Global Warming

[EC-Bills]

Thankfully the scientific process should eventually weed out the bad research and give us an accurate picture of what's happening.

 

In theory, yes. In actuality, that is not even close to happening. When there are money, publicity, and egos involved the scientific process gets pushed aside rather quickly.

[Magox]

In theory, yes. In actuality, that is not even close to happening. When there are money, publicity, and egos involved the scientific process gets pushed aside rather quickly.

More importantly an agenda.....

[drnykterstein]

Conner, you lack of understanding of the scientific process is obvious in how you don't understand that the IPCC is a POLITICAL body, not a scientific one.

 

And furthermore: http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/ReportNewsRelease.html

 

 

 

The independent investigation requested by the body that charters the IPCC found EXACTLY THOSE FAILURES I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT: overly political, non-independence, biased, and with significant perversions of the scientific process in a POLICY (not scientific) organization. Now come up with a credible (i.e. not something on the order of "Well, Bill Nye said...") response to that, ****head.

 

Alright, so after reading this InterAcademy Council I have to conclude it's a beautiful recommendation and it represents everything that is to be loved about the scientific community. I have no disagreements with it, not that I think I would be qualified to do so in the first place. It praises the IPCC, yet points out areas where improvements can be made. In my view it is in complete agreement with the letter from the US Scientists, as that letter also praises the IPCC, yet points out areas that need improvement.

 

None of these items disagree with the IPCC's assessment on anthropogenic global warming.

The process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to produce its periodic assessment reports has been successful overall

 

In the case of the IAC, I don't think they were going for criticism of the results, only the processes and organization used to obtain the results. I think it was an extremely well executed recommendation.

 

 

 

 

Moronic.

 

And, another example that these hacks are uneducated. Yes, the Southern Democrats, you know, where tobacco is mostly grown? Yes in the 60s and 70s when this "conspiracy" started, they were all for taxing and labeling tobacco.

 

Dave is right, there are many parallels between the tobacco lobby of the 60's and the energy lobby of today. Much has been written about that. (example)

Edited September 5, 2010 by conner

[Magox]

Alright, so after reading this InterAcademy Council I have to conclude it's a beautiful recommendation and it represents everything that is to be loved about the scientific community. I have no disagreements with it, not that I think I would be qualified to do so in the first place. It praises the IPCC, yet points out areas where improvements can be made. In my view it is in complete agreement with the letter from the US Scientists, as that letter also praises the IPCC, yet points out areas that need improvement.

 

None of these items disagree with the IPCC's assessment on anthropogenic global warming.

 

 

In the case of the IAC, I don't think they were going for criticism of the results, only the processes and organization used to obtain the results. I think it was an extremely well executed recommendation.

 

 

 

 

 

Dave is right, there are many parallels between the tobacco lobby of the 60's and the energy lobby of today. Much has been written about that. (example)

Yeah, like we believe that you actually read the book.

[drnykterstein]

Actually, I have more to add to my post above....

 

Science may not get everything right on the first try, but it is a system that corrects itself and tries it's best to achieve perfection. Despite it's imperfections it is the best device mankind has for predicting the future. We would be wise to heed it's best advice.

 

I view the various errors in Global Warming science in the same light that the Piltdown man is viewed in evolutionary science. The Piltdown man even does not disprove evolution, but critics of evolution jumped all over it and made every effort to use that to claim they were correct. Despite that one event, the evidence for evolution is just overwhelming, to the point where it's a very safe assumption to believe it's true. Evolution is predictive, and these predictions have been used to create medicines to help man. Global Warming's theory is also predictive, and so far at least some of the predictions have been true. Since the theory was first formulated in the 60's, the average temperate of the planet has continued to rise.

[DC Tom]

Alright, so after reading this InterAcademy Council I have to conclude it's a beautiful recommendation and it represents everything that is to be loved about the scientific community. I have no disagreements with it, not that I think I would be qualified to do so in the first place. It praises the IPCC, yet points out areas where improvements can be made. In my view it is in complete agreement with the letter from the US Scientists, as that letter also praises the IPCC, yet points out areas that need improvement.

 

None of these items disagree with the IPCC's assessment on anthropogenic global warming.

 

 

In the case of the IAC, I don't think they were going for criticism of the results, only the processes and organization used to obtain the results. I think it was an extremely well executed recommendation.

 

 

 

 

 

Dave is right, there are many parallels between the tobacco lobby of the 60's and the energy lobby of today. Much has been written about that. (example)

 

Seven pages in, and you finally read what the thread was actually about???

 

You're such a !@#$ing moron.

[Ramius]

Funny, because that is exactly what I think of you.

 

DC Tom thinks the scientific process is doing what DC Tom says. He's not an expert, or even knowledgeable in the field of climatology, yet the guy insists he knows more than the many well respected and peer reviewed articles that are out there.

 

 

3rdnlng, I know you are brainwashed on this issue, but I'll give it a shot anyways. The core science of global warming is well documented, it's been peer reviewed and subjected to maximize scrutiny and survived. The core concepts behind global warming are based on science that is over 80 years old (well before Fox News or Al Gore existed). Sure the IPCC has likely made some fringe predictions that may or may not be true. It does not matter, the core science that the average temperature of the Earth is on the rise to unprecedented levels is as close to indisputable as you can get. We are headed unto unknown areas temperature wise. Predicting the future regarding this is like predicting an earthquake, you can try, but you are not likely to get it right.

 

Global warming is happening and will continue to happen. All of the science-hating in the world is not going to stop it.

 

 

And !@#$ Al Gore, the guy is a tard.

 

What is 80/4.5 billion?

 

Hell, i'll even give you the benefit of the doubt...what is 200/4.5 billion?

[Wacka]

There are two kinds of global warming deniers. There are the types who can at least understand that world is warming, and will disagree on the cause, and it's almost a reasonable discussion. Then there there are batshit insane fact-deniers like yourself who just make complete fabrications and tout them as truth. The fact that the average temperature of the earth is at record highs in measurable history just cannot be argued. We have tangible measurable data going back a few hundred thousand years. By "on record" we are talking at least since 1880. Given how accurate data gathered from ice cores is, very likely we are talking about more than 200,000 years of data.

 

The 2000's were the warmest decade on record.

2010 is on track to be the warmest year on record.

14 of the warmest 15 years on record have been experienced between 1995 and 2009.

There is a 0.8 degrees C warming since mid-19th century.

 

You cannot deny these any more than you can claim (to steal from AD) the earth is flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Glaciers are melting, you cannot claim otherwise and consider yourself educated at the same time.

 

DC Tom your lack of faith the scientific process itself is astounding given how much you espouse to know about science.

 

 

 

Now read the !@#$ing letter, as it is way more elegant and accurate than I could ever be.

http://www.openletterfromscientists.com/

 

I should hate to have any of you tards keep on believing your denier religion due to !@#$ ups on my part. Yes I've made plenty of errors in my arguments. Al Gore is a cocksucking profiteer, Nancy Pelosi is as ugly as a warthog, yes. Global warming is real though and back up by extremely strong and sound science.

 

 

Please tell us what was the latest science course you took and what level it was . Jr. High perhaps?

[drnykterstein]

Please tell us what was the latest science course you took and what level it was . Jr. High perhaps?

There is a lot of truthiness in this posting.

[3rdnlng]

There are two kinds of global warming deniers. There are the types who can at least understand that world is warming, and will disagree on the cause, and it's almost a reasonable discussion. Then there there are batshit insane fact-deniers like yourself who just make complete fabrications and tout them as truth. The fact that the average temperature of the earth is at record highs in measurable history just cannot be argued. We have tangible measurable data going back a few hundred thousand years. By "on record" we are talking at least since 1880. Given how accurate data gathered from ice cores is, very likely we are talking about more than 200,000 years of data.

 

The 2000's were the warmest decade on record.

2010 is on track to be the warmest year on record.

14 of the warmest 15 years on record have been experienced between 1995 and 2009.

There is a 0.8 degrees C warming since mid-19th century.

 

You cannot deny these any more than you can claim (to steal from AD) the earth is flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Glaciers are melting, you cannot claim otherwise and consider yourself educated at the same time.

 

DC Tom your lack of faith the scientific process itself is astounding given how much you espouse to know about science.

 

 

 

Now read the !@#$ing letter, as it is way more elegant and accurate than I could ever be.

http://www.openletterfromscientists.com/

 

I should hate to have any of you tards keep on believing your denier religion due to !@#$ ups on my part. Yes I've made plenty of errors in my arguments. Al Gore is a cocksucking profiteer, Nancy Pelosi is as ugly as a warthog, yes. Global warming is real though and back up by extremely strong and sound science.

 

 

Please explain to me how this relates to fossilized palm trees being discovered in Iceland.

[KD in CA]

What is 80/4.5 billion?

 

Hell, i'll even give you the benefit of the doubt...what is 200/4.5 billion?

 

 

Nothing funnier than a "warmest decade on record" stat when they've been keeping records for about ten decades, and apparently the 'science' for most of those decades was so bad that the connertards where convinced we were entering an ice age just a couple decades ago.

[DC Tom]

Nothing funnier than a "warmest decade on record" stat when they've been keeping records for about ten decades, and apparently the 'science' for most of those decades was so bad that the connertards where convinced we were entering an ice age just a couple decades ago.

 

Royal Navy's records go back at least two centuries (maybe as much as four - but reliably, two), and are global, since the Napoleonic Wars and Pax Victoria encompassed virtually the whole planet. And the Admiralty never throws any of those log books out, either.

 

Admittedly, coverage is spotty (concentrated along the sailing routes, as it were), and accuracy is hardly up to modern standards...but the old RN records are a treasure trove for climatologists.

[Ramius]

Nothing funnier than a "warmest decade on record" stat when they've been keeping records for about ten decades, and apparently the 'science' for most of those decades was so bad that the connertards where convinced we were entering an ice age just a couple decades ago.

 

Then there's the little fact that core samples have shown various periods in the climatological history of the earth where the calculated temperature (and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere) were higher than they currently are now.

[DC Tom]

Then there's the little fact that core samples have shown various periods in the climatological history of the earth where the calculated temperature (and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere) were higher than they currently are now.

 

But they don't show hockey sticks, so that's different.

[drnykterstein]

Then there's the little fact that core samples have shown various periods in the climatological history of the earth where the calculated temperature (and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere) were higher than they currently are now.

 

Ya. Each one of those was directly followed by an ice age.

 

I disagree the on your C02 claim. CO2 levels have not been this high in at least a half million year, but likely much more than that.

Edited September 8, 2010 by conner

[drnykterstein]

Nothing funnier than a "warmest decade on record" stat when they've been keeping records for about ten decades, and apparently the 'science' for most of those decades was so bad that the connertards where convinced we were entering an ice age just a couple decades ago.

 

Not true. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that it's the warmest decade in over 200,000 years. But there are some ambiguities in that data so you cannot say 200k years as a definite article of fact.

[IDBillzFan]

Not true. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that it's the warmest decade in over 200,000 years. But there are some ambiguities in that data so you cannot say 200k years as a definite article of fact.

I can't help but wonder if there's any level of truthiness in there.

[drnykterstein]

I can't help but wonder if there's any level of truthiness in there.

 

Here is 1000 years, this is a bit easier to claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/069.htm#fig220

 

And then the ice core data (as I said above)is going to be a bit more circumstantial.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070705-antarctica-ice.html

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/evidenceforwarming.htm

http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/

(if anyone has access)

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/abs/nature06949.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/abs/nature06950.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6735/abs/399429a0.html

Edited September 9, 2010 by conner

[OCinBuffalo]

Here is 1000 years, this is a bit easier to claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/069.htm#fig220

 

And then the ice core data (as I said above)is going to be a bit more circumstantial.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070705-antarctica-ice.html

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/evidenceforwarming.htm

http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/

(if anyone has access)

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/abs/nature06949.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/abs/nature06950.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6735/abs/399429a0.html

ALL of these links are based on data that has either been discredited outright, has yet to be re-reviewed using proper methodology by a properly selected, OBJECTIVE, panel of scientists, was part of the Climitegate scandal, has been show to simply not exist, or has been defined as "speculation".

 

Show me something new, or, show me that any of the data has been re-reviewed properly, and I will listen. But they haven't...and the silence is deafening.

 

Why haven't these guys come back and defended themselves? Because they can't? We were told to listen to the scientists: OK, I have yet to hear a peep from the actual scientists. The only people we hear from on this anymore is a few left-wing TV talking heads trying to fight a rear guard action while their leaders and elected people are apparently pulling out.

Edited September 9, 2010 by OCinBuffalo

[drnykterstein]

ALL of these links are based on data that has either been discredited outright, has yet to be re-reviewed using proper methodology by a properly selected, OBJECTIVE, panel of scientists, was part of the Climitegate scandal, has been show to simply not exist, or has been defined as "speculation".

 

Show me something new, or, show me that any of the data has been re-reviewed properly, and I will listen. But they haven't...and the silence is deafening.

 

Why haven't these guys come back and defended themselves? Because they can't? We were told to listen to the scientists: OK, I have yet to hear a peep from the actual scientists. The only people we hear from on this anymore is a few left-wing TV talking heads trying to fight a rear guard action while their leaders and elected people are apparently pulling out.

The worst part of this post is that I'm well aware you are not trolling. You are actually serious.

 

You have however managed to stand by your standard posting format. Your first sentence is just a pile of absolute bull ****. You then build on this bull **** to form more bull ****. You make a ton of assumptions throughout your post that are not even close to true. You demonize the left, as you have been mentally conditioned to do.