Real Global warming skeptics

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Im not against global warming for any business reasons.

I find it alarming that the scientific community has tried to convince the world that not only is the temperature of the earth controlled by one variable, but that calculating that this one variable is high or low with no relation to historic temperature, is sound science. Demonizing scientists who dissent with this "belief" (not based on real science) by saying "the studies are over, global warming is real".

They dont measure output of radiation from the sun, our proximity to the sun in orbit (yes, it does change, we dont orbit in a perfect circle around the sun *gasp* if you take a period of 10000 years our orbit looks like a spirograph picture). No measurement of the average temperature of other planets. How about the other 30 major components of our atmosphere? some of which are far more potent greenhouse gases than CO2.

I do not diagree that the earth is warmer than it was 50 years ago. I strongly disagree with the science of chasing one variable.

While reducing emissions would help us in countless ways, im strongly unconvinced that global warming is caused by this.

Read the IPCC report. They do not peg it all on one source(CO2).

Yes, but if you dig deep, CO2 accounts for 3-5% of GH gases. A significant portion of GH is water vapor ( around 70%) and we no control over that.

Water Vapour cycles through very fast(within days). CO2 takes centuries, that's why it is so important to deal with CO2.

 

[imported_gardener]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: gardener

Originally posted by: eskimospy
There are already hundreds of peer reviewed papers on man caused global warming. I haven't seen any peer reviewed papers from these guys. Certainly none in any recent time. That is the standard of evidence in the scientific community. If anyone has some links to some peer reviewed essays, I would be very glad to see them.

You well state the scientific case. But your mistake is overestimating the intellect of charrison, who now claims to "believe global warming is happening" and is evidently a shill or a child.

His reasoning is based on false documentation, not science, and this thread should have been locked.

NO it is based upon documentation you want to be false. No one has proved it false. So far the only response to these scientist is they are paid shills. No one has yes tried to dissect what they are saying about the matter. Ad homi does not win an argument.

And as far as my intellect goes, I will let my masters speaker for itself. I have read both arguments and I do see problems with what the IPCC is doing. I work with modeling and simulation and I know how difficult it is to make simulations work properly.

Do you have any education? How can anyone, with a moderate intellect, not see some ecological disaster in their own backyard caused by human overpopulation and overconsumption.

Yet you claim the high ground because no one can "disprove" your ignorance to your satisfaction.

Kudos. You win. You are a undisputed moron.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: gardener

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: gardener

Originally posted by: eskimospy
There are already hundreds of peer reviewed papers on man caused global warming. I haven't seen any peer reviewed papers from these guys. Certainly none in any recent time. That is the standard of evidence in the scientific community. If anyone has some links to some peer reviewed essays, I would be very glad to see them.

You well state the scientific case. But your mistake is overestimating the intellect of charrison, who now claims to "believe global warming is happening" and is evidently a shill or a child.

His reasoning is based on false documentation, not science, and this thread should have been locked.

NO it is based upon documentation you want to be false. No one has proved it false. So far the only response to these scientist is they are paid shills. No one has yes tried to dissect what they are saying about the matter. Ad homi does not win an argument.

And as far as my intellect goes, I will let my masters speaker for itself. I have read both arguments and I do see problems with what the IPCC is doing. I work with modeling and simulation and I know how difficult it is to make simulations work properly.

Do you have any education? How can anyone, with a moderate intellect, not see some ecological disaster in their own backyard caused by human overpopulation and overconsumption.

Yet you claim the high ground because no one can "disprove" your ignorance to your satisfaction.

Kudos. You win. You are a undisputed moron.

so far the only argument thrown out in the thread so far has been ad hom, which is not argument.

So far the GW crowd is only wanting to silence those that disagree with them and that is not science.

When you are prepared ot come back with something more than name calling, let me know I will be more than happy to read your arguments, but until then...

 

[fskimospy]

I'm guessing that means you have no peer reviewed articles to post.

Shocking.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I'm guessing that means you have no peer reviewed articles to post.

Shocking.

Well that is in fact what i posted.. the scientiest were offering their peer review of what the IPCC has to offer and they disagree. FOr that they are called shills. That is not how science works.

 

[fskimospy]

Looks like someone doesn't know what peer review is. This would explain a lot.

Not only does he not know how peer review works, but doesn't seem to realize that the critiques of peer reviewed essays done by the referees are not considered peer reviewed material themselves, nor are they subject to the sort of scientific scrutiny that lends credibility to a peer reviewed article.

Thus, they are nowhere close to the same.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Looks like someone doesn't know what peer review is. This would explain a lot.

Not only does he not know how peer review works, but doesn't seem to realize that the critiques of peer reviewed essays done by the referees are not considered peer reviewed material themselves, nor are they subject to the sort of scientific scrutiny that lends credibility to a peer reviewed article.

Thus, they are nowhere close to the same.

I understand the difference, what this article and interview offered was a very informal peer review. I am have little doubt that if all these guys got together they could do formal peer review that would not be so kind to the IPCC.

Of course they will still be called shills by the GW crowd.

 

[fskimospy]

Even if they did a formal peer review, it still wouldn't matter. Posting someone's critique is very different then posting someone's research. These guys aren't giving any of their own research... so even if they did review that paper it wouldn't lend any credence to what they themselves were saying.

Lets see some real, scientific research backed up by peer review that says anything like what these fools are saying. I'm still... still waiting for it.

I'm not even saying it's not out there. (I haven't looked), I'm just saying that before I opened my big mouth about a subject that I'm not an expert on, I'd have some reputable scientific backing. Not some jackass doing an interview.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Looks like someone doesn't know what peer review is. This would explain a lot.

Not only does he not know how peer review works, but doesn't seem to realize that the critiques of peer reviewed essays done by the referees are not considered peer reviewed material themselves, nor are they subject to the sort of scientific scrutiny that lends credibility to a peer reviewed article.

Thus, they are nowhere close to the same.

I understand the difference, what this article and interview offered was a very informal peer review. I am have little doubt that if all these guys got together they could do formal peer review that would not be so kind to the IPCC.

Of course they will still be called shills by the GW crowd.

I would say by your reaction to the GW alarm being sounded that it is going to or already affecting your personal bottom line?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

You are suppose to look at the facts and then from a conclusion, not form a conclusion and look for facts to back it up.

If only you followed your own advice.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I'm guessing that means you have no peer reviewed articles to post.

Shocking.

Well that is in fact what i posted.. the scientiest were offering their peer review of what the IPCC has to offer and they disagree. FOr that they are called shills. That is not how science works.

You don't even understand what peer-reviewed means, do you?

EDIT: I missed reading some posts that rolled over to this page, but it's clear you still don't understand the concept, so my criticism stands.

 

[cwjerome]

From the article:

----------------------------------------------

"At the moment, there is almost a McCarthyism movement in science where the greenhouse effect is like a puritanical religion and this is dangerous.

In the programme Nigel Calder says: "The greenhouse effect is seen as a religion and if you don?t agree, you are a heretic."

----------------------------------------------

The Left will usually get a head start in social issues, but eventually the house of cards crumbles, and things get reformed for the better. Just like poverty and other issues, the initial reaction is "How can you be against the poor people?" "Don't you want to help the poor people?" If only good intentions were based on reality.

Now it's "How can you be against the earth?" "Don't you want to save the planet?" Well it's not so cut and dry as the compassion-fascists like to make it. There are things like facts, details, and 2nd and 3rd order of effects to deal with... rationally.

Just like anything that gets governmental support, they want more... and the best way to get more is to justify it with... crisis! This scientific issue has been so politicized it's becoming a joke. Eventually, there'll be more open minds, more objective debate, more questions, and this issue will slowly fix itself.

Documentary

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
From the article:
----------------------------------------------

"At the moment, there is almost a McCarthyism movement in science where the greenhouse effect is like a puritanical religion and this is dangerous.

In the programme Nigel Calder says: "The greenhouse effect is seen as a religion and if you don?t agree, you are a heretic."

----------------------------------------------

Republican Heretics :laugh:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
From the article:

----------------------------------------------

"At the moment, there is almost a McCarthyism movement in science where the greenhouse effect is like a puritanical religion and this is dangerous.

In the programme Nigel Calder says: "The greenhouse effect is seen as a religion and if you don?t agree, you are a heretic."

----------------------------------------------

The Left will usually get a head start in social issues, but eventually the house of cards crumbles, and things get reformed for the better. Just like poverty and other issues, the initial reaction is "How can you be against the poor people?" "Don't you want to help the poor people?" If only good intentions were based on reality.

Now it's "How can you be against the earth?" "Don't you want to save the planet?" Well it's not so cut and dry as the compassion-fascists like to make it. There are things like facts, details, and 2nd and 3rd order of effects to deal with... rationally.

Just like anything that gets governmental support, they want more... and the best way to get more is to justify it with... crisis! This scientific issue has been so politicized it's becoming a joke. Eventually, there'll be more open minds, more objective debate, more questions, and this issue will slowly fix itself.

Documentary

?!?!!!? Science isn't left or right, it's science. By saying that you betrayed A.) Your partisan blindness and B.) Your ignorance of science.

Instead of linking TV documentaries... please... please... PLEASE SOMEONE LINK AN ACADEMICALLY DEFENSIBLE SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL ARTICLE THAT HAS BEEN PEER REVIEWED. WHY IS EVERYONE IGNORING THE FUNDAMENTAL BASIS FOR LEGITIMATE SCIENCE PUBLICATION? Until you do this you are using "evidence" that has no standards to ensure its reliability. None of us here are experts on climate modeling... and so this standard is necessary in order to know who say... is a hack, and who is not.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

?!?!!!? Science isn't left or right, it's science. By saying that you betrayed A.) Your partisan blindness and B.) Your ignorance of science.

Instead of linking TV documentaries... please... please... PLEASE SOMEONE LINK AN ACADEMICALLY DEFENSIBLE SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL ARTICLE THAT HAS BEEN PEER REVIEWED. WHY IS EVERYONE IGNORING THE FUNDAMENTAL BASIS FOR LEGITIMATE SCIENCE PUBLICATION? Until you do this you are using "evidence" that has no standards to ensure its reliability. None of us here are experts on climate modeling... and so this standard is necessary in order to know who say... is a hack, and who is not.

Settle down Beavis... and take a look at where you're at: It's call POLITICS AND NEWS.

If you want peer-reviewed scholarly research, go to those sites. Perhaps you can even link us to a few. Otherwise, try not to get your thong in a wad when people discuss the issue... because despite what you say, it's a very political issue with political ramifications.

The article I linked that describes a documentary is information for the consumption of people interested in the political effects of a scientific issue. This boils your blood... GOT IT. Recommendation: Seek other topics.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I'm guessing that means you have no peer reviewed articles to post.

Shocking.

Well that is in fact what i posted.. the scientiest were offering their peer review of what the IPCC has to offer and they disagree. FOr that they are called shills. That is not how science works.

You don't even understand what peer-reviewed means, do you?

EDIT: I missed reading some posts that rolled over to this page, but it's clear you still don't understand the concept, so my criticism stands.

still waiting for you to respond to my other post...

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Im not against global warming for any business reasons.

I find it alarming that the scientific community has tried to convince the world that not only is the temperature of the earth controlled by one variable, but that calculating that this one variable is high or low with no relation to historic temperature, is sound science. Demonizing scientists who dissent with this "belief" (not based on real science) by saying "the studies are over, global warming is real".

They dont measure output of radiation from the sun, our proximity to the sun in orbit (yes, it does change, we dont orbit in a perfect circle around the sun *gasp* if you take a period of 10000 years our orbit looks like a spirograph picture). No measurement of the average temperature of other planets. How about the other 30 major components of our atmosphere? some of which are far more potent greenhouse gases than CO2.

I do not diagree that the earth is warmer than it was 50 years ago. I strongly disagree with the science of chasing one variable.

While reducing emissions would help us in countless ways, im strongly unconvinced that global warming is caused by this.

Please read.

Page 32, solar activity can only be measured back 20 years.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: eskimospy

?!?!!!? Science isn't left or right, it's science. By saying that you betrayed A.) Your partisan blindness and B.) Your ignorance of science.

Instead of linking TV documentaries... please... please... PLEASE SOMEONE LINK AN ACADEMICALLY DEFENSIBLE SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL ARTICLE THAT HAS BEEN PEER REVIEWED. WHY IS EVERYONE IGNORING THE FUNDAMENTAL BASIS FOR LEGITIMATE SCIENCE PUBLICATION? Until you do this you are using "evidence" that has no standards to ensure its reliability. None of us here are experts on climate modeling... and so this standard is necessary in order to know who say... is a hack, and who is not.

Settle down Beavis... and take a look at where you're at: It's call POLITICS AND NEWS.

If you want peer-reviewed scholarly research, go to those sites. Perhaps you can even link us to a few. Otherwise, try not to get your thong in a wad when people discuss the issue... because despite what you say, it's a very political issue with political ramifications.

The article I linked that describes a documentary is information for the consumption of people interested in the political effects of a scientific issue. This boils your blood... GOT IT. Recommendation: Seek other topics.

That's interesting. Because its politics and news you are defending your right to be ignorant and consult sources that aren't credible. In order to accurately discuss the political effects of science, it is necessary to know what the science really says.

I don't think you understand the purpose of peer review. It is there to show that a paper which has been peer reviewed is logically and scientifically valid. It is the standard accepted across the entire world. If a scientist is making a claim such as this, and has not submitted his research for peer review... there is usually a reason (and it ain't good).

To use this information that has not been vetted is irresponsible and misleading. Furthermore it inhibits real discussion because not everyone is having a discussion using facts of the same value. This is why when you post unsubstantiated crap in order to refute real peer reviewed science, you are doing a disservice to everyone here. So please.... don't do it.

I thought Stephen Colbert was joking when he mentioned everyone being entitled to their own facts.

EDIT: I had more to say then I originally thought.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Im not against global warming for any business reasons.

I find it alarming that the scientific community has tried to convince the world that not only is the temperature of the earth controlled by one variable, but that calculating that this one variable is high or low with no relation to historic temperature, is sound science. Demonizing scientists who dissent with this "belief" (not based on real science) by saying "the studies are over, global warming is real".

They dont measure output of radiation from the sun, our proximity to the sun in orbit (yes, it does change, we dont orbit in a perfect circle around the sun *gasp* if you take a period of 10000 years our orbit looks like a spirograph picture). No measurement of the average temperature of other planets. How about the other 30 major components of our atmosphere? some of which are far more potent greenhouse gases than CO2.

I do not diagree that the earth is warmer than it was 50 years ago. I strongly disagree with the science of chasing one variable.

While reducing emissions would help us in countless ways, im strongly unconvinced that global warming is caused by this.

Please read.

Page 32, solar activity can only be measured back 20 years.

Ugh, please read the whole thing. Page 57, Section E.4

"Assessments based on physical principles and model simulations indicate that natural forcing alone is unlikely to explain the recent observed global warming or the observed changes in vertical temperature structure of the atmosphere."

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Im not against global warming for any business reasons.

I find it alarming that the scientific community has tried to convince the world that not only is the temperature of the earth controlled by one variable, but that calculating that this one variable is high or low with no relation to historic temperature, is sound science. Demonizing scientists who dissent with this "belief" (not based on real science) by saying "the studies are over, global warming is real".

They dont measure output of radiation from the sun, our proximity to the sun in orbit (yes, it does change, we dont orbit in a perfect circle around the sun *gasp* if you take a period of 10000 years our orbit looks like a spirograph picture). No measurement of the average temperature of other planets. How about the other 30 major components of our atmosphere? some of which are far more potent greenhouse gases than CO2.

I do not diagree that the earth is warmer than it was 50 years ago. I strongly disagree with the science of chasing one variable.

While reducing emissions would help us in countless ways, im strongly unconvinced that global warming is caused by this.

Please read.

Page 32, solar activity can only be measured back 20 years.

Ugh, please read the whole thing. Page 57, Section E.4

"Assessments based on physical principles and model simulations indicate that natural forcing alone is unlikely to explain the recent observed global warming or the observed changes in vertical temperature structure of the atmosphere."

Your sited paragraph mentions using centuries of solar data... Which they say on page 32 isnt possible.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

?!?!!!? Science isn't left or right, it's science.

So, other than peer review with scientists that are completely politically neutral, what kind of science would you use to prove science is an exact science?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Im not against global warming for any business reasons.

I find it alarming that the scientific community has tried to convince the world that not only is the temperature of the earth controlled by one variable, but that calculating that this one variable is high or low with no relation to historic temperature, is sound science. Demonizing scientists who dissent with this "belief" (not based on real science) by saying "the studies are over, global warming is real".

They dont measure output of radiation from the sun, our proximity to the sun in orbit (yes, it does change, we dont orbit in a perfect circle around the sun *gasp* if you take a period of 10000 years our orbit looks like a spirograph picture). No measurement of the average temperature of other planets. How about the other 30 major components of our atmosphere? some of which are far more potent greenhouse gases than CO2.

I do not diagree that the earth is warmer than it was 50 years ago. I strongly disagree with the science of chasing one variable.

While reducing emissions would help us in countless ways, im strongly unconvinced that global warming is caused by this.

Please read.

Page 32, solar activity can only be measured back 20 years.

Ugh, please read the whole thing. Page 57, Section E.4

"Assessments based on physical principles and model simulations indicate that natural forcing alone is unlikely to explain the recent observed global warming or the observed changes in vertical temperature structure of the atmosphere."

Your sited paragraph mentions using centuries of solar data... Which they say on page 32 isnt possible.

Bolded.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

So, other than peer review with scientists that are completely politically neutral, what kind of science would you use to prove science is an exact science?

So now you're going to debate the nature of science. *sigh*. As we continue to wander away from the topic....

That is why the papers are reviewed by somewhere between 2 and 5 people usually. Having people check up on each other is the whole point.

So if you want to put in a Far Reaching Liberal Science conspiracy to go in with the Far Reaching Liberal News conspiracy, and Far Reaching Liberal Hollywood conspiracy, and the Far Reaching Liberal Rest Of The World conspiracy, then by all means be my guest.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
How much you wanna bet I could show those scientists are on someone's payroll? Singer, for one, has worked for big tobacco and big oil. I'd weigh whatever they had to say with a healthy dose of skepticism. Ironic, isn't it?

And how many on the other side are motivated by the avalanche of Grants and prestige that would come from GW research,
Lets say in year one I get a 100K grant to study it.
Now I may not be able to prove anything yet, but if I find or suggest a few things maybe I get a 200K grant next year.......Not enough money lets float some news stories and get people all worked up about it. Start some commissions.

 

[DealMonkey]

You know, the more I read and (occasionally) engage in these GW discussions, the more parallels I find with the evolution vs. ID nonsense. In other words, some people can be presented with a mountain of scientific evidence and still manage to cling to their personal beliefs regardless of their inability to prove them. And in a larger sense, the "debate" is just as futile.