Sir Loin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Binary_Digit The only credible scientific debate I'm aware of is not whether AGW exists, but how much of an impact it will have.

I am unsure how such a declaration of personal ignorance addresses the well known, well published and well focused upon debates regarding many scientific issues that surround the theory of Man Made Global Warming.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Binary_Digit The only "scientists" I'm aware of who flatly deny AGW are the ones working for ExxonMobile etc.

I would say then that you are not “aware” of much at all regarding the matter are you? That however would preclude pointing out that the issue is the theory of Man Made Global Warming and the many holes in empirical logic and data surrounding said theory. That being the topic, your proud proclamations of ignorance and a stated shallow pool of knowledge are as useful as your attempt to jump tracks to as you call it AGW.

Then of course there is the regurgitation of the most clichéd and telling remark about the scientist that work for ExxonMobil. So I note that you claim to be ignorant and have no familiarity with a widely available body of knowledge in the public domain. And I note that you can toss off rhetoric that is about a decade or so out of date and point. All scientist work for somebody, the lazy brained argument is stupid.

It might interest you to know that the vast majority of scientist that work for oil companies are in the geosciences. Not climatology and the study of the theory of MMGW. The rest tend to work in petrochemical related sciences. ExxonMobil does not in fact have a "Global Warming" department or division.

Binary_Digit

Normally when a person says "that I'm aware of", it's an acknowledgment that they might not know everything there is to know about a subject. I'm not so stupid that I would believe since I haven't heard of something, it doesn't exist.

Since you seem to be abundantly aware of that which I am not, rather than insulting my acknowledged shortcomings, perhaps you could provide me with an enlightening link or two? Thanks!

Sir Loin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Binary_Digit Normally when a person says "that I'm aware of", it's an acknowledgment that they might not know everything there is to know about a subject. I'm not so stupid that I would believe since I haven't heard of something, it doesn't exist.

You would have to live in a cave with no access to the surface of the Earth not to be aware that the theory of Man Made Global Warming remains a theory. One in much debate in global society for at least a decade now. Yet you claim you have no idea that this is the case.

Perhaps the attempt to disingenuously claim you are unaware of this was a foolish one in the end?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Binary_Digit Since you seem to be abundantly aware of that which I am not, rather than insulting my acknowledged shortcomings, perhaps you could provide me with an enlightening link or two? Thanks!

I can certainly provide you links to many well known sources that question the veracity of the MMGW theory. Off hand several highly regarded scientist at MIT come to mind, as well as the Co-Founder of Greenpeace. I do believe that there have even been a couple of well known films about the matter in the last two years. One found by a British court to have at least nine areas of scientific inaccuracy is Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. I also recall a much talked about BBC documentary named The Great Global Warming Swindle.

Your feigned ignorance does not mask what was from you a painfully hackneyed attempt to dismiss the topic of this thread. By stating you're ignorant to a degree that no link I (or anyone else) can provide could assist you with.

To wit entering a debate about Global Warming and declaring you are completely ignorant about the matter is the height of either stupidity or arrogance. I find it completely ridiculous to claim one has no idea that there was any scientific debate about MMGW in a thread about MMGW and the debate about it.

Perhaps honesty is one these “shortcomings” you claim to suffer from? It is after all highly dubious that anyone with internet access could be so utterly unaware of the debates that surround Global Warming. Even more specious would be the claim that you have stumbled into a debate about just that issue without any prior knowledge or stance on the issue.

Sir Loin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Binary_Digit Since you seem to be abundantly aware of that which I am not, rather than insulting my acknowledged shortcomings, perhaps you could provide me with an enlightening link or two? Thanks!

I should also add that discussing your proclaimed ignorance about the matter is hardly insulting you. I don't view discussion of the lack of knowledge (IE: ignorance of said) as an actual insult. Saying your mother wears combat boots and eats kitty litter would be an insult. All nods to the SNL writers who originally wrote that "The Exorcist” joke way back in the 70s given with proper reverence.

You appear both intelligent and informed upon a variety of topics here at DP. Hence my trepidation in accepting that you really have no idea that there is much scientific debate about the theory of Man Made Global Warming. Given your prior claims in this thread about scientist and their findings in the past, I find your outright rejection (or ignorance) about the scientist who disagree with the theory of MMGW a bit self serving and lazy.

akyron

One probably has to have a lot of faith to be a logical scientist at least until you can prove your theories.

You are missing your Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday in your attempt at remapping there though.

__________________

Binary_Digit

Still no link I see. Maybe this can help get you started:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability.

Joint Science Academies - It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere.

U.S. National Research Council - The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.

American Meteorological Society - Human activities have become a major source of environmental change.

American Geophysical Union - Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate.

Federal Climate Change Science Program - Studies ... show clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone). ... The observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, nor by the effects of short-lived atmospheric constituents (such as aerosols and tropospheric ozone) alone.

American Association for the Advancement of Science - The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.

Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London - We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling.

The Geological Society of America - The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries.

American Chemical Society - There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century. Current debates focus on the extent to which humans may be altering the pattern of natural change and appropriate policy responses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...rogram.2C_2006

Like I said, the current debate among scientific experts (not "global society") has graduated from whether or not humans are contributing to climate change, and moved on to how much of an impact it will have.

akyron

Im still wondering how cows farting on earth are making mars hotter.


Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

This guy better watch it. No one likes to have their religion questioned.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance,"





Science Has Spoken:
Global Warming Is a Myth

__________________

Sir Loin

The topic of this thread is the opinion of the founder of the Weather Channel that Man Made Global Warming is the greatest scam in history. The very fact that this thread exist demonstrates that the matter is still very much in debate amongst scientist all across the global community.

We of course know that Global Warming exist and those paying attention know that scientist are very much in disagreement about if it is caused by man made activity. I’m more than aware that many wish to proceed past the science and say the matter is settled, the only thing remaining is what the impact will be. Ironically we have you claiming that we must listen to the scientist as they know what they are talking about. You say this at the same time as you try to pretend that there are no scientists that disagree with the theory of MMGW.

So far all I have seen you do is try to dismiss the entire matter with very thin and weak logic. Your brain surgeon bromide was particularly funny, though I’m not sure you realize why. Add to that your clichéd and empty ExxonMobil scientist argument. According to your fictional take on things (I guess you actually thought your links somehow prove this) there is no debate in the scientific community about the matter at all.

The cornerstone of the MMGW theory is predicated upon the Co2 argument, which at this time is a real problem for the pro MMGW crowd. But that is not really the topic here and I’ve no interest in looking up and submitting any links what so ever to buttress the point that the debate still rages on. It does and you choose to take part in a topic related to the debate. Physician heal thyself.

If you want to start a thread about whether or not Man Made Global Warming is or is not an accepted fact, then start a thread about such. Then you can invite anyone you wish to play “link list" with to take part and you can try your rather thin arguments there. Or you can go to the Environment & Climate Issues forum and take part in some of the prior existing discussion about the matter.

But trying to act as if there is no debate at all about the theory of Man Made Global Warming in a thread dedicated to recent reporting about that very debate? Well now that is original, though it does not make you come across as Einstein IMO.

Binary_Digit

That's true. But I did say "credible scientific debate" - i.e. facts and conclusions that have been peer-reviewed, not ranting and raving about scams and conspiracy theories. If John Coleman is so sure of himself, then why does he neglect to provide just one example of why the other scientists are wrong? He didn't contradict one single scientific fact. All he did was claim that he's right and everyone else is wrong.

1. I am not trying to pretend that dissenting opinions don't exist. I'm saying that I'm not aware of any credible study that supports them.

2. If you've been paying attention and know of credible scientific research that disputes MMGW, then why haven't you been able to cough up any links to support that yet? Are you concerned that they're full of holes and easily debunked?

I have provided peer-reviewed conclusions from 10 different scientific agencies. You have provided nothing but your own opinions.

If you're not willing to support your own argument with evidence, then I guess this whole debate is nothing but a circle jerk.

You're the one who claimed there are "so many scientists that agree with the maverick weatherman." I've asked you repeatedly to support that claim and you've failed every time. You've offered little more than your own opinions, as if we're supposed to take your word for it.

Have you been there lately? The entire first page of threads does not appear to contain what you say it does. I must be missing something, could you kindly point me in the right direction? Which thread(s) are you referring to, and which page(s)?

Tearing down a strawman isn't exactly a mark of genius either. I didn't say there is no debate at all. I said there is no credible debate that I'm aware of. There are two subtle premises in that statement that you should realize:

1. "Credible" means peer-reviewed, and offering specific facts that support the opposing view. It does not mean ranting and raving about scams and conspiracy theories without any supporting evidence.

2. "That I'm aware of" means it might exist, and I will gladly yield upon learning about them.

But as it stands, Akyron has done more in one post than you have in four.

This is why peer review is so important. Here is one scientist who says the Sun's increased intensity is warming Earth and Mars, and here are multiple scientists who say the Sun's measured intensity can not account for the observed changes on Earth.

That article was debunked almost a decade ago, citing specific factual inaccuracies including the data that was used in those charts. Even the article's title should trigger anyone's bull**** detector; two chemists getting together and claiming that "science has spoken," as if they alone speak for all of science, reveals how highly they regard their own infallibility, and should be a red flag for anyone who'se familiar with the scientific method.

Binary_Digit

It can't be that hard for all these doubting scientists to show why the current consensus on MMGW is not accurate. If what they say is true and supported by evidence, then all they have to do is get together under the common goal and do one or more of the following:

1. Show that the historic data is wrong or inaccurate, and why.
2. Show that the historic data was analyzed or interpreted incorrectly, and why.
3. Show that the mainstream conclusions based on the historic data are inaccurate, and why.

Then they need to answer any rebuttals from the rest of the scientific community.

It's really that simple. That's how debate works. If you want to call it a "scientific debate", then it needs to consist of a little bit more than ad-hominem conspiracy theories or isolated (and outdated) proclamations based on factual dishonesty. Why is it so hard to show where this kind of scientific debate on MMGW is occurring right now?

Most of what I've seen so far (and by no means do I claim to have seen everything) follows the pattern of:

Random Scientist: "MMGW is wrong because of X."

All Other Scientists: "Actually, X is wrong because of Y."

Random Scientist: *** crickets ***

Sorry but that's not a debate, no matter how you stretch it.