So obama believes in the myth of global warming...

[SallyNow]

Here's a little thing that some people may not realize: We live on Earth. We are polluting Earth. Global climate change is a symptom that is hard to see unless one knows what to look for.

However, one can see smog (you know, that dirty fog that makes you cough). One can see dirty waterway (water isn't supposed to be opaque)

Do you know what that dirty smog and opaque water is doing to you? Doing to each and every one of us? It's slowly killing us. We people in North America and those in Europe don't see the worst of it, though. No, the worst is sent off to those other people... down in that country Africa (actually it's a continent) and to Asia (which is actually made up of many countries).

America sends "jobs" overseas, but it also sends soot, smog, dirty water, and all the things America's don't want.

A way to get jobs back into America is to make products in a cleaner, less polluting way. That also happens to lesser the impact on climate change.

So, you see, Pres. Elect Obama realizes these facts. And because of that, he realizes that going green is good, while lolling at smog is about as productive as putting one's head in the sand and taking a deep breath.

 

[Baggins]

The debate is over people! Now just shut up!!!

The debate isn't over.

It should, however, be conducted by those who have some idea what they are talking about.

That excludes right wing political bloggers with a bee in their bonnet.

Science isn't a difficult concept although the details can be immensely difficult and hard work.

When the vast majority of scientists in a field and all the scientific bodies in a field come to a consensus it is a good idea to accept their expertise unless you have very strong contrary evidence and a strong understanding of that evidence.

I have never seen a single credible piece of evidence that refutes any part of the scientific consensus on GW and Climate change.

The fact that you and others think that posting right wing op-ed pieces is credible is, quite frankly, laughable.

Like this

 

[Baggins]

And claiming there is a scientific consensus is just politics and a lie.

It is you who are the liar.

You did not post one credible scientific source - Fox News - you are either a joking or a joke.

Anyone who thinks these:



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357201,00.html



http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=19026


http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_128269.asp


http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/...ming020507.htm


http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22621

are authorities on a scientific question is either dishonest or so biased as to be indistinguishable from dishonest.

I also question whether someone who cannot understand a simple concept like a "greenhouse gas" should be engaging in a scientific discussion.

It is obvious that your naysaying is driven by your political outlook rather than any evidence.

You are out of your depth and making yourself appear ridiculous to other posters.

If you want to learn about AGW go to the Physical and Biological Sciences board and ask for help.

 

[LJSGM]

"The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great— and for destroying those who destroy the earth."Revelation 11:18

hehehe

 

[Jackinbox78]

Which part shows actual physical evidence that greenhouse gasses is the "cause" of global warming? There is zero physical evidence showing these gasses precede any observed warming at all.

Well, if you reject every peer-reviewed made by scientist on the subject, I guess you can say that. I have a simple principle in regard of science. If I'm not a expert myself on a peculiar subject, I must assume the dominant opinion is the correct one. I'm talking, of course, about the opinion of the experts. To be considered an expert the requirement is that you published a peer-reviewed paper on the peculiar subject in a well recognised publication. It's that simple. If you decide to side with the minority on a subject that you have very little knowledge of, then you seriously distrust science. It's a radical position to hold and I would really want to know why you distrust the scientific community.

 

[Braunwyn]

It's a radical position to hold and I would really want to know why you distrust the scientific community.

That would make for an interesting thread.

 

[tanzanos]

Hehe! Wait till an F6 tornado or hurricane hits the Bible belt region!

More heat = more energy and warmer oceans means more powerful storms!

Anyone who has read the three little pigs and continues to build wooden houses in tornado alley Is not really intelligent now is he?

As for Fox news? It is a joke to say the least. Anyone with an intelligence higher than that of a jellyfish can see this.

 

[romanov]

If global warming is supposedly such a crock, you're welcome to debunk it. So far, I haven't seen any evidence that global warming is a myth. That doesn't mean it isn't a myth, but if global warming is supposedly so wrong, you'd think those opposed to it would have an easy time debunking it.
Ringo

Here is a start.

 

[Baggins]

Here is a start.

That isn't a start it is an article in a newspaper.

That is what you always get from GW deniers, you don't get science, you don't even get balance, you get pieces in right wing news papers.

Have you got anything credible?

There is no scientific debate over the fact that the earth is warming and that climate patterns are changing - that much is just simple fact. There isn't much debate anymore over the fact that human actions are a contributing factor to this phenomenon, I can't think of any scientific body of repute that rejects that.

There is debate over the level of human contribution and what actions we should take in the face of this change, but again I don't see many serious arguments that we shouldn't modify our behaviour in the face of these facts.

Any one who can't see this either has not followed the scientific discourse; cannot ( mentally ) follow the scientific discourse or chooses to ignore the scientific discourse for non-scientific ( political, religious etc ) reasons.

I should declare an interest here; I am a Chief Geophysicist for a major hydrocarbon exploration service provider. Actions to curb carbon emissions could negatively impact my job prospects; that doesn't mean I will ignore reality or traduce the scientific method.

 

[Matthew_18:14]

Here an article that isn't from some "Right Wing" source. This doesn't disprove Global Warming, but it does bring up some very good questions.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/19/nasa_giss_cockup_catalog/

I'll post a few more articles that discuss what these "green" proposals might lead to. Read these if you would like another vantage point.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/mackay_on_carbon_free_uk/ --Precursor, to the link below.

http://www.withouthotair.com/ --A reasonable discussion on what needs to be done to curb global warming (if it even exists). This is written by a physics professor from the UK. He uses numbers and logic to explain how we can power our homes, businesses, and vehicles.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/22/global_warming_mitigation_vs_adaptation/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/21/monckton_aps/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/03/goddard_polar_ice/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/14/climate_comment/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/14/freeman_dyson_climate_heresies/

Please let me know what you think.

 

[Braunwyn]

Based on some of the links posted a few pages back, I don't think it's the best idea to rely on the intepretations of scientific literature from a journalist, assuming s/he is not an expert in the field of climate science. There is a wealth of information on the net from actual scientists. Yesterday I ran into an excellent website that collected links from almost every journal and sci-mag with reviews for accuracy. I'll see if I can find it.

 

[chaim]

This still illustrates the theme that has been running through this thread. The climate change skeptics don't cite science, they cite opinion. The Register is an opinion journal, and all the references below are editorials. If you are really interested in the science of climate change, go to the source and not an editorial.

I am not going to spend the time going through all these posts, if you want to discuss something in particular bring it up in your own words an we can talk about it.

However I did read the first one, it was about the (now fixed) data error in the GIS data set. One of their data sources transposed the month column in their data set (labeling September data as Ocotber data) which made October appear particularly warm. The error was pointed out and they promptly fixed it (it didn't change the fact the October was anomolously warm, just less anomlously warm) this demonstrates how science works. It is reviewed, and if there are errors they are found and fixed, this not a bad thing. If the climate skeptics have found a flaw they should publish their findings in the scientific journals which is the forum for scientific discourse. Instead they have a tendency to publish half truths and exgerations in opinion pages to a political audience. I challenge everyone here to consider if their views on climate change are driven by science or politics.

Here an article that isn't from some "Right Wing" source. This doesn't disprove Global Warming, but it does bring up some very good questions.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/19/nasa_giss_cockup_catalog/

I'll post a few more articles that discuss what these "green" proposals might lead to. Read these if you would like another vantage point.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/mackay_on_carbon_free_uk/ --Precursor, to the link below.

http://www.withouthotair.com/ --A reasonable discussion on what needs to be done to curb global warming (if it even exists). This is written by a physics professor from the UK. He uses numbers and logic to explain how we can power our homes, businesses, and vehicles.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/22/global_warming_mitigation_vs_adaptation/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/21/monckton_aps/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/03/goddard_polar_ice/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/14/climate_comment/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/14/freeman_dyson_climate_heresies/

Please let me know what you think.

 

[joebudda]

It is you who are the liar.

How? Do you have any physical evidence that shows anything I said was a lie?

You did not post one credible scientific source - Fox News - you are either a joking or a joke.

Anyone who thinks these:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357201,00.html
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=19026
http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_128269.asp
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/...ming020507.htm
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22621
are authorities on a scientific question is either dishonest or so biased as to be indistinguishable from dishonest.

This is to show there is no scientific consensus. Unless you are under some weird belief that you get to pick who decides what a consensus is?

Or do you have any reason to believe this quote isn't true other then you just denying it?
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=22621

One hundred scientists voiced strong opposition on December 13 to United Nations' efforts to create an illusion of scientific consensus regarding global warming. In an open letter to the UN, the scientists noted attempts to ration carbon dioxide emissions to mitigate alleged global warming would be "ultimately futile."

The scientists, many of whom are current and former UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientists, noted, "Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming." The following is the text of the letter and the list of signatories.

I also question whether someone who cannot understand a simple concept like a "greenhouse gas" should be engaging in a scientific discussion.

Who doesn't understand "greenhouse gas"?
Maybe you will be able to tell me what physical evidence there is that shows these gases "cause" global warming? This shouldn't be a problem from someone like yourself who believes they are so informed?

It is obvious that your naysaying is driven by your political outlook rather than any evidence.

It is clear you haven't read this thread. I have brought up quite a lot of evidence. What are your thoughts on that evidence?

You are out of your depth and making yourself appear ridiculous to other posters.

If you want to learn about AGW go to the Physical and Biological Sciences board and ask for help.

Amusing coming you. Apparently you believe science is just something you are not to question and just accept as dogma. And you have every right to believe what ever nonsense you desire, just don't force your nonsense beliefs onto me. Seems simple enough, doesn't it?

 

[joebudda]

The climate change skeptics don't cite science, they cite opinion.

I have cited evidence.
It is you who has yet to support your claim that greenhouse gasses actually cause global warming. You haven't cited any physical evidence at all, just someones opinion. Maybe you should look in the mirror.

 

[Matthew_18:14]

Based on some of the links posted a few pages back, I don't think it's the best idea to rely on the intepretations of scientific literature from a journalist, assuming s/he is not an expert in the field of climate science. There is a wealth of information on the net from actual scientists. Yesterday I ran into an excellent website that collected links from almost every journal and sci-mag with reviews for accuracy. I'll see if I can find it.

You can read the physics professors book. It at least speaks to the problem using numbers and reality. Unfortunately the green movement has now turned into a money maker, so their are many people who stand to make a substantial profit by promoting the notion that the earth is warming up. Not to mention the fact that I'm not quite sure how you become an expert on "Global Warming". What are the qualifications for this? Is there a test that must be taken, before you are considered an expert? This notion that we should listen to the "experts" is bogus. Last time I checked there isn't a board of review like a doctor, or a lawyer has and there certainly isn't an exam that certifies someone as a "Global Warming" expert. IMHO we should listen to all scientists that might have some knowledge about earth and it's processes. We should also listen to scientists that may have a differing opinion. The scientific process is not being promoted in this Global Warming promulgation that we are seeing. Please let me know if you see different and let me know why you see it differently.

 

[Axioma]

Who exactly is making all this money off the Green Movement and the idea of Global Warming? The massive Solar Panel lobby?

 

[mpok1519]

wow.

another GW thread?

There are people out there that still don't believe in global warming when there is EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE saying that within the last hundred years the earth's avg temp has risen a degree. That is proof of global warming; yeah, a degree doesn't seem like much, but it is still warming on a global scale.

global warming isn't an accurate thing however; climate change as a result of global warming is a very very true reality though; if the globe gets warmer, it cools itself off with dramatic weather change such as ice ages, shifting ocean currents, etc, which can have a huge impact on people.

The experts agree while GW may still be in the air, dramatic climate change is a very real possibility.

 

[Baggins]

How? Do you have any physical evidence that shows anything I said was a lie?

That would be easy. You said the scientific consensus was a lie, I said that was a lie.

I will retract my calling you a liar if you can post one reputable scientific organisation that is against the scientific consensus.

If you can't do that you are a liar.

I don't want a list of people with scientific qualifications who don't accept AGW, I want part of the scientific consensus a scientific body.

Off you go

This is to show there is no scientific consensus. Unless you are under some weird belief that you get to pick who decides what a consensus is?

The scientific consensus is made up of reputable scientific bodies, not right wing blogs and op-ed pieces.

Or do you have any reason to believe this quote isn't true other then you just denying it?
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=22621

That quote isn't in a scientific journal it is a right wing news source so I have every reason to believe it is not truthful.

Who doesn't understand "greenhouse gas"?
Maybe you will be able to tell me what physical evidence there is that shows these gases "cause" global warming?

This has been shown to you numerous times on this thread, you obviously haven't understood it. QED.

It is clear you haven't read this thread. I have brought up quite a lot of evidence. What are your thoughts on that evidence?

I think if you knew the first thing about climate change science you would know that what you brought up was refuted evidence.

Amusing coming you. Apparently you believe science is just something you are not to question and just accept as dogma.

No, I believe the complete opposite of that

And you have every right to believe what ever nonsense you desire, just don't force your nonsense beliefs onto me. Seems simple enough, doesn't it?

I don't have nonsense beliefs, they are informed by both a scientific education and an understanding of the scientific consensus and what a powerful idea that is.

Science isn't a democracy or a popularity contest.

 

[Matthew_18:14]

However I did read the first one, it was about the (now fixed) data error in the GIS data set. One of their data sources transposed the month column in their data set (labeling September data as Ocotber data) which made October appear particularly warm. The error was pointed out and they promptly fixed it (it didn't change the fact the October was anomolously warm, just less anomlously warm) this demonstrates how science works. It is reviewed, and if there are errors they are found and fixed, this not a bad thing. If the climate skeptics have found a flaw they should publish their findings in the scientific journals which is the forum for scientific discourse. Instead they have a tendency to publish half truths and exgerations in opinion pages to a political audience. I challenge everyone here to consider if their views on climate change are driven by science or politics.

If you read further you would have found that NASA has inexplicably lowered temperatures that were reported earlier in the century. Why would they need to do that unless they wanted to push the fact that the temperature is going up. I would also like to point you to the www.withouthotair.com website if you would like realistic numbers related to how we can use green power to power our nations.

Below you will find a couple of videos from a Geologist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLk...m/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.21

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06...m/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.21

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXD...m/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.21

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXD...m/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.21

 

[Braunwyn]

You can read the physics professors book. It at least speaks to the problem using numbers and reality.

I wasn't charging you, just so you know. We ran into a few problems yesterday with the credibility of editorialists, that's all. Frankly and regardless of subject, scientific reviews can be a real toss-up and from non-scientists it's more troublesome ime.

Unfortunately the green movement has now turned into a money maker, so their are many people who stand to make a substantial profit by promoting the notion that the earth is warming up.

Indeed. I have not doubt about that. Both sides have a lot to lose and gain with their positions.

Not to mention the fact that I'm not quite sure how you become an expert on "Global Warming". What are the qualifications for this? Is there a test that must be taken, before you are considered an expert?

There are, at the very least, two components that deem a scientist an expert in whatever field, which are relevant education and research with peer-review publication.

This notion that we should listen to the "experts" is bogus. Last time I checked there isn't a board of review like a doctor, or a lawyer has and there certainly isn't an exam that certifies someone as a "Global Warming" expert.

I wouldn't say a review board deems someone an expert. Rather experience does this and experience is coupled with the measures noted above.

IMHO we should listen to all scientists that might have some knowledge about earth and it's processes. We should also listen to scientists that may have a differing opinion. The scientific process is not being promoted in this Global Warming promulgation that we are seeing. Please let me know if you see different and let me know why you see it differently.

Well, one example is the petition I noted a few pages back. Some 30,000 scientists signed the petition that GW is a myth. These scientists consisted of fictional characters, non-scientists, and scientists that should not have an opinion on the matter if they hold to ethics. As I mentioned in those posts, I qualify to sign that petition even though I don't know diddly about climate science. That is problematic but the opinion writer for fox simply didn't/doesn't know any better.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't review opposing views, but we should be careful when looking at either side of the debate.