ha ha... seriously? I don't have a side that I care about deeply here. I posted an article that I thought was interesting and still do. It's not posting "lies". And there is a debate on this subject, you just don't want there to be. Living in a bubble, doesn't mean there's not a world outside.
whenever you decide to educate yourself on the topic - let me know ... i'll be happy to debate it with you ... but right now, all you are doing is posting propaganda pieces that have no credibility ... that is not a debate ...
all these scientific associations and agencies representing thousands of scientists support the consensus on global warming ...
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences
Unfortunately, there seems to be an anti-science sentiment brewing in this country. The pro-mythology sentiment is alive and well, but who needs science fact when we have fairy tales.
and I agree polaris is more extreme green, and wants you to get that part of it rather then understand that anyone on the same side of the arguement as him is using underhanded politics to keep the otherside of the discussion down.
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
I knew this thread was going to blow polaris' mind.
This is fun.
As far as GW goes, the basic science is hard to refute. Now, to what level is the debate. And it's too bad there can't be rational debate between scientists without always wondering who is paying for the research.
the purpose of saying "here" is simply to show you that your approach has been done constantly that results in the exact same conclusion ... it's not something to brag about - in reality, it's something to be ashamed about because despite knowing how you will respond - i continue to try and reach out to you ...
haha ... it's funny - you want people in the "green" community to read up on things but yet after all this time you haven't done so yourself on this subject ... can you even tell me what global warming is and what the cause is that you are trying to refute? ...
and now you resort to this? ... asking you to educate yourself on the subject and to debate it is me being close-minded?? ...
in order for there to be a debate - you need to have an understanding of the subject ... posting lies and mistruths does not exhibit an understanding ... if anything - it is showing the opposite of being open-minded ...
The only reason there is debate regarding global warming and climate change (and the U.S. is the ONLY country debating it), is due to politics and the fossil fuel industries. Gov't in conjunction with Big Oil and the coal industry have created this debate and are gung ho on convincing the public that it all isn't true. So WE can continue to support these fossil fuel industries while believing that the oil will never run out. It's all a big scam really. Look at any other country and they know it's real while writing their own policies regarding climate change. Americans are the idiots that fall for the idea that nothing's happening to the earth because our politicians say it ain't so. Look outside this country and refer to science, not personal blogs nor anything to do with politics to find the facts.
Some of the statements in the article may or may not be true but the article posted is full of red herring arguments and is just not very credible. It talks about "CO2 not being a pollutant" and that we all exhale it and plants really love it. Of course CO2 is not a "pollutant" but its precense in higher levels which causes a greenhouse effect is the real issue. It also tries to compare it to some Soviet era nonsense to likely evoke a feeling. Also the part about no warming in the last 10 years isn't exactly fair. Continued increases do not exactly mean that a trend is still not happening. Ever see a stock ticker WSJ? Ever notice that there could be many little ups in the graph on the way down? Of course you have. Just more dumb, oversimplified arguments in a very biased op ed piece trying to mask itself as an article.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
the purpose of saying "here" is simply to show you that your approach has been done constantly that results in the exact same conclusion ... it's not something to brag about - in reality, it's something to be ashamed about because despite knowing how you will respond - i continue to try and reach out to you ...
ha ha, then don't reach out to me. This is a message board, dude. We don't save the world here. We discuss issues. If you don't like it that people have a different opinion then you do on every subject, you are living in a bubble, or at least want to.
haha ... it's funny - you want people in the "green" community to read up on things but yet after all this time you haven't done so yourself on this subject ... can you even tell me what global warming is and what the cause is that you are trying to refute? ...
I want people in the "green" community to do their own "research". Meaning this:
Do statistical research. Not read propaganda and spout that as fact. Sure, some existing research is NOT propaganda. But, some IS. On BOTH sides of this issue. To what extent is it propaganda? I don't know for sure, it could be the heavy majority, it could be less... research, my own, with data, is the only thing that would sway my own opinion there. So, you who are so heavily invested in "knowing" this field, I'd say, you don't really. You aren't the person creating these articles. You're just reading them.
My point is to tell someone like you, who to my knowledge, has very limited experience with data and statistics but loves to pretend they know everything on this subject because they've read about it in bias periodicals, to learn about statistics and use THAT to prove your points, rather than using recycled opinions/research of OTHERS. That's "educating" one's self. Reading, what very well could be propaganda, and knowing it really well, does not prove knowledge of a subject like this... in my opinion.
But, even if you did do that that, you'll most likely realize that statistical models have inherent faults. Every single one of these "facts" you believe in so whole-heartedly could be proven false years from now or tomorrow, if someone wanted to do such. Why? Because models are "models". If you start out to prove a hypothesis and are instilled with a bias, it's pretty much possible to prove anything statistically. That's my point. Your arguments, every one of them, is based on statistics. Yet, you, unless you show otherwise, have very limited experience with statistics and empirical modeling.... ironically, I have a lot of experience in that area.
So, why aren't scientists coming out now with this sort of statistical analysis? Maybe big government's involved, maybe the data that's out there is correct, maybe...THEY KNOW THEIR CAREER IS BASED ON KEEPING THIS RHETORIC AFLOAT. I mean, what else would you use a climatologist for other than this?
Anyway, there's lot's of maybes. Regardless, I bet there's an agenda behind this science. You're probably right that on one side it's fueled by the petroleum community. On the other, it's fueled by a big government community and regulation. I'd bet somewhere in the middle lies the truth.
and now you resort to this? ... asking you to educate yourself on the subject and to debate it is me being close-minded?? ...
Once again, I think it is you who needs to educate yourself on modeling and statistics, then after you take a econometrics or statistics class, come back and show me how these scientists set up their models... I want data info, what variables are used, what were the controls and all assumptions included. Then we can get down to specifics.
in order for there to be a debate - you need to have an understanding of the subject ... posting lies and mistruths does not exhibit an understanding ... if anything - it is showing the opposite of being open-minded ...
dude ... i got a bachelor of environmental science and spent two work terms working for climate research studies ... your condescending assumption is further proof of your arrogance ...
you want to prove global warming is some big gov't conspiracy - my suggestion to you, as it always has been, is to learn what they are promoting ... you don't even know what the science behind global warming is yet you come here and try to postulate that there is some debate that exists ...
you want statistics and models ... go read the IPCC reports ... if academics and scientists who have been peer-reviewed don't count to you because they belong to gov't institutions then well ... there is no one left ...
as far as this board is concerned ... i don't dislike opposing opinions ... i do find copy and pasting lies to be disingenuous but that's just me ... if you want to continue to post lies and propaganda pieces - be prepared to be called out on it ...
dude ... i got a bachelor of environmental science and spent two work terms working for climate research studies ... your condescending assumption is further proof of your arrogance ...
you want to prove global warming is some big gov't conspiracy - my suggestion to you, as it always has been, is to learn what they are promoting ... you don't even know what the science behind global warming is yet you come here and try to postulate that there is some debate that exists ...
you want statistics and models ... go read the IPCC reports ... if academics and scientists who have been peer-reviewed don't count to you because they belong to gov't institutions then well ... there is no one left ...
as far as this board is concerned ... i don't dislike opposing opinions ... i do find copy and pasting lies to be disingenuous but that's just me ... if you want to continue to post lies and propaganda pieces - be prepared to be called out on it ...
Wow-wee. Did you ever set up a model used to "prove" Global Warming exists? Or did you just read and memorize those who did do it? If you did help set one up, explain it in simple terms. What were the variables (independent and dependent), what was the data used and it's length, what type of empirical methodology did you use, and what were your controls and assumptions?
If you didn't, go do it... then tell me you know more about the field than I do. Any proof offered in this field is based on statistics and models. I know statistics and modeling pretty well, so I think I could help you understand this... if you'd like.
My underlying point is not to knock your knowledge, you're the one who began this by doing that to me... I'm simply saying that this field is based on statistics. If you want to prove something here you used models. Models have faults... especially, when the researcher is bias.
soo ... if i didn't do the models - i clearly know nothing and you are a genius because you know models and statistics ... :? ... again - the models and stats are available if you want to read them ...
like i've been repeating over and over in this thread ... feel free to educate yourself on global warming ... i know you don't know what it is because a) i've accused you of it twice already and you choose to ignore it and b) we wouldn't be having this discussion the way we are now ...
Inlet, no offesne, but you've made this whole thread turn into a HOW TO discuss global warming, rather than supplying anything of substance (aside form your original post)
soo ... if i didn't do the models - i clearly know nothing and you are a genius because you know models and statistics ... :? ... again - the models and stats are available if you want to read them ...
like i've been repeating over and over in this thread ... feel free to educate yourself on global warming ... i know you don't know what it is because a) i've accused you of it twice already and you choose to ignore it and b) we wouldn't be having this discussion the way we are now ...
I have no doubt you are well versed in the science behind global warming. How would you explain the people that signed that letter not agreeing with you? Are they not also well versed? Would you say the evidence is incontrovertible?
I have no doubt you are well versed in the science behind global warming. How would you explain the people that signed that letter not agreeing with you? Are they not also well versed? Would you say the evidence is incontrovertible?
in some cases - they were paid to do so ... in some other cases, signatures could be fraudulent ... both tactics employed by lobbyists and PR firms ... this is the crux of it tho - this is a scientific argument ... and the opposing viewpoint has no scientific credibility ...
the evidence is incontrovertible - the actual impacts of global warming are open for discussion tho ...
and I agree polaris is more extreme green, and wants you to get that part of it rather then understand that anyone on the same side of the arguement as him is using underhanded politics to keep the otherside of the discussion down.
The 'other side of the discussion' (or argument) needs more education and awareness because this is not a debate at all. Any science supporting claims that global warming is a hoax or overstated is laughable- not to mention counterproductive to the efforts of those who have irrefutably presented the case for a decaying planet at its threshold.
Scientific evidence aside, does anyone actually think we can sustain our ridiculous patterns of consumption without any adverse effects?
I have no doubt you are well versed in the science behind global warming. How would you explain the people that signed that letter not agreeing with you? Are they not also well versed? Would you say the evidence is incontrovertible?
in some cases - they were paid to do so ... in some other cases, signatures could be fraudulent ... both tactics employed by lobbyists and PR firms ... this is the crux of it tho - this is a scientific argument ... and the opposing viewpoint has no scientific credibility ...
the evidence is incontrovertible - the actual impacts of global warming are open for discussion tho ...
Come on, the Wall Street journal is going to publish forged signatures? Everyone that that signed that article has been an outspoken critic for a long time. That is an absurd suggestion.
I'm not just talking about scrubs here, Lindzen, Happer and Tennekes aren't a bunch of community college students. These guys are well known and respected in their field. Lindzen is a tenured professor in the EAPS dept. at MIT. And you honestly think someone is paying him to say these things?
The actual crux of this issue is that nobody actually wants to discuss anything. The idea that you can say ANYTHING in science is incontrovertible is preposterous. We know what comprises 4% of the universe, still are sure about gravity but this global warming thing that we have looked at for ~20 years is completely proven. Nothing in science is proven, nothing.
Scientific evidence aside, does anyone actually think we can sustain our ridiculous patterns of consumption without any adverse effects?
Sorry to pick on you, but your point here stresses what I mean when I explained that to some use this to disguise an economic argument. I feel like this is an area where some "use" this issue to slow economic growth, for a variety of reasons (some of which could include equality or their belief in limited resources).
Come on, the Wall Street journal is going to publish forged signatures? Everyone that that signed that article has been an outspoken critic for a long time. That is an absurd suggestion.
I'm not just talking about scrubs here, Lindzen, Happer and Tennekes aren't a bunch of community college students. These guys are well known and respected in their field. Lindzen is a tenured professor in the EAPS dept. at MIT. And you honestly think someone is paying him to say these things?
The actual crux of this issue is that nobody actually wants to discuss anything. The idea that you can say ANYTHING in science is incontrovertible is preposterous. We know what comprises 4% of the universe, still are sure about gravity but this global warming thing that we have looked at for ~20 years is completely proven. Nothing in science is proven, nothing.
firstly, i didn't go through all the signatures because i've done this exercise a bunch of times in identical threads ... which is what i discuss in the first few pages ... i am sure that if i dig - you will see a connection to a think tank that gets funding from big oil ... there is a reason why there is not a singular peer-reviewed article that refutes AGW ...
if that is the attitude you have towards science - then i've got nothing for you ... feel free to disregard the work based on that philosophy ... i'm sure if a study came out that said kids should eat toys with lead - you are going to ignore it right? ...
p.s. if you are not a scientist who has studied the climate change phenomenon, what is your opinion worth? I know nothing about cars. Why should anyone listen to me explain how to take an engine apart?
Come on, the Wall Street journal is going to publish forged signatures? Everyone that that signed that article has been an outspoken critic for a long time. That is an absurd suggestion.
i just looked up the first 3 ...
dude - it's the same old, same old ... all their work has been refuted ...
listen - i get it ... you guys don't want to believe the global warming hype ... for whatever reason it is ... that is your prerogative ... all i am simply saying is that your argument is not based on any grounded science ... none ... continue to post what the lobbyists and the PR firms want ... and continue to ignore the ample evidence around the world and the continued suffering it has caused ...
Come on, the Wall Street journal is going to publish forged signatures? Everyone that that signed that article has been an outspoken critic for a long time. That is an absurd suggestion.
I'm not just talking about scrubs here, Lindzen, Happer and Tennekes aren't a bunch of community college students. These guys are well known and respected in their field. Lindzen is a tenured professor in the EAPS dept. at MIT. And you honestly think someone is paying him to say these things?
The actual crux of this issue is that nobody actually wants to discuss anything. The idea that you can say ANYTHING in science is incontrovertible is preposterous. We know what comprises 4% of the universe, still are sure about gravity but this global warming thing that we have looked at for ~20 years is completely proven. Nothing in science is proven, nothing.
firstly, i didn't go through all the signatures because i've done this exercise a bunch of times in identical threads ... which is what i discuss in the first few pages ... i am sure that if i dig - you will see a connection to a think tank that gets funding from big oil ... there is a reason why there is not a singular peer-reviewed article that refutes AGW ...
if that is the attitude you have towards science - then i've got nothing for you ... feel free to disregard the work based on that philosophy ... i'm sure if a study came out that said kids should eat toys with lead - you are going to ignore it right? ...
Took me 30 seconds to find one... here you go- http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0707.1161
Published in "International Journal of Modern Physics".
I don't have any attitude towards science, I never once said I disagreed with the findings of global warming. What I'm saying is that it is incredibly arrogant to claim well established scientists must be accepting money for their opinions. Just as it is incredibly arrogant for Joe Blow to say a scientist must be wrong because he presented facts in support of global warming.
From my point of view, it looks like you have determined these guys were wrong just because of their conclusion. NEVER in science is it acceptable to determine accuracy given a conclusion, you must look at methodology. You think they are wrong? Attack their science, prove them wrong. Don't say, "Bil oil is paying them to say that". It really is embarrassing and attitudes like(and on the opposite side) are exactly why there is no real conversation.
Took me 30 seconds to find one... here you go- http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0707.1161
Published in "International Journal of Modern Physics".
I don't have any attitude towards science, I never once said I disagreed with the findings of global warming. What I'm saying is that it is incredibly arrogant to claim well established scientists must be accepting money for their opinions. Just as it is incredibly arrogant for Joe Blow to say a scientist must be wrong because he presented facts in support of global warming.
From my point of view, it looks like you have determined these guys were wrong just because of their conclusion. NEVER in science is it acceptable to determine accuracy given a conclusion, you must look at methodology. You think they are wrong? Attack their science, prove them wrong. Don't say, "Bil oil is paying them to say that". It really is embarrassing and attitudes like(and on the opposite side) are exactly why there is no real conversation.
i determined these guys are wrong because these "articles" all operate with the same approach ... that's what i'm trying to get at here ... Dr. Richard Lindzen is known to have been paid by big oil ... heck that guy took money from tobacco to argue against its health affects ... these are the "scientists" you want to defend!?? ... really!??
that's funny ... i've been trying to get people to debate the science for years ... i've accused inlet13 of not understanding AGW and he hasn't refuted that ... why? ... probably because it's true ... he thinks it's a big conspiracy so he posts articles that support that bias ... and these articles all follow the same pattern ... use of discredited scientists ...
that's funny ... i've been trying to get people to debate the science for years ... i've accused inlet13 of not understanding AGW and he hasn't refuted that ... why? ... probably because it's true ... he thinks it's a big conspiracy so he posts articles that support that bias ... and these articles all follow the same pattern ... use of discredited scientists ...
What exactly is it that I don't understand, genius? Just tell me. Don't play this game... just say it. You're acting like a child here.
there is no controversy among the scientific community. 97.4% of climatologists believe global warming is man made. It is unequivocal that there is a warming trend.
there is only a controversy in popular media, like the WSJ.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
because the basic science is very straight forward ... heck, even mr. conservative cincybearcat says so ... to say global warming is not happening or not caused by man requires one to basically refute the concept of the greenhouse effect ... i have not seen you attempt to go anywhere near the science and your approach at this discussion leads me to believe that you don't quite understand the science behind it ...
it's really straight forward:
is CO2 a greenhouse gas?
do you believe in the greenhouse effect?
do you understand that temperature is the singular most important variable in determining weather?
if you answered yes to the above ... you basically believe in AGW ... if you answered no to anything - then what is your basis for answering no ...
you can argue that maybe we won't get more flooding because of global warming or that sea levels may not rise as much ... but the basic science behind AGW is as solid as it gets ...
there is no controversy among the scientific community. 97.4% of climatologists believe global warming is man made. It is unequivocal that there is a warming trend.
there is only a controversy in popular media, like the WSJ.
please confirm that you are not a hippie treehugger and that your choice for POTUS is Ron Paul ...
there is no controversy among the scientific community. 97.4% of climatologists believe global warming is man made. It is unequivocal that there is a warming trend.
there is only a controversy in popular media, like the WSJ.
If we're talking conspiracy theories here (like polaris on those scientists who signed the OP).... climatologists whole career is based on the thesis that GW is real. Think about it. What incentive would they have to do research to try to prove it's not?
Regardless, even if it were the case that there were no incentives for climatologists to "believe" this is real, science is science... plenty of theories that have had the backing of a large portion of researchers in a field have been turned over as false later.
Comments
Unfortunately, there seems to be an anti-science sentiment brewing in this country. The pro-mythology sentiment is alive and well, but who needs science fact when we have fairy tales.
good luck inlet you are handling yourself well
and I agree polaris is more extreme green, and wants you to get that part of it rather then understand that anyone on the same side of the arguement as him is using underhanded politics to keep the otherside of the discussion down.
— Socrates
This is fun.
As far as GW goes, the basic science is hard to refute. Now, to what level is the debate. And it's too bad there can't be rational debate between scientists without always wondering who is paying for the research.
haha ... it's funny - you want people in the "green" community to read up on things but yet after all this time you haven't done so yourself on this subject ... can you even tell me what global warming is and what the cause is that you are trying to refute? ...
and now you resort to this? ... asking you to educate yourself on the subject and to debate it is me being close-minded?? ...
in order for there to be a debate - you need to have an understanding of the subject ... posting lies and mistruths does not exhibit an understanding ... if anything - it is showing the opposite of being open-minded ...
"With our thoughts we make the world"
ha ha, then don't reach out to me. This is a message board, dude. We don't save the world here. We discuss issues. If you don't like it that people have a different opinion then you do on every subject, you are living in a bubble, or at least want to.
I want people in the "green" community to do their own "research". Meaning this:
Do statistical research. Not read propaganda and spout that as fact. Sure, some existing research is NOT propaganda. But, some IS. On BOTH sides of this issue. To what extent is it propaganda? I don't know for sure, it could be the heavy majority, it could be less... research, my own, with data, is the only thing that would sway my own opinion there. So, you who are so heavily invested in "knowing" this field, I'd say, you don't really. You aren't the person creating these articles. You're just reading them.
My point is to tell someone like you, who to my knowledge, has very limited experience with data and statistics but loves to pretend they know everything on this subject because they've read about it in bias periodicals, to learn about statistics and use THAT to prove your points, rather than using recycled opinions/research of OTHERS. That's "educating" one's self. Reading, what very well could be propaganda, and knowing it really well, does not prove knowledge of a subject like this... in my opinion.
But, even if you did do that that, you'll most likely realize that statistical models have inherent faults. Every single one of these "facts" you believe in so whole-heartedly could be proven false years from now or tomorrow, if someone wanted to do such. Why? Because models are "models". If you start out to prove a hypothesis and are instilled with a bias, it's pretty much possible to prove anything statistically. That's my point. Your arguments, every one of them, is based on statistics. Yet, you, unless you show otherwise, have very limited experience with statistics and empirical modeling.... ironically, I have a lot of experience in that area.
So, why aren't scientists coming out now with this sort of statistical analysis? Maybe big government's involved, maybe the data that's out there is correct, maybe...THEY KNOW THEIR CAREER IS BASED ON KEEPING THIS RHETORIC AFLOAT. I mean, what else would you use a climatologist for other than this?
Anyway, there's lot's of maybes. Regardless, I bet there's an agenda behind this science. You're probably right that on one side it's fueled by the petroleum community. On the other, it's fueled by a big government community and regulation. I'd bet somewhere in the middle lies the truth.
Once again, I think it is you who needs to educate yourself on modeling and statistics, then after you take a econometrics or statistics class, come back and show me how these scientists set up their models... I want data info, what variables are used, what were the controls and all assumptions included. Then we can get down to specifics.
Agreed. So, get working.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
you want to prove global warming is some big gov't conspiracy - my suggestion to you, as it always has been, is to learn what they are promoting ... you don't even know what the science behind global warming is yet you come here and try to postulate that there is some debate that exists ...
you want statistics and models ... go read the IPCC reports ... if academics and scientists who have been peer-reviewed don't count to you because they belong to gov't institutions then well ... there is no one left ...
as far as this board is concerned ... i don't dislike opposing opinions ... i do find copy and pasting lies to be disingenuous but that's just me ... if you want to continue to post lies and propaganda pieces - be prepared to be called out on it ...
Wow-wee. Did you ever set up a model used to "prove" Global Warming exists? Or did you just read and memorize those who did do it? If you did help set one up, explain it in simple terms. What were the variables (independent and dependent), what was the data used and it's length, what type of empirical methodology did you use, and what were your controls and assumptions?
If you didn't, go do it... then tell me you know more about the field than I do. Any proof offered in this field is based on statistics and models. I know statistics and modeling pretty well, so I think I could help you understand this... if you'd like.
My underlying point is not to knock your knowledge, you're the one who began this by doing that to me... I'm simply saying that this field is based on statistics. If you want to prove something here you used models. Models have faults... especially, when the researcher is bias.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
like i've been repeating over and over in this thread ... feel free to educate yourself on global warming ... i know you don't know what it is because a) i've accused you of it twice already and you choose to ignore it and b) we wouldn't be having this discussion the way we are now ...
I have no doubt you are well versed in the science behind global warming. How would you explain the people that signed that letter not agreeing with you? Are they not also well versed? Would you say the evidence is incontrovertible?
in some cases - they were paid to do so ... in some other cases, signatures could be fraudulent ... both tactics employed by lobbyists and PR firms ... this is the crux of it tho - this is a scientific argument ... and the opposing viewpoint has no scientific credibility ...
the evidence is incontrovertible - the actual impacts of global warming are open for discussion tho ...
The 'other side of the discussion' (or argument) needs more education and awareness because this is not a debate at all. Any science supporting claims that global warming is a hoax or overstated is laughable- not to mention counterproductive to the efforts of those who have irrefutably presented the case for a decaying planet at its threshold.
Scientific evidence aside, does anyone actually think we can sustain our ridiculous patterns of consumption without any adverse effects?
Come on, the Wall Street journal is going to publish forged signatures? Everyone that that signed that article has been an outspoken critic for a long time. That is an absurd suggestion.
I'm not just talking about scrubs here, Lindzen, Happer and Tennekes aren't a bunch of community college students. These guys are well known and respected in their field. Lindzen is a tenured professor in the EAPS dept. at MIT. And you honestly think someone is paying him to say these things?
The actual crux of this issue is that nobody actually wants to discuss anything. The idea that you can say ANYTHING in science is incontrovertible is preposterous. We know what comprises 4% of the universe, still are sure about gravity but this global warming thing that we have looked at for ~20 years is completely proven. Nothing in science is proven, nothing.
Sorry to pick on you, but your point here stresses what I mean when I explained that to some use this to disguise an economic argument. I feel like this is an area where some "use" this issue to slow economic growth, for a variety of reasons (some of which could include equality or their belief in limited resources).
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
THIS.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
firstly, i didn't go through all the signatures because i've done this exercise a bunch of times in identical threads ... which is what i discuss in the first few pages ... i am sure that if i dig - you will see a connection to a think tank that gets funding from big oil ... there is a reason why there is not a singular peer-reviewed article that refutes AGW ...
if that is the attitude you have towards science - then i've got nothing for you ... feel free to disregard the work based on that philosophy ... i'm sure if a study came out that said kids should eat toys with lead - you are going to ignore it right? ...
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/20 ... al-warming
http://www.livescience.com/13851-climat ... lines.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/82eac5ca-1a96 ... z1kgnF2y3a
p.s. if you are not a scientist who has studied the climate change phenomenon, what is your opinion worth? I know nothing about cars. Why should anyone listen to me explain how to take an engine apart?
i just looked up the first 3 ...
dude - it's the same old, same old ... all their work has been refuted ...
listen - i get it ... you guys don't want to believe the global warming hype ... for whatever reason it is ... that is your prerogative ... all i am simply saying is that your argument is not based on any grounded science ... none ... continue to post what the lobbyists and the PR firms want ... and continue to ignore the ample evidence around the world and the continued suffering it has caused ...
Took me 30 seconds to find one... here you go- http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0707.1161
Published in "International Journal of Modern Physics".
I don't have any attitude towards science, I never once said I disagreed with the findings of global warming. What I'm saying is that it is incredibly arrogant to claim well established scientists must be accepting money for their opinions. Just as it is incredibly arrogant for Joe Blow to say a scientist must be wrong because he presented facts in support of global warming.
From my point of view, it looks like you have determined these guys were wrong just because of their conclusion. NEVER in science is it acceptable to determine accuracy given a conclusion, you must look at methodology. You think they are wrong? Attack their science, prove them wrong. Don't say, "Bil oil is paying them to say that". It really is embarrassing and attitudes like(and on the opposite side) are exactly why there is no real conversation.
and here is the refute ... http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/24/241 ... 5555X.html
i determined these guys are wrong because these "articles" all operate with the same approach ... that's what i'm trying to get at here ... Dr. Richard Lindzen is known to have been paid by big oil ... heck that guy took money from tobacco to argue against its health affects ... these are the "scientists" you want to defend!?? ... really!??
that's funny ... i've been trying to get people to debate the science for years ... i've accused inlet13 of not understanding AGW and he hasn't refuted that ... why? ... probably because it's true ... he thinks it's a big conspiracy so he posts articles that support that bias ... and these articles all follow the same pattern ... use of discredited scientists ...
this is the PR machine at work ...
What exactly is it that I don't understand, genius? Just tell me. Don't play this game... just say it. You're acting like a child here.
What is "it" that I don't understand?
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
global warming
Why?
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
there is only a controversy in popular media, like the WSJ.
because the basic science is very straight forward ... heck, even mr. conservative cincybearcat says so ... to say global warming is not happening or not caused by man requires one to basically refute the concept of the greenhouse effect ... i have not seen you attempt to go anywhere near the science and your approach at this discussion leads me to believe that you don't quite understand the science behind it ...
it's really straight forward:
is CO2 a greenhouse gas?
do you believe in the greenhouse effect?
do you understand that temperature is the singular most important variable in determining weather?
if you answered yes to the above ... you basically believe in AGW ... if you answered no to anything - then what is your basis for answering no ...
you can argue that maybe we won't get more flooding because of global warming or that sea levels may not rise as much ... but the basic science behind AGW is as solid as it gets ...
please confirm that you are not a hippie treehugger and that your choice for POTUS is Ron Paul ...
If we're talking conspiracy theories here (like polaris on those scientists who signed the OP).... climatologists whole career is based on the thesis that GW is real. Think about it. What incentive would they have to do research to try to prove it's not?
Regardless, even if it were the case that there were no incentives for climatologists to "believe" this is real, science is science... plenty of theories that have had the backing of a large portion of researchers in a field have been turned over as false later.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="