"It's Groundhog Day.. again.."

[avance2000]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

I don't dispute the CO2 being released. I think the impact is exaggerated....Don't forget, during a cold stretch in the 70's, the prevailing wisdom was we were headed towards another ice age---many scientists believed that---and now we are going to be baking into oblivion. I don't see it.

so just to be clear....your argument is that although there is basically total agreement among all atmospheric scientists, we are probably wrong becauase......why exactly?
we have made their case for global warming.....but the only thing i hear doubters like you argue is basically that all science is hogwash. we present a factually based and logical argument, and you come back with a completely unsubstantiated claim of 5%. based on what?

[randallscott35]

Again, I'm a Nader voter so obviously what I'm saying is sacreligious but we could be warming and the opposite affect could take place. The Atlantic conveyor gets disrupted and suddenly its too cold for millions of people. Again, eveything comes back to equilibrium.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by avance2000

so just to be clear....your argument is that although there is basically total agreement among all atmospheric scientists, we are probably wrong becauase......why exactly?
we have made their case for global warming.....but the only thing i hear doubters like you argue is basically that all science is hogwash. we present a factually based and logical argument, and you come back with a completely unsubstantiated claim of 5%. based on what?

Based on articles I've read....Mind you, Dr. Gray, the same Dr. Gray who is the hurricane forecaster for the enitre United States doesn't believe in the impact of humans on Global Warming either. And all he does is study it and other atmospheric conditions since the 60's.

[avance2000]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Well, coincidentally, the NYTimes cover story is on the latest report:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/sc...2vyMpuC0PVkpKw

Though frankly, I think it's too late. So long to polar bears, hello to yearly Katrinas and Wyoming beaches.

as the article says....."over 90% confident." but some people choose not to believe in it. why? nobody knows. including them.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by avance2000

as the article says....."over 90% confident." but some people choose not to believe in it. why? nobody knows. including them.

Let's not get arrogant please. I don't disagree with the warming, I disagree with the end game. Big difference....Agree to disagree....We'll see what happens in 25 years.

[avance2000]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Let's not get arrogant please. I don't disagree with the warming, I disagree with the end game. Big difference....Agree to disagree....We'll see what happens in 25 years.

i can't help getting arrogant. i am a scientist. that is just the kind of people we are.

[randallscott35]

ENJOY.

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807

[Antitrust32]

leave it to derby trail to turn groundhog day into a global warming debate!

[avance2000]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

ENJOY.

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807

there are certainly scientists that dispute it. just out of curiosity.....why do you choose to believe them when they make up the vast minority of experts, but choose to dispute the 90+% that argue it exists?

[avance2000]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

FYI, science is not intended to be democratic. So, choosing one side because it has 90+% support is ****in stupid.

that makes so little sense that it boggles the mind.

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

BTW, nice edit, pais. lol

But no one expects perfection even from the mods!

thank you dear...

[avance2000]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Well, it should if you think science is intended to be democratic.

Once, 90+% of scientists thought the earth was flat...didn't make them right, now did it.

Once, 90+% of scientists thought leeches cured all kinds of diseases...didn't make the right, now did it.

See, so choosing one side because it has 90+% support, is stupid. ****ing stupid.

um...i frankly don't know why i am even bothering to respond to such juvenile reductionism but oh well......i'll bite.

so do you think we would be better served by going with the minority of scientists all the time or by just ignoring science all together? do you want me to list all of the millions of things that the majority of scientists have been right about over the years?

[GenuineRisk]

Can we move this to the off-topic board?

Interesting article- fairly evenhanded, though one of the scientists quoted does say Bill Gray has a "mind block" where the topic of global warming is concerned:

http://www.summitdaily.com/article/2...NEWS/109300057

Regardless of being speeded up by humans or not, our frantic burning of fossil fuels isn't good. Not just environmentally speaking, but our oil addiction keeps us chained to the Middle East. Want to see Iran lose power? Stop sucking down so much oil. The drop in oil prices sank the Soviet Union- it would sink Iran. I fail to see why this nation is so resistant to getting unaddicted. And I'm not talking about the government- I know why they're so uninterested. I don't see why we the people aren't pushing for it. We should be.

And then the sheiks couldn't buy up every race horse in sight, either!

[avance2000]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Juvenile reductionism? Uhm, I think choosing one side because it has 90% support is a good definition of that. LOL

And, no, I don't need any education in science or the history of science from someome who thinks 90+% support = right. And, fwiw, many things science has been right about over the years started out as skeptical and minority positions. But of course, you would have to have some education to appreciate that.


PS: nice strawmen "minority...all the time...ignoring science"

i just thought you should know that i have a masters degree in microbiology and am currently working on PhD at Washington University in St. Louis. I just showed this entire thread to some of the people in the lab where i work and your ignorance gave us all a good laugh. i know you won't care about this at all, because we are all scientists and since the vast majority of us laughed at you, it must mean (according to your logic) that we are wrong!
you might want to consider the fact that you obviously have no idea what the term strawman means, and you are using it very incorrectly. i tell you this only because i don't want you to use the term with all your PhD friends and look foolish.
have a nice day.

[randallscott35]

My fault for for the disagreement. I didn't realize I have no education or reason for ever feeling different than the "masses."....avance-you lose so much from your argument when you take the tact you do.

[randallscott35]

http://www.renewamerica.us/analyses/050317hutchison.htm

Essentially the conclusion of this paper is what I believe....But I have no right to b/c I wasn't a science major and can't think for myself....I'm going to yell to my mom now to come and tie my shoes so I can go outside and play in the cold.

The burden of proof lies with those who claim that CO2 gas has a greenhouse effect, because they have presented no understandable mechanism or process that explains how CO2 gas in the atmosphere increases heat on earth. The greenhouse metaphor that is successful for water droplets in clouds appears to be a failure when applied to CO2 gas. If we receive evasions instead of answers and explanations from scientists on this crucial question, we have a right to conclude that global warming theory does not make sense, and we can consign it to the accumulating heap of junk science, along with the discarded theory of global cooling of thirty years ago.

[Downthestretch55]

Oh the theories!!! All this talk about CO2! Geesh!!!
Nobody seems to be looking at methane. We all know that a lot of it is produced by cattle. So, my theory to reduce global warming is to give all the mooing critters massive quantities of "Beano" with their regular feedings.
Cow farts stink!!!!
Now, here are some other "crack-pot" theories....
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/sci...change.report/

[avance2000]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Uhm, a strawman fallacy is a misrepresentation of an argument with said misrpresentatation being easy to refute (but you don't necessarily have to explicitly refute it...a simplistic misrepresentation is often enough), which you have done at least 3 times wrt what I have actually been saying. Not that wikipedia is a great source, but this entry happens to be pretty correct (Straw Man). Enjoy.

Also, you represent a classic example of what is wrong with modern science.

FYI, the folks in your lab were prolly laughin at you...

Piled higher and Deeper - like that isn't old!?!? lol jk

Its funny when haughty folks like this get cunty and end up saying foolish stuff...

okay i am done with this argument. it is fruitless to argue with someone who is going to cite wikipedia as a source, fails to understand basic scientific principles, and uses "words" like prolly.
if you want to make fun of PhD's and call people fun names like "cunty" be my guest. i don't have my PhD yet so you are really just making fun of all your supposed friends that have PhDs. although i find it extremely hard to believe that anyone with that level of education would associate with someone of your obviously limited education.
again i wish you a good day and i hope that in the future we can limit our interaction to horses since we obviously disagree about many other issues. as a parting note on this thread i will only ask those of you who "don't believe" in global warming to examine studies conducted in peer-reviewed scientific journals on the subject before dismissing it. you may find the level of evidence astonishing.
this has been a fun but contentious thread.
now back to the ponies!

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by avance2000

there are certainly scientists that dispute it. just out of curiosity.....why do you choose to believe them when they make up the vast minority of experts, but choose to dispute the 90+% that argue it exists?

Hey Buddy: they got a nice "cottage industry" going, don't they!

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

ENJOY.

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807

This link from the same page as yours says it all:

(http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_5143742) It begins:

"Washington - Despite a strongly worded global warming report from the world's top climate scientists, the Bush administration expressed continued opposition today to mandatory reductions in heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases.

"Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman warned against "unintended consequences" - including job losses - that he said might result if the government requires economy-wide caps on carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. "

Oh no, not job loss!

And note where "the world's top climate scientists" stand, Randall. It didn't say "some of the world's top climate scientists".

--Dunbar