RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events



Message

lightshineon -> RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? (5/14/2008 10:57:03 AM)

That is what I was trying to say also.
quote:

ORIGINAL: freakofnature

quote:

Humans weren't around. Neither was industrial pollution or human deforestation


It goes to the fact that we can not controll the earth period.



Lizahana -> RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? (5/14/2008 12:48:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: freakofnature

This statement from NOAA:

Increase in Hurricane activity not related to GLOBAL WARMING

OR this statement here from Paleoclimatologist Bob Carter of James Cook Univ.:
quote:

the IPCC is in "full panic mode" and positioning themselves to "explain away" declining temperatures.


Or what about this:
Lord Monckton of Brenchley, science advisor to the Thatcher administration and a regular commentator on climate issues, tells DailyTech none of the IPCC's computer models can explain a decade of cooling.


The NOAA subject for your link above is: "Increased Hurricane Losses Due to More People, Wealth Along Coastlines, Not Stronger Storms, New Study Says". So? This is just saying more people moved to the coast and therefore the increase in destruction is due to this. What is your point?

Interesting... the IPCC, you know - which has hundreds of scientists all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC as authors, contributors and reviewers - says this (straight from their website):

"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures
since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the
observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.
7 It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic
warming over the past 50 years averaged over
each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4). {2.4}"

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

Peace and God bless,



Lizahana -> RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? (5/14/2008 12:59:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: freakofnature

Here are a couple of interesting reports to read:

1) http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

2) http://heartland.temp.siteexecutive.com/pdf/22835.pdf

Once again, I will bow out of this conversation and let you all have at it again.


1) If Steven Schwartz's study bear interest in regards to the climate, why aren't the NOAA, NASA, the EPA jumping on this bandwagon, then?

2) You do know that Exon-Mobil contributes to the Heartland Institute, don't you?:

""Specifically, the UCS report shows that between 1998 and 2005, Exxon-Mobil funneled
close to $16 million to a network of 43 ideological and advocacy groups that seek to
manufacture uncertainty about the strong scientific consensus on global warming. These
groups promote spokespeople who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings or
cherry-pick facts in an attempt to mislead the media and public into thinking there is
vigorous debate in the mainstream scientific community about climate change. Among
the ExxonMobil-funded groups are established conservative and anti-regulation think
tanks and organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute. There are also a
myriad of smaller, lesser known groups, including the Heartland Institute ($560,000), the
Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy ($763,500), and Frontiers of Freedom
($1,000,200)...."

http://gop.science.house.gov/hearings/oversight07/March%2028/McCarthy.pdf

Peace and God bless,



freakofnature -> RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? (5/14/2008 1:06:50 PM)

quote:

The NOAA subject for your link above is: "Increased Hurricane Losses Due to More People, Wealth Along Coastlines, Not Stronger Storms, New Study Says"


A quote from the NOAA report:

Chris Landsea, one of the researchers as well as the science and operations officer at NOAA’s National Hurricane Center in Miami. “There is nothing in the U.S. hurricane damage record that indicates global warming has caused a significant increase in destruction along our coasts.”

Nothing...Indicates. global. warming. has. caused. a significant. increase in destruction along our coast??? One of the basic teachings in the Church of Global Warming is that Stronger Hurricanes are causing more damage.



mapachito13 -> RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? (5/14/2008 1:09:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02

I don't know what you are refering to specifically. They are going to focus more on the certainties than on the uncertainties, aren't they? Is that really so unreasonable?


That comment came from not understanding the relationship between statistics and test data. When you test something, you derive a data point (value). You would test something at least three times (15 is the absolute best) to exclude erroneous data. But depending on the method, your data points would have a spread (difference). How much this difference is in the individual readings helps in determining how much error. Also every piece of test equipment is calibrated within a certain tolerance. This also adds to the inherent "error" in the test data.

It is this "error" in the readings that would be important to the validity of the test data.

For example, your doctor takes your child's temperature with a thermometer whose error is plus or minus six degrees F and gets a reading of 102. Does your child truly have a fever?

quote:

So unless we interpret the data with anything less 100% certainty and accuracy, and have 100% unilateral agreement, then the conclusions are no good? That is ludicrous.


No. But they should have a "confidence value" of at least 95%. Beyond that test data starts to become statistically meaningless. These values should be stated in the methodology.

Man. This thread is starting to sound like my work.[:o] And I thought I did these threads for fun![:D]



freakofnature -> RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? (5/14/2008 1:09:18 PM)

quote:

1) If Steven Schwartz's study bear interest in regards to the climate, why aren't the NOAA, NASA, the EPA jumping on this bandwagon, then?


EXACTLY??? Seems like other scientific research IS being ignored? Doesn't follow the church of global warming... Ignore it... MSM won't cover it either.



Lizahana -> RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? (5/14/2008 1:13:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: freakofnature

quote:

The NOAA subject for your link above is: "Increased Hurricane Losses Due to More People, Wealth Along Coastlines, Not Stronger Storms, New Study Says"


A quote from the NOAA report:

Chris Landsea, one of the researchers as well as the science and operations officer at NOAA’s National Hurricane Center in Miami. “There is nothing in the U.S. hurricane damage record that indicates global warming has caused a significant increase in destruction along our coasts.”

Nothing...Indicates. global. warming. has. caused. a significant. increase in destruction along our coast??? One of the basic teachings in the Church of Global Warming is that Stronger Hurricanes are causing more damage.


freakofnature,

How in any way does this say that global warming is not human-caused?

From the NOAA's OWN website:

"Given what we know about the ability of greenhouse gases to warm the Earth's surface, it is reasonable to expect that as concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere rise above natural levels, the Earth's surface will become increasingly warm. Many scientists have now concluded that global warming can be explained by a human-caused enhancement of the greenhouse effect. "

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/what.html

"Nevertheless, with each year, more and more climate scientists are coming to the conclusion that human activity is also causing the climate to change. First on the list of likely human influences is warming due to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Other human activities are thought to drive climate as well. As the ice-core data show, the increase in carbon dioxide is unprecedented and well outside the range of natural variations. The recent increase matches the increase calculated from the fossil fuel emissions. There is little doubt that these gases will contribute to global warming, and here too the paleo record provides invaluable evidence regarding how much temperature change accompanied changes in carbon dioxide over the past several hundred thousand years. ...

Paleoclimatology offers help in answering each of these questions. Several of the paleoclimate studies reported in this web document have begun efforts to attribute past climate change to both natural and human causes, and to estimate how much of the current warming is due to humans (i.e., greenhouse warming). The best estimate is that about 50% of the observed global warming is due to greenhouse gas increases. "

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/end.html

Please DO let me know if you need more links.

Peace and God bless,



Lizahana -> RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? (5/14/2008 1:14:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: freakofnature

quote:

1) If Steven Schwartz's study bear interest in regards to the climate, why aren't the NOAA, NASA, the EPA jumping on this bandwagon, then?


EXACTLY??? Seems like other scientific research IS being ignored? Doesn't follow the church of global warming... Ignore it... MSM won't cover it either.


Again, if Steven Schwartz's study bear interest in regards to the climate, why aren't the NOAA, NASA, the EPA jumping on this bandwagon, then?

Peace and God bless,



GroupW -> RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? (5/14/2008 1:16:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mapachito13
No. But they should have a "confidence value" of at least 95%. Beyond that test data starts to become statistically meaningless. These values should be stated in the methodology.


Isn't the confidence level of 95% somewhat arbitrary? I do risk analysis for a living and we set the confidence level at a risk point where the conditional probability of an adverse event along with the severity of the consequences of that event determine where I set action limits. For an event with high severity, I might change my course of action based on a confidence test of lower/higher than 95%.



mapachito13 -> RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? (5/14/2008 1:27:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: freakofnature

quote:

1) If Steven Schwartz's study bear interest in regards to the climate, why aren't the NOAA, NASA, the EPA jumping on this bandwagon, then?


EXACTLY??? Seems like other scientific research IS being ignored? Doesn't follow the church of global warming... Ignore it... MSM won't cover it either.


I agree with that. Those scientists that disagree are being marginalized by the media.



davemiller7 -> RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? (5/14/2008 2:13:11 PM)

Thanx for the posts, especially the heartland report. I couldn't comprehend a lot of the other one, but I got the general drift of it.

-Dave

quote:

ORIGINAL: freakofnature

Here are a couple of interesting reports to read:

1) http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

2) http://heartland.temp.siteexecutive.com/pdf/22835.pdf

Once again, I will bow out of this conversation and let you all have at it again.



lightshineon -> RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? (5/14/2008 3:27:23 PM)

LOL, I agree. I have a question anyone on this post a scientist or expert, or just personal opinion? Anybody really have any experience? You all sound good though.[:D]
quote:

ORIGINAL: davemiller7

Thanx for the posts, especially the heartland report. I couldn't comprehend a lot of the other one, but I got the general drift of it.

-Dave

quote:

ORIGINAL: freakofnature

Here are a couple of interesting reports to read:

1) http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

2) http://heartland.temp.siteexecutive.com/pdf/22835.pdf

Once again, I will bow out of this conversation and let you all have at it again.




freakofnature -> RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? (5/14/2008 4:39:59 PM)

Beloved NASA, on the Ice Caps (You need quicktime to view)

My other problem is that the GW alarmist want to blame only Americans:
How's about China

And how about the complete economic cost of the emissions:
Save the polar bears and HERE and HERE



freakofnature -> RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? (5/14/2008 5:09:24 PM)

More in regards to Beloved NASA

And more here regarding the orthydoxy of the GW Church: Hurricanes

Gotta love this REPORT

Just a Short list of skeptics

More on disenters. Those dern flatearthers.



mapachito13 -> RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? (5/14/2008 5:11:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GroupW

quote:

ORIGINAL: mapachito13
No. But they should have a "confidence value" of at least 95%. Beyond that test data starts to become statistically meaningless. These values should be stated in the methodology.


Isn't the confidence level of 95% somewhat arbitrary? I do risk analysis for a living and we set the confidence level at a risk point where the conditional probability of an adverse event along with the severity of the consequences of that event determine where I set action limits. For an event with high severity, I might change my course of action based on a confidence test of lower/higher than 95%.


We use some of the same statistical tools but to different ends. While you are assessing what would be the acceptable requirements for an item; as a test lab, we are measuring a particular parameter to see if it meets (or falls within) those set requirements.

To that end, a lower confidence value in our test results indicates a lower reliability in them since it means the variance in performing multiple tests on the same sample varies greatly.

"In common usage, a claim to 95% confidence in something is normally taken as indicating virtual certainty. In statistics, a claim to 95% confidence simply means that the researcher has seen something occur that only happens one time in twenty or less. If one were to roll two dice and get double six, few would claim this as proof that the dice were fixed, although statistically speaking one could have 97% confidence that they were. Similarly, the finding of a statistical link at 95% confidence is not proof, nor even very good evidence, that there is any real connection between the things linked.

When a study involves multiple statistical tests, some laymen assume that the confidence associated with individual tests is the confidence one should have in the results of the study itself. In fact, the results of all the statistical tests conducted during a study must be judged as a whole in determining what confidence one may place in the positive links it produces. If a researcher conducting a study performs 40 statistical tests at 95% confidence, she can expect about two of the tests to return false positives. If she in fact finds 3 links, the confidence associated with those links 'as the result of the survey' is actually about 32%; it's what she should expect to see two-thirds of the time.

In modern applied practice, confidence intervals are often stated at the 95% level." Link



freakofnature -> RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? (5/14/2008 5:14:05 PM)

More Flat earth reports. The end does draw nigh

http://mises.org/story/2571

And a quote from the above:
quote:

There is now no observational evidence that global warming is caused by carbon emissions. You would think that in over 20 years of intense investigation we would have found something. For example, greenhouse warming due to carbon emissions should warm the upper atmosphere faster than the lower atmosphere — but until 2006 the data showed the opposite, and thus that the greenhouse effect was not occurring! In 2006 better data allowed that the effect might be occurring, except in the tropics.


I'm havin' too much fun. But I gotta go. I hope I have given everyone enough reading to take you through the evening. GOOD NIGHT



Lizahana -> RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? (5/14/2008 6:24:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: freakofnature

More in regards to Beloved NASA

And more here regarding the orthydoxy of the GW Church: Hurricanes

Gotta love this REPORT

Just a Short list of skeptics

More on disenters. Those dern flatearthers.


1) theaustralian is quoting Dr Jennifer Marohasy of the Australian think tank the Institute of Public Affairs - freakofnature - this is a conservative think tank. It would be like me quoting the Sierra Club on the matter of global warming, which I have not. I have only posted links from the EPA, NOAA, NASA, IPCC - all of whom agree that humans play a significant part in global warming.

2) And?

3) Your third link is from Frontiers of Freedom founded in 1996 by ex-Republican Senator Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming and which receives big bucks from big tobacoo. Why do you post from obviously biased sources? That would be like me quoting from the Sierra Club...

4) So ~ a dozen vs the hundreds of thousands of scientists across the globe who have linked global warming to human activity...

5) Oh, and by the way your fifth link contains the same scientists as your fourth link - LOL! nice try though ;) LOL!

Peace and God bless,



Lizahana -> RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? (5/14/2008 6:53:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: freakofnature

Beloved NASA, on the Ice Caps (You need quicktime to view)

My other problem is that the GW alarmist want to blame only Americans:
How's about China

And how about the complete economic cost of the emissions:
Save the polar bears and HERE and HERE


1) about a theory that the ice caps melt may due to the wind pattern in part;

2) Oh, I think China should have to comply - I believe that they have surpassed the US in pollution output and waste output. I try my hardest not to buy products made in China - for this reason and others. However, this is no excuse for us not to do our part.

3) Like I said - if only we spent more time and money on alternative fuel technology, there'd be more people burning less gas and we wouldn't have to worry about this.

JMHO.

Peace and God bless,



freakofnature -> RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? (5/14/2008 8:14:39 PM)

quote:

1) theaustralian is quoting Dr Jennifer Marohasy of the Australian think tank the Institute of Public Affairs - freakofnature - this is a conservative think tank. It would be like me quoting the Sierra Club on the matter of global warming, which I have not. I have only posted links from the EPA, NOAA, NASA, IPCC - all of whom agree that humans play a significant part in global warming.


An independent think tank! However, an opposing voice, think tank or not, giving voice to the facts.

quote:

2) And?


I assume you are questioning the Hurricane link, And if I have to splain this?? START SPLAININ" (for an obscure Lucille Ball reference) Long held belief of GW theorist that hurricanes are a major effect of the so called GW. Goes to reflect fact that according to the GW Scientist hurricanes should be like voting in Massachussettes, early and often.

quote:

3) Your third link is from Frontiers of Freedom founded in 1996 by ex-Republican Senator Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming and which receives big bucks from big tobacoo. Why do you post from obviously biased sources? That would be like me quoting from the Sierra Club...


My third link is from the Center for Science and Public Policy regarding errors in the bible that is the IPCC report and it's pastor ALGORE

quote:

) Oh, and by the way your fifth link contains the same scientists as your fourth link - LOL! nice try though ;) LOL!


DUH! But I was in a hurry to get out of my office and finish up some other work before I left...trying to multitask... Difficult for us flat earthers.



Lizahana -> RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? (5/15/2008 7:20:23 AM)

quote:

1) theaustralian is quoting Dr Jennifer Marohasy of the Australian think tank the Institute of Public Affairs - freakofnature - this is a conservative think tank. It would be like me quoting the Sierra Club on the matter of global warming, which I have not. I have only posted links from the EPA, NOAA, NASA, IPCC - all of whom agree that humans play a significant part in global warming.


quote:

An independent think tank! However, an opposing voice, think tank or not, giving voice to the facts.


All the same - what would you do if I started posting from the Sierra Club, the NRDC, Ocean Conservancey, National Wildlife - all of whom would agree with the non-biased IPCC, EPA, NASA, NOAA?

quote:

2) And?


quote:

I assume you are questioning the Hurricane link, And if I have to splain this?? START SPLAININ" (for an obscure Lucille Ball reference) Long held belief of GW theorist that hurricanes are a major effect of the so called GW. Goes to reflect fact that according to the GW Scientist hurricanes should be like voting in Massachussettes, early and often.


LOL! I love that show! Well, that link says they are unsure. And this does not even remotely say that global warming is not caused by humans.

quote:

3) Your third link is from Frontiers of Freedom founded in 1996 by ex-Republican Senator Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming and which receives big bucks from big tobacoo. Why do you post from obviously biased sources? That would be like me quoting from the Sierra Club...


quote:

My third link is from the Center for Science and Public Policy regarding errors in the bible that is the IPCC report and it's pastor ALGORE


freakofnature, if you go to the pdf, there is a link to: www.scienceandpolicy.org - on this website, it clearly says that it's a project for the Frontiers of Freedom - again, founded in 1996 by ex-Republican Senator Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming and which receives big bucks from big tobacoo. Why do you post from obviously biased sources? For every source like this, I can bring up any number from the Sierra Club, NRDC, Ocean Conservancy - but I do not since they could be construed as biased. I could, though, if you'd like me to ? )

Peace and God bless,



1dblthnk02 -> RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? (5/15/2008 10:17:12 AM)

Man! It's getting to where I can't even keep up with this thread anymore. However, there is one post that I would like to respond to because it cuts to the core of this debate:
quote:

ORIGINAL: freakofnature
It goes to the fact that we can not controll the earth period.

This is far from "fact," freak.
While it is true that we do not control the planet as a collective whole, even you must admit that humans have a worldwide impact:
Humans alter courses of rivers and control their flow via dams, reservoirs, and dikes.
Humans have converted vast amounts of natural land into crops, homesites, and cities.
Humans are responsible for the extinction of roughly 200 species of birds and mammals in just the last 200 years alone.
Humans are the cause of disappearing habitat for endangered species.
Humans are responsible for industrial gases in the atmosphere, the accumulation of non-biodegradable plastic waste, and the accumulation of nuclear waste.
Humans are directly responsible for deforestation: the highest global ecological impact we have at this time.

These factors, and others, impact the earth. To say that we have "no control" is to say that we have no impact. This is a false notion, freakofnature; it is a delusion that silver tongued pro-industry mogols have lulled a lot people into accepting to excuse our poor stewardship. We do have impact, and we do have control-- just not complete control.
But this does not absolve us of our resonsibility for what we do control.
We can and do impact global weather patterns even though we do not outright control them.



mapachito13 -> RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? (5/15/2008 10:43:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lightshineon

LOL, I agree. I have a question anyone on this post a scientist or expert, or just personal opinion? Anybody really have any experience? You all sound good though.[:D]


Not meaning to toot my own horn but I own and operate a testing laboratory and have hands on experience in the quality control and testing aspects. I design test procedures and have to calculate their precision and uncertainty (possible error values) for my clients.

I am skeptical of global warming because of the lack of being able to verify the test methods used in testing the CO2 in the ice cores and the lack of these web sites publishing the possible error in measurement values. Any reputeable lab would have to calculate this error and in their published studies have to publish it as part of the methodology (the way the samples were tested). But my search on the internet I have not been able to see nor verify the claims of the global warming alarmists!

Why is this important. I'll repeat my example. Your doctor takes your child's temperature with a thermometer whose error is rated at plus or minus six degrees F and gets a reading of 102F. Does your child truly have a fever?

As a scientist I can't just accept as fact some claim just because some scientist on some web site has told me too! I can't put my critical thinking skills in park! In my experience, a PhD isn't a guarantee that the person is objective or even knows what they're doing!



davemiller7 -> RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? (5/15/2008 11:07:43 AM)

OK, folks, here's a solution that should gladden the hearts of the GW crowd here.

1. All of us who work for any corporation must quit their jobs.
2. All corporations should be liquidated (old Soviet term). [;)]
3. We should immediately bulldoze our homes and find a cave or some other "natural" abode.
4. The only means of transportation will be walking. Mechanical contrivances using fossil fuels of course is out. 5. Riding animals (horses, etc. is cruelty to animals)
6. All of our possessions and money will be immediately turned over to the state. After all, they know better than we, how to spend our money and manage our lives.
7. All nations will be dissolved into a world government.
8. We shall all gather together and sing "Kumbaya". (sp?)

What a lovely world that will be. I can only hope and pray the Good Lord will come and take me before it happens.

-Dave



freakofnature -> RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? (5/15/2008 11:14:51 AM)

quote:

While it is true that we do not control the planet as a collective whole, even you must admit that humans have a worldwide impact:


We are at the top of the food chain for a reason? NO? We have trillions of people to take care of and supply for. The only way to avoid this is to
A) Eliminate a large part of the population
B) Legislatively reduce family sizes
C) Hinder and control growth of businesses that supply goods and services
D) Take away rights and property of individuals

Reforestation efforts are always underway. As far as the extinct animals? Sorry? Survival of the fittest, and apparently Humans are the fittest. I am not advocating not being responsible and taking care of God's creation, but at the same time, the resources that are at our disposal are resources we all need to live. Advancement in technologies have allowed us to be the nation that we are. Further advancements will continue to shape and change our lives and the way we treat the earth. I am all for letting the free markets handle this. If liberal activist/lobbyist would get out of the way, stop suing everyone, the technologies would flurish and responsibly, IMHO. There are responsible corporations out there, the only thing the Govm'nt would need to do then is prosecute the corporations that aren't acting responsibly and assist those that are by allowing them to freely explore other options. I should not be punished legislatively because of some corporate improprieties. America's sovereignty is being chipped away by the environitwits on some IPCC report that may or may not have accurate models of warming on the earth. Whereas the IPCC admits that we are in a cooling perioid now. Look, I'm sorry that some birds have had to go the way of the dinosaur in efforts for humans to live? But only DRASTIC measures can be taken at this point to curb, in any reasonable amount, in the time frame we are being indoctrinated to comply with. So what country do we eliminate first? I'm all for nuking Iran first, then we can go after China and when we conquer China, we can just march into Russia.



freakofnature -> RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? (5/15/2008 11:23:17 AM)

quote:

freakofnature, if you go to the pdf, there is a link to: www.scienceandpolicy.org


So then, by this, there were no errors in the IPCC report? Still doesn't wash with me. And it is "big" tobacco, not "Big" oil? What's the connection???



Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI