Stramash Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 While I support the idea that man is accelerating a natural warming part of a cycle, I think those who are supporting the idea academically have to be careful with their data. There are enough sceptics and deniers on the right that they will seize on any small mistake or misrepresentation. One of the problems I see, vis a vis mean temperature rises, is that the geographical location of the meteorological stations which record temperature haven't changed in almost 2 centuries. But, urban/suburban man had changed, cities have grown, and what may have originally been a rural site, free of extraneous heat sources, suddenly becomes an urban site, surrounded by dwellings, retail and industry which all add to the localised temperature. Though I am glad to see consensus, I sometimes hesitate to openly accept all data till I see who has funded it, researched it and published it. We need honesty and transparency on this whole subject so that people will see what they can do to make a difference, rather than listening to Fox news telling them it's all a liberal plot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 from Bruce's post The challenge now, they write, is how to effectively communicate this to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists. That is a huge problem. Getting people to give up or conform to a new lifestyle. Corporations seem to be making some changes as they find going green is good for the bottom line. Now if we can protect what's left of the water from Coke and Nestle we might be ok for awhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 it's all a liberal plot. ok never mind then :shock: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FLGlenn Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 It's all due to the Tuk tuk's! :? :? :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beej Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Thrashing out obvious holes in the Ozone layer...... surely not human induced??? So even if Global Warming has nothing to do with human pollution, would you really want your children and grand children growing up in a heavily polluted smog laden toxic pit of a planet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 A f*cking hoax? the op did end his statement with a question mark, as he wished to stimulate debate and intelligent discourse on the subject... f*ck knows what he is doing on tf then trolling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 A f*cking hoax? the op did end his statement with a question mark, as he wished to stimulate debate and intelligent discourse on the subject... f*ck knows what he is doing on tf then trolling anyone who hasn't reviewed ALL the science involved and still thinks they are 'stimulating debate and intelligent discourse' on ANY web forum is either a troll or just plain stupid. sadly, most human stupidity is a lifestyle choice, not an accident of birth. online AGW "debates" seem to bring this out in the highest percentage of people. it always amazes me to see people debate the answers so vigorously when they haven't even bothered to check what the question was... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Ok, let's see if after 5 years i can score a card....You're an a*s... and your'e a ******* genius? get over yourself. mong-trolling is *not* "debate," it's mong-trolling. trying to "stimulate debate" exclusively amongst people who don't have a whiff of a clue what they are talking about is mong-trolling at its most blatantly dishonest. and that's what you've done here, congrats ace. only real question in this thread is whether you have any idea you're doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English_Bob Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming. He was not surprised, however, by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists. "They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it." 3 points are interesting here. 1) Over 10,000 scientists were contacted... only 3000 are used in the sample. What happened to the others? 2) Petroleum geologists and meteorologist are not convinced - it's obvious why petroleum geologists disagree, but meteorologists? 3) Climatologists whole-heartedly agree. That's as unsurprising as the petroleum geologists. Of course they aren't going to cut off their funding and end their careers by disagreeing. These guys are as biased as the Esso scientists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming. He was not surprised, however, by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists. "They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it." 3 points are interesting here. 1) Over 10,000 scientists were contacted... only 3000 are used in the sample. What happened to the others? 2) Petroleum geologists and meteorologist are not convinced - it's obvious why petroleum geologists disagree, but meteorologists? 3) Climatologists whole-heartedly agree. That's as unsurprising as the petroleum geologists. Of course they aren't going to cut off their funding and end their careers by disagreeing. These guys are as biased as the Esso scientists. ONE point is interesting here... layperson (that is you) parsing the article to support what you want to believe. gotta love the honesty of internet "debate"--and i am sure i will love that honesty with all my heart... *if* and *when* i ever see any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 1) Over 10,000 scientists were contacted... only 3000 are used in the sample. What happened to the others? presumably they didn't respond. 2) Petroleum geologists and meteorologist are not convinced - it's obvious why petroleum geologists disagree, but meteorologists? Meteorologists tend to focus on short term effects. They are likely to think in terms of weather rather than climate. But you'd think they'd agree more with climatologists. 3) Climatologists whole-heartedly agree. That's as unsurprising as the petroleum geologists. Of course they aren't going to cut off their funding and end their careers by disagreeing. These guys are as biased as the Esso scientists. Clearly there is quite a bit research that gets funded that attempts to make claims against global warming, but most of it turns out to be nonsense. Also the Oil companies pay for research (which is obviously biased) and perhaps some of those researchers voted in affirmation of global warming in the survey anyway. So I think there is significant scope for climatologists to disagree on the issue. But you do raise a good point. If you had surveyed physics researchers 15 years ago about superstrings or M theory you would think it was a done deal, but now it's clear they were just on a funding bandwagon and were smoking crack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Neo: your quote boxes got butchered. those are English_Bob's "points" not mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 oops sorry, fixed now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 But you do raise a good point. If you had surveyed physics researchers 15 years ago about superstrings or M theory you would think it was a done deal, but now it's clear they were just on a funding bandwagon and were smoking crack. therein lies the real dilemma with AGW, not whether it's "true." the science will eventually settle, and if it is bogus, it will fall by the wayside (phlogiston, anyone?) HOWEVER, the reason some scientists are pressing the issue now is that they believe that by the time the science is 100 percent done and dusted it will be too late to do anything about it. that's the whole concept/controversy of "post-normal science"--should we act before we know for sure, if by the time we know with any significant degree of certainty it will probably be too late? this then becomes a public policy decision, which means every mong with an agenda will be on his or her soapbox. quite frankly, internet "debates" are a complete waste of time (unless they're entertaining) because that's all that's all you find on these threads is agendas. generally, (especially on TF) nobody even bothers to do enough homework to figure out what the question actually is.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce551 Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 I am not expert on climate change, so I depend others who are so called "experts" to explain how climate works and the potential dangers of heat trapping gases to our biosphere. One person I admire is Dr. Seven Chu, who is now Secretary of Energy. I think he makes some good points about what is known and not known about climate change. And what we can do to mitigate the predicted rise in the earth temperature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English_Bob Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 ONE point is interesting here... layperson (that is you) parsing the article to support what you want to believe. gotta love the honesty of internet "debate"--and i am sure i will love that honesty with all my heart... *if* and *when* i ever see any. My beliefs didn't come into it here - my comment was about the survey. I wonder why 7000 scientists didn't respond. I wonder why climatologists and meteorologists have different views Oh wait, number three... yeah, I do believe that climatologists are riding a big cash cow right now and loving it. So I would like to see an end to funded research - all research should be 'blind' so that 'petroleum' geologists wouldn't know who was paying the bill and would therefore not fudge figures. The same would be true of other scientists - fair's fair, right? I still don't think that would fix the problem of scaremongering scientists eager to break the next big story in the most dramatic form. They are just as keen on newsprint and coloumn inches as any Hollywood starlet. And I'm quite sure that if irrefutable evidence showed there was no problem and no need for armies of scientists carving up the ice caps for samples, it would hurriedly be put on the back burner and the Golden Goose would carry on laying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Oh wait, number three... yeah, I do believe that climatologists are riding a big cash cow right now and loving it. While research on climate change is most definitely flavour of the month, I think that valid research for and against the global warming theory is getting funded. So because global warming research may be something of a cash cow (not that anyone's getting rich on their PhD's) it doesn't mean that all the papers have to conclude in affirmation of global warming. In fact a solid argument against is more likely to get attention right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English_Bob Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Oh wait, number three... yeah, I do believe that climatologists are riding a big cash cow right now and loving it. While research on climate change is most definitely flavour of the month, I think that valid research for and against the global warming theory is getting funded. So because global warming research may be something of a cash cow (not that anyone's getting rich on their PhD's) it doesn't mean that all the papers have to conclude in affirmation of global warming. In fact a solid argument against is more likely to get attention right now. But the problem is that when someone publishes anything 'anti' Global Warming they are shouted down. It's as difficult to disagree with as it is to say you think Israel may have been a bit harsh bombing Palestine - as soon as you say it, you are Anti Semitic. No-one ever questions the funding of scientist who blame global warming at our doorstep, but when anyone publishes anything suggesting that mankind is too insignificant to affect the climate, their work is smeared with 'Well, the oil companies probably paid for that research'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 ONE point is interesting here... layperson (that is you) parsing the article to support what you want to believe. gotta love the honesty of internet "debate"--and i am sure i will love that honesty with all my heart... *if* and *when* i ever see any. My beliefs didn't come into it here - my comment was about the survey. I wonder why 7000 scientists didn't respond. I wonder why climatologists and meteorologists have different views whereas someone with a different bias might be wondering why you would expect them to have the same views anymore than say, you'd expect astrophysicists to. Oh wait, number three... yeah, I do believe that climatologists are riding a big cash cow right now and loving it. most would be funded regardless of the outcome of their research, as long as their research fell within the realm of the 'hot' topic. in my experience and to my knowledge (and i don't have experience and knowledge of climatology, but i do about academia), research funds within academia are more subject to the backstabbing-gimme-my-piece-of-the-pie politics than political biases that align conveniently with political parties' ideologies. that crap is added later by pundits and has SFA to do with academic research. So I would like to see an end to funded research - all research should be 'blind' so that 'petroleum' geologists wouldn't know who was paying the bill and would therefore not fudge figures. The same would be true of other scientists - fair's fair, right? i think 'blind' scientific funding is an ok idea but how do you regulate it? many corporations--Corning, for example--have extensive R&D departments, and some even do some 'pure' scientific research, in hopes of spinning off technology (something Corning, for example, have done very well at). i think the peer review process sorts biases in in the long run--anyone who can do the math can check the math. and should get the same results from doing the same experiment (more or less). problem, when it comes to topics like AGW where the science isn't far enough along for the numbers to say anything conclusive, is that the peer review process is subject to academic trends (superstrings as Neo mentioned are a great example AFAIK they still haven't devised any actual experiments based on superstring hypotheses). eventually hypotheses that the data don' t really support will run out of steam. I still don't think that would fix the problem of scaremongering scientists eager to break the next big story in the most dramatic form. They are just as keen on newsprint and coloumn inches as any Hollywood starlet. possibly, but the degree of certainty with which you assert this can *only* come from your immense mind-reading talent... or your rather pronounced lack of objectivity. incidentally, don't you think at this point that the scientist who was able to refute the global warming hypotheses would be by far the biggest story to come out of science, given its widespread acceptance by climatologists at this point? i mean, if you refuted the whole thing, you'd make not just news, but the history books, wouldn't you? And I'm quite sure that if irrefutable evidence showed there was no problem and no need for armies of scientists carving up the ice caps for samples, it would hurriedly be put on the back burner and the Golden Goose would carry on laying. problem is, the very nature of climate is that it happens over long periods of time, so we just don't know. the data that will support or refute the various computer climate models will take a long ******* time to gather. maybe, just maybe, some aspects of the human world aren't quite as corrupt as running a nightclub in Thailand, and your'e dumbing it down too much... just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 maybe, just maybe, some aspects of the human world aren't quite as corrupt as running a nightclub in Thailand, and your'e dumbing it down too much... just a thought. that's better didn't need to make that Isaan girl post after all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Oh wait, number three... yeah, I do believe that climatologists are riding a big cash cow right now and loving it. While research on climate change is most definitely flavour of the month, I think that valid research for and against the global warming theory is getting funded. So because global warming research may be something of a cash cow (not that anyone's getting rich on their PhD's) it doesn't mean that all the papers have to conclude in affirmation of global warming. In fact a solid argument against is more likely to get attention right now. But the problem is that when someone publishes anything 'anti' Global Warming they are shouted down. It's as difficult to disagree with as it is to say you think Israel may have been a bit harsh bombing Palestine - as soon as you say it, you are Anti Semitic. the problem with that 'problem' is that most of the anti-global warming stuff that has been published has is it so difficult to disagree with? i personally don't know whether climate change is anthropogenic or not, and strangely i have yet to be persecuted. ffs come down off the cross there are bound to be less trivial uses for that wood. No-one ever questions the funding of scientist who blame global warming at our doorstep, oh really? so that business about the Bush administration stifling NASA scientists' government-funded studies is a cruel lie made up by AGW zealots? it would help if you got the facts straight once in a while. actually it would help if you resorted to facts in any form, once in a while. then you might not get shouted down. just a thought. but when anyone publishes anything suggesting that mankind is too insignificant to affect the climate, their work is smeared with 'Well, the oil companies probably paid for that research'. again, your fact allergy is catching up with you. you obviously get most if not all your info on the subject from internet forums and dodgy mass media. in the real world, a scientific paper's acceptance within the scientific discipline in question matters more than whether idlers on net fora 'smear' it.but hey, if you *like* digging yourself a hole, it's your shovel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English_Bob Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Oh wait, number three... yeah, I do believe that climatologists are riding a big cash cow right now and loving it. While research on climate change is most definitely flavour of the month, I think that valid research for and against the global warming theory is getting funded. So because global warming research may be something of a cash cow (not that anyone's getting rich on their PhD's) it doesn't mean that all the papers have to conclude in affirmation of global warming. In fact a solid argument against is more likely to get attention right now. But the problem is that when someone publishes anything 'anti' Global Warming they are shouted down. It's as difficult to disagree with as it is to say you think Israel may have been a bit harsh bombing Palestine - as soon as you say it, you are Anti Semitic. the problem with that 'problem' is that most of the anti-global warming stuff that has been published has is it so difficult to disagree with? i personally don't know whether climate change is anthropogenic or not, and strangely i have yet to be persecuted. ffs come down off the cross there are bound to be less trivial uses for that wood. No-one ever questions the funding of scientist who blame global warming at our doorstep, oh really? so that business about the Bush administration stifling NASA scientists' government-funded studies is a cruel lie made up by AGW zealots? it would help if you got the facts straight once in a while. actually it would help if you resorted to facts in any form, once in a while. then you might not get shouted down. just a thought. but when anyone publishes anything suggesting that mankind is too insignificant to affect the climate, their work is smeared with 'Well, the oil companies probably paid for that research'. again, your fact allergy is catching up with you. you obviously get most if not all your info on the subject from internet forums and dodgy mass media. in the real world, a scientific paper's acceptance within the scientific discipline in question matters more than whether idlers on net fora 'smear' it.but hey, if you *like* digging yourself a hole, it's your shovel. You know, I read these forums a lot. I rarely respond to personal attacks. But when you answer any of my posts, can you just leave the adolescent name calling out? I think you have valid points to make, but your point gets lost in the insults. I mean, I have a different view point to you. I read different articles to you. Your opinion is fine - up to you. But I can't remember ever slagging you off. What has my job running a nightclub got to do with my postings? I would like to see less use of fossil fuels... just for a different reason than you. BTW for my facts - see the last forum we had on this subject. I gave you a dozen or so websites, research articles and publications... you didn't check any of them out - just dismissed all those Nobel prize winners, MIT and Harvard scientists as 'debunkers'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 But when you answer any of my posts, can you just leave the adolescent name calling out? I think you have valid points to make, but your point gets lost in the insults. Don't worry about Zeus, he's just jealous because you have a good job and get attention from hot girls (see Isaan girls thread for definition of hot). BTW for my facts - see the last forum we had on this subject. I gave you a dozen or so websites, research articles and publications... you didn't check any of them out - just dismissed all those Nobel prize winners, MIT and Harvard scientists as 'debunkers'. Out of curiosity I tried to find those posts, since I'm not aware of any respected scientists publishing anything strongly opposing global warming theory. Care to post a couple of references? Cheers 8) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English_Bob Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 But when you answer any of my posts, can you just leave the adolescent name calling out? I think you have valid points to make, but your point gets lost in the insults. Don't worry about Zeus, he's just jealous because you have a good job and get attention from hot girls (see Isaan girls thread for definition of hot). BTW for my facts - see the last forum we had on this subject. I gave you a dozen or so websites, research articles and publications... you didn't check any of them out - just dismissed all those Nobel prize winners, MIT and Harvard scientists as 'debunkers'. Out of curiosity I tried to find those posts, since I'm not aware of any respected scientists publishing anything strongly opposing global warming theory. Care to post a couple of references? Cheers 8) I posted the link to the last forum earlier in this forum... page 2 - I think You should read that whole forum - it was funny and informative. I think it ended pretty amicably last time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 You should read that whole forum - it was funny and informative. I think it ended pretty amicably last time. I was trying to find it. We need a better forum search. Remember what it was called? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now