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 (part 2)
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 15

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26012 Posts

Posted - 05/15/2007 :  21:19:19  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
Continuation thread for this one over here.

- 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 - 05/15/2007 :  21:23:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message
Kil---"try seeing it the way the scientists are seeing it"

This is where we disagree on the influence that the governmental body of the ipcc has on the presentation of the data in the published report.

I do not think that the scientist are doing any thing purposefully wrong; they are compartmentalized in their specific expertise and are not involved directly with the final published report.

At least thats how the ipcc documents describe their methods from initiation to publication.

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 - 05/15/2007 :  21:35:02   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message
Dave---"And the insults, JEROME: when are you going to apologize for them?"

I hope this helps.

"I do not think that the scientist are doing any thing purposefully wrong; they are compartmentalized in their specific expertise and are not involved directly with the final published report."

I am sorry I typed in a manner as if a had negative feelings or even insults to scientists in general, that was not and has never been my intention.

I thought I was clear about whom I thought were the perpatrators of the misuse of scientific 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

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 05/15/2007 :  21:43:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
hondo said:
Secondly, I never said you or anyone else here wasn't "allowed" to "parrot the scientific consensus" Dude, that's just twisting my words. We all do it when we agree with it, my point to H. Humbert was that it doesn't make the one doing it a scientist/expert by default.


Ok. Here is how it works. If you want to be skeptical of something (anything, take your pick) you have to have reasons for being so.

You must be able to take the thing you are skeptical of and make a case against it. Just saying you are skeptical of something is meaningless.

Take, for example, the 9/11 conspiracy hypothesis. I am skeptical of the claims made by these people, and I can argue against enough of their claims (via logic and evidence) to demonstrate to any rational person that they are basically full of shit.

If you want to be skeptical of the human contribution to global warming, you should be able to articulate a case against the points you disagree with (expect to have to defend it also).

Doubt alone is not enough. It must be followed by the reasons you doubt and the explanation of why anyone else should accept those reasons.

As H.H. has said, none of us here are climate scientists. This is outside the expertise of, I'd say, most anyone who reads or posts here. We, obviously, can examine the work of the climate scientists who authored the IPCC reports and if we find something to disagree with (that we can defend) then we get to express doubt and skepticism, regardless of our personal expertise. We should expect other to rain on our parade unless we have a really good point though.

Personally I have read all the summaries of the IPCC report 1 (technical and policy)(and a good bit of the actual body of the report), and didn't see anything that jumped out as obviously flawed. I also recognize that the science contained in that report is, largely, beyond my current level of study well outside my area of knowledge. I am, therefore, obliged to contingently accept the conclusions of this report. The contingency is, oviously, the discovery of new data.

So please, if you have some actual criticism of the IPCC data, methodology, or conclusions please start up a thread and lets go over them.

Lets leave this thread/s for Jerome to flounder in.


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

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26012 Posts

Posted - 05/15/2007 :  21:46:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Dave---"And the insults, JEROME: when are you going to apologize for them?"

I hope this helps.

"I do not think that the scientist are doing any thing purposefully wrong; they are compartmentalized in their specific expertise and are not involved directly with the final published report."

I am sorry I typed in a manner as if a had negative feelings or even insults to scientists in general, that was not and has never been my intention.

I thought I was clear about whom I thought were the perpatrators of the misuse of scientific data.
It might have helped, if the scientists weren't in the habit of making the same claims in interviews and talk shows.

Every time a climate scientist whose name appears in the IPCC report says, independently, that the report agrees with his personal knowledge of the subject, your question, "is global warming a hoax," suggests that that scientist is knowingly perpetrating a fraud upon his own family, friends and neighbors, as well as the rest of the world.

Because they were involved with the final reports, and they do stand by them as accurate, reliable scientific documents. The question you asked in your original post requires complicity between thousands of scientists and dozens of governments, all over the globe. It's unbelievable that you don't understand this.

- 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 - 05/15/2007 :  22:00:17   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message
Lets talk science facts.

If you look at this chart you will see the red peaks(temp)precede the blue peaks(co2).

This shows co2 increases following temp increases. Leading one to conclude that co2 increases are caused by temp increases.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.png

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

j911ob
Skeptic Friend

223 Posts

Posted - 05/15/2007 :  22:05:57   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send j911ob a Private Message
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Lets talk science facts.

If you look at this chart you will see the red peaks(temp)precede the blue peaks(co2).

This shows co2 increases following temp increases. Leading one to conclude that co2 increases are caused by temp increases.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.png



Spot on. Did you see the british programme called the great global warming hoax?

"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers.
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 05/15/2007 :  22:22:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message
j911ob---I live in the good old USA.

I feel sometimes like I am talking to religious fanatics.

I present information from their trusted sources and they discount it like I made it up.

I even had one guy tell me I was wrong about the antarctic increasing in snow and ice cover, and in the same breath tell me that the increase of snow and ice cover correlates with the ipcc data.

I am still having bunches of fun.

I think sometimes they are just putting me on.



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

j911ob
Skeptic Friend

223 Posts

Posted - 05/15/2007 :  22:55:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send j911ob a Private Message
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

j911ob---I live in the good old USA.

I feel sometimes like I am talking to religious fanatics.

I present information from their trusted sources and they discount it like I made it up.

I even had one guy tell me I was wrong about the antarctic increasing in snow and ice cover, and in the same breath tell me that the increase of snow and ice cover correlates with the ipcc data.

I am still having bunches of fun.

I think sometimes they are just putting me on.





They are just very well versed in the 25 tactics of truth suppression. If you think this is fun then you should join JREF. They will tell you that black is white and down is up.


Heres a link to the British program:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=global+warming+channel+4

"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers.
Go to Top of Page

Hondo
New Member

USA
25 Posts

Posted - 05/16/2007 :  00:11:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Hondo a Private Message
H. Humbert wrote:
...It really doesn't matter whether you "agree" with it or not. The only question is: "Are you more or equally as informed as the experts?" If the answer is no, then you must realize your limitations and accept the consensus view. Anything less would be sheer hubris.
That kind of thinking strikes me as a herd mentality. Seriously. Do you moo too?
Many times part of being a reasonable person is simply being aware of the boundaries of your knowledge. Sure, you can choose to go with a "gut instinct," but that's not rational skepticism.
Spare me the lecture. I'm not some snot-nosed kid that sang out of tune during choir practice here, I'm just one of those not automatically buying into MMGM. The boundaries of knowledge aren't limited by whatever concept is currently in vogue and MMGW isn't set in stone yet. You shouldn't have to be told that. Also, my skepticism is based on a little more than just "gut instinct." MMGW might win a 'showing of the hands' vote right now, but as I've already stated, it's not a unanimous consensus, even among scientists. Ever look into what one decent CME does to our atmosphere? Are you aware that our sun is not following prior assumptions regarding it's cycles? Can you tell me that there is not a sun-induced cycle of warming and cooling of this planet? If you think there is, can you predict it? Define it's scope? Tell me irrefutably what caused our Ice Age? What thawed it? Are you sure? Is anyone?

If you try to tell me that "rational skepticism" implies an acceptance of claims without question, and as far as science goes, overlook that science is a process, not a proof - a process BTW that constantly refines (and sometimes rejects) what it initially posits - then turn over your front-row TAM ticket right now because you haven't got a clue what "rational skepticism" is.


----------------------------










Originally posted by Dude

hondo said:
Secondly, I never said you or anyone else here wasn't "allowed" to "parrot the scientific consensus" Dude, that's just twisting my words. We all do it when we agree with it, my point to H. Humbert was that it doesn't make the one doing it a scientist/expert by default.


Ok. Here is how it works. If you want to be skeptical of something (anything, take your pick) you have to have reasons for being so.

You must be able to take the thing you are skeptical of and make a case against it. Just saying you are skeptical of something is meaningless.

Take, for example, the 9/11 conspiracy hypothesis. I am skeptical of the claims made by these people, and I can argue against enough of their claims (via logic and evidence) to demonstrate to any rational person that they are basically full of shit.

If you want to be skeptical of the human contribution to global warming, you should be able to articulate a case against the points you disagree with (expect to have to defend it also).

Doubt alone is not enough. It must be followed by the reasons you doubt and the explanation of why anyone else should accept those reasons.

As H.H. has said, none of us here are climate scientists. This is outside the expertise of, I'd say, most anyone who reads or posts here. We, obviously, can examine the work of the climate scientists who authored the IPCC reports and if we find something to disagree with (that we can defend) then we get to express doubt and skepticism, regardless of our personal expertise. We should expect other to rain on our parade unless we have a really good point though.

Personally I have read all the summaries of the IPCC report 1 (technical and policy)(and a good bit of the actual body of the report), and didn't see anything that jumped out as obviously flawed. I also recognize that the science contained in that report is, largely, beyond my current level of study well outside my area of knowledge. I am, therefore, obliged to contingently accept the conclusions of this report. The contingency is, oviously, the discovery of new data.

So please, if you have some actual criticism of the IPCC data, methodology, or conclusions please start up a thread and lets go over them.

Lets leave this thread/s for Jerome to flounder in.


Read my response to H.H. Y'all need to save the lecturing for the woos. You started this sidebar Dude and I reckon it'll continue as long as one of y'all see fit to keep it going. Your call.

Edited by - Hondo on 05/16/2007 00:14:04
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 05/16/2007 :  00:38:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message
Originally posted by Hondo
That kind of thinking strikes me as a herd mentality. Seriously. Do you moo too?
Deferring to experts is herd mentality? Really? So to whom do you go for medical advice, your grocer?

Spare me the lecture. I'm not some snot-nosed kid that sang out of tune during choir practice here, I'm just one of those not automatically buying into MMGM.
If you could actually articulate an objection rather than simply offer appeals to ignorance, perhaps people wouldn't feel compelled to remind you of the basics.

The boundaries of knowledge aren't limited by whatever concept is currently in vogue and MMGW isn't set in stone yet. You shouldn't have to be told that. Also, my skepticism is based on a little more than just "gut instinct."
Yet you've not offered a single coherent criticism.

MMGW might win a 'showing of the hands' vote right now, but as I've already stated, it's not a unanimous consensus, even among scientists.
Nor should you expect unamity from scientists on any topic, ever. If that's your standard, then you're guaranteeing that it can never be met.

Ever look into what one decent CME does to our atmosphere? Are you aware that our sun is not following prior assumptions regarding it's cycles? Can you tell me that there is not a sun-induced cycle of warming and cooling of this planet? If you think there is, can you predict it? Define it's scope? Tell me irrefutably what caused our Ice Age? What thawed it? Are you sure? Is anyone?
Those are valid questions, but not sufficient to dismiss the totality of scientists' current understanding of global warming and their conclusion that humans are a significant contributor to it.

If you try to tell me that "rational skepticism" implies an acceptance of claims without question, and as far as science goes, overlook that science is a process, not a proof - a process BTW that constantly refines (and sometimes rejects) what it initially posits - then turn over your front-row TAM ticket right now because you haven't got a clue what "rational skepticism" is.
Well, good thing I would never try to tell you any of those things.

You're right. Science is a process, and you aren't following it. It's fine to tentatively accept the consensus while actively exploring other hypotheses. What's irrational is to reject the consensus simply because not everything in the Universe is currently understood to your satisfaction.

If at some future point new data were to come in that suggested the sun played a major role in global warming, then science would amend its theories and a reasonable person would change their views. But not before. In science, belief does not come before evidence, but rather is based on it. Belief without evidence is called religion. (But you shouldn't have to be told that.)


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Edited by - H. Humbert on 05/16/2007 00:40:12
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 05/16/2007 :  01:38:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message
In the original thread, I quoted j911ob as stating something that was actually said by JEROME DA GNOME. j911ob objected. I stand corrected as to the source.


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 05/16/2007 01:50:15
Go to Top of Page

JohnOAS
SFN Regular

Australia
800 Posts

Posted - 05/16/2007 :  04:26:26   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit JohnOAS's Homepage Send JohnOAS a Private Message
Originally posted by j911ob

JohnOAS---To be fair, one can not prove a negative.

Maybe you could provide proof of a positive.

Sure you can prove a negative. It just depends on the scope and meaning of the particular negative. Many negatives have requirements or logical consequences that are scientifically testable and/or provable.

Here are some links to further your logical education:
1. You can prove a negative - Steven D Hales Summary, contains a link to pdf article.
2. Proving a negative by Richard Carrier
3. An article from "Graveyard of the gods"

This is all beside the point, however, as your particular assertion, that:

Human beings are having zero effect on global warming


is disproved if it is shown that any action taken by a single human has any affect whatsoever on global warming.

Are you still standing by this claim?

My guess is that this is irrelevant, you have made up your mind and are not interested in a logical, scientific discussion:

MMGW is total hogwash. The correlation between CO2 gas and temperature is the other way around. I dont care what the supposed consensus is. It used to be the consensus that the earth was flat. |All physicists believed gravity was a force until einstein proved them wrong. Your appeals to authority mean absolutely nothing. Human beings are having zero effect on global warming.

If you'd stated that your analysis of the data led you to believe that humanity was having little effect on global warming, and could support your case, then we might have a discussion. The fact that you haven't even qualified your opinion as being subject to new/better evidence would suggest that you're interested in little more than preaching.

John's just this guy, you know.
Edited by - JohnOAS on 05/16/2007 04:27:49
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 05/16/2007 :  04:31:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Lets talk science facts.

If you look at this chart you will see the red peaks(temp)precede the blue peaks(co2).

This shows co2 increases following temp increases. Leading one to conclude that co2 increases are caused by temp increases.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.png
It only leads you to conclude this is if you're willing to bury your head in the sand at the first opportunity. The issues has been addressed before, for instance in Fischer, et al. "Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations," Science, 283 Issue 5408 (March 12, 1999): 1712-15 (you need permission to access it from here; your local university library should have it, and may have it on-line). They post two factors for the graph reading as it does-- first off,
Comparison of the sequence of events for the three time intervals described above suggests that the carbon cycle-climate relation should be separated into (at least) a deglaciation and a glaciation mode. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations show a similar increase for all three terminations, connected to a climate-driven net transfer of carbon from the ocean to the atmosphere. The time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions. Considering the uncertainties in Delta age (between 100 and 1000 years for recent and glacial conditions), such a lag can still be explained by an overestimation of Delta age for glacial conditions.
Moreover,
During further glaciation in MIS 5.4, CO2 concentrations remain constant, although temperatures strongly decline. We suggest that this reflects the combination of the increased oceanic uptake of CO2 expected for colder climate conditions and CO2 release caused by the net decline of the terrestrial biosphere during the glaciation and possibly by respiration of organic carbon deposited on increasingly exposed shelf areas. These processes, however, should terminate (with some delay) after the lowest temperatures are reached in MIS 5.4 and ice volume is at its maximum at 111 ky B.P. In agreement with this hypothesis, CO2 concentrations start to decrease in the Vostok record at about 111 ky B.P. Another possibility to explain this delayed response of CO2 to the cooling during MIS 5.4 would be an inhibited uptake of CO2 by the ocean.
Nevertheless, they do observe that we should at least "question the straightforward application of the past CO2-climate relation to the recent anthropogenic warming." In other words, the situation is very complex, and facile and uninformed observations gleaned from briefly glancing at a Wikipedia chart are hardly "spot on"; rather, they are almost certainly just that: facile and uninformed.
Edited by - Cuneiformist on 05/16/2007 04:31:55
Go to Top of Page

furshur
SFN Regular

USA
1536 Posts

Posted - 05/16/2007 :  04:58:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send furshur a Private Message
Jerome-the-troll said:I even had one guy tell me I was wrong about the antarctic increasing in snow and ice cover, and in the same breath tell me that the increase of snow and ice cover correlates with the ipcc data.

I'm sure you are having fun, trolling is kind of humorous. I thought you were a fanatic, but based on the above statement it is clear that you are nothing more than a troll. I have no idea if you believe anything you are saying. I think it is time I stopped wasting any time on this particular topic.



If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know.
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 05/16/2007 :  05:20:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message
H. Humbert---"If at some future point new data were to come in that suggested the sun played a major role in global warming"


This has to be the funniest statement made in the thread yet.

Do you think the Sun plays a minor role in the warming of the earth?


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
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 0.48 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000