To Climate Change Deniers...wtf?

[SlithVampir]

To this point, every respected scientist, the majority of politicians, and a former vice president, have accepted that climate change is happening, and that it's our fault. That is why it is incredibly annoying when I hear people saying that it is the leftist agenda trying to fear-monger their way into making you get a car that you cant fit a beluga whale into. Those irritating people, watch, as I refute all of your arguments one by one. To preface, all of my info is straight outta the 6/19/07 issue ofNewScientist. And before you throw a bazillion links at me, I said RESPECTED SCIENTISTS!

1) It's been far warmer in Earth's history, so .... no problem? WRONG! About 55 million years ago, the Earth did warm up about 5-8Degs, enough to flood EVREY COSTAL CITY IN THE WORLD. So yes problem. Also I wonder why those temps occur about the same times as mass extinctions.

2) Human CO2 emissions pail in comparison to natural sources(volcanoes, forest fires,etc.) . True, but completely irrelevant. Then why have CO2 levels remained about the same throughout most of history? I know, this is because natural emissions are balanced by natural sinks, trees and such. Either way, have any of you seen volcanoes erupting everywhere?

3) It's Cosmic rays' fault. WOW. Im sorry, but if levels of cosmic rays had risen at all, we'd all be dead. (If you have never heard this argument from a denier, It would be because it's pretty far-fetched)

4) It's pretty cold where I live, a little warming would be nice! Just shut up, you are embarrassing yourself.

There are a couple more, but they sound so incredibly stupid, I wont waste my time. But If you want to use them, feel free to humiliate yourself.

[Proteas]

At 6/3/07 05:19 PM, SlithVampir wrote: 1) It's been far warmer in Earth's history, so .... no problem? WRONG! About 55 million years ago, the Earth did warm up about 5-8Degs, enough to flood EVREY COSTAL CITY IN THE WORLD. So yes problem. Also I wonder why those temps occur about the same times as mass extinctions.

I'm sure that was very damaging to all those innocent people living in coastal cities at the time. They were so poor... and so...

I'm sorry, I'm not going there. ;-D

2) Human CO2 emissions pail in comparison to natural sources(volcanoes, forest fires,etc.) . True, but completely irrelevant.

No, it's irrelevant when you're trying to put the blame of global warming squarely on the shoulders of the human race. Either we're causing it, or our CO2 emissions are so small as to be negligible. Make up your mind.

And pardon me if I sound ignorant, but when you fill up a baloon full of your own breath, doesn't it sink to the ground because the C02 in the baloon is heavier than the air around it? How then would CO2 emissions float up to the sky and fuck up our atmosphere on such a grand scale that people are claiming it to be?

3) It's Cosmic rays' fault. WOW. Im sorry, but if levels of cosmic rays had risen at all, we'd all be dead. (If you have never heard this argument from a denier, It would be because it's pretty far-fetched)

Not when you stop to consider that the whole in the ozone layer isn't getting any smaller...

4) It's pretty cold where I live, a little warming would be nice! Just shut up, you are embarrassing yourself.

And?

There are a couple more, but they sound so incredibly stupid, I wont waste my time. But If you want to use them, feel free to humiliate yourself.

If you're not going to bother to discredit ALL of the theories put forth by global climate change deniers, why the hell did you bother to post?

[SlithVampir]

If climate change isn't squarely on the shoulders of the human race, than why have Co2 levels stayed almost the same for the last 200 million years, and began to rise in the last 50? Like I said, natural sinks.
BTW, those other arguments put forth were about on the level of the ailens building the pyramids, so I chose not to spend 15 minutes typing them all out.

In response to the baloon sinking, I have no Idea, but there was always some in the atmosphere, ask any weather balloon, I think it has something to do with mixing of the air.

[Proteas]

At 6/3/07 05:42 PM, SlithVampir wrote: Like I said, natural sinks.

During your long and ardous studies of climate change, did you ever happen upon that little study that showed the world goes through a natural cycle of warming and cooling roughly every 30 years in spite of the CO2? Did it ever once pop into your research that 30 years ago the issue on every Scientist's mind was global cooling and how we were all going to freeze to death?

In response to the baloon sinking, I have no Idea, but there was always some in the atmosphere, ask any weather balloon, I think it has something to do with mixing of the air.

No, it doesn't. CO2 = heavier than air, so there is no reason for it to hang IN the air fucking up anything.

Face it dude, you've got nothing.

[Ravariel]

CO2 Methane and other greenhouse gasses make up less than 10% of the total greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, and Human activity accounts for less than 10% of that number.

The other 90+% of greenhouse gas is Water Vapor. And yes, we have an effect on that, too. However, a molecula of Water Vapor at 10km above the surface has an effect 1000 times greater than one at 1km above the surface. We don't measure water vapor above 2km...

We also don't measure how the upper atmosphere currents effect water vapor (or other gasses) movement. There are also studies that show that many of the things we think have a positive effect (read: more of it = higher temperature) are actually negative, through things like the Iris Effect.

Basically what it all comes down to is this: We have no fucking clue what's going on.

[SlithVampir]

BTW, we're all about the same age, so we definitely have to bind together on this issue as it will define our generation. So, we should definitely try to get the politicans to stand up, stop taking it in the ass from big buisness, and get a fucking clue whats going on

[AdamRice]

At 6/3/07 05:32 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 6/3/07 05:19 PM, SlithVampir wrote: 1) It's been far warmer in Earth's history, so .... no problem? WRONG! About 55 million years ago, the Earth did warm up about 5-8Degs, enough to flood EVREY COSTAL CITY IN THE WORLD. So yes problem. Also I wonder why those temps occur about the same times as mass extinctions.

I'm sure that was very damaging to all those innocent people living in coastal cities at the time. They were so poor... and so...

I'm sorry, I'm not going there. ;-D

2) Human CO2 emissions pail in comparison to natural sources(volcanoes, forest fires,etc.) . True, but completely irrelevant.

No, it's irrelevant when you're trying to put the blame of global warming squarely on the shoulders of the human race. Either we're causing it, or our CO2 emissions are so small as to be negligible. Make up your mind.

And pardon me if I sound ignorant, but when you fill up a baloon full of your own breath, doesn't it sink to the ground because the C02 in the baloon is heavier than the air around it? How then would CO2 emissions float up to the sky and fuck up our atmosphere on such a grand scale that people are claiming it to be?

Wrong Proteas. Temperature changes, wind currents, humidity, and other atmospheric variables will drive gases all over the atmosphere despite density differences. If the atmosphere was completely stagnant and devoid of any energy what so ever the gases would separate based on density differences. Our atmosphere is far too active for the slightly greater density of CO2 to cause it to stay at the ground level. It will get dispersed through out various points in the atmosphere.

[TheMason]

At 6/3/07 06:11 PM, SlithVampir wrote: BTW, we're all about the same age, so we definitely have to bind together on this issue as it will define our generation. So, we should definitely try to get the politicans to stand up, stop taking it in the ass from big buisness, and get a fucking clue whats going on

Actually I'm over twice your age. When I was your age I was just as passionate as you on this subject. Now I'm one of those WTF? skeptics. Why?

1) As I grew up the doom and gloom predictions that were made in the 70s, 80s and 90s have been proven to be consistantly wrong.
2) Consensus does NOT equal science; to use the fact that the vast majority of scientists believe in GW (and the idea that human activity is the cause of it) as proof of the existance of GW is an ad absurdum argument. IE: it does not logically prove anything.
3) I went to college and learned more about the scientific method as part of my political science studies. I also took chemistry, biology and geology courses. What I can see from looking at climatology it can conform to the scientific method with only the same amount of rigor as political science or sociology...so the conclusions of these scientists is actually based upon a faulty construct.
a) GW theory is not based upon observation but rather computer models.
b) The climate is a highly complex and dynamic system that has lasted billions of years. Our most reliable data on the current state of the climate only extends back maybe half a century. Anything further in the past is reliant upon different methods of collection and measurement which, according to the scientific method, introduces inaccuracies into the comparison between measuring CO2 content from ice cores and direct measurement from today's atmosphere.

I am sorry to cast doubt on your religion...

[fahrenheit]

At 6/3/07 06:11 PM, SlithVampir wrote: and get a fucking clue whats going on

thats the spirit, instead of facing the arguments go ahead and call the people that disagree with you ignorant

just like a true tree hugger

[Elfer]

At 6/3/07 05:32 PM, Proteas wrote: And pardon me if I sound ignorant, but when you fill up a baloon full of your own breath, doesn't it sink to the ground because the C02 in the baloon is heavier than the air around it?

No, it sinks because the contents of the balloon are under higher pressure, increasing the density. That's a far more important factor than the difference in composition (in that example, anyway)

If all the CO2 we produced just sunk to the ground, people living in valleys would suffocate.

[ThorKingOfTheVikings]

k. I can totally understand how people who say Global warming is nothing and is not happening could get on your nerves.But there is a third group here. The middlemen. Those who accept that the warming is happening but do not follow the bullshit nonexistent proof that every science related journalist spits out. By now its pretty obvious that the reason most of these people don't speak out is because they will be called heretics to humanity. The truth is global warming is totally natural (as in cannot be controlled by people).There is nothing we can do to stop other than actauly using super destruction mythical weapons that will control the planet.........thats not gonna happen. An honestly New scientist also published the 70's theory that the earth was cooling and that another ice age was 100% going to happen. Im not going to put faith into that sort of publishing.

You are obviously one of the human sheep who latches onto every new political fad. 20$ says ur under 14 and if your not then ur just a strait up idiot. Ever here of an inconvientiant truth. I think a more apt title would be an inconvientiant pile of shit. Go on youtube and look up "The great global warming swindle". Itll shut you up.

On the other hand all of this global warming propaganda does have some very positive side effects. Car companies are working to try and find different methods of fuel and more efficient vehicles. Laws on pollution have been drastically updated. So in the end its for and extreamly good cause but the means are corrupt.

[ThorKingOfTheVikings]

And one more thing. co2 is a greenhouse gas. greehouse gasses make up a part of the atmosphere call the troposphere. It is in the layer of the atmosphere where heat is absorbed by the sun and cosmic rays are deflected from the earth. SO IN THEORY (THE theory of every scientist and person on the planet that has ever said co2 causes global warming) THIS SHOULD BE THE POINT ON THE PLANET WHERE THE MOST WARMING OCCURS. guess what. Its getting cooler up there. huh. isnt that somthing.......

(great global warming swindle)

[EndGameOmega]

At 6/3/07 08:18 PM, TheMason wrote:

1) As I grew up the doom and gloom predictions that were made in the 70s, 80s and 90s have been proven to be consistantly wrong.

But these weren't being made by the scientific community. They where enforced and peddled by agency with something to gain from the panic.

3) I went to college and learned more about the scientific method as part of my political science studies. I also took chemistry, biology and geology courses. What I can see from looking at climatology it can conform to the scientific method with only the same amount of rigor as political science or sociology...so the conclusions of these scientists is actually based upon a faulty construct.

But all of climatology is based on the same procedural methodology that show GW, are you willing to say that an entire field of science is of dubious creditability? Additionally, given that biology, Physics, and many other field of science use that same methodology, are you willing to question there creditability? Political science and sociological are at there heart good sciences, what has corrupted them over the years are the same parasitic organisms threating to infest climatology, and biology; political influence, and people whit an agenda.

a) GW theory is not based upon observation but rather computer models.

Actually it's the general theory of climate thermodynamics, that suggest GW. The computer models are used to extrapolate predictions on what is going to happen, and on what has happened. These predictions are then compared to the climate known data and compared. From these observations further corrections and reevaluation of the underling physics ensues, and you end up with a better model. The use of computers for experimentation, and modeling is highly accepted in sciences, and not just in climatology, but in biology, physics, astronomy, geology, etc... It's used because it works, and allows us to test and observe things which we can't do in the normal environment.

In the end computer models suggesting climate change are mostly a new phenomena, it was already known to be possible simply throw the use of thermodynamics.

b) The climate is a highly complex and dynamic system that has lasted billions of years. Our most reliable data on the current state of the climate only extends back maybe half a century.

Your right, climate is a very complex problem set with many variables. The data that has been collected over the past 50 some years is more accurate and each data point is more reliable then what we have from before then. However, a lot of this data is useless when looking at long term climate changes, and events. From a statistical stand point the effect of temperature being of by 3º or 1º or 0.1º is negligible when your looking at the whole climate. The improved data we have today, is exceptional for understanding the weather, but it has little extra value in explaining climate, save for the general improvement in the understanding of atmospheric processes.

What I'm trying to say is the data we collect from the past is adequate enough to make good approximations, which is all applied science is.

Anything further in the past is reliant upon different methods of collection and measurement which, according to the scientific method, introduces inaccuracies into the comparison between measuring CO2 content from ice cores and direct measurement from today's atmosphere.

While I agree that the methodology of data collection for the earth past states isn't as good as what we have for measuring current states, it is still good enough. Additionally we have a significant amount of data that the inaccuracies are reduce significantly.

As an aside, it isn't the scientific method which says the given data is less accurate, but rather the experimental methodology.

[EndGameOmega]

At 6/3/07 10:43 PM, ThorKingOfTheVikings wrote: k. I can totally understand how people who say Global warming is nothing and is not happening could get on your nerves.But there is a third group here. The middlemen. Those who accept that the warming is happening but do not follow the bullshit nonexistent proof that every science related journalist spits out.

I partialy agree, there are “middle” men out there

By now its pretty obvious that the reason most of these people don't speak out is because they will be called heretics to humanity.

But you do have people speaking out against it, even scientist, thing is there aren't a lot of them. There is a very large consciousness with in the scientific community that GW is happening and that humans are have an appreciable effect on it. However what you don't here are doom says, scientists who say the world is going to end if we don't do something. While this is a possibility, it isn't the most likely one, as there are regulation mechanisms with in the climate which prevent a run away green house effect a la Venus. Though if enough CO2 is put out for a long enough period of time it could overwhelm this counter effects.

The truth is global warming is totally natural (as in cannot be controlled by people).

I see, do you have any evidence for this? Most of the papers I've read on climate change seam to agree that humans are having a noticeable effect.

There is nothing we can do to stop other than actauly using super destruction mythical weapons that will control the planet.........thats not gonna happen.

Ummm, No. There are several ways we could potently stop GW, if we where so inclined, but several of them would requirer vast amounts of resources and time, that it would be of questionable worth.

An honestly New scientist also published the 70's theory that the earth was cooling and that another ice age was 100% going to happen. Im not going to put faith into that sort of publishing.

Ok, and let me say this, even if New Scientist did publish such a thing, they are not a peer reviewed scientific journal, and have quite literally zero clout in the scientific community.

Ever here of an inconvientiant truth. I think a more apt title would be an inconvientiant pile of shit.

I couldn't agree more, gore is an asshole, and is politicizing science in an attempt to get back into politics (probably under the green flag).

Go on youtube and look up "The great global warming swindle". Itll shut you up.

Of course this is even worse then an Inconvenient truth. It is a pile of shit and says little of value or accuracy.

At 6/3/07 10:49 PM, ThorKingOfTheVikings wrote: And one more thing. co2 is a greenhouse gas. greehouse gasses make up a part of the atmosphere call the troposphere. It is in the layer of the atmosphere where heat is absorbed by the sun and cosmic rays are deflected from the earth. SO IN THEORY (THE theory of every scientist and person on the planet that has ever said co2 causes global warming) THIS SHOULD BE THE POINT ON THE PLANET WHERE THE MOST WARMING OCCURS. guess what. Its getting cooler up there. huh. isnt that somthing.......

Hun? Do you even know what the troposphere is? I mean, most of what you've written here is flat out wrong, and doesn't describe the troposphere. I assume you meant “heat from the sun is absorbed” and not “where heat is absorbed by the sun”; This is the only correct statement you've made, thought I don't think it was intentional. Cosmic rays aren't deflected by our atmosphere, if there LE there simply absorbed, if there HE they “shatter” and produce streams of particles which can make it all the way down to earth.

The average temperature of the troposphere has warmed by about 1º Celsius (0.6º from “normal”) over the past century. What has gotten colder is the stratosphere. However GW would also cause this to happen, in fact it's the only phenomenon that's likely to have caused it.

(great global warming swindle)

This explains why your so misinformed. This is one of the worst things to get your fact from. Look you need to actually read up on what causes warming and how its happening, you clearly don't understand what your arguing.

[putnamnorth]

Ok first ya the climate is changing but here is the thing it wont effect us in are life time so I dont know what the big deal is. Secound the reason i say it wont effect us in are life time is becouse think about it for a while. Becouse we have stuff on are planet that dose far more damage to are atmosphere then we could ever do. Here is a example VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS they emite more Co2 then humans could ever do in more then 10 years and they also emit other gases that also dose alot more damage then Co2 gas dose like sulfer dioxide and other gases so please do your reaserch before u start blaming humans on global waming like every one in this country is.

[EndGameOmega]

At 6/4/07 08:54 AM, putnamnorth wrote: Ok first ya the climate is changing but here is the thing it wont effect us in are life time so I dont know what the big deal is.

OK, and what evidence do you have for this conclusion? What data have seen to make this statement?

Secound the reason i say it wont effect us in are life time is becouse think about it for a while.

Thinking alone is not enough, for something to be empiricly valid it requires actually physical evidence, not just thought.

Becouse we have stuff on are planet that dose far more damage to are atmosphere then we could ever do. Here is a example VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS they emite more Co2 then humans could ever do in more then 10 years and they also emit other gases that also dose alot more damage then Co2 gas dose like sulfer dioxide and other gases

Yes, but most of the material ejected from a volcano is in solid or ash form. The solid forms leave the atmosphere almost immediately, while the ash last for a couple of weeks in the case of a small eruption, to a few months in the case of a large eruption. This isn't the case of human out puts which are diffuse gases. These quickly intermingle in the atmosphere and don't leave for centuries.

so please do your reaserch before u start blaming humans on global waming like every one in this country is.

I have done my research, I don't think you have.

[KingRugger]

At 6/4/07 08:54 AM, putnamnorth wrote: Ok first ya the climate is changing but here is the thing it wont effect us in are life time so I dont know what the big deal is.

I feel that statement is a touch selfish, but i understand what you mean. The fact, climate change can't be prevented and the human race isn't making things any easier. But also, the media are exaggerating the problem.

[Elfer]

DEAR EVERYONE, VOLCANOES DON'T DO SHIT

I don't know if someone read something wrong and started this rumour that volcanoes release ten times the greenhouse gases that human activity does, but here's the deal:

- Volcanoes release 110 million tons/year
- Humans release 10 billion tons/year

Please bear in mind that one million and one billion are two different numbers. Thank you.

[Draconias]

I don't believe Climate Change Deniers actually exist in any real numbers. What do exist are Human-caused Global Warming Deniers, and dirty, hypocritical, despicable tactics and propaganda by the Pro-GW group has really driven a lot of people to argue against them.

One common Pro=GW step is to claim that opponents are ignorant or foolish by somehow portraying them as believing in something blatantly stupid-- like no climate change. No one has ever said the climate isn't changing because it is always changing, Anti-HMGW just say Humans aren't causing it. I see the OP has easily fallen for that one.

The whole debate is all about the massive amounts of misinformation that are flying around the airwaves. Most Pro-GW propaganda is based on blatantly false information that causes a strong enough emotional reaction to sucker in followers, as well as strong-arming anyone who doesn't agree. Anti-HMGW often relies too much on unquantified information, but always relies on the idea, "But what about other factors?" In that sense, Pro-GW people often refuse to believe anything but humans could cause it, regardless of how small or large a part of world pollution and activity we are.

Also, Pro-GW people almost always fail to recognize the natural progression of technology necessary to inevitably achieve the same goals anyways, and they attempt to force the market with impossible demands that won't be reasonable until technology has made the right developments. The changes will happen, naturally and as part of the market, way before the Doomsday prophecies of the Pro-GW crowd come true (or whatever their prophecies happen to be that time).

[JudgeDredd]

Climate Creationism vs Global Dumbing.

Positive Feedback Scenario #45: Methane Hydrates.

[TheMason]

At 6/4/07 07:42 AM, EndGameOmega wrote:

At 6/3/07 08:18 PM, TheMason wrote:

1) As I grew up the doom and gloom predictions that were made in the 70s, 80s and 90s have been proven to be consistantly wrong.

But these weren't being made by the scientific community. They where enforced and peddled by agency with something to gain from the panic.

No...these were made by the scientific community, same as now...

But all of climatology is based on the same procedural methodology that show GW, are you willing to say that an entire field of science is of dubious creditability? Additionally, given that biology, Physics, and many other field of science use that same methodology, are you willing to question there creditability? Political science and sociological are at there heart good sciences, what has corrupted them over the years are the same parasitic organisms threating to infest climatology, and biology; political influence, and people whit an agenda.

*Deep breath* Yes I am saying that this field of science is of dubious credability. It does NOT use the same methodology as physics, chemistry and biology. Those are "hard" sciences and use direct observations and experiementation using the same methods of expeirementation and measurement that can be reproduced by any scientist anywhere in the world.

Climatology cannot claim this:
1) The climate behaves differently in different geographic localities. (Much like poly sci & sociology).
2) Climatology is heavily based upon computer modeling rather than direct observation and experimentation. (Much like poly sci & sociology).
3) The climate is too dynamic with too many variables to account for (or even know about) to make concrete theories and observations about causality. While in the "hard" sciences theories can be reduced to single variables and these theories can then be tested/measured.

a) GW theory is not based upon observation but rather computer models.

It's used because it works, and allows us to test and observe things which we can't do in the normal environment.

Look my ex-wife was a medical/biological researcher. Computer modeling is very rarely used because it is not that accurate. Furthermore, in terms of climatology the models when contrasted with reality show that the theory consistently has to be altered...the majority of times revealing the previous estimates have been grossly overexagerated.

You see a computer only knows what its programer inputs into it. Unfortunately when dealing with a dynamic system with an unknowable amount of variables...you cannot program each and every variable into a computer model. If you could do you realize how valuable this technology would be?

Computer models cannot accurately predict the weather seven days out...much less a decade or century out...

b) The climate is a highly complex and dynamic system that has lasted billions of years. Our most reliable data on the current state of the climate only extends back maybe half a century.

Your right, climate is a very complex problem set with many variables. The data that has been collected over the past 50 some years is more accurate and each data point is more reliable then what we have from before then. However, a lot of this data is useless when looking at long term climate changes, and events. From a statistical stand point the effect of temperature being of by 3º or 1º or 0.1º is negligible when your looking at the whole climate. The improved data we have today, is exceptional for understanding the weather, but it has little extra value in explaining climate, save for the general improvement in the understanding of atmospheric processes.

But here is the problem; what do we compare that data set to? In order to quantify what man's effect on the climate is we must first know what is natural. We don't.

We can take samples directly through measuring the current atmosphere...we can't do that for the atmosphere 100 years ago, 1,000 years ago or 1million years ago. We have to rely upon different methods of measurement such as tree rings or bubbles in ice core samples. DIfferent methods of measurement. Now if you were to try and compare measurements in biology or chemistry that utilizied different methods of measurements you'd loose your grant and professional reputation. That is why we cannot make any reliable conclusions about past climates...only rough estimates compared to more reliable/accurate measurements of today's climate.

Like I said before...much of this science is not solid and is shaky; relying upon techniques that cause physicists, biologists and chemists to laugh at people in the social sciences...but they'll accept the same techniques when talking about the environment? Hypocracy.

What I'm trying to say is the data we collect from the past is adequate enough to make good approximations, which is all applied science is.

Anything further in the past is reliant upon different methods of collection and measurement which, according to the scientific method, introduces inaccuracies into the comparison between measuring CO2 content from ice cores and direct measurement from today's atmosphere.

While I agree that the methodology of data collection for the earth past states isn't as good as what we have for measuring current states, it is still good enough. Additionally we have a significant amount of data that the inaccuracies are reduce significantly.

NO IT IS NOT!! THIS WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE IN PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY OR BIOLOGY!!

As an aside, it isn't the scientific method which says the given data is less accurate, but rather the experimental methodology.

I understand that all too well...

The one thing "hard" sciences and "soft" sciences (ie: social sciences, climatology) have in common is we all use the scientific method. However, the difference comes in how rigorously we can apply it. Biologists, physicists and chemists can apply the scientific method much more rigorously than me (a political scientist). Now climatology suffers from many of the same limitiations as political science such as: irreducability of variables, inability to reproduce experimentation, dynamic (not static) systems, questionable data sets, etc, etc...

[TheMason]

AD ABSURDUM GW ARGUMENT #1
You know I often hear people who are passionate about GW predicate their argument based upon this idea that there is a "consensus" among the scientific community about GW. In fact at my Guard unit there is a Tech Sgt whose civilian job is as a middle school Science teacher. When he found out I was skeptical about man-made GW he blew a gasket and, as if he was about to deliever a crushing debate point under whose weight my doubts would be crushed, sad:
"There are more scientists named Steve working on GW than there are scientists who do not believe in GW and we are to blame."

This argument does not prove anything and serves the purpose of brow-beating one's opponent by bringing to bear upon them not logic or scientific proof...but rather superior (as opposed to peer) pressure. In effect all this argument is saying is: "These SMART people believe it and only DUMB people do not."

However, this only states the fact that a certain group of people believe in something; it does NOT prove any outside truth.

You see there are things called "paradigms" and "exemplars". These exist in a periods where science is no longer revolutionary. The established theories are accepted and anyone who bucks these theories are often discredited and ridiculed. In fact few people see the need to question these conclusions because they are so accepted; they do not want to loose their careers or the implications so conflict with their idea of reality/truth (the existing paradigm) that cognitive bias sneaks into their research where contradictory ideas/results are discarded subconciously.

While not every scientific theory is proven to be wrong by a scientific minority opinion it is also not unheard of. For example:

* the theory of continental drift proposed by Alfred Wegener and supported by Alexander Du Toit and Arthur Holmes but soundly rejected by most geologists until indisputable evidence and an acceptable mechanism was presented after 50 years of rejection.

* the theory of symbiogenesis presented by Lynn Margulis and initially rejected by biologists but now generally accepted.

* The transition from a Ptolemaic cosmology to a Copernican one.

* The unification of classical physics by Newton into a coherent mechanical worldview.
* The acceptance of the theory of biogenesis, that all life comes from life, as opposed to the theory of spontaneous generation, which began in the 17th century and was not complete until the 19th century with Pasteur.

* The shift in geometric outlook from particular structures to transformation group theory with Felix Klein's Erlangen Program.

* The transition between the Maxwellian Electromagnetic worldview and the Einsteinian Relativistic worldview.

* The transition between the worldview of Newtonian physics and the Einsteinian Relativistic worldview.

* The development of Quantum mechanics, which redefined classical mechanics.

* The acceptance of Plate tectonics as the explanation for large-scale geologic changes.

* The acceptance of Lavoisier's theory of chemical reactions and combustion in place of phlogiston theory, known as the Chemical Revolution.

* The acceptance of Charles Darwin's evolution theory as opposed to creationistic theories

* The acceptance of Mendelian inheritance, as opposed to pangenesis in the early 20th century

*The movement, known as the Cognitive revolution, away from Behaviourist approaches to psychological study and the acceptance of cognition as central to studying human behaviour

Sorry true believers...but just because there is a consensus does not mean I'm going to cease questioning or suspend my own reason & logic to follow the herd...

[Dash-Underscore-Dash]

It's hot today. It was hot yesterday. It'll probably be hot tomorrow.

[Dr-Worm]

I don't get why you would argue against man-made global warming. Isn't it better safe than sorry? And oil and coal are not renewable resources, so we're going to have come up with something new eventually, why not now?

[SmilezRoyale]

At 6/3/07 06:11 PM, SlithVampir wrote: BTW, we're all about the same age, so we definitely have to bind together on this issue as it will define our generation. So, we should definitely try to get the politicans to stand up, stop taking it in the ass from big buisness, and get a fucking clue whats going on

Your using of the word big buisness is enough to give a Global Warming Skeptic enough evidence to provide why enviormentalists swoon over the idea of global warming.

Think about what republicans acuse of liberals in they're liberal agenda, and how that applies to big buisness.

[TheMason]

At 6/4/07 08:32 PM, Dr-Worm wrote: I don't get why you would argue against man-made global warming. Isn't it better safe than sorry?

NO IT IS NOT!! Thepolitical argument behind GW is that is our affluence that is the root cause of GW. This means that we need to make laws and pursue policies that will hurt us economically (and in the case of Kyoto, let major polluters like China and India continue their status quo polluting).

What this means is the "solutions" offered by leftist politicians would hurt average and below average citizens. They are talking about making sacrifices and reorganizing society to a scale that is unprecedented in modern times; and in a way that will only increase the size of the lower class, decrease the middle class and protect the upper class. In short; it will increase the gap between the haves and the have nots.

All based upon scientific claims that do not meet the rigors of good "hard" science.

[EndGameOmega]

At 6/4/07 07:12 PM, TheMason wrote:

No...these were made by the scientific community, same as now...

Ok if your talking about global cooling then your wrong. The scientist from the National science board where taken out of context; What was reported as "Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end... leading into the next glacial age.", had the additional quote of “However, it is possible, or even likely, than human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path...”. In fact if you where to actually talk with the scientist who made up the NSB at the time, they would tell you they where fairly confident that the earth was warming but needed more time before they would say anything conclusive (hence there use of the word “likely”)

If you aren't talking about global cooling then I apologize for this rant, and would ask that you explain what exactly your referring to, or at the very lest a single example.

*Deep breath* Yes I am saying that this field of science is of dubious credability. It does NOT use the same methodology as physics, chemistry and biology.

Yes they do.

Those are "hard" sciences and use direct observations and experiementation using the same methods of expeirementation and measurement that can be reproduced by any scientist anywhere in the world.

Climatologist do the same thing as astronomers. They measure and recored natural phenomenon, and just like astronomers they are at the mercy of nature to provide the same or rather similar situation again.

From collected data they construct models of the underlying physics of the systems; these models are mostly thermodynamics and fluid mechanics, which are ideally suited to being modeled on a computer. From these models they then extract secondary effects, and phenomenon, then go and look at the world for simpler phenomenon to see if there model id right. It is the same as any other field of science, and ALL fields of science use computers for modeling purposes.

Climatology cannot claim this:
1) The climate behaves differently in different geographic localities. (Much like poly sci & sociology).

It dosen't. The underlying Physics of climate is the same no matter where on earth you go. Granted the some areas might have an extra equation or two depending upon the given environmental variables, but there's nothing wrong with that. All that changes from area to area is the environmental conditions. Granted these do change the way the equations work, but it's like that in all science. You can't expect cool dry air to behave the same as hot humid air.

2) Climatology is heavily based upon computer modeling rather than direct observation and experimentation. (Much like poly sci & sociology).

Much like solid state, much like biophysics. All areas of science use computer modeling, there's just no other way to do it. When you start working with kinematic equations of more then four variables, it becomes a near impossibility to work with by hand. You make it sound like using computers is a bad thing, as if all there models have to be constructed by hand. It's BS.

3) The climate is too dynamic with too many variables to account for (or even know about) to make concrete theories and observations about causality. While in the "hard" sciences theories can be reduced to single variables and these theories can then be tested/measured.

The only time you can reduce something down to a single variable is when your doing text book problems. It's rare that you can make the needed approximations for a one dimensional system in any real world experiment or effect. Additionally you have to realize that the climate model isn't one equation, but many.

As a final aside, You can reduce the climate to a single variable, a composite variable of air temperature and humidity. This variable (I believe it was sigma, but I'm not sure) was used prior to the 60's when climatology was just getting started, it wasn't very effective but thats what happens if you over simplify a problem.

Look my ex-wife was a medical/biological researcher. Computer modeling is very rarely used because it is not that accurate. Furthermore, in terms of climatology the models when contrasted with reality show that the theory consistently has to be altered...the majority of times revealing the previous estimates have been grossly overexagerated.

I'm sorry but I think your misunderstanding your ex. Most of my department use computers to model things, Professor Newman uses them exclusively to model the stochastic effects inside embryos. You literally CAN'T do theoretical biophysics with out computer, you just can't. There are too many variables, you can't do it. The same is true for things like solid state, which uses makes heavy use of QFT, the only way to work with all but the simplest problems is with computers.

As for models changing, thats what they do, that's how sciences works. We never have all the answers and probably never will. As our understanding of the mechanics change so must our models. I don't get you're saying that change is a bad thing, I think you're confused a bit.

The exaggerating takes place out side of research journals in regular publications. It's not the scientists fault that the news media want to make a buck off them. If you where to read actual research journals and papers you would come to a different conclusion.

You see a computer only knows what its programer inputs into it. Unfortunately when dealing with a dynamic system with an unknowable amount of variables...you cannot program each and every variable into a computer model. If you could do you realize how valuable this technology would be?

Except there aren't an unknowable amount of varables.

Computer models cannot accurately predict the weather seven days out...much less a decade or century out...

Weather isn't the primary focus of climate research, only average weather is. Predicting weather is a hell of a lot harder then climate because it requires precise knowledge of variables to see how weather systems are going to unfold. Being a little off on your numbers will result in big fluctuations, the same isn't nessarly true for climate as a whole.

A comparative analogy, it's like trying to trace the path of an individual electron from an electron gun. The number of variables required to know what path it's going to take and how it's going to move are literally stupidifying; you can't do it. But eject a couple thousand, and you can very accurately say where the majority will go, and with what probability they will or will not do something. Many body problems and statistical based math work wonders for describing complex systems.

But here is the problem; what do we compare that data set to? In order to quantify what man's effect on the climate is we must first know what is natural. We don't.

No, but we do have a very good idea, and very good approximations for it.

We can take samples directly through measuring the current atmosphere...we can't do that for the atmosphere 100 years ago, 1,000 years ago or 1million years ago.

They don't need to. The air currents are very well explained by our current models, if your trying to sugesst that the air currents might have been vastly different then I would ask for evidence of this. The way our world is set up cause the air currents to move the way they do, we have very accurate geological records for how the earth was and can extrapolate from it.

[EndGameOmega]

<Continued>

We have to rely upon different methods of measurement such as tree rings or bubbles in ice core samples. DIfferent methods of measurement.

Yeah, and it's perfectly valid. The data works out, it just ends up with a slightly larger error to it. You put all of this into your calculations, and conclusions. You'd be surprised at just how little the added error effects you conclusion, especially if you've taken many measurements of the same variable state.

Now if you were to try and compare measurements in biology or chemistry that utilizied different methods of measurements you'd loose your grant and professional reputation.

No you wouldn't. Not if you make it clear how your doing your messurments and what the given error is you wont lose your reputation.

That is why we cannot make any reliable conclusions about past climates...only rough estimates compared to more reliable/accurate measurements of today's climate.

Uh, ok and your point? I said the data they have is good enough, not perfect.

Like I said before...much of this science is not solid and is shaky; relying upon techniques that cause physicists, biologists and chemists to laugh at people in the social sciences...but they'll accept the same techniques when talking about the environment? Hypocracy.

Most of us “laugh” at people in social sciences because they don't let the data speak for it self, because they don't actually construct models based upon what they observe, because they make generalizations and approximations with out explain how there still models are still valid. Additionally much of social sciences had been subverted by people with an agenda, people who are there not to do real science but rather to “prove” something. Climatologist uses statistics, in the same why we use statistical mechanics, it's perfectly valid, and it works.

NO IT IS NOT!! THIS WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE IN PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY OR BIOLOGY!!

Dude stop with the caps. There's no need to “shout”. The data they have is good enough, they can work with it and analyze it. It's no different then the Compton scattering experiments I worked with in Advance lab. The data you get is never perfect, but if you collect it right, it's good enough.

I understand that all too well...

The one thing "hard" sciences and "soft" sciences (ie: social sciences, climatology) have in common is we all use the scientific method. However, the difference comes in how rigorously we can apply it. Biologists, physicists and chemists can apply the scientific method much more rigorously than me (a political scientist). Now climatology suffers from many of the same limitiations as political science such as: irreducability of variables, inability to reproduce experimentation, dynamic (not static) systems, questionable data sets, etc, etc...

And many hard sciences suffer from similar problems. It's just something that happens with complex systems, it's why you need computers to model things. I don't know where you've gotten a lot of your information but it's rather weak. Your talking like, forgive me for saying it, but someone who has a H.S. or maybe a freshman's (collage) knowledge of sciences.

[Memorize]

At 6/4/07 09:05 PM, EndGameOmega wrote:

No, but we do have a very good idea, and very good approximations for it.

interesting. You have nothing, yet somehow also have a very good idea?

Bullshit alert.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 6/4/07 08:58 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 6/4/07 08:32 PM, Dr-Worm wrote: I don't get why you would argue against man-made global warming. Isn't it better safe than sorry?

NO IT IS NOT!! Thepolitical argument behind GW is that is our affluence that is the root cause of GW. This means that we need to make laws and pursue policies that will hurt us economically (and in the case of Kyoto, let major polluters like China and India continue their status quo polluting).

What this means is the "solutions" offered by leftist politicians would hurt average and below average citizens. They are talking about making sacrifices and reorganizing society to a scale that is unprecedented in modern times; and in a way that will only increase the size of the lower class, decrease the middle class and protect the upper class. In short; it will increase the gap between the haves and the have nots.

All based upon scientific claims that do not meet the rigors of good "hard" science.

i already said that.

People think Ann coulter is crazy, Her theory in a summary is crazy, but backed up with years and years of evidence, combined with the intelligent presentation of a skilled pulitzer [Ann coulter is polarized, you either love her or hate her, [though i really dont care] But she serves a good purpose to demonstrate that conservatives also have crazy theories with lots of evidence, ones that liberals disregaurd]