Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 56
  1. #1
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Global Warming...hoax after all?

    Not necessarily that the earth is warming (slightly)...but rather that it is warming primarily because of man (untruth #1) and that it is going to result in catastrophe of Doomsday proportions if we don't take drastic measures right now (untruth #2).

    The alarmists insisted there was a magikal "consensus"...despite there never being any such thing.

    The skeptics have argued that it is cyclical, normal/natural, not catastrophic, pseudo-science, inconclusive, etc...and that unfortunately..."science" is a business, can be politically motivated, and there is a tremendous amount of pressure to just "go along with the program" from one's peers...because after all...even scientists need their paycheck (see below for more).

    Turns out...the skeptic's may have gotten it right after all.

    The IPCC report...is what most alarmists use as their "smoking gun" of evidence. In that report, 52 scientists from around the world claimed that the earth was warming because of man and the results would be catastrophic if serious changes were not made immediately.

    Scientists allied with the IPCC and affiliated with the Gore crew...were caught faking scientific data to spread their propaganda. http://www.prisonplanet.com/ipcc-sci...l-warming.html

    Recently...over 650 Scientists Challenge Global Warming “Consensus” (12x more than the scientists who "signed" the IPCC findings). The kicker? Many of the 650...were the original 52 of the IPCC.

    Just to reiterate...many scientists from the IPCC have "defected"...are now disagreeing with the claims made in that report, and are now debunking that garbage for what it is...garbage.

    "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." — U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
    Here is a link to the Senate Minority Report that have over 650 of scientists (again...many from the IPCC report) saying what a few of us have stood up and claimed these past years against the more vocal (and radical) alarmists who dismiss any "dissent" as mere "ignorance" or "obstinance": U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008

    Here are some "gems" from SCIENTISTS on the matter...


    • I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
    • Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical. - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
    • "Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists. - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
    • The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
    • The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity. - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
    • It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
    • Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
    • “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
    • “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?- Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
    • “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
    • “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
    • “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
    • “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
    • “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata

    This Senate report is not a “list” of scientists, but a report that includes full biographies of each scientist and their quotes, papers and links for further reading. The scientists featured in the report express their views in their own words, complete with their intended subtleties and caveats. This Senate report features the names, biographies, academic/institutional
    affiliation, and quotes of literally hundreds of additional international scientists who publicly dissented from man-made climate fears. This report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own
    words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies, scientific analyses and original source materials as gathered from directly from the scientists or from public statements, news outlets, and websites in 2007 and 2008.

    The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; astrophysics, engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes
    for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore. Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for
    Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the
    Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Abo Akademi University in Finland; University of La Plata in Argentina; Stockholm University; Punjab University in India; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.
    More and more scientists are "coming out"...tired of the politics and pseudo-science and propaganda being espoused by those who 1) ought to know better and 2) don't know what the hell they are talking about. As the earth cools (not heats)...more and more people are starting to "see the light". As more studies make their ways through the obstacles of "political correctness" and alarmist agenda...and into the hands of reasoned individuals...more and more people are awakening to the lies they were told, the fraud that is being committed, the radical religion that has won the hearts of so many lost souls seeking "redemption".

    Within 5 years...I predict that Global Warming will be considering one of the greatest hoaxes in history...an embarrassing moment in mankind's history. We've seen similar instances of ridiculous scams and propaganda like this in the past (earth is flat, Piltdown Man, Global Freezing, out of oil, etc...)...but this hoax...will take the crown as being the King of all Hoaxes...the one that duped so many.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  2. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,468
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...hoax after all?

    Clearly there is debate on the subject, and that is a good thing. Honestly the arguments I've seen from the warming camp are simply more convincing and direct than those from the septic camp which tend to be more selective and/or simply questioning the conclusiveness of the warming evidence.

    Personally I'm not 100% convinced by any camp and even if there is global warming I don't think it would be Armageddon like. We'll adapt and generally the richer nations will be the least impacted.

    I think climate science is very important and beyond that I think climate control and manipulation is a key science we need to develop in order to better prosper. I like the debate because it sparks both sides to support their case and learn. Neither should try to shut out or dismiss the other out of hand.

    I'm not sure I find this report more convincing because it contains "more scientists." The UN report was a number of folks coming together to discuss and work out an investigation of the issue. This is a political piece constructed by searching for journal articles that support their political case. It is both more suspect in motive and less interested at finding the truth rather than posing a general challenge with folks that have opinions all over the map.

    But it certainly makes a strong case that there is far from a complete consensus on the matter among leaned scientists.

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Grinnell, IA
    Posts
    4,460
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...hoax after all?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Not necessarily that the earth is warming (slightly)...but rather that it is warming primarily because of man (untruth #1) and that it is going to result in catastrophe of Doomsday proportions if we don't take drastic measures right now (untruth #2).
    Wow. Apokalupsis the climate scientist is so knowledgable to be telling us what we should know about the future of Earth's climate.
    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    The skeptics have argued that it is cyclical, normal/natural, not catastrophic, pseudo-science, inconclusive, etc...and that unfortunately..."science" is a business, can be politically motivated, and there is a tremendous amount of pressure to just "go along with the program" from one's peers...because after all...even scientists need their paycheck (see below for more).
    Yeah, and there wouldn't be any funding coming from businesses whose activities lead to the emission of massive amount of carbon dioxide, would there be? And such interests wouldn't give large amounts of money to James Inhofe
    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Scientists allied with the IPCC and affiliated with the Gore crew...were caught faking scientific data to spread their propaganda. http://www.prisonplanet.com/ipcc-sci...l-warming.html
    Ah, thanks for the link from the reliable Alex Jones (who the f is this guy?), who claims the NASA division known as the Goddard Institute is part of this mystical "Gore crew".

    So apparently this paranoid schizophrenic right-wing radio host thinks that a Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Minority Report (read: propaganda put out by Senator James Inohofe(R-OK)), and Apok being the discerning individual he is, believes the whole thing. Here's some background on our lovely friend James Inhofe, who is perhaps the figurehead of the cult of globlal warming denialism:
    Wikipedia

    Anyway, regardless of what you think of this topic, Inhofe is an idiot with exceptionally loud opinions on topics that are well outside his area of expertise. So a random propaganda document from his office is not worth a thread on ODN, though it may be worth an article on Alex Jones site.

    More on Alex Jones:
    Wikipedia
    I like the intro:
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Alexander Emerick Jones (born February 11, 1974) is an American paleoconservative[1] talk radio host[2] and documentary filmmaker. His nationally syndicated news/talk show The Alex Jones Show airs via the Genesis Communication Network on over 60 AM, FM, and shortwave radio stations across the United States, as well as having a large internet based audience. [3] Jones has been referred to as a conspiracy theorist by mainstream media outlets,[4][5][6][7][8][9] while Russia Today has referred to him as an investigative journalist.[10]
    Wow. Russia Today? Really, Putin's pet English media station? That's who's backing this guy up as serious? I wonder why most of the American media don't take the guy seriously...
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    In 1998, Jones spearheaded the effort to rebuild the David Koresh-led Branch Davidian compound/church near Waco, Texas. He often featured the project on his cable access program and claimed that Koresh and his followers were peaceful people who were murdered by Attorney General Janet Reno and the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) in the infamous Waco Siege.[15]
    Oh...he wanted to rebuild the David Koresh church...sounds like a stable guy. He's also an Executive Producer for the Loose Change: Final Cut. This guy's biography is pure gold. Apok, did you think that linking to a 9/11 truther would be convincing? Even better question: Why do you read his site? This post is way to funny to be real. In summary this post is about the mad ramblings of a 9/11 truther and a propaganda report by a nearly as insane GOP Senator from Oklahoma.

    Apok, as advice for the future, I don't care what crazies you read/listen to on the radio, but for goodness sake, if you want to make a half-way believeable argument, link to someone whose not batsh!t insane next time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Within 5 years...I predict that Global Warming will be considering one of the greatest hoaxes in history...an embarrassing moment in mankind's history. We've seen similar instances of ridiculous scams and propaganda like this in the past (earth is flat, Piltdown Man, Global Freezing, out of oil, etc...)...but this hoax...will take the crown as being the King of all Hoaxes...the one that duped so many.
    And in 5 years I'll be laughing at you for making such a dumb prediction.
    孟柏民
    Formerly Neverending (for all you old-timers)

  4. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,211
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...hoax after all?

    Apok,

    You would need to back this claim up with more serious sources then PrisonPlanet, a site that advocates the shadowy NWO who is out there with the United Nations to suppress the vast majority of the global population for it's own purpose.

    A quick search turned up nothing.

    PrisonPlanet is itself very heavily politicized, and resort to many fallacies to make their claims such that 9-11 was an inside job and that FEMA are building concentrations camps within the U.S. for it's citizens. I know that logically, I may seem to be poisoning the well but in fact, I'm using common sense and using the best bet approach.

    So, please state your case without using wacko sites and far right wing outlets.


    _________________________________ Post Merged _________________________________


    Moreover,

    That Senate report list was fairly easy to get on.

    i.e: It does not make a common claim, but rather, many people came up and make their own claim. A far easier process. The number of people subscribing to it is meaningless given the low bar that is set. You would see many people vacate this list if they were to try and hammer a declaration for all of them to sign on (unless of course it would be watered down to the point of being meaningless)

    That's the weakness of the global warming deniers... they lack unity in their claims and are all over the map.
    Last edited by Vandaler; December 17th, 2008 at 05:58 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  5. #5
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,593
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...hoax after all?

    Uh yeah, I wouldn't take great stock in anything Alex Jones says or has on his website. He is a professional conspiracy nut who thinks Bush planted explosives all up and down the Twin Towers. At any rate, there may be 650 scientists (what a nice round number) that disagree with man-made global warming, but how many others agree? Is it significantly more or less? Sure there is no consensus, but if the majority of scientists agree that global warming does exist and that it is more-than-likely man-made, then how the heck am I to argue with them? I don't have the raw data in front of me, nor would I be smart enough to accurately interpret it. So a little faith is needed here, and a little common sense. China and India are churning out CO2 at an alarming rate now, and I can't just sit back and say it has no effects on the environment.

    And how appropriate that I read this article about global warming this morning:
    Ice melting across globe at accelerating rate, NASA says

  6. #6
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...hoax after all?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverending View Post
    Wow. Apokalupsis the climate scientist is so knowledgable to be telling us what we should know about the future of Earth's climate.
    I was hoping to respond to an argument...you provided absolutely NOTHING.

    You failed to read the report...(which wasn't from any radio talk show host)...you failed to realize the simplest of notions...that the IPCC has essentially reversed itself. Many of the IPCC scientists you adore...NO LONGER AGREE WITH YOU.

    If you take issue with science...if you take issue with scientists...attack them. Your response is merely a fallacious engagement wasting space on this board...one whopping ad hom. It may convice the choir and the less reasoned individual...but not objective people who expect more meat on their platter.

    Try again.


    _________________________________ Post Merged _________________________________


    Quote Originally Posted by Vandaler View Post
    Apok,

    You would need to back this claim up with more serious sources then PrisonPlanet, a site that advocates the shadowy NWO who is out there with the United Nations to suppress the vast majority of the global population for it's own purpose.

    A quick search turned up nothing.

    PrisonPlanet is itself very heavily politicized, and resort to many fallacies to make their claims such that 9-11 was an inside job and that FEMA are building concentrations camps within the U.S. for it's citizens. I know that logically, I may seem to be poisoning the well but in fact, I'm using common sense and using the best bet approach.
    It was a small portion of the entire argument. Instead of focusing on the less relevant, focus on the crux of the issue...you know...the majority of the argument/post made and provided.

    Read the report. Read the articles w/i the report. Read the conclusions of the former IPCC scientists.

    Ducking one's head in the sand hoping it all goes away...won't make it so.


    _________________________________ Post Merged _________________________________


    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf Myth View Post
    Uh yeah, I wouldn't take great stock in anything Alex Jones says or has on his website. He is a professional conspiracy nut who thinks Bush planted explosives all up and down the Twin Towers.
    Much smaller argument that for some reason...alarmists think is a safe escape to focus on.

    At any rate, there may be 650 scientists (what a nice round number)
    Over 650 =/= nice round number.

    that disagree with man-made global warming, but how many others agree? Is it significantly more or less?
    Who knows? What we do know...is that there is obvious political and financial pressure to go along with the program. We also know that more and more scientists are speaking out against the propaganda. We also know that to date, this is the largest # of dissenting voices in such a report. We also know that alarmists will continue to stick to their strategy of make believe and hope that the truth never surfaces (we know this because they are so terrified of examining the evidence and finding out they were wrong...as evidence of just the few posts in this thread thus far).
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; December 17th, 2008 at 07:54 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  7. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,211
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...hoax after all?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    It was a small portion of the entire argument. Instead of focusing on the less relevant, focus on the crux of the issue...you know...the majority of the argument/post made and provided.

    Read the report. Read the articles w/i the report. Read the conclusions of the former IPCC scientists.

    Ducking one's head in the sand hoping it all goes away...won't make it so.
    I already looked into this minority Senate report and what you are pointing to is just an expanded version of the previous. I already addressed the fact that it's easier to get a bunch of people to agree with themselves rather then agree with a specific statement. You ducked this very important issue, and the article, just like yourself point to the 650 vs 52 as if it's indicative of anything. I addressed the issue head on.

    As for the falsifying of data, you need to provide better support for that claim since PrisonPlanet has no credibility.
    Last edited by Vandaler; December 17th, 2008 at 08:56 AM.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  8. #8
    ODN Administrator

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rural Southern Indiana
    Posts
    5,285
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...hoax after all?

    Ok, so, instead of being all "Oh god, prisonplanet..." think about this, Vandaler... Is this one of the op-ed articles one of the brothers pulled out of his ass? Or did he actually have something to back it up??

    1) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../16/do1610.xml
    “This was startling...Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China’s official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its “worst snowstorm ever”. In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.”
    Source outside of PrisonPlanet (and their network, which is vast) #1. - and if I'm not mistaken... This points to what? Falsified data? At the very least incorrect data. The article is very interesting. More support for the conlcusions Mr. Watson puts forth in his article?

    2) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...c_ice_mystery/
    The video below highlights the differences between those two dates. As you can see, ice has grown in nearly every direction since last summer - with a large increase in the area north of Siberia. Also note that the area around the Northwest Passage (west of Greenland) has seen a significant increase in ice. Some of the islands in the Canadian Archipelago are surrounded by more ice than they were during the summer of 1980
    Source outside of PrisonPlanet #2

    3) http://uk.reuters.com/article/homepa..._.242020080204
    The China Meteorological Administration said the weather was the coldest in 100 years in central Hubei and Hunan provinces, going by the total number of consecutive days of average temperature less than 1 degree Celsius (33.8 degrees Fahrenheit).
    Non-PrisonPlanet source #3

    4) http://www.nysun.com/new-york/global...a-snowy/74175/
    "The reports of global warming have been extremely overblown. It shouldn't be any surprise that we're going to have years with temperatures lower than average and snowfall higher than average," a senior fellow for environmental policy at the Heartland Institute, James Taylor, said.
    Dare I say, #4?

    5) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7329799.stm
    Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said
    From an article called "Global temperatures 'to decrease.'"

    So here you have it... These are the sources quoted in the article and supporting article linked on PrisonPlanet. Question his conclusions, hell, I do. But it would seem that Paul Watson, the author of this article, has drawn his conclusions from sources. It can't be said that he's got nothing upon which to base his opinions. If you disagree with his conclusions, do so intellectually, logically. Otherwise you are just poisoning the wells.
    "And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped." ~ Monty Python


  9. #9
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...hoax after all?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vandaler View Post
    I already looked into this minority Senate report and what you are pointing to is just an expanded version of the previous. I already addressed the fact that it's easier to get a bunch of people to agree with themselves rather then agree with a specific statement. You ducked this very important issue, and the article, just like yourself point to the 650 vs 52 as if it's indicative of anything. I addressed the issue head on.
    To clarify...

    1. 52 IPCC scientists = conclusive evidence of consensus...650+ is not.
    2. 52 > 650+
    3. IPCC scientists saying X = true. When they turn and say non-X...it must be false.
    4. IPCC report...not easy "to get on"...Senate Minority Report is easy "to get on", and we just have to take your word for it.
    5. What is easy "to get on", must be false by virtue of it being "easy to get on".
    6. The very scientists who once said something you agreed with, should now be ignored because they are saying something you disagree with.

    Is the above accurate? If not all of them are true for you...I would imagine they are true for the majority of the GW Fundamentalists who hold on to this religion (as one scientist refers to it) with dear life. These fundamentalists absolutely refuse to hear the opposition or even read scientific data that contradicts their belief system...much like Islamic Fundamentlists or hardcore Christian fundamentalists ignore any competing arguments that attack their beloved religions. Do you see such blind faith as being harmful...or helpful in the pursuit of truth?

    As for the falsifying of data, you need to provide better support for that claim since PrisonPlanet has no credibility.
    Evidence for the minor point that holds little value in the argument yet has been seen as the primary argument that the entire thesis is centered around, is coming but LP has pointed out the obvious...the evidence is within the article. PP isn't the investigative reporter, but the collector of data. It's the data that needs to be looked at.

    You and the other hardcore fundamentalists in this thread, refused to even examine said evidence nor the statements of leading scientists from around the country.

    It's one thing to examine all the evidence then come to a conclusion one way or the other. That's respectable, that's objective, that's reasoning. It's quite another to exercise blind faith, stick one's head in the sand, refuse to examine available evidence...all because it may result in what you thought was true...being false.

    Regardless arguing over less relevant points does nothing to refute the argument as a whole. It's not being able to see the forest through the trees.


    _________________________________ Post Merged _________________________________


    The one thing that could be said about today's climate...is that the world has never seen such freezing heat (as one blogger put it) that have seen the past few years.

    Warming seems magic to me. Not only does warming warm...but it also freezes. Does it also do laundry and dishes? If so, I want it. Apparently, if anything happens, it can be attributed to warming.

    I just typed the above. Must have been Global Warming.
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; December 17th, 2008 at 09:32 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  10. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...hoax after all?

    Heres the real question that no one has bothered to ask yet.

    So 650 so-called scientists signed this thing.

    How many of them are actually Climatologist or experts in a related field?

    In other words, how many of them actually know the research? I'm a scientist. I could sign my name up on that list and bring it to 651 scientists. However, my background in this field consists of a single introductory meteorology class during my Bachelors, most of which I have forgotten as it is not of particular interest to me. So I am not qualified in any manner to comment on the veracity of the research and if I were to sign it certainly would lend the document no more credence then if Joe the Plumber were to sign.

    Furthermore, how many actually possess Ph.D.s and are actively involved in research in some kind, as opposed to maybe some individual who is a local weatherman somewhere and has a B.S. in meteorology and nothing higher?

    Within the Scientific fields, there is a vast amount of knowledge that simply cannot be obtained or learned in a typical Bachelor's degree or even in a Masters degree. Thats why the Ph.D. exists. It does take years to obtain that level of knowledge and a lot of expertise requires more than simply reading, but actively participating in the research process. So much of Scientific knowledge is verbal and passed on from individual to individual rather than published in the Journals. Behind every published paper, there is many times as much data that was not published.

    The experts who actually are involved in the research are the ones who carry this larger body of knowledge that is not available to the average citizen or even to the local weatherman.

    At least with the IPCC I know for certain that each one of those 52 scientists has earned a Ph.D. in the field, that each one is actively involved in research related to the field, and that each one possesses the body of knowledge regarding the field to give an informed and expert opinion on the issue.

    650 scientist may have signed that thing, but not all scientists are equal. The word of one actual expert in the field would carry far more weight than the opinion of a hundred scientists in unrelated fields.

    The IPCC are guaranteed genuine experts.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  11. #11
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,211
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...hoax after all?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    To clarify...

    1. 52 IPCC scientists = conclusive evidence of consensus...650+ is not.
    2. 52 > 650+
    3. IPCC scientists saying X = true. When they turn and say non-X...it must be false.
    4. IPCC report...not easy "to get on"...Senate Minority Report is easy "to get on", and we just have to take your word for it.
    5. What is easy "to get on", must be false by virtue of it being "easy to get on".
    6. The very scientists who once said something you agreed with, should now be ignored because they are saying something you disagree with.

    Is the above accurate?
    For the most part, it's misleading. It tries to show that more scientist disagrees with global warming then there are that agrees.


    1. 52 IPCC scientists agree on a specific statement on global warming while 650 disagree in a disarray of ways.
    2. 52 > 650+ Is irrelevant given the above.
    3. IPCC scientists saying X = true. When they turn and say non-X...it must be false. The exact very same logic is used in reverse by deniers in this competition to get endorsements for their view.
    4. IPCC report...not easy "to get on"...Senate Minority Report is easy "to get on", and we just have to take your word for it. It's easy to get on because it only requires to agree with yourself.
    5. What is easy "to get on", must be false by virtue of it being "easy to get on". No, it's just easier... period.
    6. The very scientists who once said something you agreed with, should now be ignored because they are saying something you disagree with. No, I don't follow the flow of agreeing and disagreeing scientists from one camp to another. But I would expect deniers to sign a common statement before I would consider their count in any way.



    You and the other hardcore fundamentalists in this thread, refused to even examine said evidence nor the statements of leading scientists from around the country.
    I have done so... last year when this was first out. The expansion of the list does not make this report anymore good as far that I'm concerned since the baseline to be included within does not require to agree with a specific statement.
    Last edited by Vandaler; December 17th, 2008 at 10:33 AM.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  12. #12
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,468
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...hoax after all?

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    Source outside of PrisonPlanet (and their network, which is vast) #1. - and if I'm not mistaken... This points to what? Falsified data? At the very least incorrect data. The article is very interesting. More support for the conlcusions Mr. Watson puts forth in his article?
    Not falsified but incorrect. It is possible for people to make mistakes from time to time. There was no demonstration that anything was intentionally falsified. That was added to cast doubt on all other data. Those using and issuing the false data were the ones that identified it as false.

    2) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...c_ice_mystery/
    Source outside of PrisonPlanet #2
    Its funny how ice grows in the winter and shrinks in the summer. Man, who would have though it?

    Did you read the part after the article where they show the map data is bunk?

    Steven Goddard writes: "Dr. Walt Meier at NSIDC has convinced me this week that their ice extent numbers are solid. So why the large discrepancy between their graphs and the UIUC maps? I went back and compared UIUC maps vs. NASA satellite photos from the same dates last summer. It turns out that the older UIUC maps had underrepresented the amount of low concentration ice in several regions of the Arctic. This summer, their maps do not have that same error. As a result, UIUC maps show a much greater increase in the amount of ice this year than does NSIDC. And thus the explanation of the discrepancy.

    "it is clear that the NSIDC graph is correct, and that 2008 Arctic ice is barely 10% above last year - just as NSIDC had stated."
    If you just read the parts you WANT to read you don't get the whole picture. That is why that congressional report is so unreliable as evidence. It simply cherry picks the research for dissenting views and collects them together. While it shows there is valid descent, it doesn't make any clear claim as to what is happening or put it to any kind of rigorous test.

    Anecdotal and not very relevant. Most climate models do not have the earth heating informally. Some places get hotter some don't. Inland temperatures depend on wind patterns and vary from year to year. It may well be they had the coldest winter ever but it doesn't speak to global warming by itself.

    A good point but the conclusion it begins with is not well founded by any direct case they are making.

    5) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7329799.stmFrom an article called "Global temperatures 'to decrease.'"
    Even under a warming scenario there will be fluctuations. Average mean temperature trends are what you need to measure, not year to year variations within the normal mean of differentiation.

  13. #13
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...hoax after all?

    Chad...why didn't you ask for such scrutiny over the IPCC report? Why should one side be held a different standard than the other? Do you not believe that such a position...shows extreme bias? If so...then is such bias appropriate when it comes to the pursuit of truth? Is it appropriate in the scientific method? If you don't think double-standards are being biased...by what methodology is one position allowed to have a more lenient guideline of allowances than the other?
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  14. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,211
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...hoax after all?

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    So 650 so-called scientists signed this thing.
    Correction, 650 have some form of dissent catalogued in the report but they don't all agree to disagree in the same way.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  15. #15
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...hoax after all?

    To remind all about what the issue is here...

    1) It is NOT about the earth gradually warming. It is. It isn't a matter of contention.

    2) It is about man being the primary cause for said warming (vs natural causes, vs it being cyclical).

    3) It is about said warming resulting in catastrophic doomsday scenarios (vs it doing nothing of the sort and such claims being merely exaggerated hype to scare people...scaring people sells...scaring people makes money).
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  16. #16
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    colorado
    Posts
    564
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...hoax after all?

    The alarmists insisted there was a magikal "consensus
    http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speec...alwarming.html
    I agree with you consensus is seperate from science,
    "the world is an equation we cannot understand"
    the link I reccomend
    Chad...why didn't you ask for such scrutiny over the IPCC report? Why should one side be held a different standard than the other? Do you not believe that such a position...shows extreme bias? If so...then is such bias appropriate when it comes to the pursuit of truth? Is it appropriate in the scientific method? If you don't think double-standards are being biased...by what methodology is one position allowed to have a more lenient guideline of allowances than the other?
    those are all questions youve probably already answered by yourself
    By the way i think were close to doing link wars, so I wont do any more of them
    I think global warming has to many variables to keep track of[Theres about 200],and until all of them can be addressed I wont believe in global warming

  17. #17
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...hoax after all?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apok
    Chad...why didn't you ask for such scrutiny over the IPCC report? Why should one side be held a different standard than the other? Do you not believe that such a position...shows extreme bias? If so...then is such bias appropriate when it comes to the pursuit of truth? Is it appropriate in the scientific method? If you don't think double-standards are being biased...by what methodology is one position allowed to have a more lenient guideline of allowances than the other?
    Because I know that the IPCC consists of individuals who are considered experts in their fields. Not anyone who claims to be a scientist can simply sign onto an IPCC document. Its participants are active scientists who have their own labs and research programs in institutes throughout the world. It is because of their expertise in a related field that they were chosen and allowed to participate in the first place.
    Last edited by chadn737; December 17th, 2008 at 10:31 AM.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  18. #18
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    colorado
    Posts
    564
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...hoax after all?

    for example to name a few: car gases, factory gases, how many trees are being cut down, how strong our atmosphere is, how many trees are being grown, the climate shift,and..
    in fact Ive said this before but all the data from global warming, was used as prof for the Ice box effect theory in the 70's[which is the opposite of global warming
    [If you think Im trying to do a british accent youre wring thats just you]

  19. #19
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,593
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...hoax after all?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    2) It is about man being the primary cause for said warming (vs natural causes, vs it being cyclical).
    That's essentially the issue that divides the camps, not the rise in temperatures or CO2. I would have to agree that the jury is still out on whether global warming is man-made. Scientists have examined 800,000 year-old ice cores and did find dramatic increases in CO2 withn a period of only 50 years, so this supports the natural cause. But that was 100,000 year ago. I find it interesting that we see a dramatic increase in CO2 levels globally at the same time many large nations are industrially productive and spewing CO2 into the atmosphere. Is it coincidence or a related effect?

    The bottom line is I don't have access to the data, nor would I be able to accurately interpret the data, so I trust that the professionals will handle that in an honest manner. With all the checks-and-balances that go on in the scientific community, lies/fabrications/embellishments are usually quickly exposed. I would like to see the numbers of those Climatologists who agree with global warming being man-made as opposed to those who don't. Anyone have those numbers/percentages?

  20. #20
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,211
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global Warming...hoax after all?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    3) It is about said warming resulting in catastrophic doomsday scenarios (vs it doing nothing of the sort and such claims being merely exaggerated hype to scare people...scaring people sells...scaring people makes money).
    Can you expand on this so-called green conspiracy ? Who is driving it, who is looking to make money off consuming less and more responsibly. Who has the power to do this ?

    I'll take best guesses.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

 

 
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Workable US Global Warming Solutions
    By Squatch347 in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: September 14th, 2008, 03:04 PM
  2. Global Warming III
    By Zorak in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 7th, 2008, 12:33 PM
  3. Global Warming
    By Firewing in forum Current Events
    Replies: 131
    Last Post: June 3rd, 2008, 10:44 AM
  4. Replies: 35
    Last Post: May 3rd, 2007, 12:22 PM
  5. Migrating fish due to global warming
    By Snoop in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: September 11th, 2006, 09:50 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •