Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

Fenton said:

LOL !!

No, I can tell by their decision to quietly change their minds and admit that July 2012 was NOT the Hottest month on record.

You DO understand the concept of the Scientific method, don't you ?

Deliberately altering data to achieve the desired end result is only " Science " to the Liberals who are ideologically predisposed to believe what their politicians and the media tell them to believe .

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

You're actively (and super obviously) avoiding the question. Why are you attending a meeting of art and philosophy majors in discussing car repair instead of a meeting of car mechanics?

You can try like everybody else in this thread to draw me away from my point into a debate on global warming all day long, I guarantee you it won't work.

Click to expand...

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

• Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [16]
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[17][18][19]

• Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)[20]
• Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University[21]
• Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm[22]
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[23]
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [24]
• Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[25]

Click to expand...

Verax said:

I can't but the scientists that deal with these things can. Again, you cannot "prove" anything in science. You can only support ideas with evidence. Gravity is not "proven", our understanding of the phenomena simply allows us to navigate the characteristics that can be reliably used again and again. We can apply maths to an object rolling down a plank at a certain angle and figure its speed and acceleration. These systems work so we use them. How gravity actually works we don't really know, gravitons? Even if we knew that we still couldn't "prove" gravity because of other unknowns. What are gravitons made of? What are the things gravitons are made of made of? How do all these things work together? Where did they come from? You can't prove anything in science, you can only gravitate towards the seemingly best ideas.

Btw, you don't capitalize science and scientific, it is not a magical entity like Jesus.

So... you believe mainstream science is all corrupt, so who are the real scientists? What are the true scientific institutions?

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

You're actively (and super obviously) avoiding the question. Why are you attending a meeting of art and philosophy majors in discussing car repair instead of a meeting of car mechanics?

You can try like everybody else in this thread to draw me away from my point into a debate on global warming all day long, I guarantee you it won't work.

Click to expand...

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[27]
• Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[28][29]
• Tim Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg[30]
• Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University[31]
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[32]
• Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[33]
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[34]
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[35]
• William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[36]
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[37]
• Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[38]

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

You're actively (and super obviously) avoiding the question. Why are you attending a meeting of art and philosophy majors in discussing car repair instead of a meeting of car mechanics?

You can try like everybody else in this thread to draw me away from my point into a debate on global warming all day long, I guarantee you it won't work.

Click to expand...

• Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[39]
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[40]
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[41]
• Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri[42]
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[43]
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[44][45]
• Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[46]
• Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[47]
• Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University[48]
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[49][50]
• Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo[51]
• Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[52][53][54]
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[55]
• Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[56]
• Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center[57]
• George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[58]
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[59]

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

You're actively (and super obviously) avoiding the question. Why are you attending a meeting of art and philosophy majors in discussing car repair instead of a meeting of car mechanics?

You can try like everybody else in this thread to draw me away from my point into a debate on global warming all day long, I guarantee you it won't work.

Click to expand...

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[60]
• Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[61]
• Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[62]
• John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[63][64]
• Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[65]
• David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[66]
• Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.[67]
• Vincent R. Gray, New Zealander physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[68]
• Keith Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[69]
• Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[70]

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [71]
• Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[72]
• Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[73]

Click to expand...

Fenton said:

Lol !

And we're the one's who are scientifically ignorant ?

In Science there are LAWS and THEORIES, and there are distinctions between the two.

For example, the Laws of Thermodynamics compared to the Theory of Evolution.

Laws are empirical statements or descriptions without exception at the time they were created.

Theories are explanations based on a acquired set of observations that seek to expand the knowledge of that observable phenomena.

And you're getting no where with the generalizations and hyperbole. No one said all of main stream Science was corrupt.

Click to expand...

eohrnberger said:

An interesting list of art majors . . . .
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hold on. There's more.

Click to expand...

Verax said:

The natural composition of the atmosphere contains water and methane and yes they are greenhouse gases. However they are also natural and belong there because of the history of the Earth. This natural cycle is longstanding and slow, its changes happen over thousands of years. Life has adapted to these conditions, slowly, over billions of years.

Man venting Co2 into the atmosphere is not natural, it is changing the composition of it. This effect is changing the climate through global warming. Why would we not address the man made changes that are causing this change?

We need some greenhouse gases to keep the Earth warm, it is a balance that has been worked out over millions of years. We are upsetting this balance.

Click to expand...

Verax said:

So its just the science you disagree with that is corrupt?

Your rambling about scientific law and theory adds up to what exactly? Were you trying to make a point?

Click to expand...

eohrnberger said:

What we are talking about here is the scientific method.

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Step by step:

• Formulation of a question
• Hypothesis
• Prediction
• Testing
• Analysis

If the hypothesis passes peer review, and the results duplicated in a number of instances, it becomes a scientific theory or law and is generally accepted, until someone comes up with an instance where it fails, and the whole process starts all over again.

Constant refinement, testing and challenging.

Click to expand...

Fenton said:

If you're unable to understand my point then that's on you, not me.

Your " scientific " generalizations needed to be corrected.

At least your Capitalization skills seem to be intact.

Corruption is using adjusted numbers to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.

And that's exactly what the NOAA did when they claimed that July 2012 was the hottest month on record.

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

Your post is nothing more than trolling. Is your position so weak (rhetorical question, I already know the answer to that)? I'll mark you down with J-mac as "running away from the question." Anybody else want to take a stab at it?

Click to expand...

eohrnberger said:

My, how easily you dismiss legitimate and scientifically based experts in the field when it doesn't support your position, rather than legitimately defend your position.

Your position is 'why are you listening / believing art majors about a scientific field'. I produced a lengthy list of scientific people learned in the field that oppose the conclusions, and you say that's a weak argument.

Hmm. Somehow I'm lead to the conclusion that your argument is weaker than you are letting on or allow yourself to admit.

Click to expand...

Verax said:

Vagueness as a self defense mechanism. :roll:

Didn't triple goofs already debunk your NOAA diatribe? In all seriousness... does it really matter that they made a mistake? A mistake that they corrected... Is this the pivotal piece of evidence that makes or breaks AGW?

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

You were deliberately misrepresenting my argument, which was an analogy in choosing between art/philosophy majors and car mechanics in understanding car repair. So why, in that analogy, are you choosing art philosophy majors in better understanding car repair?

Click to expand...

eohrnberger said:

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not seeing any art majors in there. So that'd be another false claim on your part?

Click to expand...

eohrnberger said:

No, I am not choosing art/philosophy majors, per your analogy.

Re-read the list of the learned scientists that oppose various parts of the climate change hypothesis.

I don't understand how to continue to miss-characterize this list of learned scientists as 'art/philosophy' in your analogy. They are anything but. They are also car mechanics, in your analogy.

Click to expand...

Verax said:

You're funnier than you are educated, but not very funny.

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

One more thing:

It is not "fair to say the science is in dispute," as if there are good arguments on both sides. Rather, there is significant scientific consensus that human beings are contributing to global warming.

Do scientists disagree about global warming? | PolitiFact

Click to expand...

Threegoofs said:

Seems like a guy that disputes the conclusions of most scientists might want to UNDERSTAND the scientific issues before he comments.

But I guess you think that respiration = disruption in the carbon cycle....

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

It's a small list and not representative of the whole, and many also dispute the list. But the poster you're discussing is likely thinking of this:

Since the group was nice enough to list all 31,000 signers, including the dead people, let's take a look at the qualifications of three randomly-selected "climate experts."

W. Kline Bolton, M.D. is a professor of medicine and Nephrology Division Chief at the University of Virginia. Nephrology deals with the study of the function and diseases of the kidney.
Zhonggang Zeng is one of the 9,000 with a PhD. He is a professor of mathematics at Northeastern Illinois University. His most recent publication is entitled "Computing multiple roots of inexact polynomials."
Hub Hougland is a dentist in Muncie, Indiana. He was inducted into the Indiana Basketball Hall of Fame last year.

31,000 "Scientists" (Some Dead) Refute Global Warming

Deniers always seem to inflate the small dissent there is and how much they dissent.

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

:shrug: I've heard goofier things coming out of the AGW crowd. Such as we should all stop eating meat because the cattle cause global warming...

Click to expand...

Threegoofs said:

Please dont fall into his fantasy of saying NOAA 'made a mistake'.

NOAA reclassified this because of new and improved historical data that they have uncovered.

Its really only of significance to the deniers, anyway. A record of the hottest month in the US (not the globe) vs. one that was virtually identically hot is just an outlier in a highly variable set of data. But when the outliers tend to bunch up in a single decade, decade after decade, in the US as well as the world... thats a signal.

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Awww...What's the matter Mr. "Progressive".... Not able to take a little ribbing eh? :boohoo:

Click to expand...