ADVERTISEMENT

I Passed Al Gore on His Bicycle Today

march-temps.jpg
 
You know, I always have to wonder. According to scienctific theory the warmest period in the last million years was between 2,500 and 9,000 years ago and there is evidence of Antartica having been mapped without the ice caps. If that theory is true and the man-made global warming theory is also true. What did man do to cause that warming spell then correct to reverse it?

I'm not trying to be a smart-ass. I'm being sincere and honestly wondering why someone would buy in 100% to the theory without any question when there is evidence that there were much warmer times than what we see right now? It just seems that there are people 100% convinced it is real and those that are 100% convinced it is a hoax and that objectivity has been completely disregarded.
 
  • Like
Reactions: squeak and MegaPoke
Actually, I guess the problem is that the whole thing has been politicized. So that actually answers why all objectivity has left the building. I mean, you have to pick a side right? Red or blue? If you don't your just waisting your voice as a citizen. Nevermind
 
  • Like
Reactions: shortbus
What are your sources for the theories re the hottest period and mapping of antarctica? I'm not familiar with them.

Why do you assume that man had something to do with the previous warming period?
 
Actually, I guess the problem is that the whole thing has been politicized. So that actually answers why all objectivity has left the building. I mean, you have to pick a side right? Red or blue? If you don't your just waisting your voice as a citizen. Nevermind

I swear we need to pass amendments 1. prohibiting legislative pay, and 2. imposing conflict of interest standards on legislators' voting. I get that money is speech. But I can't believe we accept legislators voting for interests that literally paid the legislator. As soon as it's proposed, a substantial % will identify the idea as being sponsored by the other party.
 
You know, I always have to wonder. According to scienctific theory the warmest period in the last million years was between 2,500 and 9,000 years ago and there is evidence of Antartica having been mapped without the ice caps. If that theory is true and the man-made global warming theory is also true. What did man do to cause that warming spell then correct to reverse it?

I'm not trying to be a smart-ass. I'm being sincere and honestly wondering why someone would buy in 100% to the theory without any question when there is evidence that there were much warmer times than what we see right now? It just seems that there are people 100% convinced it is real and those that are 100% convinced it is a hoax and that objectivity has been completely disregarded.

Man made global warming doesn't state that man is the only influence on climate.

A good test of objectivity is to ask some one what evidence would change their mind on the subject.
 
Man made global warming doesn't state that man is the only influence on climate.

A good test of objectivity is to ask some one what evidence would change their mind on the subject.


Like, how many e-mails indicating that inconvenient evidence inconsitent with the agenda need to be squelched woud need to be revealed before someone's mind were changed?

Or how many consecutive years of vritually unchanged temperatures in the satellite record would it take to suggest, at the very least, that we aren't on a runaway train to temperature disaster?

Or how many years of the "mainstream" scientific temperature models being wildly inaccurate?
 
  • Like
Reactions: windriverrange
Like, how many e-mails indicating that inconvenient evidence inconsitent with the agenda need to be squelched woud need to be revealed before someone's mind were changed?

Or how many consecutive years of vritually unchanged temperatures in the satellite record would it take to suggest, at the very least, that we aren't on a runaway train to temperature disaster?

Or how many years of the "mainstream" scientific temperature models being wildly inaccurate?

Or how many times does the email story have to be debunked before you quit trotting it out as if it proves something?

Do you accept the RSS satellite temperature records as accurate? Would a regression analysis of its data showing a significant warming trend change your mind?

If my belief in anthropogenic global warming relied "scientific temperature models" instead of basic physics years of wildly inaccurate models might change my mind. If such a thing existed.

It is energy balance plain and simple.
 
So, sys and pilt what are you two doing to correct this man made global warming thing? Surely you aren't just posting on a message board about this troublesome topic. Please let us know what you two are doing to correct this devastating problem, and what we can do to get behind you in your effort. I await your enlightned responses.
 
"A good test of objectivity is to ask some one what evidence would change their mind on the subject."

Bingo. Excellent point. Note his response.

You know the guys that said for decades that there's no conclusive evidence smoking causes lung cancer? Nobody ever changed their mind. They're like birthers -- they just take on a new conspiracy and the old one never happened.
 
Or how many times does the email story have to be debunked before you quit trotting it out as if it proves something?

Do you accept the RSS satellite temperature records as accurate? Would a regression analysis of its data showing a significant warming trend change your mind?

If my belief in anthropogenic global warming relied "scientific temperature models" instead of basic physics years of wildly inaccurate models might change my mind. If such a thing existed.

It is energy balance plain and simple.
If it is ever "de-bunked" it might alter my thinking.
 
What are your sources for the theories re the hottest period and mapping of antarctica? I'm not familiar with them.

Why do you assume that man had something to do with the previous warming period?

I don't assume, that was tongue in cheek. I was merely pointing out that there is evidence of very warm periods. So warm in fact, that ancient civilizations may have ventured much farther south that originally thought. There is enough there that both sides have plenty to consider in formulating an opinion. Instead, we see it being politiced and each side screaming "yay, team!"

Man very well could be causing the sudden increase and it also very well could be a natural cycle, or better yet a combination of both. My opinion on this subject is that is that it is likely a combination of both, a natural cycle being accelerated by the pollution of man. However, we don't have facts, just theories based on a very limited model. Therefore, I do not want government taking such information and running with it as an opportunity to sieze power on a national or global scale which will surely lead to the oppression people. I do however support local governments taking action with the consent of thier citizens and doing all they can to reduce pollution. All of us only benefit from a cleaner environment.

Man made global warming doesn't state that man is the only influence on climate.

A good test of objectivity is to ask some one what evidence would change their mind on the subject.

I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion on the subject. I'm merely asking that people quit cheerleading for political parties which is often the cause of all objectivity being lost in order to advance the winning team. And last time I checked, anytime you bring up that part of this could be cyclical you get called a "science denier" by team blue with team red being just as obtuse on the other side of the argument.
 
If it is ever "de-bunked" it might alter my thinking.

So factcheck.org, Politifact.com, the AP, Penn State, and the National Science Foundation findings on this don't register for you?

What about the RSS Satellite Data? The one that shows no warming for 18 years? If it showed a significant warming trend would you accept it?
 
So, sys and pilt what are you two doing to correct this man made global warming thing? Surely you aren't just posting on a message board about this troublesome topic. Please let us know what you two are doing to correct this devastating problem, and what we can do to get behind you in your effort. I await your enlightned responses.

crickets
 
I don't assume, that was tongue in cheek. I was merely pointing out that there is evidence of very warm periods. So warm in fact, that ancient civilizations may have ventured much farther south that originally thought. There is enough there that both sides have plenty to consider in formulating an opinion. Instead, we see it being politiced and each side screaming "yay, team!".

The warmest period over the last 12,000 years was from a 5-9,000 years ago, and the temperature anomaly was about 0.2C. 1986 was the last year that was that cool.
Can you point me to the information about ancient civilizations? Sounds interesting.

However, we don't have facts, just theories based on a very limited model..

Facts:
CO2 is a green house gas.
Industrial activity has increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Increasing green house gases in the atmosphere changes the radiative energy balance of the earth.
The earth's climate is sensitive to changes in energy balance.

Therefore, I do not want government taking such information and running with it as an opportunity to sieze power on a national or global scale which will surely lead to the oppression people. I do however support local governments taking action with the consent of thier citizens and doing all they can to reduce pollution. All of us only benefit from a cleaner environment.

This is reasonable. I disagree, but its more on a Libertarian v Statist level.

[QUOTE="ThorOdinson13, post: 84741, member: 1974"I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion on the subject. I'm merely asking that people quit cheerleading for political parties which is often the cause of all objectivity being lost in order to advance the winning team. And last time I checked, anytime you bring up that part of this could be cyclical you get called a "science denier" by team blue with team red being just as obtuse on the other side of the argument.[/QUOTE]

I think you have to be careful since just like some people pick their position on climate change based on whether they are team blue or red, some people pick team blue or red based on their position on climate change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThorOdinson13
Like birthers? Really?

How about like those who conveniently changed from "global warming" to "climate change" when the word warming no longer accurately supported them agenda.
The word warming still is accurate, and people still call it that. Climate change came about because it is exhausting to have to explain over and over that global warming doesn't mean a uniform and uninterrupted increase in temperature.
 


They can't answer the question because they aren't doing anything to fix this problem they are causing. I'm sure they both drive a prius and have solar panels all over the top of their homes though.
 
Really good point, Dong! Wow, I just don't have an answer for that! I don't drive a prius, so I'll bet all those scientists are really lying and it's a big conspiracy.

I'm really glad you're weighing in on this. Any other good points you'd like to share?
 
The warmest period over the last 12,000 years was from a 5-9,000 years ago, and the temperature anomaly was about 0.2C. 1986 was the last year that was that cool.
Can you point me to the information about ancient civilizations? Sounds interesting.

I would but I don't have anything readily available. It really started on a whime because I wanted to learn more about the Piri Reis map which is not as accurate as some claim it to be. But along the way I found where some believe the map is a compilation of several earlier maps and the theory involved exploration further south that previously thought. It just interested me and I did some research and reading.

Facts:
CO2 is a green house gas.
Industrial activity has increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Increasing green house gases in the atmosphere changes the radiative energy balance of the earth.
The earth's climate is sensitive to changes in energy balance.

Facts:
There have been many volcanic eruptions that have released more Co2 in one eruption than man has in his entire history.
Solar activity can directly effect the energy balance thus affecting the climate
Existing climate data based on actual occurances is a very small subset of data when you consider that it is based on roughly 100 years.

So as I stated, we have a very limited model and theories based on that model with nothing that can becalled 100% definitive. It seems as if you believe I am arguing against man having an effect. When in fact, I stated that I believe it is a combination of natural cycles and pollution accelerating the effect.



I think you have to be careful since just like some people pick their position on climate change based on whether they are team blue or red, some people pick team blue or red based on their position on climate change.

That is a valid point. However, I believe that even in that scenario objectivity is negatively impacted in the long run.
 
Really good point, Dong! Wow, I just don't have an answer for that! I don't drive a prius, so I'll bet all those scientists are really lying and it's a big conspiracy.

I'm really glad you're weighing in on this. Any other good points you'd like to share?

Thanks for acknowledging my good points. Just wanted to know if you are doing anything to fix this problem other than coming on here and telling everybody how dumb they are for not believing in made up claims. You sit there and judge people and post your smarmy little bs posts, and at the same time do nothing to fix the problem. Just calling you out for the clown you are. Nothing more.
 
Like birthers? Really?

How about like those who conveniently changed from "global warming" to "climate change" when the word warming no longer accurately supported them agenda.

Yeah, did you hear about those oncologists that conveniently TOTALLY changed their theories and treatments for cancer? Ha! Obviously charlatans!

BOOOOO to the scientific process!!!!! Here's to scientists never changing their minds!
 
Thor,

I'm in your camp. The metrics on this are far beyond any existing model.

I'm on board with Pilt that this is grounded in freshman level physics, but the facts he laid out are low hanging fruit, and to attempt to use them as a slam-dunk justification for the overhaul of resource usage (and the effect on quality of life) is myopic....not that I'm claiming that is what Pilt is doing, he's simply presenting facts, I just find his fact inconclusive and the model incomplete.

And, not to be overly cynical, but all "stakeholders" in the field of scientific investigation on this including political operatives need to understand the need for thorough transparency.
 
Yeah, did you hear about those oncologists that conveniently TOTALLY changed their theories and treatments for cancer? Ha! Obviously charlatans!

BOOOOO to the scientific process!!!!! Here's to scientists never changing their minds!

This is the ironic post of the week.
 
Freeman Dyson, the Princeton Physicist who inherited "the most brilliant physicist on the planet" title when Einstein died said the following about climate change and the effects of CO-2:

I hope that guy never gets to hear Dyson’s most heretical assertion: Atmospheric CO-2 may actually be improving the environment.


"It’s certainly true that carbon dioxide is good for vegetation," Dyson said. "About 15 percent of agricultural yields are due to CO-2 we put in the atmosphere. From that point of view, it’s a real plus to burn coal and oil."


In fact, there’s more solid evidence for the beneficial effects of CO-2 than the negative effects, he said. So why does the public hear only one side of this debate? Because the media do an awful job of reporting it.


"They’re absolutely lousy," he said of American journalists. "That’s true also in Europe. I don’t know why they’ve been brainwashed."


I know why: They’re lazy. Instead of digging into the details, most journalists are content to repeat that mantra about "consensus" among climate scientists.


The problem, said Dyson, is that the consensus is based on those computer models. Computers are great for analyzing what happened in the past, he said, but not so good at figuring out what will happen in the future. But a lot of scientists have built their careers on them. Hence the hatred for dissenters
.
http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2013/04/climatologists_are_no_einstein.html
 
Facts:
There have been many volcanic eruptions that have released more Co2 in one eruption than man has in his entire history.
Solar activity can directly effect the energy balance thus affecting the climate
Existing climate data based on actual occurances is a very small subset of data when you consider that it is based on roughly 100 years.

So as I stated, we have a very limited model and theories based on that model with nothing that can becalled 100% definitive. It seems as if you believe I am arguing against man having an effect. When in fact, I stated that I believe it is a combination of natural cycles and pollution accelerating the effect.

I don't think the volcano thing is true. Even the biggest volcanic eruptions in history released CO2 on a ~100 megaton scale. Humans on a yearly basis release ~25 gigatons.

No one argues that there aren't natural cycles, just that the natural cycles have nowhere near the amplitude or suddenness of man-made warning. We are comparing 0.2C over thousands of years to 2C over hundreds of years.
 
Here's an article today highlighting a Duke study on global warming stating what Prof. Dyson has repeatedly said: The computer models are WRONG.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...t-changes-natural-variability-says-study.html
Not calling you a science denier, but you may be scientifically illiterate.

"The research claims that natural variability in surface temperatures over the course of a decade can account for increases and dips in warming rates. But it adds that these so-called 'climate wiggles' could also, in the future, cause our planet to warm up much faster than anticipated."

"By comparing our model against theirs, we found that climate models largely get the 'big picture' right but seem to underestimate the magnitude of natural decade-to-decade climate wiggles,' Brown said."
 
I don't think the volcano thing is true. Even the biggest volcanic eruptions in history released CO2 on a ~100 megaton scale. Humans on a yearly basis release ~25 gigatons.



I'll have to read up on it again. Maybe I got bad information
 
Not calling you a science denier, but you may be scientifically illiterate.

"The research claims that natural variability in surface temperatures over the course of a decade can account for increases and dips in warming rates. But it adds that these so-called 'climate wiggles' could also, in the future, cause our planet to warm up much faster than anticipated."

"By comparing our model against theirs, we found that climate models largely get the 'big picture' right but seem to underestimate the magnitude of natural decade-to-decade climate wiggles,' Brown said."
In science the only facts are those which have already occurred and are provable by withstanding scientific scrutiny. Everything else is speculation.

The illiterate ones are those who hang their hats on words like could, may, seem to, might to claim that some event will occur. That's all that global warming alarmists have. In the real world they are called Scientific Wild Ass Guessers.

The beauty of science is that until theories has been proven and withstood peer review they are only guesses. The reason more and more imminently respected scientists are questioning and moving away from global warming alarmism is they are seeing or conducting research which blows holes in the global warming theories.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ostatedchi
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT