K
Karen107
Guest
Hmmm I don’t think you understand what modern day idolatry is about. It’s all around us dear…:big cars, wasteful spending and the filth that goes along with that…etc. shrug:
- Status
K
Karen107
Guest
Don’t believe God can send us warning signs? Read the bible…Didn’t Jesus turn the tables over in the temple before the temple was destroyed in 70 AD?
E
estesbob
Guest
So perhaps Sandy hit New York City because of NYs support of abortion and homosexual marriage? You could have a point there!
K
Karen107
Guest
I know, the clouds shouldn’t be long straight streaks in the air.Personally I don’t think aircraft should be making clouds.That is just wrong.
C
cjforJesus
Guest
Or the Outer Limits
K
Karen107
Guest
It’s not I who’s making a sound of retreat. It doesn’t matter if it is 50 percent or 90 percent, if we are contributing to the demise of our world we should change our ways…
You said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49 View Post
If humans are the main cause, what exactly does this mean; 50.5%, 51%, 60%, etc? Please provide the title of the scientific publication that explicitly says that human influence is responsible for all of this destruction, present and future. Also provide the papers that supply a verifiable and reproducible attribution metric, or “percentage.” This could be either a primary science paper, or a meta-study that surveys papers. Please do not list links to the usual pro-AGW websites, skepticalscience, realclimate, etc.
And with that logic… If I were to ask a nonCatholic to look at everything but Catholic sites for information about our beliefs, just how credible would those be? On the same token, if you want to know about climate science go to the climate scientists who study climate science, EVEN if what they say it is not in line with what you personally believe. Don’t go to anti-AGW sites, or political or financial business sites to find the answers because those would be biased and certainly based on ulterior motives.
K
Karen107
Guest
I would say that God qualifies as Out of this worldly limits wouldn’t you??Or the Outer Limits
K
Karen107
Guest
Well that could be an question to ask God about.All I know is that the timing was awfully coincidental with that God election. What was that about anyway? It really bothered me.
K
Karen107
Guest
Gotta run well I hope I left you peeps with something to think about…
S
sps49
Guest
So what you are saying is that you don’t know where the information is, or if the papers actually support the claims you make. If you could, please stick to the substance of the original claim you made regarding man’s contribution to catastrophic AGW.It’s not I who’s making a sound of retreat. It doesn’t matter if it is 50 percent or 90 percent, if we are contributing to the demise of our world we should change our ways…
You said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49 View Post
If humans are the main cause, what exactly does this mean; 50.5%, 51%, 60%, etc? Please provide the title of the scientific publication that explicitly says that human influence is responsible for all of this destruction, present and future. Also provide the papers that supply a verifiable and reproducible attribution metric, or “percentage.” This could be either a primary science paper, or a meta-study that surveys papers. Please do not list links to the usual pro-AGW websites, skepticalscience, realclimate, etc.
And with that logic… If I were to ask a nonCatholic to look at everything but Catholic sites for information about our beliefs, just how credible would those be? On the same token, if you want to know about climate science go to the climate scientists who study climate science, EVEN if what they say it is not in line with what you personally believe. Don’t go to anti-AGW sites, or political or financial business sites to find the answers because those would be biased and certainly based on ulterior motives.
It does matter, because if natural variations are greater than the effect man has, then there is no way to prove the catastrophic AGW hypothesis. It take much more work and dedication to actually follow up on the claims than trumpeting activist propaganda.
Retreat is what it looks like; no proof provided, and ideological response masquerading as proof.
E
estesbob
Guest
Well New Yorkers overwhelmingly believe AGW. If God was punishing us for not believing in AGW wouldn’t he punish an area that was lacking in belief?
S
sps49
Guest
Quite a lot of discernment must be exercised when deciding which prophets to follow. Listening to what you wish to hear is an ancient and well known way to disaster.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
In general, I agree with you. Normally we do trust the collective and cumulative wisdom of scientists. However, there are fields where we ought not be so trusting. Climate science is definitely one of them.
Richard Lindzen, retired atmospheric physicist, thinks the entire discipline is corrupt. I don’t care how folks like Lynn and Karen talks about quacks, cranks, and hired guns for the fossil fuel industry. Lindzen isn’t one of them.
But how can a whole scientific discipline become corrupt?
There is no single explanation, but we can begin by noting the disturbing trend towards “post-normal” science which encourages political activism by scientists. “Noble cause corruption” helps explain the conduct of some. (“A little dishonesty here and there is justified because we are saving the planet.”) Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell speech is famous for his dire warnings about the “military industrial complex.” Not so well known is his warning about the danger of becoming captive to a “scientific-technological elite,” which seems to describe very well what has happened in the United States. Of course, there is money and greed. Today no one gets funded saying global warming isn’t a problem. Finally, there is the corrupting influence of the IPCC, and the development of climate science has been intimately connected with the IPCC process.
Lindzen and Patrick Michaels have good videos on youtube which shed light on how we got to where we are at.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
So, given what we know about their misdeeds, why should we trust the climate science establishment led by the IPCC? How can a scientific community which has acted so badly be trusted?
K
Karen107
Guest
That’s the crux of it. You don’t trust the scientists, any of them. Now these guys on the IPCC were brought together to be representatives the scientific studies done by scientists around the world to be the voice of the scientific communities around the world… .They were not a body created solely to DO the science, they were a body created to bring the scientific world that already existed together. So behind the scientists on the body, there were thousands more scientists.
Here’s a link to it explaining what I just said:
ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml
The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change**. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. **
Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and expertise. The Secretariat coordinates all the IPCC work and liaises with Governments. It is established by WMO and UNEP and located at WMO headquarters in Geneva. The IPCC is administered in accordance to UNEP, WMO and UN rules and procedures, including codes of conduct and ethical principles (as outlined in UN Ethics, WMO Ethics Function, Staff Regulations and 2012/07-Retaliation).
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
“But for non-scientists who are not doing original research, searching for the consensus on a scientific question is the absolute best way of establishing what is most likely to be true.”
I take “non-scientists” to be the general public. The easiest way to sway public opinion is with a “consensus of experts” backed by reams of technical jargon, charts and graphs.
It doesn’t matter if it is a hoax…if the ultimate cause is won.
S
sps49
Guest
There is a growing body of science professionals that are wising up to the fact that the climate system is not as easily understood as a simple CO2 absorption experiment performed in isolation to all the other physical systems that are present in the climate.
It is disingenuous of you to suggest that ferdgoodfellow, or anyone else mistrusts all scientists. The very nature of the IPCC is political, and as such it uses the best hammer for the nails they need to pound, one of which is consensus. This means that once consensus is agreed upon (a political decision), all scientists who support consensus with their work will be rewarded. This is really very simple, and telling that you intentionally overlook it. It matters not if it is technically correct at this level, only that participating scientists are compliant with it.
It is likely that the IPCC has outlived it’s usefulness, any gains to be had from this body were achieved by 2000, and they have been only getting marginal political returns since then.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
"I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
This is why discussing an absurd paper like Cook’s 97% joke is such a waste of time.
IF the Earth is on its way to another warming period…science, REAL science should be focusing on ways to help man adapt to warmer climates…without the loss of jobs and business, harming the poor, trading carbon credits, and fundamentally changing our lifestyle.
Blathering about a non-issue like the 97% consensus is simply not scientific.
Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. It is a proven scientific fact.
K
Karen107
Guest
Than I would say to you that you contend that all the scientists who believe in AGW can’t be trusted. A consensus to the scientific community is different than the consensus in the secular world. One is based on facts the other is based on politics and anything else that comes into play. The participating scientists did not just sign in, they were part of the science before long before the IPCC gathered them together.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
As long as other scientists disagree with the majority…their views should be available to the American public on an equal basis. Otherwise the American public is not properly informed and will not apply the correct influence on political leaders.
- Status