Global Warming

[vz71]

I love the fact that people see snow on the ground and think everything is ok.

You’re kidding right?

I have yet to hear anyone say anything of the sort.
What I have heard is people looking at the snow on the ground and concluding that global warming is a myth.

 

[vz71]

Everything vs said was entirely false. There is tons of evidence to suggest that the Earth is warming.

Who is ‘vs’?

And the crippling of the economy is better than the destruction of the world.

Agreed. But I want proof positive before I lay waste to the economy.

Either way, I’m done debating this issue with ideologues.

I am curious what exactly defines an ‘ideologue’ in your view. Wanting proof and seeing a lack of evidence for claims of global warming hardly makes an ideologue to me.
Ad-Hominum is the last bastion of those with no argument.

Thank God we now have a president who will ignore you nay-sayers.

Good luck with that. As said before, I am not pursueded that the president will look any further then whatever proof-text there is to support his own agenda.
One need look no further then his ‘economic stimulus’ bill to see that.

 

[vz71]

Umm why does doing something about global warming whether it is trying to cut carbon emissions or prepare for possible and or likely changes suddenly mean our economy will be crippled? You know I find it funny us AGW people are so often accused of alarmism…but there is alarmism on both sides.

Look at the Kyoto treaty, look to the rolling blackouts that California had last summer.
There is tangible evidence to show that the policies put forth to attempt to change the climate are detrimental to the economy of this country.

And I should clarify something…I do not think the models can predict with 100% accuracy the future. If I gave the impression I thought that I am sorry maybe I wasn;t paying enough attention to what I was writting. I do however think they can predict what will likely happen.

Except that a couple of decades ago they were predicting a coming ice age. Of course the scientists all say the models are better now, but that has been said before as well.
Decades ago they predicted an ice age and lost credibility.
Now they are laying claim to global warming happening now, and people look outside and see…snow.
Credibility is still a problem with these people.

And while I can understand wanting 100% proof we probably aren;t going to get that until things are actually happening. Besides I am pretty sure proof as most here would think of it doesn;t really exist in Science

Sure it does.
We know the speed of light, We know how fast object fall to earth in a vacuum…these are just two items we know through Science. There is agreement in the scientific community of 100% and there is proof.
The idea that we can never have proof smacks of reletavism.

 

[Neolithic]

Who is ‘vs’?Agreed. But I want proof positive before I lay waste to the economy.I am curious what exactly defines an ‘ideologue’ in your view. Wanting proof and seeing a lack of evidence for claims of global warming hardly makes an ideologue to me.
Ad-Hominum is the last bastion of those with no argument.
Good luck with that. As said before, I am not pursueded that the president will look any further then whatever proof-text there is to support his own agenda.
One need look no further then his ‘economic stimulus’ bill to see that.

Me and several others have offered site after site after site, and you people refuse to accept them. You hold firm the belief that 80% of scientist’s are pushing a liberal agenda for fame and fortune. You fail to see that hardly anything is “fact” in the scientific world; so, if you’re wondering why words like “likely,” “probably,” etc are used, that’s why.

Furthermore, Climate Change is fact - that we know. Global Warming is a fact. The only thing left to be considered is whether or not the cause is man, and 80% of scientists say it is. All of them seek fame and fortune, right?

Too, the idea that the Earth is cooling as evidence against Global Warming has been explained and you refuse to accept that answer. Talk about someone who has no argument: it’s you and the other nay-sayers who keep saying “no proof,” “no proof,” and “no proof.”

As I said, what if you’re wrong and we listened to you people? Then the damage is irreversible. At least if the economy is damaged, it’s reversible. Or, did you not make that connection?

Again, this argument is a waste of time. Jesus Christ could appear to the world and say that Global Warming is real and the cause is man, and you’d argue with Him.

 

[Calliso]

Look at the Kyoto treaty, look to the rolling blackouts that California had last summer.
There is tangible evidence to show that the policies put forth to attempt to change the climate are detrimental to the economy of this country.

Except that a couple of decades ago they were predicting a coming ice age. Of course the scientists all say the models are better now, but that has been said before as well.
Decades ago they predicted an ice age and lost credibility.
Now they are laying claim to global warming happening now, and people look outside and see…snow.
Credibility is still a problem with these people.

Sure it does.
We know the speed of light, We know how fast object fall to earth in a vacuum…these are just two items we know through Science. There is agreement in the scientific community of 100% and there is proof.
The idea that we can never have proof smacks of reletavism.

Well first off about the ice age predictions from what I have read most scientists were not actually predicting that. realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/ According to this between 1965 and 1979 7 papers predicted cooling, 20 were neutral and 44 predicted warming. It seems to me from what I have read the idea that so many scientists were almost sure we were about to hit another ice age came from the popular media…which we should know by now gets things wrong all the time, likely in the quest to make the story more “interesting”

As for proof I think I did maybe get it a bit wrong…but here is something that might explain what I meant a little better.

"I. THE NATURE OF SCIENTIFIC PROOF
A. Is there proof in science?

1. In the sense that the word proof is used in mathematics and philosophy, nothing
   is ever proven in science. There is always some uncertainty about the actual value of results
   obtained from some experiment or their interpretation.
2. The more times an observation is repeated and the greater number of different
   observations and theories that it ties into and agrees with, the more confident we are about how well
   we actually understand something.
3. However, in the strictest sense, we never arrive at “proof”; we simply arrive at a
   very high degree of probability that we understand something. Thus, it is important that you shift
   your frame of reference from one of proof and certainty of knowledge and interpretation of facts to
   one that is PROBABILISTIC in nature, where our confidence in whether or not we understand
   something properly is not and never can be absolute. Thus, you are well advised to remove the word
   “proof” from your vocabulary as far as science is concerned." (taken from this source, holycross.edu/departments/biology/kprestwi/behavior/e&be_notes/E&BE_04_Sci_Meth&Philo.pdf)

As for the economy being hurt by doing anything about global warming. Well I admit some solutions would likely hurt more the nothers. I am not saying all the solutions being mentioned are good. But I still think we should do something…keep looking for alternative fuels…find ways to cut carbon emissions something. Either that or we do need to prepare for possible and likely changes. And imo potentially the economy could be hurt much more in the future if we donlt do anything about this.

 

[Arclight]

Me and several others have offered site after site after site, and you people refuse to accept them. You hold firm th…]

and we only have five minutes left to act before aaaaahhhhhhh its toooooo laaaaaate!

 

[Calliso]

Me and several others have offered site after site after site, and you people refuse to accept them. You hold firm the belief that 80% of scientist’s are pushing a liberal agenda for fame and fortune. You fail to see that hardly anything is “fact” in the scientific world; so, if you’re wondering why words like “likely,” “probably,” etc are used, that’s why.

Furthermore, Climate Change is fact - that we know. Global Warming is a fact. The only thing left to be considered is whether or not the cause is man, and 80% of scientists say it is. All of them seek fame and fortune, right?

Too, the idea that the Earth is cooling as evidence against Global Warming has been explained and you refuse to accept that answer. Talk about someone who has no argument: it’s you and the other nay-sayers who keep saying “no proof,” “no proof,” and “no proof.”

As I said, what if you’re wrong and we listened to you people? Then the damage is irreversible. At least if the economy is damaged, it’s reversible. Or, did you not make that connection?

Again, this argument is a waste of time. Jesus Christ could appear to the world and say that Global Warming is real and the cause is man, and you’d argue with Him.

Exactly and it seems to me while there might be some harm to the economy by doing something the harm by not doing something could potentially be much worse. Oh and this argument is apparently used a lot ahha. gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/24/18548/9954

 

[Calliso]

I would like now to address something someone else said about mars warming. Well of course it isn;t us causing it… but before anyone rushes into to say of course it;s the sun!! well it doesn;t seem like that is the case so much…news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm

And this link addresses the in general argument of other planets are warming. skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm

 

[vz71]

I would like now to address something someone else said about mars warming. Well of course it isn;t us causing it… but before anyone rushes into to say of course it;s the sun!! well it doesn;t seem like that is the case so much…

You heard it here first everyone…The sun does not cause global warming…

 

[vz71]

Furthermore, Climate Change is fact - that we know.

I can agree with that.

Global Warming is a fact.

No it is not.

The only thing left to be considered is whether or not the cause is man, and 80% of scientists say it is. All of them seek fame and fortune, right?

And at one point in time, 100% of scientists believed in spontaneous generation of life…and a flat earth…and…etc.
Just because a number (any number) of scientists say something is so does not make it so.
As for 80%…you are wrong there as well, figures you wouldn’t supply a link to that little tidbit.

Too, the idea that the Earth is cooling as evidence against Global Warming has been explained and you refuse to accept that answer. Talk about someone who has no argument: it’s you and the other nay-sayers who keep saying “no proof,” “no proof,” and “no proof.”

NO PROOF.
Find it, put it up.

As I said, what if you’re wrong and we listened to you people? Then the damage is irreversible. At least if the economy is damaged, it’s reversible. Or, did you not make that connection?

If as you say we are truly capable of changing the climate, and we act in the manner you describe when Global Warming is not there, pray tell…what have we wrought upon a natural system?
What damage did we do trying to fix something we didn’t break and haven’t a full understanding of?
Listen carefully here…The wrong action is worse then no action.
That is why I want proof.

Again, this argument is a waste of time. Jesus Christ could appear to the world and say that Global Warming is real and the cause is man, and you’d argue with Him.

Given all of the supposition you take as fact, and the opinion you take as gospel I can readily see why you would make that assumption as well. Again, you are wrong.

 

[Neolithic]

No it is not.

Yes, it is. I’ve proven it and so have others. You refuse to accept the links as proof.

As for 80%…you are wrong there as well, figures you wouldn’t supply a link to that little tidbit.

Might help if you read the thread before spouting off.

A new poll among 3,146 earth scientists found that 90 percent believe global warming is real, while 82 percent agree that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

So, like I said, 80% of the scientists studying the issue agree that Global Warming is caused by man. I have numerous times used that figure - 80% - and so have others. Again, read the thread in its entirety before commenting.

news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html

And the rest I’ll ignore because it’s the same old blather.

 

[vz71]

A new poll among 3,146 earth scientists found that 90 percent believe global warming is real, while 82 percent agree that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

So, like I said, 80% of the scientists studying the issue agree that Global Warming is caused by man. I have numerous times used that figure - 80% - and so have others. Again, read the thread in its entirety before commenting.

OK, so we have a poll of 3146…a claim of 90%, and a claim of 82%.

So where is the 80 you are speaking of?

Just proves my point further.
Theory taken as fact. Inaccuracy taken as accuracy.
Blind Faith replacing science.
I guess in the pseudoscience that is Global Warming, numbers don’t mean things.

 

[Ender]

A new poll among 3,146 earth scientists found that 90 percent believe global warming is real, while **82 percent agree that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.**So, like I said, 80% of the scientists studying the issue agree that Global Warming is caused by man.

Your numbers aren’t descriptive of what the survey revealed. The poll was sent to climatologists only so the term “scientists” is not accurate. I know climatologists are scientists but not all scientists are climatologists and not all scientists were polled.

Also, the poll was not among 3,146 climatologists but was sent to 10,200 of which about one third responded and of that one third 82% said yes to a particular question in the survey. To be precise, 21% of climatologists agreed with that question (not 80% of scientists) and I would really like to know exactly how that question was phrased. It may well be as straightforward as is claimed but, not having seen the survey, I can’t speak to that and there has been way too much deceit in this area to take these things at face value.

Having said all that, I find the survey interesting and possibly significant - depending on the wording of the questions. It would come as a surprise to me to find that so many climatologists actually believe that man has had a significant impact on the climate. (I wonder if the question was whether man’s impact on climate was via CO2 emissions?)

Ender

 

[vz71]

A new poll among 3,146 earth scientists found that 90 percent believe global warming is real, while 82 percent agree that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.
news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html

So where is the 80 you are speaking of?

Just proves my point further.
Theory taken as fact. Inaccuracy taken as accuracy.
Blind Faith replacing science.
I guess in the pseudoscience that is Global Warming, numbers don’t mean things.

Also, the poll was not among 3,146 climatologists but was sent to 10,200 of which about one third responded and of that one third 82% said yes to a particular question in the survey.

From this, I was prompted to actually read the link rather then point out the inaccuracy of the statistics as reported.

I find it significant that over 2 thirds of those polled (not all scientists as you would have us believe) did not bother responding.

 

[Calliso]

From this, I was prompted to actually read the link rather then point out the inaccuracy of the statistics as reported.

I find it significant that over 2 thirds of those polled (not all scientists as you would have us believe) did not bother responding.

Eh I donlt think it means much at all apparently a 30.7% response rate is pretty typical of web based surveys. But I am responding to Ender’s post with more detail but you are right it would inaccurate to say all scientists…the survey was sent to earth scientists.

 

[Calliso]

Your numbers aren’t descriptive of what the survey revealed. The poll was sent to climatologists only so the term “scientists” is not accurate. I know climatologists are scientists but not all scientists are climatologists and not all scientists were polled.

Also, the poll was not among 3,146 climatologists but was sent to 10,200 of which about one third responded and of that one third 82% said yes to a particular question in the survey. To be precise, 21% of climatologists agreed with that question (not 80% of scientists) and I would really like to know exactly how that question was phrased. It may well be as straightforward as is claimed but, not having seen the survey, I can’t speak to that and there has been way too much deceit in this area to take these things at face value.

Having said all that, I find the survey interesting and possibly significant - depending on the wording of the questions. It would come as a surprise to me to find that so many climatologists actually believe that man has had a significant impact on the climate. (I wonder if the question was whether man’s impact on climate was via CO2 emissions?)

Ender

Well actually the questions were sent to 10,257 earth scientists listed in the 2007 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Departments. question one was, When compared with pre-1800s
levels,
do you think that mean global temperatures
have generally risen, fallen, or
remained relatively constant? question two was, And has human activity been a significant factor in changing global mean temperatures?

90% answered risen to the first question and 82% answered yes to the second. About 5% of the respondants were climate scientists. And 8.5% have had more then 50% of their peer reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change. And the survey did include those who question global warming caused by humans. 79 of those were scientists who listed climate science as their area of expertise and have published more then 50% of their recent peer reviewed papers on the subject of climate change. Of these 96.2% answered risen to question 1 and 97.4% answered yes to question two. More detail can be found here. tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

But yeah it would be interesting to know what they think is the human contribution…though admittingly I can;t think of anything other then c02 that would cause warming that humans have put out in significant quantities then again I am no expert heh Also it would be interesting to know what they mean by significant.

 

[Calliso]

You heard it here first everyone…The sun does not cause global warming…

Well in this case no. In this case it appears to be
something to do with Mar’s duststorms. news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html

And more stuff on the few other planetary bodies warming. skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm

Only a few bodies are actually warming and Uranus appears to actually be cooling. If it is the sun why have only 6 bodies shown signs of warming? Why is at least one cooling?

 

[vz71]

Well in this case no. In this case it appears to be something to do with Mar’s duststorms.

So let me get this straight…
You are saying that these planets would be warming if the sun were not there providing heat.

Only a few bodies are actually warming and Uranus appears to actually be cooling. If it is the sun why have only 6 bodies shown signs of warming? Why is at least one cooling?

Try distance and mass.
And by the way, I also dispute the term global warming being used for other planets. You see, on earth the hoax is measured in tenths of a degree. It appears to be defined by these tiny increments over time…I question the ability to measure that accurately on other planets.

 

[Ender]

90% answered risen to the first question and 82% answered yes to the second. About 5% of the respondants were climate scientists. And 8.5% have had more then 50% of their peer reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change. And the survey did include those who question global warming caused by humans. 79 of those were scientists who listed climate science as their area of expertise and have published more then 50% of their recent peer reviewed papers on the subject of climate change. Of these 96.2% answered risen to question 1 and 97.4% answered yes to question two. More detail can be found here. tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

Thanks for posting that link. Let’s think for a minute what this debate is about: it is not about the science of or evidence for global warming; it is about whether there is a preponderance of scientists who support AGW… and the significance of that is whether the debate should be considered over. Consensus is not really a scientific term.

Inasmuch as I don’t think that comment will be particularly effective let me add: the 96.2% and 97.4% numbers you cite are from 79 respondents out of the 10K polled.

But yeah it would be interesting to know what they think is the human contribution…though admittingly I can;t think of anything other then c02 that would cause warming that humans have put out in significant quantities then again I am no expert heh Also it would be interesting to know what they mean by significant.

Well, yeah. It really is surprising that they didn’t ask specifically about CO2 since that’s the key question. There are other possibilities: deforestation, burning (particulate emission), ozone depletion, pollution, urban sprawl, night baseball …

Still, I prefer the debate over the science, not over the scientists.

Ender

 

[Calliso]

So let me get this straight…
You are saying that these planets would be warming if the sun were not there providing heat.

Try distance and mass.
And by the way, I also dispute the term global warming being used for other planets. You see, on earth the hoax is measured in tenths of a degree. It appears to be defined by these tiny increments over time…I question the ability to measure that accurately on other planets.

No I am not saying they would be warming if the sun wasn;t there providing them warmth. I am saying the sun is not the primary cause. The point of making this argument was because when people see some headline about insert planet warming so many of them seem to jump to the conclusion that the sun must be the main cause. Now of course the sun plays a part without it there likely would be no warming but that still doesn;t mean itls the main cause.

Also right global warming might not be what I would call what is happening on a handful of other planets. But we have seen evidence of warming. The guy probably shouldn;t have used the term global warming in his title…but then again look at the argument he is debunking it uses the term global warming so that may be why he uses that term.

Now in case you didn;t really look at the link…The planets/moons warming or at least showing signs that they may be are Mars, Jupiter,triton, neptune, and pluto. And once again Uranus is cooling and at least at the time he made that post the other planets pretty much no change that we can see. But it doesn;t seem like a it;s a simple case of distance and or mass to me. Read the link again.