Global Warming: What's With This Map? (Christmas, accuse, March, 9/11)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do not want to see polls... I want to see facts! NO scientist can say with 100% assurance that global warming is man-made! There are scientists that believe in global warming that cannot say that man has had anything to do with it.
There are scientists that have gone on record and risked their entire career saying that the conclusion that they have come to is that man has had no effect on global climate!
Unfortunately, you will not see any of that here. What you will see is a lot of politicizing of the issue. Few will even speak of the actual science. Notice how the questions of ice melt quickly faded away after facts were provided (even though they didn't conclude anything major for either side of the issue).
You will also notice how none will touch the questions I asked or even bother discussing them. They will continue to ride through proclaiming superiority as they cheer their devotion to their winning team "consensus of the political realm" and talk down to the people they so often claim to be "uneducated". If I had a nickle for every time someone arrogantly proclaimed "intelligence" and "education" only to avoid any form of conversation that might force them to display this, I could own the world.
please dont listen to any person here who believes in global warming. why? because there is so much science against it (or at least saying it is a normal thing or tha tother factors are causing it naturally)
1. what happened to the "worlds going to flood scare"? that blew over quite quickly no? now its the polar bears are dieing scare. but we knwo now that even if all the ice metled the world wouldnt become super flooded. why? cause msot of the worlds ice is already in the water. meanign when it melts nothign would change.
2. a number of "global warming" awareness leaders are compeltely unqualified and use it to push a political agenda. david suzuki, is a zoologist, and 30 years ago he was part of a movment to raise awareness for "global cooling" funny huh? al gores movie "an inconvenient truth" was full of lies and completely irrelevant things. it used such things as "there used to be snow on this mountain top now no more" (when we know different areas temperature can change naturally) and "polar bears are dieing du to melting ice", when in fact this has not been proven and has been implied it is more likely caused to fierce storms. the list goes on.
2. look anywhere. there are time sin history when the carbon dioxide level was 10X times, 100x what it is now. but it was colder!!!!!!! so is it onyl in this century that c02 affect temperature??
3. the sun bviously has the largest effects on temperature, epsecially sunspots, which can change the earths temperature. did you also knwo some scientists in russia are argueing the world is cooling down??
so with all this countering information, it is impossibel to believe it is actually happening.
You know, you expect arrogant behavior on these boards in and how it concerns various topics. I don't think anyone is surprised to see various fallacies or smug evasive responses, but when you see it in the scientific community as it concerns the data, the research, the entire purpose of science and its pursuit, it is a bit disheartening.
Steve McIntyre, if you know of him, is quite the thorn in the side of many in a few specific areas of climate science. Hansen obviously dislikes him as he burst his bubble on the warmest year trends concerning surface temperatures and the records. Mann also shows no love for him as it was McIntyre who has blown open all of the errors in his work and put a crack in the whole "Hockey Stick" fiasco and there are many others who also have tangled with him in various other specifics to which they ALL used various stone walling approaches to the access to their proclaimed "consensus" driven findings.
And yet here we have another more recently pulling the same old song and dance denying access to the data for fear that their precious findings might be found lacking and may not fit within the "molded" ideal to which some areas of climate science appear to cling to.
If this were any other field, the hammer would come down with force, yet apparently in climate science, everyone hides their data, afraid that it might be proven wrong. I guess while in other scientific fields, it is the pursuit of truth, yet in climate science it is the pursuit of ones bias.
Here in Denver, the thing I notice throughout the year is that night time lows very much tend to be higher than average, both winter and summer. The obvious result of this is that if you went back 25 years in Denver, you'd notice that by Halloween, all the trees were bare. Now it's mid November and there are still trees with color, a few bare, and some are still fairly green. I'm sure you'd notice a similar phenomenon in other parts of the country.
Banana and Kiwi fossils have been found in Oregon.
The planet is cyclical...It changes all the time... 10 yr, 30 yr. 100 yr. time frames don't cut it on this sphere.
The underlying theme of your comments are based on the fallacy of "appeal to authority". That is, you won't question the science if it doesn't add up, it must be true because several scientist agree right?
Look at my questions concerning warming several posts back. Explain the issues with those? You do realize that a large portion of the politically driven scare on this issue is based on sloppy science?
Surface stations, Dendro Correlations, Poorly applied mathematics and scientific process are at fault for many of the misunderstandings out there. While much of the research in the IPCC's AR4 is correct, some of it, more specifically the foundations to the claims are suspect and have been proven faulty.
This issue has been fought at the political realm, not in the scientific realm where it should be. The problem is that there are many who are pushing for a political agenda and have quickly skipped the steps of proper scientitifc question in order to rush off into the political realms where fallacies and spin exists without question.
My stance is no more an appeal to authority than assuming that cigarette smoking does indeed cause cancer appeals to an authority. I also appeal to an authority in believing that China really exists, because I've never been there myself.
I would simply ask you why you haven't published your, uhh, scientific analysis in peer-reviewed journals. I would also ask you why people like Stephen Hawking don't see your alleged scientific flaws.
My stance is no more an appeal to authority than assuming that cigarette smoking does indeed cause cancer appeals to an authority. I also appeal to an authority in believing that China really exists, because I've never been there myself.
I am referring to the logical fallacy and yes, you are indeed "appealing to authority" being as you expect people to accept these claims and not question them. That is exactly what a "consensus" serves in this situation. Don't question, these are big smart scientific organizations, they are right!
Quote:
Originally Posted by bouncing
I would simply ask you why you haven't published your, uhh, scientific analysis in peer-reviewed journals. I would also ask you why people like Stephen Hawking don't see your alleged scientific flaws.
It really is a matter of credibility.
All you have are fallacies? Seriously, can you not discuss a topic without degrading it to that level? What does my publishing have anything to do with the evidence from those who have published claim? Each time this discussion comes up, the oh so repetitious "appeal to authority" and then the attack credibility are thrown out like clockwork without once dealing with anything concerning the actual information.
Answer to the surface station records.
Answer to the problems with dendrochronology proxy correlations.
Answer to the stone walling of data within many of these scientists making claims.
Answer to something rather than throwing out more fallacies.
You do realize all of these issues have been brought up? Hansen has been caught in the game of cheery picking and had his temp records changed. Mann has been caught with poor use of data and sloppy math to tailor his results. The surface records have been shown to be severely lacking, even by statements from GISS itself. And many of the stone walling that has been going on has been documented and displayed for all to see.
Maybe a bit more objective reading might do you some good? Or not. /shrug
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
