I just heard the stupid comment of the week.

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Thursday, July 27, 2006 08:48
VIEWED: 9073
PAGE 7 of 11

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 2:33 AM

See what I mean.
These two divergent statements were found in the same book which was linked to the NAS' home page. Oh yeah, clear as mud now.

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

RUE

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 2:43 AM

You just don't know science. It's never 100%.
What YOUR link says is:

THE EFFECT OF HUMAN ACTIVITIES

Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established. The fact that the magnitude of the observed warming is large in comparison to natural variability as simulated in climate models is suggestive of such a linkage, but it does not constitute proof of one because the model simulations could be deficient in natural variability on the decadal to century time scale. The warming that has been estimated to have occurred in response to the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is somewhat greater than the observed warming. At least some of this excess warming has been offset by the cooling effect of sulfate aerosols, and in any case one should not necessarily expect an exact correspondence because of the presence of natural variability.
----------------------------------------

What the overall report concluded (couched in terms of confidence and statistics) was:

There is sufficient evidence ... to say with a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years. Less confidence can be placed in proxy-based reconstructions of surface temperatures for A.D. 900 to 1600, ... although the available proxy evidence does indicate that many locations were warmer during the past 25 years than during any other 25-year period since 900.

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=1167
6

PDCHARLES

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 2:53 AM

yes Rue...

and there is a 2006 report on the front page of the same site with more recent findings. Guess posting the link at this point would do no good

RUE

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 3:03 AM

Quote:
yes Rue...
and there is a 2006 report on the front page of the same site with more recent findings. Guess posting the link at this point would do no good

I dunno. Mine's from June 22 2006. It was commissioned by congress and is the official conclusion of the NAS. When's yours from? What does it address?

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 5:17 AM

Quote:
I admit to not being particularly well informed about the politics of the current US environmental policies. Have any opinion polls/ referendums on this issue been carried out? What is the current opinion of the general populace on Kyoto and other 'Green' issues? I should very much like to know.

My husband is a research scientist working for the Dept of Energy. The DOE officially supports the theory of global warming and urges all its scientists to direct all their research efforts towards carbon sequestration and the like. It is what is politically popular right now. Dissenting scientists (like my husband) are asked by the administrators to keep their opinions to themselves.

I don't know about public opinion polls, but it is my impression that most people believe that manmade global warming is no longer in debate, but a widely accepted fact.

Personally, I consider myself "green" on most environmental issues. I believe we have a responsibility to take care of our planet, not only for ourselves and our progeny, but for all other life that we share the planet with. I am deeply concerned about all sorts of pollution, from industrial to biological to electromagnetic. I have no love for corporatism or what greed passes for "free market" nowadays. I despise John Stossel. Politically, I hate Bush more than I hated Clinton, if that is possible. I truly came to the global warming table with no agenda to serve.

And yet I can't endorse manmade global warming. Things appear to be getting warmer, yes. Is the change significant? I don't know. Is it manmade? I can't say. I don't think there is enough *evidence* to conclude either way. (Obviously, what is not evidence to me is plenty for others. That is just how the world turns.)

According to my husband, many of his research colleagues do not "believe in" global warming either. But because it is where the money and perceived public support is nowadays, they gear all their research and lip service towards it. In other words, scientists are corruptible by money and opinion, just like everyone else. Plus they don't see any harm in pretending to support something that they don't know for sure isn't true.

To me, global warming has become sort of like a religion. You just can't bring enough evidence to the table to prove that God exist or doesn't exist. People, by now, have already made up their minds and have all the evidence they need to back themselves up. All discussion is just name calling to feel a little righteous indignation and intellectual superiority.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

RUE

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 6:39 AM

Quote:
And yet I can't endorse manmade global warming. Things appear to be getting warmer, yes. Is the change significant? I don't know. Is it manmade? I can't say. I don't think there is enough *evidence* to conclude either way. (Obviously, what is not evidence to me is plenty for others. That is just how the world turns.)

I wonder. If it were any other scientific topic, would you be as skeptical of the data (it might be getting warmer, it's possibly significant), the analysis (there will never be enough information) and the scientific consensus (it's all just opionion)? Is it skepticism in general, or a reaction to this particular topic that causes you to dismiss the best science available?

Quote:
According to my husband, many of his research colleagues do not "believe in" global warming either. But because it is where the money and perceived public support is nowadays, they gear all their research and lip service towards it. In other words, scientists are corruptible by money and opinion, just like everyone else. Plus they don't see any harm in pretending to support something that they don't know for sure isn't true.

There is more of a name to be made by disproving global warming than by publishing yet another supporting study. But for all those who've tried, no one has managed to kill the idea.

Quote:
To me, global warming has become sort of like a religion. You just can't bring enough evidence to the table to prove that God exist or doesn't exist. People, by now, have already made up their minds and have all the evidence they need to back themselves up. All discussion is just name calling to feel a little righteous indignation and intellectual superiority.

That's a blanket rejection of science. You have your ideas and everything else is just - name calling.

Quote:
Of course, I could be wrong.

I think you are.

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 1:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
That's a blanket rejection of science. You have your ideas and everything else is just - name calling.

I am not saying you can't prove or disprove global warming by evidence. I am saying that for most people, it is LIKE that. It is LIKE trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. I have NEVER seen anyone change his or her mind on this subject because someone brought new "evidence" to their attention. Have you? THAT is my point.

Listen, you can call me stupid, arrogant, wrong, a dumbass, whatever you want. But when you tell me I am rejecting science, that goes too far. Just because I have different standards in evaluating evidence than you doesn't mean YOURS is "scientific" and mine isn't. Of course you think I'm wrong. That was my point. You've made up your mind and everyone else who doesn't agree is wrong--and no amount of discussion can convince you otherwise.

If you have scientific evidence to back up global warming, I am telling you right now that I have no trouble admitting in public, right here on RWE, that I was wrong and I am now converted. However, I have seen nothing in all the links and documents you and the others have ever posted that is convincing so far.

And yes, I am as skeptical in all other areas as I am in this. My standards are my standards, and in many many fields that claim to have scientific consensus, the evidence just doesn't measure up for me. For example, I do not believe vaccines ever been proven to be effective or safe, despite "scientific" claims to the contrary.

I don't want to spiral into another endless GW name-calling session. So that is all I am going to say. Please try not to insult me again, though I fear that is an impossible request.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

Edit to add: I forgot that nearly a year ago, I decided to stop talking to Rue about this subject. There are words, but absolutely no communication between us. If anyone else wants a rational, disspassionate discussion, I would be willing.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 4:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
citizen - It's funny to see you react w/ name calling as you do. That shows you're the real coward here, where you rely in ad hominems instead of substantive talking points. Small minds, like yours, react in such a manner.

It's what you do.

Just shut up before you embarrass yourself further you sad pathetic little man.

You haven't had a debate with anyone here ever, you've never brought anything to a discussion and every time you attempt to join in you end up in a slanging match with someone, me or whoever simply because the only way to perpetuate your warped, freighted nasty little viewpoint is to attack those that hold different ones rather than debating your own.

I have had civil debates with people here, you never have and never will, which just goes to prove what you say applies infinitely more to you than me or anyone else here (and I include PirateNews, you're worse by far).

You are nothing but a tired sad little hypocrite.

I’ll see you in September, or not, it’s up to you if you want to carry out your threats of physical violence, or prove finally that you're, as they say, "all mouth and no trousers".

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

EMMARIGBY

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 4:46 PM

To be fair I can see why Rue is sounding unghappy. He personally has put a lot of time and effort into collecting data that you appear to be casually dismissing. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it if someone treated your work in such an off-hand fashion.

By the way, I kind of like your metaphore of Global Warming as religion (even though one has an abundance of data covering many different fields of science and the other has none at all - but hey, it's a metaphore, right?!). I can see how, being unconvinced by the arguements for an omnipotent supreme being you would be justified in making the descision not to waste your time on church or your money on the collection plate. I myself am an agnostic and don't think much about the church. After all, if I am wrong about there being no God it would be only myself that would suffer. If I was presented with evidence that a large proportion of the world (including many species I am particularly fond of) would also suffer from my descision, even if that evidence was only 80% convincing, I might be inclined to spend a small proportion in time on a pew and cough up a few pennies.

Here endeth the sermon! (This is a joke by the way, I was merely stating my mind, I (sadly) have no expectations of converting anyone to my point of view!)

___________________
Hissssssssss!

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 5:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by EmmaRigby:
even if that evidence was only 80% convincing, I might be inclined to spend a small proportion in time on a pew and cough up a few pennies.

Good point. I don't mind, metaphorically speaking, spending some time on the pew and coughing up a few pennies myself. I object to our exorbitant use of fossil fuels for many other reasons and try to be conscientious in my personal consumption of energy.

But should we pass a law and force everyone to sit on a pew and cough up a few pennies? That is where I draw the line.

BTW, Rue didn't collect raw data personally. He and others have spent a lot of time collecting other people's data and opinions. I respect that effort. I have, in turn, dedicated due time evaluating those data and opinions. That is all that can be asked of me. After examining them, I remain unconvinced. I don't think that can be construed as a casual dismissal.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE