Page 37 of 161 FirstFirst ... 273334353637383940414787137 ... LastLast
Results 901 to 925 of 4001
  1. #901
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Greenland temperature data from paper "Extending Greenland temperature records into the late eighteenth century".



    Remember, Greenland is where Al Gore's sci fi doomsday scenarios come from.


    DarrinS is offline

  2. #902
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,691
    It's a matter of scale.


    Less than one degree in over 100 years.


    Scary.
    The World Meteorological Organization announced its finding last week that global mean temperatures for the year were 0.53°C above the 1961-1990 mean, 0.01°C warmer than 2005 and 0.02°C above 1998. With the comparison having a margin of uncertainty of 0.09°C, the three years are considered tied for the hottest year on record.
    They also answered your question, but you didn't read the whole thing, just the graph, I'm sure.

    Again, more flawed logic. This is a strawman logical fallacy, in which the assertions someone makes are distorted and then "defeated" as if they actually did anything other than debunk an idea that no one has. I stopped counting such things you posted after about 12 verifiable instances.
    It isn't the wholesale magnitude of the change, but the fact that it is accelerating, and creating hosts of problems that can't be shown in temperature graphs, such as droughts, floods, desertification, etc.

    Again, I have to ask, are you even capable of thinking logically? Or do you just choose not to do it here?
    RandomGuy is offline

  3. #903
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    They also answered your question, but you didn't read the whole thing, just the graph, I'm sure.

    Again, more flawed logic. This is a strawman logical fallacy, in which the assertions someone makes are distorted and then "defeated" as if they actually did anything other than debunk an idea that no one has. I stopped counting such things you posted after about 12 verifiable instances.
    It isn't the wholesale magnitude of the change, but the fact that it is accelerating, and creating hosts of problems that can't be shown in temperature graphs, such as droughts, floods, desertification, etc.

    Again, I have to ask, are you even capable of thinking logically? Or do you just choose not to do it here?


    I was watching this show on National Geographic the other day and there was this scientist talking about methane being released as the permafrost melts and the underlying roots, etc. start to decay.

    Where did the roots come from?
    DarrinS is offline

  4. #904
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    More scary Greenland data.


    DarrinS is offline

  5. #905
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,479
    Darrin still trolling!
    MannyIsGod is offline

  6. #906
    Retired Ray xrayzebra's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    9,096
    RG, IMO, honestly, it is all about money.

    The re-distribution of money. All the experts all
    say the same thing. Tax the big guys, give to
    the little guys and all will be well.

    About you reading my links. I could care less.
    I give them to back up what I said. Whether you
    accept them, well that is up to you.

    All the stats that you want to give, fine, it proves
    absolutely nothing to "me". My pass and my
    future, as well as yours, is your lifetime. I know
    what I know and I know what has occurred and
    I also know that BS is BS.

    Now you take that as it may. But I have seen
    the evolution of people who want to live your
    life as well as mine and have done a good job
    of doing it. Smoking, wearing seat belts, putting
    kids in kids seats, banning kids meals in McDonalds and on and on and on.

    So forgive an old man for telling you that you
    are worried about mankind, don't!, there are
    so many people who, like you, worry about me,
    good Lord, did you read about Jack, kicked sand
    in my face, LaLanne. He died. Like he said:
    Death will ruin my reputation.

    Quit worrying about Earth and start worry about
    "you" and the people who would tell you how to
    live your life, or mine for that matter.

    A nice glass of Scotch and a good steak is
    almost as "almost" as good as, well, you name
    it.

    I have been in many places on this old earth,
    from the smog in London in the 50's to
    two revolutions in Turkey and saw men walk
    on the moon and heart transplants and people
    living from their 60's to people like me who
    have outlived their parents. So RG, take
    everything with a grain of salt and and just
    a little bit of doubt. Scientist are human and
    have prejudice just like you and I. And some are
    full of BS just like those you and I know.

    xrayzebra is offline

  7. #907
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,691
    RG, IMO, honestly, it is all about money.

    The re-distribution of money. All the experts all
    say the same thing. Tax the big guys, give to
    the little guys and all will be well.

    About you reading my links. I could care less.
    I give them to back up what I said. Whether you
    accept them, well that is up to you.

    ...

    I have been in many places on this old earth,
    from the smog in London in the 50's to
    two revolutions in Turkey and saw men walk
    on the moon and heart transplants and people
    living from their 60's to people like me who
    have outlived their parents. So RG, take
    everything with a grain of salt and and just
    a little bit of doubt. Scientist are human and
    have prejudice just like you and I. And some are
    full of BS just like those you and I know.

    Well, I have read a LOT of stuff given by Wild Cobra over the years, and done some reading of it myself.

    Scientists may be human, but they are not, en masse, as dishonest as many seem to want to claim when it suits them.

    I see this as less re-distribution, as a moneyed interest fighting very hard to keep its business model going.

    I find that waaay more believable than claiming tens of thousands of scientists as so dishonest as to pervert science itself to futher their own ends.
    RandomGuy is offline

  8. #908
    Retired Ray xrayzebra's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    9,096
    RG, dishonest. Hmmm. I am not sure how you can
    define that.

    It seems and I can be wrong, but that dishonesty
    now days all boils down to politics. I will include
    myself in that category.
    It seems, unlike our ancestors, we get so defensive
    about our positions on things that we leave out the
    most common denominator, common sense. And
    that may be because we have this "instant" communications, like this forum. When in the, not so distant past, we only had newpapers and radio. And radio was a luxury in my youth on
    farms. Newspapers were when you can get them, sorta things, you didn't have paperboys in
    the rural areas. By the way I was a paperboy in
    my small town. Got 1 cent per paper delivered.

    Anyhow, I am rambling. The point I am trying
    to make is that some how things have gotten so
    upside down that we forgot about responsibility.
    Responsibility of taking care of our kids, our
    families. That is not governments job. That is
    our job.

    That is what I mean when I talk about wealth
    redistribution. I mean, yes, it is "MY"
    responsibility to help my neighbor, my family.
    But it isn't governments job.

    Global warming. Global cooling. Do you really
    think government or government intervention
    could stop either? Do you? I don't. They couldn't stop poverty. They can't stop deaths from car accidents. Government can't stop a damn thing. Think about it, RG, think....think.

    Government was designed to provide basic functions. Charity isn't one of them, regardless
    of what anyone says. Families are designed to
    take care of families and each other.

    And you know what, families fail....yeah, they
    do and there isn't a damn thing anyone can
    do about it......nothing.

    So back to the topic, there isn't anyone or
    government can do to change our weather
    or climate. That is a real, common sense,
    fact.

    So much for stats, whether from you or
    WC. They honest wont change a thing
    xrayzebra is offline

  9. #909
    Veteran temujin's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    2,408
    RG, dishonest. Hmmm. I am not sure how you can
    define that.

    It seems and I can be wrong, but that dishonesty
    now days all boils down to politics. I will include
    myself in that category.
    It seems, unlike our ancestors, we get so defensive
    about our positions on things that we leave out the
    most common denominator, common sense. And
    that may be because we have this "instant" communications, like this forum. When in the, not so distant past, we only had newpapers and radio. And radio was a luxury in my youth on
    farms. Newspapers were when you can get them, sorta things, you didn't have paperboys in
    the rural areas. By the way I was a paperboy in
    my small town. Got 1 cent per paper delivered.

    Anyhow, I am rambling. The point I am trying
    to make is that some how things have gotten so
    upside down that we forgot about responsibility.
    Responsibility of taking care of our kids, our
    families. That is not governments job. That is
    our job.

    That is what I mean when I talk about wealth
    redistribution. I mean, yes, it is "MY"
    responsibility to help my neighbor, my family.
    But it isn't governments job.

    Global warming. Global cooling. Do you really
    think government or government intervention
    could stop either? Do you? I don't. They couldn't stop poverty. They can't stop deaths from car accidents. Government can't stop a damn thing. Think about it, RG, think....think.

    Government was designed to provide basic functions. Charity isn't one of them, regardless
    of what anyone says. Families are designed to
    take care of families and each other.

    And you know what, families fail....yeah, they
    do and there isn't a damn thing anyone can
    do about it......nothing.

    So back to the topic, there isn't anyone or
    government can do to change our weather
    or climate. That is a real, common sense,
    fact.

    So much for stats, whether from you or
    WC. They honest wont change a thing
    Nice post.
    But sad.
    I can't do anything about (insert poverty, global waming etch).
    I lost.

    The greatness is in the fight, not in the outcome.
    Pound that rock.
    Pound that rock a thousand times and on the 1001st it will break open.
    temujin is offline

  10. #910
    Veteran temujin's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    2,408
    Well, I have read a LOT of stuff given by Wild Cobra over the years, and done some reading of it myself.

    Scientists may be human, but they are not, en masse, as dishonest as many seem to want to claim when it suits them.

    I see this as less re-distribution, as a moneyed interest fighting very hard to keep its business model going.

    I find that waaay more believable than claiming tens of thousands of scientists as so dishonest as to pervert science itself to futher their own ends.
    The problem with dishonesty in science is that if you cheat on small stuff, who cares.
    If you do with big stuff -and global warming is big stuff- they'll prove you wrong right away.
    temujin is offline

  11. #911
    Retired Ray xrayzebra's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    9,096
    Nice post.
    But sad.
    I can't do anything about (insert poverty, global waming etch).
    I lost.

    The greatness is in the fight, not in the outcome.
    Pound that rock.
    Pound that rock a thousand times and on the 1001st it will break open.
    What fight. I can't do anything about it?
    " (insert poverty, global waming etch)."

    Yes you cant, "you" not government not anyone
    else, you.

    You are looking for someone else to accept you
    responsibilities.

    Government is was created to take care of
    basic things they are good at. Things, we as
    citizens have a common need for.

    Government is not a human en y. It cannot
    provide for people. It has no heart, it is has
    no feelings. It is composed of political en ies
    who have designs on powers to further what
    they want........

    It is composed of people just like you and I. Us!
    They are not magical, they cannot perform
    miracles. The are not smarter than us. They
    cannot produce no more than what we give them,
    taxes.

    What part of that do you not undrstand?
    xrayzebra is offline

  12. #912
    Believe.
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Post Count
    85
    Also, if you could tie in how solar output leads to the acidification of the ocean I'd like to know as well.
    Not sure if it's been answered.

    Theoretically, greater solar output can lead to faster thermal/photo decomposition of carbon based compounds, one of the byproducts being CO2. Phytoplankton, photosynthesizing organisms, living near the the ocean's surface are susceptible to UV radiation. Since there's big ozone hole, higher solar output makes these organisms vulnerable. The effect of phytoplankton dying is two-fold. One being decomposition of carbon based organic matter in the ocean increases CO2 levels. CO2 reacts with water to form carbonic acid leading to a decrease in the ocean's alkalinity. Second, since phytoplankton photosynthesize, the organisms use CO2 as a carbon source thereby effectively removing CO2 from both the ocean and atmosphere.
    ~~~~~~ is offline

  13. #913
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,691
    Not sure if it's been answered.

    Theoretically, greater solar output can lead to faster thermal/photo decomposition of carbon based compounds, one of the byproducts being CO2. Phytoplankton, photosynthesizing organisms, living near the the ocean's surface are susceptible to UV radiation. Since there's big ozone hole, higher solar output makes these organisms vulnerable. The effect of phytoplankton dying is two-fold. One being decomposition of carbon based organic matter in the ocean increases CO2 levels. CO2 reacts with water to form carbonic acid leading to a decrease in the ocean's alkalinity. Second, since phytoplankton photosynthesize, the organisms use CO2 as a carbon source thereby effectively removing CO2 from both the ocean and atmosphere.
    I imagine that effect would be fairly short lived, all things considered. You are talking about massive populations of short-lived, fast-reproducing organisms. Expose them to more UV light, and you would probably get a species capable of handling that in short order, ala anti-biotic resistant bacteria.

    This is simply speculation on my part, but evolutionary processes would almost certainly produce populations of things capable of surviving in such an environment.

    The differences in solar output are very very small, percentage wise, from what I understand. I would find it hard to believe, ozone holes aside, that there is really all that much variance in UV over the long term at sea level to make much of a global change.

    Good thing about that belief is that it is easily tested, I guess. Hopefully someone will look into it.
    RandomGuy is offline

  14. #914
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    I imagine that effect would be fairly short lived, all things considered. You are talking about massive populations of short-lived, fast-reproducing organisms. Expose them to more UV light, and you would probably get a species capable of handling that in short order, ala anti-biotic resistant bacteria.

    This is simply speculation on my part, but evolutionary processes would almost certainly produce populations of things capable of surviving in such an environment.

    The differences in solar output are very very small, percentage wise, from what I understand. I would find it hard to believe, ozone holes aside, that there is really all that much variance in UV over the long term at sea level to make much of a global change.

    Good thing about that belief is that it is easily tested, I guess. Hopefully someone will look into it.


    If the sun is so insignificant, why have some scientists toyed with the idea of putting sulfer aerosols into the atmosphere to offset the massive 1 degree warming detected by FORTRAN computer models?
    DarrinS is offline

  15. #915
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,691
    How does the sun affect our climate?The sun is the source of most of the energy that drives the biological and physical processes in the world around us—in oceans and on land it fuels plant growth that forms the base of the food chain, and in the atmosphere it warms air which drives our weather. The rate of energy coming from the sun changes slightly day to day. Over many millennia in the Earth-Sun orbital relationship can change the geographical distribution of the sun’s energy over the Earth’s surface. It has been suggested that changes in solar output might affect our climate—both directly, by changing the rate of solar heating of the Earth and atmosphere, and indirectly, by changing cloud forming processes.

    Over the time-scale of millions of years the change in solar intensity is a critical factor influencing climate (e.g., ice ages). However, changes in solar heating rate over the last century cannot account for the magnitude and distribution of the rise in global mean temperature during that time period and there is no convincing evidence for significant indirect influences on our climate due to twentieth century changes in solar output.



    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...rming-faq.html
    RandomGuy is offline

  16. #916
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,691
    Will responding to global warming be harmful to our economy?

    Reducing oil dependence. Strengthening energy security. Creating jobs. Tackling global warming. Addressing air pollution. Improving our health. The United States has many reasons to make the transition to a clean energy economy. What we need is a comprehensive set of smart policies to jump-start this transition without delay and maximize the benefits to our environment and economy. Climate 2030: A National Blueprint for a Clean Energy Economy (“the Blueprint”) answers that need.

    To help avoid the most dangerous consequences of climate change, ranging from extreme heat, droughts, and storms to acidifying oceans and rising sea levels, the United States must play a lead role and begin to cut its heat-trapping emissions today—and aim for at least an 80 percent drop from 2005 levels by 2050. Blueprint policies lower U.S. heat-trapping emissions to meet a cap set at 26 percent below 2005 levels in 2020, and 56 percent below 2005 levels in 2030.

    The nation achieves these deep cuts in carbon emissions while saving consumers and businesses $465 billion annually by 2030. The Blueprint also builds $1.7 trillion in net ulative savings between 2010 and 2030. Blueprint policies stimulate significant consumer, business, and government investment in new technologies and measures by 2030. The resulting savings on energy bills from reductions in electricity and fuel use more than offset the costs of these additional investments. The result is net annual savings for households, vehicle owners, businesses, and industries of $255 billion by 2030.

    Under the Blueprint, every region of the country stands to save billions. Households and businesses—even in coal-dependent regions—will share in these savings.

    RandomGuy is offline

  17. #917
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,691
    Is global warming already happening?

    Yes. The IPCC concluded in its Fourth Assessment Report, that nearly 90 percent of the 29,000 observational data series examined revealed changes consistent with the expected response to global warming, and the observed physical and biological responses have been greatest in the regions that warmed the most.

    The kinds of changes already observed that create this consistent picture include the following:

    Examples of observed climatic changes
    Increase in global average surface temperature of about 1°F in the 20th century
    Decrease of snow cover and sea ice extent and the retreat of mountain glaciers in the latter half of the 20th century
    Rise in global average sea level and the increase in ocean water temperatures
    Likely increase in average precipitation over the middle and high la udes of the Northern Hemisphere, and over tropical land areas
    Increase in the frequency of extreme precipitation events in some regions of the world

    Examples of observed physical and ecological changes
    Thawing of permafrost
    Lengthening of the growing season in middle and high la udes
    Poleward and upward shift of plant and animal ranges
    Decline of some plant and animal species
    Earlier flowering of trees
    Earlier emergence of insects
    Earlier egg-laying in birds
    RandomGuy is offline

  18. #918
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,691
    Global Thermometer Still Climbing
    Climate Science Update January 2010

    Download pdf from the Union of Concerned Scientists:
    http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/do en...mperatures.pdf

    The Earth’s average temperature is continuing to rise, regardless of the fact that some parts of the United States now are experiencing an atypically cold winter.

    The U.S. land area covers only about two percent of the Earth’s surface, which means that even when much of the United States is cold, most of the rest of the world may be warmer. This winter, for example, many Americans are experiencing extreme cold, but the oceans and much of the rest of the world are much warmer than usual. Overall, the past ten years have been the warmest on record globally. Here at home, the continental United States record daily highs have exceeded record daily lows by a margin of two to one from 2000 to 2009.[1]

    The Globe is Warming
    Burning coal, oil and gas and destroying forests overloads the atmosphere with excess carbon dioxide, adding to heat-trapping gases that already are present in the atmosphere. Combined, these gases act like a blanket covering the earth. The human contribution to this effect is unmistakable. The part of the atmosphere where excess carbon dioxide ac ulates has expanded and warmed dramatically in recent years precisely during the period when emissions from human activity have increased.



    Scientists from NASA and other research ins utions routinely collect temperature data from around the world and have records of the Earth’s average temperature going back to the 1880s, when temperatures were first recorded. The data shows that, globally, the last decade has been the warmest ever recorded. [1], [2]

    Over the last century, global average temperature has increased by more than 1°F (0.6°C). While the record shows significant regional differences in warming, the long-term global upward trend is unambiguous.

    However, surface temperature is only one indicator of climate change. Patterns of rainfall and snow, droughts and storms, and lake ice also are changing. Plant and animal behavior are changing. Glaciers are melting and sea level is rising. These shifts are well do ented and are largely attributed to human-caused global warming. [3] Scientists can now positively identify the “human fingerprints” associated with these changing patterns.


    Climate and Weather
    Climate is a good indicator of what to expect in general, such as cold days in February in New England. Weather, on the other hand, is what we actually experience, like a blustery, snowy day with temperatures in the low 20s. In other words, climate describes phenomena observed over long time periods, such as decades and centuries, while weather is observed over short time periods, such as days and weeks.

    It is clear that the Earth’s climate is changing, largely due to human activity. Over the last 25 years, Earth’s global average temperature has been increasing at more than twice the rate of the last century. In fact, nine of the warmest years on record have occurred in just the last 10 years.[1], [2] This warming has been accompanied by a decrease in very cold days and nights and an increase in extremely hot days and warm nights. Additionally, the oceans reached their highest recorded temperature in the summer of 2009. Oceans have absorbed much more heat from global warming than the air at the Earth’s surface because water is much better at retaining heat.

    The “Long” and the “Short” of Temperature Trends
    Relatively short-term natural phenomena that cause global temperatures to fluctuate are occurring at the same time human activity continues to drive up average global temperatures by overloading the atmosphere with heat-trapping emissions.

    These short-term effects on climate make it possible to have “cooler” periods in regions even as the general trend of warming continues.[4] For example, during late 2007 and early 2008, the tropical Pacific Ocean was much cooler than normal due to a strong La Niña episode that kept temperatures across much of the globe lower than usual. Nevertheless, both years were still in the top ten warmest years on record and would have been even hotter without this short-term cooling effect. Conversely, in 1998, a very strong El Niño episode, which made the tropical Pacific Ocean warmer than normal, combined with human-induced global warming to make that year one of the hottest on record.



    Focusing on relatively short time periods to claim global warming is not happening is a misleading way to use statistics. These false claims have become so persistent that late last year the Associated Press asked a team of independent statisticians to review global temperature data without revealing to them what the data represented.[5] All of the statisticians concluded that the data showed an unmistakable upward trend over time.
    References
    1. NOAA National Climatic Data Center, accessed January 12th, 2010: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...ies/index.html
    2. NASA Goddard Ins ute for Space Studies, accessed January 12th, 2010: data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
    3. IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (AR4). S. Solomon et al. eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and NY, USA.
    4. Easterling, D.R. and M. F. Wehner (2009). Is the climate warming or cooling? Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L08706.
    5. Associated Press: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5423035.shtml
    RandomGuy is offline

  19. #919
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,691
    Just thought I would throw in what scientists are actually saying.

    We talk about them and what they say a lot abstractly, so perhaps seeing what they say is worth a read or two.
    RandomGuy is offline

  20. #920
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Looks dramatic until you actually look at numbers on the temperature side of that graph.

    Insignificant

    DarrinS is offline

  21. #921
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Just thought I would throw in what scientists are actually saying.

    We talk about them and what they say a lot abstractly, so perhaps seeing what they say is worth a read or two.


    Are there any scientists that disagree?


    Are any of those people "deniers"? Even the one who worked on IPCC reports?
    DarrinS is offline

  22. #922
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    From paper: "Greenland Warming of 1920-1930 and 1995-2005”, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, 2006


    “Almost all decades between 1915 and 1965 were warmer or at least as warm as the 1995 to 2005 decade…suggesting the current warm Greenland climate is not unprecedented and that similar temperatures were a norm in the first half the 20th century. … no statistically significant difference between the average temperature from the 1905 to the 1955 period and 1955 to 2005 period,” the only difference being that summertime (JJA) average temperatures were warmer at both stations during the 1905-1955 period. Further, although the decade 1920-1930 was as warm as the decade 1995-2005, the rate of warming was “50% higher” during the earlier decade.”
    DarrinS is offline

  23. #923
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,691
    Are there any scientists that disagree?


    Are any of those people "deniers"? Even the one who worked on IPCC reports?
    Creationists like to talk about the number of biologists who disagree with the theory of evolution as well.

    They bemoan the fact that scientific peer-review publications don't tend to include creationists on the review panels.


    But that's just it... not all biologists believe in macro-evolution. You're just assuming that the ones that believe like you do are correct, and that those that don't are not. So much so, that you all dismiss them from the get go. They number far greater than you would believe. Again, you must resort to the fallacy of consensus gentium to pick one group over the other in the absence of true evidence.
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=469

    Given: Creationism is pseudoscience.

    Creationists argue that the number of scientists who doubt the theory of evolution is relevant to whether it is true.

    Logical form:
    People who believe in X argue that the number of scientists who doubt Y, the theory they disagree with is relevant to whether it is true.

    People who believe that humans are not responsible for climate change argue that the number of scientists who doubt human-caused climate change is relevant to whether it is true.

    Logical conclusion?
    ??????
    Want to bring up that Oregon pe ion now? or wait until WC does?
    RandomGuy is offline

  24. #924
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,691
    From paper: "Greenland Warming of 1920-1930 and 1995-2005”, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, 2006
    True or false:

    The theory of man-made climate change implies that temperatures in all areas will rise by the same amount over time with additional atmospheric CO2.

    ??
    RandomGuy is offline

  25. #925
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Creationists like to talk about the number of biologists who disagree with the theory of evolution as well.

    They bemoan the fact that scientific peer-review publications don't tend to include creationists on the review panels.



    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=469

    Given: Creationism is pseudoscience.

    Creationists argue that the number of scientists who doubt the theory of evolution is relevant to whether it is true.

    Logical form:
    People who believe in X argue that the number of scientists who doubt Y, the theory they disagree with is relevant to whether it is true.

    People who believe that humans are not responsible for climate change argue that the number of scientists who doubt human-caused climate change is relevant to whether it is true.

    Logical conclusion?
    ??????
    Want to bring up that Oregon pe ion now? or wait until WC does?


    Are you saying that IPCC contributors are akin to creationists? There are numerous scientists that have contributed to IPCC reports that aren't advocates of the alarmist language added to their "executive summaries".
    DarrinS is offline

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •