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

[Baggins]

Being there are climate scientist who don't agree with the finding is "proof" there is no consensus.

So climate scientist don't count in your list? You believe you get to define what a consensus is or isn't?

Clearly you will only accept individuals who agree with your own illusion of a world view.

No I will only accept reputable scientific organisations that refute AGW as proof that there is not a consensus on AGW.

You can pretty much find individual scientists who will agree with any crackpot claim from creationism to flat earthism.

To show their isn't a scientific consensus you'd have to point to a reputable and relevant scientific body that deny GW and climate change.

You are unable to do this therefore your claim that there is no scientific consensus on these matters is a bare faced lie.

Science is the evidence, not the people who look at the evidence.

No science is the interpretation of evidence not the evidence itself.

If you can't even grasp that then I believe you have little place trying to comment on a scientific thread.

evidence is a bunch of facts science is the interpretation of those facts to support an hypothesis.

The evidence is things like ice borehole data and temperature records, but that in itself is not science. Science is the interpretation of that evidence to support an hypothesis; in this case climate change.

And I have yet to see any physical evidence showing greenhouse gasses "cause" global warming, let alone that claim that CO2 is causing it.

In that case you have either not being paying attention or you have failed to understand some posts. I have seen graphs of IR absorption spectra posted on here that show why carbon dioxide causes global warming, you either missed them, which seems unlikely, or didn't understand them and now claim to have never noticed them.

But your "left wing" sources you believe as dogma.

Which left wing sources are these? Are you deluded enough to believe that peer reviewed scientific journals have a political bias?

Maybe you can show me a peer reviewed paper that shows that greenhouse gases "cause" global warming?

I think, looking over the thread that a nearly 30 year old paper doing just that has since been posted.

And being it was peer reviewed, maybe you can cite the reviews by the peers as well?

I don't think you understand what peer reviewed means in the context of scientific publishing.

Really, then you shouldn't have any problem citing the physical evidence that shows green house gases cause global warming?

I suggest you re-read the thread it has already been posted.

Amusing, maybe if you actually understood science.
Then you shouldn't have any problem citing the physical evidence that shows green house gases cause global warming?

Again this has since been posted.

It isn't like the idea is new or outrageous. CO2 has been known to be a green house gas and the mechanism by which it does this are fairly simple physics that have been known for decades.

Clearly I hit the nail on the head.

I don't think you have even spotted a nail as yet.

If you believe science is a "scientific consensus" (which on this issue there is none) then you do believe that science is a democracy or popularity contest.
Not big on logic and reason it seems.

Again you don't appear to understand the scientific method. Consensus coalesces around the most correct interpretation of the evidence, not the most popular. Creationism is immensely popular in the US but it is a non-starter as a scientific idea, the consensus has already formed around Darwinian evolution.

It appears to me that your problem lies in a gross misunderstanding of not only the science of climatology, but what science actually is.

 

[Baggins]

Well you seem to have lost your glasses. So let me help you there.

Scientists from NASA say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.

So what?

So 90% of all climatologists are therefore wrong about AGW.

OK

 

[mpok1519]

Climate change is a very real thing that can happen if we keep pumping poisonous gases into the atmosphere.

its a good thing Obama relieves the REALITy of global warming.

 

[chaim]

It seems that people are having a lot of trouble seperating politics and science. In many conversations with climate skeptics several patterns have emerged, and this thread is a good example of these patterns.

The first and obvious pattern is that climate skeptics are almost exclusively on the right end of the political spectrum, either conservatives or libertarians. Non-skeptics tend to draw more from the left end of the political spectrum, but increasingly they are coming from both ends.

The second observation is that climate skeptics almost always seem to start with a conclusion (anthropogenic climate change is false) and work backwards. This is more difficult to identify, but there are indicators. Shifting goalposts are a pretty clear example of this - an example is the argument that 'global warming stopped in 2000 and is therefor not caused by humans'. It is then pointed out that in fact the climate continued to warm since 2000, and all of a sudden the argument shifts to 'Mars is warming therefore the warming on earth is not caused by humans'. IF one were looking at the evidence and then reaching a conclusion, a demonstration that the evidence shows the contrary would lead one to change ones conclusion. However one were to start at the conclusions and then look for evidence, changing your sources of evidence to try and support your conclusion would be expected. Looking at the sources people have cited here also makes it clear that they are searching for confirmation of their conclusion and not looking at the evidence as whole.

Finally the question is 'why do (some) conservatives go to great lengths to be contrarian on climate change?' The answer to this goes beyond the science. Correct me if I am wrong, but many people on the right end of the political spectrum are adverse to the policy solutions that are currently being discussed for climate change. They are ideologically opposed to carbon taxes, increased government intrusions, and multinational ('new world order') solutions. However one needs to make a distinction between the science and the policy responses to the science. If you have a problem with the policy, that is fine. Policy responses are in the domain of politics and can be discussed as such. However trying to deny the science because of political objections to the policy is asinine.

Anyone else have any theories as to the appartent political leanings of climate skeptics?

 

[mpok1519]

yes; it seems right winged conservatives would rather have us believe we have absolutely NO IMPACT on the enviornment, and that we should DO NOTHING to help the earth.

Its almost as if they WANT people to pollute and be ignorant to the obvious impact we have on our planet.

its almost as if they WANT the earth to die....

 

[Guttermouth]

I honestly don't believe it is policy-driven. The far right has become nothing more than willful contrarians. They just want to do, say and believe the opposite of what they perceive the left believes. If you listen to talk radio you will clearly see this. Talk radio is basically political theater. Problem is, people tune in, listen and make decisions based on what is said on shows that are specifically designed and formatted to gain listeners and revenues by spouting vitreolic contrarian views.

Its the same thing here. Granted, tehre are some who honestly study and disbeleive the consesnsus on climate science and the policies related to it. But mostly I think we are dealing with impetuous individuals who are towing the conservative line.

 

[chaim]

Any of the skeptics care to talk about why they believe what they do?
(Or have we finally convinced you all of the science and there aren't any skeptics anymore?)

 

[joebudda]

Any of the skeptics care to talk about why they believe what they do?
(Or have we finally convinced you all of the science and there aren't any skeptics anymore?)

I am still waiting for you to show physical evidence that these gases cause warming.

I am not arguing correlation but causation. <staff edit> All the evidence suggests that these gases follow warming, there is zero evidence that they precede it, let alone cause it.
<staff edit>.......<staff edit>
So have a nice day.

 

[chaim]

You seem to have missed the reference I posted earlier to the seminal paper by Hansen. Secondly I feel like you are being a little facetious. We have shown physical evidence of correlation (not conclusive on its own, but definitely considered as evidence), we have shown physical evidence of a mechanism (goes a step beyond correlation) and we have shown physical evidence that none of the other proposed mechanism can explain what we observe. So yeah, we have shown a lot of physical evidence.

However I think what you are looking for is proof (in the mathematical sense) which simply doesn't exist in science.

I am still waiting for you to show physical evidence that these gases cause warming.

I am not arguing correlation but causation. You do understand the difference don't you? All the evidence suggests that these gases follow warming, there is zero evidence that they precede it, let alone cause it.

And honestly I am done with this topic because rather then stay on topic you and your buddies keep making frivolous arguments to support your illusions of collectivism, such as cramming everyone into some "far right" category, relating any questions to "creationism" or whatever. And your immature attempts to rationalize the positions of others honest questioning with your strawmen as if it supports anything at all except your own delusions of the world is absurd.

So have a nice day.

 

[Braunwyn]

However I think what you are looking for is proof (in the mathematical sense) which simply doesn't exist in science.

Yes, I think that's what it boils down to.

 

[Baggins]

I am still waiting for you to show physical evidence that these gases cause warming.

.

This is just disingenuous, you have been shown both on this thread and via links the exact physical properties of CO2 that make it a greenhouse gas.

This is /thread for me

If you have a sensible question about the science of global warming go to the Physical and Biological and ask people who know to explain it to you.

You obviously don't understand the science and have some bizarre political or religious objection to the science that people who do understand have presented.

 

[Gracchus]

yes; it seems right winged conservatives would rather have us believe we have absolutely NO IMPACT on the enviornment, and that we should DO NOTHING to help the earth.

Its almost as if they WANT people to pollute and be ignorant to the obvious impact we have on our planet.

its almost as if they WANT the earth to die....

There is a part of the selfish greedy destroyers that is disgusted with themselves. The evil part of them has won the battle. They want to destroy themselves, and they want to take everyone with them into oblivion. They want "armageddon", "gotterdaemerung", the end of humanity.

"10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their
heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them." --- KJV Matthew Chapter 13

I have no fear that the destroyers will listen to me. They do not even listen to their "messiah".

 

[Jackinbox78]

I am still waiting for you to show physical evidence that these gases cause warming.

I am not arguing correlation but causation. You do understand the difference don't you? All the evidence suggests that these gases follow warming, there is zero evidence that they precede it, let alone cause it.

And honestly I am done with this topic because rather then stay on topic you and your buddies keep making frivolous arguments to support your illusions of collectivism, such as cramming everyone into some "far right" category, relating any questions to "creationism" or whatever. And your immature attempts to rationalize the positions of others honest questioning with your strawmen as if it supports anything at all except your own delusions of the world is absurd.

So have a nice day.

I think you are some kind of bot. You keep posting the same thing without addressing the evidence that have been posted. You elevated to art of self-delusion to a new standard. You no longer need to create some kind of distorded argument based on misleading data or use logical fallacies. You just close your eyes, put your hands on your ears and scream "LALALALALA I DON'T HEAR YOU LALALALA".

 

[romanov]

Here is more.

 

[Saving Hawaii]

Here is more.

Do you ever tire of the op-ed section? Since when did opinions carry more weight than scientific inquiry and study? I've a hunch that it's because some of us have latched ourselves onto a team and refuse to give up even though we're down 59-0 in the 4th and we're steadily driving the ball into our own endzone.

As for the Op-Ed, the very premise is misleading in that it focuses on anomalies and declares them to be the norm. Here's a graphic on wikipedia that may interest you.

 

[Baggins]

Here is more.

David Bellamy is a botanist not a climatologists. He makes the simple mistake of not being able to tell the difference between local weather and global climatic changes judging from the article.

There are actual trained climatologists who have problems with parts of or all of the theory of AGW, they would be more impressive names to post than Bellamy, but even they wouldn't mean that the scientific consensus hasn't coalesced around the idea of GW, AGW and climate change.

Posting dissenters especially when they are not climatologists is close to pointless, and it is pointless if what you are posting is opinion pieces from newspapers rather than peer reviewed science.

Haven't you understood that yet? Science isn't about what appeals to your political instincts it is about what is the best explanation of the data we have.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Here is more.

http://www.channel4.com/player/v2/player.jsp?showId=1986

Here's a video where Bellamy's reputation was pretty much destroyed.

 

[tanzanos]

Haven't you understood that yet? Science isn't about what appeals to your political instincts it is about what is the best explanation of the data we have.

You are hereby accused of the following for which you will be sentenced to fairyland until such a time as you have grown wings and repented your correct ways:

Debating in a coherent manner: Guilty!
Putting forth sane and scientific arguments: Guilty!
Being of Welsh descent: Guilty! (only because Tom Jones was Welsh)!
Lack of belief in superstitious bronze age mumbojumbo: Guilty!
Knowing the difference between Climate change and Weather: Guilty!
Having atheist friends: Guilty by association!
Coming from Pagan Europe......

Oh enough of this......

Hang him! or better still Hang, and quarter him!

And may FSM have pity on your pitiful soul!

 

[romanov]

I do not believe there were any industrialist driving SUVs and refusing to recycle at this time.

 

[romanov]

http://www.channel4.com/player/v2/player.jsp?showId=1986

Here's a video where Bellamy's reputation was pretty much destroyed.

Sorry, I can not view the clip. I just switched to a different Linux Distro. and have yet to find all the plugins I need.