Global warming is a crockFollow

Pardon? That's the "no global warming" side you're talking about. You know, the side where they take Mann's model and try to pervert the Academy findings to say that it's broken? Do you care to defend the mockery of science which is Inhofe's website? Do you have an answer for the studies and quotes he's taken out of context and tried to use to justify his agenda? Or was that me making a "big deal of finding individual inconsistencies on one side of the issue and extrapolating them into huge fallacies"?

I asked for a simple thing -- peer-reviewed studies refuting the notion of significant anthropogenic global warming. You've tried every twist in the book from attacking the existing studies to trying to discount the importance of scientific peer-review to blaming politics in an effort to avoid admitting that they just don't exist.

Honestly, I've lost interest in watching you try to dodge the topic and ramble on about economics or gay marriage or whatever the fuck you were on about instead of answering a question I've asked several times now.

Do you have examples of these studies or major scientific/academic institutions who have refuted the notion of anthropogenic global warming or not? That's all. I'm not interested in anything else you have to say on the topic until you can give me a straight up yes (with links) or no.

Are you saying to move it to the divorced/separated thread?

Bah, here's your lazy link.

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=4;mid=1165517087279993046;num=73;page=1

Edited, Dec 8th 2006 11:15pm by MonxDoT

Objection! Your l33t Haxxor. How can the defendant badger his own witness?

Sustained.

/cue Ratt-t-t-t-t-t-t. Round and Round

And for you deep cutterz who liked that Motley Crue Piece of Your Action /cue, I give you Slip of the Lip. Ratt=tah-tuh=ta-tuhuh-uh.

Edited, Dec 8th 2006 11:52pm by MonxDoT

We have no science that tells us that if we reduced CO2 emissions by 30% globally that this would have *any* change in global temperatures over the next century.

Um, yeah. Just the laws of thermodynamics and physics. Nada.

Echo! Echo! Echo!

I just watched An Inconvenient Truth, and Gore's arguments were enough to convince me of the threat of global warming. I highly recommend the movie.

I just rented it last night (haven't watched it yet) and was mildly suprised to see that Hollywood Video had an entire section of "New Arrivals" shelving dedicated to it and only three copies were remaining on the shelves.

Who knew global warming documentaries were so much in demand?

Bu-bu-bu-but, the graphs! The line is going UP!!!

I never once mentioned the Kyoto protocols. I have only responded to statements regarding the scientific validity of anthropogenic global warming. You did, however, say that there were valid scientific arguments on both sides of the debate. To wit... ...is an absolutely false statement is the published opinions of the institutions I've mentioned enough times already are to be any indication. All of them support the notion of anthropogenic global warming. And another......is again false given the wealth of published studies and statements saying that there is a connection between human activities and the warming trend.

I'm asking you to back up what you wrote, not to question me over things I never wrote. You asking me about Kyoto is a red herring and a dodge. When I start making statements regarding Kyoto, you can start questioning them. But, in the meantime, I'd rather we stick to debating what has been said rather than making up new arguments to derail an uncomfortable line of questioning.

And, since you dodged it again: Do you feel that Inhofe was being honest and responsible in his press releases? You were the one who linked to it as evidence; I'd like for you to back it up.

Edit: In fact, according to the forum search, I have NEVER mentioned Kyoto in this forum...

Edited, Dec 11th 2006 6:27pm by Jophiel

Then you are right.



Then you are wrong - on the point in italics. Read the papers.

Or find a major peer reviewed paper to justify that statement. Otherwise you are talking out of your ***.

To counter a list of major, peer reviewed papers saying A=B with a news article saying 60 scientisits signed a letter saying A!=B is no evidence of any scientific debate.

However, keep it up anyhow. This is the assylum after all. We have a reputation to maintain.

Arguments just like yours obscure the truth from millions.

Sure. They "support the notion" of anthropogenic global warming. They don't state with absolute certainty that it's the "cause" of the warming we've experienced in the last century.

See the difference? As I've pointed out several times now. All the science says is that the actions of human *can* produce warmer temperatures and that we have experienced warming of temperatures. Very very few scientist in the field will state with absolute certainty however that one specificall *is* causing the other right now. Just that it *could* be the cause...




Yeah. "A connection". Again. Not "the prime cause". Those are two totally different things.

A scientist might conduct wind tunnel experiments of a box covered in grime. He might conclude that the grime on the box could have a connection to the box's poor aerodynamics. Because we can certainly measure that if you cover an object in grime, it wont be as aerodynamic. However, it would be absurd in that case to argue that this was a leading cause of the problem.

In the case of the box example, one could easily point to the box's shape as the prime reason why it's not doing well in a wind tunnel. In the case of long term climate models, we don't know enough to make that sort of assessment. That's why so many people leap to the "humans are causing the warming" argument. However, we really don't know how much effect we're really having.



It's not a red herring Joph. I've been talking from the start of this thread about how the science does not support the politics. You argue in support of the "science", and that's great. However, it's not the science that is the problem. It's the political actions taken as a result of that science that is. Because a group of scientist quietly doing climate studies in a lab does not affect me. Sweeping legistlation *does*.



Funny that you seem to dismiss the political angle, claiming you're just supporting the peer reviewed science, and yet the first counter you choose to support is a press release from a politician?

I can't say if he's being honest or not Joph. That's not the issue. It's whether any given political agenday he might push or support is a good idea that matters. My problem with the quotes you provided is that they don't actually support Anthropogenic global warming at all. They back up Mann's assertion that the warming trend in the last century was "unprecedented in the last 1000 years". Which is technically accurate. What it does not say is whether the temperature increase is "unusual", or even "unexpected" given past climatological patterns.

Certainly if you restrict your time frame to just the last 1000 years, you're going to see a warming trend at the end of a 600 year cooling trend as "unprecedented" within that period. But it's not unprecedented when you pull your scale back. The NAS just happened to choose to focus on a very narrow time frame and essentially bypass the meat of the argument against Mann's work, which was that he was somewhat deliberately picking and choosing climate data with which to use to convince a world political body (the UN) that human caused global warming was occuring.

The NAS simply choose to support the literal facts of Mann's report, which was that during the past 1000 years, we had not experienced a warming trend quite like the one we saw in the last century. Which is technically correct. Because for the first 300 years of that thousand, temperatures stayed pretty steady, then for 600 years they got cool, then in the last 100 years they got warm again. The "error" in Mann's initial report was to make it look like temperatures were flat for the first 900 years then suddenly spiked. The adjusted values essentially show the temperatures dropping down during the 1300-1900 timeframe, and then coming back up between 1900 and 2000 (or thereabouts).

While the warming trend at the end is accurate, and that's what this specific quote is about, it's not the point that critics of Mann's work were making. They were trying to make the argument that the temperature increase during the last century was not an overall increase from some set norm that's been there for a long long time, but an adjustment back up after a 600 year cool period. A semantic issue to be sure, but a significant one since the whole reason to argue that we must take some sort of major political action regarding this issue is the assumption that the temperature increase we're seeing is unusual, and wont correct for itself unless we take action.

Neither of those things are explicitely supported by Mann's research. That's the point. That's the criticism. The UN is essentially pursuing an agenda that is not supported by the science. There is ample data showing that temperature fluxuations far larger and faster then what we've seen in the last century have occured in the past. Thus, there's no reason at all to assume that this most recent warming trend is anything at all to be alarmed about.

Christ almighty. Go join the Creationists, Gbaji because you've just sunk to their level of scientific expertise.See, this is the difference between you and I. I am actually linking to evidence and you're making up shit to minimize the issue.Funny why? You linked to it as evidence that there was some groundswell of support against anthropogenic global warming. I didn't go looking for it, you offered it to me to prove your point.First off, bullshit you can't say if he's being dishonest. He's obviously being dishonest and you simply refuse to admit to it. Grow up.

Secondly, I thought the political misuse of the scientific evidence was your point. Here I'm giving you the chance to focus on the political misuse of science for the sake of your agenda and you refuse to talk about it.Silly me. I thought that the validity of the science he's using to support his agenda reflected directly on whether or not it was "good policy". Apparently I was alone in this.More to the point, they refute Inhofe's erronous claims tha the Mann study has been dismissed as garbage by the NAS. They were not framed by me as absolute evidence of anthropogenic climate change and I made it obvious that I was responding to Inhofe's claims which you had linked to. Please stop being disingenious.The NAS in that instance was simply tasked with examining Mann's study at the instance of some congressmen. They found the study to be solid. If you are attempting to argue that the NAS has not made their own declarations regarding anthropogenic global warming, you are wrong.Feel free to harp endlessly on the word "likely" there and claim that, since the NAS can't predict the future with 100% accuracy, that's the same thing as a 50/50 shot either way.

As for the rest of your guesswork, I again invite you to submit the evidence to your claims. Or just bullshit for another fifteen paragraphs while you avoid admitting that you have no evidence. Whichever works for you. But if you want to talk about political policy based on scientific research, I think it's more than important to discuss what the politicians are doing with the science.

Edited, Dec 12th 2006 9:46pm by Jophiel

So, basically each of you are advocating that some kind action is better than no action at all. I can't get on board with that stilted logic.

Totem

Joph. You're ability to "read scientificeese" isn't that good apparently. You quote things, but don't really read them for what they actually say. Scientists, unlike politicians, say *exactly* what they mean. Not one bit more. Not one bit less. You cannot quote a scientific fact that sounds kinda like something similar and infer a larger meaning.





Affected How? To what degree? How much of this is responsible for the increase in global temperature over the last century? See. Scientists will say this if there is any measurable impact, no matter how small.



Similar statements? Where's the statement saying that human activities are the primary cause of the raise in global temperatures over the last century? I asked you to show this *one fact*, and you haven't done it yet. This statement, and other "similar statements" could mean anything Joph.



No. The difference is that I read what is *actually* written. You interprete what you read in order to convince yourself that it means what you want it to.

I'll ask again: Show me a quote from a peer reviewed scientific source that says unequivicably that human activity is the primary cause of the increase in global temperatures over the last century. Can you do that?




No. It's good policy if it takes all the factors into consideration. What we're seeing right now is *one* factor that is being exagerated into a "convenient lie" (to paraphase Gore), in order to pursue a specific political agenda.




To what degree? Could you quote the *entire* paragraph instead of one sentence (or provide an online source that the rest of us can read). Again. This could mean anything. How much of a temperature increase? Is this a statement of findings? Or a hypothethical model? We can't tell from this quote Joph.




Wait! So "it's likely" that forcing caused by humans will exceed changes resulting by natural forcing in the next century? What about the last century. Isn't this the question? Again. Is this a finding of fact? Or just a hypothesis? Since they're making a prediction, this can't be fact. It's a guess.

What is this guess based on? Who's model? Where did it derive its data?

I'll ask again: Where's the quote from the peer reviewed paper stating as a matter of absolute fact that human activity is the primary cause of the rise in global temperatures over the last century?

I've asked this over and over. Yet you keep giving me quotes that are only peripherally related to the question. You seem convinced that every single peer reviewed paper on the subject concludes that this is happening, yet you can't seem to find it anywhere, can you?

All I'm saying is that it's prudent to not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Should we work to reduce global emissions of greenhouse gasses and pollutants? Of course we should. But should we overfocus so much on one aspect of the environment and one possible problem that we lose sight of everything else in the process? I think not. But when folks argue this issue like it's a complete conclusion that unless we make some dramatic change, we're all in for a disaster, I have to counter that by pointing out all the other ways we could also head for a disaster.

IMO, we're far more likely to head into a global period of starvation and suffering in the next 50 years as a result of economic problems then climate problems. I could certainly be wrong. But I doubt it. We're *already* seeing pretty heavy rates of starvation in many parts of the world. And this is with a climate that is nearly perfect for growing enough food to feed the world. I'm sorry if I put the climate issues in perspective where many people do not.




You're demanding that I prove a negative Joph. I don't have to prove that you're wrong. You have to prove you're right. My only argument here is that the "science" actually has not proven that human activity is the prime cause of the temperature increase we've experienced over the last century. That's it. I don't have to "prove" that. Because in this case I'm advocating *against* taking massive and draconian action as a result of something that I see as over exagerated science taken to the most ridiculous political extremes possible.

You're the one who keeps saying that humans as the "cause of global warming" was a proven fact. I'm just asking that you provide the proof. Not people's opinions or beliefs. I want to see an actual paper released with a quote that says unequivicably that humans are the prime cause of *past* global warming (ie: the temperature increase over the last century). Not guesses about the future. Facts based on data on which scientists have placed their reputations and research.


Should be easy if it's so obvious a fact to you...