Global Warming
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-11-2012, 02:44 PM
RE: Global Warming
(05-11-2012 10:44 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(04-11-2012 06:37 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Dude, this forum is a trap. Don't post in it, you'll just get raped. Tongue
Just think of it as "surprise sex".

Well it's beginning to feel more like a gang bang !
I hadn't realised you people were so feisty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2012, 09:56 PM
RE: Global Warming
Son, this is tame.

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2012, 07:27 AM
RE: Global Warming
(05-11-2012 09:56 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Son, this is tame.
And this is lame.
I'm the same.
Asshole.

[Image: 10289811_592837817482059_8815379025397103823_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2012, 11:39 AM
RE: Global Warming
Not sure what to think about this.... I only recently finished my Bachelor's in Earth Science/ Geology and currently study for my Master's degree (so I'm NOT a scientific authority nor do I claim to be one) but I am not aware of any actual ongoing debate about climate change in the scientific community. There are varying opinions about the magnitude of the impact of anthropogenic greenhouse gases but the fact that humans have made an impact on global climate has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
I do know however that there are some trained geoscientists who claim that climate change doesn't exist - curiously these 'scientists' are often working for corporations like Shell, BP... you get it. So let me put it in a different way: No *independent* scientist I know of questions climate change. This 'debate' seems to be the same kind of 'debate' as the 'debate' on whether evolution or intelligent design is scientifically valid (need I say more?) I couldn't open your link... so I can't examine your sources. It'd be cool though if you could provide me with title, author and the name of the journal so I could take a look (my college's VPN client allows me to read that stuff online without having to pay for it YAY! Big Grin )
Take care!

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a persistent one."
- Albert Einstein

"Nothing cannot exist forever."
- Stephen Hawking

"Hmmm, Bacon..."
- Homer Simpson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2012, 01:01 PM
RE: Global Warming
It seems the original link is no longer valid; no idea why;
A quick Google search can find plenty of papers that argue against the "mainstream" view on on Global Warming. Here's one that challenges the basic assumptions held out to defend that theory :

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physic
Gerhard Gerlich,
Ralf D. Tscheuschner
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0707.1161

To quote the conclusion :

"In summary, there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect, in particular CO2-greenhouse effect, in theoretical physics and engineering
thermodynamics. Thus it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting solution for economics and intergovernmental policy."

and :

"The authors express their hope that in the schools around the world the fundamentals of physics will be taught correctly and not by using award-winning “Al Gore” movies shocking every straight physicist by confusing absorption/emission with reflection, by confusing the tropopause with the ionosphere, and by confusing microwaves with shortwaves."

It doesn't actually surprise me that you haven't encountered any contrary viewpoints during your studies, that's exactly what a mainstream definition of a subject entails : blocking out, or playing down, any other studies that might contradict the "received wisdom".


My personal approach is to allow for the possibility that any information might be false, try to gather any contradictory information, then go with the position that provides the most robust evidence in support of its claims. For now, my personal jury is still out on climate change.

[that reminds me, I must post a thread on the Out of Africa evolutionary theory one of these days...]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2012, 03:30 PM
RE: Global Warming
Hi. I'll take a look. In the meantime:
[1]

This guy has become somewhat of a celebrity, because he argues against climate change. He is also a theoretical physicist and not a climatologist. Therefore authority/ qualification fail. I will still check his paper out because the fact that this is way outside his field doesn't mean he's wrong.
[2]
Quote: A quick Google search can find plenty of papers that argue against the "mainstream" view on on Global Warming. Here's one that challenges the basic assumptions held out to defend that theory
Climate change is the default theory (or as you say mainstream view) because it is supported by the most convincing evidence. Science doesn't have an opinion and always favors the position that has the best evidence. That's why science isn't religion. Which is why science works. In science the person that challenges an existing paradigm (you) has to back up his/her claim with evidence to convince others (me). Don't assert. Give me all your sources. Shouldn't be a problem if there are 'plenty'.
[3]
Quote: It doesn't actually surprise me that you haven't encountered any contrary viewpoints during your studies, that's exactly what a mainstream definition of a subject entails : blocking out, or playing down, any other studies that might contradict the "received wisdom".
You do not know me, my logical capabilities, intellectual abilities or the level and/or nature of my scientific training. Also you seem to suffer from a fundamental misconception regarding how university level studies in a natural science work. Otherwise you wouldn't make such a statement. For the sake of argument: Ignore my education (since I cannot even prove that I really possess it) and focus on my actual arguments.

[4]
Quote: My personal approach is to allow for the possibility that any information might be false, try to gather any contradictory information, then go with the position that provides the most robust evidence in support of its claims. For now, my personal jury is still out on climate change.
And yet you quote the one guy who is as qualified to talk about the climate as a geoscientist is to discuss string theory and ignore the hundreds of thousands of geoscientists who say climate change exists. Rolleyes
That's it for now. More to come when I read the paper you provided me.
Take care.


P.S.: Sorry for the empty box at the top. Drinking Beverage

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a persistent one."
- Albert Einstein

"Nothing cannot exist forever."
- Stephen Hawking

"Hmmm, Bacon..."
- Homer Simpson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WeAreOne's post
25-11-2012, 10:45 AM
RE: Global Warming
(24-11-2012 03:30 PM)WeAreOne Wrote:  [1] This guy has become somewhat of a celebrity, because he argues against climate change. He is also a theoretical physicist and not a climatologist. Therefore authority/ qualification fail. I will still check his paper out because the fact that this is way outside his field doesn't mean he's wrong.

[2] Climate change is the default theory (or as you say mainstream view) because it is supported by the most convincing evidence. Science doesn't have an opinion and always favors the position that has the best evidence. That's why science isn't religion. Which is why science works. In science the person that challenges an existing paradigm (you) has to back up his/her claim with evidence to convince others (me). Don't assert. Give me all your sources. Shouldn't be a problem if there are 'plenty'.


[3] You do not know me, my logical capabilities, intellectual abilities or the level and/or nature of my scientific training. Also you seem to suffer from a fundamental misconception regarding how university level studies in a natural science work. Otherwise you wouldn't make such a statement. For the sake of argument: Ignore my education (since I cannot even prove that I really possess it) and focus on my actual arguments.


[4] And yet you quote the one guy who is as qualified to talk about the climate as a geoscientist is to discuss string theory and ignore the hundreds of thousands of geoscientists who say climate change exists. Rolleyes
That's it for now. More to come when I read the paper you provided me.
Take care.
[1] It seemed to me that he was challenging the validity of the Theoretical Physics used to produce the data used in climate change models. In which case that would be an authority/qualification win.

[2] We're on common ground here. Science doesn't have an opinion, it provides a constantly progressing understanding of the way things work. Today's default poisition on any subject may well change tomorrow ! I'm not asserting anything, just trying to understand by looking at all sides of the subject.

[3] I have absolutely no reason to doubt your qualifications, capabilities, intellectual ability etc. I hope I didn't give you the impression that I was doing so.

[4] I'm not ignoring any of the scientific studies on this subject (for or against), are you ?

There is currently no absolute consensus on the level of temperature increase, or the causes of any such increase. More importantly, the projection of where temperature variations will go in the future is also the subject of debate. Therefore the very real question about the wisdom of the political and environmental decisions being taken by governments needs to be considered.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2012, 03:19 PM
RE: Global Warming
(25-11-2012 10:45 AM)Idlecuriosity Wrote:  
(24-11-2012 03:30 PM)WeAreOne Wrote:  
[1] It seemed to me that he was challenging the validity of the Theoretical Physics used to produce the data used in climate change models. In which case that would be an authority/qualification win.

[2] We're on common ground here. Science doesn't have an opinion, it provides a constantly progressing understanding of the way things work. Today's default poisition on any subject may well change tomorrow ! I'm not asserting anything, just trying to understand by looking at all sides of the subject.

[3] I have absolutely no reason to doubt your qualifications, capabilities, intellectual ability etc. I hope I didn't give you the impression that I was doing so.

[4] I'm not ignoring any of the scientific studies on this subject (for or against), are you ?

There is currently no absolute consensus on the level of temperature increase, or the causes of any such increase. More importantly, the projection of where temperature variations will go in the future is also the subject of debate. Therefore the very real question about the wisdom of the political and environmental decisions being taken by governments needs to be considered.
[font="Calibri"]Your
comment in the other forum seems to indicate that you think I’m a scientist. What
I said was that I had a Bachelor’s which is far, faaaaaaar away from being an actual scientist or an authority on anything scientific.
I also pointed out in the other forum why I got a little pissed about this
whole issue...
[/font]
[font="Calibri"]My mistake was to say that there was no debate. That is obviously not completely true as there are some scientists who doubt the theory. As with every scientific theory there was of course a debate on the validity of climate change especially considering whether or not we as humans had anything to do with it. (Natural) Climate change itself has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt though. I also pointed out that most actual independent climatologists appear to support anthropogenic climate change, whereas opposing scientists tend to work for private companies or are sometimes from a completely different field (like theoretical physics). [/font][font="Calibri"]I also stated (in the other forum?)
that rising temperatures could have further negative effects such as OAE.
[/font]
[font="Calibri"]I don't take this stance as a scientist (which I am not) but
as someone who has followed the ‘debate’. My position, based on what evidence I
know of, is that the “pro-anthropogenic” stance seems to be far more probable. That’s
also why it is the default position in science and if one wishes to argue against it,
he/she has to back up his/her claims. Just saying, that there are ‘plenty of peer
reviewed papers’
is an assertion and not an argument and that's what I was mainly referring to. It’s also dangerous because
uninformed people will think that just because someone holds a very strong
opinion about an issue in science that this opinion matters in any way. And
when that happens more and more people will start to believe that science doesn’t
have a clue on whether climate change is influenced by humans or not. That is
however not true as at the moment it seems at least more probable that humans
DO play a role
. That’s what I meant when I said ‘leave the science to the
scientists’ (,dude). No attack on you personally intended.
[/font]
P.S.: I won't be able to reply to the paper during the week (too much to do) so this has to wait till the weekend.


"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a persistent one."
- Albert Einstein

"Nothing cannot exist forever."
- Stephen Hawking

"Hmmm, Bacon..."
- Homer Simpson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2012, 03:21 PM
RE: Global Warming
Uh oh what happened to my comment??? Blink I didn't do that intentionally, sorry!

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a persistent one."
- Albert Einstein

"Nothing cannot exist forever."
- Stephen Hawking

"Hmmm, Bacon..."
- Homer Simpson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2012, 04:10 PM
RE: Global Warming
WeAreOne,
Glad we seem to have got back to a polite discussion !
I'm not exactly sure what your objection to the term "plenty" is. I'm just stating a fact that there are numerous papers that have been published that argue against some of the conclusions relating to global warming. If I'm asserting anything it's that the debate is onging, which is demonstrably true.

Anyway, have a good week and I look forward to hearing any of your further comments if and when you have time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Man Made Global Warming bemore 93 4,719 26-11-2012 12:00 PM
Last Post: Logica Humano
Exclamation The Global Vaccine Agenda JahFSM 16 1,527 01-06-2012 10:27 AM
Last Post: TheBeardedDude
  The Great Global Warming Swindle ashley.hunt60 25 2,335 21-06-2011 03:38 AM
Last Post: robotworld
Forum Jump: