Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Still Believe in Global Warming?

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

  • ^ Therefore, worthy of discussion in a thread that was created for it.

    Al Gore created the position for himself, that's exactly my point. He wasn't appointed as a spokesperson nor is he behind the science. Hack him down all you want, I just feel it belongs somewhere other than in a thread that's really not about him
    Strathcona City Separatist

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Old Dawg
      It really is amazing that Newsweek's "Thinking Man's Thinking Man" Al Gore flunked out of divinity school and dropped out of law school. (How many people that flunk out of divinity school then get an admission to Law School AT THE SAME UNIVERSITY?
      Gore whose father was senator from that same state..
      Which means what exactly? Gore is not a researcher, he's an advocate. What he says or does really has nothing to do with the science of climate change at all. He's trying to bring knowledge to the public about a topic that's not well understood by layman, as this thread has amply demonstrated. But just because he's on the "right" side of the debate doesn't mean he himself is right. And even if he's wrong about some things or predictions, that doesn't mean the underlying scientific case for anthropogenic climate change is any more or less strong. He doesn't make the science, he popularizes it.

      Now if someone is speaking out against an overwhelming scientific consensus, yes, you bet your butt I'll look in to what background they have in the field and who's buying them lunch. Considering they have nothing else to fall back on such as their own or other research that actually supports what they're saying, what else are they to be judged on but their reputation?

      You should go look up your good Lord's comments about people suffering from AIDS back in the 80's. Lovely stuff.

      Originally posted by moahunter
      ^as of right now, the vote is 31 to 31 (23+8 ), with 8 undecided. Per Marcel, half the people on C2E are ignorant, like me and IKAN104
      I'd say most are just misinformed and not familiar with the actual science, but instead talking points from various commentators on BOTH sides of the fence. As I've said before, there's no question that some scientists have crossed the line from researcher to advocate, and that's a problem if they're trying to do both at once.
      Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 24-02-2010, 04:50 PM.

      Comment


      • It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.
        "Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.

        Comment


        • ^I think part of the problem is that there are far too many variables to reliably model the situation.

          If the climate scientists had accurately predicted that the oceans would cool (even with the recent increase in human Co2 emissions), or that we would go into a short cooling average temperature phase, then I would have been very impressed. I would even be impressed if they could predict how long this cooling phase will last (I don't see them making public predictions). That would tell me the models might have some validity.

          However, we were told the opposite, that the climate would get hoter even sooner than expected, and that hurricanes and other storms would soon get worse. That didn't happen. Now we have a situation, where to save scientific reputations, "other explanations" have to be searched for. This scarmbling around does not instill sufficient confidence to be basing economic policy decisions on.
          Last edited by moahunter; 24-02-2010, 07:07 PM.

          Comment


          • Another factor that has been not fully examined is the active volcanoes under the oceans and what part(s )they may play in distorting the atmosphere either directly via release of noxious gases or indirectly, by altering temperatures and subsequent ocean currents.
            We are not yet able to scientifically correlate the activity of sun spots on our sun with changes in weather patterns here on earth.
            Until these factors are understood more fully it is difficult if not impossible to come up with a solution or even to be proactive.
            "Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.

            Comment


            • More false hyperbole by the UN climate change body has been exposed, this time about what would happen to the Amazon rain forest if rainfall declined:

              http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...-suggests.html

              A new study, funded by Nasa, has found that the most serious drought in the Amazon for more than a century had little impact on the rainforest's vegetation.

              The findings appear to disprove claims by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest could react drastically to even a small reduction in rainfall and could see the trees replaced by tropical grassland.

              Comment


              • Here is some interesting reading:

                http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fra...d-hidden-data/

                All sources are cited.



                Wow - it really looks like global warming took off! What could it be?

                Here is the temperature station where the data was collected:




                I wonder when that air conditioning unit was installed? Hmmm...

                Bad data leads to bad conclusions. Knowingly using bad data leads to fraudulent conclusions.

                Comment


                • I read that of the 36 weather data collecting stations across Canada's north only one remains in operation.
                  That must make it extremely difficult to predict any sort of change in weather patterns.
                  We seem to be reenacting the fable of the king's new clothes or the Millennium melt down.
                  "Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.

                  Comment


                  • Theory

                    Originally posted by Old Dawg View Post
                    It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data.
                    You are correct if you meant the strict meaning of scientific theory. However keep in mind that the established scientific method is in-fact started by establishing an opinion first - what is called hypotheses. After formulating the hypotheses then the scientist establishes proving procedures. Once the hypotheses proven by the procedure, then it is become a scientific theory. It stays as scientific theory as long as new data and researches don't contradict the theory. This is how science works.
                    --S P Arif Sahari Wibowo - http://www.arifsaha.com/

                    Comment


                    • ^and over time, after repeated attempts to falistfy haven't falisified it, it can become a fact, like evolution.

                      Comment


                      • I think scientific "law" might be a more accurate term than "fact".

                        i.e. the law of gravity

                        Comment


                        • ^I think the "problem" with that, is that a law is a simple principle, so it would need to be "laws" of evolution, which begs, what are those various laws (e.g. natural selection)?. From wiki:

                          Related concepts and terminology

                          Speculative or conjectural explanations are called hypotheses. Well-tested explanations are called theories.

                          "Fact" does not mean "absolute certainty". In the words of Stephen J. Gould: In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." [2]

                          "Proof" of a theory does not exist in natural sciences. Proof only exists in formal sciences, such as mathematics. Experimental observation of the predictions made by a hypothesis or theory is called validation.

                          A scientific law is a concept related to a scientific theory. Very well-established "theories" that rely on a simple principle are often called scientific "laws". For example, it is common to encounter reference to "the law of gravity", "the law of natural selection", or the "laws of evolution."
                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...heory_and_fact

                          You are perhaps right though, in that a theory does not become a fact like I suggested above. Rather, our understanding of the theory allows us to observe the fact.

                          I suppose climate change is a fact, for we know looking through historical records (ice ages, and hot periods), that the climate changes. Unless of course, climate change means something else to do with CO2 or simlar, in which case, it is merely a hypothesis.
                          Last edited by moahunter; 16-03-2010, 05:39 PM.

                          Comment


                          • You guys are getting too esoteric for me.
                            Can you please try to make your positions withing normal terms of reference.
                            I am really having trouble following here.
                            "Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.

                            Comment


                            • I called it!!!!!!!

                              Its misinformation, thats all!
                              Stop illegal aliens! Enforce the LAW!

                              Comment


                              • Right, I forgot about the difference of validation and proof. It important to know that scientific theory can never be proven, only temporary validated (i.e. validated with all the facts available to the present).

                                Originally posted by moahunter View Post
                                You are perhaps right though, in that a theory does not become a fact like I suggested above. Rather, our understanding of the theory allows us to observe the fact.
                                Fact is about something that has happened. A scientific theory or law have to be consistent with all the fact available, plus it should be able to predict "future facts".

                                Originally posted by moahunter View Post
                                I suppose climate change is a fact, for we know looking through historical records (ice ages, and hot periods), that the climate changes
                                The fact is that climate has been changing. The related theory is that the climate will keep changing.
                                --S P Arif Sahari Wibowo - http://www.arifsaha.com/

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X