Well... looks like that was a total bust. :lol:
And now it's global COOLING! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year
Almost a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012
BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013
Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month
Flash back just 6 years ago, to the height of the Marxist push to destroy Western culture and more particularly US energy production.
Now do you get it libs?
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2013%2F09%2F08%2Farticle-2415191-1BAED5FF000005DC-408_638x431.jpg&hash=edbf500efc0c8ac2c1b149f94d525e65c58b875b)
There's a nice regional graphic in this piece about Farmers Almanac predictions for a very cold winter, 2014. (You Callyfornyans will not see much difference.)
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/uh-oh-farmers-almanac-predicts-a-nasty-2013-2014-winter (http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/uh-oh-farmers-almanac-predicts-a-nasty-2013-2014-winter)
Quote from: quiller on September 08, 2013, 07:13:51 AM
There's a nice regional graphic in this piece about Farmers Almanac predictions for a very cold winter, 2014. (You Callyfornyans will not see much difference.)
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/uh-oh-farmers-almanac-predicts-a-nasty-2013-2014-winter (http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/uh-oh-farmers-almanac-predicts-a-nasty-2013-2014-winter)
Actually
"cool with near-normal precipitation" means seriously increased snowfall for my area, the Sierra Nevada mt range.
Something I have been saying all Summer, based on wildlife activity, particularly insects.
Another reason I want to buy a bulldozer. :biggrin:
Quote from: Solar on September 08, 2013, 07:26:57 AM
Actually "cool with near-normal precipitation" means seriously increased snowfall for my area, the Sierra Nevada mt range.
Something I have been saying all Summer, based on wildlife activity, particularly insects.
Another reason I want to buy a bulldozer. :biggrin:
Backasswards Californians! Sheesh!
You simply need to telecommute for Toy, and let THEM bulldoze a way to YOU.
Unless you want to knock down a forest for the wood. Something useful like that.
Remember the Global Warming scam?
Heck, I'm old enough to remember the Global Cooling scam of the early '70s.
Many newspapers carried several series of articles on this (with a "list" of all the world class "scientists" and weather experts that subscribed to the theory).
Yep, it was going to get so cold that mankind would have no choice but to live underground.
Quote from: Telmark on September 08, 2013, 07:44:39 AM
Remember the Global Warming scam?
Heck, I'm old enough to remember the Global Cooling scam of the early '70s.
Many newspapers carried several series of articles on this (with a "list" of all the world class "scientists" and weather experts that subscribed to the theory).
Yep, it was going to get so cold that mankind would have no choice but to live underground.
Same here, and none of which had a thing to do with mans influence on anything.
To even consider man effecting nature on a grand scale is ego personified.
Yet the socialists played on the ignorant, those that think with emotion, or rather don't think at all.
Funny isn't it, the same LIVs that freaked out over the pseudo science are the same ones that elected a Marxist to the highest office in the land.
OK, it's not so funny, rather a reflection of just how ignorant our populace have become.
And I was so looking forward to owning some waterfront properties. :rolleyes: :popcorn:
That's good and bad news.
Good: I'm feeling 40 years younger! This is a repeat of 1970
Bad: I was REALLY hoping for a tropical planet before I leave this world.
I not only remember the bIg freeze predictiom of
the seventies, I remember Newweek's cover, 'Another Ice Age." Scientists were sure then, too. The American people will buy anything. Even if it comes from Al Gore.
Quote from: Yawn on September 08, 2013, 08:37:28 AM
That's good and bad news.
Good: I'm feeling 40 years younger! This is a repeat of 1970
Bad: I was REALLY hoping for a tropical planet before I leave this world.
Same here, I was even considering buying property much further North and moving in 3 to 5 years, I think I'll wait and see.
I love snow, but there is a limit, and if we're heading into a colder period, staying put may be a better move, even if it is the socialist state of Ca.
Quote from: Solar on September 08, 2013, 12:17:32 PM
Same here, I was even considering buying property much further North and moving in 3 to 5 years, I think I'll wait and see.
I love snow, but there is a limit, and if we're heading into a colder period, staying put may be a better move, even if it is the socialist state of Ca.
There always Montana yet. :lol:
Quote from: walkstall on September 08, 2013, 01:26:28 PM
There always Montana yet. :lol:
I was considering northern Idaho along the Canadian border, I'll wait.
Quote from: Solar on September 08, 2013, 01:27:48 PM
I was considering northern Idaho along the Canadian border, I'll wait.
That's a very narrow strip up along there, shop early.
Quote from: walkstall on September 08, 2013, 01:39:40 PM
That's a very narrow strip up along there, shop early.
Prices aren't bad, though I have an edge, I don't need any utilities whatsoever, it's the land close to utilities that demand a higher price.
I saw one parcel 100+ acres for under $75 K.
Again though, if the climate really is going into a mini ice age as has been predicted for years, I'd be too old to enjoy a time when warmer weather comes.
It really does depend on just how screwed up Ca gets in the next few years, if it does, I'll suffer with the cold in Idaho since Alaska is out of the question now.
Quote from: Solar on September 08, 2013, 02:13:06 PM
It really does depend on just how screwed up Ca gets in the next few years, if it does, I'll suffer with the cold in Idaho since Alaska is out of the question now.
Ya, I'd forget about Alaska... Way too much welfare/drug/gang activity up there now.
As for CA, you should consider getting out now while you can. The Dem lawmaker majority in the state is very quickly making it unlivable for those who aren't sucking on the public tit.
Quote from: Telmark on September 08, 2013, 03:24:20 PM
Ya, I'd forget about Alaska... Way too much welfare/drug/gang activity up there now.
As for CA, you should consider getting out now while you can. The Dem lawmaker majority in the state is very quickly making it unlivable for those who aren't sucking on the public tit.
That's exactly why I ruled out Alaska, that and the fact that 75% of the land is owned by the Govt, and has nearly as many agents as those that live near that land.
It's why I didn't buy land next to BLM or USFS land, makes it to easy for them to peak in and see what yo're dfoing, and God knows, we all break some stupid law daily.
When Ca kills off the Jarvis Ghann prop 13 initiative, that's the day I pack up and move.
This whole 60% more ice thing looks like one big astroturfing push by deniers, with tons of forum entries like this one, and blog posts without any data to back it up.
Here's a graph of actic sea ice extent:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2000/09/Figure31.png (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2000/09/Figure31.png)
There's a very clear downward trend there.
If you're looking at just 2013, we're currently around a seasonal minimum. So I have no idea where this 60% is coming from right now.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png (http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png)
This sums it up:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_ArcticEscalator2012.gif (http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_ArcticEscalator2012.gif)
I really don't understand your complete rejection of science on this one.
Nearly every climate scientist and scientific organization accepts anthropogenic warming of the planet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)
Nearly every paper written on the subject over the past decade does too.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange)
I get rejecting the liberal plans to combat warming that would never work. But the utter rejection that warming is even happening baffles me.
I can't stand shit like this because it gives conservatives a bad name. I'll be talking with more liberal minded friends, have a disagreement about something, and they'll respond with a, "Well what would you know, you guys are the ones who don't believe in climate change or evolution." Quit looking like idiots.
Now go ahead. Cherry pick your datasets & quasi-experts to fuel your disbelief. Come up with crazy conspiracy theories. And drink your confirmation bias filled kool-aid.
Nobody's rejecting warming and cooling cycles. They're saying it's been taking place for millions of years. We're on the end (probably) of the warming cycle after the last major Ice Age (thank God! or for John McCain, "allahu akbar!). The planet was on a cooling cycle (due to the sun) in the 1970s. You guys were screaming that it was MAN'S fault. That shifted to a warming cycle (due to the sun) and you guys are screaming "It's Man's fault!"
Forgive us if we laugh at you now.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FuuhN8YK.jpg&hash=6576e7004560052123d455772e5f6f4f60971055)
Quote from: Yawn on September 08, 2013, 06:02:46 PM
Nobody's rejecting warming and cooling cycles. They're saying it's been taking place for millions of years. We're on the end (probably) of the warming cycle after the last major Ice Age (thank God! or for John McCain, "allahu akbar!). The planet was on a cooling cycle (due to the sun) in the 1970s. You guys were screaming that it was MAN'S fault. That shifted to a warming cycle (due to the sun) and you guys are screaming "It's Man's fault!"
How do you explain the vast scientific consensus that the current warming is most likely due to man and not the sun?
Quote from: mhughes on September 08, 2013, 06:25:03 PM
How do you explain the vast scientific consensus that the current warming is most likely due to man and not the sun?
Because the IPCC only wanted climate scientists that would work to prove their theory, it's really that simple.
Look at the data closely, you'll see a huge increase of ice over last year.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnsidc.org%2Farcticseaicenews%2Ffiles%2F2013%2F09%2FFigure2.png&hash=923ab37038c0b41ed9c5832e15149fc83280213c)
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/)
Also, somehow I forgot to include the link to the article.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html)
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2013%2F09%2F08%2Farticle-2415191-1BAED746000005DC-112_638x341.jpg&hash=60b01e4d732e60b98411befd1522d0e51a2e304a)
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2013%2F09%2F08%2Farticle-2415191-1BAED742000005DC-727_638x345.jpg&hash=18e762f046fe5543da1b0d9595ec24dc9a669f76)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html)
Quote from: mhughes on September 08, 2013, 05:39:22 PM
This whole 60% more ice thing looks like one big astroturfing push by deniers, with tons of forum entries like this one, and blog posts without any data to back it up.
Here's a graph of actic sea ice extent:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2000/09/Figure31.png (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2000/09/Figure31.png)
There's a very clear downward trend there.
If you're looking at just 2013, we're currently around a seasonal minimum. So I have no idea where this 60% is coming from right now.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png (http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png)
This sums it up:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_ArcticEscalator2012.gif (http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_ArcticEscalator2012.gif)
I really don't understand your complete rejection of science on this one.
Nearly every climate scientist and scientific organization accepts anthropogenic warming of the planet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)
Nearly every paper written on the subject over the past decade does too.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange)
I get rejecting the liberal plans to combat warming that would never work. But the utter rejection that warming is even happening baffles me.
I can't stand shit like this because it gives conservatives a bad name. I'll be talking with more liberal minded friends, have a disagreement about something, and they'll respond with a, "Well what would you know, you guys are the ones who don't believe in climate change or evolution." Quit looking like idiots.
Now go ahead. Cherry pick your datasets & quasi-experts to fuel your disbelief. Come up with crazy conspiracy theories. And drink your confirmation bias filled kool-aid.
Lol
The latest the sun rises in the West when you're standing upsidedown-explanation is that the Pacific Ocean is in a cooling-cycle, acting as an 'air conditioner' to temporarily halt gorebull-warming for 20-ish years...
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/sep/08/environment-scripps-global-warming-climate-change/ (http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/sep/08/environment-scripps-global-warming-climate-change/)
I'd like to express my opinion, but the 'science is proven'... Further commenting invokes an EPA-lawsuit, an IRS-audit, and a UN-investigation.
Quote from: mhughes on September 08, 2013, 06:25:03 PM
How do you explain the vast scientific consensus that the current warming is most likely due to man and not the sun?
1. Climate is, and always has been, changing. This change can be derived from volcanic activity, meteorites, living organisms, and (perhaps most importantly) the precession of equinoxes.
http://culter.colorado.edu/~saelias/glacier.html (http://culter.colorado.edu/~saelias/glacier.html)
2. The "vast $cientific consensus" you mention has largely been cherry picked imo. This cherry picking of scientific evidence can usually be traced directly back to the Man Made Climate Change Taxation agenda (i.e. follow the money, government interference, and/or public recognition trails).
3. Other scientific evidence suggests that the planet experienced a "little ice age" due to a series of massive volcanic eruptions during the last part of the 13th century (this minor ice age lasted until the late 1800s). Simply put, the planet could very well be returning to more normal temps.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120130131509.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120130131509.htm)
http://www.livescience.com/18205-ice-age-volcanoes-sea-ice.html (http://www.livescience.com/18205-ice-age-volcanoes-sea-ice.html)
4. If "climate change" or "global warming" is truly man-made, then why have so many countries (including the US) allowed decades of massive and unchecked illegal immigration across their borders and shores? Surely these countries would do everything they can to reduce this human influx if climate change was, indeed, man-made (btw, Hispanic birth rates are nearly double that of non-Hispanic whites in this country).
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6142a8.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6142a8.htm)
5. Why aren't more of the scientists who proscribe to this so-called "man made" climate warming/change openly recommending zero global population growth?
6. If man made climate change is real, then why do so many Western countries (especially the U.S.) continue to handout their citizen's tax dollars to chronically dependent people and, in many cases, entire countries that do little but breed excessive numbers of dependent children? Why do these countries insist on perpetuating such chronic dependency while, at the same time, proscribing to the man made climate change theories?
Quote from: Telmark on September 09, 2013, 05:08:13 AM
1. Climate is, and always has been, changing. This change can be derived from volcanic activity, meteorites, living organisms, and (perhaps most importantly) the precession of equinoxes.
http://culter.colorado.edu/~saelias/glacier.html (http://culter.colorado.edu/~saelias/glacier.html)
2. The "vast $cientific consensus" you mention has largely been cherry picked imo. This cherry picking of scientific evidence can usually be traced directly back to the Man Made Climate Change Taxation agenda (i.e. follow the money, government interference, and/or public recognition trails).
3. Other scientific evidence suggests that the planet experienced a "little ice age" due to a series of massive volcanic eruptions during the last part of the 13th century (this minor ice age lasted until the late 1800s). Simply put, the planet could very well be returning to more normal temps.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120130131509.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120130131509.htm)
http://www.livescience.com/18205-ice-age-volcanoes-sea-ice.html (http://www.livescience.com/18205-ice-age-volcanoes-sea-ice.html)
4. If "climate change" or "global warming" is truly man-made, then why have so many countries (including the US) allowed decades of massive and unchecked illegal immigration across their borders and shores? Surely these countries would do everything they can to reduce this human influx if climate change was, indeed, man-made (btw, Hispanic birth rates are nearly double that of non-Hispanic whites in this country).
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6142a8.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6142a8.htm)
5. Why aren't more of the scientists who proscribe to this so-called "man made" climate warming/change openly recommending zero global population growth?
6. If man made climate change is real, then why do so many Western countries (especially the U.S.) continue to handout their citizen's tax dollars to chronically dependent people and, in many cases, entire countries that do little but breed excessive numbers of dependent children? Why do these countries insist on perpetuating such chronic dependency while, at the same time, proscribing to the man made climate change theories?
All good points, and there's one more point in the equation that never gets addressed and that is, the temperature variation being a cycle phase that occurs regularly, yet life on earth never noticed the change, because it occurred over such a long span of time.
So why the urgency for change, when the cycle will reverse on it's own, a cycle man has absolutely no control over.
A 2 degree rise over a 100 year span will never be noticed, yet we're supposed to be in panic mode over this?
Wherein lies the real issue, why can't people step back and see this for what it really is, a scam, a means of control over energy production, which means total control over the people, as in Marxism...
It's like their claim the oceans will rise and cities will be flooded....ummm so what, it's not like they won't have a few generations to cope with the change, assuming one even occurs.
The same scenario would happen all over the earth, generations of man would never notice the change because of how slow a 2 degree rise would take, not to mention how crops will flourish, but the left focuses on an unrealistic doom and gloom scenario, one that will not only,
not occur, but believe demands immediate and drastic change to our very way of life.
Now how silly is that?
Quote from: Telmark on September 09, 2013, 05:08:13 AM
1. Climate is, and always has been, changing. This change can be derived from volcanic activity, meteorites, living organisms, and (perhaps most importantly) the precession of equinoxes.
http://culter.colorado.edu/~saelias/glacier.html (http://culter.colorado.edu/~saelias/glacier.html)
True. It also can be caused by man. And the vast scientific consensus is the current warming is man made.
Quote from: Telmark on September 09, 2013, 05:08:13 AM
2. The "vast $cientific consensus" you mention has largely been cherry picked imo. This cherry picking of scientific evidence can usually be traced directly back to the Man Made Climate Change Taxation agenda (i.e. follow the money, government interference, and/or public recognition trails).
Did you look at the links I provided. Three meta-studies looking at climate studies. A survey of authors of those papers. A huge list of international scientific organizations that have stated their belief in the consensus.
Give me similar lists saying the opposite.
Quote from: Telmark on September 09, 2013, 05:08:13 AM
3. Other scientific evidence suggests that the planet experienced a "little ice age" due to a series of massive volcanic eruptions during the last part of the 13th century (this minor ice age lasted until the late 1800s). Simply put, the planet could very well be returning to more normal temps.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120130131509.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120130131509.htm)
http://www.livescience.com/18205-ice-age-volcanoes-sea-ice.html (http://www.livescience.com/18205-ice-age-volcanoes-sea-ice.html)
One of the main causes of the warming from the Little Ice Age to 1940 was increased solar activity. In this case, temperatures very closely matched with sun output. Unfortunately, since 1970, the sun output has generally been going down while temperatures have generally been going up, giving an indication that something else is impacting temperatures.
Quote
4. If "climate change" or "global warming" is truly man-made, then why have so many countries (including the US) allowed decades of massive and unchecked illegal immigration across their borders and shores? Surely these countries would do everything they can to reduce this human influx if climate change was, indeed, man-made (btw, Hispanic birth rates are nearly double that of non-Hispanic whites in this country).
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6142a8.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6142a8.htm)
Irrelevant to the scientific question of what is happening. What does immigration policy have to do with climate change? It's a global phenomenon. It doesn't matter if you produce the CO2 in mexico or the U.S. Also... there are more pressing issues to consider for immigration than climate change.
Quote
5. Why aren't more of the scientists who proscribe to this so-called "man made" climate warming/change openly recommending zero global population growth?
Irrelevant to the scientific question of what is happening. The policy debate over what to do is what you're describing, and is what we should actually be having. That's more of a political and less of a scientific question.
Quote
6. If man made climate change is real, then why do so many Western countries (especially the U.S.) continue to handout their citizen's tax dollars to chronically dependent people and, in many cases, entire countries that do little but breed excessive numbers of dependent children? Why do these countries insist on perpetuating such chronic dependency while, at the same time, proscribing to the man made climate change theories?
Irrelevant to the scientific question of what is happening. There are other drivers of foreign aid that far outweigh climate change.
Quote from: Solar on September 09, 2013, 05:39:23 AM
All good points, and there's one more point in the equation that never gets addressed and that is, the temperature variation being a cycle phase that occurs regularly, yet life on earth never noticed the change, because it occurred over such a long span of time.
So why the urgency for change, when the cycle will reverse on it's own, a cycle man has absolutely no control over.
A 2 degree rise over a 100 year span will never be noticed, yet we're supposed to be in panic mode over this?
Wherein lies the real issue, why can't people step back and see this for what it really is, a scam, a means of control over energy production, which means total control over the people, as in Marxism...
It's like their claim the oceans will rise and cities will be flooded....ummm so what, it's not like they won't have a few generations to cope with the change, assuming one even occurs.
The same scenario would happen all over the earth, generations of man would never notice the change because of how slow a 2 degree rise would take, not to mention how crops will flourish, but the left focuses on an unrealistic doom and gloom scenario, one that will not only, not occur, but believe demands immediate and drastic change to our very way of life.
Now how silly is that?
Great, I generally agree with your sentiment. Accept the science and move on to that policy debate that we should be having instead of this silly side show.
Just because there is man made global warming, doesn't mean we should change everything. We need to figure out the best way to deal with that. Maybe it's doing nothing because it won't matter. Maybe it's doing nothing because there are more important things to worry about right now. Maybe it's building a bunch of dykes on our east coast. Maybe it's causing volcanoes to erupt. Maybe it's finding more efficient gasoline engines. Maybe it's settling a new planet (joking...).
Point your wrath at the hippies with their zero emission 10hp recycled cardboard cars that want you to do the same with no evidence that it will help.
p.s. I notice nobody came up with evidence, backing data, or a source for this 60% ice thing.
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?
Somehow, I missed this message.
Quote from: Solar on September 08, 2013, 08:12:35 PM
Because the IPCC only wanted climate scientists that would work to prove their theory, it's really that simple.
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.
Quote
Look at the data closely, you'll see a huge increase of ice over last year.
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 (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 (http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_ArcticEscalator2012.gif)
Quote from: Solar on September 09, 2013, 05:39:23 AM
A 2 degree rise over a 100 year span will never be noticed, yet we're supposed to be in panic mode over this?
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.
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 (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 (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/ (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/ (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. :lol: The GW people and not saying stop GW, there saying tax it. :popcorn:
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 (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/ (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/ (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 (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 (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.
Quote from: Solar on September 09, 2013, 01:08:39 PM
According to libs, Capitalists control the thermostat and that's just not fair.
I quit being concerned about this some time ago. There are enough "hand wringers" out there to take care of the matter. I learned a long time ago not to get in the way of other people's misery.
Did you ever learn that if you don't get in their way, you'll turn over 85% of your income to support their agenda?
Quote from: Yawn on September 09, 2013, 01:23:48 PM
Did you ever learn that if you don't get in their way, you'll turn over 85% of your income to support their agenda?
All science begins with common sense. It doesn't always end there, but liberals have a rather pathetic tendency to skip past everything that takes actual mental discipline, and plow right ahead to the point where they scream: "Eureka! See how much smarter I am than everyone who's actually graduated from school?"
There is a huge difference between
common sense and
communal sense. An indispensable element of the former type of sense (a.k.a. reason) is something called a burden of proof.
If somebody says: "Global Warming is a 'real' and 'existent' 'scientific' 'consensus';" (however a random libtard would go about defining any of those terms) "...ergo, America should revert to a medieval standard of living." I'm going to need a lot more than an arbitrarily-truncated time-temperature graph and an assertion that a group of apocryphally self-selected "smart people" believe in it.
On the other hand, if somebody tells me: "Global Whatever is Something Or Other, ergo we should license a hundred nuclear power plants tomorrow and strangle all the neo-hippies who - by their own admission - have been working to destroy the human race for the past half-century...." you can sign me up as a certified True Believer.
I am fully aware that blunting Occam's Razor is the first step in every liberal's version of scientific methodology. But to anyone who still subscribes to the old-fashioned notion of logic, there's a pretty simple acid test: Just ask if he'd be willing to do away with the Income Tax, and substitute a carbon tax? That wouldn't necessarily be proof that Global Warming will end all life on earth. But at the very least it would prove that he believes in that theory MORE than he believes in the "economic" "theory" of Communism.
Quote from: Yawn on September 09, 2013, 01:23:48 PM
Did you ever learn that if you don't get in their way, you'll turn over 85% of your income to support their agenda?
Unfortunately you missed my point. It is not that I don't want to fight their agenda, I will just not buy into their BS.
So you ARE "concerned" about the issue? Good. If you're not, they'll win and you'll lose a lot more than your income.
Quote from: mhughes on September 09, 2013, 12:57:28 PM
Do you mean the IPCC? I'm not talking about the IPCC. You brought that up. The consensus is far bigger than it.
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 (http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project-intermediate.htm)
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 (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 (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.
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.
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.
Ok, that's twice you've brought up a meta-study as evidence. Allow me to enlighten you on the current state of the "scientific" community:
I am a year away from earning my doctorate in psychology (hence the preemptive name). I am a member of the APA. I go to a medical school and have many colleagues who are members of the AMA and ADA. Here's the low-down on modern "science": every leader of every scientific organization lets his or her ego guide their decision making. If a researcher wishes to submit a paper for publication to a peer-reviewed journal that contains strong evidence contrary to mainstream "consensual" thought, it will be rejected. In fact, myself and many other researchers simply will not submit such a paper out of fear of being ostracized by the community and made to look a "fool" (your words).
The reason this research is rejected is simply because it does not play into the narrative that they have built for themselves. They cannot accept or allow any evidence that goes contrary to what they have accepted as "fact" for several years because they believe they will be the ones to look "foolish". Through fear, intimidation, and manipulation they have effectively stymied any real chance of scientific growth and understanding in a variety of fields.
Science used to be all about questioning the status quo. About the never-ending search for knowledge, truth, and understanding. It has become bastardized into a "go along with what we say, or else" dictatorship led by the licensing boards. To me, this renders your argument about scientific consensus moot.
How does all this relate to your meta-study "evidence"? A meta-analysis is nothing more than research that examines multiple studies that have been published in peer-reviewed journals. If all of these peer-reviewed journals only accept for publication articles which play into the narrative, guess what? Your meta-analysis will too. You need to understand the current state of the scientific community and how it is far different than it ever used to be. It is no longer welcoming of seemingly outlandish theories. Rather, it only accepts whatever the current paradigm of the time is and the researchers are expected to focus their efforts solely on identifying "evidence" that fits within the paradigm. Hence the reason we had global cooling, global warming, climate change, and now global cooling again.
I suggest your buddies who mock conservatives should take some of their own hippy advice and become free-thinkers. Examine the evidence. I mean, really examine it. Don't just read headlines or conclusions. Look at what being a part of a scientific community really entails. Then examine the methodologies of the studies you cite. Look for potential errors. Examine their assumptions found in the literature review. Check to see if those assumptions perhaps lead to bias results (hint: 90% of the time, they do). Note the limitations of the studies (any researcher worth his salt will list the study limitations near the end). Don't accept science as gospel truth. It is a very fluid and fickle thing to put your trust in.
Quote from: Dr. Meh on September 09, 2013, 04:30:52 PM
If a researcher wishes to submit a paper for publication to a peer-reviewed journal that contains strong evidence contrary to mainstream "consensual" thought, it will be rejected. In fact, myself and many other researchers simply will not submit such a paper out of fear of being ostracized by the community and made to look a "fool" (your words).
The reason this research is rejected is simply because it does not play into the narrative that they have built for themselves. They cannot accept or allow any evidence that goes contrary to what they have accepted as "fact" for several years because they believe they will be the ones to look "foolish". Through fear, intimidation, and manipulation they have effectively stymied any real chance of scientific growth and understanding in a variety of fields.
Great stuff! I didn't know that.
Quote from: Yawn on September 09, 2013, 04:38:14 PM
Great stuff! I didn't know that.
Mind you, they may publish articles that provide evidence of difference in the minute details of things but anything more drastic or paradigm shifting in nature is shunned.
Quote from: Dr. Meh on September 09, 2013, 04:30:52 PM
Ok, that's twice you've brought up a meta-study as evidence.
Of course I understand why hallucinogenic drugs were such a huge hit in the Seventies. But it's appalling to me that people are still using the term "meta study" with a straight face.
In REAL science, one carefully-conducted experiment is worth infinitely more than ten thousand disparate studies all sort of lumped together into a giant blob of "consensus."
As with so many other words in the LiberalSpeak dictionary, what liberals call "science" is really the exact opposite of what any normal person means when he says that word.
Get out your winter coats, boys--It seems the all-knowing scientists could have been wrong. But I could have told you that.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html)
Quote from: Charliemyboy on September 09, 2013, 05:59:35 PM
Get out your winter coats, boys--It seems the all-knowing scientists could have been wrong. But I could have told you that.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html)
Imagine that, climate cycles. Who'd a thunk it....
Quote from: Solar on September 09, 2013, 06:06:12 PM
Imagine that, climate cycles. Who'd a thunk it....
:lol: So I get to play in the snow with my quad this winter. :sneaky:
Quote from: walkstall on September 09, 2013, 07:03:41 PM
:lol: So I get to play in the snow with my quad this winter. :sneaky:
Yes you will, and get to use the snow blower too.
ST is happy since I got her the Forester, the Legacy was just too low to the ground and she wound up plowing snow.
But now that she took a supervisor position, she can just stay home, the other job demanded she be there unless she was dying.
Quote from: Solar on September 09, 2013, 07:08:58 PM
Yes you will, and get to use the snow blower too.
ST is happy since I got her the Forester, the Legacy was just too low to the ground and she wound up plowing snow.
But now that she took a supervisor position, she can just stay home, the other job demanded she be there unless she was dying.
What ST has 2 years to go yet?
Somebody tell Al Gore... :popcorn:
all these Pseudo "scientist's" would be better off flipping a coin.
Now that I think about it, I do believe man can affect the climate. Look at Al Gore... whenever he has a Global Warming meeting, it gets cancelled by a blizzard. That can't be coincidence.
Ah yes Global warming. It was once all the rage. Like the Macarena and Beverly Hills 90120...
Quote from: taxed on September 09, 2013, 10:05:32 PM
Now that I think about it, I do believe man can affect the climate. Look at Al Gore... whenever he has a Global Warming meeting, it gets cancelled by a blizzard. That can't be coincidence.
Proving that either God...or perhaps the Devil, have a sense of Humor.
Quote from: taxed on September 09, 2013, 10:05:32 PM
Now that I think about it, I do believe man can affect the climate. Look at Al Gore... whenever he has a Global Warming meeting, it gets cancelled by a blizzard. That can't be coincidence.
:lol:
Good point, they predicted the earth would warm, it stagnated... so they changed the name to climate change stating the obvious since that's what climate does, it's why we have seasons... then claimed an easy one, hurricanes would be damaging and we'd see an increase, the opposite happened... melting ice caps, instead, they're growing.
They'd have been safer with climate stagnation. :laugh:
Yes, god does indeed hate the liberal.
God watches out for children and the elderly, but makes a spectacle out of idiots.
They can call it whatever they want.
Nothing will change the fact that it is, by and large, little more than an excuse for more taxation and regulation that includes tons of hypocrisy and numerous politically correct loopholes (not mention cherry picked theoretical data).
The term "Global Taxation by Elitist Hypocrites" would be far more accurate.
Quote from: Telmark on September 10, 2013, 05:33:28 AM
They can call it whatever they want.
Nothing will change the fact that it is, by and large, little more than an excuse for more taxation and regulation that includes tons of hypocrisy and numerous politically correct loopholes (not mention cherry picked theoretical data).
The term "Global Taxation by Elitist Hypocrites" would be far more accurate.
That's all it ever has been, control through taxation and fees, redistribution of wealth.
To not see it for what it is, is simply blind ignorance.
Quote from: Solar on September 10, 2013, 05:52:39 AM
That's all it ever has been, control through taxation and fees, redistribution of wealth.
To not see it for what it is, is simply blind ignorance.
Exactly.
The global warmers post the same, or nearly the same, over-sized charts and graphs that supposedly prove their point. You see this same junk-tax science on forum after forum.
But these same warmers dodge the the fact that our government spends our tax dollars on the promotion and expansion of chronic non and/or counter-productive lifestyles. Nor do these warmers find a problem with the fact that many of the scientists and/or elitist politicians that peddle the G.W. (tax) agenda are jet-setting around while they leave size 50 carbon footprints across the globe.
For once I'd like to see at least a few of these pro-GW scientists and politicians say: "I believe man-made global warming is a real problem and, as such, I'm limiting my carbon footprint by decreasing my energy consumption, reducing the size and/or the number of houses I own, and by traveling less.
Quote from: Telmark on September 10, 2013, 05:33:28 AM
They can call it whatever they want.
They can't call it "Communism." Because if they could call it that, you can bet your ass they would.
Quote from: mhughes on September 09, 2013, 12:57:28 PM
Do you mean the IPCC? I'm not talking about the IPCC. You brought that up. The consensus is far bigger than it.
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 (http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project-intermediate.htm)
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 (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 (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.
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.
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.
Sorry, I missed this when you posted.
However, what you fail to understand, is all of these people work for Govt in one form or another, and have the funds at their disposal to do research to kill opposing views.
The private industry is left without a voice, they don't have the money to combat the lies and propaganda in support of reality.
Quote from: Telmark on September 10, 2013, 08:04:51 AM
Exactly.
The global warmers post the same, or nearly the same, over-sized charts and graphs that supposedly prove their point. You see this same junk-tax science on forum after forum.
But these same warmers dodge the the fact that our government spends our tax dollars on the promotion and expansion of chronic non and/or counter-productive lifestyles. Nor do these warmers find a problem with the fact that many of the scientists and/or elitist politicians that peddle the G.W. (tax) agenda are jet-setting around while they leave size 50 carbon footprints across the globe.
For once I'd like to see at least a few of these pro-GW scientists and politicians say: "I believe man-made global warming is a real problem and, as such, I'm limiting my carbon footprint by decreasing my energy consumption, reducing the size and/or the number of houses I own, and by traveling less.
And there you have it!
ALL the studies produced have been Govt subsidized leaving no voice for the opposition.
Quote from: Solar on September 10, 2013, 09:00:02 AM
ALL the studies produced have been Govt subsidized leaving no voice for the opposition.
Liberals throw out the word "scientist" like it actually means something. Basically it's somebody who never left college or held a private-sector job. To liberals, of course, that's like being a living God. They can't for the life of them imagine why normal people don't fall down on our knees in worship at the mere sound of that word.
I used to design spacecraft for a living, and in all that time I never actually met anyone who introduced himself as a "scientist." I suppose some of the guys at JPL might have qualified, but nobody ever mentioned it. And if anyone ever tried to use that self-description to bolster his opinion, he'd have been laughed out of any room he was in.
One of a great many things that people incapable of rational thought (i.e., liberals) will never understand is that any "scientific" "proof" that relies on a description of how smart its proponents are and how dumb its detractors are is ALWAYS a giant pile of bullshit.
Quote from: kopema on September 10, 2013, 09:30:30 AM
Liberals throw out the word "scientist" like it actually means something. Basically it's somebody who never left college or held a private-sector job. To liberals, of course, that's like being a living God. They can't for the life of them imagine why normal people don't fall down on our knees in worship at the mere sound of that word.
I used to design spacecraft for a living, and in all that time I never actually met anyone who introduced himself as a "scientist." I suppose some of the guys at JPL might have qualified, but nobody ever mentioned it. And if anyone ever tried to use that self-description to bolster his opinion, he'd have been laughed out of any room he was in.
One of a great many things that people incapable of rational thought (i.e., liberals) will never understand is that any "scientific" "proof" that relies on a description of how smart its proponents are and how dumb its detractors are is ALWAYS a giant pile of bullshit.
:biggrin:
That's the problem, the Govt has spent millions of our tax dollars trying to build a case based on consensus (which is not science, rather agenda), and the only ones allowed into this little group, were subsidized by the very people trying to kill our economy (Green Energy).
You're right, anyone that claims to be a scientist is either an egotist or govt researcher.
Quote from: Solar on September 10, 2013, 09:39:03 AM
You're right, anyone that claims to be a scientist is either an egotist or govt researcher.
A while back I saw an article in the New York Times that gave some huge percentage of "scientists" who believe in Global Warming. Just for laughs I looked up the airhead definition of that word. It turns out it was a poll from some magazine with the word "Scientist" in the title. OK, so I looked
that up and it turned out the vast majority of its "subscribers" were K-12 teachers.
(BTW, I put the word "subscribers" in quotation marks, because I'm pretty sure nobody ever actually paid for that rag out of his own pocket.)
In all seriousness though, this is what liberals have always done - even before they started calling themselves "liberals." They've screwed up Liberal Arts so much that no normal person can possibly take that seriously anymore. So do they fix it? Of course not. As always, they just take a word they haven't trashed yet, and paste it on themselves.
As the old saying goes: "Most 'scientists' are bottle washers and button sorters." These guys don't even qualify as that.
Quote from: kopema on September 10, 2013, 10:08:21 AM
A while back I saw an article in the New York Times that gave some huge percentage of "scientists" who believe in Global Warming. Just for laughs I looked up the airhead definition of that word. It turns out it was a poll from some magazine with the word "Scientist" in the title. OK, so I looked that up and it turned out the vast majority of its "subscribers" were K-12 teachers.
(BTW, I put the word "subscribers" in quotation marks, because I'm pretty sure nobody ever actually paid for that rag out of his own pocket.)
In all seriousness though, this is what liberals have always done - even before they started calling themselves "liberals." They've screwed up Liberal Arts so much that no normal person can possibly take that seriously anymore. So do they fix it? Of course not. As always, they just take a word they haven't trashed yet, and paste it on themselves.
As the old saying goes: "Most 'scientists' are bottle washers and button sorters." These guys don't even qualify as that.
I worked in wildlife research for the USFS back in the early 90s for a summer, and guess what my classification was?
Scientist Tech. :lol:
Quote from: Solar on September 10, 2013, 10:16:26 AM
I worked in wildlife research for the USFS back in the early 90s for a summer, and guess what my classification was?
Scientist Tech.
So did you believe in Global Warming then, or had they not officially implemented that requirement yet?
Liberalism is form over substance. You know the penultimate scene in The Wizard Of Oz, where the guy gave a diploma to a moron, a locket to a cad and a medal to a coward... and that magically transformed them into a genius, a philanthropist and a hero?
It's hard to believe that was originally written as a JOKE for CHILDREN. It's how millions of physically full-grown liberals today actually think the world works: upside down.
Quote from: kopema on September 10, 2013, 10:53:11 AM
So did you believe in Global Warming then, or had they not officially implemented that requirement yet?
Liberalism is form over substance. You know the penultimate scene in The Wizard Of Oz, where the guy gave a diploma to a moron, a locket to a cad and a medal to a coward... and that magically transformed them into a genius, a philanthropist and a hero?
It's hard to believe that was originally written as a JOKE for CHILDREN. It's how millions of physically full-grown liberals today actually think the world works: upside down.
Soooo true, I swear, sometimes I think we live in OZ.
But no, warming wasn't being pushed yet, it was the spotted owl "crisis", I was working the spotted owl program, wandering through the wilderness at 3:00 am calling birds.
Hey, it was a job and I was hungry. :biggrin:
Quote from: Solar on September 10, 2013, 12:45:31 PM
But no, warming wasn't being pushed yet, it was the spotted owl "crisis", I was working the spotted owl program, wandering through the wilderness at 3:00 am calling birds. Hey, it was a job and I was hungry. :biggrin:
Yum! You helped get rid of those pests AND you got free meals to boot... Where do I sign up?
Quote from: kopema on September 10, 2013, 01:31:12 PM
Yum! You helped get rid of those pests AND you got free meals to boot... Where do I sign up?
What we did prove, is that they were never endangered, they are not afraid of humans, and we discovered a hybrid pair that cross bred with another specie of owl.
Damn that nature interfering with the best laid socialist plans of controlling industry. :biggrin: