable data and interpretation. The probabilies of AGW are 90 percent, according to the 2007 IPCC report.

If the current scientific consensus proves to be wrong, then we can all sit back and breathe a sigh of relief. If that estimate is anywhere near correct, there is reason to be concerned. If there is a climatological disaster looming on the horizon -- it makes good sense to take action now to reduce the consequences, wherever possible, incouding reducing CO2 emissions from man-made sources.

It's called The Precautionary Principle
Quote:"The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it." -- Voltaire
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Disaster Addiction And Global Warming John L 75 8,100 Yesterday, 08:26 PM
Last Post: John L
  Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait...PT. 2 John L 520 148,022 08-15-2019, 05:26 PM
Last Post: WmLambert
  Positive News about Global Warming. John L 78 28,825 05-17-2015, 09:55 AM
Last Post: JohnWho
  Why Global Warming Isn't Consistant Buzz 39 24,197 10-19-2014, 03:34 PM
Last Post: SFX
  Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait... Lisa 1,668 673,694 08-23-2014, 06:13 PM
Last Post: John L
  Global Warming Nazis John L 134 52,974 07-01-2014, 04:12 PM
Last Post: Paul In Sweden
  Science Fraud And Con Men: Diederik Stapel and Global Warming John L 0 1,625 04-30-2013, 08:58 PM
Last Post: John L
  Death By Global Warming John L 12 9,008 01-06-2012, 06:11 PM
Last Post: jt
  global warming to cause an extraterrestial attack mv 10 6,194 08-20-2011, 03:06 PM
Last Post: John L
  Catholic church warns of global warming quadrat 9 6,028 05-22-2011, 02:23 PM
Last Post: Palladin

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)