Scientists agree ... Consensus on Global Warming
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Friday, February 10, 2006 11:42
VIEWED: 22755
PAGE 10 of 21
Quote:No, it is not moot. The same questions persist. Is 1 degree significant? Or is it statistical noise? I threw in an example in weather to demonstrate how all data have to be evaluated in context of a larger data set.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
There is a difference between weather and climate. So, this point is rather moot given the topic at hand.
Quote:How about not dismissing the source I recommended based on someone's evaluation that it is at a "high school level"? Yes, it is written for the general public, but that doesn't invalidate its arguments. Again, if you don't like this source after you've read it, we can discuss why and I can address those concerns with other specific resources. This book is more technical than arguments say, at this website. http://www.open2.net/truthwillout/globalwarming/global_stott.htm
How about just posting some sources here to benefit us all.
But since you insist, here are 2 generic technical arguments you must have seen already.
http://zwr.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
and
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm sorry I did not explain myself well. Sure, one stone could kill two birds, or 3, or 4, or however many other speculative birds we want to throw in there. For me, it is a matter of principle that we stick to the truth, and not throw in conjecture and hypotheses, to justify policy changes. Maybe restricting fossil fuel emissions will cure cancer as well. But since we don't know that for sure, it should not be a factor in the decision. That is what I meant.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
To be clear, if we adopt certain policies, then we save ourselves by way of not poisoning ourselves to death. Also, if global warming is happening, then we've just killed two birds with one stone.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Can we agree then that any correlation of CO2 to increased temperatures itself (if such a correlation truly exists) does not prove manmade global warming?"
Can you disprove my contention that an increase in CO2 enhances infrared absorption?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No. I’m not referring to that article. That’s certainly a different article, and I think it is also a different petition. There have been several petitions by scientists protesting the Kyoto Protocol.
Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
Finn, you aren't referring to that CO2 paper from that other "Oregon Institute", are you?
And I vaguely remember that “to-do.” Although I didn’t pay much attention to it. Climatology is only marginally related to my field of study so I tend to follow the major issues and not get involved very deeply in the internal conflicts.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:No. I’m not referring to that article.
Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
Finn, you aren't referring to that CO2 paper from that other "Oregon Institute", are you?
Then I lost the thread of the conversation. I don't know the article to which you are refering, sorry.
Which paper was it?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Robinson, et al. (1998) Medical Sentinel, Volume 3 No.5, 171-178
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/23295m.pdf
The Medical Sentinel ( http://www.haciendapub.com/medsent.html) is a peer-reviewed journal of the AAPS. While I don’t necessarily agree with all the conclusions this paper has arrived at or that a paper is necessarily made valid through the peer-review process, it is published in a peer-reviewed journal.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Robinson, et al. (1998) Medical Sentinel, Volume 3 No.5, 171-178
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/23295m.pdf
The Medical Sentinel ( http://www.haciendapub.com/medsent.html) is a peer-reviewed journal of the AAPS. While I don’t necessarily agree with all the conclusions this paper has arrived at or that a paper is necessarily made valid through the peer-review process, it is published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Strangely, the paper you cite here is not cited in any of your messages previous in this thread. I very carefully grepped for it, and there is nothing even close. How odd.
Oh wait, yes it is, just sourced differently, that is, at a different URL.
The paper you cite here, Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, is exactly the same paper that I cite above.
EXACTLY THE SAME.
Same title, same authors, just sourced through a different URL, how about that?
Maybe you should READ the sources you cite. Here I had to go to the trouble of chasing down your reference and check it, only to find that it is EXACTLY THE PAPER TO WHICH I REFERRED. That means you owe me, my dear boy. Very very far out of bounds, your behavior on this one. Not cricket.
I guess you're simply no good at bilbliographies, eh Finn?
But of course, being a man of honor, you will offer a full and groveling apology to the people in this thread.Won't you?
Or do you set yourself above the National Academy of Science? In which case your talents are wasted, eh ;)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And now I'm going to add a personal comment, because I take it personal when somebody tries to trick me by treating a source as a completely different source simply by referencing it by a different link.
This is a dirty trick, the sort of thing that makes a person lose a lot credibility with me. It either means that you didn't know what you claimed to know, that is you didn't even look at the original source, or you knew that it was the same source and instead of admitting it was thoroughly discredited, used it to "score a point" like we're playing a rutting football match, even though you knew it was compromised to the point of fallacy.
I haven't made up my mind about the very complex issue of human waste generation and environmental impact but I can tell you there are some people here whose tactics have given me an abiding, and, I'll admit it, unfair, distaste for their position.
Now, anybody can make a mistake. I've said things here that I wish I could take back, and my fellow Browncoats have, on the whole, forgiven me, I hope. But I would hope that we could admit our mistakes and move on in our quest for the truth.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You did not exactly cite any paper. Let me quote you your exact words in your previous posts:
Quote:Whatever paper you may have been referring to, it apparently was one that was not published in a peer-reviewed journal. THAT paper, whatever is was or is, cannot be the paper I referenced, because the paper I referenced was published in a peer-reviewed journal. You are either mistaken about the title of the paper or about the journal in which it was published, but either way, the misunderstanding here is certainly as much yours, and your claim of my “behavior” would seem to be your imagination, as well.
Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
Finn, you aren't referring to that CO2 paper from that other "Oregon Institute", are you?
Because if you are, well, no it did not appear in any peer-reviewed journal.
The URL that I used in the second post was simply to demonstrate that the paper was indeed published in the journal in question. Obviously it was not a trick, as the paper in question is clearly the exact same paper I referenced earlier. Regardless of the URL or medium in which the paper occurs it is the same paper. No trick, it really is the same paper.
Furthermore, the link to the NAS that you posted gives no indication of what paper they are talking about. There is no title, only references to a Wall Street journal article and another paper that they do not identify, but that they characterize as one that was “not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal.” It may have been talking about the same petition, but it’s difficult to say whether they are talking about the same paper, given the clear discrepancy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Just so you know, I am not fond of evasive responses in debate such as answering a question with another question. To me, it implies an absence of good faith dialogue and the presence of a mere pissing contest.
Originally posted by SignyM:
"Can we agree then that any correlation of CO2 to increased temperatures itself (if such a correlation truly exists) does not prove manmade global warming?"
Can you disprove my contention that an increase in CO2 enhances infrared absorption?
Of course I do not dispute that CO2 enhances infrared enhances heat absorption. I do not dispute the greenhouse effect or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Since there appears to be misunderstanding of what my position is, I will outline it as follows. I have the following questions about the global warming controversy.
1) Are increased temperatures said to represent global climate valid, reliable, and significant?
(valid = accurate and representative of the variable we're trying to measure, reliable = replicable, and significant = not random fluctuation)
2) Is there a valid, reliable, and significant correlation between increased global temperatures and increased CO2?
3) Is the greenhouse effect the most significant contributor to increased global temperatures? Can other reasons we might be heating up be dismissed?
4) Is the CO2 increase large enough to affect global climate? Can other greenhouse gases (e.g. water vapor) be ruled out as having a more substantial effect?
5) Are the computer models used to predict CO2 effects on global climate valid?
6) Would restrictions in fossil fuel emissions reduce CO2 enough to change global climate? Would fossil fuel restrictions reduce more CO2 than other policy changes, such as population growth restrictions (6 billion people breathing 24/7 is a LOT of CO2) or reforestation/ deforestation restrictions?
I have read scientists who have answered yes, and scientists who have said no, to all questions. I have personally found the arguments of scientists answering no, more convincing thus far. My conclusions are that there is a legitimate scientific debate on this issue and not a consensus. I do not believe we should enact policy changes until we are further along in resolving this debate.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME