Consensus DENIED!

[Storm]

The problem, Tom, is that physicists aren't environmental scientists.

 

[tomspug]

Storm, there are plenty of environmental scientists that don't back man-made global warming. Again, I'm not making an end-all statement. Can people please just acknowledge that an argument DOES in-fact exist and not believe everything that comes out of Al Gore's mouth (who is ALSO not an environmental scientist)?

 

[Storm]

Could you please avoid the stereotyping?

I believe in "man-made" climate change because there IS a consensus among environmental experts, not because of Al Gore.

 

[tomspug]

And the proof of your consensus is... That's right, because someone TOLD you there was a consensus. Let's ignore all of the people that try to start a debate because they're being paid off by oil companies. Don't you ever find it suspicious WHENEVER there is a consensus on anything? I know I do, especially when it comes to a science as complex as weather.

 

[Storm]

Is there a reason you're seemingly incapable of civility on this topic, Tom?

 

[tomspug]

I apologize for being not being civil. Perhaps I am being rude, but I am not implying that you are dumb or anything. But the reason people believe there is a consensus is because that is what they are told. Is that not true?

I am very passionate about this topic. It is one of my biggest pet peeves when people choose to believe that there is only one side to an argument (and therefore, no argument).

 

[Storm]

Apology accepted.

The reason I believe there is a consensus is because I've done the research.

 

[tomspug]

I have as well. And I admit that if one went completely based off of what is available on the internet, I would come to that conclusion as well. However, the internet is NOT the home of science. It is the home of the new media. And, honestly, I have found the new media to be completely overrun with one side of an argument.

What I read in newspapers, magazines, books, and journals is totally different. It shows me that while many scientists are inclined to see a pattern that supports man-made global warming, there are JUST as many scientists that don't.

For example, many astronomists are taking note that the earth's warming patterns APPEAR to correspond with rising and falling solar activity. In addition, they are estimating warming patterns on other planets that appear to mimic our own. This is in no way proof of anything, but I find it a certain good reason not to right off what we "believe" to be right and the possibility that it is wrong. Why should we not treat science with the same degree of skepticism that we treat religion? Is it not even more vital that every theory, even the popular ones, are scrutinized to the Nth degree? Or has science become a tool, like religion was at times, for crusades.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I've been recycling since the 1970's.
I own a Hybrid car.
I heat and cool my home with a geothermal system.
I have a solar water heater in my home.
I plant trees every year.

All that said, There is no proof that global warming or climate change is man made or even is happening at all for that matter.

A lot of this "green" stuff is political and does little to help anything. By the way, if we where able to control the earths temperature, are we sure we know where to set the thermostat?

I love the earth and want to be a good steward, but I know bull crap when I see it.

One thing we all should agree on, Albert Gore is a terrible poster boy for the cause. A picture of him is in the dictionary next to the word hypocrite.

 

[Father Heathen]

Yummy! Makes me wish I had Showtime...

Well, just so you know they do have an episode where they do the same thing with the bible and another with creationism.

Penn & Teller on the bible
YouTube - Bible: Fact or Fiction? - Penn and Teller, ********! Pt1
YouTube - Bible: Fact or Fiction? - Penn and Teller, ********! Pt2
YouTube - Bible: Fact or Fiction? - Penn and Teller, ********! Pt3

Penn & Teller on creation
YouTube - Penn and Teller ******** - Creationism 1/3
YouTube - Penn and Teller ******** - Creationism 2/3
YouTube - Penn and Teller ******** - Creationism 3/3

...and the one you're probably wanting to see; Enviromental Hysteria
YouTube - Penn & Teller: ********! - S1E13 - Environmental Hysteria
YouTube - Penn & Teller: ********! - S1E13 - Environmental Hysteria
YouTube - Penn & Teller: ********! - S1E13 - Environmental Hysteria

 

[Father Heathen]

I've always figured republicans, who usually represent the interests of large corporations, wanted global warming swept under the rug because reducing pollution would've meant more costs and expenses for these big companies and so tried to convince Joe Sixpack that the idea was some vast leftwing conspiracy.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I've always figured republicans, who usually represent the interests of large corporations, wanted global warming swept under the rug because reducing pollution would've meant more costs and expenses for these big companies and so tried to convince Joe Sixpack that the idea was some vast leftwing conspiracy.

Personally, I hate corporate welfare. I want corporations to be responsible just like everyone else.

In my opinion, the CEO's and the "green" folks are selfish extremists and neither serve our best interests.

 

[Panda]

For example, many astronomists are taking note that the earth's warming patterns APPEAR to correspond with rising and falling solar activity.

I was just reading in New Scientist yesterday that it doesn't. There is a big problem that the Earth was far to hot for the how much energy the sun was giving out at this time.

 

[Panda]

What I read in newspapers, magazines, books, and journals is totally different. It shows me that while many scientists are inclined to see a pattern that supports man-made global warming, there are JUST as many scientists that don't.

Please what magazines and journals have you been reading? I read New Scientist, Scientific America and Scientific mind on a regular bases. They seem to be saying the complete opposite of what you are, did I miss some articles?

This is in no way proof of anything, but I find it a certain good reason not to right off what we "believe" to be right and the possibility that it is wrong. Why should we not treat science with the same degree of skepticism that we treat religion? Is it not even more vital that every theory, even the popular ones, are scrutinized to the Nth degree? Or has science become a tool, like religion was at times, for crusades.

Your right, when there is a real debate. Global warming and global dimming are a fact (note I did not say man made). We know that when carbon dioxide has been more abundant in the atmosphere global temperatures rise, any environmental scientist that disagrees with this must be an idiot. We also know the carbon dioxide rates are increasing now. All of what is above is fact, do you disagree with any of it (not once have I mentioned man made).

 

[Yerda]

The point of the article is that there isn't a consensus.

Which scientific societies are opposed to the man-made global warming hypothesis?

 

[Yerda]

Please what magazines and journals have you been reading? I read New Scientist, Scientific America and Scientific mind on a regular bases. They seem to be saying the complete opposite of what you are, did I miss some articles?



Your right, when there is a real debate. Global warming and global dimming are a fact (note I did not say man made). We know that when carbon dioxide has been more abundant in the atmosphere global temperatures rise, any environmental scientist that disagrees with this must be an idiot. We also know the carbon dioxide rates are increasing now. All of what is above is fact, do you disagree with any of it (not once have I mentioned man made).

The only argument is how sensitive the atmospheric conditions are to CO2 (CO2 equivalent to be more accurate). I have seen the odd paper disputing the level of feedback from man made greenhouse gases.

 

[tomspug]

Please what magazines and journals have you been reading? I read New Scientist, Scientific America and Scientific mind on a regular bases. They seem to be saying the complete opposite of what you are, did I miss some articles?



Your right, when there is a real debate. Global warming and global dimming are a fact (note I did not say man made). We know that when carbon dioxide has been more abundant in the atmosphere global temperatures rise, any environmental scientist that disagrees with this must be an idiot. We also know the carbon dioxide rates are increasing now. All of what is above is fact, do you disagree with any of it (not once have I mentioned man made).

No one is arguing whether or not the earth is warming, but there is not a universal consensus that it is warming completely due to man-made causes. Now, it seems to me that man-made CO2 must contribute to SOME degree, but to what degree?

I honestly have NEVER seen any scientific data that shows that man-made CO2 is the cause of global-warming, let alone a major contributor. It seems to be based mostly on the assumption that, before the Industrial Revolution, there was less man-made CO2 and therefore global temperature rise correlates to that. That's not science! Where is the actual data? Exactly HOW MUCH CO2 are we actually releasing in relation to how much is released naturally by organisms, volcanoes, etc.?

 

[tomspug]

Here is a collection of links to scientists of varying varieties that are skeptical of global warming. If there IS no debate, as some claim to believe, then how can there exist people who co-exist with colleagues sharing their profession, and take stances contrary to them? I think that's what they call (in scientific circles) a debate.

List of global warming activists, now skeptics | Spero News
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even more ridiculous is the existence of a climate scientist like John Christy (PhD, Atmospheric Science), who is ON the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (part of the so-called "consensus", apparently) who is an outspoken critic of popular views of global warming.

Certain major media outlets that have displayed criticism include The Weather Channel and The Wall Street Journal.

 

[Reverend Rick]

It seems to be based mostly on the assumption that, before the Industrial Revolution, there was less man-made CO2 and therefore global temperature rise correlates to that. That's not science! Where is the actual data? Exactly HOW MUCH CO2 are we actually releasing in relation to how much is released naturally by organisms, volcanoes, etc.?

Before we had cars spewing pollution, we had horses farting behind our houses. You cans see a direct amount of methane released in the atmosphere to the amount of animal feed bought as well.

I am all for being a good steward of the earth, it is when idiots like Albert Gore try and tell me that a little **** ant on this planet can CONTROL the earths temperature that we part company.

Let's say for a moment in time we can control the earths temperature, where do we set the thermostat?

 

[Reverend Rick]

What I see happening is some people want to control us. They would like to control how much gasoline we buy, how fast we drive, what kind of car we own, where we should set our thermostat in our houses, what building materials we should use and on and on.

What really floors me is when I see someone making unnecessary trips in their car and bragging about their gas mileage. I cringe when I see older houses with drafty windows and little insulation being energy hogs and then the person who rents the house pretends to be "green".

Until folks are ready to outlaw hair dryers, clothes dryers, dish washers, clothes washers, use smaller refridgerators and less electronics and more energy efficient appliances, I really am not impressed with their "green" movement.

Some people believe that those squiggly light bulbs that contain mercury are the answer. Give me a break!