The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

When I want an expert opinion on science, I'll turn to NASA!

NASA On Global Warming

Twenty-five years ago if you made a trip to the local library and
perused the periodical section for articles on global warming,
you’d probably have come up with only a few abstracts from
hard core science journals or maybe a blurb in some esoteric
geopolitical magazine. As an Internet search on global warm-
ing now attests, the subject has become as rooted in our pub-
lic consciousness as Madonna or microwave cooking.

Perhaps all this attention is deserved. With the possible ex-
ception of another world war, a giant asteroid, or an incurable
plague, global warming may be the single largest threat to our
planet. For decades human factories and cars have spewed
billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and
the climate has begun to show some signs of warming. Many
see this as a harbinger of what is to come. If we don’t curb our
greenhouse emissions, then low-lying nations could be awash
in seawater, rain and drought patterns across the world could
change, hurricanes could become more frequent, and El Niños
could become more intense.

On the other hand, there are those, some of whom are scien-
tists, who believe that global warming will result in little more
than warmer winters and denser vegetation.They point to the
flaws in scientists’ measurements, the complexity of the cli-
mate, and the uncertainty in the climate models used to pre-
dict climate change.They claim that attempting to lower green-
house emissions may do more damage to the world economy
and human society than any amount of global warming.

In truth, the future probably fits somewhere between these two
scenarios. But to gain an understanding of global warming, it
is necessary to get to know the science behind the issue.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by motivez

99% of the scientists that do dispute it have taken money from oil companies

I would, though, like to see some sort of evidence to back this claim.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by JaJae

NASA On Global Warming

@ you for citing a document that cites the IPCC report as scientifically authoritative.

Why should I reply to you at all, JaJae? Obviously you prefer engaging me from a distance. That's okay, it's only because you can't engage me directly. You don't have the interest or the evidence.

Can you give me one good reason why I shouldn't ignore your posts the way you've ignored mine repeatedly, on this very thread?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

@ you for citing a document that cites the IPCC report as scientifically authoritative.

Why should I reply to you at all, JaJae? Obviously you prefer engaging me from a distance. That's okay, it's only because you can't engage me directly. You don't have the interest or the evidence.

Can you give me one good reason why I shouldn't ignore your posts the way you've ignored mine repeatedly, on this very thread?

What are you talking about I did respond directly to you. You said if you wanted scientific opinion you'd get it from NASA. That's there scientific opinion. Take it for what it is. They say the media hype is probably wrong. Perhaps you should find a new source to trust since your trusted sources don't agree with you.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by JaJae

What are you talking about I did respond directly to you. You said if you wanted scientific opinion you'd get it from NASA. That's there scientific opinion. Take it for what it is. They say the media hype is probably wrong. Perhaps you should find a new source to trust since your trusted sources don't agree with you.

You're mischaracterizing your own highlighted quote. According to that report, and according to the portion you highlighted, NASA says the media hype is just as probably wrong as it is probably right.

Since you trust NASA now, I'll assume that you agree with the following:

“Continued global warming could have many damaging effects. It might harm plants and animals that live in the sea. It could also force animals and plants on land to move to new habitats. Weather patterns could change, causing flooding, drought, and an increase in damaging storms. Global warming could melt enough polar ice to raise the sea level. In certain parts of the world, human disease could spread, and crop yields could decline.” – NASA Global Warming Worldbook, 2005

NASA - Global Warming

Originally Posted by JaJae

What are you talking about I did respond directly to you.

I am talking about the following post, which references questions from me to you that you now have ignored TWICE:

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

So sorry to bother you with your own ancient 11 day old thread, or for expecting you to remember your own arguments, or to go back and read the thread yourself. I sincerely apologize and I do hope that you can forgive my breach of forum etiquette. Perhaps you should hurry and consider closing this thread before somebody gets any more wise ideas and attempts to do something foolish, such as join in the discussion sometime in the far, far, distant future (like.. early September or sometime like that.)

Some of us like to take our time and formulate a response in as careful and as deliberate a fashion as possible. I know this is not the norm around here, and again, I apologize for that. In my defense, I brought up this same question way back when you were allegedly paying attention to the thread. You ignored it then.

Let me try and bring you up to speed on the thread quickly: You're trying to use this challenge to score a point against Al Gore's science, while at the same time trying to absolve yourself of all responsibility to defend the scientific validity of the challenge itself.

As to my specific question, earlier in the thread I said this:



And then you said this:



You keep slipping and sliding around. This is why I think you are being disingenuous with your argument.

When you say the following bolded text:





...people think that you're saying there is no data, no evidence to support the idea that human activity is contributing to global warming.

If you are indeed trying to say that there is NO data and NO evidence to support the idea that human activity is contributing to global warming, I would also be extremely curious as to how you came to the conclusion that human activity "obviously" has an impact on the climate.

If that is indeed NOT what you are trying to say, and that you DO think that there IS data and evidence to support the idea that human activity is contributing to global warming, you seriously need to consider cutting out all the sweeping generalizations (cited in bold above) that do not accurately describe the subtle nuance of whatever your current position happens to be at the moment.

Here is your current position:



There is no evidence to disprove the "media sensationalism" either.

More importantly, there is also no evidence to disprove the opinions of scientists who posit that there may be dire consequences associated with accelerated climate change. Why would you not want to err on the side of caution? Why do you think that ignoring the worst case scenario is the best course of action?

Please, take the time to consider my whole post and please address each point, or don't bother wasting both of our times. I'm getting a little tired of repeating the same questions and getting the same runaround. Help me understand your thinking. I'd rather have either a serious discussion on this subject or have no discussion at all. Thanks.

Tell me, again, why I shouldn't ignore your posts the way you ignore mine. If you missed that post and those questions, you obviously didn't even bother to read any significant part of the thread since you last posted in it. Why, then, should I be interested in your opinion on the topic since you are clearly not up to speed as to the current state of the discussion?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

You're mischaracterizing your own highlighted quote. According to that report, and according to the portion you highlighted, NASA says the media hype is just as probably wrong as it is probably right.

No it says the truth is probably somewhere in the middle of the media hype and the skeptics. Meaning they disagree with the media hype and the skeptics and believe the truth is somewhere in the middle. It's very clearly written.

[Dumpy Dooby]

“Continued global warming could have many damaging effects. It might harm plants and animals that live in the sea. It could also force animals and plants on land to move to new habitats. Weather patterns could change, causing flooding, drought, and an increase in damaging storms. Global warming could melt enough polar ice to raise the sea level. In certain parts of the world, human disease could spread, and crop yields could decline.”
– NASA Global Warming Worldbook, 2005

That quote does not indicate that the warming trend is anthropogenic.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Simply saying that NASA is the place to turn to for "science" is rather pathetic, imo. NASA has been wrong on many occasions. They are not the end-all, be-all, organization that they'd like you to believe. While you can say, "zomg thye sent a man to the moon," that can be discredited with, "but they also failed numerous times before getting it right."


The point is: Don't pretend that specific organizations have it all right, especially when the science is not well understood, i.e., global warming, or space travel.



PS-
NASA also houses a few "deniers." I'm guessing that when a friend-of-Gore appeals to authority with their petty little "NASA knows science!" mantra, they're not including NASA scientists that think Al Gore is incorrect.

[WickedLou9]

NASA is the National Aeronautic and Space Administration?

For climate and weather I would rather look to NOAA or some other such organization that actually studies weather and climate as thier primary mission. That's all they do. If I want to go to the moon I'll ask NASA. Although even NASA has been having trouble getting things not to explode lately... so.. even then...
If I want the weather...NASA would not be the first place I would look to.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

NASA is the National Aeronautic and Space Administration?

For climate and weather I would rather look to NOAA or some other such organization that actually studies weather and climate as thier primary mission. That's all they do. If I want to go to the moon I'll ask NASA. Although even NASA has been having trouble getting things not to explode lately... so.. even then...
If I want the weather...NASA would not be the first place I would look to.

My reference was to this post:

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

When I want an expert opinion on science, I'll turn to NASA!

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by JaJae

No it says the truth is probably somewhere in the middle of the media hype and the skeptics. Meaning they disagree with the media hype and the skeptics and believe the truth is somewhere in the middle. It's very clearly written.

Yes, it is very clearly written, so, why did you choose to frame it as "They say the media hype is probably wrong?" They say the so-called skeptics are probably wrong too.

And you ignored the quote following it too.

And you ignored the post before it, now for the second time (and parts of it for a third time now!)

And you ignored my question yet again: If you can't be bothered to read the whole thread, if you can't be bothered to respond to more than one point per post, if you repeatedly ignore posts and requests for proof of your statements, why should anyone attempt to engage you in a serious discussion?

I'm trying my best to have a discussion on this subject with you in good faith, and you seem to be approaching it as some sort of game, where discussion points from the other side are like moles to be whacked, instead of honest communications delivered by another human being who is actually trying to understand your viewpoint and trying impart their own in a spirit of good fellowship. I'm disappointed in you, and what I consider to be your fundamental intellectual dishonestly and unfounded antagonism in threads such as these.

As I've said before, you seem to hate the alarmists not because they are actually wrong, but because they MIGHT be wrong. It seems to me to be a wiser choice to accept the conclusions of the alarmists on the chance that they're right, and not to ignore them because there's a chance that they're wrong.

Why do you think that ignoring the worst case scenario is the most prudent course of action?

Originally Posted by JaJae

The number of scientists who actually believe the rhetoric is smaller than is portrayed.

Please, prove it. Please show me the number portrayed, and then please show me the actual number of scientists who believe the rhetoric.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

NASA is the National Aeronautic and Space Administration?

For climate and weather I would rather look to NOAA or some other such organization that actually studies weather and climate as thier primary mission. That's all they do. If I want to go to the moon I'll ask NASA. Although even NASA has been having trouble getting things not to explode lately... so.. even then...
If I want the weather...NASA would not be the first place I would look to.

I agree. I only chose NASA for my joke so I could compare an author of science fiction to the guys and gals who, you know... actually went to the moon!

I would look to NOAA for their expert scientific opinion on the climate, too. The problem with quoting the NOAA to global warming deniers is that NOAA cites extensively (almost exclusively) from the IPCC reports. Global warming deniers think that the IPCC was written by politicians and not real climate experts. (Y'see, Al Gore cites the IPCC as scientifically authoritative, so automatically the IPCC is a fountain of lies to the deniers.)

[AVengeance]

Isn't this a bit like Kent Hovind's challenge to prove evolution, or something?

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by AVengeance

Isn't this a bit like Kent Hovind's challenge to prove evolution, or something?

It's more like James Randi's challenge to prove the existence of anything even remotely supernatural. His challenge has existed for a few decades now, and not one single person has even made it past the preliminary test.

Or you can say that it's like my challenge to prove the creation, or something.


Evolution, though, has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[nbiggershaft]

I work for nasa now technically, and I say, idunno.