Quote from: Yawn on September 09, 2013, 06:28:00 AM
Why is this so important to you and what do you propose we do about it? We are 5% of the population. How do you propose to exhert your will over 3 billion in China and India? Besides, the planet has been ice free for 85% of its existance. Why is yesterday better than the 85% of the time it has been tropical. How do we benefit from an ice planet?

It's important to me, because I don't want the conservative movement to be written off as a bunch of buffoons that aren't worth listening to.  When you reject science, that's what people think of you and they don't listen to your other arguments.

I don't propose to do anything about it.

You seem to put a lot into the left's credibility on this issue as well as the THEORY of evolution. While I don't accept evolution at all you should know that the vast majority of conservatives have. As far as GW, if they want to sell an idae,  it's THEIR responsibility. It's not our responsibility to blindly follow. You seem overly concerned about what the left thinks of you. It seems clear you've bought the anti-science lie.

Quote from: mhughes on September 09, 2013, 06:29:14 AM
Somehow, I missed this message.


The consensus is much larger than the IPCC.  3 meta-studies.  A survey.  A big list of international scientific organizations.  Plus the IPCC.

Show me a similar list saying otherwise.

A 1 year change in ice does not make for a trend.  Especially when it's going from the worst year on record.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2000/09/Figure31.png

It's thinking like that, that has people making animations like this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_ArcticEscalator2012.gif

You're attributing the cause with consensus, but the truth is in the details.
For example, when the real question asked of the majority of scientists, "Do you believe that a 2 degree warming over 100 years time" is a threat to life, most unanimously agreed that it would have no effect.
Point being, they all agree that Co2 plays a part in climate, and yes, any increase will effect in some manner, but the effect is minimal.
That should tell you something about the agenda behind this, and why is it just the US, or Western  civilization is being targeted, while developing countries are being given a pass?

Again, look at the politics behind this, if were truly important, the govt would be allowing nuclear plants to be built all around the country, pushing for natural gas to replace oil, but they aren't, now ask yourself, why is that, and see if you come up with a reasonable answer.

Quote from: mhughes on September 09, 2013, 06:31:42 AM
It's important to me, because I don't want the conservative movement to be written off as a bunch of buffoons that aren't worth listening to.  When you reject science, that's what people think of you and they don't listen to your other arguments.

I don't propose to do anything about it.

Awww jeez, real science has NEVER BEEN BASED ON CONSENSUS!

Models are designed to test theory, theory is never proven by modeling, that is not how science works, it's the libs that don't believe in true science, they believe in the consensus of opinion, even when it's not proven.

You confuse a scientific consensus with some other meaning of consensus.

In this context, it means when the scientific community at large has validated the theory and can find no better explanation.

Science has always been driven forward that way.

How would you suggest we do it otherwise?  Pick the smartest guy and do it his way?  Let the common people vote on it?  Read the bible? 

Science is messy.  It's never absolutely sure.  But we've sent people to the moon, split the atom, and cured diseases by doing it this way.  It's the best we have.

Quote from: Solar on September 09, 2013, 08:37:28 AM
You're attributing the cause with consensus, but the truth is in the details.
For example, when the real question asked of the majority of scientists, "Do you believe that a 2 degree warming over 100 years time" is a threat to life, most unanimously agreed that it would have no effect.
Point being, they all agree that Co2 plays a part in climate, and yes, any increase will effect in some manner, but the effect is minimal.
That should tell you something about the agenda behind this, and why is it just the US, or Western  civilization is being targeted, while developing countries are being given a pass?

Again, look at the politics behind this, if were truly important, the govt would be allowing nuclear plants to be built all around the country, pushing for natural gas to replace oil, but they aren't, now ask yourself, why is that, and see if you come up with a reasonable answer.

No.  I'm not looking at the politics of this.  I'm looking at the science.  And what the science says is clear.  Global warming is real and man made.   Denying that makes you look like a fool.  I'm not saying anything about the effects of that warming.

The politics is another, very interesting, conversation to have.  You and I would probably be on the same side of it with the liberals on the other.  But how can you have a debate on a scientific issue without accepting the science?

Who ya gonna believe --- some ivory-tower egghead who got lucky and landed a Big Gummint grant to spew third-rate balderdash ... or the weather going on all around that says we ARE cooling down.

Yeah, there's no such thing as the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus, either. Global warming is a total fraud.

Quote from: mhughes on September 09, 2013, 09:23:52 AM
You confuse a scientific consensus with some other meaning of consensus.

In this context, it means when the scientific community at large has validated the theory and can find no better explanation.

Science has always been driven forward that way.

And what was the purpose of bringing these people together, and why weren't they inviting those that opposed the idea?
Because they had an agenda, why can't you see that? This is not how science works.

Quote
How would you suggest we do it otherwise?  Pick the smartest guy and do it his way?  Let the common people vote on it?  Read the bible? 

Science is messy.  It's never absolutely sure.  But we've sent people to the moon, split the atom, and cured diseases by doing it this way.  It's the best we have.


No.  I'm not looking at the politics of this.  I'm looking at the science.  And what the science says is clear.  Global warming is real and man made.   Denying that makes you look like a fool.  I'm not saying anything about the effects of that warming.

The politics is another, very interesting, conversation to have.  You and I would probably be on the same side of it with the liberals on the other.  But how can you have a debate on a scientific issue without accepting the science?

And you would be wrong, AGW is all about politics and nothing less.

Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that "...there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.

So where did that famous "consensus" claim that "98% of all scientists believe in global warming" come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered "yes" to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That "98% all scientists" referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered "yes".
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

Now you claim 97% believe AGW is real and a threat, well, lets look at that a bit closer, shall we?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/

Quote from: Solar on September 09, 2013, 08:37:28 AM
You're attributing the cause with consensus, but the truth is in the details.
For example, when the real question asked of the majority of scientists, "Do you believe that a 2 degree warming over 100 years time" is a threat to life, most unanimously agreed that it would have no effect.
Point being, they all agree that Co2 plays a part in climate, and yes, any increase will effect in some manner, but the effect is minimal.
That should tell you something about the agenda behind this, and why is it just the US, or Western  civilization is being targeted, while developing countries are being given a pass?

Again, look at the politics behind this, if were truly important, the govt would be allowing nuclear plants to be built all around the country, pushing for natural gas to replace oil, but they aren't, now ask yourself, why is that, and see if you come up with a reasonable answer.

IF they would like to cut down on the Co2 in the atmosphere.  Then STOP CUTTING down the trees and all plants.   Ya gotta love the tree hugger their houses are made out of wood.     The GW people and not saying stop GW, there saying tax it. 

Man made global warming/climate change is still just a theory.

Again, a mere 2 degree increase over the last 100 years can not be used to validate the current man made global warming/climate change theory.

However, it can and is being used as an excuse to levy taxes, fees, and regulations, etc.

Btw mhughes, I noticed that you conveniently decided against posting a reply to my post #29.

Here, let me repost if for you:

"Let's also keep in mind the relative accuracy of the instruments used during this 100 year span. Those that proscribe to man made global warming often refuse to question the accuracy of the instruments used to calculate global, or even regional, temperatures during this 100 span. To think that all of these instruments were relatively (or even remotely) accurate, let alone accurately calibrated world wide, shows a lack of critical thinking."

"A modern case in point was during the early '80s when summer temps across much of the Western US Region were recorded as being abnormally high (if not record-breaking). I was attending a trade school in Phoenix during that time and remember temps that (supposedly) reached 120 degrees or more that summer. However, years later the "weather community" had to admit that their temperature calibrations were off 1 degree or more (positive) during that hot spell. That's right, all the so-called weather "experts" and "scientists" had calibrated their instruments to incorrectly adjusted National Weather Service instrumentation."


And let me say again that the fact that our government is "warning" us about something that it absolutely and positively aids and abets gives rational thinkers much reason to question the validity of the government's claims in regard to the global warming/climate change theory.

Quote from: mhughes on September 09, 2013, 09:23:52 AM
You confuse a scientific consensus with some other meaning of consensus.

On a purely subjective basis, you are correct.  The two terms are completely different:  You put the word "scientific" in front of one, thus making it feel much more authoritative and important to you.

Consensus is the opposite of science.  In an Art Appreciation class, what those in a position of perceived authority say most often is by definition right, and everyone else's opinion is by definition wrong.   A freshman can point out a flaw in a multi-million dollar study his physics department performed, and he is right and they are wrong; and saying: "Every 'reputable' scientist in the world agrees with us!" carries precisely zero weight in the argument. 

Real science isn't believed or disbelieved; it is either proven or it is disproven.  And if a "theory" isn't DISprovable, then it is not science.  It might well be true, but it is most definitely not science.

Ask a Christian to establish a hypothetical set of conditions that would disprove the existence of God.

Now ask a liberal to establish a hypothetical set of conditions that would disprove the existence of Global Warming.

Quote from: Telmark on September 09, 2013, 10:32:09 AM
Man made global warming/climate change is still just a theory.

Let's take a giant step back here.  There's nothing wrong with "just" a scientific theory; those are wonderful and incredibly useful things.  Unfortunately, Global Warming doesn't meet that criteria. 

The very first step would be to state it as a coherent hypothesis.  And that hasn't really been done.  There are basically two completely different versions of the "theory" that are constantly jumbled together:

1)  The vague description liberals use when they're purporting to "prove" Global Warming to disbelievers goes something like:  "Mankind's burning of fossil fuels might someday cause something bad to happen and, if so, then any good person should want those bad things to not happen."  Who can really disagree with that?  It's not so much a scientific theory as it is a tautology.

2)  The effective definition liberals use when they want to implement their fixes is wildly different.  Take the Kyoto Accord as a glaring example.  It officially proclaims that the only way to save the world from doom is for free nations to pay trillions of dollars a year to Communist governments.

The latter postulate was first published 165 years ago.  And it has been more thoroughly and catastrophically discredited than any "scientific" theory in history.

What temperature should the Earth be?

High of 80, low 55, everyday in Ann Arbor. And I'll keep driving until we achieve it!

Quote from: Solar on September 09, 2013, 10:20:56 AM
And what was the purpose of bringing these people together, and why weren't they inviting those that opposed the idea?
Because they had an agenda, why can't you see that? This is not how science works.And you would be wrong, AGW is all about politics and nothing less.

Do you mean the IPCC?  I'm not talking about the IPCC. You brought that up.  The consensus is far bigger than it.

Quote
Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that "...there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.

You mean the OSIM list?

31k sounds like a lot huh?  Well, the criteria they use to decide who a scientist includes would only represent 0.3% of the US scientists. 

The statement they sign only deals with catastrophic heating.  Given my degree, I could even sign onto it and still be making the argument that AGW is real and happening.  So it's not a very good indicator that global warming isn't occurring.

Plus, it's got a few problems...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project-intermediate.htm

Quote
So where did that famous "consensus" claim that "98% of all scientists believe in global warming" come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered "yes" to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That "98% all scientists" referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered "yes".
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

Now you claim 97% believe AGW is real and a threat, well, lets look at that a bit closer, shall we?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/

I never claimed 97% - I claim a vast scientific consensus.  But regardless...

The survey in that study was just a verification tool used to verify the results of the study.  It gave similar results to the main part of their paper.  What the study was actually about was a reading of of the abstracts of 12,000 papers written on the subject over 20 years.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

There were two other meta-studies on the subject with similar results.  One by James Lawrence Powell in 2012 and one by Naomi Oreskes in 2004.  All three came to similar conclusions.  All three actually published all of their raw data, unlike the OISM list.

So we've got 3 studies, peer reviewed and published with full data all saying similar things.

There's an additional survey being conducted by John Cook at the University of Queensland right now, who's preliminary results are also consistent.

Don't like studies?  Prefer lists?  Then how about a giant list of scientific organizations supporting the theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Concurring


And you have one OISM list saying the opposite.  If I brought data like the OISM list to this thread I'd be laughed out of the board. 

Quote from: Telmark on September 09, 2013, 10:32:09 AM
Btw mhughes, I noticed that you conveniently decided against posting a reply to my post #29.

Here, let me repost if for you:

"Let's also keep in mind the relative accuracy of the instruments used during this 100 year span. Those that proscribe to man made global warming often refuse to question the accuracy of the instruments used to calculate global, or even regional, temperatures during this 100 span. To think that all of these instruments were relatively (or even remotely) accurate, let alone accurately calibrated world wide, shows a lack of critical thinking."

"A modern case in point was during the early '80s when summer temps across much of the Western US Region were recorded as being abnormally high (if not record-breaking). I was attending a trade school in Phoenix during that time and remember temps that (supposedly) reached 120 degrees or more that summer. However, years later the "weather community" had to admit that their temperature calibrations were off 1 degree or more (positive) during that hot spell. That's right, all the so-called weather "experts" and "scientists" had calibrated their instruments to incorrectly adjusted National Weather Service instrumentation."

That's an example of the scientific method working.  A mistake was found.  Studies were done to figure out how & why.  And it was corrected in the record.

Science is messy, and self correcting.

One mistake does not invalidate dozens of studies all trying to reconstruct an accurate historical temperature record.  Some use direct measurement, some use proxy measurements (from tree rings to ice cores to the decay rate of certain isotopes), some focus on land temperatures, some focus on sea temperatures.  But all of that data points to the same conclusions.

Quote from: kopema on September 09, 2013, 11:35:52 AM
Let's take a giant step back here.  There's nothing wrong with "just" a scientific theory; those are wonderful and incredibly useful things.  Unfortunately, Global Warming doesn't meet that criteria. 

The very first step would be to state it as a coherent hypothesis.  And that hasn't really been done.  There are basically two completely different versions of the "theory" that are constantly jumbled together:

1)  The vague description liberals use when they're purporting to "prove" Global Warming to disbelievers goes something like:  "Mankind's burning of fossil fuels might someday cause something bad to happen and, if so, then any good person should want those bad things to not happen."  Who can really disagree with that?  It's not so much a scientific theory as it is a tautology.

2)  The effective definition liberals use when they want to implement their fixes is wildly different.  Take the Kyoto Accord as a glaring example.  It officially proclaims that the only way to save the world from doom is for free nations to pay trillions of dollars a year to Communist governments.

The latter postulate was first published 165 years ago.  And it has been more thoroughly and catastrophically discredited than any "scientific" theory in history.

Again.   I'm only arguing the purely scientific point that AGW is real and is happening.  There are very specific, coherent hypothesis that have been repeatedly validated by experimentation.  When you move away from the scientific literature, and into what people are saying about it, it gets noisy.  When you move away from the theory that AGW is happening, and into the realm of the consequences of it, it gets murky too. 

Quote from: taxed on September 09, 2013, 12:29:34 PM
What temperature should the Earth be?

According to libs, Capitalists control the thermostat and that's just not fair.