Grist for the mill--Climate Change Shenanigans

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by machinehead :p

lol
Pollution, so easy a caveman could do it?

[John D Harris]

Originally Posted by machinehead First name on your list of "scientists". Dr. Earl Aagaard, of Pacific Union College’s biology department, wrote “The Importance of the Intelligent Design Theory for Seventh-day Adventists.” He invites us to vaccinate ourselves against all seductive materialistic influences and to make it abundantly clear that we accept the Bible account of Creation as true. Second name, Charles W. Aami. Field: Unknown Third name, Roger L. Aamodt. Field: Oncology. Relevant publications on climate change? None. Forth name, Wilbur A. Aanes. Field: Veterinary surgery (specifically “large animal surgery"). Relevant publications on climate change? None. Fifth name, M. Robert Aaron, DECEASED. Field: Telecommunications. Relevant publications on climate change? None. ETC........

ok what are your qualifications, if you are going to dismiss theirs then submitt yours.... oh by the way you still have 31,484 to go so bring it on. After all your position is that they have to have education and studied that SPECIFIC narrow field in order to have any coment on it.

And while we at it let's look at the pure an lilly white Professor Jones of the CRU.... 'Climategate' professor Phil Jones awarded £13 million in research grants http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/cop...ch-grants.html
hmmmm 13 million pounds in grants oh no there's NO conflict in interest there's nothing like bringing grant money to the Univesity he works for to justify his position.... beam me up Scotty... ROTFLMAO

Edit: That's all you got machinehead? All you can do is attack the signers but nothing zipp nadda on the paper the science..... come on can't you refute the science... It's all there right there for you to see and read I'm just an simple old country boy and I could read it and understand it.

[machinehead]

machinehead. Field: machinist, graduate of The Art Institute of Boston. Relevant publications on climate change? None.
See.....?

[SecretMaster]

follow this link for those there is no "evidence contrary to man made global warming" deniers, how about some peer reviewed papers found here: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm updated link: http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php

Thank you for doing my work for me when I posted this way back in page 2 or 3.

Ironically I find the majority of scientists arguing against climate change have little background in fields pertinent in studying the issue. There was a great paper that tried to debunk the claims of climate change published in some sort of physicians medical journal. That gave me a real laugh, if I remember the author and paper name I will link it.

There are several huge gripes I have with this "paper" that I want to highlight. First and foremost, the paper is published in the format of a paper published by the National Academy of Sciences. However, the NAS did not publish the paper, and it is extremely deceptive in that respect.

Secondly, it was finally published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. One has to pause and think as to why a paper dealing with climate science is being published in a medical journal. What relevance does it have in that journal? The peer-reviewing and editorial process will certainly not be as rigorous for a paper dealing with climate science when their editorial staff has no real education in that field.

Things become a little more revealing with more nosing around and looking up the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. The Journal is a bogus journal filled with junk publications and junk science. Don't believe me? Take a look at some of their other publications:

http://www.jpands.org/vol12no4/bauer.pdf
http://www.jpands.org/vol10no3/lehrman.pdf
http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf

In fact, this Journal is highly credible at all. It's just another right-wing outlet that barely passes the facade of a real academic journal. A great opinion piece on this journal is found here.

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/editor/86/8623editor.html

The amazing thing about the internet is that you can find anything if you search for it. There is no irrefuteable science involved with climate. Going back a century, or worse, 40 years, is not conclusive proof of yay or nay on climate concerns. This is why I have held a steadfast position of no concern. If the overall evidence was so overwhelming in one direction or the other, there would be no debate. The fact that the scientific community cannot even agree, and that some of them are backpedalling off of formerly held beliefs screams the planet is going to do whatever it's going to do. While it cannot be debated that we do indeed leave our mark upon the world, the fact that we are going to destroy ourselves via climate is at best far fetched. All the "science" that I have seen so far starts with a conclusion, and works to prove it. Pro side wants to prove it is happening, con side wants to prove it isn't, and they work to that end. Since true science starts with data and the processes that for a conclusion, how can I consider climate change science, for either side, science?

Are you even listening to what I wrote at all. I keep explaining this over and over, and backing it up with references and links that come from real, academic publications not the internet (they are made available on the internet by their respective institutions. Our understanding of climate change came from the data.

The whole of this scientific assessment started with David Keeling and his published Keeling Curve/Mauna Loa Curve. He was studying Atmospheric CO2 concentrations, was analyzing the data, and he started to realize what was going on. From then there has been an incredible amount of scientific work since Keeling originally raised concerns. None of the science started with a conclusion. Most of it doesn't start with a conclusion. You want to know how most of the research is conducted? It is along the lines of "Author A and B, or Author A et al found a relationship to exist between two variables. Why don't we study that relationship in regards to another variable and see how another part of the system is impacted"

And yes, if you search for it you can find anything on the internet. But there is the question of credibility and reliability, and which is why I said earlier people need to think critically about what they are reading. Look for citations, and see where those citations come from. There is almost everything on the internet, but much of it is false and speculative. Everything I have provided has well detailed citations and backed up claims that have been proven. I don't think anyone else has done the same, and you have personally chosen the "I'm too lazy argument" which quite frankly, holds very little weight to your claims. That doesn't pass within the realms of academia.

Say I go to the dentist, and he takes some X-rays on me, and tells me my wisdom teeth are growing at the wrong angles and need to be removed. As a patient, I would ask to see the x-rays (as would my insurance company because they wouldn't want to pay for unnecessary surgery), but all he'll show me is a copy of a copy that's got sharpie marks all over it obscuring the original data, which may or may not clearly show that he's telling the truth. I would be a fool to take that doctors word for it, and would go to another dentist who will demonstrate clearly and without doubt that those wisdom teeth are in fact growing in crookedly, and need to be removed. So far as more and more is uncovered, we're reallizing the second scenario, but the EPA, Congress, and the President seem to be willing to charge in full speed based off of "a copy of a copy, obscured by sharpie-marks concealing or altering the original data." It's especially worrying when tens of thousands of scientists most with Ph.D's say, "no this is wrong."

Now you are arguing a very different thing. You said science has become the "new religion" which I argued was false with my analogies.

I would also love to see a list of these "tens of thousands of scientists with Ph.D's" who disagree. It is also more than just of an issue of having a Ph.D. It is an issue of what field your Ph.D is in (what good is a Ph.D. in psychology in assessing climate change), the publications that a Ph.D. has published, and lastly their scientific affiliations, if any. Machinehead demonstrated very well the individuals on the list that JohnDHarris linked weren't really credible.

[SecretMaster]

Originally Posted by John D Harris ok what are your qualifications, if you are going to dismiss theirs then submitt yours.... oh by the way you still have 31,484 to go so bring it on. After all your position is that they have to have education and studied that SPECIFIC narrow field in order to have any coment on it. And while we at it let's look at the pure an lilly white Professor Jones of the CRU.... 'Climategate' professor Phil Jones awarded £13 million in research grants http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/cop...ch-grants.html hmmmm 13 million pounds in grants oh no there's NO conflict in interest there's nothing like bringing grant money to the Univesity he works for to justify his position.... beam me up Scotty... ROTFLMAO Edit: That's all you got machinehead? All you can do is attack the signers but nothing zipp nadda on the paper the science..... come on can't you refute the science... It's all there right there for you to see and read I'm just an simple old country boy and I could read it and understand it.

Jeeze you act extremely condescending and now I post my reponse. What is your response?

[robertthebard]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca How do we know what the percent chance is that humans will alter the climate? What are our odds right now? If most scientists are wrong, who gets to determine or make up that number? What percent chance is enough to say "stop putting lots of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere!"?

Since the biggest gripe is Carbon Dioxide, plant a tree. Nature's own atmosphere scrubber. My question is, where are the numbers that will make scientists on the Con side say "Whoa, GW is real"? I have been a proponent of conservation, and trying to be greener. I have not been a proponent of force feeding something that cannot be categorically proven enough to make the majority of scientists jump on board. Relativity is broadly accepted, even though there is a school or two(?) of physicists that question it. However, just like Creation/Evolution, there isn't enough evidence to shut one side or the other up.

Data from 40 years ago suggested that we were going to have another Ice Age, and now it's conclusive data to indicate that world is warming up? How, exactly, does that work? I've heard that if it keeps going, our coastlines will drastically change due to flooding from all the melted ice too, still laughing heartily on that one. But here, let me show you why that particular one is so amusing: Go into the kitchen, and make a glass of ice water. Now, set it on the counter, and forget about it. Go back in a few hours. Are you going to have to clean up any water?

No, unless the glass sweated a bit, you're not, in fact, the water level will roughly be the same. But, how is that possible, all the ice melted, it should have overflowed???? Simple really, the mass made up for the actual volume of water in the ice. You know what? I didn't need a degree in physics to learn that. I learned it as a bartender in a strip club...Go GW/CC scientists, go...

[machinehead]

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/10/c...-robinson.html

There are, of course, many more errors and distortions in the Robinson et al. (2007) paper, but there comes a point when enough should be enough. The errors described above should be sufficient evidence for any fair-minded person to conclude Robinson et al. (2007) is not a serious scientific paper. Instead, it appears to be nothing more than a clumsy attempt to distort the evidence for anthropogenic global warming in order to sow confusion in the minds of people not already familiar with the evidence.

[machinehead]

Originally Posted by robertthebard Since the biggest gripe is Carbon Dioxide, plant a tree. Nature's own atmosphere scrubber. My question is, where are the numbers that will make scientists on the Con side say "Whoa, GW is real"? I have been a proponent of conservation, and trying to be greener. I have not been a proponent of force feeding something that cannot be categorically proven enough to make the majority of scientists jump on board. Relativity is broadly accepted, even though there is a school or two(?) of physicists that question it. However, just like Creation/Evolution, there isn't enough evidence to shut one side or the other up. Data from 40 years ago suggested that we were going to have another Ice Age, and now it's conclusive data to indicate that world is warming up? How, exactly, does that work? I've heard that if it keeps going, our coastlines will drastically change due to flooding from all the melted ice too, still laughing heartily on that one. But here, let me show you why that particular one is so amusing: Go into the kitchen, and make a glass of ice water. Now, set it on the counter, and forget about it. Go back in a few hours. Are you going to have to clean up any water? No, unless the glass sweated a bit, you're not, in fact, the water level will roughly be the same. But, how is that possible, all the ice melted, it should have overflowed???? Simple really, the mass made up for the actual volume of water in the ice. You know what? I didn't need a degree in physics to learn that. I learned it as a bartender in a strip club...Go GW/CC scientists, go...

Isn't there quite a bit of ice above sea level on solid ground? Greenland, northern Canada and Antartica come to mind.

[SecretMaster]

Originally Posted by machinehead Isn't there quite a bit of ice above sea level on solid ground? Greenland, northern Canada and Antartica come to mind.

You get it. Thank you.

[robertthebard]

The ice that is above sea level, that isn't on dry land, is still contributing mass to the water levels. Am I to believe that ice that isn't in water has less weight than ice that is in water, just because it may be resting on top of other ice? In my ice water experiment, you can see that the ice may not necessarily be below the surface of the water, and if ice is resting on top of ice, the water level will remain the same when the ice melts. However, you do not have to take my word for it, this is an environmentally safe experiment that you can do at home. Only ice cubes will be harmed in testing it out.