What happened to global warming?

[mustang_sallad]

This is not the way the scientific method works. It takes only a single repeatable experiment to prove a hypothesis wrong. Lindzen at MIT has done exactly this by measuring the actual effect of CO2 in the atmosphere and has found tit to produce about half of the hypothesized warming and less than 1 /5th of what the models were predicting. And if you would read the science in the IPCC you would see that the effect of CO2 is actually only expected to increase temperatures by less than 1/2 or 1 degree. All of the additional warming is supposed to come from unproven theories about "forcings". Lindzen looked for those forcings and found that there were powerful feed-backs that limited warming, that were more powerful than the none existent feed-backs that were supposed to be creating the warming. Of course you would say that the climate chair at MIT must be a hack...

 

Don't try to teach me how the scientific method works. I'm a Masters student in Mechanical Engineering. I've read about LIndzen, and I can assure you he did not simply go out and "measure the actual effect of CO2 in the atmosphere", that's a bunch of BS oversimplification right there. Lindzen is ONE guy, and he's up against a battalion of equally qualified scientists who mostly happen to disagree with him. He has his theories, and they're simply not as widely supported in the scientific community. His voice is just amplified by the vast wealth that supports his side of the argument for one reason or another.

[Trimdingman]

Right....:rolleyes:

 

 

 

Yes, it's a statement of faith in the scientific method which has been used in climate science.

 

 

 

I wouldn't know, because I wasn't alive then. The scientific method did however prevail in that case.

 

 

No it didn't prevail. Galileo was sentenced to life imprisonment for saying that the sun, not the earth is at the centre of the solar sysyem. To-day, people who do not believe in man-made global warming are also persecuted. I would like to see these religious idiots get a taste of their own medicine for a change.

[suv_guy_19]

No it didn't prevail.

 

Yes it did. Do we still believe that the sun orbits the earth?

[Trimdingman]

Yes it did. Do we still believe that the sun orbits the earth?

 

There were no consequenses to the Catholic church for their atrocities. There probably also will be no consequenses to the environmentalists once they achieve their power grab, after the global warming hoax is completely exposed. They will just come up with another one. It is time to call these religions out and demand some concrete scientific proof of their statements. After all, billions of people are being affected by this brainwashing. As I have said before; it isn't healthy to believe in things that are not true. It is all right to consider them, but to believe could lead to insanity. My father used to say to me: "So and so has gone religious crazy." If you are "outside the box" when it comes to religion, and see people suddenly acting strangely, and performing rituals and talking to invisible beings, they sure look crazy. It is all right to look at certain possibilities, and follow up on possible scenarios; but do not believe, and give up your free will to some fake "prophet". I think that the earth probably orbits the sun, but I do not believe it.

[suv_guy_19]

There were no consequenses to the Catholic church for their atrocities.

 

Oh, I don't know about that. I would say the slow abandonment of the Church by it's followers is quite a punishment.

[Trimdingman]

Oh, I don't know about that. I would say the slow abandonment of the Church by it's followers is quite a punishment.

 

This is nothing compared to the damage they have inflicted, both mentally and physically. I don't want to single them out. The same can be said of all other religions, and political religions like socialism, communism, Naziism, and Fascism. Conservatism doesn't fit here because it does not ask people to believe in anything, just think for themselves and try to find the truth. All religions, both spiritual and political are left wing. The reason why you hear the expression "religious right" is because left wing ideologies come with beliefs. Therefore, they are incompatable, as their beliefs will differ. Spiritualists are free to practice their misguided rituals on the right, as there are no set beliefs on the right to cause them grief.

[grbeck]

You haven't shown anything other than your refusal to accept the consensus opinion. You haven't demonstrated that I know very little about firearms either, but that's another unrelated issue that you are, for some unknown reason, bringing into this topic.

 

Again, incorrect. I posted several scientists who disagree with the "consensus." Your "consensus" has been shown to rely on faulty data and behavior by "scientists" that borders on fraud. There hasn't even been warming over the past 15 years, which was the linchpin underlying the theory of manmade global warming. Hence, the desperate attempts to cover up and massage this data.

 

There are also several scientists who have questioned the work of your friend in the video.

 

Your view on firearms, based on earlier discussions, boils down to "I'm afraid of guns, so I think they are bad, and don't make anyone safer." Which, of course, is also incorrect. Again, you need to listen to those with a more sophisticated view of the subject to become better informed.

 

 

It's really not a hard choice to decide who to believe, and who I should be listening to lectures from regarding the scientific method.

 

When your side uses it, let us all know.

Edited March 12, 2010 by grbeck

[grbeck]

Yes but it takes the entire scientific community to review the work of any one scientist and approve its validity. I'll side with the community and not the outliers, thank you very much.

 

Apparently, you didn't read this, so let me repost it for you:

 

Last week the United Nations concluded its surprisingly divided global warming conference in Poland. Far from a consensus on anthropogenic global warming, dissidents far outnumbered those beating the drum for curbing carbon emissions. Last year’s conference included over 400 preeminent scientists who objected to the “consensus,” and this year’s conference included a growing list of over 650. (emphasis added)

 

So I guess that 650 prominent scientists are now "outliers."

[grbeck]

Lindzen is ONE guy, and he's up against a battalion of equally qualified scientists who mostly happen to disagree with him. He has his theories, and they're simply not as widely supported in the scientific community. His voice is just amplified by the vast wealth that supports his side of the argument for one reason or another.

 

And there are at least 650 prominent scientists, at last count, who disagree with your views. That sounds like a battalion of qualified scientists to those of us who can count. And their number keeps growing every year.

 

His voice is just amplified by the vast wealth that supports his side of the argument for one reason or another.

 

Again, if you want to have any credibility, you have to stop believing in this delusion that only money motivates skeptics of the theory of manmade global warming. Virtually all proponents of the theory of manmade global warming all suckle at the taxpayer teat through grants, fellowships, government employment, etc., and keeping that flow of money open is a powerful motivater.

 

If anything, they have MORE motivation to maintain that monetary lifeline, than the shareholders of a corporation (who really own it), because shareholders expect that corporations will move on to Plan B if the market for a corporation's main product disappears, either by natural forces or by government policies.

 

By contrast, if the research grants or government funds disappear for a scientist, he or she is in real trouble.

 

Corporations will adapt to whatever regulations are passed. The idea that they are fighting this tooth and nail because it has the potential to put them out of business, and that is the only reason skeptics exist, is false. Business, markets and government policiees do not interact that way, except in Hollywood movies, and if you believe that, you need to spend less time in the mechanical engineering lab and more time studying the history of various industries.

 

And the last time I checked, having a former vice president, several A-list celebrities and the president of the U.S. on one side constitutes heavy firepower, too - both in the areas of financial support and the ability to influence public opinion.

 

It's simply a desperate attempt to cut off the debate instead of discussing the real issues. It amounts to "Because I said so" and has no basis in fact.

Edited March 12, 2010 by grbeck

[mustang_sallad]

Corporations will adapt to whatever regulations are passed. The idea that they are fighting this tooth and nail because it has the potential to put them out of business, and that is the only reason skeptics exist, is false. Business, markets and government policiees do not interact that way, except in Hollywood movies, and if you believe that, you need to spend less time in the mechanical engineering lab and more time studying the history of various industries.

 

You seriously think corporations will happily adapt to whatever regulations are passed? What planet are you on? Do the automakers not fight against CAFE, or the Clean Air act in California? Do you think the tobacco companies simply say, you know what, you're right, we shouldn't sell our product cause it kills people? Exxon's core competency is fossil fuels, not wind mills, and they realize this.

 

If those arguing fore man-made global warming actually succeeded in convincing every one in the world that we're on dangerous path, the actions proposed as solutions would do nothing to further continue funding of their research, since there'd be no need for it. If everyone accepted that in fact we do need to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, this would lead to new industries that frankly don't exist yet on a large scale, and therefore can't be supporting the case for MMGW in such a way that the oil industry is supporting the case against MMGW. Besides, you can't compare the relatively pathetic funds of research grants to the $50 billion or so in profits these oil companies are making on a yearly basis thanks to our current rate of consumption of fossil fuels. You're the naive one if you think those profits aren't factoring into this discussion at all.

[suv_guy_19]

Your view on firearms, based on earlier discussions, boils down to "I'm afraid of guns, so I think they are bad, and don't make anyone safer." Which, of course, is also incorrect. Again, you need to listen to those with a more sophisticated view of the subject to become better informed.

 

Leaving aside the fact that you've mischaracterized my position on firearms, you are again bringing up things that have nothing to do with the topic. You are trying to discredit me, thereby showing the weakness of your argument. Your argument depends on the ideas of a scientific minority who sceptics like you grab on to any way you can. This really isn't even an argument.

Edited March 12, 2010 by suv_guy_19

[grbeck]

You seriously think corporations will happily adapt to whatever regulations are passed? What planet are you on? Do the automakers not fight against CAFE, or the Clean Air act in California? Do you think the tobacco companies simply say, you know what, you're right, we shouldn't sell our product cause it kills people? Exxon's core competency is fossil fuels, not wind mills, and they realize this.

 

Corporations do this all the time. Did you miss my example of Studebaker? The corporation still exists (as part of another company, and under another name), even though it no longer makes cars. Granted, it was market forces that drove Studebaker from the car business, but the point stands - shareholders care about profits, not about what the company makes, or what the corporate name is on the letterhead. Corporations can continue to exist even if a market for one of their products disappears.

 

Did tobacco companies disappear because we smoke a lot less than we did 40 years ago? No, they merged or bought other companies, and continued on in other forms. Tobacco was their once core competency, but they adapted.

 

The same thing will happen with oil companies. If we attempt to legislate away fossil fuels, it will be over time, and companies will have time to adapt. Exxon will merge with other companies, or find a new line of business. If you really believe that, in 2011, the federal government is going to pass a law that bans the use of fossil fuels beginning in 2013, you have no idea of how this process will work.

 

Second, it you believe that Exxon believes that is the way it will happen, you really don't know how this process works.

 

The government simply does not work that way.

 

As for the car companies and government regulation - not a relevant example. Those laws were not aimed at banning the sale and production of motor vehicles,or discouraging their use by private individuals. They were designed to regulate various aspects of motor vehicle design and performance. That is a big difference.

 

If those arguing fore man-made global warming actually succeeded in convincing every one in the world that we're on dangerous path, the actions proposed as solutions would do nothing to further continue funding of their research, since there'd be no need for it.

 

You are talking about a hypothetical situation that does not exist. What matters is what is happening NOW and the importance of those grants to researchers TODAY. That is completely irrelevant to the discussion of how important funds are to various researchers.

 

Incidentally, did the Center for Auto Safety shrivel up and die because we passed motor vehicle safety standards, and now automakers boast about five-star crash ratings in their ads? Did Ralph Nader become just another D.C. attorney when the federal government passed the motor vehicle safety regulations and various amendments to the Clean Air Act?

 

Have the anti-smoking groups gone away because the federal goverment succeded in removing tobacco ads from television, and the tobacco companies agreed to settle, and provided a huge check to several states?

 

If you really believe that all of those proponents of the theory of manmade global warming are going to pack it up and call it a day at one point, you really are very naive.

 

If everyone accepted that in fact we do need to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, this would lead to new industries that frankly don't exist yet on a large scale, and therefore can't be supporting the case for MMGW in such a way that the oil industry is supporting the case against MMGW. Besides, you can't compare the relatively pathetic funds of research grants to the $50 billion or so in profits these oil companies are making on a yearly basis thanks to our current rate of consumption of fossil fuels. You're the naive one if you think those profits aren't factoring into this discussion at all.

 

First, you need to stop making the assumption that all questions regarding the manmade theory of global warming spring from the oil industry. There is no basis in this belief, but it underlies every post you make. It is not correct. There are several credible scientists who have questioned this view, and they do not have ties to the oil industry.

 

Second, you have to stop acting as though manmade global warming has been proven. It has not. It is still a THEORY. If you act otherwise, it is a religion to you at this point, and that hardly embodies the scientific approach.

 

Third, you have to start measuring the relative importance of an amount of money to an individual or entity. A grant can mean the difference between working and not working for a researcher. The fact that this sum represents a relatively small amount of money in the great scheme of things is irrelevant. What matters is how important it is to him or her.

 

Fourth, you need to consider professional pride and prestige as motivators. Scientists are human, and therefore just as reluctant to admit that they were wrong, or mistaken, as the rest of us, because of their concern about public image and reputation among peers. Hence, the almost hilarious attempt of Dr. Michael Mann to explain away problems with his data as "typos," when everyone who has seriously looked at it with an unbiased perspective realizes that there are MAJOR problems with it. His attempt to save face is a human one, but that hardly means we have to accept his explanation at face value.

[grbeck]

Leaving aside the fact that you've mischaracterized my position on firearms, you are again bringing up things that have nothing to do with the topic.

 

Actually, it's quite an accurate assessment of what you posted in an earlier discussion on this site, which involved the decision of my friend to carry a handgun as part of his business (which wasn't in law enforcement). I remember this discussion; you apparently don't.

 

You are trying to discredit me, thereby showing the weakness of your argument.

 

No, I've posted facts and excerpts of writings of reputable scientists on this thread and others, and have met with a response that bascially boils down to "Because I said so" and shows a lack of understanding of how science (not to mention business, regulation and govenment) works.

 

Your argument depends on the ideas of a scientific minority who sceptics like you grab on to any way you can. This really isn't even an argument.

 

A "minority" that keeps growing with each year, and claims hundreds of members of the scientific community with pretty impressive credentials. And so far, no one has been caught faking data on that side.

 

The simple fact is that there is no solid proof that climate changes, which have occurred throughout the centuries, are being driven by emissions of carbon dioxide. It is a THEORY at this point.

[goinbroke2]

Wow, talk about take one point, twist it out of context and answer so it starts a new tangent.....

 

"You seriously think corporations will happily adapt to whatever regulations are passed?"

No I don't. I do believe that a corporation will modify or adapt to whatever changes are forced on them. If the force is that nobody will pay for their product at that price, they will be forced to lower the price. Will a corporation happily adapt to a lower price? No, but it will to survive. Same goes for government regulation.

 

"If those arguing fore man-made global warming actually succeeded in convincing every one in the world that we're on dangerous path, the actions proposed as solutions would do nothing to further continue funding of their research, since there'd be no need for it."

Your using first and last case scenario's and totally dismissing the middle. Yes in theory someday the world would believe in this and they would no longer need to research it anymore. Does that even sound logical or plausible to you?

How about this, it will take a long time and a lot of funding/grants to prove this and then when it does we will be required to continually update and do further study to test our effects and improvements. By that time, the "science would be settled" and anything to do with climate/going green/ecology would be a guarantee'd funding.

 

A second point I would like to mention is that considering what the funding amounts were in the 60's-70's-80's-90's before this bedwetting and the exponential explosion in funding since global warming hit the media, you can appreciate why I might not have the "altruistic scientist" attitude. To use "they would work themselves out of a job" as a reason to believe they must be telling the truth is a little myopic and nieve.

 

"Besides, you can't compare the relatively pathetic funds of research grants to the $50 billion or so in profits these oil companies are making "

Actually I can. You are comparing an industry with millions of workers around the world making 50 billion or whatever in profit to a (in comparison) reletively few getting grant (free money) from governments. The business MUST make profit, that's how they survive and prosper. The grantee only needs to do what was asked of him in the grant or fulfill duties as per the grant. The amount of money brought in by the select few climate scientists is reletively large per person. Regardless, it's still an apples to oranges comparison and is only used to muddy the waters.

[suv_guy_19]

Actually, it's quite an accurate assessment of what you posted in an earlier discussion on this site, which involved the decision of my friend to carry a handgun as part of his business (which wasn't in law enforcement). I remember this discussion; you apparently don't.

 

You're wrong. We may have had the discussion, but that isn't my position, and I'm not going to discuss my position here, because it has nothing to do with the topic.

 

No, I've posted facts and excerpts of writings of reputable scientists on this thread and others, and have met with a response that bascially boils down to "Because I said so" and shows a lack of understanding of how science (not to mention business, regulation and govenment) works.

 

And why are those points of view any more important than those of the majority of scientists? I'm not sure you understand how science works (or government regulation, or business). We've had the warmest winter on record, and it comes as aresult of el nino and a lack of multi year ice at the north pole.

 

A "minority" that keeps growing with each year, and claims hundreds of members of the scientific community with pretty impressive credentials. And so far, no one has been caught faking data on that side.

 

I thought this wasn't a popularity contest?

 

The simple fact is that there is no solid proof that climate changes, which have occurred throughout the centuries, are being driven by emissions of carbon dioxide. It is a THEORY at this point.

 

And you claim to understand science? Everything in science is really a theory. There is no such thing as absolute proof.

[suv_guy_19]

http://news.discovery.com/earth/climate-myths-and-questions-part-iii.html

 

See again, who should I believe? It's not a hard decision.

[grbeck]

You're wrong. We may have had the discussion, but that isn't my position, and I'm not going to discuss my position here, because it has nothing to do with the topic.

 

No, my memory of the exchange is accurate, and obviously sharper than yours. Given this, it probably is best for you to avoid discussing it completely, and leave it to those of us who not only have a better memory, but also a superior grasp of the facts.

 

 

And why are those points of view any more important than those of the majority of scientists? I'm not sure you understand how science works (or government regulation, or business).

 

And why, exactly, are they not as important, especially given that manmade global warming has not yet been proven? True science considers all theories regarding an unproven subject.

 

Before moving on to how government and the regulatory process work, you need to nail down how science works first.

 

We've had the warmest winter on record, and it comes as aresult of el nino and a lack of multi year ice at the north pole.

 

Our winter has been colder than normal, but I thought that "climate" and the weather were supposed to be two different things. After all, this is the standard response when someone points to the record snowfall, below-normal temperatures, and the amount of territory covered by snow in the United States this year. You can't have it both ways.

 

 

I thought this wasn't a popularity contest?

 

I'll remember that the next time you talk about "consensus" (which is just another way to refer to numbers) or the large numbers of scientists who supposedly agree with you.

 

And you claim to understand science? Everything in science is really a theory. There is no such thing as absolute proof.

 

Except that your posts don't seem to reflect that view.

Edited March 12, 2010 by grbeck

[suv_guy_19]

No, my memory of the exchange is accurate, and obviously sharper than yours. Given this, it probably is best for you to avoid discussing it completely, and leave it to those of us who not only have a better memory, but also a superior grasp of the facts.

 

And this just proves the point that you have no argument to make. I know my position on weapons, that they shouldn't be carried in public, that people should have to prove that they are competent to carry them, and that normal people don't need to own handguns....that is not my position for all situations or types of weapon types. Again though, this has nothing to do with the matter at hand, nor does it make your position more sophisticated (:rolleyes:) than mine.

 

Except that your posts don't seem to reflect that view.

 

My position is to trust the scientists to do their job. The reality is, the deniers don't get play in the wider real world media, because they have very little scientific credibility.

 

Oh, and weather is not climate. Weather trends over time do form climate, and the trend is very clear. That we are having some effect is somewhat clear. That we need to do something about it is somewhat clear.

Edited March 12, 2010 by suv_guy_19

[suv_guy_19]

A very interesting article, that you, with such a keen understanding of science, many want to look at.

 

But these errors do not warrant a public discrediting of the IPCC's basic findings. They remain sound and unassailable. Even Bjorn Lomborg, the arch-critic of preventative strategies to combat global climate change, concedes that the warming is very real. And Dr. Benny Peiser, director of a climate-skeptic organization, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, does not contest the validity of the process. "We are certainly not taking a critical stance on the basic science of the greenhouse effect or the fact that CO2 emissions in the atmosphere are having an effect on the climate," he writes (Guardian Weekly, Dec. 18/09). His criticism is with the "hysterical" and "emotional" debate; he wants "a more flexible and long-term approach" to the problem.

 

http://www.canada.com/business/Message+Climate+Change+Skeptics/2673514/story.html

[grbeck]

http://news.discovery.com/earth/climate-myths-and-questions-part-iii.html

 

See again, who should I believe? It's not a hard decision.

 

Yes, if you don't mind that NASA has admitted that its climate data was poor, that at least three of the four datasets were tainted, and that early data was destroyed by Phil Jones...then you go right ahead and believe it.

[suv_guy_19]

Yes, if you don't mind that NASA has admitted that its climate data was poor, that at least three of the four datasets were tainted, and that early data was destroyed by Phil Jones...then you go right ahead and believe it.

 

Yeah, that's fine too, if you ignore all other evidence.

[grbeck]

And this just proves the point that you have no argument to make. I know my position on weapons, that they shouldn't be carried in public, that people should have to prove that they are competent to carry them, and that normal people don't need to own handguns....that is not my position for all situations or types of weapon types. Again though, this has nothing to do with the matter at hand, nor does it make your position more sophisticated (:rolleyes:) than mine.

 

So, I was correct. As I said, your argument was that people should not own handguns and should not carry handguns. (The discussion was about handguns, not about other types of weapons.) Please show where I was incorrect in my assessment of that earlier exchange. The simple fact is that there is no proof that allowing law-abiding citizens to own and carry handguns in public (and they do have to prove that they are competent to own them, and carry them already - they can't have a criminal record and can't have a history of mental illness) is a danger to the public.

 

You take the unsophisticated approach of "handguns are bad, normal people shouldn't have them" when all reputable research has shown that allowing law-abiding citizens to own handguns and carry them in certain areas does not lead to more crime. And given your ignorance in this area, you are in no position to judge what other people "need."

 

Your position is one based on fear and ignorance, and one rejected by informed people who know the facts.

 

My position is to trust the scientists to do their job.

 

I agree...I just don't limit it to the ones who agree with me.

 

The reality is, the deniers don't get play in the wider real world media, because they have very little scientific credibility.

 

The reality is that they are gaining wider acceptance, and given their credentials, only a fool would ignore them. Perhaps you need to reread an earlier post where I highlighted some skeptics and their credentials.

 

Oh, and weather is not climate. Weather trends over time do form climate, and the trend is very clear. That we are having some effect is somewhat clear. That we need to do something about it is somewhat clear.

 

I wasn't the one who tried to spin a warm winter into climate change. Especially since the winter here has been below average in temperatures.

 

That we are having some effect is somewhat clear. That we need to do something about it is somewhat clear.

 

No, it is not clear. It has not yet been proven.

[grbeck]

A very interesting article, that you, with such a keen understanding of science, many want to look at.

 

 

 

http://www.canada.com/business/Message+Climate+Change+Skeptics/2673514/story.html

 

And here's the money shot of the whole story:

 

Is global warming happening? The likelihood is more than 90 per cent that elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are heating the planet. Can we know for certain? No. But playing Russian Roulette with nine of 10 chambers loaded with live bullets is a fool's game. Only the most reckless and speculative of gamblers would bet against such odds. And what's the point when the reward of winning is the status quo and the cost of losing is catastrophe.

 

This is the gamble that climate change skeptics are taking, even though they don't understand modern science, they don't understand the odds and they don't understand the consequences.

 

Translation - we can't prove it's happening, but ignore all of that faked evidence, and let us enact massive and costly new regulations anyway, or really bad things will happen. So who is engaging in alarmist hysteria and appeals to emotion?

[suv_guy_19]

Translation - we can't prove it's happening, but ignore all of that faked evidence, and let us enact massive and costly new regulations anyway, or really bad things will happen. So who is engaging in alarmist hysteria and appeals to emotion?

 

Wow, I'm done having this discussion with you. I'll take my 'unsophisticated views' elsewhere. You can continue to sit here and attempt to deflect arguments and proof, and other people can have fun watching.

[RangerM]

The point is SUV, that whatever "concensus" may exist, there is also enough contrary data and opinion to make folly of upending our entire fossil fuel-based economy.

 

Could we benefit from some additional "green" technology? Perhaps.

 

Would we benefit from having it forced upon us before the technology is cost-effective (or even mature)? No.

 

We will benefit when it makes economic sense.