|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 09/22/2007 : 11:43:58 [Permalink]
|
| According to NOAA and NASA data, the Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 1.2 to 1.4ºF since 1900. The warmest global average temperatures on record have all occurred within the past 15 years, with the warmest two years being 1998 and 2005. |
This claim has recently been debunked by NASA its self. It is unconscionable that the EPA would not revise this sentence with the accurate scientific data.
Years of bad data corrected; 1998 no longer the warmest year on record.
Corrected data from NASA.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2007 : 11:50:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
So? Ice takes up more volumn than the water required to form it and there is still a lot of ice to go. Do you deny that the glaciers are shrinking as are the Arctic and Anarctic ice packs? |
The science shows that some glaciers are melting and some are growing. Science shows that the Antartic ice pack is growing.
| Tell that to New Orleans and the Yucatan Peninsula. |
The science shows that storms are not worsening.
If greenhouse gases continue to increase, climate models predict that the average temperature at the Earth's surface could increase from 2.5 to 10.4ºF above 1990 levels by the end of this century. Scientists are certain that human activities are changing the composition of the atmosphere, and that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases will change the planet's climate. But they are not sure by how much it will change, at what rate it will change, or what the exact effects will be. See the Science and Health and Environmental Effects sections of this site for more detail.
|
If, and climate models are the most relevant words in this paragraph.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2007 : 12:20:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
You will be interested to know that a goggle search of "world wide scientific consensus" resulted in SFN as the first link. |
That's because "worldwide" is a single word. Since you misspelled it in your google search, it led you straight back to the SFN, where you also misspelled it in your thread title.
Searching the correct spelling leads to different results.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/22/2007 12:43:18 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2007 : 12:39:04 [Permalink]
|
The science shows that storms are not worsening.
|
References please. The science shows that some glaciers are melting and some are growing. Science shows that the Antartic ice pack is growing.
|
References please. | If, and climate models are the most relevant words in this paragraph. |
Bullshit!
All of science relies upon working models of one sort or another and this is an example. Historically, their accuracy has been and is, commendable. I have yet to see a better on this topic, as this one is based upon history and modern, atmospheric studies. Quit mini-quote mining and come up with something tangible, for a change.
But they miss it once in a while and me, I wish they were wrong this time, but, wish in one hand & piss in the other & see which fills up first.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2007 : 13:21:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
References please. |
pages 19-21
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2007 : 13:38:43 [Permalink]
|
climate models accuracy.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2007 : 13:57:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by filthy
References please. |
pages 19-21
|
So now a list of titles of research papers passes for sources even though not a single one has been quoted from? Which on of those papers have you read Jerome? Where is the smoking gun located?
And of course the problem of the actual scientists not necessarily agreeing with the authors conclusions about a scientific consensus still hasn't been addressed.
Nor will it because to acknowledge that problem turns the whole report into expensive toilet paper…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2007 : 13:57:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by filthy
References please. |
pages 19-21
|
Oh I see... We're back to the Hudson Institute again.
The Hudson Institute was founded in 1961 by several hardline Cold Warriors including Herman Kahn, a nuclear strategist famous for his efforts to develop “winnable” nuclear war strategies. The institute says it is “dedicated to innovative research and analysis that promotes global security, prosperity, and freedom.” Closely aligned with other neoconservative-led policy institutes like the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Hudson's scholars “seek to guide global leaders in government and business.”
Although it claims to be a “non-partisan policy research organization,” Hudson consistently reveals partisan inclinations. During the 2006 battle over the renomination of John Bolton as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, for example, Hudson president Herbert London coauthored, with AEI head Christopher DeMuth, an op-ed in the right-wing Washington Times. The two argued that Bolton's critics have wrongly “contended [Bolton] could not work constructively with others, that he was too abrasive, and held the UN in too low regard to be effective there. In fact, on issue after issue, John Bolton has represented the United States with great effectiveness. He has engaged respectfully and productively with his counterparts from other countries and the UN bureaucracy wherever possible.” Responding to the numerous press reports citing diplomats who paint a very different picture of Bolton's tenure at the UN, DeMuth and London complain that “it should come as no surprise that Mr. Bolton's critics have been reduced to citing unnamed foreign diplomats who say they do not get along with our UN ambassador” (Washington Times, September 7, 2006).
A quick glance at Hudson's list of scholars and associates reveals a similar partisan tendency. Several current and former associates have supported the work of the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC), including Elliott Abrams, Hillel Fradkin, Francis Fukuyama, William Schneider Jr., Jeffrey Bergner, Richard Perle, Donald Kagan, and Dan Quayle. The husband of Hudson scholar Carol Adelman, Ken Adelman, and the daughter of Hudson distinguished fellow Robert Bork, Ellen Bork, have had strong ties to PNAC. The institute also has multiple connections to the Center for Security Policy through members like Charles Horner, George Keyworth, Schneider, and Perle.
|
Sorry bro, no scientific credentials there; quite the contrary. These are no more than a bunch of hacks sucking up to industry and the Republicans, not necessarly in that order.
This is a pretty good site, thank you. I'll quote the last paragraph: | Climate models are scientific tools, not crystal balls. Models don#65533;t serve up answers on a plate: the work involved in interpreting the results from a climate simulation using a large climate model is often greater than the work involved in setting up the simulation in the first place. A modern climate model is a remarkable tool, and definitely the best method scientists have for investigating climate change. But there is nothing magic to it. It remains a tool, to be interpreted carefully and responsibly. |
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2007 : 14:30:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
According to Real Climate the world wide scientific consensus is defined as:
In order of certainty
1. The earth is getting warmer (0.6 +/- 0.2 oC in the past century; 0.1 0.17 oC/decade over the last 30 years
2. People are causing this
3. If GHG emissions continue, the warming will continue and indeed accelerate [ch 9]
4. (This will be a problem and we ought to do something about it)
|
The science presented in the form of referenced peer reviewed studies in the PDF file to various degrees disputes some of these conclusions.
Science shows:
Natural long term dramatic climate cycles. (disputes 2,3)
The sun is the largest factor in climate change.(disputes 2,3)
Sea levels are not rising rapidly. (disputes 4)
Storms are not worsening. (disputes 4)
Species adapt to climate change. (disputes 4) |
I think you're missing Dave's argument, Jerome. The paper you cited is nothing but a list of actual peer-reviewed articles that the authors Avery and Singer contend "refute" in some way or another the notion of man-made global warming. However-- as noted by the disclaimer at the end of the paper, the original authors of the cited peer-review articles don't necessarily agree with these "new" interpretations of their data or conclusions.
So there's no real science in this article. That was Dave's point.
No sarcasm here, Jerome, so don't treat this as a hostile comment-- do you see the distinction I am trying to make here? I'd use an analogy, but I don't want to cloud this any more that is already seems to be.  |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2007 : 14:53:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
So now a list of titles of research papers passes for sources even though not a single one has been quoted from? Which on of those papers have you read Jerome? Where is the smoking gun located? |
The research in those papers contradicts various points of the consensus.
And of course the problem of the actual scientists not necessarily agreeing with the authors conclusions about a scientific consensus still hasn't been addressed.
|
I will willing admit that this report does not explicitly state specific scientists in opposition to the consensus; if it is admitted that this report does not explicitly state specific scientist in support of the consensus.
Fair is fair. |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2007 : 15:10:04 [Permalink]
|
Jerome:
I will willing admit that this report does not explicitly state specific scientists in opposition to the consensus; if it is admitted that this report does not explicitly state specific scientist in support of the consensus.
Fair is fair. |
You're on.
Of course, the only scientist cited that I actually looked up does support the consensus, but what the hell.
What we are left with is that Avery and Singer have nothing, which is what others and I have been trying to tell you all along. Their paper is worthless.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2007 : 15:15:25 [Permalink]
|
Now, Jerome, you did not take anyone's advice, including my own, did you? We tried to show you how to do simple research, and to save yourself embarrassment.
Ignoring that advice was stupid.
Instead, you are simply repeating and repeating the same unsupported lies of others more wildly and with less remorse than ever. You have repeatedly been shown that "quoting" a list of papers for proof does nothing, if you don't actually show those paper support your borrowed conclusion.
That's trolling.
You continue doing the same thing over and over, even though it never works.
That's crazy.
You insist that data supports you, but never present that data.
That's lying.
People have called you a troll, a liar, a nut, and an idiot, There has been considerable debate as to which you were. Now I think the jury's in: If there is one thing you have proven with strong evidence, it is that someone can be all four; they are not mutually exclusive.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2007 : 15:20:22 [Permalink]
|
| I know the temptation is strong, but can we please lay off of personal attacks? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2007 : 15:52:13 [Permalink]
|
Jerome I see that you've removed the mined quote from your signature. I just wanted to explicitly acknowledge that I see that as a small sign of good faith on your part.
I think you could easily become a valuable contributer to this forum, if you wanted to, just by not provoking so much ire. People would still disagree strongly with many of your ideas and positions but that's just standard fare on a skeptic forum.
Anywho, I'll let this thread get back on topic now. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2007 : 16:14:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I know the temptation is strong, but can we please lay off of personal attacks?
|
Okay. Since I'm in that kind of mood, though, I will simply withdraw from this thread. I'm fresh out of polite stuff. If you request, I will delete my last message. It was at best useless, anyway.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 09/22/2007 16:17:18 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Consensus Falling Apart by the Day
