News Article: Interesting article on global warming causes and effecte

[CrimsonCT]

This is data over a 400,000 year period. You can see just how cyclical all of this is, so how can you blame it on the actions of the human race? It was here long before the last 50 years. Again I provide data, and again all you do is link to some article that you don't even understand. You link to something that backs up your claim of global warming, yet you know nothing about the forces that drive our climate. It makes no sense. I know I came off as being on a pedestal in my original post in this thread, but I have my reasons. The fact that your knowledge of Climatology is limited is the very reason I came off so vehemently in my original post. It's people like you that drive me crazy. You don't to accept facts, and you don't provide any of your own. It's impossible.

LOL! I knew it was a mistake to try and be civil with you. First you attack a perceived bias of my post, and follow-up with the outdated journalism of AIM, which is some of the most slanted reporting imaginable (want to hear about the gay agenda? Obama's anti-Christian platform? AIM is the place!). Your article made several glaring factual errors that you repeated in your post which were so obvious one doesn't have to look past Wikipedia for the correction. And then you have the gall to say that my knowledge is lacking and that I don't understand what I post? Sorry, but you're pretty much wrong on every count there. I suppose it's easier for you to pat your own back and call your opponent stupid, but it really makes you come off like a jackass. So you'll have to direct your condescension toward other posters in the future, because it no longer amuses me.

You say I don't accept facts. That's the biggest lol you've posted, since my position is the one supported by the scientific consensus. Sure there are unresolved questions, and the consensus might one day swing to your side. But it hasn't yet, and until it does it's laughable to suggest that I do not follow the facts. Unless, you know, you're smarter than all the PhD researchers out there whose majority opinion currently sides with my position. Good luck in your crusade, though... I might suggest a more cordial approach in the future.

 

[RedStar]

LOL! I knew it was a mistake to try and be civil with you. First you attack a perceived bias of my post, and follow-up with the outdated journalism of AIM, which is some of the most slanted reporting imaginable (want to hear about the gay agenda? Obama's anti-Christian platform? AIM is the place!). Your article made several glaring factual errors that you repeated in your post which were so obvious one doesn't have to look past Wikipedia for the correction. And then you have the gall to say that my knowledge is lacking and that I don't understand what I post? Sorry, but you're pretty much wrong on every count there. I suppose it's easier for you to pat your own back and call your opponent stupid, but it really makes you come off like a jackass. So you'll have to direct your condescension toward other posters in the future, because it no longer amuses me.

You say I don't accept facts. That's the biggest lol you've posted, since my position is the one supported by the scientific consensus. Sure there are unresolved questions, and the consensus might one day swing to your side. But it hasn't yet, and until it does it's laughable to suggest that I do not follow the facts. Unless, you know, you're smarter than all the PhD researchers out there whose majority opinion currently sides with my position. Good luck in your crusade, though... I might suggest a more cordial approach in the future.

It's not a majority, as pointed out. The majority is silent, as usual. If you took the time to look through the endless amounts of information I've posted or that is readily available on the internet, you'd know that. Scientific consensus is always achieved by a loud minority, never by a silent majority.

You completely ignore my points as usual. Will you ever answer my questions or attempt to reply to facts I've posted? Or will you simply continue to twist everything I say towards something you've already mentioned? Why is it so hard to answer my questions or to reply to facts that I've posted? Why do you constantly dodge? Why can't you respond to my facts about Sun Spots, hurricanes, cyclical temperatures, or CO2 levels or Ice Core Data? It's easy to argue your point when you simply overlook everything I say.

My condescension is aimed squarely at you because you act as if you have some background in this knowledge when you don't. I don't pretend to know things that I'm not familiar with. I wouldn't tell NYBamaFan where to find the best pizza in New York, I wouldn't even think about telling bayoutider how to cook a meal (go look at his vast number of recipes) and I wouldn't tell Coach Saban that I didn't approve of a player he's recruiting, so I don't understand why you get so offended when I tell you that I know what I'm talking about on this. I don't do it to often, but when I do, I mean it.

You haven't done the research (you've simply posted journal articles from the vocal minority.) I've spent years doing varying degrees of research on the subject at hand, so why is it so hard to listen to me and constantly try to belittle me? Why does it bother you so much when I say that I know what I'm talking about on this?

If you believe we're responsible for Global Warming, then that's fine, it's your prerogative. But if you're going to believe in it, at least try to answer the facts I've presented to you.

Please, do the following, explain the cyclical nature of earths temperature, CO2 levels and dust concentration. Just answer that. Tell me why the earth heats and cools cyclically and why it increases and decreases over the same time period despite the lack of industrialization in the past.

If you can't answer that, or address any of the other numerous facts I've presented, then you've proven my point. You really don't know what you're talking about.

 

[CrimsonCT]

You really have no idea what you're talking about, and you clearly know nothing about my academic pursuits.

There are a handful of credible climate scientists who support your view (Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Spencer, Christy), but that minuscule list pretty much comprises the whole. There's no getting around this point: to deny the consensus is to deny reality. There are better responses to this argument, so I find it incredible that you are insisting that all the intelligent climatologists are simply... what? staying quiet?

But I suppose you're smarter than all the PIs that have been researching and publishing on this topic, yes? No matter how stupid you think I am, you've been unable to coherently refute their data. And if you had the capacity to do so, you would be publishing your genius rather than rambling on TideFans. So forgive me if I take the weight of the scientific community over your insistence that they're all wrong. It baffles me that you would fault the literature here. You must think very little of the scientific process and less of the research that has been done, which itself tells me more than your words ever could.

 

[RedStar]

You really have no idea what you're talking about, and you clearly know nothing about my academic pursuits.

There are a handful of credible climate scientists who support your view (Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Spencer, Christy), but that minuscule list pretty much comprises the whole. There's no getting around this point: to deny the consensus is to deny reality. There are better responses to this argument, so I find it incredible that you are insisting that all the intelligent climatologists are simply... what? staying quiet?

But I suppose you're smarter than all the PIs that have been researching and publishing on this topic, yes? No matter how stupid you think I am, you've been unable to coherently refute their data. And if you had the capacity to do so, you would be publishing your genius rather than rambling on TideFans. So forgive me if I take the weight of the scientific community over your insistence that they're all wrong. It baffles me that you would fault the literature here. You must think very little of the scientific process and less of the research that has been done, which itself tells me more than your words ever could.

You're failure to acknowledge anything I just said both amazes and pleases me. Instead you basically belittle me, again. You've called me a jackass and compared me to a "kindergartner." These boards are above name calling. Real classy. . .

My previous post stated "If you can't answer that, or address any of the other numerous facts I've presented, then you've proven my point. "

You said nothing.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[RammerJammer14]

You say I don't accept facts. That's the biggest lol you've posted, since my position is the one supported by the scientific consensus. Sure there are unresolved questions, and the consensus might one day swing to your side. But it hasn't yet, and until it does it's laughable to suggest that I do not follow the facts. Unless, you know, you're smarter than all the PhD researchers out there whose majority opinion currently sides with my position. Good luck in your crusade, though... I might suggest a more cordial approach in the future.

There's no getting around this point: to deny the consensus is to deny reality...
So forgive me if I take the weight of the scientific community...

I posted about this earlier, but I think I need to say it again. Consensus means nothing in science. Nobody says there is a scientific consensus that the world is round. Consensus does not prove that v=d/t, or that 2+2=4. They are facts, not agreement. When people start pointing to consensus to "prove" their position, they do so because the facts are not there to rely on and back them up. When you say that the majority "currently sides with my position", you are admitting that there are not enough facts to prove that man causes climate change, and so you have fallen back on the old defense of having a consensus on your side. Everbody else jumped off the bridge too.

Once again I will quote Michael Chrichton, this time on the valididty of computer models:

But now large-scale computer models are seen as generating data in themselves. No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world-increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a reality. And indeed they are, when we are projecting forward. There can be no observational data about the year 2100. There are only model runs. ...
Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horse....? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses? But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport....
Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it's even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They're bound to be wrong.

And here is an example of the type of stuff computer models are based on (This on the Drake equation, how to find alien life):

N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL

Where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live.

This serious-looking equation gave SETI an serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we're clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be "informed guesses." If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It's simply prejudice.

As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science.

[URL]http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html[/URL]

 

[CrimsonCT]

I posted about this earlier, but I think I need to say it again. Consensus means nothing in science. Nobody says there is a scientific consensus that the world is round. Consensus does not prove that v=d/t, or that 2+2=4. They are facts, not agreement. When people start pointing to consensus to "prove" their position, they do so because the facts are not there to rely on and back them up. When you say that the majority "currently sides with my position", you are admitting that there are not enough facts to prove that man causes climate change, and so you have fallen back on the old defense of having a consensus on your side. Everbody else jumped off the bridge too.

No one is using consensus to prove anything. It merely indicates the general opinion of the field based on the available data. Of course, science doesn't seek to prove, only to disprove. But it would be an intellectual disservice to set two opposing notions as wholly equivalent up until the time that one is soundly refuted. The weight of evidence will tip in one favor far sooner than the ultimate falsification. And this weight of evidence is measured by the consensus opinion. There is the question of when to introduce policy based on this consensus, but that is an entirely separate issue. Refusing to consider it at all would be an unsound doctrine. Would you reject the scientific consensus on evolution and insist that creationism be taught in schools as an equal alternative?

Crichton was a fun man to read. He argues that models extend the present into the future, but that very action can spark a change that will lead to an alternate timeline in which the prognostication remains fortunately false. It identifies variables that must change to prevent a certain consequence. In this case, it alerts of the potential danger of man-influenced global climate change, using past and present data to extrapolate the future. But the hope isn't for the prediction to ring true in 50 years, rather for a change in our ecological interaction to avoid the future where trends remain stagnant and the model is confirmed. His view on modeling misses an important feature.

Additionally, the Drake equation is not a hypothesis, and is not what SETI tests. It may be used to form testable hypotheses, but from what I've read, their methodology has always involved testable inquiries. Much of the SETI project (such as analyzing data streams) is independent of the Drake equation entirely. It is not a religion, and Crichton wrongly characterized it as such.

 

[NYBamaFan]

No one is using consensus to prove anything. It merely indicates the general opinion of the field based on the available data.

Then it should not be used in an argument. The world is flat, was the general consenus. Therefore the world must be flat. Proof - no one has ever been able to sail around the world.

Of course, science doesn't seek to prove, only to disprove.

Fair enough.

The weight of evidence will tip in one favor far sooner than the ultimate falsification. And this weight of evidence is measured by the consensus opinion...

Huh? I thought that science was used to disprove and that consensus were not used as proof of anything. You contradict yourself. The two cannot be used together unless the science is being used to disprove the consensus. Therefore, consensus = manipulated science.

I will tell you something that Jack Welch one said - group thinking means that no one is thinking. When one allows one's ideas and thoughts to be directed by another, one loses any chance to influence the world around them. To simply fall in step with others is to decide to follow, no matter where the leader might take you. This was obviously a seminar on leadership, but the principle applies everywhere else in life.

Man made GW = group think. One person or group sets an agenda and everyone, in an effort to get funding for their "research", goes along with that agenda. Step one foot outside the proscribed arena and you lose your funding along with your reputation. (or get burned as a witch, if we go backwards a few hundred years)

Gee, I wonder why there is so much "consensus" and so little science (attempt to DISPROVE man made GW)...

 

[CrimsonCT]

Then it should not be used in an argument. The world is flat, was the general consenus. Therefore the world must be flat. Proof - no one has ever been able to sail around the world.

Of course it should. There's an obvious difference between the non-experimentally-tested hypothesis that the earth is flat and the rigorously tested hypothesis that humans influence global climate change.

"This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen."

--The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Science

Huh? I thought that science was used to disprove and that consensus were not used as proof of anything. You contradict yourself. The two cannot be used together unless the science is being used to disprove the consensus. Therefore, consensus = manipulated science.

You misunderstand. There are numerous hypotheses to answer any given question under scrutiny. The conclusion of each study identifies the hypotheses that have not yet been disproven by evidence. And the consensus opinion is the accumulation of these hypotheses that haven't been rejected experimentally. So science indeed seeks to disprove, and the consensus opinion has consistently survived this vetting process. There is no contradiction.

I will tell you something that Jack Welch one said - group thinking means that no one is thinking. When one allows one's ideas and thoughts to be directed by another, one loses any chance to influence the world around them. To simply fall in step with others is to decide to follow, no matter where the leader might take you. This was obviously a seminar on leadership, but the principle applies everywhere else in life.

Man made GW = group think. One person or group sets an agenda and everyone, in an effort to get funding for their "research", goes along with that agenda. Step one foot outside the proscribed arena and you lose your funding along with your reputation. (or get burned as a witch, if we go backwards a few hundred years)

Gee, I wonder why there is so much "consensus" and so little science (attempt to DISPROVE man made GW)...

Group think is a danger in every field. But as stated above, the consensus is really under constant assault.

 

[NYBamaFan]

...Group think is a danger in every field. But as stated above, the consensus is really under constant assault.

I agree that it is under constant assault, but those doing the assaulting are in the minority instead of the majority for a reason - they are afraid. Afraid that they will lose funding and/or their reputation for even questioning the "consensus"...

 

[CrimsonCT]

I agree that it is under constant assault, but those doing the assaulting are in the minority instead of the majority for a reason - they are afraid. Afraid that they will lose funding and/or their reputation for even questioning the "consensus"...

That's not quite what I meant. Every time a researcher (even those in the accused group think agenda) investigates a question, there will be a number of hypotheses generated. Some will support the consensus and others will oppose it. In this sense, the consensus is always being attacked. But it is also false that journals will refuse to publish reputable scientists whose results contradict the general opinion. Just look at Fred Singer's articles and note how many high-impact journals have accepted his work despite being an opponent of human-influenced global warming. It's not that the scientists are being silenced by the community or live in fear of pulled funding--there quite simply aren't many who believe as you do.

 

[NYBamaFan]

...But it is also false that journals will refuse to publish reputable scientists whose results contradict the general opinion. Just look at Fred Singer's articles and note how many high-impact journals have accepted his work despite being an opponent of human-influenced global warming.

I never mentioned journals. Journals do not fund research.

It's not that the scientists are being silenced by the community or live in fear of pulled funding--there quite simply aren't many who believe as you do.

Wrong - there are thousands, but they live on a razor's edge, and are ridiculed...

 

[Bamaro]

Some of you must be really upset that you missed out on other ridiculous arguments:
The world is flat
The sun revolves around the earth
Cigarettes aren't harmful
CFCs dont harm the atmosphere
Removing R12 will be the end of affordable A/C
Now you are left to defend the un-defendable:
Global warming is a hoax

Good luck with that!

 

[CrimsonCT]

I never mentioned journals. Journals do not fund research

It was another poster who had mentioned that journals refuse to publish reports that grate against the consensus. My bad.

Wrong - there are thousands, but they live on a razor's edge, and are ridiculed...

Can you list them? Or was that number just an arbitrary one?

 

[RedStar]

Some of you must be really upset that you missed out on other ridiculous arguments:
The world is flat
The sun revolves around the earth
Cigarettes aren't harmful
CFCs dont harm the atmosphere
Removing R12 will be the end of affordable A/C
Now you are left to defend the un-defendable:
Global warming is a hoax

Good luck with that!

You do realize you just posted arguments that used to be backed up by "Scientific Consensus" don't you?

If we were arguing those points you would be the one saying the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, etc. . .

Scientific Consensus has been proven wrong time and time again, so what makes you think it's correct this time even when all the facts are in my corner?

 

[RedStar]

Can you list them? Or was that number just an arbitrary one?

Why should he? You refuse to answer any and all questions. What makes you think anyone will comply with you since you refuse the same service to them?

 

[RammerJammer14]

I probally should have worded that better. What I meant is that you are relying on the idea of scientific consensus to prove that you are right. You are admitting that there is not enough scientific evidence to prove that man has caused "global warming" (or disprove that they aren't, whatever) at this time. You cannot simply throw out the results that don't agree with your hypothesis.

To pretend that a majority consensus will eventually end up being the right one, merely because there are more scientists in the majority, is a falty assumption. Science is not politics, and should not be treated as such. And it is not a good idea pretend that "trends will remain stagnant" and then use the resulting data for action. Passing sweeping legislation to "avert" some percieved man made climate change based on unvarified conjecture is stupid. There is no reason to pass massive taxes on business and citizens to reduce the amount of carbon released. To do so is to reduce efficiency and kill the economy.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

This is a bogus statement. To say "oh, we might be wrong, and you have every reason to disagree, but if everybody dies in 50 yrs and civilization ends, we're blaming you" is nothing but fear-mongering. This should imediately throw up red flags. Whenever somebody starts saying you should give them money because your children or grandchildren may be at risk, it is because they have nothing real to actually back up their position with. Our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we had legitimate concern that anthropogenic climate change was bogus, but we decided to destroy the economy and encroach on freedom anyways, and subseqently destroy their world.

It is never a good idea to follow falty science because, "what could it hurt, right?"

PS-I do not base my opinion on Crichton's speech, but it is a pretty good source for what I need to say.

 

[NYBamaFan]

Can you list them? Or was that number just an arbitrary one?

There was actually a site that listed thousands of them. The link is posted in another thread, but that was some time ago...

 

[NYBamaFan]

You do realize you just posted arguments that used to be backed up by "Scientific Consensus" don't you?

If we were arguing those points you would be the one saying the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, etc. . .

Scientific Consensus has been proven wrong time and time again, so what makes you think it's correct this time even when all the facts are in my corner?

In fact, those who opposed these views were persecuted for doing so - exactly what has happened in recent years with respect to man made global warming and the exclusion of homosexuality from the list of mental disorders...

 

[Bamaro]

You do realize you just posted arguments that used to be backed up by "Scientific Consensus" don't you?

If we were arguing those points you would be the one saying the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, etc. . .

Scientific Consensus has been proven wrong time and time again, so what makes you think it's correct this time even when all the facts are in my corner?

The old ones yes, the new ones no.

 

[RhodeIslandRed]

In fact, those who opposed these views were persecuted for doing so - exactly what has happened in recent years with respect to man made global warming and the exclusion of homosexuality from the list of mental disorders...

This change came from the transition from DSM-II to DSM-III, I believe. Again this was a political move and not necessarily from any biological basis for the assertion.

While the conservatives on the psychiatry board were sleeping, several (closet) homosexual psychiatrists were elected to the board and the change was made. At least that's what I remember from an old article.

Regardless, politics and hidden agendas are far more common than, I believe, we appreciate. They are probably also in play in global warming as well.