Page 41 of 111 FirstFirst ... 3136373839404142434445465191 ... LastLast
Results 801 to 820 of 2209
  1. #801  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Even if you were the reincarnation of mother earth, and brought the evidence down in a bolt of lightning from heaven, you would not convince those who base their beliefs on their ideology, not on the facts.
    I think I read that on a fortune cookie once.
  2. #802  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    I don't disagree with them. I disagree with you. Their statements don't support your positions.
    My position IS that there are "multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities".

    What I find strange is that some people and administrations try to play dumb about the above and pretend it isn't so.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  3. #803  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    My position IS that there are "multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities".
    If only that were true.

    You've said that anthropogenic global warming is "reality," which implies fact. This is not supported by that statement, nor by science.

    You've also said that it's safe to assume that the link between man and global warming will be upgraded from "likely" to "very likely." First, this contradicts your claim that it's already a "reality." Second, this is not supported by that statement, by the IPCC statement, nor by science.
  4. #804  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    You've said that anthropogenic global warming is "reality," which implies fact.
    Did I? Please quote me. In case you mixed things up a bit - well, that would be telling, no?
    You've also said that it's safe to assume that the link between man and global warming will be upgraded from "likely" to "very likely."
    It was obvious from the context that I was expressing my personal opinion, not making a scientific statement. Your case must be quite desperate if you have to start splitting hairs on such issues.

    However, I am indeed convinced that the next IPCC report will express an even higher confidence in the largely anthropogenic nature of the global warming during the past decades. This is very likely because during the years since the last report, lots of results further confirmed that view, and (to my knowledge) nothing significant turned up which cast doubt on man-made climate change. If anything would have turned up, we would know because of the large noise some groups would make about it.
    Last edited by clulup; 06/30/2006 at 07:39 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  5. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #805  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Even if Gore were the reincarnation of Joseph Stalin, it is not going to change the scientific evidence on global warming.
    You're confusing me with someone trying to discredit your 'evidence' by shooting the messenger. I think the evidence stands sufficiently discredited based on its own merit.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  6. #806  
    Of course, global warming evidence is not credible, and Al Gore has a socialist agenda. Just so we are all clear on where you are coming from.
  7. #807  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    You're confusing me with someone trying to discredit your 'evidence' by shooting the messenger. I think the evidence stands sufficiently discredited based on its own merit.
    Its not my evidence, it is the consensus of the scientific community. Why dont you go beyond reading right wing blogs and republican political memos and actually look at the science? Let me suggest a good first start, there is huge collection of fully documented studies with original references complied by wikipedia on the subject:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

    An example of one of these cited references is this report of President Bush's scientific commission.

    "On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments which concluded that there is "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system." The study said that the only factor that could explain the measured warming of Earth's average temperature over the last 50 years was the buildup of heat-trapping gases, which are mainly emitted by burning coal and oil."

    Here is the full report:

    http://climatescience.gov/Library/sa...rt/default.htm

    I hope you are not going to say Bush's commission has a socialist agenda too.
  8. #808  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Did I? Please quote me. In case you mixed things up a bit - well, that would be telling, no?
    Look at your own signature. Look at post #747:

    However, I have confidence that in the end, reality and facts will prevail, if only because reality doesn't go away just because you claim it is not there. Some people have to learn the hard way, which is OK as long as it hits those who cause the problem, and not e.g. Bangladeshi who drown because of floods and an increase in sea level, without having contributed to global warming substantially.

    It was obvious from the context that I was expressing my personal opinion, not making a scientific statement. Your case must be quite desperate if you have to start splitting hairs on such issues.
    And the backpedaling begins. "Personal opinion" is a euphemism for baseless claim. Also from post #747:

    Too many people base their views not on well established facts, but on their private fantasies or on a political agenda, and it seems fair to say (in my view) that you are one of them.

    For once, I agree with you completely.

    However, I am indeed convinced that the next IPCC report will express an even higher confidence in the largely anthropogenic nature of the global warming during the past decades. This is very likely because during the years since the last report, lots of results further confirmed that view, and (to my knowledge) nothing significant turned up which cast doubt on man-made climate change. If anything would have turned up, we would know because of the large noise some groups would make about it.
    You go on and on about your impeccable, peer-reviewed sources, and yet you finally admit that your position is actually based on speculation.

    It's worth repeating: "Too many people base their views not on well established facts, but on their private fantasies or on a political agenda, and it seems fair to say (in my view) that you are one of them."
  9. #809  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    You've said that anthropogenic global warming is "reality," which implies fact. This is not supported by that statement, nor by science.
    Um.... Samkim, this is first paragraph of the abstract of the May 2006 executive summary report for President Bush of the scientific commission that he appointed to study global warming.

    "Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming
    near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to
    challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-
    induced global warming.
    Specifically, surface data showed substantial
    global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde
    data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant
    discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
    radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets
    have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies"

    Here is another excerpt:

    "Studies to detect climate change and attribute its causes using patterns of observed temperature change in space and time show clear evidence of human influences on the climate system"

    http://climatescience.gov/Library/sa...al-execsum.pdf

    I guess clulup and President Bush's scientific commission both don't know what they are talking about, and only you do?
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 07/03/2006 at 04:00 PM. Reason: I was copying this post to respond to post 859 and saved it again unchanged.
  10. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #810  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Its not my evidence, it is the consensus of the scientific community. Why dont you go beyond reading right wing blogs and republican political memos and actually look at the science? Let me suggest a good first start, there is huge collection of fully documented studies with original references complied by wikipedia on the subject:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

    An example of one of these cited references is this report of President Bush's scientific commission.

    "On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments which concluded that there is "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system." The study said that the only factor that could explain the measured warming of Earth's average temperature over the last 50 years was the buildup of heat-trapping gases, which are mainly emitted by burning coal and oil."

    Here is the full report:

    http://climatescience.gov/Library/sa...rt/default.htm

    I hope you are not going to say Bush's commission has a socialist agenda too.
    No, I was talking about Gore's movie and the AP's report about all the scientists endorsing it. I don't read blogs, democratic or republican. I do read scientific publications, on occassion.

    I don't recall saying that there was no evidence. I am simply being skeptical about the conclusions that are drawn, notably by recent AP releases and by the Algores and Bushs of the world (as friendly and as caring as they may be). I'm observing that its time for the election cycle process, and the "issues" lines are being drawn. Don't fool yourself thinking that this is based in pure science, and not in ideology. This is pure politickin, sir.

    I thought skepticism was considered healthy.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  11. #811  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Um.... Samkim, this is first paragraph of the abstract of President Bush's May 2006 executive summary report of the scientific commission that he appointed to study global warming.

    I guess clulup and President Bush's scientific commission both don't know what they are talking about, and I guess only you do?
    The use of the term "reality" is a mistake, whether it's by Science magazine or by Federal employees. It's not supported by science, and it's driven by politics. You agreed to this earlier in this thread. Even clulup indirectly acknowledged this.

    As I said earlier to you, it seems that virtually every proponent believes that anthropogenic climate change is proven fact. I'm sure if you search, you'll find thousands of sloppy claims by scientists where they're taking political positions. But when you look at peer-reviewed research (not "essays" by history professors in Science magazine) or ask for the standard of "scientific consensus" (as both you and clulup claim to), you'll find fewer such claims.

    With this citation, if you're claiming a) anthropogenic climate change is proven fact, b) peer-reviewed scientific research fully supports that it's proven fact, c) there is a scientific consensus that it's proven fact, and d) this is not another case of sloppy use of language, please state so specifically, and we can discuss. I don't think you believe this. I think you're deliberately making a specious argument.
  12. #812  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    No, I was talking about Gore's movie and the AP's report about all the scientists endorsing it.
    If you were just talking about Gore's movie and the AP article, fine.

    But the evidence for man-made global warming is pure science and it is compelling, and it is pure politicks to try to ignore it.
  13. #813  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    The use of the term "reality" is a mistake, whether it's by Science magazine or by Federal employees.
    If the editors of Science magazine, and the scientists appointed by President Bush to study the problem of global climate change for four years do not have a problem with using the word reality in the context of man-made global warming, it really makes no difference to me what words you think are correct. But at any rate, I do admire your persistence and your determination.
  14. #814  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    If the editors of Science magazine, and the scientists appointed by President Bush to study the problem of global climate change for four years do not have a problem with using the word reality in the context of man-made global warming, it really makes no difference to me what words you think are correct. But at any rate, I do admire your persistence and your determination.
    I take it you decline to assert that it's proven fact. That's no surprise.

    But I am disappointed that you no longer stand by your earlier statement that you think that calling it reality is "overstepping." This indicates to me that you approve of making dishonest scientific claims for political purposes.
  15. #815  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    This reality question seems to me a silly distraction to justify ignoring the problem or delaying any action on it. And that smacks of partisanship to me. Right now, anthrogenic global warmining is the scientific consensus as delivered by the president's commission itself, and the burden of proof is now for future studies to disprove this widely held view. Until that time, we need to formulate America's policies based on the best recommendations of our scientific community. We have the best scientists in the world and it is misguided and we only hurt ourselves and our future generations to fight their recommendations as if they were political positons.
    Dishonest claims are a silly distraction???

    I agree we need to make decisions based on the best information we have. If you believe that America should act now, then make the case based on facts. Say, "We don't know everything with certainty, but we should still act now." That's a rational, practical position.

    If you're going to mislead people to further your political objectives, don't pretend that your case is based on peer-reviewed research or scientific consensus. This misuse of a word, deliberate or otherwise, by a handful of Federal employees does not make a "scientific consensus."

    You implied earlier that you're a scientist. And you complained that the right portrays scientists as acting like politicians. If you approve of exaggerating science, then you only justify that portrayal.
  16. #816  
    This reality question seems to me a silly distraction to justify ignoring the problem or delaying any action on it. And that smacks of partisanship to me. Right now, anthrogenic global warmining is the scientific consensus as delivered by the president's commission itself, and the burden of proof is now for future studies to disprove this widely held view. Until that time, we need to formulate America's policies based on the best recommendations of our scientific community. We have the best scientists in the world and it is misguided and we only hurt ourselves and our future generations to fight their recommendations as if they were political positons.
  17. #817  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    "We don't know everything with certainty, but we should still act now." That's a rational, practical position.
    That is simply what I am saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    If you're going to mislead people to further your political objectives, don't pretend that your case is based on peer-reviewed research or scientific consensus.
    I believe in the recommendations of our scientific community, and not in your semantical arguments. If that is biased or if that is political, then so be it.

    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    This misuse of a word, deliberate or otherwise, by a handful of Federal employees does not make a "scientific consensus."
    The word makes no difference, the scientific evidence remains unchanged whether you use it or not.
  18. #818  
    MODS: Why was my post deleted??? I said nothing about cellmatrix that he even disputes.

    [EDITED TO ADD: I see that my post was moved to before the post I responded to.]
    Last edited by samkim; 07/01/2006 at 08:10 PM.
  19. #819  
    I'll try this again.

    Dishonest scientific claims are not a "silly distraction." And this isn't a semantical argument. These are false and misleading statements. You agreed about that.

    It's one thing for some uninformed people to be making false claims about global warming. But you know better.

    When you falsely claim a scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming is "reality," you hurt the credibility of the scientists whose reputations you claim to cherish.

    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    I believe in the recommendations of our scientific community, and not in your semantical arguments. If that is biased or if that is political, then so be it.
    Sloppy use of language by a small number of scientists is not representative of the scientific community. And promoting statements that you know to be biased and political is immoral, IMO.

    The word makes no difference, the scientific evidence remains unchanged whether you use it or not.
    It makes all the difference in the world. Hundreds of millions of people would be swayed if you can claim honestly that the entire scientific community agrees that it's a proven fact that man has caused global warming. That's why so many proponents are falsely making that claim.
  20. #820  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    I'll try this again.

    Dishonest scientific claims are not a "silly distraction." And this isn't a semantical argument. These are false and misleading statements. You agreed about that.
    Samkim, I really did admire your enthusiasm and zeal on this issue. Like I said before, if we were fellow editors, I would have let you make your call on arguing your points. Now you're saying that anyone who disagrees with you on these points is immoral and dishonest and I am frankly getting fed up with your insults.

    Let me just try to further explain to you how someone can properly use the term reality in the context of man-made global warming and if you still do not understand, well at least I gave it my best try.

    Man-made global warming is strongly upheld by the scientific evidence. The data are the reality. Do they provide 100% certainty no, and anyone who says they are does not understand science. But the data are real nonetheless, they are the reality here. We must face this reality. That is what I believe the editors of Science, and the scientists of the President's commission are saying. The data are real and we should pay attention to them.

    Some people do not want to face this, they want to ignore the data, and instead want to pretend there is no evidence linking global warming with human activities. This is not reality, this is called fantasy. Can you understand this?

Posting Permissions