Anyone wanna debate Global Warming?

I guess it comes down to whether you trust the sources.

Well, like it or not, the global warming issue may be decided partly on science, but it will definitely be decided with politics, whichever way it goes. C'est la vie. We do the best we can.

I agree.

And I'm in favor of most of the things global warming advocates want to do anyway. I think it makes sense on other grounds - resource conservations, health, etc. So I don't have much argument there. I just like to see the science presented accurately.

The other thing is, I think the concentration of stopping global warming distracts us from the job of getting ready for it when we can't stop it. If the sea levels start to rise and the earth continues to warm, we need to deal with people living in coastal regions, new disease patterns, etc. We're not really looking into any of that from a societal perspective because Gore's got people convinced that we can stop the warming. I think we probably cannot.
 
To be fair, you do have a very restrictive definition of "bonafide climate scientist."

Admittedly I do. Guilty as charged. I think those who have actually done the coursework on the vagaries and long view of climate on Earth and who have also devoted their life's work to that field have an edge on those who picked it up in addition to other disciplines. I certainly think those who have actually done the studies have an edge in credibility on those who develop computer models that use raw data but didn't do the studies and therefore may not understand what that raw data actually is. And then there are those who just look at the models and sign off on them as properly computed and thus add their non-expertise to the body of 'consenting scientists'.

The ones with the credentials I look for to qualify as a bonafide climate scientist, especially one disciplined in paleoclimatology, are the ones who seem to more often be generally skeptical of the 'conventional wisdom' that is pushing AGW theories.
 
I guess it comes down to whether you trust the sources.

Well, like it or not, the global warming issue may be decided partly on science, but it will definitely be decided with politics, whichever way it goes. C'est la vie. We do the best we can.

And what reason is there to trust the sources you yourself trust when many don't seem to be able to withstand the most basic scrutiny and have even come under fire for less than ethical practices?
 
And what reason is there to trust the sources you yourself trust when many don't seem to be able to withstand the most basic scrutiny and have even come under fire for less than ethical practices?

Generally, when I look into the claims that these positions are the result of fraud or poor methodology, I find them lacking. However, the bigger issue for me is the breadth of the consensus (I understand that this is a loaded term). Perhaps the means by which any one organization measures a consensus position could be faulty or unethical. However, when I see that nearly every major scientific academy, organization or panel has adopted the same position (as well as many leading scientific journals), it lends the position greater weight. It is the effect of cumulative evidence. I find it unlikely that all of these organizations, filled primarily with established professionals, are engaging in a wide-range international conspiracy to convince the world of a scientific position that they know not to be true.
 
Generally, when I look into the claims that these positions are the result of fraud or poor methodology, I find them lacking. However, the bigger issue for me is the breadth of the consensus (I understand that this is a loaded term). Perhaps the means by which any one organization measures a consensus position could be faulty or unethical. However, when I see that nearly every major scientific academy, organization or panel has adopted the same position (as well as many leading scientific journals), it lends the position greater weight. It is the effect of cumulative evidence. I find it unlikely that all of these organizations, filled primarily with established professionals, are engaging in a wide-range international conspiracy to convince the world of a scientific position that they know not to be true.

Global Warming IS happening. No argument at all. What is disengenious is the claims that we know MAN is causing any significant part of it. In fact the historical record when viewed with out the AL Gore glasses on is pretty clear that man has probably had little to no effect on it.

Further the supposed causes are CO2 and that does not stand up to the actual scientific test. The atmosphere is NOT doing what it would be doing if this were the case. It is not even close. Yet these journals and committees tried damn hard to keep us and continue to try to keep us, from hearing the fact their theory does not work.

Further the supposed heating has stopped according to some sources. Since at least the early 2000 and possibly since 1998. This whole " the sky is falling" is based on a 20 year slice of a planet billions of years old. One can easily find other 20 year slices that would cause similar doom and gloom that simply did NOT pan out.

Remember how we were all gone die in the next Ice Age in the 80's? Check out the Hurricane activity in the 40's, Remember the heat waves in the 30's?

There is no evidence man has significantly caused any warming at all. And in fact the theory presented for how we are doing just that DOES NOT WORK.
 
Generally, when I look into the claims that these positions are the result of fraud or poor methodology, I find them lacking. However, the bigger issue for me is the breadth of the consensus (I understand that this is a loaded term). Perhaps the means by which any one organization measures a consensus position could be faulty or unethical. However, when I see that nearly every major scientific academy, organization or panel has adopted the same position (as well as many leading scientific journals), it lends the position greater weight. It is the effect of cumulative evidence. I find it unlikely that all of these organizations, filled primarily with established professionals, are engaging in a wide-range international conspiracy to convince the world of a scientific position that they know not to be true.

the problem is what you're claiming to be true {most/all major scientific academies, etc.) simply isn't. Why don't you do a search of major scientific organizations that don't support said theory.

You admit to barely giveing the cursory glance, yet you are so certain of this 'consensus' when the actial percentage of said consensus varies anywhere from the low 30% to mid 50%. That isn't consensus by any stretch of the imagination. Not according to the definition of the term anyway.

You're using the exact same argument Larkinn used. That being you hide behind the excuse that you don't understand the actual science while at the same time claiming x group of people must be right when it hasn't even been established that said group of people exists.
 
the problem is what you're claiming to be true {most/all major scientific academies, etc.) simply isn't. Why don't you do a search of major scientific organizations that don't support said theory.

You admit to barely giveing the cursory glance, yet you are so certain of this 'consensus' when the actial percentage of said consensus varies anywhere from the low 30% to mid 50%. That isn't consensus by any stretch of the imagination. Not according to the definition of the term anyway.

You're using the exact same argument Larkinn used. That being you hide behind the excuse that you don't understand the actual science while at the same time claiming x group of people must be right when it hasn't even been established that said group of people exists.

Wikipedia is the easiest source for me. I realize it is not full proof, but I have found it generally reliable in the past. Here are lists of organizations that concur with the statement that man-made global warming is happening (essentially the IPCC position). The list does not include self-selected lists of individuals such as on petitions.

Statements by concurring organizations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
Joint science academies’ statement 2007
Joint science academies’ statement 2005
Joint science academies’ statement 2001
U.S. National Research Council, 2001
American Meteorological Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Astronomical Society
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
American Chemical Society
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

Noncommittal statements
American Association of State Climatologists
American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)

With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.

A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change. (published in Science) The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Look, I think we have been through this before, and you obviously don't find what I just posted above sufficient. That's cool. I do. I recognize that there are perfectly qualified scientists who don't subscribe to the IPCC position. I just believe that they are in the minority. Nothing I have ever seen has led me to believe the IPCC position isn't accepted by the majority of scientists who study global warming. I am perfectly okay with you believing what you believe, and me believing what I believe. I think I have done a sufficient amount of looking into the matter to allow myself my opinion, even if others may want to dig deeper.
 
The whole report is available at the link in pdf, this is only the abstract:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1146436

Published Online January 3, 2008
Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1146436

Science Express Index
Reports

Submitted on June 13, 2007
Accepted on December 17, 2007


The Spatial Pattern and Mechanisms of Heat Content Change in the North Atlantic
M. Susan Lozier 1, Susan Leadbetter 2, Richard G. Williams 2, Vassil Roussenov 2, Mark S. C. Reed 1, Nathan J. Moore 3

1 Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Science, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
2 Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Liverpool University, Liverpool, L69 3GP U.K.
3 Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Science, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA; Current affiliation: Department of Geography, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48823 USA.

The total heat gained by the North Atlantic Ocean over the past fifty years is equivalent to a basin-wide increase in the flux of heat across the ocean surface of 0.4 ±0.05 Wm-2. We show, however, that this basin has not warmed uniformly: though the tropics and subtropics have warmed, the subpolar ocean has cooled. These regional differences require local surface heat flux changes (±4 Wm-2) much larger than the basin-wide average. Model investigations show that these regional differences can be explained by large-scale, decadal variability in wind and buoyancy forcing, as measured by the North Atlantic Oscillation index. Whether the overall heat gain is due to anthropogenic warming is difficult to confirm, since strong natural variability in this ocean basin is potentially masking such input at the present time.
 
Look, I think we have been through this before, and you obviously don't find what I just posted above sufficient. That's cool. I do. I recognize that there are perfectly qualified scientists who don't subscribe to the IPCC position. I just believe that they are in the minority. Nothing I have ever seen has led me to believe the IPCC position isn't accepted by the majority of scientists who study global warming. I am perfectly okay with you believing what you believe, and me believing what I believe. I think I have done a sufficient amount of looking into the matter to allow myself my opinion, even if others may want to dig deeper.

And I don't know if you're just choosing to be blind or what. If there is one single piece of data that no stock should be put in, it's the IPCC. The hockey stick graph was shown to be greatly flawed possibly deliberatley. And as I beleive RGS pointed out earlier some scientists have even threatened to sue the IPCC for citing them as supporting their report when they didnt't

http://newsbusters.org/node/13971

And for the umteenth time THERE IS NO MAJORITY CONSENUS.
 
And I don't know if you're just choosing to be blind or what. If there is one single piece of data that no stock should be put in, it's the IPCC. The hockey stick graph was shown to be greatly flawed possibly deliberatley. And as I beleive RGS pointed out earlier some scientists have even threatened to sue the IPCC for citing them as supporting their report when they didnt't

http://newsbusters.org/node/13971

And for the umteenth time THERE IS NO MAJORITY CONSENUS.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree. You say tomato, I say majority consensus, which is pretty much what I see.

You say "hockey stick," so I look up hockey stick, and I find a whole lot of nothing. MBG put forth their model in 1998 that they acknowledged required greater study to establish their initial conclusions. People have a hissy fit over it. The National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council both end up saying that the model is essentially right, but others disagree. The scientific community has had this information for about 5 years, but the general conclusions regarding global warming haven't changed. I don't get what the big deal is about the hockey stick. Even if this one model from 9 years ago is flawed, in the context of the entire debate, I don't see that meaning much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

How about we just agree to disagree? I am not intentionally being blind. However, from the sources that I trust (i.e., Nature, Science, major sceintific organizations), I see consensus. You don't and I am perfectly okay with that. Maybe time will demonstrate that you are right.
 
I think we will just have to agree to disagree. You say tomato, I say majority consensus, which is pretty much what I see.

You say "hockey stick," so I look up hockey stick, and I find a whole lot of nothing. MBG put forth their model in 1998 that they acknowledged required greater study to establish their initial conclusions. People have a hissy fit over it. The National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council both end up saying that the model is essentially right, but others disagree. The scientific community has had this information for about 5 years, but the general conclusions regarding global warming haven't changed. I don't get what the big deal is about the hockey stick. Even if this one model from 9 years ago is flawed, in the context of the entire debate, I don't see that meaning much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

How about we just agree to disagree? I am not intentionally being blind. However, from the sources that I trust (i.e., Nature, Science, major sceintific organizations), I see consensus. You don't and I am perfectly okay with that. Maybe time will demonstrate that you are right.


We can not agree to disagree because while you disagree people of your ilk are proposing policies that will have major consequences for people. It would be far wiser to make sure we get this right before we enact policies to try and change something that either can't or shouldn't be changed.

Answer are simple a simple question: How can you support a position that at best barely half of the scientific community supports and at worst less than a third. The reason why people get upset with the hockey stick graph and ist's fallacy is that it was meant to show a correlation. The idea was we were suppossed to see this correlation between human industrializationi and temparature because the increase in the two just happened to coincide. It's exactly what Gore did in his movie. For the uneducated it would be a compelling argument and the government would have the support of those people who bought into it when it was time for said policy changes. It was later found that said data wasn't even remotely accurate and when the medevil warming period (somehow left out of the original graph despite beforehand knowledge that said event actually occurred) was added the graph turned out be fairly uniform over a thousand year period. Rather than come out say said graph was wrong at the behest of many scientists it was simply, quietly omitted from future versions of the IPCC report.

To think that man, in the span of less than century, when the earth is billions of years old, has this much control over the climate is what is truly ridiculous. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Many you think the sky is falling and AGW is real require a healthy dose of persepctive.
 
We can not agree to disagree because while you disagree people of your ilk are proposing policies that will have major consequences for people. It would be far wiser to make sure we get this right before we enact policies to try and change something that either can't or shouldn't be changed.

Answer are simple a simple question: How can you support a position that at best barely half of the scientific community supports and at worst less than a third. The reason why people get upset with the hockey stick graph and ist's fallacy is that it was meant to show a correlation. The idea was we were suppossed to see this correlation between human industrializationi and temparature because the increase in the two just happened to coincide. It's exactly what Gore did in his movie. For the uneducated it would be a compelling argument and the government would have the support of those people who bought into it when it was time for said policy changes. It was later found that said data wasn't even remotely accurate and when the medevil warming period (somehow left out of the original graph despite beforehand knowledge that said event actually occurred) was added the graph turned out be fairly uniform over a thousand year period. Rather than come out say said graph was wrong at the behest of many scientists it was simply, quietly omitted from future versions of the IPCC report.

To think that man, in the span of less than century, when the earth is billions of years old, has this much control over the climate is what is truly ridiculous. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Many you think the sky is falling and AGW is real require a healthy dose of persepctive.

People of my ilk??? Alas, in the end, whether you agree to disagree or not, we will still likely disagree. It is a tough world.

How do you judge what percentage of the scientific community support AGW? What is the relevant scientific community? A poll of all scientists would be silly. I know, I will listen to what the scientific bodies have to say?

What does the U.S. National Academy of Sciences have to say? Consensus. Well, I'll be damned.

How about the american Association for the Advancement of Science? Consensus again! Shucks!

What about the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations? Consensus. Damn. It's a hat trick.

The "hockey stick" again. Was it correct? I don't know. Lots of people think so. Some do not. Fortunately, other studies have been conducted since then that confirm the trends in warming (although I am sure this is just one very small part of the overall science related to global warming). http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=122

Why is it so hard to believe that the explosion of the population coupled with industrialization "has this much control over the climate?" That doesn't sound like an open mind?

BTW, what are these major consequences that you feel are so imminent?
 
People of my ilk??? Alas, in the end, whether you agree to disagree or not, we will still likely disagree. It is a tough world.

How do you judge what percentage of the scientific community support AGW? What is the relevant scientific community? A poll of all scientists would be silly. I know, I will listen to what the scientific bodies have to say?

What does the U.S. National Academy of Sciences have to say? Consensus. Well, I'll be damned.

How about the american Association for the Advancement of Science? Consensus again! Shucks!

What about the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations? Consensus. Damn. It's a hat trick.

The "hockey stick" again. Was it correct? I don't know. Lots of people think so. Some do not. Fortunately, other studies have been conducted since then that confirm the trends in warming (although I am sure this is just one very small part of the overall science related to global warming). http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=122

Why is it so hard to believe that the explosion of the population coupled with industrialization "has this much control over the climate?" That doesn't sound like an open mind?

BTW, what are these major consequences that you feel are so imminent?

It is rather difficult to have a conversation when an individual (you) chooses to ignore certain information and not other information.

Open mind? Who is more open minded, the person who believes there can beleive in only one explanation or the person who beleives there could be many?

Your so called consensus groups. Whoopdie Doo. We can go back and forth all day with groups that do and don't support AGW. The fact is there is very incriminating evidence against the AGW theory and groups that have advanced it (the IPCC). Many on this board have asked over and over for supporters of AGW to either present scientific data that AGW is happening or even evidence that debunks alternative theories. Amazingly we hear the same thing every time. Which essntially is 'they say so'. And even that has turned out in instances to not be true.
 
It is rather difficult to have a conversation when an individual (you) chooses to ignore certain information and not other information.

Open mind? Who is more open minded, the person who believes there can beleive in only one explanation or the person who beleives there could be many?

Your so called consensus groups. Whoopdie Doo. We can go back and forth all day with groups that do and don't support AGW. The fact is there is very incriminating evidence against the AGW theory and groups that have advanced it (the IPCC). Many on this board have asked over and over for supporters of AGW to either present scientific data that AGW is happening or even evidence that debunks alternative theories. Amazingly we hear the same thing every time. Which essntially is 'they say so'. And even that has turned out in instances to not be true.

We don't have to have this conversation. I told you early on that we can just agree to disagree. You feel the need to persist. I am just accomodating you... and you are showing a distinct lack of appreciation if I may say so.

What information am I ignoring? Is it the complex scientific information that I can't understand? I guess I must plead guilty to ignoring that.

You ask me to present the scientific data to support AGW? I can probably get you a list of journal articles, but I couldn't tell you what they mean (other than their very basic assertions), and I certainly am not capable enough to debate the validity of their findings. Perhaps you have that level of scientific knowledge - in which case I salute you, but I am still not going to take your word for it over the National Academy of Sciences, the IPCC, the Joint Science Academy, the American Institute of Physics, etc. They just have more legitimacy in my eyes.

Those groups that I listed state that there is a consensus. As for the organizations that state that AGW is true, it is a much longer list, but feel free to check wikipedia.
 
It is simple. In order for the purported Man made global warming theory to be true the atmosphere must behave in a certain way. Not only is it not, it is not even close. Nothing difficult about that at all.

Kath posted a blurb for you where in your vaunted ICC even admits in its own literature they can not substantiate their claim.

The scientific evidence does NOT exist that man has effected the planet in any meaningful way versus the current heating trend. In fact it is completely inconclusive. One does not have to be a scientist to follow the simple claim of what is causing it and the following simple actual evidence that PROVES the theory is NOT functional nor correct.
 
Man isn't responsible for global warming, and he sure as shit isn't going to be able to stop it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top