Page 39 of 111 FirstFirst ... 2934353637383940414243444989 ... LastLast
Results 761 to 780 of 2209
  1. #761  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    There is compelling evidence for both, according to the leading scientific organisations. Newton's law of gravity is accurate enough for practical purposes, as is the human influence on global warming.
    Exactly. But interesting choice of analogy given that Newtonian understanding of gravity has widely been recognized as supplanted by General Relativity.
  2. #762  
    For those who are interested, climate scientists who have seen Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" have given it 5 stars for accuracy.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/...gore_s_science

    Respectfully I say to the treocentral community, this is not politics, this is science and this is the future of our world. Its time to wake up. Your grandchildren will wonder why we ignored this problem for so long.
  3. #763  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Exactly. But interesting choice of analogy given that Newtonian understanding of gravity has widely been recognized as supplanted by General Relativity.
    Newton does not need my defense but at the scale for which it works, it is not supplanted. General relativity does not scale well to Newtonian scale.
  4. #764  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    "Compelling evidence" means the same as "convincing evidence", according to Merriam Webster........
    Not true. "Convincing evidence" is what convinces me. "Compelling evidence" is what convinces you.
  5.    #765  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    For those who are interested, climate scientists who have seen Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" have given it 5 stars for accuracy.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/...gore_s_science

    Respectfully I say to the treocentral community, this is not politics, this is science and this is the future of our world. Its time to wake up. Your grandchildren will wonder why we ignored this problem for so long.
    The problem I've got with your link is the lack of thorough reporting and including facts. Here's a link. Global warming exists as much as it ever has. We are in a cycle that I doubt man can slow down much less stop.

    SENATE COMMITTEE: AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE...
    Last edited by Advance The Man; 06/27/2006 at 07:55 PM.
  6. #766  
    In 2000, conservative pollster Frank Luntz famously penned a memo that recommended ways for President Bush and his allies to discuss global warming in a manner that cast doubt on the science. Among his suggestions, Luntz recommended the following key point:

    Nearly six years later, Bush is still adhering closely to Luntz’s talking points. But the author himself has since backed away from his advice, believing the scientific issues are now settled. In a documentary that first aired on BBC, and was broadcast last night on Canadian television, Luntz said he accepts that humans are affecting the climate, and he distanced himself from the administration’s repudiation of global warming science.


    Now if only those he affected will come around to rationality.
  7. #767  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    The problem I've got with your link is the lack of thorough reporting and including facts. Here's a link. Global warming exists as much as it ever has. We are in a cycle that I doubt man can slow down much less stop.

    SENATE COMMITTEE: AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE...
    The problem i've got with your link is .... it doesn't work.
  8.    #768  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    The problem i've got with your link is .... it doesn't work.
    fixed -thanks
  9. #769  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    The problem I've got with your link is the lack of thorough reporting and including facts. Here's a link. Global warming exists as much as it ever has. We are in a cycle that I doubt man can slow down much less stop.

    SENATE COMMITTEE: AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE...
    Its no surprise that congressional republicans are going to have issue with anything Gore says, but that does not change the fact that the consensus of the scientific community agrees with the point of the film that man has significantly contributed to global warming.

    The difference between you and me is that I believe more in peer reviewed and reputable scientific journals than memos drafted by congressional republicans who get their support from engergy industry lobbyists.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686
  10. #770  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    The problem I've got with your link is the lack of thorough reporting and including facts. Here's a link.SENATE COMMITTEE: AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE...
    What the heck is this? It's like a blog posting. It's titled "AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE" and after a couple of sentences it says:

    "In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” "

    Hmm..so really, they don't know if the AP made incorrect claims. This article/posting is a sham.. shame it's on a .gov site. Also, check out this winner: "AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article" LOL!! Damning...

    It even quotes Bob Carter, a contributing writer for the Tech Central Science Foundation, which received $95,000 in 2003 from Exxon for "Climate Change Support"
  11. #771  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    The difference between you and me is that I believe more in peer reviewed and reputable scientific journals than memos drafted by congressional republicans who get their support from engergy industry lobbyists.
    You cited a biased news article about a movie.
  12. #772  
    Quote Originally Posted by g-funkster
    What the heck is this? It's like a blog posting. It's titled "AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE" and after a couple of sentences it says:

    "In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” "

    Hmm..so really, they don't know if the AP made incorrect claims. This article/posting is a sham.. shame it's on a .gov site. Also, check out this winner: "AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article" LOL!! Damning...

    It even quotes Bob Carter, a contributing writer for the Tech Central Science Foundation, which received $95,000 in 2003 from Exxon for "Climate Change Support"
    I had just read Lindzen's criticism of the movie in the WSJ yesterday, so I was surprised to see the AP article claiming a consensus among scientists that Gore's movie was very accurate.

    I think you missed the point of the Senate response. If all these scientists dispute Gore's movie, why were they not quoted in the AP article? They certainly saw the movie. And they all voiced their criticisms before the AP article was published. Perhaps the writer missed Lindzen's op-ed from yesterday, but there's no way he wasn't aware of the ones from June 12 and May 25. Were they among the 100+ that the writer asked?

    The evidence is damning. The question is, Was it just sloppy journalism, or Rather-style political bias. I'll wait for AP to publish the 100+ names before judging.

    Also, I'm tired of these claims that every scientist and politician who expresses reservations about certain environmental claims must be biased. I don't see many supporters of global warming claims behaving dispassionately.

    As for the funding argument, who funded Gore's movie? Are they any less biased than Exxon?
  13. #773  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    You cited a biased news article about a movie.
    Interesting. You intentionally cut my quote short and omitted the link to the science article and chose to focus on the news article. Why is that? Maybe it is because it is a peer reviewed survey of the scientific literature published in the top science journal in the world, and it comes to conclusions you refuse to accept. did you read the article? if not, let me highlight its points for you and everyone else:

    Quote Originally Posted by Science 3 December 2004:Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
    The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
    Naomi Oreskes*
    Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

    The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

    IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

    Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

    The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

    The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

    Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

    This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

    The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

    Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...l/306/5702/1686
  14. #774  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Interesting. You intentionally cut my quote short and omitted the link to the science article and chose to focus on the news article. Why is that? Maybe it is because it is a peer reviewed survey of the scientific literature published in the top science journal in the world, and it comes to conclusions you refuse to accept. did you read the article? if not, let me highlight its points for you and everyone else:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...l/306/5702/1686
    I said that you cited a biased news article about a movie because you cited a biased news article about a movie.

    Here's what you said:
    For those who are interested, climate scientists who have seen Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" have given it 5 stars for accuracy.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627.../gore_s_science

    Respectfully I say to the treocentral community, this is not politics, this is science and this is the future of our world. Its time to wake up. Your grandchildren will wonder why we ignored this problem for so long.
    When ATM showed how the article was biased, you attacked the source as biased, ignoring the fact that you cited a biased news article about a movie produced by a Democratic politician.

    And then you attacked ATM, and changed the subject, away from Gore's movie. Why is that?



    As for the article, I read it. And I had also read much of the IPCC report.

    I agree completely with the IPCC's conclusions. And I don't object to any of the other scientific reports cited in the article.

    And I agree with most of the article's conclusions. But it does make one important error in interpreting the research. The article uses the term "reality" to describe anthropogenic climate change, and that's wrong. "Reality" implies fact, and there is no consensus that it's fact.

    As I explained earlier in this thread, the IPCC report says that anthropogenic climate change is "likely." That's different from "very likely" or "certain." Even if 100% of scientists believe very strongly that something is "likely," it's still not "very likely" or "certain."

    (Perhaps a mathematical analogy might help. Say you calculate the probability of an event occurring as 64.3%. Then you ask 5000 scientists, and they all agree that the probability is 64.3%. They believe it very strongly. They write papers supporting that probability. You have full consensus that that is the correct probability. So what do you conclude the probability to be? 100%? 90%? Or 64.3?)
  15. #775  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    I agree completely with the IPCC's conclusions. And I don't object to any of the other scientific reports cited in the article.

    And I agree with most of the article's conclusions. But it does make one important error in interpreting the research. The article uses the term "reality" to describe anthropogenic climate change, and that's wrong. "Reality" implies fact, and there is no consensus that it's fact.

    As I explained earlier in this thread, the IPCC report says that anthropogenic climate change is "likely." That's different from "very likely" or "certain." Even if 100% of scientists believe very strongly that something is "likely," it's still not "very likely" or "certain."
    From the last IPCC report "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis (Summary for Policymakers)" (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar...nglish/077.htm): "In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely(7) to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

    In footnote 7 you can find the definition of "likely":
    7 In this Summary for Policymakers and in the Technical Summary, the following words have been used where appropriate to indicate judgmental estimates of confidence: virtually certain (greater than 99% chance that a result is true); very likely (90-99% chance); likely (66-90% chance); medium likelihood (33-66% chance); unlikely (10-33% chance); very unlikely (1-10% chance); exceptionally unlikely (less than 1% chance). The reader is referred to individual chapters for more details.

    This is based on data up to 2001. In the light of data published since then, we can safely assume that the link between global warming and increase in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activities will be upgraded to "very likely" (90-99% chance).

    The Bush administration will continue to deny it no matter what, that is also a safe bet.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  16. #776  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    I said that you cited a biased news article about a movie because you cited a biased news article about a movie.

    Here's what you said:
    When ATM showed how the article was biased, you attacked the source as biased, ignoring the fact that you cited a biased news article about a movie produced by a Democratic politician.

    And then you attacked ATM, and changed the subject, away from Gore's movie. Why is that?
    The subject was not changed at all. The Science article, which you agree with, supports the AP article's reporting of the scientific consensus and refutes the Republican congressional memo.


    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    As for the article, I read it. And I had also read much of the IPCC report.

    I agree completely with the IPCC's conclusions. And I don't object to any of the other scientific reports cited in the article.

    And I agree with most of the article's conclusions. But it does make one important error in interpreting the research. The article uses the term "reality" to describe anthropogenic climate change, and that's wrong. "Reality" implies fact, and there is no consensus that it's fact.
    If we were the scientific editors of this article, I would agree with you that it would be a fair call that use of the word reality in the conclusion is overstepping. However deleting that word would not have any impact on the data presented in the article which accurately show the consensus of the climate science community on anthropomorphic climate change.

    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    As I explained earlier in this thread, the IPCC report says that anthropogenic climate change is "likely." That's different from "very likely" or "certain." Even if 100% of scientists believe very strongly that something is "likely," it's still not "very likely" or "certain."

    (Perhaps a mathematical analogy might help. Say you calculate the probability of an event occurring as 64.3%. Then you ask 5000 scientists, and they all agree that the probability is 64.3%. They believe it very strongly. They write papers supporting that probability. You have full consensus that that is the correct probability. So what do you conclude the probability to be? 100%? 90%? Or 64.3?)
    Science is seldom absolute and always subject to modification based on new data. The burden of proof or opportunity, however you want to put it, now falls on future studies to disprove the current scientific consensus.
  17. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #777  
    I didn't see this rebuttle posted yet. Sorry if I missed a previous post:

    AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  18. #778  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    I didn't see this rebuttle posted yet. Sorry if I missed a previous post:

    AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE
    This is a gross mis-interpretation of the US National Academy of Science report. You may find the summary of the original report here: http://darwin.nap.edu/execsumm_pdf/11676.pdf
    The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on icecaps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years. Not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is unprecedented, although a larger fraction of geographically diverse sites experienced exceptional warmth during the late 20th century than during any other extended period from A.D. 900 onward.

    Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.
    Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence.
    The message is clear: According to the US National Academy of Science, there are "multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities".
    Last edited by clulup; 06/28/2006 at 12:07 PM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  19. #779  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    This is based on data up to 2001. In the light of data published since then, we can safely assume that the link between global warming and increase in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activities will be upgraded to "very likely" (90-99% chance).
    The point of relying on peer-reviewed scientific studies is to avoid relying on what you believe we can safely assume.
  20. #780  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    I didn't see this rebuttle posted yet. Sorry if I missed a previous post:

    AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE
    check back about 12 posts

Posting Permissions