Global Warming...not!

[indy007]

Originally posted by Nash
Have scientists formed some kind of political block that I'm unaware of?

They're converging upon a consensus, no?

It can be argued very successfully that the environmentalist movement was hijacked for anti-capitalism and anti-globalization ideals.

Go to a protest or rally, walk around and ask questions. Make sure you're armed with statistics and alittle bit of a clue. Very, very few actually know anything about what they're protesting. Count how many times you hear "the corporations". Bring a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide and see how many people you can get to sign it. Talk to the local head of say.. The Rainforest Action Network.. see how much they actually know about logging. Always ask for specific numbers. When they start stammering and hit you with 7 "ya know" in a row (followed by "evil corporations"), then they don't, move on to the next.

This is one of those things that if you don't believe, you really need to go see for yourself.

[Ghosth]

There is no hard core scientific proof for global warming.

What data exists is either taken out of context, warped, twisted, or out & out fabricated. There is no repeatable, scientific method reproducable proof.

So what you are left with is a HUGE mass of opinion.


We won't let people take drugs that have not been proven safe.
Scientific double blind studys. Processes that weed out opinion, personal bias & give hard core scientific data. Yet we have seen NOTHING like this applied to the Global Warming issue.

Why? Because they know it would fail. They already know global warming is a pile of BS.


Its a non issue.

Like your car & Aair Conditioning refridgerant causing the hole in the ozone. So we'll get everyone to switch to a better one.
Emm folks, one "minor" burp from any volcano in the world destroys more ozone than all the freon ever made. True, proveable fact.
But it made money for the right people in the know.
Pumped a LOT of training dollars, conversion dollars etc into the economy.


But this time its the WORLD they are messing with.

Just say no to global warming.

[straffo]

Originally posted by indy007
It can be argued very successfully that the environmentalist movement was hijacked for anti-capitalism and anti-globalization ideals.

Go to a protest or rally, walk around and ask questions. Make sure you're armed with statistics and alittle bit of a clue. Very, very few actually know anything about what they're protesting. Count how many times you hear "the corporations". Bring a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide and see how many people you can get to sign it. Talk to the local head of say.. The Rainforest Action Network.. see how much they actually know about logging. Always ask for specific numbers. When they start stammering and hit you with 7 "ya know" in a row (followed by "evil corporations"), then they don't, move on to the next.

This is one of those things that if you don't believe, you really need to go see for yourself.

Except the failure of your education system I don't see what else it will show.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Ghosth
There is no hard core scientific proof for global warming.

What data exists is either taken out of context, warped, twisted, or out & out fabricated. There is no repeatable, scientific method reproducable proof.

So what you are left with is a HUGE mass of opinion.


We won't let people take drugs that have not been proven safe.
Scientific double blind studys. Processes that weed out opinion, personal bias & give hard core scientific data. Yet we have seen NOTHING like this applied to the Global Warming issue.

Why? Because they know it would fail. They already know global warming is a pile of BS.


Its a non issue.

Like your car & Aair Conditioning refridgerant causing the hole in the ozone. So we'll get everyone to switch to a better one.
Emm folks, one "minor" burp from any volcano in the world destroys more ozone than all the freon ever made. True, proveable fact.
But it made money for the right people in the know.
Pumped a LOT of training dollars, conversion dollars etc into the economy.


But this time its the WORLD they are messing with.

Just say no to global warming.

Actually I think global warming is pretty much a fact.
But thats not the real issue.
 The real issue is how much of it is part of a natural recurring cycle and if and if so how much mans activities are responcable for it.

The Earth is a self correcting system.

Think of it like The USA. The country tends to go from one side to the other and back again.
For 8 years the country headed socially left, having gotten too liberal, the country is spending another 8 years socially heading right.
Next election having gotten to conservative it will in all probability head left again

Dispite the howls from one side or the other. this is a good thing. Maintains balance.

Same thing with the earth. It would abe a very bad thing should it continue forever to head in one direction or the other

[indy007]

Originally posted by straffo
Except the failure of your education system I don't see what else it will show.

It'll teach you how to manipulate public opinion and secure funding for studies that will later be disproven. I mean, it's not like we haven't already been through other wonderful junk science like the Dioxin scare, cell phone brain cancer, power line cancer, chemical pesticides disrupting hormonal processess, the EPA's secret soot science (as in, refusal to disclose public funded scientific data used to pass a $10/bil annual law), obesity statistics adjusted down 93% by the CDC, chips causing cancer (would take 62.5 lbs of per day for life), and weren't we supposed to be in an ice age by now? It's not like wonderful environmental scientists like Jim Hansen have a track record of being wrong... his 1990s estimate of warming was only off 200%.

...and all this comes from our educated elite? Your right. Our education system is a failure.

edit: The chip scare came from Sweden. Cost a few million, was disproved for a few thousand. Not our idiots this time!

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Nash
I wasn't really asking about Kyoto.

I was asking about what you answered here:

Great.

Have scientists formed some kind of political block that I'm unaware of?

They're converging upon a consensus, no?

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Scientific fact is not decided upon by election.

Climate is dependant on many things.  CO2, continental shift, orbital pertubations, wobbles of our spin axis, solar activity, etc.

It is a strong theory that the rise of the Panama isthumus changed ocean currents and caused the desertification of northern Africa.

We have 100,000 years of climate data from Greenland Ice cores that show Earth's climate has not been very stable at all.  The climate actually has been unusually stable during the development of civilization.

At the end of the ice age of 12,000 years ago the climate dramatically warmed then went back into another cold spell for 1,000 years.  At the end of this 1,000 year period, known as the Younger Dryas, the temperature rose sharply, as much as 7 degrees in only 20 years.

7 degrees in 20 years without man's interference.

It seems reasonable to be unsure of models which confidently show anywhere from 0.5 to 10 degrees in the next century: A potential swing much slower than a natural swing just 12 millenia ago, and blame this much less dramatic swing on anthropogenic reasons.

[NattyIced]

I wish this kind of information were discussed when talking about global warming, then maybe not so many people would associate and react to global warming being caused by man. Then an intelligent thought process could be developed rather than reactionary comments and quips.

Such as we know global warming happens, as does global cooling. Even areas of the globe have changed from hospitable to dry and arrid, or frozen over the course of our known history. One day the climate will dramatically shift again, and we may be at the apex of it, or closer to the end or beginning of it. We don't know, and it seems that, regardless of that limitation, we presume we have an effect on the climate and that the climate would be stable without us.

We may have an effect, either through slowing down the earth's global climate changes or speeding up. We don't know either way, and we will never find out until reactionary garbage, politics, and clamoring for fame/funds gets removed from the equation.

Global warming is real. How much we factor into it, if at all, that's the mystery.

[Dowding]

Only one exception needs to be shown by experiment before the inverse square law of gravitational attraction is discarded.

Holden, you wrote the above did you not? Given that Einstein proved Newtonian physics breaks down in relativistic circumstances, you must agree that Newtonian physics is rendered useless based on your above contention?

Clearly it is not. On the macro-world level and at earthly speeds it holds up pretty well and is still extensively applied. Your contention is unfounded. QED.

That general relativity found that Newtons gravity theory needed tweaking for the circumstances that relativity considers is one of the great leaps of science.[/b]

Patently untrue. Newtonian physics cannot be 'tweaked' to explain relativistic phenomena. In falls down and is incapable of providing any understanding.

Seems to me you were saying that as soon as a theory is disproved in a singular instance, it is thrown away. I have demonstrated that is not the case.

In the Newton - Einstein example consensus lost to an idea of a single individual.

So you agree science involves consensus. Seems to me Global Warming is happening, but a consensus is still in development as to the reasons why.

[Dowding]

Sabre - just looking around the links within your new source, you find this sentence:

"The year 2005 was the second warmest on record, exceeded by 1998. This time series is being compiled jointly by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Met. Office Hadley Centre."[/b]



1998 was El Nino, by the way, and is thought to explain that particular high. This is quickly followed by:
 
"Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activities are most likely the underlying cause of warming in the 20th century."[/b]

The CRU is the underpinning source for your article and your opinion, but they seem to be taking the opposite position...

Now I don't know if they are right, but let's assume they understand their own data. Why would they so explicitly compromise their scientific objectivity and so readily jump on the 'fossil fuel' band wagon, as you would probably call it? Surely it would have been less hassle to just present the data. Failing that, they didn't even think to include a contrasting statement, a 'OTOH' alternative.

[lazs2]

wow dowding... we are talking allmost a degree in 100 years!!!   I didn't even know they were that accurate in the 1800's..

the scale would look even more dramatic if you made it in thousandths of a degree.....

can yu just see someone in 1800's looking at a thermometer and saying "yep 57.678 degrees today... "

lazs

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Dowding
Holden, you wrote the above did you not? Given that Einstein proved Newtonian physics breaks down in relativistic circumstances, you must agree that Newtonian physics is rendered useless based on your above contention?

Clearly it is not. On the macro-world level and at earthly speeds it holds up pretty well and is still extensively applied. Your contention is unfounded. QED.



Patently untrue. Newtonian physics cannot be 'tweaked' to explain relativistic phenomena. In falls down and is incapable of providing any understanding.

Seems to me you were saying that as soon as a theory is disproved in a singular instance, it is thrown away. I have demonstrated that is not the case.

So you agree science involves consensus. Seems to me Global Warming is happening, but a consensus is still in development as to the reasons why.

You have read many things into my statements that I did not write.  Newton's theory of gravitation is still useful as an approximation, but is only as an approximation.  

Einstein's theory of gravitation is better, and was proven so in 1919 when observations of Mercury showed that gravitational lensing occured.

There are consensuses (consensii?) in the scientific community but any consensus is meaningless if one person can show it to be wrong.  If consensus was the end all, we would still have a pre-Copernican theory of plantary movement.

[Mustaine]

Originally posted by lazs2
wow dowding... we are talking allmost a degree in 100 years!!!   I didn't even know they were that accurate in the 1800's..

the scale would look even more dramatic if you made it in thousandths of a degree.....

can yu just see someone in 1800's looking at a thermometer and saying "yep 57.678 degrees today... "

lazs

Lazs made a funnay

[straffo]

You don't need any need proof of global warming existence or not

As the cure is to use more efficiently the ressources and so making economy it's just an evidence to make sure to not waste ressources .

The problem with the USA as today is not the fact the American use energy ,lot of people in other country (like India or China)  would kill to have access to the American way of life.

But more actual the inefficiency and waste of ressources of this way of life.

When you use your car to do less than a mile to go to Wallmart with a gazoline sucker it's so plain wrong at so many level that I can describe how it's wrong !

I know it's caricatural and full of cliché

[straffo]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You have read many things into my statements that I did not write.  Newton's theory of gravitation is still useful as an approximation, but is only as an approximation.  

Einstein's theory of gravitation is better, and was proven so in 1919 when observations of Mercury showed that gravitational lensing occured.

There are consensuses (consensii?) in the scientific community but any consensus is meaningless if one person can show it to be wrong.  If consensus was the end all, we would still have a pre-Copernican theory of plantary movement.

It depend,if the discrepancy is inside the average measurement error it's usable practicly.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by straffo
You don't need any need proof of global warming existence or not

As the cure is to use more efficiently the ressources and so making economy it's just an evidence to make sure to not waste ressources .

"Doctor! Doctor! Don't you want to x-ray my leg to see if its broken?"

"I don't need to do that, we all know that the cure for a broken leg is to put in in a cast.  Let's wrap you up!"

"But what if it's not broken?"

"You want to take that chance?"

>and it must have been the observation of stars during the eclipse, I'm sure they didn't have the good luck to have Mercury popping out during the few minutes available...