Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Why are there far more Republican global warming nay-sayers?

Why are there far more Republican global warming nay-sayers? (Page 4)
Thread Tools
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2010, 03:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
But this indictment applies ten times over to you and most climate skeptics. The difference is that most climate scientists still have scientific evidence supporting them, and you still don't.
A. The "evidence" doesn't conclusively prove anything. Otherwise, we'd have the warming we were promised 15-20 years ago.

B. I'm not the one trying to prove anything. The burden of proof isn't on me or skeptics and even if it was, I'm not the one that seems to keep getting caught fudging the evidence.

You've got the cart before the horse.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2010, 03:34 PM
 
We do have the warming that was promised, hence melting ice caps.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2010, 03:45 PM
 
There are separate issues here that are being conflated. I think these debates often result in us talking past each other.

1) Are temperatures trending upwards?

2) If so, is man causing this?


It seems like there is plenty of evidence for #1 with melting polar ice caps and all, but some loopy people (often Republicans for various reasons being explored in this thread) seem to question this even. Some in the MSM use this cold winter as a means to refute the temperatures trending upwards.

Most reasonable people here seem to debate #2. However, it gets confusing when there are those that would debate both.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2010, 03:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
A. The "evidence" doesn't conclusively prove anything.
No one claimed "conclusive proof." Science isn't about "conclusive proof" and neither is public policy. You're moving the goalposts.

B. I'm not the one trying to prove anything. The burden of proof isn't on me or skeptics and even if it was, I'm not the one that seems to keep getting caught fudging the evidence.
Selective amnesia? Or is "seems" just your magic formula for lying through your teeth?
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2010, 09:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
A. The "evidence" doesn't conclusively prove anything. Otherwise, we'd have the warming we were promised 15-20 years ago.

B. I'm not the one trying to prove anything. The burden of proof isn't on me or skeptics and even if it was, I'm not the one that seems to keep getting caught fudging the evidence.

You've got the cart before the horse.
You absolutely *are* trying to prove something. You're trying to prove that the available evidence doesn't prove anything. You wouldn't be wasting your time here If the available evidence were so completely unconvincing. (it's kinda like how the liberal reaction to Sarah Palin is proof to you that she has a chance at the Presidency.)
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2010, 04:52 PM
 
Every day we see more information like this:


World may not be warming, say scientists - Times Online



The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.

In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal”.

It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.

Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.
     
Orion27
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2010, 08:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
There are separate issues here that are being conflated. I think these debates often result in us talking past each other.

1) Are temperatures trending upwards?

2) If so, is man causing this?


It seems like there is plenty of evidence for #1 with melting polar ice caps and all, but some loopy people (often Republicans for various reasons being explored in this thread) seem to question this even. Some in the MSM use this cold winter as a means to refute the temperatures trending upwards.

Most reasonable people here seem to debate #2. However, it gets confusing when there are those that would debate both.
Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online

American Thinker: Climategate's Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2010, 09:04 PM
 
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2010, 09:06 PM
 

The IPCC says GW is real, that's good enough for me.

Be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2010, 09:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
The IPCC says GW is real, that's good enough for me.

Be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
You're joking, right? "Good enough" for you is the same group responsible for publishing and promoting falsehoods about the Himalayan glacier melt, the Amazon deforestation, and the nearly submerged Netherlands?
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2010, 09:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by spacefreak View Post
You're joking, right? "Good enough" for you is lying about the Himalayan glacier melt, the Amazon deforestation, the nearly submerged Netherlands?
Baby, bathwater.

There is plenty of evidence in a number of different forms. It is not all good.
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2010, 09:17 PM
 
Where's your buddy Al Gore been the last 6 weeks? Why is he leaving you to carry his bathwater?
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2010, 09:21 PM
 
Don't see how he is relevant here. Nor do I see why the attack on me is necessary. Oh well...
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2010, 09:24 PM
 
Of course you don't. How or why Al Gore's name could be brought up in a partisan-baited discussion of AGW/Man-made global warming is well over your head.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2010, 09:27 PM
 
Why you think I give a rat's ass about Al Gore seems to be over your head. Hmmm...
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2010, 10:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
The IPCC says GW is real, that's good enough for me.
GW is real. Ask his father GHW.

-t
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2010, 10:29 PM
 
So is there *anybody* on the right that believes that man is contributing to GW? It is still incredible to me how lob-sided this is.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2010, 10:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
So is there *anybody* on the right that believes that man is contributing to GW? It is still incredible to me how lob-sided this is.
I know it's hard to believe that most likely, all you GW believers have been mind-f*cked all those years.

It's probably easier to stick to those old believes than admitting it.

-t
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2010, 10:40 PM
 
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2010, 10:53 PM
 
No, he did not confess to fraud. He confessed to being slightly messy and untidy. The net result is the same: No global warming since 1995, even though his team's "research" stated and promoted just the opposite.

Like I stated in the thread on this topic... The BBC as a corporation is invested big-time (employee pension funds) in AGW-related companies, so while you may portray them as "sane", unbiased they are not. No global warming means no fat retirement checks for BBC employees.

Nothing in that BBC interview article disputes the key facts of Jones admitting that:

1) There has been no global warming since 1995
2) The data for the hockey stick graph doesn't exist (or is lost somewhere under Phil Jones' desk)
3) There have been other warming periods, even warmer, that were not caused by man.[/QUOTE]
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2010, 10:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
What a bunch of crap. He doesn't confess to fraud. Here's a sane link to the same story: BBC News - 'Climategate' expert Jones says data not well organised
You still give Phil Jones *ANY* benefit of the doubt ?

-t
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2010, 11:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by spacefreak View Post
No, he did not confess to fraud. He confessed to being slightly messy and untidy. The net result is the same: No global warming since 1995, even though his team's "research" stated and promoted just the opposite.

Like I stated in the thread on this topic... The BBC as a corporation is invested big-time (employee pension funds) in AGW-related companies, so while you may portray them as "sane", unbiased they are not. No global warming means no fat retirement checks for BBC employees.

Nothing in that BBC interview article disputes the key facts of Jones admitting that:

1) There has been no global warming since 1995
2) The data for the hockey stick graph doesn't exist (or is lost somewhere under Phil Jones' desk)
3) There have been other warming periods, even warmer, that were not caused by man.
[/QUOTE]
As I said in the other thread, 2 and 3 are wrong.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 06:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
The IPCC says GW is real, that's good enough for me.
The IPCC exists to promote GW. If there's no GW, they'd all have to go flip burgers. What do you think they're going to say?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 07:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
We do have the warming that was promised, hence melting ice caps.
REBUTTAL SNIPPED AND EDITED.

After reading past the initial thread I see other posters, and top climate scientist Phil Jones, have done a better job than I originally did.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 08:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
You absolutely *are* trying to prove something. You're trying to prove that the available evidence doesn't prove anything.
Whuh?

I don't have to prove that something doesn't prove something. Again, the "burden of proof" is on the person making the initial claim that needs proving and there's plenty of evidence that this burden has not been met. More and more evidence every day it seems.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 01:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
So is there *anybody* on the right that believes that man is contributing to GW? It is still incredible to me how lob-sided this is.
That would be "Lopsided" . The assumptions/theories have not been proven. The polar caps are still there, and sloppy science is still embraced by the leftys who still don't deal in details. The game is up, and the massive scam is unwinding.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 10:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
There are separate issues here that are being conflated. I think these debates often result in us talking past each other.
1) Are temperatures trending upwards?
Depends on where you look. You see, the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements claim that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/ reflecting heat source. Here's a good example of one that has been unaffected by UHI;


... and here are some examples of sites that have no business contributing data to ACME SCIENCE;






My favorite one of course is the site enveloped by a tennis court and a burn barrel like 5 feet away!

Every one of the above show a substantial increase in surface temperature. Is it really that surprising? Approximately 89% of these temperature shelter sensor sites do not meet the requirements set forth by The National Weather Service. That's 9 our of 10. Do you need to be a Republican to challenge AGW hype? Really?

2) If so, is man causing this?
Yeah, he keeps building sh!t around the sensor sites.

Republicans...bla,bla,bla...
Dude, if you don't pull your head firmly from the orifices of partisan divide, you're never going to see the forest through the trees.

Most reasonable people here seem to debate #2. However, it gets confusing when there are those that would debate both.
Really? You don't see a problem? Ahh yes, you're a Democrat. I should've known!
ebuddy
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 12:53 PM
 
It's not humans that are warming the planet, it's all that concrete that keeps popping up everywhere!

It sucks that scientists placed all their global warming eggs in the US surface temperature record alone
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 12:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Warren Pease View Post
It sucks that scientists placed all their global warming eggs in the US surface temperature record alone
Of course, they might be getting some of their surface temperature data from a wet index finger in the air.
ebuddy
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 01:04 PM
 
Fortunately, a proper analysis of the impact of these poorly-sited surface stations on the U.S. historical temperature record has now been done by Dr. Matthew Menne and co-authors at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). In a talk at last week's 90th Annual Meeting of the American Meteorological Society, Dr. Menne reported the results of their new paper just accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research titled, On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record. Dr. Menne's study split the U.S. surface stations into two categories: good (rating 1 or 2) and bad (ratings 3, 4 or 5). They performed the analysis using both the rating provided by surfacestations.org, and from an independent rating provided by NOAA personnel. In general, the NOAA-provided ratings coincided with the ratings given by surfacestations.org. Of the NOAA-rated stations, only 71 stations fell into the "good" siting category, while 454 fell into the "bad" category. According to the authors, though, "the sites with good exposure, though small in number, are reasonably well distributed across the country and, as shown by Vose and Menne [2004], are of sufficient density to obtain a robust estimate of the CONUS average". Dr. Menne's study computed the average daily minimum and maximum temperatures from the good sites and poor sites. The results were surprising. While the poor sites had a slightly warmer average minimum temperature than the good sites (by 0.03°C), the average maximum temperature measured at the poor sites was significantly cooler (by 0.14°C) than the good sites. As a result, overall average temperatures measured at the poor sites were cooler than the good sites. This is the opposite of the conclusion reached by Anthony Watts in his 2009 Heartland Institute publication.
Paper: On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record PDF
Source: Wunder Blog : Weather Underground

The thermometer near the burn barrel or an aircraft exhaust is similar to a polar bear on an ice raft. It pulls at the heart strings, but does not actually provide any relevant information to the entire story. The actual impact of the image, and the purported 'thumb on the scale' aspect does not bear out in the data produced by such stations.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 08:31 PM
 
Thank you Warren Pease. I can't argue against this... yet. It's very new you understand, but that's what makes this forum fun. I'm glad the topic is getting some visibility. I'm about a third the way through it and I'm already concerned about a couple of items that would require a great deal more research. For example, the study discusses the upgrade to electronic from liquid thermometers in the 80's, but then it later uses the unadjusted and adjusted monthly station values, converted to anomalies relative to the 1971–2000 station mean. I don't like the "station mean" from 1971-2000 through instrument changes and relocations, much of which this study readily admits is poorly documented. Using samples that were segregated by pre and post seems very apparent to me, but maybe I'm missing something. They opted for a much more interesting route.

They're taking the unadjusted (which seems a bit dubious at this point) and the adjusted anomalies, interpolated to the nodes of a 0.25° × 0.25° latitude–longitude grid using a method described by Willmott et al. 25 years ago. They were then grid-box area weighted into a mean anomaly for each year and... several more handoffs. When Meene refers to the conclusion as counterintuitive to the photographs provided, I begin to wonder if we're simply trying to determine a bias in the output data or something else entirely. IMO, it likely is counterintuitive.

Suffice it to say, I hope skeptics are cautious not to get jumpy or defensive about this study. I'm glad the issue is of importance to both NOAA and Meene et al. There was some good QC out of this at the very least. If Watts et al. take their time, they will complete the surfacestations.org data collection, compile, demonstrate, and publish a much more complete study of that data.

The thermometer near the burn barrel or an aircraft exhaust is similar to a polar bear on an ice raft. It pulls at the heart strings, but does not actually provide any relevant information to the entire story.
I couldn't agree more. This is an internet forum Warren Pease, not a scientific journal. The pictures are not intended to pull your heart strings as much as to illustrate the condition of the majority of sensor sites used for surface data collection. The ones using the polar bears on ice rafts share the views of those who are members of an international panel that may directly influence our legislation. There's no reason why challenges to this view, on a host of fronts, cannot be illustrated using the same forms of media.

The actual impact of the image, and the purported 'thumb on the scale' aspect does not bear out in the data produced by such stations.
I think this is very optimistic. I do appreciate the linked study.
ebuddy
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2010, 03:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Holy shit... is that a vintage Mig 15?? Who even has one of those, let alone one parked next to a weather station!?!
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2010, 03:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Holy shit... is that a vintage Mig 15?? Who even has one of those, let alone one parked next to a weather station!?!
It's parked at Lovelock Airport, NV.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2010, 04:57 PM
 
Interesting. I notice there's a big airshow in nearby Fallon, NV that's also home to a huge naval air-station. I'd venture a guess the plane is there in someway related to an airshow. (By the way, I'm more interested in the vintage aircraft than anything to do with the perpetual glowarm argument, so sorry for the derail.)
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2010, 05:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Holy shit... is that a vintage Mig 15?? Who even has one of those, let alone one parked next to a weather station!?!
Jeremy Clarkson used to own a GE Lightning F1A. The HOA forced him to sell it after he couldn't convince them it was a leaf blower.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2010, 01:28 PM
 
Haha! I shudder to think what all vehicles those Top Gear dudes have laying around the house!

By the way, to bring this back on topic, looking at Clarkson's bio on Wikipedia, I'm pretty much agreeing with him on politics and the environment (although he's a lot more blunt about it):

On the environment, Clarkson is not sympathetic to the green agenda. He once said: "I do have a disregard for the environment. I think the world can look after itself and we should enjoy it as best as we can". He has little respect for groups such as Greenpeace, and believes that the "eco-mentalists" are a by-product of the "old trade unionists and CND lesbians" who hadn't gone away but merely found a new cause.[21]

Clarkson is not however a climate change denier, commenting on the effects of global warming - "let's just stop and think for a moment what the consequences might be. Switzerland loses its skiing resorts? The beach in Miami is washed away? North Carolina gets knocked over by a hurricane? Anything bothering you yet?"[22]

He does not, however, believe that man is responsible for global warming - "Excuse me, but I have yet to be convinced that man’s paltry 3% contribution to the planet’s bank of carbon dioxide affects the climate."[23]
I have to say, it's interested how they phrase that, because WHO exactly is a "climate change denier"? What does that even mean?

Heh, and (okay, another derail so be it) also this tidbit:

...during a Top Gear episode broadcast on 13 November 2005, Clarkson while talking about a Mini design that might be "quintessentially German", made a mock Nazi salute, and made references to the Hitler regime and the German invasion of Poland by setting the GPS system to Poland. The German government is said to be highly displeased: diplomats pointed out that, had Clarkson made the Nazi salute on German television, he could be facing six months behind bars as, joking or not, such behaviour is illegal under the country's post-war constitution.[67]
Wow- irony.
( Last edited by CRASH HARDDRIVE; Feb 24, 2010 at 01:41 PM. )
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2010, 07:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
I have to say, it's interested how they phrase that, because WHO exactly is a "climate change denier"?
No one really. It's Orwellian "newspeak" designed to invoke the idea that the person in question has irrationally refused to accept a proven fact. At best, if they want to pull that garbage, the term should really be "man made climate change denier."

It's similar to the use of the scientific sounding term "homophobia" that the left brands people, most of whom have no irrational fear of homosexuals,
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2010, 09:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
No one really. It's Orwellian "newspeak" designed to invoke the idea that the person in question has irrationally refused to accept a proven fact. At best, if they want to pull that garbage, the term should really be "man made climate change denier."
Yep, nobody at all is a "climate change denier"

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
It's an interesting observation, but not one that has any real relevance. If the person in question is at a weight that is healthy, and even possibility they have weighed a little more in the past, how they got to that weight isn't all that important really and doesn't necessarily point to some kind of adverse effect from something new. You don't get that context looking short term or taking a tiny sample.

It's either hotter than it was back when we were told it was getting hotter, or it isn't. I'm pretty sure it isn't. I'm pretty sure it's been this hot before in not so distant times and it's been hottest in the past. It could be just as much wishful thinking to claim that it's going to continue to get hotter. We really don't know. Especially since it seems to be within the planet's non man-made norms to be as hot as it is now.

We've got a guy who is 3 pounds over what he weighed a year ago, despite the fact that he was heavier in the past and at both times was within the norms of his ideal weight and fretting about the ice cream he ate. Could it lead to a 20 lb. weight gain? Possibly. Possibly not. Especially if he's got a past history of subtle weight change over the years that all fell with the norms of his ideal weight. You aren't going to be able to determine any of this if you just look at the year he gained the weight.
     
Orion27
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2010, 11:10 AM
 
You can wrap your head around this. Let's hear from the "scientists" here.
American Thinker: The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2010, 02:49 PM
 
False Claims Proven False � Open Mind
I’ve completed processing the GHCN data for the northern hemisphere. This project was undertaken to investigate two denialist claims: 1st, that the dramatic reduction in the number of reporting stations around 1990 introduced a false warming trend; 2nd, that the adjustments applied to station data also introduce a false warming trend.

To investigate the 1st claim, I computed separate northern-hemisphere averages for stations that stopped reporting after 1992.0 (the “pre-cutoff” stations) and those that continued to report after 1992 (the “post-cutoff” stations), in order to see whether there’s a significant difference between the trends according to those two subsets.

To investigate the 2nd claim, I computed a northern-hemisphere average using the raw data (no adjustments) for all stations, and compared it to the northern-hemisphere average computed by NASA GISS, in order to see whether there’s a signficant difference between the trends with and without the adjustments used by GISS.
Analysis of weather station adjustments and culling post-1992, two purported areas where global warming was added in by scientists, shows these adjustments actually minimize global warming compared to the raw data.
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2010, 02:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Orion27 View Post
You can wrap your head around this. Let's hear from the "scientists" here.
American Thinker: The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
I didn't make it through the whole article, but I'm guessing the response you want goes something like this.

All gasses do absorb heat from incoming solar radiation, but it's the specific frequency of infrared radiation re-radiated from the earth's surface that CO2 happens to trap effectively. The other gasses have frequencies where they are more effective at trapping radiation, but these frequencies are not the same as those that are radiated back from the earth.

Added another explanation:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment...global-warming
Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (aka heat) because of its molecular size, and how it vibrates. That may seem weird – and quantum mechanics can be quite weird – but that's simply how it works. The CO2 molecule jibes perfectly with infrared wavelengths – it's in tune with them – so it absorbs their energy.

Other gases in the atmosphere, such as oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2), don't "harmonize" with infrared. They're "invisible" to that wavelength. (They do "scatter" the blue wavelengths, however, giving us blue skies.)
( Last edited by Warren Pease; Feb 25, 2010 at 03:09 PM. )
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2010, 06:46 PM
 
So? What are you going to do with all those animals that exhale it? Kill them? Lets start with the liberals.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2010, 07:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Orion27 View Post
You can wrap your head around this. Let's hear from the "scientists" here.
American Thinker: The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
Trying to explain the Bouguer-Beer Law of light absorption in our atmosphere to a 10-year-old would probably be impossible. NASA created a curriculum that, while not entirely accurate, conveys the general idea in a way that a 10-year-old can understand it.

It's factually incorrect, perhaps there could be some changes made to it, but what I find more disturbing is that 99% of the people who commented on the article don't understand curriculum written for 10-year-olds.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2010, 01:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Yep, nobody at all is a "climate change denier"
I agree.

Though apparently, English is either your second language, or you have poor reading comprehension. Otherwise, you wouldn't have quoted what I wrote given that it never states that the climate doesn't change. You are severely confused.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2010, 01:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I agree.

Though apparently, English is either your second language, or you have poor reading comprehension. Otherwise, you wouldn't have quoted what I wrote given that it never states that the climate doesn't change. You are severely confused.
You could at least *try* to stay consistent.
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
It's either hotter than it was back when we were told it was getting hotter, or it isn't. I'm pretty sure it isn't. I'm pretty sure it's been this hot before in not so distant times and it's been hottest in the past.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2010, 03:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
No one really. It's Orwellian "newspeak" designed to invoke the idea that the person in question has irrationally refused to accept a proven fact. At best, if they want to pull that garbage, the term should really be "man made climate change denier."
Or just dumb the whole silly religion down even farther with an even more vague and meaningless name. Just call it: "Weather."

"You're a weather denier!!!"
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2010, 03:07 PM
 
someone mentioned god

i think that's a big part of GW deniers... reason is 3 parts

1) god created the earth for us humans to do whatever we want to it...

2) GW implies that our weather "changes" over time... like evolution. why would god do that?

3) jesus is coming soon so why do anything about it?
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2010, 09:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
You could at least *try* to stay consistent.
You could at least try to make an argument that made sense, if you wanted to show inconsistency.

I can accept that the Earth's climate changes and has always changed and not accept predictions that since we once had record temperatures, that we are going to stay that hot and get hotter and that's it's due to the actions of men.

"Climate change" does not require either for the climate to get hotter, or for man to have caused it. Again, I think you are either confused or just not really reading my posts before you reply.
     
Doc HM
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2010, 08:07 AM
 
Some thoughts on why this debate seems to split along ideological lines from the (admittedly lefty) UK Guardian newspaper:
The trouble with trusting complex science | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2010, 09:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
someone mentioned god
i think that's a big part of GW deniers... reason is 3 parts

1) god created the earth for us humans to do whatever we want to it...
2) GW implies that our weather "changes" over time... like evolution. why would god do that?
3) jesus is coming soon so why do anything about it?
I disagree. As an active member of a church I find the majority of them very conscientious of their consumption on a host of levels, from the vehicles they drive to their family budgets. In fact, the more faithful they are in practice, the less wasteful and more disciplined in general. They contribute a great deal of their resources (giftings) to their churches, who in turn offer more efficient and effective means of philanthropy.

It may be tempting to conclude that because of their well-known focus on the immediate needs of people in service to a deity, they don't care about the planet or its sciences, but I don't think it's a solid conclusion. IMO, this mistakes correlative for causal.
ebuddy
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:35 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,