The First Crack in the Iceberg Of Global Warming...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey Red, aren't you using up your fair share of energy posting this stuff? I have a small footprint myself and could sell you some of my carbon credits if you want?
Click to expand...
hurr hurr

Actually most of my systems run on Antec power supplies making them quite efficient. :D

I would crack up if you actually had some carbon credits but no thanks, I don't buy into that crap. I'd crack up even more if you were seriously trying to use that comment to discredit anything I've said. :cool:


Besides, I'm doing us all a favor in making sure the world knows not all gun owners fall in line with a specific ideology.
 
The fact that this topic has gone on for seven pages makes me think there is anything but a consenus. You can say what you want if "a majority" agree why has this gone on for so long? How long would a thread about gravity or whether the earth is round last?
Click to expand...
Fortunately scientific consensus is not subject to the ideas of the population as a whole. :p
 
ONCE AGAIN, I DID NOT SAY THEIR RESEARCH IS CRAP. THEIR RESEARCH IS INCONCLUSIVE. THEY CANNOT PROVE WITH 100% CERTAINTY THE FUTURE OF OUR CLIMATE IN SPECIFICS. THEIR RESEARCH IS THEORY, NOT FACT.
Click to expand...
Ok maybe it's just a problem of a language barrier. You have to remember that in science the words "theory" "fact" and "proof" do not mean the same thing that they mean to the average person. A theory is not just an idea that people came up with and think might explain stuff. A fact does not require 100% certainty because such a thing is inherently impossible. In science nothing is truly proven, only supported or disproven. There are always other possibilities yet when the likelihood drops to the equivalent of aliens controlling our lives from behind the moon it's pretty safe to say something has been proven.

The only thing is this world that maintains absolute, 100% certainty is mathematics.
 
...and still do. No need to further beat the dead horse on trying to clarify with one that doesn't understand 6th grade reading comprehension.
Click to expand...

Agreed! No need to further beat the dead horse on trying to clarify with one that doesn`t understand the very nature of scientific research or methodology which is something that is also learned in 6th grade.

So, you finally agree that the laws of probability are in my favor, yet it doesn't justify my "bold" statement? If anything, it doesn't necessarily justifies yours...
Click to expand...

I thought I made that point clear in an earlier post...talk about 6th grade reading comprehension. :rolleyes:

ONCE AGAIN, I DID NOT SAY THEIR RESEARCH IS CRAP. THEIR RESEARCH IS INCONCLUSIVE. THEY CANNOT PROVE WITH 100% CERTAINTY THE FUTURE OF OUR CLIMATE IN SPECIFICS. THEIR RESEARCH IS THEORY, NOT FACT.
Click to expand...

From Wikipedia

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity.

According to the National Academy of Sciences,

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

GW isn't a FACT, it's a THEORY. Prove to me otherwise.
Click to expand...

If you read the wikipedia thread carefully and apply that logic to your statement about GW, then your notion of science being incapable of predicting future climate conditions is completely false. Once again, that 6th grade reading level problem :mad:

NOW PLEASE READ CAREFULLY: I AM NOT DISPUTING YOUR CLAIM ABOUT GW BECAUSE I HAVE READ AND HEARD THE RESEARCH CLAIMS FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE SPECTRUM. BOTH SIDES PRESENT COMPELLING EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD CLASSIFY GW MORE AS A COMMON HYPOTHESIS RATHER THAN A TRUE SCIENTIFIC THEORY. IN OTHER WORDS, THE RESEARCH IS STILL IN SCIENTIFIC DEBATE. THE ISSUE I HAVE WITH YOUR CLAIMS ARE YOUR LEVELS OF ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY REGARDING FUTURE CLIMATE PREDICTIONS. YOUR STATEMENT ITSELF REPRESENTS A HYPOTHETICAL CONDITION THAT COULD BE PROVEN WRONG IF RESEARCH REVEALS. THIS IS NOT MEANT TO BE AN INSULT TO YOUR INTELLIGENCE OR A PLAY ON WORDS. I AM JUST TRYING TO SHOW YOU THE ERROR OF YOUR ABSOLUTISM.

Wow...this is really getting tiring. I fully believe that GW would not generate such a heated debate if it had not become a political (conservatives vs liberals) issue. This is the main reason why Al Gore is such an embarrasment to the general scientific community. He has, almost completely, placed thousands of researchers into political caddy corners. He has turned their years of research into emotionally charged rhetoric. It really is a sad state of affairs that GW is treated as an "us vs them" debate.




Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.
 
In other words, they can't prove it. OK. I'm down with that.
Click to expand...
Nothing is provable. There's always the argument that we're all living in a simulated reality controlled by intelligent machines and that Keanu Reeves will save us all. Stupid things like that keep anything from being 100% solid and concrete. It's simply impossible.

But that doesn't mean that anyone should take the ideas that we're all living in the Matrix and the climate is controlled by The Architect seriously.
 
So a minority of people decide what a consensus is? Yeah that makes sence.
Click to expand...
Again, a scientific consensus is not the same as a consensus among the general population. The vast majority of scientists decide what is and isn't a scientific consensus but the average Joe has absolutely no say in it.
 
Wow...this is really getting tiring. I fully believe that GW would not generate such a heated debate if it had not become a political (conservatives vs liberals) issue. This is the main reason why Al Gore is such an embarrasment to the general scientific community. He has, almost completely, placed thousands of researchers into political caddy corners. He has turned their years of research into emotionally charged rhetoric. It really is a sad state of affairs that GW is treated as an "us vs them" debate.
Click to expand...
this
 
I'm Cold! Are we having a Ice Age? Oh Never Mind! The sun went down and I just drank a cold beer!:D

Good God or what ever you all believe in! Get over it ! What is going to happen is going to happen and there ant Squat you or anyone else can do about it!


If we are causing global warming, you, your kids, your kids, kids, kid, and there kids will be long dust!:rolleyes:

Lets see:

The Sun could poop out!

The Chines after feeding us all poison could nuc us! ( My Bet )

The big Death Asteroid that has been due to hit every 12 years since I can remember!

New Ice Age that was the thing in the 70's!

Little Gray, Green, Shape Shifting, Aliens polluting the gene pool! Oh Yea don't forget the Reptilians.

The new planet, X! Is going come through about 2012, stopping the earth rotation for 3 days, water over 3/4 of the globe, massive earth quakes, and volcanic action.

The new Aid Virus created by the New World Order in a secret hide out under Mt Ararat!

The hidden bases on the back side of the moon just discovered by the Japanese Lunar Orbiter!

Cut your self and find Flesh Eating Bacteria in the morning!

Acid Rain is going to lower your PH level and you are going to develop cancer!

Anubis is going to rise and take revenge on all of the descendants of the freed peoples from Egypt! ( Hummmm? Me? ,,,,,,, Naaaa! )

And then there is the little stuff!

Like, Safe Drinking Water (no chlorine), Hormones in the food, Genetic Tomatoes that wink at you before you eat them and stuff like that!:eek:

MUUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA? Were is My Copper Foil Hat??????????/ The Truck is full of gas right?
 
The planet will be back in a cooling cycle before there is agreement here.
Click to expand...
That's not even funny..........

Redworm, Maybe so but just becuase a small group of scientists say so doesn't make it so. As I said many times before Sceintific consensus is a oxymoron. With the thousands of sceintists in this country alone, I find it hard to believe that they were all polled on this matter. I admit that it would be impossible. But say 75% of the scientists in this country where polled either by telephone or by mail in survey and the majority of them said GW is real, Then I would believe it. But to poll just a mere couple hundred or even couple thousand does not come close to a poll of the scientific community. It amounts to a poll of a small and carefully screened segment of the scientific community. To base any oppinions off of such is just dumb. I also submit that the addage "Squeaky wheel get s the grease" applies just as well to sceince as it does anything else.
 
Redworm, Maybe so but just becuase a small group of scientists say so doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...
Only it's not a "small group" of scientists, it's the vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations the world over. It's hundreds of independent research teams in various fields gathering and analyzing data that leads primarily to one conclusion.

So generally when the overwhelming majority of the scientific community all agrees to something chances are they're right.
As I said many times before Sceintific consensus is a oxymoron.
Click to expand...
And as I replied, you're mistaken. Scientific consensus is not an oxymoron and anyone that has worked in scientific research will tell you otherwise. Hell, anyone that subscribes to a peer-reviewed journal will tell you otherwise. Scientific consensus is not an oxymoron because it doesn't mean what you think it means.
With the thousands of sceintists in this country alone, I find it hard to believe that they were all polled on this matter. But say 75% of the scientists in this country where polled either by telephone or by mail in survey and the majority of them said GW is real, Then I would believe it. But to poll just a mere couple hundred or even couple thousand does not come close to a poll of the scientific community. It amounts to a poll of a small and carefully screened segment of the scientific community. To base any oppinions off of such is just dumb. I also submit that the addage "Squeaky wheel get s the grease" applies just as well to sceince as it does anything else.
Click to expand...
Scientific consensus isn't reached by taking polls. That's not how it works at all.
 
Scientific consensus is not an oxymoron and anyone that has worked in scientific research will tell you otherwise. Hell, anyone that subscribes to a peer-reviewed journal will tell you otherwise
Click to expand...

I would agree but for the political aspect.

Pure mathematics or physics is one thing. Does anyone care what Hawkings personal politics are? But GW is agenda driven, and further, a creature of govermment, (the "do something factor") especially in conjunction with International organizations such as the UN that see the issue as a way to expansion of their powers vis a vis the nation state.

Until the politics come out of the equation, I remain a skeptic.

WildgreatcurrytonightAlaska TM
 
WA, very well stated! The theory was there and the global government cure was there even before the first computer model was purchased by UN. If you were a software company, what would be your objectives to win the UN climate modelling contract? In fact, the contract went to the company who's model showed the greatest warming. If it is settled science, why were all the models not the same? If you were a college reseacher, which opinion would cause greatest advancement of your career? The skeptics get almost no funding or media attention. The satellite measurements get almost no attention because they don't reinforce the theory du jour. Hardly the scientific method.
 
Only it's not a "small group" of scientists, it's the vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations the world over. It's hundreds of independent research teams in various fields gathering and analyzing data that leads primarily to one conclusion.
Click to expand...

You have any names to back up the above claim?
 
there is some connection

1)What does this subject have to due with guns?
Click to expand...

The same people (Like Al Gore etc) are the same socialist pushing gun control.

They want control by any means necessary.

I got so sick and tired of hearing the "collective" theory that now any theory
pushed by the "collectivist" is bunk.

Plus, I'M FREEZING!
 
I would agree but for the political aspect.
Click to expand...
That's a problem. I've noticed that even on the kids' "science" page in the newspaper in an article about the frog die-out they ignore all the probable factors including waterway pollution with heavy metals, insecticides and estrogens to focus on "global warming". Excuse me but if I recall my junior high school biology lessons correctly frogs like warm wet environments.
 
It is my opinion that the so-called "Science" of global warming theories does not properly support the notion that we are going through a warming trend.

GW theorists suggest that CO2 in our atmoshphere is increasing and that the increased CO2 in our atmosphere has a direct effect on how warm our planet is.

If you follow their own science, then it begs a question.... while CO2 levels in our atmosphere have increased over the past 5 years, there has been no increase in the temperature of the atmposphere during that time.

So, why is that? What excuse can they come up with for this fact? Continued scare tactics and emotional diatribe are not enough to convince intelligent people whom are not tied to their political ideology.

Human initiated Global warming is a political farce.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top