Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Global Warming Debate, Split From ANWR Drilling Thread
#21
John L Wrote:
scpg02 Wrote:Uh, I did. Get much sleep last night? Shock :lol:

Now that you mention it,.....no. I did not get to sleep until after 3AM Eastern, and had to rise and shine,.....well, sort of, at 7AM. I have always hated going to bed. It's this "Owl" thing.
At last, we have something in common.

Tip: sleeping generally follows 90-minute cycles -- dozing off, deep sleep and waking up, each lasting approximately 30 minutes. So, if you go to bed at 3 a.m., the best time to set your alarm is for 4.30, 6, 7.30 etc. -- 90-minute cycles. If you have to get up at 7 a.m., then you should retire at 2.30, 4 or 5.30 -- or earlier, of course.

If you're not already familiar with such sleeping patterns, you should find that waking up after any 90-cycle will make it easier to get up and get going, without feeling sleepy all day.

In any case, that is my personal experience.

Cheers.
Quote:"The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it." -- Voltaire
Reply
#22
scpg02 Wrote:
Matrix Wrote:But, frankly, I consider AGW deniers a fringe element. It is like debating intelligent design and/or its underlying principle, creationism.

Ah a Holier than Thou attitude. If you really want a challenge then try and join the one John eluded to. We are both members. Sadly he is correct, you will need a degree or a sponsor to join. The data I posted above came from there.

Climate Sceptics
I'm always hesitant to join closed debating societies. Is there a litmus test?

My degree is in business administration and languages. Would that qualify me to join?

As for your holier than thou comment, I am the first to admit that I don't have all the answers. But I'm quite adept at asking the right questions.
8)
Quote:"The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it." -- Voltaire
Reply
#23
Matrix Wrote:I'm always hesitant to join closed debating societies. Is there a litmus test?

My degree is in business administration and languages. Would that qualify me to join?

As for your holier than thou comment, I am the first to admit that I don't have all the answers. But I'm quite adept at asking the right questions.
8)

Well then, just lurk there and read some of the posts. That forum has the highest concentration of Phd Climate Deniers(as you call them), who are true blue scientists. And Maggie and I got in. I don't know Maggie's credentials, but I am a physical anthropologist, with only a masters.

Anyway, since you like a serious challenge, that is THE place to get in and debate. Everyone is very cordial and considerate, but they will present you with the Science, and sometimes that is hard to take, especially when you are prejudged on this "fringe" thinking.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#24
If you are indeed interested in the planet, them I highly recommend you watch the History Channel's presentation of Little Ice Age: Big Chill. If there is really anything to fear, another little ice age is the Pits.

And the planet is Still not nearly as warm as it was during the Midieval Climate Optimum of the 10th to the 14th century. Be very worried about a return to the cold. A warm planet is good for humans, but cold weather is not. You really should learn this, because it is the truth.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#25
John L Wrote:
Matrix Wrote:I'm always hesitant to join closed debating societies. Is there a litmus test?

My degree is in business administration and languages. Would that qualify me to join?

As for your holier than thou comment, I am the first to admit that I don't have all the answers. But I'm quite adept at asking the right questions.
8)

Well then, just lurk there and read some of the posts. That forum has the highest concentration of Phd Climate Deniers(as you call them), who are true blue scientists. And Maggie and I got in. I don't know Maggie's credentials, but I am a physical anthropologist, with only a masters.

Anyway, since you like a serious challenge, that is THE place to get in and debate. Everyone is very cordial and considerate, but they will present you with the Science, and sometimes that is hard to take, especially when you are prejudged on this "fringe" thinking.

Can't lurk at that one. Closed to the public. As for how I got in, let's just say it wasn't my academic credentials. :lol:

The forum is run by David Wojick. You are welcome to do a search on his name. (David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia)

Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts
A lot of the guys who signed this letter are on the Climate Sceptics forum.

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Many of the names listed in this article also post on Climate Sceptics.

Quote:USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: “In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.” Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
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
#26
scpg02 Wrote:Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts
A lot of the guys who signed this letter are on the Climate Sceptics forum.

Without even looking, the first ones to come to mind are Drs. Tim Ball, Vincent Gray, Ralph Lindzen, Bob Carter,.........................is that all I can come up with immediately?

Quote:U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Many of the names listed in this article also post on Climate Sceptics.

Quote:USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: “In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.” Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”

The list if far longer and extensive than a True Believer would imagine. Wink1
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#27
I am member of that forum too.But I hate the forum set up.Too hard to keep track of the discussions.I go there to read a few comments.I have posted there a few times too.

They are welcome to have a private subforum at my forum.Also closed to the public.But I do not like to raid forums and besides they seem satified with they have.Despite the crappy set up.

A few of them are AGW believers too.But for the most part.It is populated with skeptics.The discussion are quite civil.Sometimes heated but they cool down. S1
Reply
#28
sunsettommy Wrote:I am member of that forum too.But I hate the forum set up.Too hard to keep track of the discussions.I go there to read a few comments.I have posted there a few times too.

Agreed! Yahoo truely and magnificantly SUCKS!! I am a member of three of those Yahoo abortions and it is extremely difficult to get involved, due to the very thing you are describing.

Ugh! :twisted:
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#29
Matrix Wrote:
John L Wrote:
Matrix Wrote:
John L Wrote:You should branch out more "M". Intellectual laziness is not going to be favoured here. It is all there for you to see, so try "rooting" around some more, please. We are not going to spoon feed you.
LOL! It is not up to me to do someone's research for them. This fallacy is called shifting the burden of proof.

Incorrect! I don't have the TIME to write you a soliloquy, when I have already done so where you can easily check it out. If you wish to believe all that AGW HorseShit, that is your business. Only try somewhere else, where others will believe you. It will not work here.
:?

Check this out, John.

Just for the record, if a soliloquy means "talking to oneself", you can neither write one nor write one to me.

Talking about horseshit, John, is this one of the sources of the now infamous fraud of the 31,000?

If so, here is some information that conflicts with the magical realism of some AGW deniers on this board.

http://local-warming.blogspot.com/2008/0...lobal.html

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1654/

http://antiguanoctane.gnn.tv/blogs/28821...entists_eh

But don't get me wrong. I have nothing against true-believer-ism. Wink1

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I skimmed your 3 links.They post stupid arguments that strain credibility.The last link is all ad homeniums.No attempt to provide a rational counterpoint to the science presentation people are asked to sign the petition in support of it.

I have dealt with this crap since 1998 when I first had to deal with people (my brother) who bring up bogus arguments against it.I will show why your first 2 links are worthless crap soon.

Has it ever occurred to you WHY they created the list in the first place?

From your last link:

Quote:yes, the report is 10 years old.

Misleading since there is an UPDATED paper posted in 2007.So actually TWO reports have been published.

Quote:more than half the people who signed it, did so 10 years ago.

Very good.But still over 12,000 NEW signees in last few years indicates a lot of people still do not consider AGW hypothesis robust.

Quote:the scientific paper was deceptively formatted to look like an official document of the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. it was not.

I have gone over this misleading crap with an actual member 2 years ago and he could not furnish the evidence that it was infringement on copyrights of the NAS.I know NAS posted a complaint about it.But never a legal violation.It is a bogus whining that needs to be dropped.

Quote:of the original 17,000 signers, dr. robinson admitted only 2100 signatories were actually from climate science and it was discovered non-credential signatories existed: perry mason, MASH dr honeycutt and more…

Yes and he honestly posted that information on the website.He also stated that yes they get a few fakes.That they weed out.It has all been posted in the open.

Again it is a bogus argument.Or should I have to point out to you that neither James Hansen or Michael Mann has a climate science degree.Or Gavin Schmidt or Pierrehumbert or many other known AGW scientist believers.

Now what about those with actual climate degrees holders such as Richard Lindzen,Patrick Micheals,Reid Bryson,Roy Spencer,James Christy and many more.

How come they get vilified for their skepticism when they have actual educational expertise while Gavin,James and Michael who are celebrated do not?

You see where this heading?

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


This is relevant because?

Quote:writer dr. arthur robinson nor any of the co-authors were climate scientists.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Neither are James and Ray and Michael and Gavin and ........

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

This is relevant because? Actually this is stupid.

What about Issac Newton who was ardent believer in Alchemy.What about Nicholas Copernicus who was a catholic priest?

Do I have to keep going to show how stupid it is to bring up irrelevant arguments against someone just because they believe in something unconnected to the subject at hand?

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

How is this relevant to the subject at hand? Or should I have to bring up a whopper of an error Einstein made in early 1920's.

Again it is a stupid bogus and pointless attack.

How about the startling idea of attacking the actual subject at hand (GLOBAL WARMING!) and stick with it and leave out the stupid irrelevant nitpicking?

Quote: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”.

I tire of reading boneheaded irrelevant attacks.Since it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.GLOBAL WARMING!

The link is full of B.S. since not a single time did they contest the papers that was published in 1997 and updated in 2007.Just deflecting criticisms of people.

What convinced you that this bonehead website was worth debunking the Oregon petition.

When it did nothing of the kind!

If this is all that link can bring up.Then you guys should give up.It is STUPID!
Reply
#30
this is for Matrix, who thinks AGW skepticism is "Fringe" movement. The article is about Chicago, Ill BTY.



Quote:Decade has had fewest 90-degree days since 1930
By Tom Skilling
August 13, 2008

August is the wettest and often the muggiest month of the year. Yet, summer heat continues in short supply, continuing a trend that has dominated much of the 21st Century's opening decade. There have been only 162 days 90 degrees or warmer at Midway Airport over the period from 2000 to 2008. That's by far the fewest 90-degree temperatures in the opening nine years of any decade on record here since 1930.

This summer's highest reading to date has been just 91 degrees. That's unusual. Since 1928, only one year—2000—has failed to record a higher warm-season temperature by Aug. 13.

Incidentally, it is exactly 71F here in Raleigh NC, and this is the middle of August. Why is this? Could it REALLY be global warming, in disguise?

Meanwhile, again for today, The sun is blank--no sunspots. Credit: SOHO/MDI
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#31
I have been reading through the first two links Matrix posted about the 31,000 petitions.

Gawd the shallow pond scum arguments are deceptive misleading and just plain stupid.The amazing ad homeniums and no rebuttals (meaning there are no rebuttals against the petitions statement itself) abound in the links.They do not even attempt to rebute the 2007 paper.They just call it garbage and think that is a rational argument. :lol:

They mock the selection criteria and think that alone invalidates the petitions statement (the one they never try to rebute).As I stated it is a stupid argument they make.When in abject ignorance.They fail to realize that most of the 2500 scientists in the IPCC panel are not climatologists at all.Many of them do not even have a science degree. :lol:

Matrix did you even bother to read them? Have you ever looked at the big picture in all this?

What about the august 2500 scientists in the IPCC panel.Did you ever do what these morons fail to do in the links? Check their backgrounds? They have an absolutely one sided view in all this.They dishonestly leave out the roster of the 2500 "scientists" of the IPCC.

Is it any wonder why AGW believers avoid skeptical forums?
Wink1
Reply
#32
sunsettommy Wrote:Is it any wonder why AGW believers avoid skeptical forums?
Wink1

Remember this Bloke, who complained that AGW Believers were being beaten over the head intellectually, and with the science, ans was so totally surpirsed with what he thought would be just the opposite?

BTY, how is Talk Climate Change Forum, really doing? I have not been there for awhile.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#33
Matrix Wrote:In any case, the evidence for AGW is so overwhelming that, apart from a few commercially-minded skeptics in the US (a mining engineer, an economist and a medical doctor, I believe Wink1 ), the rest of the world is moving ahead on the basis of a very sound scientific axiom -- the precautionary principle.

You know, I've been away for a week or so, and still am, but I am looking in.

Just curious - is China and India considered part of "the rest of the world"?

If so, then your statement is not correct for more than one reason.

First, the evidence for AGW (at least by anthropogenic CO2 emissions) is not only far from overwhelming, it is becoming more and more difficult to support with any semblance of scientific honesty, and, second, neither China nor India are moving ahead on the AGW by CO2 concept from what I've seen.

Do you have supporting evidence that the small - S1 - part of the world that China and India represents are moving forward on AGW by CO2?
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
#34
Uh, cleanup on aisle 4!

Double post. Dunno what happened.
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
#35
sunsettommy Wrote:I have been reading through the first two links Matrix posted about the 31,000 petitions.

Gawd the shallow pond scum arguments are deceptive misleading and just plain stupid.The amazing ad homeniums and no rebuttals (meaning there are no rebuttals against the petitions statement itself) abound in the links.They do not even attempt to rebute the 2007 paper.They just call it garbage and think that is a rational argument. :lol:

They mock the selection criteria and think that alone invalidates the petitions statement (the one they never try to rebute).As I stated it is a stupid argument they make.When in abject ignorance.They fail to realize that most of the 2500 scientists in the IPCC panel are not climatologists at all.Many of them do not even have a science degree.
Matrix did you even bother to read them? Have you ever looked at the big picture in all this?

What about the august 2500 scientists in the IPCC panel.Did you ever do what these morons fail to do in the links? Check their backgrounds? They have an absolutely one sided view in all this.They dishonestly leave out the roster of the 2500 "scientists" of the IPCC.

Is it any wonder why AGW believers avoid skeptical forums?
Wink1
Sorry for the delay in responding.

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.

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?

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.

sunsettommy Wrote:Gawd the shallow pond scum arguments are deceptive misleading and just plain stupid."

What was it you said above about calling something garbage and thinking it was a rational argument? LOL!
Quote:"The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it." -- Voltaire
Reply
#36
John L Wrote:Well then, just lurk there and read some of the posts. That forum has the highest concentration of Phd Climate Deniers(as you call them), who are true blue scientists. And Maggie and I got in. I don't know Maggie's credentials, but I am a physical anthropologist, with only a masters.

Anyway, since you like a serious challenge, that is THE place to get in and debate. Everyone is very cordial and considerate, but they will present you with the Science, and sometimes that is hard to take, especially when you are prejudged on this "fringe" thinking.
Unfortunately, if we're talking about the same board, lurking is not permitted.

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.

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.

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.

That is my impression, but of course I could be wrong.
Quote:"The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it." -- Voltaire
Reply
#37
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?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#38
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.

No, I have not yet watched Little Ice Age: Big Chill. The problem is that television programs are not scientific documents. Take, for example, last year's The Great Global Warming Swindle, which initially received considerable praise in the press. Unfortunately, a better title for the program might have been The Great Global Warming Swindle -- Pure Propaganda.

This kind of thing is not very good publicity for the AGW deniers.

In any case, I do plan to watch the Little Ice Age program -- and, of course, search for scientific reviews.
Quote:"The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it." -- Voltaire
Reply
#39
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.
Reply
#40
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.

No, I have not yet watched Little Ice Age: Big Chill. The problem is that television programs are not scientific documents. Take, for example, last year's The Great Global Warming Swindle, which initially received considerable praise in the press. Unfortunately, a better title for the program might have been The Great Global Warming Swindle -- Pure Propaganda.

This kind of thing is not very good publicity for the AGW deniers.

In any case, I do plan to watch the Little Ice Age program -- and, of course, search for scientific reviews.

"M", it's not easy going through life with a long broom handle stuck up your "backside", and shoved all the way up your back. It's hard to relax that way. Do you get my meaning here? S6
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Disaster Addiction And Global Warming John L 109 10,905 12-04-2019, 10:23 AM
Last Post: JohnWho
  Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait...PT. 2 John L 526 158,926 10-30-2019, 12:36 AM
Last Post: Canuknucklehead
  Positive News about Global Warming. John L 78 30,584 05-17-2015, 09:55 AM
Last Post: JohnWho
  Why Global Warming Isn't Consistant Buzz 39 25,405 10-19-2014, 03:34 PM
Last Post: SFX
  Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait... Lisa 1,668 684,803 08-23-2014, 06:13 PM
Last Post: John L
  Global Warming Nazis John L 134 56,254 07-01-2014, 04:12 PM
Last Post: Paul In Sweden
  Science Fraud And Con Men: Diederik Stapel and Global Warming John L 0 1,747 04-30-2013, 08:58 PM
Last Post: John L
  Death By Global Warming John L 12 9,494 01-06-2012, 06:11 PM
Last Post: jt
  global warming to cause an extraterrestial attack mv 10 6,582 08-20-2011, 03:06 PM
Last Post: John L
  Catholic church warns of global warming quadrat 9 6,371 05-22-2011, 02:23 PM
Last Post: Palladin

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)