Global Warming

[Neoteny]

Site's down at the moment, but I imagine it'll be back up shortly.

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2 ... ceptic.php

EDIT: It's back up.

[StiffMittens]

Are you asking PLAYER to reference articles refuting sources that you aren't providing?

Yes. I thought maybe she would have a nice link to a general refutation of sources that refute sources that support man-made global warming. I could refernce the other thread, but I can't find it.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

[PLAYER57832]

Are you asking PLAYER to reference articles refuting sources that you aren't providing?

Yes. I thought maybe she would have a nice link to a general refutation of sources that refute sources that support man-made global warming. I could refernce the other thread, but I can't find it.

The problem is that unless you cite specific objections, I have no idea what data to source to show you are wrong.

The second problem is that this debate was over, for me, about 20 years ago when I was actively studying the issue in college and had access to all the latest (and older) data on the matter. I have kept abredst of new information to a point and nothing, NOTHING presented with credibility refutes that the climate is changing, at least partially due to our acts as human beings here on earth...and that these changes will harm us.

That gets to the biggest problem with this sort of "debate". You or Gabonx can put "climate warming" into Google and come up with thousands of articles. Because of how Google works, those putting forward the most outlandish pronouncements often (not always) appear near the top, are easy to understand and fun to read. The real, credible science is more often boring, buried a bit, often difficult to understand and, even when fully understood, tends to be couched will so many "if this..." and "maybe" and "the probability is"... etc. (i.e. qualifiers and disclaimers of sorts) that they seem far more tentative than they really are. I mean, you 'd have a hard time getting a true scientists to say absolutely 100% for sure that the sun will rise tommorrow!


My point was that if you really do look at ALL the evidence and take into account the background, training, quality of the studies, as well as incentives to slant the truth, tendencies to pre-conceived ideas... you find that the debate is and has been over for some time. However, that takes a LOT more time and effort than simply posting a few internet links.

Just because a few people don't wish to concede does not mean there really is a debate. My toddler and 8 year old each like to, in their various ways, periodically tell us that their bedtimes really are too early... and keep trying, even though any objective source will tell them the "fight" is lost before they begin.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

[/quote]

I did not go into the individual articles, becuase it mostly seems to be a report of categories of scepticism. I did notice that even the most prominent theory represents less than 8% of the arguments.


Anyway, I see nothing new. The response for almost all ranges from a sort of a "well ... duh" (we know this, but it is irrelevant or is understood to be part of the problem... etc.) to "not exactly" (that parts of the earth will cool does not, in any way mean the theory is wrong, it means that people pay too much attention to the mis-labeling early on of the phenomena as "global warming") to "if so, then we are doomed anyway... let's hope its something else... and do what we CAN in the meantime" (even if the sun is part of the cause, it still behooves us to control those things we CAN to mitigate the damages as much as possible).

[StiffMittens]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

I did not go into the individual articles, becuase it mostly seems to be a report of categories of scepticism. I did notice that even the most prominent theory represents less than 8% of the arguments.

Anyway, I see nothing new. The response for almost all ranges from a sort of a "well ... duh" (we know this, but it is irrelevant or is understood to be part of the problem... etc.) to "not exactly" (that parts of the earth will cool does not, in any way mean the theory is wrong, it means that people pay too much attention to the mis-labeling early on of the phenomena as "global warming") to "if so, then we are doomed anyway... let's hope its something else... and do what we CAN in the meantime" (even if the sun is part of the cause, it still behooves us to control those things we CAN to mitigate the damages as much as possible).

You should explore that resource further. It's pretty interesting. Each article introduces a common argument against global warming and shows how it is most often used, and then proceeds to show how the argument is wrong (including links to other resources which detail the science), and then to top it all off there is a short bibliography of where these arguments have been used. Very useful, I think.

[Neoteny]

Seems well referenced as well.

[Martin Ronne]

[PLAYER57832]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

I did not go into the individual articles, becuase it mostly seems to be a report of categories of scepticism. I did notice that even the most prominent theory represents less than 8% of the arguments.

Anyway, I see nothing new. The response for almost all ranges from a sort of a "well ... duh" (we know this, but it is irrelevant or is understood to be part of the problem... etc.) to "not exactly" (that parts of the earth will cool does not, in any way mean the theory is wrong, it means that people pay too much attention to the mis-labeling early on of the phenomena as "global warming") to "if so, then we are doomed anyway... let's hope its something else... and do what we CAN in the meantime" (even if the sun is part of the cause, it still behooves us to control those things we CAN to mitigate the damages as much as possible).

You should explore that resource further. It's pretty interesting. Each article introduces a common argument against global warming and shows how it is most often used, and then proceeds to show how the argument is wrong (including links to other resources which detail the science), and then to top it all off there is a short bibliography of where these arguments have been used. Very useful, I think.

Yes, thanks.

And thanks to Neoteny, also.

I have saved the links. The basic problem, though is that all those refutations seem perfectly legitimate if you don't know better... and more fun, in many cases. It takes WORK to understand truth in science and people are fundamentally lazy.

sources like those you 2 cited helped, but the real fix is ... yep, again... to make sure that every child in this country learns real science and real critical thinking.

[Frigidus]

That T-shirt actually sums up how those that don't global warming view the situation pretty accurately: in complete ignorance of the science behind it. To be honest, though, people saying things like "well, duh the earth's gonna heat up with all them there sun" or "I sure coulda used some global warming last January" would probably shock me more if not for anti-evolution arguments already warming me up.

[broncojd78]

the problem is that people look at global warming as the only impact on the earth of humanity's irresponsible use of natural resources.

you can argue global warming all day long. you know what? i'll GIVE YOU that global warming doesn't exist. does that mean you can continue to consume natural resources without a negative impact on the environment? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

what some fail to see is the interdependence of all elements of nature. and when we (humans) consume resources at an unsustainable rate, then it is obvious we face certain catastrophe.

if you take 100, and subtract 2. and add one. then subtract two, then add one. eventually you're going to get to zero. that is what we are doing now. some people argue that the number to start is bigger than 100. some argue that we're consuming more than 2 at a time. some argue we're restoring more than one at a time. bottom line is we consume more than the earth can regenerate. that is what spells disaster. that is why something has to be changed.

[neanderpaul14]

Why in the hell did Al Gore invent Global Warming anyway?

[Martin Ronne]

That T-shirt actually sums up how those that don't global warming view the situation pretty accurately: in complete ignorance of the science behind it. To be honest, though, people saying things like "well, duh the earth's gonna heat up with all them there sun" or "I sure coulda used some global warming last January" would probably shock me more if not for anti-evolution arguments already warming me up.

Oh I understand the "science" of it just fine. Science is that which can be repeated over and over again with the same results. Global warming however, (as with evolution) does not fit those parameters.

[Martin Ronne]

Why in the hell did Al Gore invent Global Warming anyway?

The man is very creative. After all, he invented the internet didn't he?

[PLAYER57832]

Oh I understand the "science" of it just fine. Science is that which can be repeated over and over again with the same results. Global warming however, (as with evolution) does not fit those parameters.

Then no, you don't understand science.

[Martin Ronne]

Oh I understand the "science" of it just fine. Science is that which can be repeated over and over again with the same results. Global warming however, (as with evolution) does not fit those parameters.

Then no, you don't understand science.

Yes, I do. Unless of course we're talking about "well thought out theory" science that everyone goes along with because "he has a PHD".

[Simon Viavant]

Why in the hell did Al Gore invent Global Warming anyway?

AHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

Troll Harder.

[PLAYER57832]

Oh I understand the "science" of it just fine. Science is that which can be repeated over and over again with the same results. Global warming however, (as with evolution) does not fit those parameters.

Then no, you don't understand science.

Yes, I do. Unless of course we're talking about "well thought out theory" science that everyone goes along with because "he has a PHD".

You don't and we are not. We are talking about real, truthful science that requires more than simply reading a few catchy articles you found in Google or listening to some theories from people who think that their failure to understand science gives them the right to criticize it as poppycock.

Your reference to "he has a PhD" (spelling corrected) is an example. A PhD in science means that person has done original and unique research in something. Generally a very small something. Often in the course, they have a broad knowledge of their general field and related issues, but not necessarily. My former boss had a PhD, yet she still asked me to teach certain classes on everything from procedures I helped develop to understandings of species/life cycles I studied... and I have only a bachelor degree. A bit unusual, that, but more in that she allowed me to take full credit.

However, as has been pointed out, every thread does not need to become a debate over Creationism or the validity of science. So, I will be more than happy to debate this, to show you exactly, in detail why and how you are wrong. (and you are free to show me any evidence you have to the contrary). However, not here.

[neanderpaul14]

Why in the hell did Al Gore invent Global Warming anyway?

AHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

Troll Harder.

Excuse you??

[Martin Ronne]

Oh I understand the "science" of it just fine. Science is that which can be repeated over and over again with the same results. Global warming however, (as with evolution) does not fit those parameters.

Then no, you don't understand science.

Yes, I do. Unless of course we're talking about "well thought out theory" science that everyone goes along with because "he has a PHD".

You don't and we are not. We are talking about real, truthful science that requires more than simply reading a few catchy articles you found in Google or listening to some theories from people who think that their failure to understand science gives them the right to criticize it as poppycock.

Your reference to "he has a PhD" (spelling corrected) is an example. A PhD in science means that person has done original and unique research in something. Generally a very small something. Often in the course, they have a broad knowledge of their general field and related issues, but not necessarily. My former boss had a PhD, yet she still asked me to teach certain classes on everything from procedures I helped develop to understandings of species/life cycles I studied... and I have only a bachelor degree. A bit unusual, that, but more in that she allowed me to take full credit.

However, as has been pointed out, every thread does not need to become a debate over Creationism or the validity of science. So, I will be more than happy to debate this, to show you exactly, in detail why and how you are wrong. (and you are free to show me any evidence you have to the contrary). However, not here.

I did not bring up the subject of evolution, that was Frigidus.

A pHd (who the hell cares how it's spelled) in any thing means the person has played the college game in the pre-approved way. It is a piece of paper, one which in several years after I have received my bachelors and masters, I intend on obtaining.

P.S. Though I said, "who the hell cares how it is spelled," I thought it might be fun to point out that it is PhD, but rather Ph.D.

[Snorri1234]

Yes, I do.

No you don't you fucking moron.

[JoshyBoy]

Global Warming is BS!

Seriously...

[Simon Viavant]

Is not!

[PLAYER57832]

This only works if the money is going to fund real science education, including that upon which the ideas of Global climate change are based.

[Martin Ronne]

Yes, I do.

No you don't you fucking moron.

How dare I contradict your views!! Right?

[JoshyBoy]

Is not!

Shut up!

Yes it is. All it is, like every fucking thing on this planet, is something that has been hyped up to make us all afraid. Fear controls about 99% of the earth's population. We're ALL afraid of something, mostly things which relate back to death.

The other 1% are mentally retarded and don't even know the difference between gravy and diarrhea excrimant or have some mental problems.

"Global Warming", as the pathetic term is, is BS!

[PLAYER57832]

Yes, I do.

No you don't you fucking moron.

How dare I contradict your views!! Right?

Its more like you don't have the knowledge, education or experience to contradict the millions of scientists who agree that global climate change is coming and we had best do what we can to mitigate the damage.

Further, you make it clear you cannot be bothered to really do the work it would take for you to even find this out. You prefer to think that you know ... and most of the rest of the world is just playing a big conspiracy game.