Page 23 of 41 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 403

Thread: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

  1. #221
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

    Quote Originally Posted by Bergslagstroll View Post
    Well can't you see your own biases.That in this thread the people that believe in science have been called many names for example lunatics. But this doesn't seem concern you instead you get upset then the word deniers is used.


    I have twice posted link to the latest IPCC report and showed the massive scoop of the report. That ther eport itself is also a summary or hundreds if not thousand peer reweied studies. Also it is probably ten of thousands scientist around the world competent to challenge the findings of the report. So if their was error that disprove the findings of the report their would surely been known. Instead the criticism comes from blogs and opinion pieces, look at this thread their are as I believe not even links to a singel peer rewied study question global warming.

    You can't say that they are one big conparicy. Because if somebody really could question the finding of IPCC. They would be remember for a long time in scientific history.Also oil companies that are amongst the richest in the world already spend a lot of money on thinktanks and other that question globalwarming, do you don't think they would also reward scientists that could disprove global warming?

    To me you sound like the people that didn't want to belive smoking was bad or didn't think it was something wrong with lead in petrol.
    You haven't proved any point here.

  2. #222
    Guru

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    10-01-17 @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,498

    Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    He's saying he has as much qualifications for participating in complicated discussions of global finance as uneducated people have in discussing complicated scientific matters.
    Global warming is not a complicated issue. Here it is in a nutshell: are there enough greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to warm the earth to dangerous levels?
    As far as we know, now, dangerous levels of greenhouse gases haven't been proven in earth's atmosphere. Hence, the lack of science.

    Receding ice caps on both poles are supposed indicators of global warming. We do know about correlations, don't we? Does the crowing of roosters cause the sun to rise each morning?

    Ideology has always been foremost in this debate, driving this debate. Environmentalists, either by their desire in making earth's environment more pristine, or having a belief system that man is the main causer of global warming (AGW), focus all their energies on man's pollution of the earth. Some deniers don't want government spending enormous amounts of money to combat global warming because they have an ideology that restricts government.
    Last edited by cabse5; 07-19-14 at 08:05 PM.

  3. #223
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,274

    Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    He's saying he has as much qualifications for participating in complicated discussions of global finance as uneducated people have in discussing complicated scientific matters.
    Like I said that's just screwy. For instance, what are your qualifications to speak on the subject? By your own logic you're disqualified.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  4. #224
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,036

    Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Like I said that's just screwy. For instance, what are your qualifications to speak on the subject? By your own logic you're disqualified.
    Uh, no. If someone claims "nuclear physics isn't real!" I could always ask, "Are you a nuclear physicist? Are you a physicist at all?" If their answer is no, then I can surmise that person probably isn't very qualified to claim that nuclear physics isn't real.

  5. #225
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,036

    Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

    Quote Originally Posted by cabse5 View Post
    Global warming is not a complicated issue. Here it is in a nutshell: are there enough greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to warm the earth to dangerous levels?
    As far as we know, now, dangerous levels of greenhouse gases haven't been proven in earth's atmosphere. Hence, the lack of science.

    Receding ice caps on both poles are supposed indicators of global warming. We do know about correlations, don't we? Does the crowing of roosters cause the sun to rise each morning?

    Ideology has always been foremost in this debate, driving this debate. Environmentalists, either by their desire in making earth's environment more pristine, or having a belief system that man is the main causer of global warming (AGW), focus all their energies on man's pollution of the earth. Some deniers don't want government spending enormous amounts of money to combat global warming because they have an ideology that restricts government.
    When someone who isn't educated in science (in particular, the specific scientific field in question) claims that a scientific subject "is not a complicated issue," that tends to set off a slew of red alarms for me.

  6. #226
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    When someone who isn't educated in science (in particular, the specific scientific field in question) claims that a scientific subject "is not a complicated issue," that tends to set off a slew of red alarms for me.
    That also applies to phrases like "scientific consensus".

  7. #227
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,611

    Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    And critical thinking requires stepping back and looking at something with unemotional honesty. Have you read any of the well-researched and well written commentary on the scientists who are invited to contribute to the IPCC report? Do you think it possible that the fact that no matter how well qualified, no skeptics are welcome among the scientists who develop the 'consensus' opinion and write those reports? Those who disagree are sort of invited out of the organization? Don't you think it possible that having such a built in bias will affect the conclusions and opinion included in those reports? And are you aware that every scientist who is writing those reports is being heavily funded by governments who promote global warming/climate change? Don't you think that merits even a little bit of a raised eyebrow?

    Do you know that the IPCC Summary for Policymakers are not written by scientists though some participate in the process? But the Summary is generally a product of what the various countries' politicians are willing to accept in the report and therefore it is often something less than 'scientific'.

    Accusing oil companies of funding skeptics to deny climate change is invariably specious as there is absolutely no evidence to support that. Oil companies do hire scientific groups, including those promoting AGW, to do studies almost always relative to EPA and similar agency regulations and requirements in advance of construction or oil exploration. But why would the oil companies support the skeptics to be skeptics? They are making out like bandits within the AGW religious fervor. I have a close family member who works for a major oil company who recently designed and built a beef fat rendering plant to convert beef fat to fuel--the total design, construction, and start up costs, mega millions, are being covered by we the taxpayers who will continue to cover the almost certain losses the company will incur running the plant. And when the taxpayer money runs out, the plant will simply be closed and scrapped as is happening to dozens of other 'green energy' companies that have been government funded. And because of AGW generated rules and regs, oil companies can charge a whole bunch more for products the people have to have regardless of price. Why would they want to screw that up? (And Tyson Foods is also benefitting because the government is buying the beef fat from them to supply to the plant.)

    Ultimately, you have a lot of scientists who have staked their reputations and possibly their careers on the doctrine of AGW and they are also making out like bandits supporting the doctrine. They are unlikely to ever admit they have been wrong.

    For those able to set aside the emotional knee jerk responses, attitudes, and assigned talking points on this subject, can understand and appreciate that stepping back and scrutinizing the whole big picture with a critical eye can do wonders for the truth.

    In summary:
    Governments have implemented fuel taxes on non-renewable energy sources and poured billions into constructing wind farms, and other “green” energy strategies, all in the name of reducing carbon emissions. If these scientists are eventually forced to admit that their climate change theories have been terribly mistaken, it will certainly be a very costly one; incalculable sums of money will have been wasted, and the reputation of the scientific community will be left in tatters. On this basis, what would be the incentive for the IPCC to ever confess they were wrong? (--James Fenner)
    Read more at IPCC Report in Doubt: Are Climate Change Skeptics “Dumb”?
    Well I think I completly made my point here. I and other that believes in the scientifc communinties have posted many scientific report including the massive IPCC report. And what do I get then I yet agian ask what scientific evidendence the people questin AGW have? All I got is a link to a op ed and not even the first people mentioned in that op ed are scientists. Instead they are a journalist and a person working for republicans.

    Christopher Booker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Marc Morano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Also scientist are tough look for example at Clair Cameron Pattersson who took on the mighty oil companies and won.

    Clair Cameron Patterson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    So you can't say that amongst tens of thousands of scientist their would be none tough enough to question global warming. And in the case of Global Warming you can't deny that it's a lot of powerful interest againts global warming that would gladly support scientists that question global warming.

    So if it's so much wrong with the IPCC and the scientifc result about global warming we could have a real scientific debate about gw. Their the people against global warming would present scientific findings and scientist question gw. Instead the people question GW have posted links to op ed and opions of non scientiss.

    Then it comes to reducing greenhous gases their are a lot of positive example. For example I have linked to sources about a drastic global increase in both solar and wind power and also both presented a report and concrete positive example with community power. Also I have posted a link to a souce the cost could be 1 % of global GDP to reduce greenhouse gases.

    You also don't have to forget the massive subsidies to the fossil fuel companies. That during the period 2002-2008 the subsidies to fossil fuel was 72 billion compared to 29 billion to renewable in the USA.

    http://www.eli.org/sites/default/fil...ubs/d19_07.pdf


    Besides the cost for subsidies you also have to consider the huge military and political cost of being dependent on oil from the middle east.
    Last edited by Bergslagstroll; 07-20-14 at 04:26 AM.

  8. #228
    Sage
    longview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,356

    Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

    Quote Originally Posted by Bergslagstroll View Post
    Well I think I completly made my point here. I and other that believes in the scientifc communinties have posted many scientific report including the massive IPCC report. And what do I get then I yet agian ask what scientific evidendence the people questin AGW have? All I got is a link to a op ed and not even the first people mentioned in that op ed are scientists. Instead they are a journalist and a person working for republicans.

    Christopher Booker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Marc Morano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Also scientist are tough look for example at Clair Cameron Pattersson who took on the mighty oil companies and won.

    Clair Cameron Patterson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    So you can't say that amongst tens of thousands of scientist their would be none tough enough to question global warming. And in the case of Global Warming you can't deny that it's a lot of powerful interest againts global warming that would gladly support scientists that question global warming.

    So if it's so much wrong with the IPCC and the scientifc result about global warming we could have a real scientific debate about gw. Their the people against global warming would present scientific findings and scientist question gw. Instead the people question GW have posted links to op ed and opions of non scientiss.

    Then it comes to reducing greenhous gases their are a lot of positive example. For example I have linked to sources about a drastic global increase in both solar and wind power and also both presented a report and concrete positive example with community power. Also I have posted a link to a souce the cost could be 1 % of global GDP to reduce greenhouse gases.

    You also don't have to forget the massive subsidies to the fossil fuel companies. That during the period 2002-2008 the subsidies to fossil fuel was 72 billion compared to 29 billion to renewable in the USA.

    http://www.eli.org/sites/default/fil...ubs/d19_07.pdf


    Besides the cost for subsidies you also have to consider the huge military and political cost of being dependent on oil from the middle east.
    Instead of playing Wikigames, with appeals to authority, let's look at the Science.
    When we peel away the layers of obscurity in the IPCC reports.
    Get past all the what-if warnings, we get to section "1.2.2 key concepts in climate Science".
    They cite a paper Baede et al.
    Within Baede et al, they lay out where the beliefs of catastrophic AGW are based.
    If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously,
    with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared
    radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm−2. In other words, the
    radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration
    would be 4 Wm−2. To counteract this imbalance, the
    temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to
    increase by 1.2C (with an accuracy of 10%), in the absence of
    other changes. In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the
    climate system is much more complex. It is believed that the
    overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase
    to 1.5 to 4.5C. A significant part of this uncertainty range arises
    from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with
    radiation.
    The temperature record is the GISS,
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt
    The J-D volume goes from -.21 C to +.59 C, that's .8 C most places.
    CO2 level, we can go with NOAA, 401 ppm (the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm is widely accepted)
    ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

    So doubling CO2 from 280 ppm would raise the level to 560 ppm,
    at 401 ppm we are 121/280= .43% of our way towards a doubling of CO2.
    Since Baede et al said the 1.2 C was only 10%, a simple curve fit will be close enough.
    4X(log560)-4X(log280)=1.204 (a little high, but within 10%)
    4X(log560)-4X(log401)=.580 (this is the remaining part so) 1.2 C- .580 C= .62 C

    The observed increase is .8 C,
    The direct response of CO2 is .62 C.
    The difference is .18 C.

    At it's most basic level, the catastrophic portions of the IPCC predictions are not showing up in the data
    in a way that shows itself beyond the natural variation, I.E. Noise.

  9. #229
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,036

    Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    That also applies to phrases like "scientific consensus".
    The overwhelming majority of scientists agreeing on something alarms you? That's...odd.

  10. #230
    Guru

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    10-01-17 @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,498

    Re: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    When someone who isn't educated in science (in particular, the specific scientific field in question) claims that a scientific subject "is not a complicated issue," that tends to set off a slew of red alarms for me.
    Why the alarms? Here's one better: what scientific proof is there of global warming? What causes global warming?
    Last edited by cabse5; 07-20-14 at 02:09 PM.

Page 23 of 41 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •