No Need to Panic About Global Warming?

JonnyPistachio

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)

bgivens33

polaris_x wrote:

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?

polaris_x

bgivens33 wrote:

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 ...

Thirty Bills Unpaid

bigdvs wrote:

been down this road too many times...

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.

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?

bgivens33

polaris_x wrote:

bgivens33 wrote:

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.

inlet13

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

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).

inlet13

bgivens33 wrote:

this global warming thing that we have looked at for ~20 years is completely proven. Nothing in science is proven, nothing.

THIS.

polaris_x

bgivens33 wrote:

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? ...

whygohome

Here's a look at some of the problems in the debate.

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?

polaris_x

bgivens33 wrote:

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 ...

bgivens33

polaris_x wrote:

bgivens33 wrote:

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.

polaris_x

bgivens33 wrote:

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 ...

polaris_x

guys ... read this book ...



this is the PR machine at work ...

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

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.

What is "it" that I don't understand?

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

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?

global warming

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

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?

global warming

Why?

he still stands

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.

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

Why?

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 ...

polaris_x

he still stands wrote:

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 ...

inlet13

he still stands wrote:

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.