real science has no part in global warming

[Roonie]

The difference is that there are thousands of respectable scientists from all over the world that have come to the same conclusions and many organizations that have as well. In relation there are only a handful of scientists who have come to the opposite conclusion and are skeptical. This would infer that the theory has been tested many times over and the majority have found findings that support global warming.

I think of it like McDonalds. One would not want to eat every meal there 24/7 as it would not be healthy for you to do so. There have been no real scientific experiments that have proven this (except some Hollywood science) so we don't actually know the big picture. There have been experiments that show trans fatty acids are bad for the system as well as fried foods, large amounts of processed sugar, hi carb intakes, etc but we still don't know the big picture. We can infer that these smaller experiments taken together as a whole would mean eating McD's 24/7 for every meal would be bad for you and be very unhealthy.

We may not know the big picture of the World and its own weather cycles. We do have many smaller experiments that focus on specific parts of the earth cycles. We have data, satellite pictures, etc that show us there are changes happening. Taken as a whole we can infer that GW is happening and it would only make sense to do something about it for our kids and grandkids sakes. This conclusion is supported by a very large number of scientists.

Who wouldn't want to make the world a better, healthier place to live?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Roonie

The difference is that there are thousands of respectable scientists from all over the world that have come to the same conclusions and many organizations that have as well. In relation there are only a handful of scientists who have come to the opposite conclusion and are skeptical. This would infer that the theory has been tested many times over and the majority have found findings that support global warming.

But see this is where you're wrong...there are thousands that support global warming through their own conclusions, and there are thousands that are skeptical through their own conclusions. Just because you hear the loudest ones does not make them a majority.

[Roonie]

All of these major research scientific organizations agree about global warming; The 2007 IPCC report, the 2006 Federal Climate Change Science Program assessment, the 2005 joint science academies statement, the 2003 American Meterological Society statement, the 2003 American Geophysical Union statement, the 2001 US National Research Council report...

So until we see major science based research institutions backing the Global warming skeptics, then your argument might hold some weight. Until then we have a handful of scientists and some periodicals mostly backed by oil interests that support the global warming skeptics.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

But see this is where you're wrong...there are thousands that support global warming through their own conclusions, and there are thousands that are skeptical through their own conclusions. Just because you hear the loudest ones does not make them a majority.

Thousands that are skeptical? I would love to see some proof of that.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Roonie

So until we see major science based research institutions backing the Global warming skeptics, then your argument might hold some weight. Until then we have a handful of scientists and some periodicals mostly backed by oil interests that support the global warming skeptics.

Don't forget these are also the same groups that were worried about 'global cooling' back in the day.

Yes, I know 'we have better technology' and 'know more now than we did then' but that's hardly relevant. The more we learn in science, the more questions remained unanswered. We will never reach a point where our technology is sufficient.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Don't forget these are also the same groups that were worried about 'global cooling' back in the day.

Yes, I know 'we have better technology' and 'know more now than we did then' but that's hardly relevant. The more we learn in science, the more questions remained unanswered. We will never reach a point where our technology is sufficient.

Please, stop bringing up global cooling and science - there was never any serious scientific backing to it

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Please, stop bringing up global cooling and science - there was never any serious scientific backing to it

Easy to say now. What is it, hind-sight is 20/20? You only wnat me to stop bringing it up becuase you hate hearing the truth of the matter.

I'm telling you now, there is no serious scientific backing to global warming either. Learn your lesson already, would ya?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I'm telling you now, there is no serious scientific backing to global warming either.

It's like talking to a fucking brick wall.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Scrum

It's like talking to a fucking brick wall.

Why don't you put him on ignore, PM an admin and they'll do it

Seriously why would you ever want to discuss politics with someone who says there is no serious science behind global warming?

Like, go to a peaceful mosque in the middle east and try to convince them that your religion is better than theirs...its not going to happen and any chit-chat about it will just be a complete waste of time...

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by mididoctors

thats because you have already made up your mind based on a delusion that your inner desire for what you want reality to be is reality

Why on earth would I want this so badly? Why would I desire to deny facts?

There's no reason for it. There is no benefit I get from 'denying these facts'. I simply refuse to accept pseudo-science.

[Jas0n]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Why on earth would I want this so badly? Why would I desire to deny facts?

There's no reason for it. There is no benefit I get from 'denying these facts'. I simply refuse to accept pseudo-science.

Well, here's the assumption. The assumption is: if global warming is true, then it is bad for you, and it is caused by industry. Therefore, in order to prevent further global warming, industry must be regulated and controlled. As a conservative, you don't want industry to be regulated and controlled, because you understand that the mechanism of a free market is hindered by those things. Thus, folks will assume that you're unwilling to accept global warming on the grounds that it appears to justify the regulations and controls that you despise.

But that's a very pragmatic approach, and a cynical one as well (the two are closely linked, I think), and one that need not necessarily be made. I'm skeptical about global warming, but I won't reject it as being possible or even quite likely. That said, no amount of evidence for global warming would convince me that governmental regulations and controls are necessary as a means of combatting it. Global warming could knock on my door and kick me square in the nuts when I open it up, and I'll still stand against those regulations and controls.

Some would assume that the two notions (GW, Regs/Controls) are necessarily linked, and would thus assume that your economic philosophy prevents you from being objective about this environmental matter. I don't agree, and I hope that you don't either. 'Cause wherever you stand on global warming, fuck regulations and controls, seriously.

[Thorgrim]

That said, no amount of evidence for global warming would convince me that governmental regulations and controls are necessary as a means of combatting it. Global warming could knock on my door and kick me square in the nuts when I open it up, and I'll still stand against those regulations and controls.

I commend you for your honesty, a very rare find as people try to hide behind false reasons and not give their true motives and feelings, I'm seriously giving you positive rep even though I disagree with everything you say with the passion of 1000x white suns

[Jas0n]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I commend you for your honesty, a very rare find as people try to hide behind false reasons and not give their true motives and feelings, I'm seriously giving you positive rep even though I disagree with everything you say with the passion of 1000x white suns

Hah, kick ass.

[motivez]

I too would like to see evidence of these mythical thousands of credible scientists who are skeptical about global warming.

People who are in an unrelated field or who have never done any research into the matter do not count. People who have merely written opinion articles do not count.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by Jas0n

Well, here's the assumption. The assumption is: if global warming is true, then it is bad for you, and it is caused by industry. Therefore, in order to prevent further global warming, industry must be regulated and controlled. As a conservative, you don't want industry to be regulated and controlled, because you understand that the mechanism of a free market is hindered by those things. Thus, folks will assume that you're unwilling to accept global warming on the grounds that it appears to justify the regulations and controls that you despise.

But that's a very pragmatic approach, and a cynical one as well (the two are closely linked, I think), and one that need not necessarily be made. I'm skeptical about global warming, but I won't reject it as being possible or even quite likely. That said, no amount of evidence for global warming would convince me that governmental regulations and controls are necessary as a means of combatting it. Global warming could knock on my door and kick me square in the nuts when I open it up, and I'll still stand against those regulations and controls.

Some would assume that the two notions (GW, Regs/Controls) are necessarily linked, and would thus assume that your economic philosophy prevents you from being objective about this environmental matter. I don't agree, and I hope that you don't either. 'Cause wherever you stand on global warming, fuck regulations and controls, seriously.

+1 rep from me. I disagree too, but damn, finally someone here on that side is being intellectually honest. I didn't think it was even possible!

If you hate government environmental regulations, be a damn man and stand up and say so. Trying to come in here with a straight face and say that there are as many scientific organizations that disagree that humans contribute to global warming as agree just makes you look silly.

Originally Posted by motivez

I too would like to see evidence of these mythical thousands of credible scientists who are skeptical about global warming.

People who are in an unrelated field or who have never done any research into the matter do not count. People who have merely written opinion articles do not count.

I three would like to see.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

But see this is where you're wrong...there are thousands that support global warming through their own conclusions, and there are thousands that are skeptical through their own conclusions.

I'll show you ten links of statements, reports, or position papers from scientific, academic, or governmental organizations that explicitly agree:

“Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous
oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years.” - The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program. From the summary of the IPCC Working Group I Fourth Assessment Report 2007: IPCC AR4 WGI

“The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries.” - Position Statement on Global Climate Change adopted by the Geological Society of America 2006:
The Geological Society of America - Proposed Position Statement on Global Climate Change

“Studies to detect climate change and attribute its causes using patterns of
observed temperature change in space and time show clear evidence of human influences on the climate system. The observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone.” - Federal Climate Change Science Program, commissioned by the Bush administration and overseen by the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Council on Environmental Quality, the National Economic Council and the Office of Management and Budget 2006 (PDF File):
http://www.climatescience.gov/Librar...al-execsum.pdf

“It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed
to human activities.” - Joint science academies’ statement, signed by
representatives of the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China,
France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the
United States of America. Jointly issued by the Australian Academy of
Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts,
Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and the Royal Society UK 2005: Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change

“Human activities have become a major source of environmental change.” – From a statement adopted by the American Meteorological Society in 2003:Climate Change Research: Issues for the Atmospheric and Related Sciences Adopted by the AMS Council 9 February 2003

“Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate.” - American
Geophysical Union position statement on greenhouse gases and climate change in 2003: Human Impacts on Climate

The AGU position statement cited above was also endorsed by the American Institute of Physics in 2004: Statement on Human Impacts on Climate Change - American Institute of Physics

“We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now
persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling.” - A position paper
of the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London 2004:
Geological Society - Group Details - Global Warming: A perspective from Earth History

“The American Chemical Society joins numerous other scientific societies and academies in calling for effective action now to minimize human impact on the global climate system and to increase society’s ability to adapt to changes that occur.” - American Chemical Society statement on Global Climate Change 2004 (PDF File):
http://www.chemistry.org/portal/reso...te_chg_env.pdf

“Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of
human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean
temperatures to rise.” - US National Research Council, composed of members of the national Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. Study requested by the Bush White House, 2001: | Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions | Committee on the Science of Climate Change | Division on Earth and Life Studies | National Research Council

So, let's count them up, shall we?

According to the links cited above, the following scientific and governmental organizations either explicitly or implicitly accept the same conclusion: Human activity is contributing to current global warming.

1. World Meteorological Organization
2. United Nations Environment Program
3. Geological Society of America
4. US Office of Science and Technology Policy
5. US Council on Environmental Quality
6. US National Economic Council
7. US Office of Management and Budget
8. Australian Academy of Sciences
9. Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
10. Brazilian Academy of Sciences
11. Royal Society of Canada
12. Caribbean Academy of Sciences
13. Chinese Academy of Sciences
14. French Academy of Sciences
15. German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
16. Indian National Science Academy
17. Indonesian Academy of Sciences,
18. Royal Irish Academy
19. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)
20. Academy of Sciences Malaysia
21. Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
22. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
23. Royal Society UK
24. American Meteorological Society
25. American Geophysical Union
26. American Institute of Physics
27. Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
28. American Chemical Society
29. US National Academy of Sciences
30. US National Academy of Engineering,
31. US Institute of Medicine

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

What scientists and science says otherwise? For every scientist that supports global warming, I can give you one that doesn't. For every article citing research that supports it, I can give you one that counters it.

Please, give me the names of 31 scientific, academic or governmental organizations that counter it.

[Diamond Cross]

Remember, balls says he doesn't care how much evidence there is to support Global Warming, it will never be enoug to convince him. So the effort on him is a wasted one. It wouldn't mater to him if there as a literal comploee 100 percent consensus, that he'd still deny it exited. He would deny it existed if all of a sudden we permanently lost three hundred feet f land all along the oast tomorrow to three hundred foot waves he'd still deny Global Warming. He will deny Global Warming no matter what the evidence says.

Sad.
Really.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross