FYI: you're out of context here. First, the public ARE the stockholders. Second, he said that when the city fathers of NY revoked his railroad's license to bring trains into the city solely for the purpose of shorting his stock into the ground for their own personal profit. It was a historic battle of business vs. corrupt bureaucrats, and (in a rare moment) business won.Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Cornelius Vanderbilt once said something to the effect of "the public be damned, I answer to the stockholders!"
Originally posted by: Vic
... and people like yourself. You shut down global warming theory's limited falsifiability using the argument of consensus. That's the testament of ignorance. The scientific argument of, we can't prove it, but everyone else believes in it so it MUST be true. And then you compare everyone who disagrees with your amazing leaps of scientific logic to those ridiculous ID'ers.Originally posted by: jahawkin
Care to elaborate?? I don't like to confuse science with religion, they are two seperate things. Its best left up to IDers.
They really need to shut off the internet access at your junior high school.
wow, you don't understand my argument and you misrepresent it. What a shocker. Yes, of course there is natural variation in climate. But with past ice ages we can define and model this natural variation. We know what it is and what effects it has on climate. The "natural variation" that people like yourself and the oregon climatologist speak of is an undefined, unknown, unobserved mystery climate variation. Sure there are natural climate variations that we don't know yet (like what the exact effects of the stop of the thermohaline circulation), but to attribute the current warming to this undefined natural variation is a total cop out. Kind of like saying, look, this organism is soooo complex we'll never understand therefore it must be evidence of intelligent design. Total garbage.And if "natural variation" has never been defined, then just what were the Ice Ages?
Wow you take reasoned discourse to a whole new level. With arguments like that its clear I'm wrong!!They really need to shut off the internet access at your junior high school.
The point is that they havn't proved it. And many of the orgs you cite are known to carry an agenda. That doesn't necessiarily make them wrong, but it makes them suspect. It's been proven on more than one occasion that advocates of the GW theory have used insuficient samples, concoted data and have in many cases refused to release methodology for peer review. The infamous "hockey stick" GW graph is the most notorious example of this.Originally posted by: jahawkin
Originally posted by: Vic
... and people like yourself. You shut down global warming theory's limited falsifiability using the argument of consensus. That's the testament of ignorance. The scientific argument of, we can't prove it, but everyone else believes in it so it MUST be true. And then you compare everyone who disagrees with your amazing leaps of scientific logic to those ridiculous ID'ers.Originally posted by: jahawkin
Care to elaborate?? I don't like to confuse science with religion, they are two seperate things. Its best left up to IDers.
They really need to shut off the internet access at your junior high school.
I'm not claiming that since all these scientific organizations believe in global warming it must be true. I'm claiming that since all these orgs agree, and since they are the ones who know what they're talking about, and since these scientists can PROVE with evidence that global warming is true, it must be true.
Well.... All the research doesn't point to the same conclusion. There is a ton of conflicting data out there. It's just that some people tend to shut out the data that doesn't jive with their near religious belief that GW is a catastrophic side effect of modernization.I'm curious what you think these leaps of logic are that you accuse me of. We can understand climate processes, we can quantify the impact of increases of greenhouse gases on the climate.....so, where is the leap of logic?? Its not a leap of logic when all the research of climate scientists points towards the same conclusion.
The leap in logic is believing that all the evidence supports a single conclusion.Its not that everyone believes it, its that everyone's evidence verifies this conclusion. This is how science works. Again, where is the leap in logic.
Actually, neither side has presented a bullet-proof theory.So which side of the global warming argument has this characteristic in common with ID?
-Not one article has been published in a peer reviewed (you know, scientific) journal that supports ID.
hmmm, which side of the debate has yet to offer a legit scientific theory on global warming that has stood up to scientific scrunity??? And you're accusing me of the leap in logic.
Even without arguments like that... you're wrong.wow, you don't understand my argument and you misrepresent it. What a shocker. Yes, of course there is natural variation in climate. But with past ice ages we can define and model this natural variation. We know what it is and what effects it has on climate. The "natural variation" that people like yourself and the oregon climatologist speak of is an undefined, unknown, unobserved mystery climate variation. Sure there are natural climate variations that we don't know yet (like what the exact effects of the stop of the thermohaline circulation), but to attribute the current warming to this undefined natural variation is a total cop out. Kind of like saying, look, this organism is soooo complex we'll never understand therefore it must be evidence of intelligent design. Total garbage.And if "natural variation" has never been defined, then just what were the Ice Ages?
Wow you take reasoned discourse to a whole new level. With arguments like that its clear I'm wrong!!They really need to shut off the internet access at your junior high school.
Originally posted by: Vic
... and people like yourself. You shut down global warming theory's limited falsifiability using the argument of consensus. That's the testament of ignorance. The scientific argument of, we can't prove it, but everyone else believes in it so it MUST be true. And then you compare everyone who disagrees with your amazing leaps of scientific logic to those ridiculous ID'ers.Originally posted by: jahawkin
Care to elaborate?? I don't like to confuse science with religion, they are two seperate things. Its best left up to IDers.
And if "natural variation" has never been defined, then just what were the Ice Ages?
They really need to shut off the internet access at your junior high school.
zugzoog, Kyoto wouldn't (won't) do anything anyway. It's like the large journalistic error in that article I linked above, where the reporter wrote, " ...a bill that would have required autos in Oregon to meet California's new stricter emissions standards beginning in 2009. ...which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes." OBD-III does nothing of the sort. Modern OBD-II cars already run where greater than 99% of their emissions are CO2 and water and guess what? you cannot make a otto-cycle gasoline engine run any cleaner than that. It cannot be done. Basic Chemistry 101. All OBD-III is going to do is Big Brother everyone's cars with GPS and remote shut-off devices (it also would have increased vehicle costs by ~$1500 each). So I'm pretty damn glad that bill failed. What good is a bill that actually does nothing good, regardless of the hype?
And there are no other alternative fuel sources. The same environmentalist groups that are currently triumphing global warming as a means to curtail fossil-fuel usage are also the same that fought hydropower in the recent past, and fought nukes in the slightly more distant past. Solar panels and bio-fuels rely on oil for their manufacture/production. And guess what? We have nothing left. We have, at this time, 2 and only 2 choices: (1) burn, (2) dark ages.
Personally, I'm stocking up on suntain lotion.
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
The point is that they havn't proved it. And many of the orgs you cite are known to carry an agenda. That doesn't necessiarily make them wrong, but it makes them suspect.
I take it all of this criticism - the insufficient samples, made up data etc - is in refrence to the Mann et al. paper that contains the "infamous" hockey stick. Its funny how conservatives / global warming skeptics always point to this study and the associated criticisms from two economists from canada. This somehow makes the entire theory invalid. Well the criticisms from the two economists, McIntyre and McKitrick have been totally discredited and have no merit at all.It's been proven on more than one occasion that advocates of the GW theory have used insuficient samples, concoted data and have in many cases refused to release methodology for peer review. The infamous "hockey stick" GW graph is the most notorious example of this.
Perhaps you could point to some of this conflicting data that is published. Afterall there is a ton of it out there.Well.... All the research doesn't point to the same conclusion. There is a ton of conflicting data out there.
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
The point is that they havn't proved it. And many of the orgs you cite are known to carry an agenda. That doesn't necessiarily make them wrong, but it makes them suspect.
Yes it has been proven.
-humans release greenhouse gases into atmosphere - Proven
-this leads to an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases across the globe - proven
-increased concentrations of greenhouse gases result in increase downwelling IR radiaion - proven and the increase in radiation can be quantified
-this anthropogenic forcing of the climate will result in increased global temperatures - proven and observed.
care to point out where this theory doesn't have ample proof to support if???
I didn't say they ALL have an agenda.On to your other points, mainly that the NAS, IPCC, AMS, AGU etc all have an agenda.
I approve of people who have that agenda.Well, in the sense that every org. and every person has an agenda, yes they do. But because they have this agenda (gasp! the advancement of science and knowledge) they are therefore suspect.
By using his data... which is incomplete. The dude used tree ring information from a single tree to help establish a significant portion of his graph. Is that good science? Tree Ring StoryThat is total garbage. I guess we can't trust any scientific org. in any field becuase they have a suspect agenda. Unless you can point out how the agenda of the NAS, IPCC, AMS, AGU are somehow different than physics or chemestry professional organizations.
Next you bring this real whopper:
I take it all of this criticism - the insufficient samples, made up data etc - is in refrence to the Mann et al. paper that contains the "infamous" hockey stick. Its funny how conservatives / global warming skeptics always point to this study and the associated criticisms from two economists from canada. This somehow makes the entire theory invalid. Well the criticisms from the two economists, McIntyre and McKitrick have been totally discredited and have no merit at all.It's been proven on more than one occasion that advocates of the GW theory have used insuficient samples, concoted data and have in many cases refused to release methodology for peer review. The infamous "hockey stick" GW graph is the most notorious example of this.
An interesting aspect of this controversy is that a group of republican congressmen, citing a Wall St. Journal editoral wrote the authors of Mann et al demanding answers to the questions posed by M&M. You can read the letters from the republicans here, then read the response from Mann here
It turns out that Mann's work has been reproduced by peers multiple times. This work has been published in peer reviewed jounals. Mann never released the code to his work (or he refused to release methodology, as you put it), but he could not (due to intellectual property) and should not anyway. Scientists should be able to reproduce the results from the written methodology (not computer code) from Mann's paper. Real climate scientists have been able to do exactly that, and they confirm Mann's results.
Does a good debunking need peer review when all you have to do is point out that temperature is only one of many factors that determine the growth of tree rings? Or that using a single tree in a scientific sample is inadequate? Does that really need to be peer reviewed? They weren't trying to prove a scientific fact. They were pointing out the flaws in the data.Perhaps McIntyre and McKitrick were not able to based on them not being knowledgable in the field and their own incompetence. I should point out that McIntyre and McKitrick published their work in a energy opinion journal that was NOT peer reviewed.
Well if all you have to do is point out the bad science...Yet we have all the global warming skeptics including US congressmen spouting off on these results as if they know what they're talking about and they found the kryptonite to stop these damn environmentalists.
TextTo review, on the global warming side:
Publications in peer-reviewed scientific jounals.
The support of all the professional orgs. in climate science, as well as the NAS
On the global warming skeptic side we have:
Work from economists published in a non-peer reviewed opinion journal.
A wall St. Journal editoral.
Republican Congressmen.
Now tell me who we should be suspicious of due to thier agenda.
What next are you going to point to some discredited study using microwave sounding data to prove that the earth hasn't been warming?? I'm waiting.
Perhaps you could point to some of this conflicting data that is published. Afterall there is a ton of it out there.Well.... All the research doesn't point to the same conclusion. There is a ton of conflicting data out there.
Environment: Enough. We've had it with the sky-is-falling crowd that somehow knows more than science can prove. Some of them need to find productive day jobs.
We're especially referring to four senators who recently toured Alaska on a high-profile PR junket and came away with a conclusion that to them is simply inescapable:
"We are convinced that the overwhelming scientific evidence indicated that climate change is taking place and human activities play a very large role," said Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, joined by Sens. Hillary Clinton, Democrat of New York, Susan Collins, Republican from Maine, and Lindsey Graham, Republican from South Carolina, who, to his credit, isn't convinced, at least not yet, that climate change legislation is needed.
And so how did McCain and his band of traveling hysterics come to their deep conviction that man is causing the Earth to warm?
Well, science by anecdote, of course. According to wire reports, while in Alaska the group "spoke to villagers in Canada whose spruce trees are being attacked by the northward spread of spruce beetles. On Alaska's northern coast, they met Native Alaskans dealing with melting permafrost and coastal erosion."
There, that should end the debate, shouldn't it? A trip to Alaska reveals all policymakers need to know about Earth's climate.
It fails to end the debate for us, though. We know that not one of those senators, not one environmentalist, not even a single scientist, can say with 100% certainty that today's warming -- if it indeed exists at all -- is caused by human activity. It is no more than an unproved theory. Its defenders conveniently, for raw political purposes, ignore the fact that global climate is governed by cycles that have a variety of causes.
We'd like to know, of all the warming periods throughout Earth's history, why is the current warming the only one due to man's actions? Is it because man is putting more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than ever before?
If that's the basis for all the shrieking about forcing us to cut greenhouse gas emissions, then someone needs to explain the difference between correlation and causation to those who should, and likely do, know better. Correlating data, such as a warming pattern that coincides with increased industrial activity and the growth of automobile travel, might imply causation. But as any scientist will tell you, correlation is not causation.
What might be taking place is nothing more than mere coincidence. Or increases in solar activity. Or any of a number of other things. Can we prove it? No. But at least we admit it. We'd like to see more science before committing the U.S. and other industrial nations to hugely expensive Kyoto-style cutbacks. Unfortunately, as Michael Crichton has noted, environmentalists have elevated their beliefs to the status of religion, and thus tolerate no debate.
While the senators recover from their little outing, a couple of Russian solar physicists are betting a British climate scientist $10,000 that the Earth will cool over the next 10 years. They believe solar activity, which is expected to taper off in coming decades, is more responsible for warming than greenhouse gases.
We wonder what will happen if the Russians win. Maybe global warming's advocates will just move on to hectoring everyone about the dangers of monsters from other planets.
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
CO2 and other greenhouse concentrations have increased and decreased throughout global history without interference from humans. - Proven
Elevated CO2 and other greenhouse concentrations have been observed (tree rings and ice cores and collection methods) during both elevated warming periods and in ice ages. - Proven
Once again. On one side we have economists and the junkscience website and articles in foxnews, on the other side we have multiple papers in science and other peer review journals, Multiple studies that say that everything in Mann et al is correct. If these were valid criticisms of Mann's paper, you think they could publish them in a real journal and not depend on a website and foxnews.By using his data... which is incomplete. The dude used tree ring information from a single tree to help establish a significant portion of his graph. Is that good science?
link to foxnews and junkscience
Yes, debunking does have to make its way into peer reviewed journals. That's were the science is. This is how science works. Time to step out of the kiddie pool and discuss these objections in the proper forum.Does a good debunking need peer review when all you have to do is point out that temperature is only one of many factors that determine the growth of tree rings? Or that using a single tree in a scientific sample is inadequate? Does that really need to be peer reviewed? They weren't trying to prove a scientific fact. They were pointing out the flaws in the data.
This, once again, read Mann's letter to congress, here. Nowhere are their objections published by them or any other scientists. They are not valid.And as long as you're going to make the claim that McIntyre and McKitrick were themselves debunked, maybe you could provide a link to that effect.
To which you reply:What next are you going to point to some discredited study using microwave sounding data to prove that the earth hasn't been warming??
Yes, and guess what one of those links go to......That's right, a page about microwave sounder data that at one time (before data was corrected for drift) showed a cooling of the atm. You link to the exact incorrect study that I said you would. What a shock that all the global warming skeptic talking points are turning out to be totally false.Text
I like this one too...
And let's not forget that people looking at a lot of the same data in the 70's were equally convicned that we were headed to another ice age.
That's about all I need to know as to whether or not to continue this with you.Originally posted by: jahawkin
Yes, debunking does have to make its way into peer reviewed journals. That's were the science is. This is how science works. Time to step out of the kiddie pool and discuss these objections in the proper forum.Does a good debunking need peer review when all you have to do is point out that temperature is only one of many factors that determine the growth of tree rings? Or that using a single tree in a scientific sample is inadequate? Does that really need to be peer reviewed? They weren't trying to prove a scientific fact. They were pointing out the flaws in the data.
This, once again, read Mann's letter to congress, here. Nowhere are their objections published by them or any other scientists. They are not valid.And as long as you're going to make the claim that McIntyre and McKitrick were themselves debunked, maybe you could provide a link to that effect.