|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 05/12/2007 : 22:03:43 [Permalink]
|
Dave-Why did you imply that i vote gop?
What would political choices have to do with a talk about the science of 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 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 22:31:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave-Why did you imply that i vote gop? |
I did no such thing. I asked you for your opinion on why the GOP appears to be against something which will be a boon to the economy. It's not like they haven't twisted the facts on other subjects because their "interpretation" would be good for the economy. What makes global warming different to them, in your mind? The question has nothing to do with how you vote.| What would political choices have to do with a talk about the science of man made global warming? |
Good question. So why did you ask the question you asked in the original post if you just wanted to talk about the science, and not the politics? Why is the title "IS GLOBAL WARMING A SCAM TO TAX?" Why were you so hung up on governmental interference if it's not because you're more interested in the politics surrounding the issue than the science? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 05/12/2007 : 22:35:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
ipccs own documents state that goverments are involved in the reveiw process.
If you read the same words and decide that the govermnet "commenting" on the peer review process, during the peer review process means that the goverments are not involved in the peer view process, than there is nothing futher to talk about.
|
Okay, it's settled. Spelling is the least of your problems with our language.
Allowing a government to look and comment on a report after peer review does not include them in tne peer review itself. Read the words! Number one review is peer. The number two review is to allow a goverment to understand and comment on the data.
Here is what they say:
| In the course of two reviews Expert Reviewers (scientists) are invited to comment on the accuracy and completeness of the scientific/technical/socioeconomic content and the overall balance of the drafts. During the second review Governments are also invited to comment (but not review, as in peer review) on the revised drafts. The names of all authors, reviewers (the scientists) and review editors( of the scientific journals) are acknowledged in the report. |
I added some italics.
The boldings are my words to help clarify what is being said here.
But at this point, I don't think it will help...
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 22:48:00 [Permalink]
|
Dave, we havent gotten past the science yet.
I assumed we would move the talk along a logical line. Point -counter point. I am confused why you dont speak to the point of current thought.
We have established that governments are involved during the peer review process.
I am waiting for comments on--- Why does the ipcc predict only a .1C temp increase per decade?
Did you know their prvious prediction in 1990 was up to .3C temp increase per decade.
the real increase was .2C per decade.(only a 15year time frame).
So based on the ipcc predictions the temp rate of increase is slowing. |
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
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 22:53:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
We have established that governments are involved during the peer review process.
|
We have established no such thing... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 22:56:50 [Permalink]
|
COMMENT:1 : COMMENTARY
2 : a note explaining, illustrating, or criticizing the meaning of a writing
3 a : an observation or remark expressing an opinion or attitude <critical comments> b : a judgment expressed indirectly
So you contend that comment means:"not review"
just looking at the info expresing a judgement or an opinion.
Why would a governmental agent need to judge or express an opinion during the peer reveiw prosess?
|
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 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 23:00:29 [Permalink]
|
Kil-- you posted
"During the second review Governments are also invited to comment on the revised drafts."--from icpp documents.
so yes of course goverments are involved in the process.
The argument is to what degree.
|
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 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 23:17:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave, we havent gotten past the science yet. |
We haven't gotten started on the science yet because you're focused on the politics and you need an education in science first.| I assumed we would move the talk along a logical line. Point -counter point. I am confused why you dont speak to the point of current thought. |
And I'm wondering how you think your part in this has moved "along a logical line."| We have established that governments are involved during the peer review process. |
No, we've established that governments are allowed to comment after the peer review.| I am waiting for comments on--- |
And some of us are waiting for your responses to previous points. You know, in a point/counter-point sorta dialog that moves along a logical line.Why does the ipcc predict only a .1C temp increase per decade?
Did you know their prvious prediction in 1990 was up to .3C temp increase per decade.
the real increase was .2C per decade.(only a 15year time frame).
So based on the ipcc predictions the temp rate of increase is slowing. |
You are assuming that the previous real increase should continue unabated, but you've presented no evidence that it should. Why does the IPCC predict only a 0.1C increase per decade? Perhaps because that's what current evidence suggests.
Why do you think they predict a 0.1C increase per decade? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 05:51:49 [Permalink]
|
There are two points I am making about the science of the ipcc predictions.
1. The predictions were wrong by 50%.
2. The current predictions are less than the recent measured increase.
This means that the predictions need to be looked at with the understanding that they could be wrong(as they were wrong in the recent past).
The current ipcc prediction shows a decrease in the increase of temperature. Meaning that the warming trend is slowing.
|
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 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 06:15:07 [Permalink]
|
None has yet to explain how mans "production" of co2 has caused volcanoes and the sun to become minor factors in climate change in the last 60 years.
|
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 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 06:27:28 [Permalink]
|
Just for prespective--
earths air is made of many gases
n2 78.084%
o2 20.934%
ar .934%
co2 .035%
ne .001818%
he .000524%
ch4 .0001745%
kr .000114%
h2 .000055% |
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 |
|
|
|
Vegeta
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
238 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 07:04:18 [Permalink]
|
| thank you captain obvious |
What are you looking at? Haven't you ever seen a pink shirt before?
"I was asked if I would do a similar sketch but focusing on the shortcomings of Islam rather than Christianity. I said, 'No, no I wouldn't. I may be an atheist but I'm not stupid.'" - Steward Lee |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 07:09:22 [Permalink]
|
Vegeta, do you have a comment on the two previous posts?
None has yet to explain how mans "production" of co2 has caused volcanoes and the sun to become minor factors in climate change in the last 60 years.
There are two points I am making about the science of the ipcc predictions.
1. The predictions were wrong by 50%.
2. The current predictions are less than the recent measured increase.
This means that the predictions need to be looked at with the understanding that they could be wrong(as they were wrong in the recent past).
The current ipcc prediction shows a decrease in the increase of temperature. Meaning that the warming trend is slowing. |
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
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 07:42:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Kil-- you posted
"During the second review Governments are also invited to comment on the revised drafts."--from icpp documents.
so yes of course goverments are involved in the process.
The argument is to what degree.
|
The governments are invited to comment for the purpose of clarification because it is they who will be setting policy based on the peer-reviewed evidence for man made global warming. They can't do that if they don't understand the highly technical wording the scientists use in presenting the data and what it suggests. In order to put together a summary of the science for use by governments, the final draft has to be understandable, to a reasonable degree, by lay-persons. The second review (which is not peer review) is all about that.
Comments does not mean governments get to change the data or the conclusions of the scientists. But comments can be useful in the preparation of the final draft of the summary that is, after all, for use by governments.
I have taken several shots at showing you the mistake you're making in how you are interpreting what is actually being said. Believe what you like. Or worse, believe what you want to believe. That, I can't do anything about…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 07:52:05 [Permalink]
|
My comment, Jerome, is that you are not acknowleding anything that others tell you, even when they give you references. Whenever you are proven wrong (as even in your wildly ignorant basic notions of what is scientific "certainty," and what constitutes a scientific consensus), you never acknowledge the aid that one of us has given you to help you climb up from the abysmal darkness of your scientific ignorance.
An honest person would have at the least said at some point: "Oh, I see, now," or "I was wrong about that, but what about this next matter?" That would have been honest and fair. Instead, you either go right ahead repeating the same error, or move onto another wild, cherry-picked or misinterpreted statement. It's clear to me that you have no interest in the science or the truth, but only have a political bone of some kind to pick. And it's rude.
BTW, one of your respondents here mentioned that the scientists who authored and reviewed the report had to resist the pressures of governments. In fact, that pressure was all applied in the direction of trying to get them to minimize their predictions of the dangers of MMGW, not to emphasize them! This pressure, it's nature and direction, were widely covered in the news! So even if the whole peer review process had been done entirely by government political hacks, that interference would have had the opposite effect of what you imply.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 05/13/2007 07:58:37 |
|
|
 |
|
IS GLOBAL WARMING A SCAM TO TAX?
Topic Locked
