I understand what you're saying as well. I'm not asking you to pull punches, just be clear about what you really mean. People might be more receptive your point. When you overgeneralize it is very easy for people to dismiss you.Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
If you are basing your belief in any way on Al Gore (not a scientist) then you are missing the point. People on both sides are making lots of money on this issue, that's why you have to look at the science.
It's clear that some of you are starting with the conclusion that global warming is not an issue we need to address and then going to find evidence to support that preconceived conclusion. You can post dissenting opinions but its not very convincing when you link to a report claiming 700 dissenters when that is such a small group compared to the scientists who feel the evidence is compelling. If I have to choose a group to trust, I'll choose the group that includes pretty much all the major scientific organziations around the world who actually study the field.
Interesting article, but you have to remember the context of that article. Back then after they did their research on global warming and published it, political pundits spun that information and used it to generate fear to incite some kind of political changes. On both sides. Obviously they didn't want to be a part of that.
But we're talking about climate change, which has been happening since the beginning of time.
The mere fact that you referenced Al Gore as your first source about the subject shows me that your knowledge of the subject likely extends no further than what you've heard on Fox News.
The fact that you think scientists who find the evidence compelling make up less than 10% of the scientific community shows that you have no knowledge of any primary source material on the matter.
Just this week a study that was funded by skeptics released their results and said the evidence was compelling and that it was real.
Further, this goes to what I was saying in my last post. Climate change really was not that political (or controversial) until Al Gore got involved. Then a huge swath of the right decided they were going to deny it simply because Al Gore had to be blowing smoke.
Al Gore is the dirving force behind this sorry guys. You guys probably arent old enough to know all this.
The fact is this, there are scientists who say its FALSE, and there are scientists who say its real. Therefore= NOT PROVABLE, INCONCLUSIVE.
I dont know why its so hard to understand this. Are you a meteorologist? Are you a Climataologist? are you a scientist? then shut up
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Proves my point, there are far more political reasons behind it than science. We can argue all we want but there is no proof it exists, or doesnt exist. PERIOD.
How old are you again? Im sorry were you around 500 years ago? 100 years ago? 30 years ago? Are you a scientist?But we're talking about climate change, which has been happening since the beginning of time.
the same kid who thinks he knows more about the financial sector than a bank CEO now thinks he is a scientist too.
amazing.
Did you ever answer my question before? How old are you? what is your education level? what job do you have?
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
VTECKIDD: Makes bold scientific claims and attacks others for not being professional scientists.....
Is actually not a scientist himself
You're funny bro. Keep it coming
"Al Gore = the left wingnut voice that represents the ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY."
Who's delusional now?
i didnt make any claims, i stated that there is no conclusive evidence it exists, which is true.
Whats your age, whats you education level, what job do you hold?>
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
lawlz
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
OF*C
OEMFitment Crew Memeber 02
Future: OEM fogs, Koni/GC setup, and Volk RE30 wheels.
Assume my qualifications are such that permit me to speak on economic and scientific topics
which are?
my guess is you arent qualified to do anything
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
You claim that no evidence exists of climate change and global warming, which there is. That is a bold claim, and you have yet to back it up other than your notion that Al Gore is the front runner of the study and the spokesperson for the entire scientific community, which he's far from it; and a article, published by the government, of a group of scientists that don't want their name attached to the research they did because politicians were spinning it and undermining it.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You are still lacking on the extraordinary evidence.
that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Lol.
My qualifications are irrelevant at this point. Chances are, you being a young lower middle class Neo-conservative, you're gonna slam anything I say short of being the actual scientist with 17 degrees in climatology spearheading the whole study of climate change.
Clearly this shows the lack reasoning you possess or to grasp the topic at hand.
My argument and opinion has always been that you cannot prove global warming exists, because there are HUNDREDS of scientists and research that says its WRONG, just as there are people that say it actually is happening. Al gore is a figurehead, but i assume because your side likes to lump one person in as "the entire movement" its natural to try and deflect the issue and point i was trying to make.
for every "OMG THE EARTH IS WARMER" post you make i can show you hundreds of points of data that show "OMG THE EARTH IS COOLING". So, one could rationalize that neither side can prove anything because there simply isnt any conclusive data. PERIOD.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
my point isnt to degrade you, my point is neither you nor i are in any position to tell for certain what is happeneing
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
There is dissent everywhere in science because science by its nature, can't prove anything true. It can only prove things false. What are called scientific facts are really just ideas which we haven't been able to disprove despite lots of trying. There is never 100% concensus on anything but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take action on the evidence we have. And in the case of climate change, there is evidence for both sides but one side has a hell of a lot more evidence than the other. As with all science we have to move forward in the face of uncertainty, knowing there is always a chance we are wrong. To avoid action because there is a small percentage of dissenters risks severe consequences for the entire planet.
Then why do you seem so certain that it is NOT happening?
He is acting like because some scientists said that global warming exists it means its true. He made the statement "its been happeneing since the beginning of time" . So apparently he has some knowledge on the subject.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
did i say i was for raping the environment? NO.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Not just "some" scientist, it's a large majority of the relevant scientific community.
No you didn't. Nor did I accuse you of saying that. However, you did say that you didn't believe in man's effect on climate change despite the fact that a large majority of relevant scientist say the data is convincing. I'm just trying to figure out why you trust the small minority of scientists over the vast majority. If there was some sort of conspiracy to lie about global warming, it would have to be one of the most massive global conspiracies ever.
The problem with modern science is that it is so commercial. The "relevant scientific community" has something to gain from global warming, or evolution, or whatever other issue you want to bring up. It may be their ego, or it may be monetary gain. Either way far too much of the community is basing their conclusions on data that isnt entirely unbiased.
I'm a sports guy. I can look at the stats, which are undeniable, and come up with a dozen reasons why Stanford has a much stronger and better resume than LSU. Does it pass the smell test of anyone else that knows CFB? Not at all, but I can find data to support my theory.
Are you being really serious right now?
Are you saying that science is not commercial? You only have to look at all of the cases of fraud in the climate change sector to confirm it is.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...oax_99281.html
For your sake, I'm gonna pretend you didn't say that and then post that article to back it up. Lol
You can do what you want. It is a fact that todays scientific community can and does manipulate data to fit their own agenda. Whether you want to believe that or not is completely up to you.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
No. Its not a fact actually. Thats your opinion. The scientific method doesn't change because of someones agenda. Thats the beauty of science. You get a result, or you dont. No matter who's money is involved. The scientific method is what is internationally accepted as what we use to find things out. Just like time, or addition. 1+1 will always be 2. I dont care who you ask, who is doing the adding, and who is paying for whoever to do it. THAT is fact
This is why you see dissent, because other people, like politicians, are taking that data and twisting it to fit THEIR political agenda. Science isn't a political ideology, and scientists dont want their results mixed up in that. Credible scientists' only agenda is the truth.
Yet I just showed you an article about these same scientists changing or hiding data so they could 'prove' their own theories. It is not hard to manipulate data and the more complex the data, the easier it is to manipulate. The scientific method is infalible if it is used without bias, but just like a computer, it is only as good as the data you put into it. By modifing the data you can modify its output.
You showed me one incidence of one research facility, who's data was comprimised. Really? Do you not know about the CRU email controversy?
The data wasnt compromised, it was fraudulent and that fraud was perpetrated by those same scientists that you said wouldnt do that.
here is a case from Berkeley though if you want another one.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/art..._from_the.html
To say that global warming is the result of willfull manipulation of data is to claim there is a global conspiracy with hundreds of thousands of scientists participating in willful deception and/or incompetence. Your evidence is the so called "climategate" scandal from University of East Anglia which multiple investigations from multiple countries have concluded there was no wrong doing. You referenced opinion articles with clear political axes to grind with contents such as "Yet liberals, particularly those in journalism, regard this boob as an authority on earth science." refering to Al Gore, and "it appears the global warming advocates are up to their old tricks". While you have some legitimate concerns, your evidence is far from convincing.
Further you claim because climate scientists have something to gain by global warming being a real problem, that therefore they must be lying. Besides being a fallacy of motivation to conclude that, you neglect the fact that there are some very powerful interests who want to discredit global warming (e.g., a large portion of the energy sector, automobile manufacturers, etc.). Yet you are implicitly trusting the other side instead of simply saying you don't know if it is real or not.
Isn't it funny that "climategate" just got disproven but it got no media attention? Can't imagine why that would be....
Admitting you jumped to conclusions and were wrong about a scandal not being a scandal doesn't sell papers.
"97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of Anthropogenic Climate Change (That means climate change caused by humans) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers"
I don't think Herman Cain had read this article before he made his claim that it didnt exist. Sorry to burst your bubble, Herman...
(Links to a .pdf article) A little lengthy read...
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20....full.pdf+html
So is this....(not a pdf)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15400748
But hey, how credible is a couple of scientist guys from Stanford, Toronto, and Palo Alto anyway? LOL.
More... Shows some models with and without human emissions.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...ure-spm-4.html
I can produce more compelling data if requested
"The most quantitative evidence for global warming consists of 1.4 billion earth land surface temperature measurements dating back to Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. There is useable Earth coverage from 1800 to the present, and excellent coverage from 1900 onward. There have been several criticisms of the prior analyses of these data by NOAA, NASA, and the UK. These include data selection bias (the groups use on 20% or less of the available stations), poor station quality (80% of the US stations are ranked poor by US govt standards), unseparated influence of urban heat islands, and possible bias from the adjustment procedures applied to the data to compensate for station moves and instrument changes. We have now completed a new study of all these issues. Using a statistical approach developed by team member Robert Rohde, we are able to use virtually all the data. We’ve studied each of the systematics in depth, and have looked at possible driving forces other than the greenhouse effect. Our ongoing work consists of analysis of ocean data and exploratory analysis of other climate effects." -Richard Muller, Physicist at University of California, Berkley.
So is climate change happening? Yes. Is it some scary "we're-all-gonna-die-the-day-after-tomorrow" type scenario? No. It is only a cause for concern at this point, and it is still an ongoing study. We dont really know if and when we'll get swallowed up by our own emissions, but its not going to be any time soon.
Last edited by .blank cd; 11-05-2011 at 03:09 AM.
Anything UN has no legitimacy to me. It is a heavily corrupt organization that I have absolutely zero faith in. That criticism applies equally to ALL facets of the UN, not the the climate side of it.
Written by a climate change student at Stanford.
Let me put this in simple terms. If a group of scientists that worked for the oil industry came out and said man made global warming was a fallacy would that carry as much weight as one written by someone studying or teaching man made global warming? No, but both sides carry an equally large bias into their research.
Taking measurements of the earth's surface temp only tells us the earth is warming, not why.
Considering there are now 7 Billion people breathing and producing CO2, I suggest we start ridding the world of excess people immediately. I propose we start by emptying all the prisons, and executing all the prisoners, and turning them nickle cadmium factories for electric cars.
Here is a short, not very in depth article on the idea of electric cars.
I take it science was not your major in college, or even your strong suit in high school. There are a lot of people, even on this site, that would believe whatever you just said here (and thats actually really depressing) but if you went and spouted that off in a scientific discussion with other people who are actually strong in science, they would all look at you with blank stares. I'm just looking out for you.
It's clear that you don't understand the scientific method or peer review. Let me give you an example. If I put two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom together using the scientific method, I'll get water, every single time. As a trained career scientist, I know that I have to be skeptical about my data, so I'll use peer review to have other scientists check and see what I got. H2O isn't socialist or capitalist or communist or Christian or Muslim or any of that. It doesn't work that way
What you don't understand is that climate change isn't as infallible as creating water. There are plenty of studies that contradict man mad climate change.
There is also a lot of money behind climate change scientist because it leans toward this green tech green energy industry libs want to force on everyone.
That is indisputable
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
2 flawed scientists agreeing don't make a right, just saying.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
I do understand creating water is a little different than climate change, but the method we use to find these out and double check them is the same.
No scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change. Actual fact. Just saying. You may be referring to disputes to its effects on the immediate and the foreseeable future, or scientists that are still unsure of its cause.
You keep using this word liberal in a political context and applying it in a purely scientific context. It doesnt work that way. Science finds the answers, politicians and political pundits spin it to push their own political agendas either way. You are absorbing the spin and regurgitating it as science.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
