Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Still Believe in Global Warming?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by IKAN104 View Post
    How many more of these types of stories do we need before governments stop making major policy and budget decisions based on inconclusive science? There is so much evidence that the research has not been fairly managed, how can they keep relying on it?

    Thomas Karl, the head of Obama's new Climate Change office has been criticized for trying to suppress contradictory scientific data on climate change.

    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...ritics-charge/
    Governments desperate for money to address increasing deficits are willing to believe in anything that will increase taxation.
    It's becoming increasingly obvious as each day unfolds to an empty Govt purse.
    One government, one currency , one proletariat.
    "Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by richardW View Post
      haha this thread has gotten a bit one sided lately
      There's little point trying to convince people of the facts when they often won't even recognize objective fact, respond with unverified "facts", strawman arguments and every other bunk debating tactic under the sun. For the millionth time, there's little debate in the scientific community about whether or not the Earth is warming, it unquestionably has been for over a century at a rate far outside historical norms. Yet in this very thread we have people postulating about entering a cooling phase based upon an essay or blog by an aeronautical engineer that contains no actual scientific research. The earth is cooling because one part of the ocean has cooled for a few years? Come on. There are ocean current cycles that last several decades that could easily account for that (and that admittedly are still not well understood), it says nothing about climate change, just like the weather outside right now says little or nothing about the world's overall climate and where it's trending.

      So what's the point? In some people's eyes, a blog or essay carries the same academic weight as hundreds upon hundreds of peer-reviewed, published scientific studies. People who so fundamentally misunderstand the process of research and who have little interest in doing anything other than convincing themselves of the opinions they already hold aren't going to be swayed by posting dozens of citations about why they're wrong. They'll just go find another blog or essay or error in a single study that they think invalidates the entirety of climatological research to reaffirm themselves.
      Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 22-02-2010, 01:47 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
        So what's the point? In some people's eyes, a blog or essay carries the same academic weight as hundreds upon hundreds of peer-reviewed, published scientific studies.
        The point you are closing your eyes to, is that it is the critical data that most of those "peer reviewed" studies relied on, which it turns out, is unreliable and inconclusive to draw conclusions from. Acadmic papers, that were supposedly perfect per you (because they were "peer reviewed"), are right now being retracted left, right and centre.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by moahunter View Post
          Originally posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
          So what's the point? In some people's eyes, a blog or essay carries the same academic weight as hundreds upon hundreds of peer-reviewed, published scientific studies.
          The point you are closing your eyes to, is that it is the critical data that most of those "peer reviewed" studies relied on, which it turns out, is unreliable and inconclusive to draw conclusions from. Acadmic papers, that were supposedly perfect per you (because they were "peer reviewed"), are right now being retracted left, right and centre.
          Actually no, they're not. A small handful of ACTUAL research papers have had errors. We're talking not even half a dozen. The IPCC itself was not research, but a conglomeration or summary of existing research (some peer reviewed, some not), that has been found to have included things that shouldn't be, and overall is a fairly typical bureaucratic mess. That doesn't invalidate the vast majority of underlying research that's not been found to be problematic and in fact many scientists in the IPCC argued that the conclusions it drew were TOO conservative.

          And a lot of the "unreliable and inconclusive data" pointed out by MacIntyre and others (he's a statistician, so finding errors in methodology used to smooth over gaps in data that are IMPOSSIBLE to eliminate entirely is his "bag" so to speak) has been gladly accepted by researchers and integrated in to revised studies and research. It's unfortunate, I agree, that some researchers have reacted as they have with resistance, but most have been gracious and those that weren't have had their hands slapped and are playing nicer.
          Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 22-02-2010, 01:58 PM.

          Comment


          • I have to wonder why most weathermen/ climateologists can't predict the local weather with any accuracy more than 7 days in advance while some of you are willing to believe that other folks train in this "black art" are capable of hundred year forcasts using data from substantially the same equipment and sources?

            I am skeptical of what is causing the climate change ,if it is indeed changing, and how that relates to human activity on the planet.

            As we all here have computers and at the very least access to "google" it seems perhaps best to try to read the existing literature before digging our heels in for a debate.
            "Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.

            Comment


            • Well you could start with looking up the difference between "weathermen" and climatologists, and/or the difference between meteorology and climatology and why the inability to be 100% prescient about weather in a week says little or nothing about climatologist's ability to make predictions of changes in the average global climate when we make significant changes to the composition of our atmosphere.

              Comment


              • ^You realize that for all the CO2 that is realeased by people, volcanoes, etc., it still only makes up 0.0387% (less than a thousandth) of the atmosphere?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
                  Well you could start with looking up the difference between "weathermen" and climatologists, and/or the difference between meteorology and climatology and why the inability to be 100% prescient about weather in a week says little or nothing about climatologist's ability to make predictions of changes in the average global climate when we make significant changes to the composition of our atmosphere.
                  Well I guess you told me!

                  I was making a point about using "data" to predict future natural occurrences.

                  It's much like using chicken bones to determine the fate of some zombie believers.

                  It's rather difficult to have a meaningful conversation when the object becomes a critque of the writer instead of the idea.
                  "Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Channing View Post
                    ...instead of an argument that will never change any minds.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by moahunter View Post
                      ^You realize that for all the CO2 that is realeased by people, volcanoes, etc., it still only makes up 0.0387% (less than a thousandth) of the atmosphere?
                      It's not the percentage of the atmosphere that it makes up that matters, it's the impact that growing percentage has. Remember that relatively minute amounts of CFCs were responsible for creating massive holes in the ozone layer.
                      Strathcona City Separatist

                      Comment


                      • ^CFC's are an entirely man made substance. Co2 is a perfectly natural result of all living animals, and is the food of plants. Even the Co2 derived from burning fossil fuels (which makes up a tiny percentage of the new Co2 released each year) is no more than a return of natural organic derived carbon into the natural lifecylce of the earth. It will eventually be swallowed up by plants, become fosilized, and be burned again one day by some future species (if we aren't still around).
                        Last edited by moahunter; 22-02-2010, 03:36 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by RTA View Post
                          Remember that relatively minute amounts of CFCs were responsible for creating massive holes in the ozone layer.
                          CFCs are a bad analogy to make with CO2.

                          CFCs were highly reactive with ozone, which is our only shield from harmful forms of UV radiation from the sun. They were dangerous because they were also highly stable in the upper atmosphere and can persist for many years before they break down. There is no natural source or reservoir for CFCs.

                          CO2 is a gas that is continually cycled (consumed and produced) naturally throughout the ecosphere.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by MrOilers View Post
                            Originally posted by RTA View Post
                            Remember that relatively minute amounts of CFCs were responsible for creating massive holes in the ozone layer.
                            CFCs are a bad analogy to make with CO2.

                            CFCs were highly reactive with ozone, which is our only shield from harmful forms of UV radiation from the sun. They were dangerous because they were also highly stable in the upper atmosphere and can persist for many years before they break down. There is no natural source or reservoir for CFCs.

                            CO2 is a gas that is continually cycled (consumed and produced) naturally throughout the ecosphere.
                            To add to your thoughts:\Sequestered Carbon was in previous generations largely a feat accomplished by plants and trees.
                            They gathered CO2 and built their complex structures from it . Only after burning it was it released back into the environment.

                            With modern farming methods and lumbering throughout the world this natural storage mechanism is being rapidly diminished.
                            Add to that the relentless population explosion and you have tremendous impact being placed on the planet.
                            For me it not so much the release of CO2 but the failure of the ecosystem to reabsorb it that is creating the deficit.

                            We must first reduce population expansion and the burden that puts on the eco system and then address the timely recycling of carbon back into the planet.
                            Last edited by Old Dawg; 22-02-2010, 05:41 PM.
                            "Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by moahunter View Post
                              ^CFC's are an entirely man made substance. Co2 is a perfectly natural result of all living animals, and is the food of plants. Even the Co2 derived from burning fossil fuels (which makes up a tiny percentage of the new Co2 released each year) is no more than a return of natural organic derived carbon into the natural lifecylce of the earth. It will eventually be swallowed up by plants, become fosilized, and be burned again one day by some future species (if we aren't still around).
                              Originally posted by MrOilers View Post
                              CFCs are a bad analogy to make with CO2.

                              CFCs were highly reactive with ozone, which is our only shield from harmful forms of UV radiation from the sun. They were dangerous because they were also highly stable in the upper atmosphere and can persist for many years before they break down. There is no natural source or reservoir for CFCs.

                              CO2 is a gas that is continually cycled (consumed and produced) naturally throughout the ecosphere.
                              Then you completely misunderstood the analogy. The point isn't the compare the two as reactants, the point is that it doesn't always take a high percentage of reactants / atmosphere volume to have a significant reaction.

                              CO2 may be naturally occurring, but when we are add more of it to the atmosphere than is usually added through natural processes (and less is being absorbed by those natural processes due to massive deforestation), it is entirely likely that it will impact the planet's climate system, which is easily affected as demonstrated by even predictable cyclical patterns like El Nino.
                              Strathcona City Separatist

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by moahunter View Post
                                ^You realize that for all the CO2 that is realeased by people, volcanoes, etc., it still only makes up 0.0387% (less than a thousandth) of the atmosphere?
                                And you do realize that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has risen by 30% or so in the past couple centuries, and that it is almost entirely attributable to mankind? There's no one with any credibility who actually disputes this scientific fact. Seriously, go try to find any research that says otherwise. You won't.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X