Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Conspiracy Theories
 IS GLOBAL WARMING A SCAM TO TAX?
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 15

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 05/12/2007 :  12:01:50  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message
FIRST TIME POSTING

RIGHT OF THE BAT I WILL TELL YOU ALL THAT I CAN NOT SPELL; SO PLEASE DO NOT HOLD THAT AGAINST ME IN OUR DISSCUSIONS.

I HAVE BEEN LURKING FOR A FEW DAYS AND WAS ENJOYING YOUR POSTINGS.

SO---IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE GLOBAL WARMING SCARE COULD BE A SCAM TO FORCE POPULATIONS TO PURCHASE "PREFERED PRODUCTS" AND INCREASE TAXES AGAINST "UNPERFERED PRODUCTS"?

What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13467 Posts

Posted - 05/12/2007 :  12:10:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message
Do you also have a problem with your cap lock?

To answer your question, whatever the economic consiquences are, global warming is not a hoax...

There will certainly be those who will try to profit off of it. That does not mean that the world wide scientific consensus that global warming is happening a scam.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 05/12/2007 :  12:19:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message
Sorry---i have more problems than just caps lock, but this one i can solve.

Do you have any proof of a "world wide scientific consensus"?

(I hope we are understanding that we are talking about man made global warming.)



What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 05/12/2007 :  12:54:55   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
J.D.G. asked:
Do you have any proof of a "world wide scientific consensus"?


Yes.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html


This section summarizes the report:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_SPM.pdf


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 05/12/2007 :  13:07:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message
I am sorry maybe the question was not clear.


Those are links to the intergovernmental panal on climate change.

Please---I was looking for "world wide scientific consensus".

In fact one member of that panal threated to sue so as to have his name removed as their conclusions did not support his data.



What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 05/12/2007 :  13:17:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message
I assume that the next question will be who threatned to sue.


Paul Reiter, Professor Pasteur Institute Paris, chief its Insects Infectious Disease Un specialist natural history biology mosquitoes, epidemiology diseases transmit, strategies their control. He chairman American Committee Medical Entomology American Society Tropical Medicine Hygiene, several committees other professional societies. He has worked World Health Organization, Pan American Health Organization other agencies investigations outbreaks mosquito-borne diseases, well AIDS Ebola haemorrhagic fever onchocerciasis. He contributory author IPCC Third Assessment Report. He has been chairman American Committee Medical Entomology American Society Tropical Medicine Hygiene, several committees other professional societies. He received PhD Medical Entomology University Sussex 1978.


The work he did for the IPCC was about malaria spread due to global warming.

What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 05/12/2007 :  13:51:24   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
Please---I was looking for "world wide scientific consensus".


If the IPCC report isn't evidence of wide consensus, then you will never accept anything as evidence for it.

One person wanting his name off the report means nothing in terms of consensus, when the report has 1250ish authors from all over the world and has been reviewed by an additional 2500+ people.

Paul Reiter, as you yourself noted, was a contributor to the 3rd report (which deals with mitigation of climate change), not to the first report (which lasy out the physical science basis).

So I'm not sure why you would bring him up in this context.

"world wide scientific consensus" does not mean that every climate scientist in the world agrees with the report, just a large majority.

Also, to date, no one has issued any credible objections to the data, methodology, and conclusions of the report. If such objections existed, and had merit, they would be seriously considered.

Those are links to the intergovernmental panal on climate change.


Yes, they are. Do you have some objection to the conclusions reached by this multinational scientific body? In what way do you think that this report fails to meet the standard of a "world wide scientific consensus"?

Stop beating around the bush.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 05/12/2007 :  16:59:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message
"1250ish authors" = data suppliers


"reviewed by an additional 2500+ people" = governmental policy makers(not scientists)

The concultions(of which no one has yet to cite) are made by policy makers i.e. those who tax hence the intial question to start the thread.



What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 05/12/2007 :  17:39:44   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message
I am half through the ipcc data conclutions and the vast majority of the conclusions have the caveat of "likely, extremly likely, or very likely"

Likely would not be a word one typicly uses to describe "world wide scientific consensus"

I am currently taking notes from the ipcc and i will argue from the data supplied there in.


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

Paulos23
Skeptic Friend

USA
446 Posts

Posted - 05/12/2007 :  18:10:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Paulos23's Homepage Send Paulos23 a Private Message
Well, science doesn't prove anything (except in math) but comes up with the most likely answer. That is why you are seeing alot of likely, extremly likely, or very likely. Also, this report is a collection of scientific studies on climate change, so this is as close to a "world wide scientific consensus" as you are going to get.

You can go wrong by being too skeptical as readily as by being too trusting. -- Robert A. Heinlein

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26012 Posts

Posted - 05/12/2007 :  19:16:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

I am half through the ipcc data conclutions and the vast majority of the conclusions have the caveat of "likely, extremly likely, or very likely"

Likely would not be a word one typicly uses to describe "world wide scientific consensus"
Apparently, you don't understand the report. The consensus is that a human cause for global warming is "very likely." That's it.

If you were faulting the consensus opinion for being less than 100% certain, that'd be something to discuss. But you're actually arguing that because there is uncertainty in the conclusions, then there is no consensus, which is astounding.

If I asked, "what's the likelihood that I'd roll something other than a six on a normal die," the world-wide scientific consensus would be "very likely." And such a consensus would be absolutely correct. Such conclusions are not indicative of a problem with the science, nor are they indicative of a lack of consensus.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 05/12/2007 :  19:23:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message
I can not beleive that your argument is "science doesn't prove anything". Your argument also implies no consensus, as the phrase " this is as close", means that it is not, but close.


The collection of data seams to be scientific but the conclutions written by govermental agents(not scientis)do not coralate with the data.

Please help me with a review of the data; that is what i beleive we should look at.

Are there any facts from the reports that anyone can cite that prove man made global warming?




What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 05/12/2007 :  19:27:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message
How can it be a "scientific consensus" if the conclutions are drawn by govermental agents(not scientists)?

What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 05/12/2007 :  20:10:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
I am half through the ipcc data conclutions and the vast majority of the conclusions have the caveat of "likely, extremly likely, or very likely"

Likely would not be a word one typicly uses to describe "world wide scientific consensus"

I am currently taking notes from the ipcc and i will argue from the data supplied there in.


Dave_W addressed this. There is no 100% certainty in any scientific conclusion. In fact, if you ever see such a claim it is a strong inidcator that there is absolutely nothing scientific about the claim.

I can not beleive that your argument is "science doesn't prove anything". Your argument also implies no consensus, as the phrase " this is as close", means that it is not, but close.


Then you should make some attempt to educate yourself about the scientific method. "Proof" is for mathematics, not empirical science.

The collection of data seams to be scientific but the conclutions written by govermental agents(not scientis)do not coralate with the data.


What evidence do you have that the conclusions are not those of the scientists who have authored the report? Please name names of these "governmental agents", and their titles, who you claim to be the actual authors of this report's conclusions.

"1250ish authors" = data suppliers


"reviewed by an additional 2500+ people" = governmental policy makers(not scientists)


What are you basing this claim on? Pages 15-40 of http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Annexes.pdf list contributors and reviewers. Doesn't seem like many of them are "government policy makers". The overwhelming majority of these people appear to be employed by universities and various labs.


Are there any facts from the reports that anyone can cite that prove man made global warming?


Again, "proof" is for mathematics. But there is plenty of evidence that demonstrates a human contribution to global warming.

Scroll down to page 7 of this part of the report for a layman's explanation of some of the evidence.

Make sure you read page 22 and 23 of this section for an understanding of what the authors of the report mean by "very high confidence", and "likely".


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

Boron10
Religion Moderator

USA
1265 Posts

Posted - 05/12/2007 :  20:12:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Boron10 a Private Message
Ok, I'll bite:
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

"1250ish authors" = data suppliers
Those authors are called scientists. A fundamental part of science is data, so there is not much difference between our assessments, I suppose. (Please note, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here).
"reviewed by an additional 2500+ people" = governmental policy makers(not scientists)
Where did you get this impression? The Technical Summary was authored and reviewed by scientists. Shocking, I know.
The concultions(of which no one has yet to cite) are made by policy makers i.e. those who tax hence the intial question to start the thread.
I don't know, all those conclusions in the Technical Summary were written by scientists. Please, which conclusions do you mean here?
I am half through the ipcc data conclutions and the vast majority of the conclusions have the caveat of "likely, extremly likely, or very likely"

Likely would not be a word one typicly uses to describe "world wide scientific consensus"
I trust this has been addressed to your satisfaction by our august members, Paulos23 and Dave W.
I am currently taking notes from the ipcc and i will argue from the data supplied there in.
I eagerly await your well-thought-out argument.
I can not beleive that your argument is "science doesn't prove anything". Your argument also implies no consensus, as the phrase " this is as close", means that it is not, but close.
Perhaps you should read a little more about the Scientific Method. I hope, upon further education, you will become aware of the manner in which you are embarrassing yourself here.
The collection of data seams to be scientific but the conclutions written by govermental agents(not scientis)do not coralate with the data.
Since I have already addressed your erroneous assumption above, your conclusion is confusing, to say the least. How do the conclusions of the panel fail to correlate with the data?
Please help me with a review of the data; that is what i beleive we should look at.
Of course, it is always imperative to review data when attempting to draw scientific conclusions. What help do you need? There are many of us with scientific backgrounds who would be glad to assist in any way.
Are there any facts from the reports that anyone can cite that prove man made global warming?
Whoa, there, buddy! Let's take a step back or a minute. There is a scientific paper presenting a large number of facts, all of which (when taken together) lead to the conclusion that certain events are very likely. If you are unsatisfied by the facts presented in this paper, there is nothing I can do to convince you.

If, however, you need help interpreting a certain fact, I will be happy to help. I will not do your work for you by looking up all the information.

Edited to add: Dude, it appears that great minds really do think alike sometimes. Yours just thinks faster, I see!
Edited by - Boron10 on 05/12/2007 20:15:12
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13467 Posts

Posted - 05/12/2007 :  20:33:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message
Well just great! Time for a bit of redundancy I guess. I took the time to write this so I am going to post it… Maybe three times will be the charm?

JEROME DA GNOME:
I can not beleive that your argument is "science doesn't prove anything". Your argument also implies no consensus, as the phrase " this is as close", means that it is not, but close.


You clearly don't understand how science works. This is important to know; all conclusions in science are tentative. Got that? New evidence can alter or completely overthrow a theory. A consensus is the best you will ever get from science. Ever! That is how science is not dogma. The very best supported theories, and that includes the laws of science, are ultimately held tentatively. It would be helpful in having this discussion to have a basic understanding of how science works…

You might want to start here:

Scientific Truth

The Scientific Method

JEROME DA GNOME:
The collection of data seams to be scientific but the conclutions written by govermental agents(not scientis)do not coralate with the data.

Nope. The conclusions are written by scientists. And where are the discrepancies in the data? I'm guessing that the section you are reading is called ” Summary for Policy Makers” and was written to help those in government set policy by understanding the data that is being presented. As they say here:
The basis for substantive paragraphs in this Summary for policy makers can be found in the chapter sections specified by curly brackets.
All of the science presented in these reports has been peer reviewed by scientists, not by politicians.



Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 15 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.58 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000