Cool!, No Wait, Warm, I am confused!

[Doc Bernard]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01

I believe in conservation of resources, and going gentle on Mother Earth, but I never did buy into the "Global Warming" theory and........our illustrious ex-Vice President's book. LMAO! That thing had fear mongering all in it, and very inaccurate or misleading info being touted as real science. "Inaccurate Truth" would be a better title.

Way too much hype and fanaticism was generated and sadly, people used this to line their pockets. How many businesses sprang up overnight with products touting how "they were Green" and "Help Save Mother Earth". Don't get me started on "Carbon Credits". People just went nuts over this and basically a religion sprang up out of it.

I hope that this debacle has one positive, that we do be conscientious with our energy consumption, and never get too rabid over pseudo-science before it is accurately proven. Ed Bagley, Jr. has a point (well, not to the extent he takes it), but let's keep the freak outs to a minimum and over the right things. Taxes are going up, unemployment is at an all time high, and the economy is still a mess. There's a good reason to freak out.

 

[Doc Bernard]

I'll be interested to see if people consider this "polictical" or a discussion of scientific theory. If it is political, LOL, I think then the point is proven, that GW is not science.

 

[Jon Starr]

Before this gets closed-

Not saying this is wrong, but I've seen lots of evidence for 'climate change' (I'm calling it climate change and not global warming for a reason). Also I've listened to an anti-global warming expert on radio one time and this person sounded more like a moon conspiracy nut, claiming to not understand the science behind global warming and always diverting her ignorance by saying 'there are starving children in Africa, doesn't matter if i don't understand.' Not to mention that people would call in and say 'I don't understand the science either, and I'm glad to hear all this nonsense is not real!'

So I don't know what's going on with this lack of increase of temperature, if it is true, but till they analyze the data and come out with something more grounded, I say screaming 'climate change is a hoax' and saying 'they're trying to hide it!' is not something I'll fall for until it's more concrete. I'm not saying I want to hear al gore say it, but I want to hear an expert say it, not 'anti-global warming "experts"' who don't understand the science.

As for people making a paycheck out of this, lots of companies are actually losing money. This is why they needed to change their image to 'go green'.

 

[Doc Bernard]

Myself as well, I'd like to see the science. Global Warming Theory based their evidence off a relatively short period of time before 1998, and used those numbers to extrapolate before and after that time period. That is not science, that is conjecture. The weather/climate in any given place on Earth has trends it follows. Occasionally those trends shift.

But this takes place over long periods of time. We know there was an Ice Age (I saw the cartoons), seriously though, there is historical data to support that, who caused that? Human were not polluting then (although I would imagine the "exhaust" from a brontosaurus was pretty polluting). And there was a time before that where the world was temperate. But the shift took Eons to complete. Humans have not been on this earth long enough to accurately foretell any major climate shift, we don't have the data, and this has proven it. Not that Global Warming Theory is blatantly false, but that it is just conjecture and blind extrapolation.

When it really comes down to it, the archeologist of the future will be the only ones able to accurately say if there was an abnormal shift in temperature due to man, or was there a normal trend shift.

Jon, each "camp" has their "nuts". I don't go for hype of any kind. But sticking your head in the sand like some of the people both of us has heard does nobody any good. "I don't Understand the science" is not a reason to believe one way or another. I think people should see the unmassaged data. I did go buy the book and read it. I also bought other GW books to see what they were basing their data on. Because if the data was accurate, I'd be one of the loudest proponents out there. But their data was inherently flawed due to a lack of accurate measurements and observations. And many people just blindly assumed it was correct, because they "didn't understand the science" either.

It was like taking a "random" sample of a million cars on an assembly line. But just taking 100 of them from the end, thoroughly inspecting them, and calling that "random" and just looking through a pair of binoculars at the very beginning of the line to observe any major flaws. Then going on to say "since these cars are all good, the rest of them are too, as will all of them be in the future" But that is what GWT has done. That is wholly inaccurate, you need to accurately sample from the beginning to end for a real observation. We cannot go back and accurately measure temperature and weather a million years ago. So we can only see general evidence in certain time periods (ie, there was an ice age, there was a moderate time, a volcano erupted) These are major events. But based on their "sampling", they predicted what was to come and lots of people swallowed it completely. There is no way they can say between the years 5569776 BC and 556900 BC the temperature rose by 2 degrees celsius earthwide. We didn't have measuring equipment back then, and if we did, humans sure couldn't read/use them and take accurate notes for today's climatologists.

 

[Sad Max]

Myself as well, I'd like to see the science. Global Warming Theory based their evidence off a relatively short period of time before 1998, and used those numbers to extrapolate before and after that time period.

Not entirely. The model also draws upon geologic and atmospheric composition data going back as far as 650,000 years ago.

That is not science, that is conjecture.

In scientific terms it's a hypothesis. Which is not interchangeable with conjecture.

The weather/climate in any given place on Earth has trends it follows. Occasionally those trends shift. But this takes place over long periods of time.

One of the indicators supporting the idea of human-influenced global warming is the fact that recent systemic climate changes have happened much faster - coincident with the rise of industrialization - than the long-period trends to which you refer.

We know there was an Ice Age (I saw the cartoons), seriously though, there is historical data to support that, who caused that? Human were not polluting then (although I would imagine the "exhaust" from a brontosaurus was pretty polluting). And there was a time before that where the world was temperate. But the shift took Eons to complete.

See above. The rapidity and timing of recent climate shifts suggests that there may be a new factor in place: human activity. The linkage between 'greenhouse gases' and thermal retention is on firm and widely-accepted scientific ground - you may notice that while the 'debate' continues on global warming, that basic contributory mechanism is not particularly in doubt.

Humans have not been on this earth long enough to accurately foretell any major climate shift, we don't have the data, and this has proven it.

650,000 years' worth of supporting data is not as easy for me to dismiss as it is, to you.

Not that Global Warming Theory is blatantly false, but that it is just conjecture and blind extrapolation.

*shrug* unfortunately most any scientific study with which someone finds it desirable to disagree, can be dismissed as conjecture and blind extrapolation should there be the will to do so.

When it really comes down to it, the archeologist of the future will be the only ones able to accurately say if there was an abnormal shift in temperature due to man, or was there a normal trend shift.

Did the available data covering almost 700,000 of atmospherics just vanish? Why are only future archaeologists permitted to review past data...?

"I don't Understand the science" is not a reason to believe one way or another.

It's mostly a reason to mind one's own business, really. With zero comprehension of the arguments one way or the other, comes zero privilege in joining the dogpile.

I think people should see the unmassaged data.

Do you really believe that people with no useful background in meteorology, physics, climatology, geology and chemistry have any use for the 'unmassaged data' beyond maybe propping up a wobbly table leg? I'm not too proud to say up front that I lack the background to interpret the instrument feeds involved, without any form of correlation. How about you?

It was like taking a "random" sample of a million cars on an assembly line. But just taking 100 of them from the end, thoroughly inspecting them, and calling that "random" and just looking through a pair of binoculars at the very beginning of the line to observe any major flaws. Then going on to say "since these cars are all good, the rest of them are too, as will all of them be in the future" But that is what GWT has done.

An absolutely non-functional analogy. A planetary climate does not find useful simile in an auto-manufacturing line.

That is wholly inaccurate, you need to accurately sample from the beginning to end for a real observation. We cannot go back and accurately measure temperature and weather a million years ago.

Although we can suggest conclusions based upon the nature and composition of sample materials dating to those periods.

 

[Zak Forsman]

I'll be interested to see if people consider this "polictical" or a discussion of scientific theory. If it is political, LOL, I think then the point is proven, that GW is not science.

it is both. a politically-charged discussion of scientific theory. end of discussion.