Forums: Climbing Disciplines: Alpine & Ice:
"Global Warming" Is Not Significant
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Alpine & Ice

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next page Last page  View All


nuts_bolts


Nov 21, 2007, 1:34 PM
Post #201 of 228 (5443 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 5, 2006
Posts: 88

Re: [mjdoutdoors] "Global Warming" Is Not Significant [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post




JackAttack


Nov 21, 2007, 2:41 PM
Post #202 of 228 (5433 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 23, 2007
Posts: 55

Re: [mjdoutdoors] "Global Warming" Is Not Significant [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

mjdoutdoors wrote:
I think that regardless of whether you think that global warming is real or not the real issue with human acitvity and our use of fossil fuels should focus on clean air and clean water.Look at the pollution levels of our rivers and oceans, ie. mercury levels, caused by the burning of coal. Many people can deny the facts on global warming(understandable) but very few can deny the use of fossil fuels is a dirty polluting way of obtaining energy. There are better ways of getting energy, fossil fuels just happens to be conveinent.

I agree with you 100% on that front. when I say that there are no problems from carbon dioxide i am only talking about carbon dioxide, not its source. I agree that there are problems with fossil fuels. I do not think we are in too much danger of running out, because we still have over 40 years of relatively easy to access fossil fuels, and we are probably only 5-10 years from a source of energy that could realistically replace fossil fuels. But fossil fuels are polluting, and I do think that we should be spending money trying to solve that issue rather than global warming. Global warming is neither dangerous to us or the environment, and it is also not something that we will ever be able to control. It is time for people to cut the crap and face the obvious evidence that any warming on earth is caused by solar irradiance (the sun) and not by humans. More than 5 billion is spent each year world wide for studies about global warming, not including costs of satelites, ships, and laboratory constuction. I can think of about 500 better uses for that money. And despite all of Al Gore's campaining about global warming, such as his movie an inconvenient truth, his home in nashville, tennessee uses twenty five times as much electricity as the average american home. Talk about an inconvenient truth. And that does not include his two other homes or the private jet he flies to promote his movie. That pretty much defines hypocrite.


graniteboy


Nov 26, 2007, 12:43 PM
Post #203 of 228 (5403 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 1, 2001
Posts: 1092

Re: [jmlangford] "Global Warming" Is Not Significant [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

To Jody Langford, a highway patrolman who asserts that he nows something about science:

This topic has been hashed to death by both knowledgeable and (much more frequently) non-knowledgeable people in these forums. But I suggest this advice to both yourself and the many right leaning "ain't no global waming" crowd, before anything you say is to be even considered as even vaguely relevant.

First, I would suggest that you get yourself a phD in the sciences, particularly climatology, and get your work published in several major climatological science journals before your comments are to be considered even vaguely relevant to the topic. And until you have your new phD, Please recall that the opinions of a Cop are essentially worthless in the realm of scientific debate. The hard cold science of the IPCC (intergovernmental panel on climate change) firmly disagree with your opinions, as well as those of the discredited fringe scientists you guys keep digging up.

Second: I recommend that you use your new phD to fully refute the IPCC's findings. Once you've done this, I'll be all ears...until then, you're just another layman with a misconception about science.

Third: Recognize that yourself, the laymen who agree with you, and the (Very, very few) scientists who are arguing on your side of this alleged "debate" are all extremely out of touch with the science community on this matter.

Lastly: the very few scientists who hold this perspective are largely discredited by the science community at large, and if you wanted to, you could dig up some "scientists" who still claim that the world is flat, and that a witch can be unambiguously found out by checking their weight aganist that of a duck.
Wcience moves forward, but you're all still living in the middle ages. I don't blame you for your opinions on this, but rather, the lack of emphasis on science education in the K-12 system. Nonetheless, laymen's opinions in science don't count for anything, no more than my opinions on how fast your cop car can safely drive, or how many dunkin donuts you can consume in 5 minutes.


reg


Nov 26, 2007, 2:00 PM
Post #204 of 228 (5364 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1560

Re: [graniteboy] "Global Warming" Is Not Significant [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

graniteboy wrote:
vaguely relevant.

Lastly: the very few scientists who hold this perspective (i assume ur referring to the idea of no warming?) are largely discredited by the science community at large,

ummm i really thought i would not get into this stuff but i must say: i don't believe you would find ANY "scientist" who does not recognize that there is global warming - the question has always been are we responsible?
I say NO! and i believe those that get behind al gore's thinking are drinkin to much "koolaid"!


climb_eng


Nov 26, 2007, 2:09 PM
Post #205 of 228 (5357 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 23, 2007
Posts: 1701

Re: [graniteboy] "Global Warming" Is Not Significant [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I'd suspect that a scientist, particularly a physicist WITHOUT any previous background in climatology is probably the best qualified person out there to assess the conclusions of the IPCC and others. Climatologists are biased by their very nature. Models and such can be asessed by many people with a technical background, including many physicists and engineer, as the initial assumptions and mechanisms of the model can be understood so long as the reviewer has a background in chaotic models in general.


knieveltech


Nov 26, 2007, 2:12 PM
Post #206 of 228 (5357 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 1, 2006
Posts: 1431

Re: [graniteboy] "Global Warming" Is Not Significant [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

graniteboy wrote:
To Jody Langford, a highway patrolman who asserts that he nows something about science:

This topic has been hashed to death by both knowledgeable and (much more frequently) non-knowledgeable people in these forums. But I suggest this advice to both yourself and the many right leaning "ain't no global waming" crowd, before anything you say is to be even considered as even vaguely relevant.

First, I would suggest that you get yourself a phD in the sciences, particularly climatology, and get your work published in several major climatological science journals before your comments are to be considered even vaguely relevant to the topic. And until you have your new phD, Please recall that the opinions of a Cop are essentially worthless in the realm of scientific debate. The hard cold science of the IPCC (intergovernmental panel on climate change) firmly disagree with your opinions, as well as those of the discredited fringe scientists you guys keep digging up.

Second: I recommend that you use your new phD to fully refute the IPCC's findings. Once you've done this, I'll be all ears...until then, you're just another layman with a misconception about science.

Third: Recognize that yourself, the laymen who agree with you, and the (Very, very few) scientists who are arguing on your side of this alleged "debate" are all extremely out of touch with the science community on this matter.

Lastly: the very few scientists who hold this perspective are largely discredited by the science community at large, and if you wanted to, you could dig up some "scientists" who still claim that the world is flat, and that a witch can be unambiguously found out by checking their weight aganist that of a duck.
Wcience moves forward, but you're all still living in the middle ages. I don't blame you for your opinions on this, but rather, the lack of emphasis on science education in the K-12 system. Nonetheless, laymen's opinions in science don't count for anything, no more than my opinions on how fast your cop car can safely drive, or how many dunkin donuts you can consume in 5 minutes.

Nice burn, and well-deserved. I call bullshit though. There's good science that refutes several of the widely circulated models that indicate humans are responsible for global warming. There's even good science that suggests that this warming trend is a continuation of the warming trend since the last ice age. Having read papers on the subject from both camps I think the only safe conclusions that can be drawn at this time are as follows:

1. all of our current models are shit.
2. since our models are shit, nobody has any effing clue what's really going on, just a bunch of pie in the sky guessing with some Numbers hot-glued on to keep the funding coming in.

Incidentally, academic arrogance is nauseating and laughable, especially in a world where someone can readily educate themselves. YHBT HAND.


linvillelover


Nov 26, 2007, 2:21 PM
Post #207 of 228 (5352 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 18, 2006
Posts: 43

Re: [jmlangford] "Global Warming" Is Not Significant [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

i havent read anything except the 1st post.

1600s?.. just before the industrial revolution...
things didnt happen at once.

i believe humans have greatly affected not only the climate, but the entire function of the earth.
and Yes, the earth does go in up and down cycles.. we are still climbing from the ice age.

and yes, humans are probably making it happen a little quicker.


that is my $0.02


mr_rogers


Nov 26, 2007, 3:12 PM
Post #208 of 228 (5343 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 8, 2006
Posts: 57

Re: [JackAttack] "Global Warming" Is Not Significant [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

JackAttack wrote:
I have done lots of research on the topic of global warming, fossil fuels, and alternative energy sources. i'll put out some graphs and statistics.

My heavens, those are some impressive slides. Wherever did you get them?

oism.com <--wonder who they are?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

Let's see here....

"It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war."

Well(!), that's a diversity of topics. Education, Political science, Survivalist studies, and climatology. Considering that the founder is trained as a biochemist and knows nothing about any of those things, they must have a large staff in order to be experts in such a variety of fields.

No? oh.... only 6 members. And only one of them is actually paid. hmmmmm


what else we got?
.. conservative christian organization, big into homeschooling... website links to creationist groups... involved in circulating a very deceptive "scientists petition" a while back that got lots of conservative press... claims 6 faculty members, but really only one paid staff member (the founder and president), their "Professor of Electrical Engineering" is a computer consultant from Idaho (It's like Silicon valley, but different!...)

... and awwwwww.... isn't that cute. The founder's sons, Zach and Noah are members of the board (gotta pad that resume kiddo's!).

Wow... you know what you go here?

(No!)

Yup, you got yer self a group of hacks!

(Hacks! But I dust and vacuum every day!)

Sorry ma'am, but hacks are a tricky bunch. And these aren't your regular hacks, wandering about lecturing folks about things they know nothing about. No, what you've got here are 'ideologically motivated hacks.'

(Oh dear me! What will the neighbors think! Whatever will I do?)

Now don't you worry, this ain't your fault. These are tricky little bastards they are. They sneak in, arguing in bad faith with junk science in order to support a political agenda. An honest person like yourself is liable to get caught up by them as you're a trusting type who doesn't suspect folks of engaging in boldfaced lies for ideological reasons.

(And to think... I trusted them!)

Now in the future, just be more careful. I'll wipe this infestation out, but they're gonna come back in the future. Just be sure to check your sources each and every time. It's a brave new world out there and the internet has forced everyone to be their own fact-checker and editor. Also, refrain from strong drink - except on days that end in "y".

(Oh I will! Whatever can I do to repay you?)

Well..... there is one thing.... but... naw... I just couldn't... wouldn't be right...

(Oh... please tell me!)

*Porn music starts playing - fade to black (sorry folks, this is a family show)*


graniteboy


Nov 26, 2007, 7:36 PM
Post #209 of 228 (5331 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 1, 2001
Posts: 1092

Re: [knieveltech] "Global Warming" Is Not Significant [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
Nice burn, and well-deserved. I call bullshit though. There's good science that refutes several of the widely circulated models that indicate humans are responsible for global warming. There's even good science that suggests that this warming trend is a continuation of the warming trend since the last ice age. Having read papers on the subject from both camps I think the only safe conclusions that can be drawn at this time are as follows:

Hmmmm....If what you say is true (and it ain't, I work across the hall from some of the most renowned climatologists on the planet, pal, and have talked with them extensively about the junk science that the right wing readers of this thread invariably dig out of the shit pile and try to perpetrate as real science) then I wonder why neither you nor the political hacks and their third rate works you guys keep alluding to haven't received any NSF FUNDING to elucidate for us all how humans have nothing, not one iota of involvement, responsibility, culpability for the current warming trend????
You know, there are still people who refuse to believe in the law of gravity. That doesn't make them fall any slower when they pop off of a climb.

In conclusion; This whole infinitely repeating thread is really just a symptom of the very systematic, very cunning, very manuipultive war on science that the republican party has waged at the behest of their corporate masters. And I simply have no more time for it. Bush will be thrown out on his ear soon, Trent lott just resigned, and we can all look forward to a time when America regains it's status as a major world player in the envirnomental sciences, rather than staring glassy eyed and hopefully backward to the polyanna world view of the 1950s, when pollution was neither recognized nor given full weight as to it's effects.


dudemanbu


Nov 26, 2007, 8:26 PM
Post #210 of 228 (5312 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 2, 2005
Posts: 941

Re: [jmlangford] "Global Warming" Is Not Significant [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

JM, what's so bad about progress? Wouldn't you agree that if we can be cleaner, we should strive for it?

It has been proven that no matter what the government spends our tax dollars on, whether it's war, research, or infrastucture, the net stimulation on the economy is the same. If the government was pouring billions of dollars into cleaner energy instead of this bloody mess in iraq, not only would our money stay here in the US, we'd actually be doing something to help the world.

My question to you is, why not?


knieveltech


Nov 26, 2007, 8:44 PM
Post #211 of 228 (5302 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 1, 2006
Posts: 1431

Re: [graniteboy] "Global Warming" Is Not Significant [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

graniteboy wrote:
In reply to:
Nice burn, and well-deserved. I call bullshit though. There's good science that refutes several of the widely circulated models that indicate humans are responsible for global warming. There's even good science that suggests that this warming trend is a continuation of the warming trend since the last ice age. Having read papers on the subject from both camps I think the only safe conclusions that can be drawn at this time are as follows:

Hmmmm....If what you say is true (and it ain't, I work across the hall from some of the most renowned climatologists on the planet, pal, and have talked with them extensively about the junk science that the right wing readers of this thread invariably dig out of the shit pile and try to perpetrate as real science) then I wonder why neither you nor the political hacks and their third rate works you guys keep alluding to haven't received any NSF FUNDING to elucidate for us all how humans have nothing, not one iota of involvement, responsibility, culpability for the current warming trend????
You know, there are still people who refuse to believe in the law of gravity. That doesn't make them fall any slower when they pop off of a climb.

In conclusion; This whole infinitely repeating thread is really just a symptom of the very systematic, very cunning, very manuipultive war on science that the republican party has waged at the behest of their corporate masters. And I simply have no more time for it. Bush will be thrown out on his ear soon, Trent lott just resigned, and we can all look forward to a time when America regains it's status as a major world player in the envirnomental sciences, rather than staring glassy eyed and hopefully backward to the polyanna world view of the 1950s, when pollution was neither recognized nor given full weight as to it's effects.

Most highly recognized or most highly funded? Whatever, at the end of the day I fail to see how you can claim credibility as a scientist (or acquaintance thereof, in any case. What did you say you did again?) when you're clearly arguing from the viewpoint that any of these models are "correct". You blew your position the second you crossed the line from "well, the data suggests" to "this is clearly what's happening". Only time (or possibly better modeling) will tell if that is the case, in the mean time I haven't read anything about any climate theories put forward in the last decade making the conversion from theory to law, so until that happens all you have is a (potentially useful, possibly complete bullshit, see also epicycles) thought model. And for the record you know as well as I do that government funding for research is HIGHLY political (read not necessarily merit-based), so can the disingenuous crap about the NSF.

Also, (and pay attention here, professor) your little tidbit about gravity is a weak straw man at best. You're way out of line with implying I'm some kind of grovelling yokel (or a republican for that matter) just because I (after some research into the subject followed by several discussions with folks substantially better educated on climate science and the methods currently used to gather data) have chosen to display some skepticism. For the record (go re-read my post again if you're unsure) I clearly indicated that it is my impression that neither side of this "issue" can say they have a clear idea of wtf is going on. That's a pretty long haul from "global warming doesn't exist".

So again, for the cheap seats: YHBT HAND


graniteboy


Nov 27, 2007, 2:21 PM
Post #212 of 228 (5273 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 1, 2001
Posts: 1092

Re: [knieveltech] "Global Warming" Is Not Significant [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Look, Mr Yokel: What I do for a living is called Science. I work for one of the most respected science institutes in the world. I am not a climatologist, but an ecologist. But some of the most well respected and well published research scientists in the field of climate change work in my division. Grants from NASA, NSF, etc etc etc.

Look up the work of Drs Ken Taylor and Joe Connel for starters if you wanna get in a pissing match. You will be clearly outgunned.

What yokels such as yourself do not understand is that science never "Proves" anything. But Science CAN say with a relatively high certainty that a particular environmental phenomenon (X) is related to human activity (y) with a 90 or 95 or 99% certainty.

And that is exactly what the IPCC report tells us; Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90% probability) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations. So, Kneivel, are you actually smarter and more well read in climatology than the collective wisdom of the IPCC ? No, you're not. You're just a whining naysayer in over his head.

Are climate models infallible and do they show future trends exactly and without any variability? No. No model does that in virtually any field, dipshit.

Are you a parochioal yokel for not understanding the underlying certainty of anthropogenic climate change? Yes, with a P value <.000001. I'm laughing my ass off at you while you continue to shit in your own hands, then eat it, followed by feirce projectile vomiting of this fecal-vomitus matter at the knowledge of climate scientists everywhere.
Do you like the taste? Or do you have a political motive for eating all your own shit time and again?


(This post was edited by graniteboy on Nov 27, 2007, 2:22 PM)


reno


Nov 27, 2007, 2:49 PM
Post #213 of 228 (5264 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283

Re: [graniteboy] "Global Warming" Is Not Significant [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Graniteboy, take a week off for the excessive personal attacks against Kneivel.

Come back when you learn to play well with others.


(This post was edited by reno on Nov 27, 2007, 2:57 PM)


deschamps1000


Nov 27, 2007, 3:07 PM
Post #214 of 228 (5256 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 29, 2004
Posts: 343

Re: [knieveltech] "Global Warming" Is Not Significant [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Knievel -

Please reference an article in a respected, peer-reviewed journal that argues against global warming.


knieveltech


Nov 27, 2007, 3:20 PM
Post #215 of 228 (5250 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 1, 2006
Posts: 1431

Re: [graniteboy] "Global Warming" Is Not Significant [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

graniteboy wrote:
Look, Mr Yokel: What I do for a living is called Science. I work for one of the most respected science institutes in the world. I am not a climatologist, but an ecologist. But some of the most well respected and well published research scientists in the field of climate change work in my division. Grants from NASA, NSF, etc etc etc.

Look up the work of Drs Ken Taylor and Joe Connel for starters if you wanna get in a pissing match. You will be clearly outgunned.

What yokels such as yourself do not understand is that science never "Proves" anything. But Science CAN say with a relatively high certainty that a particular environmental phenomenon (X) is related to human activity (y) with a 90 or 95 or 99% certainty.

And that is exactly what the IPCC report tells us; Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90% probability) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations. So, Kneivel, are you actually smarter and more well read in climatology than the collective wisdom of the IPCC ? No, you're not. You're just a whining naysayer in over his head.

Are climate models infallible and do they show future trends exactly and without any variability? No. No model does that in virtually any field, dipshit.

Are you a parochioal yokel for not understanding the underlying certainty of anthropogenic climate change? Yes, with a P value <.000001. I'm laughing my ass off at you while you continue to shit in your own hands, then eat it, followed by feirce projectile vomiting of this fecal-vomitus matter at the knowledge of climate scientists everywhere.
Do you like the taste? Or do you have a political motive for eating all your own shit time and again?

Ok, taken in order:

Actually, if you're an ecologist that pretty much makes you a slightly overqualified park ranger (assuming you can drive a stick shift) who's taken some extra biology (and possibly chem). Impressive.

This isn't a pissing match. Your abject failure to comprehend the last two posts on this particular topic, combined with some form of bizarre (highly unscientific) zealotry on your part has mistakenly lead you to believe this is the case. Pay attention.

I actually stated fairly clearly that science never effectively proves anything. Now that it's been made crystal clear that we both agree on that point, if you're a scientist, wtf are you doing making declarative statements?

Regurgitating the same tired crap that shows up in the newspaper and on CNN.com as far as "projections" are concerned isn't making you any headway, it's just proof that you're parroting shit you've read elsewhere, quite probably without any serious thought put on the subject, thus the highly emotional stance you're taking. I assume that's the prior dig pointing out a glaring lack of objectivity on your part hitting home.

A note on models: no shit they aren't infallible, that's the point in it's entirety (well that and MASSIVE gaps in the data sets used to create them, but that's another issue). Random fact for the spectators: to date nobody's been able to come up with a good working model for a sand dune.

So assuming you're done with the histrionics, go google "non-depositional area". When you can (preferably in 50 words or less) explain to the class why this concept is relevant to climate modeling we can continue our discourse. Here's a clue: read the previous paragraph carefully. Or you could just spit out the hook.


knieveltech


Nov 27, 2007, 3:30 PM
Post #216 of 228 (5245 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 1, 2006
Posts: 1431

Re: [deschamps1000] "Global Warming" Is Not Significant [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

deschamps1000 wrote:
Knievel -

Please reference an article in a respected, peer-reviewed journal that argues against global warming.

I'll do a little digging and see what I can come up with. The point I'm trying to make here is not that global warming is a farce, but that there are some largely ignored issues with data gathering and modeling that shed some doubt on a lot of the stuff that's being put forth as some kind of second gospel. I'm basically playing the smartass in the back of the class who stands up mid lecture and goes "yeah, but what do we really know?". But mostly I just wanted to troll that guy. I despise academic arrogance.

Note to Moderator:
don't ban me bro!


JackAttack


Nov 27, 2007, 3:50 PM
Post #217 of 228 (5233 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 23, 2007
Posts: 55

Re: [mr_rogers] "Global Warming" Is Not Significant [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

mr_rogers wrote:
JackAttack wrote:
I have done lots of research on the topic of global warming, fossil fuels, and alternative energy sources. i'll put out some graphs and statistics.

My heavens, those are some impressive slides. Wherever did you get them?

oism.com <--wonder who they are?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

Let's see here....

"It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war."

Well(!), that's a diversity of topics. Education, Political science, Survivalist studies, and climatology. Considering that the founder is trained as a biochemist and knows nothing about any of those things, they must have a large staff in order to be experts in such a variety of fields.

No? oh.... only 6 members. And only one of them is actually paid. hmmmmm


what else we got?
.. conservative christian organization, big into homeschooling... website links to creationist groups... involved in circulating a very deceptive "scientists petition" a while back that got lots of conservative press... claims 6 faculty members, but really only one paid staff member (the founder and president), their "Professor of Electrical Engineering" is a computer consultant from Idaho (It's like Silicon valley, but different!...)

... and awwwwww.... isn't that cute. The founder's sons, Zach and Noah are members of the board (gotta pad that resume kiddo's!).

Wow... you know what you go here?

(No!)

Yup, you got yer self a group of hacks!

(Hacks! But I dust and vacuum every day!)

Sorry ma'am, but hacks are a tricky bunch. And these aren't your regular hacks, wandering about lecturing folks about things they know nothing about. No, what you've got here are 'ideologically motivated hacks.'

(Oh dear me! What will the neighbors think! Whatever will I do?)

Now don't you worry, this ain't your fault. These are tricky little bastards they are. They sneak in, arguing in bad faith with junk science in order to support a political agenda. An honest person like yourself is liable to get caught up by them as you're a trusting type who doesn't suspect folks of engaging in boldfaced lies for ideological reasons.

(And to think... I trusted them!)

Now in the future, just be more careful. I'll wipe this infestation out, but they're gonna come back in the future. Just be sure to check your sources each and every time. It's a brave new world out there and the internet has forced everyone to be their own fact-checker and editor. Also, refrain from strong drink - except on days that end in "y".

(Oh I will! Whatever can I do to repay you?)

Well..... there is one thing.... but... naw... I just couldn't... wouldn't be right...

(Oh... please tell me!)

*Porn music starts playing - fade to black (sorry folks, this is a family show)*

Jesus Christ this thread is vicious.

Ok, i'll counter all of your arguments one by one, going in order down the list:

1) yes my source for these slides is oism.com. dont think thats a credible source? then ill show you plenty more if you really want me to. right now i dont feel like wasting too much of my time on an asshole like you.

2) You have a problem with small institutions? and so what if only one person is paid? in my opinion, i'd rather have volunteers who do their work because they are passionate about it and truly believe what they are publishing, rather than your brand of "scientists" who side with whoever pays them the most. let me quote from the same page you did that this particular petition was coauthored by Frederick Seitz, a former president of the national academy of sciences. I dont know about you, but that sounds pretty credible to me. also you make it sound like the petition project that I pulled my slides from was written by a bunch of wackos. Let me prove you wrong, once again. I quote: "Listed here (on the left) are the approximately 19,000 signers of this petition. Qualification to be a signatory requires that the individual have a university degree in physical science, either BS, MS, or PhD. Those with MS or PhD degrees are so designated. Those with BS degrees are undesignated or sometimes designated as MD if appropriate."
Do you want me to copy and paste in all of those 19,000 names of credible scientists who support the petition project? just say the word.

3) you think that my source is supporting a political agenda? ha, thats funny. Let me prove you wrong, once again (this is starting to get old).
"No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition's organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project."

4) I liked you're little dialogue at the end. It was very entertaining.

You made a noble effort to prove me and tens of thousands of other scientists wrong, but I hate to break it to you: science is on my side, asshole.


onceahardman


Nov 27, 2007, 3:56 PM
Post #218 of 228 (5227 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493

Re: [deschamps1000] "Global Warming" Is Not Significant [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

The way that science is supposed to work:

Make a hypothesis, test it, publish the results, including sufficient data for replication.

The way climate science works:

Make a hypothesis, cherry-pick data which supports your hypothesis, publish, but don't archive your data, so it can't be replicated, claim you are being "harassed by denialists" when other interested scientists try to replicate what you've done.

oh, and fail to publish results you've found which are contrary to your hypothesis.

Anthro GW may well be true. but the present research is so poor, we really don't know.

For example, most models (including IPCC) assume warming of 2.5 deg C for a doubling of CO2. There is NO physical basis for this. A physics/engineering quality derivation of 2.5 deg C has never been published, yet it is used in all of the most important models.

One note about glaciers, dry couloirs, etc...glaciers in the alps are in retreat....revealing 5000 year old forests. How many SUVs were around 5000 years ago?

Melting glaciers in greenland have revealed 900 year-old farms, still smelling of sheep feces from the sheep farms, long frozen, now thawing. what fossil fuels caused the previous melt?

global climate change is real-always has been.


reno


Nov 27, 2007, 4:19 PM
Post #219 of 228 (5215 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283

Re: [onceahardman] "Global Warming" Is Not Significant [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

*sigh*

A few things pop to the forefront of my mind.

The IPCC released their conclusions, then asked for 90 days to gather the data and present the evidence. That's just blatantly wrong.

The atmosphere on Mars is warming. Methinks that the biggest thing Earth and Mars have in common is the Sun. Fairly sure that it ain't Martian women driving their Martian children to soccer practice in SUVs causing the global warming on Mars.

Dr. William Gray (Colo. State guy who does the hurricane predictions) finds lots of flaws in the APGW argument, and posits that we'll see global COOLING, and "research arguing that humans are causing global warming is “mush” based on unreliable computer models."

Despite all this, I think that reasonable measures to reduce pollution and fossil fuel use should be promoted, if for no other reason that it's smart geopolitics and good use of resources.

I don't believe in human caused global warming. That doesn't stop me from riding my bike to the coffee shop, rather than driving.


onceahardman


Nov 27, 2007, 4:31 PM
Post #220 of 228 (5205 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493

Re: [reno] "Global Warming" Is Not Significant [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
Dr. William Gray (Colo. State guy who does the hurricane predictions) finds lots of flaws in the APGW argument, and posits that we'll see global COOLING, and "research arguing that humans are causing global warming is “mush” based on unreliable computer models."

Despite all this, I think that reasonable measures to reduce pollution and fossil fuel use should be promoted, if for no other reason that it's smart geopolitics and good use of resources

i agree completely. it will cool off. it always does.

and i don't hate the environment because i'm skeptical of AGW. i clean up after myself. i don't litter. i keep things tidy. i plant trees on my property. AGW remains primarily a political issue, not a scientific one.


pico23


Nov 27, 2007, 11:28 PM
Post #221 of 228 (5163 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378

Re: [jmlangford] "Global Warming" Is Not Significant [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

[quote "jmlangford"]A while back there was a post by someone lamenting the fact that us [i]evil[/i] humans were melting all the good ice routes by our lifestyle. He complained about the glaciers melting, etc. and that we were causing it. I couldn't find that thread, so I am starting a new one.

The information below was obtained from a presentation by [b]Dr. Patrick Michaels, Climatologist, University of Virginia[/b] titled "The American Legislative Exchange Council Energy Sustainability Project". The presentation was made on July 2, 2002 at the California State Capitol.

[b]*There is currently no known mechanism which can stop global warming.

*The earth has been on a macro-warming trend since the 1600's. That makes it difficult to blame industry for most of about 300 years or so.

*Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would void only 7/100 of one degree of global warming by 2050. Scientifically this infinitesimal temperature change is undetectable.

*Most apparent "global warming" occurs over Siberia and extreme north-western North America where most of the earth's coldest and driest air is.

*The Kyoto Protocol was being pushed by some in an attempt to tear down the United States' trade advantage because there is no trading bloc large enough to compete with our productivity.

*Warming in the past 100 years was 0.8 degrees. Reliable estimates show a continued trend of warming 1.6 degrees over the next 100 years.

*The mean temperature of Antartica is unchanged. Some parts have warmed while other parts have cooled.[/b]

So the next time your ice route is a little shorter, just accept it as a cycle of nature and don't try to ruin the great American way of life by implementing scientifically unsound regulations.

[ This Message was edited by: jmlangford on 2002-07-30 20:28 ][/quote]


My feelings are this.

lets say there is nothing we can do to stop global warming, should we abandon all attempts to curb pollution?

Really, no matter the cause off global warming, changing wasteful and filthy practices can and will lead to a better and more sustaintable planet.

So I think using global warming as a reason to become less wasteful to a non renewable resource (your planet) is a good thing.

Driving cars with more fuel effeciency is a good thing, buying local food is a good thing, being more energy effecient at home is a good thing.

Why? Because if nothing else it saves long term money.

I know when a person has cash to burn because they don't curse when they finish filling up the H2. Being wasteful has become a sign of affluence but the reality is wasteful is wasteful, and it's not a god given or consitutional right to destroy the planet, just because YOU can.

It amazes me how selfish some people are.


onceahardman


Nov 28, 2007, 9:01 AM
Post #222 of 228 (5117 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493

Re: [pico23] "Global Warming" Is Not Significant [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
My feelings are this.

lets say there is nothing we can do to stop global warming, should we abandon all attempts to curb pollution?

Really, no matter the cause off global warming, changing wasteful and filthy practices can and will lead to a better and more sustaintable planet.

So I think using global warming as a reason to become less wasteful to a non renewable resource (your planet) is a good thing.

you have set up a false dichotomy.

if we can't stop GW, then "curbing pollution" has no effect on GW.

as i said above, i don't litter, i don't drive an SUV, although i DO drive a V6 pickup. by all means, encourage and educate others regarding waste. but don't turn this control over to the government. dont trounce on liberty to forward your personal views.

none of this affects GW, though. if you want people to pay attention, lead by example. don't tell a lie, then expect everyone to just follow along anyway.

"False but Accurate"...look where that got dan rather.


climb_eng


Nov 28, 2007, 9:19 AM
Post #223 of 228 (5113 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 23, 2007
Posts: 1701

Re: [graniteboy] "Global Warming" Is Not Significant [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

graniteboy wrote:
Look, Mr Yokel: What I do for a living is called Science. I work for one of the most respected science institutes in the world. I am not a climatologist, but an ecologist. But some of the most well respected and well published research scientists in the field of climate change work in my division. Grants from NASA, NSF, etc etc etc.

Look up the work of Drs Ken Taylor and Joe Connel for starters if you wanna get in a pissing match. You will be clearly outgunned.

What yokels such as yourself do not understand is that science never "Proves" anything. But Science CAN say with a relatively high certainty that a particular environmental phenomenon (X) is related to human activity (y) with a 90 or 95 or 99% certainty.

And that is exactly what the IPCC report tells us; Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90% probability) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations. So, Kneivel, are you actually smarter and more well read in climatology than the collective wisdom of the IPCC ? No, you're not. You're just a whining naysayer in over his head.

Are climate models infallible and do they show future trends exactly and without any variability? No. No model does that in virtually any field, dipshit.

Are you a parochioal yokel for not understanding the underlying certainty of anthropogenic climate change? Yes, with a P value <.000001. I'm laughing my ass off at you while you continue to shit in your own hands, then eat it, followed by feirce projectile vomiting of this fecal-vomitus matter at the knowledge of climate scientists everywhere.
Do you like the taste? Or do you have a political motive for eating all your own shit time and again?

If you're side was as strong as you claim, they wouldn't use character assassination and petty insults. Questioning science have never deserved this sort of an attack.


ottabox


Nov 28, 2007, 9:36 AM
Post #224 of 228 (4436 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 10, 2006
Posts: 354

Re: [pico23] "Global Warming" Is Not Significant [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

>>Patrick J. Michaels is senior researcher in environmental studies at the Cato Institute; research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia; author of two books on global warming, The Satanic Gases and Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming; and editor of World Climate Report, a biweekly newsletter on climate studies funded in large part by the coal industry. According to a 1998 article by Institute for Public Accuracy executive director Norman Solomon, the Cato Institute has received financial support from energy companies -- including Chevron Companies, Exxon Company, Shell Oil Company, and Tenneco Gas, as well as the American Petroleum Institute, Amoco Foundation, and Atlantic Richfield Foundation. According to his bio on the Cato website, Michaels is a visiting scientist at the George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) in Washington, DC. The nonpartisan Congressional Quarterly calls the Marshall Institute "a Washington-based think tank supported by industry and conservative foundations that focuses primarily on trying to debunk global warming...<< and so on and so forth - makes you wonder about his credibility and whose interests he serves. I don't own oil stock or live a lifestyle of conspicuous consumption. Who do you trust more?

pico23 wrote:
[quote "jmlangford"]A while back there was a post by someone lamenting the fact that us [i]evil[/i] humans were melting all the good ice routes by our lifestyle. He complained about the glaciers melting, etc. and that we were causing it. I couldn't find that thread, so I am starting a new one.

The information below was obtained from a presentation by [b]Dr. Patrick Michaels, Climatologist, University of Virginia[/b] titled "The American Legislative Exchange Council Energy Sustainability Project". The presentation was made on July 2, 2002 at the California State Capitol.

[b]*There is currently no known mechanism which can stop global warming.

*The earth has been on a macro-warming trend since the 1600's. That makes it difficult to blame industry for most of about 300 years or so.

*Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would void only 7/100 of one degree of global warming by 2050. Scientifically this infinitesimal temperature change is undetectable.

*Most apparent "global warming" occurs over Siberia and extreme north-western North America where most of the earth's coldest and driest air is.

*The Kyoto Protocol was being pushed by some in an attempt to tear down the United States' trade advantage because there is no trading bloc large enough to compete with our productivity.

*Warming in the past 100 years was 0.8 degrees. Reliable estimates show a continued trend of warming 1.6 degrees over the next 100 years.

*The mean temperature of Antartica is unchanged. Some parts have warmed while other parts have cooled.[/b]

So the next time your ice route is a little shorter, just accept it as a cycle of nature and don't try to ruin the great American way of life by implementing scientifically unsound regulations.

[ This Message was edited by: jmlangford on 2002-07-30 20:28 ][/quote]


My feelings are this.

lets say there is nothing we can do to stop global warming, should we abandon all attempts to curb pollution?

Really, no matter the cause off global warming, changing wasteful and filthy practices can and will lead to a better and more sustaintable planet.

So I think using global warming as a reason to become less wasteful to a non renewable resource (your planet) is a good thing.

Driving cars with more fuel effeciency is a good thing, buying local food is a good thing, being more energy effecient at home is a good thing.

Why? Because if nothing else it saves long term money.

I know when a person has cash to burn because they don't curse when they finish filling up the H2. Being wasteful has become a sign of affluence but the reality is wasteful is wasteful, and it's not a god given or consitutional right to destroy the planet, just because YOU can.

It amazes me how selfish some people are.


Valarc


Nov 28, 2007, 9:39 AM
Post #225 of 228 (4434 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 19, 2007
Posts: 1473

Re: [climb_eng] "Global Warming" Is Not Significant [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

climb_eng wrote:
If you're side was as strong as you claim, they wouldn't use character assassination and petty insults. Questioning science have never deserved this sort of an attack.

I ain't touching this argument with a ten foot pole, because I know how it always turns out. Neither side is ever going to have their minds changed.

However, realize that the personal attacks and insults come after years of frustration dealing with idiots "questioning science". The internet has given everyone a voice, and unfortunately a vast majority aren't worth hearing, and an even vaster majority seem to be willing to listen to the drivel the first group spouts. I've sat through more arguments than I care to recall about such topics as the fake moon landing, the healing power of far infrared radiation, the electric theory of the universe, the 911 conspiracy, creation science (there's an oxymoron) and so on...

There's a difference between "questioning science" and being misled by idiots with a website. There is so much garbage pseudoscience out there that folks who are a part of the scientific community get downright furious at the backwards ideas people come up with. Add in to that a culture in the USA which looks down on science and academics in general as stuffy nerds with no grasp on the real world, and you've got everything you need to put this country in the shithole spot we're in right now.

Global warming could potentially be the biggest issue to ever face mankind. Corporations stand to lose billions, politicians stand to lose power, and scientists stand to lose their funding. There is NO ONE anywhere who doesn't have some personal investment in this issue. That makes it potentially the toughest issue imaginable when it comes to separating the facts from the lies. It also makes it the most frustrating imaginable when you think "your side" is the right one and others are being fed a line of bullshit. Both sides of the argument have done a masterful job of painting the other side as eccentric nutjobs.

Just take a second to think to yourself what motivation you really have to support one side or the other, or perhaps more importantly, ask yourself what motivates those whose opinions you believe.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Climbing Disciplines : Alpine & Ice

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook