|
On August 30 2011 10:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 10:45 kwizach wrote:On August 30 2011 09:53 xDaunt wrote:
No one really needs any specialized training to see the gaping holes and inconsistencies that exist in what the climate scientists have told us over the years. Please, go ahead, name some of those "gaping holes" you're referring to. Don't c/p youtube videos, bring me scientific analyses showing that the scientific community is wrong. I'm waiting. It's seriously mind-blowing that some people are still refusing to acknowledge the reality of the contribution of humanity to global warming. The steps we should be taking now PALE in their impact on the economy in comparison to the consequences of inaction. It's really crazy how some people can turn a blind eye to the hard evidence that's right in front of them and actually jeopardize the future of mankind because they're too dumb to understand what's at stake. I've already referenced one multiple times in this thread: global warming scientists completely failed to predict the current cooling pattern that we're in. In fact, in the Climategate emails, they admit that they have no explanation for what has happened. That's a pretty fucking big hole if you ask me, particularly when these same scientists had been predicting for 10-15 years or so beforehand that the planet would continue warming for the foreseeable future unless we took drastic action to cut emissions.
First of all, you did not cite any scientific analysis detailing your "current cooling pattern". I'm still waiting.
Second, that's not a hole in the argument about global warming. Scientific analysis of global warming shows the impact of mankind's activity. If there is another force currently "balancing" the influence of mankind, it doesn't mean that the influence of mankind isn't still there. Unless you can come up with a scientific analysis demonstrating that the force responsible for the "current cooling pattern" is going to keep having an impact over the next few centuries, you have no point whatsoever. The moment that force ceases existing, you'll be feeling the full blow of mankind's contribution to global warming.
|
On August 30 2011 11:01 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 10:49 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 10:45 kwizach wrote:On August 30 2011 09:53 xDaunt wrote:
No one really needs any specialized training to see the gaping holes and inconsistencies that exist in what the climate scientists have told us over the years. Please, go ahead, name some of those "gaping holes" you're referring to. Don't c/p youtube videos, bring me scientific analyses showing that the scientific community is wrong. I'm waiting. It's seriously mind-blowing that some people are still refusing to acknowledge the reality of the contribution of humanity to global warming. The steps we should be taking now PALE in their impact on the economy in comparison to the consequences of inaction. It's really crazy how some people can turn a blind eye to the hard evidence that's right in front of them and actually jeopardize the future of mankind because they're too dumb to understand what's at stake. I've already referenced one multiple times in this thread: global warming scientists completely failed to predict the current cooling pattern that we're in. In fact, in the Climategate emails, they admit that they have no explanation for what has happened. That's a pretty fucking big hole if you ask me, particularly when these same scientists had been predicting for 10-15 years or so beforehand that the planet would continue warming for the foreseeable future unless we took drastic action to cut emissions. First of all, you did not cite any scientific analysis detailing your "current cooling pattern". I'm still waiting. Second, that's not a hole in the argument about global warming. Scientific analysis of global warming shows the impact of mankind's activity. If there is another force currently "balancing" the influence of mankind, it doesn't mean that the influence of mankind isn't still there. Unless you can come up with a scientific analysis demonstrating that the force responsible for the "current cooling pattern" is going to keep having an impact over the next few centuries, you have no point whatsoever. The moment that force ceases existing, you'll be feeling the full blow of mankind's contribution to global warming.
Do yourself a favor and educate yourself by googling "current global cooling trend."
Anyway, let me summarize your argument for you: "We can't explain why the planet is cooling and our models are completely inadequate for this task, but we're pretty damn sure that, in the absence of these forces that are causing the cooling, mankind would be greatly contributing to global warming and then we'd really be fucked. It just sucks that these unexplained forces are getting in the way of us being right."
Yep, sounds like a rock solid scientific base on which we should drastically cut emissions and wreck the global economy.
Thank you for proving my point.
|
Oh man this thread gets so derailed I'm starting to wonder why it's still here. I guess I'll start clearing out some bad arguments. Calling something "still just a theory" when talking about a scientific theory, just like when talking about the "theory" of evolution, is...so...very...wrong. As DrunkenTemplar said, research and reports are closely scrutinized before they get published, they are not articles in People Magazine. Looking at a snow storm, like last winter in Washington D.C. iirc, and saying "look! global warming is a lie!" is also...so...very...wrong and it shows a complete mis-understanding of what climate change is. That was the narrative of Glenn Beck and co. and they were wrong too. Finally, while there is a consensus that climate change is real and anthropogenic, there is a huge range of opinions about the severity and ideal solutions. They are not all Al Gore, who I think we can all agree is indeed an alarmist. But even those that want to sit back and let the market lift up impoverished countries so that their infrastructure and technology can develop (see Bjorn Lomborg) acknowledge that climate change is real, they just disagree on the severity and prioritization of the problem. Lomborg has a great documentary on the subject, refuting Al Gore and addressing serious global issues like poverty as well as reviewing technological solutions that offer hope.
There is also so much more to the conversation about sustainability than climate change. Population growth, finite resources (particularly water in the future), energy, etc. Poverty in the third world is a serious global problem that is often at odds with environmental efforts. As other nations industrialize and raise their standard of living out of the gutter, they contribute much more to the problem of sustainability. Of course, we (the developed world but especially the U.S.) have no right to tell them that they can't try to lift themselves up because our consumption trends are unfathomably irresponsible and we are unwilling to change that any time soon. China is a great example of a developing country that doesn't care that much about environmentalism because it will hurt their economic development, can you blame them? You finally start to get a leg up and all these rich Western countries come knocking and tell you that you can't be as rich as them because Earth can't support you? You're gonna tell them to fuck right off.
So there is a gigantic range of opinions within the scientific community about climate change and what to do about it. It is far from black and white, and we don't know everything about it or what we should do. I agree that we can't just go out and do drastic things that will ruin our economy, especially now. What does NOT help is politicians saying "scientists are liars" and advocating even more irresponsible practices in consumption and pollution. What DOES help is some more long-term thinking by the global community about things like solar energy, electric cars, sustainable consumption, recycling, resource management, and market incentives for better practices and technologies, just to name a few. No matter how much you hate science, you can't really deny that fossil fuels are going to run out (or maybe you can  ). And for the love of God, take all that money going to ethanol subsidies and put it somewhere useful.
|
On August 30 2011 11:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 11:01 kwizach wrote:On August 30 2011 10:49 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 10:45 kwizach wrote:On August 30 2011 09:53 xDaunt wrote:
No one really needs any specialized training to see the gaping holes and inconsistencies that exist in what the climate scientists have told us over the years. Please, go ahead, name some of those "gaping holes" you're referring to. Don't c/p youtube videos, bring me scientific analyses showing that the scientific community is wrong. I'm waiting. It's seriously mind-blowing that some people are still refusing to acknowledge the reality of the contribution of humanity to global warming. The steps we should be taking now PALE in their impact on the economy in comparison to the consequences of inaction. It's really crazy how some people can turn a blind eye to the hard evidence that's right in front of them and actually jeopardize the future of mankind because they're too dumb to understand what's at stake. I've already referenced one multiple times in this thread: global warming scientists completely failed to predict the current cooling pattern that we're in. In fact, in the Climategate emails, they admit that they have no explanation for what has happened. That's a pretty fucking big hole if you ask me, particularly when these same scientists had been predicting for 10-15 years or so beforehand that the planet would continue warming for the foreseeable future unless we took drastic action to cut emissions. First of all, you did not cite any scientific analysis detailing your "current cooling pattern". I'm still waiting. Second, that's not a hole in the argument about global warming. Scientific analysis of global warming shows the impact of mankind's activity. If there is another force currently "balancing" the influence of mankind, it doesn't mean that the influence of mankind isn't still there. Unless you can come up with a scientific analysis demonstrating that the force responsible for the "current cooling pattern" is going to keep having an impact over the next few centuries, you have no point whatsoever. The moment that force ceases existing, you'll be feeling the full blow of mankind's contribution to global warming. Do yourself a favor and educate yourself by googling "current global cooling trend."
![[image loading]](http://i52.tinypic.com/2w7i8mt.gif)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
This one?
Is the best our lawyer has cherry picking start dates?
|
On August 30 2011 11:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 11:01 kwizach wrote:On August 30 2011 10:49 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 10:45 kwizach wrote:On August 30 2011 09:53 xDaunt wrote:
No one really needs any specialized training to see the gaping holes and inconsistencies that exist in what the climate scientists have told us over the years. Please, go ahead, name some of those "gaping holes" you're referring to. Don't c/p youtube videos, bring me scientific analyses showing that the scientific community is wrong. I'm waiting. It's seriously mind-blowing that some people are still refusing to acknowledge the reality of the contribution of humanity to global warming. The steps we should be taking now PALE in their impact on the economy in comparison to the consequences of inaction. It's really crazy how some people can turn a blind eye to the hard evidence that's right in front of them and actually jeopardize the future of mankind because they're too dumb to understand what's at stake. I've already referenced one multiple times in this thread: global warming scientists completely failed to predict the current cooling pattern that we're in. In fact, in the Climategate emails, they admit that they have no explanation for what has happened. That's a pretty fucking big hole if you ask me, particularly when these same scientists had been predicting for 10-15 years or so beforehand that the planet would continue warming for the foreseeable future unless we took drastic action to cut emissions. First of all, you did not cite any scientific analysis detailing your "current cooling pattern". I'm still waiting. Second, that's not a hole in the argument about global warming. Scientific analysis of global warming shows the impact of mankind's activity. If there is another force currently "balancing" the influence of mankind, it doesn't mean that the influence of mankind isn't still there. Unless you can come up with a scientific analysis demonstrating that the force responsible for the "current cooling pattern" is going to keep having an impact over the next few centuries, you have no point whatsoever. The moment that force ceases existing, you'll be feeling the full blow of mankind's contribution to global warming. Do yourself a favor and educate yourself by googling "current global cooling trend." Anyway, let me summarize your argument for you: "We can't explain why the planet is cooling and our models are completely inadequate for this task, but we're pretty damn sure that, in the absence of these forces that are causing the cooling, mankind would be greatly contributing to global warming and then we'd really be fucked. It just sucks that these unexplained forces are getting in the way of us being right." Yep, sounds like a rock solid scientific base on which we should drastically cut emissions and wreck the global economy. Thank you for proving my point.
YOU're telling ME to educate myself? Did you even google your own words? Here, let me show you this little page I came across while googling "current global cooling trend": skepticalscience.com. It's quite short, it completely debunks your "global cooling" claims and it's based on rock-solid empirical evidence. Now that I've established how bogus your claims were (and they're not even new), feel free to post a SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE to reply to me if you still disagree. Don't give me a youtube video, a set of words to google or a climate skeptic website that is likely to have already been debunked by the link I just posted, provide me with a peer-reviewed and recent article. I'm STILL waiting. Just in case, here is a little graph that might enlighten you in case you're too lazy to read the page (in addition to the one that was posted right before me):
![[image loading]](http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Nov_10.gif)
And here's what people like you are usually looking at to support their bogus claims, ignoring the rest of the graph and displaying obvious intellectual dishonesty in the process:
![[image loading]](http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/UAH-tempchartB.jpg)
Now even if there was a global cooling trend (and I just established there isn't), your next paragraph is still completely wrong. You wrote that I was basically saying "in the absence of these forces that are causing the cooling, mankind would be greatly contributing to global warming and then we'd really be fucked". That's is NOT what I was saying. Mankind wouldn't be contributing to global warming "in the absence of these forces", manking is contributing to global warming RIGHT NOW (and has been for a long time). Even if the "end result" was not an increase in temperatures it would NOT be proof that man isn't contributing to global warming. How do you not understand this? Imagine two guys, A & B, are pushing a crate from opposing sides. If person A is stronger, the crate will move in the direction he is pushing. Does this mean that person B does not exist? Of course not. And if person A was to stop pushing, then the crate would move in the direction person B is pushing. A kid would understand this, but somehow you seem unable to. Not only do you fail at understanding (and looking for) scientific data and empirical evidence, you also fail at basic logic.
|
On August 30 2011 09:53 xDaunt wrote:You're right, I'm not a scientist. However, I am an attorney -- one who specializes in civil litigation and is accustomed to analyzing, questioning, and, if need be, tearing apart the opinions of doctors, scientists, engineers, and other "experts" who are at the forefront of their respective fields. Simply put, I know a thing or two about the scientific method and research.
I have found your basic mistake. You seem to actually think that being an attorney and arguing word games in the context of litigation is somehow "knowing" about the scientific method and research. Get over yourself and learn some science.
|
On August 30 2011 11:32 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 11:13 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 11:01 kwizach wrote:On August 30 2011 10:49 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 10:45 kwizach wrote:On August 30 2011 09:53 xDaunt wrote:
No one really needs any specialized training to see the gaping holes and inconsistencies that exist in what the climate scientists have told us over the years. Please, go ahead, name some of those "gaping holes" you're referring to. Don't c/p youtube videos, bring me scientific analyses showing that the scientific community is wrong. I'm waiting. It's seriously mind-blowing that some people are still refusing to acknowledge the reality of the contribution of humanity to global warming. The steps we should be taking now PALE in their impact on the economy in comparison to the consequences of inaction. It's really crazy how some people can turn a blind eye to the hard evidence that's right in front of them and actually jeopardize the future of mankind because they're too dumb to understand what's at stake. I've already referenced one multiple times in this thread: global warming scientists completely failed to predict the current cooling pattern that we're in. In fact, in the Climategate emails, they admit that they have no explanation for what has happened. That's a pretty fucking big hole if you ask me, particularly when these same scientists had been predicting for 10-15 years or so beforehand that the planet would continue warming for the foreseeable future unless we took drastic action to cut emissions. First of all, you did not cite any scientific analysis detailing your "current cooling pattern". I'm still waiting. Second, that's not a hole in the argument about global warming. Scientific analysis of global warming shows the impact of mankind's activity. If there is another force currently "balancing" the influence of mankind, it doesn't mean that the influence of mankind isn't still there. Unless you can come up with a scientific analysis demonstrating that the force responsible for the "current cooling pattern" is going to keep having an impact over the next few centuries, you have no point whatsoever. The moment that force ceases existing, you'll be feeling the full blow of mankind's contribution to global warming. Do yourself a favor and educate yourself by googling "current global cooling trend." http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/This one? Is the best our lawyer has cherry picking start dates?
I like this one better because it shows an alarmists' predictions versus what actually happened:
![[image loading]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/hansen_predictions.jpg)
But that's all besides the point. I don't think anyone is arguing that we're not in either a global cooling trend, or at the very least, that global temperatures have inexplicably stabilized despite what's been predicted. Whether the temperature goes back up or keeps going down doesn't really prove anything anyway. The temperature is always changing. The real issues are whether mankind is significantly contributing to it and whether we can stop it.
|
On August 30 2011 11:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 11:32 Romantic wrote:On August 30 2011 11:13 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 11:01 kwizach wrote:On August 30 2011 10:49 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 10:45 kwizach wrote:On August 30 2011 09:53 xDaunt wrote:
No one really needs any specialized training to see the gaping holes and inconsistencies that exist in what the climate scientists have told us over the years. Please, go ahead, name some of those "gaping holes" you're referring to. Don't c/p youtube videos, bring me scientific analyses showing that the scientific community is wrong. I'm waiting. It's seriously mind-blowing that some people are still refusing to acknowledge the reality of the contribution of humanity to global warming. The steps we should be taking now PALE in their impact on the economy in comparison to the consequences of inaction. It's really crazy how some people can turn a blind eye to the hard evidence that's right in front of them and actually jeopardize the future of mankind because they're too dumb to understand what's at stake. I've already referenced one multiple times in this thread: global warming scientists completely failed to predict the current cooling pattern that we're in. In fact, in the Climategate emails, they admit that they have no explanation for what has happened. That's a pretty fucking big hole if you ask me, particularly when these same scientists had been predicting for 10-15 years or so beforehand that the planet would continue warming for the foreseeable future unless we took drastic action to cut emissions. First of all, you did not cite any scientific analysis detailing your "current cooling pattern". I'm still waiting. Second, that's not a hole in the argument about global warming. Scientific analysis of global warming shows the impact of mankind's activity. If there is another force currently "balancing" the influence of mankind, it doesn't mean that the influence of mankind isn't still there. Unless you can come up with a scientific analysis demonstrating that the force responsible for the "current cooling pattern" is going to keep having an impact over the next few centuries, you have no point whatsoever. The moment that force ceases existing, you'll be feeling the full blow of mankind's contribution to global warming. Do yourself a favor and educate yourself by googling "current global cooling trend." http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/This one? Is the best our lawyer has cherry picking start dates? I like this one better because it shows an alarmists' predictions versus what actually happened: But that's all besides the point. I don't think anyone is arguing that we're not in either a global cooling trend, or at the very least, that global temperatures have inexplicably stabilized despite what's been predicted. Whether the temperature goes back up or keeps going down doesn't really prove anything anyway. The temperature is always changing. The real issues are whether mankind is significantly contributing to it and whether we can stop it.
???
You are blatantly cherry picking the start dates. You could go back to 1990, point to that low, and declare the warming is over. OOPS! Not true!
There is a reason people use averages.
Edit: rofl the "Actual" number points to the lowest point on the recent graph, while the projections are all averages further in the future where it is expected to be warmer.
This is worse than I thought. Tisk, tisk.
|
On August 30 2011 11:20 Senorcuidado wrote:Finally, while there is a consensus that climate change is real and anthropogenic, there is a huge range of opinions about the severity and ideal solutions. They are not all Al Gore, who I think we can all agree is indeed an alarmist. But even those that want to sit back and let the market lift up impoverished countries so that their infrastructure and technology can develop (see Bjorn Lomborg) acknowledge that climate change is real, they just disagree on the severity and prioritization of the problem. Lomborg has a great documentary on the subject, refuting Al Gore and addressing serious global issues like poverty as well as reviewing technological solutions that offer hope. There is also so much more to the conversation about sustainability than climate change. Population growth, finite resources (particularly water in the future), energy, etc. Poverty in the third world is a serious global problem that is often at odds with environmental efforts. As other nations industrialize and raise their standard of living out of the gutter, they contribute much more to the problem of sustainability. Of course, we (the developed world but especially the U.S.) have no right to tell them that they can't try to lift themselves up because our consumption trends are unfathomably irresponsible and we are unwilling to change that any time soon. China is a great example of a developing country that doesn't care that much about environmentalism because it will hurt their economic development, can you blame them? You finally start to get a leg up and all these rich Western countries come knocking and tell you that you can't be as rich as them because Earth can't support you? You're gonna tell them to fuck right off. So there is a gigantic range of opinions within the scientific community about climate change and what to do about it. It is far from black and white, and we don't know everything about it or what we should do. I agree that we can't just go out and do drastic things that will ruin our economy, especially now. What does NOT help is politicians saying "scientists are liars" and advocating even more irresponsible practices in consumption and pollution. What DOES help is some more long-term thinking by the global community about things like solar energy, electric cars, sustainable consumption, recycling, resource management, and market incentives for better practices and technologies, just to name a few. No matter how much you hate science, you can't really deny that fossil fuels are going to run out (or maybe you can ). And for the love of God, take all that money going to ethanol subsidies and put it somewhere useful.
The reason I mentioned in my post some pages ago the apocalyptic tone and import of climate change in parentheses is that there are incentives to switch from fossil fuels besides the spirit of the enterprise or heeding the words of Al Gore: oil is simply more expensive and increasingly difficult to get.
Nobody is suggesting an overnight switch from oil and coal to solar power and teddy-bear kisses, and the "carbon taxes to Al Gore" counterargument is a good example of how heated and reductive a form this important debate takes. Whatever issues there are with solar energy (and all associated technologies) can be hashed out with increased use and further development, a process which will take decades, but whose economic and technological consequences would be a boon to any country, developed or not. Reliance on oil not only ties the US to imports from other countries (q.v. Canada pipeline) and awkward, sometimes mortifying business relationships with the Middle East, but it closes the country off from advancing into a new technological universe whose benefits could be entirely unrelated to energy and good for the country nonetheless (e.g. Teflon was not invented to coat non-stick pans).
China's preoccupied with manufacturing solar panels and is working towards increasing the solar power it generates and eventually may export, and their investments could pay dividends while the States sucks on fumes.
(By the way, not going to reference anyone specifically, but anyone who thinks the wars that started this century were simply imperialistic and oppressive fail to understand how complex the United States' activities were in Iraq & co. before 2001 and after it. It's an ambiguous series of situations that cannot be perverted as an oppression or democratization; more likely there's elements of both. But pulling out the entirety of the United States Army from the Middle East immediately, overnight, would neither ingratiate Afghanistan, Iraq, & co. to the US nor please any enemies or terrorists festering at the seams.
(And N.B. I'm quoting and responding to your post because it's the most immediate, even-handed, and useful, not because I disagree with it or am arguing against its spirit.)
|
Never argue with a lawyer.
Its very hot where they come from anyway so they don't mind..
On topic I actually have a question:
Are the nominees elected by the general public? Or only members of the Republican party?
Surely if its the general public then Democrats will skew the vote to someone crazy (Like this TL poll).
|
On August 30 2011 11:42 KSMB wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 09:53 xDaunt wrote:You're right, I'm not a scientist. However, I am an attorney -- one who specializes in civil litigation and is accustomed to analyzing, questioning, and, if need be, tearing apart the opinions of doctors, scientists, engineers, and other "experts" who are at the forefront of their respective fields. Simply put, I know a thing or two about the scientific method and research. I have found your basic mistake. You seem to actually think that being an attorney and arguing word games in the context of litigation is somehow "knowing" about the scientific method and research. Get over yourself and learn some science.
What I do basically IS a form of peer review, it's not word games. Let me briefly explain how it works. In a case, an expert presents an opinion. I get to ask the expert about his opinion to make sure that I fully understand what it is and what it's based upon, including facts, methodology, axioms, theory, etc ... basically anything and everything that might be a component of the opinion. I then look at the opinion to see if there are enough holes in it such that the expert should be allowed to present his opinion in court. If there are enough holes, then the opinion is excluded from court. In fact, attorneys who do this regularly in certain fields often know nearly as much about the expert's field as the expert himself.
|
On August 30 2011 11:56 Dev11 wrote:
Never argue with a lawyer.
Its very hot where they come from anyway so they don't mind..
I am pretty sure at this point he cannot possibly not see the glaringly obvious manipulation of that graph and he must expect people are stupid and can't figure out in 4 seconds flat that the actual average and B\C projected average are nearly identical.
X "Doesn't know how to analyze graphs" Daunt is on the warpath against climatologists, watch out.
|
global cooling.
This website doesn't exactly sound like a scientific journal but hey.
www.isthereglobalcooling.com
A scientist who agrees:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/19/global-cooling-scientists-warming/
A 1975 article on the topic from Newsweek:
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
wikipedia on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
According to NASA, recent years have been breaking records. Measurements only go back to 1880, but the warmest years on record, in order, are 2010, 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, and 2009.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2010-warmest-year.html
more cool graphs from NASA to illustrate temperature trends:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
Interesting stuff. There is some conflicting data, although both sides seem to think we are screwed O.o
|
On August 30 2011 12:02 Senorcuidado wrote:global cooling. This website doesn't exactly sound like a scientific journal but hey. www.isthereglobalcooling.comA scientist who agrees: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/19/global-cooling-scientists-warming/A 1975 article on the topic from Newsweek: http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htmwikipedia on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_coolingAccording to NASA, recent years have been breaking records. Measurements only go back to 1880, but the warmest years on record, in order, are 2010, 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, and 2009. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2010-warmest-year.htmlmore cool graphs from NASA to illustrate temperature trends: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Interesting stuff. There is some conflicting data, although both sides seem to think we are screwed O.o
1975 newspaper, Fox News, "welcome to my website" isthereglobalcooling.com
vs
NASA
Both sides? What?
Oh dear Jesus our generation doesn't understand graphs or proper sources.
|
Guys, we have to find the philosopher's stone.
|
On August 30 2011 11:48 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 11:45 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 11:32 Romantic wrote:On August 30 2011 11:13 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 11:01 kwizach wrote:On August 30 2011 10:49 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 10:45 kwizach wrote:On August 30 2011 09:53 xDaunt wrote:
No one really needs any specialized training to see the gaping holes and inconsistencies that exist in what the climate scientists have told us over the years. Please, go ahead, name some of those "gaping holes" you're referring to. Don't c/p youtube videos, bring me scientific analyses showing that the scientific community is wrong. I'm waiting. It's seriously mind-blowing that some people are still refusing to acknowledge the reality of the contribution of humanity to global warming. The steps we should be taking now PALE in their impact on the economy in comparison to the consequences of inaction. It's really crazy how some people can turn a blind eye to the hard evidence that's right in front of them and actually jeopardize the future of mankind because they're too dumb to understand what's at stake. I've already referenced one multiple times in this thread: global warming scientists completely failed to predict the current cooling pattern that we're in. In fact, in the Climategate emails, they admit that they have no explanation for what has happened. That's a pretty fucking big hole if you ask me, particularly when these same scientists had been predicting for 10-15 years or so beforehand that the planet would continue warming for the foreseeable future unless we took drastic action to cut emissions. First of all, you did not cite any scientific analysis detailing your "current cooling pattern". I'm still waiting. Second, that's not a hole in the argument about global warming. Scientific analysis of global warming shows the impact of mankind's activity. If there is another force currently "balancing" the influence of mankind, it doesn't mean that the influence of mankind isn't still there. Unless you can come up with a scientific analysis demonstrating that the force responsible for the "current cooling pattern" is going to keep having an impact over the next few centuries, you have no point whatsoever. The moment that force ceases existing, you'll be feeling the full blow of mankind's contribution to global warming. Do yourself a favor and educate yourself by googling "current global cooling trend." http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/This one? Is the best our lawyer has cherry picking start dates? I like this one better because it shows an alarmists' predictions versus what actually happened: But that's all besides the point. I don't think anyone is arguing that we're not in either a global cooling trend, or at the very least, that global temperatures have inexplicably stabilized despite what's been predicted. Whether the temperature goes back up or keeps going down doesn't really prove anything anyway. The temperature is always changing. The real issues are whether mankind is significantly contributing to it and whether we can stop it. ??? You are blatantly cherry picking the start dates. You could go back to 1990, point to that low, and declare the warming is over. OOPS! Not true! There is a reason people use averages. Edit: rofl the "Actual" number points to the lowest point on the recent graph, while the projections are all averages further in the future where it is expected to be warmer. This is worse than I thought. Tisk, tisk.
I'm not picking dates or mispresenting what's going on. It is what it is:
Here's one for 2002-2011:
![[image loading]](http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Aqua-AMSU-30N-60N-ch-5-7-temps-30-dy-smooth.gif)
Here's another one that goes back 130 years:
![[image loading]](http://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/images/other/2010/globalmeantemplarge.gif)
None of these graphs really mean dick because they don't prove anything in terms of the extent of mankind's contribution to climate change.
EDIT: Oh, and let's not forget about the scaling on the Y-axis of these graphs. We're talking about less than 1 degree of fluctuation globally over the past one hundred years.
|
The most hilarious things about "climate sceptics" is that apparently science is only useful when it proves your point. Doesn't matter that most of the data says otherwise, there is clearly a cooling trend over these specific years. What's that? Oh sure the bigger picture shows a consistent warming pattern but that doesn't fit my frame of reference so I will put it down to an Al Gore conspiracy.
No-one likes futurama anyway...
Back on topic, if the general consensus is that this is a weak field, what would be the best strategy from Obama to exploit that? As has been mentioned his greatest accomplishments seem to be on the nose. Even pulling out of Iraq has been "tarnished" by the escalation in Afghanistan. Financial regulation to "reign in the banks" got shot to hell and Obamacare, whilst being a conservative route to universal coverage is panned as being too socialist.
Finally, a little poll. People here have very strong opinions and since voting is not compulsory it would be interesting to know how many actually vote.
+ Show Spoiler [Do you vote?] +Poll: Do you vote at federal elections?Yes (3) 100% No (0) 0% Depends on the policies and/or candidates (0) 0% 3 total votes Your vote: Do you vote at federal elections? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
(Vote): Depends on the policies and/or candidates
|
On August 30 2011 12:04 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 12:02 Senorcuidado wrote:global cooling. This website doesn't exactly sound like a scientific journal but hey. www.isthereglobalcooling.comA scientist who agrees: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/19/global-cooling-scientists-warming/A 1975 article on the topic from Newsweek: http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htmwikipedia on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_coolingAccording to NASA, recent years have been breaking records. Measurements only go back to 1880, but the warmest years on record, in order, are 2010, 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, and 2009. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2010-warmest-year.htmlmore cool graphs from NASA to illustrate temperature trends: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Interesting stuff. There is some conflicting data, although both sides seem to think we are screwed O.o 1975 newspaper, Fox News, "welcome to my website" isthereglobalcooling.com vs NASA Both sides? What? Oh dear Jesus our generation doesn't understand graphs or proper sources.
whoa whoa whoa, I wasn't backing up global cooling. Obviously the fact that there is conflicting data doesn't override what I said in my previous post about the scientific consensus on global warming. There are at least one or two legitimate scientists that work for the IPCC who believe in global cooling but they are very outnumbered and the credible sources you find when searching for it are quite slim. I was trying to keep my tone neutral, and it is true that both sides think we're screwed 
An excerpt from the FOX article:
"Easterbrook spoke before a group of about 700 scientists and government officials at the fourth International Conference on Climate Change. The conference is presented annually in Chicago by the Heartland Institute, a conservative nonprofit think tank that actively questions the theory of man's role in global warming."
I mean, clearly the conference is presented by a conservative think tank, so it's not exactly unbiased. The discrepancy in the credibility of the sources is apparent when reviewing all the links.
|
On August 30 2011 11:32 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 11:13 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 11:01 kwizach wrote:On August 30 2011 10:49 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 10:45 kwizach wrote:On August 30 2011 09:53 xDaunt wrote:
No one really needs any specialized training to see the gaping holes and inconsistencies that exist in what the climate scientists have told us over the years. Please, go ahead, name some of those "gaping holes" you're referring to. Don't c/p youtube videos, bring me scientific analyses showing that the scientific community is wrong. I'm waiting. It's seriously mind-blowing that some people are still refusing to acknowledge the reality of the contribution of humanity to global warming. The steps we should be taking now PALE in their impact on the economy in comparison to the consequences of inaction. It's really crazy how some people can turn a blind eye to the hard evidence that's right in front of them and actually jeopardize the future of mankind because they're too dumb to understand what's at stake. I've already referenced one multiple times in this thread: global warming scientists completely failed to predict the current cooling pattern that we're in. In fact, in the Climategate emails, they admit that they have no explanation for what has happened. That's a pretty fucking big hole if you ask me, particularly when these same scientists had been predicting for 10-15 years or so beforehand that the planet would continue warming for the foreseeable future unless we took drastic action to cut emissions. First of all, you did not cite any scientific analysis detailing your "current cooling pattern". I'm still waiting. Second, that's not a hole in the argument about global warming. Scientific analysis of global warming shows the impact of mankind's activity. If there is another force currently "balancing" the influence of mankind, it doesn't mean that the influence of mankind isn't still there. Unless you can come up with a scientific analysis demonstrating that the force responsible for the "current cooling pattern" is going to keep having an impact over the next few centuries, you have no point whatsoever. The moment that force ceases existing, you'll be feeling the full blow of mankind's contribution to global warming. Do yourself a favor and educate yourself by googling "current global cooling trend." http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/This one? Is the best our lawyer has cherry picking start dates?
Yeah funny how temps might rise a bit following the period known as the little ice age...
|
On August 30 2011 11:56 Dev11 wrote:
Never argue with a lawyer.
Its very hot where they come from anyway so they don't mind..
On topic I actually have a question:
Are the nominees elected by the general public? Or only members of the Republican party?
Surely if its the general public then Democrats will skew the vote to someone crazy (Like this TL poll).
Only Republicans can vote in the Republican primary, and the poll looks like it skews to Michele Bachmann but that's just the weird way it was put up in the OP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
