View Poll Results: Do you think AGW is real? Please check the proper one for nationality.

Voters
101. You may not vote on this poll
  • AGW is real-American member

    19 18.81%
  • AGW is real-Non-American member

    24 23.76%
  • AGW is not real-American member

    40 39.60%
  • AGW is not real-Non American member

    18 17.82%
Page 137 of 217 FirstFirst ... 128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146 ... LastLast
Results 2,041 to 2,055 of 3249
Like Tree128Likes

Thread: Global Warming...Fact or Fiction?

  1. #2041
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    If you have been following the thread, it is precisely because the scientific method failed to deliver predicted results that the skeptics are up in arms.

  2. #2042
    Senior Contributor Wooglin's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Dec 05
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,388
    Quote Originally Posted by Monash View Post
    Actually all jokes aside I have been following the thread for some time but it has gotton quite long and what with work and renovations (as I write I have a kitchen stacked around me in pieces and holes in every wall) there are lengthy gaps when I don't get to visit WAB or any other forum for that matter. So going back to the beginning to "catch up" is a bit of an ask. In any case my point still stands I think. I can't recall seeing a logical/cogent reason for large numbers of professional scientists to engage in what amounts to fraud. Let alone an explantion for why such a conspiracy wouldn't eventually break down due to the sheer impossibility of to coordinating such an endevour on a world wide basis. And thats forgetting the fact that at some point the deviations between the fraudulent data and reality would become so blatant that it would collapse anyway. (Even Enron could only "cook the books" for so long before it all turned %#$t! So still waiting I think. ... Cheers
    Why do you assume it would take a large, coordinated effort?

    The controversial part of the IPCC report was authored by a relative handful of scientists, who were referencing their own work and as lead authors were given the power to reject criticism of their own work!

    Once it published it's part of the literature, and it's the "authoritative report"

    You think every scientist referencing the IPCC report is checking it first?

    Very recently, a paper was published in J. Climate that documented a flaw in the ERA-40 analysis which "leads to significantly exaggerated warming in the Arctic mid- to lower troposphere" This ERA-40 analysis has been referenced over 2000 times in literature, yet nobody found this problem until now. It didn't take a large coordinated conspiracy to get it wrong. It just took a flawed analysis by a few people that was accepted and not checked to invalidate 2000+ papers.

    All you need is a few people to get it into the literature, which is much easier when the same few are "peer reviewing" their own work, and it spreads.

    Eventually, actual science catches up and problems are revealed. But it's a slow process and even slower when it's as much a divisive political issue as a scientific issue, as AGW certainly is.

    From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
    "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
    (Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth - Both IPCC Lead Authors in the above mentioned IPCC report. You don't need thousands of willing conspirators when the power to shape the report their way is given to only a few)
    Last edited by Wooglin; 17 Aug 11, at 16:18.

  3. #2043
    Senior Contributor Wooglin's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Dec 05
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,388
    "The theory of "global warming" is however ultimately provable/disprovable via the application of the scientific method and can be subjected to scientific and/or statisitical analysis."

    Do you actually follow the published literature? Do you actually know what is being argued in the literature regarding GW and what is and isn't contested? If not, then how would you know what has and hasn't been disproved? And who has to tell you for you to believe it?

    The theory of Eugenics was ultimately provable/disprovable via the application of the scientific method too, yet despite having no actual scientific evidence to support it it was very popular and well supported by activists, politicians, institutions, and scientists.

    Was it a giant, well-coordinated conspiracy? How did it happen? How much damage was caused before it was thrown away as rubbish?

    The world has been down this path before. No need to speculate on motives and entertain conspiracy theories. Just read some history.
    Last edited by Wooglin; 17 Aug 11, at 16:38.

  4. #2044
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    22,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Monash View Post
    Gunnut, I considered the money idea but in the final anaysis it does't pan out. More money for atmospheric science doesn't equate to better financial rewards for individual scientists in the field. For example does an increase in the defence budget equate to significantly more money in the hands of individual soldiers? The answer is almost always no, oh they might benefit indirectly through a various defence procurements but would that be enough to radically change the individuals behaviour. Would soldiers [I] as a group [I] conspire to engage in dishonourable or dishonest conduct in the hope that the organisation as a whole would benefit.Obviously not - the risk for the individual outweighs the reward.
    Soldiers would be a bad comparison. They don't do research.

    Let's compare that to say...immunologist or the evil pharmaseudical company. What would happen if someone, or some company, to come up with a magical immunization that defeats the common cold? I mean, no more cold, sniffling, flu, fever, blah blah blah. They'd be out of a job and will need to find something else to research on.

    What happens if I were a researcher on global climate, and I conclusively prove our planet is the same as always, there is no need to worry about man-made climate change/global warming/hokey pokey? I'd be out of a job. If I were smart, I'd say something ambiguous. There could be a link between the current weather and climate phenomena, we don't know the exact link. We "think" it might have something to do with the CO2 in the air, warming the air, or maybe warming the ocean, possibly El Nino/La Nina. We just don't know. I will present my findings and I can't give any definitive answer until further data is gathered and analyzed. But that could take years.

    Boom! Job security!!!

    Let's contrast this to the other scenario. There is no link between CO2 and the weather. Earth is just fine. Can I have some money to research on something that is of no consequence to the world?

    Yeah, good luck with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Monash View Post
    The same thing applies to any large organisation, profession or group. There has to be significant financial benefits for the individual before they change their behaviour. I've forgotten the name of the principals involved but they have been identified by ecomomists and behavioural scientists. The problem is that scientist in the field don't benefit enough personally to make the effort worthwhile. (Unless for instance they worked a group with a vested interest in achieving a specific outcome and in this case the only examples I can think off would be scientists employed by the fossil fuel industry! So you could make a stronger case for scientists being paid to fake data disproving global warming science than you can for scientists being paid t try and prove it! (I'm not saying this is happening by the way - just that I can't see a way for the scientists to benefit significantly the other way.)
    What do "scientists" do? How do they make their living? How does anyone studying rain/snow/wind pattern make money? Why would I fund someone to do that research? Most "scientists" make their living on grant money. Someone has the money and interest to find out more about what they do, so they give them money. You said so youself. Fossil fuel industry employs geologists because they want to know where to find energy source. There's money to be made. Studying rocks doesn't make money.

    Likewise, studying the weather doesn't make money. But finding a way to prevent global catastrophe does make money. Those with money will want to find out how to prevent the loss of money. That's where the money is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Monash View Post
    When you increase research into climate change you hire more scientists you don't increase the pay of the ones you have already (at least by much). So I don't see money cutting it as a motive unless as I think I mentioned once before they all have shares in wind turbine factories
    Sure. Some one will need to manage them. I, as the senior director of the global climate research institute, will need a staff, a car, and 1st class tickets on airlines so I can attend all-expense-paid conferences in Cancun and Bali during the winter. During my absence, I will leave the affairs of the institute to my 2 vice senior directors. They will oversee the 37 scientists, their assistants, and interns, working for the institude.

    Quote Originally Posted by Monash View Post
    So if money doesn't cut it on a individual basis what does? And remember when it comes to scientific fraud on the scale required - we potentially talking serious jail time here for anyone caught doing this. Governments do NOT have a sence of humour when it comes to people scamming them for significant aamounts of public funding. (It looks bad at election time).
    But it's not fraud. They simply did not have all the data available at the time they published their report. They will need more time to gather more data, hire more people to do more analysis, to see if their last report was correct. Of course someone will need to manage these extra people that I would like to hire at my global climate research institute.

    Quote Originally Posted by Monash View Post
    Having chased criminals for a living for many years now I am sure of one thing - its all about the money and the smart ones don't work for peanuts!
    There you go. Now you know why Al Gore is so desperate to push his global warming agenda. I'm not saying Al Gore is "smart" or anything... He's just smart enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by Monash View Post
    In conclusion if money is to be argued as the motive someone has to be able to show/chart significant cash flows on a global basis into pockets of climate scientists and I can't see that happening so ... what motive does that leave?
    They are employed right now. Are they not? What would they do otherwise?
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  5. #2045
    Global Moderator
    Dirty Kiwi
    Parihaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Wellington, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    18,177
    Quote Originally Posted by Monash View Post
    The two situations aren't comparible. Religious belief by default cannot be proved/disproved via scientific means. The existence or nonexistence of God cannot be proved or disproved via the application of the scientific method, neither can he??? be measured or subjected to statistical analysis. The theory of "global warming" is however ultimately provable/disprovable via the application of the scientific method and can be subjected to scientific and/or statisitical analysis.

    My point was that if you wan't to go down the "Global warming is a conspiracy" road you have to come with a motive - and I havn't seen a convincing one yet. You want to disprove it - go for broke but do it scientifically.

    On the other hand if you want to disprove the existence of God try studying theology, philosophy, theory of mind and consciousness etc and then be prepared to debate the issue with someone who disagrees, setting aside a reasonable period of time in which to do so (say from the beginning of the universe as we know it to the end) and still not reach a definitive answer!

    Alternativly you can simply wait until you die and then find out for yourself.....
    Your original two assertions were based purely on numbers, not science,
    Quote Originally Posted by Monash View Post
    ...why the vast majority of the world's climatologists, geophysicists, atmospheric scientists and members of various related disciplines...
    Quote Originally Posted by Monash View Post
    I can't recall seeing a logical/cogent reason for large numbers of professional scientists to engage in what amounts to fraud.
    as such your argument has nothing to do with science and everything to do with faith. My rebuttal stands. If on the other hand you wish to discuss the science, there are plenty here to address your issues.
    Cheers
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility

    Gottfried Leibniz

  6. #2046
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    22,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    Your original two assertions were based purely on numbers, not science,



    as such your argument has nothing to do with science and everything to do with faith. My rebuttal stands. If on the other hand you wish to discuss the science, there are plenty here to address your issues.
    Cheers
    But...but...but...we have a concensus...
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  7. #2047
    Idiot Mode [ON] OFF Senior Contributor YellowFever's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 Jul 06
    Posts
    5,437
    ...and it feels good to think you're saving the world dammit!
    Last edited by YellowFever; 17 Aug 11, at 20:00.

  8. #2048
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Mostly Harmless
    bigross86's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Aug 03
    Location
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    Posts
    14,063
    You can still recycle and feel like you're doing Geia a favor.
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

  9. #2049
    Global Moderator
    Devil's Advocate
    ArmchairGeneral's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 06
    Location
    Boston, MA.
    Posts
    4,668
    There is a consensus among climate scientists that AGW is real and significant. That consensus is evidence in favor of AGW. It is not sufficient in and of itself, as very popular scientific theories have been proven wrong (and not just incomplete) in the past. But it is evidence, especially for those of us who do not have sufficient knowledge to judge all avenues of evidence, or the time to gather and analyze that evidence.
    I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

  10. #2050
    Regular
    Join Date
    01 Mar 08
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by Monash View Post
    I can't recall seeing a logical/cogent reason for large numbers of professional scientists to engage in what amounts to fraud
    Go back about a year on this thread. A bunch of pro AGW conspirators got thier emails aired out in public literally admitting to lying thier asses off about the data. Its really a done deal at this point.

    Also, to save you the boredom of reading(at least the first few posts) this was to establish if AGW was real, not climate change.

    So the original question was and still is AFAIC, Is anthropogenic global warming real? In other words, did man cause it or is it nature?
    Last edited by Blue; 18 Aug 11, at 00:17.

  11. #2051
    Global Moderator
    Dirty Kiwi
    Parihaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Wellington, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    18,177
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral View Post
    There is a consensus among climate scientists that AGW is real and significant. That consensus is evidence in favor of AGW. It is not sufficient in and of itself, as very popular scientific theories have been proven wrong (and not just incomplete) in the past. But it is evidence, especially for those of us who do not have sufficient knowledge to judge all avenues of evidence, or the time to gather and analyze that evidence.
    Scientists 'Convinced' of Climate Consensus More Prominent Than Opponents, Says Paper - ScienceInsider
    How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus - WSJ.com
    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/The_failures_part_1.pdf
    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/The_...es_part_II.pdf
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility

    Gottfried Leibniz

  12. #2052
    Ex-Wabber Defense Professional
    Join Date
    10 Dec 04
    Posts
    7,029
    Quote Originally Posted by 7thsfsniper View Post
    ...Is anthropogenic global warming real? In other words, did man cause it or is it nature?
    Let me make a little prediction, lol.

    We are coming up on the solar maximum, and it's a weak one as we all know. The solar guys are saying we are in for 30 years of cooling. The planet is already cooling now, but that's beside the point.

    This is what's going to happen. The AGW modeling crowd will catch up to the rest of the solar system, then they will start modelling the cooling using their C02-WV hypothesis. Global temps will be measured, naturally they won't match the models.

    Then AGW crowd will announce with great concern and hooplah, that the cooling they predicted didn't materialize and things are more critical then they thought.

    This will be their irrefutable proof that man made C02 is causing global warming, and of course there will be consensus...
    "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

  13. #2053
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral View Post
    There is a consensus among climate scientists that AGW is real and significant
    The consensus stops when they try to take real money out of our pockets and put it into the banker's pockets.

    Why the hell should I pay an Ethiopian 3 cents per litre of gas just to warm my house in the winter in Canada when it's not even his gas ... and he won't see one single penny when it's put into trust by the banks.

    It's not the Ethiopian's gas. It's not even the bank's gas. It's my gas. I paid for it. Why the hell should I put some monies into a mythical bank that does nothing to curb carbon expenditures (my house still needs to be heated in winter in Canada) and pay some mythical carbon credits (the Ethiopian guy will never burn as much carbon as I would)
    to avoid a mythical situation that cannot be scientifically proven.

    Hell yeah, both India and China loves this scheme. They get monies for free ... as do the bankers.

  14. #2054
    Ex-Wabber Defense Professional
    Join Date
    10 Dec 04
    Posts
    7,029
    Well obviously Colonel it's because you have been exploiting the Ethiopians and it's time for you to pay your fair share. With every breath you exhale. (inhaling is still free, so what are you complaining about? Fullly one-half of breathing will remain unregulated, hell that's more than fair)

    Sure you're going to have to pay it to the bankers. The Ethiopian infrastructure isn't suited to take the money directly. But you can trust the bankers to give it to the Ethiopians, minus a small handling fee.

    The bankers are the epitome of trust. I mean, about the only people you can trust more than bankers are the government, right?
    Last edited by highsea; 18 Aug 11, at 04:33.
    "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

  15. #2055
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    You know what? I don't even burn gas at my farm. I burn iron wood. I challenge the Ethiopians to come up with a scheme that requires me to pay for Iron wood that I harvest myself. Hell, I own two Belgians. They expell a hell less carbon that an Ethiopian cattle herd. I demand the Ethiopians pay me for their cows' farts.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Strategic Bombing - Fact or Fiction
    By Shek in forum The Staff College
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 31 Mar 11,, 16:54
  2. 'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years
    By Shek in forum International Economy
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 27 Apr 09,, 23:09
  3. Robert E. Lee quote - fact or historical fiction?
    By Shek in forum American Civil War
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 28 Oct 08,, 14:49
  4. Global Warming - Kangaroo farts could ease global warming
    By PowerPunch in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07 Dec 07,, 06:30
  5. Fact about Taj Mahal and the global influence of Vedic culture.
    By mega-drive in forum International Politics
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 28 Aug 06,, 05:14

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •