|
If this is global warming...
todd wrote:
"DouginUtah" wrote in message ... "Swingman" wrote in message [Snip of Swingman's opinions] I do not understand the thought processes of people who believe that we can dump 20+ billion tons (Gt) of CO2 gases into the atmosphere every year, year after year, and not believe that it is going to have a major effect on the earth's climate, considering that there is a definite direct positive correlation between temperature and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. -Doug Here's another indisputable correlation. Of all the people convicted of murder in this county, over 99% of them ate bread at least once. With that kind of correlation, I think it's obvious what the government should do. todd This may be the most ridiculous "argument" I've ever seen. Taken on the face of it, anything can be caused by anything else. For example, "hundreds of thousands of hunters enter Wisconsin every year and the deer herd is increasing. Therefore, hunting cause population increase in deer." Another: "all druggies drank milk when they were kids. Therefore...." There must be an evidentiary link between cause and effect. And there is plenty of hard evidence for global warming. Even if it is caused primarily by cyclical changes in the earth's atmosphere, the results can be catastrophic. Do a little checking on the "Little Ice Age" of 1635-1715 (known to astronomers as the Maunder Minimum) when lakes in England froze year-round. Someone else "made the point" that we have only 100 years of data. True, but we also have instruments that can weigh molecules, detect motion in stars trillions of miles away, and measure pollution to within parts per billion. Support for global warming is based on hard evidence and not just aneccdotes or short-term historiography. The point is that global warming is a fact--even Shrub acknowledges it--and regardless of its causes there is great potential danger for millions of people and billions of dollars in property. Bob |
If this is global warming...
Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:33:29 -0800, jo4hn wrote: Joe Bleau wrote: On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:01:25 -0800, jo4hn wrote: OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp wherever you might be. Some places may experience nastier or better weather but the overall change is an increase in temp with polar caps and glaciers melting. It's been happening for years now. Not gonna get better. Drive hybrid, save a polar bear. luck to all, jo4hn It has been happening for years, for eons even. Millions of years before man ever appeared the earth was warming and cooling. Drive SUVs and remember to save a tree you might think about wiping with spotted owls. Joe Well, ignoring the cutsie bs about spotted owls and all, keep in mind that Antarctic ice cores show that the current concentration of carbon dioxide in the air is the highest that it has ever been (.3 million years). The number of REFERREED scientific papers that scoff at man aided CO2 is zero. Enough. To your latter point, given that the referrees for papers are all global warming adherents, Because they have evidence. You imply that GW is some kind of liberal plot. Prove this. |
If this is global warming...
Larry wrote:
Well, we have gone from "30 years ago scientists were predicting another ice age" to "scientists who predict global warming will never change their minds." Really? Who said that? Every single argument against global warming that I've seen here lacks one thing: hard evidence. The scientists who know about GW have evidence, lots of it. But then, since when has evidence ever trumped belief? Check your TV listings for the Coral Ridge Hour--you wouldn't believe what they're saying. Bob |
If this is global warming...
In article . com, "Robatoy" wrote:
On Feb 15, 7:55 am, (Doug Miller) wrote: In article . com, "Robatoy" wrote: On Feb 14, 8:55 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote: Gore did say, quote, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet." That is a long ways from claiming he invented the internet. That is Rove spin. Karl Rove had absolutely nothing to do with it. Gore made an ass of himself all *by* himself, without anyone else's assistance -- starting with the fact that the internet had already been in existence *long* before Gore was ever elected to Congress. That's the spin Rove gave it. You bought into it. He's good, eh? No, that's not anybody's spin, that's an actual *fact*: the internet *did* exist long before Gore was elected to Congress. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
If this is global warming...
In article , Bob Schmall wrote:
Every single argument against global warming that I've seen here lacks ^^^^^^^^ You misspelled "for". :-) one thing: hard evidence. The scientists who know about GW have evidence, lots of it. But then, since when has evidence ever trumped belief? Check your TV listings for the Coral Ridge Hour--you wouldn't believe what they're saying. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
If this is global warming...
"Bob Schmall" wrote in message Every single argument against global warming that I've seen here lacks one thing: hard evidence. So does the argument for global warming, where "confusion of correlation and causation" simply, and fallaciously, replaces "hard evidence". It's really not hard to see, providing you know what to look for and take the time to do so, instead of gullibly believing what is fed to you as scientific "fact" ... which it is blatantly not. AAMOF, It provably does not even rise to the level of an "hypothesis". One other thing of much import: Much of this "opinion" (it does not qualify as a hypothesis or theory using proper "scientific method") is based upon "computer modeling". In a nutshell: guesswork in the algorithms, which are always being refined; insufficient/dubious data, some of it previously subjected to suspect statistical "methods" prior to input, leading to a phenomenon that has always plagued computer modeling since Babbage, "GIGO"; and last but not least, failure to use "scientific method", as above, and instead relying upon statistical methods, which can be misapplied in the rush to publish. Case in point ... the dire predictions of hurricanes last season, based solely on computer modeling, which inarguably had no basis whatsoever in reality. GIGO! Be as gullible as you wish on either side of the issue, but use a better argument than lack of "hard evidence" to assuage that gullibility ... the point is that, as of yet, there is NONE ... for either side. -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 2/07/07 |
If this is global warming...
"Larry" wrote in message
... Just a question for those debating the issues here, would anyone care to conjecture on what motivation a scientist might have for affirming or denying global warming? ================= Money. The deniers have been receiving millions of dollars from ExxonMobil (and others) to create a state of disinformation. Only recently has ExxonMobil been outed and they have now agreed to stop. Just like the tobacco companies and smoking. -Doug |
If this is global warming...
"DouginUtah" wrote in message
Money. The deniers have been receiving millions of dollars from ExxonMobil (and others) to create a state of disinformation. Only recently has ExxonMobil been outed and they have now agreed to stop. Just like the tobacco companies and smoking. Hypocritical horse****! To stop what? Manufacturing hydrocarbon based products so you could do things like brush your teeth and drive to work this morning? Were you comfortable in your cozy house last night up there in Utah with the heat on? _If_ there is a culprit, don't blame anyone but the guy you see in the mirror. -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 2/07/07 |
If this is global warming...
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:46:18 -0700, "DouginUtah"
wrote: "Larry" wrote in message ... Just a question for those debating the issues here, would anyone care to conjecture on what motivation a scientist might have for affirming or denying global warming? ================= Money. The deniers have been receiving millions of dollars from ExxonMobil (and others) to create a state of disinformation. Only recently has ExxonMobil been outed and they have now agreed to stop. Just like the tobacco companies and smoking. Please identify one scientist who has received millions of dollars from ExxonMobil for publishing disinformation in a peer-reviewed journal. |
If this is global warming...
Steve wrote:
Show me a scientist who says that there is global warming and I'll show you a hundred more who say that there are only global cycles and a very dynamic planet that is constantly changing. I was going to stay out of this off-topic argument, but the above is pure BS. Where were your hundreds of dissenters at the recent global warming conference? I suspect you've got the ratios reversed. -- It's turtles, all the way down |
If this is global warming...
On 2007-02-15, J Clarke wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:46:18 -0700, "DouginUtah" wrote: "Larry" wrote in message ... Just a question for those debating the issues here, would anyone care to conjecture on what motivation a scientist might have for affirming or denying global warming? ================= Money. The deniers have been receiving millions of dollars from ExxonMobil (and others) to create a state of disinformation. Only recently has ExxonMobil been outed and they have now agreed to stop. Just like the tobacco companies and smoking. Please identify one scientist who has received millions of dollars from ExxonMobil for publishing disinformation in a peer-reviewed journal. They've spent the money, but they've failed to get it published. All those "reports" put out by global warming discreditors have been *rejected* by peer-reviewed journals. Press releases and news articles, yes. Proper scientific journals, no. A science historian at UC San Diego analyzed 928 randomly selected research papers on climate change published from 1993 through 2003, from of a pool of around 10,000. Not *one* rejected the idea that human activity is warming the planet. Zip. nada. A quote: Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. Read it for yourself: http://historyweb.ucsd.edu/oreskes/Papers/Scientific%20Consensus%20on%20climate.pdf My apologies for bringing peer-reviewed papers into the discussion. Charles Koester |
If this is global warming...
On Feb 14, 4:57�pm, Chris Friesen wrote:
wrote: All right guys, settle down. *The experts have said we have global warming, so you are gonna believe it and like it. I'm sure everyone is aware of this, but just in case... The concept of global warming is just that...a global annual average. Those who predict it are *also* predicting more extreme weather in general. *So its quite possible to both have global warming and harsh winters. Chris The concept was recently amended to "climate change". Probably due to the fact there was an ice age preicted 30 years ago, and when the evidence started to point in a different direction, they went with "global warming". Now they have come to the realization that they can't really predict such things, and the pendulum might swing again. Therefore, they need an all-encompassing term for their fear- mongering. The problem I have is that there seems ot be a general objective consensus that temperatures may be rising, but there is far from a consensus on cause, particularly in light of the fact that the earth's history has shown repeated episodes of climate extremes with no possibility of human intervention. Yet we are supposed to dramatically change the way we operate in the US while other countries are not going to be bound by the same constraints. Seems more like politics to me... |
If this is global warming...
On Feb 15, 10:23 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
No, that's not anybody's spin, that's an actual *fact*: the internet *did* exist long before Gore was elected to Congress. -- If there is a point to this statement of yours, would you mind getting to it? So who said that there wasn't an internet prior to Gore's statement? |
If this is global warming...
In article .com, "Robatoy" wrote:
On Feb 15, 10:23 am, (Doug Miller) wrote: No, that's not anybody's spin, that's an actual *fact*: the internet *did* exist long before Gore was elected to Congress. If there is a point to this statement of yours, would you mind getting to it? That statement *is* the point. So who said that there wasn't an internet prior to Gore's statement? Nobody said that. (Nice red herring, though.) The point is that Gore claimed to have, while a member of Congress, taken "the initiative in creating" something that already existed *before* he was in Congress. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
If this is global warming...
On Feb 15, 10:31 am, "Swingman" wrote:
[snipped for brevity] One other thing of much import: Much of this "opinion" (it does not qualify as a hypothesis or theory using proper "scientific method") is based upon "computer modeling". In a nutshell: guesswork in the algorithms, which are always being refined; insufficient/dubious data, some of it previously subjected to suspect statistical "methods" prior to input, leading to a phenomenon that has always plagued computer modeling since Babbage, [snip] Swing, statistics are right 75% of the time in 4 out of 6 cases, ± 10%. (May not be valid in your state). Who does fund the research in global warming? Are there never any strings attached? Follow the money. As my mother-in-law says (with a rich Nova Scotian accent) "Best those people go outside and stand in the wind and have the stink blown off them." Research money is often tainted-they either want you to prove them right, or prove them wrong, depending on motive. So if you have to 'adjust' the numbers to ensure next year's funding....well...best go outside and have the stink blown off ya... Here's a line you'll likely hear: "Gentlemen, this presentation will prove that if you give this department more money, we will supply the data which will give the lawyers representing the people who are sueing you, the ammunition they need to defeat you in court, resulting in bankrupting your company. |
If this is global warming...
"Robatoy" wrote in message Swing, statistics are right 75% of the time in 4 out of 6 cases, ± 10%. (May not be valid in your state). Who does fund the research in global warming? Are there never any strings attached? Follow the money. As my mother-in-law says (with a rich Nova Scotian accent) "Best those people go outside and stand in the wind and have the stink blown off them." Research money is often tainted-they either want you to prove them right, or prove them wrong, depending on motive. So if you have to 'adjust' the numbers to ensure next year's funding....well...best go outside and have the stink blown off ya... Here's a line you'll likely hear: "Gentlemen, this presentation will prove that if you give this department more money, we will supply the data which will give the lawyers representing the people who are sueing you, the ammunition they need to defeat you in court, resulting in bankrupting your company. A man (properly cynical) after my own heart! -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 2/07/07 |
If this is global warming...
Robatoy wrote:
When asked to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, Gore replied (in part): "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system." Gore never used the word "invent," and the words "create" and "invent" have distinctly different meanings. OK, I'll bite. In the context of going to a world without an internet to a world with an internet, what's the difference between saying create and saying invent? |
If this is global warming...
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
Please identify one scientist who has received millions of dollars from ExxonMobil for publishing disinformation in a peer-reviewed journal. =========== I never said one scientist has received millions of dollars. And the deniers are not given credence in scientific journals. Since you seem not to be inclined to look it up yourself , I typed : ExxonMobil global warming deniers into Google. The first item was: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat...ke_it_hot.html It is not a scientific journal but they have facts to back up what they say. "News: Forty public policy groups have this in common: They seek to undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth to overheat. And they all get money from ExxonMobil." An excerpt: "Mother Jones has tallied some 40 ExxonMobil-funded organizations that either have sought to undermine mainstream scientific findings on global climate change or have maintained affiliations with a small group of "skeptic" scientists who continue to do so." However, I'm sure you will not allow this to undermine your skepticism. But you were civil, so I have replied. (BTW, I have over 400 people blocked in the two newsgroups I read regularly. Chances are I won't see responses to my posts, especially if you are not civil or are an idiot, IMNSHO.) -Doug |
If this is global warming...
Just Wondering wrote:
OK, I'll bite. In the context of going to a world without an internet to a world with an internet, what's the difference between saying create and saying invent? I assume this is an attempt at humor. Lew |
If this is global warming...
Robatoy wrote:
On Feb 15, 10:23 am, (Doug Miller) wrote: No, that's not anybody's spin, that's an actual *fact*: the internet *did* exist long before Gore was elected to Congress. -- If there is a point to this statement of yours, would you mind getting to it? So who said that there wasn't an internet prior to Gore's statement? Global warming exissts, and is caused by all the hot air Al Gore spews out. |
If this is global warming...
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Just Wondering wrote: OK, I'll bite. In the context of going to a world without an internet to a world with an internet, what's the difference between saying create and saying invent? I assume this is an attempt at humor. Lew No, it's a request for an actual reasoned explanation of the semantic difference between saying AlGore claimed he "took the initiative in creating the internet" and saying AlGore claimed he "invented the internet." Just how is saying "created" different from saying "invented" in that context? |
If this is global warming...
In article , Just Wondering wrote:
Robatoy wrote: When asked to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, Gore replied (in part): "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system." Gore never used the word "invent," and the words "create" and "invent" have distinctly different meanings. OK, I'll bite. In the context of going to a world without an internet to a world with an internet, what's the difference between saying create and saying invent? Doesn't matter -- it's still a lie, either way: the internet already existed, long before Gore ever got to Congress. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
If this is global warming...
I, too, was going to stay out of this discussion.
However... I did nothing and I survived the "coming" Ice Age of the seventies. I didn't even buy an extra sweater. I did nothing and I survived the "coming" population explosion and mass starvations of the eighties. My bathroom scale says I didn't miss any meals. I did nothing and I survived the "cumming" in the White House in the nineties. I have tried to keep an open mind on the "coming" global warming of the new millennium. When the proposed and infamous Kyoto treaty did not produce any reduction in "air contamination" yet proposed penalizing producing countries and rewarding non-producing countries, I suspected another chicken little plot to penalize the very successful countries. I didn't sign up for a coming ice age. I didn't sign up for famine and too many people. I didn't sign up for extramarital sex in the White House. I won't sign up for global warming. (But it would be okay if we signed a Toyota agreement, they are great vehicles!) But wait, I have just learned there is a killer asteroid coming directly at the earth and it will destroy us all in 2010. I hope I can get all my woodworking projects done by then. John Flatley Jacksonville, Florida -- "Larry Blanchard" wrote in message ... | Steve wrote: | | Show me a scientist who says that there is global warming and I'll | show you a hundred more who say that there are only global cycles and | a very dynamic planet that is constantly changing. | | I was going to stay out of this off-topic argument, but the above is pure BS. | Where were your hundreds of dissenters at the recent global warming | conference? I suspect you've got the ratios reversed. | | -- | It's turtles, all the way down |
If this is global warming...
Andrew Barss wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote: The number of REFERREED scientific papers that scoff at man :aided CO2 is zero. Enough. : To your latter point, given that the referrees for papers are all : global : warming adherents, there's not a lot of hope for papers demonstrating : conclusions contrary to their faith. You don't know a whole lot about refereed journals, from the sound of it. The referees are well-trained, mainstream, reputable scientists. Many hundreds of them. Do you think the editors of all the major science journals in the world are members of a secret society that has an agenda to promote the illusion of global warming? And that they somehow have been able to identify the minority of scientists whole agree with them, and have excluded all other scientists from the editorial review process? Well yes, they have. The leaders in any field are well known through the AAAS and NSF. Most of them do stints at NSF and can hand out grants to like minded folks. : demonstrate another theorem, "for every PhD, there's an equal but : opposite : PhD." And that contradicts your point above. -- Andy Barss |
If this is global warming...
"Robatoy" wrote:
On Feb 15, 10:31 am, "Swingman" wrote: [snipped for brevity] One other thing of much import: Much of this "opinion" (it does not quali fy as a hypothesis or theory using proper "scientific method") is based upon "computer modeling". In a nutshell: guesswork in the algorithms, which are always being refine d; insufficient/dubious data, some of it previously subjected to suspect statistical "methods" prior to input, leading to a phenomenon that has always plagued computer modeling since Babbage, [snip] Swing, statistics are right 75% of the time in 4 out of 6 cases, ± 10%. (May not be valid in your state). Who does fund the research in global warming? National Science Foundation, Sometimes the US NAVY. Sometimes private foundations. Rarely private corporations. Are there never any strings attached? You better spend it the way you said you would or you'll never see another dime. You better have a grant proposal that matches the biases of the current group of grantors. Follow the money. Always! |
If this is global warming...
Charles Koester wrote:
On 2007-02-15, J Clarke wrote: On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:46:18 -0700, "DouginUtah" wrote: "Larry" wrote in message ... Just a question for those debating the issues here, would anyone care to conjecture on what motivation a scientist might have for affirming or denying global warming? ================= Money. The deniers have been receiving millions of dollars from ExxonMobil (and others) to create a state of disinformation. Only recently has ExxonMobil been outed and they have now agreed to stop. Just like the tobacco companies and smoking. Please identify one scientist who has received millions of dollars from ExxonMobil for publishing disinformation in a peer-reviewed journal. They've spent the money, but they've failed to get it published. All those "reports" put out by global warming discreditors have been *rejected* by peer-reviewed journals. Press releases and news articles, yes. Proper scientific journals, no. A science historian at UC San Diego analyzed 928 randomly selected research papers on climate change published from 1993 through 2003, from of a pool of around 10,000. Not *one* rejected the idea that human activity is warming the planet. Zip. nada. That ought to make one suspicious. |
If this is global warming...
|
OT: If this is global warming...
Steve wrote:
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, global warming causes all kinds of mayhem including the hurricanes, tornados, hailstorms, lightning storms, and lest we forget, it definitely caused Pangea to split apart. These idiots that you call scientists were the same ones, 30 years ago that were saying that we were all doomed because another ice age was coming soon. Show me a scientist who says that there is global warming and I'll show you a hundred more who say that there are only global cycles and a very dynamic planet that is constantly changing. WHoa, backup, and slowdown there Bubba. It is not "the scientists" who are idiots, it's the people who take their incomplete work and make political fodder out of it *pretending* it is science. Science in the service of politics - left- or right- - is prostitution, nothing more or less. If you respond to this prostitution of science rather than to the actual known science, then you get nowhere but into another endless debate of political ideology. If I may, let me summarize that I think the current state of the actual science is: 1) There is some global warming taking place. It is slight, in keeping with the 20,000 or so year trends since the last ice age, and far lower than all the climatology models thus far were predicting. 2) We are at local (with the last 200 year) highs in injecting CO2 into the carbon cycle of the planet. BUT ... they are not "all time" highs (that happened millenia ago) AND no one is certain that a) CO2 actually causes noticeable and uncontrolled warming or b) That global warming - however much it may be happening - is necessarily a bad thing. 3) To the extent that global warming is actually happening, there not yet an unimpeachable *causal* relationship between human action and warming. There is that suspicion, but it is not yet demonstrated. No serious scientist on any side of the scientific debate believes humans *cause* GW. The most aggressive claim is that humans are amplifying a natural process and in so doing may change the quiescent state of things drastically - sort of the straw that breaks the camel's back model. However, even if this eventually turns out to be demonstrated as being so, it is far, far, far less clear that humans could actually modify their behavior sufficiently to make a real difference. One of the reasons not to rush off and go start randomly trying to "stop" global warming is that it may well be better to use our limited resources to *adapt* to it's consequences. For instance, over the past 20,000 years, the ocean levels have risen about 600 feet. This translates to about 1 cm per year. Now, let's say that human action were to double that. It is probably a lot more socially, economically, and politically practical to adapt to a 2cm/yr rising coastline than trying to radically retool modern energy-dependent economies all at once. 5) There is also considerably more debate about this particular topic within scientific circles than the popular political discussion would have you believe. That's because politicians like to use words like "consensus" - as if scientists vote on what the laws of nature will become. But science proceeds by means of skepticism and *data* - which, to date, are insufficient to come to any final conclusions about GW, who causes it, and whether anything can be done about it. In the end, it is in everyone's best interest to preserve and protect the "commons" - the things we cannot divide up as private property that are common to us all. However, the political spewing, exaggeration, and flatout lies about the nature and severity of the problem are causing otherwise smart people to make really stupid judgments. This is not unusual. We're terrified by the thought of someone breaking into our homes and killing us while we sleep (which very rarely happens) but don't think twice about driving on highways that kill 30,000 people a year in the US alone. The disaster prophets of the political left and the deniers of the political right have one thing in common: They want to create and artificial sense of emergency in the minds of the public and then none-too-gently propose themselves as the solution. The *real* (smart) idiots are people like Gore who wants to terrify the population into electing him and insert your favorite rightwinger here who wants to terrify the population with spectre of economic meltdown if we even consider a strategy of alternate fuels and lower emissions. The fact is that the politicians are ignoring the *real* driver he Energy independence for the West would mean we could rapidly disentangle ourselves from the sewer that is the oil-producing Middle East, Africa, and South America. That's because they don't have the brains, will, or selling skills to get the public rallied behind them in a cross-partisan way. The politicians will only act if it is good for "their side", and almost never when it is just "good". The reason to hold people like Gore in complete contempt is that they both lie about what is known, and play patently obvious political games while utterly failing to address more pressing short-term threats. Bah, humug, and blech upon both the earth-worshiping pantheists as well as the commerce-at-all- costs worshiping idolators. We all - every one of us - ought to be thinking about what is in our own long term durable self-interest. It is not in our interest to "save the planet" if it means the highway death toll goes up 10x because we're all riding in tin boxes with exploding batteries. Commerce is a good thing - essential to human freedom and happiness - but it cannot be used as an excuse for justifying *everything*. Most importantly, we need to stop looking to any politician for answers on these (and most all other) issues. The fact is that Western democracies are good for defending personal liberty and very little else. The "answer" to global warming - if it is needed at all - will come from a better understanding of real science, not listening to Gore's Inconvenient Pack Of Exaggerations And Lies... |
If this is global warming...
|
If this is global warming...
Bob Schmall wrote:
The point is that global warming is a fact--even Shrub acknowledges it--and regardless of its causes there is great potential danger for millions of people and billions of dollars in property. But will it warm us tomorrow? |
If this is global warming...
DouginUtah wrote:
"Swingman" wrote in message [Snip of Swingman's opinions] I do not understand the thought processes of people who believe that we can dump 20+ billion tons (Gt) of CO2 gases into the atmosphere every year, year after year, and not believe that it is going to have a major effect on the earth's climate, considering that there is a definite direct positive correlation between temperature and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. -Doug Then you need to take a statistics class. There is a profound difference between correlation and cause. The street lights reliably are correlated to come on when the sun sets. But the sun does not set BECAUSE the street lights come on. In scientific research, correlation is relatively easy to establish and can even hint at causal relationships. But actually demonstrating causality is MUCH harder. That why your statement above is "wrong". Increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere are not "known" be causal for global warming. The macro trend for warming has been positive since the last ice age - well before industrial CO2 production amplified the rate of injection into the carbon cycle. Is it worth studying? Sure. But it's also worth noting that the geophysical history of the planet suggest far HIGHER CO2 maximums in geologic history than we see today - and correspondingly good environmental health at the same time. THIS IS AN OPINION NOT FACT: My guess is that the reason the models are so wildly wrong today is twofold: 1) Climate modeling is more-or-less a "complex system" mathematically. Such systems show wildly changing outputs with very small changes in input - the so-called Lorentz Butterfly Effect. The number of precision of variables you have to consider and, more importantly, their degree of precision, is far outside our present understanding of climate. Our guesses are thus too coarse to be of much use. 2) We do not have enough long-term reliable planetary climate data to build upon. Climate fluctuates over geologic time, not 50 years. For models to make any real sense, we need way, way, way more data than what we have today. Worrying about GW because there was few degree fluctuation in the last couple of decades is like worrying about urinating in the ocean - it's a real, but insignificant, factor. |
If this is global warming...
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:06:01 -0600, Bob Schmall
wrote: Please acquaint yourself with the difference between weather and climate. Global warming ain't about weather. And I guess abdominal pain isn't associated with appendicitis, yeah right Skippy. The Arctic is not a refrigerator-- it is an effect and not a cause of climate. It is now mostly free of ice, as you admit, the result of global warming. Quite frankly, I never wrote that the arctic is mostly free of ice. Quite the contrary, on his Web site, Bob Felix cites facts ignored or lied about by the global warming alarmists. He shows that despite their claims that the worlds glaciers are melting, fully 75 percent are actually growing. In response to claims that oceans levels are rising and threatening to drown New York City, he shows they are actually falling. And once again, yes Skippy, the arctic is a refrigerator. I'll give you the name of one (most definitely) non-scientist who believes that it is man-made: George W. Bush. Or is Charlton Heston still your president? Don't know what you're babbling about there Skippy. |
If this is global warming...
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message DouginUtah wrote: "Swingman" wrote in message [Snip of Swingman's opinions] I do not understand the thought processes of people who believe that we can dump 20+ billion tons (Gt) of CO2 gases into the atmosphere every year, year after year, and not believe that it is going to have a major effect on the earth's climate, considering that there is a definite direct positive correlation between temperature and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. -Doug Then you need to take a statistics class. There is a profound difference between correlation and cause. snip of excellent "statistical" diatribe Gotta love the echo in here! ;) Well said, Tim ... -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 2/07/07 |
If this is global warming...
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Bob Schmall wrote: Every single argument against global warming that I've seen here lacks ^^^^^^^^ You misspelled "for". :-) That's exactly the way I intended to spell it. Those who do NOT acknowledge GW have offered little here but sarcasm and kneejerk reaction. The weight of evidence that it exists is overwhelming. Bob |
If this is global warming...
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 07:12:11 -0500, J. Clarke
wrote: What is interesting is that according to those same ice cores, instead of peak and precipitate drop in temperature, there had been a peak and hold this time. And that hold goes back far more than the few hundred years that the advocates of the industrial-emission theory are claiming. So it seems likely that _something_ has changed that has nothing to do with human activity, or if the something is human activity it's not industrial CO2 emissions. Exactly!!! One thing I can tell you for sure is, that these people will press their agenda to the point that the only solution to the problem of global warming as they see it, is a reduction in people. Soilant Green, here we come. Whatever we're doing, if humans _are_ doing it we bloody well better keep it up until we figure out the consequences of _stopping_. That's the big problem I have with the "we must fix this ******NOW******" argument--we don't have any reason other than a bunch of opinions to believe that we won't be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. At some point, the world is going to warm, whether humans do it or not. The natural state over tens of millions of years has been warm enough that there were no ice caps. The only reason that humans think that the current state is "normal" is that we've never experienced in our few tens of thousands of years of existence anything _different_. If we see it as a bad thing then at some point we're going to have to interfere with natural processes in order to _stop_ it. The big question, that nobody seems to want to address, is "is what we are seeing the natural end of the ice ages". These people think that just because they have a hundred years of climate data that they have all of the answers, when in fact they have less than a nanosecond of data for are planet and are completely ignoring what has happened in the past and how resilient our planet is. |
If this is global warming...
Swingman wrote:
"Bob Schmall" wrote in message Every single argument against global warming that I've seen here lacks one thing: hard evidence. So does the argument for global warming, where "confusion of correlation and causation" simply, and fallaciously, replaces "hard evidence". Nice terminology, but the evidence I mentioned is established: the world is getting warmer. You can argue causation, and I'll be with you on the cyclic vs. human causation argument (although I suspect that there is no dichotomy here), but please don't insinuate that there is no evidence. Conclusions drawn for evidence are arguable, but the evidence is indisputable. It's really not hard to see, providing you know what to look for and take the time to do so, instead of gullibly believing what is fed to you as scientific "fact" ... which it is blatantly not. AAMOF, It provably does not even rise to the level of an "hypothesis". One other thing of much import: Much of this "opinion" (it does not qualify as a hypothesis or theory using proper "scientific method") is based upon "computer modeling". And your point is? Computer modeling based on scientific evidence is an extremely valuable tool. Your assumption that GIGO applies is just that--an assumption. In a nutshell: guesswork in the algorithms, which are always being refined; insufficient/dubious data, some of it previously subjected to suspect statistical "methods" prior to input, leading to a phenomenon that has always plagued computer modeling since Babbage, "GIGO"; and last but not least, failure to use "scientific method", as above, and instead relying upon statistical methods, which can be misapplied in the rush to publish. Are you suggesting that every single scientist is motivated by the "rush to publish?" That every one of the thousands of trained scientists who support the idea of global warming are doing it for personal advancement? If that's the case, then no scientist anywhere can be trusted on any issue. Case in point ... the dire predictions of hurricanes last season, based solely on computer modeling, which inarguably had no basis whatsoever in reality. GIGO! Sorry--that's short-term prediction of weather, as opposed to long-term climate. They were wrong, of course, but that does not invalidate the long-term evidence. As someone pointed out, ice cores reveal climate for the past millions of years, and show a CO2 level that is unprecedented. Be as gullible as you wish on either side of the issue, but use a better argument than lack of "hard evidence" to assuage that gullibility ... the point is that, as of yet, there is NONE ... for either side. I'm hardly gullible, nor do I have my head in the sand as some people seem to have. And you give not one single fact yourself. Bob |
If this is global warming...
Robatoy wrote:
On Feb 15, 10:31 am, "Swingman" wrote: [snipped for brevity] One other thing of much import: Much of this "opinion" (it does not qualify as a hypothesis or theory using proper "scientific method") is based upon "computer modeling". In a nutshell: guesswork in the algorithms, which are always being refined; insufficient/dubious data, some of it previously subjected to suspect statistical "methods" prior to input, leading to a phenomenon that has always plagued computer modeling since Babbage, [snip] Swing, statistics are right 75% of the time in 4 out of 6 cases, ± 10%. (May not be valid in your state). Who does fund the research in global warming? Are there never any strings attached? Follow the money. As my mother-in-law says (with a rich Nova Scotian accent) "Best those people go outside and stand in the wind and have the stink blown off them." Research money is often tainted-they either want you to prove them right, or prove them wrong, depending on motive. So if you have to 'adjust' the numbers to ensure next year's funding....well...best go outside and have the stink blown off ya... Here's a line you'll likely hear: "Gentlemen, this presentation will prove that if you give this department more money, we will supply the data which will give the lawyers representing the people who are sueing you, the ammunition they need to defeat you in court, resulting in bankrupting your company. BS, pure and simple. Doesn't happen--or, if it sdoea, it's in exbtremely isolated cases like the tobacco fiasco. The "scientists" who found for the companies were mostly employees of the companies. The implication that all scientists are for sale is ridiculous. And who, exactly, is paying them to find in favor of global warming? The international liberal conspiracy? Bob |
If this is global warming...
Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote: On Feb 15, 10:31 am, "Swingman" wrote: [snipped for brevity] One other thing of much import: Much of this "opinion" (it does not quali fy as a hypothesis or theory using proper "scientific method") is based upon "computer modeling". In a nutshell: guesswork in the algorithms, which are always being refine d; insufficient/dubious data, some of it previously subjected to suspect statistical "methods" prior to input, leading to a phenomenon that has always plagued computer modeling since Babbage, [snip] Swing, statistics are right 75% of the time in 4 out of 6 cases, ± 10%. (May not be valid in your state). Who does fund the research in global warming? National Science Foundation, Sometimes the US NAVY. Sometimes private foundations. Rarely private corporations. Are there never any strings attached? You better spend it the way you said you would or you'll never see another dime. You better have a grant proposal that matches the biases of the current group of grantors. Follow the money. Always! Another cynical assumption with little proof to back it up. Sure scientists can be influenced--but are you suggesting that the thousands around the world who know about global warming have all been paid off? Or would take the money if offered in every case? That's ridiculous. Bob |
If this is global warming...
Leon wrote:
"Glen" wrote in message nk.net... It has been happening for years,ever since the end of the last ice age when the glaciers reached as far south as NYC. Glen Farther south than that, Huge boulders in farmers fields in the mid-west are proof. I live on glacial moraine in southern Wisconsin. Try digging more than a few inches down and the rocks will dent your self esteem. On the greater scale of time, the ice ages are a recent phenomenon. They're not proof of the cyclical nature of climate. For example, the age of dinosaurs, who needed at least a temperate lasted for millions of years in what is now the U.S. No major climate shifts there. |
If this is global warming...
On Feb 15, 5:13 pm, Bob Schmall wrote:
Those who do NOT acknowledge GW have offered little here but sarcasm and kneejerk reaction. The weight of evidence that it exists is overwhelming. Bob Facts, schmacts. Global Warming doesn't exist, because they SAY so. Isn't that enough proof? Mike |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:55 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter