The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Scientists agree on Global Warming » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (190 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6..40..73..106..139..172..175~176~177 [Next]
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
196 Posts

Profile of R.S.
To those who deny agw, I'd like to hear your opinion on the study funded by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers. Certainly their study would not be biased, right?


Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
196 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On 2014-01-19 23:57, acesover wrote:
Those of you who believe in Global Warming put those of us who do not believe in Global Warming as you believe, put us at a distinct disadvantage when trying to make a point. You want us to prove you wrong, while you can only give theory that you are right. You are more or less asking us to prove a negative.

I can say it is colder at this Longitude and latitude then it has ever been before. I could say that is my proof. However you will come up with some explanation to say that is just a temporary condition and means nothing. So you therefore dismiss my proof. However I must accept your theory as truth until I can prove it wrong, even though it is only a theory. Remember the earth was thought to be flat by many scientific minds until proved differently.

Is there some climate change due to human activity? Probably.

Is it as catastrophic as many try and lead us to believe? Probably not.

However all of this makes for a good Sy Fy original movie. Smile


You're not so much being asked to prove a negative as being asked to prove a positive claim of conspiracy (i.e., show that 97% of scientists have conspired to create a global warming hoax). In the absence of proof of such a fantastic claim, the science stands. Because face it, none of us are climate scientists. We rely on experts for practically everything. Who are you, or me, or any average Joe, to tell 97% of those who's job it is to study something (anything) that they are wrong? What qualifies you, the untrained, to tell the experts that they are wrong? What if 97% of scientists agreed that Saturn's rings were composed of ice crystals and 3% denied that there was any ice component to the rings - what would compel you to side with the 3% over the 97%? What if a wealthy group of individuals who denied the claims of ice crystals in Saturn's rings funded their own scientific study, but that study confirmed the ice crystals? Would you then still side with the 3%? That makes no sense, now does it?


Ron
:)
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
15940 Posts

Profile of tommy
What observable climate change would lead you to conclude that your AGW idea is wrong?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20259 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On 2014-01-20 06:07, R.S. wrote:
To those who deny agw, I'd like to hear your opinion on the study funded by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers. Certainly their study would not be biased, right?


Ron


Almost as ridiculous as the obamacare was a republican idea mantra.

Want to take a crack at my questions?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
4824 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On 2014-01-20 07:49, tommy wrote:
What observable climate change would lead you to conclude that your AGW idea is wrong?

I think climate change is probably happening, but that is a very fair question and one that needs to be addressed explicitly.

I have by no means studied this as much as others here have, but certainly if the average mean global temperature has not changed within a statistically relevant confidence interval for say, the last two hundred years, and the same for the dozen or so biomes around the globe, then I would not be too concerned.

However, I generally think participating in these threads is a waste of energy, since it has been explicitly and implicitly stated over and over by posters that even if there were concrete proof of climate change, nothing should be done about it (i.e. God will take care of it, it's a socialist plot, there's nothing we can do, developing countries will never get on board, it's a capitalist plot, humans have no global impact on their environment, etc.) So they aren't really arguing facts or the best way to test a hypothesis, but deciding beforehand that no matter the facts, the course of action should be nothing.

I take pretty much the opposite view. No matter the facts, I think we as a species can only benefit by being careful stewards of the Earth. Which means don't mess it up. Don't pour crap into the oceans and air. Don't think you can bury nuclear materials and it isn't going to bite you in the backside some day. Don't throw coal particles into your lungs. Don't frack and mess up your water aquifer. So really, let's end arguing what is really a pointless debate in my mind, and start looking at what needs to be done so that the next generation doesn't have three eyed frogs in their ponds.

My two cents.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2014-01-19 22:55, rockwall wrote:
Nice cherry picking of your quotes Magnus.


LOL I picked the top two in the article. What's cherry-picking about that?

Did the editorialist cherry pick? Or do you think 100% of the his sample agreed with his thesis.

Weak, rockwall.

But let's look at you big example, Carlin.


Quote:
In brief, I argue that human activity may increase temperatures over what they would otherwise have been without human activity, but the effect is so minor that it is not worth serious consideration.


So Carlin says that human activity may increase temperatures, but makes no attempt to quantify it. Guess how he was rated? Yup. "
Explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize". My question for Cook is why would he include a paper by an economist with no scientific content. Carlin's paper appears to be a very odd choice.

So, Rockwall, the best you have is an economist making scientific conclusions, objecting that his statement that AGW effects are very small now claiming that Cook misinterpreted how small he really meant.

:)

And you accuse me of cherry-picking.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
That's not the best I have and you know it. The best I've got is the entire article.

Here you have a 'study' by a climate activist that claims to have categorized peer reviewed studies to try and 'prove' that 97% of scientists agree with what he wants to prove. The author of the blog contacts a number of scientists about how they were categorized and 7 responded that they were mis-categorized. These are the actual authors responding, not some activist trying to twist there studies to make a point. One of the scientists even mentions that the author of the study left out 111 of his papers that would have lowered the score he was seeking.

Now, you can try to argue that the scientists are either lying or wrong, but then, I guess that would make you a science denier.

It's a sham study and these examples prove it.
RNK
View Profile
Inner circle
4845 Posts

Profile of RNK
Quote:
On 2014-01-18 13:20, Pop Haydn wrote:
98% of scientists agree that Global Warming is real, serious and manmade:

http://huff.to/19CQsmx


Huffington Post? LOL.. What a joke- one of the biggest left wing media spots around that reports everything in favor of the left.

RNK
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20259 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
This is one of those cases where if you attack the source it is bad. It only works when you do it with right wing sources. Please keep up.

I still would like some answers to my questions. Yet they are deftly avoided. No shock.

This is a political debate, not a scientific one. John comes as close to impartial on the subject as anyone here. No coincidence he chooses to educate himself about the subject tirelessly. Good on you John.

Take the polarized politics out of it and I wish we could agree that leaving the earth better than we found it is not a bad thing. I would be PROUD to be part of the generation that managed that. Hell I leave my campsite cleaner than I found it! Why not just apply that theory and we all agree and move to solutions? Those we can debate!
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
RNK
View Profile
Inner circle
4845 Posts

Profile of RNK
Quote:
On 2014-01-20 08:47, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On 2014-01-20 07:49, tommy wrote:
What observable climate change would lead you to conclude that your AGW idea is wrong?

I think climate change is probably happening, but that is a very fair question and one that needs to be addressed explicitly.

I have by no means studied this as much as others here have, but certainly if the average mean global temperature has not changed within a statistically relevant confidence interval for say, the last two hundred years, and the same for the dozen or so biomes around the globe, then I would not be too concerned.

However, I generally think participating in these threads is a waste of energy, since it has been explicitly and implicitly stated over and over by posters that even if there were concrete proof of climate change, nothing should be done about it (i.e. God will take care of it, it's a socialist plot, there's nothing we can do, developing countries will never get on board, it's a capitalist plot, humans have no global impact on their environment, etc.) So they aren't really arguing facts or the best way to test a hypothesis, but deciding beforehand that no matter the facts, the course of action should be nothing.

I take pretty much the opposite view. No matter the facts, I think we as a species can only benefit by being careful stewards of the Earth. Which means don't mess it up. Don't pour crap into the oceans and air. Don't think you can bury nuclear materials and it isn't going to bite you in the backside some day. Don't throw coal particles into your lungs. Don't frack and mess up your water aquifer. So really, let's end arguing what is really a pointless debate in my mind, and start looking at what needs to be done so that the next generation doesn't have three eyed frogs in their ponds.

My two cents.


Very good post landmark. Good points. Also- climate is changing- it has changed MANY times since the beginning of the Earth! Even before the existence of man!

RNK
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
If, as some of those skeptics say, humans are "only" contributing 50% to climate change- doesn't that math indicate that the climate would be changing twice as much as it would on its own? Isn't that... bad?
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Critter- that would seem to be obvious, wouldn't it? Unfortunately, to some, it apparently isn't.
Dennis Michael
View Profile
Inner circle
Southern, NJ
6018 Posts

Profile of Dennis Michael
Quote:
On 2014-01-20 09:44, RNK wrote:
Quote:
On 2014-01-18 13:20, Pop Haydn wrote:
98% of scientists agree that Global Warming is real, serious and manmade:

http://huff.to/19CQsmx


Huffington Post? LOL.. What a joke- one of the biggest left wing media spots around that reports everything in favor of the left.


RNK

Here are scientist that disagree:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sci......_warming

Who do you believe, or better yet, find something more useful in helping people rather than donate to groups who don't agree if it's cold or warm.

I am a believer that this is a natural occurring event. Earth is constantly changing. A meteor impact can hasten that change. That is more likely than global warming.

Heck, a Nuke War can do this even quicker and this is the most likely to happen. Or maybe a deadly virus?

Dead is Dead, why waste time worrying about it.Go to the beach, Travel, have fun, let others fight over who is right.
Dennis Michael
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Quote:
On 2014-01-20 11:43, critter wrote:
If, as some of those skeptics say, humans are "only" contributing 50% to climate change- doesn't that math indicate that the climate would be changing twice as much as it would on its own? Isn't that... bad?



Here is why a scientist feels about the 50% amount Critter. It's got to do with fear mongering and saving face.

"Scafetta: "Please note that it is very important to clarify that the AGW advocated by the IPCC has always claimed that 90-100% of the warming observed since 1900 is due to anthropogenic emissions. While critics like me have always claimed that the data would approximately indicate a 50-50 natural-anthropogenic contribution at most.

What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. Instead of apologizing and honestly acknowledging that the AGW theory as advocated by the IPCC is wrong because based on climate models that poorly reconstruct the solar signature and do not reproduce the natural oscillations of the climate (AMO, PDO, NAO etc.) and honestly acknowledging that the truth, as it is emerging, is closer to what claimed by IPCC critics like me since 2005, these people are trying to get the credit.

They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face.

Now they are misleadingly claiming that what they have always claimed was that AGW is quantified as 50+% of the total warming, so that once it will be clearer that AGW can only at most be quantified as 50% (without the "+") of the total warming, they will still claim that they were sufficiently correct.

And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006."
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Could you please post the link for that Rockwall? I'd be interesting in seeing which websites you're quoting from.
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
I read it. It's still an acknowledgement of the reality of man-made climate change. The only disagreement is in the amount of contribution. So the skeptical estimate is ~50%. That's an effect. Granted, this isn't my science, but perhaps there is some generalizability here.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Quote:
On 2014-01-20 12:34, mastermindreader wrote:
Could you please post the link for that Rockwall? I'd be interesting in seeing which websites you're quoting from.


97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05......#Update2
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Yes critter, many AGW sceptics do agree that man is probably causing some of the global warming that is happening. The problem is that most don't think that 50% or less of a fraction of a centigrade in warming in the last 100 years is not that big a deal and not a lot to worry about.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/12/gl......-deal-2/
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
And since we're talking about peer reviewed papers:

1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10......ing.html
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
That's what I thought. Populartechnology.net is an anti-AGW blog site with very spurious credentials.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Scientists agree on Global Warming » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (190 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6..40..73..106..139..172..175~176~177 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.24 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL