Extreme Veteran

3025

Maryland

Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

RIGHT-CENTER BIAS

These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources.

Factual Reporting: MIXED

Notes: Investor’s Business Daily (IBD) is an American media company covering international business, finance, economics and the stock market. IBD allows lobbyists and PR reps for right wing think tanks like the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute to write pseudo-scientific propaganda. (6/14/2016) Updated (1/5/2017)

also see this: https://www.skepticalscience.com/christy-exaggerates-model-data-discrepancy.html

My Race Log

Pro

15655

Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

Eh.....it doesn't matter......they are reporting now that the recent volcano's debris will cool the Earth's temp. by a couple of degrees over the next several years.

https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/could-mount-agung-cause-global-cooling-effects-lasting-for-years/70003412

The Earth doesn't care about mankind......it'll be fine.

Champion

10157

Alabama

Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

Originally posted by dmiller5

RIGHT-CENTER BIAS

These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources.

Factual Reporting: MIXED

Notes: Investor’s Business Daily (IBD) is an American media company covering international business, finance, economics and the stock market. IBD allows lobbyists and PR reps for right wing think tanks like the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute to write pseudo-scientific propaganda. (6/14/2016) Updated (1/5/2017)

also see this: https://www.skepticalscience.com/christy-exaggerates-model-data-discrepancy.html

IBD is just a messenger. Doesn't matter if they are 'left' or 'right'. The article in on a new study conducted using satellite data and taking out the volcanic influence shows no acceleration in the rate of global warming. The paper is published and peer reviewed.

At any rate, as long as there a PHD climate scientist who present data that contradicts global warming it should come as no surprise that there are laymen who remain skeptical. Let's face it, unless we are climate scientist, all we can do is read and decide what we think is credible and who is credible and who might be biased by things such as research grant$.

My Race Log

Pro

6838

Tejas

Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

Originally posted by Left Brain

The Earth doesn't care about mankind......it'll be fine.

Exactly. George Carlin had it right years ago in one of his routines. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rld0KDcan_w .

Hits the punchline around 3:50 . We're just here of make plastic.

Champion

10157

Alabama

Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

I like Crocodile Dundees take.....

...aborigines don't own the land....they belong to it. Arguing over who owns the land it like two fleas on a dog's back arguing over who owns the dog.

Those mountains over there been here for billions of years......be here long after you and I are gone.

Or words to that effect.

Reminds me of a funny story.

We were taking a tour of NYC and our tour guide said Manhattan had be purchased from the Indians for like $40 and some beads. She said there are believed to be 2 reasons the Indians sold the land so cheap. 1. Indians had no concept of 'land ownership' and were just happy to be getting money and beads. And 2. The Indians that made the deal with the Dutch were not the Indians that used the land.

My Race Log

Expert

2373

Floriduh

Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

As a card-carrying scientist please allow me some time to lay out some facts concerning scientific publishing. Journals, in any field, are ranked according the "impact factor" or IF. There are several quantitative metrics that go into measuring the IF, but in essence, it is a measurement of how well regarded that journal, and in general, the work that it publishes.

When you send a paper to a higher impact it is going to be very closely scrutinized by several experts in the field. When I am contacted by a high IF journal they almost always have a paper that is 100% in the academic wheelhouse and I have an obligation to the journal to point out perceived flaws in methodology, false assumptions, unsupported conclusions, etc. If you send a paper to a lower IF journal, the level of scrutiny is notably lower, it is a sliding scale.

There are several reasons for sending papers to lower IF journals: Some key experiments or data analyses have not been done and you use dont have the time or resources to do them thus making getting the paper through a tough peer-review process very daunting. Or you just want to get this paper off your desk and sending it to a lower tier journal will mean less hassle getting it published.

What is important here is that not all journals are equal. Ones with high IF are considered to have the more reliable data because the work has gone through stronger peer review. Does this mean it is not wrong, or papers in lower tier journals are incorrect. Certainly not, there have been some really great paper published in mid-tier journals. Nevertheless, the IF of a journal is a good indication of the likelihood of others in the field will actually read the paper.

The particular paper this article was published in is Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences. It has an IF of 1.65 (http://www.springer.com/earth+sciences+and+geography/atmospheric+sciences/journal/13143). This is a list of IFs in the field of Climate Science: http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=2301
As you can see, the IF of 1.65 will place the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences as the 17th ranked journal in the field of Climate Science. I can tell you form my experience, a 17th ranked journal is well down in the pecking list and is unlikely to get much attention from others in the field.

Since Climate Science is far afield from me I cannot provide any kind of insight into the potential validity/invalidity of this paper. What I can tell you is that not all science is valid and that the journal it is published in is a descent indication of what the authors and the field thinks of this work. Not all science is created equally and it should not be interpreted in this manner.

Champion

10157

Alabama

Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

Originally posted by Oysterboy

As a card-carrying scientist please allow me some time to lay out some facts concerning scientific publishing. Journals, in any field, are ranked according the "impact factor" or IF. There are several quantitative metrics that go into measuring the IF, but in essence, it is a measurement of how well regarded that journal, and in general, the work that it publishes.

When you send a paper to a higher impact it is going to be very closely scrutinized by several experts in the field. When I am contacted by a high IF journal they almost always have a paper that is 100% in the academic wheelhouse and I have an obligation to the journal to point out perceived flaws in methodology, false assumptions, unsupported conclusions, etc. If you send a paper to a lower IF journal, the level of scrutiny is notably lower, it is a sliding scale.

There are several reasons for sending papers to lower IF journals: Some key experiments or data analyses have not been done and you use dont have the time or resources to do them thus making getting the paper through a tough peer-review process very daunting. Or you just want to get this paper off your desk and sending it to a lower tier journal will mean less hassle getting it published.

What is important here is that not all journals are equal. Ones with high IF are considered to have the more reliable data because the work has gone through stronger peer review. Does this mean it is not wrong, or papers in lower tier journals are incorrect. Certainly not, there have been some really great paper published in mid-tier journals. Nevertheless, the IF of a journal is a good indication of the likelihood of others in the field will actually read the paper.

The particular paper this article was published in is Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences. It has an IF of 1.65 (http://www.springer.com/earth+sciences+and+geography/atmospheric+sciences/journal/13143). This is a list of IFs in the field of Climate Science: http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=2301
As you can see, the IF of 1.65 will place the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences as the 17th ranked journal in the field of Climate Science. I can tell you form my experience, a 17th ranked journal is well down in the pecking list and is unlikely to get much attention from others in the field.

Since Climate Science is far afield from me I cannot provide any kind of insight into the potential validity/invalidity of this paper. What I can tell you is that not all science is valid and that the journal it is published in is a descent indication of what the authors and the field thinks of this work. Not all science is created equally and it should not be interpreted in this manner.

I had no idea that is how this work. Thanks for explaining.

The cynic in me says that I would be less inclined to send my paper to people who have already put all their stock in 'the sky is falling' club.

I just find it amusing to watch this unfold. Time will tell. 20 years from now your house in FL will either be 6 feet under water soon or it won't be. To which I will take a line from Open Range when Charlie knocked the barn framing down, "Should of built somewhere else" or....or nothing will have changed.

My position is that there are a billion people in China and a billion people in India. 7.6 billion people on the planet and the United Nations estimates it will further increase to 11.2 billion by the year 2100. At what point will the planet no longer be able to sustain eco balance? How many people can we feed and house? How much pollution can the planet stand. How much 'trash' can the planet take?

My Race Log

Master

5557

, California

Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

Originally posted by Rogillio The cynic in me says that I would be less inclined to send my paper to people who have already put all their stock in 'the sky is falling' club.

You do... if you think your study is bulletproof and you can anticipate all the angles from which it might get challenged.

If you have something that seems plausible, but you want to "test the waters", so to speak, then you might publish it somewhere down the ladder.

Edited by spudone 2017-12-01 1:11 PM

My Race Log

Expert

2373

Floriduh

Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

Rog, with all due respect, you are spewing non-sense. Scientific theory, and most certainly dogma, takes years to develop. Data is studied, theories are put forward, hypotheses tested, new theories emerge, we reach a consensus. I assure you that if someone has well substantiated data that overturns a developed dogma occurs - this represents the holy grail of science . Indeed, getting those who preach the dogma to change their minds is difficult but if you can get others to reproduce your findings dogma will change. Seen it happen myself, scientists are by nature uber skeptical and will listen to a well substantiated argument and the truth will emerge. Overturning developed dogma will set up your career big time . - but there is reason it is dogma - because it is usually largely correct.

The "well substantiated argument" is what is missing in the climate deniers. There is near unanimous opinion amongst scientists that CO2 is exerting a greenhouse effect and this is leading to atmospheric warming and melting of ice caps and glaciers. There is room for argument concerning how fast this is occurring, how much is man vs cyclical nature, etc. But to deny the overwhelming scientific consensus, you might as well argue the earth is flat.

The place to lodge argument is not with the science, but rather with the policy. Doing nothing is an option, happens to work out best for the carbon-based energy folks.

Pro

15655

Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

I'm good with going along with a warming earth as long as people are willing to say that it's not the Earth they are concerned about, but rather their own arses, and the arses of their descendants. Hell, most of the people running their mouths the loudest wouldn't even know how to build a campfire, or use a compass, or spend a single day in nature making their own way. But I have to listen to them rail on and on about the Earth and the harm we are causing it. GTFOH with that crap. All that concrete you're walking on, and the trees cut down to make room so it could be poured, has caused as much of a problem as any car you think I don't need to drive or fire I don't need to make in my fireplace.

I wish the Earth could talk so it could tell these ignorant bastages that their days on this planet have ALWAYS been numbered....the same as it has been for every other species that has come before us. And I bet it can't wait to get rid of us......I know for me, as much as I enjoy life, it won't be a bad day when they dump my arse back in the ground and I don't have to listen to all this chit anymore. /rant

Edited by Left Brain 2017-12-01 3:09 PM

1502

Katy, Texas

Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

Originally posted by Rogillio

20 years from now your house in FL will either be 6 feet under water soon or it won't be.

Totally anecdotal, and an n=1 data point, but this is why we sold our house in Florida. We lived in the Keys (at about 4' of elevation) on a strip of land a half mile wide. The first year we were there, our street flooded once, the next year it flooded twice, the third year it flooded 3 or 4 times. Not due to rain or any regular tide fluctuations that anyone around us knew about (and these folks KNEW the ocean). Talking to people that lived there all their lives, they said this never happened 5+ years ago. Is it global warming? I don't know. I'm not a climate scientist (although I am an Environmental Engineer, but I specialize in water/wastewater). Some of what I hear makes sense, other stuff doesn't. Was I willing to bet my largest asset on it? Nope. Sold and moved to higher ground.

My Race Log

Pro

9391

Omaha, NE

Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

Originally posted by 3mar

Originally posted by Rogillio 20 years from now your house in FL will either be 6 feet under water soon or it won't be.

Totally anecdotal, and an n=1 data point, but this is why we sold our house in Florida. We lived in the Keys (at about 4' of elevation) on a strip of land a half mile wide. The first year we were there, our street flooded once, the next year it flooded twice, the third year it flooded 3 or 4 times. Not due to rain or any regular tide fluctuations that anyone around us knew about (and these folks KNEW the ocean). Talking to people that lived there all their lives, they said this never happened 5+ years ago. Is it global warming? I don't know. I'm not a climate scientist (although I am an Environmental Engineer, but I specialize in water/wastewater). Some of what I hear makes sense, other stuff doesn't. Was I willing to bet my largest asset on it? Nope. Sold and moved to higher ground.

It will still be the same doom and gloom in 20 years. We've been "going to be under water" for 30+ years and counting. My scuba gear is getting dusty.

My Race Log

Pro

15655

Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by 3mar

Originally posted by Rogillio 20 years from now your house in FL will either be 6 feet under water soon or it won't be.

Totally anecdotal, and an n=1 data point, but this is why we sold our house in Florida. We lived in the Keys (at about 4' of elevation) on a strip of land a half mile wide. The first year we were there, our street flooded once, the next year it flooded twice, the third year it flooded 3 or 4 times. Not due to rain or any regular tide fluctuations that anyone around us knew about (and these folks KNEW the ocean). Talking to people that lived there all their lives, they said this never happened 5+ years ago. Is it global warming? I don't know. I'm not a climate scientist (although I am an Environmental Engineer, but I specialize in water/wastewater). Some of what I hear makes sense, other stuff doesn't. Was I willing to bet my largest asset on it? Nope. Sold and moved to higher ground.

It will still be the same doom and gloom in 20 years. We've been "going to be under water" for 30+ years and counting. My scuba gear is getting dusty.

When I was a kid it was fluorocarbons, and the hole in the ozone they were causing, that was going to kill us all by 2020.

More bullchit.

You want to know when we will all be killed? When this planet has enough of us. Then it will renew itself, spawn some new life form at the top of the food chain, and start over......like it has for billions of years. Don't worry, you won't be here, and neither will anyone who has ever heard of you....or cares about you.

This idea that we somehow control the fate of this planet, and that it's ultimate demise is actually happening during this time period, a speck of sand on a gnats arse in Earth's history, is perpetuated by people who think they are as important to this planet as the "selfies" they take. (or the internet they invented)

Human arrogance is comical.

Edited by Left Brain 2017-12-01 10:47 PM

Expert

2373

Floriduh

Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

Lefty, In response to the ozone depletion there was a global ban (Montreal Protocol) placed on the use of fluorocarbon propellants in aerosol cans.
https://www.state.gov/e/oes/eqt/chemicalpollution/83007.htm

Since the adoption of the Montreal Protocol there has been a decrease in atmospheric chlorine levels and, most importantly, decreased levels of UV radiation:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4455099/

UV radiation is the principal causative agent for skin cancer. Now I have not seen a lot of data supporting reduced incidence of skin cancer after Montreal, but there are several confounding factors that could factor into this. Nevertheless, the fact that UV radiation has decreased since adoption of Montreal is unquestionably a good thing.

Look, all of this stuff, ozone depletion, increased atmospheric CO2, sea level rise occur slowly and so the ill effects will occur slowly. We will never see the acute catastrophic events they portray in the movies but the effects will occur. It is just science.

Master

5557

, California

Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

Originally posted by Oysterboy Lefty, In response to the ozone depletion there was a global ban (Montreal Protocol) placed on the use of fluorocarbon propellants in aerosol cans. https://www.state.gov/e/oes/eqt/chemicalpollution/83007.htmSince the adoption of the Montreal Protocol there has been a decrease in atmospheric chlorine levels and, most importantly, decreased levels of UV radiation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4455099/UV radiation is the principal causative agent for skin cancer. Now I have not seen a lot of data supporting reduced incidence of skin cancer after Montreal, but there are several confounding factors that could factor into this. Nevertheless, the fact that UV radiation has decreased since adoption of Montreal is unquestionably a good thing. Look, all of this stuff, ozone depletion, increased atmospheric CO2, sea level rise occur slowly and so the ill effects will occur slowly. We will never see the acute catastrophic events they portray in the movies but the effects will occur. It is just science.

The ozone hole in particular was something nations could agree to fix because there was an easy way to make it obvious to everyone in a photograph.

My Race Log

Expert

2373

Floriduh

Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

Originally posted by spudone

Originally posted by Oysterboy Lefty, In response to the ozone depletion there was a global ban (Montreal Protocol) placed on the use of fluorocarbon propellants in aerosol cans. https://www.state.gov/e/oes/eqt/chemicalpollution/83007.htmSince the adoption of the Montreal Protocol there has been a decrease in atmospheric chlorine levels and, most importantly, decreased levels of UV radiation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4455099/UV radiation is the principal causative agent for skin cancer. Now I have not seen a lot of data supporting reduced incidence of skin cancer after Montreal, but there are several confounding factors that could factor into this. Nevertheless, the fact that UV radiation has decreased since adoption of Montreal is unquestionably a good thing. Look, all of this stuff, ozone depletion, increased atmospheric CO2, sea level rise occur slowly and so the ill effects will occur slowly. We will never see the acute catastrophic events they portray in the movies but the effects will occur. It is just science.

The ozone hole in particular was something nations could agree to fix because there was an easy way to make it obvious to everyone in a photograph.

It was also a time when science was accepted and not subjected to political spin. We, the scientific community, have done an awful job educating people how science is done and that politics plays no role in the development of dogma. Problem is we have a lot of windbags with bullhorns shouting us down.

Pro

15655

Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

Originally posted by Oysterboy

Originally posted by spudone

Originally posted by Oysterboy Lefty, In response to the ozone depletion there was a global ban (Montreal Protocol) placed on the use of fluorocarbon propellants in aerosol cans. https://www.state.gov/e/oes/eqt/chemicalpollution/83007.htmSince the adoption of the Montreal Protocol there has been a decrease in atmospheric chlorine levels and, most importantly, decreased levels of UV radiation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4455099/UV radiation is the principal causative agent for skin cancer. Now I have not seen a lot of data supporting reduced incidence of skin cancer after Montreal, but there are several confounding factors that could factor into this. Nevertheless, the fact that UV radiation has decreased since adoption of Montreal is unquestionably a good thing. Look, all of this stuff, ozone depletion, increased atmospheric CO2, sea level rise occur slowly and so the ill effects will occur slowly. We will never see the acute catastrophic events they portray in the movies but the effects will occur. It is just science.

The ozone hole in particular was something nations could agree to fix because there was an easy way to make it obvious to everyone in a photograph.

It was also a time when science was accepted and not subjected to political spin. We, the scientific community, have done an awful job educating people how science is done and that politics plays no role in the development of dogma. Problem is we have a lot of windbags with bullhorns shouting us down.

Another way you could say it is that you let windbags with bullhorn s carry the torch .....ala Al Gore. Nobody believes anything that idiot says. Lets face it you guys let the politicians in the door.

Pro

9391

Omaha, NE

Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by Oysterboy

Originally posted by spudone

Originally posted by Oysterboy Lefty, In response to the ozone depletion there was a global ban (Montreal Protocol) placed on the use of fluorocarbon propellants in aerosol cans. https://www.state.gov/e/oes/eqt/chemicalpollution/83007.htmSince the adoption of the Montreal Protocol there has been a decrease in atmospheric chlorine levels and, most importantly, decreased levels of UV radiation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4455099/UV radiation is the principal causative agent for skin cancer. Now I have not seen a lot of data supporting reduced incidence of skin cancer after Montreal, but there are several confounding factors that could factor into this. Nevertheless, the fact that UV radiation has decreased since adoption of Montreal is unquestionably a good thing. Look, all of this stuff, ozone depletion, increased atmospheric CO2, sea level rise occur slowly and so the ill effects will occur slowly. We will never see the acute catastrophic events they portray in the movies but the effects will occur. It is just science.

The ozone hole in particular was something nations could agree to fix because there was an easy way to make it obvious to everyone in a photograph.

It was also a time when science was accepted and not subjected to political spin. We, the scientific community, have done an awful job educating people how science is done and that politics plays no role in the development of dogma. Problem is we have a lot of windbags with bullhorns shouting us down.

Another way you could say it is that you let windbags with bullhorn s carry the torch .....ala Al Gore. Nobody believes anything that idiot says. Lets face it you guys let the politicians in the door.

They are the ones carrying the bags of money in with them, so I feel they were compelled.

My Race Log

Pro

15655

Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by Oysterboy

Originally posted by spudone

Originally posted by Oysterboy Lefty, In response to the ozone depletion there was a global ban (Montreal Protocol) placed on the use of fluorocarbon propellants in aerosol cans. https://www.state.gov/e/oes/eqt/chemicalpollution/83007.htmSince the adoption of the Montreal Protocol there has been a decrease in atmospheric chlorine levels and, most importantly, decreased levels of UV radiation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4455099/UV radiation is the principal causative agent for skin cancer. Now I have not seen a lot of data supporting reduced incidence of skin cancer after Montreal, but there are several confounding factors that could factor into this. Nevertheless, the fact that UV radiation has decreased since adoption of Montreal is unquestionably a good thing. Look, all of this stuff, ozone depletion, increased atmospheric CO2, sea level rise occur slowly and so the ill effects will occur slowly. We will never see the acute catastrophic events they portray in the movies but the effects will occur. It is just science.

The ozone hole in particular was something nations could agree to fix because there was an easy way to make it obvious to everyone in a photograph.

It was also a time when science was accepted and not subjected to political spin. We, the scientific community, have done an awful job educating people how science is done and that politics plays no role in the development of dogma. Problem is we have a lot of windbags with bullhorns shouting us down.

Another way you could say it is that you let windbags with bullhorn s carry the torch .....ala Al Gore. Nobody believes anything that idiot says. Lets face it you guys let the politicians in the door.

They are the ones carrying the bags of money in with them, so I feel they were compelled.

That may be.....but who didn't see the eyes rolling when Al Gore said he invented the internet and then said we must fall in line on global warming. LMAO (sorry to keep bringing that moron up, but it's such an easy illustration)

Science allowed itself to be politicized......period.

Honestly, I don't care either way. Eventually mankind will no longer be here. Growth in population alone will see to that. Whether or not it comes a few thousand years earlier or later because of "global warming" (or not) won't be a speck of sand on the beach of Earth's history. And these arguments won't even be a particle on that speck of sand.

Edited by Left Brain 2017-12-04 11:54 PM

Champion

10157

Alabama

Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/05/princeton-physicist-points-out-th...

LOL. This guy says everybody is wrong! All your models suck! He says models simply cannot predict climate change as the system is way too complex.

I find it amusing that they cannot accurately predict the weather with much certainty out more than a few days. I consistently see the 10 day forecast end up being totally wrong. I'm sure the NWS has pretty powerful super computers churning away at models and yet, unless it is actually raining, cannot even predict rain with much confidence. OK, I realize there is a big difference in weather and climate but they are both based on models and the more variables and unknowns there are in models the more complex the models have to be.

I've always been amused at the 'butterfly effect'. The idea is that a butterfly flapping his wings in North Africa can create a swirl of air that is the start of a hurricane that hits off the coast of Florida. Not sure I buy this theory but I guess if you dial a hurricane back far enough, it had to start somewhere....

This guy is a rebel and I like that. I heard a comedian talk about how everything these days is "no salt", "low sodium" "no salt added" etc. But then there is a pretzel company that says, FU and call their pretzels, Mr Salty! To me, this physicist is Mr Salty!

My Race Log

Expert

2373

Floriduh

Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

*Sigh* He was not arguing the facts of climate change he was just stating (in a non-peer reviewed blog site run by a conservative talk show host) that the models are flawed. This may be, models are only used to "predict" future events and as no one has a crystal ball you can mount that argument. Do note that the insert from a UC guy argues the opposite. Please, do us all a favor, do not pull non-peer reviewed science published on a blog site and re-iterated on daily caller and argue it is legitimate sourcing. I could pull stuff out of my arse and it would have the same legitimacy.

Champion

10157

Alabama

Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

Originally posted by Oysterboy

*Sigh* He was not arguing the facts of climate change he was just stating (in a non-peer reviewed blog site run by a conservative talk show host) that the models are flawed. This may be, models are only used to "predict" future events and as no one has a crystal ball you can mount that argument. Do note that the insert from a UC guy argues the opposite. Please, do us all a favor, do not pull non-peer reviewed science published on a blog site and re-iterated on daily caller and argue it is legitimate sourcing. I could pull stuff out of my arse and it would have the same legitimacy.

"Do us all a favor?"

WTF? Lighten up Francis!

I did not check the source to if it was peer reviewed or has traceability to scientific data nor do I give a rats arse if it does or doesn't. I was sharing something I found amusing and tend to agree with. Try not to get bent out of shape if someone posts "non-peer reviewed science published on a blog site and re-iterated on daily caller". This is an political forum not a scientific journal!

Pease tell me where I "argued" it was "legitimate sourcing". Or did you just pull that our your arse? :-)

You seem to get angry whenever something is posted that refutes global warming. I don't know if the climate is changing or not or if man has anything to do with it and I don't care. Real or not, man-made of not, we'd sooner have angles fly out our arses than to change the climate. BTW, that is MY OPINON and has not been peer reviewed or published in a science publication. IMO climate change is a political issue not a scientific one. The idea that we can change the collective will of 7.5 billion people is ludicrous.

My Race Log

Expert

2373

Floriduh

Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

OK Francis, do yourself a favor.

I do agree that climate change is far more of a political argument than a scientific one. The science is largely settled, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and by continuing the burn fossil fuels we are driving more CO2 into the atmosphere and this is warming the planet. What is debatable is what to do about it, and as I have said before, doing nothing is an option.

With this said, why do the conservatives willingly choose to fight the science? This "article" that you cited attempted to discredit the notion of climate change with the argument that the modeling is flawed. Apples and oranges. But they continue to throw up sand in the air in an attempt to discredit the science. We should have the discussion on what policies to adopt, not on the merits of the science. And again, doing nothing is an option.

Edited by Oysterboy 2018-02-06 9:55 AM

Pro

9391

Omaha, NE

Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....

Originally posted by Oysterboy OK Francis, do yourself a favor. I do agree that climate change is far more of a political argument than a scientific one. The science is largely settled, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and by continuing the burn fossil fuels we are driving more CO2 into the atmosphere and this is warming the planet. What is debatable is what to do about it, and as I have said before, doing nothing is an option. With this said, why do the conservatives willingly choose to fight the science? This "article" that you cited attempted to discredit the notion of climate change with the argument that the modeling is flawed. Apples and oranges. But they continue to throw up sand in the air in an attempt to discredit the science. We should have the discussion on what policies to adopt, not on the merits of the science. And again, doing nothing is an option.

Whenever a scientists (or anyone else) brings up the "settled science" argument, it immediately shows that it's not science. Science is never settled and the term "settled science" is the most anti-science term a person can say.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas (true) and we are burning more fossil fuels and driving more CO2 into the atmosphere (true). It is true to say it's having a warming effect on the planet, but it is absolutely false to say it "is warming the planet" which implies it's the primary forcing agent. This is where climate science is struggling and it couldn't be further away from "settled science".
There have been numerous models created in an attempt to forecast the temperature increases, but they've all shown too much warming attributed to CO2 when compared to real world observations, which by the very nature of the scientific method proves them to be incorrect.
Global temperatures have absolutely been increasing for thousands of years (millions of years). Man has absolutely contributed to the increase in temperature. The question that is still unanswered is how much has man contributed. As the science continues to mature, the anthropogenic contribution appears to be far less than anyone originally thought.

You're also correct that there's a ton of politics involved in the AGW field. It's causing a lot of problems for everyone and makes it near impossible to get to the bottom of it.
My non-peer reviewed scientific opinion is that there's a big ball of gas in the sky that drives our global temperature far greater than anything we could ever do. The earth is an amazing terrarium that has many abilities to equalize the temperature that we know very little about.

My Race Log

Global warming - once more into the breach....

RIGHT-CENTER BIAS

RIGHT-CENTER BIAS

REGISTER TODAY