Pinhead lets do it your way. Lets read what you posted.

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/vostok.html

This is an article written 12 years ago based on information gathered 10 years before that. It seems to me if the data where a little more recent it may be different but what do I know....I just read that I'm not smart enough to understand.

The article was published by the American Geophysical Union. So what I did was research them.Their position statement on climate change was written by 3 people, Marvin Geller, John Christy and Ellen Druffel and starts saying " Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century."

I don't think that anyone disagrees that we have an influence on climate change.

But here is what I found most interesting, a statement by John Christy, In The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary, Christy is quoted as saying, "I've often heard it said that there's a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well I am one scientist, and there are many that simply think that is not true." That statement was March of this year.

What I see that troubles me most is that if anyone doesn't agree with you they arn't informed well enough to understand "the" truth. Scary!

Scott

fence sitter
 

I too am a fence sitter...... want a good book to read about the 'truth'.... Michael Crichton -> State of Fear. Good read and it clearly puts into perspective the red herrings presented to all of us, including 'science'. It also has a great little blurb at the back of the book explaining 'Eugenics', a very strange outlook on genetics that some very prominent 'scientists' supported at the time. One great thing I have learned about science, give it enough time and it will be disproved and re-created to fit someone's perspective or agenda. When I was a kid, it was acid rain and a cold war looming over all of us. It has been replaced with global warming. Anyone heard of the dimming sun? Check it out, it has thrown another wrench into the 'models' climatologist's use to statistically prove their theory, and if there is one thing I remember from university stats, they cannot be trusted, it is an educated guess, just like weather. We will have to wait till the new quantum computer comes out to properly grind all the numbers, including intangibles that cannot be included in today's models. Also check out HAARP. I believe this is what is causing all of our weather issues right now.... and I know, crackpot right? Nope, this is for real and they are doing some very strange things to our atmosphere and ionosphere, very scary things that could end all life on the planet in a heartbeat. And also, no one has touched on the emissions our earth pours out every day from volcanoes. Their emissions in a day (combined) far outweigh what we can do in a decade. Do I think anyone here is right or wrong, nope, I just think it's great we are talking about it. And my final point, tongue in cheek, I think this is just a way to justify increased fuel costs. :lol:

Cheers,
Phil

Once again we have someone commenting on things where they don't have all the information. This is not a matter of intelligence.

Scientific Journals are subscription based. The cost for subscriptions can be ridiculous amount. They very rarely allow access to their articles over the internet unless you are a subscriber. I happened to do a quick search internet accessible articles and came up with that article from 1995. Proper research would require you to access a university library that subscribes to these journals. One tool you can use at universities is is a database called metalib. By doing a search on just one of their many subject databases I came up with 23 references to ice cores & climate, seven of which were published in 2007. Proper research would involve more searches going to the library to read these journals.

You also seem to associate the American Geophysical Union with OISM and the Heartland Institute. AGU was formed in 1919 and is an international organization of over 50000 geophysists - not a group with a PO box and 2 of the 8 listed faculty dead.


Read this statement carefully. "natural influences cannot explain" means humans are responsible! That was Christy's position in 2003.

By 2007 his position had changed as illustrated in the quote from the discounted
http://www.amos.org.au/BAMOS_GGWS_SUBMISSION_final.htm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1517515.ece
"Great Global Warming Swindle"

Christy's position on global warming in the documentary was based on the analysis of satellite data that was collected in the 1990's. There were errors in the way data was collected and analysed http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?tip=1&id=6778

He has not yet made a statement based on analysis of more recent data. Will he change his position again? Falsifiability (discarding) past hypotheses is a key to the scientific method

- Don't agree with me.
- Be a skeptic but be skeptical of both sides. I consider myself well informed and I have done my research. I looked at the question with an open mind and have found overwhelming evidence.
-Show me some research to help me change my conclusion. - just don't give me yet another source from someone other than a climate scientist.

My conclusion is the based upon the scientific method which is tried and tested for the last 400 years. That is the "truth" that I understand.

Eugenics - philosophy not science

Acid Rain - reduction in emissions in modern cars and the 1990 US clean air act have slowed its effects

Cold War - politics

Global Dimming -2007 studies show it has rebounded since 1990 which correlates with the reduction of chloroflurocarbons in aerosol spray cans

HAARP - funded by the military yes. But also by 14 universities including Cornell, MIT, UCLA & Stanford. If its being used to alter the weather or shoot down spaceships its a pretty big conspiracy.

Volcanic emmisions - 130 million tons/year humans 6.1 billion tons/year

Could supply references if needed but I think I will just leave it.

I've made my point.

Hope people have not taken anything personally.

It is interesting to see that the denial machine is still running well. This is an absolutely classic example of how it works too, look at the little blurb with the link:

An Inconvenient Ruling for An Inconvenient Truth
By Brandon Keim October 11, 2007 | 12:17:08 PMCategories: Climate, Government
A British judge has ruled that Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth can't be shown in schools unless accompanied by materials explaining the film's inaccuracies.

Somebody reads that and they see get the impression that the film is inaccurate. If you read the judge's decision you find that he lists 9 points he disagrees with but uses the term "broadly accurate" to actually describe the film. Yes, that is a direct quote from the judge.

I seem to remember Gore touching on the denial machine in the movie but it is something that people seem reluctant to really consider. The same people who were involved in the cigarette industry's maneuvers ten years ago are the people leading this "skeptic" movement. Pinhead even pointed it out 2 pages ago and everyone still missed it. The PR company in charge of it is the same, the polling consultant is the same guy and even some of the oft quoted scientists are the same. How can a guy who stood up and said "cigarettes are not addictive and pose no serious health risks", be considered a reliable source for cookie recipes never mind something this important!

Anyone else love irony? There is a wicked little chunk of it buried in our discussion here. Swags pointed out Crichton's book State of Fear which is a pretty decent little read, I'd recommend it as well. Now to be fair to Swags I don't think he brought it up to use specifically as a counterpoint to Gore's movie but fear mongering is something people trying to get emissions changes done are accused of regularly. Especially Gore. There is a far better book recently published about using fear based arguments to shape political discussions. It talks about how fear really works, how it shapes our memories and discussions and using recent political events shows how it is done. It talks about why it is a bad strategy from a public good perspective as well. An excellent read called Assault on Reason written by .... wait for it ..... Al Gore.

Really though it doesn't even matter what happens with the global warming debate, our ability to have a decent public debate has been destroyed. The lesson to take away from this is that if you need to do something in the public interest that's going to cost somebody with deep pockets some bucks, you're boned. These guys are so good you don't stand a chance. We can look at the current debate as an example, try this little thought exercise:

We're a group of people who have all had the benefit of a decent basic education just because of where we live. We come together because of our hobby which surely isn't rocket science but I think we can say that if you're reasonably successful with a reef tank you're probably not a moron. None of us are climate scientists either so we're pretty much basing this decision on the credibility of the people making the arguments.

Everyone can agree with that right? Okay here goes.

On one hand we have the largest international scientific consensus in human history and on the other we have an Exxon-paid-for speech by the "smoking doesn't hurt you" guy.

I mean really, WTF? How is this an even sort of difficult call? As a former and much embarrassed by it fence sitter I urge you all to look at the people who are pushing this skeptic junk, it will really open your eyes.

My prediction is that in 15 years the earth will go through a natural period of increased cooling.

A few scientists will come up with a theory to explain how man has caused this through increased emissions. Their theory will be based on models and extrapolations from tenuous data. No one will be able to prove conclusively whether their theory is true or not. Then opportunistic politicians will jump on the bandwagon and promote the global cooling agenda.

Rather than using reasoning and science to determine the cause of the problem, it will become an article of religious faith that man has caused global cooling. Anyone who disagrees will be labeled a "denier" and a campaign of threats and character assassination will silence all dissent on the issue.

Nice post, Midgetwaiter.

This is a PR campaign, not a debate. In a debate, we'd recognize all the logical fallacies being brought to the table, and shred them for points. Wiki link just for fun. There are so many, it would be fun, and you'd score huge! Sadly, there are no points, and the techniques are so familiar from current public discourse in politics and sales that they feel comfortable and true. Stephen Colbert would be proud.

From the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) that IBM perfected, to the say-it-until-it's-true practice of the political propaganda machines, we're well conditioned. In this environment, it is no longer necessary to supress the truth (China should take note). You can simply create earnest talking points and buy the truthiness back.

All scientific theories are eventually disproved anyway, so I guess I'll have to agree that this global warming thing is probably a flash in the pan. Now, if you'll all excuse me, I'm going to ignore gravity for a while and have a nice float around.

Instead of just tipping your hat to Pinhead on a well debated topic you post this drivel :lol: :rolleyes:

Money is the root of all evil. Until we can remove this aspect from the scientific community, I'll have a hard time believing anything they come up with. (of course this is pretty much impossible) I perfer to believe what I see with my own eyes.

Oh, and until they can predict the weather for 24 hours and be completely accurate consistently, I will definately not trust them to predict the weather accurately a week from now. (let alone a few years or decades)

If humans affecting the climate how do you explain global worming and polar ice melting on other planets for example Mars ?

( http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html )

and even Pluto (http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ng_021009.html ) (It is a planet BTW:wink: )


There are no SUV’s on Mars eccept “Rover” LOL no fossil fuels being burn, no humans so why all of our solar system planets are experiencing global worming?
Let’s take a look at larger picture and keep our heads cool and open minded shell we?

There is an opinion that this has to do with torsion physics (http://www.divinecosmos.com/index.ph...=334&Itemid=30 ) of the planetary motion; and as our solar system enters an Photon belt energy layer (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=...+energy+&meta= ) , only these two events alone are changing our narrow minded picture and maybe that is why all the planets have the same trend in global temperatures increase.

Russians have done extensive research in this area
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=...G=Search&meta=


~~~