An Inconvenient Ruling for An Inconvenient Truth

[pinhead]

Originally Posted by Quagmire

That all maybe true,but who payed the bill doesn't negate the fact that it was a survey of climate scientists.As I said earlier,both sides have an agenda.
But the funny thing is,if they would have put their money into research aimed at dropping emissions, or possible containing emissions in some way.They may be able to change the burning of fossil fuels from producing greenhouse gasses/smog to something more enviro friendly.And in doing so,wouldn't feel threatened by this issue.

"Bray and von Storch, 2003

A survey was conducted in 2003 by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch [30] [31] Bray's submission to Science on December 22, 2004 was rejected, but the survey's results were reported through non-scientific venues.[32][33"

"The survey has been criticized on the grounds that it was performed on the web with no means to verify that the respondents were climate scientists or to prevent multiple submissions. The survey required entry of a username and password, but this information was circulated to a climate skeptics mailing list and elsewhere on the internet"

-wikipedia

1. Partially funded by Exxon
2. Rejected by peer reviewed scientific journal
3. may not be a survey of climate scientists
4. 1996 and 2003 surveys

What is the agenda of the Joint Academy of Sciences of the G8+5 (Brazil, China, India, Mexico, South Africa) in its June 2007 declaration?

"It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken".

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news-1/G8_...eclaration.pdf

[AndyL]

Bah... Y'all can quote survey after survey showing eachother wrong all you want...

CO2 Levels are still very low compared to past millenia; this is why grasslands are still growing, and forests (trees) are in decline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth's_atmosphere

My major issue with the climate change theory is the simple fact that they're ignoring the scientific method. You can't "Prove" global warming based on computer models; computer modeling can't even tell us accurately the temperature tomorow - let alone next year. Computer modeling can't account for all variables (let alone the butterfly effect).

Do I wholeheartedly agree in global warming, definitely not - do I completely discredit it - definitely not.

Y'all can argue till you're blue in the face about the issue, Lets just see what the next 10 years brings... And I betcha we'll be back onto a panic over global cooling...

[Pier Pressure]

Ha, ha, ha - well put and no doubt. Fear mongering has been around since the world began and it is a great way to make money. Governments can justify deeper cash grabs when the world is falling apart. Can't you just picture one of those cave dudes with a "Repent - The End is Near" sign, except now Al Gore is the caveman. The more the world changes, the more it seems to stay the same.

[Matt]

This isn't a debate, it's a scoffing, sneering, and shouting match. The debate has been over for quite a while. The debate was won by the scientists. I'm not sure who's winning the shouting match yet.

[Pan]

I Believe one person on climate change, a buddy of mine in inuvik. No one in his family or anyone elses can ever recall even hearing of the permafrost melting etc. Ask someone up north who lives there, and doesn't venture up a few months a year to dig for oil, what they think of climate change.

Oh and using wikipedia to back up any claims, for whatever side...is simply idiocy.

[Moogled]

Wikipedia as a source = hilarious.

</academic POV>

BTW, this thread delivers. I really enjoyed reading what pinhead and everyone else has been putting forth.

[trilinearmipmap]

Bottom line to me is we are spewing a bunch of crap into the atmosphere and we ought to cut down on it whether or not it is causing climate change. For our own health as well as for the environment.

Short term we are going through a heating period no doubt. Whether this is long term or not remains to be seen. And whether it is caused by man or not can at best be an educated guess.

Anyway that is about it.

[pinhead]

OK lets try this again.

Don't misrepresent the data to support your arguement. This is a typical response of the "denyers". Misinterpret, use references based on old data, take information out of context.

You provide us with this from wikipedia

Originally Posted by AndyL

CO2 Levels are still very low compared to past millenia; this is why grasslands are still growing, and forests (trees) are in decline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth's_atmosphere...

And it is completely wrong. The article does not say this anywhere. In fact the same article says something completely different.

"During the 100,000 year ice age cycle, CO2 varies between a low of approximately 200 ppm during cold periods and a high of 280 ppm during interglacials. Recent human influences have increased this to above 380 ppm"

Did you even read the article?

Originally Posted by AndyL

My major issue with the climate change theory is the simple fact that they're ignoring the scientific method. You can't "Prove" global warming based on computer models;

One of my earlier statements was the average person does not understand the scientific method or how science works.

Science can't really prove anything - but we can show it is very likely. Science is continually changing as new experiments, newer technology and new data are gathered. As more information is gathered our ideas change. Some hypotheses are discarded, some are modified and some are confirmed. If a hypothesis results in a correct prediction we high confidence in it. That is not to say that new information will come to light that causes us to modify our hypothesis.

We were able to correctly predict eclipses long before we had spacecraft and technology to confirm our models of the orbits of the earth and moon.

Originally Posted by AndyL

computer modeling can't even tell us accurately the temperature tomorow - let alone next year. Computer modeling can't account for all variables (let alone the butterfly effect).

Computer models depend on accurate data. By taking data from years already past and entering them in our models we should be able to reproduce the course of the climate in last century. They match with what actually happened. Our models are correct. These same models are now being used to project what is likely to occur.

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?tip=1&id=6232

Originally Posted by AndyL

Lets just see what the next 10 years brings... And I betcha we'll be back onto a panic over global cooling...

And if we wait 10 years and you are wrong?

For those who don't like the links in wikipedia and sourcewatch, I'd be happy to forward the original reference.

Just read them and voice your opinion after you have all the facts rather than repeating these inaccuracies.

[trilinearmipmap]

Since we can't reliably predict what the weather will be like two weeks from now, I am at a loss to understand how we can predict weather years in the future.

[Quagmire]

Originally Posted by trilinearmipmap

Bottom line to me is we are spewing a bunch of crap into the atmosphere and we ought to cut down on it whether or not it is causing climate change. For our own health as well as for the environment.

Short term we are going through a heating period no doubt. Whether this is long term or not remains to be seen. And whether it is caused by man or not can at best be an educated guess.

Anyway that is about it.

Thats pretty much where I sit on the issue as well.If we take care of the big problem,any symptoms of the problem will clear up along with it.From there we can see what we're left with.