More info that the Believers can attack.

[BoilerMadness]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

It appears that things are not always as we are led to believe. GW/CC has become a multibillion dollar industry, so it's not a stretch to believe that people heavily invested in the theory will go to great lengths to protect their rice bowls. Plus, the Left has proven very adept at revisionist history.

FYI, I do believe Global Warming and Global Cooling (Ice Ages) do exist. They have since the beginning of this planet. Where I depart from the current run of lemmings is in the extant that man effects the climate and the ridiculous warnings being espoused by Gore and Obama, that it is the biggest, most urgent threat to mankind.

In the early 90's, Gore said that if we didn't take drastic action immediately, it would be too late to reverse the process. Apparently, changing the name of Global Warming to Climate Change, must have bought us some time.

I am more than a little concerned that Obama considers Climate Change a bigger threat than Islamic terrorists. Haven't seen too many CC beheadings lately, but I'm sure MSNBC must be showing a few.

 

[GMM]

If this is true.......

......then those predicting doom from AGW should be rushing to confirm that the numbers have been fudged. That is, if they truly believe what they claim to believe. They claim to believe that AGW is "the greatest threat to civilization" or something like that. If it turns out that there really hasn't been a lot of global warming then............we're saved!!!

To them it would be the greatest news of our generation. But something tells me their going to ignore or attack this news.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Originally posted by BigE23:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

It appears that things are not always as we are led to believe. GW/CC has become a multibillion dollar industry, so it's not a stretch to believe that people heavily invested in the theory will go to great lengths to protect their rice bowls. Plus, the Left has proven very adept at revisionist history.

FYI, I do believe Global Warming and Global Cooling (Ice Ages) do exist. They have since the beginning of this planet. Where I depart from the current run of lemmings is in the extant that man effects the climate and the ridiculous warnings being espoused by Gore and Obama, that it is the biggest, most urgent threat to mankind.

In the early 90's, Gore said that if we didn't take drastic action immediately, it would be too late to reverse the process. Apparently, changing the name of Global Warming to Climate Change, must have bought us some time.

I am more than a little concerned that Obama considers Climate Change a bigger threat than Islamic terrorists. Haven't seen too many CC beheadings lately, but I'm sure MSNBC must be showing a few.

How much hyperbole can you fit into one post?

You've come on here in the past and been slapped around with facts, and yet you continue to come back with the same drivel. The human influences on global warming are a reality that you'll never be able to accept due to your far-right ideology.

Serious question: What are you looking for with a post like this?

 

[BoilerMadness]

I just want to make people THINK. We've been spoon fed this GW/CC drivel by the Leftwing media, Leftwing politicians and by pseudoscientists like James Hanson and his followers, and told it's "settled science". But it's only settled science in the minds of the true believers. The more I read about all this and the more revisions I've seen in the theory over the years, the less settled it appears. Only the brain washed or the brain dead stop questioning a theory, that has so many loose ends. True scientists are always skeptical and don't readily accept any science as being "Settled"

Suppose you're right and man has a significant influence on the climate, do you REALLY BELIEVE that it's the single greatest threat to mankind right now? Do you really believe that we crossed a point of no return ten years ago, as Al Gore predicted? Since you're thoroughly convinced it's a manmade phenomenon, how are you going to stop the production of CO2. Man exhaling is probably one of the biggest sources. Do you suggest we stop breathing? How many Billions of our tax dollars do you want our politicians to waste trying to solve a problem (?) that has NO APPARENT solution?

You can belittle me and the other skeptics all you want and resort to name calling, if that will make you feel superior. I'm used to the "tolerant" Leftists and their tactics. Belittle, demean and demagogue.

You should realize that you're being sold a bill of goods, when the Left talks about CO2 pollution and the even more insidious sounding Carbon pollution. Pollution? Really? If you have to try to mislead the public as much as the GW/CC cabal has over the years, a rational thinking human might think he was being scammed. Of course, that would require thinking, not following like a drone.

Regarding my "far Right" ideology, that only applies to fiscal matters. I'm actually fairly centrist in other matters. I'm opposed to the GW/CC scare, because I believe it is a Leftwing SCAM to increase government overreach, which will cost businesses and taxpayers Billions of dollars. It's as simple as that...

 

[Beeazlebub]

Let me make this as simple as possible

"Man exhaling is probably one of the biggest sources. Do you suggest we
stop breathing? How many Billions of our tax dollars do you want our
politicians to waste trying to solve a problem (?) that has NO APPARENT
solution?"

Answer: Without going into basic earth science burning of fossil fuels is adding carbon to the climate system that hasn't been there for 10s of millions of years. We're changing the composition of the atmosphere in a very short time, trapping more infrared from the earth, and warming the planet.


You should realize that you're being sold a bill of goods, when the Left
talks about CO2 pollution and the even more insidious sounding Carbon
pollution. Pollution? Really? If you have to try to mislead the public
as much as the GW/CC cabal has over the years, a rational thinking human
might think he was being scammed. Of course, that would require
thinking, not following like a drone.

For you to insinuate that I do not think or that I'm a drone is indicative of a simplistic mind. You know nothing of me or anyone else on here, but I'd be happy to meet you, shake your hand, and explain in person my credentials in both the climate and critical thinking departments any time you're around campus.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Re: If this is true.......

Originally posted by GMM:
......then those predicting doom from AGW should be rushing to confirm that the numbers have been fudged. That is, if they truly believe what they claim to believe. They claim to believe that AGW is "the greatest threat to civilization" or something like that. If it turns out that there really hasn't been a lot of global warming then............we're saved!!!

To them it would be the greatest news of our generation. But something tells me their going to ignore or attack this news.

Somehow, I don't see them wanting to be saved from a problem that's making them wealthier or more politically powerful.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Originally posted by Beeazlebub:
Let me make this as simple as possible

"Man exhaling is probably one of the biggest sources. Do you suggest we
stop breathing? How many Billions of our tax dollars do you want our
politicians to waste trying to solve a problem (?) that has NO APPARENT
solution?"

Answer: Without going into basic earth science burning of fossil fuels is adding carbon to the climate system that hasn't been there for 10s of millions of years. We're changing the composition of the atmosphere in a very short time, trapping more infrared from the earth, and warming the planet.


You should realize that you're being sold a bill of goods, when the Left
talks about CO2 pollution and the even more insidious sounding Carbon
pollution. Pollution? Really? If you have to try to mislead the public
as much as the GW/CC cabal has over the years, a rational thinking human
might think he was being scammed. Of course, that would require
thinking, not following like a drone.

For you to insinuate that I do not think or that I'm a drone is indicative of a simplistic mind. You know nothing of me or anyone else on here, but I'd be happy to meet you, shake your hand, and explain in person my credentials in both the climate and critical thinking departments any time you're around campus.

CO2 is CO2. It has the same chemical composition regardless of source. Does it really matter if CO2 was generated by exhalation or fossil fuel millions of years old. Probably only to a RADICAL environmentalist.

What's your plan for volcanic eruptions? That certainly puts a lot of particulate in the air, as well as a good amount of CO2 and other more toxic gases. Oh, that's right. We can't blame man for that, so it's irrelevant.

Of course I can't think of you as being a drone, or of not thinking, because you are a legend in your own mind. But it's all right for you to be insulting and dismissive of anyone that disagrees with you. There's that Liberal tolerance again.

Here's a project for you, if you are as enlightened as you tell us you are. For the next month or so, take a skeptical look at all the science you feel is so completely settled. Pick it apart. Look beyond that data that you are spoon fed and use the questions raised by the article to determine if someone may be cooking the books. Think outside the box. Prove you aren't really a drone and question your belief system. See if you can find any gaping holes in the theory.

When Global Warming was first proposed as a theory by James Hanson, the temperature profiles of the Earth got modified to dramatize man's effect on Global Warming. The GW proponents gave us the Hockey Stick profile, that essentially eliminated the warming period from approximately 1000 AD to 1400 AD, which then made it appear that we had an exponential temperature rise during the last 40 years. At first, they passed it off as a unique phenomena. This was what originally created the alarmism and generated a lot of Federal grants to study Global Warming. Do you really believe anyone studying GW wasn't going to find some or risk losing that grant money?

As I said, I've watched this evolve from the mid 70's, when we were expecting the next Ice Age; to Hansen proposing the GW Theory; to the modification of the Earth's temperature profile to the Hockey Stick, to Politicians and media citing every abnormal temperature rise as evidence of GW, while ignoring record low temperatures; to GW morphing into Climate Change, so you could blame any temperature extremes on man; to when Florida got hit with 5 hurricanes in 2004, the GW/CC advocates announced that would be the standard that we could expect, based on man's impact on the climate, yet hurricane activity has been largely nonexistent since, etc., etc.

If I were under 40, I would have grown up with people pushing Climate Change for most of my life and it would appear to be a reality. Having watched this whole thing evolve and seeing HOW it evolved makes it appear a lot more political than scientific. Any opportunity that politicians have to create regulations and charge fees and penalties makes them ecstatic.

I believe it was you that once told me that the climate models were 95% accurate. Do you really believe that 95% accuracy is "settled science"? What makes it even worse is that Gore was spreading a lot of gloom and doom over 20 years ago, when the models were dramatically more inaccurate. Why should anyone believe all the gloom and doom predictions, when they have been based on more myth than fact so far?

BTW, you just addressed a couple of my comments, but you never addressed the article. Doesn't it concern you that some of the data being used could be getting altered or have you already discounted that as a possibility? Do you ever question the information you're given, or just accept it as fact?

 

[qazplm]

so much here that shows

you know so little about how science works as well as your skill for creating straw men.

You talk about "revisions" as if that isn't exactly how science works. Any theory worth its salt goes through revisions...as people refine and narrow it. Not one person has said that the exact working of global warming or the exact numbers are "settled" but that the overall theory is settled...just like Einstein's theories of general and special relativity are, mostly, settled, but we still nibble away at refining them, and we try to figure out how to bridge relativity with the quantum world.

But you aren't just "questioning" much like i suspect for evolution, you will never accept global warming caused by humans. Just like there will never be enough transitional fossils for you for evolution.

But yes, let's suppose the vast majority of scientists are right generally that the world is warming, and that mankind has a substantial hand in that warming...then yes, considering the large chunk of humans who live on coasts, it's going to be a pretty big deal economically for the entire planet if we lose places like Miami, NYC, and other places all across the globe.

As weather patterns change, we may see areas that were fertile becoming less so, and vice versa, which will have significant impact on the global economy and food distribution. Biological exhalation is not new. It's been going on for a long, long time and it's part of the cycle. What IS new are the fossil fuels we excavate, what is new are the methyl hydrates buried/frozen in the ocean that we risk exposing. What IS new are CFCs and other gases that are MUCH more potent than CO2 in affecting atmosphere.

Yes, you are belittled because you clearly don't understand how the scientific method works, and you don't understand the mechanisms of climate change science or you wouldn't be talking about points that have repeatedly been linked and debunked on here to deaf ears.

That you think that all of those scientists are somehow part of a "conspiracy to increase government overreach" means they don't build a tinfoil hat big enough to contain your crazy.

Oh, and yes, liberals aren't very "tolerant" of your kind of aggressive ignorance.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Originally posted by BigE23:

Originally posted by Beeazlebub:

The carbon from fossil fuels is 10s of millions of years old. The carbon released from the burning of fossil fuels is adding carbon to the climate system that hasn't been there for 10s of millions of years. We're changing the composition of the atmosphere in a very short time, trapping more infrared from the earth, and warming the planet.

CO2 is CO2. It has the same chemical composition regardless of source. Does it really matter if CO2 was generated by exhalation or fossil fuel millions of years old. Probably only to a RADICAL environmentalist.

What's your plan for volcanic eruptions? That certainly puts a lot of particulate in the air, as well as a good amount of CO2 and other more toxic gases. Oh, that's right. We can't blame man for that, so it's irrelevant.

Saawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwing and a miss.

 

[TheCainer]

This must be the RW talking point of the day as this is the third message board I have seen this on, and I have only visited 3 message boards.

About that author............

 

[BoilerMadness]

Originally posted by TheCainer:
This must be the RW talking point of the day as this is the third message board I have seen this on, and I have only visited 3 message boards.

Interesting. When you can't refute the message, you try to destroy the credibility of the messenger.

Here's the background of the author of that hit piece:

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

Amazing that a political and environmental activist would take umbrage at someone questioning his religion....

I'm sure he's totally objective.

 

[BoilerMadness]

You are such an arrogant pup,


for someone who knows so little and purports to know so much. It's amazing how you're an EXPERT on any subject on this board. Were it not for Wikipedia, you'd have no buzzwords to toss about and try to impress people with knowledge that doesn't exist. Now, if you work on your reading comprehension, you might have something worthwhile.

True, revisions do occur on Theories, before they become regarded as fact. Revising the warming period from 1000AD to 1400 AD out of existence, because it didn't fit the narrative is more fraudulent than scientific. There have been many cases of data manipulation over the years, to support the premise of Global Warming, that are ignored by people like you, who blindly believe and never question those beliefs.

Ah, the Evolution dig. WOW, that's so original and irrelevant, but nice try. I don't accept Global Warming due to the alarmism that has accompanied it from the start. Usually, when politicians and environmental activists start running in circles, screaming, "The sky is falling.", I become skeptical and question their motives.

Please spare me all your talking points about the effects of GW, because they are grossly overstated. That was another thing that fed my skepticism, the computer models that were used to stoke the fear. It was obvious that the people who ran the computer models had an objective and tried to make the data fit their objective. The early models showed a fairly steep slope on the temperature models, but rather than reevaluate the validity of the model, they projected horrendous temperature increases, projecting that line infinitely. When has anything in nature continued unabated in any direction? Never. Virtually everything in nature is cyclical, including temperature.

If you compare the reality of what has occurred over the last ten years, with what the models had projected, you'll find very little correlation. The projections for vastly increased hurricane activity is just one example. Granted, the models are continually being revised, but when you think of ALL the variables involved that affect climate, do you really believe it's possible to create a model that can predict, with any degree of confidence, the impact of ALL those variables? Think about that for a while.

Bottom line, man MAY have some small effect on the climate, as does everything else on the planet, but calling it MANMADE GW/CC, makes it appear more like it's driven by environmental activists, than scientists.

Regarding you qaz, you probably haven't taken a science course since you left HS, yet you try to act like an expert. You're really not a very good actor....

 

[BoilerMadness]

Don't just take a shot and run. Elaborate

 

[qazplm]

lol

I dont have to be an expert on anything with folks like you around. More importantly, I trust the experts who dedicate their lives to studying things, versus just going with whatever floats into my head, like you. I don't pick and choose what I want to believe, I look at the evidence and the work done by a lot of folks who know more than I do to help me decide. The next time you engage in that process will be a virginal awakening.

Wikipedia would be a step up in your knowledge base compared to where it is now. Hel, there are experts right here on this board that have told you the same things I have said, and much more, on a host of issues. You are too ignorant to listen to them and actually mock them while expressing that ignorance. It's a really stunning and quite impressive display of aggressive ignorance.

Theories are NEVER regarded as "fact." Facts and theories are two separate things. That's basic scientific method, basic science 101. It doesn't require an "expert" it just requires middle school science. Every time you open up your mouth you say something else to show your utter cluelessness on science.

 

[qazplm]

why?

it's not like you will listen to him when he explains why what you just said is so scientifically wrong.

 

[BoilerJS]

Re: why?

The Earth is on a 27,000 year climate cycle. It's been some 15,000 years since the last ice age. The Earth will start cooling down (Northern Hemisphere)the USA, Europe, Russia will again be under 2 miles of ice. Who will feed the world? Australia and Antarctica I guess. This will happebn of course only if the super volcano under Yellowstone Park doesn't erupt and wipe out 3/4 of the population in the US.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Re: why?

Originally posted by BoilerJS:
The Earth is on a 27,000 year climate cycle. It's been some 15,000 years since the last ice age. The Earth will start cooling down (Northern Hemisphere)the USA, Europe, Russia will again be under 2 miles of ice. Who will feed the world? Australia and Antarctica I guess. This will happebn of course only if the super volcano under Yellowstone Park doesn't erupt and wipe out 3/4 of the population in the US.

So the earth has an ice age every 27k years? Has this always been the case? Was there ever a time when the earth was free of ice sheets? If so, why do you think that was?

 

[qazplm]

Re: why?

1. I assume you are talking about precession? Which is that once every approximately 26K years the Earth "wobbles" around 23 degrees plus or minus a degree or so. And you are linking that to Milankovitch cycles? There is some support for that theory but it absolutely is not accepted theory and has a few problems linked to it.

2. It hasn't been 15K years since the last ice age as technically we are currently in an ice age, the Quaternary glaciation. We just happen to be in an interglacial period.

3. You talk about the super-volcano, which means you recognize the possibility of things that could interrupt, accelerate, or change the cycle, particularly in the short-term. Why do you have an issue with the idea that CFCs, and other industrial and man-made contributions to the atmosphere cannot similarly affect thing?

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Not sure why I should elaborate considering he did a pretty good job of explaining why burning fossil fuel increases total carbon present in the atmosphere yet you still responded with "CO2 is CO2." You obviously didn't get it the first time, so why would you get it now?

That's what you swung and missed on. You just totally didn't read or comprehend what he said.

I'm no climate change wonk, but it was evident that you had no intention of actually processing thought that B presented. Thus, "Swing and a miss...."
This post was edited on 2/10 3:39 PM by gr8indoorsman

 

[BoilerMadness]

Re: lol

"Theories are NEVER regarded as "fact." Facts and theories are two separate things."

That statement is true, but your problem with reading comprehension or your proclivity toward dishonesty to win a point has reared it's ugly head again. I didn't say that, but there's a reason that you don't copy other peoples posts, when you rebut them. Invariably, you either twist their words to fit your agenda or simply try to pass off a lie as the truth. It's just your nature. BTW, if Theories are PROVEN, then they stop being theories and then become FACT. Can you wrap your brain around that simple concept.

I'm sure your undergraduate degree required many more science courses, than my Engineering Degree from Purdue. BTW, what was your undergrad degree in? Sociology. African American Studies, Basket Weaving? I'm sure you'll make up something impressive.

I'll admit I'm ignorant enough to keep asking questions, when it's apparent the science on a theory hasn't been settled. I actually wonder why the models continue to be far from accurate. I wonder why we've had numerous instances over the years, where raw data has been "adjusted" to support the GW argument. Why doesn't any of the data get adjusted the other way? I'm savvy enough to know that when there are Billions of dollars on the line, pure science can get corrupted, and I believe it has been.

You, on the other hand are full of arrogant self righteousness, earnestly believing everything, that the Left espouses. You believe GW/CC will cause Armageddon, unless we shut down the auto industry (or at least eliminate the internal combustion engine). You believe that Obama is the very bestest President EVER, since he loves social justice and Socialism. Plus he believes that GW/CC is a bigger threat to the world, than Islamic Terrorism. OMG how heroic. You think you're brilliant, but you blindly believe all these things and NEVER question them. Gosh, if you started believing in Santa and the Easter Bunny again, you could be an 8 year old. That sounds like a noble goal for you...

 

[BoilerMadness]

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:


Not sure why I should elaborate considering he did a pretty good job of explaining why burning fossil fuel increases total carbon present in the atmosphere yet you still responded with "CO2 is CO2." You obviously didn't get it the first time, so why would you get it now?

That's what you swung and missed on. You just totally didn't read or comprehend what he said.

I'm no climate change wonk, but it was evident that you had no intention of actually processing thought that B presented. Thus, "Swing and a miss...."

This post was edited on 2/10 3:39 PM by gr8indoorsman

I was considering it from the perspective of "millions of years old" fossil fuels and addressed the fact that the CO2 is the same regardless of the age of the source. Since all fossil fuels are millions of years old, it seemed redundant to mention that, unless he felt it had some special significance. Hence my statement.

If the point was that we're using "more" fossil fuels now, than we were, that's obvious as well.

 

[qazplm]

LMAO

You say: "True, revisions do occur on Theories, before they become regarded as fact."

Then I say: "Theories are NEVER regarded as "fact." Facts and theories are two separate things."

Then you say: "if Theories are PROVEN, then they stop being theories and then become FACT. Can you wrap your brain around that simple concept."

Theories are not "proven true" nor do they "become fact." Your clear misunderstanding of the difference here is stunning.

Facts are things we see. We observe. That's it.

Theories are explanations for WHY we see those facts. Those explanations can get more and more accurate, but they are never going to "become facts."

From the link:

Fact: In science, an observation that has been
repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as
"true." Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted
as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of
some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws,
inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Basic science. A theory is a well-substantiated hypothesis...that's it. it is not, and will never be, a fact. It doesn't require an engineering degree, but I spent my first two years in Aero-Astro before deciding law was what I wanted to do. And no, i didn't fail out, and I had a scholarship that paid for a good chunk of my schooling. But even if it were in "basket-weaving" my time in middle and high school would have been all I needed to know the difference between a fact and a theory. Perhaps you should go back and slap your teachers for failing you.

Let me help you out

 

[Beeazlebub]

Originally posted by BigE23:

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:


Not sure why I should elaborate considering he did a pretty good job of explaining why burning fossil fuel increases total carbon present in the atmosphere yet you still responded with "CO2 is CO2." You obviously didn't get it the first time, so why would you get it now?

That's what you swung and missed on. You just totally didn't read or comprehend what he said.

I'm no climate change wonk, but it was evident that you had no intention of actually processing thought that B presented. Thus, "Swing and a miss...."

This post was edited on 2/10 3:39 PM by gr8indoorsman

I was considering it from the perspective of "millions of years old" fossil fuels and addressed the fact that the CO2 is the same regardless of the age of the source. Since all fossil fuels are millions of years old, it seemed redundant to mention that, unless he felt it had some special significance. Hence my statement.

If the point was that we're using "more" fossil fuels now, than we were, that's obvious as well.

The explanation I gave is why we have seen a dramatic rise in the amount of CO2 since the industrial revolution. The carbon was locked away in the form of fossil fuels, and through the burning of those fossil fuels, climate system continues to accumulate heat.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Simply brilliant

Originally posted by qazplm:
You say: "True, revisions do occur on Theories, before they become regarded as fact."

Then I say: "Theories are NEVER regarded as "fact." Facts and theories are two separate things."

Then you say: "if Theories are PROVEN, then they stop being theories and then become FACT. Can you wrap your brain around that simple concept."

Theories are not "proven true" nor do they "become fact." Your clear misunderstanding of the difference here is stunning.

Facts are things we see. We observe. That's it.

Theories are explanations for WHY we see those facts. Those explanations can get more and more accurate, but they are never going to "become facts."

From the link:

Fact: In science, an observation that has been
repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as
"true." Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted
as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of
some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws,
inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Basic science. A theory is a well-substantiated hypothesis...that's it. it is not, and will never be, a fact. It doesn't require an engineering degree, but I spent my first two years in Aero-Astro before deciding law was what I wanted to do. And no, i didn't fail out, and I had a scholarship that paid for a good chunk of my schooling. But even if it were in "basket-weaving" my time in middle and high school would have been all I needed to know the difference between a fact and a theory. Perhaps you should go back and slap your teachers for failing you.

You're doing what you do best: parsing words.


Based on your assessment, if the prevailing thought was that the Earth was flat and someone proposed the Theory, that the Earth was round. Then it was proven, that the Earth was actually round, but in your mind, it still wouldn't be a fact, since it started as a Theory. You've got to be out of your mind to float crap like that and expect anyone to buy it.

I'll give you credit though. I did get a good laugh out of that.....vbg

 

[BoilerMadness]

Can you explain this?

If everything you say is true and the warming is because of the CO2 being added to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, how do you explain the warming period from 1000 AD to 1400 AD, when temperatures were reported to be higher than they are today?

I know that the early GW advocates tried to erase that warming period, when they released their "hockey stick" temperature profile, since it largely refutes the "man made" element of GW.

I don't disagree with what you're saying about higher concentrations of CO2 affecting temperature. I just don't buy into the imminent Armageddon claims that Al Gore and his ilk are preaching. We've had numerous warming and cooling periods throughout history and the Big Blue Marble always finds balance.
This post was edited on 2/12 9:53 PM by BigE23

 

[qazplm]

the Earth being round

is not a theory. It's an observation. The early observation that it was flat was flawed because of an inability to have the right perspective or knowledge. Now we know because we have a more accurate observation.

You know, the part where "it has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true'?"

Guess what a theory would be? WHY the Earth is round as opposed to some other shape.

Good grief just stop, you are embarrassing yourself to no end. And you have an engineering degree? I hope it's not in anything that folks actually structurally rely on.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Re: the Earth being round

Originally posted by qazplm:
is not a theory. It's an observation. The early observation that it was flat was flawed because of an inability to have the right perspective or knowledge. Now we know because we have a more accurate observation.

You know, the part where "it has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true'?"

Guess what a theory would be? WHY the Earth is round as opposed to some other shape.

Good grief just stop, you are embarrassing yourself to no end. And you have an engineering degree? I hope it's not in anything that folks actually structurally rely on.

Reminds me of one of my favorite writings by Isaac Asimov. The Relativity of Wrong



This post was edited on 2/12 8:05 PM by Beeazlebub

 

[BoilerMadness]

Pointless

Like talking to a rock.

This post was edited on 2/12 7:49 PM by BigE23

 

[BoilerMadness]

Good article*


$$

 

[TheCainer]

Maybe I can't refute the message because I am not a scientist. But, would you accept it if scientific evidence could, or if its skeptics accepted it?

The whole argument from Christopher Booker is that the original evidence was somehow manipulated to prove a point by "processing" the data. However, this word "processing" seems to be a code word by those who deny the evidence as some sort of conspiracy. Given that, what if the original evidence was analyzed in its original form?

Well, it appears that this was done, by a group called the "Berkeley Earth" project. This was actually done a few years ago. And their conclusion was that the climatologists had actually done a pretty good job in their analysis. The fact is that Mr. Booker's efforts was trying to actually refute something that had already been accepted by its skeptics. Why would he do this?

From my linked article:


Last week, a project called Berkeley Earth released drafts of its findings. The project was started by a physicist, Richard Muller, who had previously expressed doubts about the mathematical rigor of climate science; it received funding from a variety of sources, including the Department of Energy and foundations set up by Bill Gates and the Koch brothers. The Berkeley Earth team set out to analyze records of the Earth's surface temperatures to answer questions about the trajectory of the planet's recent warming that had been raised by skeptics and contrarians. To a very large degree, it discovered that climatologists had been doing a pretty good job after all.
Climatologists have generated a number of reconstructions of global temperature trends based on instruments that have been recording temperatures since the 1800s. However, one of those records was produced by members of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. That record became embroiled in controversy: the CRU was the target of e-mail thefts, was unable to release some of its records due to commercial agreements, and had destroyed some paper copies of original data decades earlier. NASA and NOAA, however, performed independent reconstructions based on publicly available data.
Even those, however, had become the targets of criticism. Recording stations were moved, their surroundings urbanized, and researchers performed adjustments or dropped some stations entirely in order to compensate. Various parties hostile to the findings of climate science have raised questions about this process. Have the scientists really compensated for urbanization? Was the trajectory of the modern warming really as extreme as the temperature records were showing?
And those were the moderate voices. At the more extreme end of the spectrum, some accused researchers of selectively dropping only stations that showed cooling trends, and raised questions about whether the planet had warmed at all. These questions weren't very realistic-melting ice, migrating species, and other factors made it pretty clear the planet was warming-but the climate debate has no shortage of unreasonable voices.Rerunning the numbers
In any case, the Berkeley Earth project set out to answer all of those questions. It would use many more stations, perform an independent reconstruction of global temperatures, and examine the effect of urbanization. And it has now completed that analysis and posted drafts of the four papers it has submitted to peer reviewed journals (they're currently in the review process).
It's not clear that they will all be published, because a few of them largely duplicate information that's already out there, as even the project head admits. "Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK," said Richard Muller. "This confirms that these studies were done carefully and the potential biases identified by climate change skeptics did not seriously affect their conclusions."
So, with a different set of temperature stations, Berkeley Earth has succeeded in producing a graph that looks nearly indistinguishable from those of the other research groups.

Link

 

[ecouch]

Re: Pointless

Qaz is correct. You are embarrassing yourself.

Your original post, is simply a rehash of the same denial argument that pops up every year when temp records are reported. It displays a lack of understanding of how statistical analysis, regardless of discipline, operates. The extreme right wing latches on to "adjustments" as if it doesn't happen in everything from their brake pads to tampons. Second, you are abusing science, particularly the language. Theories become theories because they are sound and have explanatory and predictive value. They are multidisciplinary explanations of how the physical world works. They aren't facts. Scientific theories are probabilities on outcomes. Gravity is the most well known theory. As is germ theory. The word theory is different in science than it is in everyday use. You may have a theory on why the bus is late, but that isn't a scientific theory. You are venturing into the creationist talking point that evolution is just a theory. A theory, in scientific terms, is the best explanation of an event - not a guess. Generally speaking, a law is something that can be explained with mathematics. So, you may see some scientific principles explained as laws. For instance, the law of gravity may be referenced for interactions on the surface of Earth (standard gravity..9.8 m/s^2).

Next, we have to address your sources. It has been pointed out many times, but your sources have to be questioned. A variant of Occam, but weighing evidence vs. interest is always important. In the past several months you have linked scientific analysis from Forbes, The Heritage Foundation, an oil company in Canada, an editorialist who was fired for pay for print, and today a fellow who thinks that asbestos and tobacco smoke aren't bad for you. Credibility is a factor. You denounce folks for being drones and swallowing what they are fed....well, the mirror is a harsh mistress.

In short, again, you are embarrassing yourself. Not only in your lack of understanding regarding basic science, but your obvious partisan ranting show the board your lack of critical thinking skills. And, I hate the phrase critical thinking. You have proved why that term is necessary.

This post was edited on 2/13 12:37 AM by ecouch

 

[qazplm]

unfortunately for you

a rock knows more science.