|
On February 05 2012 08:19 slytown wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 17:39 sluggaslamoo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +In this entire thread not a single person has provided SCIENTIFIC evidence against man-made climate change. Every single fucking retard that posted some stupid graph they found on google images, never even checked the validity of the person who created it, or even used half their brain to realise the graph isn't even scientific. ----------------------------- Here's some face-palm examples that i've had to go through so far.On February 02 2012 20:33 voy wrote:Humans are truly overrating themselves thinking that we can change the nature. Climate cycles are every couple hundrets of years. + Show Spoiler + LOL NO Y-AXIS, AND QUESTION MARKS ON TEMPERATURES? Your argument is invalid.And to top it off. LOL AUTHOR THINKS GOD IS A FACTOR OF EARTHS CLIMATE PATTERNS!!!LOL DID NOT EVEN READ OWN WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE! The wikipedia article states the OPPOSITE of what you wrote! Your first article states that water vapour accounts for 95%, while Wikipedia states only 36-85% (max). I could guess on average it would be 60%? Not 95%. If you used 5% in your calculation and got 0.5C degrees of man-made warming, that would not be much, but now multiply that by 13 and you get 6.5C. I think you would agree that 6.5C degrees is A LOT. Think of the hottest day you've ever had, and add 6.5C (lets say 104F -> 116F, I dunno I don't really know farenheit you work it out) degrees onto it. You also realise that if we had no greenhouse effect we'd all be frozen. --------------------------------- My head hurts from having to just read the evidence and realise either the poster only read the title of the article and then posted it, or the author is from an oil company or fundamentalist christian who believes god determines the earths cycles, or the evidence when actually read properly is an inconsistent crock of shit. Almost 100% of the thousands of journal articles, prove with scientific data that global warming is man-made. Go look for any real scientific journal on this, there is a massive worldwide concensus on the issue. The odd 1/10,000 scientist who disagrees is probably a retard who is trying to make a name for himself, or is getting paid large sums from questionable sources. As for money, of course people are making money of this. Are you fucking dumb? people make money off selling games, does that make games bad? no?. Wtf is the point of saying its wrong to make money, it's possibly the best thing that could happen, because it even allows polluting companies like BP to invest in renewable technology and hopefully and eventually convert like they are doing now and promote change (which is what they are doing). Unfortunately smart oil/energy companies are few and far between, and would rather waste their slush funds on a hopeless marketing campaign (causing doubt in the community) because a CEO jobs life time is only a few years, and shareholders work on a yearly rate. For them, more money now > even more money later. If everyone knew there was a concensus on this issue, and knew that they could make a difference to the health of our future generations, lessen the strength of natural disasters (Australia recently been getting hit like there's no tomorrow, record temperatures broken nearly every year, a massive flood that destroyed Queenslands agricultural industry, followed a month later by a cyclone almost the size of USA, massive floods twice a year, worst bushfire in history, record drought, in my life I had never seen anything like it, mother nature has just cracked the shits in the last 5 years). I'm sure nearly everyone would be happy to get on board and try and curb this problem, unfortunately, just a hint of doubt, and people will find any excuse not to do anything. You mad bro? Two points: there is no proof in science and science does not progress by consensus but paradigm shifts.
Classical deflection. You cannot actually answer his criticism (mainly because you don't have any actual science to back your luddite viewpoint up), so you decide to attack his wording, with a little bit of insulting thrown in there just for giggles.
|
Ok. so lets say we tone down the CO2 production. Where will all the CO2 that we produced go?
The main producer of CO2 is not man-made machines, as the highest CO2 producer in the world are the plants, more specifically
Amazon forest. so if you really want to get rid of CO2 in the atmosphere you need to chop down all life in the forest and
probably blink them out into the space. (if you bury them the amount of CO2 will probably turn earth into mars).
These so called global warming threats evidences are flawed themselves and biased as well.
|
I am not a global warming denier, but I have two questions:
1) What are the immediate measures we can undertake to slow down the process without imposing too negative effects on the economy and everyday life?
2) Is the mechanism set in motion self-healing, i.e. is it enough to stop doing what we do or do we need to something in addition to revert the climate to its natural state.
Thanks for the effort you put into the OP!
|
Almost 100% of the thousands of journal articles, prove with scientific data that global warming is man-made. Go look for any real scientific journal on this, there is a massive worldwide concensus on the issue. The odd 1/10,000 scientist who disagrees is probably a retard who is trying to make a name for himself, or is getting paid large sums from questionable sources.
Spouting the tired old "consensus" argument is a terribly unscientific stance to take and it's so blatantly untrue that you only hurt your position by making it. One can't help be more suspicious of anthropogenic global warming claims when supporters seem more concerned with suppressing debate and limiting opposition than of finding the truth. Not only is there no consensus but many prominent scientists who are skeptical of AGW have been cut from research grants and obstructed when publishing peer reviewed material.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
|
I don't deny climate change is occuring. However, it is not the result of CO2.
|
On February 05 2012 09:24 Intr3pid wrote:
I am not a global warming denier, but I have two questions:
1) What are the immediate measures we can undertake to slow down the process without imposing too negative effects on the economy and everyday life?
2) Is the mechanism set in motion self-healing, i.e. is it enough to stop doing what we do or do we need to something in addition to revert the climate to its natural state.
Thanks for the effort you put into the OP!
1.
I would say the easiest way is buy green-energy from a reputable source and get others (your company) too as well, this will boost the renewable energy industry into creating better technologies and building more solar panels, geothermal powerplants, etc. It doesn't cost a lot and money is the only way important people will get into boosting it.
If you are really that sceptical you can power your house with solar panels and get money for injecting power into the grid, its quite pricey though. We power our farm purely on solar power, it was actually cheaper than hooking ourselves up to the grid (spend $10,000 on hooking up to the grid and pay for electricity, or buy $10,000 in solar panels and get free energy).
2.
Well look at it this way, the more we pollute the more the permafrost will melt and put tonnes of methane into the air, causing a vicious cycle, this is basically irreversible irrc. There is also the issue of the great ocean conveyor belt, which if it stops, will cause an ice age. We also have the problem of India and China's growing economies, which will mean more cars on the road.
That said I don't think its ever possible that we can revert the climate back to what it was pre-industrial revolution. Too many trees have been cut down, and everyone is materialistic. That said if we reduce it enough, we may get to a point where the growth stabilises and we are content with what we are up to, or the net CO2 output becomes negative because the CO2 is disappearing faster than what we are outputting, which is what we should hope for.
Unfortunately there is also this issue.
Statement | % agree | Year
(International) Climate change is a serious problem.[22] | 90 | 2006
(International) Human activity is a significant cause of climate change.[21] | 79 | 2007
(US) Global Warming is very/extremely important[20] | 49 | 2006
(US) It's necessary to take major steps starting very soon.[21] | 59 | 2007
(US) The Earth is getting warmer because of human activity[23] | 49 | 2009
On February 05 2012 08:19 slytown wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 17:39 sluggaslamoo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +In this entire thread not a single person has provided SCIENTIFIC evidence against man-made climate change. Every single fucking retard that posted some stupid graph they found on google images, never even checked the validity of the person who created it, or even used half their brain to realise the graph isn't even scientific. ----------------------------- Here's some face-palm examples that i've had to go through so far.On February 02 2012 20:33 voy wrote:Humans are truly overrating themselves thinking that we can change the nature. Climate cycles are every couple hundrets of years. + Show Spoiler + LOL NO Y-AXIS, AND QUESTION MARKS ON TEMPERATURES? Your argument is invalid.And to top it off. LOL AUTHOR THINKS GOD IS A FACTOR OF EARTHS CLIMATE PATTERNS!!!LOL DID NOT EVEN READ OWN WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE! The wikipedia article states the OPPOSITE of what you wrote! Your first article states that water vapour accounts for 95%, while Wikipedia states only 36-85% (max). I could guess on average it would be 60%? Not 95%. If you used 5% in your calculation and got 0.5C degrees of man-made warming, that would not be much, but now multiply that by 13 and you get 6.5C. I think you would agree that 6.5C degrees is A LOT. Think of the hottest day you've ever had, and add 6.5C (lets say 104F -> 116F, I dunno I don't really know farenheit you work it out) degrees onto it. You also realise that if we had no greenhouse effect we'd all be frozen. --------------------------------- My head hurts from having to just read the evidence and realise either the poster only read the title of the article and then posted it, or the author is from an oil company or fundamentalist christian who believes god determines the earths cycles, or the evidence when actually read properly is an inconsistent crock of shit. Almost 100% of the thousands of journal articles, prove with scientific data that global warming is man-made. Go look for any real scientific journal on this, there is a massive worldwide concensus on the issue. The odd 1/10,000 scientist who disagrees is probably a retard who is trying to make a name for himself, or is getting paid large sums from questionable sources. As for money, of course people are making money of this. Are you fucking dumb? people make money off selling games, does that make games bad? no?. Wtf is the point of saying its wrong to make money, it's possibly the best thing that could happen, because it even allows polluting companies like BP to invest in renewable technology and hopefully and eventually convert like they are doing now and promote change (which is what they are doing). Unfortunately smart oil/energy companies are few and far between, and would rather waste their slush funds on a hopeless marketing campaign (causing doubt in the community) because a CEO jobs life time is only a few years, and shareholders work on a yearly rate. For them, more money now > even more money later. If everyone knew there was a concensus on this issue, and knew that they could make a difference to the health of our future generations, lessen the strength of natural disasters (Australia recently been getting hit like there's no tomorrow, record temperatures broken nearly every year, a massive flood that destroyed Queenslands agricultural industry, followed a month later by a cyclone almost the size of USA, massive floods twice a year, worst bushfire in history, record drought, in my life I had never seen anything like it, mother nature has just cracked the shits in the last 5 years). I'm sure nearly everyone would be happy to get on board and try and curb this problem, unfortunately, just a hint of doubt, and people will find any excuse not to do anything. You mad bro? Two points: there is no proof in science and science does not progress by consensus but paradigm shifts.
Of course I'm mad, how can you post an article without even validating it?
Of course there's proof in science, wtf? And science moves in paradigm shifts because of there is a consensus. Your two points are so stupid I don't even know what to say.
On February 05 2012 04:10 Piste wrote:
Yesterday close to -40°C here in Finland. Global warming, welcome.
Your place may become even colder due to global warming. I know its hard to understand, but global warming causes more extreme temperatures which is why a lot of people refer to the phenomena as climate change. Global warming means the earth is heating up over all.
On February 05 2012 10:08 Aurocaido wrote:
I don't deny climate change is occuring. However, it is not the result of CO2.
Please explain why.
On February 05 2012 08:55 phame21 wrote:
Ok. so lets say we tone down the CO2 production. Where will all the CO2 that we produced go?
The main producer of CO2 is not man-made machines, as the highest CO2 producer in the world are the plants, more specifically
Amazon forest. so if you really want to get rid of CO2 in the atmosphere you need to chop down all life in the forest and
probably blink them out into the space. (if you bury them the amount of CO2 will probably turn earth into mars).
These so called global warming threats evidences are flawed themselves and biased as well.
No, your answer is flawed and biased. You based your answer on evidence that is plain wrong. Overall net CO2 is lower, net oxygen is higher. While plants do take in oxygen and release co2 some of the time, but more is done the other way.
Otherwise we'd all be dead.
On February 05 2012 09:51 Frunkis wrote:Show nested quote +Almost 100% of the thousands of journal articles, prove with scientific data that global warming is man-made. Go look for any real scientific journal on this, there is a massive worldwide concensus on the issue. The odd 1/10,000 scientist who disagrees is probably a retard who is trying to make a name for himself, or is getting paid large sums from questionable sources. Spouting the tired old "consensus" argument is a terribly unscientific stance to take and it's so blatantly untrue that you only hurt your position by making it. One can't help be more suspicious of anthropogenic global warming claims when supporters seem more concerned with suppressing debate and limiting opposition than of finding the truth. Not only is there no consensus but many prominent scientists who are skeptical of AGW have been cut from research grants and obstructed when publishing peer reviewed material. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
And then you post with an article from the wall street journal. Sigh. As with any newspaper that comments on scientific information, there's probably many mistakes. One time I spotted 52 mistakes in a 2 paragraph article with an image on DNA.
Edit: ----
Also isn't the Wall Street Journal owned by Murdoch? If so that would explain its conservative bias. Check this out.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilweinberg/2010/10/23/nyt-vs-wsj-liberal-bias-vs-conservative-bias/
I read the article anyway and there isn't enough information on the guys that were kicked out (apart from that one guy and there isn't enough info about his actions which led to it), and there is a lot of things mentioned without anything to back it up.
I can see why you are confused with the concensus issue.
A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
As wikipedia states. 97–98% of the most published climate researchers think humans are causing global warming.[35] Another study found 97.4% of publishing climatologists and just under 90% of all earth scientists think significant man made global warming is occurring.
So there you go, all it took was a simple google search. The wall street journal article you posted we now know is just a pile of biased crap.
There is simply no need to read it in detail, because we now know what the objective of the journalist is, and it includes mis-informing the public.
---
How is it unscientific to say there is a consensus, because there is (in the regular usage of the word). Its something around 98/100 that agree. So when you say so far from the truth, its actually not. The problem is in the journalistic/political world it's much less than that and they make up the majority of what people hear and read, that is where the confusion comes from.
Blocking and cutting research grants happen all the time with journals. Journals are extremely strict in how they conduct things, you must use dichotomous language (it either is or it isn't), and you must properly scrutinize all of your research play the devils advocate if you will, and then it goes through a massive peer review test where they keep handing it back, and you may never get your article published in the end.
At least its scrutinized, most of the GW bullshit that comes out of the press has not been scrutinized, and has not been peer reviewed. Journal articles are much much more fair in this regard, and therefore I would be more inclined to believe a journal than a newspaper article. If you look at Climategate, if it wasn't for how strict the scientific community was, this would have never appeared. Climategate proves that scientists are scrutinizing their own data. It never meant that anthropogenic GW doesn't exist, it was just exaggerated in a computer model which another scientist found out, that's it.
Most likely the people that handed in articles to a journal that were anti-AGW, were like one of the guys in my above post. They had no clue about science, were paid by the oil companies to do it and thus in the end weren't able to justify it well enough because they were just plain wrong, or were morons trying to make a name for themselves. And therefore their funding was cut, and they were banned from handing in articles.
Also like the guys in the above post, if you do a brief google search on them, there will be plenty of information saying they are the top 10 scientists or whatever. You look further down and realise its just pure horse shit, the top scientist is actually an executive of an oil company, or a major member of the catholic church who believes god is a factor of science. You get the same kind of crap coming from intelligent design.
Remember anyone can hand in an article to a journal, whether they accept it or not is another issue.
Because the GW debate affects so many people, and in the short-term negatively affects a lot of companies, I'm sure a lot of company staff tried their hand in handing in articles, and made some websites about them about how they are the top scientists. They probably had bad etiquette and complained via email, instead of taking it like a man and fixing their article, but they can't because they are not really scientists, or they know they're wrong. Of course, Journals aren't that stupid, and will ban you outright and make sure you never post anything about science again. Which is of course, a good thing.
|
On February 05 2012 08:55 phame21 wrote:
Ok. so lets say we tone down the CO2 production. Where will all the CO2 that we produced go?
The main producer of CO2 is not man-made machines, as the highest CO2 producer in the world are the plants, more specifically
Amazon forest. so if you really want to get rid of CO2 in the atmosphere you need to chop down all life in the forest and
probably blink them out into the space. (if you bury them the amount of CO2 will probably turn earth into mars).
These so called global warming threats evidences are flawed themselves and biased as well.
Ive got shitty grades in biology but even I understand photosynthesis... Plants dont create CO2, they consume CO2 + Sunlight and transform it into sugar + O2.
|
On February 05 2012 10:47 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 09:51 Frunkis wrote:Almost 100% of the thousands of journal articles, prove with scientific data that global warming is man-made. Go look for any real scientific journal on this, there is a massive worldwide concensus on the issue. The odd 1/10,000 scientist who disagrees is probably a retard who is trying to make a name for himself, or is getting paid large sums from questionable sources. Spouting the tired old "consensus" argument is a terribly unscientific stance to take and it's so blatantly untrue that you only hurt your position by making it. One can't help be more suspicious of anthropogenic global warming claims when supporters seem more concerned with suppressing debate and limiting opposition than of finding the truth. Not only is there no consensus but many prominent scientists who are skeptical of AGW have been cut from research grants and obstructed when publishing peer reviewed material. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html As wikipedia states. 97–98% of the most published climate researchers think humans are causing global warming.[35] Another study found 97.4% of publishing climatologists and just under 90% of all earth scientists think significant man made global warming is occurring.So there you go, all it took was a simple google search. The wall street journal article you posted we now know is just a pile of biased crap. There is simply no need to read it in detail, because we now know what the objective of the journalist is, and it includes mis-informing the public.
Oh snap! Wikipedia! Wow, way to break out the big guns. And the paper cited is a paper statistically analyzing the amount of peer reviewed papers published. How does a piece of shit like that get published? Oh right, because it's pro-AGW. Funny how that works. I won't go into why that paper is such trash but I think this person does a pretty good job of it.
http://www.sciencebits.com/node/214
In any case, here's a site that seems to have no shortage of peer reviewed papers against AGW.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
How is it unscientific to say there is a consensus, because there is (in the regular usage of the word). Its something around 1/1,000 that disagree. So when you say so far from the truth, its actually not. The problem is in the journalistic/political world it's much less than that and they make up the majority of what people hear and read, that is where the confusion comes from.
1/10000? Where are you pulling this number from (other than your ass)?
Blocking and cutting research grants happen all the time with journals. Journals are extremely strict in how they conduct things, you must use dichotomous language (it either is or it isn't), and you must properly scrutinize all of your research play the devils advocate if you will, and then it goes through a massive peer review test where they keep handing it back, and you may never get your article published in the end.
At least its scrutinized, most of the AGW bullshit that comes out of the press has not been scrutinized, and has not been peer reviewed. Journal articles are much much more fair in this regard, and therefore I would be more inclined to believe a journal than a newspaper article.
Most likely the people that handed in articles to a journal that were "AGW", were like one of the guys in my above post. They had no clue about science, were paid by the oil companies to do it and thus in the end weren't able to justify it well enough because they were just plain wrong, or were morons trying to make a name for themselves. And therefore their funding was cut, and they were banned from handing in articles.
Ok, you're clearly confused. Anthropogenic means "human caused" and GW is global warming. While I agree that AGW is bullshit I feel the need to point out that that's YOUR side.
"Paid off by the oil companies"
Really? You sound ridiculous. Seriously, get a hold of yourself. You come off like a bit of a nutcase.
Moving on to your slightly less insane ramblings, you know I'm not talking about peer reviewed papers being rejected for anything other than disagreeing with the global warming alarmism. Things like the Chris de Freitas incident supported by the climategate emails and their malicious response to the Soon paper. Many of those emails show behavior that ranges from extremely sketchy to downright corrupt when it comes to papers being published by any opposition.
Also like the guys in the above post, if you do a brief google search on them, there will be plenty of information saying they are the 10 ten scientists or whatever. You look further down and realise its just pure horse shit, the top scientist is actually an executive of an oil company, or a major member of the catholic church who believes god is a factor of science. You get the same kind of crap coming from intelligent design.
What are you even talking about? The "10 scientists or whatever?" You mean the 16 that signed the article? I'm confused. Which one is the oil executive? The cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting or the head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology?
|
So when can we expect the world to start warming again, since it hasn't to any statistically significant degree for 15 years now? It's not like CO2 emissions magically stopped increasing 25 years ago. They've increased at greater levels every year, but the warming has somehow failed to follow suit. I've read it's the solar cycle, it's the oceans absorb more CO2 than previously thought, it's clouds, it's whatever, but the fact remains, global temperatures rose pretty steadily from ~1970 to 1997 and since then have stagnated.
|
On February 05 2012 13:14 DeepElemBlues wrote:
So when can we expect the world to start warming again, since it hasn't to any statistically significant degree for 15 years now? It's not like CO2 emissions magically stopped increasing 25 years ago. They've increased at greater levels every year, but the warming has somehow failed to follow suit. I've read it's the solar cycle, it's the oceans absorb more CO2 than previously thought, it's clouds, it's whatever, but the fact remains, global temperatures rose pretty steadily from ~1970 to 1997 and since then have stagnated.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/21/2011-climate-change-in-pictures-and-data-just-the-facts/
Doesn't look like that to me.
|
I think treating denial seriously is giving it too much credit.
I much prefer offering people 2 suggestions.
First, I ask them to jump off the planet. An obviously stupid suggestion as it is not possible, ask them why they cannot. Hopefully their answer will include gravity, the ozone, etc.
Then, ask them to sit in their garage with the car running. Hopefully nobody would actually 'try' this 'experiment' but the combination of those 2 ideas seems to help some people realize that they might be wrong.
Worst come to worst, ask them what they are arguing against. Nobody is going to claim that a gas guzzling car is better than a hybrid or electric car for the environment, and most people I've met like the additional idea of 'being off 'foreign' oil' even if not for the environmental reasons.
The combination of those three have served me well in the past. Get them to refuse two things that serve to illustrate your idea, then challenge the fact that they actually have an argument. Some of the most interesting conversations you'll ever have will follow if they continue to push. (Or it will be more mindless recitation of talking points, but that seems to be the binary outcome.)
|
On February 05 2012 12:59 Frunkis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 10:47 sluggaslamoo wrote:On February 05 2012 09:51 Frunkis wrote:Almost 100% of the thousands of journal articles, prove with scientific data that global warming is man-made. Go look for any real scientific journal on this, there is a massive worldwide concensus on the issue. The odd 1/10,000 scientist who disagrees is probably a retard who is trying to make a name for himself, or is getting paid large sums from questionable sources. Spouting the tired old "consensus" argument is a terribly unscientific stance to take and it's so blatantly untrue that you only hurt your position by making it. One can't help be more suspicious of anthropogenic global warming claims when supporters seem more concerned with suppressing debate and limiting opposition than of finding the truth. Not only is there no consensus but many prominent scientists who are skeptical of AGW have been cut from research grants and obstructed when publishing peer reviewed material. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html As wikipedia states. 97–98% of the most published climate researchers think humans are causing global warming.[35] Another study found 97.4% of publishing climatologists and just under 90% of all earth scientists think significant man made global warming is occurring.So there you go, all it took was a simple google search. The wall street journal article you posted we now know is just a pile of biased crap. There is simply no need to read it in detail, because we now know what the objective of the journalist is, and it includes mis-informing the public. Oh snap! Wikipedia! Wow, way to break out the big guns. And the paper cited is a paper statistically analyzing the amount of peer reviewed papers published. How does a piece of shit like that get published? Oh right, because it's pro-AGW. Funny how that works. I won't go into why that paper is such trash but I think this person does a pretty good job of it. http://www.sciencebits.com/node/214In any case, here's a site that seems to have no shortage of peer reviewed papers against AGW. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html Show nested quote +How is it unscientific to say there is a consensus, because there is (in the regular usage of the word). Its something around 1/1,000 that disagree. So when you say so far from the truth, its actually not. The problem is in the journalistic/political world it's much less than that and they make up the majority of what people hear and read, that is where the confusion comes from. 1/10000? Where are you pulling this number from (other than your ass)? Show nested quote +Blocking and cutting research grants happen all the time with journals. Journals are extremely strict in how they conduct things, you must use dichotomous language (it either is or it isn't), and you must properly scrutinize all of your research play the devils advocate if you will, and then it goes through a massive peer review test where they keep handing it back, and you may never get your article published in the end.
At least its scrutinized, most of the AGW bullshit that comes out of the press has not been scrutinized, and has not been peer reviewed. Journal articles are much much more fair in this regard, and therefore I would be more inclined to believe a journal than a newspaper article.
Most likely the people that handed in articles to a journal that were "AGW", were like one of the guys in my above post. They had no clue about science, were paid by the oil companies to do it and thus in the end weren't able to justify it well enough because they were just plain wrong, or were morons trying to make a name for themselves. And therefore their funding was cut, and they were banned from handing in articles. Ok, you're clearly confused. Anthropogenic means "human caused" and GW is global warming. While I agree that AGW is bullshit I feel the need to point out that that's YOUR side. "Paid off by the oil companies" Really? You sound ridiculous. Seriously, get a hold of yourself. You come off like a bit of a nutcase. Moving on to your slightly less insane ramblings, you know I'm not talking about peer reviewed papers being rejected for anything other than disagreeing with the global warming alarmism. Things like the Chris de Freitas incident supported by the climategate emails and their malicious response to the Soon paper. Many of those emails show behavior that ranges from extremely sketchy to downright corrupt when it comes to papers being published by any opposition. Show nested quote +Also like the guys in the above post, if you do a brief google search on them, there will be plenty of information saying they are the 10 ten scientists or whatever. You look further down and realise its just pure horse shit, the top scientist is actually an executive of an oil company, or a major member of the catholic church who believes god is a factor of science. You get the same kind of crap coming from intelligent design. What are you even talking about? The "10 scientists or whatever?" You mean the 16 that signed the article? I'm confused. Which one is the oil executive? The cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting or the head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology?
Dunno why you are so adamant about correcting my typos that were corrected in a recent edit before you responded. Maybe I'm making them because I have waste so much time invalidating their data that I don't have enough time to type.
It is 1/100, not 1/1000. I think I originally mentioned articles that's why, but showing in terms of people sounds fairer and easier to prove. I think 2% is close enough to call 1/100 when we are talking in a conversational manner don't you think?
"AGW bullshit" can go both ways, but I corrected it with anti-AGW.
There, 3/4 of your points are now irrelevant.
------------
The top 10 scientists refers to one of the posts made earlier with a graph that was supposedly by one of the top 10 climatologists (according to his website). Turns out he was a fundamentalist christian who believed god was a factor in climate change.
-----------
A lot of the anti-AGW articles people have posted on other forums were posted by fakes from oil companies, or the church, etc. Such as the one that was stated previously. Dunno why actually validating the data or screening the author makes me a nutcase. You should try it sometime.
-----------
I have to quote this because its the most LOL worthy quote of them all.
Oh snap! Wikipedia! Wow, way to break out the big guns. And the paper cited is a paper statistically analyzing the amount of peer reviewed papers published. How does a piece of shit like that get published? Oh right, because it's pro-AGW. Funny how that works. I won't go into why that paper is such trash but I think this person does a pretty good job of it. http://www.sciencebits.com/node/214In any case, here's a site that seems to have no shortage of peer reviewed papers against AGW. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
LOL BECAUSE A BLOG POST IS MORE REPUTABLE THAN A FUCKING PEER REVIEWED ACADEMIC JOURNAL?!
Jesus christ, is there a limit to how stupid people can get?
900+ journal articles not-supporting AGW have no impact when you don't compare it to the sheer amount of articles that support AGW. Please go add them up, or look at the peer-reviewed academic journal that was cited for the 98% agreement on scientists supporting AGW.
***************
Edit: This will be the only edit I make on this post this time, I promise.
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=climate change&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=&as_vis=1
A quick google scholar search shows there are 2,260,000 scholarly articles on Climate Change.
Now please tell me how many don't support AGW again?
Oh wait and half of them don't even belong to a scienctific journal (e.g The Electricity Journal). LMAO
****************
-----------
http://www.sciencebits.com/node/214
This is a blog. I am definitely going to believe the peer reviewed article he somewhat denies, over the random guy who rambles on a blog. Thanks.
----------
I find it funny that somehow people think that the CRU is responsible for all scientific journals in the world.
Also
Among the scientists whose emails were disclosed, the CRU's researchers said in a statement that the emails had been taken out of context and merely reflected an honest exchange of ideas. Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center, said that sceptics were "taking these words totally out of context to make something trivial appear nefarious",[18] and called the entire incident a careful, "high-level, orchestrated smear campaign to distract the public about the nature of the climate change problem."[62] Kevin E. Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research said that he was appalled at the release of the emails but thought that it might backfire against climate sceptics, as the messages would show "the integrity of scientists."[20] He also said that climate change sceptics had selectively quoted words and phrases out of context, and that the timing suggested an attempt to undermine talks at the December 2009 Copenhagen global climate summit.[63] Tom Wigley, a former director of the CRU and now head of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, condemned the threats that he and other colleagues had received as "truly stomach-turning", and commented: "None of it affects the science one iota. Accusations of data distortion or faking are baseless. I can rebut and explain all of the apparently incriminating e-mails that I have looked at, but it is going to be very time consuming to do so."[50] In relation to the harassment that he and his colleagues were experiencing, he said: "This sort of thing has been going on at a much lower level for almost 20 years and there have been other outbursts of this sort of behaviour – criticism and abusive emails and things like that in the past. So this is a worse manifestation but it's happened before so it's not that surprising."[64]
How many un-biased articles make the press? Oh that's right, none.
|
|
|
To the OP, since you're a physicist. I watched "The Inconvenient Truth" which showed some fairly startling information, I'm just wondering how much of this is actual fact and how much of it (if any) is sensationalised. The data seemed to outright contradict and disprove any arguments of no climate variation or the variations being part of a cycle that Earth goes through.
|
He didn't say they support AGW. He asked you how many of them refute AGW. None of them do. The article you linked is one from a highly biased newspaper (pretty much all news media are biased) questioning the methodology of one meta-analysis.
A simple fact that people don't realize (and that the news media don't explain because it would detract from the sensationalism) is that any scientific study isn't intended to be able to prove or disprove anthropogenic climate change. They don't/can't operationalize global climate change as some single measurable factor and then make a hypothesis like "humans are altering the climate" and then prove or disprove it. Science studies local, observable phenomena, which means you can't generalize the results of one specific study to the entire planet. You can't just go out and conduct one study that will prove by itself that human activity is or is not affecting climate change. Rather it's meta-analyses of aggregate data that demonstrate clearly that human activity is affecting the climate. There isn't a single scientific study that disproves anthropogenic climate change.
People also don't understand that there's never consensus in any field about the results, methodologies or exact implications of specific studies. But that doesn't imply that there is disagreement about the the most obvious facts such as the fact that human activity (e.g., the production of greenhouse gases) affects the climate (e.g., an increase in greenhouse gases).
|
Two things:
(1) The guy whose article you're quoting also wrote such gems as:
'Godless societies are unfit for survival' (Dec 22, 2011)
and
'Get dirty and avoid vaccines' (Jan 6, 2012), which perpetuates the wonderful 'my child got a disease AND got vaccinated for something unrelated. Thus, the latter must have caused the former!' style reasoning.
and
'Why Jews like climate policy' (Dec 16, 2011): apparently not for environmental reasons, but as part of a conspiracy to decrease the relative power of their rivals in the Middle East.
He's not a big science guy.
(2)
I don't know if you read the paper that he's writing about in that column (you can find it at the end of the piece you've linked), but he has strawmanned it enormously. Yes, the 97% is based on a sample size of 77, but their criteria for that particular part of their graph was for people who (a) were climate scientists and (b) published 50% or more of their work on climate change. They have a bar graph for each level of expertise/interest identified.
|
On February 05 2012 15:38 ikl2 wrote:
Two things:
(1) The guy whose article you're quoting also wrote such gems as:
'Godless societies are unfit for survival' (Dec 22, 2011)
and
'Get dirty and avoid vaccines' (Jan 6, 2012), which perpetuates the wonderful 'my child got a disease AND got vaccinated for something unrelated. Thus, the latter must have caused the former!' style reasoning.
and
'Why Jews like climate policy' (Dec 16, 2011): apparently not for environmental reasons, but as part of a conspiracy to decrease the relative power of their rivals in the Middle East.
He's not a big science guy.
No doubt he's a kook. It's irrelevant. There's dozens of articles saying the same thing, pick a different one if you like. The numbers don't change.
(2)
I don't know if you read the paper that he's writing about in that column (you can find it at the end of the piece you've linked), but he has strawmanned it enormously. Yes, the 97% is based on a sample size of 77, but their criteria for that particular part of their graph was for people who (a) were climate scientists and (b) published 50% or more of their work on climate change. They have a bar graph for each level of expertise/interest identified.
The study is invalidated by selection criteria, sample size, question phrasing and confined by organization affiliation. There are plenty of papers that attempt to poll the same thing but the one that gets the most attention despite its glaring flaws is the one that gives the magical 97% consensus bullshit.
|
I am loving this discussion. Thank you all for your contributions.
I have a question for both sides though.
Who would you accept as a valid source that counters your argument? If there is no one that you'd accept, then why even argue at all?
|
So all you can say to my last post is to nit pick something I wasn't even wrong about.
The 900+ articles that are against AGW you referred to are not all scientific. Some of them are from The Electricity Journal.
http://www.journals.elsevier.com/the-electricity-journal/
You may get a million hits for global cooling, but you don't know whether any of them support or do not support it until you read it. I looked at abstracts of the first page of hits and barely any of them relate to the climate change debate. Go search climate change, most if not all of them talk about AGW and are in support of AGW.
I also never said that the 2.6 million articles either supported or didn't support AGW. I was merely mentioning the fact that you thought that 900+ was a lot, when in fact its a miniscule amount.
Now either you can do what the academic that was cited in the Wiki article did and set some criteria, or you can just pick some out of the blue which is where the 900 came from and which is while that page is so full of fail because he didn't even check that half of them aren't scientific.
On February 05 2012 16:27 Frunkis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 15:38 ikl2 wrote:
Two things:
(1) The guy whose article you're quoting also wrote such gems as:
'Godless societies are unfit for survival' (Dec 22, 2011)
and
'Get dirty and avoid vaccines' (Jan 6, 2012), which perpetuates the wonderful 'my child got a disease AND got vaccinated for something unrelated. Thus, the latter must have caused the former!' style reasoning.
and
'Why Jews like climate policy' (Dec 16, 2011): apparently not for environmental reasons, but as part of a conspiracy to decrease the relative power of their rivals in the Middle East.
He's not a big science guy.
No doubt he's a kook. It's irrelevant. There's dozens of articles saying the same thing, pick a different one if you like. The numbers don't change. Show nested quote + (2)
I don't know if you read the paper that he's writing about in that column (you can find it at the end of the piece you've linked), but he has strawmanned it enormously. Yes, the 97% is based on a sample size of 77, but their criteria for that particular part of their graph was for people who (a) were climate scientists and (b) published 50% or more of their work on climate change. They have a bar graph for each level of expertise/interest identified. The study is invalidated by selection criteria, sample size, question phrasing and confined by organization affiliation. There are plenty of papers that attempt to poll the same thing but the one that gets the most attention despite its glaring flaws is the one that gives the magical 97% consensus bullshit.
Pffft what? Of course its relevant. My whole reason for posting is that people are posting invalid information from kooks and believing it.
Do I have to screen every single one and realise that the dozens of articles are all made by kooks? Go find one from a reputable source yourself please.
On February 05 2012 16:43 Carson wrote:
I am loving this discussion. Thank you all for your contributions.
I have a question for both sides though.
Who would you accept as a valid source that counters your argument? If there is no one that you'd accept, then why even argue at all?
I dunno, but I see an overwhelming amount of evidence that supports AGW from scientific journals.
And then I see people try and refute that with blog posts, newspapers, the climategate scandal, or stuff they didn't bother to screen. The fact that it only takes mere seconds to invalidate any of the data that was posted anti-AGW frustrates me, because people aren't even bothering to make an effort.
AGW doesn't exist because... Climate Gate
AGW doesn't exist because... Random Graph that doesn't have a Y axis and puts question marks on temperatures because hes not actually sure
AGW doesn't exist because... Top 10 climatologist that is a fundamentalist christian that believes God affects the climate
AGW doesn't exist because... Some racist guys blog post said so
AGW doesn't exist because... Trees emit CO2, its the trees fault
AGW doesn't exist because... Water Vapour makes up 95% of the greenhouse effect. Here's a wiki article, oh wait I'm wrong.
How about we should do something about AGW because 98% of peer reviewed academic scientific journals provide overwhelming scientific evidence that this is a problem, and natural disasters are getting worse by the year, and I'd really like people to stop making up dumb excuses and actually do something about it.
Even if it wasn't true, the dependence on fossil fuels and the sheer amount of pollution we breath in every day is still a problem, and renewable energy is easy to maintain and cheaper in the long run.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_electricity
Here is a Flash steam power plant
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/98/Diagram-HotWaterGeothermal.jpg/200px-Diagram-HotWaterGeothermal.jpg)
Cmon guys, do it, if not for the name.
Sigh
|
On February 05 2012 08:55 phame21 wrote:
Ok. so lets say we tone down the CO2 production. Where will all the CO2 that we produced go?
The main producer of CO2 is not man-made machines, as the highest CO2 producer in the world are the plants, more specifically
Amazon forest. so if you really want to get rid of CO2 in the atmosphere you need to chop down all life in the forest and
probably blink them out into the space. (if you bury them the amount of CO2 will probably turn earth into mars).
These so called global warming threats evidences are flawed themselves and biased as well.
I think you might be confusing the fact that plants respire with the new CO2 release due to deforestation. Deforestation in the Amazon is such a problem because there is so much carbon stored in those lands. The forest is being cleared to make way for agriculture which does not sequester as much carbon and rather requires tons of fertilizer whose by product is N2O.
I don't quite understand what you mean by "global warming threats evidences" do you think what you laid out is both a threat and evidence because I doubt anything can be both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/4-gtemps.gif)
