the supreme court rules ...

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

So centuries ago, when it was a fact as we now know, that the Earth was an oblate spheroid, the overwhelming number of scientists, having no support of fact but rather relying on what only could have been opinion and bad science, insisted the world was flat.

 

 

Please don't compare the scientific method of then to now.

 

Hey, I hope the skeptics are right regarding global warming. Actually I don't really care who's wrong or right. I just want some honesty regarding the issue. And the majority of the dishonesty IMO seems to be coming from those with an agenda to prove it a hoax. But i'm not going to discount the other side either. I will attempt to have a more open mind on the issue because i'm not a trained scientist and honestly the majority of the data and analysis is over my head.

[Perchoutofwater]

If 990,000 out of 1,000,000 of doctors conclude that smoking is bad for your health, BB could post all 10,000 contradictory opinions smoking and health, but it doesn't detract from the reality of the situation.

 

 

My great-grandmother who lived to be 103 year old smoked a pack a day and drank a pint of bourbon a day for at least 85 years.

[bushwacked]

So centuries ago, when it was a fact as we now know, that the Earth was an oblate spheroid, the overwhelming number of scientists, having no support of fact but rather relying on what only could have been opinion and bad science, insisted the world was flat.

 

 

 

The belief that the world was flat was largely rooted in religious beliefs and we've made a few scientific strides in the last 2K+ years.

[Bronco Billy]

Negative McBoog, we should all keep our minds open, and yes there is a slim possibility that the consensus could change. I'm just stating a simple fact and not pretending like there is currently some great debate about the anthropengenic effect on global warming. Bronco Billy cherry picking articles from an underwhelming minority doesn't change the facts.

 

If 990,000 out of 1,000,000 of doctors conclude that smoking is bad for your health, BB could post all 10,000 contradictory opinions smoking and health, but it doesn't detract from the reality of the situation.

 

 

You idiot!

 

Science isn't about consensus! Didn't you read what I wrote about the Earth being thought to be flat by consensus despite what is now known to be the truth? Science is about the finding of facts & applying those facts. Consensus doesn't govern what is fact and what isn't.

 

:shakinghead:

 

Never argue with an idiot. They'll take you down to their level & then beat you with experience...

[bushwacked]

My great-grandmother who lived to be 103 year old smoked a pack a day and drank a pint of bourbon a day for at least 85 years.

 

 

 

What was the name of her doctor?

[bushwacked]

You idiot!

 

Science isn't about consensus!

 

 

 

Tell me more about what science is about!

[Bronco Billy]

Controversy concerning the science

 

Existence of a scientific consensus

 

Main article: Scientific opinion on climate change

 

Outside the scientific community, there are questions regarding the proportion of scientists who agree or disagree on the existence of human-caused warming. Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media often claim virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community. Opponents either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved," dismiss it altogether, or decry the dangers of consensus science. Still, others maintain that opponents have been stifled or driven underground.

 

A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database. Oreskes stated that of the 928 abstracts analyzed, "none contradicted" the view of the major scientific organizations that "the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling."

 

Benny Peiser claimed to have found flaws in her work, writing

“ Oreskes, a professor of history, claims to have analyzed 928 abstracts on global climate change, of which 75% either explicitly or implicitly accept the view that most of the recent warming trend is man-made. When I checked the same set of abstracts [plus an additional two hundred found in the same ISI data bank], I discovered that just over a dozen explicitly endorse the "consensus," while the vast majority of abstracts does not mention anthropogenic global warming. (National Post, 17 May 2005) ”

 

In order to include only "hard science" papers rather than opinion pieces or editorials, Oreskes excluded the Social Sciences Citation Index and the Arts & Humanities Citation Index and set the search to include only Articles, while Peiser searched for all document types in all indexes, and the interpretation of the remaining parts of his attempted refutation is further disputed. In a later op-ed piece in Canada's National Post,

 

Peiser makes no further reference to his review, instead asserting, “ An unbiased analysis of the peer-reviewed literature on global warming will find hundreds of papers (many of them written by the world’s leading experts in the field) that have raised serious reservations and outright rejection of the concept of a "scientific consensus on climate change." The truth is, there is no such thing. ”

 

Peiser also stated:

 

“ ...the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous. ”

 

Timothy Ball asserts that those who oppose the "consensus" have gone underground: "No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent."(Canada Free Press, February 5, 2007)

 

A 2006 op-ed by Richard Lindzen in The Wall Street Journal challenged the claim that scientific consensus had been reached on the issue, and listed the Science journal study as well as other sources, including the IPCC and NAS reports, as part of "a persistent effort to suggest . . . that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected."

 

Lindzen wrote in the Wall Street Journal on April 12, 2006, “ But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

 

link

Edited April 4, 2007 by Bronco Billy

[TimC]

I have global warming in my pants.

[Bill Swerski]

Timothy Ball asserts that those who oppose the "consensus" have gone underground: "No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent."(Canada Free Press, February 5, 2007)

 

"Free speech" at the university level is compeltely one-sided. Anybody want to guess which side is allowed to benefit and which isn't?

 

Lindzen wrote in the Wall Street Journal on April 12, 2006, “ But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

 

No way! Scientists are only concerned with THE TRUTH. Politics has NOTHING to do with it.

Edited April 4, 2007 by Bill Swerski

[Bronco Billy]

I have global warming in my pants.

 

 

There's a consensus solution to that: Depends.

[bushwacked]

“ ...the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous. ”

 

 

 

Assuming you agree with this part, then it's apparent you've come along way today!

 

I would still claim that an overwhelming majority = a general consensus (not unanimous).

[Bronco Billy]

Assuming you agree with this part, then it's apparent you've come along way today!

 

I would still claim that an overwhelming majority = a general consensus (not unanimous).

 

 

Why do I picture you sitting in front of your computer with your hands over your eyes, a fathead of Al Gore on the wall in front of you, saying La-la-la-la-la-la-la-la repeatedly?

Edited April 4, 2007 by Bronco Billy

[Azazello1313]

BB. I suggest you stop right now before you make a complete arse of yourself. Take a look over at the right hand side. You will see a number. It says 377, in white numbers in a black box. It is a measure of CO2 in the atmosphere right now and is at the top of a spike sticking vertically up from the current cycle. The four natural cycles present all top out at roughly 285, until the last century or so.

 

Do yourself a favor and take a good look before posting next time, mmmkay?

 

 

clearly manmade emissions have increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere compared to recent global history. and certainly it appears there has been a clear correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature. but you, the goracle, and others repeatedly commit the fallacy of automatically assuming that the fluctuations in CO2 have caused the fluctuations in temperature and not vice versa. in fact, i believe most of the data would indicate that, historically, great increases or decreases in temperature precede corresponding fluctuations in CO2 levels. which would turn the arguments of the whole "socialism is the only thing that can save the planet from manmade catastrophe" crowd totally on their heads.

[Bill Swerski]

Unfortunately, this debate focuses more on who's right and who's wrong, rather than what we can do to address the problem.

[Bronco Billy]

clearly manmade emissions have increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere compared to recent global history. and certainly it appears there has been a clear correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature. but you, the goracle, and others repeatedly commit the fallacy of automatically assuming that the fluctuations in CO2 have caused the fluctuations in temperature and not vice versa. in fact, i believe most of the data would indicate that, historically, great increases or decreases in temperature precede corresponding fluctuations in CO2 levels. which would turn the arguments of the whole "socialism is the only thing that can save the planet from manmade catastrophe" crowd totally on their heads.

 

 

That is my understanding also, and in addition that solar activity correlates strongly to having preceded times of increased temperatures and a lack of solar activity correlates to preceding times of lower temeratures.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

clearly manmade emissions have increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere compared to recent global history. and certainly it appears there has been a clear correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature. but you, the goracle, and others repeatedly commit the fallacy of automatically assuming that the fluctuations in CO2 have caused the fluctuations in temperature and not vice versa. in fact, i believe most of the data would indicate that, historically, great increases or decreases in temperature precede corresponding fluctuations in CO2 levels. which would turn the arguments of the whole "socialism is the only thing that can save the planet from manmade catastrophe" crowd totally on their heads.

 

 

LOL

 

You still on the "commies" "commies" everywhere track here Az? I expect better from you.

[TimC]

There's a consensus solution to that: Depends.

 

 

She had hair like Fabio's sister. :sigh:

[bushwacked]

Unfortunately, this debate focuses more on who's right and who's wrong, rather than what we can do to address the problem.

 

 

:getsonAAsoapbox: Agreed, but you have to acknowledge the problem exists before you effectively address it. :getsoffAAsoapbox:

Edited April 4, 2007 by bushwacked

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Unfortunately, this debate focuses more on who's right and who's wrong, rather than what we can do to address the problem.

 

 

I told you. We need a dome!

[Bill Swerski]

I told you. We need a dome!

 

 

Like the Metrodome? Does that mean that we'll have to convert our lawns to artificial turf?

[Azazello1313]

i believe it is a pretty well established scientific fact that warmer oceans release far more CO2 than cooler oceans. in fact, climate alarmists use this fact to argue an even more alarmist claim....that manmade CO2 poses such a threat to the planet because the resulting rise in temperature will cause the oceans to warm and release even more CO2, which will cause more warming, which will release more CO2, which will cause more warming...and where this stops, nobody knows (except the goracle).

 

of course, all of this relies upon the assumption that CO2 causes temperature to rise....and of course, we came to that conclusion because, well, look at the correlation over history between temperature and CO2. but it seems that in the rush to blame humankind for destroying the planet, no one stopped to consider whether temperature changes drove CO2 changes instead of the reverse.

[Bill Swerski]

:getsonAAsoapbox: Agreed, but you have to acknowledge the problem exists before you effectively address it. :getsoffAAsoapbox:

 

A scientific consensus isn't needed to understand that releasing tons of CO2 and SO2 into the atmosphere will probably impact the planet in a negative way.

[Bronco Billy]

A scientific consensus isn't needed to understand that releasing tons of CO2 and SO2 into the atmosphere will probably impact the planet in a negative way.

 

 

Actually, it has been scientifically demonstrated that an influx of CO2 into the atmosphere positively affects green plants - I think I mentioned this much earlier in this debate.

[Bronco Billy]

i believe it is a pretty well established scientific fact that warmer oceans release far more CO2 than cooler oceans. in fact, climate alarmists use this fact to argue an even more alarmist claim....that manmade CO2 poses such a threat to the planet because the resulting rise in temperature will cause the oceans to warm and release even more CO2, which will cause more warming, which will release more CO2, which will cause more warming...and where this stops, nobody knows (except the goracle).

 

of course, all of this relies upon the assumption that CO2 causes temperature to rise....and of course, we came to that conclusion because, well, look at the correlation over history between temperature and CO2. but it seems that in the rush to blame humankind for destroying the planet, no one stopped to consider whether temperature changes drove CO2 changes instead of the reverse.

 

 

If you keep up these kind of logical debating tactics, I'm going to have to significantly alter my opinion of you.

[bushwacked]

A scientific consensus isn't needed to understand that releasing tons of CO2 and SO2 into the atmosphere will probably impact the planet in a negative way.

 

 

Well, a large part of the population still actully believes there is no strong case that " global warming is due in a large (or only) part to the influence of man."

 

And there is a scientific consensus..