Political Crossfire Forums

[emt3197]

Headrattle wrote: ieatfood wrote: Bottom line--you people need to trust scientists

Fact #1: scientists know more about global warming than you
Fact #2: any "logical" argument that you can come up with against global warming is likely naiive and stupid, compared to what a scientist knows.
Fact #3: there is a scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming occurs
Fact #4: there is no scientific consensus on what impact this global warming will have on humans
Fact #5: global warming may be disastrous or it may be not so bad--we just don't know

These are the facts. You can decide for yourself what your position is. But facts are facts. Sorry.

Exactly.
Don't go to Environmentalists.
Don't go to Politicians.
Don't go to Priests.
If you want information about Climate Change, consult a Climatologist. And a majority of Climatologists believe that there is climate change and that it is caused my humans. They don't know excatly what will happen, but they are certain that we have an effect upon the climate. How far they understand that effect is currently up inthe air. However, we are learning more and more everyday.

You shouldn't discount scientific information just because you don't like it. I used to think that there was no such thing as Global Warming. But as more and more information comes out, I am more and more convinced that there is Global Climate Change. There is simply a point when you hve to accept the evidence.

You speak as if climatologists do not have agendas of their own. What do you think a scientist will say when they are trying to appropriate money from different sources. I have another idea: why not look for data from multiple places and do an unbiased review of all of the data. For example, many scientists claim that the polar ice caps are melting which is causing sea levels to rise worldwide. However, a lot of recent data shows that the ice caps are thickening, and there has been no rise in sea levels. Quit watching for unbiased coverage from environmental magazines and the mainstream media. They will only report what is beneficial to their view.

my advice to everyone on this issue is the same I give to people on a more political basis: Don't be a sheep. Don't believe what you hear until you can personally verify it. Do research for yourself and make an objective decision.

When I say research I mean look for the information yourself. It is out there, but it may take a little digging to find it. I do not mean to physically go out and perform the experiments yourself. I am sorry I had to clarify that, but some have decided to argue semantics with me before, so I will just clarify now.

[W.J. Wilczek]

deleted

[Headrattle]

emt3197 wrote: You speak as if climatologists do not have agendas of their own. What do you think a scientist will say when they are trying to appropriate money from different sources. I have another idea: why not look for data from multiple places and do an unbiased review of all of the data. For example, many scientists claim that the polar ice caps are melting which is causing sea levels to rise worldwide. However, a lot of recent data shows that the ice caps are thickening, and there has been no rise in sea levels. Quit watching for unbiased coverage from environmental magazines and the mainstream media. They will only report what is beneficial to their view.

I don't think you get it. That and you don't have the facts. First, a majority of the Climatologists believe in Climate Change. Not all of them, but those against climate change are the minority view. Also, you are incorrect. While some of the ice is getting thicker, most of the polar areas are loosing ice.

I am actually getting my information from Climitologists and not "environmental magizines and the mainstream media."

It is like you didn't even read my post.

Anyway, aboutthe Artic Ice you were talking about.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/ice-glacier.shtml
Shows a decrease in ice caps and glaciers and an increase in Sea Level.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/ice-seaice.shtml
A decrease in sea ice.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/ice-snow.shtml
Ice is melting earlier in the year.

This is from a National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration.
http://www.noaa.gov/about-noaa.html

NOAA’s Vision
“An informed society that uses a comprehensive understanding of the role of the oceans, coasts and atmosphere in the global ecosystem to make the best social and economic decisions”

NOAA’s Mission
“To understand and predict changes in the Earth’s environment and conserve and manage coastal and marine resources to meet our nation’s economic, social and environmental needs”

Quote: my advice to everyone on this issue is the same I give to people on a more political basis: Don't be a sheep. Don't believe what you hear until you can personally verify it. Do research for yourself and make an objective decision.

You should do that yourself.

[ieatfood]

Rising sea levels will not be a problem for rich countries. Rich countries can build counter-measures because they are um.....rich. Only poor countries will have problems.

[GTTofAK]

Climatologist is a word created scientists educated in completely different disciplines to monopolize the debate.

The term is really just a term of scientific fascism. Eventhouhg global warming as a macro idea that most scientists can fully understand you can use the term climatologist to push others out of the debate. Of course accepting global warming as your religion is also a prerequisite for becoming a "climatologist". So it is no surprise that most climatologist agree on global warming. Thats like polling a church to see how many people believe in God.

Lets look at arguably the two fathers of "climatology"Dr. Stephen H. Schneider and Dr. James Hansen.

Dr. Stephen H. Schneider: BS (Mechanical Engineering), 1967 Columbia University, ; MS (Mechanical Engineering), 1969 Columbia University; PhD (Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics), 1971 Columbia University.

(Hmmm almost identical to my own education)

Dr. James Hansen: B.A. (Physics and Mathematics), 1963, University of Iowa; M.S. (Astronomy), 1965, University of Iowa; Ph.D. (Physics), 1967, University of Iowa

There are the two most renowned climatologists both of them made so by their own hand. One is a mechanical engineer the other a Physicist. Neither have anything in their education that makes them climatologists.

Yet they both now work at Columbia which makes a boat load of money leading the world in "Climate Science". Not that all that money and prestige has any affect on their work.

[Random Evil Guy]

ieatfood wrote: Rising sea levels will not be a problem for rich countries. Rich countries can build counter-measures because they are um.....rich. Only poor countries will have problems.

the biggest problem for the richer countries will be the 'unknown' effects. for example, will the gulf stream change? will there be more large hurricanes and storms?

[Random Evil Guy]

GTTofAK wrote:
There are the two most renowned climatologists both of them made so by their own hand. One is a mechanical engineer the other a Physicist. Neither have anything in their education that makes them climatologists.


from hansen himself:

Quote: As a college student in Iowa, I was attracted to science and research by James Van Allen's space science program in the physics and astronomy department. Since then, it only took me a decade or so to realize that the most exciting planetary research involves trying to understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.

physics is definately relevant to climate research and he has worked in the field for nearly 30 years now. that is why he's the leading authority on climate science, not because he has a ph.d from iowa...

GTTofAK wrote:
Yet they both now work at Columbia which makes a boat load of money leading the world in "Climate Science". Not that all that money and prestige has any affect on their work.

can you document this accusations? can you present any evidence to support your claim?

furthermore, i challenge you to find even one scientist who is skeptical of global warming and that isn't directly funded by oil companies...

[John Galt]

Climatologists are not sure what effect clouds have on global warming. We don't know enough of the problem to say with an certiantiy that huamns are affecting the climate one way or another. While some may say "better safe than sorry" that's your peroggative. Donate all your money into ways to clean up the air. I don't care. But if you tax me one cent for it, then I start to care. I don't believe this hogwash; thirty years ago climitologists thought we were going to be entering a new ice age. The field does not have enough data to be anywhere near conclusive. Until their predictions can be down to be outside the range of chance and and repeatable and all that jazz, yoiu just can't believe them to be true at all. Perhaps they might have some weight on your beliefs but that does not mean they are objectivley true at all and no one has any right to push any thing on me about this issue. No Kyoto. No taxes on fuel. None of that. I promoste freedom of religion, and enviornmentalists are free to practice. But don't push your beliefs on me.

[Random Evil Guy]

John Galt wrote: Climatologists are not sure what effect clouds have on global warming. We don't know enough of the problem to say with an certiantiy that huamns are affecting the climate one way or another. While some may say "better safe than sorry" that's your peroggative. Donate all your money into ways to clean up the air. I don't care. But if you tax me one cent for it, then I start to care. I don't believe this hogwash; thirty years ago climitologists thought we were going to be entering a new ice age. The field does not have enough data to be anywhere near conclusive. Until their predictions can be down to be outside the range of chance and and repeatable and all that jazz, yoiu just can't believe them to be true at all. Perhaps they might have some weight on your beliefs but that does not mean they are objectivley true at all and no one has any right to push any thing on me about this issue.

answer me this: do you know why climate scientists are saying humans are probably responsible for the recent, rapid temperature increase?

i see you repeat this mantra 'we don't know' and 'too many uncertainties', but do you actually know what evidence climate science and global warming is based on? what concrete evidence would make you change your mind? btw, when i say concrete, i'd like you to give an exact example. not this 'outside of chance and all that jazz' like bulls**t...

[John Galt]

Random Evil Guy wrote: John Galt wrote: Climatologists are not sure what effect clouds have on global warming. We don't know enough of the problem to say with an certiantiy that huamns are affecting the climate one way or another. While some may say "better safe than sorry" that's your peroggative. Donate all your money into ways to clean up the air. I don't care. But if you tax me one cent for it, then I start to care. I don't believe this hogwash; thirty years ago climitologists thought we were going to be entering a new ice age. The field does not have enough data to be anywhere near conclusive. Until their predictions can be down to be outside the range of chance and and repeatable and all that jazz, yoiu just can't believe them to be true at all. Perhaps they might have some weight on your beliefs but that does not mean they are objectivley true at all and no one has any right to push any thing on me about this issue.

answer me this: do you know why climate scientists are saying humans are probably responsible for the recent, rapid temperature increase?

i see you repeat this mantra 'we don't know' and 'too many uncertainties', but do you actually know what evidence climate science and global warming is based on? what concrete evidence would make you change your mind? btw, when i say concrete, i'd like you to give an exact example. not this 'outside of chance and all that jazz' like bulls**t...

I'd like to see a 15 year climate projection that is outside of the range of chance. So it would have to be less than 5% off from factual, for 15 years. Only then can you say that they have the ability to predict anything. ZI don't think it is unreasonable. All other scientific fields are at this type of standard. When we send things to mars, after thousands upon thousands of miles of their journies, they are a few feet off from their planned landing point. Goto any science class. If you do experiments that give repeated wild results, you have a problem. You need to eliminate chance. And that's a 5% deviation.

[Random Evil Guy]

John Galt wrote: Random Evil Guy wrote: John Galt wrote: Climatologists are not sure what effect clouds have on global warming. We don't know enough of the problem to say with an certiantiy that huamns are affecting the climate one way or another. While some may say "better safe than sorry" that's your peroggative. Donate all your money into ways to clean up the air. I don't care. But if you tax me one cent for it, then I start to care. I don't believe this hogwash; thirty years ago climitologists thought we were going to be entering a new ice age. The field does not have enough data to be anywhere near conclusive. Until their predictions can be down to be outside the range of chance and and repeatable and all that jazz, yoiu just can't believe them to be true at all. Perhaps they might have some weight on your beliefs but that does not mean they are objectivley true at all and no one has any right to push any thing on me about this issue.

answer me this: do you know why climate scientists are saying humans are probably responsible for the recent, rapid temperature increase?

i see you repeat this mantra 'we don't know' and 'too many uncertainties', but do you actually know what evidence climate science and global warming is based on? what concrete evidence would make you change your mind? btw, when i say concrete, i'd like you to give an exact example. not this 'outside of chance and all that jazz' like bulls**t...

I'd like to see a 15 year climate projection that is outside of the range of chance. So it would have to be less than 5% off from factual, for 15 years. Only then can you say that they have the ability to predict anything. ZI don't think it is unreasonable. All other scientific fields are at this type of standard. When we send things to mars, after thousands upon thousands of miles of their journies, they are a few feet off from their planned landing point. Goto any science class. If you do experiments that give repeated wild results, you have a problem. You need to eliminate chance. And that's a 5% deviation.

why 5% and 15 years?

so you're saying no matter what the evidence, you won't be convinced until 15 years from now. best case scenario... :roll:

btw, you never answered my first question. do you know why scientists say humans are probably the reason for the recent increase in temperature?

[GTTofAK]

Random Evil Guy wrote: from hansen himself:

Quote: As a college student in Iowa, I was attracted to science and research by James Van Allen's space science program in the physics and astronomy department. Since then, it only took me a decade or so to realize that the most exciting planetary research involves trying to understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.

physics is definately relevant to climate research and he has worked in the field for nearly 30 years now. that is why he's the leading authority on climate science, not because he has a ph.d from iowa...

So he is self educated. You are also forgetting that for much of his career he advocated global cooling. Yet you still insist that other self-educated scientists cant debate on this subject. Since they are not climatologists. Of course being a climatologist means that you must accept global warming theory. So you don't want at debate at all, fascist.

Random Evil Guy wrote: GTTofAK wrote: Yet they both now work at Columbia which makes a boat load of money leading the world in "Climate Science". Not that all that money and prestige has any affect on their work.

can you document this accusations? can you present any evidence to support your claim?

So you are denying that they both work at Columbia which leads the world in "Climate Science." Boy you are really more of a lawyer than a scientist. Attempting to slow down the debate by making unnecessary demands. Again you don't want to debate, fascists.

But if you insist here is one of the grants that Hansen got that raised some eyebrows even among environmentalists.
www.worldclimatereport.com wrote: This is unheard of: A prominent scientist in the pay of the federal government attacks the President in a crucial state (Iowa) one week before the election. Not just any prominent scientist, either, but James Hansen, recipient of $250,000 in pocket change from the Heinz Foundation, run by Mrs. John Kerry. Don’t worry, though, he said he was speaking as a private citizen because he paid his own way. With Mrs. Kerry’s money, we might add, in his family nest egg.

Random Evil Guy wrote: furthermore, i challenge you to find even one scientist who is skeptical of global warming and that isn't directly funded by oil companies...

Yep 17,000 scientist funded by oil companies.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

[John Galt]

Random Evil Guy wrote: John Galt wrote: Random Evil Guy wrote: John Galt wrote: Climatologists are not sure what effect clouds have on global warming. We don't know enough of the problem to say with an certiantiy that huamns are affecting the climate one way or another. While some may say "better safe than sorry" that's your peroggative. Donate all your money into ways to clean up the air. I don't care. But if you tax me one cent for it, then I start to care. I don't believe this hogwash; thirty years ago climitologists thought we were going to be entering a new ice age. The field does not have enough data to be anywhere near conclusive. Until their predictions can be down to be outside the range of chance and and repeatable and all that jazz, yoiu just can't believe them to be true at all. Perhaps they might have some weight on your beliefs but that does not mean they are objectivley true at all and no one has any right to push any thing on me about this issue.

answer me this: do you know why climate scientists are saying humans are probably responsible for the recent, rapid temperature increase?

i see you repeat this mantra 'we don't know' and 'too many uncertainties', but do you actually know what evidence climate science and global warming is based on? what concrete evidence would make you change your mind? btw, when i say concrete, i'd like you to give an exact example. not this 'outside of chance and all that jazz' like bulls**t...

I'd like to see a 15 year climate projection that is outside of the range of chance. So it would have to be less than 5% off from factual, for 15 years. Only then can you say that they have the ability to predict anything. ZI don't think it is unreasonable. All other scientific fields are at this type of standard. When we send things to mars, after thousands upon thousands of miles of their journies, they are a few feet off from their planned landing point. Goto any science class. If you do experiments that give repeated wild results, you have a problem. You need to eliminate chance. And that's a 5% deviation.

why 5% and 15 years?

so you're saying no matter what the evidence, you won't be convinced until 15 years from now. best case scenario... :roll:

Well it has to be every year. I say 15 years since climate prediction is supposed to be far more than that. Like 100s of years, but I am being really reasonable here.

Quote: btw, you never answered my first question. do you know why scientists say humans are probably the reason for the recent increase in temperature?

Because we don't have accurate tempertures since before the industrilazation of the world and we assume we must be causing warming since it seems warmer now. Humans must be the reason. Nevermind the hockey stick has been discredited. Nevermind that water vapor is a far worse greenhouse gas than a world chocked with CO2 could ever hope to be. Nevermind that evidence points to the sun (imagine that) as the culprit in the horrors of a warmer planet. To hell with the facts, humans are evil!

But what is the real reason? Power. With all these enviornmental treaties being signed, the people of the various countries around the globe have given up so much of their soverngty. On paper, the UN has 70% of the world's landmass under it's control. Sure, our respective governments are the ones who "control" it. But they abide by the UN's bidding. The UN is a communist front organization hell bent on world domination and is using the fear mongering of psudeoscientists in one vast power grab and sheep gobble it all up. Our government should answer to no one else but the people. The fact we answer to the UN on anything is so very wrong on so many levels and very terrifying. Much of the US is under UN "Biospheres" (thanks Jimmy Carter for not passing that through the Senate and just signing them away!). Just look up Agenda 21 on the UN's website. It's all there.

[Random Evil Guy]

GTTofAK wrote:
So he is self educated.

nope. he has conducted actual scientific research directly relevant to climate change for nearly 30 years. i'd say he's qualified...

GTTofAK wrote:
You are also forgetting that for much of his career he advocated global cooling.

he only presented and explained the evidence.

GTTofAK wrote:
Yet you still insist that other self-educated scientists cant debate on this subject.

first of all, where did i say so? second, it's not about 'self educated' or not. it's about experience.

GTTofAK wrote:
Of course being a climatologist means that you must accept global warming theory.

wrong.

GTTofAK wrote:
So you are denying that they both work at Columbia which leads the world in "Climate Science."

you're a bit slow, aren't you? you hinted that somehow money and prestige influence their scientific research. prove it or shut it.

GTTofAK wrote:
Quote: This is unheard of: A prominent scientist in the pay of the federal government attacks the President in a crucial state (Iowa) one week before the election. Not just any prominent scientist, either, but James Hansen, recipient of $250,000 in pocket change from the Heinz Foundation, run by Mrs. John Kerry. Don’t worry, though, he said he was speaking as a private citizen because he paid his own way. With Mrs. Kerry’s money, we might add, in his family nest egg.

..and your problem with this is what? he said he was speaking for himself. not nasa or anyone else. do you want to restrict government employees' freedom of speech?

GTTofAK wrote:
Yep 17,000 scientist funded by oil companies.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

neither education nor experience is mentioned there. give me just one example of a climate scientist who seriously doubts the global warming theory and isn't funded by the oil industry. just one!

[Random Evil Guy]

John Galt wrote: Because we don't have accurate tempertures since before the industrilazation of the world and we assume we must be causing warming since it seems warmer now. Humans must be the reason. Nevermind the hockey stick has been discredited. Nevermind that water vapor is a far worse greenhouse gas than a world chocked with CO2 could ever hope to be. Nevermind that evidence points to the sun (imagine that) as the culprit in the horrors of a warmer planet. To hell with the facts, humans are evil!

But what is the real reason? Power. With all these enviornmental treaties being signed, the people of the various countries around the globe have given up so much of their soverngty. On paper, the UN has 70% of the world's landmass under it's control. Sure, our respective governments are the ones who "control" it. But they abide by the UN's bidding. The UN is a communist front organization hell bent on world domination and is using the fear mongering of psudeoscientists in one vast power grab and sheep gobble it all up. Our government should answer to no one else but the people. The fact we answer to the UN on anything is so very wrong on so many levels and very terrifying. Much of the US is under UN "Biospheres" (thanks Jimmy Carter for not passing that through the Senate and just signing them away!). Just look up Agenda 21 on the UN's website. It's all there.

sooo, you don't know?

[John Galt]

Give me one scientist who isn't bankrolled by anyone but himself who is a global warming theory worshipper.

[John Galt]

Random Evil Guy wrote: John Galt wrote: Because we don't have accurate tempertures since before the industrilazation of the world and we assume we must be causing warming since it seems warmer now. Humans must be the reason. Nevermind the hockey stick has been discredited. Nevermind that water vapor is a far worse greenhouse gas than a world chocked with CO2 could ever hope to be. Nevermind that evidence points to the sun (imagine that) as the culprit in the horrors of a warmer planet. To hell with the facts, humans are evil!

But what is the real reason? Power. With all these enviornmental treaties being signed, the people of the various countries around the globe have given up so much of their soverngty. On paper, the UN has 70% of the world's landmass under it's control. Sure, our respective governments are the ones who "control" it. But they abide by the UN's bidding. The UN is a communist front organization hell bent on world domination and is using the fear mongering of psudeoscientists in one vast power grab and sheep gobble it all up. Our government should answer to no one else but the people. The fact we answer to the UN on anything is so very wrong on so many levels and very terrifying. Much of the US is under UN "Biospheres" (thanks Jimmy Carter for not passing that through the Senate and just signing them away!). Just look up Agenda 21 on the UN's website. It's all there.

sooo, you don't know?

No, I do. I'm sure you'll show me some stupid graphs that really don't mean jack because there are all sorts of graphs I can show you that you say won't mean jack that show local warming but not global warming and I can show you satilite data that directley refutes the whole theory (the upper atmosphere temps should be increaing at a higher rate, but becasue only localized human-induced heating is occuring, the ground is what is warmer) but you'll just pull out some ice core pics that show the correlation between CO2 and warmth. I'l lthen point out that the CO2 rose only AFTER the temp and then we'll continue on with some more bulls**t.

The climate did not happen. It is not abiogenesis or something like that. It happens. Since it happens we can study it. If we actually knew what we were talking about, we could predict it, within the realm of chance. SINCE WE CAN'T DO THAT then we can't know what is causing global warming.

Which, btw, hasn't been happening for the better part of a decade.

[Random Evil Guy]

John Galt wrote:
No, I do.

not really. this is just part of the evidence which supports the claim... do you know which other evidence there is that supports the theory that the recent global warming is caused by human activity?

John Galt wrote:
I'm sure you'll show me some stupid graphs that really don't mean jack because there are all sorts of graphs I can show you that you say won't mean jack that show local warming but not global warming and I can show you satilite data that directley refutes the whole theory (the upper atmosphere temps should be increaing at a higher rate, but becasue only localized human-induced heating is occuring, the ground is what is warmer) but you'll just pull out some ice core pics that show the correlation between CO2 and warmth.

wrong. those data are old and have been corrected. the new results show atmospheric warming trend slightly larger than at the surface. like one would expect.

John Galt wrote:
I'l lthen point out that the CO2 rose only AFTER the temp and then we'll continue on with some more bulls**t.

hm, yeah. i wonder why... :roll: ever heard of the oceans and the effect they have on the temperature? it's called thermal inertia and the oceans 'store' heat which leads to a lag between the increas in co2 and the temperature.

John Galt wrote:
Since it happens we can study it. If we actually knew what we were talking about, we could predict it, within the realm of chance. SINCE WE CAN'T DO THAT then we can't know what is causing global warming.

we can predict it to within a given certainty.

[Random Evil Guy]

John Galt wrote: Give me one scientist who isn't bankrolled by anyone but himself who is a global warming theory worshipper.

this makes no sense whatsoever.

[John Galt]

Yes I know oceans store heat. Why would they release the heat before the CO2 rose? Did you read what you wrote?

As for what I said that "makes no sense" you continually claim that scientists who are being like Galelieo and doubting conventional wisdom of the religious fanatics are pawns of the oil companies (which makes no sense they want to drive profits up and it is much more believable that they are behind the peak oil nonsense than global warming) and I say the others are pawns of the religious zealots. So everyone's a pawn, and unless youi can find one that isn't, then you are committing a fallacy when you look for people who are against the religious furvor that has swept much of the so-called scientific community regarding this usse as being pawns.