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

[Axioma]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me who exactly stands poised to reap the rewards of a world deluded by the notion of Global Warming. Where are they, the teeming masses of electric car salesmen, of massive corporations wanting to build continents covered in solar panels, attacking the American Way of Life with their recycled paper?

You say that all the experts have been bribed. Okay, by who? Why?

 

[joebudda]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me who exactly stands poised to reap the rewards of a world deluded by the notion of Global Warming. Where are they, the teeming masses of electric car salesmen, of massive corporations wanting to build continents covered in solar panels, attacking the American Way of Life with their recycled paper?

You say that all the experts have been bribed. Okay, by who? Why?

A tax on CO2 is being proposed. They want to tax you for the air you exhale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax

 

[Jackinbox78]

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.

All you provided is non-peer reviewed opinions pieces, bogus polls and distorted data. When don't you read the IPCC report by yourself? How can you refute it? How do you came to think you know better than those scientists, those who actually DO research and produce peer-reviewed papers?

 

[Btodd]

This thread has all of the marks of the 9/11 conspiracy threads. Joe starts with the conclusion, ignores the mountains of evidence that disagree with him, finds a handful of non-scientific sites to post over and over, and claims he's presented scientific evidence.

Irrational people are fond of lists. Here's a list of 'scientists' that deny evolution, here's a list of 'scientists' that think 9/11 was an inside job, here's a list of.....

They're also fond of simply using the word 'scientist' as a catch-all term of authority.....when it doesn't apply at all. In the 9/11 threads, the 'scientists' listed who are doubting structural engineering issues include 'landscape architects', 'software engineers' and many other blatantly fraudulent titles. In short, they're padding the list with irrelevant 'experts', because without a sound argument, they still want to appeal to authority.

Even if you move outside of science, the pattern continues. Ask him about his belief in Income Tax Conspiracies, and you'll get the same pattern.....all those constitutional scholars and tax attorneys are WRONG, and Joe has figured it out in a YouTube video.

His arguments have nothing to do with science or sound thinking, and everything to do with confirmation bias, playing out over and over again, under the guise of rationality and logical thinking. It isn't working.


Btodd

 

[Matthew_18:14]

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.


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


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.


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


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.

Sorry about getting excited. The videos I posted paint a different picture regarding GW. I'll see if I can't find any other geologist's who support this guys hypothesis, but from watching the first video it certainly looks like GW is real, but it is a normal function of the earth's climatic cycles. It seems highly unlikely that we would have much effect on these cycles.

 

[joebudda]

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

But your "left wing" sources you believe as dogma. amusing.
Maybe you can show me a peer reviewed paper that shows that greenhouse gases "cause" global warming? And being it was peer reviewed, maybe you can cite the reviews by the peers as well?

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

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

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

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?

No, I believe the complete opposite of that

Clearly I hit the nail on the head.

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.

Yet you also say in the next quote.

Science isn't a democracy or a popularity contest.

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.

 

[joebudda]

This thread has all of the marks of the 9/11 conspiracy threads. Joe starts with the conclusion, ignores the mountains of evidence that disagree with him, finds a handful of non-scientific sites to post over and over, and claims he's presented scientific evidence.

You sure are a collectivist. Every argument you ever make you cram others into these little boxes that only exist in your mind. Is that how you see the world? People either agree with you or they are some "conspiracy wacko"? You go right ahead and believe what ever the TV tells you being you are not to big on thinking for yourself.
Maybe you can cite the physical evidence that disagrees with me? I doubt you can.

 

[Matthew_18:14]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me who exactly stands poised to reap the rewards of a world deluded by the notion of Global Warming. Where are they, the teeming masses of electric car salesmen, of massive corporations wanting to build continents covered in solar panels, attacking the American Way of Life with their recycled paper?

You say that all the experts have been bribed. Okay, by who? Why?

Businesses stand to reap the rewards. If your business is selling cigarettes your business will do better if you promote the idea that they are good for you, much like they did early and mid 20th century. If your business is selling green technologies your business will do better if you promote the idea that the earth is warming and we are the cause. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how to market a product.

I'm not saying that using renewable sources isn't a good idea, but I am saying that this Global Warming push that we hear everywhere is a little to much. In the 60's we were heading into an ice age, in the 90's and 00's we're heading into Global Warming. I don't disagree with the fact that the earth is warming, but I do disagree with the notion that we are the cause. If a Geologist can show us the cooling and warming trends of the Earth, it should be pretty obvious that the Earth would be warming with or without us.

 

[joebudda]

All you provided is non-peer reviewed opinions pieces, bogus polls and distorted data. When don't you read the IPCC report by yourself? How can you refute it? How do you came to think you know better than those scientists, those who actually DO research and produce peer-reviewed papers?

What is the physical evidence that shows that greenhouse gases "cause" global warming. All the physical evidence shows these greenhouse gasses follow warming. And do you know what that means? It means if it follows the warming it isn't the cause of it. Do you have even a vague understanding of cause and effect?

 

[romanov]

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.

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.

 

[Jackinbox78]

What is the physical evidence that shows that greenhouse gases "cause" global warming. All the physical evidence shows these greenhouse gasses follow warming. And do you know what that means? It means if it follows the warming it isn't the cause of it. Do you have even a vague understanding of cause and effect?

Since actual scientists reports seems too much for you to handle, I will provide you with information targeted at kids.

http://epa.gov/climatechange/kids/greenhouse.html

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/earthguide/diagrams/greenhouse/

 

[chaim]

Which evidence would that be? So far I have not seen you provide a single link to any sort of reputable scientific organization or directly quote any scientist directly involved in climate research.

I HAVE seen you post a lot of links to the Heartland Institute. Why on earth would you ever go to a political think tank to get information on a scientific issue????????

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.

 

[joebudda]

Since actual scientists reports seems too much for you to handle, I will provide you with information targeted at kids.

http://epa.gov/climatechange/kids/greenhouse.html

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/earthguide/diagrams/greenhouse/

Is that where you got your info from?

Maybe you can cite actual physical evidence that shows greenhouse gases cause global warming. Is that too much to ask?

Because all of the evidence shows that it is always warming that precedes the increase in gasses.

Even the excesses in CO2 don't seem to have any effect on global temperature.
And here is something interesting you should pay attention too. All "global warming" charts end at the year 2000. Why do you suppose that is? You want to know, because we have been cooling ever sense.

 

[chaim]

Enough with the You tube videos! A video of some guy who claims to be a geologist (how that qualifies one as being expert on climate change I don't know) posted on youtube is NOT and authorative source. If you want to learn about science, go to a reputable source. I would highly recommend:

http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/research/climate/
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
http://royalsociety.org/landing.asp?id=1278
http://dels.nas.edu/climatechange/
http://www.biblebelievers.com/Gipp/GippEssay8.html

However if you want to reinforce your political opinion I would recommend:
http://www.heartland.org/
http://www.aei.org/


I have to ask Mathew, when you are looking for information on climate chaneg do you google for "climate change" or do you google for "climate change is a myth"?

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

 

[Jackinbox78]

Is that where you got your info from?

Maybe you can cite actual physical evidence that shows greenhouse gases cause global warming. Is that too much to ask?

I pointed you to the IPCC report but you didn't bother to look at it. Why? It's a very complete report made by real scientist. It is peer-reviewed. Why don't you read it? Just read the chapter 1. The greenhouse effect is explained in it and you have tonnes of footnotes to support it. The history if the science surrounding it is outlined too. But you don't care.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch01.pdf

Enjoy your reading.

 

[chaim]

Help me out here, what does this have to do with the climate on Earth?

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.

 

[joebudda]

Which evidence would that be? So far I have not seen you provide a single link to any sort of reputable scientific organization or directly quote any scientist directly involved in climate research.

I HAVE seen you post a lot of links to the Heartland Institute. Why on earth would you ever go to a political think tank to get information on a scientific issue????????

Those links were to show there is no consensus. I am not using them for any type of science at all. I didn't realize something so simple would boggle the minds of some of the people here.

I have been using evidence from ice cores and other actual means of physical evidence. You have not supported your claims with any physical evidence at all? I would have a bit more respect for you if you actually did cite some physical evidence to support your claims rather then just blindly accepting the opinions of others.

 

[Jackinbox78]

And here is something interesting you should pay attention too. All "global warming" charts end at the year 2000. Why do you suppose that is? You want to know, because we have been cooling ever sense.

All charts you said? What about a chart provided by Nasa?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle.

It keep going up. Look at the graph.

 

[joebudda]

I pointed you to the IPCC report but you didn't bother to look at it. Why? It's a very complete report made by real scientist. It is peer-reviewed. Why don't you read it? Just read the chapter 1. The greenhouse effect is explained in it and you have tonnes of footnotes to support it. The history if the science surrounding it is outlined too. But you don't care.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch01.pdf

Enjoy your reading.

Maybe you can do me a favor and pull out the citation of the actual physical evidence that shows that greenhouse gases are the "cause" of global warming?

Or are you unable to support your own beliefs?

 

[chaim]

Are you being totally ignorant on purpose? As we have explained to you in this thread and in other threads, for non-anthropogenic climate change (ie climate change before the industrial revolution) warming leads CO2 because it the warming is not being driven by CO2. As you well know CO2 increases AFTER the oceans warm and CO2 solubility decreases.

HOWEVER, in the current warming (as in the last century or so), CO2 is LEADING temperature:

Is that where you got your info from?

Maybe you can cite actual physical evidence that shows greenhouse gases cause global warming. Is that too much to ask?

Because all of the evidence shows that it is always warming that precedes the increase in gasses.

Even the excesses in CO2 don't seem to have any effect on global temperature.
And here is something interesting you should pay attention too. All "global warming" charts end at the year 2000. Why do you suppose that is? You want to know, because we have been cooling ever sense.