At best, a true scientist would question the data with equally compelling data. Saying "I don't think so" is not a scientific argument.
Similarly a true scientist does not argue that GW is occurring due to man, without understanding all the other factors and variables. I have asked before if someone could point me to the formula that is proven on how the climate functions. If scientists do not have all the relative affects put in, then they do not know with a high cetainty, that man does contribute significantly. They are "suspecting" at best. The fact is, and correct me if I'm wrong - that various scientific groups studying GW use different mathematical models? It's not quite as definitive as E=mc-squared? :P
I certainly hope they are using different models. It wouldn't make much sense to put all your theoretical eggs in one basket. Then you keep candling the eggs.
Well all scientific theories start out as concepts---mental constructs, and then slowly they are tested in the real world.
AFTER scientists left the mental constructs of GW, then they went to mathematical modeling, and now they are actually measuring the real world effects, and everything is pointing to a good deal of support for a man-made effect on GW. In other words, the real world data is supporting, not refuting, the basic earlier premises.
Good science also modifies itself constantly. As the unknown becomes known, the initial theories are often adjusted.
So in other words, it's a process unfolding. You never get to "there" in science, you just get closer and closer.....or....you move further and further away as the case may require.
My rule of thumb is that unless a theory or counter-theory has a) been generated by a credible source and b) undergone a peer review of some type, I am apt to dismiss it as just someone's "opinion"---which is fine, but that's all it is.
A scientific theory is not the same as we civilians use the word "theory". A scientific theory is the best possible explanation for observed events--not just "an" explanation---but the best possible one.
Right now, the theory that man is contributing to GW seems better than the one that it is entirely natural, which in turn is better than the theory that there is no GW at all.
But you know....you never know. At one time, the "steady-state" theory of the universe was in vogue; also there were various theories as to why dinosaurs disappeared----but many of those were tested and disproven....or at least not supportable by evidence.
You know a scant 40-60 years ago. The so called "scientists" were predicting GLOBAL COOLING, aka ice age. So now it is so called Global Warming. The part they totally skipped over was how WRONG they were. OK if they were NOT wrong, they totally skipped over the mechanism for how we have gone from GLOBAL ICE AGE to.... GLOBAL WARMING.
Indeed you almost could not get a college degree (regurgitate and graduate) without reading or at least do a genuflection to Stanford University's, Dr. Paul Erlich. link title of "THE POPULATION BOMB" fame. link title
(this will go by most folks but there is a biographical joke here, ding a butterfly, cause an indonesian tsunami..... )
As a comparison, the earth has probably exponentially more folks than then. Agriculture is even MORE effective and efficient..... yada yada....
That's the beautiful thing about science. It is constantly testing itself. A scientist will always change his mind in the face of good evidence, but a dogmatist who is merely stuck in an opinion never changes his mind no matter what.
The "population bomb" wasn't science. All it was, was Erlich's unsupported opinion, a "prediction" that was no more valid than a fortune teller's.
In the beginning, all scientific "theories" aren't much better than a fortune teller's guess---the point is how well the theory withstands SCRUTINY.
The "population bomb" theory quickly started to crumble under scrutiny.
The GW theory is quite the opposite--gaining strength during scruntiny.
Same thing happened to the theory of evolution. Nothing has ever been able to dislodge it scientifically, and in fact new fields of research only further support and refine it.
Science is PROCESS. The whole IDEA of science is to prove itself wrong. By pointing out that some science proved wrong is in fact a validation of the scientific method.
..."Science is PROCESS. The whole IDEA of science is to prove itself wrong. By pointing out that some science proved wrong is in fact a validation of the scientific method."...
While you can easily dismiss the findings of 40-60 years ago, the fact of the matter is the explanation portion remains totally skipped over and it also was consider SCIENCE at the time (much more than that- but another discussion) !!! Indeed in 40-60 years time the EXACT same thing will probably be said about Global Warming, aka Global climate change, aka Carol Kings .... winter spring summer and fall.
The problem with GW is that we have very good science mixed up with crackpots, blogs and "scientists" who are out of their field, or outright frauds.
Ehrlich may very well prove to be right, just too early. His big problem was his aggressive posting of "dates" to predicted events, which of course was not based on any solid scientific data--only speculations. He seemed very arrogant in that regard. We can see the same thing happening today--the old foot in mouth disease.
It's like when someday looks at their tachometer and says "well, I'm going 60 mph at 1500 rpms, so my car can go 240 mph at 6000 rpms". Sounds good but it ain't likely. Variables such as engine torque, aerodynamics, etc. are all left out of the equation.
Keeping track of science requires reading primary material, which is hard, which is why so few people stay well-informed. I find the reading very tedious at times and my eyelids droop.
Ehrlich may very well prove to be right, just too early. His big problem was his aggressive posting of "dates" to predicted events, which of course was not based on any solid scientific data-
Would you put Al Gore's prediction that NYC will be under water in a given time frame as the same kind of hogwash?
I have posted the names of many scientists that do not agree with the IPCC report as twisted by the UN. Many of those scientist worked on the report. The truth is a scientist that does not fall into line with the political thinking on CC are ostracized and discredited in the media. Hard to beat city hall when they smell a new source of tax revenue.
Indeed IF the global warming aka global climate change folks are correct, Bin Laden did us a favor by (on 9/11) dropping the world trade center (yes I know this is way not pc) and we are literally courting REAL disaster by rebuilding on the same site !!! This is almost unconscionable, as most environmentally aware folks live in NYC !!!
I saw this on the history channel (cable tv) so I am not making this stuff up. The old as well as new world trade center is on reclaimed land that is NATURALLY UNDER WATER !!!! The graphic is the first WTC was built only after a so called "BATH TUB was constructed to make the acreage water tight for the build. We should be letting NYC land remain fallow. So if the Global Warmest's are correct then NYC will be further under water to where one will have to evaculate the building on floors not designed for FLOOD evacuation. So again another example of where they do not believe their own press.
In other words, the real world data is supporting, not refuting, the basic earlier premises.
Well in science there is a difference between: stating something is supported, and showing that it actually is supported. So I ask again, provide a link to the "leading theory" model. I'd like to see how complete it is, and how well the data matches it. Or a link to the #2 or #3 model.
For if these models are shown not to have accurate knowns of - the quantity of CO2 released and absorbed naturally, effect of sunspots, effect of orbit of the Earth, consider volcanic activity (both surface and undersea), consider underwater methane releases, and such, then we may see that the model is nothing more than a product of reverse-engineering.
Knowing human nature, you have no suspiscions that the conclusion was written first, and the models written to agree with the conclusions? Then you can jump up and down and say "Aha! the model works"! You consider that brilliant science?
For example if the Earth has warmed 1C in the last 100 years, it would be easy enough to write a model that puts in the effects such that natural cause are 0.4C and man-made are 0.6C. And people like you would say that's proof? I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale ...
I'm not referring to "models" though. I'm referring to extracted data. "Modeling" is old news in GW theory.
It's easy to spot pseudo-science from real science. Just start drilling ferociously into the sources and primary material citations and it becomes clear if it's solid or just an academic vapor.
I've been drilling and I'm hitting paydirt.
I do understand your point, however, how the layman can confuse causation with correlation.
"A cop walked down the street and a piano fell from a ten story building. Therefore, policemen obviously cause "piano rain".
NASA reports on the trillions of tons of melting ice in the last five years
Tabloid journalism. A more responsible comment would state the percentage of ice that had melted in the last five years. Most people would have no idea if a trillion fons of melting ice is significant... sure sounds like a lot though doesn't it. :surprise:
CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers had never bought into the notion that man can alter the climate and the Vegas snowstorm didn’t impact his opinion. Myers, an American Meteorological Society certified meteorologist, explained on CNN’s Dec. 18 “Lou Dobbs Tonight” that the whole idea is arrogant and mankind was in danger of dying from other natural events more so than global warming.
The list scientists keeps getting longer that question the so called science used to determine man could and does change the climate.
..."that the whole idea is arrogant and mankind was in danger of dying from other natural events more so than global warming. "...
I see it as, since as a society we have killed "God"(as our founding fathers firmly rooted the new nation in GOD) ; for my .02 cents, the arrogance comes from substituting mankinds efforts/thoughts in place of.
Call it.... "taking over for Godot".
The GW/GCC advocates want to paint the skeptics into positions the skeptics do not hold and say see: how can the skeptics ignore gravity. Indeed the GW/GCC advocates predict stuff that does not only fail to come to pass, but is the direct opposite. Now,... it is like if ANYTHING happens it is GW/GCC related.!? And we label cultist religions as dangerous !!!!!! ???????
And we label cultist religions as dangerous !!!!!! ???????
I consider the Man Made, GW, Climate Change cult the most dangerous. The reason being it is based on one premise, GREED. As soon as the high priest Al Gore got his message across to World political groups on the Billions that could be generated, he had every political persuasion on his side. As politicians hold the purse strings for the bulk of the scientific studies, you know who gets the money and who does not.
If you are a scientist and do not go along with the CONSENSUS, you are looking for a new job. At every one of the UN conferences on Climate, those that question the way data was obtained or the results are not allowed to be heard. Or they are shunned by those in KNOW. MM/CC is a gigantic scam pure and simple. I hope the scientists that have prostituted themselves for this cause get buried under 5 feet of snow and 10 below zero temps.
Indeed if you study the ramifications and utilities, SCIENCE IS the defacto STATE religion. In that context, YES it is perfectly logical where they want the rank and file "PRIESTS of SCIENCE" to go.
I mean the so called GW/GCC recitations/rituals are tiresome at best. All the way from paper clips (global warming/GCC) to making nuclear weapons less radioactive (GW/GCC you know !!) Now it (weapons issue) would be funny if it were NOT so sadly true !!!
Well you also need to remember that Darwinism/evolution is STILL a theory !!!! Science literally have had multi generations to PROVE this beyond a shadow of a doubt.
So yes, if you are related to monkeys, I do feel sorry for the monkeys???
Well, the creationists use the same argument when faced with the overwhelming scientific consensus against them. Doesn't mean they are right either.
Probably better not to get into that debate here. The key is the Creationists are not advocating a BIG FAT TAX for what is perceived to be the cause of our planet warming. The Creationists are not trying to push our lifestyle back into the caves. The Creationists are not telling US we should drive some little death trap econobox car. The Creationists are not even allowed to give their theory in our public schools. Even Russia is now allowing creation to be taught along with the THEORY of evolution.
I'm not referring to "models" though. I'm referring to extracted data.
Data of the climate changing, would be the norm. Looking at the climate for many millions of years we see the Earth is much hotter and colder, and had temperature changes at a higher rate and CO2 levels much higher also. None of this is proof that mankind is now significantly changing what otherwise would occur.
In order to determine if mankind is changing the climate, you need a thorough knowledge of how the climate works which includes the whole solar energy input, and natural cycles of all organisms and natural emissions and absorptions. Only then can you begin to use temperature data to determine if the changes humans make, then don't fit the model.
My contention is that you can you go to different science journals constantly and find articles on discoveries of undersea vents, undersea frozen methane, ... that weren't know to exist and which will significantly alter the mix of the climate, that obviously aren't included in any models. Or does anyone know accurately what solar activity was like 100 years ago, such that they can determine the sun's energy output then, relative to today? Maybe a rough idea? Maybe they took temperatures too, with not so accurate mercury thermometers too, near much less paved and energy intensive cities?
You (my .02 cents) have hit the nails on the heads !
While the GW/GCC folks want to codify magical thinking (some in the human behavioral discipline would call it delusional), the fact of the matter while they want to link causality, they are not even close to getting it to a level of a linked hypothesis !! They will not even put a % to what impacts ARE human generated. So let us wave the magic wand and ask if we eliminated ALL human impacts..... what would that actually do???????
I probably shouldn't have opened that can of worms - just noticed a lot of parallels in the arguments in these two vastly different areas of science.
As for the insinuation that the creationists have no agenda that might cause bias - really? You really believe that? You don't think the creationists want to change the lifestyle of other people? Honestly? And for the money argument - creationists don't want our money? Really? You want to hang your hat on that?
In any case, I'd rather stick to science rather than emotions and conspiracy theories.
And if you don't like the qualitative line of argument, here's the quantitative.
"The apparent annual atmospheric CO2 level increase, postulated to be anthropogenic, would constitute only some 0.2% of the total annual amount of CO2 exchanged naturally between the atmosphere and the ocean plus other natural sources and sinks. It is more probable that such a small ripple in the annual natural flow of CO2 would be caused by natural fluctuations of geophysical processes."
0.2% of all the CO2 being created and reabsorbed doesn't sound very significant to me!
Man-made GW is nothing more than a boogie-man created by environmentalists to in one fell swoop, provide a reason to slow or stop all development and moves to industrialization. Significant human caused GW is as proven as - the 15th century scientific concensus that - the Earth is Flat.
In a perverse sort of way, all this GW/GCC is like re inventing the FLAT earth. The innovation will be to give carbon credits for the burning at the stakes of the so called "proper heretics " !! :P
Keep in mind we already have the functional equivalent of "an invisible KU KLUX KLAN " in some of those extreme environmental groups. Some notable events have been car dealership, housing development torchings.
I think what will happen is that America will continue to bury its head in the sand and then Japan and Europe will develop all the "clean tech" that we will desperately need in a decade or two, and they will clean our clocks economically by selling it to us.
I can tell how sadly uninformed American are merely by seeing how some 40% don't even believe in evolution, a theory that has been proven overwhelmingly. The evidence is vast, skull-crushing, overpowering, total and indisputable. :P
it's sad really.
Detroit and the Big Three is the perfect model for the American mind now that I think about it.
..."Detroit and the Big Three is the perfect model for the American mind now that I think about it. "...
Yup, got to love evolution and the UAW !!
Of course the management is firmly woven in that equation also.
Now I do not know if that is the good news or the bad news. Keep in mind (as if anyone on the planet hasn't heard) our new majority biggie government bought us those exact three white elephants or was that 15B a down payment? .
..."Detroit and the Big Three is the perfect model for the American mind now that I think about it. "...
Yup, got to love evolution and the UAW !!
Of course the management is firmly woven in that equation also.
Now I do not know if that is the good news or the bad news. Keep in mind (as if anyone on the planet hasn't heard) our new majority biggie government bought us those exact three white elephants or was that 15B a down payment? .
I do not doubt your sincerity, but the US has the intellectual, etc., etc., capacities to far exceed Europe and Asia. We have been doing it for 70 or so years. All that needs to be done is a "Kennedy like" throwing down the gauntlet (To moon in June or whatever blather it was at the time) by Obama..... burn H20 in the passenger vehicle car by 20XX !!!! Kennedy green lighted Vietnam and we all know how that turned out, so I hope Obama gets us out da middle east. Do get out da Europe while he is at it !!! Well don' forget Asia too.
Dinosaurs evolving into little birds I suspect, just like in real life.
I think part of the problem people have with grasping what GW really is about, is that the modern materialistic, post-industrial mind has a lot of trouble understanding how everything is in fact connected to everything else.
And really, a "weatherman" is hardly an expert on Global Warming. Once again, "weather is not climate".
And man did not descend from monkeys, no matter what the history of the British Automotive Industry. :P
On the history channel, a program I was watching advanced a (hypothesis) theory that one of the reasons why Dinosaurs got as HUGE as they did was because of a LACK of C02 !!! So you think Americans are overweight now?..... :sick: :lemon:
As for the insinuation that the creationists have no agenda that might cause bias - really? Many are horribly biased and would like others to believe as they do. They are not allowed to even give their opinions in our public schools so it is contained mostly in Churches.
You don't think the creationists want to change the lifestyle of other people? Not so much lifestyle as they would like you to believe as they do
Honestly? And for the money argument - creationists don't want our money? Really? You want to hang your hat on that? Absolutely! I would not associate with any organization that imposes a monetary burden on me against my will. This is not like the US government that extracts money from my paycheck each month. There is a huge difference between voluntary giving and extorting money for some carbon credit scheme
Indeed, "Popular" science, (not the periodical), has a long and (un)illustrious history of being absolutely certain that theory X, Y or Z is THE TRUTH and then quietly abandoning those theories when incontrovertible facts to the contrary come to light and won't go away.
The Earth was flat. The Sun rotated about the Earth which was the centre of all creation. To dispute the latter was heresy and people died for their beliefs. Creationists worry me, but so do all extremists.
The whole ACC scam is more of the same but played out by better publicists for global power, control and wealth. Truly the hardliners in this debate/scam are, at best, totally deluded and, at worst, totally immoral. The truth will out........but at what cost, I wonder ?
Well, I am not convinced that the generally accepted consensus on climate change is completely correct. I understand the skepticism. I see why you question the whole thing. What I don't understand is how you guys can be 100% convinced there is no merit to the theory. I've read the research on both sides. I can't see how people like us can be so resolute. People are spending their careers researching this (skeptics too) but we think we can do some research on our own in our spare time and develop a more informed, more intelligent opinion?
Maybe we are less biased, but we sure don't have much else going for us.
What I don't understand is how you guys can be 100% convinced there is no merit to the theory.
I'm not 100% convinced of anything. The issue is, since about 1990 we have politicians trying to pass Global mandates that will adversely affect our quality of life. Those Laws and proposed treaties (Kyoto) are based on a few findings and a lot of speculation. When scientist are told not to present findings that go contrary to the political winds, I get real skeptical. There is a lot of talk on how GW Bush has kept a lid on GW. Well it is not too difficult to find scientists that were told what to say during Bill Clinton's Presidency. Most of the UN hoopla over GW edicts is getting cash from the biggest producer of GHG. That would be US. Trouble is we ain't got any spare cash. We been borrowing from our children's piggy bank for the last 30 years.
If 2008 turns out to be the coldest year since good records were kept, It will completely shoot Man Made CC/GW out of the water.
Your neighbors in Spokane are looking at an all time record snowfall. I know we needed the heavy rains and snow in CA. Been a long time coming. With record snowfall & cold over the last year in diverse parts of the earth. From Baghdad to Beijing. How can the GW group claim the coldest winters for two years is part of the overall global warming? It defies logic unless you are a politician.
50 years from now when the strip Al Gore of his Nobel prize, posthumously, I hope it is not too traumatic on his grandchildren, freezing in their 11,000 square foot mansion in Tennessee with solar heat that is no longer working.
And when it snows like it does from the beginning of Nov. well into April every year, that is a too cold climate. So any GW, such as 5C would be welcome.
In fact after seeing heating oil at $4.50 earlier this year, the powerlines down for over a week in some areas here due to the Ice storm (might get hit again Sun. as high winds and snow bring down damaged trees), that if the EarF doesn't warm in the next few decades, and we don't get this miracle energy source, there will be a migration from the northern sections of this country and Canada.
The fact is that modern man is too populous, too spoiled, and too reliant on fossil fuels in these climates, to live in these areas if fossil fuels become scarce and/or expensive. You see it in the fact that many, many people move South once they retire and aren't tied to their job. The fact is that it is only cheap, plentiful fossil fuels that are keeping the areas north of the Mason Dixon line as populated as they are.
I think what will happen is that America will continue to bury its head in the sand
Maybe we'll also save many billions, keeping our costs lower and living standards higher. You do understand that to sequester CO2 underground is going to make power generation inefficient? For example you will need the equivalent of 5 power plants instead of 4, and the commensurate fuel consumption of 5 instead of 4 if we require underground CO2 sequestering. It will take huge amounts of energy to compress a gas like CO2 into a liquid and then pump that into shafts deep in the ground. And if you have to locate those power plants in areas where the rock is suited for CO2 storage, you may have to locate those power plants far from the users, thus increasing line-losses. Sequestering CO2 is far from free in either costs or extra fuel used!!
... and then Japan and Europe will develop all the "clean tech" that we will desperately need in a decade or two, and they will clean our clocks economically by selling it to us.
Let Japan and Europe spend billions on the R&D. The Chinese will buy some tech, or steal it, and produce the units much cheaper than Japan or Europe could produce it. If we spent the money on the R&D, we'd outsource the manufacture to the Chinese anyway. Same result, we save the $$. :P
"Climate change doesn't mean the end of cold weather. It means more extreme weather patterns and higher global average temperatures (temperatures from all locales taken over the course of an entire year and averaged will be higher than in the past)." SFGate
Your turn - where does it say that the only effects of global warming are just extremes in hot temps or drought or hurricanes?
Seems like the Global Warma sists have adopted the legal concept of "reasonable doubt" ditching absolute proof (that science has always adherred) Worked for OJ the first time......
So global warming doesn't mean weather, but on the other hand it means weather. I'd love to play the 3 card/cup monte with you.
Well, there's no such thing as absolute proof in my mind. You can have a tested explanation based on a wide body of knowledge but you can't test everything.
Asking for such a thing would simply be a delay tactic.
I'd love a game of Monte with you but I've tested every hypothesis and I'm absolutely sure you don't exist.
where does it say that the only effects of global warming are just extremes in hot temps
That is the reason they changed the name of the cult from Global Warming to Climate Change. So they could blame every eventuality on George Bush. Katrina was his fault because he did not sign Kyoto. Big AL never mentions the fact than NONE of the signors have met the goals set out in the treaty. So now it is a new treaty. I think honest scientific study is great. The fact is when there is a consensus that has to be proven, honest scientific study goes out the window. Can you name ONE scientist that questions MM/GW that is on the payroll of any entity that believes MM/GW is a done deal? How many REAL scientists do you hear, that say Man Made Climate Change is a done deal. All I see are reports massaged by the UN, media and politicians that have an agenda.
Weather extremes have been part and parcel of the debate from early on, regardless of whether you call it GW or CC.
Scientific reports are massaged, fortunately. I'd never be able to understand one if it wasn't watered down for me. But if you are a scientist, you can get your hands on the abstracts, data and full studies and review it all and run your own models. That's what it's all about isn't it?
Can you name ONE scientist that questions MM/GW that is on the payroll of any entity that believes MM/GW is a done deal?
Does NASA fit your MMGW criteria? ("A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming.") NASA
This prof is paid by the UofA I guess, but surely he gets grant money from NASA:
"For nearly 30 years, Professor (John) Christy has been in charge of NASA's eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily around the globe. In a paper co-written with Dr. Douglass, he concludes that while manmade emissions may be having a slight impact, "variations in global temperatures since 1978 ... cannot be attributed to carbon dioxide." anatreptic.com
Now, if you want to really stump me, ask me to find someone employed at, say, the Heritage Foundation who believes in MMGW. :shades:
Comments
Similarly a true scientist does not argue that GW is occurring due to man, without understanding all the other factors and variables. I have asked before if someone could point me to the formula that is proven on how the climate functions. If scientists do not have all the relative affects put in, then they do not know with a high cetainty, that man does contribute significantly. They are "suspecting" at best.
The fact is, and correct me if I'm wrong - that various scientific groups studying GW use different mathematical models? It's not quite as definitive as E=mc-squared? :P
For example, Why Einstein may have got it wrong (Guardian UK)
AFTER scientists left the mental constructs of GW, then they went to mathematical modeling, and now they are actually measuring the real world effects, and everything is pointing to a good deal of support for a man-made effect on GW. In other words, the real world data is supporting, not refuting, the basic earlier premises.
Good science also modifies itself constantly. As the unknown becomes known, the initial theories are often adjusted.
So in other words, it's a process unfolding. You never get to "there" in science, you just get closer and closer.....or....you move further and further away as the case may require.
My rule of thumb is that unless a theory or counter-theory has a) been generated by a credible source and b) undergone a peer review of some type, I am apt to dismiss it as just someone's "opinion"---which is fine, but that's all it is.
A scientific theory is not the same as we civilians use the word "theory". A scientific theory is the best possible explanation for observed events--not just "an" explanation---but the best possible one.
Right now, the theory that man is contributing to GW seems better than the one that it is entirely natural, which in turn is better than the theory that there is no GW at all.
But you know....you never know. At one time, the "steady-state" theory of the universe was in vogue; also there were various theories as to why dinosaurs disappeared----but many of those were tested and disproven....or at least not supportable by evidence.
Indeed you almost could not get a college degree (regurgitate and graduate) without reading or at least do a genuflection to Stanford University's, Dr. Paul Erlich. link title of "THE POPULATION BOMB" fame.
link title
(this will go by most folks but there is a biographical joke here, ding a butterfly, cause an indonesian tsunami..... )
As a comparison, the earth has probably exponentially more folks than then. Agriculture is even MORE effective and efficient..... yada yada....
The "population bomb" wasn't science. All it was, was Erlich's unsupported opinion, a "prediction" that was no more valid than a fortune teller's.
In the beginning, all scientific "theories" aren't much better than a fortune teller's guess---the point is how well the theory withstands SCRUTINY.
The "population bomb" theory quickly started to crumble under scrutiny.
The GW theory is quite the opposite--gaining strength during scruntiny.
Same thing happened to the theory of evolution. Nothing has ever been able to dislodge it scientifically, and in fact new fields of research only further support and refine it.
Science is PROCESS. The whole IDEA of science is to prove itself wrong. By pointing out that some science proved wrong is in fact a validation of the scientific method.
While you can easily dismiss the findings of 40-60 years ago, the fact of the matter is the explanation portion remains totally skipped over and it also was consider SCIENCE at the time (much more than that- but another discussion) !!! Indeed in 40-60 years time the EXACT same thing will probably be said about Global Warming, aka Global climate change, aka Carol Kings .... winter spring summer and fall.
So I am glad you agree with me.
the "Ice Age" business was just media hype. The REAL scientific community wanted no part of it, or very little:
see:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
The problem with GW is that we have very good science mixed up with crackpots, blogs and "scientists" who are out of their field, or outright frauds.
Ehrlich may very well prove to be right, just too early. His big problem was his aggressive posting of "dates" to predicted events, which of course was not based on any solid scientific data--only speculations. He seemed very arrogant in that regard. We can see the same thing happening today--the old foot in mouth disease.
It's like when someday looks at their tachometer and says "well, I'm going 60 mph at 1500 rpms, so my car can go 240 mph at 6000 rpms". Sounds good but it ain't likely. Variables such as engine torque, aerodynamics, etc. are all left out of the equation.
Keeping track of science requires reading primary material, which is hard, which is why so few people stay well-informed. I find the reading very tedious at times and my eyelids droop.
Would you put Al Gore's prediction that NYC will be under water in a given time frame as the same kind of hogwash?
I have posted the names of many scientists that do not agree with the IPCC report as twisted by the UN. Many of those scientist worked on the report. The truth is a scientist that does not fall into line with the political thinking on CC are ostracized and discredited in the media. Hard to beat city hall when they smell a new source of tax revenue.
I saw this on the history channel (cable tv) so I am not making this stuff up. The old as well as new world trade center is on reclaimed land that is NATURALLY UNDER WATER !!!! The graphic is the first WTC was built only after a so called "BATH TUB was constructed to make the acreage water tight for the build. We should be letting NYC land remain fallow.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Well in science there is a difference between: stating something is supported, and showing that it actually is supported. So I ask again, provide a link to the "leading theory" model. I'd like to see how complete it is, and how well the data matches it. Or a link to the #2 or #3 model.
For if these models are shown not to have accurate knowns of - the quantity of CO2 released and absorbed naturally, effect of sunspots, effect of orbit of the Earth, consider volcanic activity (both surface and undersea), consider underwater methane releases, and such, then we may see that the model is nothing more than a product of reverse-engineering.
Knowing human nature, you have no suspiscions that the conclusion was written first, and the models written to agree with the conclusions? Then you can jump up and down and say "Aha! the model works"! You consider that brilliant science?
For example if the Earth has warmed 1C in the last 100 years, it would be easy enough to write a model that puts in the effects such that natural cause are 0.4C and man-made are 0.6C. And people like you would say that's proof? I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale ...
It's easy to spot pseudo-science from real science. Just start drilling ferociously into the sources and primary material citations and it becomes clear if it's solid or just an academic vapor.
I've been drilling and I'm hitting paydirt.
I do understand your point, however, how the layman can confuse causation with correlation.
"A cop walked down the street and a piano fell from a ten story building. Therefore, policemen obviously cause "piano rain".
Tabloid journalism. A more responsible comment would state the percentage of ice that had melted in the last five years. Most people would have no idea if a trillion fons of melting ice is significant... sure sounds like a lot though doesn't it. :surprise:
But if you say "a trillion tons of rocks were lost in the galaxy"....hey, who would even notice? :P
Just think how much of the ice your ice maker made that eventually melted last year. Gee, it all melted...and I still have plenty of ice !
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
The list scientists keeps getting longer that question the so called science used to determine man could and does change the climate.
I see it as, since as a society we have killed "God"(as our founding fathers firmly rooted the new nation in GOD) ; for my .02 cents, the arrogance comes from substituting mankinds efforts/thoughts in place of.
Call it.... "taking over for Godot".
The GW/GCC advocates want to paint the skeptics into positions the skeptics do not hold and say see: how can the skeptics ignore gravity. Indeed the GW/GCC advocates predict stuff that does not only fail to come to pass, but is the direct opposite. Now,... it is like if ANYTHING happens it is GW/GCC related.!? And we label cultist religions as dangerous !!!!!! ???????
I consider the Man Made, GW, Climate Change cult the most dangerous. The reason being it is based on one premise, GREED. As soon as the high priest Al Gore got his message across to World political groups on the Billions that could be generated, he had every political persuasion on his side. As politicians hold the purse strings for the bulk of the scientific studies, you know who gets the money and who does not.
If you are a scientist and do not go along with the CONSENSUS, you are looking for a new job. At every one of the UN conferences on Climate, those that question the way data was obtained or the results are not allowed to be heard. Or they are shunned by those in KNOW. MM/CC is a gigantic scam pure and simple. I hope the scientists that have prostituted themselves for this cause get buried under 5 feet of snow and 10 below zero temps.
I mean the so called GW/GCC recitations/rituals are tiresome at best. All the way from paper clips (global warming/GCC) to making nuclear weapons less radioactive (GW/GCC you know !!) Now it (weapons issue) would be funny if it were NOT so sadly true !!!
So yes, if you are related to monkeys, I do feel sorry for the monkeys???
Probably better not to get into that debate here. The key is the Creationists are not advocating a BIG FAT TAX for what is perceived to be the cause of our planet warming. The Creationists are not trying to push our lifestyle back into the caves. The Creationists are not telling US we should drive some little death trap econobox car. The Creationists are not even allowed to give their theory in our public schools. Even Russia is now allowing creation to be taught along with the THEORY of evolution.
Data of the climate changing, would be the norm. Looking at the climate for many millions of years we see the Earth is much hotter and colder, and had temperature changes at a higher rate and CO2 levels much higher also. None of this is proof that mankind is now significantly changing what otherwise would occur.
In order to determine if mankind is changing the climate, you need a thorough knowledge of how the climate works which includes the whole solar energy input, and natural cycles of all organisms and natural emissions and absorptions. Only then can you begin to use temperature data to determine if the changes humans make, then don't fit the model.
My contention is that you can you go to different science journals constantly and find articles on discoveries of undersea vents, undersea frozen methane, ... that weren't know to exist and which will significantly alter the mix of the climate, that obviously aren't included in any models. Or does anyone know accurately what solar activity was like 100 years ago, such that they can determine the sun's energy output then, relative to today? Maybe a rough idea? Maybe they took temperatures too, with not so accurate mercury thermometers too, near much less paved and energy intensive cities?
While the GW/GCC folks want to codify magical thinking (some in the human behavioral discipline would call it delusional), the fact of the matter while they want to link causality, they are not even close to getting it to a level of a linked hypothesis !! They will not even put a % to what impacts ARE human generated. So let us wave the magic wand and ask if we eliminated ALL human impacts..... what would that actually do???????
As for the insinuation that the creationists have no agenda that might cause bias - really? You really believe that? You don't think the creationists want to change the lifestyle of other people? Honestly? And for the money argument - creationists don't want our money? Really? You want to hang your hat on that?
In any case, I'd rather stick to science rather than emotions and conspiracy theories.
And if you don't like the qualitative line of argument, here's the quantitative.
"The apparent annual atmospheric CO2 level increase, postulated to be anthropogenic, would constitute only some 0.2% of the total annual amount of CO2 exchanged naturally between the atmosphere and the ocean plus other natural sources and sinks. It is more probable that such a small ripple in the annual natural flow of CO2 would be caused by natural fluctuations of geophysical processes."
0.2% of all the CO2 being created and reabsorbed doesn't sound very significant to me!
Man-made GW is nothing more than a boogie-man created by environmentalists to in one fell swoop, provide a reason to slow or stop all development and moves to industrialization. Significant human caused GW is as proven as - the 15th century scientific concensus that - the Earth is Flat.
Keep in mind we already have the functional equivalent of "an invisible KU KLUX KLAN " in some of those extreme environmental groups. Some notable events have been car dealership, housing development torchings.
I can tell how sadly uninformed American are merely by seeing how some 40% don't even believe in evolution, a theory that has been proven overwhelmingly. The evidence is vast, skull-crushing, overpowering, total and indisputable. :P
it's sad really.
Detroit and the Big Three is the perfect model for the American mind now that I think about it.
Yup, got to love evolution and the UAW !!
Of course the management is firmly woven in that equation also.
Now I do not know if that is the good news or the bad news. Keep in mind (as if anyone on the planet hasn't heard) our new majority biggie government bought us those exact three white elephants or was that 15B a down payment? .
..."Detroit and the Big Three is the perfect model for the American mind now that I think about it. "...
Yup, got to love evolution and the UAW !!
Of course the management is firmly woven in that equation also.
Now I do not know if that is the good news or the bad news. Keep in mind (as if anyone on the planet hasn't heard) our new majority biggie government bought us those exact three white elephants or was that 15B a down payment? .
I do not doubt your sincerity, but the US has the intellectual, etc., etc., capacities to far exceed Europe and Asia. We have been doing it for 70 or so years. All that needs to be done is a "Kennedy like" throwing down the gauntlet (To moon in June or whatever blather it was at the time) by Obama..... burn H20 in the passenger vehicle car by 20XX !!!! Kennedy green lighted Vietnam and we all know how that turned out, so I hope Obama gets us out da middle east. Do get out da Europe while he is at it !!! Well don' forget Asia too.
I think part of the problem people have with grasping what GW really is about, is that the modern materialistic, post-industrial mind has a lot of trouble understanding how everything is in fact connected to everything else.
And really, a "weatherman" is hardly an expert on Global Warming. Once again, "weather is not climate".
And man did not descend from monkeys, no matter what the history of the British Automotive Industry. :P
AND they are requesting YOUR carbon credits,... even as we speak !!! :P
You don't think the creationists want to change the lifestyle of other people?
Not so much lifestyle as they would like you to believe as they do
Honestly? And for the money argument - creationists don't want our money? Really? You want to hang your hat on that?
Absolutely! I would not associate with any organization that imposes a monetary burden on me against my will. This is not like the US government that extracts money from my paycheck each month. There is a huge difference between voluntary giving and extorting money for some carbon credit scheme
The Earth was flat. The Sun rotated about the Earth which was the centre of all creation. To dispute the latter was heresy and people died for their beliefs. Creationists worry me, but so do all extremists.
The whole ACC scam is more of the same but played out by better publicists for global power, control and wealth. Truly the hardliners in this debate/scam are, at best, totally deluded and, at worst, totally immoral. The truth will out........but at what cost, I wonder ?
Maybe we are less biased, but we sure don't have much else going for us.
I'm not 100% convinced of anything. The issue is, since about 1990 we have politicians trying to pass Global mandates that will adversely affect our quality of life. Those Laws and proposed treaties (Kyoto) are based on a few findings and a lot of speculation. When scientist are told not to present findings that go contrary to the political winds, I get real skeptical. There is a lot of talk on how GW Bush has kept a lid on GW. Well it is not too difficult to find scientists that were told what to say during Bill Clinton's Presidency. Most of the UN hoopla over GW edicts is getting cash from the biggest producer of GHG. That would be US. Trouble is we ain't got any spare cash. We been borrowing from our children's piggy bank for the last 30 years.
If 2008 turns out to be the coldest year since good records were kept, It will completely shoot Man Made CC/GW out of the water.
link title
50 years from now when the strip Al Gore of his Nobel prize, posthumously, I hope it is not too traumatic on his grandchildren, freezing in their 11,000 square foot mansion in Tennessee with solar heat that is no longer working.
In fact after seeing heating oil at $4.50 earlier this year, the powerlines down for over a week in some areas here due to the Ice storm (might get hit again Sun. as high winds and snow bring down damaged trees), that if the EarF doesn't warm in the next few decades, and we don't get this miracle energy source, there will be a migration from the northern sections of this country and Canada.
The fact is that modern man is too populous, too spoiled, and too reliant on fossil fuels in these climates, to live in these areas if fossil fuels become scarce and/or expensive. You see it in the fact that many, many people move South once they retire and aren't tied to their job. The fact is that it is only cheap, plentiful fossil fuels that are keeping the areas north of the Mason Dixon line as populated as they are.
Maybe we'll also save many billions, keeping our costs lower and living standards higher. You do understand that to sequester CO2 underground is going to make power generation inefficient? For example you will need the equivalent of 5 power plants instead of 4, and the commensurate fuel consumption of 5 instead of 4 if we require underground CO2 sequestering. It will take huge amounts of energy to compress a gas like CO2 into a liquid and then pump that into shafts deep in the ground. And if you have to locate those power plants in areas where the rock is suited for CO2 storage, you may have to locate those power plants far from the users, thus increasing line-losses. Sequestering CO2 is far from free in either costs or extra fuel used!!
... and then Japan and Europe will develop all the "clean tech" that we will desperately need in a decade or two, and they will clean our clocks economically by selling it to us.
Let Japan and Europe spend billions on the R&D. The Chinese will buy some tech, or steal it, and produce the units much cheaper than Japan or Europe could produce it. If we spent the money on the R&D, we'd outsource the manufacture to the Chinese anyway. Same result, we save the $$. :P
It's pretty easy to claim.
Weather watch: a record year of extreme events
2008 Record Warm Year
"Climate change doesn't mean the end of cold weather. It means more extreme weather patterns and higher global average temperatures (temperatures from all locales taken over the course of an entire year and averaged will be higher than in the past)." SFGate
Your turn - where does it say that the only effects of global warming are just extremes in hot temps or drought or hurricanes?
So global warming doesn't mean weather, but on the other hand it means weather. I'd love to play the 3 card/cup monte with you.
Asking for such a thing would simply be a delay tactic.
I'd love a game of Monte with you but I've tested every hypothesis and I'm absolutely sure you don't exist.
That is the reason they changed the name of the cult from Global Warming to Climate Change. So they could blame every eventuality on George Bush. Katrina was his fault because he did not sign Kyoto. Big AL never mentions the fact than NONE of the signors have met the goals set out in the treaty. So now it is a new treaty. I think honest scientific study is great. The fact is when there is a consensus that has to be proven, honest scientific study goes out the window. Can you name ONE scientist that questions MM/GW that is on the payroll of any entity that believes MM/GW is a done deal? How many REAL scientists do you hear, that say Man Made Climate Change is a done deal. All I see are reports massaged by the UN, media and politicians that have an agenda.
Scientific reports are massaged, fortunately. I'd never be able to understand one if it wasn't watered down for me. But if you are a scientist, you can get your hands on the abstracts, data and full studies and review it all and run your own models. That's what it's all about isn't it?
Can you name ONE scientist that questions MM/GW that is on the payroll of any entity that believes MM/GW is a done deal?
Does NASA fit your MMGW criteria? ("A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming.") NASA
This prof is paid by the UofA I guess, but surely he gets grant money from NASA:
"For nearly 30 years, Professor (John) Christy has been in charge of NASA's eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily around the globe. In a paper co-written with Dr. Douglass, he concludes that while manmade emissions may be having a slight impact, "variations in global temperatures since 1978 ... cannot be attributed to carbon dioxide." anatreptic.com
Now, if you want to really stump me, ask me to find someone employed at, say, the Heritage Foundation who believes in MMGW. :shades: