Originally Posted By thenurmis LOL kids ok I am the simplist of the simple. I do not claim to know who or what is causing the change in the weather. but I do under stand, ( as you both do) that there is a major issue at hand. and what we do, may have a possitive effect , or negitive effect on what our children , or family have to deal with in the future. so instead of looking for the owner of the smoking gun, maybe we should all look at a way to plug the hole it has left. This on going poo poo on who or what is causing the warming effect is not really as relevent as what can we do do to slow it down or stop it. but eh, continue on you spiting and finger pointing, if nothing elce us simpiltons gather some amusment from it.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece" target="_blank">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t ol/news/uk/article1363818.ece</a> >>An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases. The small print explains “very likely†as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works. Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported. Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean. So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?†It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999. That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago. Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming. << Much more at the link....
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml" target="_blank">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new s/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml</a> >>Cosmic rays blamed for global warming Man-made climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been claimed, according to controversial new research. Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth's climate than global warming experts previously thought. In a book, to be published this week, they claim that fluctuations in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere directly alter the amount of cloud covering the planet. High levels of cloud cover blankets the Earth and reflects radiated heat from the Sun back out into space, causing the planet to cool. Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who led the team behind the research, believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. This, he says, is responsible for much of the global warming we are experiencing. <<
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I've stated this recently before but it seems to bear repeating. What with the advances in technology and industry in the last 200 years, and all that humans all over the world have pumped into the atmosphere and oceans as a result, it is sheer folly, bordering on IDIOCY, to deny that this behavior has not had a negative impact on the climate. That it takes study after study to confirm this is maddening.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I do not claim to know who or what is causing the change in the weather." And if you did, it would rather surprising, as I didn't know you were a climatologist. The thing is, that the people who are, and who study these things and the organizations that they are members do claim to know, and they seem to all be saying just about the same things. "This on going poo poo on who or what is causing the warming effect is not really as relevent" Actually, it is extremely relevant, for if you can determine the cause, and it is human in origin, as the various scientific groups claim them to be, then we are then in a position to slow, stop, or reverse the process. That is why there is so much talk of greenhouse gasses and so on, and curbing them, because if we can cut the cause, the effect would hopefully go away. And as SPP has pointed out, study after study after study points out that we are the cause. And as science advances and we learn more, this further gets confirmed. Some people, however, don't seem to get this. And that if there is one guy or two out there who dissents, it throws the entire idea into the wastecan. Of course it does not. The overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion is a certain thing. That does not mean a unanimous opinion, nor does it mean that other ideas may come along as well. However, anything to be considered as valuable will be peer reviewed and published. It is not what some columnist either here, or in the WSJ has to say about it, nor is it a one off study that shows some other information that is way off the beam, unless it is clear and convincing. So, I see little point in discussing what this one guy in the WSJ says, because he's not a peer reviewed scientist, nor what these one off guys have to say if their work is not peer reviewed. It bears no weight in the discussion. It just doesn't. Neither do the illogical and ridiculous meta discussions that go on here about "commentators on commentators." As time goes on, people will come up with other theories that may challenge the existing ideas. That's how we move forward intellectually and scientifically. These ideas will be looked into, challenged, and either accepted or rejected for whatever reason. Eventually, you build up a picture of what is actually happening based on what can be seen, proven, or demonstrated with facts. That is all that matters in this. It is not a political issue, and those who attempt to make it one solely miss the point, and the basic comprehension of what is going on.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>You post some quote from a one off guy...<< Which is all that was requested. Over and over the Usual Suspects claim that it is decided, scientists have concluded that global warming is caused be the activities of man, and challenge any here who dare question the science to come up with any credible supporting statement. The credible support is produced, and what is the reply. "It doesn't matter." I left this discussion long ago when I realized it is akin to disagreeing with a superstitious monk in the Middle Ages. Frankly I's almost rather be burned at the stake for heresy than face the relentles repetition of tired argument from the parrots who infest this discussion.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Which is all that was requested." Who requested that? I do not recall seeing anyone request some quote from some one off guy. "Over and over the Usual Suspects claim that it is decided, scientists have concluded that global warming is caused be the activities of man, and challenge any here who dare question the science to come up with any credible supporting statement." Sure, go ahead and produce some CREDIBLE evidence. There has not been one shred of it. So your claim of it being produced is specious. It has been explained over and over again exactly what sort of thing is considered credible. Not by me, but by the scientific community. "I's almost rather be burned at the stake for heresy than face the relentles repetition of tired argument from the parrots who infest this discussion." Yes, the parrots who are relaying what is actually considered the best we know of by the scientific ocmmunity of the world. How crazy could that possibly be in discussing a scientific finding. I must be simply filled with superstition and irrationality to actually go ahead and think that studies the world over done by thousands of people actively studying the situation should have any bearing at all one what people believe, instead of taking the word of some clown from the WSJ, or pretty much that sort of thing. Yes, I can see your point. Instead of listening to the National Science Foundation, we should get our science news from an advocacy group that is being paid by people have a financial interest in seeing these ideas quietly put to rest. Of course. That makes ALL the sense in the world, and I congratulate those of you who think this way for your airtight logic and irrefutable conclusions.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Yes, the parrots who are relaying what is actually considered the best we know of by the scientific ocmmunity of the world.> Really? You've cited peer-reviewed documents written by actual climate scientists? I must have missed it. Where? When?
Originally Posted By jonvn "You've cited peer-reviewed documents written by actual climate scientists?" I didn't say I cited them, so your latest illogical strawman argument is meaningless. As per usual.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I didn't say I cited them, so your latest illogical strawman argument is meaningless.> Of course it's not. It shows that you're doing exactly what you claim other people shouldn't. You're not an expert, and you haven't produced any evidence to back up your claim. In fact, you haven't even defined what your claim is. Why do you ask for something you're not willing to provide?
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I do not recall seeing anyone request some quote from some one off guy.<< No, the mantra has been, "There is no credible scientist who disagrees that global warming is caused by man." That challenge is met by reasonable statements, which are dismissed out of hand. For example: >>Here are the words of Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of Britain's leading climate scientists. "I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric. It seems that it is we, the professional climate scientists, who are now the skeptics...<< The response? >>Laid bare, your posts are nonsense. There has been nothing but facts and logic here. You post some quote from a one off guy, meanwhile, every single organization who studies this stuff basically agree.<< That is not a response. It is simply a parroting of what has been said before. Simply put, the argument is self fulfilling: All credible scientists agree with this idea; any scientist who does not agree is not credible. To continue the midevil analogy, if she floats, she's a witch, if she drowns, she's not. Pity the poor scientist who runs afoul of this latest Inquisition.
Originally Posted By DlandDug In the course of checking out the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research (unlike some here, I vet every source I cite), I ran across a very interesting excerpt that goes into some background on the global warming debate: >>Climate science was a relatively narrow field until recently. Keith Shine, professor of meteorology at the University of Reading, traces the start of the modern era to a series of papers published in the 1960s by Syukuro Manabe at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, New Jersey. Manabe developed the first mathematical models of the atmosphere to predict the effects of adding carbon dioxide. Around this time, however, researchers were working in isolation, and there were as many warning of an impending ice age as there were that the Earth is warming, Shine says. "The early climate models were just atmospheric, derived from weather forecasting models," says Peter Cox, professor of climate system dynamics at the University of Exeter. "Then the oceans were included, initially just as immobile slabs of water that absorbed and reflected heat." Things began to change in the late 1980s, as researchers started to understand more about how oceans affected climate, and oceanography became a crucial part of climate science. "We now have a lot of models of the oceans," says Harry Bryden at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, "but we still need more field observations. We only have very short records of what the oceans have been doing." In the 1990s, another discipline came on board: biological sciences. At the Hadley Centre, the Met Office's research centre on climate change, Cox was involved with incorporating land surface into the climate models. "Initially our models were built in a rather reductionist way," he says. "They did not use ecological knowledge, like how plants respond to changes in carbon dioxide levels, or how decomposition rates change." This was where biological sciences came in. Pete Falloon, also at the Hadley Centre, who studies how carbon moves between soil and the atmosphere, says biologists like him are now common. "In the past, you needed maths or physics to work here," he says. "Now there are more natural scientists." This century has brought a new wave of social scientists and engineers. The Tyndall Centre - a partnership between six universities set up in 2000 - has played a key role... The centre's remit is to connect different realms of knowledge such as economics, psychology and engineering with natural sciences, to gain insights into what climate change means for society. Tyndall researchers were responsible for some of the main conclusions of the Treasury's Stern Review on the economic impacts of climate change, published last October.<< The full article may be found here: <a href="http://www.newscientistjobs.com/insider/article.action?article.id=insider202&focusId=uk" target="_blank">http://www.newscientistjobs.co m/insider/article.action?article.id=insider202&focusId=uk</a>
Originally Posted By jonvn "There is no credible scientist who disagrees that global warming is caused by man." That's been the mantra, has it? Well, let's look at it this way: No. The mantra is that every credible institution who studies this all say the same thing, basically. And that there is a vast consensus of opinion on it. As has repeatedly been said, this does not mean unanimous opinion. I think I've said this literally twenty or so times now. That there are people who do not agree is not denied. However, for their disagreement to be able to be accepted by the majority of those who study these things, it has to be peer reviewed and the data must be verifiable. Therefore, your mantra is wrong, your statements are false, and your point is invalid. In short, you are engaging in a strawman argument where instead of actually arguing what has been said, you are trying to frame the thing and state that some other, easier, argument was made. That's simply false on its face.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 I'm growing to hate strawmen. Can't we call them something else for awhile. Like Haypeople or something?
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Therefore, your mantra is wrong, your statements are false, and your point is invalid.<< As usual, the hyperbole flows like Niagra. >>"There is no credible scientist who disagrees that global warming is caused by man." That's been the mantra, has it? Well, let's look at it this way: No.<< >>That there are people who do not agree is not denied. However, for their disagreement to be able to be accepted by the majority of those who study these things, it has to be peer reviewed and the data must be verifiable.<< In other words, a roundabout way of saying that there is no credible scientist who disagrees that global warming is caused by man. You may call it "peer review" or "verifiable data," but I prefer to be succinct. And, as was stated above, at least three examples have been presented and dismissed with nary a comment beyond, "Your arguments are pitiful and you are a fool." Move along folks, nothing new to see here.
Originally Posted By DlandDug P.S. A "straw man argument" is when one invents an opponent whole cloth and proceeds to demolish same. Since I am engaging actual individuals here, bringing up the concept is specious. Unless, of course, they consider themselves straw men, in which case I have no recourse.
Originally Posted By jonvn "As usual, the hyperbole flows like Niagra." No. I said exactly the truth. You are making stuff up that people have said to argue against them. It's a way of lying. "In other words, a roundabout way of saying that there is no credible scientist who disagrees that global warming is caused by man" No, it's just that at this point it would be quite extraordinary to find one. Because the vast consensus is what I said it was, and there are very few people left who disagree. Those who do are generally not very credible at this point. "Move along folks, nothing new to see here." Not from people who argue like you are, no. "A "straw man argument" is when one invents an opponent whole cloth and proceeds to demolish same." Which is what you are doing. You get an A for coming up with a definition, you get an F for not being to apply it to your own statements, for which they completley fit. Next time you want to argue with someone, and get self-righteous in the process, that you actually try and argue with what the other person actually had to say. It migh give your statements a shred of credibility, whereas right now, they have none. Nice pomposity, though. It always helps when you have no other facts to work with.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Over and over the Usual Suspects claim that it is decided, scientists have concluded that global warming is caused be the activities of man, and challenge any here who dare question the science to come up with any credible supporting statement.<< >>Frankly I's almost rather be burned at the stake for heresy than face the relentles repetition of tired argument from the parrots who infest this discussion.<< >>Unless, of course, they consider themselves straw men, in which case I have no recourse.<< I'm sure glad this isn't ever about personalities. We wouldn't want that. No sir, just about the arguments and the facts on these boards.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Because the vast consensus is what I said it was, and there are very few people left who disagree. Those who do are generally not very credible at this point.> Can you provide cites from peer-reviewed articles written by actual climate scientists that back up this statement?
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I'm sure glad this isn't ever about personalities.<< Whereas I am sorry that that is just about all this is about anymore.
