Author Topic: Global Warming (Read 16692 times)

oboe · « **Reply #345 on:** February 11, 2007, 05:56:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mace2004
There are plenty that show that while they claim it's not "exact" that they consistently neglect to refer to their theories as theories. They consistently conflate local weather with global climate. They consistently ignore that the earth has been warming since the end of the little ice age. They consistently ignore that the current warming is totally consistent in both time and intensity as previous global warming. They claim a large number of hurricanes is positive proof of global warming one year and then totally ignore the near abscence of hurricanes the next year. They claim that melting ice in a small percentage of Antarctica is proof positive of global warming yet ignore the fact that the rest of the continent has experienced far above average snowfall and increasing ice pack. Are you saying you've never seen or heard these outlandish claims? Based on this we're supposed to completely rewicker the way the world's economy runs? Talk about "disengaged brains" indeed.

Find me a link where a credible scientist states that says a large number of hurricanes is proof positive of global warming. You can't do it. Because no credible scientist has made such a claim.

I'm not talking here about the pros and cons of the global warming debate as much as I am of the cheap way you guys put easily discreditable words into your opposition's mouths so you can make your claims seem reasonable and theirs ridiculous. It's a practice beneath dignified discussion and argument but it happens here quite often. The conclusion I draw is that you guys do not believe your case can stand on its own merits, so you resort to trickery and deception to make your point.

john9001 · « **Reply #346 on:** February 11, 2007, 06:08:09 PM »

yeah guys, lets have a dignified discussion

Jackal1 · « **Reply #347 on:** February 11, 2007, 06:29:56 PM »

Mace2004 · « **Reply #348 on:** February 11, 2007, 06:34:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by oboe
Find me a link where a credible scientist states that says a large number of hurricanes is proof positive of global warming. You can't do it. Because no credible scientist has made such a claim.

I'm not talking here about the pros and cons of the global warming debate as much as I am of the cheap way you guys put easily discreditable words into your opposition's mouths so you can make your claims seem reasonable and theirs ridiculous. It's a practice beneath dignified discussion and argument but it happens here quite often. The conclusion I draw is that you guys do not believe your case can stand on its own merits, so you resort to trickery and deception to make your point.

Cheap? All you have to do is turn on the TV or read the news and you receive a constant stream of globalwarming claptrap with absolutely no shortage of "experts" proclaiming the coming end of civilization as we know it. I did not mention specific "scientists" that make specific claims, I'm talking about the constant drumbeat of propaganda.

You evidently do not know it but the argument about global warming and man's role in it is a political, not scientific one, and it is at it's very heart dishonest because it's dressed up as scientific fact. It's not whether or not an "expert" is credible it's whether or not those with essentially political agendas present him that way. The words that you hear on a daily basis are the ones being used to sway public opinion and are dressed as scientific fact, you cannot dispute this.

Maybe you should consider that if their claims seem ridiculous it may very well be because they are. Pointing out the countervailing evidence and lack of credibility in the globalwarmist position is hardly trickery, it is merely pointing out the deceipt in portraying what is AT BEST a THEORY as fact and that, my friend, is my point.

oboe · « **Reply #349 on:** February 11, 2007, 07:42:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mace2004
Maybe you should consider that if their claims seem ridiculous...

There you go again. You've already twisted my words. I never said anyone's actual claims were ridiculous. I suggested YOU manufacture ridiculous claims (for example, that a severe hurricane season is proof positive of global warming) and attribute them to your opposition in order to make your claims reasonable and believeable by comparison. In truth, no such claim was ever made by a credible scientst. And that is why you cannot find a link to one.

You know, maybe it is not deceit on your part. It could be that your mind works in such a way that when a scientist says something along the lines of, "We think a severe hurricane season is consistent with our climate model of global warming...", you hear a scientist saying, "A severe hurricane season is proof positive of global warming."

I don't know why that would be, but I'll reiterate my contention that you will not be able to find a single link to any credible study that makes the claims you say scientists are making. And if that's the case, who is the one actually spreading the propaganda?

Maybe we could start by agreeing that global warming is indeed a fact, and that any theory in question deals with whether or not man's activities are a significant driver of the effect?

Just to be clear, I am not beside myself with fear about global warming. Whatever happens will happen, and it probably won't affect me in my lifetime. I am not 100% convinced man is responsible for this episode of warming. I'm taking my time in following the debate and reaching my conclusions.

Mace2004 · « **Reply #350 on:** February 11, 2007, 09:59:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by oboe
There you go again. You've already twisted my words. I never said anyone's actual claims were ridiculous. I suggested YOU manufacture ridiculous claims (for example, that a severe hurricane season is proof positive of global warming) and attribute them to your opposition in order to make your claims reasonable and believeable by comparison. In truth, no such claim was ever made by a credible scientst. And that is why you cannot find a link to one.

You know, maybe it is not deceit on your part. It could be that your mind works in such a way that when a scientist says something along the lines of, "We think a severe hurricane season is consistent with our climate model of global warming...", you hear a scientist saying, "A severe hurricane season is proof positive of global warming."

I don't know why that would be, but I'll reiterate my contention that you will not be able to find a single link to any credible study that makes the claims you say scientists are making. And if that's the case, who is the one actually spreading the propaganda?

Maybe we could start by agreeing that global warming is indeed a fact, and that any theory in question deals with whether or not man's activities are a significant driver of the effect?

Just to be clear, I am not beside myself with fear about global warming. Whatever happens will happen, and it probably won't affect me in my lifetime. I am not 100% convinced man is responsible for this episode of warming. I'm taking my time in following the debate and reaching my conclusions.

Look oboe, you're the one that's twisting words. I never claimed to be talking about the words of "a credible scientist" nor was my contention remotely related to a specific scientist so it is pointless to provide the link for a point I wasn't making. I was clear at the beginning and have always been talking about the global warming movement and the propaganda that it's using. If you do not know what I'm talking about you don't read the press, watch TV or go to the movies.

It is intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer that a propaganda campaign is in full swing. If not, then explain why there have been numerous scientists who believed it necessary to REFUTE the claims including Dr William Gray of the Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University, probably the most noted hurricane specialist in the US. If you lived in Florida, you'd recognize him as the most accurate predictor of hurricane activity in the US. If there has not been an overwhelming amount of propaganda purporting to "prove" that global warming causes hurricanes then why did Gray and many, many others have to come out to REFUTE it? Here's another example. Please note the Headline "Hurricanes Growing Fiercer With Global Warming" while Emanuel, the scientist mentioned, uses words such as "may lead" and "suggest". The headline certainly does not imply any ambiguity now does it? Also, Emanuel's work has been similarly summarized in numerous other reports. The headline is a clear indicator of what the writer believed the story was about, or, maybe just what he wanted his readers to believe. And this is MIT for christ's sake.

I'll repeat one more time, I'm not and have never talked about what a specific scientist said. I'm talking about the political objectives of the propaganda machine such as this tripe that makes these ridiculous claims.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #351 on:** February 12, 2007, 06:26:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mace2004
I'm talking about the political objectives of the propaganda machine such as this tripe that makes these ridiculous claims.

Ross Gelbspan is author of ''The Heat Is On" and ''Boiling Point."

Hehe. A real mystery there huh?
Click to buy..........................

A retired journalist cashing in on his experience with sensationalism.

lazs2 · « **Reply #352 on:** February 12, 2007, 08:39:16 AM »

so oboe... you are saying that all the climate scientists who are telling us how we are destroying the globe and what will happen in 100 years...

You are saying that they can't even tell us what next years hurricane season will be like? Not even close?

You seem to be wanting to have it both ways... they say that increased hurricane activity is consistent with their model... Is decreased activity? They never give any facts sooooo... How can they be wrong? they use words like "contribute" and "major" and "massive" (if the others didn't cause enough panic)

And they call themselves scientists? They are politicians and they are frigging guessing.. They don't have a clue but they want to take credit for no matter which way the wind blows.

If it is cooler next year or the year after than last... will you admit that we can't be causing anything?

lazs

Eagler · « **Reply #353 on:** February 12, 2007, 09:08:05 AM »

oboe · « **Reply #354 on:** February 12, 2007, 09:47:39 AM »

Mace,

We were talking about scientists when you said this:

Quote

They consistently conflate local weather with global climate. They consistently ignore that the earth has been warming since the end of the little ice age. They consistently ignore that the current warming is totally consistent in both time and intensity as previous global warming. They claim a large number of hurricanes is positive proof of global warming one year and then totally ignore the near abscence of hurricanes the next year. They claim that melting ice in a small percentage of Antarctica is proof positive of global warming yet ignore the fact that the rest of the continent has experienced far above average snowfall and increasing ice pack. Are you saying you've never seen or heard these outlandish claims?

If you want to clarify that who you mean by "they" is actually the media, then yes, I agree- its in the media's nature to magnify and distort to sell papers.

You say things that are disturbing and misleading however - fior example, in your last post, you state:

Quote

If there has not been an overwhelming amount of propaganda purporting to "prove" that global warming causes hurricanes then why did Gray and many, many others have to come out to REFUTE it?

Hurricanes occur apart from global warming. They are part of the planet's natural heat distribution system. I have heard the claim the global warming raises the ocean's temperature, and warmer water can lead to stronger hurricanes. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. And that does not imply that every year must have more numerous and stronger hurricanes. That might be reasonably expected all other things being equal, but I bet there are many more factors that figure in to the severity of a hurricane season than just water temperature. So scientists claim global warming can produce stronger hurricanes, but YOU say they claim global warming CAUSES hurricanes. Do you see the difference?

Maybe you are confusing science with the media's sensationalizing of it. The first line of the linked hurricane story says:

Quote

Hurricanes have grown significantly more powerful and destructive over the last three decades due in part to global warming...

It doesn't even fully implicate global warming - you just have to read beyond the headline. btw, if you have a link to Gray's study I'd like to look it over.

Yes, laz, I am saying that I don't think scientists can accurately forecast the severity of a hurricane season. They can make predictions (and I hope they do) and then study the results and hopefully improve their predicitve models, but no, I don't demand 100% accuracy in weather and/or climate prediction.

Probably, their model says we can expect both more variability and severity in weather events, and yes, that seems like "having it both ways". That is something that bothers me about their claims. It makes it very difficult to know if they are correct or not.

I'm not admitting anything on the basis of the next few years of weather experience. That would be a pretty foolish thing to do. Further, I'm not making any absolute assertions about global warming. I'm just following the debate and observing weather patterns and events. I'm not ready to close my mind about it yet.

oboe · « **Reply #355 on:** February 12, 2007, 10:40:50 AM »

Eagler,

Nice picture of the snow in upstate New York. Yes, they are getting dumped on. Here's a quote from a news story about the snowfall:

Quote

Residents of this hardy upstate New York village seem unfazed. Redfield, whose economy thrives on snowmobilers and cross-country skiers, receives an annual average of 270 inches _ more than 22 feet.

"It's snow. We get a lot of it. So what?" said Allan Babcock, a lifelong resident who owns Shar's Country Diner, a popular eatery in this village of 650 people.

What point are you trying to make?

Eagler · « **Reply #356 on:** February 12, 2007, 11:13:14 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by oboe
What point are you trying to make?

that "global warming" is a load of crap

Debonair · « **Reply #357 on:** February 12, 2007, 11:46:52 AM »

confucious say "either global warming is load of crap or load of crap is globally warming"

john9001 · « **Reply #358 on:** February 12, 2007, 12:03:10 PM »

satellite scans show the Atlantic ocean was cooler in 06 than in 05

must be from all melting ice caps.

Debonair · « **Reply #359 on:** February 12, 2007, 12:19:44 PM »

kewl, evary1 in new england can keep their beer in teh ocean