Skeptical Scientists Kicked Off UN Press Schedule in Bali ... Again

reply to post by heliosprime


Okay, how about this:

The 0.00006% of ozone that makes up our atmosphere is responsible for blocking out 97-99% of the sun's harmful UV rays.

Close enough for you to realize that small amounts of certain greenhouse gases (ozone is also a GHG) can have a big impact on the planet?

If you want to argue against anthropogenic global warming, at least do it properly. Right now melatonin is wiping the floor with your arguments...

Originally posted by heliosprime
Sorry to derail the "mankinds express train to global warming hell" but simple physics does not equate an extremely radioactive and very rare man-refined toxin (polonium) to common carbon with 2 oxygen molecules and a few common electrons.........

Oh jeez, this 'common carbon with 2 oxygen molecules' is a GHG, even at low concentrations, it is what it is - A GHG.

Polonium is a poison simply because it is a great alpha-radiation emitter - more simple physics. Amazingly, put it behind a piece of paper, and you are protected, eat it, and you will probably die. More simple physics (apha radiation loses efficacy over short distances and is readily blocked, but internally is devastating to cells).

You are attempting to argue from small numbers, it is a very poor argument and shows the vacuity of your position. Even water vapour is only a fraction of the atmosphere (1% or so), but still accounts for about 60% of the GE.

The size, concentration, weight etc of a particular phenomena does not indicate its significance.

Between 1970 and 1979, 21 famous musicians died in car accidents, they all played "music" as compared to non-musicians. Fewer musicians died between 1960 and 1969. Were the deaths due to an increase in music?

Linear logic is just silly............

You really appear to be being obtuse for the fun of it. Or you just haven't got a clue.

If there was the possibility for a causal link between an increase in music and deaths in car accidents, then maybe we might make the connection. You can't even frame this little obfuscation properly. What appears to be the important part of this observation is that more musicians died between 1970-1979 than between 1960-1969. All played music. Thus, we would look to see what the differences were between these groups. Maybe drug use was wider during that period. Maybe music began to attract more sensation-seekers, leading to more drug-use and risky driving. Maybe fame was more pressured in the 1970s, leading to stress, depression, and abnormal behaviour. Maybe drug-use changed to circumvent the new drug laws in the 60s. Maybe road laws changed. Maybe more cars were on the road. Maybe all these variables contributed. It would be unlikely to be due to an increase in music, as both groups were musicians, no? If there was some influence, we would have to compare between the factors affecting the two groups of musicians.

There is a causal link between GHGs and warming of planets. It's what they do. GHGs absorb longwave radiation - increase their concentration, they absorb more. We've known this for over 100 years. It's based on very simple and repeatedly verified physical experiments.

[edit on 21-12-2007 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


Explain GW on Mars......................

reply to post by Beachcoma



Again you speak of a theory as fact. Ozone "sheilding" is theory not FACT. Just as CFC's destroying ozone was a theory.

GW is FACT, it is complete "theory" as to mans involvement. Only theory, no repeatable experiment has been provided anywhere by anyone moving theory into LAW.

reply to post by heliosprime


I'm talking about science. I guess you must be talking about something else.

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statement "It's not a fact, it's only a theory." True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.

Source

More on the science behind ozone:
Basics: www.ozonelayer.noaa.gov...
Intermediate: Ohio State University Factsheet - The Ozone Layer
Advanced: Let's not get ahead of ourselves...

Your argument on this issue has a giant hole. Like the ozone layer.



[edit on 22-12-2007 by Beachcoma]

I usually try to avoid getting involved in these threads as reconstructing the "It's not our fault" crowd's arguments is generally about as challenging as clubbing baby seals.

I did want to chime in and say that melatonin has done an admirable job in laying waste to a wide swath of doe eyed fluffy mammals.

I also thought I would add a couple points to his arguments.

One of the main points that is glommed onto by those seeking to blame anything other than mankind is that GW/GC is a cycle. Yes, we know that is the case from ice core samples. However, we also know that it's an unstable cycle and does become irregular. This means that what we're dealing with is an unstable system.

It doesn't take a whole lot to understand that when you have an unstable system, any impact you make on it could have disproportionately large effects. One bump in the wrong place can send the whole system flying apart.

Right now, we monkeys are doing a heck of a lot of poking.

The second most often grasped for twig is the "one bucket into another" theory (as mentioned by someone on the previous page). The idea that CO2 is a constant on this rock and that we don't actually create any more of it. This is true, but very short sighted.
What we're doing is digging up Carbon (as oil) that is trapped way down deep and releasing it as CO2 by burning it. In any natural cycle, that Carbon would have been trapped for millions (if not billions) of years... possibly even being compressed into diamonds which take a hella long time to break down.
So in effect, it really is one bucket into another. We're taking from the ground where it is "safely" stored and pouring it into the atmosphere at a rate that nature does not account for.

So... those theories are both shot ta hell.

As for the small numbers game... yeah, that's just plan silly. A shark's took accounts for a tiny amount of it's body mass, but when combined with the fact that it happens to be attached to a shark, it's something that should be avoided.

Originally posted by heliosprime
Explain GW on Mars......................

Albedo Changes due to dust storms?

Originally posted by BitRaiser
So in effect, it really is one bucket into another. We're taking from the ground where it is "safely" stored and pouring it into the atmosphere at a rate that nature does not account for.

So... those theories are both shot ta hell.

As for the small numbers game... yeah, that's just plan silly. A shark's took accounts for a tiny amount of it's body mass, but when combined with the fact that it happens to be attached to a shark, it's something that should be avoided.

Yes, safely in the ground, UNTIL, the next earthquake, fire, volcano, etc, etc.

So sad, so sad. All swashbuckeling of theories as if they had the weight of a mighty sword of truth. Yet just cutting thin air as they pass.

Theory...........until very recently (1970's) the consensus of scientist thought the craters of the moon were from volcano's not asteroid impacts.

Also recently, those same "gaggle" of smarts also said a meteor impact on earth was rare if at all, until a guy named "Levy" came alone.

A 'herd" of nerd's in a room all nodding their heads together does not make theory into FACT.

Until a repeatable experiment has been found, theory is just words on a peice of paper......................no more no less.

E=mc2 was a theory until "Trinity" proved it true.

Anyone who thinks 99.99% of the air can be "poisoned" by a CO2 level of less than 0.01% is just placing "faith" in a false religion of ignorance.

Sharks teeth, polonium, aside..................

You believe because YOU want to believe, not because of any real science..

[edit on 22-12-2007 by heliosprime]

reply to post by Beachcoma


Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the·o·ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date: 1592
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject


m-w.com...

Theory is NOT fact...............

Originally posted by heliosprime
Theory is NOT fact...............

Obviously it isn't.

However even from your dictionary reference, my previous points still stand out (since we're talking about science). I have put it in bold and underlined it for you in case you aren't sure.

Originally posted by heliosprime
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the·o·ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date: 1592
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject

Originally posted by heliosprime
Anyone who thinks 99.99% of the air can be "poisoned" by a CO2 level of less than 0.01% is just placing "faith" in a false religion of ignorance.

Dude... you simply aren't getting it.
It's not about the air being "poisoned". Percentages don't matter (other than the fact that the CO2 percentage is growing). It's about the fact that GHGs are what trap heat. The more GHGs, the hotter this rock gets. Simple. You don't have to have all the atmosphere composed of CO2 for it to become a problem. A small shift is enough.

In fact, CO2 isn't the biggest GHG. Water vapor is. The problem is that when you increase CO2 by just a little bit, you increase the temperature very slightly, which causes a much larger amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. It's a snowball effect.

As far as the despite the science comment... you're the one who's refuting the science. Everything I've said is provable, while you keep spouting very strange nonsense.

It's like the house is on fire and you're the one standing there saying "I have no proof that fire is hot".

Quite amusing, really.

Originally posted by BitRaiser

It's like the house is on fire and you're the one standing there saying "I have no proof that fire is hot".

Quite amusing, really.

Dude.......again listen to truth here. All you claim as FACT is only the current working THEORY among a group of so called scientist just to get research money.

There is only theory that CO2 is a cause of GW, when in fact it may be a result. Yes, the onther working theory is CO2 is a result of warming.

You scream fire when someone strikes a match..............

Just as CFC's had nothing to do with the ozone hole, CO2 does not "cause" global warming.

The current insanity has gone so far that the diversion of FOOD in the form of corn is going into making ethonol. It takes more energy to make ethonol that it saves. That is just stupid. There were food riots in mexico over the price of tortillias because of all the corn going to e-85 production.

So now in the name of stopping GW to save the planet, enviro-nuts will cause mass famine and starvation. That is a real threat.

Mankind, CO2, Methane, or any other GHG, has nothing to do with GW. It is all a scam to make money is such scams as "carbon trading".

reply to post by Beachcoma



Sooooooo, what part didn't YOU get? All the current GW hype is all based on the current speculation of THEORY.

THEORY dude.............just the current best GUESS.............

Researcher observe an increase in temp as compared to another time period and somehow that spells complete doom for all the earth.

Yet, history shows periods of greater warmth and guess what, mankind is still here to be afraid of his own shadow................

If you are so afraid of warm air, move to siberia dude.................


[edit on 23-12-2007 by heliosprime]

Originally posted by melatonin

al)


...............................................

OK, so out of the 64 people above, 30 are readily associated with industry funded think-tanks (assuming my counting was good).

www.exxonsecrets.org...

[edit on 18-12-2007 by melatonin]

This list was presented to debunk the common and incorrect notion that only 1 or 2 scientists disagree with anthropogenic global warming. This is only a list of a few high profile scientists who disagree that humans are a major cause of global warming. There are thousands more of us scientists who are global warming skeptics. Why does the almighty I.P.C.C. not let us speak? It's because politics, carbon taxes, research funds, and little else drives the global warming scheme. Of course, many have made it their religion since it cannot be proven to be a fact. A chart plotted over 150 years with the temperature calibrated over 1 degree C (or even less) is a total joke. It has the misleading effect of making a very small change look huge. Bad science has the initials B.S. if you haven't noticed.





[edit on 12/23/2007 by TheAvenger]

reply to post by TheAvenger


Bravo, Bravo, an excellent smack down sir. GW fanatics whisper among themselves the same BS until they think it fact. Missed the exagerated graphic, thanks.....................

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by Animal

 

So let's say the peers of these folks with dissenting opinions review their work, and disagree with it. What then? You're right where you started. Those who believe in man made global warming, and those who don't, and nothing is settled.

luckily four you and i i happen to very close to a working scientist. he does medical research, his specialty is cardiology. every year he submits his research to the peer review process. this is the first step in publishing work, and an essential one for a scientists.

when he submits his research one of the main goals is to have his peer review his work. they do this by repeating his experiments, and then upon obtaining the same results as him verify the veracity of his work.

peer reviewed work = work that can be repeated AND produce the same outcomes.

this is why I would like to be shown peer reviewed, published works by these dissenting GW skeptics. I have no problem with them having personal beliefs that differ from the present scientific consensus, I do have a problem with them trying to use their BELIEFS to make others think that the scientific consensus is false.

if i am wrong, prove it.

reply to post by TheAvenger

This list was presented to debunk the common and incorrect notion that only 1 or 2 scientists disagree with anthropogenic global warming. This is only a list of a few high profile scientists who disagree that humans are a major cause of global warming. There are thousands more of us scientists who are global warming skeptics. Why does the almighty I.P.C.C. not let us speak?

because they can not supply proof, in the form of repeatable scientific research?


[edit on 23-12-2007 by Animal]

Originally posted by Animal




peer reviewed work = work that can be repeated AND produce the same outcomes.

this is why I would like to be shown peer reviewed, published works by these dissenting GW skeptics.

if i am wrong, prove it.

The problem here is that the global warming alarmist/believers cannot prove they are right. It would seem with their claims, the burden of proof would be theirs. Nevertheless, I will post a list of peer reviewed works for your reading pleasure. Meanwhile, read one man's opinion about global warming peer review.

Peer Review global warming style


Ah, yet another misconception is that there are no peer-reviewed anti-global warming papers out there. Here's a short listing of peer reviewed papers that dispute many of the warmie's claims:

Friends of Science

I have more peer reviewed listings that I may post later.

Again, why does the I.P.C.C. censor climate change skeptic scientists if their brand of science is a "slam dunk"? Those claiming it's the same old arguments are just too stubborn or swept up in the Al Gore climate change religion to listen. If they are so right why not prove it once and for all? Often in science the majority are eventually proven wrong.






[edit on 12/23/2007 by TheAvenger]

Originally posted by TheAvenger
This list was presented to debunk the common and incorrect notion that only 1 or 2 scientists disagree with anthropogenic global warming. This is only a list of a few high profile scientists who disagree that humans are a major cause of global warming.

I think there are only a few in that list who would be considered high profile in the relevant area, and even then, it is the usual suspects.

I really don't consider the likes of Tim Ball to be high profile.

Why does the almighty I.P.C.C. not let us speak?

You do speak. I hear/read the same old stuff all the time. But the place it needs to be is in the scientific literature. Problem is, when they attempt it, we get the usual B.S. as you like to call it.

It's because politics, carbon taxes, research funds, and little else drives the global warming scheme.

Heh, yeah, nothing to do with the science, of course.

Of course, many have made it their religion since it cannot be proven to be a fact.

I guess that goes for most scientific theories then, since none are 'fact'.

ABE: after reading the next post, avenger, I think you have some misunderstanding of the nature of science. A good book on philosophy of science would help. Science doesn't provide 100% proof, that's for mathematics.

As for Khandekar's list, the long version was better, as it showed his poor scholarship (e.g., the Broecker error).

[edit on 23-12-2007 by melatonin]

reply to post by TheAvenger


In Reply to: "Peer Review global warming style"

An interesting link... but I find it flawed.

The author's contention that because his Comment was rejected, the system is censored doesn't wash.

Both reviewers pointed out that the point the author was making was basically a minor issue with a single reference. Both agreed that there was a mistake there, but both also pointed out that the data references does in fact exist, just under a slightly different name.

Both reviewers and the editor commented that the author could re-work his comment to be much shorter as a valid comment that Hunter et al could refute.

Rather than doing so, Mr. Daly instead chose to throw his hands up and say "SEE!! BIASED!!!!" and cop an academic temper tantrum.

He is making a huge statement about the peer review system based on one personal case. A case that is easily called into question.
And he's making comments about the scientific method of others?

That's very poor form.

[edit on 23-12-2007 by BitRaiser]

Originally posted by BitRaiser
[i
In Reply to: "Peer Review global warming style"

An interesting link... but I find it flawed.



Both reviewers and the editor commented that the author could re-work his comment to be much shorter as a valid comment that Hunter et al could refute.

Perhaps you prefer the viewpoint of world class scientist Richard Lindzen, who is
no crybaby since he has published 100s of papers.

Opinion Journal