Page 110 of 111 FirstFirst ... 1060100105106107108109110111 LastLast
Results 2,181 to 2,200 of 2209
  1. #2181  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    No, this means that good scientist disagree, as always. Meanwhile, a group of them fudge around with the graphs and misrepresented things, form alliances, lobby governments - in such a way that BILLIONS of dollars have, (and in the coming decades this will mean TRILLIONS), change hands.

    What's at stake here isn't scientific show and tell and face saving for their community. What's at stake here is the rest of us and our livelihoods. Many jobs, even whole industries, will be destroyed. Taxation will climb. Additional government regs and controls will be implemented.

    All for political gain. This is about political and economic control of the entire planet.

    Meanwhile.... climate change happens, in spite of us.
    I'm assuming then that you are more concerned with the politics and not the science because the science has nothing to do with taxation, industry, and government regulations. The science is simply an observation of what is happening on earth. If you fear the conclusions of the science in how it will effect the economics, regulations, and taxes of your country then you should be happy to know you won. The majority of people(not including the scientists) don't believe in it and the politicians can use that to block any type of legislation. But while we are coming off the hottest decade on record and starting the next one on an even hotter note, I hope your taxes remain low.
  2. #2182  
    Quote Originally Posted by tcrunner View Post
    Do you really think no one is paying attention to your manipulation of posts?? Think the cached copies haven't already been saved and copied (and your actions reported) to the proper internet security authorities?
    Yeah I did notice your post mysteriously vanished. Talk about omitting data.
  3. #2183  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    What's at stake here isn't scientific show and tell and face saving for their community. What's at stake here is the rest of us and our livelihoods. Many jobs, even whole industries, will be destroyed. Taxation will climb. Additional government regs and controls will be implemented.

    All for political gain. This is about political and economic control of the entire planet.

    Meanwhile.... climate change happens, in spite of us.
    Scientists are not activists. They don't lobby congress. They speak on the floor of Congress IF INVITED.

    Ok, let me get this straight. You're concerned about political and economic control of the planet, and you're happy to keep things status quo? Please, lets all keep driving gas guzzling cars so we can send more money to the middle east, some of which winds up funding exactly who we're fighting. Then, when oil cannot support the mobile life styles of the US, Europe, and the exploding middle classes of India and China, we can all buy wind turbines and batteries from china, and solar panels from Germany to Power our electric cars (also purchased from China because they do it cheaper than we can). First, we'll need to take another Trillion dollar loan from China to exchange our gas based infrastructure for an electric one.

    I'd prefer to get ahead of the curve on Green Energy, and have the US a major exporter to China, who is currently choking themselves to death on Coal. Oh, and the political leverage we get over petro-dictatorships is just a side bonus.

    Saying the push for green energy will "destroy jobs" shows a complete lack of understanding basic economics.
  4. #2184  
    It must have been a slow news day that caused someone to re-open a thread started in Feb 2005. Don't these things ever expire?
    Run your ad here... reach thousands daily...



    ...Now accepting orders for my upcoming iHandle™.
    Reserve yours today!
  5. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2185  
    Hello Everyone,

    Review & Outlook: A Climate Absolution? - WSJ.com

    Excerpts:
    In other words, the review assumes the validity of the global warming "consensus" while purporting to reaffirm that consensus. Since a statement cannot prove itself, the review merely demonstrates a weakness for circular logic.

    We realize that, for climate change true believers, last week's report will be waved about as proof that the science of climate change is as "settled" as the case for action. It's never hard to convince yourself of what you're already disposed to believe. But if their goal is to persuade an increasingly skeptical public about the science of global warming, and the need to restructure the world economy to ameliorate it, they need to start taking the politics out of the science.

    End Excerpts:

    KAM
  6. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2186  
    Quote Originally Posted by Austintwilliams View Post
    Scientists are not activists. They don't lobby congress. They speak on the floor of Congress IF INVITED.
    Well, unfortunately, that isn't true. Many scientists, specifically those who have attached their careers and fortunes to global warming hysteria are exactly that. Even more unfortunate, is the fact that their supposedly scientific work is influenced by this activism, which is why there is such a good reason for skepticism--of them. In turn, one cannot help but question the conclusions that they push as activists, in the guise of scientists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Austintwilliams View Post
    Saying the push for green energy will "destroy jobs" shows a complete lack of understanding basic economics.
    It would be more accurate to say that the methods that are being pushed aren't economically viable. Spain's "green jobs" program has been touted as an example, but is actually (so it is reported) losing jobs.

    Very simply--"basic economics" says that if something is economically viable, then it should be...well viable. If you need heavy subsides and schemes like Cap and Trade to make it APPEAR viable, then it probably isn't.

    No one should misunderstand me. I've actually worked (in a minor role) on research for utilizing solar power, and I've been an advocate for about 20 years for diversifying our power infrastructure. I'd love to have my own personal wind and solar power systems, but simply cannot justify the expense.

    In all of this, I think honest, scientific evaluations need to be made outside of politics, and political needs of those who are deeply into this issue, to find real solutions. I don't think we are anywhere close to that.

    KAM
  7. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2187  
    Quote Originally Posted by Superjudge View Post
    I know that the biggest and most important complaint in the independent studies done on the CRU was that they were not forthcoming with sharing some data with outside scientists but not with manipulating or falsifying the data. That is an important point. Its not data that is the real issue, its the control of the data which is more of a human issue and not reflective of the data itself. That is the problem with the whole debate. Since scientists got caught caught acting like idiots and now the credibility of years of studies is questioned because some emails were destroyed, some opposing scientists were kept out of the loop, and some scientists expressed their displeasure with a magazine.
    That's not the sum-total of the questions. That's in regards to the Climategate scandal. That is just the PRPRPR $bomb$ $that$ $blew$ $up$ $in$ $their$ $faces$--$it$ $doesn$'$t$ $mean$ $there$ $isn$'$t$ $more$ $to$ $question$.

    Quote Originally Posted by Superjudge View Post
    Yes there are scientists that doubt human's involvement in global warning. According to the Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences, they comprise 2.5% of the top 200 researches in the field. That means in a room of 200 scientists, 4 or 5 of the people do not hold the same interpretation of data as the other 195 do. So yes legitimate scientists do hold that viewpoint that global warming is not related to human activity but it is also fair to say that an overwhelming majority of legitimate scientists do not agree with them when presented with the same data.

    Is there a definitive answer? No. Is there a definitive consensus? Yes.
    A better question is the DEGREE of involvement. I actually believe that it is likely that mankind in some way influences the climate. Would I be listed as agreeing with this "consensus" or not? Technically, I guess I would be. However, that is a much different thing to agree with the demands and conclusions rooted in this "consensus."

    It seems to me that the attempt to manipulate the proceedings (if not the data--that is not at all clear) is about the most damaging thing, if you DO think that man is responsible. Wouldn't the most direct thing be to be totally open, so there is no question? You don't hide things that support your claims--there is absolutely ZERO scientific justification for that.

    Further--this is just the top layer. Let's assume that there was no Data Manipulation--then what about the validity of the data. What about the methods used to collect the Data? At every step in the process it must be clear that unbiased scientific methods were used, and that political desires did not taint the process. We know that those political desires exist, and that politicians are the ones providing the funding for these things.

    Is it really unreasonable to assume that it is POSSIBLE that there was something less than perfect ethics involved? As I said--climategate itself isn't proof of anything scientific. What is does indicate is that we should be skeptical and questioning of the scientists themselves. If the facts are there, they should have nothing to hide, yet they that's the exact opposite of what they did.

    KAM
  8. srswarley's Avatar
    Posts
    43 Posts
    Global Posts
    44 Global Posts
    #2188  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    In all of this, I think honest, scientific evaluations need to be made outside of politics, and political needs of those who are deeply into this issue, to find real solutions. I don't think we are anywhere close to that.

    KAM
    As a scientist.. I agree completely. I prefer to stay out of political arguments and try to keep my scientific research as politically free as possible. Science is my game, not politics. If only other "scientists" would do the same. Saying you're a "scientist" used to mean something...

    But as a "scientist" I can and will say that global warming has happened and will happen again.. Earth's history tells us so.
  9. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #2189  
    Quote Originally Posted by srswarley View Post
    As a scientist.. I agree completely. I prefer to stay out of political arguments and try to keep my scientific research as politically free as possible. Science is my game, not politics. If only other "scientists" would do the same. Saying you're a "scientist" used to mean something...

    But as a "scientist" I can and will say that global warming has happened and will happen again.. Earth's history tells us so.
    Quantifiable and measurable. Spoken like a true scientist.

    Austin seems to think that anyone who points out the not so scientifc problems with the left's political arguments must therefore be for gas guzzling cars and polluting the environment.

    I'm all for green technology, Austin. But brought about sensibly through the market economies; not shoved on us by the governments heavy handed mandates, taxation and penaties.

    You need to look a bit closer and see who benefits most from the legislation that's currently being shoved down our throats. It ain't us.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  10. #2190  
    Global warming- false

    The earth has gone through several periods of time where the temp. has changed dramatically
    e.g Ice Ages
    and the Earth Warms back up, to a certain extent then goes back down. if people will just relax and hold their horses everything will be back to normal.
  11. srswarley's Avatar
    Posts
    43 Posts
    Global Posts
    44 Global Posts
    #2191  
    Quote Originally Posted by dk6640 View Post
    Global warming- false

    The earth has gone through several periods of time where the temp. has changed dramatically
    e.g Ice Ages
    and the Earth Warms back up, to a certain extent then goes back down.
    You're right, the Earth and it's processes are involved in a variety of cycles that are perpetual and help drive the events we see on the Earth throughout time. And you are right that there are periods in Earth's history where it is cooler, Ice Ages like you said, and there are times when the Earth is significantly warmer. The only "dramatic" change is the temperature difference between the two extremes when they are at their peak.. but the change is gradual.

    The points in time where "the Earth Warms back up" is what is labeled as Global Warming.. where the Earth (as a globe) warms up... so I'm not following you on the "Global Warming- false" argument. Now if you wanted to argue if Global Warming is false as far as politics go.. that is a different issue. But scientifically.. Global Warming is very real, and the Earth will experience it again. I can kindly point you to sources if you would like.

    Quote Originally Posted by dk6640 View Post
    if people will just relax and hold their horses everything will be back to normal.
    The Earth will eventually find equilibrium, just like everything in the Universe wants to find equilibrium. I'm not that worried about it not finding equilibrium, but what "scientists" are doing these days is mixing politics with science too much and aren't focusing on what they should be focusing on... finding the right empirical answers.
    Last edited by srswarley; 07/20/2010 at 10:38 AM.
  12. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #2192  
    Quote Originally Posted by srswarley View Post
    You're right, the Earth and it's processes are involved in a variety of cycles that are perpetual and help drive the events we see on the Earth throughout time. And you are right that there are periods in Earth's history where it is cooler, Ice Ages like you said, and there are times when the Earth is significantly warmer. The only "dramatic" change is the temperature difference between the two extremes when they are at their peak.. but the change is gradual.

    The points in time where "the Earth Warms back up" is what is labeled as Global Warming.. where the Earth (as a globe) warms up... so I'm not following you on the "Global Warming- false" argument. Now if you wanted to argue if Global Warming is false as far as politics go.. that is a different issue. But scientifically.. Global Warming is very real, and the Earth will experience it again. I can kindly point you to sources if you would like.

    The Earth will eventually find equilibrium, just like everything in the Universe wants to find equilibrium. I'm not that worried about it not finding equilibrium, but what "scientists" are doing these days is mixing politics with science too much and aren't focusing on what they should be focusing on... finding the right empirical answers.
    I think we know that whats being debated is man's impact on global warming, not whether or not it exists. I blame the media for miscasting the debate as "global warming is either true or false".

    Are we impacting the system to the point that we'll kill the planet? Are we impacting it in a significant way, if at all? Even if we are, can we change enough to reverse that effect without, in fact, destroying civilization as we know it (do we really want to go back to living as hunter-gatherers?)?

    Personally, I'm leaning towards 'no' to all of the above.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  13. #2193  
    Quote Originally Posted by srswarley View Post
    You're right, the Earth and it's processes are involved in a variety of cycles that are perpetual and help drive the events we see on the Earth throughout time. And you are right that there are periods in Earth's history where it is cooler, Ice Ages like you said, and there are times when the Earth is significantly warmer. The only "dramatic" change is the temperature difference between the two extremes when they are at their peak.. but the change is gradual.

    The points in time where "the Earth Warms back up" is what is labeled as Global Warming.. where the Earth (as a globe) warms up... so I'm not following you on the "Global Warming- false" argument. Now if you wanted to argue if Global Warming is false as far as politics go.. that is a different issue. But scientifically.. Global Warming is very real, and the Earth will experience it again. I can kindly point you to sources if you would like.



    The Earth will eventually find equilibrium, just like everything in the Universe wants to find equilibrium. I'm not that worried about it not finding equilibrium, but what "scientists" are doing these days is mixing politics with science too much and aren't focusing on what they should be focusing on... finding the right empirical answers.
    Yes thats what i meant, of course it exsits- but politics and phycos sayin its gonna do all this bad stuff and we're gonna lose all the penguins and what not, they're over doing it there.
  14. #2194  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I think we know that whats being debated is man's impact on global warming, not whether or not it exists. I blame the media for miscasting the debate as "global warming is either true or false".

    Are we impacting the system to the point that we'll kill the planet? Are we impacting it in a significant way, if at all? Even if we are, can we change enough to reverse that effect without, in fact, destroying civilization as we know it (do we really want to go back to living as hunter-gatherers?)?

    Personally, I'm leaning towards 'no' to all of the above.
    yes im with you on the "no" part haha. I think politics and the media over do EVERYTHING
  15. srswarley's Avatar
    Posts
    43 Posts
    Global Posts
    44 Global Posts
    #2195  
    We do live on an Earth that is composed of several systems, and these systems are balanced quite equally. But how much does it take to throw the system out of whack on a global scale that will effect the higher beings on the planet? That is an excellent question.. one which hasn't been answered fully yet in my opinion.

    But what I do know is that I enjoy sitting in a pub enjoying a tall one
    so hunting and gathering wouldn't work, plus i like my Pre too much
  16. #2196  
    Can we all at least agree on these scientific facts-

    -The Earth is presently in a warming period

    -The greenhouse effect process is a real process

    -CO2 levels have been consistently rising for the past 50 years and are higher than we have ever seen from geological records. We are currently at 392ppm by the way.
  17. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #2197  
    Quote Originally Posted by Superjudge View Post
    Can we all at least agree on these scientific facts-

    -The Earth is presently in a warming period

    -The greenhouse effect process is a real process

    -CO2 levels have been consistently rising for the past 50 years and are higher than we have ever seen from geological records. We are currently at 392ppm by the way.
    To your points:

    First one, yep. (edit: actually theres been evidence recently that points to cooling)

    Second one, nope. The model that is commonly used to illustrate that effect is far too simplified and has many flaws.

    Third one, not even close. The Early Carboniferous Period had approximately 1500 ppm.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  18. #2198  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    To your points:

    First one, yep. (edit: actually theres been evidence recently that points to cooling)

    Second one, nope. The model that is commonly used to illustrate that effect is far too simplified and has many flaws.

    Third one, not even close. The Early Carboniferous Period had approximately 1500 ppm.
    First one- Cite your evidence

    Second One- well then explain how we have observed this process in our own solar system

    Third One- Yes I agree with this and was going to edit my third point to reflect the more accurate reading of 620,000 years. My fault.
  19. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #2199  
    Quote Originally Posted by Superjudge View Post
    First one- Cite your evidence
    maybe evidence is a poor choice. I have no findings personally that support this, as I'm not a scientist by any stretch. I should have said "articles", e.g., press releases. You may have noticed that recently the term has changed from "global warming" to "climate change". This is to allow for said findings that have been released in the media.
    Second One- well then explain how we have observed this process in our own solar system
    Wow, again, I'm not a scientist, or a physics teacher. Does that mean that I should stay clear of the debate and not offer up my thoughts? I assimilate as much as I can from the resources I've stumbled over, and then applied my own experience and logic to the equation, and from all of this form a conclusion. This could change, of course. I'm open to new points and views. That all said, your model is what was described as being flawed only recently - e.g., data ommitted. My point was hardly a new one.
    Third One- Yes I agree with this and was going to edit my third point to reflect the more accurate reading of 620,000 years. My fault.
    Ah, we agree now on one point!
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  20. srswarley's Avatar
    Posts
    43 Posts
    Global Posts
    44 Global Posts
    #2200  
    The greenhouse effect is quite possibly real... look up Deccan Volcanism. This could very well have been a strong contributor to the global temperature rise ~65Ma.

    Yes there are a number of variables that go into the model(s), but it is ultimately created by people who only know pieces of what is actually going on.. Earth Science is not an exact science

Posting Permissions