Global Warming

[Gods_Mercenary]

The Earth has been warming for a considerable time following the cooling period in the late meideval to post-modern era. There is no evidence that anything humans can do will affect the planet in any considerable way. People who think that we can change global climates are more than alittle arrogant. The green-house theory is impossible to prove and has no convincing support in our extremely limmited knowlege of the earth.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary The Earth has been warming for a considerable time following the cooling period in the late meideval to post-modern era. There is no evidence that anything humans can do will affect the planet in any considerable way. People who think that we can change global climates are more than alittle arrogant. The green-house theory is impossible to prove and has no convincing support in our extremely limmited knowlege of the earth.

Thank you for telling us that the work of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of meterologists, climatologists and other scientists are completely worthless. Quite obviously you know better than all of them combined.

[xyzer]

Thank you for telling us that the work of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of meterologists, climatologists and other scientists are completely worthless. Quite obviously you know better than all of them combined.

Get off it Pooey... hundreds of thousands of scientists don't reflect truth. To the contrary they hypothesize and draw conclusions. You even post earlier that they(and science) are not driven by certainty! Very few predictions in the field of climate are absolutely certain. Certainly the work of many scientists in climatology is not worthless..it reflects mans desire to get the answers and frustration because he can't! What bothers me is opportunists (like Gore) who profit by taking the most alarming of scientific conjecture and presenting it as truth?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Interesting that not one of these scientists can present convincing proof of their theory. I haven't seen any expirimental data that even supports the hypothesis of the greenhouse effect. That's what real science is, experimentation and evaluation. Science is not a democracy, numbers don't make you right.

Let's not talk about Al Gore, he annoys the hell out of me.

[Gods_Mercenary]

What about the study in the Arctic that showed the North Pole could have been covered in swamps. Those damn dinosaurs and their giant SUV's!

I am not, by the way, arguing that we shouldn;t be concerned about pollution, I just hate people using doomsday prophecies for political advancement.

[Epistemologist]

To be brief, I think that if global warming is a bona fide problem, then steps should be taken to solve it.

However, the possibly pseudo-scientific evidence that supports it is often laced with bias. When I say bias, I mean statistical bias in the methods of data collection, data analysis, and hypothesis testing. I mean, there are so many so-called experiments and studies on the same topic that are overly confident on conclusions that contradict each other. Of course, they realize that there are margins of errors, but if an experiment is replicated, then how can it be that different results occur when different people perform them? That's absurd.

As for global warming, I am somewhat convinced that yes, it is there. And yes, I think that steps should be taken to solve it and curb pollution. But we ought to ignore extremists who use confounded statistical analyses to support their political agendas as the previous poster alluded to. I don't like dishonest people.

[xyzer]

I agree global warming is occuring since the last cooling period some 30 years ago. I agree the earth appears generally warmer than it was during the Ice Age some 10 thousand years ago..There have been climate cycles over time! Since way before humankind the climate has changed from various natural events none of which humans have been shown to affect!
What I don't agree with is the alarmist approach which fills the media these days..It's ridiculous and is a sort of hysteria about what humankind cannot control. Here is another who agrees with me and the rest of the skeptics who refuse to be alarmed by the alarmists!..Ex VP Gore included.
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf
Vicecount Monckton's letter is right on! I agree with him, and refuse to be stampeded into futile attempts to control something that occurs naturally..something humankind should adapt to as it slowly occurs. Isn't that part of the evolutionary theory..species adapt or die out..Since when did the illogical assumption that we can control global climate and are responsible for its change fit within the confines of logic?

[xyzer]

Another little expose of our friend Al Gore, the climate expert. holding forth....

Drowning Polar Bear Award for Promoting Gore’s Inconvenient "Truth" Katie Couric: "In this movie, at different turns you’re funny, vulnerable, disarming, self-effacing, and someone said after watching it, quote, ‘If only he was like this before, maybe things would’ve turned out differently in 2000.’" Al Gore: "Well, I benefit from low expectations...." Couric: "What do you see happening in say 15 to 20 years or even 50 years if nothing changes?" Gore: "...Sea-level increases of 20 feet or more worldwide. Of course, Florida and Louisiana and Texas are particularly vulnerable. The San Francisco Bay area, Manila. And we have seen the impact of a couple hundred thousand refugees from an environmental crisis. [Footage of Hurricane Katrina] Imagine 100 million or 200 million." Couric: "Even Manhattan would be in deep water, right?" Gore: "Yes, in fact the World Trade Center Memorial site would be underwater....Unfortunately, Mother Nature is weighing in very powerfully and very loudly." — NBC’s Today, May 24. [109 points]

I'm astounded that anyone would believe this inexpert charlatan who is spouting such alarmist falsehoods? Pooey, you claim familiarity with scientific studies in global warming, have you seen sucha report or study that says sea levels will rise 20 feet in 20 to 50 years?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Get off it Pooey... hundreds of thousands of scientists don't reflect truth. To the contrary they hypothesize and draw conclusions. You even post earlier that they(and science) are not driven by certainty! Very few predictions in the field of climate are absolutely certain. Certainly the work of many scientists in climatology is not worthless..it reflects mans desire to get the answers and frustration because he can't! What bothers me is opportunists (like Gore) who profit by taking the most alarming of scientific conjecture and presenting it as truth?

You're abusing the scientific language. All science is based on hypothesis, creating a model and then deriving a conclusion from that. It is nothing new and certainly doesn't invalidate the work merely because you wish to confuse the laymans.

You can keep citing Al Gore if you want but no one here will defend him because he doesn't represent the scientific organisations that support anthropogenic Global Warming. He is merely a Politician who wants some publicity. If you truly want to challenge the current climate models then you must find something better, more accurate and precise. Maybe start with getting all those established scientific organisations to "renounce" their support for the current Global Warming model.
So again, enough with the Al Gore bashing because I certainly haven't used him as a source of information.

[xyzer]

All science is based on hypothesis, creating a model and then deriving a conclusion from that.

There you go again! Using an illogical term 'all'! In addition you left out some important elements..i.e. how about creating a valid model, using observed facts rather than conjectural theories, making a valid logical conclusion from the evidence or iteration the evidence indicates?

Your ducking my assertion...have you seena scientific study that concludes that sea level will rise up to 20 feet in 50 years? And is Gore a harbinger of lunacy or a real climate expert??

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer There you go again! Using an illogical term 'all'! In addition you left out some important elements..i.e. how about creating a valid model, using observed facts rather than conjectural theories, making a valid logical conclusion from the evidence or iteration the evidence indicates?

It's not an illogical term, all modern science covers those basic points. If you want to talk scientific, please do not abuse the word "theory(ies)".
The current global warming models are based on our best available computing and amalgamation with current data. If you have a better way of examining the data and a better model to describe our current climate systems then please present them.

Quote by: xyzer Your ducking my assertion...have you seena scientific study that concludes that sea level will rise up to 20 feet in 50 years? And is Gore a harbinger of lunacy or a real climate expert??

I've made it quite clear that Al Gore is not being used a scientific source and that he's a politician out for publicity. How much more clear do I have to make it? Draw a diagram for you?

[xyzer]

Come on Pooey?

The current global warming models are based on our best available computing and amalgamation with current data. If you have a better way of examining the data and a better model to describe our current climate systems then please present them.

What hooey.. Pooey. Models are based on what the particular scientist is trying to prove and the factors which he believes will have an effect!...He/she then selects elements that may prove /contribute to the objective of the study!.Studies aren't just experiments trying to see what will fall out. They have to prove a certain hyopothesis?.! How theheck do you know they are the best? Elements are chosen that the scientist believe are the best for his particular experiment . I haven't seen one yet that had predictions of the suns energy level and we all know that is the biggest influence on earths climate there is..

You still haven't answered my question...have you seen a study predicting a 20' rise in ocean levels within 50 years??

[Gods_Mercenary]

Exacly, a computer does what it's programmed to do. It can't possibly consider even a fraction of the variables.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Come on Pooey? What hooey.. Pooey. Models are based on what the particular scientist is trying to prove and the factors which he believes will have an effect!...He/she then selects elements that may prove /contribute to the objective of the study!.Studies aren't just experiments trying to see what will fall out. They have to prove a certain hyopothesis?.! How theheck do you know they are the best?

I don't, which is why I accept the consensus view of National scientific organisations that collate all the papers and review them.

Quote by: xyzer Elements are chosen that the scientist believe are the best for his particular experiment . I haven't seen one yet that had predictions of the suns energy level and we all know that is the biggest influence on earths climate there is..

You seen one or you don't know of it? Are you so naive as to believe that the very people who research climate for a living will neglect what is glaringly obvious? And not just one or two, but the entire community? So if this was a hoax, why hasn't there been a leak? I mean really, we've got sceptics but nothing actually big and damning ever comes along. Your denial is on par with those who think we didn't achieve the Moon landing in 1969...

Quote by: xyzer You still haven't answered my question...have you seen a study predicting a 20' rise in ocean levels within 50 years??

I have never implied that there has been such a prediction in a study and neither do I use Al Gore as credible scientific source. I have stated this many times.

[RickSp]

Even the Bush administration is finally acknowledging global warming.

US says global warming threatens polar bears

The iconic arctic animals were being threatened by receding ice, said Dirk Kempthorne, secretary of the Interior Department, who stopped short of calling for an investigation into the causes of climate change, saying the issue was beyond his department’s remit. “We need to just concentrate and focus on the species and its habitat,” he said, adding the George W. Bush administration had already spent $29bn researching climate change issues and related technology. While the proposal did not represent a clear departure from the Bush administration’s stance on global warming, it marked the first time the White House had pointed to climate change as a phenomenon that could threaten the survival of a species.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: RickSp Even the Bush administration is finally acknowledging global warming. US says global warming threatens polar bears

Hey, if polar bears can live on the "Lost" island, then they sure as heck can live with global warming.

Anyway, we shouldn't take a frenzied, alarmist approach but we should cautiously consider relatively unbiased evidence for global warming in our evaluation and subsequent actions to prevent it. We shouldn't believe, for instance, that something like "The Day After Tomorrow" will happen soon, but we should keep in mind that global warming is a serious long-term threat to our welfare.

[Gods_Mercenary]

That's the Bush administration acknowleging that the earth is warming. duh! it's been doing that for a while. We're talking about whether humans affect it

[Epistemologist]

We should also consider that correlations e.g. rise in use of fossil fuels and rise in global temperatures are not necessarily causations. We should do relatively unbiased tests to find out if there are causations.

[Chancellor]

To quote the made-for-television movie Category 6, "Global warming is an unproven theory."

While certainly not an authoritative source...

Letters of Marque: Global Warming: Theory and Fact

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Chancellor To quote the made-for-television movie Category 6, "Global warming is an unproven theory." While certainly not an authoritative source... Letters of Marque: Global Warming: Theory and Fact

That's good, since they mentioned changes of means and correlations that exist. They also explain that these claimed causations aren't sufficiently proven. Actually, many studies claim causations, although I'm not sure how many of them fail to consider confounding variables.