Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
Both of you know more than everything there could possibly be to know about Global Warming, while having your heads so far up your own asses that not one of either of your posts refers to the topic referenced in the original post.
Again, not meaning to sound like a dick, you`re obviously an intelligent guy, but I refuse to spoon-feed you evidence for anthropogenic global warming in the same way I refuse to spoon-feed so-called "young earth creationists" evidence for evolution.
Do your own research, mate. It`s not that difficult. Burden of Proof is not a scientific principle that we scientists take lightly.
Sorry, I read this:
[quote]however, who was awarded the nobel peace prize? Tell me about his qualifications...[/quote]
Forgive me for assuming you were talking about Barack Obama.
Anyway, this thread is dead. See you on the next debate, odeed. Next time around, bring an actual qualified, peer-reviewed, professional scientist as your backup, rather than some dude with a blog. Then I`ll be more inclined to take you seriously.
Until then, I`m very sincerely yours, Davymid.
I have not once mentioned Barack, he really has nothing to do with the problem, at all.
Science is not a democracy. It is a meritocracy. Not everyone`s opinion is equally valid. An evolutionary biologist has no place commenting on the physics of the Big Bang, and vice versa a theoretical physicist has no place commenting on the intricacies of the process of evolution.We have experts for a reason.
What all scientists CAN comment on are the fundamentals of science - skepticism of claims until they have met the burden of proof, rigour, reproducibility, peer review etc etc. When these fundamentals have been applied in a field other than the scientist`s own, they can be confident that the theory is sound, because the scientific process is robust.
That is why we can accept theories from other branches of science we may not personally have great knowledge of. What we DON`T get to do is presume to know more than the experts in that field about their own specialty.
Anyways, we`re talking about climate change, you`re talking about Al Gore and Barack Obama. What`s your point, caller?
Until then, I reserve the right to treat Mr. Meyer with with the same disdain that I normally reserve for people like Ken Ham or Kent Hovind when they espouse Evolution as being a lie. Or for that matter a crystal-waving alternative medicine practitioner who diagnoses and treats my disease without so much as a single day`s professional medical training.
Also, while we`re on the subject of Ad Hominem attacks, why is Obama slated on every comment on this thread which denies anthropogenic climate change, when the subject is clearly nothing to do with the man?
Odeed, I`d hardly call it an Ad Hominem attack to call into question someone`s professional qualifications. Science, as you know, is made up of two parts: Data and critical analysis of those data. Sure, Mr. Meyer has the data, as we all do. However his critical analysis is that of a layman, who best I can tell, has had not so much as a single day`s professional training or qualification in atmospheric science.
He uses research of others, come on, I thought you`d know better than that Ad-hominem attack, Davy. He freely admits that he has no climate-science qualification, however, who was awarded the nobel peace prize? Tell me about his qualifications... Base your attacks off the evidence that they present (unless it is isn`t sourced), rather than qualification.
take that MRHYDE
Davy, just because there happens to be a warming trend now does not solidify that Humans are the reason WHY there`s a warming trend.
Again, I point to past temperature records that show that the earth`s climate changes constantly. Just because there was a long period of warming in the medieval warm period, does not prove that lack of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide were the reason it was warmer in that time.
And the little ice age that took place after the medieval warming period does not prove that lack of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide made it cooler.
I`ve said it before and I`ll say it again, the earth`s climate is always changing, and I will personally eat my shoe if the climate doesn`t begin to change again in the next 50 or so years.
So, instead of replying with real information to your fallacious, hateful and ignorant posts; I`m going to post a picture of an adorable kitten, something the world will be without if people like you stay on your track.
It is right to be skeptical about anything. However, the right to present one`s skepticism goes to those with equal education, practical experience, and intellectual competence as the hundreds of scientists that constantly research on this matter.
That proves it. People who watch this news are really retarded.
Anyways, back at odeed... nice link there to Warren Meyer`s presentation. Took me a while to track him down (I was wondering why I hadn`t heard of him).
Turns out his credentials for being a scientific expert on climate change are as follows:
1) He`s proprieter of a blog called Climate-skeptic.com.2) His only postgraduate qualification is an MBA from Harvard Business School. His pre-grad was mechanical engineering. 3) He wrote a self-published book called "A Skeptical Layman’s Guide to Anthropogenic Global Warming.”. Key word there. Layman. 4) Best I can tell, his only original research was carried out by him and his 9-year old son, driving around Pheonix with a thermometer.
Now, you`ll understand if I choose to listen instead to the tens of thousands of qualified professional scientists in the field of atmospheric science who say that global warming is both real and anthropogenic over the guy with an MBA and a blog.
[quote]Here`s a few facts for ya. Facts, mind.
4. Eleven of the twelve years in the period (1995-2006) rank among the top 12 warmest years in the instrumental record.[/quote]
That is not a cooling trend.
You`re not even reading the counter-arguments, you`re just spewing inane babble from the soapbox in your mind.It`s only 11am and you`ve already filled my crap-meter for the day. I`m done.
I posted that because it`s an accurate assessment of your idea of the peer review process. From your description, you don`t know how peer review works. You don`t take your research to your boss or a coworker and say "peer review this please". You submit it to a scientific journal,of which there are hundreds, in every field. These journals are not government-owned or sponsored. When the paper is published, everyone involved in that field is able to review your work and provide feedback, criticism or praise as appropriate.
Peer review is an incredibly robust testing system, and has given us all the modern science you take for granted every day.
Show some respect for what generations of humanity`s greatest minds have achieved, rather than swiping it all aside with some infantile implication that scientists sell their souls to the highest bidder.
The start of the warming is extremely iffy, it doesn`t, however, have any connection with the industrial age.
There is no evidence that CO2 has warmed the planet in the past, there is causation, however, Warmth causes CO2.
CO2 is not a potent Greenhouse Gas, at all.
The earth is cooling.
The Hockey-Stick graph is based off one variable, the others point to a much milder warming.
In other words, CO2 shouldn`t warm the earth, never has, and there is not evidence that it is doing so now.
Hahaha, I liked it... Also, well done at proving my point about the contention between the two sides.
This is another thing that I want to bring up, peer reviews. AGW proponents will oft reference the number of peer-reviewed papers, published by the IPCC. Now, let me present a scenario, to highlight the major flaw in peer-reviews. Let`s say you`re a scientist, a profession that is not very well-paid, money mostly comes from outside funding, and government grants. Now, I want to publish a paper, one which is very critical of the `consensus`, I bring it to a peer to review, and possibly publish... Now, this department wants continued support, obviously, and to have a sceptic (or DENIER as they are so affectionately known) on your team is a threat to their continued funding, and possibly, my job....... Cont
1) I never meant to imply that fame was all that important to the actual scientific process. My point was that if any scientist were to produce significant evidence that contradicted a widely accepted theory, they would be immortalised in the scientific world. There is far more personal gain to be made by a scientist through overturning a theory rather than confirming it, so there is no incentive to hold back as someone suggested.
2) I agree with you on this point completely. I`m not sure if you thought I was saying the opposite here, but I wasn`t.However, it`s important to remember that science is not a democracy. It`s a meritocracy. Not all opinions are of equal weight or equal validity.
3) The fact that we know about Duchesne shows that his case was sound. It just took a while to get out. With the ease of communication these days, that wouldn`t really happen now.
Try reading instead of just jumping straight to the typing part of this little exercise.
Seriously, you`re just going to completely write off everything everyone has said (well reasoned, informative comments by the likes of Davymid) with an "Anyway"?
You`ve contributed nothing to the opposing argument. You made 2 or 3 blanket statements.
If you haven`t found the evidence: Run along, and read up on the topic instead of expecting the IPCC to do home delivery of knowledge into your slack jawed head through drating osmosis.
"The burden of proof is on you" is fine, so long as you realize the burden of learning is yours. No one is under any obligation to spend large amount of time spoonfeeding you knowledge like a mommy with a 1 year old making aeroplane noises.
"If they had a good case against the prevailing theory, it would be well published, it would make them hugely famous, and the 99% would change their mind. That is how science works."
1) Fame isn`t exactly the prerequisite for good science. 2) 100% of people will never agree on something. This is true of scientists too. This may be a good thing.3) It`s not just a matter of having a good case. - Look up Ernest Duchesne, earlier inventor of Penicillin who was ignored for his age for example.
In a perfect world, maybe something akin to your suggestion is how science works.
Even if the topic is related, as long as it is not mutually exclusive (which this isn`t), you can have overlap. In this case, people who think they modified the data at all, and the people who think they did it alot are made into one group, as people have pointed out.
This poll is equivalent to:"Would you go to Disneyland?""Would you go to Disneyland more than once?""Would you go to Disneyland more than 5 times?"
#of people who said yes to >5 should also be included in >1 and >0. As such the numbers could easily be 75% +50% +25%. Even in a poll with a related subject.
Last time IAB did this it was "Would you support Republican ____?" There were people who would support more than 1 candidate. Therefore
Oh, come on, have you looked at the members of the IPCC recently?
And the last time I checked was right now.
Sorry, just had to call you out on that one.
The only thing I can figure is this: the article said the 59% thought that it was at *least* somewhat likely, so that must include the "very likelys". So:
35% Very Likely24% Somewhat (total of these is the 59%)26% Not-very + Not at all
which leaves 15% as undecided. Who knows. Rasmussen is usually pretty good about posting raw numbers, but not in this case I guess.
Who`s on first? What`s on second?
My sincerest apologies for being unclear. I was not talking about someone who graduated from a liberal arts school; I was talking about a liberal who graduated from art school. Sorry for the confusion.
Only because of her name.
35% very likely24% somewhat likely21% not very likely5% not likely at all15% not sure
Apparently, they combined the first two categories - those who thought the fraud was either very or somewhat likely - to get 59%. Then then combined the not very likely and not likely at all groups to get 26%. The mistake was in showing the very likely group by itself.
What the poll shows is this:
59% very or somewhat likely26% not very likely or not likely at all
that is, people believe by more than 2:1 that the global warmists falsified their data.
One screwed up graphic may make you Fox haters jizz in your diapers, but it hardly discredits an entire news organization. THIS, on the other hand, does:
That`s good to know, yellowsquare. Sometimes it feels like we`re so outnumbered that we should revert to guerilla warfare rather than a pitched battle.But then I think "screw that, not on my watch".
Just because Al Gore made a movie about it doesn`t make the fact unreal or illegitimate.
I never get here in time to say anything useful, but I want you two to know that your fight against Stupid and Misinformed does not go unappreciated.
You`ve all fallen hook, line, and sinker for the global warming hoax, so it doesn`t surprise me in the least that you were taken in by a 3rd-rate Photoshop job like this.
Yep, if there`s anything worse than coming up against someone who might actually know what they`re talking about, it`s coming up against two of us.
Aside from that...
Global warming is a normal process in the planet, except our over industrialization has accelerated it. The consequences are gonna be bad when the Ice Age comes.
super global warming = super cold ice age
And it is near...it has been 40 000 years since the last Ice Age...
Also, it doesn`t matter if climate change is caused by humans or not...the climate is changing and people need to get their heads out of their collective asses about it and be more conscientious about the future of our planet.
Guys, when 99% of the relevant experts in a field agree on something, and the tiny fraction disagree, it`s usually safe to ignore the tiny fraction. If they had a good case against the prevailing theory, it would be well published, it would make them hugely famous, and the 99% would change their mind. That is how science works.
And people who say crap like this:[quote]@davymid No all those scientist are government run so, they tell them what to say just to make the public scared and keep them in line.[/quote]make me sick. To trash someone`s professional reputation like that just because you disagree with them is intellectual cowardice and displays an embarrassing lack of understanding of the scientific process and community.
OK, seeing as you asked. Here`s a few facts for ya. Facts, mind.
1. Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values.2. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2005 (379 ppm) exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm)3. The amount of methane in the atmosphere in 2005 (1774 ppb) exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (320 to 790 ppb)4. Eleven of the twelve years in the period (1995-2006) rank among the top 12 warmest years in the instrumental record.
I won`t go into the isotopic fingerprints of carbon molecules involved (given the post limit) which show that this due to human activities.
He did not and you`re positively redunkulous for saying so!
BUT your sentences have to be cogent, and you have to demonstrate an understanding of manipulating data sets for input into computer models that extrapolate input data into long-term projections...and the basis of your argument cannot be "librls r stupd!"...ok, go!
If you believed that something was "very likely" to happen, then by definition you also believe that same thing is "somewhat likely" to happen. But it doesn`t work in reverse. These numbers aren`t meant to add up to 100%.
Here is a sad fact - Republicans have convinced a large proportion of the uneducated that Science = Liberalism = The Devil.
IMO, many of the climate change "skeptics" (1) wouldn`t understand the basics if you drew them a picture, and (2) will simply disbelieve whatever any scientists say out of some kneejerk reaction to authority. Ain`t no pointy headed scientist gonna explain to me the chemical composition of the atmosphere!
120% is not right, if that`s what you were implying.
Ah, so that`s how it can add up to more than 100%.
I still don`t like it though, those questions seem to be misleading and favor a bias, as I`m sure the questions posed by whoever did this survey were.
Is there some magical force preventing any white women who are employed & worried about the economy?
in a single poll, you can`t have over 100%. i understand what you said about "90% of America were unemployed, and today it says 70% are worried about the economy. The other week it said about 50% were women, and the week before that it said 80% were white" because those are different things. but if you asked 10 people the same question, and 5 say yes, 4 say no and 6 say maybe, then it`s wrong.
I kinda want to see that now that you bring it up.
No. This is how it works.
The thing you are looking at on FOX is a collection of what people stated their opinions were in an (unpublished?) format.
110% is fine. Dumbasses.
It pisses me off so much that most of you don`t get it, AND that you`re sitting there criticizing it WHEN you don`t get it.
It`s like watching Leonardo Davinci being shat on by cheering monkeys in some bizarre celebration of stupid.
Also, if you don`t see that point from these numbers, you are also a terrorist.
You`ve done this twice now. FOX`s math is correct. IAB`s is wrong. You can have results that add up to more than 100%. This was the case last time too.
What`s worse, is this was the case the last time too, and you have the cheek to say "again". You were making it up the first time, you`re making it up this time. Again?
Unless of course by "Fuzzy" math you are simply referring to it being above preschool level, and therefore seems "Fuzzy" to your clearly inadequate levels of mathematical knowledge.
Umm... You know.... The USA says that English is "more important" than math in our schools..... so..... tbh you should work on your English before you go around making fun of someone else.
If it was asked as 3 separate questions, It`s likely there would be some overlap with people agreeing to 2 queries at once.
Example: Do you agree it`s snowing heavily ?Do you agree it`s snowing ?Do you agree it`s snowing lightly ?Do you agree it`s not snowing ?
One person could answer yes to 2 questions there, If those questions were posed in that order.
The source, 4th paragraph down.
Not Fox`s fault here, That`s exactly what the poll stated.
Please explain to me that if Humans are causing the climate change, why during the industrial boom in the 1940`s, where greenhouse gas emissions were at all time high since before that point, the temperature did not increase, but decrease?
Also what about the medieval warm period? There were no cars or factories back then, so why did the temperature raise the way it did?
Past temperature changes have shown no relation between human industrialization and climate change.
Now unless you can show me some groundbreaking new studies that prove the earth got warmer and not cooler during the industrial boom, and that the medieval warm period never happened, I`ll stick with "Man caused global warming is a lie"
The earth`s climate is always changing, there have been many times in it`s history where it`s been much warmer and much cooler than it is now. The jump from the medieval warm period to the little ice age was huge, and with no help from us humans.
Whether we`re causing global warming or not, this place is still a mess! Clean it up!
I on the other hand tend to agree with the IPCC`s findings which says the opposite. The latest IPCC report being written, as it was, by 620 scientists from 40 countries. They wrote almost 1000 pages on the topic. Those pages in turn were reviewed by another 400+ scientists from 113 countries.
I`ll trust them over one maverick (albeit, very good) scientist.
p.s. It`s Richard. Not Robert.
@coolhandluke: Don`t ever use that as a screen name to act like a looser.
The first thing I noticed was that he said "king Obama."
What and idiot! Who ever vote for a dolt who can`t even do simple addition!--------------------------------------------------
I know. It would be just as bad as listening to someone who doesn`t even have a basic grasp of english!
Oh and by the way, anyone can make a slip of the tongue and say something wrong. Remember when king Obama said that he had been to 57 states? Hahahahahahahahahah! What and idiot! Who ever vote for a dolt who can`t even do simple addition!
As a professional earth scientist with a PhD, I`m gonna come right out and there say:
No. No it`s not.
Did you account for the 25% who ran away when they found out it was for Fox News?
"And it`s snowing heavily in downtown Chicago.""No it`s not."*concentrates*"Yes it is.""Holy crap, Amy!""Call me... Miss Freeze."*dramatic pose, gust of wind blows hair, heroic theme music plays*
The maths still fails if this was true. This would mean that:
26% said not very likely.24% said it would be somewhat likely, but not very likely (59-35=24).35% said more than somewhat likely, it was very likely.
Giving a grand total of 85%.
And the same for this recession crap too! Economists and other random business owners just decided to make some story that there was a recession on, just so that they could get some attention and save money by firing people! What dicks!
Er.. how? He just said why don`t we evolve into a species better suited for the climate. What`s wrong with that? Animals have been doing it for millions of years. Please don`t tell me you`re one of those people who say any animal (including humans) don`t adapt or evolve in the slightest.
You know for a fact do you?
...JUST IGNORE THOSE 50,000 SCIENTISTS WHO BACK GLOBAL WARMING
Human caused Global Warming is a lie.
So off the 100% involved in the poll how many percent gave 2 answers instead of 1? This is the percentage of the statistical pool that I think are retards.
Fox is for conservatives and will contain a spin on their views. There is a lot of evidence to prove that Global Warming isn`t man made. If i want to do a study on the decline of red squirrels in the UK no interest, if i propose a study for the decline of red squirrels in UK due to Global Warming they throw money at you. The inconvenient truth has been proven to be filled with inaccuracies and Al Gore the Saviour with hummers and a massive mansion refuses to debate with the anti-man made climate change lobby. Scientists as a whole committing fraud no, a large amount tailoring there research to further their aims ie put food on the table plausible...
so you`re saying i`m dumb cause i`m skeptical that a bunch of libs might try to debase fox polls. but you`re enlightened because you blindly follow your green way of life even though it`s been shown for the scam it is. fine i`ll be dumb and you can be enlightened. hope your prius gets you where you want to go at a whopping 55mph
And while I normally agree that if you don`t like FNC, don`t watch it, too many other people actually believe this crap, and that affects the rest of us. So, no, everyone doesn`t need to "back off Fox."
drating retard. If you would crawl out of your ass you would know that this is legit.
drating blind ignorant fox news sheep. See hckrgddss? ForAllThSin will be one of the people roaming the streets wearing a flame thrower, killing people for not believing what you are supposed too. :P
When fox news leads the crusaders in the second dark age you will be thinking; "Man, if only we had done something about them... Now, I better get to church, I wouldn`t want to be burned alive by the roaming death squads for breaking fox law."
lol, it could happen!
I wouldn`t send them to hell either. Death would suffice.
Hey, "hacker goddess" (rofl, seriously?) ignoring them won`t stop the damage they are doing to our country.
- A poll that doesn`t add up to 100%- A poll that asks average, uneducated people their opinion on any issue.- Anything by fox news.- Anything that suggests climate change is not occurring.- Anything that suggests that scientists (as a single entity) are frauds.
Why don`t we throw a little creationism and celebrity gossip in there and make it complete?