Global Warming has been cancelled. Sorry.....

[Accept2]

The reason the Nobel guys are listed there is because they are reading papers and responding in a rational manner. When you watch the Al Gore movie he starts out with the shifting of the continents and how they fit together, and then shows the graphs, and how they fit together. This is rational thinking. There is nothing wrong with rational thinking, it forms the basis of all hypothesis. BUT, and its a big but, as big as Homer's but, rational thinking is not science. People who defend the gospel do so on an emotional level because they are being rational. They become pasionate because they feel that their own rationality dictates that something must be true. The goal of science is to look beyond rationality, and so everyone should consider that the Universe acts in an unrational manner, which is the case 99.9% of the time. Take your rational thought out and listen for actual proof...............

[RacerX]

This totally reminds me of that Twilight Zone episode: a girl is shut up in her house with her family because the sun has shifted closer to the Earth ....there's a massive heat wave all over the world....in every country there is suffering and a dawning realization of certain doom....much panic & drama ensues...then the girl wakes up




** spoiler space **















it was all a dream













but













in the girl's waking life, everything is the same except the sun is shifting AWAY from the earth....causing a global freeze....DUN DUN DUN!!!!


Man I LOVE those twist endings!

[zeegler]

Man I LOVE those twist endings!

Me too Ron, and so much for global warming, it's fucking cold outside!! BRRRRRR!

[RacerX]

The episode is The Midnight Sun http://www.tv.com/the-twilight-zone/...0/summary.html

originally aired 11/17/61

[Bert]

I think it's premature to blame humans on any specific incidents like collapsing ice shelves. Most of the warming seen over recent decades is part of a natural warming cycle. There is a huge consensus** among climatologists however that humans have amplified the current warming cycle, and the effects of this amplification will have even more measurable effects over the long term. Exactly how extreme these effects will be is currently under significant debate. Some models suggest the increase in average near-surface temperatures will only be roughly 2 degrees over the next 100 years. Unfortunately other models have produced much more dire predictions. The deniers use this uncertainty to suggest there is no meaningful human impact on global warming. It's similar logic to dismissing the opinions of a huge number of nobel laureates because of one questionable award, even though that particular award was not for scientific achievement.

**Consensus does not imply everyone is on board. There are of course several dissenters, some of them bright people without any oil-industry ties or influence. They aren't widely believed not because of academic or political pressure, but simply because their evidence and arguments are not convincing to people knowledgeable in the field. There are cases in the past where the "heretics" have ultimately prevailed, but these cases are exceptional. In other words, the heretics might be right, but I wouldn't bet on it.


So yeah, I wouldn't claim the sky is falling just yet. But given that there's some credible evidence that things could get pretty nasty in the not too distance future, it's worth starting to consider what to do about it.

[SeventhSon]

Along time ago, one of the greatest scientists who ever lived preached against a science that said the earth was the centre of the universe. All other scientists believed the "faith" that he was full of shit. In the end they locked him up for the remaining 20 years of his life so that he would not poison other people with his dangerous ideas. After all, disagreeing with what other people think is a no-no even today in a suppoedly free country. They said, "The debate is over, look all the other scientists agree, why cant you." Lets not even get started on the scientific consensus in the 50s that the duck and cover method was perfect protection from a nuclear blast. Im sure many of the fossils on your list agreed with that as well.

You never answered these questions...

Who are the "scary" funders of the global warming consipiracists?
Who is the climatologist that supports your position?

Nothing that you mention in your last post provides evidence that support your position. You just throw up non-scientific anecdotes about why your position might be plausible. And they are quite bad ones at that.

Regarding Galileo
Your first anectode illustrates the struggle between science and policy. This is exactly the same struggle that global warming scientists face today. The current administration has put non-scientists in roles to censor government scientists who disagree with "policy".

For example, government censorship of government (mostly NASA) scientists

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0131/p01s04-uspo.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml

Here is the infamous George Deutsch, a Bush/Cheney appointee who lied on his resume, never graduated from college trying to muzzle NASA scientists regarding the Big Bang: "[Deutsch’s email] continued: “This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Deutsch

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/politics/08nasa.html?ex=1297054800&en=dc3c509d1621f5af&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Regarding "duck and cover"
A film produced by the Civil Defense branch of the U.S. government. Not scientists.

Regarding support from the scientific community
I cite Nobel Laureates because everyone is familiar with that prize and implicity understand that there is a vetting process behind the work of these scientists. I'm not talking about Peace Prize winners like Arafat. I agree they shouldn't be on the list. But instead of citing one Nobel laureate that supports your position, you instead disparage the winners of the highest achievement in science as "fossils". I'm still waiting for your list.

Most times in science its the unpopular science that becomes scientific fact because the popular beliefs are based on rationality, and rationality is not science, its conjecture and theory. If these guys had absolute proof of what they preached they would be able to prove it without a shadow of a doubt. Instead they preach the mission is over, we know all the answers. The other side says we dont know all the answers..............

Again, no evidence to support your position. Just more ad-hoc riffing about science and policy and rationality.

Are you a scientist? My guess is that you are not. Nor are you familiar with the scientific method and the notions of observation, hypothesis, theory, and "scientific fact" (which no scientist would ever say that there is such a thing).

In fact I can take your last post and use it to "support" claims that the Holocaust never happened.

[SeventhSon]

I am no longer impressed by the Nobel prize as an indication of the excellence or competency of the recipient; the Arafat award being the most obvious illustration of how compromised the selection process is by politics.

Why are there so many physiology/medicine recipients on the list and why should anyone pay attention to what they think about climate studies? Economics is relevant how? The physics & chemistry recipients would be opinions to consider if they were all researchers in topics related to the subject but they are not. Some must be, I did not check them all, but the ones I did had no particular competency in climate studies so I don't really care what their opinion is here. But, if I want to know more about plutonium isotopes...

Even if there are good counter points to the last two why does anyone think that such a list is a definitive argument for man made climate change? I'd much rather read scientific counter arguments to the points raised by the very large number of climate scientists who are not going along with the gospel.

I agree that peace prize winners are irrelevant. i only cited the list to highlight the importance of peer review which is an absolute cornerstone of scientific progress.

There is a lot of *junk* science to support the skeptics view. Since the average citizen is not an expert at climatology, they need to understand how to distinguish good science from junk science. The nobel laureates (the scientists at least) may not be climatologists but they understand how to differentiate between good science and junk science.

The fact of the matter is there is no climatologist that has published any peer reviewed paper that supports the skeptics view. Because there appeared to be an actual debate on the subject (loud junk science) there was a study to find some...

"That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers 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. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

[skorb]

LOL - this shit again?

the "sky is falling" doomsday scenarios
combined with
the inability of our best meteorologists to get even a 10 day weather forecast correct
combined with
the vicious vitriolic attacks and smear campaigns orchestrated against anyone who does not go along with the "global warming" gospel according to Algore

are clear evidence to me that the global warming hysteria and cataclysmic climate change hysteria are total bullshit. worse than that, they are a deliberately manufactured hysteria designed to benefit one political party by creating yet another crisis we must be protected from. (and yes, before you start, both parties do this, just in different ways - none of us should fall for any manipulation from either political party).

the earth's warming and cooling cycles span millions of years with no human intervention, mostly due to solar fluctuations. is man making it worse? maybe. no one knows, and those who have the audicity to claim they know are completely full of shit.

anyone who cannot see this nonsense for what it is, I pity.

[Accept2]

Its like argueing with people who believe the earth is 5000 years old. Youre labeled a denier no matter what you say, and they keep harping on it. Not that I think their views are nessesarily wrong. I think you should have a right to believe whatever you want to believe, but when you try to label others as deniers just because they dont believe the same thing you do, then that just seems assholish rather than holy to me.........

[SeventhSon]

the inability of our best meteorologists to get even a 10 day weather forecast correct

meteorology is different from climatology

the vicious vitriolic attacks and smear campaigns orchestrated against anyone who does not go along with the "global warming" gospel according to Algore

Examples? Who are the dissenting scientists who have been attacked and smeared? The evidence clearly shows the opposite.

the earth's warming and cooling cycles span millions of years with no human intervention, mostly due to solar fluctuations. is man making it worse? maybe. no one knows...

Are you a climatologist or a scientist? I should believe *you* on subjects of climatology? I should read your post and be convinced that global warming is not happening?

I, in fact, do NOT know. All I am trying to say is that to have a reasonable opinion on the subject, you ought to be able to separate good science from junk science. The people that I've seen posting that strongly support the dissenting opinion seem to not have a scientific background nor can they cite an example of a climatologist that supports the dissenting opinion in a peer reviewed journal.

...and those who have the audicity to claim they know are completely full of shit. anyone who cannot see this nonsense for what it is, I pity.

Seems you are quite guilty of vicious vitriolic attacks and smear campaigns orchestrated against anyone who DOES go along with the "global warming" gospel according to Algore.

I'm still waiting on examples of vicious vitriolic attacks and smear campaigns against dissenters. Easy to say that it happens. Harder to provide examples.

[SeventhSon]

Its like argueing with people who believe the earth is 5000 years old. Youre labeled a denier no matter what you say, and they keep harping on it. Not that I think their views are nessesarily wrong. I think you should have a right to believe whatever you want to believe, but when you try to label others as deniers just because they dont believe the same thing you do, then that just seems assholish rather than holy to me.........

I'm just trying to figure out what science you are using to support your opinions. Given that you see fit to post this opinion on scientific matters, I'm just trying to understand how you formed your opinion.

Instead you produce zilch. You just continue to riff on the subject of the nature of differing opinions as if that provides one iota of scientific support for the opinion that you publicly post.

Are you a scientist or were you just a random viewer of that video and it struck a chord with you and you felt the need to post?

Shall I post links to videos/sites that deny the Holocaust happened?

[Accept2]

Gee thats the second time that youve tried to lump me in as a holocost denier. Maybe thats the reason why I never reply, because I could post something, but then youd say my links have more to do with holocost denial. Yes I am stoopid, not a genious like you. In fact Im so stoopid I cant grasp the link between thinking both sides have points and being a holocost denier. Normal discussion is back and forth, but here anything that gets posted that you disagree with and you bring up holocost denial. Dont you think thats strange?..........

[skorb]

Seventh, you are free to believe what you want. just don't try to make me do something or not do something because of your beliefs. your side does try to influence people's behavior and impose restrictions based on your beliefs, and that is the problem.

and as you are SO inclucated into the religion of global warming to fail to admit to, and actually demand proof of, the overwhelming pressure brought to bear in the academic, local govt and scientific communities on people your side labels "deniers," I'm not really sure any proof would make any difference to you. I or the scientist with the sense to point out that your side has very little real science on it's side and an overhelping of emotion, would just be called more names and have rumors spread we take $ from oil companies or the Bush Administration.

I'm not a scientist and neither are you. but I'm married to one. and I spent time studying this, and the various camps. I know what makes sense to me logically. and what does not. that's all.

as for your request for proof of the denier abuse, this is like asking me to prove the sun comes up in the morning, just look at the news every single day. people with the audicity to suggest that this global climate change hysteria is not a proven science, and far from it, are labelled, misrepresented, gaped at by the media, and told they should not be allowed to speak their point.

shutting up the opposition should not be necessary if you are in the right.

the Weather Channel lady suggested this recently. did you miss that?

and the governor of OR was going to fire a "denier" because that person had the gall to challenge the global warming sermon.

these two examples in the past week alone. please.

you are quite the example of exactly what I'm talking about here. your responses show my point better than I ever could.

[neilli]

Ulitmately for me the 'conspiracy' question comes down to: Who has what to gain by pushing the answer they want?

Seems to me the 'we have no impact on global warming' factions have much more to gain as it means business can carry on regardless.

It's gonna be much more expensive if the 'yes we do' side are proved correct.

It seems soooooo dumb to me that anyone could possibly think we don't have an impact on climate change - even on a small scale, the lowering of water tables caused by quarrying has an impact at a local level, so why the hell wouldn't larger scale activities cause an affect as well....

[SeventhSon]

Gee thats the second time that youve tried to lump me in as a holocost denier. Maybe thats the reason why I never reply, because I could post something, but then youd say my links have more to do with holocost denial. Yes I am stoopid, not a genious like you. In fact Im so stoopid I cant grasp the link between thinking both sides have points and being a holocost denier. Normal discussion is back and forth, but here anything that gets posted that you disagree with and you bring up holocost denial. Dont you think thats strange?..........

Nope...I'm not saying you deny the Holocaust happened.

I'm just saying that I can post links to sites/videos denying the Holocaust, and then when people call bullshit on me, I could reply with your same posts verbatim to support that position.

All I'm saying is that whatever you used to form your opinion to deny that global warming exists is as weak as the arguments that someone would use to deny the Holocaust happened.