An Inconvenient Ruling for An Inconvenient Truth

[Quagmire]

Originally Posted by pinhead

"The Heartland Institute is a free-market oriented public policy think tank based in Chicago."

"The Heartland Institute's research covers a variety of issues including government spending, taxation, healthcare, and the environment."

"The Institute has been actively involved in debate over tobacco policy. The Institute received over $150,000 from the Phillip Morris over three years from 1997 to 1999"

"The Heartland Institute has received annual donations from Exxon-Mobil in amounts ranging from $100,000 to $200,000."

-WIKIPEDIA

That all maybe true,but who payed the bill doesn't negate the fact that it was a survey of climate scientists.As I said earlier,both sides have an agenda.
But the funny thing is,if they would have put their money into research aimed at dropping emissions, or possible containing emissions in some way.They may be able to change the burning of fossil fuels from producing greenhouse gasses/smog to something more enviro friendly.And in doing so,wouldn't feel threatened by this issue.

[pinhead]

Originally Posted by Quagmire

That all maybe true,but who payed the bill doesn't negate the fact that it was a survey of climate scientists.As I said earlier,both sides have an agenda.
But the funny thing is,if they would have put their money into research aimed at dropping emissions, or possible containing emissions in some way.They may be able to change the burning of fossil fuels from producing greenhouse gasses/smog to something more enviro friendly.And in doing so,wouldn't feel threatened by this issue.

"Bray and von Storch, 2003

A survey was conducted in 2003 by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch [30] [31] Bray's submission to Science on December 22, 2004 was rejected, but the survey's results were reported through non-scientific venues.[32][33"

"The survey has been criticized on the grounds that it was performed on the web with no means to verify that the respondents were climate scientists or to prevent multiple submissions. The survey required entry of a username and password, but this information was circulated to a climate skeptics mailing list and elsewhere on the internet"

-wikipedia

1. Partially funded by Exxon
2. Rejected by peer reviewed scientific journal
3. may not be a survey of climate scientists
4. 1996 and 2003 surveys

What is the agenda of the Joint Academy of Sciences of the G8+5 (Brazil, China, India, Mexico, South Africa) in its June 2007 declaration?

"It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken".

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news-1/G8_...eclaration.pdf

[AndyL]

Bah... Y'all can quote survey after survey showing eachother wrong all you want...

CO2 Levels are still very low compared to past millenia; this is why grasslands are still growing, and forests (trees) are in decline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth's_atmosphere

My major issue with the climate change theory is the simple fact that they're ignoring the scientific method. You can't "Prove" global warming based on computer models; computer modeling can't even tell us accurately the temperature tomorow - let alone next year. Computer modeling can't account for all variables (let alone the butterfly effect).

Do I wholeheartedly agree in global warming, definitely not - do I completely discredit it - definitely not.

Y'all can argue till you're blue in the face about the issue, Lets just see what the next 10 years brings... And I betcha we'll be back onto a panic over global cooling...

[Pier Pressure]

Ha, ha, ha - well put and no doubt. Fear mongering has been around since the world began and it is a great way to make money. Governments can justify deeper cash grabs when the world is falling apart. Can't you just picture one of those cave dudes with a "Repent - The End is Near" sign, except now Al Gore is the caveman. The more the world changes, the more it seems to stay the same.

[Matt]

This isn't a debate, it's a scoffing, sneering, and shouting match. The debate has been over for quite a while. The debate was won by the scientists. I'm not sure who's winning the shouting match yet.

[Pan]

I Believe one person on climate change, a buddy of mine in inuvik. No one in his family or anyone elses can ever recall even hearing of the permafrost melting etc. Ask someone up north who lives there, and doesn't venture up a few months a year to dig for oil, what they think of climate change.

Oh and using wikipedia to back up any claims, for whatever side...is simply idiocy.

[Moogled]

Wikipedia as a source = hilarious.

</academic POV>

BTW, this thread delivers. I really enjoyed reading what pinhead and everyone else has been putting forth.

[pinhead]

OK lets try this again.

Don't misrepresent the data to support your arguement. This is a typical response of the "denyers". Misinterpret, use references based on old data, take information out of context.

You provide us with this from wikipedia

Originally Posted by AndyL

CO2 Levels are still very low compared to past millenia; this is why grasslands are still growing, and forests (trees) are in decline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth's_atmosphere...

And it is completely wrong. The article does not say this anywhere. In fact the same article says something completely different.

"During the 100,000 year ice age cycle, CO2 varies between a low of approximately 200 ppm during cold periods and a high of 280 ppm during interglacials. Recent human influences have increased this to above 380 ppm"

Did you even read the article?

Originally Posted by AndyL

My major issue with the climate change theory is the simple fact that they're ignoring the scientific method. You can't "Prove" global warming based on computer models;

One of my earlier statements was the average person does not understand the scientific method or how science works.

Science can't really prove anything - but we can show it is very likely. Science is continually changing as new experiments, newer technology and new data are gathered. As more information is gathered our ideas change. Some hypotheses are discarded, some are modified and some are confirmed. If a hypothesis results in a correct prediction we high confidence in it. That is not to say that new information will come to light that causes us to modify our hypothesis.

We were able to correctly predict eclipses long before we had spacecraft and technology to confirm our models of the orbits of the earth and moon.

Originally Posted by AndyL

computer modeling can't even tell us accurately the temperature tomorow - let alone next year. Computer modeling can't account for all variables (let alone the butterfly effect).

Computer models depend on accurate data. By taking data from years already past and entering them in our models we should be able to reproduce the course of the climate in last century. They match with what actually happened. Our models are correct. These same models are now being used to project what is likely to occur.

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?tip=1&id=6232

Originally Posted by AndyL

Lets just see what the next 10 years brings... And I betcha we'll be back onto a panic over global cooling...

And if we wait 10 years and you are wrong?

For those who don't like the links in wikipedia and sourcewatch, I'd be happy to forward the original reference.

Just read them and voice your opinion after you have all the facts rather than repeating these inaccuracies.

[trilinearmipmap]

Since we can't reliably predict what the weather will be like two weeks from now, I am at a loss to understand how we can predict weather years in the future.

[skylord]

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