You know you are anti-science if you believe that;

[PercyVere]

You know you are anti-science if you believe that;


your ideas are being stifled by the scientific community at large
there is a conspiracy to bury evidence supporting your world view
a generally held scientific view is undermined by the fact that some fringe scientists reject that view
those scientists on the fringe are being deliberately stymied because they threaten to rock the boat too much.
academics have a strangelhold on science
the modern scientific method is OK, but we have other methods which are equally effective at learning about and explaining the world around us.
'Evolution is just a theory' is an argument against the validity of evolution.
god planted all the evidence to trick us
the exposure of fraud or error in science is an indication of weakness in the scientific method
certain aspects of science are correct, but you reject those which challenge your world view
a certain scientific consensus is held for political reasons
scientists are conspiring against you.
all fringe science has an inherently superior value to mainstream science

[sgtmac_46]

You know you are anti-science if you believe that;


your ideas are being stifled by the scientific community at large
there is a conspiracy to bury evidence supporting your world view
a generally held scientific view is undermined by the fact that some fringe scientists reject that view
those scientists on the fringe are being deliberately stymied because they threaten to rock the boat too much.
academics have a strangelhold on science
the modern scientific method is OK, but we have other methods which are equally effective at learning about and explaining the world around us.
evolution is 'just a theory'
god planted all the evidence to trick us
the exposure of fraud or error in science is an indication of weakness in the scientific method
certain aspects of science are correct, but you reject those which challenge your world view
a certain scientific consensus is held for political reasons
scientists are conspiring against you.
I'll agree with you on evolution.....it's gotten pretty silly the extent to which religious fundamentalists have attempted to discredit what simply is because it disagrees with words in their ancient books......


.......not on 'Global Warming', however, which has become a religion of it's own for many of those who believe in AGW.......in that instance, much of crock pseudo-science is on the side of the morons who believe that CO2 is causing volcanoes to erupt! :wall: :doh:

[Arya]

Ok-coming from someone with a scientific background, one that is based from actual science and not the hullabaloo that too many people buy into or wantomly believe without finding out the facts behind all the hype, this thread is supposed to prove what?

[ThrowCop]

Ok-coming from someone with a scientific background, one that is based from actual science and not the hullabaloo that too many people buy into or wantomly believe without finding out the facts behind all the hype, this thread is supposed to prove what?It is a thinkly-veiled attempt to make it seem like anyone who does not buy into AGW is a crackpot.

I have a science degree or two and I am not convinced.

[PercyVere]

It is a thinkly-veiled attempt to make it seem like anyone who does not buy into AGW is a crackpot.

I have a science degree or two and I am not convinced.Most of the arguments against climate change are not based in science, but are rooted in religious and political viewpoints. The techniques used to discredit the scientific consensus on climate change are the same techniques you see being used by creationists to discredit evolution.

[ThrowCop]

Most of the arguments against climate change are not based in science, but are rooted in religious and political viewpoints. The techniques used to discredit the scientific consensus on climate change are the same techniques you see being used by creationists to discredit evolution.In some cases that is correct, but while there is little doubt that global warming is happening, AGW is still debated and new, more reliable data is needed.

[CHUG]

Most of the arguments against climate change are not based in science, but are rooted in religious and political viewpoints. The techniques used to discredit the scientific consensus on climate change are the same techniques you see being used by creationists to discredit evolution.

Most arguments, I hope you can give examples?

Many of the scientists who support the AGW hypothesis discredit themselves with their poor scientific method.

[PercyVere]

In some cases that is correct, but while there is little doubt that global warming is happening, AGW is still debated and new, more reliable data is needed.Good god yes, it's one of the most importqant issues we've ever faced, if true, and more evidence and understanding is absolutely crucial.

[ThrowCop]

Good god yes, it's one of the most importqant issues we've ever faced, if true, and more evidence and understanding is absolutely crucial.I am all about finding the truth & to do that you need reliable data.

Much of what we have is semi-reliable and when you are talking about some pretty precise equations, that simply won't do.

[CaptainPike]

Most of the arguments against climate change are not based in science, but are rooted in religious and political viewpoints. The techniques used to discredit the scientific consensus on climate change are the same techniques you see being used by creationists to discredit evolution.

There are plenty of scientists that don't believe global warming is man made.

[Samm]

It is a thinkly-veiled attempt to make it seem like anyone who does not buy into AGW is a crackpot.

I have a science degree or two and I am not convinced.

I don't know... it could be about Evolution. Who knows... We could ask PercyVere, but then the OP is nothing but a cut & paste so maybe he doesn't know either. :neutral:

[BillyBobUSA]

You know you are anti-science if you believe that;


your ideas are being stifled by the scientific community at large
there is a conspiracy to bury evidence supporting your world view
a generally held scientific view is undermined by the fact that some fringe scientists reject that view
those scientists on the fringe are being deliberately stymied because they threaten to rock the boat too much.
academics have a strangelhold on science
the modern scientific method is OK, but we have other methods which are equally effective at learning about and explaining the world around us.
certain aspects of science are correct, but you reject those which challenge your world view
a certain scientific consensus is held for political reasons
scientists are conspiring against you.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions


The period of transition between established paradigms is neither smooth nor rapid. Kuhn quotes Max Planck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck)'s observation (SSR, p. 151) that sometimes:
a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

According to Kuhn, the scientific paradigms preceding and succeeding a paradigm shift are so different that their theories are not comparable (incommensurable). The paradigm shift does not merely involve the revision or transformation of an individual theory, it changes the way terminology is defined, how the scientists in that field view their subject, and, perhaps most significantly, what questions are regarded as valid, and what rules are used to determine the truth of a particular theory.

Kuhn observes that they are incommensurable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commensurability_(philosophy_of_science)) — literally, lacking comparability, untranslatable. The new theories were not, as the scientists had previously thought, just extensions of old theories, but were radically new world views. Such incommensurability exists not just before and after a paradigm shift, but in the periods in between conflicting paradigms.

It is simply not possible, according to Kuhn, to construct an impartial language that can be used to perform a neutral comparison between conflicting paradigms, because the very terms used are integral to the respective paradigms, and therefore have different connotations in each paradigm.

The advocates of mutually exclusive paradigms are in an invidious position: "Though each may hope to convert the other to his way of seeing science and its problems, neither may hope to prove his case. The competition between paradigms is not the sort of battle that can be resolved by proof." (SSR, p. 148).
Kuhn (SSR, section XII) states that the probabilistic tools used by verificationists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism) are inherently inadequate for the task of deciding between conflicting theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conflicting_theories&action=edit&redlink=1), since they belong to the very paradigms they seek to compare. Similarly, observations that are intended to falsify (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability) a statement will fall under one of the paradigms they are supposed to help compare, and will therefore also be inadequate for the task.

According to Kuhn, the concept of falsifiability is unhelpful for understanding why and how science has developed as it has. In the practice of science, scientists will only consider the possibility that a theory has been falsified if an alternative theory is available which they judge to be credible.

If there isn't, scientists will continue to adhere to the established conceptual framework. If a paradigm shift has occurred, the textbooks will be rewritten to state that the previous theory has been falsified.

Suggesting that mankind can wipe out life on Earth via polution is a paradigm shift in science, and facts simply do not matter so much when a person who thinks that mankind can destroy life on Earth discusses this subject with a person who does not.

To the AGW advocate, there is so much at stake the smallest support for it amounts to a conclusive certainty for action.

While the person who does not think mankind can destroy all life is not going to be persuaded by panic-based logic.

There is no convincing evidence that climate change is anthropogenic. The Earth's climate has changed continuously from the time life first emerged to the present due to cosmic forces that dwarf us into irrelevance.

There is considerable evidence suggsting that the variance in the suns solar energy explains far more than AGW, like the rising temperatures on Mars, Jupiter Pluto and Triton.

Anthropogenic Global Warming theories are nothing more than panic-driven apologetics for Global Socialism.

Bah humbug.

[PercyVere]

There is no convincing evidence that climate change is anthropogenic.According to a worldwide consensus of climate scientists, there most certainly is evidence. The anti-science crowd dismiss this very real consensus as either imaginary, a result of group-think, contested, or a result of vested interests in academia. They will quote positions from the fringes of science as evidence that the scientific community has got it wrong.


There is considerable evidence suggsting that the variance in the suns solar energy explains far more than AGW, like the rising temperatures on Mars, Jupiter Pluto and Triton.Nope ... not really:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/
http://www.livescience.com/environment/060913_sun_warming.html


Anthropogenic Global Warming theories are nothing more than panic-driven apologetics for Global Socialism.

Bah humbug.This last argument of yours is political, and not science based at all.

[PercyVere]

I don't know... it could be about Evolution. Who knows... We could ask PercyVere, but then the OP is nothing but a cut & paste so maybe he doesn't know either. :neutral:Nope it's not a cut n paste. If it was, you should be able to find it with google.

It's primarily about the denial of both evolution and GW. The same mentality lies behind both. There is a major overlap between those who reject evolution and GW. In fact, I have to admit, I have never encountered a creationist who does not also deny GW. Oh, I'm sure he exists, it's just I've never met one.

Such denial also goes hand in hand with the acceptance of all sorts of pseudoscience ... belief in homeopathy, immunisation scares, astrology, UFOs and all sorts of nonsense ... not always, but frequently enough for there to be a trend.

[PercyVere]

There are plenty of scientists that don't believe global warming is man made.There is a global consensus of scientists who do.

[ThrowCop]

There is a global consensus of scientists who do.Consensus is not science...

evidence is.

And one conflicting piece of evidence can negate a theory.

[CaptainPike]

According to a worldwide consensus of climate scientists, there most certainly is evidence. The anti-science crowd dismiss this very real consensus as either imaginary, a result of group-think, contested, or a result of vested interests in academia. They will quote positions from the fringes of science as evidence that the scientific community has got it wrong.


Nope ... not really:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/
http://www.livescience.com/environment/060913_sun_warming.html


This last argument of yours is political, and not science based at all.

The man pushing global warming the most is a politician. A failure of a politician in my opinion.

I swear, Algore reminds me a lot of L. Ron Hubbard.

[Samm]

Nope it's not a cut n paste. If it was, you should be able to find it with google.

It's primarily about the denial of both evolution and GW. The same mentality lies behind both. There is a major overlap between those who reject evolution and GW. In fact, I have to admit, I have never encountered a creationist who does not also deny GW. Oh, I'm sure he exists, it's just I've never met one.

Such denial also goes hand in hand with the acceptance of all sorts of pseudoscience ... belief in homeopathy, immunisation scares, astrology, UFOs and all sorts of nonsense ... not always, but frequently enough for there to be a trend.

I am sorry... that was presumptuous of me... I should have said it looked like a cut and paste.

But I am still not sure what your point was...

I have been here a long time and I don't think there is any connection between those members here who believe in Creation vs Evolution (particularly since those two beliefs are not exclusive of each other) and those who believe in man-made global warming vs those who believe in natural climate change. There are Atheist believers in Natural change and and Theist believers in AGW. There are Atheist opponents to abortion and Theist proponents. You just cannot support the claim that one belief automatically leads to another. Any attempt to do so is based on specific examples rather then considering the entire data set.

For example... I do believe in Evolution, but I do not believe in AGW. What am I? A Theist or an Atheist?

[ThrowCop]

...

For example... I do believe in Evolution, but I do not believe in AGW. What am I? A Theist or an Atheist?I am a believer in Theistic Evolution and am not convinced that AGW is real...

[BillyBobUSA]

According to a worldwide consensus of climate scientists, there most certainly is evidence.

Science does not form its conclusions by 'consensus' but by facts and testable assertions.

So your claimed consensus is irrelevant.


The anti-science crowd dismiss this very real consensus as either imaginary, a result of group-think, contested, or a result of vested interests in academia. They will quote positions from the fringes of science as evidence that the scientific community has got it wrong.

This 'consensus' is media and government driven and has nothing to do with real science.

It doesnt matter how many state funding dependent scientists chime in with agreement about AGW, if they cant prove it then their claims are pointless except to the gullible.


Nope ... not really:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/

This guy thinks that any observable warming on outer planets would necesarily fry Earth, which is not only a colosal 'red herring' argument and begs the question, but is simply not necesarily true at all.

If the Suns magneto sphere is letting in more Gama radiation that cools the Earth and other planets through more cloud formation or vice-versa, a percentage decrease across the solar system would cause a proportional cooling or warming and not necesarily fry Earth at all.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/060913_sun_warming.html

This person apparently has not heard of the Maunder Minimum which had Earths temps cooler than todays and previous era temperatures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

Chart on Maunder Minimum temps and solar cycles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

Chart on tempreature fluctuations for the last millenia+
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg

This last argument of yours is political, and not science based at all.

Of course it is.

I am trying to explain the bad science in terms of its place in a political agenda.

That hardly means it is invalid, in fact it does quite the opposite.

[BillyBobUSA]

I am a believer in Theistic Evolution and am not convinced that AGW is real...


Heretic.

:D

[ThrowCop]

Heretic.

:Da conundrum, wrapped up in a paradox, surrounded by an enigma...


:))

[Samm]

I am a believer in Theistic Evolution and am not convinced that AGW is real...

I know you are but what am I?


;)

[Arya]

It is a thinkly-veiled attempt to make it seem like anyone who does not buy into AGW is a crackpot.


"Thinkly"-veiled? :lol:

I have a science degree or two and I am not convinced.

I too have a science degree, and heavy on the environmental/biological aspect, and I am not convinced either.

I do feel that we impact the Earth to a greater effect through the pollution of clean water and air (not through CO2 emmissions), rather than causing the effects as defined in AGW. But that is off topic, and another subject entirely.

[TheFallGuy]

You know you are anti-science if you believe that;


your ideas are being stifled by the scientific community at large
there is a conspiracy to bury evidence supporting your world view
a generally held scientific view is undermined by the fact that some fringe scientists reject that view
those scientists on the fringe are being deliberately stymied because they threaten to rock the boat too much.
academics have a strangelhold on science
the modern scientific method is OK, but we have other methods which are equally effective at learning about and explaining the world around us.
evolution is 'just a theory'
god planted all the evidence to trick us
the exposure of fraud or error in science is an indication of weakness in the scientific method
certain aspects of science are correct, but you reject those which challenge your world view
a certain scientific consensus is held for political reasons
scientists are conspiring against you.


So, you're saying the global warming fanatics are anti-science? Well, I'll have to agree on that one. With the exception of the "evolution is 'just a theory'" bullet, the rest fit it like a glove on a cold winter day.

[Arya]

I am sorry... that was presumptuous of me... I should have said it looked like a cut and paste.

But I am still not sure what your point was...

I have been here a long time and I don't think there is any connection between those members here who believe in Creation vs Evolution (particularly since those two beliefs are not exclusive of each other) and those who believe in man-made global warming vs those who believe in natural climate change. There are Atheist believers in Natural change and and Theist believers in AGW. There are Atheist opponents to abortion and Theist proponents. You just cannot support the claim that one belief automatically leads to another. Any attempt to do so is based on specific examples rather then considering the entire data set.

For example... I do believe in Evolution, but I do not believe in AGW. What am I? A Theist or an Atheist?


I'd say a "realist" since the basic concept of Evolution has been observed and is a known fact (Staphlococcus Areus for example), and it is also understood how and why it happens, but the true cause for GW is not known, and is limited to theorizing at the present time.

[Arya]

I am sorry... that was presumptuous of me... I should have said it looked like a cut and paste.

But I am still not sure what your point was...

I have been here a long time and I don't think there is any connection between those members here who believe in Creation vs Evolution (particularly since those two beliefs are not exclusive of each other) and those who believe in man-made global warming vs those who believe in natural climate change. There are Atheist believers in Natural change and and Theist believers in AGW. There are Atheist opponents to abortion and Theist proponents. You just cannot support the claim that one belief automatically leads to another. Any attempt to do so is based on specific examples rather then considering the entire data set.

For example... I do believe in Evolution, but I do not believe in AGW. What am I? A Theist or an Atheist?


I'd say a "realist" since the basic concept of Evolution has been observed and is a known fact (how Staphlococcus Areus has evolved into strains that are resistant to nearly every form of anti-bacteriocide known to man, for example), and it is also understood how and why it happens, but the true cause for GW is not known, and is limited to theorizing at the present time.

[TheFallGuy]

a conundrum, wrapped up in a paradox, surrounded by an enigma...


:))

Be quiet you, or we'll throw you in the same box as Schrodinger's cat.

[BillyBobUSA]

a conundrum, wrapped up in a paradox, surrounded by an enigma...


:))

Wait, did you just imply I was a RUSSIAN?

:confused:

[Alan J]

Science does not form its conclusions by 'consensus' but by facts and testable assertions.

He never said it did. He claimed that there was a global consensus among scientists on the subject to counter a claim that there were plenty of scientists who didn't believe that global warming is man made.

I find it amusing that you jumped on Percy for saying this, yet chose to let CaptainPike's identical claim slide because he was agreeing with you.

This 'consensus' is media and government driven and has nothing to do with real science.



That doesn't make sense.

[captusa]

There is a global consensus of scientists who do.

The cause of global warming is not clearly identifiable but there is absolutely no question that it is occurring and green-house gasses definitely add to the problem.

[sgtmac_46]

Most of the arguments against climate change are not based in science, but are rooted in religious and political viewpoints. The techniques used to discredit the scientific consensus on climate change are the same techniques you see being used by creationists to discredit evolution. Many of the arguments FOR AGW are based on a pseudo-religious political ideology.

Most religions have their apocalyptic 'end of the world because of man's actions' scenarios.....far from being AGAINST AGW, religious views are in line with this new pseudo-religion.

[sgtmac_46]

In some cases that is correct, but while there is little doubt that global warming is happening, AGW is still debated and new, more reliable data is needed. Exactly! Many supporters of AGW don't even understand the basic difference between correlation and causation.

[sgtmac_46]

According to a worldwide consensus of climate scientists, there most certainly is evidence. The anti-science crowd dismiss this very real consensus as either imaginary, a result of group-think, contested, or a result of vested interests in academia. They will quote positions from the fringes of science as evidence that the scientific community has got it wrong. These the same climate scientists who predicted a new Ice Age in the 1970's?

'General Consensus' in science has always been subject to rapid rethinking.

[Alan J]

These the same climate scientists who predicted a new Ice Age in the 1970's?

'General Consensus' in science has always been subject to rapid rethinking.

I don't suppose you could point me to the volumes of published scientific literature from the 1970's containing predictions of a coming ice age, could you?

[sgtmac_46]

I don't suppose you could point me to the volumes of published literature from the 1970's containing predictions of a coming ice age, could you? :think:


Another Ice Age?
Monday, Jun. 24, 1974


As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html


Science News
John H. Douglas
1975

The winter of 1780-81 was a particularly bitter one for the American Revolutionary forces. Washington's troops hunkered down, ill-clothed and ill-fed, around their campfires at Morristown, N.J., while a few miles away British troops enjoyed the relative luxury of an occupied New York City. But even the British had their problems, for the winter was so cold that parts of New York harbor froze for weeks at a time, blocking
movement of their powerful fleet. The ice even got thick enough to allow hauling cannons from Manhattan to
Staten Island.
The colonists had struggled against devastating winters ever since establishment of the earliest settlements, when one of the few holidays celebrated by the stern Puritans was that of Thanksgiving-for a harvest bountiful enough to ensure survival until spring. Though they didn't realize it, these hardy pioneers
were trying to conquer a New World in the midst of some of the worst weather in over 2,000 years, a
cold spell that had begun in the early 15th century and was to continue until around 1850, known to later climatologists as the "Little Ice Age."
By constrast, the weather in the first part of this century has been the warmest and best for world agriculture in over a millenium, and, partly as a result, the world's population has more
than doubled. Since 1940, however, the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere has been steadily falling: Having risen about 1.1 degrees C. between 1885 and 1940, according to one estimation,
the temperature has already fallen back some 0.6 degrees, and
shows no signs of reversal.
Specific areas, of course, may experience changes markedly different from the average. During the warming period, temperatures in parts of Norway rose five times more than the hemisphere average, and since the cooling trend began again, Iceland's temperature has dropped nearly 2.0 degrees, threatening continued existence of some crops.
What will happen to the added billions of people if climatic conditions return to those prior to the turn of the century?

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/access/id/37739/file/SN1975_Climate_change_chilling_possibilities.pdf

Mother Earth News
March/April 1976

BRYSON: Yes, I do. In my spare time, so to speak, I've been putting together an equation for calculating the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere . . . as it is affected by the sun's radiation, by the amount of that radiation which gets through the atmosphere to the earth, by the amount which is absorbed into the hemisphere's surface, and by the amount that radiates back out into space. And I believe we've put together an equation which reproduces what should have happened and what actually did happen to the Northern Hemisphere's temperature during the last century. Furthermore I think we've done this quite well. We've even charted the information on a graph.

PLOWBOY: And you find,?

BRYSON: We find that, since 1945, the Northern Hemisphere has cooled one half of one degree Celsius.

PLOWBOY: That isn't very much, is it?

BRYSON: Well it's certainly not a lot in, say, this room. I can go over to the thermostat and turn it down half a degree Celsius and we'd hardly notice the difference. And that's what makes this figure so deceptive. Because that half-degree change I'm talking about is the average for the whole Northern Hemisphere. South of latitude 50 there's been almost no change at all, but away up in the Arctic-over maybe 1/10th of the hemisphere's surface-there's been an enormous change, shown by high latitude weather stations.

PLOWBOY: What do you mean by "enormous" and how do you know that this change has actually taken place?

BRYSON: I didn't personally do the fieldwork, if that's what you mean. Other people, such as Martin Rodewald, the German meteorologist, did that Rodewald, for example, studied the measured water temperature of the North Atlantic and found that—from 1951 to 1972—it dropped quite dramatically. It went down rather steadily throughout the 50's, leveled off somewhat during the 60's, then started down again.

I simply came along then, took Rodewald's map of the cooling of the North Atlantic in that 20-year period, and compared it with work done by John Imbrie, a research associate of the American Museum of Natural History. Imbrie has mapped the cooling of the North Atlantic during the height of the last ice age. The two maps—I found—were remarkably similar, except that the temperature drop from 1951 to 1972 was only 1/6 the drop experienced by the North Atlantic during the ice age.

PLOWBOY: One-sixth! In 20 years! http://www.motherearthnews.com/Nature-Community/1976-03-01/Dr-Reid-Bryson.aspx?page=4

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/DSCN1557-nat-geog-1976_1200x900.JPG

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd137/gorebot/Newsweak.jpg

[PercyVere]

Consensus is not science...

evidence is.

And one conflicting piece of evidence can negate a theory.Ok then, put it this way .... there is a global consensus of scientists who agree the current evidence strongly supports the theory that GW is greatly affected by human activity.

[PercyVere]

These the same climate scientists who predicted a new Ice Age in the 1970's?

'General Consensus' in science has always been subject to rapid rethinking.There was no general scientific consensus supporting the new Ice Age in the 1970s. What we had was a mainstream media running amok with a scientific hypothesis which was doing the rounds at the time.

That is very different to a real global consensus.

[PercyVere]

:think:







http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/DSCN1557-nat-geog-1976_1200x900.JPG

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd137/gorebot/Newsweak.jpgNo one denies the mainstream media went nuts with Ice Age fear mongering in the 70s. However, their story was not backed by any global scientific consensus, or a scientific consensus of any kind.

[PercyVere]

Exactly! Many supporters of AGW don't even understand the basic difference between correlation and causation.I'm happy to discuss the difference with you.

[PercyVere]

The cause of global warming is not clearly identifiable but there is absolutely no question that it is occurring and green-house gasses definitely add to the problem.Agreed. Denial of the above comes in readily recognisable forms.

[PercyVere]

So, you're saying the global warming fanatics are anti-science? Well, I'll have to agree on that one. With the exception of the "evolution is 'just a theory'" bullet, the rest fit it like a glove on a cold winter day.Ahhh yes ... I should have worded it:

You know you are anti-science if you think 'Evolution is just a theory' is an argument against the validity of evolution.

[badkarma]

evolution is 'just a theory'[/LIST]
Ummm...

I am an atheist and fully believe in the THEORY of evolution.

Say what you want about those people that misunderstand the word theory, either in ignorance or purposefully, but realize that you are doing the exact same thing here. It is indeed a theory, and implying otherwise is simply dishonest.

[captusa]

Ummm...

I am an atheist and fully believe in the THEORY of evolution.

Say what you want about those people that misunderstand the word theory, either in ignorance or purposefully, but realize that you are doing the exact same thing here. It is indeed a theory, and implying otherwise is simply dishonest.

Explained often.
The Heissenberg Uncertainty Principle is a theory that is still hotly debated it is backed by a great deal of evidence but not there is some evidence that it is not necessarily.
Evolution is a theory that has 150+ years of supporting evidence and is accepted because the the evidence supports it beyond a reasonable doubt.

[PercyVere]

Ummm...

I am an atheist and fully believe in the THEORY of evolution.

Say what you want about those people that misunderstand the word theory, either in ignorance or purposefully, but realize that you are doing the exact same thing here. It is indeed a theory, and implying otherwise is simply dishonest.Corrected .... see post # 42

[jeepers]

Having a science degree, here's my take:

Just when you think that you have all the answers, here come some pesky 'facts' that can change your perspective.

I believe in Evolution, but it's flawed. Just like the Big Bang. First there was nothing at all, no time, space or matter and then TA DAH...Okay, what was there before? Do I believe that a universe can begin this way? Of course, I understand the evolution of a group of astral bodies. However, it has to be in a bigger whole. Universe within a universe within.... (think Russian dolls).

Evolution, yes. Mutations and adaptations, yes. Changing species, survival of the fittest, yes. Are all the facts in? Nope. That is roughly a half done 'science'.

Global Warming? My basic take at this point is 'yes', the planet is warming. Yes, mankind affects the planet, and yes to coming out of an Ice Age and the influence of sunspots. No, to mankind driving all of it. No to mankind not creating any of it. And dear me, no to the conclusions as to what will happen next. And yes to chaos theory and yes to those unknown variables that have a tendency to put egg on the face of scientists. See the 'we're all going to freeze to death' movement in the 70's.

I believe in science when it comes to science. I don't believe one whit in the politics of it which is self-serving to the hypocritical politicians in question. If you don't see the hyperbole in their spin, I've got a bridge to sell. If Al Gore was so concerned that we're all going to be dead in ten years, why does he still have a 10k+ sq ft home in Tennessee that sucks enough energy for two families? Will carbon offsets save the planet? No, but they'll save his wallet if you buy them from his company.

The jury is still out on this one. I believe in conservation for conservation's sake. I believe that pigs don't **** where they sleep, meaning it's our planet, we shoudl take care of it, whether or not we're contributing to it's major warming.

I think that when you look at the politics and you don't just focus on the science, important things might be missed. Keys to the puzzle, unexamined facts becasue of a kneejerk acceptance of the status quo. Examing those facts might actually reveal the key to the problem, but if you don't keep looking, you might miss the answer. This would be particularly important if the end game is that we all die.

Because if you are not truly clear as to the nature of the problem, your potential solution may be the wrong one. Ergo, we may be focusing our energies in the wrong direction. Or miss a direction entirely that could make our efforts moot.

It's about the science. Science is never 'done'. If you think that this one is done, you have been paying more attention to the politics and not to the science. Scientists are SUPPOSED to examine facts and argue about the conclusions drawn from them. Hushing or discrediting sane opposing voices make you the 'anti-scientist'.

I'm never ever impressed by bandwagons. I'm hestitant to spike footballs in science because Murphy lives there and he will kick your ass in a NY second if he can. Especially if the conclusion is some sort of Armageddon-type scenario.

I will also add that it's also possible that we might be focusing all of our energy on one aspect of the planet, when it might be another problem that will get us. Example of which is clean water...we're decimating our water sheds, polluting what we have, and THAT might kill us long before the warming of the planet.

Again, bandwagons might take us to our destination, or the bandwagon might take us down the wrong fork in the road. Or it might be that we were supposed to split up in multiple groups and go down ALL of the forks...

Being pro-science is not about just clapping when someone does some research. Is the method good or flawed? Is the data adequate to draw the conclusion? Can it be repeated? Can you even gather enought data over time in order to draw any conclusion or any conclusion that is meaningful in the bigger context of things?

Show me the science, spare me the drama and the hyperbole. And certainly stop telling me that I'm an anti-science cretin if I question the current results. I don't want a lack of science, I want MORE. And no, pick any issue that is subject to conjecture and I'm going to ask for a whole lot of backup.

Because most of this, as it's impossible to step out of time and space to be certain, is arguable. If all you're interested in is your own hypothesis, you miss the point of the whole thing.

[Greyclouds]

Having a science degree, here's my take:

Just when you think that you have all the answers, here come some pesky 'facts' that can change your perspective.

I believe in Evolution, but it's flawed. Just like the Big Bang. First there was nothing at all, no time, space or matter and then TA DAH...Okay, what was there before? Do I believe that a universe can begin this way? Of course, I understand the evolution of a group of astral bodies. However, it has to be in a bigger whole. Universe within a universe within.... (think Russian dolls).

Evolution, yes. Mutations and adaptations, yes. Changing species, survival of the fittest, yes. Are all the facts in? Nope. That is roughly a half done 'science'.

Global Warming? My basic take at this point is 'yes', the planet is warming. Yes, mankind affects the planet, and yes to coming out of an Ice Age and the influence of sunspots. No, to mankind driving all of it. No to mankind not creating any of it. And dear me, no to the conclusions as to what will happen next. And yes to chaos theory and yes to those unknown variables that have a tendency to put egg on the face of scientists. See the 'we're all going to freeze to death' movement in the 70's.

I believe in science when it comes to science. I don't believe one whit in the politics of it which is self-serving to the hypocritical politicians in question. If you don't see the hyperbole in their spin, I've got a bridge to sell. If Al Gore was so concerned that we're all going to be dead in ten years, why does he still have a 10k+ sq ft home in Tennessee that sucks enough energy for two families? Will carbon offsets save the planet? No, but they'll save his wallet if you buy them from his company.

The jury is still out on this one. I believe in conservation for conservation's sake. I believe that pigs don't **** where they sleep, meaning it's our planet, we shoudl take care of it, whether or not we're contributing to it's major warming.

I think that when you look at the politics and you don't just focus on the science, important things might be missed. Keys to the puzzle, unexamined facts becasue of a kneejerk acceptance of the status quo. Examing those facts might actually reveal the key to the problem, but if you don't keep looking, you might miss the answer. This would be particularly important if the end game is that we all die.

Because if you are not truly clear as to the nature of the problem, your potential solution may be the wrong one. Ergo, we may be focusing our energies in the wrong direction. Or miss a direction entirely that could make our efforts moot.

It's about the science. Science is never 'done'. If you think that this one is done, you have been paying more attention to the politics and not to the science. Scientists are SUPPOSED to examine facts and argue about the conclusions drawn from them. Hushing or discrediting sane opposing voices make you the 'anti-scientist'.

I'm never ever impressed by bandwagons. I'm hestitant to spike footballs in science because Murphy lives there and he will kick your ass in a NY second if he can. Especially if the conclusion is some sort of Armageddon-type scenario.

I will also add that it's also possible that we might be focusing all of our energy on one aspect of the planet, when it might be another problem that will get us. Example of which is clean water...we're decimating our water sheds, polluting what we have, and THAT might kill us long before the warming of the planet.

Again, bandwagons might take us to our destination, or the bandwagon might take us down the wrong fork in the road. Or it might be that we were supposed to split up in multiple groups and go down ALL of the forks...

Being pro-science is not about just clapping when someone does some research. Is the method good or flawed? Is the data adequate to draw the conclusion? Can it be repeated? Can you even gather enought data over time in order to draw any conclusion or any conclusion that is meaningful in the bigger context of things?

Show me the science, spare me the drama and the hyperbole. And certainly stop telling me that I'm an anti-science cretin if I question the current results. I don't want a lack of science, I want MORE. And no, pick any issue that is subject to conjecture and I'm going to ask for a whole lot of backup.

Because most of this, as it's impossible to step out of time and space to be certain, is arguable. If all you're interested in is your own hypothesis, you miss the point of the whole thing.

You are absolutely correct.

Science is, derived from its definitions and limits, the inexhaustible reexamination of physical phenomenon. The study of Science will never end so long as there are consciousnesses that are able to ponder the causes of physical phenomena.

Having read thousands of scientific journal articles, I can verify that the Theory of Evolution is well-supported by the data we've uncovered.

I reserve my opinion on AGW in lieu of my specialization in Molecular Biology. (In much the same way, I would reserve my opinion on Automobile body work since I have no friggin' clue how to repair a car!)

[badkarma]

Explained often.
The Heissenberg Uncertainty Principle is a theory that is still hotly debated it is backed by a great deal of evidence but not there is some evidence that it is not necessarily.
Evolution is a theory that has 150+ years of supporting evidence and is accepted because the the evidence supports it beyond a reasonable doubt.
I was not asking for an explanation. I am well aware of the differences in what the word may mean which is why I included that bit about people misunderstanding it.

What I was doing is pointing out that evolution is still considered a theory, which the OP apparently cleared up as having been incorrectly worded before I even posted.

[ThrowCop]

to Jeepers...

That was one of the best replies I have seen to a post since I have been here.

Well done! :clap:

[Alan J]

:think:







http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/DSCN1557-nat-geog-1976_1200x900.JPG

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd137/gorebot/Newsweak.jpg

That's interesting. I wasn't aware that Newsweek, National Geographic, or Time Magazine were peer reviewed scientific journals. Apparently, they aren't aware of that either.

[agoodfoundation]

You know you are anti-science if you believe that;


your ideas are being stifled by the scientific community at large
there is a conspiracy to bury evidence supporting your world view
a generally held scientific view is undermined by the fact that some fringe scientists reject that view
those scientists on the fringe are being deliberately stymied because they threaten to rock the boat too much.
academics have a strangelhold on science
the modern scientific method is OK, but we have other methods which are equally effective at learning about and explaining the world around us.
'Evolution is just a theory' is an argument against the validity of evolution.
god planted all the evidence to trick us
the exposure of fraud or error in science is an indication of weakness in the scientific method
certain aspects of science are correct, but you reject those which challenge your world view
a certain scientific consensus is held for political reasons
scientists are conspiring against you.



I would say that I am anti-people rather that anti-science. Becuase its people who want to destroy my view of science.

SEE point #2 about "conspiracy'

[iamredbeard]

My biggest problem with evolution is rather pretty simple. I cannot believe that we came here as some kind of accident or the Big Bang or that we evolved from a single cell. I watch a lot of nature shows and I am amazed at even how complex the so called simple cell is. I just don't have the faith to believe that it is a result of evolution or the big bang or whatever. It's easier for me to simply believe that it was created. I look at the complex world of nature and cannot fathom that it was not created.

[Samm]

There was no general scientific consensus supporting the new Ice Age in the 1970s. What we had was a mainstream media running amok with a scientific hypothesis which was doing the rounds at the time.

That is very different to a real global consensus.

Hmmm... :think: Exactly like the current Man-Made Global Warming hypothesis.

[Alan J]

Hmmm... :think: Exactly like the current Man-Made Global Warming hypothesis.

It really isn't anything like today. A quick search of current scientific literature will show a widespread support of AGW theory among the scientific community. This wasn't the case in the 70's, where there was virtually no scientific support for the notion of global cooling.

[Alan J]

Complex? Not really!

SNIP

Maybe I should put this into it's own thread as it will come in parts and it takes a long time to write out. What do you guys think?

Dude, plagiarism is uncool, even if you're doing it for science.

[Samm]

It really isn't anything like today. A quick search of current scientific literature will show a widespread support of AGW theory among the scientific community. This wasn't the case in the 70's, where there was virtually no scientific support for the notion of global cooling.

You are right... I should have said "Very similar to the current Man-Made Global Warming hypothesis.

But in both instances, we have non-scientists focusing on snippets of science to extrapolate hypotheses that are not supported by the science. There is NO consensus among scientists (not that science should be governed by consensus) that supports AGW as the prevailing climate hypothesis.

[PercyVere]

Just when you think that you have all the answers, here come some pesky 'facts' that can change your perspective.The self-correction built into the scientific method is its great strength. Is that the point you were trying to make, or were you trying to undermine science and scientific practise?

I believe in Evolution, but it's flawed. Just like the Big Bang. First there was nothing at all, no time, space or matter and then TA DAH...Okay, what was there before? Do I believe that a universe can begin this way? Of course, I understand the evolution of a group of astral bodies. However, it has to be in a bigger whole. Universe within a universe within.... (think Russian dolls).Just because you can't get your head around the big bang does not mean the theory is flawed, science degree or not. That is just an appeal to incredulity.

Evolution, yes. Mutations and adaptations, yes. Changing species, survival of the fittest, yes. Are all the facts in? Nope. That is roughly a half done 'science'.Come on, say it ... it's just a theory.

Global Warming? My basic take at this point is 'yes', the planet is warming. Yes, mankind affects the planet, and yes to coming out of an Ice Age and the influence of sunspots. No, to mankind driving all of it. No to mankind not creating any of it. And dear me, no to the conclusions as to what will happen next.Fair enough ... a general non-commital viewpoint all around. What would it take to get you off the fence?

And yes to chaos theory and yes to those unknown variables that have a tendency to put egg on the face of scientists.Ahhh, chaos, our great 'get out of jail free' card?


See the 'we're all going to freeze to death' movement in the 70's.That was a media frenzy, not a scientific consensus of any kind.

I believe in conservation for conservation's sake. I believe that pigs don't **** where they sleep, meaning it's our planet, we shoudl take care of it, whether or not we're contributing to it's major warming.Agreed ... 100% ... why can't people get this?

I think that when you look at the politics and you don't just focus on the science, important things might be missed. Keys to the puzzle, unexamined facts becasue of a kneejerk acceptance of the status quo. Examing those facts might actually reveal the key to the problem, but if you don't keep looking, you might miss the answer.This is classic science denial - discredit the scientific establishment, call it political, claim group-think, dress it up a little, Bob's your uncle.

It's about the science. Science is never 'done'. If you think that this one is done, you have been paying more attention to the politics and not to the science. Scientists are SUPPOSED to examine facts and argue about the conclusions drawn from them. Hushing or discrediting sane opposing voices make you the 'anti-scientist'.More classic science-denial ... the conspiracy theory ... 'they are all out to bury the evidence'. Scientists just don't listen to the new evidence brought to light by the creationists.

I will also add that it's also possible that we might be focusing all of our energy on one aspect of the planet, when it might be another problem that will get us. Example of which is clean water...we're decimating our water sheds, polluting what we have, and THAT might kill us long before the warming of the planet.Addressing one big environmental issue might just help with other big problems. The steps needed to limit GW might just help limit water quality damage.

Being pro-science is not about just clapping when someone does some research. Is the method good or flawed? Is the data adequate to draw the conclusion? Can it be repeated? Can you even gather enought data over time in order to draw any conclusion or any conclusion that is meaningful in the bigger context of things?Agreed

Show me the science, spare me the drama and the hyperbole. And certainly stop telling me that I'm an anti-science cretin if I question the current results. I don't want a lack of science, I want MORE. And no, pick any issue that is subject to conjecture and I'm going to ask for a whole lot of backup.Sorry, but I call ********. For Evolution, we have 150 years of supporting evidence (make that several billion years), and the utter failure to discredit it despite constant determined attempts. Yet you call this "half-done science" ... therefore it is clear that no amount of evidence and data and science will satisfy you if you are ideologocally opposed to the idea.

It would follow that the same applies for your acceptance of the Big Bang and GW.

[PercyVere]

You are right... I should have said "Very similar to the current Man-Made Global Warming hypothesis.Nonsense .... it is most certainly a theory ... indeed it possesses all the classic requirements of a theory.

But in both instances, we have non-scientists focusing on snippets of science to extrapolate hypotheses that are not supported by the science. There is NO consensus among scientists (not that science should be governed by consensus) that supports AGW as the prevailing climate hypothesis.Again, nonsense, there is most certainly a consensus.

From Wikipedia (don't wast your time bashing Wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
The 2001 joint statement was signed by the scientific academies of Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia), Belgium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium), Brazil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil), Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada), the Caribbean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Caribbean), China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China), France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France), Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany), India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India), Indonesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia), Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland), Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy), Malaysia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia), New Zealand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand), Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden), and the UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK). The 2005 statement added Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan), Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia), and the U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.) The 2007 statement added Mexico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico) and South Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa). Professional societies include American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Astronomical Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London, Geological Society of America, American Chemical Society, and Engineers Australia.

Usually, when people are faced with this list they mumble stuff about group-think, crooked academics, govt-run agencies, vested interestes, pressure to conform ... and all sorts of other utter crap

But that is a consensus, my learned friend.

[Samm]

Nonsense .... it is most certainly a theory ... indeed it possesses all the classic requirements of a theory.
What the heck are you talking about? :eh: Global warming is not a theory... either it is or it is not. The average temperature of Earth is determined from data, not by some egg-heads wild ideas. And the presumption that man has anything to do with causing global temperature change, even considering that CO2 could be a factor, is NOT theory... it is Hypothesis... i.e. guess work based on coincidence. There is no scientific evidence proving that man released CO2 and CH4 etc., has any impact what-so-ever on the global temperature.

Again, nonsense, there is most certainly a consensus.

From Wikipedia (don't wast your time bashing Wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
The 2001 joint statement was signed by the scientific academies of Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia), Belgium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium), Brazil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil), Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada), the Caribbean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Caribbean), China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China), France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France), Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany), India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India), Indonesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia), Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland), Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy), Malaysia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia), New Zealand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand), Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden), and the UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK). The 2005 statement added Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan), Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia), and the U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.) The 2007 statement added Mexico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico) and South Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa). Professional societies include American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Astronomical Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London, Geological Society of America, American Chemical Society, and Engineers Australia.

Usually, when people are faced with this list they mumble stuff about group-think, crooked academics, govt-run agencies, vested interestes, pressure to conform ... and all sorts of other utter crap

But that is a consensus, my learned friend.
(No need to bash Wikipedia... your research (or lack thereof) speaks for itself. But if you want to be taken seriously, you should broaden your sources.)

All of which proves NOTHING!

Because again; there most certainly IS NOT consensus. For example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/science/earth/09climate.html?_r=1

http://www.aim.org/briefing/31000-signatures-prove-no-consensus-about-global-warming/

And furthermore, my presumptuous friend... science is NOT a democratic endeavor; scientific knowledge is NOT determined by consensus. Scientific knowledge is accrued by failing to disprove ideas, not by taking a vote to see which idea wins.

[PercyVere]

What the heck are you talking about? :eh: Global warming is not a theory... either it is or it is not.That human activity has a significant impact on global warming is a theory ... a theory with the support of a consensus of climate scientists worldwide. The theory has predtive capabilities, it is supported by real evidence, it has been widely peer reviewed (and backed up by those countless science societies), and it is falsifiable. The theory may very well be wrong, but it is most certainly a theory.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/science/earth/09climate.html?_r=1Your link is to a story about a minor meeting arranged by a Conservative think tank. What was it supposed to demonstrate?

http://www.aim.org/briefing/31000-signatures-prove-no-consensus-about-global-warming/ (http://www.aim.org/briefing/31000-signatures-prove-no-consensus-about-global-warming/)Note the point from my OP:


a generally held scientific view is undermined by the fact that some fringe scientists reject that view


And furthermore, my presumptuous friend... science is NOT a democratic endeavor; scientific knowledge is NOT determined by consensus. Scientific knowledge is accrued by failing to disprove ideas, not by taking a vote to see which idea wins.We were discussing whether a consensus exists or not.

[PercyVere]

My biggest problem with evolution is rather pretty simple. I cannot believe that we came here as some kind of accident or the Big Bang or that we evolved from a single cell. I watch a lot of nature shows and I am amazed at even how complex the so called simple cell is. I just don't have the faith to believe that it is a result of evolution or the big bang or whatever. It's easier for me to simply believe that it was created. I look at the complex world of nature and cannot fathom that it was not created.A logical fallacy known as the argument from incredulity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

[PercyVere]

Why do anti-science people rarely question the theory of gravity? Or electro-magnetism? Why do they only reject science which challenges their political or religious worldview?

[RayMan]

A logical fallacy known as the argument from incredulity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

The fact that it is called a fallacy does not in itself make it fallacious.

[PercyVere]

The fact that it is called a fallacy does not in itself make it fallacious.The argument is a fallacy. However, the point being argued may or may not be true.

[RayMan]

The argument is a fallacy. However, the point being argued may or may not be true.

Works for me.

[Arya]

Having a science degree, here's my take:

Just when you think that you have all the answers, here come some pesky 'facts' that can change your perspective.

I believe in Evolution, but it's flawed. Just like the Big Bang. First there was nothing at all, no time, space or matter and then TA DAH...Okay, what was there before? Do I believe that a universe can begin this way? Of course, I understand the evolution of a group of astral bodies. However, it has to be in a bigger whole. Universe within a universe within.... (think Russian dolls).

Evolution, yes. Mutations and adaptations, yes. Changing species, survival of the fittest, yes. Are all the facts in? Nope. That is roughly a half done 'science'.

Global Warming? My basic take at this point is 'yes', the planet is warming. Yes, mankind affects the planet, and yes to coming out of an Ice Age and the influence of sunspots. No, to mankind driving all of it. No to mankind not creating any of it. And dear me, no to the conclusions as to what will happen next. And yes to chaos theory and yes to those unknown variables that have a tendency to put egg on the face of scientists. See the 'we're all going to freeze to death' movement in the 70's.

I believe in science when it comes to science. I don't believe one whit in the politics of it which is self-serving to the hypocritical politicians in question. If you don't see the hyperbole in their spin, I've got a bridge to sell. If Al Gore was so concerned that we're all going to be dead in ten years, why does he still have a 10k+ sq ft home in Tennessee that sucks enough energy for two families? Will carbon offsets save the planet? No, but they'll save his wallet if you buy them from his company.

The jury is still out on this one. I believe in conservation for conservation's sake. I believe that pigs don't **** where they sleep, meaning it's our planet, we shoudl take care of it, whether or not we're contributing to it's major warming.

I think that when you look at the politics and you don't just focus on the science, important things might be missed. Keys to the puzzle, unexamined facts becasue of a kneejerk acceptance of the status quo. Examing those facts might actually reveal the key to the problem, but if you don't keep looking, you might miss the answer. This would be particularly important if the end game is that we all die.

Because if you are not truly clear as to the nature of the problem, your potential solution may be the wrong one. Ergo, we may be focusing our energies in the wrong direction. Or miss a direction entirely that could make our efforts moot.

It's about the science. Science is never 'done'. If you think that this one is done, you have been paying more attention to the politics and not to the science. Scientists are SUPPOSED to examine facts and argue about the conclusions drawn from them. Hushing or discrediting sane opposing voices make you the 'anti-scientist'.

I'm never ever impressed by bandwagons. I'm hestitant to spike footballs in science because Murphy lives there and he will kick your ass in a NY second if he can. Especially if the conclusion is some sort of Armageddon-type scenario.

I will also add that it's also possible that we might be focusing all of our energy on one aspect of the planet, when it might be another problem that will get us. Example of which is clean water...we're decimating our water sheds, polluting what we have, and THAT might kill us long before the warming of the planet.

Again, bandwagons might take us to our destination, or the bandwagon might take us down the wrong fork in the road. Or it might be that we were supposed to split up in multiple groups and go down ALL of the forks...

Being pro-science is not about just clapping when someone does some research. Is the method good or flawed? Is the data adequate to draw the conclusion? Can it be repeated? Can you even gather enought data over time in order to draw any conclusion or any conclusion that is meaningful in the bigger context of things?

Show me the science, spare me the drama and the hyperbole. And certainly stop telling me that I'm an anti-science cretin if I question the current results. I don't want a lack of science, I want MORE. And no, pick any issue that is subject to conjecture and I'm going to ask for a whole lot of backup.

Because most of this, as it's impossible to step out of time and space to be certain, is arguable. If all you're interested in is your own hypothesis, you miss the point of the whole thing.


Great post.

And what I find interesting is the whole "pro" or "con" science mentality. "Science" is what it is-new theories or ideas are either proven or disproven, and they are either accepted or not (based upon if they are repeatable, have substantial data to support it, etc). That is the basis behind all scientific principle, study, and fact.

What I find disturbing are those that attempt to "twist" science to suit their own hypothesis or beliefs, or pockets. Science is what it is-and it is meant to improve our lives (basically), not to allow someone to make a name for themselves (for example).

AND there may very well be other factors that affect climatic change beyond man-influenced rise in CO2 levels. I've noticed much attention is spent on CO2 or gas emissions-but what of depleting the global vegitation levels? Distruction of huge portions of forestland does interfere with the normal pathways of rainfall, and how much specific areas recieve rainfall. If we can influence the desertification of specific areas on the Earth-just how much is that affecting the weather patterns of the affected areas? If we continue to distroy forestland (the rainforests of south america are one example) at a large rate-how much is that going to affect climates on a global level?

Plus-there are so many other areas outside of climatic change that deserve mention-clean air and water is one aspect that we also dearly need to pay attention to.

[sgtmac_46]

That's interesting. I wasn't aware that Newsweek, National Geographic, or Time Magazine were peer reviewed scientific journals. Apparently, they aren't aware of that either. The scientists quoted in those articles published peer-reviewed papers, genius. If splitting hairs is your argument, you have no. ;)

And since no internet existed in the 1970's, and the subsequent prognostications of those scientists have turned out to be wrong, I doubt they are in any hurry to republish those findings....especially since some of them have subsequently published contradictory papers.....I am sorry if I questioned a deeply held personal religious belief on your part, however.....I have a habit of doing that.

[sgtmac_46]

There was no general scientific consensus supporting the new Ice Age in the 1970s. What we had was a mainstream media running amok with a scientific hypothesis which was doing the rounds at the time.

That is very different to a real global consensus. Which is pretty much what we have now..........masquerading as 'general consensus'. Just another 'Doomsday' cult.

[sgtmac_46]

No one denies the mainstream media went nuts with Ice Age fear mongering in the 70s. However, their story was not backed by any global scientific consensus, or a scientific consensus of any kind. Bull ****.........this is just your spin to an age old phenomenon of doomsday hysteria, and how this time...THIS time you guys are REALLY right........this time......forget about all previous doomsday cult thinking, we're right.....this time. :))

[sgtmac_46]

Ummm...

I am an atheist and fully believe in the THEORY of evolution.

Say what you want about those people that misunderstand the word theory, either in ignorance or purposefully, but realize that you are doing the exact same thing here. It is indeed a theory, and implying otherwise is simply dishonest. Touche.......Percy seems to be embracing some very religious-esque dogmatic positioning of his own. Remember when science encouraged skepticism? Apparently percy's 'science' prefers lock-step dogma ala algore.

Me, i'm agnostic.....and RATIONAL skepticism drives science.

[sgtmac_46]

It really isn't anything like today. A quick search of current scientific literature will show a widespread support of AGW theory among the scientific community. This wasn't the case in the 70's, where there was virtually no scientific support for the notion of global cooling. Bull ****.......the difference today from the 1970's was the existence of the internet and the ability to retain and store and archive scientific literature and make it readily available for research.

How that works in practical terms is this.......a scientific consensus from the 1970's, as illustrated by peer reviewed articles, can be buried by the fact that the circulation of those peer reviewed articles is limited and soon forgotten.

In the 21st Century, however, perception can create reality as dogmatic positioning can be reinforced to create a vast perception of 'consensus'..........as history has proven, however, 'consensus' and science have a long history of parting ways.

At the end of the day what is truly troubling, however, is your desire to declare 'universal consensus' on issues of science, when dogma and science shouldn't share the same room.

[Alan J]

The scientists quoted in those articles published peer-reviewed papers, genius. If splitting hairs is your argument, you have no. ;)

Those supposed articles are what I'm looking for. If you aren't actually aware of any, why did you claim that scientists supported the idea of global cooling in the first place, when you had no evidence of such a thing having ever occurred? If you are aware of some, please point them out to me, since I have been wholly unsuccessful in my efforts to locate them thus far.

And since no internet existed in the 1970's, and the subsequent prognostications of those scientists have turned out to be wrong, I doubt they are in any hurry to republish those findings....especially since some of them have subsequently published contradictory papers.....I am sorry if I questioned a deeply held personal religious belief on your part, however.....I have a habit of doing that.

They don't have to republish their findings. They just have to have published them in the first place!

Also, most academic papers, even those from the 1970's, are archived somewhere on the Internets. If you have any particular papers that led you to the conclusion that most scientists were predicting an ice age in the 70's, I'm certain that I quick Google Scholar search would locate them for you. If they aren't to be found, please give me the name of the paper, the journal it was published in, and the date it was published, I can easily go down to the local university library and look them up there.

Also, you aren't questioning any deeply held beliefs of mine. I'm simply asking you to support a statement of fact that you made earlier. I realize that this is probably exceedingly difficult for a self proclaimed global warming skeptic to do.

[Alan J]

Bull ****.......the difference today from the 1970's was the existence of the internet and the ability to retain and store and archive scientific literature and make it readily available for research.

How that works in practical terms is this.......a scientific consensus from the 1970's, as illustrated by peer reviewed articles, can be buried by the fact that the circulation of those peer reviewed articles is limited and soon forgotten.

False. Not only are most papers published in peer reviewed journals now archived on the Internet, one can simply go and look up any issue of almost every peer reviewed journal at any decent public library. There's no covering up of old scientific consensuses, I'm afraid. If a consensus existed at any given time it would have been recorded in the scientific literature.


At the end of the day what is truly troubling, however, is your desire to declare 'universal consensus' on issues of science, when dogma and science shouldn't share the same room.

I have no desire to declare universal consensus on issue of science. You're the one doing that, or have you forgotten?

[Amallek]

Percy
"god planted all the evidence to trick us "

That is absolutely incorrect. God would never trick us. It was Satan who planted all those dinosaur bones so that when we found them our faith would be challenged.

[BillyBobUSA]

Would you now like to know how the universe unfolded, how the stars and galaxies formed and how our Earth was created? Teaser: it's not by a magical being.


And here you go beyond science to theological speculation.

You do NOT know if a 'magical being' created the universe or not and such a question is well beyond the realm of science.

[BillyBobUSA]

A logical fallacy known as the argument from incredulity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


From your source:
"The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#cite_note-0)), argument by lack of imagination, or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy) in which it is claimed that a premise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise) is true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth) only because it has not been proven false, or is false (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False) only because it has not been proven true."

The essence of soft atheism would seem to be a logical fallacy.

[BillyBobUSA]

He never said it did.

Yes, he did when he argues that AGW must be true since there is a consensus of scientists that it is true.


He claimed that there was a global consensus among scientists on the subject to counter a claim that there were plenty of scientists who didn't believe that global warming is man made.

So what? One does not preclude the toher, and I think you misread him at that.


I find it amusing that you jumped on Percy for saying this, yet chose to let CaptainPike's identical claim slide because he was agreeing with you.

I find it amusing that you think your observation means anything.

If I dont respond to person B, C, D, and E my response to person A cannot be reasonable.

And I didnt jump on anybody.


That doesn't make sense.

Of course it does; you just dont want to understand it.

[Samm]

That human activity has a significant impact on global warming is a theory ... a theory with the support of a consensus of climate scientists worldwide. The theory has predtive capabilities, it is supported by real evidence, it has been widely peer reviewed (and backed up by those countless science societies), and it is falsifiable. The theory may very well be wrong, but it is most certainly a theory.

Earth is (or is not) warming - is not a hypothesis; is not a theory; it is derived directly from data.

Increasing CO2 is the cause of global warming - Theory, but with considerable evidence to indicate that increasing CO2 is an effect of global warming, not a cause.

Man is causing global warming - Hypothesis based on coincidental occurrences; the advent of increased use of carbon based fuel since the dawning of the Industrial Age; and the warming of the planet following the Little Ice Age.

Your link is to a story about a minor meeting arranged by a Conservative think tank. What was it supposed to demonstrate?
If this Conservative group of thinking people do not support these scientists and give them a forum to publicly express what they know, who will? Certainly not the Media or the Political Left.

BTW... Did the neutral media cover that conference? Does the neutral media cover Al Gore? Logically... who do you think knows more about global climate... these 600 climate scientists? or Al Gore?

Note the point from my OP:


a generally held scientific view is undermined by the fact that some fringe scientists reject that view

31,000 "fringe scientists"? :rolleyes:

Most scientist believed the Galaxy was the Universe, until a few "fringies" showed otherwise. Most scientist believed the continents were stationery on the surface of the planet until a few "fringies" showed otherwise. Most scientists thought that all geographic features on Earth were created over millions of years until one geologist showed them that the scab lands of Washington were created virtually over night. Almost all scientific breakthroughs have been made by "fringe" scientists.

We were discussing whether a consensus exists or not.

Yes we were... and it has irrefutably been demonstrated that consensus does NOT exist.

[drylok]

I don't give a **** what you prove or disprove. I'm living my life the way I by god damn good and well want to.

The fact of the matter is, one day you are going to wake up and you will be dead. You can sit around and stew about what we are causing or affecting or you can get busy living, loving and prospering.

As for me, I prefer the latter

Jesus Age Christ!

[PercyVere]

From your source:
"The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#cite_note-0)), argument by lack of imagination, or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy) in which it is claimed that a premise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise) is true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth) only because it has not been proven false, or is false (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False) only because it has not been proven true."

The essence of soft atheism would seem to be a logical fallacy.Strictly speaking, your logical fallacy was the second one listed in the article, the argument from personal incredulity

"The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed to be false, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead."

[PercyVere]

I don't give a **** what you prove or disprove. I'm living my life the way I by god damn good and well want to.

The fact of the matter is, one day you are going to wake up and you will be dead. You can sit around and stew about what we are causing or affecting or you can get busy living, loving and prospering.

As for me, I prefer the latter

Jesus Age Christ!Well, me too. But what has this outlook got to do with a tendency to believe in pseudoscience?

[PercyVere]

Earth is (or is not) warming - is not a hypothesis; is not a theory; it is derived directly from data.

Increasing CO2 is the cause of global warming - Theory, but with considerable evidence to indicate that increasing CO2 is an effect of global warming, not a cause.Considerable evidence?, no, not really

Man is causing global warming - Hypothesis based on coincidental occurrences; the advent of increased use of carbon based fuel since the dawning of the Industrial Age; and the warming of the planet following the Little Ice Age.That human activities have a significant effect on global warming started life as a hypothesis ... it is now a scientific theory, with all the qualities of a theory.

If this Conservative group of thinking people do not support these scientists and give them a forum to publicly express what they know, who will? Certainly not the Media or the Political Left.

BTW... Did the neutral media cover that conference? Does the neutral media cover Al Gore? Logically... who do you think knows more about global climate... these 600 climate scientists? or Al Gore?I'll see your 600 climate scientists / conservative think tankers and raise you every single "scientific body of national or international standing"


31,000 "fringe scientists"? :rolleyes:

Most scientist believed the Galaxy was the Universe, until a few "fringies" showed otherwise. Most scientist believed the continents were stationery on the surface of the planet until a few "fringies" showed otherwise. Most scientists thought that all geographic features on Earth were created over millions of years until one geologist showed them that the scab lands of Washington were created virtually over night. Almost all scientific breakthroughs have been made by "fringe" scientists.Scientific research from the fringes often produces new breakthroughs and insights. This does not, however, imply that all fringe science has an inherently superior value.

Thanks for reminding me of this ... I have added it to the OP.

[drylok]

Well, me too. But what has this outlook got to do with a tendency to believe in pseudoscience?

That was a bit hijacky, I let my emotion overcome my sense and manners. Sorry bout that

[BillyBobUSA]

Strictly speaking, your logical fallacy was the second one listed in the article, the argument from personal incredulity

"The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed to be false, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead."


Except thta I know that average global temperatures have been going down since 1998, the latter years which was the peak of average global temperatures.

Meanwhile, CO2 levels have continued to rise steadily, hence is unlikely to be the mechanism driving global climate change.

The incredulity is on your part, not mine.

[PercyVere]

Except thta I know that average global temperatures have been going down since 1998, the latter years which was the peak of average global temperatures.

Meanwhile, CO2 levels have continued to rise steadily, hence is unlikely to be the mechanism driving global climate change.

The incredulity is on your part, not mine.I saw what you did there.

This graph should help explain why your outlook is a little naive and hopeful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

[BillyBobUSA]

I saw what you did there.

This graph should help explain why your outlook is a little naive and hopeful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png




That chart is a statistical horror. Look closely at the data. The five year average for 1936 is the same as the temperature average for 1936 despite the fact that 1936 was the highest temperature average for the previous five years. Averages dont work that way.

Also the temperatures are different (look at the sequence of temperatures from 1937 to 1940 for example) from previous global warming 'art' charts like this one:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/f/f4/20090204035449%21Instrumental_Temperature_Record.p ng

and this one:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/f/f4/20080221074845%21Instrumental_Temperature_Record.p ng

and this one:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Bad data yeilding bad results is one thing that comes to mind.

[Greyclouds]

Percy
"god planted all the evidence to trick us "

That is absolutely incorrect. God would never trick us. It was Satan who planted all those dinosaur bones so that when we found them our faith would be challenged.

Satan's a pretty powerful guy, huh? Powerful enough to not be stopped by God's design, right?

[sgtmac_46]

I have no desire to declare universal consensus on issue of science. You're the one doing that, or have you forgotten? Really, genius? When did I declare universal consensus on anything? It's you AGW doomsday cult that seems to be declaring universal consensus.

Pop quiz.......since you think there is 'Universal Scientific Consensus' on AGW, explain, in detail, what that consensus is, including cause, prediction of impact, etc........and back it up with peer reviewed articles.......go on, this should be humorous! :))

Because i'm willing to bet you and percival here can't even give a good detailed description and support for what particular AGW conclusion is universally agreed upon.....;)

[sgtmac_46]

I saw what you did there.

This graph should help explain why your outlook is a little naive and hopeful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Why does your graph start in 1880, during a time when most scientific research suggests we were coming out of a 400 year Little Ice age? Could it be that you are well aware that global temperatures began warming out of that mini-ice age in 1850? :wall: :doh:

Selective data.........makes you sound like the dogmatic tool you're railing against.

[PercyVere]

That chart is a statistical horror. Look closely at the data. The five year average for 1936 is the same as the temperature average for 1936 despite the fact that 1936 was the highest temperature average for the previous five years. Averages dont work that way.

Also the temperatures are different (look at the sequence of temperatures from 1937 to 1940 for example) from previous global warming 'art' charts like this one:Why don't you take your argument up with NASA:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

If you dislike the graph, then here's the raw data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt

[PercyVere]

Why does your graph start in 1880, during a time when most scientific research suggests we were coming out of a 400 year mini-ice age? :wall: :doh:

Selective data.........makes you sound like the dogmatic tool you're railing against.Because that is the how far back our global instrumental measurements go.

[sgtmac_46]

Why don't you take your argument up with NASA:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

If you dislike the graph, then here's the raw data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt

I didn't realize NASA was active in 1880! :))

[sgtmac_46]

Because that is the how far back our global instrumental measurements go.

Really? Which Global Instruments were being used in 1880? Go on, genius, illuminate us on how much you know about what, where and how anything was measured in 1880.

Moreover, if the ONLY sampling of global temperatures you have only extends back to 1880.......that would be a pretty damned incomplete sampling to make any kind of accurate assessment of the global impact of anything........129 years is a flash in measuring global phenomenon.

So......you are either saying we DON'T have accurate date illustrating global temperatures prior to 1880........or you don't really want to figure them in to your argument......which is it, genius?

[PercyVere]

Really? Which Global Instruments were being used in 1880? Go on, genius, illuminate us on how much you know about what, where and how anything was measured in 1880.http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

"Over land regions of the world over 3000 monthly station temperature time series are used. Coverage is denser over the more populated parts of the world, particularly, the United States, southern Canada, Europe and Japan. Coverage is sparsest over the interior of the South American and African continents and over the Antarctic. The number of available stations was small during the 1850s, but increases to over 3000 stations during the 1951-90 period. For marine regions sea surface temperature (SST) measurements taken on board merchant and some naval vessels are used. As the majority come from the voluntary observing fleet, coverage is reduced away from the main shipping lanes and is minimal over the Southern Oceans. Maps/tables giving the density of coverage through time are given for land regions by Jones and Moberg (2003) and for the oceans by Rayner et al. (2003). Both these sources also extensively discuss the issue of consistency and homogeneity of the measurements through time and the steps that have made to ensure all non-climatic inhomogeneities have been removed."

Moreover, if the ONLY sampling of global temperatures you have only extends back to 1880.......that would be a pretty damned incomplete sampling to make any kind of accurate assessment of the global impact of anything........129 years is a flash in measuring global phenomenon.Then we go pre-instrumental.

So......you are either saying we DON'T have accurate date illustrating global temperatures prior to 1880........or you don't really want to figure them in to your argument......which is it, genius?If you look back over one or two thousand years, then the temperature rise in the last 150 years is even more pronounced ... we get what every conservative loves to dismiss, the famous hockey stick graph.

[Marleysdaddy]

If you look back over one or two thousand years, then the temperature rise in the last 150 years is even more pronounced ... we get what every conservative loves to dismiss, the famous hockey stick graph.

Not every conservative

[PercyVere]

Not every conservativeSorry, you're right ... I was just being facetious.

[Samm]

Considerable evidence?, no, not really
Yes... considerable evidence... like, for just one little tidbit, 600,000 years worth of ice core samples that clearly indicate the changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature by a couple hundred years whether that temperature change is upward or downward.

That human activities have a significant effect on global warming started life as a hypothesis ... it is now a scientific theory, with all the qualities of a theory.
It is NOT Theory... If it were, there would be specific parameters for which peer reviews could follow. There are none... there is not even any definitive study to indicate how much of the atmospheric "greenhouse" gases are contributed by man let alone that CO2 and CH4 are the predominant factors driving climate. Every bit of that premise is based coincidence... i.e. Hypothesis. There may be Theories under development, but to date, there are none that have reached the public arena.

Not that this distinction really matters... either way, the evidence is adding up that man as a player affecting global climate is extremely minor. At best, his some of his activities are compatible with warming (just as some are compatible with cooling) when the Earth is warming naturally, but he is very unlikely to be able to do anything to stop the Earth from cooling when it is cooling naturally.

I'll see your 600 climate scientists / conservative think tankers and raise you every single "scientific body of national or international standing"
Like who? The IPCC? ... The political agenda driven international organization who has cut off any further input or debate from any scientist who disagrees with their "consensus"... including about 1/3 (and growing) of the scientist who originally provided data for their report?

[/B]Scientific research from the fringes often produces new breakthroughs and insights. This does not, however, imply that all fringe science has an inherently superior value.
That is not what I said... what I said is that it is "fringe" scientists who advance science in quantum leaps. On the other hand, your premise (in the OP) is that if you are on the fringe your science is inherently inferior. Like all scientists, "fringe" scientist are not always right, but without "fringe" scientists to challenge (often at their own peril) the "consensus" we would still be plodding around thinking the sun revolved around the Earth.

Thanks for reminding me of this ... I have added it to the OP.
You are welcome... Now your OP is on par with the IPCC by completely dismissing anyone on the fringe as a paranoid wacko.

[Samm]

Why don't you take your argument up with NASA:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

If you dislike the graph, then here's the raw data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt

NASA must have pulled those graphs... they will not load. Of course that could be because this is the same NASA that announced that last October was the warmest ever recorded until it was discovered (by a fringe scientist) that they had used September data to produce their October average. :redface:

[Samm]

<sniped - for others to address>

If you look back over one or two thousand years, then the temperature rise in the last 150 years is even more pronounced ... we get what every conservative loves to dismiss, the famous hockey stick graph.

Mann's "hockey stick" has been thoroughly discredited regardless of your feeble attempt to ridicule anybody that knows that. But then, those who discredited it are just "fringe" scientists... aren't they. :rolleyes:

Did it never occur to you that Mann is the real "fringe" scientist? :think:

[PercyVere]

Yes... considerable evidence... like, for just one little tidbit, 600,000 years worth of ice core samples that clearly indicate the changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature by a couple hundred years whether that temperature change is upward or downward.http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/co2-lags-not-leads.php

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm
See number 7

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm
An important clue came from some especially good ice core records that showed a lag in the levels of CO2 and methane. They seemed to rise or fall a few centuries after a rise or fall in temperature. This confused many people, who thought the time lag contradicted the greenhouse theory of global warming. But in fact the lag was not good news. Scientists quickly realized that it strongly confirmed that the Milankovitch-cycle shifts in sunlight initiated a powerful feedback loop. Evidently the close of a glacial era came when a slight rise of temperature stimulated a massive increase in gas levels, which drove the temperature still higher, which drove a further rise in the gas levels, and so forth. Ice ages were thus the reverse of our current situation, where humanity was initiating the change by adding greenhouse gases — although far faster, and reaching a far higher level, than anything in the Pleistocene record

It is NOT Theory... If it were, there would be specific parameters for which peer reviews could follow. There are none... there is not even any definitive study to indicate how much of the atmospheric "greenhouse" gases are contributed by man let alone that CO2 and CH4 are the predominant factors driving climate. Every bit of that premise is based coincidence... i.e. Hypothesis. There may be Theories under development, but to date, there are none that have reached the public arena.

Not that this distinction really matters... either way, the evidence is adding up that man as a player affecting global climate is extremely minor. At best, his some of his activities are compatible with warming (just as some are compatible with cooling) when the Earth is warming naturally, but he is very unlikely to be able to do anything to stop the Earth from cooling when it is cooling naturally.Human activity has caused a significant increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, upseting a 10,000 year old balance. CO2 is the major forcing greenhouse gas.


Like who? The IPCC? ... The political agenda driven international organization who has cut off any further input or debate from any scientist who disagrees with their "consensus"... including about 1/3 (and growing) of the scientist who originally provided data for their report?I can't find it now, but I do remember radio reports at the time where scientists who were listed in your 1/3 category were not asked their opinion by the climate change deniers. If you provide me with information about your claimed 1/3, I will find data about its controversy.

[Alan J]

Really, genius? When did I declare universal consensus on anything? It's you AGW doomsday cult that seems to be declaring universal consensus.

You've been arguing that a scientific consensus over global cooling existed in the 1970's. Perhaps you haven't been following your own posts in this thread?

Pop quiz.......since you think there is 'Universal Scientific Consensus' on AGW, explain, in detail, what that consensus is, including cause, prediction of impact, etc........and back it up with peer reviewed articles.......go on, this should be humorous! :))

Because i'm willing to bet you and percival here can't even give a good detailed description and support for what particular AGW conclusion is universally agreed upon.....;)

Don't try and change the subject. You made the claim that scientists widely supported the notion of imminent global cooling in the 70's, the onus is on you to prove it.

[PercyVere]

You've been arguing that a scientific consensus over global cooling existed in the 1970's. Perhaps you haven't been following your own posts in this thread?Just to help sgtmac out ...
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/they-predicted-cooling-in-1970s.php

[JimGP20]

a conundrum, wrapped up in a paradox, surrounded by an enigma...


:))


Sounds like a pig in a blanket. :drool:

[PercyVere]

Mann's "hockey stick" has been thoroughly discredited regardless of your feeble attempt to ridicule anybody that knows that.No, not really:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/hockey-stick-is-broken.php

[Samm]

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/co2-lags-not-leads.php

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm
See number 7

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm
An important clue came from some especially good ice core records that showed a lag in the levels of CO2 and methane. They seemed to rise or fall a few centuries after a rise or fall in temperature. This confused many people, who thought the time lag contradicted the greenhouse theory of global warming. But in fact the lag was not good news. Scientists quickly realized that it strongly confirmed that the Milankovitch-cycle shifts in sunlight initiated a powerful feedback loop. Evidently the close of a glacial era came when a slight rise of temperature stimulated a massive increase in gas levels, which drove the temperature still higher, which drove a further rise in the gas levels, and so forth. Ice ages were thus the reverse of our current situation, where humanity was initiating the change by adding greenhouse gases — although far faster, and reaching a far higher level, than anything in the Pleistocene record
Did you miss the part where I acknowledged that increasing CO2 reinforces warming when warming is occurring? But that same ice core data shows with no doubt what-so-ever that CO2 continues to increase for up to 200 years after the temperature falls toward another cold (ice age) cycle, which means that it is NOT capable of causing a run-away warming of the planet. On a smaller scale... CO2 has continued to increase without pause for all 60 years or so that it has been measured at Mauna Loa, but since 1998 the Global temperature has fallen... how could it do that if CO2 was driving global warming? Coincidentally... all of the models that have predicted various degrees of warming by the end of this century failed to predict the cooling of the last ten years...

Human activity has caused a significant increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, upseting a 10,000 year old balance. CO2 is the major forcing greenhouse gas.

Yes... man has contributed to atmospheric CO2 and CH4, but the degree to which man contributes is speculative because nobody has been able to accurately quantify natural emissions nor natural sinks. And sir, the major greenhouse gas... by far... is water vapor, not CO2.

I can't find it now, but I do remember radio reports at the time where scientists who were listed in your 1/3 category were not asked their opinion by the climate change deniers. If you provide me with information about your claimed 1/3, I will find data about its controversy.
Do a search for Global Warming threads in the WP Forum. That source and many other sources that back up everything that I have posted here (a non-global warming topic) and I have no desire to repeat that which some of us have been discussing for the last three years.

[Samm]

No, not really:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/hockey-stick-is-broken.php

A Blog? You have to be kidding. First a heavy reliance on Wikipedia and now this... just how gullible are you? :eh:


Get over into the WP forum and make your arguments in the Global Warming Watch thread... this is not the proper topic to be elaborating on GW.

[BillyBobUSA]

Why don't you take your argument up with NASA:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

If you dislike the graph, then here's the raw data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt


I point out obvious data flaws and your response is an implied appeal to authority and to finally just ignore the point?

Cant you read the graph yourself?

Do you see the data flaws or not, Einstein?

Unless someone can explain this stuff, it looks like obviously flawed data no matter what spin you try to put on it.

[BillyBobUSA]

If you look back over one or two thousand years, then the temperature rise in the last 150 years is even more pronounced ... we get what every conservative loves to dismiss, the famous hockey stick graph.

Unless you just ignore the Mideaval Maximum, that is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg

[PredFan]

Most of the arguments against climate change are not based in science, but are rooted in religious and political viewpoints. The techniques used to discredit the scientific consensus on climate change are the same techniques you see being used by creationists to discredit evolution.

In fact the opposite is true.

Most of the arguments for climate change are not based in science, but are rooted in political ideology. The techniques used to discredit the scientific evidence against man-made climate change are the same techniques you see being used by creationists to discredit evolution.

[Samm]

In fact the opposite is true.

Most of the arguments for climate change are not based in science, but are rooted in political ideology. The techniques used to discredit the scientific evidence against man-made climate change are the same techniques you see being used by creationists to discredit evolution.

So true... and that adds to the irony of the OP. ;)

[Lee Kington]

Why don't you take your argument up with NASA:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/



When you say giss you are saying Hansen. When you are saying Hansen you are saying false presentations. Attached gif of two temp graphs animated... note how the data gets manipulated.

[BillyBobUSA]

When you say giss you are saying Hansen. When you are saying Hansen you are saying false presentations. Attached gif of two temp graphs animated... note how the data gets manipulated.


Great graphic, Lee.

Kind of hard to miss even if a person is too lazy to look at the detailed numbers in the charts.

[sgtmac_46]

Don't try and change the subject. You made the claim that scientists widely supported the notion of imminent global cooling in the 70's, the onus is on you to prove it. No, that IS the subject, genius......YOU claimed there is a consensus on AGW.......now tell us in detail what the consensus in, or are you just talking out of your Methane pump?

[sgtmac_46]

Just to help sgtmac out ...
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/they-predicted-cooling-in-1970s.php A little revisionist history to cover past contradictory doomsday cult predictions isn't an argument....it's a sham. ;)

AGW has become a religion to you guys.

[sgtmac_46]

Great graphic, Lee.

Kind of hard to miss even if a person is too lazy to look at the detailed numbers in the charts. A lot easier to miss if you're a religious kook parading as a scientist, though......the cult of AGW has many adherents to have invested themselves fully.

[BillyBobUSA]

A lot easier to miss if you're a religious kook parading as a scientist, though......the cult of AGW has many adherents to have invested themselves fully.


I think the phrase 'secular cultist kook' is more acurate and dscriptive of these New Age loons.


But maybe thats just me.....

:lol:

[PercyVere]

Yes... man has contributed to atmospheric CO2 and CH4, but the degree to which man contributes is speculative because nobody has been able to accurately quantify natural emissions nor natural sinks. And sir, the major greenhouse gas... by far... is water vapor, not CO2.I leave the forum for a week or two, and I come back to this ...

If you want me to explain to you why water vapour is not important in the AGW discussion, I can do so. You've come up with some good points before and it's disappointing to see you bring it up.

Water vapour is a standard deflection card in the deck of climate change deniers ... up there with magic undersea volcanoes.

[PercyVere]

Unless you just ignore the Mideaval Maximum, that is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svgWeren't we talking about temperature??

[BillyBobUSA]

Weren't we talking about temperature??

Yes, and....what?

Carbon14 levels tend to follow temperature changes directly and the chart shows that there was indeed a Mideaval Maximum, just in case you wanted to see something aluding to it.

[PercyVere]

No, that IS the subject, genius......YOU claimed there is a consensus on AGW.......now tell us in detail what the consensus in, or are you just talking out of your Methane pump?The list of all those national societies, scientific academies and world-famous institutions have been posted umpteen times, and the only counter has been to publish dubious reports of a few 1000 scientists who disagree.

Here we go again ... umpteen pls one
The 2001 joint statement was signed by the scientific academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the UK. The 2005 statement added Japan, Russia, and the U.S. The 2007 statement added Mexico and South Africa. Professional societies include American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Quaternary Association, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, European Academy of Sciences and Arts, European Geosciences Union, European Science Foundation, Geological Society of America, Geological Society of London-Stratigraphy Commission, InterAcademy Council, International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, International Union for Quaternary Research, National Research Council (US), Network of African Science Academies, and Royal Meteorological Society (UK)

[PercyVere]

Yes, and....what?

Carbon14 levels tend to follow temperature changes directly and the chart shows that there was indeed a Mideaval Maximum, just in case you wanted to see something aluding to it.Is anyone denying there was a Mediaeval Warm Period? ... but if discussing temperature, then use a temperature graph, they're not hard to find.

[Samm]

I leave the forum for a week or two, and I come back to this ...

If you want me to explain to you why water vapour is not important in the AGW discussion, I can do so. You've come up with some good points before and it's disappointing to see you bring it up.

Water vapour is a standard deflection card in the deck of climate change deniers ... up there with magic undersea volcanoes.
Leave it to you to ignore the meat of my post and focus on the supplemental point instead. :razz:

I am not inclined to discuss the relative importance of water vapor vs. CO2 with regard to the "greenhouse effect" in this thread as it is somewhat off topic. If you want educate me and the rest of us on that point, go to an appropriate thread... I suggest the Global Warming Watch thread in the WP Forum.

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=646331&highlight=global+warming

[Samm]

The list of all those national societies, scientific academies and world-famous institutions have been posted umpteen times, and the only counter has been to publish dubious reports of a few 1000 scientists who disagree.

<snipped for brevity>


All it takes is ONE of those thousands of dissenting scientists to disprove any multitude of Institutional tow-the-line scientist wrong. As I pointed out to you earlier, there have been numerous example where the conventional scientific belief was toppled by a very few - as few as one - dissenters. Scientific knowledge is NOT a Democratic endeavor. There is NO comfort in numbers on one side of an issue regarding science. Truth is the truth no mater how popular the "consensus" belief is.

But given that the numbers of dissenters is continually growing, while the number of Establishment Scientists hanging on to their crumbling position is shrinking, there must be some validity to the dissent position. That would not be happening if the dissenters were not solidly making their case.

[PercyVere]

All it takes is ONE of those thousands of dissenting scientists to disprove any multitude of Institutional tow-the-line scientist wrong. As I pointed out to you earlier, there have been numerous example where the conventional scientific belief was toppled by a very few - as few as one - dissenters. Scientific knowledge is NOT a Democratic endeavor. There is NO comfort in numbers on one side of an issue regarding science. Truth is the truth no mater how popular the "consensus" belief is.

But given that the numbers of dissenters is continually growing, while the number of Establishment Scientists hanging on to their crumbling position is shrinking, there must be some validity to the dissent position. That would not be happening if the dissenters were not solidly making their case.I was discussing whether there is a consensus or not ... one could very much argue this such a discussion will take democratic decisions into account.

Your claims of a shift towards Global Warming Denial is false ... there is no such shift, just the ever growing consensus.

[BillyBobUSA]

Is anyone denying there was a Mediaeval Warm Period? ... but if discussing temperature, then use a temperature graph, they're not hard to find.

Not my intention to merely present a chart with changes in temperatures, but to also show changes in C14 levels.

The point being that within the last several mellenia we have had both higher temperatureas and higher C14 levels, and look.... WE STILL EXIST!

:lol:

And yes, there are many Anthropogenic Global Warming wack-jobs out there that claim the Mideaval Warm period was merely a local European event, and not global.

BTW, please do your own posts and I will write mine and if I need your help I will ask for it.

Thanks.

[Samm]

I was discussing whether there is a consensus or not ... one could very much argue this such a discussion will take democratic decisions into account.
Clearly there is no consensus, unless you discount all of those scientists who disagree with the conclusion of all those fine Establishments that you listed below. However, that sir, would be illogical and dishonest. Dissent is what it is... non-consensus... no matter how you define it and try to discredit it.

Your claims of a shift towards Global Warming Denial is false ... there is no such shift, just the ever growing consensus.
Wrong. The first cautious words of dissent were from only a handful of scientists, who were instantly labeled crack pots by your ilk. Now the cadre of scientists who have banded together and put their reputations on the line has grown to 32,000 at the expense of the number who still hang on to AGW. And that does not count those who quietly dissent without putting their name up for criticism from the "high priests" of AGW and their henchmen. No sir... the dissent is growing steadily and those individuals come out of the ranks of their sanctioned-by-politicians, AGW, "the debate is over" peers. The AGW proponents still hold the power bestowed upon them by the Media and the Politicians, but their position is definitely weakening - it is only a matter of time before their fraud is exposed to the masses.

(I am not going to post a link to back up my statement regarding the growth of dissension among former believers. The so-called "reputable" media has all but ignored this story so the details are only available from out-of-mainstream sites. But just Google "32,000 scientists global warming" and you will find a long list of sites that discuss that movement.)

[tinydancer]

I'm supposed to trust this man? And he's partially funded by George Soros?

Barack Obama has only four years to save the world.

That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth.

Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama's first administration, he added.

:lol: Oh and the GW advocates saying that the debate is over, the science is in completely removed any credibility they had.

[Alan J]

No, that IS the subject, genius......YOU claimed there is a consensus on AGW.......now tell us in detail what the consensus in, or are you just talking out of your Methane pump?

This is really difficult for you, isn't it? I have not made any claims of a consensus on global warming, cooling, or anything else. You have. I've asked you to provide evidence for that claim. You need to either do that or admit that you were mistaken.

[Alan J]

Wrong. The first cautious words of dissent were from only a handful of scientists, who were instantly labeled crack pots by your ilk. Now the cadre of scientists who have banded together and put their reputations on the line has grown to 32,000 at the expense of the number who still hang on to AGW. And that does not count those who quietly dissent without putting their name up for criticism from the "high priests" of AGW and their henchmen. No sir... the dissent is growing steadily and those individuals come out of the ranks of their sanctioned-by-politicians, AGW, "the debate is over" peers. The AGW proponents still hold the power bestowed upon them by the Media and the Politicians, but their position is definitely weakening - it is only a matter of time before their fraud is exposed to the masses.

The Oregon Petition hardly proves that dissent among scientists is growing. It doesn't show much of anything at all, really. Except that if you get people with impressive titles to sign something, gullible people will take it seriously. Creationists have been using this tactic for many years.


If you want to provide evidence that more scientists now reject AGW, you need only show that the number of papers which reject AGW in the scientific literature is growing. Any shift in scientific opinion will be be reflected in what is published.

(I am not going to post a link to back up my statement regarding the growth of dissension among former believers.

Then I suppose we aren't going to be believing you.

[markdido]

No one denies the mainstream media went nuts with Ice Age fear mongering in the 70s. However, their story was not backed by any global scientific consensus, or a scientific consensus of any kind.

So, based on a consensus of scientists during the middle ages, do you believe that the earth is flat, or that the earth is the center of the solar sysem?

[Marleysdaddy]

So, based on a consensus of scientists during the middle ages, do you believe that the earth is flat, or that the earth is the center of the solar sysem [sic]?

Why would anyone base their beliefs on a consensus of scientists from the middle ages? We have discovered additional data which suggest that the earth is round and that the sun is the center of the solar system... Why would anyone ignore those data?

[Samm]

The Oregon Petition hardly proves that dissent among scientists is growing. It doesn't show much of anything at all, really. Except that if you get people with impressive titles to sign something, gullible people will take it seriously. Creationists have been using this tactic for many years.

If you want to provide evidence that more scientists now reject AGW, you need only show that the number of papers which reject AGW in the scientific literature is growing. Any shift in scientific opinion will be be reflected in what is published.

Perhaps you missed the recent Convention of the ICCC in New York... they presented scores of published studies that shed serious doubt on the IPCC's inbred work.

Then I suppose we aren't going to be believing you.

What do you mean "we"? You have a mouse in your pocket? :razz:

Personally, I could care less whether you believe me or not... we have been over this ground before and you have never shown any inclination to acknowledge any facts that counter any portion of your AGW faith. I did not post a link because every source I found in a brief search would have been dismissed by you as being biased; to search farther would have been a complete waste of my time.

[markdido]

Why would anyone base their beliefs on a consensus of scientists from the middle ages? We have discovered additional data which suggest that the earth is round and that the sun is the center of the solar system... Why would anyone ignore those data?

Exactly my point and the point of a lot of other posters in this thread. "Consensus" does not always equal "factually correct"

[Alan J]

Perhaps you missed the recent Convention of the ICCC in New York... they presented scores of published studies that shed serious doubt on the IPCC's inbred work.

I didn't miss the Heartland Institute's conference (I got an invitation to attend it), but I certainly wasn't aware that any published research papers were presented there. In fact, it was pretty much the same people saying the same things they said at last year's conference. If you could point me to some of the papers presented there I'd be much obliged.

What do you mean "we"? You have a mouse in your pocket? :razz:


I mean myself and Percy, of course. And hopefully anybody else reading this thread with a skeptical eye.


Personally, I could care less whether you believe me or not... we have been over this ground before and you have never shown any inclination to acknowledge any facts that counter any portion of your AGW faith. I did not post a link because every source I found in a brief search would have been dismissed by you as being biased; to search farther would have been a complete waste of my time.

Fair enough. You don't have to provide evidence if you're not interested in convincing anyone of anything.

[Samm]

I didn't miss the Heartland Institute's conference (I got an invitation to attend it), but I certainly wasn't aware that any published research papers were presented there. In fact, it was pretty much the same people saying the same things they said at last year's conference. If you could point me to some of the papers presented there I'd be much obliged.

Lee posted links to the convention proceedings in the Global Warming Watch thread.

I mean myself and Percy, of course. And hopefully anybody else reading this thread with a skeptical eye.

:)) Ok... you and Percy. Is Percy your pet mouse? :razz:

Sorry, but we anti-AGW folks are the skeptics. :snooty:

Fair enough. You don't have to provide evidence if you're not interested in convincing anyone of anything.

I have been here long enough to know that I cannot convince anyone of anything if they do not want to be convinced of it. So have you...

[Alan J]

Lee posted links to the convention proceedings in the Global Warming Watch thread.

I saw them. That's why I'm puzzled when you say that new published papers were presented there.

:)) Ok... you and Percy. Is Percy your pet mouse? :razz:

Sorry, but we anti-AGW folks are the skeptics. :snooty:

Sorry, but you guys don't have a monopoly on healthy scientific skepticism.

I have been here long enough to know that I cannot convince anyone of anything if they do not want to be convinced of it. So have you...

That's probably true. Doesn't mean I won't try though.

[Long Island Bob]

You know you are anti-science if you believe that;


your ideas are being stifled by the scientific community at large
there is a conspiracy to bury evidence supporting your world view
a generally held scientific view is undermined by the fact that some fringe scientists reject that view
those scientists on the fringe are being deliberately stymied because they threaten to rock the boat too much.
academics have a strangelhold on science
the modern scientific method is OK, but we have other methods which are equally effective at learning about and explaining the world around us.
'Evolution is just a theory' is an argument against the validity of evolution.
god planted all the evidence to trick us
the exposure of fraud or error in science is an indication of weakness in the scientific method
certain aspects of science are correct, but you reject those which challenge your world view
a certain scientific consensus is held for political reasons
scientists are conspiring against you.
all fringe science has an inherently superior value to mainstream science


obviously you are referring to wiccans right?

[Amillennialist]

You know you are anti-science if you believe that . . .


Life arises spontaneously from non-Life or apart from Life's programs

Extrapolating from evidence of lateral speciation that vertical speciation occurs -- despite the fact that no one has ever observed it -- is both rational and good science.