Global Warming Has Ended

Terms Of Endearment

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Meanwhile, you could clarify what the term global warming actually means and to see if there's a mutual consensus.

Since I'm not the one promoting it, let's put the onus where it belongs.

Define for me what you think the term "Global Warming" means, and let's go from there.

Majic and Regenmacher

It's been entertaining to see the two of you swing at each other...but now let's see if I can get two veteran ATS members, who I respect and like very much, to move forward with the discussion.

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Meanwhile, you could clarify what the term global warming actually means to see if there's a mutual consensus.

I think this is an excellent start.


[edit on 3-2-2007 by loam]

Global warming: a tendency for the mean surface temperature to increase over a given period of time.

Good.

Assuming we now have a definition we can discuss, it seems to me that three primary questions become the heart of the debate.

1) Is the world experiencing global warming?

2) If so, what relevance does that have?

3) Assuming meaningful negative consequences, what should be done in response to it?

I think that about covers it...

Can we start with question #1?

Majic?


[edit on 3-2-2007 by loam]

Mean Temperatures

Well, it's a start, except for one problem.

None of this actually addresses any of the points I've made so far, nor does it have anything to do with my position.

Is anyone willing to address my position?

Originally posted by Majic
Is anyone willing to address my position?

Originally posted by Majic
Personally, I'm "agnostic" about Global Warming. I don't claim to know one way or the other...

Check.

Now can you expound on that statement given Regenmacher's definition?



[edit on 3-2-2007 by loam]

By Definition

Originally posted by loam
Now can you expound on that statement given Regenmacher's definition?

Sure!

I'm not convinced the data is reliable.

As for why I'm not convinced, that hearkens back to what I've been saying all along.

I hope that clarifies things.

Originally posted by Majic
Do I agree that Global Warming has been proven? No.

Given the definition that I have just provided,
why has global warming not been proven?

If the measurements are incorrect, then how did the weather forecasting become more accurate over time?

[edit on 3-2-2007 by Regenmacher]

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Global warming: a tendency for the mean surface temperature to increase over a given period of time.

I find it absolutely amazing the way the numbers on the graph increase overtime as the quality of thermometers and other temperature measuring devices improve. Astounded. Words...do not begin to describe...what i am feeling...amazing....absolutely...without a doubt....this graph of yours has no merit toward anything other than the advancing thought of yours "i am smart and everyone is stupid because they dont agree with me".

Consider The Source

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Given the definition that I have just provided,
why has global warming not been proven?

If I told you I had a million dollars in my pocket, would that prove I'm a millionaire?

Originally posted by Majic
Consider The Source

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Given the definition that I have just provided,
why has global warming not been proven?

If I told you I had a million dollars in my pocket, would that prove I'm a millionaire?

No, but I wouldnt hesitate to ask if I could stick my hand in your pocket.

Originally posted by Majic
I'm not convinced the data is reliable.

As for why I'm not convinced, that hearkens back to what I've been saying all along.

I hope that clarifies things.

It doesn't.

I understand the gist of your argument is that because there are special interest deceptions on both sides of the debate, you are less trusting of the conclusions. But where is that not the case for ANY issue?

Could you explain further, please?

Originally posted by Majic
If I told you I had a million dollars in my pocket, would that prove I'm a millionaire?

You're not considered a credible source of information, nor is the proclaimation of million bucks in a pocket logical.

If the NWS said a hurricane is coming and I should evacuate based on their model track consensus, satellite obs, flight obs, etc. I would tend to believe them, but I would also confirm these observations for myself.

Credible Sources

Okay, let's assume I'm not credible.

If I spent millions of dollars on research grants to get scientists to declare that I'm credible, would that make me credible?

Yes, there is a point to all this, and I pray it's not lost.

Originally posted by Soitenly
I find it absolutely amazing the way the numbers on the graph increase overtime as the quality of thermometers and other temperature measuring devices improve. Astounded. Words...do not begin to describe...what i am feeling...amazing....absolutely...without a doubt....this graph of yours has no merit toward anything other than the advancing thought of yours "i am smart and everyone is stupid because they dont agree with me".

It would be nice if people could make their points without the condescending BS... Are we seeking understanding here, or just the opportunity to one-up the next guy?

So, Soitenly, you make the point that our ability to measure temperature in the 1800s, and beyond, was some how meaningfully inferior to our ability today.

Explain, specifically, how?


[edit on 3-2-2007 by loam]

Originally posted by Majic
Credible Sources

Okay, let's assume I'm not credible.

If I spent millions of dollars on research grants to get scientists to declare that I'm credible, would that make me credible?

Yes, there is a point to all this, and I pray it's not lost.

No, it's not lost. You distrust the special interest involved in the debate.

Answer my previous question, Majic, how is that different from ANY issue?

Originally posted by Majic
If I spent millions of dollars on research grants to get scientists to declare that I'm credible, would that make me credible?

What is your hypothesis and did you submit for peer review to those beyond your control?

You can say the moon is cheese, and spend trillions...but I wouldn't expect many to believe you in light of all the historical evidence that is against you.



[edit on 3-2-2007 by Regenmacher]

Can we stick to the topic here, and not spend so much time clarifying or acknowledging each others positions please?

Global Warming Has Ended

Agree to disagree, state your own positions, present your evidence, and discuss the topic.

Thank you.

Special Issue

Originally posted by loam
Answer my previous question, Majic, how is that different from ANY issue?

What makes this different is that in this case neutrality is lumped in with denial and subjected to the sort of demonizing reserved in the past for witches and heretics.

I'm skeptical of many things, yet most of the time that's not a problem.

Here's it's a problem. And that's a problem.

Peer Review

Originally posted by Regenmacher
What is your hypothesis and did you submit for peer review to those beyond your control? Did you use credible proven data to base your premises on?

My hypothesis is that the data and debate surrounding Global Warming may be subject to manipulation and deceit to serve special financial interests.

The problem is that much of the evidence to support that hypothesis is not available on the Internet, since the origins of Global Warming date back to before the Internet became popular in the '90s and -- unsurprisingly -- people don't tend to put up web pages about it when they fudge data for financial benefit.

Much of what has shaped my opinion is based on my own observations from that time and what has transpired since: cases where Global Warming was written about as if it were proven in newspapers and wire services long before any data actually substantiated the theory.

Time passes, history is rewritten and now I'm left as a witness to the birth of Global Warming without a stack of links to support my suspicions.

Does that mean I'm wrong? Only if we assume "if it's not on the Internet, it doesn't exist".

The Foundation For Skepticism

I have many good reasons to be suspicious of the Global Warming agenda that cannot be proven.

That doesn't mean I'm wrong -- or right, for that matter -- only that I have my reasons and am therefore skeptical of the claims surrounding Global Warming (pro and con, for what it's worth).

Somehow suspicion has come to be equated with denial, but that's not true. For all I know the IPCC may be spot on, and I'm certainly open to that idea.

However, as long as my doubts remain, I can't agree with or endorse any position regarding Global Warming other than skepticism.

I also deeply resent the nature and tone of the discussion, and this thread offers a great example of what I mean by that.

As far as I know, Global Warming is the first scientific theory ever presented that requires skeptics to prove it wrong in order for it to not be considered fact by default.

That alone is cause for skepticism, and a skeptic I remain.

The theory is unproven. Assertions to the contrary are lies.

Originally posted by Majic
My hypothesis is that the data and debate surrounding Global Warming may be subject to manipulation and deceit to serve special financial interests.

Such blantant manipulation of modeling data would have showed up in greater levels of forecast inaccuracy and error, and the exact opposite has occured.

Many industries rely on accurate forecasting data, and sabotaging it would of brought on a flurry of lawsuits, food shortages, depression, chaos, and perhaps even a revolt.

I personally am seeing the effects of a 12 year drought and have relatives all over the map that are in agriculture. I haven't seen any indication that global warming has ended even off the net. I have witnessed widening desertification, more pollution, more drought, less precipitation, bigger forest fires, and higher costs in farming.



[edit on 4-2-2007 by Regenmacher]