True cause of global warming

EdFred said:
Vegetarians produce more methane than carnivores, the obvious solution is to get rid of the vegetarians.

We should also ban oceans since they produce the most water vapor, and hold more heat than land does.
Click to expand...

Don't bother. Water vapor changes to the liquid state at normal atmospheric temperatures, and consequently returns to equilibrium much more quickly that CO2.
 
Anthony said:
The TRUE cause of Global Warming or the newer nomenclature, man made global climate change, is the need for the left for another income/wealth redistribution scheme. The branding of "Communism" failed, so a new name, and a new religion had to be created that was more palatable. Especially palatable for those that need a cause, or to sound more attractive to maleable children in schools and universities.

In Europe they have a saying. Green really means Red.
Click to expand...

Wow, so the left dominated climate science in the 19th century? Who knew!
 
Really no one called it global warming on your side? Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
 
EdFred said:
Really no one called it global warming on your side? Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
Click to expand...

I sure as heck didn't say THAT. What I AM saying is that if you're going to start an international government-supported organization to look at and summarize the research that has been done, if you are truly unbiased about it, you won't incorporate a particular outcome in the name of the organization, because it could discourage participants from looking at contrary evidence. Consequently, the use of the phrase "climate change" is not proof of some kind of sinister intent as some like to portray it.
 
Why not get everyone to crank up their AC and open their windows? If we all did it for a day or two, problem solved!

Thermodynamics be damned.
 
Palmpilot said:
If you read the history of global warming theory, it's obvious that it didn't.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm



You can roll your eyes all you like; it doesn't change the facts.
Click to expand...

Any cause whose headliner is Al Gore is immediately suspect. The eye rolls are frequent and often induce vertigo.

You guys embraced him as he shared the stage with your IPCC buddies.

Dozens of his claims have been proven false.

The guy's a buffoon and he was your rock star and he's besmirched your cause.

Next time choose more carefully.
 
Gore is the ultimate do as I say, not as I do, elitist slob. Where did he and his family make their money originally, prior to his huge enrichment due to the MMGW scare tactics?

The same people criticizing everyone for burning fossil fuels, and demonizing aviation are the ones flying around in bizjets with black SUV caravans to attend MMGW "summits" and high dollar speaking engagements.
 
dmccormack said:
Any cause whose headliner is Al Gore is immediately suspect. The eye rolls are frequent and often induce vertigo.

You guys embraced him as he shared the stage with your IPCC buddies.

Dozens of his claims have been proven false.

The guy's a buffoon and he was your rock star and he's besmirched your cause.

Next time choose more carefully.
Click to expand...

I get my information about science from scientists, not politicians. I recommend that you do the same.
 
Anthony said:
Gore is the ultimate do as I say, not as I do, elitist slob. Where did he and his family make their money originally, prior to his huge enrichment due to the MMGW scare tactics?

The same people criticizing everyone for burning fossil fuels, and demonizing aviation are the ones flying around in bizjets with black SUV caravans to attend MMGW "summits" and high dollar speaking engagements.
Click to expand...

The process for disproving a theory is to do experiments, make measurements, etc., that produce data that invalidates the theory. Determining whether people are hypocrites plays no role in that process.
 
Palmpilot said:
The process for disproving a theory is to do experiments, make measurements, etc., that produce data that invalidates the theory. Determining whether people are hypocrites plays no role in that process.
Click to expand...

The process for proving a theory involves making predictions that can be tested, then conducting experiments and making observations that either support or reject the hypothesis.

Nowhere does the number of scientists involved in the consensus enter into the process. The only time I hear about "scientific consensus" is when the science is weak.
 
Palmpilot said:
I get my information about science from scientists, not politicians. I recommend that you do the same.
Click to expand...


Hmm -- interesting.



So the IPCC team of objective, non-emotional, agenda-barren scientists disavowed the Nobel prize they were awarded in tandem with that nasty politician?
 
JeffDG said:
... Nowhere does the number of scientists involved in the consensus enter into the process. The only time I hear about "scientific consensus" is when the science is weak.
Click to expand...
You're arguing that "consensus" has no place within the sphere of science. The flaw in that argument is in its premise, because this consensus argument is not being applied within that sphere.

Where the consensus argument exists is within the political sphere, in which we use scientists as advisors to provide guidance for our policy decisions. In much the same way that you might consult multiple doctors when making an important medical decision, we seek consensus from our scientific community to advise our political decisions.
-harry
 
JeffDG said:
Nowhere does the number of scientists involved in the consensus enter into the process. The only time I hear about "scientific consensus" is when the science is weak.
Click to expand...

A-HA!!!!

You, sir, are a DENIER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

a%3E
 
dmccormack said:
... So the IPCC team of objective, non-emotional, agenda-barren scientists disavowed the Nobel prize they were awarded in tandem with that nasty politician?
Click to expand...
The IPCC and Al Gore were not awarded a prize for the fruits of their scientific research. They were not awarded a prize in Physics, they were awarded a Peace Prize:
...for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change...​
-harry
 
JeffDG said:
The process for proving a theory involves making predictions that can be tested, then conducting experiments and making observations that either support or reject the hypothesis.
Click to expand...

There is no process for proving theories. The best that can be hoped for is that experiments such as you describe provide confirming evidence. Some theories eventually accumulate enough confirming evidence that we feel justified in relying on them, and even trusting our lives to them in many cases, but they are still not proven.

Nowhere does the number of scientists involved in the consensus enter into the process.
Click to expand...

I agree. There have certainly been times when the scientific consensus has been wrong, and when that has been the case, it was shown to be the case by the method I described (not by saying "Newton was a hypocrite"!), and the consensus changed AFTER the data was collected and analyzed.

The only time I hear about "scientific consensus" is when the science is weak.
Click to expand...

Your experience differs from mine.

Right now there is a scientific consensus that the theory of gravity is correct, in spite of observations to the contrary, yet we still view gravitational science as being strong enough to trust our lives to it.

While scientific consensus doesn't determine whether a theory is valid or not, it is a reflection of the views of the people who have the most familiarity with the experimental results, and the most training and experience in drawing logically valid conclusions from them. People who don't have the time and expertise to read and understand a significant portion of the research results for themselves often find it useful.
 
Last edited:
Talking about consensus (or lack of) I recommend the following reading:

The Climate Science Isn't Settled

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

Global warming: the origin and nature of the alleged scientific consensus.

http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/153_Regulation.pdf


by Richard S Lindzen who is a distinguished Alfred P Sloan professor of Atmospheric Science and Meteorology at MIT. He published extensively on global warming. Although many of his scientific papres are inaccesible for a wider audience he has amazing ability to simplify arguments and make it accessible to a non-scientist in some of his more popular papers.

There is also his famous WSJ editorial "There is no consensus on global warming" published in June 2006 however I can't find an online link. This was an excellent article.
 
Last edited:
mantakos said:
The IPCC and Al Gore were not awarded a prize for the fruits of their scientific research. They were not awarded a prize in Physics, they were awarded a Peace Prize:
...for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change...​
-harry
Click to expand...

Tah-mater, To-mahter

:rolleyes:
 
olasek said:
Talking about consensus (or lack of) I recommend the following reading:

The Climate Science Isn't Settled

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

Global warming: the origin and nature of the alleged scientific consensus.

http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/153_Regulation.pdf


by Richard S Lindzen who is a distinguished Alfred P Sloan professor of Atmospheric Science and Meteorology at MIT. He published extensively on global warming. Although many of his scientific papres are inaccesible for a wider audience he has amazing ability to simplify arguments and make it accessible to a non-scientist in some of his more popular papers.

There is also his famous WSJ editorial "There is no consensus on global warming" published in June 2006 however I can't find an online link. This was an excellent article.
Click to expand...


He disagrees with the consensus? He's a denier and not a scientist.
 
olasek said:
Talking about consensus (or lack of) I recommend the following reading:

The Climate Science Isn't Settled

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
Click to expand...

Oddly enough, a climate scientist's rebuttal article agrees that the science isn't settled:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/unsettled-science/

It's a straw man, because no science is ever really "settled." Anyone who says otherwise is in error. Even well-confirmed theories may have aspects of them that need further research and refinement.

Global warming: the origin and nature of the alleged scientific consensus.

http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/153_Regulation.pdf

by Richard S Lindzen who is a distinguished Alfred P Sloan professor of Atmospheric Science and Meteorology at MIT. He published extensively on global warming. Although many of his scientific papres are inaccesible for a wider audience he has amazing ability to simplify arguments and make it accessible to a non-scientist in some of his more popular papers.

There is also his famous WSJ editorial "There is no consensus on global warming" published in June 2006 however I can't find an online link. This was an excellent article.
Click to expand...

Since then, two surveys have shown that there is a significant consensus:

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1184
 
dmccormack said:
Hmm -- interesting.



So the IPCC team of objective, non-emotional, agenda-barren scientists disavowed the Nobel prize they were awarded in tandem with that nasty politician?
Click to expand...

None of that either confirms or disproves any theory.
 
dmccormack said:
You're being intentionally obtuse. :(

The Nobel Prize was awarded to Al Bore and the IPCC.

Why not award the IPCC the physics prize?
Click to expand...

You want Harry to speak for the Nobel Committee? :confused:

What difference does it make anyway?
 
Oh look, another thread about global warming. That's the stuff Al Gore and his buddies from GoldmanSachs dreamed up to make good on investments in a carbon trading market, right?

He hasn't said much since that trading market shut down in 2010. It discovered that CO2 isn't worth squat.

Maybe Al was the source of hot air and now that he's shut his yapper and turned off his movie projectors the earth will cool back down.
 
dmccormack said:
... Why not award the IPCC the physics prize?
Click to expand...
Perhaps the cause for what appears to you to be my obtuseness is that you're viewing the IPCC as a group that performs research, whereas I think the IPCC is more accurately described as a group that gathers, summarizes, and publicizes the research of others.
-harry
 
Ken Ibold said:
I was kinda hoping it would be a FOOD thread.

OK, maybe not.

But last weekend my wife made some excellent venison jerky.
Click to expand...

You started a thread with "global warming" in the title and thought global warming wouldn't be discussed? OK. :wink2:

By the way, I thought Aviation Safety improved a lot when you took it over, way back when.
 
If it weren't for global warming, we would still be in the ice age. Wouldnt we?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top