Don't like the science? Change it!! (Global Warming thread)

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

How do you know? Did you read any of this mans studies? Do you even know HOW to read scientific data?

Why laugh at a person that doesn't agree with your opinion that some scientists are correct? Is it because it falls right into your political belief that big business is bad? I think it might

He works for a think-tank payed for by the oil companies.


Tim Ball - SourceWatch

Dr. Timothy Ball is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP). [1]

Previously, Ball has been identified as a Canadian climate change sceptic who is a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science. [2] Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian think tank. [3]

Yeah, i'm going to have to go ahead and disregard his opinion and "science".

[DosEquis]

I watched that hippy movie "inconvenient truth" last night. Though i think he sensationalized a lot of it, i dont know how you can argue with a lot of his data.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

He works for a think-tank payed for by the oil companies.


Tim Ball - SourceWatchYeah, i'm going to have to go ahead and disregard his opinion and "science".

He also went on record in the 70's saying the "cooling" they were experiencing was cyclical when all of science was saying we were going into a new ice age and it was going to mean the destruction of the world as we know it.

He is saying the same thing now. Did you read the article I linked?

[tbone]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

This is an interesting piece. Don't just poo-poo it because you might not agree with the guy, he has a lot of interesting points. Especially what happens to you when you don't "tow the line". I can see it in this thread already.

It reminds me of the middle ages where you could be arrested as a scientist if you proclaimed the Earth revolved around the sun.

Here is my reply from the other thread as well along with some excerpts of tohers replies to this post and link:

Originally Posted by tbone

Ok, you convinced me! One guy who's best defense is that "global warming is a forngone conclusion before it was ever studied 30 years ago" versus hundreds of scientists internationally recognized and dozens of governments (including the US) who agreed with the framework and basis for this study. The fact that he brings in the ridicule he has gotten for being a critic is what really sold me, thanks for the enlightenment!!!

Originally Posted by Kytro

The guy makes a few valid points I like, but does not really provide any proof of his assertions.

It is good that he questions the "prevailing wisdom", it is also good to re-evaluation assumptions.

What I don't like is him saying "they are wrong because they made assumptions" without providing any evidence that they are wrong. There is science that says global warming being caused by humans is plausible - even likely. If someone wants to challenge that, fine but they will need to show exactly where the science is wrong.

Bottom line, he has no proof. It is simply his opinion supported by the fact he gets ridiculed. The other study provides verifiable proof that is scientifically acceptable. The reason you will never see what you posted in a scientific journal and only in editorial columns is because it is all opinion.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

He also went on record in the 70's saying the "cooling" they were experiencing was cyclical when all of science was saying we were going into a new ice age and it was going to mean the destruction of the world as we know it.

He is saying the same thing now. Did you read the article I linked?

There was never mainstream scientific support for "global cooling".

From Global cooling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1970 SCEP report

The 1970 "Study of Critical Environmental Problems"[14] reported the possibility of warming from increased carbon dioxide, but no concerns about cooling, setting a lower bound on the beginning of interest in "global cooling".

[edit] 1971 Paper on Warming and Cooling Factors

There was a paper by S. Ichtiaque Rasool and Stephen H. Schneider, published in the journal Science in July 1971. Titled "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate," the paper examined the possible future effects of two types of human environmental emissions:

1. greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide;
2. particulate pollution such as smog, some of which remains suspended in the atmosphere in aerosol form for years.

Greenhouse gases were regarded as likely factors that could promote global warming, while particulate pollution blocks sunlight and contributes to cooling. In their paper, Rasool and Schneider theorized that aerosols were more likely to contribute to climate change in the foreseeable future than greenhouse gases, stating that quadrupling aerosols "could decrease the mean surface temperature (of Earth) by as much as 3.5 C. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!" As this passage demonstrates, however, Rasool and Schneider considered global cooling a possible future scenario, but they did not predict it.

[edit] 1974 and 1972 National Science Board

The Washington Post reports that in 1974 the National Science Board, the governing body of the National Science Foundation, stated:[15]

During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade.

This statement is correct (see Historical temperature record) although the Washington Post quotes it with disapproval. The Post says the Board had observed two years earlier:

Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end . . . leading into the next glacial age.

This quote is taken quite out of context, however, and is misleading as it stands. A more complete quote is:

Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end ... leading into the next glacial age. However, it is possible, or even likely, than human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path. . .

[edit] 1975 National Academy of Sciences report

There also was a study by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences about issues which needed more research.[16] This heightened interest in the fact that climate can change. The 1975 NAS report titled "Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action" did not make predictions, stating in fact that "we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate." Its "program for action" consisted simply of a call for further research, because "it is only through the use of adequately calibrated numerical models that we can hope to acquire the information necessary for a quantitative assessment of the climatic impacts."

The report further stated:

The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know..

This appears to be a clear rebuttal of those, such as SEPP[17] who think that "the NAS "experts" exhibited ... hysterical fears" in the 1975 report.

[edit] 1975 Newsweek article

At the same time that these discussions were ongoing in scientific circles, a more dramatic account appeared in the popular media, notably an April 28, 1975 article in Newsweek magazine. Titled "The Cooling World," it pointed to "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change" and pointed to "a drop of half a degree [Fahrenheit] in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968." Though the article claimed that "[t]he evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it," the Newsweek article did not make "environmentalist" claims regarding the cause of that drop. To the contrary, it stated that "what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery" and cited the NAS conclusion that "[n]ot only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions." Rather than proposing environmental solutions, the Newsweek article suggested that "simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies" would be appropriate. Nonetheless, the article ended on a cautionary note, claiming that "[t]he longer the planners (politicians) delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality." [18][19]

In the late 1970s there were several popular (and melodramatic) books on the topic, including The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age.[20]

On October 23, 2006, Newsweek issued a correction, over 31 years after the original article, stating that it had been "so spectacularly wrong about the near-term future" (although editor Jerry Adler claimed that the article was not "inaccurate" in a journalistic sense)[21]

[JSmythe]

Will people stop using the word proof? No conclusion regarding the cause(s) of global warming has been proven, either way. Period. Stop saying it.

[tbone]

Originally Posted by JSmythe

Will people stop using the word proof? No conclusion regarding the cause(s) of global warming has been proven, either way. Period. Stop saying it.

Proof can come in many forms, I don't think anyone is arguing this study has "proved" Global Warming is man made 100%, however it does provide proof in many measurable ways that man contributes in a significant way.

It proves many theores that related to global warming. "Proof" is a term used in mathmatics and thus stolen for general science in which theories are tested and found accurate or true in all cases. Proof is the opposite of conjecture, which refers to the global cooling or the article posted above about how global warming is a farce.

So, no, proof cannot stop being used here as we are dealing with science and "proof" is required to combat conjecture.

[JSmythe]

Originally Posted by tbone

So, no, proof cannot stop being used here as we are dealing with science and "proof" is required to combat conjecture.

Then the proper term would be evidence.

[tbone]

Originally Posted by JSmythe

Then the proper term would be evidence.

Not to get into semantics with you, but you may want to take a quantitative research class or at least look up the definition of the terms.

"Evidence" supports theories and eventually enough "evidence" makes "proof." Evidence can support a woman who eats a lot of pregnant. Is this 100% accurate that all women who eat a lot are pregnant? No. Proof means it's accurate under all circumstances. There is no proof a woman who eats a lot is pregnant despite the evidence. See the distinction?

[6SpeedTA95]

Many of the scientist that disagree with global warming wind up fired or removed from committees and blacklisted fromjournals. The lead climatologist for the state of Oregon is being fired because he disagrees with man made global warming. He has stacks of scientific evidence and studies that show we're over reacting and the result? The governor is firing him...absolutely ridiculous. I posted two rather long PDF's in a global warming thread recently written by a professor and climatologist...no one read it, why? I can only pressume its because htey do not want to read opposing view points.

[tbone]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Many of the scientist that disagree with global warming wind up fired or removed from committees and blacklisted fromjournals. The lead climatologist for the state of Oregon is being fired because he disagrees with man made global warming. He has stacks of scientific evidence and studies that show we're over reacting and the result? The governor is firing him...absolutely ridiculous. I posted two rather long PDF's in a global warming thread recently written by a professor and climatologist...no one read it, why? I can only pressume its because htey do not want to read opposing view points.

It was an opinion article, not a study you posted. It goes both ways, the Bush administration has threatened, censored, and fired scientists who support global warming is man made.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Many of the scientist that disagree with global warming wind up fired or removed from committees and blacklisted fromjournals.

Really?

I have seen plenty of reports of the white house interfering with reports on global climate change.

Has the White House interfered on global warming reports?

More than 120 scientists across seven federal agencies say they have been pressured to remove references to "climate change" and "global warming" from a range of documents, including press releases and communications with Congress. Roughly the same number say appointees altered the meaning of scientific findings on climate contained in communications related to their research.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by tbone

It was an opinion article, not a study you posted. It goes both ways, the Bush administration has threatened, censored, and fired scientists who support global warming is man made.

The WSJ was an opinion piece, the two pdf's were 28 pages and I think 43 pages respectively and they were done BY A CLIMATOLOGIST! Lots of data in them, very well written...

So two wrongs make a right? The bush admin sensors people which isn't right the rest of the scientific community does it and it is right? That makes no sense.

[JSmythe]

Originally Posted by tbone

Not to get into semantics with you, but you may want to take a quantitative research class or at least look up the definition of the terms.

Proof: 1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact

Please provide this in regard to Global Warming.

Originally Posted by tbone

"Evidence" supports theories and eventually enough "evidence" makes "proof." Evidence can support a woman who eats a lot of pregnant. Is this 100% accurate that all women who eat a lot are pregnant? No. Proof means it's accurate under all circumstances. There is no proof a woman who eats a lot is pregnant despite the evidence. See the distinction?

There probably is a strong positive correlation between pregnancy and increased eating. Correlation != causation, even though in this case there is a causal relationship between pregnancy and eating habits... what does this have to do with ANYTHING though? There is NO evidence that allows you to make the statement that a person who eats a lot is likely to be pregnant, and thats a watered down rephrasing of what you said.

Your post made NO sense.

[tbone]

Originally Posted by JSmythe

Proof: 1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact

Please provide this in regard to Global Warming.



There probably is a strong positive correlation between pregnancy and increased eating. Correlation != causation, even though in this case there is a causal relationship between pregnancy and eating habits... what does this have to do with ANYTHING though? There is NO evidence that allows you to make the statement that a person who eats a lot is likely to be pregnant, and thats a watered down rephrasing of what you said.

Your post made NO sense.

Wow, just wow.

Ok, this is really quite simple, sorry if I confused you by my example which was meant to simplify, not complicate things.

HERE:

ev·i·dence (ĕv'ĭ-dəns)
n.
A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.

Related Topics
preponderance of evidence

proof (prūf)
n.
The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.

Law. The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence

Answers.com - Online Dictionary, Encyclopedia and much more

Evidence comes before proof, evidence helps in evaluation.

Proof is truth, and holds up in any way tested. Proof comes from evidence.

Evidence supports a theory, and theories can be wrong like "women who eat a lot are pregnant", even if evidence suggests a correlation.

Proof has been tested in every conceivable way and come out with the same conclusion. There is no proof that "women who eat a lot are pregnant" because evidence also suggests "women who have high metabolism also eat a lot." Thus no proof since we disproved that theory.

If this is not clear, I can no longer help or even talk to you as it is becoming very frustrating.

As I was not posting to debate with you, but to correct you. I cannot debate global warming if we aren't on the same page as far as terms we use. You requested we no longer use the term "proof" and I was trying to explain why that is not possible when debating science. There is no debate about this, it is fact, a law, something every scientist in the world recognizes and understands when the term is used. Like I said pick up a book on research.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Many of the scientist that disagree with global warming wind up fired or removed from committees and blacklisted from journals.

I'm not sure what is involved in getting a paper published in a journal, however I would like to see some evidence of someone being black listed.

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

The lead climatologist for the state of Oregon is being fired because he disagrees with man made global warming. He has stacks of scientific evidence and studies that show we're over reacting and the result? The governor is firing him...absolutely ridiculous. I posted two rather long PDF's in a global warming thread recently written by a professor and climatologist...no one read it, why? I can only pressume its because htey do not want to read opposing view points.

I disagree with political interference in science, however "stacks of evidence" really needs to be reviewed. Link to thread

[JSmythe]

Originally Posted by tbone

You requested we no longer use the term "proof" and I was trying to explain why that is not possible when debating science.

Did I say that? Let's take a look:

Originally Posted by JSmythe

Will people stop using the word proof? No conclusion regarding the cause(s) of global warming has been proven, either way. Period. Stop saying it.

Clearly, I was not calling for the abolishment of the use of the word proof from scientific thought. I was stating that no theory (in regards to global warming) has been proven yet, so it is stupid when people, in regards to global warming, try and argue which side has been proven, because neither side's argument has been proven.