It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
"Could". So then they / we really don't know?


Not 100%, no. Unless we get a time machine and go back to the 1930s and make the appropriate measures, we'll have to reconstruct and model.


That's troubling, because I wasn't aware that the sun itself is / can be responisbile for variations in local conditions?


What it might do is to invoke changes around the globe. So, we might have changes initiated elsewhere leading to knock-on effects in a particular region.


"Seem to have". Good language once again. If you dig thru to the discussions beyond your blogger link you'll see that they'r estill not finished, and that, as you always say, there can be explanations -related to geography etc- in their initial incomplete assessment.

I may have missed it, but were those graphs plotted off the 33% checked-stations? It was only about 27% a couple weeks ago.


Heh, are you criticising the tentative scientific language? Do you prefer absolutism?

No, I'm sure the frauditor crew have more cherrypicking to do. But it tends to show where all the data is leading. The funny thing is that you think we can show something useful for the temp data from looking at individual stations. All it shows is that standards are variable, some are good, some are not so good. But the only way to know what that means for the data is to check it properly, and it seems to be quite negligible.



Anyways, can you explain this one to me, from the same plotter:

Finally, the plot below shows the 20yr trailing trend in degC/decade for CRN12, CRN5, and GISS.


What is a "20 year trailing trend"? I've yet to see that terminology.


I'm not exactly sure what they mean, the only way I've seen it used before is as in a trend that trials another variable. Alternatively, they may be referring to a running mean, which is a method of extracting a trend out of noisy data.


What?
Where is there really much of any "frauditor BS" in there? The only link was to them showing some major flaws with some of the Russian station data.


I was specifically referring to the cherrypicking of climate stations. Which is what Watt and crew have been doing, that is, they are selective on the stations they make a point of, completely ignoring stations that don't fit their preconceived aims.

So, what they do is pick a station that looks bad and has a strong warming trend. Then also pick a good station with weak warming. Then show all the pictures and make a canard.

As muaddib said - a picture speaks a thousand words. Well, I s'pose it does for those who like picture books, heh.


It's just too bad that the trend you speak of applies mostly to the pre-satellite days, eh?

None of your conjecture really damages the fact of the human population explosion and etc arguments I provided, I am afraid.


So, you are just trying to say that humans are causing warming, but it is a land-use issue? Or what?

I wouldn't be surprised that we could be underestimating land-use issues, but that doesn't negate other variables.


That wouldn't happen to be when humans finally got some temp satellites up there would it? Maybe they've been driving the heat? Relaity is based on perception, after all.


You'd have to make some logical causal connection between satellites and warming on the earth. I also think we had been shooting satellites into space for maybe a while before that.

We have sunspot data for a few hundred years, it shows the same effect.


I'd really like to hear them. It wouldn't seem like aerosols would have gone down too much since the 70's...


Most western countries introduced restrictions on emissions, sulphates were one of the targets for numerous reasons. They also have a pretty short lifetime in the atmosphere. Whereas CO2 has a much longer lifetime. Thus, after a period of time, CO2 will accumulate much faster, eventually overcoming the cooling effects of the sulphates.


So then, the CO2 THREAT arguments might not be all that absolute, afterall?


Science can rarely deal in absolutes. That's why even the IPCC only deal in 'very likely' and 'likely' etc. If you want 100% certainty then science can rarely provide it. We might get to about 99.999999999999%, but never 100%.


You need to go beyond binary thinking.



I'm sorry. I couldn't resist. Now you're using my terminology, as if I'm the one consistently arguing in pro-AGW absolutes, when my only intention is to show how flawed the arguments are, and how little we mighty-arrogent humans really know.


But you seem to be saying it is either one or t'other. It can be a complex mixture of variables. Which is what it is. We have solar causing a degree of warming, we have CO2 doing the same, we have sulphates forcing cooling, we have land-use changes, black carbon etc etc.

All have an effect. An attempt is made to account for all.



Sorry,
But going by that graph above that I'd guess you'd accept, how on earth were the temps higher before -similar to today- while the CO2 apparently wasn't up there whatsoever?


Well, CO2 isn't the only variable. The climate can warm or cool without large changes in CO2. This is where the binary thinking comes in. Just because CO2 can result in warming, doesn't mean it is the only variable able to do so.

Thus, we would expect previous interglacial warming episodes to be most liekly a result of other variables.


That's the attitude. Listen to Al Gore for Christ's sake.


To an extent I agree, I think I've said numerous times that I'd rather politicians kept out of the science part, it just muddies the waters. But at least he has tried to get the science over.



That's good to hear, because the propaganda machine out there that has GWB's & the Neocons war drumbeat parrot army almost envious.


Hey, this is science not religion. We will never have the Truth(TM). We have the ass-end of the elephant, but with hard work we can use the limited knowledge we have.


"Environmentalism" is being unwittingly used as a pawn of the same imperialist Establishment that initially wrecked those regions and have kept them so in the past 50+ years.


Maybe it is. I don't like the way green issues have become big business, but that's capitalism for you.

I think more sustainable growth is good for all, even the third world. Once they completely rape the environment they have, they will have nothing left for western living rooms. Then they are truly f****d. There's only so many Nike sweatshops the world requires.

[edit on 18-9-2007 by melatonin]




posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 08:17 PM
link   
The following is UN data but as far as i know it's what we think we know about carbon cycle and it's pretty damning in showing just how little we know. If anything invalidates CO2 prevalence as resulting from human activity this does...

www.grida.no...

Stellar



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
If anything invalidates CO2 prevalence as resulting from human activity this does...


Do you think that the fact we are releasing twice the CO2 each year required to account for the yearly increase in atmospheric CO2 can be ignored?

That all this CO2 just disappears into a black hole?



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin


Do you think that the fact we are releasing twice the CO2 each year required to account for the yearly increase in atmospheric CO2 can be ignored?

That all this CO2 just disappears into a black hole?


No i do not and that was a clear case of me wanting to see something that just was not supported by the evidence presented. Sorry for wasting your time, to say nothing of my credibility, with that particular bad example!

Stellar

[edit on 19-9-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
No i do not and that was a clear case of me wanting to see something that just was not supported by the evidence presented. Sorry for wasting your time, to say nothing of my credibility, with that particular bad example!


Interestingly enough, from my position your credibility actually went up


It's refreshing to see someone accept an error. Most just ignore them and move on to the next canard. To err is human. Kudos.

[edit on 19-9-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   
So will you at least admit that the 'theory' of human caused global warming is just that, a theory?

ED



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
So will you at least admit that the 'theory' of human caused global warming is just that, a theory?

ED


That's why they call them theories.

But I'm quite sure by the way you frame that question that you fail to understand what a theory in science is. What it isn't is a guess. It is a supported scientific explanation. That is, it is logically consistent explanation that fits the evidence.



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Interestingly enough, from my position your credibility actually went up


And that then reflects pretty poorly on the rest of the contributors.



It's refreshing to see someone accept an error. Most just ignore them and move on to the next canard. To err is human. Kudos.


In due course i do plan on resuming this discussion and since i don't rely on people simply taking my word for anything i have no reason not to admit such blatant mistakes. That being said i don't want to be quite that human.


Stellar



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

That's why they call them theories.

But I'm quite sure by the way you frame that question that you fail to understand what a theory in science is. What it isn't is a guess. It is a supported scientific explanation. That is, it is logically consistent explanation that fits the evidence.


I do not fail to understand what a theory is, that is why it is called the 2nd law of thermodynamics and not the 2nd theory.

What I am trying to say is that Global warming by man is only a theory and not accepted by all, we can argue percentages all we want but it is moot. There are many smart people not paid by oil companies that do not buy into this theory..

we need to be sure about things before we cause other global issues caused by the supposed solutions to a problem that might not exist for the exact reasons being brought forward. There is a lot at stake in this issue.



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Theory

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.

Law

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.

Article written by: Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D. on About.com
Some info for those too lazy to get their definitions straight.
Cheers!



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   
That does not change the fact that very smart people do not buy into this theory that it is man caused..that is FACT.

many that are promoting it are not counting all information.

Al Gore gets a Noble peace prize for a work that is eaten up with error....oh well it just confirms that the Nobel Peace prize is crap.

Arafat got it, as did Carter.....

Carter did not even set up the meeting between Sadat and Begin, it was a Romanian named Ceausescu or something like that.....

Nobel Peace prize = Cracker Jack prize worth a Million bucks, but it is not what it stands for by any means.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join