quote:

ORIGINAL: mapachito13

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!

quote:

ORIGINAL: freakofnature
We are at the top of the food chain for a reason? NO?

quote:

Reforestation efforts are always underway.

quote:

As far as the extinct animals? Sorry?

quote:

Survival of the fittest, and apparently Humans are the fittest.

quote:

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

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mapachito13
In my experience, a PhD isn't a guarantee that the person is objective or even knows what they're doing!

quote:

ORIGINAL: freakofnature

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" to
bacco, not "Big" oil? What's the connection???

quote:

ORIGINAL: davemiller7

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02

quote:

ORIGINAL: freakofnature
We are at the top of the food chain for a reason? NO?

And this proves that we are not in control?

quote:

Reforestation efforts are always underway.

It can't keep up with deforestation efforts.

quote:

As far as the extinct animals? Sorry?

I'm not looking for an apology. You are the one contesting that we have no impact on the world.

quote:

Survival of the fittest, and apparently Humans are the fittest.

That's not what "survival of the fittest" means, but that is a Darwinian terminology not directly germane to this topic.

quote:

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

Saying that natural resources are "at our disposal" is advocating irresponsibility to conserve.

quote:

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.

Pushing the button is another example of the kind of major impact that mankind can have over the planet. Or do you still deny that we have impact on the planet?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: davemiller7

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

I don't think anyone is advocating the aforementioned, but if you want to do these things, by all means, go ahead !)

Peace and God bless,

quote:

ORIGINAL: freakofnature
I am confronting the doomsday theorist that say we are all gonna die if we don't conform to the church of global warming.

quote:

Of course we have an impact, but the resources have to be used to maintain an earth population of more than a trillion people.

quote:

The GW church members act as if humans are like a virus on a host body.

quote:

God has set it up and gave us domain over all the earth.

quote:

Otherwise the only way to confront this "issue" is we kill half the population and the living must live in the forest, in caves and in tents.???

quote:

If, btw, global warming is as bad as it is and compares to the warming of the earth in the medieval times, why were there NO major impacts on human population at that time?

quote:

No major ice melts covering over vast amount of land?

quote:

Would you not agree that there were much larger areas of ice during the ice age? What happened to all of that melted ice? Where did it go?

quote:

If then the ice caps melt, which I seriously doubt they will completely disappear, so even if half of the ice caps "melt" is that not less ice than appeared during the ice age?

quote:

I think all the ice age left us was the "great lakes" between America and Canada and some nice smaller lakes and mountain ranges.

quote:

So going back to living in tents.

quote:

But we don't have the ability to recreate uncertain weather patterns well enough to legitimately study the effects of co2 in the atmosphere.

quote:

Therefore there is no real ability to know what the effects are going to be long term.

quote:

It is not my intent to be offensive, but only to discuss the realities of the effects of the so called global warming.

quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar

quote:

ORIGINAL: mapachito13

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!

I would expect the actual scholarly research papers to contain these sorts of numbers, but not the dumbed-down media reports. I don't know if I'd expect these in government reports either. If you really want these figures, you'll probably either have to visit the library or subscribe to particular journals.

-Dan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
. . . Only if he claims to be an accredited expert. Then you examine his claim, not his character.

quote:


I am not Al Gore. I do not speak for him, and he does not speak for me. Therefore, if someone disagrees with Al Gore, they are disagreeing with him, not me. But their argument against Al Gore will receive my criticism if the argument is nothing but ad hominem.

quote:


It's called hypocrisy. If I criticize you for being the same way that I am, then I am actually criticizing myself, am I not?

quote:


So, I can be fair about this topic because I have been on both sides of the fence.

quote:

quote:


No, that's not what I said. I said it's unfair for you to suggest that just because someone disagrees with you, they are not dealing with the scientific merits of the subject.

But I have not done this, so you can let it go now.

quote:


ADVISORY: Dr. Arthur Robinson (OISM) to Release Names of over 30,000 Scientists Rejecting Global Warming Hypothesis
...
It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science - including 9,021 PhDs, are not “a few.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
I don't think it's wrong to point out that someone doesn't have credentials in general.

quote:

But what you implied was that just because they disagree with him, they are not dealing with the scientific issues.

quote:

Implying that just because someone disagrees with you they are not dealing with the issue is not fair.

quote:

Your quotes suggest that just because they disagree with you, they are not dealing with the issues scientifically.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:


ADVISORY: Dr. Arthur Robinson (OISM) to Release Names of over 30,000 Scientists Rejecting Global Warming Hypothesis
...
It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science - including 9,021 PhDs, are not “a few.”

Beneficial Natural Warming-31,000 Scientists

Just thought this would be interesting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana
IMHO, it is interesting - because Dr. Robinson has no connection to the National Academy of Sciences;

quote:


the petition has not been accepted by any credible scientific publication

quote:


and the list of scientists are not soley climatologists...JMHO.

quote:


I clearly do not understand the relunctance to recycle (something my grandparents did without complaint), and to reduce pollutants that show links to increased asthma, cancer and reproductive problems...but no one on the other end seems to want to address this. On top of this, God commands us to be good stewards of HIS creation...but, of course, people will ignore this as well...interesting to me, very interesting and, quite frankly disappointing...

Peace and God bless,

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
No, not in general. But if someone expects me to accept someone else's anti-global-warming article because they are an expert engineer, then I am going to point out that an engineering degree does not make a person an "expert" critic of global warming.

quote:


No, I said that if their critique of global warming is nothing but an ad hominem attack on Al Gore, then they are not dealing with the scientific evidence.
...
I never said this. I said that ad hominem arguments do not deal with the issue, and it is fair to say so.

quote:


Betta, if this is truly how you see it, and you're not just being obnoxious, then you are profoundly misunderstanding me. You need to read what I am actually saying, and not read into my comments that which you want me to be saying.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
That is not what I quoted.

quote:

You need to stop saying one thing when you mean another.

quote:

Again, to quote you, what you said was, "Conservative websites disagree with Al Gore; therefore, they need not deal with the scientific merits of global warming. Instead they seek only to discredit Al Gore." If you did not mean what you said, just say that you did not mean what you said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana
IMHO, it is interesting - because Dr. Robinson has no connection to the National Academy of Sciences;

So?

quote:

What constitutes a "credible" scientific publication is often subject to opinion.

quote:

quote:


and the list of scientists are not soley climatologists...JMHO.

So?

quote:

Obesity Promotes Global Warming?

By John Tierney

Tags: energy, exercise, fat, global warming

As someone who commutes by bicycle into Manhattan, I would normally applaud any scientific rationale for more bike lanes. But some calculations in the new issue of the Lancet make me uncomfortable. The authors argue that policies promoting cycling and walking are good for the planet because they could reduce obesity — and obesity, the authors calculate, contributes to global warming.

Do we really need to give fat people one more reason to feel guilty?

quote:


Fat people blamed for global warming
By Patrick Sawer
Last Updated: 8:52AM BST 17/05/2008

As if they didn’t already have enough problems on their hands fat people are now being blamed for global warming.

British scientists say they use up more fuel to transport them around and the amount of food they eat requires more energy to produce than that consumed by those on smaller diets.

According to a team at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine this adds to food shortages and higher energy prices.

Researchers Phil Edwards said: “We are all becoming heavier and it is a global responsibility. Obesity is a key part of the big picture."

quote:

ORIGINAL: StephK

Well the target for the blame in this hysteria is being made known. [8|]

quote:

Obesity Promotes Global Warming?

By John Tierney

Tags: energy, exercise, fat, global warming

As someone who commutes by bicycle into Manhattan, I would normally applaud any scientific rationale for more bike lanes. But some calculations in the new issue of the Lancet make me uncomfortable. The authors argue that policies promoting cycling and walking are good for the planet because they could reduce obesity — and obesity, the authors calculate, contributes to global warming.

Do we really need to give fat people one more reason to feel guilty?

quote:


Fat people blamed for global warming
By Patrick Sawer
Last Updated: 8:52AM BST 17/05/2008

As if they didn’t already have enough problems on their hands fat people are now being blamed for global warming.

British scientists say they use up more fuel to transport them around and the amount of food they eat requires more energy to produce than that consumed by those on smaller diets.

According to a team at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine this adds to food shortages and higher energy prices.

Researchers Phil Edwards said: “We are all becoming heavier and it is a global responsibility. Obesity is a key part of the big picture."

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
I don't think it's wrong to point out that someone doesn't have credentials in general.

No, not in general. But if someone expects me to accept someone else's anti-global-warming article because they are an expert engineer, then I am going to point out that an engineering degree does not make a person an "expert" critic of global warming.
Likewise with Al Gore-- now did you catch that? Read it again, please: likewise with Al Gore. He is not a scientist and does not deserve a scientist's credibility. I have not, do not, and never will plead from Al Gore's authority.

Are we clear on this? . . .

quote:

But what you implied was that just because they disagree with him, they are not dealing with the scientific issues.

No, I said that if their critique of global warming is nothing but an ad hominem attack on Al Gore, then they are not dealing with the scientific evidence.

quote:

Implying that just because someone disagrees with you they are not dealing with the issue is not fair.

I never said this. I said that ad hominem arguments do not deal with the issue, and it is fair to say so.

quote:

Your quotes suggest that just because they disagree with you, they are not dealing with the issues scientifically.

Betta, if this is truly how you see it, and you're not just being obnoxious, then you are profoundly misunderstanding me. You need to read what I am actually saying, and not read into my comments that which you want me to be saying.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana
IMHO, it is interesting - because Dr. Robinson has no connection to the National Academy of Sciences;

quote:

So?

quote:


the petition has not been accepted by any credible scientific publication

quote:

What constitutes a "credible" scientific publication is often subject to opinion.

quote:


and the list of scientists are not soley climatologists...JMHO.

quote:


I clearly do not understand the relunctance to recycle (something my grandparents did without complaint), and to reduce pollutants that show links to increased asthma, cancer and reproductive problems...but no one on the other end seems to want to address this. On top of this, God commands us to be good stewards of HIS creation...but, of course, people will ignore this as well...interesting to me, very interesting and, quite frankly disappointing...

Peace and God bless,

quote:

I do not think that conservatives deny that people should take care of the environment and I think we should too (ie: I think we should recycle and reduce pollutants). I do not see how someone disagreeing with the notion that man made global warming is a reality means they are reluctant to recycle and reduce pollutants. I am not saying global warming is real or not (I do not know), I just don't think that simply disagreeing with global warming means they are reluctant to take care of the environment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana
Do you know what the NAS is? It has peer-review, and was started by President Abe Lincoln:

quote:


The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is an honorific society....

quote:


The NAS dismissed this petition, called Oregon petition:

"The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.

In particular, the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a major consensus study on this issue, entitled Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming (1991,1992). This analysis concluded that " ...even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. ... Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises." In addition, the Committee on Global Change Research of the National Research Council, the operating arm of the NAS and the NAE, will issue a major report later this spring on the research issues that can help to reduce the scientific uncertainties associated with global change phenomena, including climate change..."

quote:


And in fact, this is the NAS position on global warming: ...

quote:


And there is wide criticism of the Oregon petitions signatures: ...

quote:


Well, the NAS accepts "fringe" research, and if it does not accept the Oregon petition, seems pretty suspect to me.

quote:


My point is that the people that say global warming is human-caused want to curb pollutants, want us to recycle - things we are called to do by God when he commanded that we take care of His creation - so what's the problem?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana
Do you know what the NAS is? It has peer-review, and was started by President Abe Lincoln:

I know what the NAS is. I do not care who started it.

quote:


The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is an honorific society....

Honorific according to whom?

quote:


The NAS dismissed this petition, called Oregon petition:

"The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.

In particular, the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a major consensus study on this issue, entitled Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming (1991,1992). This analysis concluded that " ...even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. ... Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises." In addition, the Committee on Global Change Research of the National Research Council, the operating arm of the NAS and the NAE, will issue a major report later this spring on the research issues that can help to reduce the scientific uncertainties associated with global change phenomena, including climate change..."

What makes the NAS the ultimate authority over what constitutes a valid petition? Why should I trust them more than the petitioners who singed this petition? Because they and their supporters proclaim that they are a more "credible" source and they proclaim that they are more "honorable"?

quote:


And in fact, this is the NAS position on global warming: ...

So? I am not taking a position, but just because the NAS takes a position does not make a position correct (and I am not saying their position is incorrect either. I don't know). I see no reason to believe the NAS is any more "credible" than some of the scientists that signed the petition (proclamation doesn't count).

quote:


And there is wide criticism of the Oregon petitions signatures: ...

I'm not saying that there aren't possible reasonable criticisms against the petition, I'm saying that just because the NAS rejects it does not necessarily mean it should be disregarded.

quote:


Well, the NAS accepts "fringe" research, and if it does not accept the Oregon petition, seems pretty suspect to me.

Just because the NAS accepts "fringe" research and not this petition does not necessarily mean that the petition should be disregarded. Just because the NAS does not accept some research does not make the research invalid. It could be (and I'm not saying this is the case) that the NAS has a bias toward what kind of research it accepts (ie: maybe they are more inclined to accept research that supports man made global warming and that's why they reject this petition. Again, I'm not saying this is the case, but it's a possibility). The NAS is composed of humans, not infallible entities who are perfect at discerning what is valid and what is not. Humans have bias and humans aren't perfect.

quote:


My point is that the people that say global warming is human-caused want to curb pollutants, want us to recycle - things we are called to do by God when he commanded that we take care of His creation - so what's the problem?

I'm just pointing out that, just because someone does not believe man made global warming is a reality does not mean that he does not want to "curb pollutants" or "recycle."

I do think that we should take care of the environment and I do not take a position on whether or not man made global warming is a reality. However, when I see people who take a more liberal position on the subject matter act as though they are more concerned about the environment than those who take a more conservative position, and when I see people like 1dblthnk02 making silly stereotypical statements like "Conservative websites disagree with Al Gore; therefore, they need not deal with the scientific merits of global warming. Instead they seek only to discredit Al Gore" and when I see them constantly being unfair to conservatives, I find it very hard to take the liberal position seriously. I know conservatives who also think that mainstream sources have no clue about whether or not man made global warming is a reality and they recycle, they teach their children to always recycle and save energy because it's good for the environment, etc... Conservatives do think they should take care of the environment just as well as liberals, so please don't act as if you are somehow more concerned about the environment than conservatives. When I see this kind of unfair attitude, it makes it more difficult for me to take the liberal position seriously. I want to be fair to the liberal position, but I also expect those who take a more liberal position to be fair to the conservative position as well. Otherwise, it will only make it more difficult for me to take the liberal position seriously.