The First Crack in the Iceberg Of Global Warming...
- Thread starter Wildalaska
- Start date
- Status
Wildalaska
Moderator
I like the asteroid gig as a better doomsday scenario.
Wheres Al Gore? Hey Al...did you know that the earth is surrounded by outer space rocks? And only world government can save us
WildplantingtheseedAlaska TM
Wheres Al Gore? Hey Al...did you know that the earth is surrounded by outer space rocks? And only world government can save us
WildplantingtheseedAlaska TM
grymster2007
New member
Tuzo said:
grymster2007 said:
WildAlaska said:
What the hell is this? Talking big science is one thing, but I'm doing the walk man!
w00t it all fit into one post, I should consolidate more often
The scientific method works. It's the reason you have that computer sitting in front of you. It's the reason your car works. It's the reason a heart bypass may one day save your life. It works.
The great thing about science is that anyone can do it. Anyone here who is truly interested in knowing for sure whether or not global warming is real and how much of an impact humans have on it can find out. Anyone here can devote their time and brain power to learning the methods, to studying the science behind it. It may take a while and it may be hard but it's available to anyone with the intelligence to pursue it. Science is an open door to anyone that wishes to take on the challenge as long as they're willing to take on the responsibility that comes with it.
[3/26/01]
Before the 4th assessment and before the most recent data on radiative forcing was available.
"Every month" is a bit of an exaggeration, don't you think? I think if you take a look at the actual data that's been presented regarding such issues and the length of time in between findings you'll notice that people aren't just making this stuff up as they go along. There's a process in research and that process takes time.
What consensus? When was there ever a consensus that it wasn't bad for you? When was such a thing ever published by anyone that wasn't connected to the tobacco companies themselves?
Uh, who?
You may get two conflicting conclusions but rarely will you get two totally opposing conclusions and if you do there are ways to verify information. Evidence can be reexamined by independent sources, more forensic experts can be brought in. But either way science itself does not lie. We are susceptible to making mistakes, errors in judgment and even corruption but that's why there exists a method that allows all forms of scientific progress to be checked by others.
The scientific method works. It's the reason you have that computer sitting in front of you. It's the reason your car works. It's the reason a heart bypass may one day save your life. It works.
The great thing about science is that anyone can do it. Anyone here who is truly interested in knowing for sure whether or not global warming is real and how much of an impact humans have on it can find out. Anyone here can devote their time and brain power to learning the methods, to studying the science behind it. It may take a while and it may be hard but it's available to anyone with the intelligence to pursue it. Science is an open door to anyone that wishes to take on the challenge as long as they're willing to take on the responsibility that comes with it.
Yeah, it's a sad state of affairs. It's why more of the populations needs to be encouraged to learn the basics of science. It should be as important as reading, writing, history and math. Unfortunately this country often seems to have a fear of the scientific method because it contradicts some things very near and dear to them.
When you have hundreds of scientists saying one thing and dozens saying another, chances are the hundreds will be right. They may not be, of course, but it's unlikely.
Huh? Conclusions don't alter evidence. It's the other way around.
And again, a small minority spouted what they were paid to say and when their work was reviewed by others that were not on the Phillip-Morris payroll the truth was revealed. The scientific method worked.
Climate and weather are linked but not exactly the same thing. He has a background in it but again, the very organization that says he's a legitimate meteorologist disagrees with him. He shouldn't get any more of an ear than any other meteorologist and the leading organization of meteorologists says he's wrong.
Read up on the Oregon Petition and you'll see that it's largely a crock of bull. It was dishonestly passed off as a genuine article from a credible scientific academy. People were deceived. Some of the signatures are unverifiable and some of them completely disagree with it.
The uncontrolled and unverifiable observations of a single individual in a localized area should not trump the research conducted by numerous people devoted to studying this very thing.
Where else have you looked? Have you read the IPCC report?
http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html
[3/26/01]
Before the 4th assessment and before the most recent data on radiative forcing was available.
cool hand luke 22:36
New member
The Yellowstone caldera "super volcano" is the one to keep an eye on.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/yellowstone-the-time-bomb-under-america-399751.html
Global Warming needs to get it line and wait its' turn like any other respectable disaster.
http://www.doomsdayguide.org/Mother_Nature.htm
http://www.doomsdayguide.org/Mother_Nature.htm
Shane Tuttle
Staff
But, that's the problem. It may not be "every month". But even within a few years, scientists claim the exact opposite from their very own statements.
The genesis of this whole matter is that scientists CONTRADICT THEMSELVES ON A CONSTANT BASIS.
And, you're right. There IS a process in research and it takes time. But scientists aren't following that logic. They and people like you jump out and claim it's a Scientific FACT. Which, it isn't.
Upon having the possibility of contradiction, scientific evidence that many may claim compared to few doesn't make it fact..
The example above about eggs etc. is one of many times that the general public has been told two totally different conclusions.
I agree. The key is some scientists uses evidence to draw theories. Also, some scientists go as far and claim fact based on evidence. However, the problem is the ones that state the "fact" of GW doesn't have enough evidence to support their version of fact when there's other evidence that opposes their own view. If science that you are implying is so black and white, there wouldn't be such the debate on who's right and who's wrong.
Northern Sod Breaker
New member
Scientific concensus is an oxy-morron. And anyone that says different need to see a shrink. Scientists have been fighting over ideas since time began. Why should we believe this has changed just because a new issue is on the table?
Edward429451
Moderator
A snippet from zerojunk's link. (good article).
Just what I said on the first page, the earth is self healing. Look around you, there's proof everywhere. The only people who take exception to the obvious are the ones who would benefit by global regulation and control, i.e., the gubmint. Good dialogue going on but largely skirts the real issue.
Just what I said on the first page, the earth is self healing. Look around you, there's proof everywhere. The only people who take exception to the obvious are the ones who would benefit by global regulation and control, i.e., the gubmint. Good dialogue going on but largely skirts the real issue.
No, claims are not "the exact opposite". For something to be researched thoroughly and then completely redacted a few years later is ridiculously rare. Scientists do not contradict themselves on a constant basis. They are often multiple groups doing the same research and coming to slightly different conclusions; more research is done and the conclusions are usually consolidated.
Just because you read an article says a study "suggested" something and then a year later read another article about another study that "suggested" something else does not mean anyone is passing these things off as laws. If you're seeing these kinds of contradictions it's a problem with your interpreting the press about them, not the science.
No, but overwhelming evidence does make something as close to a fact as it can possibly be.
I suggest you look a little deeper into that because you're misinterpreting the things you've heard. You're reacting to a punchline to a joke, to something that's essentially a watered down urban myth.
Yes they most certainly do. How much of the science have you studied in order to draw that conclusion?
Just like there's evidence that opposes other conclusions which happen to be rock solid. There is evidence that opposes the law of gravity. There is evidence that opposes evolution. Yet both are scientific fact because the overwhelming evidence all points to the same conclusion and the opposing evidence is circumstantial at best. Just like climate change. We don't throw out solid theories with mountains of evidence just because there are a few holes in it. We continue studying and researching them until we know as much as is possible to know and then we study some more because there could still be more that we missed.
I've never said it was black and white but when the evidence is so overwhelming on one side it becomes pretty clear which side to trust.
Last edited:
Real science - research that actually follows the scientific method, that depends on empirical evidence and logical rigor - has only been around for a relatively short time in human history. And scientific consensus does not mean every single person involved agreeing to one thing.
In other words, mankind is always limited to his abilities. Scientific observations are made and improved upon as technologies and learning increase. Only in this one area are we to believe that the consensus of opinion is ironclad for all time. Was Einstein right to change his formulas to reflect the consensus of the day of a steady state universe? He lived to acknowledge it as his single biggest blunder.
I think we all know what the word consensus means.
Nice side step. The evidence at the time was for a steady state universe, so Einstein changed his formula to fit in with the consensus. The consensus was wrong so it wasn't a fact.
IOW, a consensus isn't necessarily a fact, it's just the popular opinion of the moment. A consensus of opinion might turn out to be right but claiming that it is science isn't accurate, as in my above example.
IOW, a consensus isn't necessarily a fact, it's just the popular opinion of the moment. A consensus of opinion might turn out to be right but claiming that it is science isn't accurate, as in my above example.
I didn't side step anything. 
My point was that no one is stating that the current consensus on climate change is unyielding and ironclad. That's antithetical to the scientific method itself. What I am saying is that the current facts at our disposal - which is quite a lot - almost all point to the exact same conclusion. The majority of the people working on this issue have agreed that it's pointing to the same conclusion. It's supported by so much evidence that for it to be wrong would probably alter some of the basic framework of how we understand the planet itself.
That being said, theoretical physics is a fuzzy field. Comparing that with climatology is a bit silly. At least with climatology effects can be observed, measured, recorded, analyzed. The bulk of Einstein's work on the nature of the universe doesn't go much farther than a blackboard.
So yes, the current consensus on climate change is as much a scientific fact as anything in science can be considered a fact.
My point was that no one is stating that the current consensus on climate change is unyielding and ironclad. That's antithetical to the scientific method itself. What I am saying is that the current facts at our disposal - which is quite a lot - almost all point to the exact same conclusion. The majority of the people working on this issue have agreed that it's pointing to the same conclusion. It's supported by so much evidence that for it to be wrong would probably alter some of the basic framework of how we understand the planet itself.That being said, theoretical physics is a fuzzy field. Comparing that with climatology is a bit silly. At least with climatology effects can be observed, measured, recorded, analyzed. The bulk of Einstein's work on the nature of the universe doesn't go much farther than a blackboard.
So yes, the current consensus on climate change is as much a scientific fact as anything in science can be considered a fact.
I remember quite well as a kid the scientific consensus suggesting that we were heading toward another ice age.
With the total stored fossil fuels in so many inaccessible places, it's unlikely that we could ever return a sufficient amount of carbon to the atmosphere to create the climate responsible for their initial storage.
With the total stored fossil fuels in so many inaccessible places, it's unlikely that we could ever return a sufficient amount of carbon to the atmosphere to create the climate responsible for their initial storage.
- Status