YAGWT - Peer reviewed literature ignored by GW believers

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears

more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance.

But I thought that there was "consensus"? Or is that "consensus since we ignored what didn't fit our religion"? I knew there was going to come a day like this where someone would compile the science that the GW faithful were ignoring and said didn't exist. Now granted, this doesn't mean GW doesn't exist(I've never stated that) but it does destroy the attempts to say MMGW is "fact". There is much more research to be done before one can say that this correlation = causation but we are VERY far from that.

Do any of those papers take Global Dimming into account? And the fact the average temperature went up one degree during the three days after 911. What we are doing is sledding down a lava flow on a block of ice and the ice isn't that thick anymore.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

We need to cut down on cows.

This message brought to you by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

 

[Jaskalas]

Rainsford,

You misunderstood me, I would like to argue with you for OTHER reasons to change our fuel ? something there is no room for so long as the witch hunt against heretics to forge this religion continues.

Your claim that we denounce science is bulls***. You do not own science, you do not decide what science is. There is a plethora of scientific data countering the THEORY of global warming. There is EVERY BIT the same amount of evidence that these are natural warming cycles and that solar radiation plays a large role in it.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Rainsford,

You misunderstood me, I would like to argue with you for OTHER reasons to change our fuel ? something there is no room for so long as the witch hunt against heretics to forge this religion continues.

Your claim that we denounce science is bulls***. You do not own science, you do not decide what science is. There is a plethora of scientific data countering the THEORY of global warming. There is EVERY BIT the same amount of evidence that these are natural warming cycles and that solar radiation plays a large role in it.

Prove it.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Rainsford,

You misunderstood me, I would like to argue with you for OTHER reasons to change our fuel ? something there is no room for so long as the witch hunt against heretics to forge this religion continues.

Your claim that we denounce science is bulls***. You do not own science, you do not decide what science is. There is a plethora of scientific data countering the THEORY of global warming. There is EVERY BIT the same amount of evidence that these are natural warming cycles and that solar radiation plays a large role in it.

That is not correct. Please read more on the subject before making false claims.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: maluckey

You're right, none of us are climate scientists...so maybe we should listen to those people who ARE, who almost universally say that your position is stupid.

Maybe you don't get it...I'll speak slower for you...

My position is to cut pollution because it is BAD, regardless of anyones opinion of GW. OPINIONS, self serving-tirades (and especially childish name calling) regarding climatological studies to support your views are counter-productive by your OWN words because...

People don't argue against man-made global warming because they oppose "bad science", they do it because they don't want to feel guilty about driving their F-250 every day to their job as a software developer. And more broadly than that, a lot of people really don't like environmentalists (not that some environmentalists aren't annoying jackasses), it's perceived as a "lefty" issue, which is why conservatives seem to have such trouble getting on board at all.

No secret that I don't own an SUV, and no secret that I like the environment. Most Conservatives and Liberals do too (think Hunting and fishing) I posted on this very forum that I drive an economy car (13 years old!), I work far from a desk, and I like most environmentalists that practice what they preach.

As far as my personal views...you still like labels don't you? I like clean areas because that's the way they should be😉. I dislike pollution because it's a natural thing to not crap where you live.

Finally...according to your insinuation, only conservatives pollute... Tell Al Gore about his zinc mine poisoning the land. In 2000, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation found that total zinc from Pasminco mine in TN, was 1.480 mg/L [milligrams per liter], which is greater than the monthly average of .65 mg/L and the daily maximum of 1.30 mg/L, and was in violation of State Law. In 1996 the same mine failed twice.

Sure, only conservatives pollute...😀isgust;

This isn't about you (or me, or Al Gore), I was trying to make a broader point about opposition to global warming. The critics are right, trying to reduce our impact on the environment is a huge undertaking that will probably require substantial lifestyle or technology changes, and most people are too lazy to bother. I'll agree that most people "like the environment", but most people (liberals and conservatives alike) don't seem to want to DO very much to help preserve it. Maybe I'm wrong about the motivations here, but if I am, it seems like folks on your side spend an awful lot of time attacking Al Gore for people who just claim to want sound science and reasoned debate. I realize he's annoying, but it makes a poor argument unless you're just trying to discredit the environmental movement.

As for the "tirades and name calling", at the risk out sounding childish, you started it. Your egotistical condescension would be annoying under any circumstances, but not when you're also wrong about the topic. And the sheer tonnage of disrespect "your side" has for "my side" isn't really conducive to reasoned debate either (and the fact that it's equally reciprocated doesn't improve matters). It's not a good reason for me to also act like a jackass, but what can I say, you guys don't really bring out the best in me.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Rainsford,

You misunderstood me, I would like to argue with you for OTHER reasons to change our fuel ? something there is no room for so long as the witch hunt against heretics to forge this religion continues.

Your claim that we denounce science is bulls***. You do not own science, you do not decide what science is. There is a plethora of scientific data countering the THEORY of global warming. There is EVERY BIT the same amount of evidence that these are natural warming cycles and that solar radiation plays a large role in it.

You're right, I DON'T get to decide what science is, nor do I "own science". But then again, I never claimed that either of those things was true. Science is not a religion, but it does have a very strict and very fixed set of rules...it's not really my fault if you weren't paying enough attention in high school science class to know what they are. I realize it would be convenient if things were all wishy-washy and science could be nothing more than a difference of opinion between me and you. But it's not, it's not my opinion on what science is...it's what science IS.

But speaking of science, if you're really interested in a debate and deplore emotional or political arguments, you might want to get rid of that ridiculous "religion" argument and look up the word "theory" in a dictionary. You can't simultaneously argue for science and talk like Bill O'Reilly.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
There is EVERY BIT the same amount of evidence that these are natural warming cycles and that solar radiation plays a large role in it.

Prove it.

cue Final Jeopardy music

 

[maluckey]

As for the "tirades and name calling", at the risk out sounding childish, you started it. Your egotistical condescension would be annoying under any circumstances, but not when you're also wrong about the topic. And the sheer tonnage of disrespect "your side" has for "my side" isn't really conducive to reasoned debate either (and the fact that it's equally reciprocated doesn't improve matters). It's not a good reason for me to also act like a jackass, but what can I say, you guys don't really bring out the best in me.

You said it...then took it back:roll: Sounds like someone else we all love!

Sorry for not fitting into your preconceived notions of world order and harmony. I'll get on that right away sir!

I don't have a "side" BTW. You still don't get it...SOME people out there DON"T intentionally pollute, nor do they worry about what they themselves cannot change. I do what I can do, and accept that which I have no control over. I personally cannot change the climate of the world?nor will you. I ensure that I don't pollute any more than is necessary. I raise my family to do the same.

Black and White arguments prevail here. You yourself are unable to grasp that someone can accept that GW exists, then go about daily life without name calling (again! :laugh: I might add).

Novel idea! How about we teach that pollution is BAD and punish those that pollute unnecessarily? Wouldn't that be great? Set a baseline of what we have now and find a reasonable reduction schedule for overall pollution and work towards that.

Of course for you that won't work until the world bows down before your almighty and thoroughly irrefutable knowledge of all things climatological. Only then can the world get cleaner according to you.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears

more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance.

But I thought that there was "consensus"? Or is that "consensus since we ignored what didn't fit our religion"? I knew there was going to come a day like this where someone would compile the science that the GW faithful were ignoring and said didn't exist. Now granted, this doesn't mean GW doesn't exist(I've never stated that) but it does destroy the attempts to say MMGW is "fact". There is much more research to be done before one can say that this correlation = causation but we are VERY far from that.

Do any of those papers take Global Dimming into account? And the fact the average temperature went up one degree during the three days after 911. What we are doing is sledding down a lava flow on a block of ice and the ice isn't that thick anymore.

Please cite that, because youre full of sh!t.

 

[ProfJohn]

I love the ?prove it? mentality that is popping up in this thread.

No one can ?prove? anything when it comes to global warming, except for the fact that the Earth?s temperature increased between the late 70s and today. (The earth also cooled between the 1930s and 1970s)

Beyond the fact that it is warmer today than 30 years ago we can?t ?prove? anything. The rest is all theory.

 

[BeauJangles]

I don't claim to be a scientist, or have followed the technicalities of the global warming debate, but one thing stuck out to me reading this thread. I think we need to be clear about something. Global Warming is real. It's happening. The planet is heating up. We are not arguing if Global Warming exists, we are arguing about why it happens.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
This isn't about you (or me, or Al Gore), I was trying to make a broader point about opposition to global warming. The critics are right, trying to reduce our impact on the environment is a huge undertaking that will probably require substantial lifestyle or technology changes, and most people are too lazy to bother. I'll agree that most people "like the environment", but most people (liberals and conservatives alike) don't seem to want to DO very much to help preserve it. Maybe I'm wrong about the motivations here, but if I am, it seems like folks on your side spend an awful lot of time attacking Al Gore for people who just claim to want sound science and reasoned debate. I realize he's annoying, but it makes a poor argument unless you're just trying to discredit the environmental movement.

As for the "tirades and name calling", at the risk out sounding childish, you started it. Your egotistical condescension would be annoying under any circumstances, but not when you're also wrong about the topic. And the sheer tonnage of disrespect "your side" has for "my side" isn't really conducive to reasoned debate either (and the fact that it's equally reciprocated doesn't improve matters). It's not a good reason for me to also act like a jackass, but what can I say, you guys don't really bring out the best in me.

I honestly don't know why you are apologizing. The problem with all of these endless global warming threads really does come down to what you said, that people don't understand science. They don't get why a paper taking a neutral position on man made global warming doesn't mean that the writers don't think it is happening. More importantly, they don't want to know.

Like you said, how can you have an argument about science when people don't even know what science is? Then, awash in their self satisfied ignorance they think that all opinions on the subject, no matter how ill informed, are somehow equal. It's not possible to argue with something like that.

Frustration in this case is natural because I've seen you make dozens and dozens of well reasoned and at least moderately informed posts that are only met with "AL GORE POLLUTZ LOL". Quite reasonably... it angries up the blood.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Rainsford,

You misunderstood me, I would like to argue with you for OTHER reasons to change our fuel ? something there is no room for so long as the witch hunt against heretics to forge this religion continues.

Silence you stupid peasant! There is only one dogma to adhere to in this church!

<insert 12 large paragraphs that no one is going to read>

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I love the ?prove it? mentality that is popping up in this thread.

No one can ?prove? anything when it comes to global warming, except for the fact that the Earth?s temperature increased between the late 70s and today. (The earth also cooled between the 1930s and 1970s)

Beyond the fact that it is warmer today than 30 years ago we can?t ?prove? anything. The rest is all theory.

You need to work on your sleight of hand. That attempt is too obvious.

I see two "prove it" type requests above, one to prove the claim that "There is EVERY BIT the same amount of evidence that these are natural warming cycles and that solar radiation plays a large role in it.", the other to show citations supporting the claim that "the average temperature went up one degree during the three days after 911." Neither is asking for proof about global warming. Both are asking for proof of specific claims about current or recent history.

Nobody has yet provided anything to support either claim.