No demonstrations that the correlation is anything but coincidence. Other planets and moons aren't warming or cooling. Uranus is cooling.
Fail!
Melting ice cap could cause sea to rise by seven metres
- Thread starter Praxius
- Start date
No demonstrations that the correlation is anything but coincidence. Other planets and moons aren't warming or cooling. Uranus is cooling.
Fail!
Benny Peiser is a Social Anthropologist and the other who ran a "survey" is a bio chemist. If I wanted to know why my neighbour is lazy and angry at the world I'd ask Peiser if I want to know the chemical imabalance my neighbour has that makes him angry I'd ask Bray.
Since neither are earth scientists their opinions are useless.
Since neither are earth scientists their opinions are useless.
So you have to have an Earth Scientist to run a survey of hundreds of climatologists
and asked them the question: "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate
change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?" A Bio Chemist isn't qualified to
run a survey? A Social Anthropologist isn't qualified to read the same documents and
come to a conclusion that differs from that of a Professor of History and Science
Studies (Naomi Oreskes)? 8O
Ron, say I ask ten people that same question, and score it in the same fashion (7= strongly disagree that man is mostly responsible, 1= strongly agree). The results come back: 7, 7, 6, 5, 3, 3, 2, 1, 1, 1. That gives a mean of 3.6. Do more people strongly disagree with the premise than those who do? No. In fact most people agree to some extent that humans are mostly responsible 6/10 = 60%, and the largest grouping is in the strongly agree category 3/10 = 30% vs. 20% who strongly disagree. The way in which responses are scored is what we call a bias. Are these results even methodologically valid?
And of course that Science magazine wouldn't publish it means the journal was being political. I mean, it couldn't possibly be that Science magazine is very prestigious, and wouldn't want to tarnish their reputation by publishing this garbage, right?
And of course that Science magazine wouldn't publish it means the journal was being political. I mean, it couldn't possibly be that Science magazine is very prestigious, and wouldn't want to tarnish their reputation by publishing this garbage, right?
I was arguing the statement, "there is no disagreement among climatologists
about global warming." Are you stating that, using the survey method you
describe, that, "there is no disagreement among climatologists about global
warming." ???
There can be no doubt that there is global warming. A quick look at our own Arctic tells us that. That the vaunted Northwest Passage is no longer needed is another good indication. That Northern towns built on permafrost years and years ago, are now sinking into the mud is yet another bit of proof that warming is occurring. I can tell stories of the Pine Beatle's advance northward because of warmer weather. The only doubt is how much man is contributing to climate change. We have dumped trillions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Can we do that without penalty? I do n' t think so.
Simple answer NO
A Bio Chemist isn't qualified to run a survey?
Yes, they are if it is related directly to Biochemistry
A Social Anthropologist isn't qualified to read the same documents and
come to a conclusion that differs from that of a Professor of History and Science
Studies
Neither is likely to be qualified to the extent where their expertise counts. The Social Anthropologist isn't a climatologist and a professor of History and Science studies doesn't have the "specific" expertise
If you want a definitive opinion ask an "expert", i.e. a Climatologist or an Earth Scientist
I wouldn't ask a history major or a Poly Sci person to build my house. would you?
You know what Juan, I agree with you! There is no doubt that there
is global warming, or global cooling, or climate change...Yes we are
doing all kinds of dumb stuff we shouldn't be doing. Nobody wants
to live in filth up to their necks, and have future generations live in
filth up to their necks due to our stupidity. That might be the direction
to advocate to get people to change their habits. I have run though
the links you provided and yes, things are changing. Things have been
changing for a very long time, and the only guarantee is that things will
keep on changing for a long time to come.
I don't have an agenda and I don't get paid by some petrochemical
company. What I was try'n to point out is that there's a lot of
contradictory information available on this subject. Honestly, I don't
know how much of what we're seeing is man made, and how much
of what we're seeing is part of some larger cycle where we aren't
aware of its duration so we don't recognize it for what it is. Global
warming, or global cooling, or climate change has been going on for
a very long time. There's evidence of glaciation in the tropics, and
dinosaur bones in Alaska and Antarctica. It's all very interesting stuff.
My intent here was to inject some balance (like on a Religious Thread)
to a mostly lopsided Thread response. Global Warming advocates (not
all, but many on CC, and elsewhere) respond to someone questioning
the Global Warming concept like someone questioning Christianity or
Islam on a religious Thread.. I thought I had some valid questions, and
I've done a bit of reading, but I sure don't eat-sleep-breath the topic...
& I stick to it until it bores me. I know I can't debate religion with a
religious person, 'cuz they're not open to anything that might contradict
their position (I'M NOT SAY'N YOU'RE LIKE THIS AT ALL).
I would love to watch someone like Al Gore debate...well...pretty much
anybody on this subject. Al Gore isn't an Earth Scientist, but many Global
Warming advocates don't dismiss him outright like they're so willing to do
with anyone that might express a different opinion, regardless of who they
are or what field they're in. I was just trying to offer some balance.
Hi Ron
Al Gore may not be a climatological scientist himself, but you can bet money that he will have qualified people on his staff. I've seen Gore's movie a few times and it was very well done. I thought the mistakes, while not trivial, they didn't change the message significantly. Whether we like it or not, the world is warming up. One of my questions, that has never been answered to my satisfaction, is: If we stopped all green house gas production this afternoon, would the temperature keep rising, and how far will it rise, and how long will it keep rising?
Al Gore may not be a climatological scientist himself, but you can bet money that he will have qualified people on his staff. I've seen Gore's movie a few times and it was very well done. I thought the mistakes, while not trivial, they didn't change the message significantly. Whether we like it or not, the world is warming up. One of my questions, that has never been answered to my satisfaction, is: If we stopped all green house gas production this afternoon, would the temperature keep rising, and how far will it rise, and how long will it keep rising?
[SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0]You've said a mouthful there Juan. First question I would have is,[/SIZE][/SIZE]
"who's the WE that would stopped all green house gas production
this afternoon?" Is the "WE" Canada, or North America, or Globally?
If "WE" is the Globe, I'd think that, if we as all people are making a
significant contribution to Climate Change, all the cr@p we've done
wouldn't go away tomorrow. If we're not making a significant
contribution to Climate Change, then it still wouldn't slow down or
stop tomorrow either. What do I know though.
You'd think that if Al Gore, or someone like Al Gore would be able
to consult qualified people, and therefore his opinions are valid, then a
Bio Chemist or a Social Anthropologist would also be able to consult
qualified people, but apparently not so what they say must be written
off outright. Strange, that, eh? Oh well...Al Gore is given the benefit of
the doubt, but not other scientists with differing opinions or results.
I really don't think anyone is arguing that our climate is static and that
it hasn't ever changed, or will never change. I found a pie chart earlier
in this thread that struck a cord with me as for our possible signifigance,
but that was jumped on immeadiately. It does make you think though.
The Link where I found that chart was an interesting read too:
I don't know what to think yet, but I know I'll keep an open mind until
I do satisfy my curiosity. 8O
"who's the WE that would stopped all green house gas production
this afternoon?" Is the "WE" Canada, or North America, or Globally?
If "WE" is the Globe, I'd think that, if we as all people are making a
significant contribution to Climate Change, all the cr@p we've done
wouldn't go away tomorrow. If we're not making a significant
contribution to Climate Change, then it still wouldn't slow down or
stop tomorrow either. What do I know though.
You'd think that if Al Gore, or someone like Al Gore would be able
to consult qualified people, and therefore his opinions are valid, then a
Bio Chemist or a Social Anthropologist would also be able to consult
qualified people, but apparently not so what they say must be written
off outright. Strange, that, eh? Oh well...Al Gore is given the benefit of
the doubt, but not other scientists with differing opinions or results.
I really don't think anyone is arguing that our climate is static and that
it hasn't ever changed, or will never change. I found a pie chart earlier
in this thread that struck a cord with me as for our possible signifigance,
but that was jumped on immeadiately. It does make you think though.
The Link where I found that chart was an interesting read too:
I don't know what to think yet, but I know I'll keep an open mind until
I do satisfy my curiosity. 8O
Last edited:
that's kind of like waiting until they found the concentration camps before they figured out Hitler wasn't too crazy about Jewish people.
Too little..too late
So you're against someone having an open mind until they've
waded through hills of BS on (perhaps) both sides of this, or
any other argument? I hope you're not a Judge, Tyr, when you're
off this Forum.
I'll stick with an open mind. Thanks anyway. I'll pass on blind faith.
This is what I was try'n to describe earlier Juan when I was comparing
religion to Global Warming.
The GW hippies are only purposing we change the entirety of society and our culture on a hasty hunch!?!?!
To rush into something is always ill advised. To do so with something so important is ludicrous.
Also, what does GW have to do with concentration camps? There is no Hitler behind GW, it isn't even established that it isn't just a natural occurance, there is nothing to go to war on in GW, there are no people being purposefuly destroyed by GW and there is no evil archatect. You're using a false analogy.
Perhaps reasoning by analogy isn't the first place you should start in assessing GW and its merits, if you're seriously purposing a panic response thereby. Try looking at the data, which is framed to be scary (a warning since you seem prone to this tactic), then look at how it actually fits into models and experiment (not corelation). You'll see there is little reason to panic.
The IPCC panel of hundreds of qualified scientists worked for twenty three years and you want to call it a hasty hunch by GW hippies?? I don't think you understand any part of the problem. Maybe you should do some reading.
Like anything we increase the work load we risk either the machine will brake down or the operator, at 6Billion for human population today on earth we are treating the earth with loads and loads of disrespect. Often in big cities you see car windows going down and an empty cigarette box if flying out, or other garbage people through from their cars onto the street.
This type of environmental abuse will be eventually polluting the water we drink, already we see on environmental reports that many fish in the ocean are suffering from cancer as a result of the plastic floating in the oceans broken down through years were the fish eat the floating plastic partials thus contaminating the sea food chain. The earth is facing real greave peril.
This type of environmental abuse will be eventually polluting the water we drink, already we see on environmental reports that many fish in the ocean are suffering from cancer as a result of the plastic floating in the oceans broken down through years were the fish eat the floating plastic partials thus contaminating the sea food chain. The earth is facing real greave peril.
They are biased by way of their funding, reputations and political leanings. IPCC is not a serious scientific community, they are hand picked flunkies.
There are also groups of scientists that oppose their findings. They take a much greater risk by doing so and are not funded for it either; so they have far more credibility.
Hand picked flunkies and not a serious scientific community? Who picked them? You just proved the depth of your ignorance.