Bronco Billy Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 you're not interested in having a serious conversation about it....you just want to take the ...argument wherever you can to try and win it.... so here you go...."you win"... I'm absolutely wanting a serious conversation, but to do so I need to understand your position, and quite frankly I'm having a tough time doing so. It is not my intention to scorn or belittle you. From what I hve gathered, you are unwilling to allow for any evidence other than that witnessed and recorded by man - paraphrasing your words you do not believe that any conclusions at all can be drawn beyond 3000 years in the past. I don't understand that position. If your assumption is that something can not be verified or supported by evidence unless that evidence has been witnessed and documented by man, it seems to me that you are taking a stance similar to one of authorities not being capable of prosecuting a murder unless they have a human eye witness to the event, and if they do not have an eye witness that any evidence in regard to the murder is not credible and therefore investigation of the murder shouldn't even be considered. Any forensic evidence can not be considered credibly. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding your position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 Atmospheric CO2 is currently an anomaly. It's spiked at an incredibly high level never seen over nearly 0.5 million years. This is patently untrue. I provided evidence to the contrary. That you choose to ignore that evidence because it inconveniently shows you to be completely wrong in this statement is beyond my control. Lastly - I posted the graph to contradict BB's asinine insinuation that atmospheric CO2 are at low to normal levels Again, I provided clear evidence which again you choose to ignore because it refutes your position. That you stand in a corner, close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears, and cry nyah, nyah, nyah when confronted with oppositional evidence does not mean that evidence doesn't exist. It simply means that you are too ignorant to consider it. That's pretty much the case with the AGW argument right now. Hell, even the Old Gray Lady is making fun of Al Gore and his nonsensical position on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 Anyone else enjoying the records being set this week? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 What the hell are you talking about? CO2 levels and tempertures were higher 350,000 years ago than they are right now. You must be on the liberal side because the Bible says(when you read between the lines with holy vision) the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Present to Jesus 2,000 years Jesus to Abraham 2,000 years (55 generations) Abraham to Adam 2,000 years (20 generations) So there's no way the Earth was hotter 350k years ago if it didn't exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 This is patently untrue. I provided evidence to the contrary. That you choose to ignore that evidence because it inconveniently shows you to be completely wrong in this statement is beyond my control. Again, I provided clear evidence which again you choose to ignore because it refutes your position. That you stand in a corner, close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears, and cry nyah, nyah, nyah when confronted with oppositional evidence does not mean that evidence doesn't exist. It simply means that you are too ignorant to consider it. That's pretty much the case with the AGW argument right now. Hell, even the Old Gray Lady is making fun of Al Gore and his nonsensical position on it. If you're presenting this clear and obvious evidence... can you please take it directly to that consensus of climate scientists who have concluded the opposite of what you are trying to prove on a football message board? That might be more effective. kthx. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 If you're presenting this clear and obvious evidence... can you please take it directly to that consensus of climate scientists who have concluded the opposite of what you are trying to prove on a football message board? That might be more effective. kthx. Is this the "repeat-the-lie-often-enough-and-people-will-believe-it-is-true" tactic yet again? There is no consensus opinion on global warming, despite the claims to the contrary. And scientific conclusions are not reached by consensus. They are reached by the presentation of supporting evidence and then peer review of the conclusions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 So there's no way the Earth was hotter 350k years ago if it didn't exist. good data here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 If global warming is a lie, what are the people who invented the lie getting out of it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 If global warming is a lie, what are the people who invented the lie getting out of it? sticking it to the mean and evil corporations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 link Scientific “Consensus” of Man-made Global Warming is a Myth A new study using methods endorsed by the Al Gore crowd concludes that there is no “consensus” among scientists that man is contributing to global warming. Also can 31,000 scientists be wrong? One of the most often cited pieces of evidence that man is causing global warming is a study by Naomi Oreskes that showed 75% of the examined scientific abstracts either explicitly or implicitly backed a view that man was contributing to global warming. This “consensus view” has been repeated ad nauseam, ad infinitum and is behind Al Gore's “the case is closed” statements. The Naomi Oreskes study was based on a keyword search of a database of scientific studies. This keyword search found 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003. Of those 928 abstracts 75% explicitly or implicitly backed the “consensus view” of anthropogenic climate change (or man-made global warming). Of course there has been a lot of criticism of this study in that it is not at all scientific even though its purpose is to review scientific studies. To begin with the keyword search only looked for “global climate change”, if your viewpoint doesn't believe in global warming you may not use that term. Certain terminology is used by people if they have a certain viewpoint, other terms may be used if they have the opposite viewpoint. There were other studies that challenged the “consensus view” that showed as few as 30% of the studies supported the “anthropogenic climate change” view. Since many of the studies found in Naomi Oreskes' survey are now nearly 15 years old a new survey was done using the same techniques. By examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte repeated Oreskes' study. The new study found 528 papers that matched the search results for the period 2004 through February 2007. Of those only 7% gave an explicit endorsement of the “consensus view”. Extending the scope to those that gave either an explicit or implicit endorsement the study found 45% in support of the “consensus view”. Even more striking is that a majority (54%) now either reject the “consensus view” outright or are now neutral regarding anthropogenic climate change. You can read more regarding this new study at DailyTech.com. Also refuting the “consensus view”, and almost never mentioned in the popular news media, was a petition signed by over 31,000 scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, against the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was sponsored by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 link Outraged with the sheer duplicity of the press and warming alarmists, OISM launched the same petition again in 2008. They used a subset of the mailing list of American Men and Women of Science, a who’s who of Science, to mail the petition requesting the recipient to sign the petition if agreed that Kyoto was a danger to humanity. The results, reported last May showed that 31,072 scientists, 9,021 of whom were Ph.D.s, signed the petition. Every signature has been vetted for authenticity. Ironically, using the Freedom of Information Act, it has been proven that the so-called 2500 scientists the IPCC claims make up their “consensus,” are really not scientists at all. Of that total, only 308 scientists reviewed the 2007 IPCC report. Many of them disagreed, some strongly so. Not surprisingly, all of their comments were rejected and not included in the report. The remaining 2192 so-called scientists came from all walks of life; politicians, government bureaucrats, social workers, and apparently even a hotel manager. Less than 40 of the 308 scientists were generally supportive of the hypothesis, and less than 5 actually endorsed the report. Yet, the report was hailed by the media as the consensus of thousands of scientists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 sticking it to the mean and evil corporations? Oh Lord stop feeding it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 24, 2009 Author Share Posted June 24, 2009 Obviously global temperature and trangression and regression of the seas control atmospheric CO2 levels. it seems like you might be on to something The red line is hardly always left of the black line. Whether left or right - up or down, you're basing skepticism on seconds, over years worth of data. I'm not sure what the dating instrumentation error of the methods they used, but it's almost certainly within the 500 +/- years you've alluded to on the graph. I 'm fairly sure you realize this. the red line is to the left of the black line far more often than vice versa. and I think you're generally looking at more than 500 years on that graph. each section is 100,000 years...depending on your screen size and level of zoom, looks like about 2 inches per section -- 500 years is like 1/100th of an inch. Atmospheric CO2 is currently an anomaly. It's spiked at an incredibly high level never seen over nearly 0.5 million years. This is what a compilation of a tremendous amount of independently collected data shows. The data is compelling. It virtually proves temperature and C02 (and to a lesser extent, sea levels) generally appear to have a 1:1 relationship over a period of of 400K years. it is pretty clear they have a relationship, what is not at all clear is which one leads and which one follows. we know that higher temperatures result in more plant life (plants convert O2 to CO2) and also cause the oceans to release more CO2. people pushing the global warming hype point to temp and CO2 tracking each other and say, AH HA!! proof that CO2 causes warming! well it ain't necessarily so. the two probably drive each other to some extent (I think that is what most scientists would assert if pinned down), I suppose the real question is how much? it would seem that a lot of evidence (like the red line usually being to the left of the black line in your graph) would point to temperature being much more of a leader than a follower compared to CO2. which obviously turns a lot of manmade global warming theory on its head. Second - Any scientist worth his salt, know that oceans are big heat sinks and temperature controllers. Oceans are going to warm for years (it's been accepted that they will probably do so for 100-200 years) before atmospheric temperatures follow suit. adjusting for that effect would just move the red line (temp) further to the left, would it not? this effect cuts against your argument rather than bolsters it. or am I missing something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 What if they're not? What if the predictions are even worse? I want scientists not funded by oil and coal companies to decide this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 (edited) Again, I provided clear evidence which again you choose to ignore because it refutes your position. That you stand in a corner, close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears, and cry nyah, nyah, nyah when confronted with oppositional evidence does not mean that evidence doesn't exist. It simply means that you are too ignorant to consider it. You're lack of self awareness is amusing. I have and will grant you this, it's easy to argue against the mainstream scientific consensus that man is affecting climate, if you use, and succumb to believing every piece of politically motivated propaganda and blog on the internet as ammo. link Scientific “Consensus” of Man-made Global Warming is a Myth A new study using methods endorsed by the Al Gore crowd concludes that there is no “consensus” among scientists that man is contributing to global warming. Also can 31,000 scientists be wrong? the Seattle Times wrote:“ Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell." Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake," he said. ” Scientific American reported: “ Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[22] ” In a op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote: “ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[23] Linky linky to an actual defensible survey Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures? About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second. The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. "I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it. The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes, Edited June 24, 2009 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 adjusting for that effect would just move the red line (temp) further to the left, would it not? this effect cuts against your argument rather than bolsters it. or am I missing something? They aren't adjusting for the effect, they are presenting the data. Again, you are focusing on a couple grains of sand when you have a beach worth's of data. If anything, the inflection and deflection points could be evaluated. Regardless you are trying to make an argument over 2-3 seconds when the dating methods probably hav a 5-6 second inherent error. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 (edited) This is patently untrue. While yourself, the Spice Girls, Michael J Fox, Perry Mason, and John Grishman, may all agree on this; an overwhelming majority of scientists who are experts on the issue say you are completely clueless. No matter how many posts you make or right wing blogs you believe, that is an undeniable fact. Edited June 24, 2009 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 an overwhelming majority of scientists who are experts on the issue say you are completely clueless. This is false. Why are all the global warming fear mongers lefties? How do you explain the cooling period we've had the past years? Which has a greater effect on our climate, man or the sun? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 24, 2009 Author Share Posted June 24, 2009 They aren't adjusting for the effect, they are presenting the data. right. but what I clearly said was that if they DID adjust for that effect, which you were presenting as some sort of reason why the measurements would be off, then that would only mean that CO2 lagged temperature even more than the measurements indicate. Again, you are focusing on a couple grains of sand when you have a beach worth's of data. If anything, the inflection and deflection points could be evaluated. Regardless you are trying to make an argument over 2-3 seconds when the dating methods probably hav a 5-6 second inherent error. I think it is actually pretty well established that CO2 lags temperature. when confronted with this fact, manmade global warming hypers will do lots of yeah-but'ing. they will say yeah, temperature shifts usually come before fluctuations in CO2, but once the CO2 starts increasing, it has a "positive feedback" amplification effect on temperature. and maybe they are right. but when people like al gore present a graph like the one you did as suggesting that CO2 controls temperature, it seems very disingenuous when the strongest evidence of causation points in the opposite direction. it's like if I charted the relationship between the amount of dog schit in my backyard and the number of flies, and then I said, "we see a strong correlation between the amount of schit and the number of flies....therefore, if we release more flies, we will also end up with more dog schit." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 right. but what I clearly said was that if they DID adjust for that effect, which you were presenting as some sort of reason why the measurements would be off, then that would only mean that CO2 lagged temperature even more than the measurements indicate. I think it is actually pretty well established that CO2 lags temperature. when confronted with this fact, manmade global warming hypers will do lots of yeah-but'ing. they will say yeah, temperature shifts usually come before fluctuations in CO2, but once the CO2 starts increasing, it has a "positive feedback" amplification effect on temperature. and maybe they are right. but when people like al gore present a graph like the one you did as suggesting that CO2 controls temperature, it seems very disingenuous when the strongest evidence of causation points in the opposite direction. it's like if I charted the relationship between the amount of dog schit in my backyard and the number of flies, and then I said, "we see a strong correlation between the amount of schit and the number of flies....therefore, if we release more flies, we will also end up with more dog schit." Is that kinda like the rock that keeps tigers away argument? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 What if they're not? What if the predictions are even worse? I want scientists not funded by oil and coal companies to decide this. The scientists being paid the most are the smartest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 and succumb to believing every piece of politically motivated propaganda and blog on the internet as ammo. Now that takes balls, given the propensity of your position... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 (edited) Linky linky to an actual defensible survey Sure it is... ETA: After doing a web search, I can't find one link that shows the survey in its entirety, what individuals took the survey, and what the results for each question were. Furthermore, every link associated with the aforementioned survey is an article verbatim identical to the CNN story (who happened to steal it verbatim from the professor who ran the survey but failed to publish the survey, the names of the participants, and its results). Now THAT'S unimpreachable credibility... Edited June 24, 2009 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 I'm absolutely wanting a serious conversation, but to do so I need to understand your position, and quite frankly I'm having a tough time doing so. It is not my intention to scorn or belittle you. From what I hve gathered, you are unwilling to allow for any evidence other than that witnessed and recorded by man - paraphrasing your words you do not believe that any conclusions at all can be drawn beyond 3000 years in the past. I don't understand that position. If your assumption is that something can not be verified or supported by evidence unless that evidence has been witnessed and documented by man, it seems to me that you are taking a stance similar to one of authorities not being capable of prosecuting a murder unless they have a human eye witness to the event, and if they do not have an eye witness that any evidence in regard to the murder is not credible and therefore investigation of the murder shouldn't even be considered. Any forensic evidence can not be considered credibly. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding your position. ....sure...I'll take the bait... you did misunderstand my position... I was merely pointing out that we shouldn't use anything beyond 3,000 years ago as a reference....we have no idea what our planet was going through at that time to assume that what we are going through now had occurred..... and while I'm not big on the whole "global warming" theories, there is no doubt that having over 6.5 trillion people on this planet along with animals have an affect on what earth is going through... that is a lot of excess baggage....not to mention that a good portion of the population is behaving in a downright filthy manner... we should clean up our act because it's the right thing to do...not because it can kill us.... and I'll even do a little risk management here: what are the risks of being right about "Global Warming" and finding out we over-reacted? - more recession?...more wasted money and effort? what are the risks of ignoring "Global Warming" and finding out we should have done something? - devastation of mankind... which sounds worse?....I think people get caught up in the politics of things and lose sight of the fact that we should better our lifestyle by living cleaner and using clean energy...rather than spewing pollution into the air.....because the Earth will repair itself if we are indeed the problem.... I don't have an official stand on "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" because I find flaws in both theories....but people always get caught up in choosing a side and fighting for it....because it's what people do best... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 what are the risks of being right about "Global Warming" and finding out we over-reacted? - more recession?...more wasted money and effort? what are the risks of ignoring "Global Warming" and finding out we should have done something? - devastation of mankind... How about shelling out hundreds of billions of dollars in what is (or rather should be) a thinly veiled con game? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.