The Truth, Still Inconvenient - Page 10 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-02-2011, 10:38 AM   #136
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 11:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
First of all, since when is this thread specifically about CO2 and nothing else related to climate change? Secondly, you misrepresented kramwest's post completely, drawing a conclusion that wasn't logical given his post and linked article.
Thank you. I wasn't going to bother to continue to explain that.
(As far as being an old story, it was on NPR's Science Friday last week.)
__________________

__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2011, 11:13 AM   #137
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 10:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
First of all, since when is this thread specifically about CO2 and nothing else related to climate change? Secondly, you misrepresented kramwest's post completely, drawing a conclusion that wasn't logical given his post and linked article.
Yes but it's posted in this thread and I showed other articles on how it related to AGW so it should be understood how someone could look at it as related when the scientists there actually connect climate models with impending doom about the lake.

Secondly stopping deforestation doesn't really require cap and trade and that's where I started talking about development and modern farming. Urbanization has reduced the need to do mass clearing and that's what I was pointing to.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2011, 11:56 AM   #138
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 11:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse
The truth still ignored is that the global warming
climate change doomsayers mantra is false.

That is what I think.

Looking forward to a cold winter and a warming spring.
So you have an opinion that climate change is false? Therefore the truth is being ignored? Are you considering yourself a prophet these days?
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2011, 01:05 PM   #139
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,886
Local Time: 12:23 PM

You cannot get honey from a hornet's nest.
I just don't think there's any science to support that, buddy.
There is some very basic science supporting that. It's actually a fact. It's not even science.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2011, 09:08 PM   #140
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 12:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
So you have an opinion that climate change is false? Therefore the truth is being ignored? Are you considering yourself a prophet these days?

No, I'm not a prophet and neither is Al Gore.

The "Truth" so embraced by the global warming fan club is not
the truth. There are dissenting voices with viewpoints to say
otherwise.

I'm on the side of the dissenters. It's not happening.
__________________
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2011, 09:21 PM   #141
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 01:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
No, I'm not a prophet and neither is Al Gore.

The "Truth" so embraced by the global warming fan club is not
the truth. There are dissenting voices with viewpoints to say
otherwise.


I'm on the side of the dissenters. It's not happening.
By dissenting voices, you mean around 3% of climate researchers? Or 1 in 10 of scientists?

Then again we all know how many out there in America feel about scientists and...facts.

Quote:
Surveys of scientists and scientific literature
97–98% of the most published climate researchers think humans are causing global warming.[106] Another study found just under 90% of active scientists think significant man made global warming is occurring. Of those who didn't, most were unsure.[107]

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming.
[edit] Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[108]

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


__________________
Canadiens1131 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2011, 09:32 PM   #142
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 12:23 PM
"By dissenting voices, you mean around 3% of climate researchers? Or 1 in 10 of scientists?"


I don't know, it could be.

Does a majority always mean right?


Thanks for posting the numbers and stats Canadien1131,

but I'm not buying it.

I guess we can wait and see.
__________________
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2011, 09:44 PM   #143
Blue Crack Addict
 
Vlad n U 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 28,014
Local Time: 03:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
The solution for poor countries is to get rich which will involve fossil fuels.
Oh my, I'm lost for words. Yet, I shouldn't really be surprised that this is coming from a conservative.
__________________
Vlad n U 2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2011, 10:25 PM   #144
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 12:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Are you for real? Is this what you consider an adult answer?

I agree with the post.

What fuel do you suggest for my tractor?

Organic way to cover a few thousand acres of corn?
__________________
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2011, 10:42 PM   #145
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 12:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
I'm on the side of the dissenters. It's not happening.

why? what are your qualifications for believing the few contrary voices to what is an overwhelming consensus?

or is it just easier to do so?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2011, 11:04 PM   #146
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 11:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse

No, I'm not a prophet and neither is Al Gore.

The "Truth" so embraced by the global warming fan club is not
the truth. There are dissenting voices with viewpoints to say
otherwise.

I'm on the side of the dissenters. It's not happening.
There are dissenting voices about the holocaust, so does that mean they are the truth? Your line of logic is false. This isn't how "truth" works.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2011, 11:15 PM   #147
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 10:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
"By dissenting voices, you mean around 3% of climate researchers? Or 1 in 10 of scientists?"


I don't know, it could be.

Does a majority always mean right?


Thanks for posting the numbers and stats Canadien1131,

but I'm not buying it.

I guess we can wait and see.
The debate right now is over positive and negative cloud feedback from increases in CO2 so if a majority of climate scientists say something then the appeal to authority comes in to force you to believe because few of us are actually dealing with the hardcore math so we have to either believe one way or another or just keep the powder dry until better science can explain more. I'm in the skeptical camp because reductionism is the food for more discoveries and whenever someone says it's been figured out there is often more room for more detail. If doubling CO2 would damage the planet what would the cambrian period with 7000ppm done? There's definitely more going on and the CERN laboratory has already confirmed that cosmic rays can affect cloud cover. We just have to do more tests to see if this could affect cloud cover on a larger scale. It also doesn't help that the speed of warming in the 20th century is hardly unprecidented in human history, which is why I hate it when the medieval warming period is considered cooler than now when we have historical evidence that plant life existed at higher latitudes.

Now looking in the same source (Wikipedia) I'll post some dissenting views regarding the 98%:

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
The methodology of the Anderegg et al. study was challenged in PNAS by Lawrence Bodenstein for "treat[ing] publication metrics as a surrogate for expertise". He would expect the much larger side of the climate change controversy to excel in certain publication metrics as they "continue to cite each other's work in an upward spiral of self-affirmation".[109] Anderegg et al. replied that Bodenstein "raises many speculative points without offering data" and that his comment "misunderstands our study’s framing and stands in direct contrast to two prominent conclusions in the paper.[110] The Anderegg et al. study was also criticized by Roger A. Pielke,[111] Pat Michaels, Roger Pielke, Jr., and John Christy.[112] Pielke Jr. commented that "this paper simply reinforces the pathological politicization of climate science in policy debate." [112]
Quote:
Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[113]
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
There are dissenting voices about the holocaust, so does that mean they are the truth? Your line of logic is false. This isn't how "truth" works.
But the evidence for the holocaust is more than the evidence for global warming. Just like when it was considered very scientific to call out global cooling. How is 30 years of warming or cooling a reason to panic? You can bash people like they are holocaust deniers but skeptics can bash in turn with past "scientific" attitudes like eugenics. We have a right to dissent with scientific papers and they do exist. It's not just crazy people.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2011, 06:56 AM   #148
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 11:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
But the evidence for the holocaust is more than the evidence for global warming. Just like when it was considered very scientific to call out global cooling. How is 30 years of warming or cooling a reason to panic? You can bash people like they are holocaust deniers but skeptics can bash in turn with past "scientific" attitudes like eugenics. We have a right to dissent with scientific papers and they do exist. It's not just crazy people.
No one ever said you didn't have the right to dissent.

I was just pointing out the flaw in his line of logic, which was 'because there is dissent then climate change is not the truth'. What thinking person falls for such logic?

It's hard to take you seriously if you have such reading comprehension issues.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2011, 09:52 AM   #149
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 10:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
No one ever said you didn't have the right to dissent.

I was just pointing out the flaw in his line of logic, which was 'because there is dissent then climate change is not the truth'. What thinking person falls for such logic?

It's hard to take you seriously if you have such reading comprehension issues.
Yes but are you addressing the loaded terminology of "climate change"? Look at your sentence above. Nobody is denying that climate change exists. They are debating how much change comes from anthropogenic CO2 and this is being debated by REAL SCIENTISTS. But that's okay you can talk about people's comprehension all you want but that will likely make it look like you deny there is scientific dissent. Science shouldn't proceed in this bashing kind of way but unfortunately it often can. Wait for information that shows conclusively that positive feedback is the answer and then you'll see less "deniers". As long as peer-reviewed data is showing negative feedback you'll be constantly shocked why "deniers" still exist.

"I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2011, 10:10 AM   #150
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 11:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar

Yes but are you addressing the loaded terminology of "climate change"? Look at your sentence above. Nobody is denying that climate change exists. They are debating how much change comes from anthropogenic CO2 and this is being debated by REAL SCIENTISTS. But that's okay you can talk about people's comprehension all you want but that will likely make it look like you deny there is scientific dissent. Science shouldn't proceed in this bashing kind of way but unfortunately it often can. Wait for information that shows conclusively that positive feedback is the answer and then you'll see less "deniers". As long as peer-reviewed data is showing negative feedback you'll be constantly shocked why "deniers" still exist.

"I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"
This doesn't address anything I'm talking about, but what else is new?

No one is using loaded terminology. Am I assuming too much to think you and iron horse understand what the actual debate is over? If so I apologize. How much true scientific dissent is out there about ANTHROPOGENIC climate change?
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com