It's getting hot in here....so lets...read this article?Follow

So you're in agreement that CO2 emissions are changing our atmosphere?

They'd never have an agenda.

It's entirely possible.

Ah, well, now that I understand you:

I think candie needs to believe humans have nothing to do with it because somehow they'll take his pot away from him. Or something.

god, please tell me you're stoned

Nope not stoned. Just waiting for the evidence to actually back up the claims. As it is, there is no empirical proof that humans are the cause of climate change, CO2 is not causing Global Warming, which means us nasty emitters are not causing it either. The Earth has actually been slowly cooling over the past decade. The IPCC predictions are not remotely close (based on their 2007 models they have more coming in 2013) in some cases their data is out .2-.4 degrees. Maybe we are the cause of Global cooling, because CO2 is actually responsible for cooling atmospheric temperatures, which eventually play on surface temperatures.

But ya, until they can say without doubt that it is humans ill continue to disagree that we are the cause of the warming. But in order to do that they will have to first disprove things such as Oceanic Heating, The Sun warming up (which has already been confirmed so hard to disprove).

I don't buy into the fact that we are causing global warming, at least not in the popular sense. The worst thing we do to our climate is deforestation, which rarely gets a side bar notation in the Alarmists handbooks.

Well, which do you want? Evidence, or proof? Coz there's a metric shit-ton of the former.

Key word is feasible. Sequestering isn't even close to an option, same with solar shades. Deflection could be accomplished by lacing the atmosphere with reflective particles but who here likes breathing silver?

Good lord, why do you think I used terms like pretty much and put 'fact' in quotations?

There's a point it doesn't matter from a practical point of view. World is round (or a flattened sphere, whatever...), Imatinib inhibits tyrosine kinase activity causing apoptosis, world is slowly warming...



Viewing with skepticism is fine, but there's a point the field moves on. As problematic as it can be it's necessary for the field to advance. There's a lot of things in my own field that we've moved on from before I considered them 'settled science.' Some of these things got settled later on.

There's always a place for 2nd tier scientists, newly minted PhD's and the like, in refining and ironing out the wrinkles in old theories. Something may turn out to be wrong. A theory that people accept as universal, may only be true in a limited scope, etc. etc. The best labs won't take the time to iron out the wrinkles in their own theories, a lot of times there isn't as much money in it. You don't stay ahead of the field by doing those kinds of things.

Realistically though, once a working theory (there I used your words) has been established it takes a lot of contradictory science to overturn it. It takes a lot more work on convince a reviewer. The science has to be better than other studies. Many times the best you get out of this is a publication in a backwater journal and funding difficulties. But hey, I'm guessing you already knew that, it's not unique to climate science by any means, and has more to do with human nature IMO.



Right, because I don't have to deal with bodies like the NIH or anything? Certainly they don't have an agenda...

"Lawn chair scientists" refers to people like you and me sitting here debating this topic. Neither of us are climate scientists, hence the term. I don't recall the last time a couple of people sat around on a forum discussing whether using MSMS ion intensities to improve the quantitative aspect of spectral count values was valid or not. If they did, would someone who published a paper on the topic take them seriously? Probably not.



Fine, but there still needs to be a point where 'non-experts' such as ourselves, politicians, etc. come in second to people who are actually doing the work in the field.



The scientists, not the politicians who use their theories to further their own agendas. I don't like the way these things get a knee-jerk reaction from the liberal left either, it can be just as damaging as an entrenched skeptic with their head in the sand.



I concur, it bothers me too. Which is partly where my stance with rdm earlier came in. Well that and my opinion the 'global warming' crowd doesn't have the support needed for drastic change, just like the 'anti-abortion' crowd is a long way from outlawing the procedure.

Lets say we're projecting a 1.5 - 4 degree increase temperature for the U.S. over the next 100 years or so. What does that mean, what are the consequences, and how to we address the issues that's going to cause? Let the scientists play with their theories, and give the rest of us something concrete to work with.

Edited, Sep 26th 2012 8:42am by someproteinguy

Well, there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of studies out there so you can't complain for lack of data.


Ok

Also, ok.


Edited, Sep 26th 2012 10:47am by Jophiel

Data is not Fact. Data can lead to fact, but it is not fact. So once again the lack of proof makes the evidence irrelevant. Or in other words, the Evidence does not support the theory.

Also to your links again whats your point? The hockey stick graph has already been phased out, they have a new graph with new parameters. Like adding in the Medival Warm Period and the Little Ice Age which were not present on the initial Its humans get them! Graph. (ironically enough the "new" hockey stick graph shows us merely returning to pre mini ice age temperatures.)

No, it's literally fact.

da·ta
   [dey-tuh, dat-uh, dah-tuh]
noun
1.
a plural of datum.
2.
(used with a plural verb) individual facts, statistics, or items of information: These data represent the results of our analyses. Data are entered by terminal for immediate processing by the computer.
3.
(used with a singular verb) a body of facts; information

I'm feeling generous, and not wanting to hone my non-existant programming skills atm.

Here's a list of citations from the Historical Overview portion of the IPCC's report. If nothing else by reading those papers you should have a general idea of why they came to the conclusions they did.

Here's their summary outline if you don't have that kind of time.

Edited, Sep 26th 2012 9:28am by someproteinguy