The Truth, Still Inconvenient

[Canadiens1131]

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.

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.

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

[the iron horse]

"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.

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

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.

[the iron horse]

Originally Posted by BVS

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?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

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?

[BVS]

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.

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

"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

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]

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]

Originally Posted by BVS

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.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

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.

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by BVS

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!"

[BVS]

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?

[Canadiens1131]

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!"

No one is denying that climate change is part of the natural changes that occur to the Earth over centuries and epochs. The scientific theory that human pollution is accelerating that natural climate change is supported by 97% of climate scientists and 90% of all scientists (who are usually pretty skeptical by nature, since you know, they're scientists).

[PhilsFan]

The main thing the dissenters do is argue that they have the right to dissent. It's a great way to seem like they have a point when they don't.

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by Canadiens1131

No one is denying that climate change is part of the natural changes that occur to the Earth over centuries and epochs. The scientific theory that human pollution is accelerating that natural climate change is supported by 97% of climate scientists and 90% of all scientists (who are usually pretty skeptical by nature, since you know, they're scientists).

Thanks for ignoring the wikipedia post I put up. Statistical consensus is not science. You're trying to convince people about something that is chaotic and difficult to measure and thinking that a consensus should go to 100%. Forget it. Also it doesn't help when predictions are made and reality shows no "acceleration". It doesn't help that statistical models are "garbage in, and garbage out". The predictions are so bad that the warmers have to say that cooling is also our fault. No wonder belief is decreasing in the general public. There may be some measurable warming from CO2 but nothing catastrophic at all. 2 degrees warming (which we aren't heading for now) would most likely be a benefit and is well withing natural variation on the planet.

Just because people have a lab coat or are full of strong convictions doesn't mean they are right. Appeal to authority is not enough. Any areas of weakness in a theory are the areas that should be tested first. Once the theory has so much detail (like a round earth, and the existence of gravity) then you can laugh people who dissent.

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

The main thing the dissenters do is argue that they have the right to dissent. It's a great way to seem like they have a point when they don't.

Yeah because that's all dissenters do. I can tell that you didn't read any of the scientific posts made over the past months.

Originally Posted by BVS

How much true scientific dissent is out there about ANTHROPOGENIC climate change?

Same as the above post. I posted HOURS of information. You just call it junk science and move on.

What the fuck? Where did the thread "BBC: What happened to global warming?" go?

This old one was pretty fun though:

http://www.u2interference.com/forums...es-183657.html

Climate change is occurring far more rapidly than even the worst predictions of the UN's Nobel Prize-winning scientific panel on climate change, Al Gore said on Thursday.
Recent evidence shows "the climate crisis is significantly worse and unfolding more rapidly than those on the pessimistic side of the IPCC projections had warned us," climate campaigner and former US vice-president Gore said.

There are now forecasts that the North Pole ice caps may disappear entirely during summer months within five years, he told a gathering at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

Fat chance Al Gore! According to that date it would be by the end of 2012.

[deep]

[deep]

HIV does not cause AIDS

HIV does not cause AIDS. AZT (AIDS medication) causes AIDS - YouTube

I can post hours of reading from Scientists to support this fact.

Like Global Warming it is all about money and control? Who benefits?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

Just because people have a lab coat or are full of strong convictions doesn't mean they are right. Appeal to authority is not enough. Any areas of weakness in a theory are the areas that should be tested first. Once the theory has so much detail (like a round earth, and the existence of gravity) then you can laugh people who dissent.

It's comments like this that destroy all credibility you pretend to have. You can't disrespect science as a whole yet say that the minority theory is somehow the truth.

The truth is, that you have no repect for science. You've posted hours and hours of opinion that reflects this.

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by deep

I was responding to the original wikipedia post about the 98%. I'm not saying people should only look into wikipedia.

Originally Posted by BVS

It's comments like this that destroy all credibility you pretend to have. You can't disrespect science as a whole yet say that the minority theory is somehow the truth.

The truth is, that you have no repect for science. You've posted hours and hours of opinion that reflects this.

I disrespected science by posting skeptical science? "Science" isn't a person that can feel disrespected. It's not about emotions and what you feel. You have to win the argument. That's what convinces people. When I see lots of positive feedback studies and no negative feedback studies and on top of that we see what is predicted in the models you'll see much more people (including meteorologists and geologists) joining the bandwagon. At that point the only argument would be over the solutions. Right now the science is barely starting. There is so much more to learn about natural variation that to say it's settled sounds creepy.

[kramwest1]

Originally Posted by deep

Like Global Warming it is all about money and control? Who benefits?

Tomato farmers.

They'll do anything for a longer growing season.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

I disrespected science by posting skeptical science?

Look at what part of your comment I posted. You consider that "skeptical science"? Really?

And you have about a hundred or more statements just like it.

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

"Science" isn't a person that can feel disrespected. It's not about emotions and what you feel.

Are you serious? Who said anything about emotions?

You do realize that idealogies, practices, procedures can be disrespected? Right?

This is part of the problem right here.

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by BVS

You do realize that idealogies, practices, procedures can be disrespected? Right?

This is part of the problem right here.

This is pointless. There are ideologies EVERYWHERE including right inside your mind. The AGW camp is full of ideologies and a large portion of them are left-wing. The problem is not ideologies, the problem is when testing ideologies to REALITY some ideologies evolve and improve and others don't. If someone says "I'm going to pull out a rabbit from a hat" and the trick isn't doesn't work people will think there's something wrong. If scientists (including "Manhattan underwater in the year 2000" James Hansen) make bad predictions with models then maybe there's some data missing from the model that needs to reflect reality. Maybe there are other things effecting the climate that are not reflected in models. This to me is what I see skeptics doing. I don't see how scientific it is to tell people who criticize perceived flaws to stop.

This isn't disrespect and considering all the "denier" "flat-earth" "racist" comparisons from people like Al Gore and his supporters I don't think disrespect is only one way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfnddMpzPsM