Global Warming

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Epistemologist 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.

If you can correct them, then please do so. I mean really, get their report and tear apart. If you can't, then what are you complaining about? Seriously though, do any of you here actually believe that without a degree in some Meteorology related discipline, that you're actually qualified to make an assessment on these reports? I mean, would you doubt the diagnosis of a doctor? Perhaps, but what if a whole hospital of doctors gave the same diagnosis result?

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Pooeypants If you can correct them, then please do so. I mean really, get their report and tear apart. If you can't, then what are you complaining about?

I'm just cautiously mentioning a general problem with many of these studies so people who believe whatever they're told will think twice the next time they hear something. What's your problem? :rolleyes:

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Epistemologist I'm just cautiously mentioning a general problem with many of these studies so people who believe whatever they're told will think twice the next time they hear something. What's your problem? :rolleyes:

I'm just sick of people who think they know more than an entire organisation dedicated to studying weather and climate, or science on a whole for that matter. I'm all for doubting, it's what science is all about, without it there is no progress but the criticism must be founded on good reasoning. All I see are layman's making a few points about "variables not accounted for blah blah", yet without any specifics. Why? Because a lot of them just don't know, they just read on sites that gave anecdotal evidence yet they still take that over peer reviewed published papers.

[Gods_Mercenary]

But wouldn't an organisation such as that have an obvious bias towards the finding correct of the theory of global warming? Any scientist who denies the theory is probably subject to a career of recieving grants from no one but the oil companies. I'm not suggesting that they are outright wrong.That would be arrogant, just that we should treat theories and people with much more skepticism as to their motives.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Pooeypants I'm just sick of people who think they know more than an entire organisation dedicated to studying weather and climate, or science on a whole for that matter. I'm all for doubting, it's what science is all about, without it there is no progress but the criticism must be founded on good reasoning. All I see are layman's making a few points about "variables not accounted for blah blah", yet without any specifics. Why? Because a lot of them just don't know, they just read on sites that gave anecdotal evidence yet they still take that over peer reviewed published papers.

Unfortunately, doubt is necessary for a field that has experienced so many cheats and biased findings. We shouldn't automatically reject it, if that's the source of your frustration, but we should be cautious.

[Matt W]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary But wouldn't an organisation such as that have an obvious bias towards the finding correct of the theory of global warming? Any scientist who denies the theory is probably subject to a career of recieving grants from no one but the oil companies. I'm not suggesting that they are outright wrong.That would be arrogant, just that we should treat theories and people with much more skepticism as to their motives.

If you can disprove their science, then please do so. As has been stated before, scientific 'theories' are based on cold, hard facts.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary But wouldn't an organisation such as that have an obvious bias towards the finding correct of the theory of global warming? Any scientist who denies the theory is probably subject to a career of recieving grants from no one but the oil companies. I'm not suggesting that they are outright wrong.That would be arrogant, just that we should treat theories and people with much more skepticism as to their motives.

I'm not talking one organisation, but many, many independent of each other.
Contemporary scientific literature are submitted with a disclaimer that there are no commercial conflicts of interests.
And if all of this was a fraud, wouldn't someone have leaked it by now? I mean, we're talking hundreds of thousands of people involved in the scientific community, you're trying to tell me they're all in on some conspiracy?
But you've hit a nail there, why is it that the Global Warming skeptics are funded by Oil Companies and Motor manufacturers? Doesn't that put your suspicion on them?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Matt W If you can disprove their science, then please do so. As has been stated before, scientific 'theories' are based on cold, hard facts.

I can't disprove their science, but I haven't seen any tests to even justify it's being called a theory. How can you test this theory without a model with as many variables as the Earth?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I can't disprove their science, but I haven't seen any tests to even justify it's being called a theory. How can you test this theory without a model with as many variables as the Earth?

I haven't seen you argue anything. No scientist can literally take into account every single value on the planet from the dawn of time.
And your saying it isn't a "theory" is simply outlandish. I've never seen anyone argue that point. Most people at least acknowledge it's a tenable theory (assuming we're still talking about climate change and not some obscure theory), especially when it's been granted scientific consensus...but apparently not everyone. If the theory could be refuted, I'd be interested in seeing it. But I haven't seen that so far.

Grandpa h.

[Epistemologist]

This alleviated some of my anxieties:

Quote by: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Complex physically-based climate models are required to provide detailed estimates of feedbacks and of regional features. Such models cannot yet simulate all aspects of climate (e.g., they still cannot account fully for the observed trend in the surface-troposphere temperature difference since 1979) and there are particular uncertainties associated with clouds and their interaction with radiation and aerosols. Nevertheless, confidence in the ability of these models to provide useful projections of future climate has improved due to their demonstrated performance on a range of space and time-scales.

The rest of that source is available at Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis

So, yes, although caution is especially essential, perhaps with more confidence we can lower our guard to these conclusions, particularly since we're years beyond 2001. The only thing is that alarmist works such as "The Inconvenient Truth" often undermine the trustworthiness of the general conclusions of the field per se.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: grandpa I haven't seen you argue anything. No scientist can literally take into account every single value on the planet from the dawn of time. And your saying it isn't a "theory" is simply outlandish. I've never seen anyone argue that point. Most people at least acknowledge it's a tenable theory (assuming we're still talking about climate change and not some obscure theory), especially when it's been granted scientific consensus...but apparently not everyone. If the theory could be refuted, I'd be interested in seeing it. But I haven't seen that so far. Grandpa h.

A theory is a hypothesis that hasn't been convincingly tested, you can't test the greenhouse effect, as far as I know. If they have, please enlighten me.

The theory of Climate change isn't a theory, it's a fact, the earth warms and cools in continual, almost random cycles. We're talking about the "theory" that humans can and are affecting these cycles.

And again, I'm not saying its impossible or even that it isn't true, but I want to see some evidence before politicians go messing in it.

[Pooeypants]

Okay, allow me to clear up some terminologies;
1) A Theory is not an untested hypothesis
2) A Theory is a highly regarded model in science

In Science, a theory has a lot of weight, all of today's taught science come in the form of theories. This is completely at odds with the layman's term of theory, which is more of a conjecture. So if we're going to discuss science then please everyone, use the correct term.

I'd also like to add that NO ONE is using material from Al Gore or his film in support of anthropogenic Global Warming.

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary you can't test the greenhouse effect, as far as I know. If they have, please enlighten me.

Please clarify what you mean by testing the greenhouse effect. I mean, by certain definitions, we can do it in a Glasshouse...

[Plasma Snake[D]]

I highly doubt that there is such a thing as global warming. Just ask the africanized killer bees on Y2K. I think that Al Gore is either a misguided individual looking for attention or that he has some type of hidden agendas. How can we give ourselves that much credit to think that we could affect global weather patterns in such a short amount of time? Earth is a huge place. Im sure it would take a couple more centuries.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Pooeypants Okay, allow me to clear up some terminologies; 1) A Theory is not an untested hypothesis 2) A Theory is a highly regarded model in science In Science, a theory has a lot of weight, all of today's taught science come in the form of theories. This is completely at odds with the layman's term of theory, which is more of a conjecture. So if we're going to discuss science then please everyone, use the correct term. I'd also like to add that NO ONE is using material from Al Gore or his film in support of anthropogenic Global Warming. Please clarify what you mean by testing the greenhouse effect. I mean, by certain definitions, we can do it in a Glasshouse...

I mean the overall idea that carbon emissions from humans cause warming, there isn't really a satisfactory name for it. Just global warming signifies that the earth is warming, which is true, but not what I mean, and greenhouse effect is also vague.

I know that theories carry a lot of weight, which is why we shouldn't just throw it around like the media does.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I mean the overall idea that carbon emissions from humans cause warming, there isn't really a satisfactory name for it. Just global warming signifies that the earth is warming, which is true, but not what I mean, and greenhouse effect is also vague. I know that theories carry a lot of weight, which is why we shouldn't just throw it around like the media does.

Global warming is clearly happening. However, the questionable thing was anthropogenic global warming, although increased studies are boosting confidence that this does occur.

Still, like I said earlier, we shouldn't throw it around to the media and politicians so they can construct some sort of alarmist public pseudo-service project.

[xyzer]

Here is a site which covers the media hype over the impact of climate change.
BMI Special Report -- Fire and Ice

As some of you know I am a skeptic when it comes to the effects of human caused emissions on globalclimate. I'll concede that within the recent span of technology, which allows us a better means of recording worldwide weather/ temperatures an such, there is currently evidence of warming. In fact the earth is warmer than it was several thousands of years ago during an ICE AGE?
But it has fluctuated both ways for the entire estimated span of this planets existence...indicating that something more than human has a major effect on climate cycles.
To postulate the scientific certainty of scientifically oriented studies of climate is spurious IMNSHO? Each such study is set up to test a hypthesis and usually adds factors that the scientist believes will support or disprove the hypothesis(note here... some very important conjectural theories such as natural variations in the suns brilliance are not predictible and usually not addressed.)
Thus the scientific certainty of the study is questionable and each studies conclusions are prefaced with qualifiers such as if X occurs then Y might happen?
Enter the climate alarmists...Gore stating as absolute truth that the oceans levels will rise 20' in 50 years due to the melting of the ice pack? Then suggesting that the warming that might happen is caused by humanactivity? Follow this with the predictible press hype accentuating the sensational possibilities and we have gullible public clamoring for government intervention into something that is questionable at best. Does not what we know about climate change indicate that species must adapt to natural change rather than try to change it relying on questionable tactics based on conjecture?

[grandpa]

Quote by: xyzer Here is a site which covers the media hype over the impact of climate change. As some of you know I am a skeptic when it comes to the effects of human caused emissions on globalclimate.

No one is denying natural climate variability.
But you haave not prepared a convincing argument that human behavior is not significantly affecting climate.

Grandpa h.

[xyzer]

Nor do I have to grandpa!
Is not that the role of those who participate in putting out this distortion or fact and logic? Most of us are aware that the press echos the bizarre and ununusual because it titillates the reader! But where are the truth tellers and doubters comments to be found in the media?

Don't you agree that this human caused emissions theory has not been substantiated scientifically, and yet a hell of a lot of gullible citizens believe it?
Such alarmism is really nonsense and yet it is repeated so much that large segments of our population believe it? Whats even worse is the fact politicians are suggesting we use tax dollars to prevent something that hasn't been proven as a cause?

[Pooeypants]

Any chance that you'll cite an article from an established scientific organisation as opposed to a business one?

So far your argument has been filled with misinformation and your undeniable obsession with Al Gore. No one here has used any material as presented by Al Gore, we have not quoted him and we do not claim he is a scientific source so why keep bring him up? Is it because you can't slander the actual Scientific organisations that accept Global Warming has an anthropogenic factor?

Quote by: Xyzer To postulate the scientific certainty of scientifically oriented studies of climate is spurious IMNSHO? Each such study is set up to test a hypthesis and usually adds factors that the scientist believes will support or disprove the hypothesis(note here... some very important conjectural theories such as natural variations in the suns brilliance are not predictible and usually not addressed.)

By all means, give me a detailed rebuttal of all the studies that you seem to have refuted. I look forward to reading it.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Pooeypants Any chance that you'll cite an article from an established scientific organisation as opposed to a business one? So far your argument has been filled with misinformation and your undeniable obsession with Al Gore.

Exactly. I don't know why he thinks businesses or Al Gore are the only sources of knowledge in this field of study.

Obviously, xyzer just wants to convert the discussion into a "liberal versus conservative" thing. That angle simply lacks credibility.

Grandpa h.