NationStates Jolt Archive

Funny how so many of these rallies get planned for such inappropriate weather. It might be enough to cast doubt on the whole scam, mightn't it? As the Grand Rapids Press reports (http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ssf?/base/news-35/1176475579151600.xml&coll=6), "The weather forecast for Saturday's global warming rallies in Grand Rapids and Holland calls for snow and cold rain and temperatures in the 40s -- about 10 degrees below normal.

For some, this might make global warming a tough sell."

Now back to the point of the whole thing. The group that is planning the rally wants an environmentally conscious nation like the United States to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050. Okay, that seems reasonable, it might even get some attention. The problem is that these people are excluding the major offenders from any targets.

I read this about China, "China's massive Yangtze river, a lifeline for tens of millions of people, is seriously polluted and the damage is almost irreversible, a state-run newspaper said Monday." If a nation can completely ruin the Yangtze river, what do you suppose they are doing to the air? Are they worried about how many tons of CO2 are emitted every year? Do you suppose they are going to reduce their emissions by 80% before 2050? How about 1%? I doubt it.

If one is arrogant enough to believe that CO2 emissions are causing this cyclic temperature rise, then why aren't they picking on the worst offenders?

I've got two suggestions for the organizers at the West Michigan Environmental Action Council. First, pick a hot, dry day in June or July for your rally and second, don't waste your efforts where they aren't needed.

It might be enough to cast doubt on the whole scam, mightn't it?

Only if you're an idiot.

You should probably seek to understand the science behind a subject before you make a pathetic attempt to debunk it.

You should probably seek to understand the science behind a subject before you make a pathetic attempt to debunk it.

He's not interested in the science. For him this is a political issue, not a scientific one.

All I can say is: lol

Funny how the skeptics suddenly stop chanting "weather is not climate" when the weather seems to be on their side, isn't it? :rolleyes:

For those with short attention spans, here's a very brief summary: Storms are driven by heat. Even snowstorms.

they don't mean Holland in the Netherlands don't they?:confused:

If one is arrogant enough to believe that CO2 emissions are causing this cyclic temperature rise, then why aren't they picking on the worst offenders?

If one is arrogant enough to believe that one knows better than scientists who are expert in their fields, then why don't they at least check their facts and discover that the US is a bigger polluter than China.

I just thought I'd take the opportunity to point out the similarity in method between Global warming denial and other stupid positions:

Holocaust deniers pick on one isolated mistake in scholarship (such as the 'Jews being made into soap' rumour) which later turned out to be false and act as if this invalidates the entirety of the evidence.

Young Earth Creationists pick on one isolated mistake in scholarship (such as the Haeckel Embryo drawings) which later turned out to be false and act as if this invalidates the entirety of the evidence.

Global Warming deniers pick on one isolated piece of evidence which doesn't even contradict Global Warming and act as if this invalidates the entirety of the evidence.

Yes, it's true: Global Warming deniers are even less credible than Holocaust deniers and YECs.

If one is arrogant enough to believe that one knows better than scientists who are expert in their fields, then why don't they at least check their facts and discover that the US is a bigger polluter than China.

Let's ask a prominent scientist! First, his qualifications:

Professor Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability. His research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity. He has made major contributions to the development of the current theory for the Hadley Circulation, which dominates the atmospheric transport of heat and momentum from the tropics to higher latitudes, and has advanced the understanding of the role of small scale gravity waves in producing the reversal of global temperature gradients at the mesopause. He pioneered the study of how ozone photochemistry, radiative transfer and dynamics interact with each other. He is currently studying the ways in which unstable eddies determine the pole to equator temperature difference, and the nonlinear equilibration of baroclinic instability and the contribution of such instabilities to global heat transport. He has also been developing a new approach to air-sea interaction in the tropics, and is actively involved in parameterizing the role of cumulus convection in heating and drying the atmosphere. He has developed models for the Earth's climate with specific concern for the stability of the ice caps, the sensitivity to increases in CO2, the origin of the 100,000 year cycle in glaciation, and the maintenance of regional variations in climate. In cooperation with colleagues and students, he is developing a sophisticated, but computationally simple, climate model to test whether the proper treatment of cumulus convection will significantly reduce climate sensitivity to the increase of greenhouse gases. Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, and AGU's Macelwane Medal. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, and a Fellow of the AAAS1. He is a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Ph.D., '64, S.M., '61, A.B., '60, Harvard University)

Taken any money from oil companies?
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/

He said he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from fossil- fuel types in the 1990s, and has taken none of their money since.

Mr. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

Ah, he gets government money and foundation grants from the Alfred P. Sloan foundation.

So no oil companies pay for his research.

Worth reading: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html

It's got cogent arguments in it. Maybe you should try to analyse his arguments instead of immediately dismissing him as an uneducated non-scientist who shills for oil companies (I guess he's not any of those).

And then there's this:

There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.

So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.

All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.

Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.

ah, jeez, not this retarded shit again.

Didn't we beat you senseless last time you decided to bring something that was essentially the same thing up?

And didn't you learn anything?

And somehow you keep doing it?

Are you a sado-masochist?

Really, that's the only possible rational answer for this.

Didn't we beat you senseless last time you decided to bring something that was essentially the same thing up?

And didn't you learn anything?

And somehow you keep doing it?

Are you a sado-masochist?

Really, that's the only possible rational answer for this.

O RLY?

First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

Sure, there's warming. Sure, CO2 will contribute to future warming. But the climate models that predict the temperature rises to come are less reliable than the ones that predict how many hurricanes we'll get in a season.

And there's more data for the hurricane models to run on...

Young Earth Creationists pick on one isolated mistake in scholarship (such as the Haeckel Embryo drawings) which later turned out to be false and act as if this invalidates the entirety of the evidence.


Don't even get me started on those people. On another forum I was in a discussion that lasted several weeks, purely because the moron was arguing semantics. Not actually attacking data, just twisting words around. The bulk of it was based around abiogenesis, and how it is not an integral part of evolution. He said it was, because the "Origin of Species" states in it's title "Origin", thus deducing that it HAD to describe how life began.

That was possibly the most masochistic discussion I have been in. Painful towards the end.

Let's ask a prominent scientist! First, his qualifications:

Are you suggesting that the OP is really Prof. Lindzen? If not, then I fail to see the relevance of this extended post; there is a very clear consensus among the scientific community and the existence of one or two dissenters does not alter that fact.

It's got cogent arguments in it. Maybe you should try to analyse his arguments instead of immediately dismissing him as an uneducated non-scientist who shills for oil companies (I guess he's not any of those).

Only two of those paragraphs seem to contain any actual arguments, the rest looks like fairly standard paranoid ramblings. A quick Google search reveals several sites (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lindzen-point-by-point/) purporting to refute his claims; I'm no meteorologist, I've got no way of telling which of them is right. As a layman, my only option is to accept the position taken by the majority of experts until the consensus shifts.

-snip-

Oh, and an article published by a Libertarian think-tank is hardly comparable to one which is published in a scientific journal after undergoing peer-review.

O RLY?



Sure, there's warming. Sure, CO2 will contribute to future warming. But the climate models that predict the temperature rises to come are less reliable than the ones that predict how many hurricanes we'll get in a season.

And there's more data for the hurricane models to run on...

Alright, here's the thing:

Myrmi pretty much completely denies Global Warming is happening. I am willing to admit that Man's affect on it is not as large as the "OMG! We're all gonna die!" types, however we do have an affect upon it. 100 years of ever increasing CO2 emissions will do that. Obviously, it's not going to be world ending. However, it will have large effects upon the world we live in, especially within the farming sector. Will cause the collapse of civilization as we know it? No. There are other, more devastating things that will happen in the near future that can do that(Geomagnetic Pole Reversal ftw!). But if we are not extremely careful, we could be caught with our pants down, so to speak.

If one is arrogant enough to believe that CO2 emissions are causing this cyclic temperature rise, then why aren't they picking on the worst offenders?

are you ever right about anything?

Oh, and an article published by a Libertarian think-tank is hardly comparable to one which is published in a scientific journal after undergoing peer-review.

The good professor has been published in scientific journals. Try again?

I'm sorry but it has not been proven that man has played any part in global climate change. And if we have, it has yet to be proven that this effect will be negative.

The IPCC is the most influential group of terrorists in the world.

Honestly, get over yourself.

"Global warming" is just left wing propaganda.

Note to Climate Change Deniers:

The argument is over. You lost. Feel free to complain and/or bash your head against a wall. Good-day.

To address the controversy over China as a major source of pollution, read up on the Kyoto Protocol and objections made by such states which insist in order to develop, they need to advance industry. Unfortunatly the biproduct of development is pollution.

In addition, I seriously doubt enviromentalists of their own accord could gain access to mainland China in order to criticize the industry which is driving its advancement currently. If a change is to be made, it would be at the state level or within the United Nations.

Let's ask a prominent scientist! First, his qualifications:



Taken any money from oil companies?
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/



Mr. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

Ah, he gets government money and foundation grants from the Alfred P. Sloan foundation.

So no oil companies pay for his research.

Worth reading: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html

It's got cogent arguments in it. Maybe you should try to analyse his arguments instead of immediately dismissing him as an uneducated non-scientist who shills for oil companies (I guess he's not any of those).

And then there's this:

You mean *gasp* CATO actually presents articles that support their premise? No way!!

What peer-reviewed publication has this scientist presented evidence in?

He's not interested in the science. For him this is a political issue, not a scientific one.

This is a political issue. The main proponents of "Global Warming" have been AL Gore and the UN. Subsidising the corn industry, penalizing power plants and assigning "carbon points" to major manufacturing industries is only the government finding new ways to control the econommy. The science behind global climate change is weak and unproven.

This is a political issue. The main proponents of "Global Warming" have been...
...climate scientists who published every peer-reviewed paper on the subject in the last 12 years.


(except for a few papers that were so retardedly bad that the rebuttal to one of them (http://www.springerlink.com/content/36w570322514n204/) published immediately afterwards in the same journal actually said,

"It is astonishing that the paper of Khilyuk and Chilingar (2006) (as well as Khilyuk and Chilingar 2004, for that matter) could pass the review process of a seemingly serious journal such as Environmental Geology. Such failures of this process, which is supposed to guarantee the quality of published literature, are likely to damage the reputation of this journal.")

The good professor has been published in scientific journals. Try again?

Yet you didn't present them. This is an opinion piece that was actually debunked by his peers.

Meanwhile, he says things that are so far from true, that one can no longer find him credible.

The funding for the dissenting opinion has dried up? Really? Can he really attempt to argue that no one would fund research that would result in their be no emissions caps? In what country? Because he's not talking about any country in the west.

You mean *gasp* CATO actually presents articles that support their premise? No way!!

What peer-reviewed publication has this scientist presented evidence in?

Maybe you should read the qualifications I posted for him.

Next thing you'll try to say is that he isn't degreed, isn't a tenured professor, and doesn't work at MIT...

Global Warming deniers pick on one isolated piece of evidence which doesn't even contradict Global Warming and act as if this invalidates the entirety of the evidence.


Assuming you are actually talking about people who don't believe man contribute to global warming, it is retarded to claim they say this based on one post from one user.

This is a political issue. The main proponents of "Global Warming" have been AL Gore and the UN. Subsidising the corn industry, penalizing power plants and assigning "carbon points" to major manufacturing industries is only the government finding new ways to control the econommy. The science behind global climate change is weak and unproven.

Well, hey, with this mountain of evidence behind you, how can we possibly argue? You managed to not present on real argument.

You know, it's interesting that although it's called a Law of Gravity, I can find no legal document anywhere which even MENTIONS gravity. If these tree-hugging liberal "gravity" supporters want us to believe their scaremongering nonsense they could do it in a more credible fashion!

Maybe you should read the qualifications I posted for him.

Next thing you'll try to say is that he isn't degreed, isn't a tenured professor, and doesn't work at MIT...

Who cares if he has a degree, is tenured and works at MIT. In science, it's not your credentials that count, but your work. Here you presented an opinion piece contain blatant lies. Lies that can be proven wrong without science. Deny all you like, but there are a mountain of companies willing to fund any research that would stop emissions caps. His article claims otherwise. That makes him a liar.

Now, if you'd like to present his SCIENCE instead of his rather flawed opinion, I'd be interested in seeing the science that supports his conclusions. You don't seem to wish to do so.

Meanwhile, why do you keep creating puppets and acting like we don't know? It's just silly.

Lindzen's publications:
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/PublicationsRSL.html

Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences

Professor Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability. His research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity. He has made major contributions to the development of the current theory for the Hadley Circulation, which dominates the atmospheric transport of heat and momentum from the tropics to higher latitudes, and has advanced the understanding of the role of small scale gravity waves in producing the reversal of global temperature gradients at the mesopause. He pioneered the study of how ozone photochemistry, radiative transfer and dynamics interact with each other. He is currently studying the ways in which unstable eddies determine the pole to equator temperature difference, and the nonlinear equilibration of baroclinic instability and the contribution of such instabilities to global heat transport. He has also been developing a new approach to air-sea interaction in the tropics, and is actively involved in parameterizing the role of cumulus convection in heating and drying the atmosphere. He has developed models for the Earth's climate with specific concern for the stability of the ice caps, the sensitivity to increases in CO2, the origin of the 100,000 year cycle in glaciation, and the maintenance of regional variations in climate. In cooperation with colleagues and students, he is developing a sophisticated, but computationally simple, climate model to test whether the proper treatment of cumulus convection will significantly reduce climate sensitivity to the increase of greenhouse gases. Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, and AGU's Macelwane Medal. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, and a Fellow of the AAAS1. He is a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Ph.D., '64, S.M., '61, A.B., '60, Harvard University)

I guess he's good enough for NASA to do Global Modeling and Simulation...

You know, it's interesting that although it's called a Law of Gravity, I can find no legal document anywhere which even MENTIONS gravity. If these tree-hugging liberal "gravity" supporters want us to believe their scaremongering nonsense they could do it in a more credible fashion!

How are you floating like that?

Lindzen's publications:
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/PublicationsRSL.html

Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences

Professor Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability. His research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity. He has made major contributions to the development of the current theory for the Hadley Circulation, which dominates the atmospheric transport of heat and momentum from the tropics to higher latitudes, and has advanced the understanding of the role of small scale gravity waves in producing the reversal of global temperature gradients at the mesopause. He pioneered the study of how ozone photochemistry, radiative transfer and dynamics interact with each other. He is currently studying the ways in which unstable eddies determine the pole to equator temperature difference, and the nonlinear equilibration of baroclinic instability and the contribution of such instabilities to global heat transport. He has also been developing a new approach to air-sea interaction in the tropics, and is actively involved in parameterizing the role of cumulus convection in heating and drying the atmosphere. He has developed models for the Earth's climate with specific concern for the stability of the ice caps, the sensitivity to increases in CO2, the origin of the 100,000 year cycle in glaciation, and the maintenance of regional variations in climate. In cooperation with colleagues and students, he is developing a sophisticated, but computationally simple, climate model to test whether the proper treatment of cumulus convection will significantly reduce climate sensitivity to the increase of greenhouse gases. Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, and AGU's Macelwane Medal. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, and a Fellow of the AAAS1. He is a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Ph.D., '64, S.M., '61, A.B., '60, Harvard University)

I guess he's good enough for NASA to do Global Modeling and Simulation...

Which one presents the conclusion of his Op Ed piece? You see it's not his credentials at question here. I don't know what's complicated for you. Present the specific article where he presents the science and the conclusion he is claiming. A peer-reviewed source or it's not a scientific paper. I'll wait.

Well, hey, with this mountain of evidence behind you, how can we possibly argue? You managed to not present on real argument.

But there isn't mountains of evidence, there really isn't. The only thing you have is the majority of scientists, but no scientist actually knows for sure, thats why it takes super computers to actually predict what will happen this next century. Sometimes these super computers predict that there will be no negative effects at all, so it really isn't settled.

Which one presents the conclusion of his Op Ed piece? You see it's not his credentials at question here. I don't know what's complicated for you. Present the specific article where he presents the science and the conclusion he is claiming. A peer-reviewed source or it's not a scientific paper. I'll wait.

How about this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#IPCC_Policymakers_Summary_criticism

And note his criticism.

You can tell that they were unwilling to truly address the uncertainties.

How are you floating like that?

I'm just saying that if there IS any gravity, it's not enough to be concerned about. And that large masses have only a small role, if any, to play in it.

I'm just saying that if there IS any gravity, it's not enough to be concerned about. And that large masses have only a small role, if any, to play in it.

Well, since you don't agree with it, then there is no concensus and we need to stop teaching it in schools. Stupid liberal scientists with their requirements for review before they buy someone's OPINION.

I'm just saying that if there IS any gravity, it's not enough to be concerned about. And that large masses have only a small role, if any, to play in it.

And all I'm saying is that it is unnerving the way you are floating around like that. Stop it.

OMG! The temperature went below 273°K! Global warming is a hoax!

.
.
.

I question whether anyone actually believes shit like this.
I suspect that the vast majority of the people that shovel it are fully aware of what it really is.
[/cautious optimism]

And all I'm saying is that it is unnerving the way you are floating around like that. Stop it.

I'm sorry. :(

But you should float too. Don't be constrained by the liberal media's brainwashing. YOU ARE NOT ANCHORED TO THE PLANET BY SOME UNSEEN FORCE.

I'm not saying we shouldn't teach it in schools. We should just remember to teach all viable alternatives as well. Intelligent Warming!

Gee, there's no room for people who think that there IS warming, and CO2 IS a factor, but that man is NOT the only factor.

I'm not saying we shouldn't teach it in schools. We should just remember to teach all viable alternatives as well. Intelligent Warming!

I think you mean Intelligent Attraction. I often feel the hand of God anchoring me to the planet. Particularly right after I eat a big steak or have too much liquor to drink. After the drinking bit, God also spins the planet around me just to be mean.

EDIT: Sorry, replace "God" with an intelligent force. Honestly, I think it's funny that people keep thinking that we are all going to be as ignorant of the methods of science as they are. Science requires you to put your WORK up for review. Not your opinion, your work. It requires a falsifiable hypothesis and evidence showing you've tested that hypothesis. It requires that the hypothesis account for any related and available evidence. Science doesn't care if your name is Einstein or Bucky the local mechanic. All that matters is whether your work is supported and scientific and stands up to review.

Well, since you don't agree with it, then there is no concensus and we need to stop teaching it in schools. Stupid liberal scientists with their requirements for review before they buy someone's OPINION.

I'm not saying we shouldn't teach it in schools. We should just remember to teach all viable alternatives as well. Intelligent Warming!

I'm sorry. :(

But you should float too. Don't be constrained by the liberal media's brainwashing. YOU ARE NOT ANCHORED TO THE PLANET BY SOME UNSEEN FORCE.

*floats upward*

Co2 is good for me. Co2 is good for me. Co2 is good for me.

The problem is that these people are excluding the major offenders from any targets.

I read this about China, "China's massive Yangtze river, a lifeline for tens of millions of people, is seriously polluted and the damage is almost irreversible, a state-run newspaper said Monday." If a nation can completely ruin the Yangtze river, what do you suppose they are doing to the air? Are they worried about how many tons of CO2 are emitted every year? Do you suppose they are going to reduce their emissions by 80% before 2050? How about 1%? I doubt it.
"I know you're trained in corn-shucking, so why don't you go peel all those potatoes. They are kind of alike.. sort of.."

Evil forum.

Gee, there's no room for people who think that there IS warming, and CO2 IS a factor, but that man is NOT the only factor.

not unless they can present a plausible mechanism and some damn good evidence that that mechanism is actually in play currently

How about this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#IPCC_Policymakers_Summary_criticism

And note his criticism.

You can tell that they were unwilling to truly address the uncertainties.

Let me help you out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming <--- There's a whole bunch of scientists who are also wrong.

I've been doing some reading lately on paleoclimatology. I'm trying to get a firmer grasp of the science behind the hype. Yes, there is hype. Yes, there is science behind it. One of the questions that people need answered is, 'Is there enough science to justify the hype?'. It's a good question.

I read up on ice cores and paleoatmospheric studies. I read up on solar variance and on greenhouse gasses as they are measured now and measured via proxy from tree and ice cores as well as rock strata. I read up on climate modeling. Physics will always be my first love, but there is some elegant theoretical science behind all of this. Very elegant.

My personal opinion of global warming had been that while there may be enough science to suggest that anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gasses may be enough to be the engine driving current climate trends, that I didn't feel comfortable with the idea that scientists knew enough with enough certainty to attemt to manipulate global climate. The idea of scientists who can't even predict the weather accurately ten days in advance attempting to manipulate climate fifty years from now scared the willies out of me.

My opinion has hardened. They don't know enough. They REALLY don't know enough. Not with a degree of certainty that makes me comfortable. I invite you to study the underlying sciences behind paleoclimatology and see if you have enough confidence in their opinions to base our(and everybody else's) economic, industrial and possibly even political futures on their science.

I'm prepared to compare climatology to planet psychiatry. :p

Gee, there's no room for people who think that there IS warming, and CO2 IS a factor, but that man is NOT the only factor.

There's room for them. No one claims that man is the ONLY factor, as fact would have it. What is claimed is that MAN is having a dramatic effect. So you have to disprove this claim. I've not seen you or anyone do so. It's really simple too. Just gather the evidence and produce a paper for scientific review.

You can't even link to somone doing that, however.

Gee, there's no room for people who think that there IS warming, and CO2 IS a factor, but that man is NOT the only factor.

In fact, the IPCC concludes that "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." Most, not all.

Not, as your strawman would have us believe, "the only" source.

In fact, the IPCC concludes that "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." Most, not all.

Not, as your strawman would have us believe, "the only" source.

I guess you don't realize who wrote part of that, and had it severely edited without consulting him.

This is a political issue. The main proponents of "Global Warming" have been AL Gore and the UN. Subsidising the corn industry, penalizing power plants and assigning "carbon points" to major manufacturing industries is only the government finding new ways to control the econommy. The science behind global climate change is weak and unproven.

No, deniers have made it political. The science is just the science and all it says is that the element of carbon absorbes infrared radiation - no controversy there - and that, as a result, more carbon in the atmosphere will mean less infrared escaping into space. It doesn't say more democrats will escape into space or that infrared radiation is released by Republican. It doesn't say that carbon absorbes conservative talk shows or that the melting of the poles will cause the liberals to rise three feet. The science is just the science and it says that more energy in the atmosphere will cause the climate to change. It was first proposed in the 70s, long before Al Gore came on the scene, and came with some general predictions - melting poles, melting tundra, etc... which we have seen come to pass. It also said there would be more storms and that those storms would have increased intensity. We have seen this come to pass as well, but proving a direct link to global warming is next to impossible without long term trends to observe. None of that is political. It just is.

I've been doing some reading lately on paleoclimatology. I'm trying to get a firmer grasp of the science behind the hype. Yes, there is hype. Yes, there is science behind it. One of the questions that people need answered is, 'Is ther enough science to justify the hype?'. It's a good question.

I read up on ice cores and paleoatmospheric studies. I read up on solar variance and on greenhouse gasses as they are measured now and measured via proxy from tree and ice cores as well as rock strata. I read up on climate modeling. Physics will always be my first love, but there is some elegant theoretical science behind all of this. Very elegant.

My personal opinion of global warming had been that while there may be enough science to suggest that anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gasses may be enough to be the engine driving current climate trends, that I didn't feel comfortable with the idea that scientists knew enough with enough certainty to attemt to manipulate global climate. The idea of scientists who can't even predict the weather accurately ten days in advance attempting to manipulate climate fifty years from now scared the willies out of me.

My opinion has hardened. They don't know enough. They REALLY don't know enough. Not with a degree of certainty that makes me comfortable. I invite you to study the underlying sciences behind paleoclimatology and see if you have enough confidence in their opinions to base our(and everybody else's) economic, industrial and possibly even political futures on their science.

I'm prepared to compare climatology to planet psychiatry. :p

The problem is that scientists aren't attempting to manipulate the future weather. They are asking us to stop manipulating it. There is a significant difference.

If there was a medication available for acne that we'd uncovered a great deal of evidence increases dramatically the incidence of heart attacks, would you say that it's a manipulation the person's future heart conditions to stop providing the medication until we had evidence it was benign?

I guess you don't realize who wrote part of that, and had it severely edited without consulting him.

Scientific paper? Still waiting. You keep making these claims that it's all false or made up but so far you've present an Op Ed piece with a guy making provably false statements about science and the availability of funding.

Gee, there's no room for people who think that there IS warming, and CO2 IS a factor, but that man is NOT the only factor.

I don't think there is a scientist on this planet who would argue that man is the only factor. Aside from that scientist who lives in my basement but after what he did with my cat http://www.satanicchurch.com/content/news/uploaded_images/ethelmer-758846.jpg he doesn't really show his face much, anymore.

Let's ask a prominent scientist! First, his qualifications:



Taken any money from oil companies?
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/



Mr. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

Ah, he gets government money and foundation grants from the Alfred P. Sloan foundation.

So no oil companies pay for his research.

Worth reading: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html

It's got cogent arguments in it. Maybe you should try to analyse his arguments instead of immediately dismissing him as an uneducated non-scientist who shills for oil companies (I guess he's not any of those).

And then there's this:

The first link is to an editorial that conveyed the main points in Lindzen's speech to a Senate committee in 1992, and was paid for by OPEC.

Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC.

http://dieoff.org/page82.htm

I would not characterise it anything more than an outdated opinion piece.

The second editorial is more recent: 2006.

here's the link, by the way, since you did not include a link to the second editorial:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

And for all of you who want to know every little unsavory thing about this man:
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm

The problem is that scientists aren't attempting to manipulate the future weather. They are asking us to stop manipulating it. There is a significant difference.

The difference is that we aren't intentionally manipulating it. Our production of CO2 is part of the natural cycle of the planet. What they propose is to attempt to alter the natural cycle. *nod*

I guess you don't realize who wrote part of that, and had it severely edited without consulting him.

Whatever. You made a strawman fallacy. That's OK, we all do it from time to time.

I mean it might not be a strawman if you can find a peer reviewed source that claims that human activities are the sole cause of climate change. But. You're not gonna.

If there was a medication available for acne that we'd uncovered a great deal of evidence increases dramatically the incidence of heart attacks, would you say that it's a manipulation the person's future heart conditions to stop providing the medication until we had evidence it was benign?

Would you suggest wiping out all birds on Earth as a surefire cure to avian birdflu?

Huh? How is our production of Co2, in any way natural?

Because I can find no evidence of the spaceships that brought humanity to Earth. :)

http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1186/figure05-sm.gif

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-CO2-Temp.gif

Heres some healthy graphs to add to the debate. Now I am more leaning on the side of man made global warming, but don't believe that any one knows for sure. Here are two graphs to consider showing the colleration between sunspots and temperature, and Co2 and temperature. Both pretty good collerations, so which do you think is better?

The difference is that we aren't intentionally manipulating it. Our production of CO2 is part of the natural cycle of the planet. What they propose is to attempt to alter the natural cycle. *nod*

Huh? How is our production of Co2, in any way natural?

He's not interested in the science. For him this is a political issue, not a scientific one.

isn't it?

Because I can find no evidence of the spaceships that brought humanity to Earth. :)

So, you'd also argue that if man killed every bird to prevent the spread of bird flu, the birds had gone extinct naturally?

Would you suggest wiping out all birds on Earth as a surefire cure to avian birdflu?

Again, you are talking about taking positive action to prevent something. In this case, we're stopping a positive action because their is a lot of evidence for malignancy and most sensible course is to stop until we have evidence it's benign.

So, you'd also argue that if man killed every bird to prevent the spread of bird flu, the birds had gone extinct naturally?

Would you argue that mankind wiping out every bird on earth is in any way less natural than if they were all eaten by bears? ...flying bears....that like poultry...*shifts uncomfortably* Well, you get the idea. What about a comet impact wiping them out? Is that more or less unnatural?

I think it's pretty arrogant to try to remove mankind from the natural world.

Because I can find no evidence of the spaceships that brought humanity to Earth. :)

Then in that case, then the scientists are just behaving naturally as well and they can't be considered a manipulation but simply the natural outcome. Or would you like to redefine your use of the word natural?

Manipulation is a positive action. We are stopping the positie action until we have evidence the positive action is benign. So far all evidence says the opposite.

Again, you are talking about taking positive action to prevent something. In this case, we're stopping a positive action because their is a lot of evidence for malignancy and most sensible course is to stop until we have evidence it's benign.

If there were evidence that stopping would prevent tha malignancy, I would agree with you. But models of future climate that show the benefits of reducing CO2 are hard to find. Even assuming that current modeling showing the impact of continuing as-is are correct. Which there is no evidence of. It's awfully convenient of scientists to say that we can't afford to wait to see if they are actually right. We must change(and invalidate the very same models they predict from) now!

If those changes had no cost, I'd also agree with you. But the cost is high. For the third world, it's staggering.

The idea of scientists who can't even predict the weather accurately ten days in advance attempting to manipulate climate fifty years from now scared the willies out of me.Well, we'll all probably be better off when people. quit. comparing. meteorology. with. climatology. /williamshatner

I don't doubt that your readings helped you understand the issues, but for crying out loud can someone on the "either there is no such thing or we can't do anything about it or we don't know enough and can really fuck things up" side acknowledge that the people who predict weather (either poorly and less poorly) aren't the same folk studying the climate.

One thing that makes me optimistic about dealing with anthropogenic sources of climate change are the most recent results concerning the Antarctic ozone hole after the ban on CFCs. Seems the hole has finally started to respond and if the restrictions aren't short-lived the thought is that it will continue to repair itself.

isn't it?

As I said in another post, the issue has become political, but the science behind it isn't political.

Would you argue that mankind wiping out every bird on earth is in any way less natural than if they were all eaten by bears? ...flying bears....that like poultry...*shifts uncomfortably* Well, you get the idea. What about a comet impact wiping them out? Is that more or less unnatural?

I think it's pretty arrogant to try to remove mankind from the natural world.

We have the capacity to reason and to do good. Bears cannot do this. Comets cannot do this. You can't change their behavior. You can redirect them. You can shoot rockets at them but you can't reason with them. I can reason with you. I can say, "Stop dumping that atomic sludge in my coffee, I was drinking that." and you'll either stop or I'll punch you until you make me another cup of coffee. We can come to conclusions to change our behavior for the good of the natural world around us. Just like we did with CFCs.

Then in that case, then the scientists are just behaving naturally as well and they can't be considered a manipulation but simply the natural outcome. Or would you like to redefine your use of the word natural?

Manipulation is a positive action. We are stopping the positie action until we have evidence the positive action is benign. So far all evidence says the opposite.

ANd there is NO evidence that stopping the action is more benign.

Would you argue that mankind wiping out every bird on earth is in any way less natural than if they were all eaten by bears? ...flying bears....that like poultry...*shifts uncomfortably* Well, you get the idea. What about a comet impact wiping them out? Is that more or less unnatural?

I think it's pretty arrogant to try to remove mankind from the natural world.

This is kind of semantic, though really.

It is natural in that we're part of the world and animal populations fuck up their own environments a lot. But if a lemming jumped off a bridge it doesn't necessarily mean that I would, too.

(it's a metaphor, those whose saber to rattle is debunk the lemming thing, don't get carried away)

We have the capacity to reason and to do good. Bears cannot do this. Comets cannot do this. You can't change their behavior. You can redirect them. You can shoot rockets at them but you can't reason with them. I can reason with you. I can say, "Stop dumping that atomic sludge in my coffee, I was drinking that." and you'll either stop or I'll punch you until you make me another cup of coffee. We can come to conclusions to change our behavior for the good of the natural world around us. Just like we did with CFCs.

But atomic sludge is good for you. :)

And exactly what is that check that I see in your pocket from the Atomic Sludge Inc? $25.00? You'd poison me for that little?

You got it backwards, he wrote that check to them for the privilege...

But atomic sludge is good for you. :)

And exactly what is that check that I see in your pocket from the Atomic Sludge Inc? $25.00? You'd poison me for that little?

*sighs*

no one commented on my graphs....

-snip-
You're doing a good job of of proving it is needed.

Well, we'll all probably be better off when people. quit. comparing. meteorology. with. climatology. /williamshatner



Please don't lump me into the same club as the OP. My comparison of meteorology to climatology is completely from the opposite perspective.

I'm not trying to claim that short-term local weather changes refute climatology. That'd be even more insane than I am.

I am comparing knowledge bases. Meteorology has a substantial one. A century or more of reliable weather data, fifty years of satellite and weather balloon data and about fifty years of doppler radar has given us a very thorough grounding on the dynamics of local short-term weather. But I still don't want scientists fucking with it.

By comparison, climatology and especially paleoclimatology is NOT well grounded. It does NOT have reliable data. It consists on theory based on theory based on theory. It's a house of cards. A GOOD house of cards, but a house of cards nevertheless. I don't want scientists fucking with climate. Not yet. When they can handle something equally difficult to understand that has a large pool of reliable data behind it, like weather, with reliability, I'll consider letting them alter the economic system of the entire planet to manipulate future climate. :)

And exactly what is that check that I see in your pocket from the Atomic Sludge Inc? $25.00? You'd poison me for that little?

Ye... i mean...

Consider the ramifications of NOT consuming Atomic Sludge. You could end up like George W. Bush. *nod*

Ye... i mean...

Consider the ramifications of NOT consuming Atomic Sludge. You could end up like George W. Bush. *nod*

So, you're saying that there is a small chance that if you atomic sludge instead of lead paint chips, you will not turn out like George Bush?

Do you have any atomic sludge? I need to catch up.

ANd there is NO evidence that stopping the action is more benign.

But there is evidence that continuing the action is malign.

Again, you're trying to wrap this around the axle and even though you're sweating and farting from the exertion it just won't go.

If I have a medication, a man-made process, that we have a lot of evidence is causing a problem, then naturally we would want to stop that man-made process, that medication, until we have evidence that says otherwise.

There are two possible events. We continue or we don't. There four things about those two we could say. Continuing is malignant (let's call that A), discontinuing is malignant (B), continuing is benign (C) or discontinuing is benign (D).

Currently all evidence we have says A and D are true. We have no evidence for B or C. Thus the obvious choice is to discontinue.

Now if can show evidence for B or C or debunk evidence for A or D, feel free. However, with current evidence the choice is overwhelmingly clear.

If there were evidence that stopping would prevent tha malignancy, I would agree with you. But models of future climate that show the benefits of reducing CO2 are hard to find. Even assuming that current modeling showing the impact of continuing as-is are correct. Which there is no evidence of. It's awfully convenient of scientists to say that we can't afford to wait to see if they are actually right. We must change(and invalidate the very same models they predict from) now!

If those changes had no cost, I'd also agree with you. But the cost is high. For the third world, it's staggering.

It wouldn't be if we invested in developing energies with a smaller footprint. That costs third world countries and is being totally resisted by pretty much everyone in the pocket of oil.

http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1186/figure05-sm.gif

This is the length and temperature variation (in degrees Celcius) of the sunspot.

It doesn't mention the earth at any point.

compare with: http://www.theoildrum.com/uploads/12/global_temperature.jpg

Shorter sunspots should give higher temperatures. As should warmer sunspots. In theory, correct?

The 1940s is a good example of this not correlating - one graph is at a short sunspot of nine years with +0,1 degree celcius variation and the other is at an earth temperature variation of 0,0 degree celcius, compared to -0,2 at 1880, where in the sunspot graph you have a longer sunspot of 11,5 years with a -0,3 degree variation. The sunspot prior to 1940 did not have any significant differences to the one occurring in the 1940s.

So between 1880 and 1940, if the sunspot were the factor, it should've risen 0,4, but only rose by 0,2, especially since the sunspots got shorter (as sunspots are cold).

1880: sunspot graph shows -0,3, lasting 11,5 years
1890: sunspot graph shows -0,4, lasting <11,75 years

1900: earth temperature variation from 1880 = no variation (-0,1 expected).

I tried several methods for this, but it all got very confusing. In short - I see no relation between earth temperature and sunspot temperature.

But there is evidence that continuing the action is malign.

Again, you're trying to wrap this around the axle and even though you're sweating and farting from the exertion it just won't go.

If I have a medication, a man-made process, that we have a lot of evidence is causing a problem, then naturally we would want to stop that man-made process, that medication, until we have evidence that says otherwise.

There are two possible events. We continue or we don't. There four things about those two we could say. Continuing is malignant (let's call that A), discontinuing is malignant (B), continuing is benign (C) or discontinuing is benign (D).

Currently all evidence we have says A and D are true. We have no evidence for B or C. Thus the obvious choice is to discontinue.

Now if can show evidence for B or C or debunk evidence for A or D, feel free. However, with current evidence the choice is overwhelmingly clear.


I disagree: All four are true. To varying degrees. The scientific consensus is that A outweighs C. Though the amount by which it does is up for debate. Whichever of B or D outweighs the other has not been thoroughly studied, and it's here that I have my problem. *nod*

This is the length and temperature variation (in degrees Celcius) of the sunspot.

It doesn't mention the earth at any point.

http://www.global-warming-myths.com/images/Sunspot_Activity.jpg

use this one then. It's quite a famous graph.

It wouldn't be if we invested in developing energies with a smaller footprint. That costs third world countries and is being totally resisted by pretty much everyone in the pocket of oil.

On that, you're preaching to the choir. I was all for that development long before global warming was seriously discussed.

I disagree: All four are true. To varying degrees. The scientific consensus is that A outweighs C. Though the amount by which it does is up for debate. Whichever of B or D outweighs the other has not been thoroughly studied, and it's here that I have my problem. *nod*

You have evidence that continuing is benign? Please present it.

As far as discontinuing, I mean other than the economic issues for companies that provide services that would be affected.

The OP fails completely and needs to read up on climate change, and the thread topic is too silly to warrant a comment...

But regardless I'll state my opinion:
Better safe then sorry. A lot of science points to man-influenced climate change, and if we can do something now we should.

As the US Army's former chief of staff, Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan, said in a recent report called "The National Security Implications of Global Climate Change":
"The trends are not good, and if I just sat around in my former life as a soldier, if I just waited around for someone to walk in and say, 'This is with a hundred percent certainty,' I'd be waiting forever".

General Anthony Zinni said "We will pay for this one way or another. We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we'll have to take an economic hit of some kind.

"Or we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll."

This is just to illustrate that I think it will be cheaper if we act now... And safer.

After all, what have we really got to loose by acting now

You have evidence that continuing is benign? Please present it.

As far as discontinuing, I mean other than the economic issues for companies that provide services that would be affected.

there would be far more economic disrution than a few share holders losing some value. I happen to agree with you that the science is sound and anthropogenic warming is as serious an issue as industrial society has faced, but I think we need to admit the truth in that, in order to prevent it, we need to give up much of our afluence. Putting a real dent in our release of CO2 will probably mean giving up the lifestyle we in the West have come to take for granted.

However, Peak Oil to the rescue. There is nothing better at stopping carbon release than economic collapse.

On that, you're preaching to the choir. I was all for that development long before global warming was seriously discussed.

That's precisely what is being called for and has been for some time.

But there is evidence that continuing the action is malign.

Again, you're trying to wrap this around the axle and even though you're sweating and farting from the exertion it just won't go.

If I have a medication, a man-made process, that we have a lot of evidence is causing a problem, then naturally we would want to stop that man-made process, that medication, until we have evidence that says otherwise.

There are two possible events. We continue or we don't. There four things about those two we could say. Continuing is malignant (let's call that A), discontinuing is malignant (B), continuing is benign (C) or discontinuing is benign (D).

Currently all evidence we have says A and D are true. We have no evidence for B or C. Thus the obvious choice is to discontinue.

Now if can show evidence for B or C or debunk evidence for A or D, feel free. However, with current evidence the choice is overwhelmingly clear.

Since this is the premise under discussion, I hardly see how it is useful to prove itself. There is no conclusive evidence that the slight variation in global climate change is caused by humans.

Fact is that we're talking about a few gazillion cubic meters of atmosphere in the ozone layer, all subject to constant weather. The number is actually closer to 5.2x10^19, or several thousand trillion trillions of cubic meters. Just the scale of the problem makes it unreasonable for us to assume that we, alone, have managed to produce enough CO2 to influence the climate.

And for the fellow that thinks the United States outproduces China in CO2, well read (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070323/sc_nm/carbon_china_dc_1)a little. The Chinese are overtaking the U.S. in CO2 tonnage and are expected to bypass us this year.

I've been doing some reading lately on paleoclimatology. I'm trying to get a firmer grasp of the science behind the hype. Yes, there is hype. Yes, there is science behind it. One of the questions that people need answered is, 'Is there enough science to justify the hype?'. It's a good question.

I read up on ice cores and paleoatmospheric studies. I read up on solar variance and on greenhouse gasses as they are measured now and measured via proxy from tree and ice cores as well as rock strata. I read up on climate modeling. Physics will always be my first love, but there is some elegant theoretical science behind all of this. Very elegant.

My personal opinion of global warming had been that while there may be enough science to suggest that anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gasses may be enough to be the engine driving current climate trends, that I didn't feel comfortable with the idea that scientists knew enough with enough certainty to attemt to manipulate global climate. The idea of scientists who can't even predict the weather accurately ten days in advance attempting to manipulate climate fifty years from now scared the willies out of me.

My opinion has hardened. They don't know enough. They REALLY don't know enough. Not with a degree of certainty that makes me comfortable. I invite you to study the underlying sciences behind paleoclimatology and see if you have enough confidence in their opinions to base our(and everybody else's) economic, industrial and possibly even political futures on their science.

I'm prepared to compare climatology to planet psychiatry. :p

You win the thread.

You have evidence that continuing is benign? Please present it.

Remarkably little mention is made about it. A blurb here about longer growth seasons, but most of the benefits mentioned seem to be carefully lodged in the detriments. For instance, Refugee species.

Due to rising temperatures. many species are heading further north or to higher altitudes and certain species are awakening from hibernations earlier. This, of course, is presented as detrimental, but consider the benefits of tropical and subtropical species of produce being able to be grown where they haven't been able to before. You could shear sheep twice a season.

They speak at length about the detrimental changes to local climactic conditions, but not the beneficial ones; shorter winters, rainier springs. There are some highly productive regions of the world that would become significantly more productive with those changes.

But my biggest arrow as to the benefits of a warmer climate is the simple fact that when global temperatures have been warmest, the largest varieties of plant and animal species have existed. We seem to focus on the species that become extinct, but what about new ones? Evolution hasn't taken a vacation.

Since this is the premise under discussion, I hardly see how it is useful to prove itself. There is no conclusive evidence that the slight variation in global climate change is caused by humans.

Fact is that we're talking about a few gazillion cubic meters of atmosphere in the ozone layer, all subject to constant weather. The number is actually closer to 5.2x10^19, or several thousand trillion trillions of cubic meters. Just the scale of the problem makes it unreasonable for us to assume that we, alone, have managed to produce enough CO2 to influence the climate.

And for the fellow that thinks the United States outproduces China in CO2, well read (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070323/sc_nm/carbon_china_dc_1)a little. The Chinese are overtaking the U.S. in CO2 tonnage and are expected to bypass us this year.

We have no evidence, huh? Again, please prove your premise. Provide one peer-reviewed article that supports your conclusion. One. Any one. I'll wait.

And, of course, you again throw in that word "alone" or "only" to create the strawman. We aren't saying that we "alone" affect the environment, but we are saying that our effect is a problem. That's all that's been claimed and it's been supported over and over and over and... well, you get the picture.

http://www.global-warming-myths.com/images/Sunspot_Activity.jpg

use this one then. It's quite a famous graph.

This graph fails since it doesn't mention its units. I can still work out which units these are, but still.

This graph is also easily manipulated, as neither side is dependant on the other.

And, ehm, btw, it's not true.

Global temperature rose +0,2 degrees celcius between 1880 to 1940.

Your graph is saying it rose by +0,4 degrees celcius.

I think the result here is that, since the graph you're showing me is definitely Danish (Thjell/Friss-Christensen and Lassen), somebody sorely misunderstood that it has nothing at all to do with the earth.

Addition: http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-CO2-Temp.gif

Your first graph, with units, showing a +0,4 fahrenheit change between 1880 and 1940, which fits very well with the +0,2 degrees celcius between 1880 and 1940.

I think what we're facing is an extremely incorrect translation of a Danish graph to English, where the assumption was made that the temperature was that of the earth.

(further research seems to further prove that between 1880 and 1940, the temperature only rose by 0,2. As the Danish version does not mention anything about the earth, but the English one does, I am going to assume that the English one is incorrect, especially since the Danish one is the original and is speaking Only of sunspots).

Remarkably little mention is made about it. A blurb here about longer growth seasons, but most of the benefits mentioned seem to be carefully lodged in the detriments. For instance, Refugee species.

Due to rising temperatures. many species are heading further north or to higher altitudes and certain species are awakening from hibernations earlier. This, of course, is presented as detrimental, but consider the benefits of tropical and subtropical species of produce being able to be grown where they haven't been able to before. You could shear sheep twice a season.

They speak at length about the detrimental changes to local climactic conditions, but not the beneficial ones; shorter winters, rainier springs. There are some highly productive regions of the world that would become significantly more productive with those changes.

But my biggest arrow as to the benefits of a warmer climate is the simple fact that when global temperatures have been warmest, the largest varieties of plant and animal species have existed. We seem to focus on the species that become extinct, but what about new ones? Evolution hasn't taken a vacation.
Okay, I'm sorry to have to explain this to you, but benign doesn't mean beneficial. It means that the ovarall effect is not detrimental, which would mean that you'd have to provide evidence that overall the effect is not malignant. What you're presenting is one side of the story. You're not even arguing that overall there is evidence support a benign conclusion, only that there is some evidence of certain beneficial effects and only if you consider unbalancing ecosystems to be beneficial (all of what you listed is a change in the equilibrium of ecosystem).

Just the scale of the problem makes it unreasonable for us to assume that we, alone, have managed to produce enough CO2 to influence the climate.

conveniently, we don't have to assume it at all. we've observed it. data to the rescue!

seriously, are you ever right about anything?

... As a layman, my only option is to accept the position taken by the majority of experts until the consensus shifts.

Sorry if any of this has been mentioned this, but I needed to mention this: science isn't about reaching a consensus. Even if 99.99% (or even 100%) of all scientists backed a false position, that doesn't make the position true.

I honestly believe that we shouldn't take dramatic measures (i.e. ruin the economy) to deal with this; the entrepreneurial power of the US will find a way to solve the problem before it kills us all.

And for the fellow that thinks the United States outproduces China in CO2, well read (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070323/sc_nm/carbon_china_dc_1)a little. The Chinese are overtaking the U.S. in CO2 tonnage and are expected to bypass us this year.
So basically, what you are saying is, you were wrong?

:)

This graph is also easily manipulated, as neither side is dependant on the other.


The graph would suggest otherwise, generally.


I think the result here is that, since the graph you're showing me is definitely Danish (Thjell/Friss-Christensen and Lassen), somebody sorely misunderstood that it has nothing at all to do with the earth.

As I said before, it's a famous graph used in scientific articles. I have even seen it featured on telivision.

So basically, what you are saying is, you were wrong?

:)

Was wrong and is wrong. He corrects someone for saying we outproduce China and then shows that currently we outproduce China. Kind of silly, no?

The truth, as is often the case in human affairs, is bound to lie between the willfully and proudly ignorant, with their heads in the sand and their feet on the gas pedals of their SUVs, and the completely fruitcaked alarmists who've personally consulted the trees in deep conversations about the subject as they sipped their wheatgrass and conditioned the cork in their Birkenstocks.

With oil running out, petroleum alternatives just make sense to research. If those alternatives are also non-polluting, I'm always in favor of that. The car-based lifestyle is going away, or fixing to be significantly altered, whether we like it or not.

I'm no fern-fucker ("tree-hugger" is so dated), but I'm not willing to wish the potential for a crisis away in a cloud of internal combustion or coal-fired power plant exhaust, either.

Sorry if any of this has been mentioned this, but I needed to mention this: science isn't about reaching a consensus. Even if 99.99% (or even 100%) of all scientists backed a false position, that doesn't make the position true.

the scientific consensus wasn't established by having a vote. it was established in the lit, the same as it was for every other theory ever. this one was established rather quickly, because the data has been so overwhelming from nearly the beginning that denialists were forced by reality to immediately jump straight on to creationist tactics.

Okay, I'm sorry to have to explain this to you, but benign doesn't mean beneficial. It means that the ovarall effect is not detrimental, which would mean that you'd have to provide evidence that overall the effect is not malignant. What you're presenting is one side of the story. You're not even arguing that overall there is evidence support a benign conclusion, only that there is some evidence of certain beneficial effects and only if you consider unbalancing ecosystems to be beneficial (all of what you listed is a change in the equilibrium of ecosystem).

You define benign as 'not malignant', but that swings both ways. Malignant could be defined as 'not benign'. I take exception to the idea that REbalancing ecosystems is malignant. I take exception to this because it is always taking place. Equilibrium is a fallacy. We, as human beings, do not have the power to freeze the ecology of the Earth into a pattern we like.

What I'm asserting is that both local and global climate will always change, and that those changes are automatically benign as you define he word. So by your definitions, the question is, are the changes to climate happening now beneficial or detrimental? My assertion is that there are both beneficial and detrimental aspects. The consensus is that as climate changes now, the detriments outweigh the benefits. That's arguable, but I'm not prepared to buck the consensus on that.

The question I ask you, and scientists are whether there is any reason to believe that the detriment/benefit ratio caused by climate changes that will occur if we reduce anthropomorphic carbon dioxide production are any better(or even different) than the ratio in climate changes that will occur if we don't?

We have no evidence, huh? Again, please prove your premise. Provide one peer-reviewed article that supports your conclusion. One. Any one. I'll wait.

And, of course, you again throw in that word "alone" or "only" to create the strawman. We aren't saying that we "alone" affect the environment, but we are saying that our effect is a problem. That's all that's been claimed and it's been supported over and over and over and... well, you get the picture.

I can do that and I will, but why don't you list the full range of limitations on your acceptance of such proof, i.e. not written by anyone ever employed by an oil company, etc. That's the rub, there's already been the exact wording that you asked for presented earlier in the thread, but you fail to accept it.

You define benign as 'not malignant', but that swings both ways. Malignant could be defined as 'not benign'. I take exception to the idea that REbalancing ecosystems is malignant. I take exception to this because it is always taking place. Equilibrium is a fallacy. We, as human beings, do not have the power to freeze the ecology of the Earth into a pattern we like.

Again, I didn't say that. I said that forcing an ecosystem to rebalance itself isn't necessarily beneficial. You're mixing malignant and benign with beneficial and detrimental. They are not equivalent. Malignant is the when the sum of the effect is detrimental, and benign is when it's not. There are certain benefits to cancer, but by definition, cancer is malignant.


What I'm asserting is that both local and global climate will always change, and that those changes are automatically benign as you define he word. So by your definitions, the question is, are the changes to climate happening now beneficial or detrimental? My assertion is that there are both beneficial and detrimental aspects. The consensus is that as climate changes now, the detriments outweigh the benefits. That's arguable, but I'm not prepared to buck the consensus on that.

Certainly there are both beneficial and detrimental aspects, the problem is that all evidence we have is that not only will the overall effect by detrimental, but catestrophical so and you've not presented any evidence to the contrary.


The question I ask you, and scientists are whether there is any reason to believe that the detriment/benefit ratio caused by climate changes that will occur if we reduce anthropomorphic carbon dioxide production are any better(or even different) than the ratio in climate changes that will occur if we don't?

And I realize that you're still getting up the speed but they answer that question with a resounding yes, there are only reasons to believe this.

Again, find one scientifically reviewed article showing the opposite, suggesting that our effect is benign. One.

The good professor has been published in scientific journals. Try again?

He's a meteorologist, not a climatologist, and thus there is no reason to believe he is any sort of expert on global warming.

I can do that and I will, but why don't you list the full range of limitations on your acceptance of such proof, i.e. not written by anyone ever employed by an oil company, etc. That's the rub, there's already been the exact wording that you asked for presented earlier in the thread, but you fail to accept it.

No, the full range is a scientific paper published for review and standing up to it. I want the actual paper with reviews and answers to those reviews if they exist. Not an editorial. Not a summary. Not a suggestion. Not an opinion. Not a whiny complaint about the conspiracy to suppress ID... I mean denial of the holocaus... I mean those that claim they can disprove current theory.

What was presented earlier in the thread was an Op Ed piece. Please point to a scientifically reviewed article that supports your position. There has not been one in this thread. Richard Lizden has never written a critical article that survived review. He has tried, but if you check his history, you'll find that every one of those hypotheses have been abandoned after being embarassingly destroyed.

Sorry if any of this has been mentioned this, but I needed to mention this: science isn't about reaching a consensus. Even if 99.99% (or even 100%) of all scientists backed a false position, that doesn't make the position true.

I honestly believe that we shouldn't take dramatic measures (i.e. ruin the economy) to deal with this; the entrepreneurial power of the US will find a way to solve the problem before it kills us all.

Does anyone really have an answer to deal with this "problem"? because I haven't heard of one idea that has the potential to drastically limit CO2 production.

I know Texas Utilities recently tried to make 13 new highly efficient coal plants but they were attacked so aggresively by eviromental groups that they ditched their plans completely. I don't know how we are suppose to lmit CO2 production if we can't build new power plants.

I know that major manufaturing industries are forced to give money to eviromental groups to become "carbon neutral," but thats like eating cookies and paying someone to exercise so that you could be "calorie neutral."

No one has said anything about the real producers of CO2, the ocean and volcanoes. Putting caps on active volcanos or exploding nuclear bombs in coral reefs would be much more effective at stopping CO2 production than subsidizing ethanol or making people pay out of their asses for catalytic converters that make their cars slower. But that would probably upset the planet's ecosystem because CO2 isn't a pollutant, its a nutrient that sustains life on this earth.

The graph would suggest otherwise, generally.



As I said before, it's a famous graph used in scientific articles. I have even seen it featured on telivision.

But as I said, it is horribly wrong and incorrect.

The English version says global temperature change, the Danish version states temperature variation (implication: of the sunspot).

The English version claims a +0,4 degree celcius (since they are using the same original graph, clearly, as they provide no units, I make this assumption) rise between 1880 and 1940. The fact is that this is blatantly untrue, as the rise was only +0,2 degrees celcius points to the fact that somebody, somewhere, made the biggest translation error in recent history (that got large media attention).



Note: I'm not arguing for or against global warming here. I'm saying your graph is incorrect, which I think evidence will back up.

proof: If units are fahrenheit, then temperature variation between 1880 and 1940 are correct in the graph, but since the temperature rose a further <+0,5 degrees fahrenheit between 1940 and 1980, the graph is later proved to be false, as the graph shows no variation between 1940 and 1980.

If units are celcius or kelvin (either one will do, as they are inherently the same when speaking of variation), then temperature variation between 1880 and 1940 is incorrect in the graph.

sources: the two graphs in this thread and every other graph on the internet that are most certainly about the global temperature (and this one most certainly isn't).

No, the full range is a scientific paper published for review and standing up to it. I want the actual paper with reviews and answers to those reviews if they exist. Not an editorial. Not a summary. Not a suggestion. Not an opinion. Not a whiny complaint about the conspiracy to suppress ID... I mean denial of the holocaus... I mean those that claim they can disprove current theory.

What was presented earlier in the thread was an Op Ed piece. Please point to a scientifically reviewed article that supports your position. There has not been one in this thread.

Alright here you go:

This (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Lindzen_2005_Climate_Claims.pdf) article says that there is no evidence to support the idea of human induced climate change.

This (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Gerhard_Climate_Change.pdf) is a power point presentation made by the head of Kansas State University's geology department. It says that humans play no part in climate change.

This (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/slides/slideset/) is a series of abstracts on how scientist understand ancient climate change and predict future climate change. It says nothing about humans influencing climate change.


You want more? Just ask.

But as I said, it is horribly wrong and incorrect.

The English version says global temperature change, the Danish version states temperature variation (implication: of the sunspot).

The English version claims a +0,4 degree celcius (since they are using the same original graph, clearly, as they provide no units, I make this assumption) rise between 1880 and 1940. The fact is that this is blatantly untrue, as the rise was only +0,2 degrees celcius points to the fact that somebody, somewhere, made the biggest translation error in recent history (that got large media attention).



Note: I'm not arguing for or against global warming here. I'm saying your graph is incorrect, which I think evidence will back up.

proof: If units are fahrenheit, then temperature variation between 1880 and 1940 are correct in the graph, but since the temperature rose a further <+0,5 degrees fahrenheit between 1940 and 1980, the graph is later proved to be false, as the graph shows no variation between 1940 and 1980.

If units are celcius or kelvin (either one will do, as they are inherently the same when speaking of variation), then temperature variation between 1880 and 1940 is incorrect in the graph.

sources: the two graphs in this thread and every other graph on the internet that are most certainly about the global temperature (and this one most certainly isn't).

Woah there sonny. None of the graphs I posted were the original graph I was talking about, just interpretations. All I did was quickly look on google images and typed: "sunspot earth temperature colleration" or something like that and found there was thousands of graphs and just chose a few out of random. I'll go look for the original *looks*

Note to Climate Change Deniers:

The argument is over. You lost. Feel free to complain and/or bash your head against a wall. Good-day.

Well you're ugly and your momma dresses you funny.

why does it matter whats going to happen in 50 years? I mean, in 2012 our microwaves and computers are going to come alive and take over the world, or at least I think thats what the mayans said.

Well you're ugly and your momma dresses you funny.

You win! :D

Again, find one scientifically reviewed article showing the opposite, suggesting that our effect is benign. One.

Fair enough. I'll search for an article that suggests that current climate change is benign. In return, I'd like you to find an article that describes the future climate models assuming that current recommenations are followed and whether the proposed changes will result in will be more benign.

Check this out:

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/samson/climate_patterns/

I draw specific attention to:

Figure 11 shows the correlation of the Milankovitch cycles with the paleoclimate records for the past million years. There is a good correlation, between periods of low eccentricity and glacial periods. A detailed view of the interglacial periods of the past ~160,000 years also shows evidence of the 41,000 year and 23,000 years cycles.

Other factors which work in conjunction with the Earth's orbital changes include:

The amount of dust in the atmosphere
The reflectivity of the ice sheets
The concentration of greenhouse gases
The changing characteristics of clouds
The rebounding of land, having been depressed by ice.

The Milankovitch cycles may help explain the advance and retreat of ice over periods of 10,000 to 100,000 years. They do not explain what caused the Ice Age in the first place.

When all the Milankovitch cycles (alone) are taken into account, the present trend should be towards a cooler climate in the Northern Hemisphere, with extensive glaciation.


It is clear from these figures that rapid changes are underway - at rates far exceeding anything discussed so far.

It must be assumed that human activities (known as Anthropogenic Effects) are dominating the present changes.



I assert to you that global warming may delay or prevent the cooling trend and glaciation that should instead be occurring. Anthrogenic carbon dioxide prevents Ice Ages. :)

Alright here you go:

This (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Lindzen_2005_Climate_Claims.pdf) article says that there is no evidence to support the idea of human induced climate change.

A draft article. It hasn't been scientifically reviewed. I want to see the actual peer review.

This (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Gerhard_Climate_Change.pdf) is a power point presentation made by the head of Kansas State University's geology department. It says that humans play no part in climate change.

Again, not peer-reviewed. Do you not know anything about science or is the task just impossible since such an article does not exist?


This (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/slides/slideset/) is a series of abstracts on how scientist understand ancient climate change and predict future climate change. It says nothing about humans influencing climate change.


You want more? Just ask.

I certainly do. A series of abstracts doesn't cut it. The fact that they don't mention something is not a proof. These serve a different purpose.

Seriously, it seems like you're doing this on purpose. One article that actually reaches the conclusion that humans are not a factor in climate change. It's not a requirement that a model show cause of every factor. For example I could use a model to show that shows the economic effect of an increased life expectancy, but not show the causes of the increased life expectancy. That's not evidence the increased life expectancy has no human cause.

I'm sure you don't realize why these are insufficient, but they aren't and the reasons are blatant and obvious to anyone with a background in the sciences.

Fair enough. I'll search for an article that suggests that current climate change is benign. In return, I'd like you to find an article that describes the future climate models assuming that current recommenations are followed and whether the proposed changes will result in will be more benign.

Actually, the problem with that request is that the recommendations are political, not scientific. You know what you're requesting isn't going to be in a scientific journal, because all they are going to talk about is the effect of different levels of output. However, the scientific papers, even the ones you've already read, often discuss the effect of even a slow down. They simply don't cover the specific methodologies, so the information you're requesting would require a great deal of papers to be presented and compiled into a singular conclusion.

If you make a more realistic request for an internet forum, you'd ask for what you know you've already seen which is conclusions based on current trends, on keeping levels where they are today on a trend towards lowering today's emissions. If you've done the level of research you're talking about, and I find you to be quite honest, you've seen them.

Check this out:

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/samson/climate_patterns/

I draw specific attention to:





I assert to you that global warming may delay or prevent the cooling trend and glaciation that should instead be occurring. Anthrogenic carbon dioxide prevents Ice Ages. :)

The problem is that there is evidence that a warming trend can have a similar effect. The Day After Tomorrow was sensationalist crap, but there was some basis for it.

The problem is that there is evidence that a warming trend can have a similar effect. The Day After Tomorrow was sensationalist crap, but there was some basis for it.

Well, yes. It has to do with the ice caps. As global warming causes the ice caps to melt, it tends to cause more snowfall at high altitudes. This causes the expansion of glaciers on land and increases the reflectivity of the Earth, thus causing a cooling trend. It's one of the ways Earth self-regulates. Earth never stands still. But as scientist point out quite frequently, greenhouse gasses are the largest contributor to climate trends. :)

Well, yes. It has to do with the ice caps. As global warming causes the ice caps to melt, it tends to cause more snowfall at high altitudes. This causes the expansion of glaciers on land and increases the reflectivity of the Earth, thus causing a cooling trend. It's one of the ways Earth self-regulates. Earth never stands still. But as scientist point out quite frequently, greenhouse gasses are the largest contributor to climate trends. :)

You throw a lot of smilies into the mix. Do you feel uncomfortable being serious?

Yes, I agree. The problem is that we don't want that brand of regulation.

As far as the evidence you requested, where do you live? Sounds like an excellent reason to meet up for a beer and give a dissertation.

Oh Lord, you've gone and made me look foolish. I guess 'll just have to defend myself. Or defend the argument I made. Something like that...

A draft article. It hasn't been scientifically reviewed. I want to see the actual peer review.

Sorry, here (http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=78) is a similar arcticle published in the George C. Marshall institute.

Again, not peer-reviewed. Do you not know anything about science or is the task just impossible since such an article does not exist?

Hey now, calm down, I would consider power point presentation to be peer reveiwable. But since you don't, here (http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pm110697.html) is a very good article that was actually a speech given to the House of Representatives. It was published by the Cato Institute.


I certainly do. A series of abstracts doesn't cut it. The fact that they don't mention something is not a proof. These serve a different purpose.

Well all the abstracts have links to the published articles that they summarize. You're right, they do not prove that climate change is not man made, but that fact that they do not even cosider the possibility is interesting don't you think? (I know, you think alot).


Seriously, it seems like you're doing this on purpose. One article that actually reaches the conclusion that humans are not a factor in climate change. It's not a requirement that a model show cause of every factor. For example I could use a model to show that shows the economic effect of an increased life expectancy, but not show the causes of the increased life expectancy. That's not evidence the increased life expectancy has no human cause.

I am most certainly doing this on purpose and I don't understand what your trying to say about human life expectancy.

I'm sure you don't realize why these are insufficient, but they aren't and the reasons are blatant and obvious to anyone with a background in the sciences.

Ouch, that really hurt. You know, I am a Chemistry student at my university so I do have a little background in science.

You throw a lot of smilies into the mix. Do you feel uncomfortable being serious?

Yes, I agree. The problem is that we don't want that brand of regulation.

As far as the evidence you requested, where do you live? Sounds like an excellent reason to meet up for a beer and give a dissertation.

Who are 'we'? I'm not convinced regulation is even possible. In fact, I'm not convinced of anything. That's the problem. ;) And yes, I use a lot of smilies, and yes it's because I feel uncomfortable taking things I can't change seriously. Even if I had the will to dedicate my life to the study of climate, and were willing to return to school to broaden my scientific background accordingly, I still would only be one more shrill voice in the crowd. I refuse to take seriously anything that seriousness can't fix. *nod*

As for that beer, I live in Connecticut. It's a hell of a drive, but maybe some day we'll get together for one. :)

Check this out:

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/samson/climate_patterns/

I draw specific attention to:

I assert to you that global warming may delay or prevent the cooling trend and glaciation that should instead be occurring. Anthrogenic carbon dioxide prevents Ice Ages. :)

This is an excellent article! However, it does not prove that humans are causing recent climate change.

Here are the words that I could find to support your claims of man made climate change"

"In recent times, temperature changes and greenhouse gas abundances are correlated."

This is interesting but it does not imply that humans are the cause.

"It must be assumed that human activities (known as Anthropogenic Effects) are dominating the present changes."

I don't know why that must be assumed? Do you? A graph showing that CO2 levels fluctuate along with temperature is not exactely the smoking gun that points to humanity.

Don't you know that correlation is the same as causation? Drawing a distinction between the two is just a waste of time.

Personally I think that the reduction in piracy is the primary cause of global warming. Just look at that strong correlation, I dare you to tell me there's no connection:
http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

Don't you know that correlation is the same as causation? Drawing a distinction between the two is just a waste of time.

Personally I think that the reduction in piracy is the primary cause of global warming. Just look at that strong correlation, I dare you to tell me there's no connection:
http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

By the restriction of trade between nations pirates reduced gloablisation and prevented the construction of large scale carbon emitting businesses. They also made the eco-friendly galleon the most fashionable way to travel. Truly they were the chosen people.

Don't you know that correlation is the same as causation? Drawing a distinction between the two is just a waste of time.

Personally I think that the reduction in piracy is the primary cause of global warming. Just look at that strong correlation, I dare you to tell me there's no connection:
http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

There is a correlation between the global popualtion of pirates and global temperature but this does not prove that pirates or humans are responsible for global warming.

Take this into account: Blackbeard lived around 1716 and had 14 wives. We know that he settled somewhere around Bath, North Carolina. Pirates, in general, have always been ambassadors of good will who distributed candy to children. So clearly, the ozone layer has a hole in it.

There is a correlation between the global popualtion of pirates and global temperature but this does not prove that pirates or humans are responsible for global warming.

Take this into account: Blackbeard lived around 1716 and had 14 wives. We know that he settled somewhere around Bath, North Carolina. Pirates, in general, have always been ambassadors of good will who distributed candy to children. So clearly, the ozone layer has a hole in it.

You do realize that the pirates example is based on demonstrating that you not only have to show correllation but demonstrate why that correllation matters. The two scenarios are not comparable.

It's like saying that because your argument has the word "this" in it and mine does that they are the same thing. There is a line between correllation and causation, but given that they've shown correllation and that humans are the most likely causation since both the potential and the actual match up, then the most logical theory is the one we have.

Meanwhile, we can show directly that the decline in pirates didn't cause global warming and why it would correllate with it without causation, can you do so with global warmings and the industrial revolution? Nope. And that's why you're relying on this ridiculous and erroneous argument.

Well I think we will be alright with global wine....*ahem*...warming cause I global cooling and Al Gore causes global warming.

p.s. see if u can guess what I mean.

This is an excellent article! However, it does not prove that humans are causing recent climate change.

Here are the words that I could find to support your claims of man made climate change"

"In recent times, temperature changes and greenhouse gas abundances are correlated."

This is interesting but it does not imply that humans are the cause.

"It must be assumed that human activities (known as Anthropogenic Effects) are dominating the present changes."

I don't know why that must be assumed? Do you? A graph showing that CO2 levels fluctuate along with temperature is not exactely the smoking gun that points to humanity.

As I've already mentioned, these conclusions are based heavily on paleoclimatology which I've already compared to 'planet psychiatry'. So I'm not going to pretend to endorse the conclusion that anthropogenic effects are the engine that drives global climate change. But I've also seen no reason to refute their conclusions. The science is sound(assuming the theories upon which it is based ae true).

My purpose upon using that article is to demonstrate that the one thing that will never ever happen on earth is the establishment of a stable climate. Well, maybe if we lose the atmosphere. A dead rock is pretty stable. ;)

I'm not saying we shouldn't teach it in schools. We should just remember to teach all viable alternatives as well. Intelligent Warming!

That would be human-caused global warming...

Unless you want to contend that humans aren't intelligent. Though I can't say I would blame you for making that argument, given that the warming effect was not purposeful.

You do realize that the pirates example is based on demonstrating that you not only have to show correllation but demonstrate why that correllation matters. The two scenarios are not comparable.

It's like saying that because your argument has the word "this" in it and mine does that they are the same thing. There is a line between correllation and causation, but given that they've shown correllation and that humans are the most likely causation since both the potential and the actual match up, then the most logical theory is the one we have.

Meanwhile, we can show directly that the decline in pirates didn't cause global warming and why it would correllate with it without causation, can you do so with global warmings and the industrial revolution? Nope. And that's why you're relying on this ridiculous and erroneous argument.

ok...

I would like to remind you that, although the popualtion of real pirates has declined, the popualtion of internet pirates has increased dramatically in the last 20 years or so. Yet we know that the population of ninjas has remained constant for the past century. Ninjas and pirates fight alot, so global temperature is not affected by dolphins.

As I've already mentioned, these conclusions are based heavily on paleoclimatology which I've already compared to 'planet psychiatry'. So I'm not going to pretend to endorse the conclusion that anthropogenic effects are the engine that drives global climate change. But I've also seen no reason to refute their conclusions. The science is sound(assuming the theories upon which it is based ae true).

My purpose upon using that article is to demonstrate that the one thing that will never ever happen on earth is the establishment of a stable climate. Well, maybe if we lose the atmosphere. A dead rock is pretty stable. ;)

Well my problem with this article is that it assumes, and science should not assume, it should prove.

Well my problem with this article is that it assumes, and science should not assume, it should prove.
That only applies to those using the Scientific Method. The Actual Method only demands that you design minimal experimentation that will suggest your theory, which you arrived at prior to observation of natural phenomena and which is based on and supports the political or personal views of your source of funding, is true. Actually performing said experiments is optional because a computer simulation, however flawed (due either to omission of variables, to incorrect data input, lack of data, or something else entirely), is just as good.

ok...

I would like to remind you that, although the popualtion of real pirates has declined, the popualtion of internet pirates has increased dramatically in the last 20 years or so. Yet we know that the population of ninjas has remained constant for the past century. Ninjas and pirates fight alot, so global temperature is not affected by dolphins.

Again, it's the same argument Creationists make. Rather than present a reasoned and supported argument, you try to poke holes in the reasoned and supported argument with pseudo-arguments.

Yes, correllation alone isn't conclusive. However, if I get three visitors to my apartment several times in a year, but when EVERY time you come over my cat gets railed, then it would be irrational to suggest I shouldn't conclude that you're involved in the railing of my cat. It would ludicrous to argue that it was more likely to be an invisible man or a catburgler, so to speak.

If correllation relates two things that are already related and the correllation is both possible and a completely reasonable explanation, then it's really the walks like a duck and quacks like a duck conclusion.

Well my problem with this article is that it assumes, and science should not assume, it should prove.

Ok, that pretty much exposes your understanding of science. Science has never proven anything. Ever. Since the inception of the scientific method. We examine the evidence and create a falsifiable hypothesis. Then we attempt to disprove it. If it holds up to enough testing we assume it to be true until it gets falsified or a better hypothesis presents itself.

No scientist requires that treat something as false or unlikely until it's proven, because it would never happen.

Well my problem with this article is that it assumes, and science should not assume, it should prove.

Proof is for mathematics and alcohol.

Proof is for mathematics and alcohol.

Mmmmmm... 100 proof mathematics.

Again, it's the same argument Creationists make. Rather than present a reasoned and supported argument, you try to poke holes in the reasoned and supported argument with pseudo-arguments.

Yes, correllation alone isn't conclusive. However, if I get three visitors to my apartment several times in a year, but when EVERY time you come over my cat gets railed, then it would be irrational to suggest I shouldn't conclude that you're involved in the railing of my cat. It would ludicrous to argue that it was more likely to be an invisible man or a catburgler, so to speak.

If correllation relates two things that are already related and the correllation is both possible and a completely reasonable explanation, then it's really the walks like a duck and quacks like a duck conclusion.

I can't tell if you're trying to be funny. Are You? Seriously. Cuz I was just fuckin around.

That only applies to those using the Scientific Method. The Actual Method only demands that you design minimal experimentation that will suggest your theory, which you arrived at prior to observation of natural phenomena and which is based on and supports the political or personal views of your source of funding, is true. Actually performing said experiments is optional because a computer simulation, however flawed (due either to omission of variables, to incorrect data input, lack of data, or something else entirely), is just as good.

I would like to share a bit or knowledge with you. It is called Occam's Razor.

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. Which is Latin for:

one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything

What, exactly would it take for this anthropogenic hypothesis to be falsified?

Dammit, i missed some FSM patter! *gnashes teeth*

Didn't we beat you senseless last time you decided to bring something that was essentially the same thing up?

And didn't you learn anything?

And somehow you keep doing it?

Are you a sado-masochist?

Really, that's the only possible rational answer for this.Soooooo QFT.
I'll just name-drop Desperate Measures here, for posterity and such.

I'm not saying we shouldn't teach it in schools. We should just remember to teach all viable alternatives as well. Intelligent Warming!
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/148/380672685_e12bf504d2_o.jpg

What, exactly would it take for this anthropogenic hypothesis to be falsified?Methinks thou doth baiteth too much. ;)
Obviously, the answer to that would be to eradicate all sources of anthropogenic influence to make a clear, unmitigated study. Perhaps use of a neutron weapon or two?

While hilarious I did notice a small error in that graphic. Burning hydrocarbons like methane does not release hydrocarbons like methane, just CO2 and H2O along with whatever impurities are present within the fuel.

Well I think we will be alright with global wine....*ahem*...warming cause I global cooling and Al Gore causes global warming.

p.s. see if u can guess what I mean.

Try speeding up one's comprehension and text abilities to the subject matter pre-req's?

While hilarious I did notice a small error in that graphic. Burning hydrocarbons like methane does not release hydrocarbons like methane, just CO2 and H2O along with whatever impurities are present within the fuel.

another error is that CO2 is invisible, so whatever is comming out of that chimmeny is not CO2. Probably coal particulates or something.

Woah there sonny. None of the graphs I posted were the original graph I was talking about, just interpretations. All I did was quickly look on google images and typed: "sunspot earth temperature colleration" or something like that and found there was thousands of graphs and just chose a few out of random. I'll go look for the original *looks*

The Danish graph is the original. That's the very first graph you posted.

Somebody messed up when they translated it to English and assumed that it had anything to do with the earth. Just look at the two graphs - They're exactly the same with a different layout ;)

What, exactly would it take for this anthropogenic hypothesis to be falsified?

a sustained cooling trend would help. *nod*

No, the full range is a scientific paper published for review and standing up to it. I want the actual paper with reviews and answers to those reviews if they exist. Not an editorial. Not a summary. Not a suggestion. Not an opinion. Not a whiny complaint about the conspiracy to suppress ID... I mean denial of the holocaus... I mean those that claim they can disprove current theory.

What was presented earlier in the thread was an Op Ed piece. Please point to a scientifically reviewed article that supports your position. There has not been one in this thread. Richard Lizden has never written a critical article that survived review. He has tried, but if you check his history, you'll find that every one of those hypotheses have been abandoned after being embarassingly destroyed.
Sorry, all I'm willing to post here are abstracts and references. I'm not going to pay for an article and then dig through to find the responses, just to satisfy your conditions.

Sorry, all I'm willing to post here are abstracts and references. I'm not going to pay for an article and then dig through to find the responses, just to satisfy your conditions.

Those articles didn't even provide evidence. Non-mention of humans in a model that isn't looking at causes is not evidence. It would be expected if anthropogenic Global Warming were true.

Let me explain to you how science works, since you don't appear to know.

You make a hypothesis. For example: The current trends of climate are natural. From that you make a prediction: If man didn't contribute to global warming we would expect X. Then you test the prediction. And then you wirte a paper on it. You publish. You get peer-reviewed. Rinse. Repeat.

So you need to present a paper that either actively disproves an accepted man-made Global Warming model or a paper that actively tests a theory that contradicts that model.

You've done neither. Your abstracts were unrelated.

*sigh*

The ignorance of some NSG posters never ceases to amaze me, especially when such topics have been 'debated' so many times over. With the same argument coming up again and again and again... for the past 4 years they have been continually coming up again. But no one ever learns. And Myrm has no excuse. He/she's not new to NSG.

edit: I mean this is pretty much like pointing out how most of the science in film 'The Day After Tomorrow' is flawed, rergo the entirety of climate change science is wrong.

Those articles didn't even provide evidence. Non-mention of humans in a model that isn't looking at causes is not evidence. It would be expected if anthropogenic Global Warming were true.

Let me explain to you how science works, since you don't appear to know.

You make a hypothesis. For example: The current trends of climate are natural. From that you make a prediction: If man didn't contribute to global warming we would expect X. Then you test the prediction. And then you wirte a paper on it. You publish. You get peer-reviewed. Rinse. Repeat.

So you need to present a paper that either actively disproves an accepted man-made Global Warming model or a paper that actively tests a theory that contradicts that model.

You've done neither. Your abstracts were unrelated.
I don't believe I posted any abstracts. I've had power problems all morning, so I really haven't spent much time at the computer. Anyway, my time is worth more that the effort it takes to do the kind of lit survey you want to see. Worth way more than what anyone's opinion in this forum is worth.

But thanks for the lesson on science. Come visit me again after you have a Dr. in front of your name and a few other letters trailing.

Put another mark in your W column and be satisfied that you have impressed a bunch of adolescents.

Put another mark in your W column and be satisfied that you have impressed a bunch of adolescents.

Ah yes. Anyone who agrees with Jocabia, or disagrees with you, is just dismissed as a "bunch of adolescents."

Interesting though that you choose to try to influence and communicate with those "adolescents" when it comes to pushing your "LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING" viewpoint.

Or maybe you don't try to communicate and this is all just trolling. Yeah, I'm gonna go with that one.

A draft article. It hasn't been scientifically reviewed. I want to see the actual peer review.



Again, not peer-reviewed. Do you not know anything about science or is the task just impossible since such an article does not exist?




I certainly do. A series of abstracts doesn't cut it. The fact that they don't mention something is not a proof. These serve a different purpose.

Seriously, it seems like you're doing this on purpose. One article that actually reaches the conclusion that humans are not a factor in climate change. It's not a requirement that a model show cause of every factor. For example I could use a model to show that shows the economic effect of an increased life expectancy, but not show the causes of the increased life expectancy. That's not evidence the increased life expectancy has no human cause.

I'm sure you don't realize why these are insufficient, but they aren't and the reasons are blatant and obvious to anyone with a background in the sciences.
Peer review, peer review, peer review...It's a shame you can't look at facts and think for your self. Oh wait, you don't want to engage in critical thinking, that's not important. It's only important to repeat what someone else has already thought and published. I can see why you are stuck repeating the definition of science instead of practicing it.

Actually, Gehardt's conclusion is right on the money. It doesn't matter if we humans have played a substantial role in global warming, our only viable source of energy _are_ fossil fuels

Slide #62 presents an interesting reference -- by the way, you can sometimes get very good references out of unreviewed publications -- Maybe North America isn't responsible for much of the climate change? Worth looking up. Want some help on how to do that?

Ah yes. Anyone who agrees with Jocabia, or disagrees with you, is just dismissed as a "bunch of adolescents."

Interesting though that you choose to try to influence and communicate with those "adolescents" when it comes to pushing your "LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING" viewpoint.

Or maybe you don't try to communicate and this is all just trolling. Yeah, I'm gonna go with that one.
Actually, I was just poking fun at the "Rally in the Snow". The sum total of my intentions was to point out that activists need to work more on how they present their message.

But you're free to think what you want. You don't count for much either. And when it comes right down to it, my opinion is worth exactly what you pay for it.

a sustained cooling trend would help. *nod*

Like after WWII? But that was explained by something else.

The only cooling trend long enough would have to be so long that we'd all be dead before anyone admitted that it meant anything. Even then, it would probably be explained away somehow.

After all, this is the theory that says there is going to be an ice age in the northern hemisphere because the thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic is going to shut down, and then sea levels will rise.

However, god forbid anyone says it's all still in the no-one knows what's happening camp.

It's man made CO2 damnit!

But while I can't tell you what's going on with the climate, I can certainly recognize hysteria when I see it.

Actually, I was just poking fun at the "Rally in the Snow". The sum total of my intentions was to point out that activists need to work more on how they present their message.


And that intent was based on pure ignorance, so I would surmise your bitterness here is because the amusement was directed not at those you wanted it to be, but at yourself.

But you're free to think what you want.

Thanks! I will.

You don't count for much either.

Wah.

And when it comes right down to it, my opinion is worth exactly what you pay for it.

Perhaps even less.

Like after WWII? But that was explained by something else.

The only cooling trend long enough would have to be so long that we'd all be dead before anyone admitted that it meant anything. Even then, it would probably be explained away somehow.

After all, this is the theory that says there is going to be an ice age in the northern hemisphere because the thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic is going to shut down, and then sea levels will rise.

However, god forbid anyone says it's all still in the no-one knows what's happening camp.

It's man made CO2 damnit!

But while I can't tell you what's going on with the climate, I can certainly recognize hysteria when I see it.

Nothing like having all the scientific bases covered, eh? ;)

Actually, I was just poking fun at the "Rally in the Snow". The sum total of my intentions was to point out that activists need to work more on how they present their message.

How should they present their message then, in your mind?

More like this?
U.N. to assess climate change as threat to security (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/04/17/climate.un.britain.reut/)
Ex-generals: Global warming threatens U.S. security (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/15/warming.military.ap/index.html)

or this?
Climate Change Will Devastate South Asia (http://www.countercurrents.org/kothari180407.htm)

or like this?
Climate change warning on coast (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/climate-change-warning-on-coast/2007/04/16/1176696758094.html)
A high-level report, prepared by senior officials for last week's Council of Australian Governments meeting, predicts an alarming range of possible effects from global warming, from increased rates of mortality and disease, droughts, water scarcity and storm surges, as well as economic damage to key industries.

or maybe like this?
Climate change may hit Alaska's economy (http://www.redding.com/news/2007/apr/16/climate-change-may-hit-alaskas-economy/)

Or like this?
Climate change will bring new health risks worldwide (http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=143873&version=1&template_id=46&parent_id=26)

But no, it doesn't seem like you're just poking fun, or are concerned about their presentation. You're apparently concerned about the "scam" that is climate change...

The only thing you've shown is that people should be better at calling it "Climate change" rather than global warming... But then again, that will prompt some people to start the "But the climate changes all the time" line of reasoning, and thusly dismiss everything without a second thought.

Peer review, peer review, peer review...It's a shame you can't look at facts and think for your self. Oh wait, you don't want to engage in critical thinking, that's not important. It's only important to repeat what someone else has already thought and published. I can see why you are stuck repeating the definition of science instead of practicing it.



Peer reviewed articles are very important. It keeps scientists honest. I also believe its alright to believe a community of experts rather than trying to figure out these things by oneself. These people dedicate their lives to what they study and we might as well do the same if we wanted to understand the ends and outs of their work completely.

Peer review, peer review, peer review...

What have you to fear of peer review? Peer review is not about whether people agree with you. It's not a vote. It's a peer review of your methods. You don't present anything that's even made the methods available to us that has ANYTHING to do with the human effect of global warming. It's not coincidence that none of it survives peer review. It's because it's bad science.


It's a shame you can't look at facts and think for your self. Oh wait, you don't want to engage in critical thinking, that's not important. It's only important to repeat what someone else has already thought and published. I can see why you are stuck repeating the definition of science instead of practicing it.

Ah, yes, facts like your nonsensical OP that tries to pretend like Global warming means that all weather is warmer all the time.

I do review it for myself. However, you haven't presented ANYTHING worth reviewing. If you had science that actually discounted global warming, publishing would earn you funding for the rest of your life. This is true of anyone who had such science. If people are unwilling to present their methodology to their peers, they are automatically suspect, and should be.

What would you think of a mechanic who told you that he was willing to "fix" your car provided you never show it to another mechanic? A rational person would think that's shady.

And what would you think if you showed that mechanics work to everyone in his feild and they told you that it was dangerous negligent of the function of the car? Again, shady.

These scientists are hiding from peer review and it's not hard to figure out why.

I am practicing science when I request that scientific work be reviewed by peers. You appear to afraid of practicing real science.

Actually, Gehardt's conclusion is right on the money. It doesn't matter if we humans have played a substantial role in global warming, our only viable source of energy _are_ fossil fuels

Ha. So because we don't invest the level of money in alternative fuels as we do in fossil fuels we should continue investing in fossil fuels instead of alternate methods? Talk about circular reasoning. All most global warming scientists are calling for is investment in cleaner sources of fuel.

Slide #62 presents an interesting reference -- by the way, you can sometimes get very good references out of unreviewed publications -- Maybe North America isn't responsible for much of the climate change? Worth looking up. Want some help on how to do that?

Again, so now I'm going to have to look for your support? Hmmmm... Like I said, it's creation "science". Anything to avoid actually presenting the evidence for your own case. Poke holes in mountains of evidence without a solid scientific hypothesis or any support for a hypothesis of your own. It hasn't worked for ID and they've done a lot more work than you have. What makes you think it will work for you? Because you've got the oil companies behind you?

I don't believe I posted any abstracts. I've had power problems all morning, so I really haven't spent much time at the computer. Anyway, my time is worth more that the effort it takes to do the kind of lit survey you want to see. Worth way more than what anyone's opinion in this forum is worth.

But thanks for the lesson on science. Come visit me again after you have a Dr. in front of your name and a few other letters trailing.

Put another mark in your W column and be satisfied that you have impressed a bunch of adolescents.

Pardon? If I do or do not have a Dr. before my name, how will you verify it? If I have a Dr. before my name will that make my bad science into good science or does lacking one make good science into bad science? Science isn't about credentials, it's about methodology and that you'd try to pull the expert card just shows you don't understand even that basic point.

Put another mark in your L column and be satisfied that even a bunch of adolescents understand science well enough to see through your attempts to circumvent it.

Actually, I was just poking fun at the "Rally in the Snow". The sum total of my intentions was to point out that activists need to work more on how they present their message.

But you're free to think what you want. You don't count for much either. And when it comes right down to it, my opinion is worth exactly what you pay for it.

Actually, your opinion is worth exactly what YOU pay for it.

As of yet you haven't done any of the work it takes for anyone to give your opinion any value. So instead you get upset and break out the ad hominems ("come back when you're a Dr.") or the name-calling ("you're all a bunch of adolescents").

If that's all the faith you have your opinion, then why should we consider it worth anything at all?

Peer reviewed articles are very important. It keeps scientists honest. I also believe its alright to believe a community of experts rather than trying to figure out these things by oneself. These people dedicate their lives to what they study and we might as well do the same if we wanted to understand the ends and outs of their work completely.

No, peer reviews don't keep the scientists honest. It's the validation of the work presented in the articles that does that. Peer reviews are important because they weed out the obvious errors and generally make the article stronger. Just because a publication is refereed doesn't make the articles contained therein gospel.

But where do those articles all come from? Well, someone has a good idea, tests it, writes it up, sends it to a journal and so on. If all anyone, meaning Jocabia, ever did was to regurgitate conclusions that had been published, well, read a literature survey sometime and see how boring a rehash of old ideas can be. The fun of the sciences is the idea that you are expanding the horizon of knowledge. You can't do that without trying a few new ideas.

No, peer reviews don't keep the scientists honest. It's the validation of the work presented in the articles that does that. Peer reviews are important because they weed out the obvious errors and generally make the article stronger. Just because a publication is refereed doesn't make the articles contained therein gospel.

No, but you've just demonstrated what it does do. It weeds out the obvious errors and makes the article stronger. So when people don't submit themselves for peer review it is specifically to avoid removing those obvious errors. It would be like if I was afraid to let my book be submitted to an editor because I was afraid they'd notice the obvious grammatical errors and the complete misuse of words.


But where do those articles all come from? Well, someone has a good idea, tests it, writes it up, sends it to a journal and so on. If all anyone, meaning Jocabia, ever did was to regurgitate conclusions that had been published, well, read a literature survey sometime and see how boring a rehash of old ideas can be. The fun of the sciences is the idea that you are expanding the horizon of knowledge. You can't do that without trying a few new ideas.

Hilarious. A strawman and an ad hominem. I'm not promoting regurgitating articles. I'm suggesting that if a climatologist has NEW science to present they should write NEW articles, not regurgitate old ones. The only one avoiding new science is you.

New science MUST follow scientific method and without submitting that methodology how would any scientist know there was any value to that science. They wouldn't.

This style of argument is just so weak. You do everything to excuse your fear of presenting good science. And who can blame you? The science isn't behind you. You SHOULD be doing everything to try and obscure the flaws in your conclusions. It's just unfortunate you're not better at it.

The good professor has been published in scientific journals. Try again?

Does being published in scientific journals on other topics mean that he's right on this account? Otherwise, wouldn't he have had this information published in a peer reviewed journal? Because I've been published in the Journal of Applied Pyschology does that mean my essay in Reader's Digest has any scientific merit? Do you see what I'm getting at? The overwhelming majority agree and when the overwhelming majority disagrees then I'll take that as reason to change my opinion being I'm not a world renowned climatologist.

No, peer reviews don't keep the scientists honest. It's the validation of the work presented in the articles that does that. Peer reviews are important because they weed out the obvious errors and generally make the article stronger. Just because a publication is refereed doesn't make the articles contained therein gospel.

But where do those articles all come from? Well, someone has a good idea, tests it, writes it up, sends it to a journal and so on. If all anyone, meaning Jocabia, ever did was to regurgitate conclusions that had been published, well, read a literature survey sometime and see how boring a rehash of old ideas can be. The fun of the sciences is the idea that you are expanding the horizon of knowledge. You can't do that without trying a few new ideas.

I'm sorry but if McDonald's scientists ever publish a paper about the health benifits of Big Macs, it better be peer reviewed. Peer review is about fixing mistakes and making work more focused, but it also keeps scientists that have a non-scientific agenda from getting away with lies.

I'm sorry but if McDonald's scientists ever publish a paper about the health benifits of Big Macs, it better be peer reviewed. Peer review is about fixing mistakes and making work more focused, but it also keeps scientists that have a non-scientific agenda from getting away with lies.

I don't think you quite understand. Peer reviews, of which I've done many, are just efforts to weed out obvious errors. If a nutritionist wrote an article about how Big Macs cured cancer, I wouldn't read it. I work in microwaves.

But if I did read it, I'd look for places where the data didn't support the conclusions, as well as just trying to make suggestions of how the paper could be more clearly worded. Does the paper flow from one central thesis that is well expressed in the first paragraph? Well, it should. I work through newly derived equations to make sure units all match -- if it's a common set of equations, like Maxwell's, I make sure that it is, indeed, a proper use of the equation. No mixing meters and feet, for instance. Then, I also make comments that are returned to the author and editor, but not printed. Here, I may ask for more data, or something like that. Some reviewers are big on grammar and sentence structure, but I think that's a job for the journal editor to handle.

Still, if everything looks good, a falsified paper can get published. That's why I say an article in a refereed journal isn't the gospel. It's a starting point for further research.

The further research almost always begins with duplication of the results in the original article. That's were bad science falls apart. The results can't be duplicated and many comments are sent to the publisher. When one collects enough derogatory comments about the published work, a forthright author will re-examine the work and either publish supporting details or an outright retraction.

Sometimes it even blows up into the press. Remember the episode where the Emory Prof tried to make some stupid argument about how few handguns existed in the "Old West"? He ended up fired from Emory because he wasn't forthcoming in retracting his conclusions. On the other hand, Georgia Tech researchers published some findings about producing cold fusion, only to find that the results were not reproducible. They fessed up that an uncalibrated thermometer was to blame and were not fired.

So, you see that peer reviews are just a first filter. The fact that something has been published only means that there is nothing inconsistent within the paper. And yes, it does weed out the really bad stuff -- I'd hate to review things for publications where the authors also had political agendas. But peer-reviews don't prevent all bad papers from being published.

There is no such thing as bad weather, just bad clothing. :p

There is no such thing as bad weather, just bad clothing. :p

I don't think you quite understand. Peer reviews, of which I've done many, are just efforts to weed out obvious errors. If a nutritionist wrote an article about how Big Macs cured cancer, I wouldn't read it. I work in microwaves.

But if I did read it, I'd look for places where the data didn't support the conclusions, as well as just trying to make suggestions of how the paper could be more clearly worded. Does the paper flow from one central thesis that is well expressed in the first paragraph? Well, it should. I work through newly derived equations to make sure units all match -- if it's a common set of equations, like Maxwell's, I make sure that it is, indeed, a proper use of the equation. No mixing meters and feet, for instance. Then, I also make comments that are returned to the author and editor, but not printed. Here, I may ask for more data, or something like that. Some reviewers are big on grammar and sentence structure, but I think that's a job for the journal editor to handle.

Still, if everything looks good, a falsified paper can get published. That's why I say an article in a refereed journal isn't the gospel. It's a starting point for further research.

Yes. However, a non-peer-reviewed article hasn't even gone through this level of dilligence. You're arguing a strawman. No one has claimed that a peer-reviewed article is the gospel. What we've claimed is that a non-peer-reviewed article can contain all of the mistakes you've listed and the only reason to avoid peer-review is to not have said mistakes exposed.

The further research almost always begins with duplication of the results in the original article. That's were bad science falls apart. The results can't be duplicated and many comments are sent to the publisher. When one collects enough derogatory comments about the published work, a forthright author will re-examine the work and either publish supporting details or an outright retraction.

That duplication never occurs until the original results are published. Again, the claims you're making are not being submitted to this process to exposed as the bad science they are.


Sometimes it even blows up into the press. Remember the episode where the Emory Prof tried to make some stupid argument about how few handguns existed in the "Old West"? He ended up fired from Emory because he wasn't forthcoming in retracting his conclusions. On the other hand, Georgia Tech researchers published some findings about producing cold fusion, only to find that the results were not reproducible. They fessed up that an uncalibrated thermometer was to blame and were not fired.

So, you see that peer reviews are just a first filter. The fact that something has been published only means that there is nothing inconsistent within the paper. And yes, it does weed out the really bad stuff -- I'd hate to review things for publications where the authors also had political agendas. But peer-reviews don't prevent all bad papers from being published.

Again, strawman. You're 'evidence' hasn't even been through the first filter let alone the rest of process. Your 'evidence' is only surviving because it sits outside the scientific process. Yet you act like it's us avoiding science. Humorous, that is.

We're not saying a published paper is gospel, which is why we're calling for any article being submitted as evidence to include any peer review and submitted comments. It's precisely for the reasons you've outlined. Your 'evidence' has circumvented this process altogether and it's obvious why.