VABills Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Gee, I'd like to do some intellectually honest scientific research, but I just can't concentrate with all these controversial talk shows and demonstrations. What is your take on Copernicus. Garbage science, given the circus atmosphere? Any research worth its salt is usually performed amidst skepticism and controversy - otherwise nobody is impressed. Didn't Einstein and plenty of other prominent scientists claim time travel was possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Gee, I'd like to do some intellectually honest scientific research, but I just can't concentrate with all these controversial talk shows and demonstrations. What is your take on Copernicus. Garbage science, given the circus atmosphere? Any research worth its salt is usually performed amidst skepticism and controversy - otherwise nobody is impressed. Exactly. The whole meteor causing the dinosaurs to (excuse my redundancy) go the way of the dinosaurs comes to mind how that idea was first scoffed at by the scientific establishment. Also... Look at what the scientific establishment did to John Harrison's simple solution to "longitude." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StupidNation Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Wrong. There is a large data set of actual science--a data set that is being added to constantly--suggesting humans are causing global warming. That's not superstition (like religion). That is very real data. You may not like it, or agree with the interpretation. And the handfull of skeptics (who never actually show any data supporting their view, btw) may not agree with it. But the data is out there, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals by scientists who aren't running to Drudge for notoriety, with a very large majority of scientists agreeing with their assessment. If anything, the cult/religion analogy is more apt for the skeptics who seem to bluster and seek out the spotlight, yet never show any data supporting their views. Let me ask again genius... Temperatures have gone down in the last 8 years globally. Is that the effects of global warming? Most global warning idiots use the 90's as the proof of global warming. What about the 21st century? The 1970's? The data is not clear between a connection, I gave a great thread a couple of months ago about a group of scientists who laugh about the myth of human caused global warming now they are out of the money stealing loop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Didn't Einstein and plenty of other prominent scientists claim time travel was possible? Time travel is possible. To the future? yes To the past? maybe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 This !@#$ing thread rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 This !@#$ing thread rules. Yeah it does. I'm gonna time travel a few days into the future to see how it ends, cause I can't stand the wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Yeah it does. I'm gonna time travel a few days into the future to see how it ends, cause I can't stand the wait. Hopefully it ends with me selling my piece of shyt used Prius with a dead battery to my wife for some money Ill blow on strippers and booze. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Let me ask again genius... Temperatures have gone down in the last 8 years globally. Is that the effects of global warming? Most global warning idiots use the 90's as the proof of global warming. What about the 21st century? The 1970's? The data is not clear between a connection, I gave a great thread a couple of months ago about a group of scientists who laugh about the myth of human caused global warming now they are out of the money stealing loop. Let me answer again... They have not gone down. That is entirely false. And the data is pretty clear for one side of the "debate." What is entirely missing is any data for the opposing point of view. The dissenters' only "data" is in telling everyone else that their data is wrong. And they don't do it in peer reviewed journals, they do it in opinion pieces in the media. Now, we have a few people on this chunk of a football board saying that there is some global conspiracy led by Al Gore to crush all dissent, raise everyone's taxes, and bury any and all scientific studies that don't conform to the veritable consensus of scientists saying global warming is at least partially caused by human activity. They would have everyone believe that the reason there isn't any data supporting their hypothesis is because the global cabal of thousands of scientists led by Al Gore have stacked the decks against them and turned off all funding, and have even shut them out of peer-reviewed journals. That is completely absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 The dissenters' only "data" is in telling everyone else that their data is wrong. Youre wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Exactly. The whole meteor causing the dinosaurs to (excuse my redundancy) go the way of the dinosaurs comes to mind how that idea was first scoffed at by the scientific establishment. Also... Look at what the scientific establishment did to John Harrison's simple solution to "longitude." Except the meteor wasn'ty responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs. They were on their way out before the meteor hit the Yucatan, and if it didn't hit, they still would have gone extinct in a relatively short amount of time. *If* they weren't already extinct, all the meteor did is finish them off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Let me ask again genius... Temperatures have gone down in the last 8 years globally. Is that the effects of global warming? What's your source for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Let me answer again... They have not gone down. That is entirely false. And the data is pretty clear for one side of the "debate." What is entirely missing is any data for the opposing point of view. The dissenters' only "data" is in telling everyone else that their data is wrong. And they don't do it in peer reviewed journals, they do it in opinion pieces in the media. Now, we have a few people on this chunk of a football board saying that there is some global conspiracy led by Al Gore to crush all dissent, raise everyone's taxes, and bury any and all scientific studies that don't conform to the veritable consensus of scientists saying global warming is at least partially caused by human activity. They would have everyone believe that the reason there isn't any data supporting their hypothesis is because the global cabal of thousands of scientists led by Al Gore have stacked the decks against them and turned off all funding, and have even shut them out of peer-reviewed journals. That is completely absurd. The problem comes in with using short term data to try and understand long term changes. Its stupid to try and use one cold winter to argue against climate change. However, its also stupid to use 100-200 years of climatological data to make a solid assumption on the cause of said climate change, in relation to 4.5 billion years of climate that has preceded it. Algore's political abortion aside (because no one in their right mind would dare to call that science), the problem with most "anthropogenic global warming" believers is that they simply present their data showing that the climate is changing, with the underlying assumption that humans must be the main cause. There is no care taken to explore all variables. You as a scientist should know that when you want to jgo from a correlation to a causation, you need to eliminate all other options that may be underlying the correlation. I have yet to see any good pro-anthropogenic-caused-climate-change group or scientist successfully discredit any of the natural effects that may cause the Earth to become warmer. Things like astronomical cycles, sun cycles, large, long term climate changes that wax and wane. All of this gets ignored, which is where my problem comes in. Until these guys can successfully rule out reasons A-Y, then they can't simply say that its because of reason Z. Yes, there is a correlation between human activities and the Earth climate becoming warmer. However, until as recent as the late 1700's, we were in the fuggin "little ice age." After an extended cool period, think we might warm up a bit? Gloal warming has turned itself into a giant farce. They've turned "eco-friendly" into a giant carbon circle jerk. Yes, we should be working to not trash the environment, and care for the Earth. However, unlike what he global warming nitiwts think, caring for the environment means a lot more than trading "carbon credits" and driving a car with fewer CO2 emissions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 The upturn of temps in the 90s is iffy also, if they are relying on readings from official weathers stations. Someone Investigated where these weather stations are and like 1/3 of them were in parking lots, on roofs, next to AC units, etc, where it is hotter than the surroundings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Oh I see the opinions and liberal reporting you link to are all valid, but any research, opinions and reporting to the contrary are not link-bombs. Got it. I was waiting for that response Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Yes, there is a correlation between human activities and the Earth climate becoming warmer. However, until as recent as the late 1700's, we were in the fuggin "little ice age." After an extended cool period, think we might warm up a bit? Your 'little ice age' was a pimple on the buttock of the longest warming plateau of the Ice Ages. All you have to do is look at a graph and see that - unless we are breaking out of the 3 million year old Ice Ages cyclic pattern for some reason - the natural pattern would be a sudden return to extensive global glaciaration some time within the next thousand years at most. This proves nothing. I'm just sick of people pointing to the little ice age as some kind of supporting example without bothering to look at the charts. They are remarkably clear. The little Ice Age is about as relevant as a small three day drop on the Dow during a two year Bull run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Yeah it does. I'm gonna time travel a few days into the future to see how it ends, cause I can't stand the wait. Yep! But, before you do that can you get the PowerBall numbers and tell me who wins the hockey game tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Hopefully it ends with me selling my piece of shyt used Prius with a dead battery to my wife for some money Ill blow on strippers and booze. You forgot hitting the lottery for 50 mil first! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 How the fug is anyone perverting that data? How is that data set "dishonest" and/or political? Are you suggesting that Hansen is just fabricating data? As someone who has decried the limitations the Bush administration put on stem cell funding, you of all people shouldn't be asking how research can be perverted. And I wasn't arguing about a specific data set, other than to say the specific article you presented had data sets that were ambiguous in your argument with Stupid, where they were even applicable (the article compared 2008 climate to the 1950-1980 baseline, not to 2000 like stupid was doing.) Your data set you provided doesn't even apply to the argument you were trying to have. Now you were asking how data can be "perverted"? And Hansen has an axe to grind. He's a public figure making a fortune off specifically avoiding objectivity. Hansen's an advocate, and stopped being a researcher a long time ago - there's much better research out there that makes a much better case for global warming than Hansen has generated in the past 15 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Your 'little ice age' was a pimple on the buttock of the longest warming plateau of the Ice Ages. All you have to do is look at a graph and see that - unless we are breaking out of the 3 million year old Ice Ages cyclic pattern for some reason - the natural pattern would be a sudden return to extensive global glaciaration some time within the next thousand years at most. This proves nothing. I'm just sick of people pointing to the little ice age as some kind of supporting example without bothering to look at the charts. They are remarkably clear. The little Ice Age is about as relevant as a small three day drop on the Dow during a two year Bull run. Your point is valid - the Little Ice Age shouldn't even be considered in the global warning debate. Now feel free to explain why the IPCC themselves establish the "current warming trend" in comparison to the Little Ice Age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StupidNation Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Let me answer again... They have not gone down. That is entirely false. First of all you should read Ramius's post. It's how actual data is analyzed objectively and not politically. Secondly, if you were on this board just 3 or 4 months ago someone how climate temperatures have been going down this decade, which scientists blamed global warming on the earth's cooling. Also, if you have a better memory you'll remember articles like this on global cooling from the 70's: http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm The data is not clear that man is causing warming. Here's an article about NASA's scientists on the issue: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...media-report-it Read it again and again humming "goosefraba" Edit: just wanted to add this beauty from Wiki on a list of very qualified scientists against man-made global warming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scien..._global_warming The petition project has a list of 31,000 doctors against man-made global warming: http://www.oism.org/pproject/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts