Global Warming.

[ImprobableJoe]

The problem is, you do not have the expertise to tell if research is being skewed. You can be easily mislead, as is shown by your beliefs on 9/11, etc. Reading the studies isn't going to do anything for you.

How about trusting the 96% of scientists that both DO know what they are talking about and DO NOT seem to have agendas vs trusting the 4% of scientists who may be mistaken, have misinterpreted results, or have ulterior motives? We aren't talking about a lot of informed people disagreeing here, we are talking about a 25:1 ratio. The same ratio you find in many scientific endeavors - there will always be people that disagree. You shouldn't let them influence you to make bets about the future of life as we know it on this planet.

Yeah... the fact that there are tens of thousands of scientists at the top of their field who agree, and a few hundred people who aren't even all experts and who are paid for their viewpoints who oppose real scientists.... shouldn't that tell everyone something.

Hey, here's a crazy idea: HOW ABOUT SOMEONE ADDRESS THE FACT THAT EVEN THE ANTI-GLOBAL WARMING IDIOTS KNEW THAT GLOBAL WARMING WAS REAL AND CAUSED BY HUMANS?!?!

I posted a link... the anti-reality cultist IamtheVOICE123 ignored that his own lying sources were CAUGHT lying... maybe because he doesn't give even a quarter-fuck about truth or integrity, let alone science and reality.

 

[IamtheVOICE123]

The problem is, you do not have the expertise to tell if research is being skewed. You can be easily mislead, as is shown by your beliefs on 9/11, etc. Reading the studies isn't going to do anything for you.

How about trusting the 96% of scientists that both DO know what they are talking about and DO NOT seem to have agendas vs trusting the 4% of scientists who may be mistaken, have misinterpreted results, or have ulterior motives? We aren't talking about a lot of informed people disagreeing here, we are talking about a 25:1 ratio. The same ratio you find in many scientific endeavors - there will always be people that disagree. You shouldn't let them influence you to make bets about the future of life as we know it on this planet.

Trusting authorities on a particular science without listening to the other side is dangerous really. If everyone thought like that, we would still be living in theDark Ages (thank the none existent god I wasn't born during that age). People should be skeptic of everything they read and hear and research it all. Also a majority didn't wanna agree that WW1 and WW2 along with Vietnam were staged War's for invested interests; but later years they were found to be false flagged and corporate interest wars. People who didn't believe in the war or make such accusations were considered communists, socialists, and now we have terrorists and conspiracy theorists.

Money and threats can be used to silence people, it always has. But at any case, I look through books that detail things, I talk to engineers and building experts about this.

 

[orpiment99]

You obviously have some serious trust issues with the government - that's fine. But maybe you should ALSO be seriously mistrustful of the companies that stand to lose billions and billions of dollars that are trying to fund research, especially when we find out that they have suppressed unfavorable results. To believe that side of an argument, even if there are a couple unbiased scientists on that side, is beyond foolish.

The part that sells me is the preponderance of articles that conclude anthropogenic effects on climate change. If it really was that much in doubt we would see a higher incidence of dissent. It is just not there and you can't tell me that there isn't funding available to research how it isn't anthropogenic.

On the 24:1 ratio, that seems to be about the same number of "geologists" who believe in Noah's Ark.

Hey, here's a crazy idea: HOW ABOUT SOMEONE ADDRESS THE FACT THAT EVEN THE ANTI-GLOBAL WARMING IDIOTS KNEW THAT GLOBAL WARMING WAS REAL AND CAUSED BY HUMANS?!?!

:lol: I'll have to scroll for your link. That sounds too good to pass up.

ETA: I can't believe I missed your link. That was absolutely hilarious.

People should be skeptic of everything they read and hear and research it all.

Yes, but on a subject which I am not an expert (like this one), I trust the scientists in that field to know more about it than I do. And if 90% of them have an opinion backed by evidence, I believe them.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

:lol: I'll have to scroll for your link. That sounds too good to pass up.

ETA: I can't believe I missed your link. That was absolutely hilarious.

Notice how the present global warming/reality denialist continues to ignore the truth that some of his sources are lying to him? He does that on every thread where he spews debunked nonsensical ideas, while dishonestly claiming to have "examined evidence."

 

[IamtheVOICE123]

Yes, but on a subject which I am not an expert (like this one), I trust the scientists in that field to know more about it than I do. And if 90% of them have an opinion backed by evidence, I believe them.

I am not one to believe that because the majority of scientists that believe it to be true it must be true. Because I always remember that the majority of ancient scholar's believed the world to be flat and so forth. If the appeal to authority is not brought into the argument then it is a valid argument, but if the appeal to authority is brought in; the point of that is invalid unless you couple it with why it is valid and present the evidence for it to.

 

[IamtheVOICE123]

Notice how the present global warming/reality denialist continues to ignore the truth that some of his sources are lying to him? He does that on every thread where he spews debunked nonsensical ideas, while dishonestly claiming to have "examined evidence."

Please show me where my sources have been debunked because I cannot find the link.

 

[Ozymandyus]

I am a complete skeptic about Everything. I just know who to trust if I am not educated enough to be fully informed on the matter. On this matter, I am borderline well educated enough and I am nearly certain from what I have read that we are contributing dangerously to global warming. In ADDITION, I have 96% of climatologists that agree with me.

The people that presented global warming WERE skeptics. People thought it was mostly safe to pump however much CO2 into the air, until the greenhouse effect was proposed. Same with the people who presented the CFC degradation of the Ozone. They were met with skepticism, and the big invested interests like Dupont continued to pump out CFCs that seriously damaged our Ozone layer. Skepticism IS science. SCIENCE does all the work of presenting evidence and validating it, and an OVERWHELMING percentage of scientists agree. Science has come to a consensus on this topic. A few crackpots that disagree don't change that consensus.

I understand that you've been abused and it makes you distrust authority, but it doesn't mean that everyone who ISN'T an authority is right.
Edit: From here on out I will post a link to a peer-reviewed scientific study every time you say anything, until you realize that all the evidence is in favor of man-assisted global warming.

 

[IamtheVOICE123]

Notice how the present global warming/reality denialist continues to ignore the truth that some of his sources are lying to him? He does that on every thread where he spews debunked nonsensical ideas, while dishonestly claiming to have "examined evidence."

Ah I see where your getting these ideas; I never even cited AGW in anything. But as is stated, I will look further into this AGW thing and figure out where it originally comes from.

However I never cited those people, try looking more towards the names I gave because the people that are mentioned their are not on the list.

 

[orpiment99]

Notice how the present global warming/reality denialist continues to ignore the truth that some of his sources are lying to him? He does that on every thread where he spews debunked nonsensical ideas, while dishonestly claiming to have "examined evidence."

I don't like admitting the anthropogenic part of it. 2/5 of my future employability is in petroleum. But the evidence is too strong to do otherwise. There must be some reason that people don't want to believe it. Then again, I don't understand how any geologist can state that fossils prove Noah's flood, either.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Ah I see where your getting these ideas; I never even cited AGW in anything. But as is stated, I will look further into this AGW thing and figure out where it originally comes from.

However I never cited those people, try looking more towards the names I gave because the people that are mentioned their are not on the list.

You never looked into THE FUCKING SUBJECT YOU'VE BEEN POSTING FALSE NONSENSE ON?!?!

No wonder you have zero clue what you're talking about... you haven't actually looked into it, and therefore have only been being a complete liar about knowing the first thing about it. Yeah, I guess I would be as wrong as you if I had never read the first thing about the topic I was talking about.

Tell me something: why shouldn't I start mocking you to the point that I'm sure I would be banned from this site, when you state outright that you have NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT YOU'RE talking about? To be 100% fair, if English isn't a first language for you, we can blame communication problems for your apparent total fail. If you have some sort of autism or ADD or other mental defect, then you have a completely valid reason for posting in a way that is confusing. I'm trying really damned hard to find some sort of excuse for your posts. Help me out here.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I don't like admitting the anthropogenic part of it. 2/5 of my future employability is in petroleum. But the evidence is too strong to do otherwise. There must be some reason that people don't want to believe it. Then again, I don't understand how any geologist can state that fossils prove Noah's flood, either.

I know the feeling... I'm a former Marine, and every time some member of the military is accused of a war crime in Iraq or Afghanistan, I really hope that the charges are false. Sometimes, you just have to put your wishes aside, and face reality as it is.

 

[IamtheVOICE123]

You never looked into THE FUCKING SUBJECT YOU'VE BEEN POSTING FALSE NONSENSE ON?!?!

No wonder you have zero clue what you're talking about... you haven't actually looked into it, and therefore have only been being a complete liar about knowing the first thing about it. Yeah, I guess I would be as wrong as you if I had never read the first thing about the topic I was talking about.

Tell me something: why shouldn't I start mocking you to the point that I'm sure I would be banned from this site, when you state outright that you have NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT YOU'RE talking about? To be 100% fair, if English isn't a first language for you, we can blame communication problems for your apparent total fail. If you have some sort of autism or ADD or other mental defect, then you have a completely valid reason for posting in a way that is confusing. I'm trying really damned hard to find some sort of excuse for your posts. Help me out here.

No I just looked at it and these are not the people I sourced nor the people I looked into. I don't even remember seeing their names. And how do you explain Dr, Roy Spencer, Professor Philip Scott, along with Ian Clark who do not agree with the whole Global Warming issue along with others that are respected members in the scientific community. Just because a majority agree on a subject does not make it a valid argument. Also why are you being hostile about something that began with a post on The Venus Project? I mean seriously, the only time I was ever hostile to you was the last time I replied to on that subject. Ridicule is never needed unless the person makes so many ridiculous claims that can be debunked wtih ease. So far what I have stated was just taken misqoutes from this subject. It is a fact that Sun Spots influence Global Warming and is the main factor of it.

It's even stated by Nigel Calder and even by this one waether analysis which was famous for predicting the the weather through measurements of heat made by Sun Spots (The name escapes me atm).

You should really keep ridicule and hostility out of the debate, as this is how environmentalists seem to act on any subject they deam that doesn't agree with their fixed world view.

 

[Aught3]

Ridicule is never needed unless the person makes so many ridiculous claims that can be debunked wtih ease.

Your terms are acceptable :twisted:

 

[orpiment99]

In a search of articles attributed to Dr Roy Spencer, Philip Scott, and Ian Clark, the only one with recent publications is Roy Spencer. He published a book, for one. He also gave a talk, from which the following abstract is taken. It also includes his affiliations.

Roy W. Spencer1

(1) Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama in Huntsville, 301 Sparkman Drive, Huntsville, AL 35805, USA

Published online: 3 August 2007

Abstract Despite the media's and politicians' insistence that the science of global warming is "settled", there are good reasons to distrust climate model projections of future global warming. While the supposed scientific consensus is that mankind is very likely to blame for recent global warmth, this is mostly a statement of faith made from a position of relative ignorance about natural variability in the climate system. Since we do not understand what causes decadal- to century-scale natural climate variability, it has simply been assumed to either not exist, or to be relatively small. But even if predictions of catastrophic warming are accurate, the worldwide demand for energy is so large that there is little mankind can do without radically new energy technologies. Since it is only the wealthy countries of the world that can afford the R&D efforts to develop those technologies, punishing the use of fossil fuels, and the resulting negative impact on economies, might well delay the development of cost effective carbon-free energy sources that so many people are now calling for.
Keywords Global warming - Greenhouse effect - Climate




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Roy W. Spencer
Email: roy.spencer@nsstc.uah.edu

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roy W. Spencer, PhD is Principal Research Scientist at the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville. This publication is an expanded version of his lecture presented on April 19, 2006 at Lindenwood University in St. Charles, Missouri. The lecture was co-hosted by the Institute for Study of Economics and the Environment and the Division of Management. The views expressed are those of the author.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/264305gp9476628x/

Institute for Study of Economics and the Environment is associated with Lindenwood University, the site for which is here:
http://www.lindenwood.edu/about/

And the president of which sits on this board:
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/about/board-of-advisors/

And I mention this last, because it is Greenpeace, but the information appears valid, and they have recieved money from this:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=129

ETA: I forgot one. No online abstract of this exists, but I think the title speaks for itself:
A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Response to Global Warming
EC Beisner, PK Driessen, R McKitrick, RW Spencer - Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, 2006
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=related:6H0-WFbIOF0J:scholar.google.com/

Seems to me that Dr Spencer has an agenda.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Seems to me that Dr Spencer has an agenda.

They always do, when you follow the money.

 

[IamtheVOICE123]

They always do, when you follow the money.

Every form of science that has funding must have an agenda then (according to your logic).

 

[PuppetXeno]

Ok, here's my take on the problem.

The Climate System is a chaotic system, and by definition, is unpredictable.

But this doesn't mean it is entirely unpredictable, as this link explains.

The point is, in the model - how big is the wedge, how big is our influence exactly?

I'm not denying or trying to refute that our GHG output influences the climate system, that is undeniably true and that is really what the consensus says. What the consensus doesn't say is what % of the astonishing 0.6 degrees celsius of warming we've seen in a century is due to human contribution. In a chaotic system, you can't even link a percentage of contribution to small changes because the entire dynamics of the system change. That doesn't mean "for better or worse", it just changes. Just like a massive volcanic eruption changes the dynamics. But a volcanic eruption is a short-lived event, while our GHG output is a steady factor (and the GHG concentration gradually increases).

Also, the idea of a positive feedback effect or "the bucket may overflow" ... is doomsaying. There is no indication that a drastic change may suddenly occur, that is not even what the IPCC assessments indicate. Even if there is a bucket, what's to say about it overflowing anytime soon? It may very well take another few centuries even if we don't do anything at all.

Also, talk about mass extinctions and and violent hurricanes and diseases spreading to all corners of the world... all that crap is doomsaying apocalyptic nonsense. Nothing we can't handle. Rather I look at it from a positive side: warmer summers (where are they anyway? apart from 2005 it's been so-so)

And then there's geo-engineering. Yes, work is being done in that field. Various methods under investigation - I'm putting my bet on filtering our addition of CO2 out of the atmosphere to bring it back to pre-industrial levels. As long as the process is reversible, because fluctuations in CO2 levels have a natural origin, and we don't want to overshoot the goal.

 

[Spase]

Every form of science that has funding must have an agenda then (according to your logic).

Not every funding agency has an agenda in the political sense. In fact the majority of research is done with government grants which are allocated by scientists in the fields the grants are going to. True story.

Labs funded by industry that are doing non-marketable research are very suspect. Corporations put money where they think they'll see a return whether it be on propaganda or on product development. If a product isn't being developed you have to ask yourself why the funding is there. It's not like grants just get thrown at labs to do whatever they want... funding is very competitive and if your idea isn't promising you don't get the money.

If I'm wrong about industry funded labs someone feel free to correct me with examples.. but that's been my experience.

 

[IamtheVOICE123]

Not every funding agency has an agenda in the political sense. In fact the majority of research is done with government grants which are allocated by scientists in the fields the grants are going to. True story.

Labs funded by industry that are doing non-marketable research are very suspect. Corporations put money where they think they'll see a return whether it be on propaganda or on product development. If a product isn't being developed you have to ask yourself why the funding is there. It's not like grants just get thrown at labs to do whatever they want... funding is very competitive and if your idea isn't promising you don't get the money.

If I'm wrong about industry funded labs someone feel free to correct me with examples.. but that's been my experience.

No you're correct, I was just pointing out the logical fallacy of ImporabableJoe's form of logic.

 

[orpiment99]

Also, the idea of a positive feedback effect or "the bucket may overflow" ... is doomsaying. There is no indication that a drastic change may suddenly occur, that is not even what the IPCC assessments indicate. Even if there is a bucket, what's to say about it overflowing anytime soon? It may very well take another few centuries even if we don't do anything at all.
.

I mainly used that analogy to indicate that it is possible that humans could unbalance the system. I certainly didn't mean to imply that we would. And, as I said previously, we are recovering from an ice age. Even if we weren't doing anything, it would be safe to assume that the climate would be warming.