Global Warming...Fact or Fiction?

**gunnut** · 31 May 11,, 18:51

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

You know that is anecdotal and climate is global.

If a specific location is either not warming or cooling, that is contrary to the term "global warming." I have no problem with the term "local warming." What was the first thing teachers tell their students? Never use the term "always." "Global" is just like "always." It's a term that traps the writer/idea and can easily be proven wrong.

For example, there is no global food shortage. We can produce enough food to feed the current world population plus more. Well, tell that to the starving people around the world. They really don't care about the global food production. They care about the food on the table, that night.

Global warming is not nearly as big a problem as local warming, or cooling, or any other natural disaster mother nature can dish out. The planet will warm and will cool as a whole. We will adapt. That's what living with nature means. Instead the climate zealots want to "control" nature. The earth is like the cabin of a car, just crank up the AC and make it comfortable.

Think about that. What you and those who believe in climate change is a bad thing want to control nature. That's like a religious zealot who wants to control god. Our science is pretty good but I'd say we are a long way from being able to control what the planet does.

**gunnut** · 31 May 11,, 18:56

Originally Posted by editec

As to the question of anthropogenic global warming?

What I think isn't really important.

I am not a scientist, neither am I capable of deciding which scientists are right on this issue.

I am not even qualified to decide whether Global Warming is indeed happening.

This non-hard-science layman does, however, sit in amazement that such a questions as these are not finally settled.

As a social scientist, I fully understand how different theories might lead different experts to different conclusions. That is to be expected in the socal sciences.

But of the hard sciences, one would expect that such hard science questions ought to be settled rather quickly.

Apparently, the hard sciences aren't quite so "hard" as I have been lead to believe.

If the physical sciences cannot even arrive at consensus about whether Global warming is even happening?

Addressing the question of whether it is anthropogenic is premature.

Science is not about consensus. Science is about facts and repeatable results. The reason why we can't agree on "global warming" is because there are too many variables to consider. Our puny minds and primative science cannot model mother nature. Not yet. What those climate zealots want to believe is that we could.

**editec** · 31 May 11,, 22:51

Originally Posted by gunnut

Science is not about consensus. Science is about facts and repeatable results. The reason why we can't agree on "global warming" is because there are too many variables to consider. Our puny minds and primative science cannot model mother nature. Not yet. What those climate zealots want to believe is that we could.

It isn't?

Then why do they bother with peer review?

Much of the scientific world has no trouble finding consensus on many issues -- the freezing and boiling points of water for example, are really not under debate.

But they cannot as yet agree on whether the Globe is warming?

I find that lack of agreement on something that is a question of observating and measuring temperatures rather troubling.

**Doktor** · 31 May 11,, 23:10

Originally Posted by editec

It isn't?

Then why do they bother with peer review?

Much of the scientific world has no trouble finding consensus on many issues -- the freezing and boiling points of water for example, are really not under debate.

But they cannot as yet agree on whether the Globe is warming?

I find that lack of agreement on something that is a question of observating and measuring temperatures rather troubling.

editec,

CONSENSUS = general agreement

SCIENCE = knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

Now, think again,
Let's suppose we are both scientists we can agree the world is flat. Then gunnut will come and SHOW us it's not flat, but it's a sphere, we will burn gunnut and the world will be flat?

**highsea** · 01 Jun 11,, 17:36

We had 2 black bears foraging in Vancouver yesterday and one in Portland this morning.

It's been so cold this spring that the berries haven't ripened, and the bears are coming down from the foothills looking for food.

**gunnut** · 01 Jun 11,, 18:25

Originally Posted by editec

It isn't?

Then why do they bother with peer review?

Much of the scientific world has no trouble finding consensus on many issues -- the freezing and boiling points of water for example, are really not under debate.

But they cannot as yet agree on whether the Globe is warming?

I find that lack of agreement on something that is a question of observating and measuring temperatures rather troubling.

What temperature does water boil at?

**bigross86** · 01 Jun 11,, 18:30

100C, 212F or 373.15K

Of course, this is all at 1 atmosphere. Go higher or lower than sea level, and it all changes. Let's not even get started on water purity and sodium levels

**gunnut** · 01 Jun 11,, 18:37

Originally Posted by bigross86

100C, 212F or 373.15K

Of course, this is all at 1 atmosphere. Go higher or lower than sea level, and it all changes. Let's not even get started on water purity and sodium levels

See, too many variables for a simple substance like water that affect a known quality.

Let's do that on a planetary scale, with the sun, the ocean, the currents, earth's topography, atmospheric content, and everything else we can possibly think of, and see what kind of predictions we can make.

**bigross86** · 01 Jun 11,, 18:41

Gunnut, never let the facts get in the way of a good story

**gunnut** · 01 Jun 11,, 22:33

Originally Posted by highsea

We had 2 black bears foraging in Vancouver yesterday and one in Portland this morning.

It's been so cold this spring that the berries haven't ripened, and the bears are coming down from the foothills looking for food.

You're just citing anecdotal evidence. Anecdotes are not data even if there are anecdotes from all over the planet suggesting the globe is either not warming or in fact, cooling. Who would you rather trust? Some bears and the food they eat that depends on nature, or intelligent scientists paid by the green energy industry and carbon trading market, to reach a consensus?

The fact is the globe is warming, even if the entire world is cooling. We just don't know it's warming. We would have reached the "point of no return" by the time we noticed any significant warming. Better start the cooling before the warming starts, or else our children or their children would not know what "snow" is in the future.

**gunnut** · 01 Jun 11,, 22:33

Originally Posted by bigross86

Gunnut, never let the facts get in the way of a good story

I can tell a good story...^^^

**highsea** · 02 Jun 11,, 01:26

Originally Posted by gunnut

You're just citing anecdotal evidence.

My hypothesis is that increased CO2 is causing the retardation of blueberries.

Not that there's anything wrong with retarded blueberries. I didn't mean anything by that. Really. It's just that some blueberries are developmentally challenged. It's not their fault. There's nothing wrong with them.

I just want them to have the opportunity to reach their full potential. They are entitled to the chance to be the best blueberries they can be, based on their own individual innate blueberriness, and not some arbitrary standard set by bears who should be more considerate anyway.

I'm pretty sure this is Bush's fault. (Not the blueberry, the George)

**USSWisconsin** · 02 Jun 11,, 04:13

Originally Posted by highsea

My hypothesis is that increased CO2 is causing the retardation of blueberries.

Not that there's anything wrong with retarded blueberries. I didn't mean anything by that. Really. It's just that some blueberries are developmentally challenged. It's not their fault. There's nothing wrong with them.

I just want them to have the opportunity to reach their full potential. They are entitled to the chance to be the best blueberries they can be, based on their own individual innate blueberriness, and not some arbitrary standard set by bears who should be more considerate anyway.

I'm pretty sure this is Bush's fault. (Not the blueberry, the George)

Ah yes, but just look what Obama has done the the poor boysenbarry... it may not even be a native berry, it may be a Harrison_Bounge Barry! A hypothetical study clearly demonstrates that the boysenbarry is the cause of AGW.

**editec** · 02 Jun 11,, 14:26

Originally Posted by Doktor

editec,

CONSENSUS = general agreement

SCIENCE = knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

Now, think again,
Let's suppose we are both scientists we can agree the world is flat. Then gunnut will come and SHOW us it's not flat, but it's a sphere, we will burn gunnut and the world will be flat?

Doktor,

Yes consensus is "general agreement".

So...what IS the general agreement in the scientific community regards anthropogenic global warming?

Clearly, given the original point of this thread, there is some question about that.

Apparently the scientific community is still debating if GW is even happening, let alone having come to consesnus whether mankind is responsible for it.

You don't find that troubling?

**Doktor** · 02 Jun 11,, 15:06

Editec,

Thing is you don't need general agreement for something to be scientific.

People who were saying the Earth is Sphere were burn alive by those who had consensus that it is flat.

Why you need divided scientists to tell you if it is happening or not. People in USA say it is cold there, I can tell you this is the coldest and most rainy May over here that I remember for years. Now what? We are warming or we are cooling? This cooling is after effect of the warming or that all GW thing is jiberish?