Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[CAP1]

Not really, the first part of my post was about the lifetime of a star.

Number two, you misread it, I said that we have seen 200 years of warming, and 10 of cooling, which is the anomaly of which?  If the past is any indication of the future, we will see more warming.

Number three, my quoting a dictionary was in response to an attack on semantics.

Number four, the last part of my post was a question.

How does that reinforce your point, exactly?

-Penguin

so......warming causes ice to form now?

[Angus]

Where is it forming exactly?

[MORAY37]

Penguin,
Moray is promoting exactly what Singer said is the issue with science.  Procession with a show of hands.

The data does not show anything to prove or even support man made global warming theories.  All it is, is a show of hands amongst alarmists, politicians, and businessmen hoping to make a statement, get reelected, or make a buck.  The CRU's cooking of data and many governments turning a blind eye to that fact should be raising warnings to anyone with common sense.

WRONG.

ON ALL COUNTS.

[MORAY37]

so, you do realize that you are simply reinforcing mine, and others arguments, right?

 

"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
    
               William G. McAdoo (1863 - 1941)


"I have found you an argument; I am not obliged to find you an understanding."
                    James Boswell (1740 - 1795)


Both of which are extremely fitting.

[Penguin]

Here here!

-Penguin

[Tango]

"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
    
               William G. McAdoo (1863 - 1941)

So we will never defeat the people that keep screaming about Global Warming? 

[Sonicblu]

ah you missed the point completely.......

•S: (n) theory (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena) "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

It says "WELL SUBSTANTIATED"  and you proved my point we are in violent agreement. On the definition.  MY point was if you cant test the hypotheses how can it be a theory?

this is what you posted

A theory is most certainly not a hypothesis, do your research on the scientific method;

That is exactly my point.

My claim is that you cant test it cause you were not there billions of years ago or 13,000 years ago. And you cant duplicate it. So it cant be a scientific therory yet. IT is still a hypothsis.

The problem is you are quoteing what you claim to be facts to support your argement. And you are trying to tell me they are scientific fact.
Just because some books says so where is the testing data? Show me #3 the experiment to prove your hypothosis.

Look at what I said. I will say it another way.

number #4 your conclusion is only valid if it follows from the problem. But that doesnt make it sound logic or a sound theory if you havent proven number #1. which is " the problem".

You want to believe it is true, but is it? Notice I didnt say it was wrong or right. I just am asking if it is true and how you know that it is true?

It is called intuitve arguement I know from what we can test that, no one could possibly test that. Angus said the same thing.

Anaxo, how can we know those stars behave this way, like expanding and popping or whatever, we have only been watching them for a very short time, and can draw no conclusion for the next million years when we have more data...

You take my post to mean you are wrong on Global warming. I never said that. I am saying you can't prove the evidence you are giving in those quotes.

Again it goes like this.

Problem = global warming

then you give = hypothosis

then you call the hypothosis true or scientific theory,  trying to force the problem to be true.  My point was to just prove this part of your arguement invalid. It does not at this point prove that the problem is wrong. It does beg the question if that is your best "evidence or argument"

and it is not semantics. It is the difference between truth and false, and that is a big difference.


 

[Strip]

Simple minds trying to comprehend and discuss complex data makes for entertaining reading......moving on.

Moray,
You may be a smart scientist/biologist but you reek of the party line mentality. You bypass a lot of very valid points in an attempt to prove your point. The reality is on most of this your trying to prove a point someone else is making. Therefor you are subject to their misguidance and inaccuracies if any are present unless you verify 100% of the data.

Whats your comment on the selectivity of many of the popular studies used to farther global warming? Is any thought given to the fact that we are coming out of an iceage only a few thousand years ago? That in itself should prove there have been massive changes in the Earths global climate. 10,000 years ago New York state, actually the Great Lakes area was under thousands of feet of glacial ice. The Great Lakes were formed from this ice, some of the Sahara was thought to have green forest not a few ten thousand years ago! Climate change is as common as the sun setting.....

Is there any data that takes data from mainly rural areas with out selectively cherry picking data? Every study I have seen mainly takes data from urban/warm climate settings.

Can you deny that a few very renown studies have been show to have biased data? Can you also say with 100% certainty that more studies are not the same?

Strip

[MORAY37]

So we will never defeat the people that keep screaming about Global Warming?  

Would it matter to defeat them, and then be proven wrong yourself?

To frame a debate such as this with winners and losers is idiotic.  No matter who is right, we all know that this species is affecting the planet. We need to become much better stewards to the ball of dust we sprung up on, no matter what.  

If you need a single example of sapiens having an effect upon the planet, look no farther than the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

[Sonicblu]

Our best evidence for this conclusion is other stars that have used up all of their H2 and expanded into red giants.  Unless you're going to claim that our Sun is as special star, we can expect it to behave in a similar way. (edit: obviously, someone exaggerated when they said that our sun is going to blow up, but that's not the point)

Srry my mistake i got a little sloppy. How do you know " a few billion years".  and I know what the forensic evidence is. Im just saying you cant test it to make it a quotable fact. We can on faith only guess that our sun will do what we have seen, How many other stars blow up? We darn sure don't know what caused it because you can't test it yet.  There is a difference in seeing a spectrograph and being to test that data to make it scientific theory.

It's not difficult to find evidence of water in places that no longer have any.

You have some misconceptions here, and I think they're due to a philosophical confusion about the nature of Empiricism, rather than a misunderstanding of what counts as physical evidence.

Maybe i am missing something. Please let me know.

You can gather forensic evidence about what did happen but non of us were there. So therefore if non of us where there we didnt empirically see it taste it touch it hear it or smell it.

If we could test the forensic evidence today with empirical tests. We could then state a scientific theory.  I never said there wasnt water there.

I saying you dont know why, because you cant test it. Therefore if you dont know why you cant use it as part of your arguement for today.

Show me #3 in the flow chart so I can believe it. If you cant show number #3 then it isnt a "fact" yet. but only a guess at how it happened. I agree we can see now that there was water now there isnt. We just dont know the how or why yet.

[Angus]

So we will never defeat the people that keep screaming about Global Warming? 

No. Neither the ones (like me) who in their evil and  egoistic minds, simply purr with pleasure, since my environment turns from unpleasantly cold to comfortable, and it is happening within my lifespan, not hundreds of years. Neither with the oil companies, who seek new gounds to drill where (cough) the Ice before made drilling impossible  

Anyway, I still call upon anyone here to claim that the surface of the planet, it's vegetation, and the components of the atmosphere have no impact on temperature

I think I shall have no name.

[MORAY37]

Simple minds trying to comprehend and discuss complex data makes for entertaining reading......moving on.

Moray,
You may be a smart scientist/biologist but you reek of the party line mentality. You bypass a lot of very valid points in an attempt to prove your point. The reality is on most of this your trying to prove a point someone else is making. Therefor you are subject to their misguidance and inaccuracies if any are present unless you verify 100% of the data.

Whats your comment on the selectivity of many of the popular studies used to farther global warming? Is any thought given to the fact that we are coming out of an iceage only a few thousand years ago? That in itself should prove there have been massive changes in the Earths global climate. 10,000 years ago New York state, actually the Great Lakes area was under thousands of feet of glacial ice. The Great Lakes were formed from this ice, some of the Sahara was thought to have green forest not a few ten thousand years ago! Climate change is as common as the sun setting.....

Is there any data that takes data from mainly rural areas with out selectively cherry picking data? Every study I have seen mainly takes data from urban/warm climate settings.

Can you deny that a few very renown studies have been show to have biased data? Can you also say with 100% certainty that more studies are not the same?

Strip

Strip,

I honestly don't expect a single mind to change here.  There are few on this bbs actually approaching this with any critical thinking whatsoever. I simply continue to put up real studies with real data.  It has become a bit of entertainment, for me.

I also know that many of the attacks upon the data presented in some of these contrarian circles are superfluous at best.  Most of these attacks originated from those who stand to gain the most from marginalizing the study, and they do so in ways that the general public might feel are legitimate, who have no understanding of the statistics that goes into it.  Many of them, like many on this board, have no understanding exactly what "they" say is wrong with the data, only that the conclusion reached is the one that they already support, IE the refutation of Global Climate Change.  On the other hand, I don't have access to their data, and cannot fully refute what has been said as being untrue.  

Strip, using previous climate shifts as a springboard against human induced climate shift is dangerous to your argument.  The danger there is that the previous shifts ARE UNDERSTOOD AND DOCUMENTED.  We have a forcing mechanism for each.  Be it orbital mechanics, or strikes from planetoids...etc.  They've been trying to document a true forcing agent for 30 years now, other than CO₂ .

So, while the US and the UK had a cold first half of the winter..... the Arctic has had another exceedingly warm one, and the Southern Hemisphere is baking through another brutal summer.  But, considering those two countries control the world at this moment, the real science will be shelved because it was cold until January, at least by the general public.

Add to all this, a sun that was in an extended minimal state for the past 2 years..... and is waking up rather quickly, surpassing cycle 24 flux records daily.....

To answer your last question, I can say with 1000% certainty that scientists don't agree on anything until the weight of the data becomes overwhelming.  If there was a serious study to refute the current thinking, every single one of the people I know would jump on it without pause.... it would make them the one "who stood up and proved it wrong".  You can't force these kinds of people with money or power, we just don't care about either.  Science is what we love..... a scientific truth is beauty incarnate.  Most of us are barely middle class in your societies, and make a lot less than you think, after spending a lot more than you dreamed on education.  Most of us just don't care about accumulating wealth or power. Accumulating a solid body of work is important.

[Flipperk]

Im surprised that this thread has not been locked due to politics

[Anaxogoras]

Our best evidence for this conclusion is other stars that have used up all of their H2 and expanded into red giants.  Unless you're going to claim that our Sun is as special star, we can expect it to behave in a similar way. (edit: obviously, someone exaggerated when they said that our sun is going to blow up, but that's not the point)

Srry my mistake i got a little sloppy. How do you know " a few billion years".  and I know what the forensic evidence is. Im just saying you cant test it to make it a quotable fact. We can on faith only guess that our sun will do what we have seen, How many other stars blow up? We darn sure don't know what caused it because you can't test it yet.  There is a difference in seeing a spectrograph and being to test that data to make it scientific theory.

Sonicblu, you are an inductive skeptic.  Your objection is philosophical, not empirical.

Take a philosophy course that includes David Hume and report back here after you've learned the real deal.

[CAP1]

Where is it forming exactly?

well, from 1945 on it was(still is?) forming in greenland. at least the portion where the lost squadron landed.
http://b-29s-over-korea.com/lost_squadron/lost_squadron.html

 i'm sure, that as it formed in that area, that it was receding in another area(s).