real science has no part in global warming

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Purely from the heart, I like that.

Unfortunately, for you, the loudest scienstist don't necessarily mean they are the overwhelming majority. Unfortunately for you, my exposure to scientists far exceeds your exposure. Unfortunately for you, you are in no position to tell me about science.

My posting of articles are not just 'articles', they are scientific studies. But why does that not matter? Because it's not me who's close-minded, it's you. You just don't want to look at any other science that refutes global warming, because it doesn't go along with you ideas. Try reading science and not editorials.

I'm sorry, but you're picking on the wrong person.

I'm sorry, I don't want to pick on you. You quoted an article by a scientist that was dumped by Cato for accepting money from Exxon. I've seen and heard of too many examples of oil companies trying to buy off scientists and administration officials trying to influence scientific reports.

Bush covers up climate research | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

Climate Researchers Feeling Heat From White House

Oil firms fund climate change 'denial' | Life | Guardian Unlimited

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study | Climate change | Guardian Unlimited Environment

I'm sorry, but you don't know how much exposure that I've had to scientists. I'll defer to you on that if you insist, though.

But, to me personally, my opinion is that your arguments here have been just a little confusing and contridictory. I'm trying to understand where you're coming from. It simply seems hard to believe that you think that man has no significant effect on the environment.

From what I understand about science and scientists, they say otherwise by a significant margin. From what I understand about common sense, it says that when you have an unprecedented 6 billion people on the planet with millions of vehicles, factories, and landfills, the planet will get dirtier.

Somehow, you seem to counter both the above points, and I honestly cannot understand why. I'd like to.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

I'm sorry, I don't want to pick on you. You quoted an article by a scientist that was dumped by Cato for accepting money from Exxon. I've seen and heard of too many examples of oil companies trying to buy off scientists and administration officials trying to influence scientific reports.

Bush covers up climate research | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

Climate Researchers Feeling Heat From White House

Oil firms fund climate change 'denial' | Life | Guardian Unlimited

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study | Climate change | Guardian Unlimited Environment

I know how many examples there are of people being funded by oil companies. The last two articles, starting here, are not related to oil companies, and just came out yesterday. There are hundreds of articles and studies like this out there. I can post more if that's really what you want.

The guy that you mentioned, Steve Milloy, only compiled a bunch of data from the weather sources and agencie. He did not make the data, gather the data, or any thing like that. He simply put it all in one place to show what it says. What can be forged about that?

Also, don't forget that much of the science and those in support of global warming aren't supported by oil companies, but by their nemesii, politicians Everytime you claim that someone or something is not credible, consider who's funding the people you believe.

I'm sorry, but you don't know how much exposure that I've had to scientists. I'll defer to you on that if you insist, though.

Your'e right, but given pure statistical probability, I've had and continue to have more exposure than most people. Unless you do what I do, and are older, you don't have more experience with other scientists.

But, to me personally, my opinion is that your arguments here have been just a little confusing and contridictory. I'm trying to understand where you're coming from. It simply seems hard to believe that you think that man has no significant effect on the environment.

From what I understand about science and scientists, they say otherwise by a significant margin. From what I understand about common sense, it says that when you have an unprecedented 6 billion people on the planet with millions of vehicles, factories, and landfills, the planet will get dirtier.

Somehow, you seem to counter both the above points, and I honestly cannot understand why. I'd like to.

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. That doesn't seem to be an overwhelming majority. That simply means that there is not enough proof out there to prove it so indisputably. If science undoubtedly supported global warming, there would be a VERY small minority of science and scientists that countered global warming, but therein lies the problem, there isn't.

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of people, and some of the shit we spew is not good for hte environment. But when you begin to tell me that the CO2 (not dirty) is causing the earth to warm so much that we'll be dead in 10 yrs (isn't that what the recent IPCC report said?) I have to roll my eyes. That's preposterous to claim such a thing. I refuse to freak out and jump on a political bandwagon because of Al Gore or others like him. I refuse to freak out because of 'some' data that 'might' support an idea.

As a scientist, it's not sufficient for me. I am however all in favor of being clean. Clean coal? Go for it. Brown smoke is always a bad thing, but CO2 isn't exactly brown, is it? CO2 is the product of any combustion reaction...think we'll ever stop making it? Not a chance.

[thatguyoverthere]

Here's an interesting piece by every Democrats favorite Republican and every Republican's second-favorite former Democrat:

The turning point on global warming - The Boston Globe

Originally Posted by John McCain & Joe Lieberman

The turning point on global warming

By John McCain and Joe Lieberman | February 13, 2007


THERE IS NOW a broad consensus in this country, and indeed in the world, that global warming is happening, that it is a serious problem, and that humans are causing it. The recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded there is a greater than 90 percent chance that greenhouse gases released by human activities like burning oil in cars and coal in power plants are causing most of the observed global warming. This report puts the final nail in denial's coffin about the problem of global warming.

In addition, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has identified a warming climate, and the resulting melting of sea ice, as the reason polar bears may now be threatened as a species. The US Center for Disease Control's National Center for Environmental Health has cited global warming as the largest looming public health challenge we face. And President Bush has himself called global warming a serious challenge that we need to confront.


Indeed, if we fail to start substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the next couple of years, we risk bequeathing a diminished world to our grandchildren. Insect-borne diseases such as malaria will spike as tropical ecosystems expand; hotter air will exacerbate the pollution that sends children to the hospital with asthma attacks; food insecurity from shifting agricultural zones will spark border wars; and storms and coastal flooding from sea-level rise will cause mortality and dislocation.
...

[thatguyoverthere]

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. That doesn't seem to be an overwhelming majority. That simply means that there is not enough proof out there to prove it so indisputably. If science undoubtedly supported global warming, there would be a VERY small minority of science and scientists that countered global warming, but therein lies the problem, there isn't.

How do you reconcile that statement with this?:

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

...
Oreskes, 2004

In December 2004, an article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[2] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". The abstracts were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". It was also pointed out, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."
...

10 years. 928 abstracts from peer reviewed scientific journals. 75% agree, 25% no opinion, 0% disagree.

Why did none of them disagree? Why do you think that it would be unreasonable for a layman such as myself to draw a conclusion about the majority of scientists opinions when informed of those particular facts?

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

But when you begin to tell me that the CO2 (not dirty) is causing the earth to warm so much that we'll be dead in 10 yrs (isn't that what the recent IPCC report said?)

Is that what the IPCC report said? That humans would be extinct in 10 years? I'd love to read that. Do you have a link?

[tbone]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

How do you reconcile that statement with this?:

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



10 years. 928 abstracts from peer reviewed scientific journals. 75% agree, 25% no opinion, 0% disagree.

Why did none of them disagree? Why do you think that it would be unreasonable for a layman such as myself to draw a conclusion about the majority of scientists opinions when informed of those particular facts?



Is that what the IPCC report said? That humans would be extinct in 10 years? I'd love to read that. Do you have a link?

I don't think ballz is arguing that global warming is happening, as that is pretty much an established fact. The earth is warmer and continues to warm every year on average. (If he is arguing this, then he will be quickly proven wrong with irrefutable proof).

However, I think he is referring to man causing global warming. Even the new report states that they are 90% sure man is causing global warming, meaning it is not conclusive and there is 10% of doubt even in their minds.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Also, don't forget that much of the science and those in support of global warming aren't supported by oil companies, but by their nemesii, politicians

Yes, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and other administration officials have been historically antagonistic toward oil companies!

How many greenpeace boats named after Condi Rice, hmm? lol

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by tbone

However, I think he is referring to man causing global warming. Even the new report states that they are 90% sure man is causing global warming, meaning it is not conclusive and there is 10% of doubt even in their minds.

I would think that in scientific circles 90% is more meaningful than 50% or 10%. I would suppose that in science a 90% result (or in the case of the Oreskes study, 0%) is a fairly good indicator. Perhaps I am wrong, but I am of the opinion that it's very reasonable for the average layman to draw a conclusion when seemingly every major scientific group study has a majority consensus.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

Here's an interesting piece by every Democrats favorite Republican and every Republican's second-favorite former Democrat:

The turning point on global warming - The Boston Globe

I couldn't care less about what politicians say about science. I really couldn't.

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

How do you reconcile that statement with this?:

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

10 years. 928 abstracts from peer reviewed scientific journals. 75% agree, 25% no opinion, 0% disagree.

Why did none of them disagree? Why do you think that it would be unreasonable for a layman such as myself to draw a conclusion about the majority of scientists opinions when informed of those particular facts?

I'm not even disputing the fact that the climate is changing. The climate has changed, does change, and is going to change, by no influence of our own. The history of the world is filled with climate changes. So what?

Is that what the IPCC report said? That humans would be extinct in 10 years? I'd love to read that. Do you have a link?

It was an obvious exaggeration, although I've heard such remarks as this...that in only a few decades we will face dire times of basic survival. It's pathetic, isn't it? I'll try to find such preposterous doom and gloom statements. I expect you to chuckle at them as you chuckle at me.

[Diamond Cross]

It's the same sort of thing that conspiracy theorists do, especially the ones who believe the moon landings are a hoax yet all of their arguments have been refuted but still cling to their beliefs even though the overwhelming scientific data and evidence says we did land on the moon and even brought back samples.

Global Warming is happening, it's just the causes are what I'm not sure on.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

It's the same sort of thing that conspiracy theorists do, especially the ones who believe the moon landings are a hoax yet all of their arguments have been refuted but still cling to their beliefs even though the overwhelming scientific data and evidence says we did land on the moon and even brought back samples.

Nice try, but there is no evidence to prove global warming that even comes close to equating to moon samples brought back.

[thatguyoverthere]

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. That doesn't seem to be an overwhelming majority.

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...

Can you name one major scientific organization that disputes that human activity is contributing to global warming? Can you link to their report?

And then I asked Mr. Wallz about this:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

...
Oreskes, 2004

In December 2004, an article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[2] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". The abstracts were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". It was also pointed out, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."
...

To which Mr. Wallz responded:

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I'm not even disputing the fact that the climate is changing. The climate has changed, does change, and is going to change, by no influence of our own. The history of the world is filled with climate changes. So what?

You are disputing that the climate is changing due to anthropogenic effects. The Oreskes report clearly states that there is a "scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change." Your simply acknowledging only that the climate is changing is not an adequate response to that report.

Would you, again, care to explain why, between 1995 and 2005, not one single reputable scientist was able to publish one single article containing the words "global climate change" that disagreed with the consensus? 928 - 0... no matter how you cut it, that's overwhelming.

Better yet, can you prove Oreskes wrong? You said you could match agreeing and disagreeing article for article. Can you find three articles actually published in reputable scientific literature between 1995 and 2005 that disagree with the consensus?

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I expect you to chuckle at them as you chuckle at me.

I'm not chuckling at you, Mr. Wallz. I never chuckle at you, not even when you're trying to be funny!

[ballz2wallz]

All I ask is that you stop reading from wikipedia and consider the reality of the situation. Yes, I'm presenting to you a editorial, but it's someone who's gone searching for scientists that don't agree with global warming.

Winnipeg Sun readers -- responding to a weekend column I wrote on global warming -- want to hear more from scientists who have an alternative view to the climate-change hysteria that's gripped Canada's mainstream media.

So I found a couple. I'll find more if you want.

I was complaining in my piece that we hardly ever hear from scientists who don't accept the theory that humans are causing global warming.

They're out there -- PhDs in earth science and meteorology who teach and do research at reputable universities -- who dispute claims by environmental groups that man-made greenhouse gases are causing the Earth to warm.

But we rarely -- if ever -- hear from them.

We hear a lot from people like David Suzuki, who's not an earth scientist.

He has a PhD in zoology. He knows a lot about bugs and frogs. But he's not a climate-change expert.

If I want to know more about climate change, shouldn't I call an earth scientist or a meteorologist?

Tim Patterson is an earth sciences professor at Carlton University in Ottawa. He says he doesn't accept the idea that man-made greenhouse gases are causing the Earth to warm.

He also says the matter is far from settled in the scientific community and that there are a wide range of views on it.

"When I go to a scientific meeting, there's lots of opinion out there, there's lots of discussion (about climate change)," said Patterson. "I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority."

You'd never know it.

Patterson believes the rising temperatures have more to do with solar activity than greenhouse gases. He says there's a whole sector of the scientific community that shares that view.

There is, at the very least, a vigorous and informed debate on the subject, he says.

INCOMPLETE

"But if you listen to Suzuki and the media, it's like a tiger chasing its tail," said Patterson. "They try to outdo each other and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over but it isn't -- come out to a scientific meeting sometime."

Madhav Khandekar, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, a group that rejects the greenhouse-gas argument, has a PhD in meteorology and spent 25 years with Environment Canada. He also taught at the University of Alberta.

He's studied the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report -- the one released earlier this month that caused the latest stir -- and says it's at best incomplete.

"I think the IPCC science is a bit too simplistic," said Khandekar.

"IPCC scientists did not thoroughly analyze why the Earth's surface temperature -- land and ocean combined -- has increased only modestly in the past 30 years."

He says the greenhouse- gas theory is credible but requires further analysis. But there are many other credible theories that may explain why the Earth's temperature is rising and they need to be analyzed, too, he said.

"We have not fully explored why the climate changes from one state to another," said Khandekar. "It is too premature to say."

I'm not a scientist, I don't know what's causing global warming.

But there are many credible scientists with alternative views on the subject.

I think we owe it to ourselves to listen to them.

[ballz2wallz]

If it's scientific papers in reputable journals you want, then I'll find some, but that's going ot take time.

[Kytro]

I have said before, but I will point it out again. The debate isn't over, in science it will never be over (nor should it).

Majority opinion in science does not mean it is right, but a lot of good peer reviews do help.

At this stage there is a fair number of peer-reviewed articles pertaining to man-caused climate change that conclude that man is at least partly to blame. not being able to analyze that data meaningfully myself, I have to rely on the most broadly reviewed data to help me form an opinion. So while it is possible they are wrong, it does not mean they are.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

How do you reconcile that statement with this?:

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



10 years. 928 abstracts from peer reviewed scientific journals. 75% agree, 25% no opinion, 0% disagree.

Why did none of them disagree? Why do you think that it would be unreasonable for a layman such as myself to draw a conclusion about the majority of scientists opinions when informed of those particular facts?

One thing that has been pointed out by critics is the old consensus on global cooling.

You would also need to look at exactly what is being cliamed in those abstracts. I wonder how much is mearly documenting some evidence for climate change. There is evidence for climate change as far back as Ice core samples can be taken. I seriously doubt it is the kind of alarmist material being put out by Al Gore.