Climate skeptics hold scientific review, unexpectedly find global warming is real

[JohnOfSheffield]

There wouldn't even have been this debate if environmentalist didn't trump up data and use scare tactics trying to get us to believe the world is coming to an end. Back in the 80's according to them by now we should all be walking in knee deep trash from all the land fills being full and not able to breath from all the pollution. We should also all have skin cancer now from the hole in the ozone layer and NY should be flooded from the polar caps melting.

.7C increase over the last 100 years seems to be the common conclusion, but that is still well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium and certainly inline with a lot of studies of where we should be having a Little Ice Age just 150 years ago or so.

So what does everyone propose we do about it? Start slapping more fines on companies that produce the things our society demands of us? That will only lead to higher prices on American goods when we are already competing against countries that are absolutely laying waste to their own environments.

Even Jesus can't help you from ignoring reality.

See, at one point, reality does trumph everything else, and at that poin, you are shit out of luck and every prayer you have made will be for naught.

Reality has trumphed all ideologies every time.

I'm sure that if Jesus was here today he would tell us that tellus is quite important, now of course you don't get that because you are a retarded bible thumper but tellus is the planiet we live on, earth for you retarde people...

You don't fuck up what makes you live... and we do that every day, now you are wondering if others couldn't do more instead of looking to yourself?

You're a pathetic excuse for a Christian.

 

[Matt1970]

Even Jesus can't help you from ignoring reality.

See, at one point, reality does trumph everything else, and at that poin, you are shit out of luck and every prayer you have made will be for naught.

Reality has trumphed all ideologies every time.

I'm sure that if Jesus was here today he would tell us that tellus is quite important, now of course you don't get that because you are a retarded bible thumper but tellus is the planiet we live on, earth for you retarde people...

You don't fuck up what makes you live... and we do that every day, now you are wondering if others couldn't do more instead of looking to yourself?

You're a pathetic excuse for a Christian.

So that's what it is now? Throw religion in it as you retreat from being schooled? Go hug a tree and cry about how badly you have been treated from an opressive society you live in.

 

[bfdd]

Denial is getting to be a major religion of the Right. Religious thought tends to be compartmentalized nowadays, though, so it's not something that you'll find coming up in normal conversation.
You can't tell someone who has a Big Sky Daddy from an atheist from normal conversation, either.




This highlights a problem of the Right: A complete cluelessness about the scientific arena. They model it as though, underneath the lab coats, it's just professional wrestling.
Science is science. It is the anti-bullshit. That bullshitters exist outside the scientific framework doesn't mean that bullshitters that try to enter it don't get their asses handed to them.
Skeptical inquiry is a scientist's job. And it isn't a Fox News viewer's version: "Deny everything that's complex or that I don't like. Find a meme that feels 'homey', then I know I'm home." It is instead: Question all assertions. Deny your own hypothesis. Work up from the evidence -- find why it's false. Can't disprove it? That means it's time to hand it off to someone else and give them a shot at destroying it. If they can't, either, then you give it to the entire community.
Your average idiot thinks that science is about building ideas. It's not. Any idiot can imagine. Science is science because it's ruthlessly destructive to ideas. It is uber-Darwinian.




It has always amused me that deniers latched with such ferocity to the heat island effect. Perfect example of confirmation bias, where the believer completely fails to look for anything that goes against the idea.
It's been known for decades. It's well-studied, and the offsets have been calculated and recalculated. Gets mentioned constantly by any TV meteorologist who covers a major metro area. Yet the legion of "D" students known as "conservatives" think that the entirety of climatological studies forgot to account for it.

It's rather like asking whether Hawking accounted for gravity in his work on black holes. Not bloody likely.

Uh... your whole second part is laughable. I guess that's why articles like this don't exist.

http://motherboard.tv/2011/1/18/science-isn-t-working-right-call-in-the-metascientists

before anyone screams "OMG NOT CLIMATE SCIENCE!!!" no shit sherlock, it's still science though.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Uh... your whole second part is laughable. I guess that's why articles like this don't exist.

You think Jenny McCarthy is a scientist?

It was never the consensus of the scientific community that vaccines caused autism. There was plenty of evidence that they did not. That everybody else is retarded and listened to a Playboy model's bullshit instead of asking scientists what the totality of the evidence supported is not my problem.

Jenny McCarthy was a version conservative talk. That conservative talk can be persuasive to gullible idiots is not exactly a secret to those of us who are neither.
We don't pay it any heed, so perhaps you shouldn't either?

As for studies that lie unexamined for years -- again, they will not be the scientific consensus, because nobody's even read them.

 

[Tom]

Right now TODAY it is far cheaper to build coal plants with the power lines.

My argument is extremely simple, how do you convince people that are living like shit to not improve their lives due to global warming concerns? If your argument is that they should wait for tech to mature, how do you convince them to do that? If your argument is to use far more expensive (even if just initially) tech, how do you convince them to do that? We bitch rather loudly in this country that people the next city over have better cell service or internet service, we are talking electricity and running water.

If they tell us to pound sand, then what? We retard our economy for zero gain?

What people are you talking about ? The ones that are living in huts but can afford to build coal plants and transmission lines, but can't afford any alternatives ?

I'm willing to bet that many of the people you are talking about aren't going to build any power plants on their own. They are probably going to borrow the money from us, the 1st world, to finance whatever they build. We can influence what they build.

You like to use the word "far", do you have facts to back up these things that are "far more" expensive and "far cheaper" ?

Coal has been convenient for us, because we have lots of it. Not every country has lots of coal, how does that affect your assertion that coal plants are "far" cheaper ? You sure that applies to Ethiopia, for example ?

China has lots of coal, but they are building nuclear plants. If coal is "far cheaper", why are they doing that ?

Brazil has people living in huts, but it's one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Are they doing that by building lots of coal plants and transmission lines ?

Based on your positions, I assume you think we should stop wasting money on research and education, and put that money into building more coal plants. That's your idea for improving the economy ?

 

[bigdog1218]

Denial is getting to be a major religion of the Right. Religious thought tends to be compartmentalized nowadays, though, so it's not something that you'll find coming up in normal conversation.
You can't tell someone who has a Big Sky Daddy from an atheist from normal conversation, either.

This highlights a problem of the Right: A complete cluelessness about the scientific arena. They model it as though, underneath the lab coats, it's just professional wrestling.

Science is science. It is the anti-bullshit. That bullshitters exist outside the scientific framework doesn't mean that bullshitters that try to enter it don't get their asses handed to them.

Skeptical inquiry is a scientist's job. And it isn't a Fox News viewer's version: "Deny everything that's complex or that I don't like. Find a meme that feels 'homey', then I know I'm home." It is instead: Question all assertions. Deny your own hypothesis. Work up from the evidence -- find why it's false. Can't disprove it? That means it's time to hand it off to someone else and give them a shot at destroying it. If they can't, either, then you give it to the entire community.

Your average idiot thinks that science is about building ideas. It's not. Any idiot can imagine. Science is science because it's ruthlessly destructive to ideas. It is uber-Darwinian.

It has always amused me that deniers latched with such ferocity to the heat island effect. Perfect example of confirmation bias, where the believer completely fails to look for anything that goes against the idea.
It's been known for decades. It's well-studied, and the offsets have been calculated and recalculated. Gets mentioned constantly by any TV meteorologist who covers a major metro area. Yet the legion of "D" students known as "conservatives" think that the entirety of climatological studies forgot to account for it.

It's rather like asking whether Hawking forgot to account for gravity in his work on black holes. Not bloody likely.

Sorry but the whole idea that scientists are knights in shining armor out to save the world is a ridiculous myth held by naive people who don't know any better.

A scientists top 10 objectives

1-5 - Funding
6-9 - Notoriety
10 - Science

Find a scientist that puts science first and I'll show you a scientist that struggling for funding and tenure. If you get a $500k grant to research MMGW, you're getting $500k to prove MMGW exists. That's how it works.

And science is science, but scientists are people. Again just because someone's a scientist doesn't mean they can't be greedy, or cheat and lie to prove their agenda, because that's how it really is. The majority of data is "adjusted" to fit better and you'll be amazed at how little data is actually reproducible.

But no matter what you and others will keep believing these scientists are just selfless saints that can do no wrong because you don't know, you just believe.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Global warming is real. The question is what is causing global warming. Pavement instead of trees that absorb energy instead of reflecting it? Particulates on top of snow accelerating it's melting? Natural cycles? Combination? Joe Rossi?

 

[ShawnD1]

Global warming is real. The question is what is causing global warming. Pavement instead of trees that absorb energy instead of reflecting it? Particulates on top of snow accelerating it's melting? Natural cycles? Combination? Joe Rossi?

Probably the one thing that differentiates Earth from Luna - the atmosphere

We know it's not pavement because most global warming happens in areas where there is no pavement to absorb the sun light at ground level, and no water in the air to absorb sun light in the air. At the poles, CO2 and a few other trace gases are what drive the greenhouse effect.

 

[jonks]

Sorry but the whole idea that scientists are knights in shining armor out to save the world is a ridiculous myth held by naive people who don't know any better.

A scientists top 10 objectives

1-5 - Funding
6-9 - Notoriety
10 - Science

Find a scientist that puts science first and I'll show you a scientist that struggling for funding and tenure. If you get a $500k grant to research MMGW, you're getting $500k to prove MMGW exists. That's how it works.

And science is science, but scientists are people. Again just because someone's a scientist doesn't mean they can't be greedy, or cheat and lie to prove their agenda, because that's how it really is. The majority of data is "adjusted" to fit better and you'll be amazed at how little data is actually reproducible.

But no matter what you and others will keep believing these scientists are just selfless saints that can do no wrong because you don't know, you just believe.

Amazing how people can post shit like this and simultaneously complain how students in this country are failing in science compared to their international peers.

Everything you posted is irrelevent because studies do not exist in a vacuum. They are reviewed and challenged and debated and, if faulty, debunked and never cited by anyone credible again. You have a pretty hardy case of anti-intellectualism going on there, might want to get that checked, but not by a doctor, because they rely on science you know.

Oh, and strawman.

 

[ShawnD1]

Sorry but the whole idea that scientists are knights in shining armor out to save the world is a ridiculous myth held by naive people who don't know any better.

A scientists top 10 objectives

1-5 - Funding
6-9 - Notoriety
10 - Science

Find a scientist that puts science first and I'll show you a scientist that struggling for funding and tenure. If you get a $500k grant to research MMGW, you're getting $500k to prove MMGW exists. That's how it works.

lol this is obviously the worst troll attempt I have ever seen on this forum.

Introductory common sense: you get more fame and research money if you come up with research that disproves past research. Right now an overwhelming majority of research is pointing in the same direction.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Introductory common sense: you get more fame and research money if you come up with research that disproves past research. Right now an overwhelming majority of research is pointing in the same direction.

You should take look at the history of Kirkby's CLOUD experiment and why it was initially tabled over 10 years ago. The motivations of human beings are not trivial.

 

[Tom]

You should take look at the history of Kirkby's CLOUD experiment and why it was initially tabled over 10 years ago. The motivations of human beings are not trivial.

So that goes for you too, right ?

 

[Blackjack200]

Instead of counting as "unresolved" scientific questions where there's at least one peer-reviewed study on each side, why don't you count the number of peer-reviewed papers on each side? Or is it really your position that "consensus" must entail unanimity?

I'm sure he hasn't thought about it one bit. He just copy/pasted from a conservative blog and thinks it's a compelling argument

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...on+dry+season+browner+Avalanches+may+increase

Of course individual studies can contradict; why do you think they repeat them?

 

[Jaskalas]

The leading alternative theory. Watch the video if you wish to learn about it.

Video: Geophysicist explains how the Sun controls climate

Dr. Vincent Courtillot is a professor of geophysics at the University Paris-Diderot and Chair of paleomagnetism and geodynamics of the Institut Universitaire de France. In the recent lecture below he explains how solar cycles control the climate by influence on cloud formation (the cosmic ray theory of Svensmark et al) and via influence on ocean oscillations and length of day. Dr. Courtillot notes that IPCC climate computer models do not correlate with observations and that temperature trends vary substantially between North America and Europe (which is contrary to IPCC computer model predictions).

 

[jonks]

You should take look at the history of Kirkby's CLOUD experiment and why it was initially tabled over 10 years ago. The motivations of human beings are not trivial.

No one says they are. Everyone knows scientists are humans and not robots, just like you know journalists have personal opinions, just like you know your doctor and lawyer and contractor all want to make money while doing their jobs. You accord it a certain amount of weight in your analysis. But arguing with any given scientific study by pointing to a possible bias because the scientists are um, human, is not a valid substitute to focusing on the data and methodology. Sourcing should certainly be recognized, which is why it's usually made public, but it seems laymen only disagree with studies whose conclusions offend their politics or religion. Where's the last thread on here blasting scientists for a study analyzing fossil teeth and projecting the food extinct animals likely ate?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So that goes for you too, right ?

Of course...when I said human beings I meant 'all' human beings. It's curious though that you feel compelled to ask the question as if you're making some kind of profound point.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No one says they are. Everyone knows scientists are humans and not robots, just like you know journalists have personal opinions, just like you know your doctor and lawyer and contractor all want to make money while doing their jobs. You accord it a certain amount of weight in your analysis. But arguing with any given scientific study by pointing to a possible bias because the scientists are um, human, is not a valid substitute to focusing on the data and methodology. Sourcing should certainly be recognized, which is why it's usually made public, but it seems laymen only disagree with studies whose conclusions offend their politics or religion. Where's the last thread on here blasting scientists for a study analyzing fossil teeth and projecting the food extinct animals likely ate?

I think you may have misunderstood my point as it appears that you didn't take the time to look into why Kirkby's CLOUD experiment was tabled in 1998. Here you go.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=975f250d-ca5d-4f40-b687-a1672ed1f684

Politics in science...who would have thunk?

 

[jonks]

I think you may have misunderstood my point as it appears that you didn't take the time to look into why Kirkby's CLOUD experiment was tabled in 1998. Here you go.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=975f250d-ca5d-4f40-b687-a1672ed1f684

Politics in science...who would have thunk?

Again, who said there wasn't politics in science? Nice link by the way. The title page article: Election 2011: Liberals hide their agenda on Canada’s military. Got anything from WND I can read, I'd rather have an unbiased source.

 

[bfdd]

You think Jenny McCarthy is a scientist?

It was never the consensus of the scientific community that vaccines caused autism. There was plenty of evidence that they did not. That everybody else is retarded and listened to a Playboy model's bullshit instead of asking scientists what the totality of the evidence supported is not my problem.

Jenny McCarthy was a version conservative talk. That conservative talk can be persuasive to gullible idiots is not exactly a secret to those of us who are neither.
We don't pay it any heed, so perhaps you shouldn't either?

As for studies that lie unexamined for years -- again, they will not be the scientific consensus, because nobody's even read them.

Jenny McCarthy is not a scientist, my point was that scientists are fucking shit up all the time for the sake of money. They cannot do research and do all the scientisty stuff they want to do without money. Not all, but some will falter and it has been proven to happen time and time again. Or do you not remember every single one of you guys yelling "OMG BUT THAT WAS PAID FOR BY THE OIL COMPANIES!!!" you don't think the other side has dollar signs in their eyes either? Please... I'm not saying ALL of it is like that, I'm saying you're fucking ignorant or a liar if you don't think scientists will cook results for money.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Again, who said there wasn't politics in science? Nice link by the way. The title page article: Election 2011: Liberals hide their agenda on Canada’s military. Got anything from WND I can read, I'd rather have an unbiased source.

Look...I googled it for you as you appeared to need a little help on where I was coming from in my response to ShawnD1's comment ("...you get more fame and research money if you come up with research that disproves past research.").

I linked the first site that popped up in Google. If you don't like the site....find another.

Don't be an ass.

 

[shira]

Denial is getting to be a major religion of the Right. Religious thought tends to be compartmentalized nowadays, though, so it's not something that you'll find coming up in normal conversation.
You can't tell someone who has a Big Sky Daddy from an atheist from normal conversation, either.




This highlights a problem of the Right: A complete cluelessness about the scientific arena. They model it as though, underneath the lab coats, it's just professional wrestling.
Science is science. It is the anti-bullshit. That bullshitters exist outside the scientific framework doesn't mean that bullshitters that try to enter it don't get their asses handed to them.
Skeptical inquiry is a scientist's job. And it isn't a Fox News viewer's version: "Deny everything that's complex or that I don't like. Find a meme that feels 'homey', then I know I'm home." It is instead: Question all assertions. Deny your own hypothesis. Work up from the evidence -- find why it's false. Can't disprove it? That means it's time to hand it off to someone else and give them a shot at destroying it. If they can't, either, then you give it to the entire community.
Your average idiot thinks that science is about building ideas. It's not. Any idiot can imagine. Science is science because it's ruthlessly destructive to ideas. It is uber-Darwinian.




It has always amused me that deniers latched with such ferocity to the heat island effect. Perfect example of confirmation bias, where the believer completely fails to look for anything that goes against the idea.
It's been known for decades. It's well-studied, and the offsets have been calculated and recalculated. Gets mentioned constantly by any TV meteorologist who covers a major metro area. Yet the legion of "D" students known as "conservatives" think that the entirety of climatological studies forgot to account for it.

It's rather like asking whether Hawking forgot to account for gravity in his work on black holes. Not bloody likely.

This is a good post, DS. See how much better you do when you just demonstrate your intelligence by making cogent posts (and letting the rest of us draw our own conclusions about how intelligent you are) rather than merely making claims about your intelligence and showing nothing.

 

[shira]

Jenny McCarthy is not a scientist, my point was that scientists are fucking shit up all the time for the sake of money. They cannot do research and do all the scientisty stuff they want to do without money. Not all, but some will falter and it has been proven to happen time and time again. Or do you not remember every single one of you guys yelling "OMG BUT THAT WAS PAID FOR BY THE OIL COMPANIES!!!" you don't think the other side has dollar signs in their eyes either? Please... I'm not saying ALL of it is like that, I'm saying you're fucking ignorant or a liar if you don't think scientists will cook results for money.

Why don't you inform us who the ultra-deep pockets are with vested interests FOR MMCC? Where is all this supposed pro-MMCC money coming from, and even more importantly, WHY?

It's very easy to see what why big oil - with tens of billions in profits at stake each year - would fund the deniers, but there's no corresponding player with mega-billions at stake on the pro-MMCC side. Yet you deniers keep insisting that such mega-monied interests exist. Why don't you tell us who they are? Wind-farm operators? Nuclear power advocates? Show us the paper trail rather than making empty claims.

 

[Blackjack200]

Why don't you inform us who the ultra-deep pockets are with vested interests FOR MMCC? Where is all this supposed pro-MMCC money coming from, and even more importantly, WHY?

It's very easy to see what why big oil - with tens of billions in profits at stake each year - would fund the deniers, but there's no corresponding player with mega-billions at stake on the pro-MMCC side. Yet you deniers keep insisting that such mega-monied interests exist. Why don't you tell us who they are? Wind-farm operators? Nuclear power advocates? Show us the paper trail rather than making empty claims.

To me the biggest joke of the entire Global Warming "debate" is this idea that all these scientists are corrupted by grant money.

If anyone wanted to get rich beyond their wildest dreams, publishing a credible refutation of global warming would be a very good way to do it. Dollars would fall from the sky.

 

[werepossum]

Settled Science:

Peer reviewed.

+1

 

[Jaskalas]

Instead of counting as "unresolved" scientific questions where there's at least one peer-reviewed study on each side, why don't you count the number of peer-reviewed papers on each side? Or is it really your position that "consensus" must entail unanimity?

It is my position that the science is not settled.