Saturday, December 02, 2006
Global Warming Devastates The Nation
Well, it looks like Al Gore was right. Our globe is warming, and at unbearable rates. Maybe we should have listened. All we had to do was stop smoking and drive Hybrid cars, but noooo, we couldn't handle that. Well look what's happened now you Ozone hating bigot.
As you can see, the city of Chicago has been scorched by a blazing period of raw heat. It was so hot that buildings made of steel had just spontaneously combusted, leaving nothing but white ash.
Meteorologists agree that when Chicago hit 1,525 °C, it had broken the record for the highest recorded temperature ever. Coming in a close second was the fires of Hell.
Unfortunately, the effects of Global Warming have been seen elsewhere too recently. Although this years hurricane season has been the worst of many, what happened in New York brought it to a new level.
Just take a look at the devastation for yourself. It is obvious that the hurricane has brought the tides so high, that the entire New York skyline is completely submerged. The last time New York looked like this was the Paleozoic Era.
It's quite obvious that these two events are just the first chapter in a long and scary book called Global Warming. The readers probably won't like the ending because the main character dies, as well as everyone else. But then again, they won't be alive to read it anyway.
# posted by Cody O'Connor @ 12/02/2006 10:25:00 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
The movie "The Day after Tomorrow" was FICTION. The effects of global warming will be gradual, but none the less devastating.
Consequences of Global Warming. (excerpt) Scientists say that unless global warming emissions are reduced, average U.S. temperatures could rise another 3 to 9 degrees by the end of the century -- with far-reaching effects. Sea levels will rise, flooding coastal areas. Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense. Droughts and wildfires will occur more often. Disease-carrying mosquitoes will expand their range. And species will be pushed to extinction. As this page shows (follow link to read the rest of the article), many of these changes have already begun. (1/9/2006. The National Resources Defense Council)
Consequences of Global Warming. (excerpt) Scientists say that unless global warming emissions are reduced, average U.S. temperatures could rise another 3 to 9 degrees by the end of the century -- with far-reaching effects. Sea levels will rise, flooding coastal areas. Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense. Droughts and wildfires will occur more often. Disease-carrying mosquitoes will expand their range. And species will be pushed to extinction. As this page shows (follow link to read the rest of the article), many of these changes have already begun. (1/9/2006. The National Resources Defense Council)
But the point is, that's not happening. We're having blizzards, not heat waves. And the hurricane season this year was nothing. After Katrina, I don't think we're gradually getting worse when I see little to no hurricanes. Global Warming is nothing but junk science.
It is happening. Global warming doesn't mean that suddenly the whole world will be tropical. It's a fractions of degrees, but over time that's very harmful.
What is "junk science"? Please enlighten us. Stupid scientists? Scientists who lie for partisan reasons?
I'll tell you what it is -- it is a made-up word Republicans use to discredit sound scientific research.
Global warming only makes naturally occurring hurricanes worse. It doesn't create hurricanes from whole cloth. That we just went through a mild hurricane season doesn't disprove anything.
We're having blizzards because it's WINTER. Heat waves occur during the SUMMER. Did you seriously not know this??
Allisoni is correct. It is happening. From the article I previously linked to:
Most of the United States has already warmed, in some areas by as much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit. In fact, no state in the lower 48 states experienced below average temperatures in 2002. The last three five-year periods are the three warmest on record.
Many places in North America had their hottest seasons or days on record in the late 1990s.
Since 1980, the earth has experienced 19 of its 20 hottest years on record, with 2005 and 1998 tied for the hottest and 2002 and 2003 coming in second and third.
See the article for MORE examples.
I'll tell you what it is -- it is a made-up word Republicans use to discredit sound scientific research.
Global warming only makes naturally occurring hurricanes worse. It doesn't create hurricanes from whole cloth. That we just went through a mild hurricane season doesn't disprove anything.
We're having blizzards because it's WINTER. Heat waves occur during the SUMMER. Did you seriously not know this??
Allisoni is correct. It is happening. From the article I previously linked to:
Most of the United States has already warmed, in some areas by as much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit. In fact, no state in the lower 48 states experienced below average temperatures in 2002. The last three five-year periods are the three warmest on record.
Many places in North America had their hottest seasons or days on record in the late 1990s.
Since 1980, the earth has experienced 19 of its 20 hottest years on record, with 2005 and 1998 tied for the hottest and 2002 and 2003 coming in second and third.
See the article for MORE examples.
Here's my question. How come, if global warming exists, one side of the world gets hotter while the other gets colder? Because that had seemed perfectly natural to me. And how come it doesn't prove anything to you global warming folks when the Earth is colder and reaches record cold temperatures like in Russia and China, but it does when it's hotter and reaches record hot temperatures? And if global warming is because of industry, why was there a small ice age during the Industrial Revolution?
Ah whatever. These questions are just "inconvenient truths" right? And aren't there more important things to worry about than the weather? Like Islamic terrorism maybe? Or North Korea getting nukes? Things like that.
Ah whatever. These questions are just "inconvenient truths" right? And aren't there more important things to worry about than the weather? Like Islamic terrorism maybe? Or North Korea getting nukes? Things like that.
# posted by 
: 12/05/2006 3:46 PM
: 12/05/2006 3:46 PM
"And if global warming is because of industry, why was there a small ice age during the Industrial Revolution?"
You bring up a good point, Robby. It can also be noted that there was a warm period during the midieval era. Therefore, waste and pollution has no effect on the globes climate.
Oh, and here's something else to think about. Why is the temperature of Mars going up too? Obviously not human waste. It's the sun that is to blame, not humans. But again, going back to history, it has been proven that the climate works in a cycle with warm and cool periods. We will not keep getting warmer forever, soon we will cool back down.
You bring up a good point, Robby. It can also be noted that there was a warm period during the midieval era. Therefore, waste and pollution has no effect on the globes climate.
Oh, and here's something else to think about. Why is the temperature of Mars going up too? Obviously not human waste. It's the sun that is to blame, not humans. But again, going back to history, it has been proven that the climate works in a cycle with warm and cool periods. We will not keep getting warmer forever, soon we will cool back down.
Human activity DOES impact climate change. That is a known fact.
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=116&subid=149&contentid=252267
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=116&subid=149&contentid=252267
Gee, thanks for that Democratic party website, Allisoni. Because we all know that party politics leads to the truth in global warming a lot better than real science does.
But I'm not surprised you did that. You and Dervish always do on the global warming debate. Instead of addressing my points, you send me a link to "prove me wrong". But the points I made are in no way addressed in the link.
You keep throwing this greenhouse gas and carbon emission crap at me, but you in now way answer my points. If your points are true, then tell me why was there a cold period during the industrial age, a warm period in the midieval age, and the same global warming cycle going on in mars, a place where we do not pollute?
Aren't those points enough to disprove this greenhouse gas bullcrap? I'll answer that, yes. But you're just too ashamed to admit you're wrong.
But I'm not surprised you did that. You and Dervish always do on the global warming debate. Instead of addressing my points, you send me a link to "prove me wrong". But the points I made are in no way addressed in the link.
You keep throwing this greenhouse gas and carbon emission crap at me, but you in now way answer my points. If your points are true, then tell me why was there a cold period during the industrial age, a warm period in the midieval age, and the same global warming cycle going on in mars, a place where we do not pollute?
Aren't those points enough to disprove this greenhouse gas bullcrap? I'll answer that, yes. But you're just too ashamed to admit you're wrong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4969772.stm
Is that better?
You cannot just ignored facts. Well, you can if you want, but that doesn't make you any less ignorant. Yes, there are natural occuring climate cycles. But there is evidence to show that the cycle now is being exhaggerated by human activity.
"Beginning with the industrial revolution in the 1850s and accelerating ever since, the human consumption of fossil fuels has elevated CO2 levels from a concentration of ~280 ppm to more than 370 ppm today. These increases are projected to reach more than 560 ppm before the end of the 21st century." (Wikipedia)
Where is the source that says there was an ice age during the industrial evolution? That's extremely improbable.
Is that better?
You cannot just ignored facts. Well, you can if you want, but that doesn't make you any less ignorant. Yes, there are natural occuring climate cycles. But there is evidence to show that the cycle now is being exhaggerated by human activity.
"Beginning with the industrial revolution in the 1850s and accelerating ever since, the human consumption of fossil fuels has elevated CO2 levels from a concentration of ~280 ppm to more than 370 ppm today. These increases are projected to reach more than 560 ppm before the end of the 21st century." (Wikipedia)
Where is the source that says there was an ice age during the industrial evolution? That's extremely improbable.
Well it was on the History channel. So... I would say they knew what they were talking about. It was called the Little Ice Age which went all the way to the 1850s, long after the Industrial Revelution began in the 1790s. Since it began, and ended, in nondistinct places in history, it can't be proven that humans had any impact on the weather then at all. Also GRI states that, "the specific reasons for this change are not understood."
# posted by : 12/06/2006 2:47 PM
: 12/06/2006 2:47 PM
You are still failing to understand that this happens at a slow pace. It may take 50 or so years for the largest results to be seen, but that doesn't mean they will not occur. It CAN be proven that human activity affects climate change. And climate change affects the weather. I'm still waiting for evidence to prove that wrong.
And I'm still waiting for evidence to prove your theory right. You guys always have an excuse for every bit of information we supply. Even if they contradict other things. Such as, if it happens so slowly, how do you know it's happening at all? Can't you just admit no one knows why it does this yet?
# posted by : 12/06/2006 9:01 PM
: 12/06/2006 9:01 PM
No. I have already provided evidence of human impact on climate change. You have yet to show any evidence at all.
"You have yet to show any evidence at all."
Huh? The links Robby give you just don't count? The History Channel talked about The Little Ice Age. They're not exactly politically partisan like the links you're throwing around.
Huh? The links Robby give you just don't count? The History Channel talked about The Little Ice Age. They're not exactly politically partisan like the links you're throwing around.
Robert M. said... And I'm still waiting for evidence to prove your theory right.
Good News (relatively speaking)! Your wait is over.
Global Warming Proof Detected (excerpt) The Earth is absorbing more energy from the Sun than it is giving back into space, according to a new study by climate scientists in the US. The group describes its results as "the smoking gun that we were looking for", removing any doubt that human activities are warming the planet. (4/28/2005. Richard Black, BBC News environment correspondent)
Robert M. Said.... You guys always have an excuse for every bit of information we supply.
You haven't provided any information to disprove global warming. I don't know how you can say we're giving "excuses" to refute your evidence when YOU HAVEN'T PROVIDED ANY!
Robert M. Said... Such as, if it happens so slowly, how do you know it's happening at all?
Scientists have a variety of methods of proving that our planet has been slowly warming up due to greenhouse gases.
PBS Newshour Extra: Global Warming (excerpt) ...the data gathered from old temperature records, computer models, glaciers, and tree rings all point to a global warming trend. What's more, the scientists suspect that pollution from human activity is responsible for much of the warming. (7/2/2001. PBS Online)
Deep Ice tells long Climate Story (excperpt) Carbon dioxide levels are substantially higher now than at any time in the last 800,000 years, the latest study of ice drilled out of Antarctica confirms. "Ice cores reveal the Earth's natural climate rhythm over the last 800,000 years. When carbon dioxide changed there was always an accompanying climate change. Over the last 200 years human activity has increased carbon dioxide to well outside the natural range", explained Dr Wolff. The "scary thing", he added, was the rate of change now occurring in CO2 concentrations. In the core, the fastest increase seen was of the order of 30 parts per million (ppm) by volume over a period of roughly 1,000 years. "The last 30 ppm of increase has occurred in just 17 years. We really are in the situation where we don't have an analogue in our records", he said. (11/4/2006. Jonathan Amos, Science reporter, BBC News, Norwich)
Obviously you're having a hard time understanding this. I recommend reading The Climate Detectives located on the EPA's website. It's geared towards your age group (or intellectual age group). Hopefully this site "dumbs it down" enough for you to understand what they're talking about.
Robert M. Said... Can't you just admit no one knows why it does this yet?
No, I can't "admit" that. I'm not qualifed. I'm not a scientist. Instead of "admitting" that "no one knows" I'll trust the scientists who have come to a consensus on the topic. Their consensus is that global warming is occuring and that human activities are causing it.
From Undeniable Global Warming (excerpt) Many people have the impression that there is significant scientific disagreement about global climate change. It's time to lay that misapprehension to rest. There is a scientific consensus on the fact that Earth's climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason. We need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of global warming and start talking seriously about the right approach to address it. (12/26/2004. Naomi Oreskes, The Washington Post)
Cody O. Said... They're not exactly politically partisan like the links you're throwing around.
The Democrats are concerned about this very real threat. The Republicans are more concerned that if we do anything the profits of big energy will be negatively impacted. These facts in NO WAY make the scientists partisan! Climate fluctuations that occured in the past in NO WAY disprove that human activity is the cause of the current warming trend (So to Robert M's "little ice age" example, I say, so the hell what?!). What part of "Scientific Consensus" do you not understand??
I really don't know where you get the nerve to call anyone who believes something the majority of scientists agree with "partisan". It is you disbelievers on the Right are the ones looking at this from a completely partisan perspective!
Cody O. Said... Huh? The links Robby give you just don't count?
Count for what? The "little ice age" occured. I believe that. The earth's climate can change for reasons other than human activites. I'm not disputing that. But that isn't what's happening now -- and the "little ice age" doesn't disprove the FACT that global warming is occuring now and human activies are to blame.
In your last post you called liberal stupid. And that you were "sorry", but it just had to be said. Well, I'm sorry too, but I think it's pretty obvious that anyone who calls something which is undeniable deniable and insists that scientists are partisan is an idiot.
BTW I don't know what temperatures on Mars have to do with the debate. We are talking about EARTH. I never denied -- nor have scientists denied -- that global warming or cooling can occur for reasons OTHER than human activites and greenhouse gases. I think you and Robert M. both KNOW this -- but are simply attempting to muddy the waters with your irrelative "proof".
Good News (relatively speaking)! Your wait is over.
Global Warming Proof Detected (excerpt) The Earth is absorbing more energy from the Sun than it is giving back into space, according to a new study by climate scientists in the US. The group describes its results as "the smoking gun that we were looking for", removing any doubt that human activities are warming the planet. (4/28/2005. Richard Black, BBC News environment correspondent)
Robert M. Said.... You guys always have an excuse for every bit of information we supply.
You haven't provided any information to disprove global warming. I don't know how you can say we're giving "excuses" to refute your evidence when YOU HAVEN'T PROVIDED ANY!
Robert M. Said... Such as, if it happens so slowly, how do you know it's happening at all?
Scientists have a variety of methods of proving that our planet has been slowly warming up due to greenhouse gases.
PBS Newshour Extra: Global Warming (excerpt) ...the data gathered from old temperature records, computer models, glaciers, and tree rings all point to a global warming trend. What's more, the scientists suspect that pollution from human activity is responsible for much of the warming. (7/2/2001. PBS Online)
Deep Ice tells long Climate Story (excperpt) Carbon dioxide levels are substantially higher now than at any time in the last 800,000 years, the latest study of ice drilled out of Antarctica confirms. "Ice cores reveal the Earth's natural climate rhythm over the last 800,000 years. When carbon dioxide changed there was always an accompanying climate change. Over the last 200 years human activity has increased carbon dioxide to well outside the natural range", explained Dr Wolff. The "scary thing", he added, was the rate of change now occurring in CO2 concentrations. In the core, the fastest increase seen was of the order of 30 parts per million (ppm) by volume over a period of roughly 1,000 years. "The last 30 ppm of increase has occurred in just 17 years. We really are in the situation where we don't have an analogue in our records", he said. (11/4/2006. Jonathan Amos, Science reporter, BBC News, Norwich)
Obviously you're having a hard time understanding this. I recommend reading The Climate Detectives located on the EPA's website. It's geared towards your age group (or intellectual age group). Hopefully this site "dumbs it down" enough for you to understand what they're talking about.
Robert M. Said... Can't you just admit no one knows why it does this yet?
No, I can't "admit" that. I'm not qualifed. I'm not a scientist. Instead of "admitting" that "no one knows" I'll trust the scientists who have come to a consensus on the topic. Their consensus is that global warming is occuring and that human activities are causing it.
From Undeniable Global Warming (excerpt) Many people have the impression that there is significant scientific disagreement about global climate change. It's time to lay that misapprehension to rest. There is a scientific consensus on the fact that Earth's climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason. We need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of global warming and start talking seriously about the right approach to address it. (12/26/2004. Naomi Oreskes, The Washington Post)
Cody O. Said... They're not exactly politically partisan like the links you're throwing around.
The Democrats are concerned about this very real threat. The Republicans are more concerned that if we do anything the profits of big energy will be negatively impacted. These facts in NO WAY make the scientists partisan! Climate fluctuations that occured in the past in NO WAY disprove that human activity is the cause of the current warming trend (So to Robert M's "little ice age" example, I say, so the hell what?!). What part of "Scientific Consensus" do you not understand??
I really don't know where you get the nerve to call anyone who believes something the majority of scientists agree with "partisan". It is you disbelievers on the Right are the ones looking at this from a completely partisan perspective!
Cody O. Said... Huh? The links Robby give you just don't count?
Count for what? The "little ice age" occured. I believe that. The earth's climate can change for reasons other than human activites. I'm not disputing that. But that isn't what's happening now -- and the "little ice age" doesn't disprove the FACT that global warming is occuring now and human activies are to blame.
In your last post you called liberal stupid. And that you were "sorry", but it just had to be said. Well, I'm sorry too, but I think it's pretty obvious that anyone who calls something which is undeniable deniable and insists that scientists are partisan is an idiot.
BTW I don't know what temperatures on Mars have to do with the debate. We are talking about EARTH. I never denied -- nor have scientists denied -- that global warming or cooling can occur for reasons OTHER than human activites and greenhouse gases. I think you and Robert M. both KNOW this -- but are simply attempting to muddy the waters with your irrelative "proof".
Dervish, I don't know about Cody, but there is no way am I going to read all that. I urge you to get a life as soon as humanly possible.
Allosoni, I provided a link, from the GRI no less. Why does that not count, but yours do exactly? If you're going to ask for links you could at least accept the fact that I provided them.
Allosoni, I provided a link, from the GRI no less. Why does that not count, but yours do exactly? If you're going to ask for links you could at least accept the fact that I provided them.
# posted by : 12/07/2006 5:09 PM
: 12/07/2006 5:09 PM
Your limited attention span is not exactly, you know, a valid repudiation of the facts I presented or anything. Apparently you'll do ANYTHING to continue living under the delusions which you cling to. I urge you to wake up and smell the reality as soon as humanly possible.
And so the hell what if you provided a link? What do you think your link proves? I took a look at it and I know there is no way you actually read the article -- seeing as how LONG it is. Which would explain why you didn't notice that global warming is NEVER MENTIONED.
Funny, I was under the impression that you were presenting this article as "proof" global warming wasn't occuring (or, if it is, it is not caused by human activities). Obviously you're just attempting to muddy the waters with irrelevant information.
And so the hell what if you provided a link? What do you think your link proves? I took a look at it and I know there is no way you actually read the article -- seeing as how LONG it is. Which would explain why you didn't notice that global warming is NEVER MENTIONED.
Funny, I was under the impression that you were presenting this article as "proof" global warming wasn't occuring (or, if it is, it is not caused by human activities). Obviously you're just attempting to muddy the waters with irrelevant information.
And so the hell what if you provided a link? What do you think your link proves? I took a look at it and I know there is no way you actually read the article -- seeing as how LONG it is. Which would explain why you didn't notice that global warming is NEVER MENTIONED.
Exactly. Global warming is never mentioned. That was my point. The article clearly states that "the specific reasons for this change are not understood." In other words people don't know yet why these temperature changes occur. Besides, that doesn't refute my point. If pollution is to blame for global warming, why was there an Ice Age during the Industrial Revolution? Answer? No one knows. The fact is simply that there is not enough evidence to prove the theory, yes theory, of global warming. Some scientists believe it, some don't. There's just not enough evidence yet.
Exactly. Global warming is never mentioned. That was my point. The article clearly states that "the specific reasons for this change are not understood." In other words people don't know yet why these temperature changes occur. Besides, that doesn't refute my point. If pollution is to blame for global warming, why was there an Ice Age during the Industrial Revolution? Answer? No one knows. The fact is simply that there is not enough evidence to prove the theory, yes theory, of global warming. Some scientists believe it, some don't. There's just not enough evidence yet.
# posted by : 12/07/2006 7:10 PM
: 12/07/2006 7:10 PM
The Ice Age you speak of did not occur and does not even APPEAR to come close to being a result of the Industrial Revolution. The Ice Age started before the Industrial Revolution began. If it had started afterwards...ok, there's an argument. But it didn't. And therefore you've got nothin'.
Robert M. Said... Exactly. Global warming is never mentioned. That was my point.
Your point was that the little ice age doesn't disprove Global Warming? OK, I thought you were arguing the opposite. So why did you even bring it up??!
Robert M. Said... The article clearly states that "the specific reasons for this change are not understood". In other words people don't know yet why these temperature changes occur. Besides, that doesn't refute my point. If pollution is to blame for global warming, why was there an Ice Age during the Industrial Revolution? Answer? No one knows.
That's nice, but it doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. I still don't understand WHY we are discussing this.
Pollution isn't the ONLY thing that can affect climate change. Nobody ever suggested that the little ice age was caused by pollution! If you don't even know what scientists are saying about this topic then you really don't have the right to debate it now do you?
Robert M. Said... Some scientists believe it, some don't. There's just not enough evidence yet.
Actually no. "Scientific consensus" means that they all agree. The scientists in one of the articles I previously linked to described their findings as a "smoking gun". Doesn't sound like they believe there "isn't enough evidence" to me.
Your point was that the little ice age doesn't disprove Global Warming? OK, I thought you were arguing the opposite. So why did you even bring it up??!
Robert M. Said... The article clearly states that "the specific reasons for this change are not understood". In other words people don't know yet why these temperature changes occur. Besides, that doesn't refute my point. If pollution is to blame for global warming, why was there an Ice Age during the Industrial Revolution? Answer? No one knows.
That's nice, but it doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. I still don't understand WHY we are discussing this.
Pollution isn't the ONLY thing that can affect climate change. Nobody ever suggested that the little ice age was caused by pollution! If you don't even know what scientists are saying about this topic then you really don't have the right to debate it now do you?
Robert M. Said... Some scientists believe it, some don't. There's just not enough evidence yet.
Actually no. "Scientific consensus" means that they all agree. The scientists in one of the articles I previously linked to described their findings as a "smoking gun". Doesn't sound like they believe there "isn't enough evidence" to me.
Pollution isn't the ONLY thing that can affect climate change. Nobody ever suggested that the little ice age was caused by pollution! If you don't even know what scientists are saying about this topic then you really don't have the right to debate it now do you?
Okay, so what you're saying is that pollution doesn't cause it, but it's still our fault... Uh-huh. So, aren't you basically contridicting yourself, again?
Actually no. "Scientific consensus" means that they all agree. The scientists in one of the articles I previously linked to described their findings as a "smoking gun". Doesn't sound like they believe there "isn't enough evidence" to me.
Oh and the one article talked to every scientest in the country, despite the fact that I provided a link of scientests who don't agree?
Okay, so what you're saying is that pollution doesn't cause it, but it's still our fault... Uh-huh. So, aren't you basically contridicting yourself, again?
Actually no. "Scientific consensus" means that they all agree. The scientists in one of the articles I previously linked to described their findings as a "smoking gun". Doesn't sound like they believe there "isn't enough evidence" to me.
Oh and the one article talked to every scientest in the country, despite the fact that I provided a link of scientests who don't agree?
# posted by : 12/08/2006 1:07 PM
: 12/08/2006 1:07 PM
Robert M. Said... Okay, so what you're saying is that pollution doesn't cause it, but it's still our fault... Uh-huh. So, aren't you basically contridicting yourself, again?
No comment. I'm not going to respond because that isn't what I said. Go back and re-read my previous comment. And get help for your reading comprehension problem already!
Robert M. Said... Oh and the one article talked to every scientest in the country, despite the fact that I provided a link of scientests who don't agree?
No, they didn't talk to every scientist in the country. They analyzed 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. Which is that "most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations". And, "the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling". (12/2004. The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Naomi Oreskes. Science Magazine)
As for the "fact" that you provided a link to scientists who don't agree -- I saw no such link. Why do you think you can lie about these things when what you posted is clearly visible for all to see?
No comment. I'm not going to respond because that isn't what I said. Go back and re-read my previous comment. And get help for your reading comprehension problem already!
Robert M. Said... Oh and the one article talked to every scientest in the country, despite the fact that I provided a link of scientests who don't agree?
No, they didn't talk to every scientist in the country. They analyzed 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. Which is that "most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations". And, "the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling". (12/2004. The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Naomi Oreskes. Science Magazine)
As for the "fact" that you provided a link to scientists who don't agree -- I saw no such link. Why do you think you can lie about these things when what you posted is clearly visible for all to see?
No comment. I'm not going to respond because that isn't what I said. Go back and re-read my previous comment. And get help for your reading comprehension problem already!
Re-read it? Hm, ok. You clearly said: "Nobody ever suggested that the little ice age was caused by pollution!"
You also said, regarding the same subject: The earth's climate can change for reasons other than human activites. I'm not disputing that. But that isn't what's happening
So you claim that a.) the climate change is because of humans and at the same time not because of humans. I would call that a contradiction.
No, they didn't talk to every scientist in the country. They analyzed 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. Which is that "most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations". And, "the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling". (12/2004. The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Naomi Oreskes. Science Magazine)
Wow, none of the papers they chose disagreed? What a coincidence. How many papers are there on global warming do you think? A lot more than 928. I hardly think 928 chosen by a magazine with their own opinion constitutes as proof.
As for the "fact" that you provided a link to scientists who don't agree -- I saw no such link. Why do you think you can lie about these things when what you posted is clearly visible for all to see?
I believe that I posted a link, complete with html in comment 11, and then quoted the article it links to in comment 19. You know, you probably shouldn't lie when I can tell you exactly where I said these things. Makes you look bad, you see? Just a little advice.
Re-read it? Hm, ok. You clearly said: "Nobody ever suggested that the little ice age was caused by pollution!"
You also said, regarding the same subject: The earth's climate can change for reasons other than human activites. I'm not disputing that. But that isn't what's happening
So you claim that a.) the climate change is because of humans and at the same time not because of humans. I would call that a contradiction.
No, they didn't talk to every scientist in the country. They analyzed 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. Which is that "most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations". And, "the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling". (12/2004. The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Naomi Oreskes. Science Magazine)
Wow, none of the papers they chose disagreed? What a coincidence. How many papers are there on global warming do you think? A lot more than 928. I hardly think 928 chosen by a magazine with their own opinion constitutes as proof.
As for the "fact" that you provided a link to scientists who don't agree -- I saw no such link. Why do you think you can lie about these things when what you posted is clearly visible for all to see?
I believe that I posted a link, complete with html in comment 11, and then quoted the article it links to in comment 19. You know, you probably shouldn't lie when I can tell you exactly where I said these things. Makes you look bad, you see? Just a little advice.
# posted by : 12/10/2006 10:56 AM
: 12/10/2006 10:56 AM
Robert M. Said... So you claim that -- the climate change is because of humans and at the same time not because of humans. I would call that a contradiction.
I did no such thing.
The causes for each climate change was/is DIFFERENT. The "little ice age" was not caused by pollution. The current global warming crisis is caused by pollution. CLEAR now? I never contradicted myself.
The "you contradicted yourself" argument is getting old. By all means, though, keep using it. It only makes you look stupid.
Robert M. said... Wow, none of the papers they chose disagreed?
They didn't "choose" them from a larger group. 928 was ALL of the peer reviewed papers which were published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003.
Robert M. Said... What a coincidence. How many papers are there on global warming do you think? A lot more than 928. I hardly think 928 chosen by a magazine with their own opinion constitutes as proof.
If you think that more than 928 peer reviewed papers were published then PROVE IT. Your guesses do not constitute fact.
Robert M. said... I believe that I posted a link, complete with html in comment 11, and then quoted the article it links to in comment 19. You know, you probably shouldn't lie when I can tell you exactly where I said these things. Makes you look bad, you see? Just a little advice.
You provided ZERO links showing that ANY scientists disagree that global warming is occuring. You provided a link to an article concerning the "little ice age" -- which, as I already pointed out, doesn't mention global warming. Please explain how an article which is about the "little ice age" (and never mentions global warming) disproves global warming.
I'd also be interested in knowing how calling you on YOUR lies makes ME look bad.
I did no such thing.
The causes for each climate change was/is DIFFERENT. The "little ice age" was not caused by pollution. The current global warming crisis is caused by pollution. CLEAR now? I never contradicted myself.
The "you contradicted yourself" argument is getting old. By all means, though, keep using it. It only makes you look stupid.
Robert M. said... Wow, none of the papers they chose disagreed?
They didn't "choose" them from a larger group. 928 was ALL of the peer reviewed papers which were published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003.
Robert M. Said... What a coincidence. How many papers are there on global warming do you think? A lot more than 928. I hardly think 928 chosen by a magazine with their own opinion constitutes as proof.
If you think that more than 928 peer reviewed papers were published then PROVE IT. Your guesses do not constitute fact.
Robert M. said... I believe that I posted a link, complete with html in comment 11, and then quoted the article it links to in comment 19. You know, you probably shouldn't lie when I can tell you exactly where I said these things. Makes you look bad, you see? Just a little advice.
You provided ZERO links showing that ANY scientists disagree that global warming is occuring. You provided a link to an article concerning the "little ice age" -- which, as I already pointed out, doesn't mention global warming. Please explain how an article which is about the "little ice age" (and never mentions global warming) disproves global warming.
I'd also be interested in knowing how calling you on YOUR lies makes ME look bad.
The causes for each climate change was/is DIFFERENT. The "little ice age" was not caused by pollution. The current global warming crisis is caused by pollution. CLEAR now? I never contradicted myself.
How do you know what caused either? Fact is, like the GRI asserts, no one does. It's just a theory. I can't base my opinions on that shaky evidence.
They didn't "choose" them from a larger group. 928 was ALL of the peer reviewed papers which were published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003.
My point is 928 out of...? There are certianly more than that. I don't think you can judge by so few, because I could probably find a study that does the same thing and finds the oppisite.
If you think that more than 928 peer reviewed papers were published then PROVE IT. Your guesses do not constitute fact.
Proof? Just Google it. You'll get a lot more than 928 articles.
You provided ZERO links showing that ANY scientists disagree that global warming is occuring. You provided a link to an article concerning the "little ice age" -- which, as I already pointed out, doesn't mention global warming. Please explain how an article which is about the "little ice age" (and never mentions global warming) disproves global warming.
Well if you want some links then sure, here's a whole bunch,
NCPA.org
Boston Globe Article says scientests disagree
The Marshall Institute
More when you finish with those if you want em.
How do you know what caused either? Fact is, like the GRI asserts, no one does. It's just a theory. I can't base my opinions on that shaky evidence.
They didn't "choose" them from a larger group. 928 was ALL of the peer reviewed papers which were published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003.
My point is 928 out of...? There are certianly more than that. I don't think you can judge by so few, because I could probably find a study that does the same thing and finds the oppisite.
If you think that more than 928 peer reviewed papers were published then PROVE IT. Your guesses do not constitute fact.
Proof? Just Google it. You'll get a lot more than 928 articles.
You provided ZERO links showing that ANY scientists disagree that global warming is occuring. You provided a link to an article concerning the "little ice age" -- which, as I already pointed out, doesn't mention global warming. Please explain how an article which is about the "little ice age" (and never mentions global warming) disproves global warming.
Well if you want some links then sure, here's a whole bunch,
NCPA.org
Boston Globe Article says scientests disagree
The Marshall Institute
More when you finish with those if you want em.
# posted by : 12/12/2006 3:41 PM
: 12/12/2006 3:41 PM
Robert M. Said... My point is 928 out of...? There are certianly more than that.
No, there isn't. which was the whole point.
Robert M. Said... Proof? Just Google it. You'll get a lot more than 928 articles.
Every Google hit is not an article. Even if it were I was talking about peer reviewed articles published in scientific journals. Every Google hit is most definitely NOT a peer reviewed article published in a scientific journal.
About your links:
The first and third are to Conservative institutions. If I were to provide a link to a liberal institution would you accept it? I think not. You never have in the past. So why are you trying to pull this?
NCPA.org (excerpt) It is a petition signed by nearly 17,000 US scientists, half of whom are trained in the fields of physics, geophysics, climate science, meteorology, oceanography, chemistry, biology, or biochemistry. (11/05/98)
A petition isn't a peer reviewed paper published in a scientific journal.
From Wikipedia: The George C. Marshall Institute... is known for its skeptical position on global warming, and its strong support for the Strategic Defense Initiative. (end wikipedia entry)
They support star wars. Need I say more?
If you choose to provide any more links make them to peer reviewed papers published in scientific journals (I don't expect to see any links of this sort since I'm fairly positive none exist).
Robert M. Said... Well if you want some links then sure, here's a whole bunch
The fact remains that you CLAIMED to have provided these links earlier. If so, why are you providing them now? Isn't this proof that your earlier claims were naught but lies?
Finally, your articles are OLD. You couldn't find anything from the current century?
No, there isn't. which was the whole point.
Robert M. Said... Proof? Just Google it. You'll get a lot more than 928 articles.
Every Google hit is not an article. Even if it were I was talking about peer reviewed articles published in scientific journals. Every Google hit is most definitely NOT a peer reviewed article published in a scientific journal.
About your links:
The first and third are to Conservative institutions. If I were to provide a link to a liberal institution would you accept it? I think not. You never have in the past. So why are you trying to pull this?
NCPA.org (excerpt) It is a petition signed by nearly 17,000 US scientists, half of whom are trained in the fields of physics, geophysics, climate science, meteorology, oceanography, chemistry, biology, or biochemistry. (11/05/98)
A petition isn't a peer reviewed paper published in a scientific journal.
From Wikipedia: The George C. Marshall Institute... is known for its skeptical position on global warming, and its strong support for the Strategic Defense Initiative. (end wikipedia entry)
They support star wars. Need I say more?
If you choose to provide any more links make them to peer reviewed papers published in scientific journals (I don't expect to see any links of this sort since I'm fairly positive none exist).
Robert M. Said... Well if you want some links then sure, here's a whole bunch
The fact remains that you CLAIMED to have provided these links earlier. If so, why are you providing them now? Isn't this proof that your earlier claims were naught but lies?
Finally, your articles are OLD. You couldn't find anything from the current century?
No, there isn't. which was the whole point.
There aren't? Even though I provided a whole bunch? Um... that's, well, sorry, but that's illogical.
Every Google hit is not an article. Even if it were I was talking about peer reviewed articles published in scientific journals. Every Google hit is most definitely NOT a peer reviewed article published in a scientific journal.
I did not say that all of the Google links were articles. I said that Googling will find a lot of articles.
The first and third are to Conservative institutions. If I were to provide a link to a liberal institution would you accept it? I think not. You never have in the past. So why are you trying to pull this?
Please show me where they refer to themselves as conservative, or did you just make that up?
NCPA.org (excerpt) It is a petition signed by nearly 17,000 US scientists, half of whom are trained in the fields of physics, geophysics, climate science, meteorology, oceanography, chemistry, biology, or biochemistry. (11/05/98)
A petition isn't a peer reviewed paper published in a scientific journal.
And what's your point? They were still scientists. I thought we were talking about how not all scientists believed in global warming. What, because they didn't write articles they're not qualified? I don't understand.
They support star wars. Need I say more?
Dervish, I think you fail to realize what Star Wars really was. He wasn't seriously going to put the initiative in. What Star Wars was was a scare tactic against the Russians. I'd support that too, wouldn't you?
If you choose to provide any more links make them to peer reviewed papers published in scientific journals (I don't expect to see any links of this sort since I'm fairly positive none exist).
Dervish, may I point out that things don't need to be "peer reviewed scientific journals" to be proof? Why on Earth should I conform to your extremely narrow-minded definition of proof? To me, and most other people, proof can be articles, theses, studies, scientific statements etc. Who determined that the only proof was "peer reviewed scientific journals?" You? Sorry, that doesn't cut it.
The fact remains that you CLAIMED to have provided these links earlier. If so, why are you providing them now? Isn't this proof that your earlier claims were naught but lies?
As a matter of fact I didn't. I made it quite clear that I was referring to the GRI article, and in fact was very careful to use the singular when referring to the link, not links. Your assertion that I am lying is based on what?
Finally, your articles are OLD. You couldn't find anything from the current century?
Don't play around with words dervish. "Last century" was only seven years ago, and I would hardly call that a long time ago. What, like nature changes drastically in only seven years? The historical records just don't support that theory of yours.
There aren't? Even though I provided a whole bunch? Um... that's, well, sorry, but that's illogical.
Every Google hit is not an article. Even if it were I was talking about peer reviewed articles published in scientific journals. Every Google hit is most definitely NOT a peer reviewed article published in a scientific journal.
I did not say that all of the Google links were articles. I said that Googling will find a lot of articles.
The first and third are to Conservative institutions. If I were to provide a link to a liberal institution would you accept it? I think not. You never have in the past. So why are you trying to pull this?
Please show me where they refer to themselves as conservative, or did you just make that up?
NCPA.org (excerpt) It is a petition signed by nearly 17,000 US scientists, half of whom are trained in the fields of physics, geophysics, climate science, meteorology, oceanography, chemistry, biology, or biochemistry. (11/05/98)
A petition isn't a peer reviewed paper published in a scientific journal.
And what's your point? They were still scientists. I thought we were talking about how not all scientists believed in global warming. What, because they didn't write articles they're not qualified? I don't understand.
They support star wars. Need I say more?
Dervish, I think you fail to realize what Star Wars really was. He wasn't seriously going to put the initiative in. What Star Wars was was a scare tactic against the Russians. I'd support that too, wouldn't you?
If you choose to provide any more links make them to peer reviewed papers published in scientific journals (I don't expect to see any links of this sort since I'm fairly positive none exist).
Dervish, may I point out that things don't need to be "peer reviewed scientific journals" to be proof? Why on Earth should I conform to your extremely narrow-minded definition of proof? To me, and most other people, proof can be articles, theses, studies, scientific statements etc. Who determined that the only proof was "peer reviewed scientific journals?" You? Sorry, that doesn't cut it.
The fact remains that you CLAIMED to have provided these links earlier. If so, why are you providing them now? Isn't this proof that your earlier claims were naught but lies?
As a matter of fact I didn't. I made it quite clear that I was referring to the GRI article, and in fact was very careful to use the singular when referring to the link, not links. Your assertion that I am lying is based on what?
Finally, your articles are OLD. You couldn't find anything from the current century?
Don't play around with words dervish. "Last century" was only seven years ago, and I would hardly call that a long time ago. What, like nature changes drastically in only seven years? The historical records just don't support that theory of yours.
# posted by : 12/12/2006 8:44 PM
: 12/12/2006 8:44 PM
Robert M. said... There aren't? Even though I provided a whole bunch? Um... that's, well, sorry, but that's illogical.
No you did not. You provided links to Conservative institutions and one petition. I was referring to scientists who have actually researched global warming.
Robert M. Said... I did not say that all of the Google links were articles. I said that Googling will find a lot of articles.
Don't play around with words Robert M. Most of the articles you can find via googling are not peer reviewed articles published in scientific journals. They are opinion pieces and editorials by non-scientists who have conducted ZERO research.
Robert M. Said... Please show me where they refer to themselves as conservative, or did you just make that up?
The Marshall Institute admits that it is conservative. The article quote below is from their website.
From The Marshall Institute's website: Opponents of mandatory carbon reductions such as William O'Keefe, chief executive of the conservative George C. Marshall Institute, hailed the communique as evidence that other countries are edging closer to the administration's view of climate change. (7/8/2005. Washington Post: G-8 Urges Action on Global Warming, With General Goals)
The NCPA calls itself "nonpartisan", although that is clearly a lie. Bruce Bartlett used to be a senior fellow at the NCPA until he wrote his anti-bush book.
From Wikipedia: The National Center for Policy Analysis: The NCPA has been characterized as a "right wing think tank" by organizations such as People for the American Way, which noted that NCPA funding has come from foundations with a conservative orientation. (end wikipedia excerpt)
Robert M. Said... And what's your point? They were still scientists. I thought we were talking about how not all scientists believed in global warming. What, because they didn't write articles they're not qualified? I don't understand.
They are entitled to their opinions the same as anybody else. The fact remains that global warming is not their area of expertise. If I want solid facts concerning global warming I'll go to scientists who's area of expertise is global warming. Scientists who have conducted research and published peer reviewed papers.
Robert M. Said... Dervish, I think you fail to realize what Star Wars really was. ...was a scare tactic against the Russians. I'd support that too, wouldn't you?
Hmm, I think you fail to realize just what a HUGE waste of money Star Wars is, and continues to be. It can't work. technologically we aren't there yet. It was and is a Republican give-away to campaign contributors. No, I don't support it.
Robert M. Said... Dervish, may I point out that things don't need to be "peer reviewed scientific journals" to be proof? Why on Earth should I conform to your extremely narrow-minded definition of proof? To me proof can be articles, theses, studies, scientific statements etc. Who determined that the only proof was "peer reviewed scientific journals?" You? Sorry, that doesn't cut it.
You can point that out, but I'm not going to seriously consider any article that wasn't published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. I fail to see how my accepting 928 articles from scientists who's area of expertise is global warming is "narrow minded". Your insistance that I MUST accept opinions from scientists who's area of expertise is NOT global warming, biostitutes, and Conservative hacks doesn't cut it.
Robert M. Said... As a matter of fact I didn't. I made it quite clear that I was referring to the GRI article... Your assertion that I am lying is based on what?
You said, and I quote, "...despite the fact that I provided a link of scientists who don't agree?".
At the time you posted this you had NOT provided any such link.
Robert M. Said... Don't play around with words dervish. "Last century" was only seven years ago, and I would hardly call that a long time ago. The historical records just don't support that theory of yours.
I'm not "playing around with words", I'm asking if you can provide anything more recent. All my articles were. I don't have a theory concerning global warming, since -- as I've already pointed out -- I'm not a scientist. Seeing as I am not a scientist, I accept the theory of those scientists who have conducted extensive research and have concluded that the proof is so strong that the debate is over. Since "no serious scientist doubts that humans are warming up the planet", why should I??
No you did not. You provided links to Conservative institutions and one petition. I was referring to scientists who have actually researched global warming.
Robert M. Said... I did not say that all of the Google links were articles. I said that Googling will find a lot of articles.
Don't play around with words Robert M. Most of the articles you can find via googling are not peer reviewed articles published in scientific journals. They are opinion pieces and editorials by non-scientists who have conducted ZERO research.
Robert M. Said... Please show me where they refer to themselves as conservative, or did you just make that up?
The Marshall Institute admits that it is conservative. The article quote below is from their website.
From The Marshall Institute's website: Opponents of mandatory carbon reductions such as William O'Keefe, chief executive of the conservative George C. Marshall Institute, hailed the communique as evidence that other countries are edging closer to the administration's view of climate change. (7/8/2005. Washington Post: G-8 Urges Action on Global Warming, With General Goals)
The NCPA calls itself "nonpartisan", although that is clearly a lie. Bruce Bartlett used to be a senior fellow at the NCPA until he wrote his anti-bush book.
From Wikipedia: The National Center for Policy Analysis: The NCPA has been characterized as a "right wing think tank" by organizations such as People for the American Way, which noted that NCPA funding has come from foundations with a conservative orientation. (end wikipedia excerpt)
Robert M. Said... And what's your point? They were still scientists. I thought we were talking about how not all scientists believed in global warming. What, because they didn't write articles they're not qualified? I don't understand.
They are entitled to their opinions the same as anybody else. The fact remains that global warming is not their area of expertise. If I want solid facts concerning global warming I'll go to scientists who's area of expertise is global warming. Scientists who have conducted research and published peer reviewed papers.
Robert M. Said... Dervish, I think you fail to realize what Star Wars really was. ...was a scare tactic against the Russians. I'd support that too, wouldn't you?
Hmm, I think you fail to realize just what a HUGE waste of money Star Wars is, and continues to be. It can't work. technologically we aren't there yet. It was and is a Republican give-away to campaign contributors. No, I don't support it.
Robert M. Said... Dervish, may I point out that things don't need to be "peer reviewed scientific journals" to be proof? Why on Earth should I conform to your extremely narrow-minded definition of proof? To me proof can be articles, theses, studies, scientific statements etc. Who determined that the only proof was "peer reviewed scientific journals?" You? Sorry, that doesn't cut it.
You can point that out, but I'm not going to seriously consider any article that wasn't published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. I fail to see how my accepting 928 articles from scientists who's area of expertise is global warming is "narrow minded". Your insistance that I MUST accept opinions from scientists who's area of expertise is NOT global warming, biostitutes, and Conservative hacks doesn't cut it.
Robert M. Said... As a matter of fact I didn't. I made it quite clear that I was referring to the GRI article... Your assertion that I am lying is based on what?
You said, and I quote, "...despite the fact that I provided a link of scientists who don't agree?".
At the time you posted this you had NOT provided any such link.
Robert M. Said... Don't play around with words dervish. "Last century" was only seven years ago, and I would hardly call that a long time ago. The historical records just don't support that theory of yours.
I'm not "playing around with words", I'm asking if you can provide anything more recent. All my articles were. I don't have a theory concerning global warming, since -- as I've already pointed out -- I'm not a scientist. Seeing as I am not a scientist, I accept the theory of those scientists who have conducted extensive research and have concluded that the proof is so strong that the debate is over. Since "no serious scientist doubts that humans are warming up the planet", why should I??
No you did not. You provided links to Conservative institutions and one petition. I was referring to scientists who have actually researched global warming.
Institutions like the linked ones are designed to study global warming dervish. And the petition was signed by scientists. I don't know how you can say they didn't study it.
Don't play around with words Robert M. Most of the articles you can find via googling are not peer reviewed articles published in scientific journals. They are opinion pieces and editorials by non-scientists who have conducted ZERO research.
Again, who decides they need to be in "scientific journals" to be proof? And how can they all be editorials? I highly doubt that, especially seeing as I checked myself and provided links so...
The Marshall Institute admits that it is conservative. The article quote below is from their website.
Well yeah, they are, but what about the other two? I don't remember them ever saying they were.
From Wikipedia: The National Center for Policy Analysis: The NCPA has been characterized as a "right wing think tank" by organizations such as People for the American Way, which noted that NCPA funding has come from foundations with a conservative orientation. (end wikipedia excerpt)
That's hardly proof that they're conservative. After all, I could accuse you of being, say, a Nazi. Then I could write a wiki on it. Does that mean you are a Nazi? Of course not. So basically you're judging this organization on the accusation of another. That's not reasonable.
They are entitled to their opinions the same as anybody else. The fact remains that global warming is not their area of expertise. If I want solid facts concerning global warming I'll go to scientists who's area of expertise is global warming. Scientists who have conducted research and published peer reviewed papers.
Again, dervish, you don't determine that they need to be "peer reviewed scientific journals." In a debate and in logic it is up to you to persuade me and/or the general participants of your position. Ergo, the proof is determined by the participants, all of them, not just you and your extremely narrow interpretation of what is proof and what's not.
As for your Star Wars debate, well that's another argument; we can debate that elsewhere if you want. This is a debate on global warming, or rather, the theory of global warming.
You can point that out, but I'm not going to seriously consider any article that wasn't published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. I fail to see how my accepting 928 articles from scientists who's area of expertise is global warming is "narrow minded". Your insistance that I MUST accept opinions from scientists who's area of expertise is NOT global warming, biostitutes, and Conservative hacks doesn't cut it.
Again, it's not up to you. I'm not even debating to convince you, I'm debating to convince the other participants and you. So you don't really determine what I can and can't use as proof. You have provided virtually zero proof that these organizations I cite are "conservative hacks." Seems to me you just can't get around the fact that some people just might not buy the global warming theory.
You said, and I quote, "...despite the fact that I provided a link of scientists who don't agree?".
At the time you posted this you had NOT provided any such link.
Actually I had. The comment you quote is in comment 23, the link is in comment 11. Do the math, 11 comes before 23.
I'm not "playing around with words", I'm asking if you can provide anything more recent. All my articles were. I don't have a theory concerning global warming, since -- as I've already pointed out -- I'm not a scientist. Seeing as I am not a scientist, I accept the theory of those scientists who have conducted extensive research and have concluded that the proof is so strong that the debate is over. Since "no serious scientist doubts that humans are warming up the planet", why should I??
And what about scientists on the opposing side? You're just going to ignore them? That's not reasonable or logical. Logically speaking one must listen to both sides before coming to a conclusion. You are simply only listening to one group of scientists before coming to your conclusion. That doesn't make you right, not by a long shot.
Institutions like the linked ones are designed to study global warming dervish. And the petition was signed by scientists. I don't know how you can say they didn't study it.
Don't play around with words Robert M. Most of the articles you can find via googling are not peer reviewed articles published in scientific journals. They are opinion pieces and editorials by non-scientists who have conducted ZERO research.
Again, who decides they need to be in "scientific journals" to be proof? And how can they all be editorials? I highly doubt that, especially seeing as I checked myself and provided links so...
The Marshall Institute admits that it is conservative. The article quote below is from their website.
Well yeah, they are, but what about the other two? I don't remember them ever saying they were.
From Wikipedia: The National Center for Policy Analysis: The NCPA has been characterized as a "right wing think tank" by organizations such as People for the American Way, which noted that NCPA funding has come from foundations with a conservative orientation. (end wikipedia excerpt)
That's hardly proof that they're conservative. After all, I could accuse you of being, say, a Nazi. Then I could write a wiki on it. Does that mean you are a Nazi? Of course not. So basically you're judging this organization on the accusation of another. That's not reasonable.
They are entitled to their opinions the same as anybody else. The fact remains that global warming is not their area of expertise. If I want solid facts concerning global warming I'll go to scientists who's area of expertise is global warming. Scientists who have conducted research and published peer reviewed papers.
Again, dervish, you don't determine that they need to be "peer reviewed scientific journals." In a debate and in logic it is up to you to persuade me and/or the general participants of your position. Ergo, the proof is determined by the participants, all of them, not just you and your extremely narrow interpretation of what is proof and what's not.
As for your Star Wars debate, well that's another argument; we can debate that elsewhere if you want. This is a debate on global warming, or rather, the theory of global warming.
You can point that out, but I'm not going to seriously consider any article that wasn't published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. I fail to see how my accepting 928 articles from scientists who's area of expertise is global warming is "narrow minded". Your insistance that I MUST accept opinions from scientists who's area of expertise is NOT global warming, biostitutes, and Conservative hacks doesn't cut it.
Again, it's not up to you. I'm not even debating to convince you, I'm debating to convince the other participants and you. So you don't really determine what I can and can't use as proof. You have provided virtually zero proof that these organizations I cite are "conservative hacks." Seems to me you just can't get around the fact that some people just might not buy the global warming theory.
You said, and I quote, "...despite the fact that I provided a link of scientists who don't agree?".
At the time you posted this you had NOT provided any such link.
Actually I had. The comment you quote is in comment 23, the link is in comment 11. Do the math, 11 comes before 23.
I'm not "playing around with words", I'm asking if you can provide anything more recent. All my articles were. I don't have a theory concerning global warming, since -- as I've already pointed out -- I'm not a scientist. Seeing as I am not a scientist, I accept the theory of those scientists who have conducted extensive research and have concluded that the proof is so strong that the debate is over. Since "no serious scientist doubts that humans are warming up the planet", why should I??
And what about scientists on the opposing side? You're just going to ignore them? That's not reasonable or logical. Logically speaking one must listen to both sides before coming to a conclusion. You are simply only listening to one group of scientists before coming to your conclusion. That doesn't make you right, not by a long shot.
# posted by : 12/14/2006 2:59 PM
: 12/14/2006 2:59 PM
Robert M. said... Institutions like the linked ones are designed to study global warming dervish.
No they aren't! Opinions don't equal "research". You must have a extremely low bar as to what constitutes "research". Please explain to me what research you think these institutions are doing.
Robert M. Said... And the petition was signed by scientists. I don't know how you can say they didn't study it.
I can say that because it's true. How can you say they did study it? Your argument doesn't make any sense.
Robert M. Said... Again, who decides they need to be in "scientific journals" to be proof?
It has to be a scientific journal because those are the scientists who have conducted serious research. Why should I listen to people who haven't conducted serious research and are only offering opinions? Sorry, but that is completely illogical.
Robert M. Said... And how can they all be editorials? I highly doubt that, especially seeing as I checked myself and provided links so...
If they didn't conduct any research what else can I call them?
Robert M. Said... Well yeah, they are, but what about the other two? I don't remember them ever saying they were.
What other two? You only gave links to two conservatively biased institutions, not three.
Robert M. Said... That's hardly proof that they're conservative.
Sure it is. Why did they fire Republican Bruce Bartlett after he wrote his book which was critical of bush? Why would people who consider themselves "non-partisan" do either of those things (hire someone who identified himself as a Republican or fire someone because they wrote a book critical of bush)?
The fact remains that two of your links were to conservatively biased institutions. I do not accept their information as credible. End of story.
Robert M. Said... Again, dervish, you don't determine that they need to be "peer reviewed scientific journals". In a debate and in logic it is up to you to persuade me and/or the general participants of your position. Ergo, the proof is determined by the participants, all of them, not just you and your extremely narrow interpretation of what is proof and what's not.
The proof is NOT determined by the participants! Anything and everthing under the sun does not qualify as proof! We need to set the bar a little higher than that! A paper published in a peer reviewed scientific journal fits the bill. Do you even know what "peer reviewed" means?
Robert M. Said... As for your Star Wars debate, well that's another argument; we can debate that elsewhere if you want.
No thanks.
Robert M. Said... Again, it's not up to you.
I didn't say it was. It's up to common sense.
Robert M. Said... I'm not even debating to convince you, I'm debating to convince the other participants and you. So you don't really determine what I can and can't use as proof.
That's nice. You can call opinions proof all you want. That doesn't make it so.
Robert M. Said... You have provided virtually zero proof that these organizations I cite are "conservative hacks". Seems to me you just can't get around the fact that some people just might not buy the global warming theory.
I buy it that some people disagree. I was only pointing out that they are WRONG. Why? Because those scientists who's area of expertise is global warming have reached a consensus. It's really that simple.
Robert M. Said... Actually I had. The comment you quote is in comment 23, the link is in comment 11. Do the math, 11 comes before 23.
How many times do we have to go over this??? That link was to an article concerning the "little ice age" and NOT to an article about scientists who disagreed with global warming!!! Do you think that if you keep lying that eventually I will give in and "admit" you are right?
Robert M. Said... And what about scientists on the opposing side? You're just going to ignore them?
Yes, I am going to ignore them. Global warming is not their area of expertise. They haven't conducted any research. It is completely reasonable and logical. The fact that you are willing to listen to "scientists" who are saying what you want to hear over scientists who have conducted research doesn't make you or the "scientists" right -- not by a long shot.
No they aren't! Opinions don't equal "research". You must have a extremely low bar as to what constitutes "research". Please explain to me what research you think these institutions are doing.
Robert M. Said... And the petition was signed by scientists. I don't know how you can say they didn't study it.
I can say that because it's true. How can you say they did study it? Your argument doesn't make any sense.
Robert M. Said... Again, who decides they need to be in "scientific journals" to be proof?
It has to be a scientific journal because those are the scientists who have conducted serious research. Why should I listen to people who haven't conducted serious research and are only offering opinions? Sorry, but that is completely illogical.
Robert M. Said... And how can they all be editorials? I highly doubt that, especially seeing as I checked myself and provided links so...
If they didn't conduct any research what else can I call them?
Robert M. Said... Well yeah, they are, but what about the other two? I don't remember them ever saying they were.
What other two? You only gave links to two conservatively biased institutions, not three.
Robert M. Said... That's hardly proof that they're conservative.
Sure it is. Why did they fire Republican Bruce Bartlett after he wrote his book which was critical of bush? Why would people who consider themselves "non-partisan" do either of those things (hire someone who identified himself as a Republican or fire someone because they wrote a book critical of bush)?
The fact remains that two of your links were to conservatively biased institutions. I do not accept their information as credible. End of story.
Robert M. Said... Again, dervish, you don't determine that they need to be "peer reviewed scientific journals". In a debate and in logic it is up to you to persuade me and/or the general participants of your position. Ergo, the proof is determined by the participants, all of them, not just you and your extremely narrow interpretation of what is proof and what's not.
The proof is NOT determined by the participants! Anything and everthing under the sun does not qualify as proof! We need to set the bar a little higher than that! A paper published in a peer reviewed scientific journal fits the bill. Do you even know what "peer reviewed" means?
Robert M. Said... As for your Star Wars debate, well that's another argument; we can debate that elsewhere if you want.
No thanks.
Robert M. Said... Again, it's not up to you.
I didn't say it was. It's up to common sense.
Robert M. Said... I'm not even debating to convince you, I'm debating to convince the other participants and you. So you don't really determine what I can and can't use as proof.
That's nice. You can call opinions proof all you want. That doesn't make it so.
Robert M. Said... You have provided virtually zero proof that these organizations I cite are "conservative hacks". Seems to me you just can't get around the fact that some people just might not buy the global warming theory.
I buy it that some people disagree. I was only pointing out that they are WRONG. Why? Because those scientists who's area of expertise is global warming have reached a consensus. It's really that simple.
Robert M. Said... Actually I had. The comment you quote is in comment 23, the link is in comment 11. Do the math, 11 comes before 23.
How many times do we have to go over this??? That link was to an article concerning the "little ice age" and NOT to an article about scientists who disagreed with global warming!!! Do you think that if you keep lying that eventually I will give in and "admit" you are right?
Robert M. Said... And what about scientists on the opposing side? You're just going to ignore them?
Yes, I am going to ignore them. Global warming is not their area of expertise. They haven't conducted any research. It is completely reasonable and logical. The fact that you are willing to listen to "scientists" who are saying what you want to hear over scientists who have conducted research doesn't make you or the "scientists" right -- not by a long shot.
No they aren't! Opinions don't equal "research". You must have a extremely low bar as to what constitutes "research". Please explain to me what research you think these institutions are doing.
What are you talking about? They cite research right on their pages. Go back and read them this time. They cite what research was done and what it means, especially the first link.
I can say that because it's true. How can you say they did study it? Your argument doesn't make any sense.
Okay so what you're saying is that scientists whose job it is to study global warming did not study it... And my argument makes no sense?
It has to be a scientific journal because those are the scientists who have conducted serious research. Why should I listen to people who haven't conducted serious research and are only offering opinions? Sorry, but that is completely illogical.
So you’re saying that because they haven't conducted real research simply because they never published their findings in a "scientific journal?" Your arguments aren’t making sense. Why does it matter where or how they published them?
Sure it is. Why did they fire Republican Bruce Bartlett after he wrote his book which was critical of bush? Why would people who consider themselves "non-partisan" do either of those things (hire someone who identified himself as a Republican or fire someone because they wrote a book critical of bush)?
First of all, proof please. Second of all, if it is true, maybe they hired him thinking his party didn’t matter, which it doesn’t in a workplace, and then fired him for being political on the job? As they state, this organization is worried that the whole global warming theory is politically misused. They wouldn’t want a partisan on their staff.
The fact remains that two of your links were to conservatively biased institutions. I do not accept their information as credible. End of story.
End of story for you maybe. But for the readers here I think it proves that you could not successfully refute my links, the ones you asked for. So go ahead, stop arguing, see what it looks like to others.
The proof is NOT determined by the participants! Anything and everthing under the sun does not qualify as proof! We need to set the bar a little higher than that! A paper published in a peer reviewed scientific journal fits the bill. Do you even know what "peer reviewed" means?
Peer reviewed means you send your work to experts or others who would know about it and they check it for accuracy. So yes, actually I do. However, accusing me of not knowing what it was does not change the fact that not everything has to be "peer reviewed" to be proof.
That's nice. You can call opinions proof all you want. That doesn't make it so.
That's exactly what you've been doing. See both of our links are opinions, professional ones, but still opinions. The difference is that I have the integrity to admit it and I accept your links as proof. However, I also do research of my own and find that not everyone agrees with these opinions, so logically, no one can truly say global warming exist. The fact that you will not accept my links as I accept yours shows quite a bit about you I think.
I buy it that some people disagree. I was only pointing out that they are WRONG. Why? Because those scientists who's area of expertise is global warming have reached a consensus. It's really that simple.
Actually they haven't. I linked to a Boston Globe article proving that I believe.
How many times do we have to go over this??? That link was to an article concerning the "little ice age" and NOT to an article about scientists who disagreed with global warming!!! Do you think that if you keep lying that eventually I will give in and "admit" you are right?
Actually you never said anything about scientist links. Your accusation was about any links whatsoever. I merely pointed out that I had provided one. You are not going to be able to twist this you know. The proof is written in this thread. As you can't delete it all except the ones you wrote yourself, it can hardly help you to lie about it.
How many times do we have to go over this??? That link was to an article concerning the "little ice age" and NOT to an article about scientists who disagreed with global warming!!! Do you think that if you keep lying that eventually I will give in and "admit" you are right?
You know this? How? It doesn't say anywhere in any of my links that they conducted no research. Was this just one of those accusations you decided to throw around without proof?
But hey, go ahead. Ignore the other side's argument completely. It only proves that you cannot successfully refute my points. I'm okay with that.
What are you talking about? They cite research right on their pages. Go back and read them this time. They cite what research was done and what it means, especially the first link.
I can say that because it's true. How can you say they did study it? Your argument doesn't make any sense.
Okay so what you're saying is that scientists whose job it is to study global warming did not study it... And my argument makes no sense?
It has to be a scientific journal because those are the scientists who have conducted serious research. Why should I listen to people who haven't conducted serious research and are only offering opinions? Sorry, but that is completely illogical.
So you’re saying that because they haven't conducted real research simply because they never published their findings in a "scientific journal?" Your arguments aren’t making sense. Why does it matter where or how they published them?
Sure it is. Why did they fire Republican Bruce Bartlett after he wrote his book which was critical of bush? Why would people who consider themselves "non-partisan" do either of those things (hire someone who identified himself as a Republican or fire someone because they wrote a book critical of bush)?
First of all, proof please. Second of all, if it is true, maybe they hired him thinking his party didn’t matter, which it doesn’t in a workplace, and then fired him for being political on the job? As they state, this organization is worried that the whole global warming theory is politically misused. They wouldn’t want a partisan on their staff.
The fact remains that two of your links were to conservatively biased institutions. I do not accept their information as credible. End of story.
End of story for you maybe. But for the readers here I think it proves that you could not successfully refute my links, the ones you asked for. So go ahead, stop arguing, see what it looks like to others.
The proof is NOT determined by the participants! Anything and everthing under the sun does not qualify as proof! We need to set the bar a little higher than that! A paper published in a peer reviewed scientific journal fits the bill. Do you even know what "peer reviewed" means?
Peer reviewed means you send your work to experts or others who would know about it and they check it for accuracy. So yes, actually I do. However, accusing me of not knowing what it was does not change the fact that not everything has to be "peer reviewed" to be proof.
That's nice. You can call opinions proof all you want. That doesn't make it so.
That's exactly what you've been doing. See both of our links are opinions, professional ones, but still opinions. The difference is that I have the integrity to admit it and I accept your links as proof. However, I also do research of my own and find that not everyone agrees with these opinions, so logically, no one can truly say global warming exist. The fact that you will not accept my links as I accept yours shows quite a bit about you I think.
I buy it that some people disagree. I was only pointing out that they are WRONG. Why? Because those scientists who's area of expertise is global warming have reached a consensus. It's really that simple.
Actually they haven't. I linked to a Boston Globe article proving that I believe.
How many times do we have to go over this??? That link was to an article concerning the "little ice age" and NOT to an article about scientists who disagreed with global warming!!! Do you think that if you keep lying that eventually I will give in and "admit" you are right?
Actually you never said anything about scientist links. Your accusation was about any links whatsoever. I merely pointed out that I had provided one. You are not going to be able to twist this you know. The proof is written in this thread. As you can't delete it all except the ones you wrote yourself, it can hardly help you to lie about it.
How many times do we have to go over this??? That link was to an article concerning the "little ice age" and NOT to an article about scientists who disagreed with global warming!!! Do you think that if you keep lying that eventually I will give in and "admit" you are right?
You know this? How? It doesn't say anywhere in any of my links that they conducted no research. Was this just one of those accusations you decided to throw around without proof?
But hey, go ahead. Ignore the other side's argument completely. It only proves that you cannot successfully refute my points. I'm okay with that.
# posted by : 12/15/2006 2:52 PM
: 12/15/2006 2:52 PM
Robert M. Said... What are you talking about? They cite research right on their pages. Go back and read them this time. They cite what research was done and what it means, especially the first link.
The first link is to a conservatively biased institution! As I already pointed out, I (like you) do not accept "evidence" from biased sources. They are twisting the facts to fit the conclusion they decided beforehand was the "right" one.
If there was anything to what the Global Warming naysayers are claiming then there would be papers published in peer reviewed scientific journals saying so. If you can produce such an article I'll consider it. Until then I'll stick with the experts who say that the evidence is overwhelming.
Robert M. Said... Okay so what you're saying is that scientists whose job it is to study global warming did not study it... And my argument makes no sense?
Actually I said the exact opposite. The second article you linked to was a poll of scientists who's job ISN'T studying global warming.
Robert M. Said... So you're saying that because they haven't conducted real research simply because they never published their findings in a "scientific journal?" Why does it matter where or how they published them?
Yes that is what I am saying. Your poo-pooing of scientific journals makes it clear that you don't have any idea just how important they are, or how much weight they have when determining the validity of a scientific theory...
Please note:
Scientific journal: In academic publishing, a scientific journal is a periodical publication intended to further the progress of science, usually by reporting new research. Scientific journals contain articles that have been peer-reviewed, in an attempt to ensure that articles meet the journal's standards of quality, and scientific validity. The publication of the results of research is an ESSENTIAL part of the scientific method... (from wikipedia).
It is completely logical that for evidence to be credible it must meet certain criteria. For scientific research that criteria is publication in a peer reviewed scientific journal.
Your proof does NOT meet this criteria. You can cry about it all you want, but I am not going to disregard an essential part of the scientific method. Nobody should disregard sound science for partisan reasons. Your weak arguments certainly aren't going to convince me to do so.
Robert M. Said... That's exactly what you've been doing. See both of our links are opinions, professional ones, but still opinions.
No, my articles refer to conclusions based on scientific research. Research which has been published in peer reviewed scientific journals.
Robert M. Said... The difference is that I have the integrity to admit it and I accept your links as proof. However, I also do research of my own and find that not everyone agrees with these opinions, so logically, no one can truly say global warming exists. The fact that you will not accept my links as I accept yours shows quite a bit about you I think.
What it shows about me is that I accept the scientific method. What it shows about you is that you are willing to reject an essential part of the scientific process for partisan reasons. Which actually proves that you have very little integrity. You're willing to argue a point that is INDISPUTABLY wrong because it's the (Republican) party line.
Robert M. Said... Actually you never said anything about scientist links.
Actually you did. On 12/08/2006 at 1:07pm you said, "despite the fact that I provided a link of scientests who don't agree?".
Prior to this statement you had NOT provided a link which satisfied that claim.
Robert M. Said... Your accusation was about any links whatsoever. I merely pointed out that I had provided one. You are not going to be able to twist this you know. The proof is written in this thread. As you can't delete it all except the ones you wrote yourself, it can hardly help you to lie about it.
You are correct -- the proof is in this tread. My accusation was that your statement, ""despite the fact that I provided a link of scientests who don't agree?" was not the truth. Which it wasn't. The only one who can delete their posts in an attempt to hide the truth is YOU.
Robert M. Said... But hey, go ahead. Ignore the other side's argument completely. It only proves that you cannot successfully refute my points. I'm okay with that.
I don't need to refute them. Because they aren't credible. Because "the other side" has published ZERO articles in peer reviewed scientific journals -- which, as the wikipedia entry I provided above points out, is an essential part of the scientific method. I'm OK with that.
Scientific method: The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation. (from Dictionary.com)
Following the "scientific method" is necessary when conducting a scientific investigation. Also, publication in a scientific journal is an essential part of the scientific method. Your "proof" does not meet the criteria to be considered credible. Case closed.
The first link is to a conservatively biased institution! As I already pointed out, I (like you) do not accept "evidence" from biased sources. They are twisting the facts to fit the conclusion they decided beforehand was the "right" one.
If there was anything to what the Global Warming naysayers are claiming then there would be papers published in peer reviewed scientific journals saying so. If you can produce such an article I'll consider it. Until then I'll stick with the experts who say that the evidence is overwhelming.
Robert M. Said... Okay so what you're saying is that scientists whose job it is to study global warming did not study it... And my argument makes no sense?
Actually I said the exact opposite. The second article you linked to was a poll of scientists who's job ISN'T studying global warming.
Robert M. Said... So you're saying that because they haven't conducted real research simply because they never published their findings in a "scientific journal?" Why does it matter where or how they published them?
Yes that is what I am saying. Your poo-pooing of scientific journals makes it clear that you don't have any idea just how important they are, or how much weight they have when determining the validity of a scientific theory...
Please note:
Scientific journal: In academic publishing, a scientific journal is a periodical publication intended to further the progress of science, usually by reporting new research. Scientific journals contain articles that have been peer-reviewed, in an attempt to ensure that articles meet the journal's standards of quality, and scientific validity. The publication of the results of research is an ESSENTIAL part of the scientific method... (from wikipedia).
It is completely logical that for evidence to be credible it must meet certain criteria. For scientific research that criteria is publication in a peer reviewed scientific journal.
Your proof does NOT meet this criteria. You can cry about it all you want, but I am not going to disregard an essential part of the scientific method. Nobody should disregard sound science for partisan reasons. Your weak arguments certainly aren't going to convince me to do so.
Robert M. Said... That's exactly what you've been doing. See both of our links are opinions, professional ones, but still opinions.
No, my articles refer to conclusions based on scientific research. Research which has been published in peer reviewed scientific journals.
Robert M. Said... The difference is that I have the integrity to admit it and I accept your links as proof. However, I also do research of my own and find that not everyone agrees with these opinions, so logically, no one can truly say global warming exists. The fact that you will not accept my links as I accept yours shows quite a bit about you I think.
What it shows about me is that I accept the scientific method. What it shows about you is that you are willing to reject an essential part of the scientific process for partisan reasons. Which actually proves that you have very little integrity. You're willing to argue a point that is INDISPUTABLY wrong because it's the (Republican) party line.
Robert M. Said... Actually you never said anything about scientist links.
Actually you did. On 12/08/2006 at 1:07pm you said, "despite the fact that I provided a link of scientests who don't agree?".
Prior to this statement you had NOT provided a link which satisfied that claim.
Robert M. Said... Your accusation was about any links whatsoever. I merely pointed out that I had provided one. You are not going to be able to twist this you know. The proof is written in this thread. As you can't delete it all except the ones you wrote yourself, it can hardly help you to lie about it.
You are correct -- the proof is in this tread. My accusation was that your statement, ""despite the fact that I provided a link of scientests who don't agree?" was not the truth. Which it wasn't. The only one who can delete their posts in an attempt to hide the truth is YOU.
Robert M. Said... But hey, go ahead. Ignore the other side's argument completely. It only proves that you cannot successfully refute my points. I'm okay with that.
I don't need to refute them. Because they aren't credible. Because "the other side" has published ZERO articles in peer reviewed scientific journals -- which, as the wikipedia entry I provided above points out, is an essential part of the scientific method. I'm OK with that.
Scientific method: The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation. (from Dictionary.com)
Following the "scientific method" is necessary when conducting a scientific investigation. Also, publication in a scientific journal is an essential part of the scientific method. Your "proof" does not meet the criteria to be considered credible. Case closed.
This is all rehash dervish. You've said nothing new. You completly ignore the Globe article, you refuse to accept any evidence besides the kind you deem acceptable. I don't really get it. I accepted your evidence, but also mine. I came to the conclusion that no one knows yet and global warming is still just a theory. If you can't be open-minded enough to consider evidence put before you, it's not really my problem is it?
# posted by : 12/16/2006 4:20 PM
: 12/16/2006 4:20 PM
First of all, I hadn't mentioned the scientific method thus far, so my post was NOT a "rehash"! Secondly, "open mindedness" has absolutely nothing to do with my not accepting your "evidence".
It has to do with what is acceptable following the scientific method. I pointed out that your evidence clearly is not acceptable because the people who put forth this evidence didn't follow all the steps in the scientific method -- which includes publication in a peer reviewed scientific journal.
What your argument comes down to, in essence, is that you reject the scientific method and that everyone else should also reject it. WHY should I do that?
Scientific Method: Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective so that the scientist does not bias the interpretation of the results or change the results outright. Another basic expectation is that of making complete documentation of data and methodology available for careful scrutiny by other scientists and researchers, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempted reproduction of them. This also allows statistical measures of the reliability of the results to be established. (end wikipedia entry).
That is all extremely logical and makes perfect sense if is your goal is to arrive at reliable sound scientific conclusions.
Instead of arriving at a conclusion first and then looking for facts to back up your conclusion. Which is what your side does.
If you can't be open-minded enough to consider sound scientific evidence put forth by experts in their field -- experts who have no partisan agendas -- that's really not my problem.
This is the same crap you always pull. Put forth "evidence" from obviously partisan sources, and then insist that it is the absolute truth and that I MUST accept it. Just like that fake interview with "Jihad Jarra" from World Net Daily. You can whine about it all you like, but that crap doesn't cut it in a real debate.
It has to do with what is acceptable following the scientific method. I pointed out that your evidence clearly is not acceptable because the people who put forth this evidence didn't follow all the steps in the scientific method -- which includes publication in a peer reviewed scientific journal.
What your argument comes down to, in essence, is that you reject the scientific method and that everyone else should also reject it. WHY should I do that?
Scientific Method: Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective so that the scientist does not bias the interpretation of the results or change the results outright. Another basic expectation is that of making complete documentation of data and methodology available for careful scrutiny by other scientists and researchers, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempted reproduction of them. This also allows statistical measures of the reliability of the results to be established. (end wikipedia entry).
That is all extremely logical and makes perfect sense if is your goal is to arrive at reliable sound scientific conclusions.
Instead of arriving at a conclusion first and then looking for facts to back up your conclusion. Which is what your side does.
If you can't be open-minded enough to consider sound scientific evidence put forth by experts in their field -- experts who have no partisan agendas -- that's really not my problem.
This is the same crap you always pull. Put forth "evidence" from obviously partisan sources, and then insist that it is the absolute truth and that I MUST accept it. Just like that fake interview with "Jihad Jarra" from World Net Daily. You can whine about it all you like, but that crap doesn't cut it in a real debate.
Rehash, rehash, rehash. Oh, here's something new, accusng me of lying in a debate we concluded more than a week ago! Good work dervish.
Yeah sorry, this is getting boring. I think I'll move to more recent posts now, since your arguement is basically a repititon with new insults every time. I don't really think I'll waste my time on it...
Yeah sorry, this is getting boring. I think I'll move to more recent posts now, since your arguement is basically a repititon with new insults every time. I don't really think I'll waste my time on it...
# posted by : 12/17/2006 1:48 PM
: 12/17/2006 1:48 PM
Your non-responses aren't fooling anyone. You can't refute my argument so you simply BS and lie. You're lying about my post being a "rehash" -- as if what I wrote was in no way vaild. You were lying when you said you accepted my evidence and that because I won't accept yours it "proved" you are open minded and I am not. You never considered a damn thing. You had your mind made up beforehand -- just like the "scientists" who's "evidence" you presented did.
YOUR post is a rehash. Just more lies and BS. The only thing you've proven is that you have ZERO evidence to support your argument that nobody knows if global warming is occuring. Sorry, as I pointed out -- as far as the EXPERTS are concerned -- the debate is over. Global warming IS occuring and it is caused by human activities. That you choose not to accept this fact has no effect on reality what-so-ever.
Since you stated that you are moving on, I expect no further posts from you -- unless you want to whine some more about losing this debate.
Post a Comment
YOUR post is a rehash. Just more lies and BS. The only thing you've proven is that you have ZERO evidence to support your argument that nobody knows if global warming is occuring. Sorry, as I pointed out -- as far as the EXPERTS are concerned -- the debate is over. Global warming IS occuring and it is caused by human activities. That you choose not to accept this fact has no effect on reality what-so-ever.
Since you stated that you are moving on, I expect no further posts from you -- unless you want to whine some more about losing this debate.
<< Home
