User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 25 to 32 of 35

Thread: New scientific study on the sun in global warming.

  1. #25
    Outsiders71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,005
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by herenorthere View Post
    As for those who keep pointing out that some people were warning of an impending ice age 40 years ago, there's no comparison. Science evolves and we're way beyond their level of understanding, quality/quantity of data, and computing power. That's how science happens. The fact that geologists once said continents can't move doesn't mean geologists should be ignored now when they say continents do.
    That's not the point. The point is scientists should be willing to accept the possibility of being completely outright wrong. The way the Global Warming theory is being tossed around is that it is a universal fact and any skepticism towards Global Warming is just completely outright wrong. How scientific is that? I think people with these attitudes such as Mokele do nothing but discredit and hurt the scientific community. There's plenty of experts out there that think the Global Warming theory is a hoax, why don't their POV carry the same weight? Oh wait... because people like Mokele tell everyone some bogus conspiracy theory that these people are paid off by the oil companies? Be a sheep if you want to, but there's two sides to Global Warming in the science realm.
    James 1:17

    "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."

  2. #26
    herenorthere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    almost Hartford
    Posts
    3,785
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Scientists recognize, or at least should recognize they might be wrong. That's why it's so important to understand the history of science. People who were wrong a century or even a decade earlier didn't have access to the same information and theoretical frameworks we take for granted now. And hopefully those a decade or century from now will look back at us with the same kind of understanding we should have for our predecessors. They should forgive us for whatever flaws are in our current understanding of things, but not for our time's epidemic of willful ignorance. I won't attack it because I've become convinced that attacking ignorance just makes it more attractive to people. It makes no sense, but it's the bizzaro world we live in.
    Bruce in CT

    Madness is something rare in individuals but in groups, parties, peoples, ages it is the rule. Friedrich Nietzsche

  3. #27

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    427
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    People like Mokele want you to believe that the science community and climatologists as a whole support the Global Warming theory. That is quite untrue.
    Fine: show me a peer-reviewed paper that directly disputes global warming. Go one, find one.

    You can't, because there aren't any. The "Scientists" in this film include a weatherman, a politician, and a magazine editor. The only actual scientists in it include two who merely dispute alarmism (one of whom only disagrees with the IPCC because he feels it's too political), and two of whom are known industry shills.

    Too all those who respect expert opinions, watch this:
    OMG, it's on YouTube, it must be true!

    Never mind that the film has been explicitly addressed here by people who actually have integrity:
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...40542976216573
    http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/2

    Funny how, after the film argues there's no consensus in science, scientists all reach the consensus that this film is a load of hogwash.

    Try again, and this time, use REAL sources. Peer-reviewed scientific journal articles ONLY.

    Left wingers conveniently de-humanize life by calling a human embryo as something less upsetting as murder. They're just in denial of reality.
    As opposed to the right, who want thousands of women to die from back-alley abortionists.

    Then again, the right wing has bent over backwards to prove their misogynistic cred to the Nazis for Jesus, so it shouldn't surprise anyone.

    As far as I read and understand, our planet has ebbed and flowed for thousands, if not trillions of years. People crossed the Bering Straits to get to North America. The 15th century was supposed to have been a warm one. The 30's-50's was a warm spell. The 60's and 70's were colder and the experts were calling for an oncoming iceage. They changed their mind in the 80's and 90's. In my opinion, we have normal ebb and flow interacting with human activity. Both are occurring. Why does it have to be one or the other?
    Because the evidence has ruled out natural causes. That's why.

    And, as I proved earlier, there was no "cooling" scare. Check your facts or don't bother posting.

    Mokele, many environmental issues, not just the collateral damage of roads, were pioneered by outsiders who often were more emotional than informed and were criticized for not shutting up and listening to the scientists.
    Name one such incidence. Cite sources.

    Any scientist who wants to be listened to has to bend over backwards to play nice, even when the dissent is pure fiction pre-packaged for distribution by industry shills. It's impossible to convert the willfully ignorant, but ripping into them makes others sympathize with them.
    Playing nice doesn't mean conceding anything, or being any less thorough in categorically destroying the opponents POV. It just means smiling while you do it.

    My point is, and has always been, that experts are experts for a damned reason.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html
    Or are those scientists not experts either.
    They used the wrong measurement method: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ades/#more-180

    Nor funded by climatologists looking for more grant money.
    You do realize that doom and gloom are not part of grant procedings, right? That nobody gets a dime for saying "I will prove we're all going to die"? That "the 'broader impacts' section a grant is usually maybe 5 sentences in a 40 page document?

    Do you think I'm making up all my data on snake locomotion just because I got funding? Where, exactly, do you think money for science comes from?

    You seriously have no idea how science works.

    BTW unless you're a reputable climatologist, I believe you're included in the public realm and have no special insight in this matter.
    And I am perfectly happy to let them have the final say in everything, which is why I bend over backwards to reference my points. I'm not an expert, but since there are none on this board, I'm acting as proxy, conveying their arguments for them.

    The point is scientists should be willing to accept the possibility of being completely outright wrong. The way the Global Warming theory is being tossed around is that it is a universal fact and any skepticism towards Global Warming is just completely outright wrong. How scientific is that? I think people with these attitudes such as Mokele do nothing but discredit and hurt the scientific community. There's plenty of experts out there that think the Global Warming theory is a hoax, why don't their POV carry the same weight? Oh wait... because people like Mokele tell everyone some bogus conspiracy theory that these people are paid off by the oil companies? Be a sheep if you want to, but there's two sides to Global Warming in the science realm.
    prove it.

    Prove there's two sides.

    Show me a scientific paper in which the authors dispute global warming.


    Oh, wait, you won't, because you're happy living in ignorance, just as you are about evolution. Why anyone even listens to you is beyond me.

    They should forgive us for whatever flaws are in our current understanding of things, but not for our time's epidemic of willful ignorance. I won't attack it because I've become convinced that attacking ignorance just makes it more attractive to people. It makes no sense, but it's the bizzaro world we live in.
    Then what do you suggest we do, leave the morons to spread misinformation unopposed?

    Mokele
    \"With malleus aforethought, mammals got an earful of their ancestor's jaw.\"
    --J. Burns, on the evolution of auditory ossicles.

  4. #28
    scottychaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Western New York, USA
    Posts
    2,970
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think any reasonable person would agree that Mokele's post above has crossed the line from polite debate over to outright flaming and personal insults and attacks.

    I think its time for the lock..
    this thread is now nothing but snotty personal attacks and amazing arrogance..

    I vote for the lock..
    because this thread is no longer an interesting and thought-provoking debate of ideas..
    its now just someones personal temper tantrum.

    Scot

  5. #29
    Outsiders71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,005
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mokele View Post
    Fine: show me a peer-reviewed paper that directly disputes global warming. Go one, find one.

    You can't, because there aren't any. The "Scientists" in this film include a weatherman, a politician, and a magazine editor. The only actual scientists in it include two who merely dispute alarmism (one of whom only disagrees with the IPCC because he feels it's too political), and two of whom are known industry shills.
    Umm...here you go:

    http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/docs/global_warming.pdf

    Quote Originally Posted by Mokele View Post
    OMG, it's on YouTube, it must be true!

    Never mind that the film has been explicitly addressed here by people who actually have integrity:
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...40542976216573
    http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/2
    The link I provided has no affiliation with youtube, it was google video. Wow I'm truly surprised you could find an attempted refute against this video. If there wasn't an attempt of refuting than this whole issue would be over now wouldn't it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mokele View Post
    Try again, and this time, use REAL sources. Peer-reviewed scientific journal articles ONLY.
    Already did. The realclimate.org website is not peer-reviewed and is as credible as this online forum.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mokele View Post
    As opposed to the right, who want thousands of women to die from back-alley abortionists.
    At least people who have faith believe that a human life is worth more than a tree or an earthworm. You tell me which is more out there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mokele View Post
    Then again, the right wing has bent over backwards to prove their misogynistic cred to the Nazis for Jesus, so it shouldn't surprise anyone.
    Right....


    Quote Originally Posted by Mokele View Post
    And, as I proved earlier, there was no "cooling" scare. Check your facts or don't bother posting.
    There was no Holocaust either...

    Quote Originally Posted by Mokele View Post
    Playing nice doesn't mean conceding anything, or being any less thorough in categorically destroying the opponents POV. It just means smiling while you do it.

    My point is, and has always been, that experts are experts for a damned reason.
    Experts are not free from error.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mokele View Post
    They used the wrong measurement method: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ades/#more-180
    Actually that article doesn't answer anything. The problem was that Muscheler, used a different method and obtained a different result than Solanki. Which does not mean Solanki's data is invalid or wrong.

    http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/sola_nature05.pdf

    Quote Originally Posted by Mokele View Post
    You do realize that doom and gloom are not part of grant procedings, right? That nobody gets a dime for saying "I will prove we're all going to die"? That "the 'broader impacts' section a grant is usually maybe 5 sentences in a 40 page document?
    So you deny that there hasn't been any additional money spent on studying climate change in the last decade due to the Global Warming scare?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mokele View Post
    Do you think I'm making up all my data on snake locomotion just because I got funding? Where, exactly, do you think money for science comes from?

    You seriously have no idea how science works.
    Your data?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mokele View Post
    And I am perfectly happy to let them have the final say in everything, which is why I bend over backwards to reference my points. I'm not an expert, but since there are none on this board, I'm acting as proxy, conveying their arguments for them.
    Bending over backwards by citing realclimate.org for all your answers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mokele View Post
    Oh, wait, you won't, because you're happy living in ignorance, just as you are about evolution. Why anyone even listens to you is beyond me.
    Who's living in ignorance? Did you witness or create the Earth? That's right you didn't, so continue to put faith that you came from a primate because you can never concretely prove it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mokele View Post
    Then what do you suggest we do, leave the morons to spread misinformation unopposed?

    Mokele
    I actually find it entertaining to watch a sheep try to heard other sheep.
    James 1:17

    "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."

  6. #30
    Outsiders71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,005
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by scottychaos View Post
    I think any reasonable person would agree that Mokele's post above has crossed the line from polite debate over to outright flaming and personal insults and attacks.

    I think its time for the lock..
    this thread is now nothing but snotty personal attacks and amazing arrogance..

    I vote for the lock..
    because this thread is no longer an interesting and thought-provoking debate of ideas..
    its now just someones personal temper tantrum.

    Scot
    You would think one wouldn't have to stoop to such low levels if they really had two legs to stand on. It's a shame we can't discuss certain topics without Mokele vehemently attacking me or anyone else who has a difference of opinion due to his 'intelligence superiority complex'. After all only his answers are the right ones and any others are blasphemies.
    James 1:17

    "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."

  7. #31
    Stay chooned in for more! Clint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Metro Atlanta Area
    Posts
    9,681
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Now I like to argue, I mean debate, as much as anyone else, but this is ridiculous. When I say it's ridiculous, it's REALLY ridiculous. Global warming? Is it REALLY worth fighting over like this? Few people question the fact of global warming, but what is questioned is the cause. We are taking oil from the very hot carboniferous period, and releasing that carbon into the atmosphere... hmmmm.... I wonder if that's a coincidence.... I don't understand how someone can not think it's greenhouse gases, but if they do, it's not a big deal until they start legislation, and I don't think either of you are in that position, so chill out. It's nothing to get bent out of shape over.

    You really didn't need to jump on Outsider like that. It's not like he said something off the wall like 'The Earth is getting warmer because God wants it to!", no he instead presented a different opinion. I mean... I disagree with him about it but his opinion on this issue doesn't piss me off or anything. It's not like gay marriage or abortion. It's a disagreement over the weather... come on. It doesn't personally affect me/you or violate anyone's rights, so there's no reason to get upset. He also said he fully supports renewable energy.... he's basically on your side (albeit for a different reason), so you should see him as an ally in helping the environment. Who cares what either of you think, as long as you're working toward a common goal? This is EXACTLY like the time Zappafan and I were arguing about gay marriage. He was all like "It's a sin" and everything, and I ASSUMED (Know what happens when we assume?) that he was anti-gay marriage. Nope. He was pro gay marriage. He still thought it was wrong, but he also thought I had the right to do the wrong thing. That was good enough for me, and I apologized profusely for my assumptions. You see, it's ironic that I'm so very against stereotypes, but I was stereotyping myself! Or rather... I, myself, was stereotyping. Of course, Outsiders, starting off by saying "I hate to say I told you so but..." does set the air for divisiveness.

    I'd also like to say that BOTH of your views on evolution and the origin of the Earth/universe and abortion are completely irrelevant in this conversation, and there's no reason to bring it up and make sarcastic remarks like "At least people who have faith believe that a human life is worth more than a tree or an earthworm." or "As opposed to the right, who want thousands of women to die from back-alley abortionists." in a thread about global warming. You BOTH know those statements are exaggerated generalizations, anyway. This isn't so much global warming believers vs. global warming disbelievers, I think it's turned into liberals vs. conservatives at this point, and that's not what this is about.


    Wow.... look at that. My new year's resolution is working splendidly.

  8. #32

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    427
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think any reasonable person would agree that Mokele's post above has crossed the line from polite debate over to outright flaming and personal insults and attacks.
    Sorry, don't care. I'm sick of people who refuse to face basic facts pretending they have an opinion worth listening to. If I had my way, such people would be summarily shot, both massively heightening the level of discourse worldwide and solving the overpopulation problem in one fell swoop.

    You don't even understand what peer-review scientific journal articles are, do you?

    Scientists want to share information, to disseminate the results of their research, so they start journals on various subjects, be it climate change, cell signaling, or ancient Egyptian pottery. But unlike magazines or just about anywhere else, these journals have a threshhold, a gatekeeper: the peer-review process. They send your submission to other experts, who determine if you screwed up something (ranging from failure to cite a source to major methodological flaws). This prevents crappy, poorly-done studies from being published, and has been considered one of the great innovations of modern scientific thought.

    The pdf you cited was *not* from a peer-review journal.

    Already did. The realclimate.org website is not peer-reviewed and is as credible as this online forum.
    Check the authors. All of them are esteemed climatologists who have published in Nature, Science, and other top-tier journals extensively. They are among the most qualified minds in the world on the subject.

    Actually that article doesn't answer anything. The problem was that Muscheler, used a different method and obtained a different result than Solanki. Which does not mean Solanki's data is invalid or wrong.
    You actually read it? And here I thought you'd resort to your usual thinking-minimalist approach.

    And the problem isn't just technique, it's correlational - if the sun causes warming, then the recent warming should be due to the sun. But, as I pointed out, the sun's output has not changed in 40 years. Solanki is talking about older changes, which may or may not have occurred, but the claim of the sun's blame is undermined by it's recent constant state in spite of rising temperatures.

    So you deny that there hasn't been any additional money spent on studying climate change in the last decade due to the Global Warming scare?
    Seen the NSF funding rates lately? They've declined in adjusted dollars for well over a decade; we're spending less money on EVERY science, including any type of climate science.

    Bending over backwards by citing realclimate.org for all your answers.
    At least I can be bothered to check whether my sources are oil-company shills or not.

    It's a shame we can't discuss certain topics without Mokele vehemently attacking me or anyone else who has a difference of opinion due to his 'intelligence superiority complex'. After all only his answers are the right ones and any others are blasphemies.
    Says the guy to stupid to assess genetic evidence for evolution.

    Global warming? Is it REALLY worth fighting over like this?
    You know what, you're right. **** it. Outsiders clearly has a learning disability (also known as 'faith'), so this is effectively pointless.

    Anyway, in 20 years, it'll be transparently obvious I was right, just as always.

    Mokele
    \"With malleus aforethought, mammals got an earful of their ancestor's jaw.\"
    --J. Burns, on the evolution of auditory ossicles.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •