Scientific Consensus?  | | | 
May 20th, 2008, 05:44 PM
|
#11 (permalink)
| | Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008 Location: Afghanistan bound
Posts: 674
| Quote:
Originally Posted by the mitch  Global Warming or not, there will come a time were we need to find a new energy source seeing as the fossil fuels are a finite resource. And yes, the search for new energy sources will turn up a whole new industry, and if the USA leads it, that will help to get some more manufacturing and research jobs here. | I would like the electric car now, just do not lie to me to get there. Only a matter of time before global warming by man is exposed for the fraud it is.
I am starting to be surrounded by PhDs in Physics. The Army has shifted me to a support role for nuclear response teams. Main thing they point out to me is the complete failure of many global warming by man scientists is to factor in the sun. So now throughout this planets history it cannot be what has occurred in the past but must be mans fault.
__________________
The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his.
- General George S. Patton | 
|  | |
May 20th, 2008, 05:53 PM
|
#12 (permalink)
| | Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008 Location: Afghanistan bound
Posts: 674
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Gomer I'm familiar with your scientific "facts" Sarah. I saw them in the recycling thread (briefly anyway, you sure forgot about it in a hurry).
Funny how no one is allowed to question you on military matters because SARAH L IS IN THE MILITARY *snaps salute* but now you're an expert scientist too? I did not realize you were a scientist in addition to an S4. What a career!
What scientific degree do you hold? (and did you sign that petition yet? You sound qualified to). What scientific journals are they mailing to you there on the base? Do you puff out your chest when you post about science too? From what well of knowledge are you drawing your scientific "facts"?
As for sneering at PhDs... Sneering? C'mon. I was illustrating a point. That being that someone with a PhD in science has dedicated their life to studying an extremely narrow slice of science in great detail especially if they are working at a university and continuing their research. Granted, their opinion on scientific matters have a better chance of being valid than those of some bumpkin with a GED in the trench. But that they are scientists does not make all of their opinions scientific opinions. Do you get it? I have very close relationships with research scientists, some of whom are prominent in their field.
I have a fine understanding of the scientific method and science. Don't you worry. | Astro-physics is my hobby as may have noted in some links I have shared with the board. My new CO has a PhD in Nuclear Physics along with 6 other officers in this unit. | |
| | |
May 20th, 2008, 06:29 PM
|
#13 (permalink)
| | Member
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Plattsmouth, NE USA
Posts: 496
|
Well Gomer, you seem to be knowledgeable about the subject, so please address the questions I asked in the post above... if you know so much you should be able to provide an answer for what the "imminent climate catastrophe" claim means and how long before it happens... has there ever been a period in the earth's history where just increasing CO2 caused climate change... can you (or anyone) explain what causes climate change to happen?
You've got the right idea excuzzzeme , but apparently Gomer's position is that if you're not a climate scientist you have no right to have an opinion on the subject or even to ask questions... if you have a college degree then maybe it's OK, but if you're, as he puts it "a bumpkin with a GED" then anything you have to say on the matter is meaningless and without merit, so unless you're a scientist, you aren't qualified to even speak on the subject... one thing I'm sure you've noticed by now is that no answers are ever provided, the most you'll see is a link to the opinions of others, links to the IPCC , links to sites set up to debunk "Deniers"... what you will likely never see is actual opinions about the validity of the claims of the AGW activists.
What global market for this technology Prexster, the socialist model is that we (America) develop the technology, and since the Third World can't afford to buy it, we'll have to give it to them for free... all part of some UN run global wealth redistribution plan... for that matter why do you think the private sector can even survive the creation of more new bureaucracies that will only grow and become more oppressive to business over time... is Obama just trying to recreate a Soviet style command economy?
__________________
P4 3.06 GHZ
Win XP
1 GB Corsair PC2700
Radeon 9700 Pro
Audigy X-Gamer
ASUS P4PE
| |
| | |
May 20th, 2008, 10:17 PM
|
#14 (permalink)
| | Rather Large Member
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Vernon, BC, Canada
Posts: 9,244
|
Are we to discuss a page from World Nut Daily? Not likely.
Robinson and his little extended Oregon project is nothing more than denialist junk science.
Real climate scientists have already debunked his package of errors. OISM - RCwiki
For the discussion on the scientific debunking: Oregon Institute of Science and Malarkey
As for Gore, his climate science rates a 9 out of 10 by climate scientists and they all agree the movie had some hype. It's best to leave Gore out of it since he is not a scientist, just the messenger.
This is just a continued attempt to water down climate science. Nothing to see here.
__________________
Beware of promises of life where death is prerequisite.
| |
| | |
May 21st, 2008, 12:09 AM
|
#15 (permalink)
| | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 968
|
__________________
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you,
Jesus Christ and the American G. I. One died for your soul; The other for your freedom
Last edited by excuzzzeme : May 21st, 2008 at 12:19 AM.
| |
| | |
May 21st, 2008, 12:18 AM
|
#16 (permalink)
| | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 968
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarah L Astro-physics is my hobby as may have noted in some links I have shared with the board. My new CO has a PhD in Nuclear Physics along with 6 other officers in this unit. |
So your CO has a PHD? That does not make you an expert. It still leaves you as a clerk. Having a PHD or any other letters after a name does not automatically make you right. That is why there is a Scientific Review Board. I worked in Warfare Research and wrote many white papers. Can you say the same? My papers were often adopted as models on which to use as a baseline. In spite of this, it doesn't make me anymore qualified when OUTSIDE my area of expertise than it does your CO. Nuclear Physics is a fluid and dynamic field (maybe he didn't tell you that). Better get back to typing his papers.
BTW- I was a BN CO once upon a time So because I was a CO that makes me an expert according to your logic? I think not. Him either. | |
| | |
May 21st, 2008, 12:28 AM
|
#17 (permalink)
| | Fact Checker
Join Date: Feb 2000 Location: MSU- E. Lansing, MI
Posts: 6,271
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold7 Well Gomer, you seem to be knowledgeable about the subject, so please address the questions I asked in the post above... if you know so much you should be able to provide an answer for what the "imminent climate catastrophe" claim means and how long before it happens... has there ever been a period in the earth's history where just increasing CO2 caused climate change... can you (or anyone) explain what causes climate change to happen?
You've got the right idea excuzzzeme , but apparently Gomer's position is that if you're not a climate scientist you have no right to have an opinion on the subject or even to ask questions... if you have a college degree then maybe it's OK, but if you're, as he puts it "a bumpkin with a GED" then anything you have to say on the matter is meaningless and without merit, so unless you're a scientist, you aren't qualified to even speak on the subject... one thing I'm sure you've noticed by now is that no answers are ever provided, the most you'll see is a link to the opinions of others, links to the IPCC , links to sites set up to debunk "Deniers"... what you will likely never see is actual opinions about the validity of the claims of the AGW activists.
What global market for this technology Prexster, the socialist model is that we (America) develop the technology, and since the Third World can't afford to buy it, we'll have to give it to them for free... all part of some UN run global wealth redistribution plan... for that matter why do you think the private sector can even survive the creation of more new bureaucracies that will only grow and become more oppressive to business over time... is Obama just trying to recreate a Soviet style command economy? | Let us look really closely at what I really said:
"Granted, their opinion on scientific matters have a better chance of being valid than those of some bumpkin with a GED in the trench." From that... you contorted and twisted and completely manufactured my "position" as this:
"apparently Gomer's position is that if you're not a climate scientist you have no right to have an opinion on the subject or even to ask questions... if you have a college degree then maybe it's OK, but if you're, as he puts it "a bumpkin with a GED" then anything you have to say on the matter is meaningless and without merit, so unless you're a scientist, you aren't qualified to even speak on the subject"
I did not say anything about peoples' statements being meangingess or without merit or that people aren't qualified to speak on a subject. I said that someone who has a PhD in a science is more likely to have valid opinions than those with GED's but that they are a scientist does not make all of their opinions scientific opinions. The main thing I was taking issue with was Sarah L's position on military matters that if you're not in or were in the military, your opinions are invalid. But when it comes to science, she can spout off and say what ever she wants. Sarah L's "science facts" of the day. No citation for any of them. And even if she did manage to cite something, it would likely be an opinion piece, or a single study... not a body of work.
one thing I'm sure you've noticed by now is that no answers are ever provided, the most you'll see is a link to the opinions of others, links to the IPCC , links to sites set up to debunk "Deniers"
No... you see links to the scientific studies. I'm not going to bother answering your questions for a couple of reasons. One being that I am not a climate scientist. Like you mentioned, there are plenty of sites that are already set up to answer your questions and to debunk your misconceptions. These are not opinion sites. They make sure to document all the publications and science that they cite in proving answers to the questions.
Another reason is illustrated above. I made a simple statement and look what you did with it. Do you think that I see reasonable discourse making any headway with you? Why should I waste my time.
Like I said:
Quote: |
Originally Posted by Gomer At this point, as I have pointed out in countless other threads that I have posted in, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists accept the theory of anthropomorphic global warming. Much like:
- Cell Theory
- Atomic Theory
- Relativity
- The Big Bang
- Plate Tectonics
- Evolution
(amongst others), I accept those theories on the merits of the tens of thousands of scientists that dedicate their lives to studying and accepting those theories as the current best explanation of the relevant phenomena. They are the experts.
I am not a climatologist. While I hold a degree in Biosystems Engineering that helps me understand a lot of the fundamental aspects of the science, it doesn't make me anywhere near an expert in the field of climatology. I don't think there is anyone here expressing opinions that is.
You're right though, I don't waste my time examining the work of industry shills. not n any great detail anyway. I've seen more than enough evidence in many fields to know that when Big $$$ is doing a study, the results are not going to be such that they would hurt their bottom line. Does that mean their science is invalid? Certainly not. But that is where I rely on the scientists and various scientific organizations to "weed out junk science from non junk science." It is the same process I use in evaluating other scientific theories. Like you said, that is what the scientific process/method does. |
The science is what the science is.
There will always be alternative ideas in science. That is what makes the science work. I choose to accept the current most commonly accepted scientific theory in this instance as I do all other areas of science. Unless I am an expert in the field that I am questioning, I have no good reason to do otherwise. I'd have to start making things up... and that'd make me look foolish when people asked me questions about it.
But the most commonly accepted science is this... in plain and simple terms.
Quote: The many others:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
In 2007, as part of its Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC concluded that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability.[1]
"The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is very likelycaused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, ... . The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame." [1]
"The report said that an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 more likely than not can be attributed to man-made global warming. The scientists said global warming's connection varies with storms in different parts of the world, but that the storms that strike the Americas are global warming-influenced."[2]
"On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of the century. That could be augmented by an additional 4-8 inches if recent surprising polar ice sheet melt continues."[3]
Joint science academies’ statement
In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action [4], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus.
US National Research Council, 2001
In 2001 the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions [5]. This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the scientific community:
The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. [6]
American Meteorological Society
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:
There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems. [7]
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments that concluded that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone) [8]. The study said that observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, though it did not state what percentage of climate change might be anthropogenic in nature.
Other organizations
Other scientific organizations have made position statements on climate change.- American Geophysical Union position statement on greenhouse gases and climate change (also endorsed by the American Institute of Physics[9])
- Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, National Academy of Sciences, Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources, (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001).
- Joint statement on the Science of Climate Change, issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).
- A position paper of the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London.
- Position Statement on Global Climate Change adopted by the Geological Society of America
- Policy Statement on Climate Variability and Change by the American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
- Australian Medical Association statement on climate change
- American Chemical Society (unsigned) statement on Global Climate Change
The only major scientific organization that rejects the finding of human influence on recent climate is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.[10] |
That is the science that I accept. Those statements reflect my position.
Quote:
I am sorry. I do not have the scientific means of disagreeing with those people.
If you want to have rational discourse about a specific portion of one of those statements I'll be glad to share my opinion with you. Otherwise leave your strawmen at home. | |
| | |
May 21st, 2008, 12:33 AM
|
#18 (permalink)
| | Fact Checker
Join Date: Feb 2000 Location: MSU- E. Lansing, MI
Posts: 6,271
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarah L Main thing they point out to me is the complete failure of many global warming by man scientists is to factor in the sun. | You tell me which of those scientific organizations outlined in my post above this one have forgotten about the sun.
Are you kidding me? Complete failure???? | |
| | |
May 21st, 2008, 12:53 AM
|
#19 (permalink)
| | Pump you sucker! Pump!
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Sacto, Colliefornia
Posts: 8,651
|
I guess the question is, how many of you are will to sacrifice how much to achieve the goals of "the scientists".
Electric cars - do you have the money to buy one? If not, how are you going to get one?
Gas taxes and taxing oil companies - as you raise their costs, they tack it on to expenses and apply the same mark up to compensate. (by that I mean, if you add a dollar tax, and your profit margin target is 12%, your tax is charged on the books at $ 1.12 - the government only gets the dollar.)
The company you work for raises prices and sales fall - what happens to your job?
Prices rise - your paycheck doesn't go as far, assuming you are still getting one.
Are you as an individual willing to accept the reality that the measures your propose will affect you, not just "the other guy"?
The connection between a healty economy and your job is real (unless you work in the public sector), and you are a fool if you don't recognize the risk of chasing uncertain results in the name of "environmentalism".
We need cheap oil and we need to create better electric cars.
__________________
Obama has taken America from purported bully to notorious chump in less than a year.
| |
| | |
May 21st, 2008, 01:01 AM
|
#20 (permalink)
| | Fact Checker
Join Date: Feb 2000 Location: MSU- E. Lansing, MI
Posts: 6,271
|
I told you chuck... increase CAFE standards ASAP. Should have been done years ago.
Increase conservation. Mandate increases in efficiency. Reduce waste. Increase efficiency. We need to adapt. That is not a bad thing. | |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | | | | Most Active Discussions  | | | | |   Recent Discussions  | | | | |
 |
hardware
prices 
