[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I was trying to decide if you were worth more than 3 minute's time tie, remember? Besides, you're not aware of what government programs you support? You want my help there too?

You keep on making these brainless attacks. Give me a break. Of course I know what government programs I support. You said, "Does this leave enough for health care and all the other pet spending measure's you're calling for in these threads on a daily basis?" I asked for a single example of a pet spending measure, and you accused me of being a Holocaust-denier!

It's too much! (No, I'm not peeb, and don't recognize the screen-name. I usually stay out of the Holocaust-denial threads.)

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

I know this might just be a strawman of yours, but I read what he said as "scientists should urge scientists, rather than scientists urging government" (ebuddy please confirm?)

I understand that he doesn't want scientists urging government. You seem to agree. I don't agree, and as I posted earlier think outreach is a responsibility of scientists. I don't know what "scientists urging scientists" means.

[Uncle Skeleton]

It means that if scientists feel they need to "urge" someone, it should be more scientists (or themselves) to do more science. Not government. Why? Because (as ebuddy said) that brings them into the world of politics, a dirty world.

As for outreach, where I come from outreach is about spreading information, not imperatives. Telling people what to know is wholely within the realm of science. Telling people what to do is not. It's dirty, and I think it sullies scientists' authority in general to inform about the facts. As soon as scientists have an agenda, their credibility on all things (seemingly) related or not goes right out the window.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

You keep on making these brainless attacks. Give me a break. Of course I know what government programs I support. You said, "Does this leave enough for health care and all the other pet spending measure's you're calling for in these threads on a daily basis?" I asked for a single example of a pet spending measure, and you accused me of being a Holocaust-denier!

Egadz tie. NIH, stem-cell research, shifting $2trillion off of Iraq and to education, etc... Either way, I thought this had become the unsubstantiated BS thread tie. You know, where you say things like "Clintion and that woman" and attribute it to me as if I've said anything even remotely close to this. You don't like unsubstantiated BS tie? Good. I'm glad we see eye to eye on something.

I understand that he doesn't want scientists urging government. You seem to agree. I don't agree, and as I posted earlier think outreach is a responsibility of scientists. I don't know what "scientists urging scientists" means.

Again, it started with an article someone else posted discussing how scientists were trying to "urge government to act on global cooling" 32 years ago. I mentioned that this was the problem. I don't want science "urging" government. I want them urging science. Then, maybe it won't take another 32 years to turn our current understanding on its head. It's about where scientists focus their attention. If they focus their attention on government policy, this could detract from their focus on science where it belongs. Scientists are scientists and speak in facts. Politicians are policy-makers and too often do not. I don't like to see the two mixed.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Egadz tie. NIH, stem-cell research, shifting $2trillion off of Iraq and to education, etc...

If you look in the post where I suggested spending the Iraq money elsewhere, you'll notice that I listed several alternatives, and my preferred way of spending the money was to return it back to taxpayers (i.e., lower taxes). As to NIH and stem-cell research, my positions are that we should not cut or limit funding, respectively. As to "etc.", I guess that is your healthy imagination; perhaps you are confusing me with Crash Harddrive?

The fact is, that you are attacking me for your own faults -- you're the one who supports the costly Iraq war, how dare you accuse me of fiscal irresponsibility! -- and for the faults of some random user whom I don't even know.

[Buckaroo]

Global Warming Hoax: News

[Uncle Skeleton]

aw, how cute. did you just make that?

edit: oops, that was just a spam post. Buck, I appreciate the lengths you seem willing to go to spread your cause, but spam isn't really the right way to win people over.

From that site:

We need your help! Don't worry we are not asking for donations (though supporting our advertisers certainly helps), we need you to spread the word. If you like the concept or the content please post links to us in blogs, forums, social networking, etc.

IOW, please spam everyone you know. No thanks. Rude.

[Buckaroo]

No, it is not my site. hehehehe. I found a link and I thought I'd share it with others. Heck they only have a couple posts and replies in their forums.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

aw, how cute. did you just make that?

edit: oops, that was just a spam post. Buck, I appreciate the lengths you seem willing to go to spread your cause, but spam isn't really the right way to win people over.

From that site:

IOW, please spam everyone you know. No thanks. Rude.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Heck they only have a couple posts and replies in their forums.

So again, posting the link wasn't for our benefit, since there's nothing there to read yet. It was to get them hits. AKA spam.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

The fact is, that you are attacking me for your own faults -- you're the one who supports the costly Iraq war, how dare you accuse me of fiscal irresponsibility! -- and for the faults of some random user whom I don't even know.

Again, I'm glad to see your distaste for unsubstantiated BS. Hopefully, this will discourage you from using it against others in the future. If someone has a view different from yours on a particular issue; this does not relegate them to "those who oppose the teaching of evolution" or mean they are so blindly partisan that no matter what the argument, "Clinton and that woman" comes up. You'll simply never hear any such thing from me. If you insist on using these tactics, the conversation will, without fail, devolve to what this has become... entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

I supported the removal of Saddam Hussein. I've not been entirely convinced on any aspect of this action post shock and awe. I've been extremely critical of how this issue has been handled by the Bush Administration, I've railed on out of control spending among a host of other issues for which I'm not pleased with this presidency. However, there was nothing to suggest to me that the situation in Iraq was ever going to be different, but that it may only worsen or diminish over time. We disagree on this and while I won't speak for you, I can assure you that my view has very little to do with any preferred political party.

[tie]

See, ebuddy, when you tried to attack me, you could only make things up. From me proposing massive spending increases, to me denying the Holocaust, to me being peeb, to whatever else you imagined. But everything I accused you of was substantiated. There's the difference.

And here's our difference on Iraq. From 3/5/03:

Originally Posted by tie

Fine. The problem is, Bush has completely messed the whole thing up. When I first thought about the coming war, last summer, I was for it. Overthrowing an evil dictatorship is good karma, and there must be some security reasons.

But now I'm totally opposed. Bush hasn't come up with any security concerns to the US. He's tried to make up some Al Qaeda links (e.g., Bin Laden mentioned Iraq in his last tape!!!!). He's pushed for war far too aggressively -- which I'm sure helped pressure Iraq, but it also turned our allies and the rest of the world against us. He's ignored real security threats: homeland security, North Korea. I don't see any threats from Iraq, I think attacking Iraq will only cause more terrorism, I see an enormous and costly war and reconstruction when the economy is in bad shape and we have record deficits.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

See, ebuddy, when you tried to attack me, you could only make things up. From me proposing massive spending increases, to me denying the Holocaust, to me being peeb, to whatever else you imagined. But everything I accused you of was substantiated. There's the difference.

You are absolutely ridiculous tie. Nothing you've said of me was substantiated in the least bit. You're completely unaware of what my accusation of you "denying the holocaust" was intended to illustrate. I even clarified my intention, but apparently you'll think what you want otherwise. If you insist on indicting people with unsubstantiated BS, I will continue to illustrate your fallacious notions with unsubstantiated BS. If you don't like it, you're welcome to kindly stop it. I will call you out every single time you're guilty of unsubstantiated BS and you've kept me quite busy the past few days from Shinseki, through straw-men about views on evolution, to having absolutely no point at all.

And here's our difference on Iraq. From 3/5/03:

So... you'd like to discuss a little more Iraq in the Global Warming thread? First of all, mentioning that you supported action in Iraq because of good Karma and maybe some security reasons shows you've put as much thought into the situation then as you do now. Secondly, N. Korea has been effectively contained and there have been no attacks on this country since you posted the above in 2003. The point of "turning our allies and the rest of the world against us" means absolutely nothing. Even if it did, 2 of 4 points is 50%.

I don't know that I'd chest-pound this track record. Particularly when it is entirely irrelevant to the thread.

[tie]

I'm happy to talk about Iraq, because I was nearly completely right, and as you've admitted yourself, you were completely wrong. I think it is a perfectly fine test of common sense, and risk and source assessment. You fail.

No, I think you really imagined that I was peeb. That was just a dumb enough followup to match your "But Clinton," "we can only do one thing at a time" and "either with us or against us" arguments. It fit the "purple spaghetti monster" pattern.

[BadKosh]

Are you saying that Clinton made no impact?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

I'm happy to talk about Iraq, because I was nearly completely right, and as you've admitted yourself, you were completely wrong.

I admitted that insofar as we know, no WMDs have been found tie. I thought WMDs would in fact be found in Iraq. If you'd like to take someone's honesty and bash them over the head with it because you apparently lack it, so be it. Like I said prior, I had pretty noteworthy company on this notion over many years. I was correct about a great many things and detailed those things as well, but you're right tie-I admitted to being completely wrong.

You will continue to see the world according to tie. When you're ready for a little more humility, introspect, and honesty let me know. As it stands now, I'm content to leave you the lonely, naive, self absorbed, chest-pounding, hand cymbal-crashing monkey you appear to be.

I think it is a perfectly fine test of common sense, and risk and source assessment. You fail.

If this post is indicative of your fine common sense, and your risk and assessment prowess; who am I to burst your bubble?

No, I think you really imagined that I was peeb. That was just a dumb enough followup to match your "But Clinton," "we can only do one thing at a time" and "either with us or against us" arguments. It fit the "purple spaghetti monster" pattern.

It's a view tie. Just a view. A view that was expressed succinctly enough that people don't have to repeatedly try to pry it from me. You can do more than one thing at a time tie? Really? Maybe next time you'll enlighten us on just what in the name of all that is good and green in this earth you'd do.

Both law students from California who both seem to be reading from the same book of; "Why I'm right and left and everyone else is wrong". You're not getting the illustrations tie, I'm done trying. You may kindly talk to yourself now as I'm sure that's where you'll derive the most pleasure.

[BadKosh]

I'm still waiting for PROOF linking mans activity to "global Warming" and not just theory, and assumptions.
The process for collecting "Data" and understanding where to plug it in is also sloppy, as every few months some scientist or group revises it's 'findings'.
The computer models/simulations are still lousy and even when plugging in data from 1900 thru 1950, they can't even do 1951 correctly, which is why the idiot at the Goddard institute won't share his methods for fear of being an even BIGGER laughing stock.

What happened to produce the last few ice ages going back a million or so years?
What happened to cause it to warm up again? (All before man was even around in any numbers)

A real understanding of CLIMATE vs WEATHER seems to be missing in the arguments.

[Kevin]

Like I've always said. Global Warming is big business. And those that support it use it to attack things they don't like about the world.

It's too late to stop now.. money pouring in, zealots in full swing, and it's making Gore look like "Captain Planet"

This is more about Gore getting his name recognized in the history books, and less about the planet. Gore is an opportunist. So are most die hard eco-nuts. It's a easy way to make one feel self important and above "those dirty earth polluters"

I believe south park had a funny episode about those that bought electric cars liking the smell of their own farts cause they don't stink.

[Buckaroo]

In all their lies, they won't tell you that the climate on Earth changes constantly. It will get hot and then it will cool down, back and forth. Man has little affect on the temperature.

The key thing here is Carbon Dioxide is what plants absorb and we exhale. The whole thing was created as a scam by Socialists/Communists to kill the US economy. They can't stand free enterprise.

If they truly wanted to do something about the enviornment, they would start at home. Al Gore can't live green, but he has a political agenda.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

I'm still waiting for PROOF linking mans activity to "global Warming" and not just theory, and assumptions.
The process for collecting "Data" and understanding where to plug it in is also sloppy, as every few months some scientist or group revises it's 'findings'.
The computer models/simulations are still lousy and even when plugging in data from 1900 thru 1950, they can't even do 1951 correctly, which is why the idiot at the Goddard institute won't share his methods for fear of being an even BIGGER laughing stock.

What happened to produce the last few ice ages going back a million or so years?
What happened to cause it to warm up again? (All before man was even around in any numbers)

A real understanding of CLIMATE vs WEATHER seems to be missing in the arguments.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

I'm still waiting for PROOF linking mans activity to "global Warming"

That's interesting. What type of proof would satisfy you of this link? Can you describe any possible future developments/discoveries/experiments that would convince you?

[BadKosh]

Perhaps your question and attitude is too biased to try any scientific approach?

Example: What type of proof would satisfy you of this link? Can you describe any possible future developments/discoveries/experiments that would convince you?

Convince me that this ISN'T like all the other ice age cycles. Better still, how about accurate numbers for material exhausted from volcanoes both underwater and above, and WHY apparently, we've had both MORE and LESS CO2 in our atmosphere and all before man existed.

Tell me WHY it isn't part of a solar cycle, and that Mars and Venus' warming has nothing to do with earths' warming.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Yes but how? These are things that your opponents think they've already done. But of course they would tend to find it convincing, it's their own work. Can't you think of any ways for them to actually test their hypothesis, that they haven't done alrleady?

If no amount of evidence would convince you, then it's you who's the problem; you're just choosing to close your eyes. If some amount of evidence would convince you, what would it be?

[BadKosh]

I guess you first have to actually HAVE evidence, not a bunch of numbers and assumptions.
So far, Global warming is the same kind of BS as most other Pop Science. It has the same type of zealots who claim Aliens have visited and abducted humans.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

evidence, not a bunch of numbers

Seriously though, demanding evidence is a perfectly valid position. But what evidence, exactly? "Until they can show me a <a thing> with <some property>, I won't be convinced!" Simple as that. What thing would convince you?

I'll try an example to get you started: I don't believe that there is a world-wide conspiracy of climate scientists to defraud the public into believing in climate change. Until someone shows me a written document of some of them indicating such a nefarious intent, I won't be convinced.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Seriously though, demanding evidence is a perfectly valid position. "Until they can show me a <a thing> with <some property>, I won't be convinced!" Simple as that. What thing would convince you?

God or Jesus?

[BadKosh]

"I don't believe that there is a world-wide conspiracy of climate scientists to defraud the public into believing in climate change. Until someone shows me a written document of some of them indicating such a nefarious intent, I won't be convinced."


Nope, I think a conspiracy of leftist, guilt driven, jealous Europeans and 3rd world types are duping the scientists. Al Gore would be a guilt driven leftist.

My point is that their are too many variables, and too many pieces of the puzzle that are being fudged. The press(lefties) and the political left are trying to get various scientists to agree with the presumption that MAN is causing the Global Warming, and that we MUST do something NOW. What if we find out through research, and independent pieces of study that This is a normal cycle, and its driven by outside sources, like the sun. Their won't be any guilt or anything we MUST do NOW. The people trying to make fast bucks selling the "Anti-Global Warming Snake Oil" will have to get real jobs again, and NOT prey on the guilt ridden lefties.

[Uncle Skeleton]

And no amount of evidence would ever convince you otherwise?

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Both law students from California...

Who are you talking about? You just make up this nonsense... Why would you think that I was peeb, or a law student from California?

Originally Posted by BadKosh

Nope, I think a conspiracy of leftist, guilt driven, jealous Europeans and 3rd world types are duping the scientists. Al Gore would be a guilt driven leftist.

But, you don't have any evidence for this belief. And yet you say, "It has the same type of zealots who claim Aliens have visited and abducted humans." What type of zealots are those, perhaps ones who make extraordinary claims without any evidence?

That would make a great story, though. Al Gore leads a conspiracy to successfully dupe the world's climate scientists. He flies around the world, tweaking ice core samples and melting glaciers with a magnifying glass.

[BadKosh]

Ya missed the point. Duping the Scientists to make claims that they weren't sure of, because they really haven't actually studied the data, and the data collectoin methods. Gore himself is duped already.

Perhaps YOUR LEVEL of evidence is lower than mine. Global warming conclusions are JUST assumptions at this point.

So, let's say it IS the SUN heating our planet a little more than you "Think" it should be. What are you going to do about it?

gathering 'data' from many sources has brought to light some contradictory information, which the GW lefties/scientists want to ignore, instead of explain. it's called "POP SCIENCE."

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So, let's say it IS the SUN heating our planet a little more than you "Think" it should be. What are you going to do about it?

gathering 'data' from many sources has brought to light some contradictory information, which the GW lefties/scientists want to ignore, instead of explain. it's called "POP SCIENCE."

So the scientists assume that the sun isn't causing warming, and based on that assumption (among other things) they conclude that humans are doing it. Meanwhile you assume that the sun is causing warming, and based on that you conclude that the scientists are wrong. The only difference is that the scientists' assumptions are based on evidence. What's the basis of your assumption? Of the two sides, how can you possibly claim that the scientists are the side engaged in "POP SCIENCE" [sic]?

And again, would no amount of evidence convince you that you were wrong about this? I'm really curious, because I too would like to be able to say "sorry, I just don't buy it. Not until..." I just don't know how to finish that sentence. That's why I'm hoping you can finish it for me. I mean, who wouldn't want to be able to satisfy themselves that everything is ok afterall? It sure would comfort me.

[BadKosh]

So, just explain why BOTH Venus and Mars are warming up according to the known science of evaluating data from our probes. Do not ignore it because you can't explain it. I say you don't know enough about the earths climate to explain why the earth got warm again after the last several Ice ages, and whether this is a continued warming following the mini-Ice age.

You haven't explained any of the other questions I asked, but seems to want to know what I would believe.

Why should I believe you and the "Global Warming as caused by man" group when your proofs via computer models don't work.

[Uncle Skeleton]

How do you know that Venus and Mars are warming? Have you ever thought to be skeptical about those data, or only about data that disagrees with your bias?

I tried to find out how one would know that mars is warming, for example, and I found a national geographic article saying that the ice caps had shrunk for 3 years in a row. 3 years, 3 data points. 3 is a spectacularly small sample size to draw such a conclusion. And the size of the ice caps is a horrible proxy for temperature. They may be shrinking because they're being vented into space, or they may be shrinking because they're sinking into the planet. We know so little about Mars, and even less about Venus, that there's just no way to draw a realistic conclusion at all about their climates.

But we can directly measure the sun's heat, and they have and it's not getting hotter. How do you explain that?

[Sky Captain]

We're what, 6 billion now?
6 billion people all producing CO2 by breathing now.
It's time to curb the population.

[BadKosh]

The WAVELENGTH of the heat is lowering from the sun , which is why we are absorbing a little more heat. You use NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC as a source LOL! Try NASA. The Government agency, not the political entity.

[BadKosh]

From National Geographic:

“Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.“

From MIT on Pluto

“the average surface temperature of the nitrogen ice on Pluto has increased slightly less than 2 degrees Celsius over the past 14 years.”

Since Pluto is moving further away from the Sun and continuing to warm despite that fact, it indicates that something doesn’t fit into “Solar Constant” dismissal theories.

From Space.com on Jupiter:

“The latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe.”

From MIT on Triton:

“At least since 1989, Triton has been undergoing a period of global warming. Percentage-wise, it’s a very large increase,” said Elliot, professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences and director of the Wallace Astrophysical Observatory. The 5 percent increase on the absolute temperature scale from about minus-392 degrees Fahrenheit to about minus-389 degrees Fahrenheit would be like the Earth experiencing a jump of about 22 degrees Fahrenheit.”

So there is Global Warming on at least 4 other bodies in our Solar System that co-insides with the recent warming on Earth. Doesn’t this point strongly towards the Sun or some other Cosmic force as the cause?

On the origin of the runaway global warming theory of CO2 Feedback and Venus (PDF):

“Why is the albedo of Venus important? When the albedo is at 0.80, the Global Warming Theory falls apart. . .

The carbon dioxide levels on Earth have risen from approximately 0.028% to 0.036% in the last few decades. It is a major stretch to compare this with Venus at a 96.500% carbon dioxide level and promote an uncontrollable runaway condition. Earth in its early history, 385 million years ago, had an atmosphere with 10 times the present carbon dioxide levels. Those elevated levels did not produce runaway global warming then, so why should we theorize that it would today?”

Pre-conceived agendas and a scorched earth policy of accusing any critics of complicity with Big Oil or the Republican Party impedes the scientific process. Likening people who do not agree with doomsday Anthropogenic Global Warming theories to Holocaust Deniers does not get us closer to the truth. In Science, when did “Skeptic” become such a bad word?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

You use NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC as a source LOL!

No. I was trying to find a source to back up your claim, and that's what I found. I guess I won't make that mistake again.

The WAVELENGTH of the heat is lowering from the sun , which is why we are absorbing a little more heat.

What's your source on that?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

From National Geographic:

“Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.“

That's exactly the same story I just described! "The Mars data" is just that the ice caps have appeared smaller for 3 years now. They don't indicate a temperature, they're only 3 data points, and a 3 year aberration wouldn't matter in this field anyway! Garbage.

From MIT on Pluto

“the average surface temperature of the nitrogen ice on Pluto has increased slightly less than 2 degrees Celsius over the past 14 years.”

What's your source? How did they draw that conclusion? We haven't even gotten a spacecraft to pluto before! Garbage.

From Space.com on Jupiter:

“The latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe.”

"Could provide evidence?" "Can modify?" Images? How do those measure temperature? Garbage.

From MIT on Triton:

“At least since 1989, Triton has been undergoing a period of global warming. Percentage-wise, it’s a very large increase,” said Elliot, professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences and director of the Wallace Astrophysical Observatory. The 5 percent increase on the absolute temperature scale from about minus-392 degrees Fahrenheit to about minus-389 degrees Fahrenheit would be like the Earth experiencing a jump of about 22 degrees Fahrenheit.”

We don't have spacecraft on Triton either. How are they making these guesses, these assumptions? Garbage. Oh yeah, what's the source?

It is a major stretch to compare this with Venus

Strawman. Who's comparing Earth with Venus? Oh yeah, that would be just you.

Earth in its early history, 385 million years ago, had an atmosphere with 10 times the present carbon dioxide levels.

And humans could never live in the earth climate of 385 million years ago. That happening again is exactly what we're trying to avoid.

Those elevated levels did not produce runaway global warming then, so why should we theorize that it would today?”

Strawman.

Pre-conceived agendas and a scorched earth policy of accusing any critics of complicity with Big Oil or the Republican Party impedes the scientific process. Likening people who do not agree with doomsday Anthropogenic Global Warming theories to Holocaust Deniers does not get us closer to the truth.

Strawman and strawman. But oh by the way, what does likening scientists to alien abduction conspiracy theorists get us closer to?

In Science, when did “Skeptic” become such a bad word?

Believing only the scientific claims which support your preconceptions (no matter how unsubstantiated) and dismissing the rest is not skepticism, it's just bias. Why don't you try being skeptical about climate claims from Triton (of all places)?

Look, I really want you to have some sort of evidence to refute the global warming hype. I dislike the hype as much as anyone. But I won't let that dislike guide my conclusions without some evidence to support it. That's what skepticism is. Can you give me that evidence?

[Warren Pease]

Back out to Pluto again? Well, it's true Pluto is warming and it's moving away from the sun. But the article doesn't mention that it was at it's closest point to the sun like 15 years ago. It's orbit is over 200 years around the sun? Pluto has the most eccentric orbit in the solar system, so over the past 100 years it has been moving closer to the sun.

So, when is the hottest time of the day? It would seem to be noon. After all, that is when we are receiving the most direct rays from the sun. But usually the hottest is around 3 or 4 in the afternoon because that heat is stored and released later. It's also why swimming pools are warmer in the fall than in the summer.

In this case, you are grasping at even more disparate data points. Pluto hasn't even gone once around the sun but apparently we can definitively talk about it's climate!

I can't believe that National Geographic's editors would let "co-insides" slip by. What the heck is that supposed to mean? It doesn't even make sense.

Also, what was the earth like 385 million years ago? Why would there be lots of CO2 then? Where did all that CO2 go? Did venus suffer from runaway CO2?

[BadKosh]

Obviously you also know nothing of astronomy. They do temperature studies with optical scopes too. Hubble, and several other space based observatories measure ultra-violet and infra-red sources.

I agree that earth is getting warmer, but show me that is can ONLY BE DUE TO HUMANS.
So far you haven't.

Can you say ABSOLUTELY that it ISN'T part of a natural cycle?
Of course you can't.

You don't KNOW, but only ASSUME.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Didn't cite a single source. Gave up on evidence and went back to the all-caps technique of argumentation. That is just so... sad.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Obviously you also know nothing of astronomy. They do temperature studies with optical scopes too. Hubble, and several other space based observatories measure ultra-violet and infra-red sources.

You may be right, but still you can't avoid the fact that Pluto hasn't even completed half an orbit since we've known that it exists. How can you talk about climate when you don't even have one full year to study? You'd need years (Pluto's) before you can even start to say something about climate there. Otherwise, you're just dealing with weather.

[BadKosh]

And about 450 years of data on earths weather, and assumptions and questionable data collections about the climate isn't any better. I guess since Pluto info is wrong we'll have to go back and start over?
Scientists are going back and looking closer at those earlier global warming estimates and changing those, so perhaps climatologists can be wrong too? Naaa, it's a done deal. Gore said so.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Didn't cite a single source. Gave up on evidence and went back to the all-caps technique of argumentation. That is just so... sad.

Just following your lead. YOU also contributed nothing.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

And about 450 years of data on earths weather, and assumptions and questionable data collections about the climate isn't any better. I guess since Pluto info is wrong we'll have to go back and start over?

Are you trying to equate the knowledge of Earth's climate to that of Pluto's? Who said anything about the information about Pluto being wrong? It's not wrong, but you seem to be making the case that we should be able to determine Earth's climate solely based on three weeks worth of summer temperatures.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Scientists are going back and looking closer at those earlier global warming estimates and changing those, so perhaps climatologists can be wrong too? Naaa, it's a done deal. Gore said so.

If it's a done deal (a scam, a hoax, a conspiracy) then why are scientists looking at and revising their estimates?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Just following your lead. YOU also contributed nothing.

I'm not the one claiming the entire field of climatology is filled with liars. The burden of proof is on you to support that outlandish claim.

[tie]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So, just explain why BOTH Venus and Mars are warming up according to the known science of evaluating data from our probes. Do not ignore it because you can't explain it.

And yet you ignore any evidence that you don't like. Haha. No, it's cool that you are arguing about Pluto, and willing to accept at face value the science you read about Pluto. But really, who cares about Pluto?

By far the most important claim you have made is that "a conspiracy of leftist, guilt driven, jealous Europeans and 3rd world types are duping the scientists."

This is what I would be fascinated to see your evidence for. If this claim were true, it would be huge!

[BadKosh]

Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
Michael Asher (Blog) - August 29, 2007 11:07 AM

IPCC co-chairs for Netherlands and Sierra Leone debate changes to the Report Summary.
Comprehensive survey of published climate research reveals changing viewpoints

In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.

[Uncle Skeleton]

The judgement of "implicit endorsement" or "neutral" can be highly subjective. That's why peer review exists, to enforce standards of objectivity. We can't tell whether this meta-analysis was done properly until it's passed peer review (it only says "submitted" for now).

[TheWOAT]

It's also why swimming pools are warmer in the fall than in the summer.

That just blew my mind.

Is it because in the fall there is less evaporation to release the energy?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
Michael Asher (Blog) - August 29, 2007 11:07 AM
...
Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research.
...
The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy.

It has become apparent that this blog's title/summary, the underlying paper's understanding of the issues, and the journal Energy and Environment, are all 3 politically motivated lies. Hopefully this will help you add DailyTech and/or Michael Asher to your list of things you're enthusiastically skeptical of.

Stranger Fruit: Oreskes responds to Schulte

Excerpts:

Oreskes responds to Schulte

1) The Schulte piece is being published in Energy and Environment, a known contrarian journal.

2) The Schulte piece misrepresents the research question we posed. It was, "How many papers published in referred journals disagree with the statement, "...most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"? This statement came from the IPCC (2001) and was reiterated explicitly by the 2001 NAS report, so we wanted to know how many papers diverged from that consensus position. The answer was none. The Schulte claim does not refute that.

3) The piece misrepresents the results we obtained. In the original AAAS talk on which the paper was based, and in various interviews and conversations after, I repeated pointed out that very few papers analyzed said anything explicit at all about the consensus position.

[Jawbone54]

And Big Al does it again...



That's Al exiting a private Gulfstream jet. Sean Hannity is airing the video Saturday night.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

And Big Al does it again...



That's Al exiting a private Gulfstream jet. Sean Hannity is airing the video Saturday night.

I've asked once and I'll ask again: WHO THE **** CARES?

I don't care about what Al Gore does just like I don't care about what Paris Hilton does.