Over 400 Scientists disput global warming

onelongsong · December 2007

Cosmo wrote:

...
Hello... nice to meet you.
Well, first off... I think you have it backwards. If you make a claim about something... you are supposed to provide facts to support your claim. It is not other people's responsibility to disprove your claims. Like, I can claim... I have a pride of wild lions living in my patio... it is not up to you to prove to me I don't... it is up to me to prove to you I DO. Therefore, I would have you come over and see me with my wild lions... or provide you with some sort of proof of the lions in my patio, right?
Also, you cannot "Prove an opinion wrong". It's like your trying to prove to me that apples taste better than oranges. Those are opinions. Opinions are not facts. Facts regarding this debate between apples and oranges would be oranges are citris fruit while apples are a pomaceous fruit, more closely related to the rose. Nothing to do with taste.
Next, he has not presented any written analysis... that's what I'm looking for. If he did, I'd be able to verify it and validate his findings. He previously stated that he had presented his model as a warning to us a long time ago. I missed it the first time around and would like to see it myself. And based upon the last 'Experiment' he conducted around here... I would be an idiot for accepting his claims without verification. His 'Scientific Method' in that case was... in the nicest terms... really, really terrible.
And as you have even stated yourself... the only acceptable evidence would be OTHER SCIENTIST'S MODELS... not his. Those are models those other scientists came up with, not him. Wouldn't that be like you reading 'Tom Sawyer' and re-telling it to me while claiming that story was yours?
Finally, As for rules of debate... remind me, what role do facts play in all of that? From what I can recall... facts play an important role in discovering which is true and which is not. I don't remember opinion carrying a lot of weight... for example, the statement, "In my opinion, the Earth is Flat" didn't hold up to well against the mountain of factual data that stated otherwise.
Sounds like you might need to retake that High School Debate Class again this Summer.
...
Now... as for AAAS.org... great. I am well aware of them... and their membership... not hundreds of dollars... about $100.00. If that is where his source resides, they have an extensive catalogue of articles online so this should be real easy. Simply tell me which of these titles I should read. I also have full access to our company's hardcopy technical library and we have their publications, probably dating back to about the mid-1940s. So, if the article is not listed online, then, simply direct me to the year of publication, the Volume Number and the title of the article. Very simple.

for someone who talks so much; you sure don't say anything. from what i've read; he's presented evidence in plain english. i think the most intelligent of the responses have been I DON'T BELIEVE YOU and left at that. if i give you my opinion you either believe it or you don't. if it's that important to you to prove me right or wrong; that's on you. daddy always told me not to waste my time explaining myself to insignificant piss ants. it gets you nowhere. i suppose if he were explaining this to congress or a scientific panel, it would be much different. einstein had no evidence to prove his E=MC2 theory. it was proven years later. after reading your responses, i wouldn't waste my time with you. i've seen your kind. unfortunately too much. instead of being a man and presenting evidence to prove him wrong, you moan and cry you need this and you need that; when it's clear you're not intelligent enough to find the information yourself. i think you should either show the people here a model proving him wrong; and open that to scrutiny; or stop talking. because until then, i don't think anyone is listening.
*michelle*

Cosmo · December 2007

onelongsong wrote:

for someone who talks so much; you sure don't say anything. from what i've read; he's presented evidence in plain english. i think the most intelligent of the responses have been I DON'T BELIEVE YOU and left at that. if i give you my opinion you either believe it or you don't. if it's that important to you to prove me right or wrong; that's on you. daddy always told me not to waste my time explaining myself to insignificant piss ants. it gets you nowhere. i suppose if he were explaining this to congress or a scientific panel, it would be much different. einstein had no evidence to prove his E=MC2 theory. it was proven years later. after reading your responses, i wouldn't waste my time with you. i've seen your kind. unfortunately too much. instead of being a man and presenting evidence to prove him wrong, you moan and cry you need this and you need that; when it's clear you're not intelligent enough to find the information yourself. i think you should either show the people here a model proving him wrong; and open that to scrutiny; or stop talking. because until then, i don't think anyone is listening.
*michelle*

...
Uh... **AHEM**...*michelle*.
Boy... there's definately a family resemblance, ain't there? Uncanny.
...
Thank you for your time and explaining that neither you nor your father are able to provide any factual data to substantiate his any of the claims he makes other than, "I believe it" or "Because I already said it" to support it. The people here who base the truth upon the, "Because I say it is so" principle will agree with you and your Dad... those of us whom rely on silly things... such as facts, will know otherwise and take it with a ton of salt. Although, I STILL don't believe that those African lakes (the largest of which is almost the size of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron combined) have evaporated into mud puddles due to Global Warming, because contradictory facts point otherwise. But, if you want to believe that... well, then you go right ahead and believe that, Sweetheart. After all, my little niece believes that Santa delivered that Wii Station with the Pet Cats 2 game, just as she had asked for. Who am I to question her, right?
So, I guess in your world... debate comes down to who can come up with any made up story and back it up with anecdotal evidence, huh?
And I really think you all got short changed by that Debate Class teacher you had in High School... are you sure it wasn't just the Gym Coach pulling double duty?

godpt3 · December 2007

Cosmo wrote:

And I really think you all got short changed by that Debate Class teacher you had in High School...

Mine quit teaching about five or six years ago and is now a lawyer

onelongsong · December 2007

godpt3 wrote:

Mine quit teaching about five or six years ago and is now a lawyer

i watched the presidential debates and i didn't see them producing links or documents. they spoke their opinions which they believe to be fact (true); and went on. the audience then decided who they believed. one would think that the presidential debates would be held to the highest standards concerning the rules of debate.
did your teacher require supporting documents during a debate? especially when debating a theory. a simple search of global warming will produce thousands of links both for and against. who do we believe? supporting documents can be produced for both sides of the argument. so where does that leave us? with opinions. back to square one.

Boston MA · December 2007

godpt3 wrote:

Funny, Neptune doesn't appear to be melting... besides, as the Sun gets older it's actually cooling, not warming up.

I said warming not melting.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028764.shtml

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22global+warming%22+triton

onelongsong · December 2007

Boston, MA wrote:

I said warming not melting.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028764.shtml

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22global+warming%22+triton

solar activity; ie sunspots etc; is causing the warming. but man has destroyed our protection from this.

stu gee · December 2007

I read that originally most scientists didnt believe that global warming was man made, so why should we believe them any more now? Im not saying that man doesnt play a part in global warming, i just find it funny how people even take the word of scientists to be fact all the time. Yes they are often very intelligent, far more intellligent than i, but can we really trust the words of these people who are talking about our planet, which essentially, is a big ball spinning around in some universe somewhere? I think scientists make out they know more than they think. One day the planet is 75000 years old, then, after a while and some recalculation, its 4.5 billion years old. They are making this shite up im telling you!!

Im sure there there is much a scientist can teach you, but how much can they possibly really know for absolutely sure about the planet and global warming when they are here on this planet like you and me, for nothing more than a dot of time in the grand scheme of things. Maybe im too sceptical but i just take whatever they say with a pinch of salt.

Collin · December 2007

stu gee wrote:

I read that originally most scientists didnt believe that global warming was man made, so why should we believe them any more now? Im not saying that man doesnt play a part in global warming, i just find it funny how people even take the word of scientists to be fact all the time. Yes they are often very intelligent, far more intellligent than i, but can we really trust the words of these people who are talking about our planet, which essentially, is a big ball spinning around in some universe somewhere? I think scientists make out they know more than they think. One day the planet is 75000 years old, then, after a while and some recalculation, its 4.5 billion years old. They are making this shite up im telling you!!

Im sure there there is much a scientist can teach you, but how much can they possibly really know for absolutely sure about the planet and global warming when they are here on this planet like you and me, for nothing more than a dot of time in the grand scheme of things. Maybe im too sceptical but i just take whatever they say with a pinch of salt.

I think you're too sceptical indeed. But I do agree that you shouldn't just accept whatever a scientist says.

As far as I know, scientist don't claim to know the truth about something. They research something and they publish their findings, anyone can review their work and point out possible mistakes. The scientist can then respond in a number of ways.
They're researchers, they work with facts... we've seen a technological revolution, so naturally that has made it possible to do somethings more accurately.

It's when politics and science mix that 'scientific' backwaters grow and pseudo-science becomes ubiquitous.

stu gee · December 2007

Collin wrote:

I think you're too sceptical indeed. But I do agree that you shouldn't just accept whatever a scientist says.

As far as I know, scientist don't claim to know the truth about something. They research something and they publish their findings, anyone can review their work and point out possible mistakes. The scientist can then respond in a number of ways.
They're researchers, they work with facts... we've seen a technological revolution, so naturally that has made it possible to do somethings more accurately.

It's when politics and science mix that 'scientific' backwaters grow and pseudo-science becomes ubiquitous.

Maybe i am. I just think for example that if the results of findings between two equally brainy scientists can differ so greatly, how do you know who to believe, or pay attention to even.

onelongsong · December 2007

Collin wrote:

I think you're too sceptical indeed. But I do agree that you shouldn't just accept whatever a scientist says.

As far as I know, scientist don't claim to know the truth about something. They research something and they publish their findings, anyone can review their work and point out possible mistakes. The scientist can then respond in a number of ways.
They're researchers, they work with facts... we've seen a technological revolution, so naturally that has made it possible to do somethings more accurately.

It's when politics and science mix that 'scientific' backwaters grow and pseudo-science becomes ubiquitous.

very good.
i think i posted this before but i don't remember.

starting about 10 to 12 years ago; the easiest way to get a grant was to say you're using it to study global warming. since not everyone is honest; a person could watch his thermometer every day and use the rest of the money for his "pet" project. this is what screwed the real problem. AND if everyone is saying global warming exists; you can become famous by saying it doesn't. and if you say it doesn't the oil companies will seek you out to testify on their side.
to make a long story short; politics took a serious problem and buggered up our ability to get true facts with which to make our own decisions.

and i still insist that the government is covering up the truth to avoid panic.

godpt3 · December 2007

stu gee wrote:

I read that originally most scientists didn't believe that global warming was man made, so why should we believe them any more now?

I read that originally, most scientists didn't believe that the earth was round and that the earth was the center of the universe, so why should we believe them any more now?

Years and years ago, my grandmother gave me a book called "Our Plundered Planet," which talked about how man's actions were threatening our very survival. It was published in 1949!

godpt3 · December 2007

onelongsong wrote:

did your teacher require supporting documents during a debate? especially when debating a theory.

A good debater doesn't need anything more than logic and common sense to win an argument. And sometimes you've just got to stand up there and say, "This guy is an idiot." Then you take the audience, calmly and logically, through your argument.

Cosmo · December 2007

onelongsong wrote:

very good.
i think i posted this before but i don't remember.

starting about 10 to 12 years ago; the easiest way to get a grant was to say you're using it to study global warming. since not everyone is honest; a person could watch his thermometer every day and use the rest of the money for his "pet" project. this is what screwed the real problem. AND if everyone is saying global warming exists; you can become famous by saying it doesn't. and if you say it doesn't the oil companies will seek you out to testify on their side.
to make a long story short; politics took a serious problem and buggered up our ability to get true facts with which to make our own decisions.

and i still insist that the government is covering up the truth to avoid panic.

...
Are you OneLongSong... or is this still OneLongSong's daughter?

trappedinmyradio · December 2007

onelongsong wrote:

politics took a serious problem and buggered up our ability to get true facts with which to make our own decisions.

if there are facts out there (facts are true no matter how you slice it) then there is no room for opinion.

bootlegger10 · December 2007

onelongsong wrote:

we are passed the point of no return and those not prepared will die. i predict 2/3 of the earths population. this includes the tens of thousands that have already died as a result of global warming.

And the Bush administration uses fearmongering?

SundaySilence · December 2007

fanch75 wrote:

Everyone's mind is made on this issue, and hardly any minds will be changed regardless of what evidence (no matter how strong) is shown, proving one side or the other. It's all about "rooting for your team" at this point.

Most of us are "rooting" for climate change to be a statistical blip or at least easily managable. But we ought to be smart about it and see what the evidence suggests.

Cosmo wrote:

...
More utter bullshit.
Lake Victoria (the largest lake in Africa) in NOT a mud puddle.
http://encarta.msn.com/map_701514012/Victoria_Lake.html

Neither is Lake Tangenyka or Lake Malawi.

I assume he is refering to Lake Chad.

onelongsong wrote:

i'm basically retired. i watch buffalo eat. so i've got all the time in the world to do studies and mess with the computer and do things like that. i've posted my results and predicted the ice amount to be melted this year; last year.

Are these posted results still accessible?

onelongsong wrote:

einstein had no evidence to prove his E=MC2 theory. it was proven years later.

But he did show his work and it was mathematically consistant.

onelongsong wrote:

i watched the presidential debates and i didn't see them producing links or documents. they spoke their opinions which they believe to be fact (true); and went on. the audience then decided who they believed. one would think that the presidential debates would be held to the highest standards concerning the rules of debate.

I saw Ron Paul produce a list of sources supporting his contention that blowback played a roll in 9/11. Regardless presidential debates are very different than scientific debates, and I would not think that they would be held to any standard that the politicians might fear would expose their lies.

onelongsong wrote:

did your teacher require supporting documents during a debate? especially when debating a theory. a simple search of global warming will produce thousands of links both for and against. who do we believe? supporting documents can be produced for both sides of the argument. so where does that leave us? with opinions. back to square one.

Scientific debates are supported with data that is reviewable by all involved. What is debated is the meaning, significance, methods and accuracy of the data. But without the observed data there is no science to debate.

jlew24asu wrote:

I found this interesting...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071212103004.htm

Maybe this is why Greenland's ice is melting faster than we predict based on greenhouse gas emmissions alone.

Jeanie · December 2007

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=267613

Cosmo · December 2007

SundaySilence wrote:

...I assume he is refering to Lake Chad.

...
"There is no single cause for the disappearance of Lake Chad.
Global warming is one factor blamed and local people say rainfall has been steadily reducing by about five to 10mm a year.
Other factors include irrigation and the damming of rivers feeding the lake for hydro-electric schemes, which have all combined to devastating effect.
"Desertification is moving southwards," said William Bata Ndahi, director of the Lake Chad Research Institute.
"The water is moving further and further away. We believe desertification has contributed most to the demise of Lake Chad."

"This lake has to be saved; we know the benefit; we know how people have suffered; we know what we have lost."
Wakil Bakar
Lake Chad Basin Commission

Global Warming is a contributing factor, yes.. but, I think if you dig deeper into the cause, you will probably find the root problem is the lake being shared by the countries of Niger, Chad, Cameroon and Nigeria and mismanagement and national selfishness (usage, waste, irrigation and dams) are the main culprits.

SundaySilence · December 2007

Cosmo wrote:

...
Global Warming is a contributing factor, yes.. but, I think if you dig deeper into the cause, you will probably find the root problem is the lake being shared by the countries of Niger, Chad, Cameroon and Nigeria and mismanagement and national selfishness (usage, waste, irrigation and dams) are the main culprits.

I haven't dug deep enough to find the root problem of Lake Chad. But I do know that Global Warming will dry up some lakes.

Cosmo · December 2007

SundaySilence wrote:

I haven't dug deep enough to find the root problem of Lake Chad. But I do know that Global Warming will dry up some lakes.

...
I agree with you. I also know of lakes that have dried up from resource mismanagement, diversion and dams. Edwards Lake in the Owens Valley (California) comes to mind.
The point is... Global Warming alone is not the cause, as the initial comment stated. A contributing factor, yes.

Over 400 Scientists disput global warming

Comments

Categories