Ten Facts & Ten Myths On Climate Change

page: 3
86
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Everyone on this thread is getting their information from biased sources, copehagenchallange, GWB supporder etc




posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


hey red, why not back your comment up?

i have seen the lists of scientists who have signed petitions disputing the anthropogenic link and they tend to be filled with names of those not suited to be arguing for or against.

while there are legitimate dissenting opinions they are far out numbered, thus the deniers claims of 'conspiracy' in the scientific community.

am i incorrect in this statement?

while i can see you enjoy word games but lets be clear about this issue.

do you dispute that there is a consensus with in the scientific community regarding an anthropogenic link?

do you also claim that there is not a common trend among the skeptical crowd to cite questionable sources of 'scientific information'. case in point Dr. Bob who is quoted in the OP.



Yet how exactly is Dr. Mann of Penn State University (Who happens to be one of the most publicized and oft touted "fore-runners" and proponents of AGW theory alarmism) somehow considered credible when his data was proven to be manipulated? He ignored well established climatic periods in the Earth's history within his infamous "Hockey Stick" graph, or in other words, he ignored scientific evidence which went against his own pre-conceived notions. His data is proven to be corrupted, yet time and again some people treat him as some "God-like" authority on AGW.

Individuals, especially scientists, should be extremely careful of lobbing forth rocks when they happen to be situated in a glass house.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by mantisfan72

CO2 is mesured in tens of parts per million so a 100ppm increase is 4X the amount of CO2

CO2 is measured. The practical unit is parts per million by volume (ppmv). Pre-industrial levels are generally agreed to have been 280ppmv. Present levels are around 380ppmv. How do you get a 4x increase out of those numbers?


The no co2 global warming in the past 10000 years pre industrial/ethanol topics was to dispel myths that people doing less reaserch may belive

10000 years is still arbitrary. Much higher levels have existed in the past, during periods when life thrived.


co2 traps twice the wavelenths on the spectrum than water vapor

OK, so you're insistent. Got a link to back that up?


Even if abiotic exists and there is a lot of prof it dosent it feilds dont seem to replenish fast enough for our usage

No, there are theories that oil is biotic just as there are theories that oil is abiotic. I just happen to believe it is abiotic. And you are aware that we have multiple oil fields that are not even tapped yet?

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Wow, there's that 'agree = smart, disagree = stupid' thingy again...


No Red, the above argument is a game intended to try to detract from my point which is focused on the QUALIFICATIONS. Why would I listen to someone who studied veterinary science on the issue of climate change?



Actually, I base my opinions (and yes, they are as much opinions as Mr. Hansen himself) on what I know and what I can learn from considering the published theories. What I have learned so far is that everything I know about science, including advanced science and math courses in public school, a stint in college studying Engineering, and years of personal study in various disciplines, is apparently wrong now because the IPCC says so.



you are entitled to your 'opinion' or 'belief' but why would i take your word over those who are much more 'qualified' to make assumptions?



Consensus = belief.

Fact = truth.


so true and i have never argued anything but this.



I will admit there seems to be a consensus among scientists who believe in AGW that AGW exists.



why not answer the question directly?


The search of science is not for a consensus, but rather for truth. Therefore, consensus is irrelevant unless facts are presented (and independently verified) to back up claims.


#1 yes science searches for 'truths'.
#2 until then the prevailing 'belief' is what is commonly accepted.
#3 the science that the current belief is built upon is checked and verified.


Do you claim there is not a common trend among those who believe in AGW to discount anyone who disagrees with them on no more stable a basis than they disagree?


I can not answer for anyone but myself, and I would say no. I have admitted repeatedly that there is obvious dissent within the scientific community and that there is obviously work left to be done to prove the anthropogenic link as fact. however, i see more evidence to support the anthropogenic link than not. and so i choose to follow the general consensus.

when i question posts such as this, it is because the information presented is weak. do you deny this in the case of this thread and the information presented?

this sadly tends to be the norm for the skeptical crowd as well, and it does this crowd a disservice.

i think based on the sheer number of legitimate scientists studying the anthropogenic link verses the skeptical analysis it is far more common to see scientific research arguing for the link than against it. as a result we see more threads like this one, based on highly questionable material arguing the skeptical view.

do you think the source cited int he OP is a rigorous source worth citing? how would citing this type of source work out for you in school or any academic setting?

Edited sloppy writing. . .

[edit on 10-12-2009 by Animal]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Good post. To support couple points above, this may be a good place to post this link on growing glaciers.

www.iceagenow.com...



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Myth 4 Computer models predict that AGT will increase by up to 60 C over the next 100 years.

Facts 4 Deterministic computer models do. Other equally valid (empirical) computer models predict cooling.


I don't think any computer models predict a 60 degree C increase over any timespan. Do you mean 6.0 degree increase?


[edit on 10/12/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAgentNineteen
 

That's right. And the cranks and shills like Bob Carter cannot deny the undeniable existence of global warming. He is in the tiny minority here - 95-99% of the worlds experts all agree. AGW is here and we need to deal with it.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
Cool opinion piece.


While there is evidence to support what Dr. Bob has to say there is also evidence to the contrary.

I think what the contradictory evidence clearly shows is the need to continue to work to clarify the issue of a human based component to climate change.
...........


If there was such real evidence of the contrary why did scientists like Jones, Mann, et al had to lie, bury the ruth, and use several tatics to keep the truth from being revealed concerning Climate Change?...

The scientists that were caught are the cream of the crop of the AGW proponents, and the IPCC based their OPINIONS on the claims made by these hoaxers/Scammers.

If there was ANY real evidence that Climate Change is being caused by mankind (AGW) then Mann, Jones, et al wouldn't have to hide the truth, and use different tactics, including illegal ones, to keep the truth from getting out.

Even though many of the proponents of AGW keep claiming "the emails are nothing", the truth is quite the oposite. The emails show that there is no real evidence backing AGW.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Animal
Cool opinion piece.


While there is evidence to support what Dr. Bob has to say there is also evidence to the contrary.

I think what the contradictory evidence clearly shows is the need to continue to work to clarify the issue of a human based component to climate change.
...........


If there was such real evidence of the contrary why did scientists like Jones, Mann, et al had to lie, bury the ruth, and use several tatics to keep the truth from being revealed concerning Climate Change?...

The scientists that were caught are the cream of the crop of the AGW proponents, and the IPCC based their OPINIONS on the claims made by these hoaxers/Scammers.

If there was ANY real evidence that Climate Change is being caused by mankind (AGW) then Mann, Jones, et al wouldn't have to hide the truth, and use different tactics, including illegal ones, to keep the truth from getting out.

Even though many of the proponents of AGW keep claiming "the emails are nothing", the truth is quite the oposite. The emails show that there is no real evidence backing AGW.


You might want to hold up on passing judgment before the jury is out electric. I can understand your desire for these accusations to be true, they would defiantly support your camps position, so I don't fault you for your personal wishes on the matter. However to act as if something has been proven is a very slippery slope.

So while there appears to be, as you say, 'real evidence', that is far from proven and is really nothing more than hearsay at the moment.

Once the investigation into what exactly happened it could just as easily be proven that the information presented was all 'cherry picked' and 'taken out of context'.

Only time will tell.

Back to the topic of the OP, do you think that the information presented in the OP is legitimate and reliable? do you feel it does your cause justice?

[edit on 10-12-2009 by Animal]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 

Instead of making grand generalisations about the lies etc contained in the leaked emails, why don't you be specific or like so many of the deniers are you just going to flail about with broad unsubstantiated allegations?



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal

No Red, the above argument is a game intended to try to detract from my point which is focused on the QUALIFICATIONS. Why would I listen to someone who studied veterinary science on the issue of climate change?

I don't know; why wouldn't you?

Science is science. The only difference between the disciplines are the fields in which they specialize. Thus, a climatologist would be more likely to discover something concerning climate, while a veterinarian would be more likely to discover methods of treating a particular disease in animals.

But once the discovery is made, the veterinarian should be able to understand the science behind the climatologists discovery, and the climatologist should be able to understand the science behind the treatment discovered. The only thing that is different is the application of science, not science itself.

My area of expertise is not climate. Instead it is electromagnetic and chemical. Yet, I can read a paper on metallurgy and understand it just fine. The same goes for a paper on meteorology. The same goes for a paper on optics, Relativity, or even quantum mechanics. The same carbon dioxide I use in chemical research occurs with the exact same physical characteristics in climatology. The key to all of these branches is an understanding of the basic principles of physics and mathematics. Everything else is focus, not foundation.

So yes, if a veterinarian explained why a paper on climatology was wrong, it would at least behoove me to investigate his claims before simply dismissing them.


you are entitled to your 'opinion' or 'belief' but why would i take your word over those who are much more 'qualified' to make assumptions?

"Qualified to make assumptions"? Are you serious?

An assumption is the one area of science that no one is 'qualified' to make; yet a part of science is making the correct assumptions. If there is an error, rarely is it in the mathematics of a published article. Instead, it is the assumptions that contain errors in practically all of the cases where errors exist. Newton's Laws of Motion contain an error in that they fail when one approaches the speed of light. The error had nothing to do with Newton's math or reasoning; he assumed that 'everyday' motion was all that existed. He never investigated the problem of light speed constants.

Einstein found the error and developed Relativity. Perhaps someday we will discover that relativity itself contains assumptive errors; perhaps not. But if errors are found, it is irrelevant if the finder works in classical physics, quantum mechanics, optics, or even if he's the janitor at a local factory that had an inspiration.

As for taking my word... don't do it. Research for yourself, thoroughly, with the intent of either proving or disproving present theories. The facts will speak for themselves. But they won't search you out; you have to search them out. That's just the way things work.


why not answer the question directly?

Because it is a moot question.

Consensus means nothing.


#1 yes science searches for 'truths'.
#2 until then the prevailing 'belief' is what is commonly accepted.
#3 the science that the current belief is built upon is checked and verified.

I'll grant that. But who 'checks and verifies' the claims? Those who put them out? Those who work with those who put them out?

No. A theory is checked and verified by the entire scientific community. That includes scientists from any and all disciplines, as well as those who are not even actively working in a branch of science! Never make the mistake of assuming someone doesn't know what they are talking about simply due to their station in life. The greatest minds on the planet are not somehow automatically sequestered into research facilities. Albert Einstein worked as a lowly Patent Clerk for many years.


I can not answer for anyone but myself, and I would say no. I have admitted repeatedly that there is obvious dissent within the scientific community and that there is obviously work left to be done to prove the anthropogenic link as fact. however, i see more evidence to support the anthropogenic link than not. and so i choose to follow the general consensus.

That statement is fair enough. But I ask you, is the evidence you mention overwhelming enough to change the entire societal structure of man for it?

That is what is being attempted in the political circles.


when i question posts such as this, it is because the information presented is weak. do you deny this in the case of this thread and the information presented?

this sadly tends to be the norm for the skeptical crowd as well, and it does this crowd a disservice.

I will grant you that any effort to prove a side of any issue will reflect on those who are also on that side of the issue. But you should remember that this same principle applies to AGW supporters as well. I have seen quite a few laughable attempts on that side. Witness the poster above who claims that carbon dioxide has a wider absorption spectrum than water vapor.


do you think the source cited int he OP is a rigorous source worth citing? how would citing this type of source work out for you in school or any academic setting?

I would cite nothing in a scientific paper without first verifying everything stated. By that I do not mean only how many degrees in what the author has (although I would mention that if applicable), but more the statements he/she has made.

I have not verified the sources in the OP; I have, however, verified many of the claims, and have found those to be sound. In a scientific paper, I would present each claim as the work of someone else; all that has been done here is to correlate data which already existed. Such has merit, especially in the political realm AGW has entered, but is not worthy of scientific recognition outside of that.

Still, the claims have a ring of truth to them.

TheRedneck


[edit on 12/10/2009 by TheRedneck]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Animal

No Red, the above argument is a game intended to try to detract from my point which is focused on the QUALIFICATIONS. Why would I listen to someone who studied veterinary science on the issue of climate change?

I don't know; why wouldn't you?

Science is science. The only difference between the disciplines are the fields in which they specialize. Thus, a climatologist would be more likely to discover something concerning climate, while a veterinarian would be more likely to discover methods of treating a particular disease in animals.

But once the discovery is made, the veterinarian should be able to understand the science behind the climatologists discovery, and the climatologist should be able to understand the science behind the treatment discovered. The only thing that is different is the application of science, not science itself.

So yes, if a veterinarian explained why a paper on climatology was wrong, it would at least behoove me to investigate his claims before simply dismissing them.


Well Red I guess we have less room for open and honest discussion than I thought.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal

Well Red I guess we have less room for open and honest discussion than I thought.

As long as you discount people because of titles without at least listening to claims, perhaps you are correct.

I believe in the inherent intelligence of people; you apparently believe in the inherent intelligence of titles.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Animal

Well Red I guess we have less room for open and honest discussion than I thought.

As long as you discount people because of titles without at least listening to claims, perhaps you are correct.

I believe in the inherent intelligence of people; you apparently believe in the inherent intelligence of titles.

TheRedneck


Redneck you really love your little games.

while I applaud your belief in the merit of the average person, I am saddened that you would assert that anyone should listen to the 'scientific views' of the unqualified in such serious circumstances.

Such assertions and claims is exactly why the 'average person' thinks of the skeptical crowd as fringe and with little or no merit.

You can try to spin this as me being some how daft that I would dismiss someones claims out of hand.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 





while I applaud your belief in the merit of the average person, I am saddened that you would assert that anyone should listen to the 'scientific views' of the unqualified in such serious circumstances.


This statement is typical of the academic arrogance which, unfortunately permeates our colleges and universities. Credentials mean very little. It is the work done by persons and the thought and reason that is important.

Putting a PhD behind a name does nothing to increase the creditability of a person. I knew quite a few PhD's that were one step away from complete ignorance. I call them educated idiots.

People seem to put credence in "peer-reviewed" works. In reality, much of the peer-review papers and research are complete garbage. One of the unfortunate traits of many academics is the inability of them to admit that they don't know everything. As a result, many "intelligent-sounding" papers pass the peer review process, when in fact, they are pure nonsense.
Of course, there is the famous Sokal Affair, but it is far from a singularity:

The Sokal Affair was a famous hoax played by physicist Alan Sokal on the postmodernist humanities academics world. In 1996 Professor Sokal, a physicist at New York University, submitted a deliberately pseudoscientific paper for publication in a post-modernist academic journal of cultural studies. The paper, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity", published in the Spring/Summer 1996 issue of Social Text, was submitted to see if an academic journal would (in Sokal's words) "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions." On the precise day of publication in Social Text, Sokal announced in another journal that the article had, in fact, been a hoax. This caused an academic scandal, both at Duke University (where Social Text is published) and for Sokal himself, as charges of unethical behaviour were levelled.


Of course, the last line should be quite familiar to many. Barbara Boxer has called for prosecution of the "hackers" of the famous cliategate emails.
Likewise, when ACORN was caught red-handed engaging in fraud, the liberal left called for the two young journalists to be prosecuted for secretly taping the ACORN criminals. Of course, this is merely another case of shoot the messenger.
Editors of journals have agendas, and tend to lob softballs to papers that favor their bent, while crucifying those that don't.
I've posted so many threads discussing in detail what I have seen from the inside of the process.

Does lack of peer review mean that we should not trust the research?
Well, let's let Albert Einstein's track record set that straight:


How many of Einstein’s 300 plus papers were peer reviewed? According to the physicist and historian of science Daniel Kennefick, it may well be that only a single paper of Einstein’s was ever subject to peer review.

michaelnielsen.org...

The above cited link also discusses three myths concerning peer review:

Myth number 1: Scientists have always used peer review
Myth number 2: peer review is reliable
Myth: Peer review is the way we determine what’s right and wrong in science



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


a bit off topic no?

i said nothing about phds or peer review. i was talking about people with no qualifications making statements of fact without anything to back them up.

but of course the typical talking points to defend the lacking science and credibility on the side of the skeptics will have to do, wont it doc?



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 





i was talking about people with no qualifications making statements of fact without anything to back them up.

So do YOU get to define who is qualified and who isn't? Let's hear YOUR definition of qualifications.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal

You can try to spin this as me being some how daft that I would dismiss someones claims out of hand.

Is that not exactly what you do? Do you not immediately disqualify anyone's assertions on claims made by the IPCC/CRU as being 'not worthy of consideration', 'unqualified', or some other equally insulting excuse?

You don't have to answer that. I think your posting history will answer that question just fine.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Yes, casting ad hominem attacks is the standard way of defending a position when you can't argue the facts at hand. It is also part of the "groupthink" that so pervades the GW crowd.

I would love to see a thread where people can actually argue the points of science. What would be nice is to see someone show the facts, but to back it up with actual data that is verifiable from unbiased sources. Like people love to quote the data from NOA, but who has actually put links to data that is verifiable?

Also, it would be good to see a list of good scientific papers that are well footnoted. These papers should be circulating the Internet, instead of all this "I said/you said/he said" stuff.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


By the way... here is a funny video made by a friend of mine... it says it pretty much how it it, and in a creative way I think:






new topics

top topics



 
86
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join