No Need to Panic About Global Warming?

polaris_x wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

I don't doubt man's influence on the environment, climate and weather patterns. With this thread, you're going to create a SHIT STORM

ha ha. I didn't mean to cause a shit storm. I figured people "HERE" won't buy it, but was curious of how they would respond. I'm finding out.

So far, they look up the people and try to say "see this guy's bad". That's why what they say is wrong. Meanwhile, I'm left thinking to myself....

...this shows it's a debate (on global warming). Nothing's proven here. But, like the article suggest, if some dissent they are treated like Galileo.

it's not a debate ... you are posting lies and concluding there is a debate ... huge difference ... but i see now that you have nothing to back up your side ... you want to discredit the response by applying a prejudiced associated with this forum ...

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.

StillHere wrote:

EVIDENCE:

it is January 27

and it is 60 degrees F outside today

rain and THUNDER!!

no global warming ?

its been like this except for a half dozen days at the freezing mark all season long

Good point, it has been warm this year. I'd admit that. ... But, if that's global warming, I hope it continues for a few months until spring.

polaris_x wrote:

dude ... i said go to his sources ... and because i knew you weren't gonna do that ... i posted the actual case study ... and in my last response i didn't discredit your publication source (WSJ) even tho there is ample evidence to do so ... so, feel free to discredit my publication source (the blog) even tho that isn't what i did ...

My response is some guy's blog doesn't really give me faith in fair journalism or fact-checking. No offense, but I'm not going to sit around for hours digging through your guy's blog's publication sources. If you want to refute the article with a publication, go ahead. Post the publication. I'm just not going to sit around and poke through your guy's blog, then check his sources. That's kinda ridiculous.

polaris_x wrote:

all those scientists are the same ... i've been doing this on this forum for years and it gets tiring having to do all the work because you guys don't care to do so ... if i tried to sell you a car that had great mileage, excellent reliability, looks great, super fast, super safe and super cheap ... would you just say great and buy it or would you do your own research? ... why won't you do the research in the articles you are posting yourself? ... that is what critical thinking is all about ...

I'm sorry, but seriously... no offense, I think you're passionate on this issue. Fair enough. I get that. But, my take is just because you've been on a rock band's forum saying global warming will kill us, doesn't make you right. You can point to the majority of quasi-scientists saying "sun revolves around earth" during Galileo's time... they were wrong. And in my opinion, the most interesting part about this article was it was telling why scientists who don't buy Global Warming are being muffled, which is what you're trying to do. To my knowledge, you're not a scientist who does this for a living. If you are show me some of your own data, don't point to a publication. The problem with this field and the ardent supporters is that they use other people's work to prove their opinions.

I said it before, I'll say it again, my opinion is there's a big sect of people who are "green" who are green for big government purposes, they use the "green" aspect to gain support. Others are green because they truly believe it... I think you probably fall into the latter, but I don't know.

polaris_x wrote:

look at all the scientific associations that support the science behind global warming ... it's overwhelming ... yet, you continue to post big-oil funded pieces and try to say there is a debate ...

i tried showing you how these PR firms do it but apparently you aren't interested ... i get it now ... i tried yet again but alas it's the same old response ...

We hear about the people who support global warming a lot. We know they are well-funded, after all they support big-government (by my logic) and have PR firms behind them too. We rarely hear the dissenters.

My point is for you to look at it as an issue that's not 100% finalized. If you do, you're showing you're instilled bias.... right from the jump.

polaris_x wrote:

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.

polaris_x wrote:

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.

polaris_x wrote:

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.

polaris_x wrote:

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 ...

Agreed. So, get working.

polaris_x wrote:

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.