Fox's Angle misrepresented NASA correction to claim 1934 is now "hottest year" on record
SUMMARY: On Special Report, Jim Angle reported that NASA was forced "to admit it was wrong when it said that 1998 was the hottest year on record" and that NASA "now says 1934 was the hottest year, followed by 1998, then 1921." But Angle did not inform viewers that NASA's revision affected annual temperature rankings for the United States only; it had no effect on the annual global temperature rankings.
During the "Political Grapevine" segment of the August 10 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, guest host and chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle reported that NASA was forced "to admit it was wrong when it said that 1998 was the hottest year on record" and that NASA "now says 1934 was the hottest year, followed by 1998, then 1921." But Angle did not inform viewers that NASA's revision affected annual temperature rankings for the United States only; it had no effect on the annual global temperature rankings. According to NASA climate modeler Gavin A. Schmidt, 2005 remains the warmest year globally in the instrumental record, followed by 1998.
Angle further stated that "five of the hottest 10 years on record occurred before World War II." In fact, this statement is true only for temperatures in the United States; according to NASA, all 10 of the warmest years globally in the instrumental record have occurred after 1989.
Angle's report was accompanied by an on-screen graphic reading: "1998 Not So Hot."
From the August 10 report:
ANGLE: The man behind the website climateaudit.org has forced NASA to admit it was wrong when it said that 1998 was the hottest year on record. Steve McIntyre had to reverse-engineer NASA's figures because the agency refused to give him the formula it used to make the claim. And McIntyre found out NASA had made a serious mistake. NASA eventually agreed and now says 1934 was the hottest year, followed by 1998, then 1921. In fact, five of the hottest 10 years on record occurred before World War II.
NASA recently corrected its climate figures after the discovery of inconsistencies in its U.S. temperature data. According to Schmidt, a climate modeler at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a contributor to the RealClimate blog (posting as "gavin"), the correction resulted in a re-ranking of NASA's list of the warmest years in the United States. For example, whereas 1998 was previously ranked as the warmest year for the United States, it is now ranked second, behind 1934. According to Schmidt, the temperature difference between 1934 and 1998 in the United States -- both before and after the correction -- is not statistically significant.
According to Schmidt, the effects of the correction on annual global and hemispheric temperature data are "imperceptible":
Last Saturday, Steve McIntyre wrote an email to NASA GISS pointing out that for some North American stations in the GISTEMP analysis, there was an odd jump in going from 1999 to 2000. On Monday, the people who work on the temperature analysis (not me), looked into it and found that this coincided with the switch between two sources of US temperature data. There had been a faulty assumption that these two sources matched, but that turned out not to be the case. There were in fact a number of small offsets (of both sign) between the same stations in the two different data sets. The obvious fix was to make an adjustment based on a period of overlap so that these offsets disappear.
This was duly done by Tuesday, an email thanking McIntyre was sent and the data analysis (which had been due in any case for the processing of the July numbers) was updated accordingly along with an acknowledgment to McIntyre and update of the methodology.
The net effect of the change was to reduce mean US anomalies by about 0.15 ºC for the years 2000-2006. There were some very minor knock on effects in earlier years due to the GISTEMP adjustments for rural vs. urban trends. In the global or hemispheric mean, the differences were imperceptible (since the US is only a small fraction of the global area).
There were however some very minor re-arrangements in the various rankings (see data). Specifically, where 1998 (1.24 ºC anomaly compared to 1951-1980) had previously just beaten out 1934 (1.23 ºC) for the top US year, it now just misses: 1934 1.25ºC vs. 1998 1.23ºC. None of these differences are statistically significant.
[...]
More importantly for climate purposes, the longer term US averages have not changed rank. 2002-2006 (at 0.66 ºC) is still warmer than 1930-1934 (0.63 ºC - the largest value in the early part of the century) (though both are below 1998-2002 at 0.79 ºC). (The previous version - up to 2005 - can be seen here).
In the global mean, 2005 remains the warmest (as in the NCDC analysis).
There are two common reasons for rejecting solidly supported, well-established science. The first of those is the development of better evidence supporting a different model. This happens, but is relatively rare. It's non-existent in the case of GW. The second is an emotion-based dislike of what the established science states. The reasons for the emotional reaction could be religious, personal convenience, an "ick-factor" or potential economic ramifications. Unfortunately, emotional opposition is extremely common for GW.
Since when is this alarmism that Al Gore and his friends are brodcasting "solidly supported" and "well-established"?
The science itself, at least that part of it which is sound, has failed to show that human activity is having any large scale effect on climate. In fact, the current small variations in climatic norms which have been measured are nothing out of the ordinary based on ice core proxy data. to. wit. Notice the enormous variations which have ocurred over the last 420,000 years? Notice that the changes we see today are right in scale with recent variations over the last 12,000 years representing the current interglacial period? And it isn't as warm today as it was at the end of the last glaciation by something like a full degree C. Nor has it ever been as warm in the present interglacial period as the warmest in any of the prior three. Ergo, if humans are indeed causing an effect, it cannot be shown to be dominating natural causes based on current temperatures, which is what this Media Matters thread is discussiing. In short, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference if it was 0.03 degree C warmer in 2005 than 1934. None of it has exceeded the natural norms by a wide margin.
If you don't like the above plot, since it is the notoriously unreliable wikipedia, you can get the raw data here.
Professional people with much more credibility than you or your source debunk what you say.
There have been numerous increases in global warming over the millennia, and there have been many periods of global cooling too.
That means nothing in regard to this. Humans are causing most of this global warming today, and that has been proven.
Previous instances of global warming happened when the Earth wasn't quite so jammed pack full of people, and when there weren't quite so many living on the coastlines as there are today, so global warming is a much more impactful event for those people.
Given that global warming is going to adversely affect the humans here today and here in 100 years, and given that much of the recent global warming is being caused by human activity and can be minimized by those very same humans, we have an obligation to pull your head out of the sand, or wherever else you have shoved it, and work on improving the survivability of future generations of humans.
Your "professional people" got heir clocks cleaned in an open debate by the "Global Warming Deniers" I notice that the big gun of Anthropogenic Global Warming, Dr. James E. Hansen of Columbia University, was a no-show even though this event was staged right in his own backyard. Maybe he had no stomach for an open debate of this proposition with the likes of Richard Lindzen? Sure looks that way, doesn't it? Debunked? You bet. But it was the alarmists and their bogus predictions who were debunked.
I presented facts in the post above, actual proxy measurements of prehistoric temperatures derived from the Vostok ice cores going back 420,000 years. How do you think you've debunked hard, cold fact with rhetoric? Where are your facts? I don't see any, just hot air.
My argument is based on hard fact and common sense, nothing more. I should not be surprised that liberals will trust the opinions of self-poclaimed experts who have been time and again proven wrong by experience in their predictiuons over common sense.
Last, by what arrogance does some whimpersnot like you determine what academic credentials, if any, that I may possess? For all you know I might even BE Dr. Richard Lindzen!
here's a couple quotes by your "deniers". they're in the link. philip stott: "so the debate is climate changing and are humans affecting climate change is actually nearly irrelevant. the answers are yes and yes and always will be." in other words, humans are affecting climate change, so therefore all you can do is accept it and need not worry about trying to change it.
michael chricton: "is the globe warming? yes. is the greenhouse effect real? yes. is carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, being increased by men? yes?" so where is his denial?
remove the question mark after the third yes. it's an unequivocal statement. check the link.
NL,
You aren't, you have no credentials and thus should not be arguing about the science.
If you were, you would reference your own great research that debunks this whole GW thing.
Therein lies the rub. There is no research that debunks Global Warming and as mefirst (I think)points out, your "deniers" admit that GW is real and manmade.
I just want to know, what other science are you trying to debunk? Is there some other current scientific research that we shouldn't believe or is this the only one that you take issue with?
Another ignoramus.
You miss the point completely. CO2 is at best, a third order term in the climate equation, many orders of manitude behind the Sun, and approximately one order of magnitude behind water vapor.
The GW contrarians all observe that any effect mankind is having on this system is dwarfed by natural variations. This is clearly demonstrated by the Vostok Ice core paleoclimate reconstruction. Another thing it thoroughly debunks are all the disingenuous claims made by global warming alarmists the world over about today being warmer than any time over the last two thousand years. The cores show that there have been several peaks similar to today in the last 10,000 years, one of which ocurred about 1,000-1500 years ago. Look at the data.
Now, since it is painfully obvious ou don't know anything at all about heat transfer of radiative absorption, I'll throw this bone. See if you can figure out what this report is telling you.
I don't trust "self-proclaimed experts". That would be something that apparently you would do, but not I. I trust experts who have published peer-reviewed studies. All those experts have come to a consensus that man-made global warming is real and a threat.
I suggest that you take a deep breath, cool down the rhetoric, and think about the Vostok study you linked. The chart shows that there is a correlation between temperature and greenhouse gas concentration. You are taking a cursory look at it and thinking that since there have been spikes in the past, and this one seems to be occurring at the regular interval, it is a natural phenomenon that we cannot control.
What you failed to realize, however, is that if we are unarguably spewing tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, wouldn't that make the rise in temperature occur more rapidly and to a higher extreme than the natural rise? By using the Vorstok study, you are already confirming your belief in the correlation.
I don't think that any scientist is necessarily arguing that no natural rise would occur without anthropogenic influences. What they are saying is that a managable rise is becoming a catostrophic event thanks to us.
that's the fatal flaw in much of the so called "logic" of the deniers. they claim there was change in the past so that disproves that what is happening now can be linked to burning massive amounts of fossil fuels. i've yet to hear anyone from the "science" side deny warming and cooling trends in the past. but what is going on now is overwhelming any natural trends. the deniers want to suspend the rules of science and say you can introduce massive change into the atmosphere and it makes no difference.
How about the logic that NASA's study is correct for the US, but not the world. Isn't the US still part of the world? When "global" warming is occuring, doesn't it occur over the entire globe? Mmfa did a poor job of irrationalizing the fact that global warming hasn't been as detrimental as made out to be, by fearmongers and select scientists.
yes, global as in an average over the entire globe.
Perhaps what needs to be done is to get the OTHER countries following the anti-global-warming plan? Since the US isn't being affected by it as badly as the rest of the world, shouldn't the focus of attention by fearmongers and select scientists be better utilized outside the US? I hear China and Russia need help, from the fearmongers, with global warming problems.
glad you agree it's a problem.
Never said it wasn't a problem. I'm just not stupid enough to believe every word said by Gore, on the subject...like so many others are.
Auto,
Maybe you need to do more reading or something because you made some pretty foolish statements that fly in the face of actual facts.
Global warming means that the average temperature over the entire globe is rising.
In individual countries or climate regions, the temps might go up, go down, or remain the same. When the temps around the world on average go up, all kinds of waterfall effects will be seen in scattered locations around the world.
The adjustment to the US temps and the list of the hottest years doesn't change manmade global warming.
The adjustment to the US temps and the list of the hottest years doesn't change manmade global warming.
No, it doesn't change the effects. But, it does show that the liberal claim that all our SUV's and other gas hogs aren't the main cause of the problem. Maybe even only a minor contributor. When the liberals start actually complaining about the CAUSE and stop whining about perceived causes then I'll believe they have a point in their complaints. However, they whine about US fuel consumption and give China, India, Russia and most of Europe a free pass on what actually contributes to the problem of global warming. How many liberals do you hear saying China must stop polluting? Hell, they're still using lead paint, you expect them to accept global warming restrictions?
The only reason liberals are whining about pollution in the US is because they won't get sent to prison for it. Try doing your whining in one of the countries listed above and see how long you stay free. If you people had real balls you'd actually whine about the real cause and not some made up fluff-stuff that you know you can get away with because your safe from prison. Put your ars on the line and I'll bet 99% of you would stop whining. Which seems like typical liberalism....whine until you own ars is affected, then all of a sudden it's 'let it be, let it be'.
You hit on economic ramifications for GWB and his oil buds. They'd still like to pimp us all the oil our SUVs can waste and make a huge profit. Cheney, baby Bush and their cronies still need the Iraqis to sign that oil law so they certainly don't want any GW science to get in their stinkin' way.
You hit on economic ramifications for GWB and his oil buds. They'd still like to pimp us all the oil our SUVs can waste and make a huge profit.
With all the left wingers who still buy all the SUV's they can, I don't think they'd like you calling them 'buds' of GW and Cheney.
Personally, I'd like to see the world run out of oil (like we all know it will one day), that would stop all worries about future profits from gas prices. It would even force developement of safer power sources. Which won't happen until there is no oil. And neither political party will advance safer power sources until that happens. History has already proven that.
Yes Auto,
All those leftwingers that buy SUV's, no rightwingers buy them correct?
Also, how do SUV owners profit like the Oil Companies?
Sure rightwingers buy them. They just don't whine about the gas they use, like the leftwingers do. The leftwingers buy them AND complain about high gas prices AND complain about low milage AND complain about how they cause global warming AND complain about how they put money in the pockets of GW and his cronies.
Yes now all complainers are lefties. You really are a tool. Try thinking on your own for once without listening to dopey talking points and blaming all lefties for everything that is wrong.
It may be a shock to you, but YES leftwingers are ALL complainers. Rightwingers are ALL do'ers. Left: complain, right: do. Maybe it ain't all done right, but the right are the only ones who do it. The left just complains about what needs to be done.
Maybe that would explain why the military is mainly 'rightwing' and protesters are mainly leftwing. Do you get it now?
Auto,
Your arguments are so infantile. All rightwingers good all leftwingers bad.
If that's the case and you know it to be true then please provide a single verifiable statistic that shows this in regards to the military, in regards to doing things.
Please provide an example of rightwingers doing somehting!
For example, I can point to many current prominent liberal Democrats that served in the military, how many current Republicans have served?
You see, it's stupid to make lame generalizations lik eyou do especially when the are untrue.
Next time stick to the facts and leave the lies for the politicians.
good call.
Nobody discusses National warming. it's Global Warming what matters.
We're all too familiar with how the righties love to drag out the irony during a cold snap, further instilling their apparently widespread failure to grasp the difference between weather and climate.
Doesn't it get even more amusing when that same irony goes on hiatus during a heat wave?
More like the left's basic inability to distinguish amongst media hype, junk science, and real science. This intellectual shortfall does not even include sorting good science from sloppy science, and a lot of what passes for Climate Science these days is most certainly sloppy science.
More like the left's basic inability to distinguish amongst media hype, junk science, and real science.
I don't care so much what "the left" thinks. More important to me is the consensus opinion of 2100 of the top scientists around the world. The IPCC report. Simple attacks on the character of "the left" is a way to ignore the BEST study and analysis of the junk science, myth etc. that is floated about.
Oh wait don't tell me, those darn lefty scientists are all lying to us. That's the ticket.
--ML
It never fails to amaze me that people on this blog are willing to engage the head-in-the-sand, fingers-in-their-ears global warming naysayers. Why do you bother? If I came on and posted that I don't believe that the Earth is, in fact, ROUND, and that "reasonable people can disagree on the question of whether or not the Earth travels around the sun," would you try to engage me in debate?
I, for one, won't waste my time with these morons. They are either ignorant or don't care- either way, they aren't worth debating.
Have you ever seen the names of the 2100 top scientists and their educational achievements?
Yes and they are all very competent scientists.
And what does the "real science" tell us? That we can keep on polluting our air without consequence?
So any data that disagrees with your position is sloppy science? Ridiculous. The vast majority of the scientific community agree on this issue. Their agreement conflicts with your beliefs. But then again, the releasing of tons of carbon compounds into the atmosphere is probably good for the planet, right... Homer Simpson er.. NL27?
Yes NL,
You are the climate expert.
I thought that the rightwingers in the know had moved beyond arguing if there was any global warming or not . It seems that Jim Angle was trying to convey news that would suposedly argue the existance of GW . In my experience now is that most discussion is about whether global warming is man-made or if it is due to natural cycles and therefore beyond human control . Now with the melting of the polar caps it has become too obvious that there is GW and it is severe so the denyer camp has shifted their arguing so they don't deny GW but rather deny the human footprint on GW . Maybe Mr. Angle should take some notes from his fellow denyers and try to keep in-step with them so they can have their story together . After all any group of people telling a lie needs to work on their story and keep it together .
I thought that the rightwingers in the know had moved beyond arguing if there was any global warming or not.
Sometimes they're beyond that even. The trend seems to admit global warming is occuring and that humans are contributing. However, the argument now is that global warming may not be a bad thing, or at least not as important as other issues.
To me that seems a little like arguing that a flat tire is more important when the road may be approaching a cliff. We won't be certain about how big of a cliff - or even that we drove off the cliff - until we hit bottom on the other side. The flat tire is a problem, but we also can't ignore where we're going.
But returning to your comment, the reality is probably yes and no. Deniers concede the points, on global warming and human contribution, until some other data is misinterpreted as casting doubt.
The denial folks get the cover of this weeks Time Magazine. Their far from dead or toothless.
YOU did not read the article? The time mag article bashes the Deniers. It is very one sided.
It's one sided because there's really only one side.
I wasn't suggesting that the GW denyers were gone but rather that they have moved the goal posts .
Actually I was being a little sarcastic . I have gotten into discussions and debates with people I work with and run into out and around . It usually starts with talk of weather then evolves into a discussion of GW . It is amusing sometimes to here some uninformed illogical person make statements about the weather being cool and that therefore GW is a hoax .Of course this leads to a discussion on GW where the denyer uses their own recollection of the weather sometimes with a few personal ancedotes to supposedly prove that there is no GW . As the discussion continues somewhere the denyer will suddenly switch gears to explain that GW is caused by Solar activity and talk of polar icecaps on Mars or Global climate patterns and past ice ages . Of course this implies that modern society has no real impact on the climate so that it is not our fault and there is nothing that can be done anyways so why bother . I have seen this strange shift in arguing GW on more than one occasion . Jim Angles comments reminded me of the same inconsistancies I have noticed talking to other denyers .
NPR broadcast a debate on global warming. You can listen to the broadcast or read the transcript. You can find it at intelligencequaredus.org.
Three pro-global warming speakers debated three anti-global warming speakers. The audience was polled before the debate with the following results:
30% believed GW was not a crisis
57% believed GW was a crisis
13% were undecided
After the debate the audience was again polled with the following results:
46% believed that GW was not a crisis
42% believed that GW was a crisis
12% were undecided
After listening to the debate...the audience tilted significantly away from the belief in a global warming crisis...read or listen to it yourself...if you've got the courage to test your beliefs.
good thing we base science on polls huh?
Well, since it seems that we all have an opinion one way or the other, it's worth taking a look at, right? And since those debating in the debate are highly qualified individuals, they are also worth hearing. Listen to the debate for yourself, and then you decide. I'm sure, unless you are in the field yourself, you are like most of the world and don't have time to get the proper education and do the research yourself to determine whether GW is our fault or not. So, why not listen to those who actually know what they're talking about, and decide for yourself. Saying this issue won't be based on polls is wrong as this is such a "hot" topic (pardon the pun) and will be a factor in future elections. This discussion is very political now, how can you not say it's not about the polls? Listen for yourself, and then you decide.
Since we all can't investigate man-made global warming on our own, we do need to rely upon professionals.
If we rely upon professionals who rely upon proven scientific methodology to come to conclusions, then the debate is over. There is a consensus among the professionals on this that man-made global warming has been happening. This is as much of a fact as gravity is.
If the public is swayed by biased info, which they've been on a bunch of other issues, then that only proves that they can be swayed by biased information. It doesn't prove that the incorrect information suddenly becomes correct.
Here's a little info from the debate about your comments:
- If we rely upon professionals who rely upon proven scientific methodology to come to conclusions, then the debate is over...Consensus is not science...you don't use consensus if you have proof...the IPCC honestly admits that we know very little about 80% of the factors behind climate change.
- There is a consensus among the professionals on this that man-made global warming has been happening...It is perfectly possible for the consensus of scientists to be wrong and it is perfectly possible for small numbers of people to be in opposition and be proven true.
There is no proof of global warming...like the proof about gravity. There is a lot of credible information that suggests global warming is real...but it is far from a proven fact...it is simply a theory.
Consensus is not science...you don't use consensus if you have proof.
of course, there is no "proof" you would ever accept.
Okay Wesley,
The consensus thus far is that Global Warming is real and manmade. There is no science that disputes this.
Then why do you hang onto something that has no basis in science yet denounce the real science?
I just can't figure people like you out.
I would agree that the consensus claims that GW is real and man-made.
Yet the consensus has yet to provide any proof. Someone earlier claimed that the GW crisis is as proven as gravity...sorry wrong.
The results of gravity can be predicted and repeated...while the science of GW can only give theories based on a sliding scale of predictability...nothing provable or repeatable.
I am not denouncing the science of the GW crowd...I am claiming that consensus has yet to provide the proof and the debate is far from over...and I refuse to be stampeded over the cliff with the rest of the sheep.
Consensus is not science...you don't need consensus if you have proof...a fact proven by many scientific "deniers" of consensus in the past.
Wesley,
There is no absolute 100% proof in any science. The problem with your stance on this is that every bit of science that has been conducted to this point shows that global warming is real and that it is manmade.
The consensus is among the scientists doing the research not us.
There is no proof that it is not occuring so your statements make no sense.
Either you believe in science and the scientific method or you don't. If you don't, then it doesn't matter what proof is presented, does it?
As I have asked other posters here with your take on Global Warming, what other science do you "disagree" with? If the answer is none, then what is it about this science that you can't seem to come to terms with?
There is no proof because the trend at the moment and the facts point toward a slight increase in the overall temperature of the earth, and no one is disputing that. So, if we're all in agreement that the earth is warming, then of course there will be no evidence to support that GW is not happening. The issue here is whether or not this particular cycle is out of the ordinary and a greater temperature change has occurred than in the past. Many who oppose the notion that this is a crisis are simply stating that this is a part of the cycle the earth has been on for thousands of years.
Take the news clippings from articles in the 1970s, about the earth cooling. I'm sure those are all in favor of the notion that GW is a huge crisis also thought that GC (Global Cooling) was as big of a problem. Why is it so impossible to believe that this is simply a natural cyble of the earth? The earth has not warmed or cooled at a greater rate. The only difference is that scientists have indicated that we are emitting a greater number of harmful gases than normal. Am I in favor of individuals being mindful of their surroundings and being good stewards of the earth....of course. But to create a frenzy about a natural cycle that has is still in its natural course is ridiculous.
Please,
Recycle something else that is stupid, no tthe same old stuff about "cooling" over and over again. As was stated here many times there was no consensus nor was there any peer reviewed research that showed global cooling.
That's apples and oranges my friend.
Also Smitty,
Don't you think that maybe scientists who study the climate are aware of natural cycles and take this into account when they do their research.
What is with you people that think they know more than someone who is studying in the field and is doing research.
Do you think you know more about disease than your doctor, do you think you know more about cars than your mechanic. Maybe you know more about chemical reactions than a chemist or why don't you explain to me the theory of relativity, you must know more than Einstein did.
You can call it recycling, but I call it the same as you do....unwilling to accept the truth. You are making something out of nothing. You are right, I won't do the research because I'm not qualified to do so. But neither are you my friend. Are you not simply taking what scientists are feeding you and swallowing it, no questions asked? What scientists did you talk to sir? Can you name them for me? I would like to talk with them myself and ask some questions, is that alright with you? Or, have you heard the mind numbing rhetoric repeated over and over by Al Gore, and this is your basis for truth? Are you not simply what Al Gore told you and holding to it? Unless you yourself sit down with a scientist and have everything explained to you, you have no validity. We are all just ramblers who think they know something. Nothing you say about what this scientist said or that scientist said is going to convince anyone who has some intellect. It's amazing how this topic has blown up in the last five years because Al Gore has made so many speeches on it and even a movie.
what's interesting is that this particular thread starts with wesley talking about the debate. but if you look at the comments of the so-called "deniers", i have a couple comments by them posted further back. they are not denying that man is having an effect.
Smitty,
You are truly nuts. You are going to ask the scientists to explain it to you because you have questions. What questions? You don't even know enough to know what questions to ask.
Have you questioned any other scientists? What other science do you question? I'd be interested to know because you obviously don't trust any science. So please tell me what else have scientists forced me to swallow?
- what other science do you "disagree" with? - skeptical
From The Tech at MIT:
- MIT students shy away from the notion that Absolute Truths exist and can be discovered...that students here are not indoctrinated with the misconceptions about science
- the best science recognizes the basic uncertainty of human knowledge, and by this recognition frees itself from the dogmatic belief that once a problem appears to be solved, it is solved for good.
- Science works because no fact or belief is ever taken as being final; all knowledge is provisional, and postulates, methods, and conclusions are at all times open to the critical scrutiny not only of the researchers conducting the work, but also of the scientific community at large.
- Controversy and discussion of competing ideas are a sure sign of good science in progress; when people start getting complacent, when they claim that all the important problems are solved, or that the final word has been spoken about a particular phenomena, we should be wary.
I am very wary of those that cling to consensus science. They are truly the ones that are close-minded and willing to be led unquestioningly by the nose...the real flat-earthers.
Wesley,
What's your point. No one here disputes that. We just have no basis for denying Global Warming and neither does anyone else.
If you want to remain a flat-earther...and follow lock-step with GW advocates that proclaim the recent warming is a crisis...be my guest.
I'll maintain a healthy dose of skepticism for a group that makes dire predictions...while claiming to know very little about the entire complex situation surrounding climate change...i.e. the IPCC.
Failing to pass the basic competency test of recording temperatures correctly is enough to question the crediblity of GW research.
The IPCC asserts that GW is a crisis and man-made...yet they cannot back that up with proof...only sliding scales of probability...their best guesses.
My point? The issue is far from settled and the debate is certainly not closed. Consensus is not science.
Wesley,
Then please tell me what other science that you question or is it only this one? If it's only this science, then please explain why.
As far as I can tell you have no basis to question it except ideology.
So enlighten me as to what your rationale is for picking this science versus others to question.
Also Wesley,
Do you understand that it was the flat earthers who denied science not the other way around.
Good analogy!
Oh so wrong...it was the efforts of those that believed the earth was round that refuted the earlier consensus claim that the world was flat.
The true deniers of today are the flat-earthers who refuse to doubt the consensus of GW...those that claim that GW is settled science.
You don't need consensus...if you have proof.
Finally Wesley,
How do you figure the IPCC provides no proof? Also, if the matter isn't settled, who are the scientists and what is the research the disputes the IPCC report?
The IPCC has provided no provable or repeatable proof...they have provided estimates...based on computer models.
Don't talk in circles...I have already provided the NPR debate that featured scientists that disputed the facts that GW is a crisis. And you can drop the sham of "peer reviewed" science...peer reviewed science wasn't even able to record the termperature correctly.
Well Wesley,
Thanks for clearing that up for me. I now doubt Global warming. Could you please answer mefirst's question though.
Thanks
Atta boy...nothing wrong with a little skepticism from one with the name of skeptical.
You're welcome.
i quoted this before, but i'll get your direct comment on it. michael chricton: "is the globe warming? yes. is the greenhouse effect real? yes. is carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, being increased by men? yes." that's one of your so called doubters and he seems to be saying carbon dioxide produced by man is contributing to the greenhouse effect.
He didn't "seem" to be saying anything...he said it very plainly.
What you can't find is his support for the alarmists that claim GW is a crisis...nothing but the typical red herring and deflection.
And now I'll go back to my mode of ignoring that type of inane posting.
Wesley,
I think he said that global warming is real and is caused by man.
Do you think the world will stay the same if the temperature continues to rise?
Oh I forgot, I don't believe in science anymore because Wesley said so.
Of course that's what he said...what's your point?
I'll say this slowly...I am not disputing the entire body of evidence...including the IPCC. I am disputing that the issue is settled and ignoring on-going and future evidence that is contrary to "consensus science" is patently foolish...and practiced by the real deniers...the flat-earthers.
Evidence to cite a warming planet...certainly.
Evidence to cite "with proof" that it is a crisis and that man can stop the warming...certainly not.
After all...what is the perfect global temperature?
One where we live the same way that we have been for the last couple of centuries.
What kind of stupid question is that?
Because we don't know what effect it will have we ignore it.
That's flat earth baby!
Maybe we need to admit that it could be a problem and figure out how we deal with it rather than try to ignore it as you advocate.
What is your problem anyway? Do you think pollution is also good? How about those damn vaccines? Let's get rid of them, we don't know that they really work anyway. It was a scientist who invented them and we can't trust science.
You are really deranged. You've gone in a complete circle and now admit everything I said could be right it's just not a crisis!
Wow! I'm stunned at your ignorance and myopic outlook.
What is the perfect temperature?
- One where we live the same way that we have been for the last couple of centuries. - skeptical
Oh the vanity...there are millions of people across the globe that would take real exception with your simplistic and selfish view.
I do not advocate ignoring the consensus science of global warming...I am not convinced that it will reach catastrophic proportions...or that man-made warming is the leading cause...but ignore...not hardly.
The climate in Milwaukee is just perfect...The climate in Phoenix is just perfect...The climate in Boise is just perfect...oh my aching side.
since you seem to be having trouble with the concept. rapidly changing temperatures will produce massive disruptions in certain places due to rising seas. millions of people can be displaced with almost nowhere else to go, in places like bangladesh.
Thanks...I forgot to include...the climate in Bangladesh is just perfect.
Okay Wesley,
I provide the IPCC report, what research can you show me that disproves the Global warming theory?
You assume a lot and speak in hypotheticals often. I went and checked out some of that piece. No doubt, they know more than me. But I read, and I also found that these rising water levels will only be useful in helping to absorb the excess of carbon dioxide emissions into the air. It appears to me that when carbon levels go back down after being absorbed, the earth will cool, and the water levels will go back down.
you say you're denying that the issue is settled, yet the people you offer as proof, the three in the debate, all agree that man is contributing to it. sounds settled to me. all they and you seem to be arguing about is semantics: is it a "crisis"?
Wesley,
One more question. What other science should I not believe? I can't recall if you question all science or just this science.
well, it's a consensus that gravity exists. that's why wesley won't be jumping off any ten story buildings.
it's sort of interesting that the audience members had to pay $40 to attend the debate.
People who know what they're talking about say that global warming is as proven as gravity.
If you deny that, then you deny reality.
Well algore certainly believes that.
I'll certainly take an honest look if you can point me to evidence that global warming or climate change can be predicted as certainly as can the results of gravity.
maybe you could comment on this.
http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm
Sure...not one mention of climate change being as certain as gravity...and they're using debunked temperature data.
Correction: I think you meant www.intelligencesquaredus.org
I’ll keep this in mind the next time America holds an election and votes on whether or not to enact global warming.
I love how one of the three global warming deniers is author Michael Crichton. I mean who wouldn't be swayed by the scientific authority that gave us Jurassic Park and State of Fear?
Got a link to this "NPR Global Warming Debate" and the polling?
Vysotsky gave the link a few posts up. Here's another link that recaps the debate:
[link to www.intelligencesquaredus.org]
How ironic! Or is it?
30% believed GW was not a crisis
Is this the same 30% who believe the other G.W. is also not a crisis?
Very nice!
Hey, aren't you one of the folks who came to my defense the other day when I corrected a word in a person's post and he got pretty offended? I guess I shouldn't have done that, but thanks for the backup anyway (to all of you who helped).
Yeah, that was me who you corrected. I had a lapse in brain function and wrote irregardless instead of irrespective. It IS a common error and it does exist. I think I overreacted, and I'll admit to that. That doesn't change the fact that you chose to unload your petty pet peeves (no matter how "polite" you tried to past that off) on me, nor does that excuse any of you that defended his actions, especially those who tried to pile on.
Just for the record, MY pet peeve is when people (left, center, or right) try to nitpick at other people's little spelling and grammar mistakes or even misusage. Cause ya know what, everyone makes mistakes. What's really sad is that I usually see those tactics used by wingnuts and neo-cons posters that peruse these threads. I never thought people that I agree with politically would stoop to such nonsense. I see now that I should not have been so naive.
Please go to the Cillizza thread (Friday, August 10th) and read the exchange between HBL and myself (you may have to flip through the comment pages). I will not try to rehash something out of context here and now. The message will be clear and effective in it's original context.
"neo-cons" should read neo-con.
You see what you've done to me! Now I am correcting myself ;-)
yikes,
there's another
"past" should read "pass"
My pleasure, Kevino
I've worked as a proofreader for about twenty years, both professionally and voluntarily (Michigan Chess magazine), not to mention my years as a teacher. Errors tend to jump out at me. I could spend all my waking hours highlighting them here, but there's nothing to be gained from that.
If I point out someone's errors, there are three reasons: (1) I'm directly quoting, and don't want anyone to think I'm misquoting by inserting errors where none existed; (2) in the case where there are many errors, my raising the likelihood of the correlation between poor thinking and poor presentation; (3) for the sake of irony--if someone else has gone beyond the bounds of fairness to highlight a mistake (we all make them, after all), then naturally his own efforts are fair game.
My desire is that we all present our ideas as best we can. There's one fellow on board (he calls himself "Right-Winger," rather like the circus giant calling himself "Tiny") who types in all caps and avoids almost all punctuation. While he and I tend to agree on the issues, his posts are so hard to read that I usually don't bother. I have much more respect for the conservative who can make a thoughtful point and present it in a readable way.
By the way, thanks on the previous post; I thought that "30%" and "G.W." was a rather glaring juxtaposition.
And DTrain, I like your stuff, please keep it up. We liberals are not lemmings (and I can say the same for real conservatives, unlike the neocons), and we can disagree on any number of things, but we need to govern our passions.
"I've worked as a proofreader for about twenty years, both professionally and voluntarily (Michigan Chess magazine), not to mention my years as a teacher." A proofreader/teacher no less... how appropriate. Seriously though, in a non-formal, open atmosphere like this, you might want to keep those skills to yourself... unless it's called for via the criterion you cite below. Not that I agree with all of them."Errors tend to jump out at me. I could spend all my waking hours highlighting them here, but there's nothing to be gained from that."That was essentially my beef in this case. We can all find errors. They're easy to find, and they're easy to make. Why start trying to call someone out on it (unprovoked)?"If I point out someone's errors, there are three reasons:""(1) I'm directly quoting, and don't want anyone to think I'm misquoting by inserting errors where none existed;"But why do you feel the need to do that in the first place? Is this criteria alone enough for you to start correcting people? That's kind of scary. What happens when the shoe is on the other foot?"(2) in the case where there are many errors, my raising the likelihood of the correlation between poor thinking and poor presentation"
How about you try a different tactic. Instead of acting like someone's overbearing high school English teacher, why don't you just ask them to clarify or re-word? If they were rude and condescending to you however, that is a completely different story. In that case, you have Carte Blanche to lambaste the offender as you see fit.
"(3) for the sake of irony--if someone else has gone beyond the bounds of fairness to highlight a mistake (we all make them, after all), then naturally his own efforts are fair game."
What are those "bounds of fairness" for you? Do you think its fair that Kevino unloaded his pet peeve on me about the word "irregardless"? What of your own efforts to highlight some of my trivial mistakes as a "pile on" maneuver? Would it be fair for me to use your own criteria against you?
"My desire is that we all present our ideas as best we can."Spot on, I could not agree more. There's just one problem. Who is the judge of our individual best? Is it you? If our ideas don't come out as planned or we make an honest mistake, what should happen according to you?"There's one fellow on board (he calls himself 'Right-Winger', rather like the circus giant calling himself "Tiny") who types in all caps and avoids almost all punctuation. While he and I tend to agree on the issues, his posts are so hard to read that I usually don't bother."I know what you mean, and that was your decision to make. On that note, I'm gonna do this ONLY once to prove a point.You mentioned that mistakes tend to jump out at you. They do for me as well...
Your use of the word rather above:
"...rather like the circus giant calling himself 'Tiny' "
draws an inference of contrast between two ironic monikers - Tiny(name for a large guy) and Right-Wing(Posts from a Liberal/Progressive perspective); quite the opposite of your original intention, which, rest assured, I am astutely aware of. If you change "rather" to say "much", the analogy - your original intention - is now apparent.
"I have much more respect for the conservative who can make a thoughtful point and present it in a readable way."
So do I... I give a lot of credit to (much as I hate to say it) Tommy in that regard.
"And Dtrain, I like your stuff, please keep it up. We liberals are not lemmings (and I can say the same for real conservatives, unlike the neocons), and we can disagree on any number of things, but we need to govern our passions."
I appreciate the compliment. I'll try to post more often.
I don't pay attention to polls that are taken both before and after a debate to determine the winner of the debate . I think they would be too easy to sabotage by anyone who was intellectually dishonest . Only the most gullible people would take such numbers seriously .
No one asked you to believe it.
<open braille tag>read or listen to it yourself...if you've got the courage to test your beliefs.<close braille tag>
Polls don't determine who wins a debate, nor who is right. I am well aware of the polling of this debate, and it was discussed on realclimate.org. The problem with debates, this blog pointed out, is that they don't settle scientific matter, because one debator can counter real facts with bogus facts, and how is the audience to know who tells the truth?
For that reason, science works by peer reviewed papers and data.
So I don't need courage to listen to the debate, nor does it change my view that virtually every single scientist on Earth is correct, and the denialists are not.
have a scientific leg to stand on, they can put a good speaker on the stage and spin convincing arguments that are especially appealing to the gullible public.
People, in general, want to hear good news. They want their opinions verified. That's one of the reasons that Rush Limbaugh and liars like him have found such a pliable audience among angry white men and their doting wives.
Oops. Chopped off the first sentence:
Debates are more about style than substance. That's why scientists don't like to debate Creationists. Even though Creationists don't have a scientific leg to stand on, they can put a good speaker on the stage and spin convincing arguments that are especially appealing to the gullible public.
People, in general, want to hear good news. They want their opinions verified. That's one of the reasons that Rush Limbaugh and liars like him have found such a pliable audience among angry white men and their doting wives.
and how is the audience to know who tells the truth?
And there is the real crux of the problem. The question of global climate change is so complex that scientist not in that field can barely discuss it intelligently. It takes a tremendous amount of scientific knowledge to even evaluate the wide ranging evidence.
It's a laughable suggestion that the average citizen or pundit could make ANY meaningful evaluation. One only has to read the debates on realclimate.org to see the difficulties.
I've had formal training in thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, physics, and chemistry and I find the scientific issues very hard to follow.
No thanks, I wouldn't ask my auto mechanic or hair dresser if I need brain surgery. I'm not surely going to take the word of a politician or talk show host about AGW.
--ML
Cripes, something like 90% of Americans believe that a magic man in the sky put a naked man in a garden about 6000 years ago, and when he saw that the naked man was lonely, he made a naked woman to keep him company, and then when the naked man and the naked woman did something to make him angry, he cast him out, and that's how the human race was born.
Thomas More: "Some people say that the Earth is round, others, that the Earth is flat. It is a matter of debate. But if it is flat, can our words make it round, and if it is round, can our words flatten it? No." Who gives a flying crap what some POLL says? Polls can't change the nature of the universe, can't turn water into wine and can't change the fact that human activity is contributing to global warming. The only question is, are people going to stop denying the science and do something about it, or are they going to continue to take comfort in the crackpot deniers until the Magic Man in the sky comes and rescues us?
JJ,
Words like yours full of contempt for people's religion do not help your cause one bit.
I would compare your description of the book of Genesis as just as simpleminded as you claim Christians are toward science.
One might even say your comments come across as bigoted against Christian. After all, not all GW deniers are so because of their religion. Would you disagree?
I am not bigoted against anybody. But I don't waste time getting into arguments with people who want to talk about Arks and 6000-year old planets and how dinosaurs never existed and how the continents aren't shifting. If you want to call me bigoted toward people who base their belief systems on what I consider to be obvious fairy tales, be my guest. I don't feel obligated to indulge adults who want to spend their lives looking at the world like starry-eyed children. And I sure as hell don't trust them to make rational policy based on science, because they'd rather embrace mythology.
Oh by the way, I'm not trying to win an argument here. I didn't know thats what this thread was for. I thought it was about expressing one's opinions and ideas. My bad.
Here, Here!
Oh and BTW you are absolutely right that a lot of people who deny global warming do so in terms that are not religious at all, I was wrong to lump all the idiots into one camp. Some do it to protec their profits, others do it out of sheer ignorance.
You're also right in "accusing" me of having contempt for religious beliefs among adults. That's absolutely true, I do. The same contempt I would have for adults if they professed a strong belief in the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus, which as far as I'm concerned is as rational as a belief in God.
Wesley,
Great Debate. Three people currently studying climate change and three people who are not. Now see if you can guess what the three people currently studying climate change believe?
Also, if the three deniers really believe what the say, why not do some research and publish it and prove the GW people wrong?
I really do not care what FOX or NASA says, when I walk around the past few years it seems much hotter than when I was a kid. Things are different today, the air is different and the storms we have are more intense. Look what happened in NYC this week with the rain in 2 hrs it shut down that city. Anyone who claims this is not global warming is in complete denial.
It is ridiculous for one to believe they can feel a difference in temperature from when they were a kid. Even if the average temperature has changed a degree or two from your childhood (which it hasn't) you wouldn't be able to tell and think it's drastically warmer since you were younger. From the way you speak, one would think you lived in Siberia during your childhood, and in the Sahara at the present time.
No one asked you to believe it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the point of posting numbers from a poll on a debate if you don't want them to be believed in . It's obvious that you were making a statement with those poll numbers when you posted them so it is clear that you wanted them to be believed . I pointed out my skepticism in such before/after poll results to determine a winner of a debate and you come up with a lame answer stating you weren't asking me to believe in them .It smells like backpedalling to me . As for your challenge to review the transcripts for the debate I will take you up on that challenge later on . I am always open to discussion and having my beliefs challenged .
There are people who have been hired by GWB and the oil companies to discount GW. They can be very persuasive if you listen without being able to do your own follow up with actual facts. You can not win an argument with liars. A poll done after a presentation in which I could not verify the facts is of little value. These people hired by oil companies to discount GW have put doubt in people's heads and that's what their value is. These oil companies don't want people to change the way they consume their resources. It's not hard to understand why there is a push back from the oil companies. But it is shortsighted and dangerous for people like GWB to be politicizing GW the way he has to benefit himself and his cronies. It's despicable but what's new with that from this president?
What makes the whole GW debate so frustrating is that its treated as another debate. There shouldn't be equal coverage on both sides of this issue. What should be given time on the air should be solely determined by what the actual science shows(not including what some high paid hack of a scientist from an oil company says either). This means if science finds evidence to show GW isn't happening so be it that should be showed, and if they find evidence that it is happening show that. These stupid points about when the hottest temperature was in the US was is meaningless. It disingenuous by design since the average person won't be able to tell what the data means, and it can cause them to jump to a completely wrong conclusion. All Angle did was give a false impression of pointless data to disprove GW, but in reality this data shows nothing that would change what is happening within the science community about GW.
Because according to the MM, there is no fact and fiction anymore. There's no True story and False story. There's just This Opinion and That Opinion. We saw that with the Swift Boat episode- on one side, here are the relevant documents and the testimonials from the people who were actually there. On the other side, here's a smear group made up of people who WEREN'T there and who had ZERO documentation to back up their charges. How did the MM handle this? "Here's one side, here's another side, honest people can disagree." Same with the global warming "debate." Here's science, here's the screeching of the naysayers, let's treat them with equal weight, honest people can disagree. Except when the sun is shining, you don't really need a debate over whether the sun is shining. Unless the MM is involved.
A small point maybe, but it irks me nonetheless.
"Reverse engineer" NASA figures? How about recalculate? Revise? Alter? Modify? Amend? Change? Grab a thesaurus why don't you?
If we are talking about statistical analysis I don't see how the tern Angle used fits. From Wiki:
Reverse engineering (RE) is the process of discovering the technological principles of a device or object or system through an abductive analysis of its structure, function and operation[citation needed]. It often involves taking something (e.g. a mechanical device, an electronic component, a software program) apart and analyzing its workings in detail, usually to try to make a new device or program that does the same thing without copying anything from the original.
At the risk of being off topic, I'm not as confident in NASA as I once was. Here we are, 26 years after the first Shuttle flight, and they still haven't found a better heat shield system? Once again, the Shuttle team faces a fiery death because those ridiculously fragile heat tiles have been damaged. I mean, these guys are rocket scientists aren't they? There has to be a better way.
While we're at it, maybe somebody can explain to me why, as we approach the fortieth anniversary of landing a man on the moon, we are spending billions of dollars to orbit the Earth with shuttles. What is this accomplishing, exactly? Haven't we just been spinning our wheels since the 1970s? Is someone just not willing to admit that there really isn't anything left to do as far as traveling in space is concerned, because admitting this might lead to the slashing of NASA's budget?
That's an interesting point, since the animations I've seen of proposed Lunar expeditions or Martian expeditions don't use Shuttles. In fact, it looks like they may be reverting back to Apollo-type systems.
I think they realize that going back to the moon or to mars will be so prohibitively expensive that they'll never get the funding.
I'm sure you're right. So we are going to spend the next hundred years or so spending billions of dollars orbiting the earth thousands of times and accomplishing basically nothing. Can we PLEASE get back to planetary rovers, deep-space satelites, etc. and dump this pointless shuttle nonsense?
To all the AGW proponents, will you please answer these questions...or go away. 1. What is your solution?2. If your solution involves a carbon tax, then what taxes will you decrease to make it revenue neutral.3. If it involves the carbon trading scheme and offsets, who will decide what the allocations are. In other words, who decides which companies get the surplus and which companies get the debits.4. If it involves the discredited carbon sink sales, who decides what is a true carbon sink.And finally, how will you prevent it from destroying the economy and how will you get ALL of the world to abide by it?
Icedog,
That has to be one of the dumbest post I've seen in awhile. You want a bunch of posters to solve one of the most complex and difficult problems that humankind has faced or else stop talking about it.
So your solution is to stop talking about it if we don't know how to fix it. Maybe by talking about it instead of denying the problem exist we could solve it.
So should we stop talking about Iraq and terrorists since we don't know how to solve that problem also. Or maybe we can no longer discuss cancer since I don't know how to cure it. I can't discuss any issue/problem that I don't have an immediate answer on how to solve.
You are really stupid!
I would add that the post was also laughably stupid in that the only three possible solutions he/she could think of were some variation of carbon trading.
Last week, my right wing friends (I call them 30 percenters) all sent me the articles that Jim Angle was referencing, to "prove" that I have been wrong all along about GLOBAL warming. The articles of course did the same thing as Angle--- "Forgot" to mention that the temp correction was for the U.S., not the world. I pointed this out to them of course, then asked if the warmest year in Detroit was in 1885 or in Botswana was in 1600 does that disprove GLOBAL warming? And I attached the chart in this article which shows the temp increase in the global land/ocean index. Scroll down to the middle of the page. It is undeniable, and after sending this to them, I have not heard back from them. Amazing how that works.
It seems to me that the GW argument is really three.
1. Is global warming happening?
2. If it warming, is the primary cause due to manmade CO2 emissions?
3. At what point is global warming a bad thing?
If indeed there is global warming, which seems pretty well evident, at least at the surface in many parts of the Earth.
It seems to me that the more interesting arguments are related to the second and third questions.
It seems to me that most global warming projections are based on computer simulations. With that in mind, there are a host of uncertainties that may or may not be correctly quantified in these programs.
I think global warming supporters would do themselves a favor if they didn't dismiss legitimate skeptics out of hand. Having deniers only helps the process by making sure supporters back up their claims and improve their programs, their simulations, and their analysis. That, it seems to me, is a good thing.
ps. It seems to me I use that phrase too often.
sorry.
You're using that vague phrase because you really don't know what you're talking about. The science used to arrive at these conclusions is varied and complex, and the many of the scientists who've performed these studies have spent their entire careers on the subject. I don't even know what your phrase "legitimate skeptic" is supposed to mean in light of the fact that we've now arrived at a scientific consensus. THAT'S a phrase that actually means something. At this point, deniers only muddy the debate; they don't contribute to it, and they certainly don't inspire scientists to perform their studies more rigorously. That's a completely absurd idea.
Clams,
We disagree. If one knows anything about science is that when certain proofs are offered in journals and such, they are open to criticism and peer review.
If no skeptics were allowed to question the consensus, we all know that there never would be any progress.
As an example, the scientific consensus at one time was to bleed patients of their humors. As a medical therapy, bleeding or blood-letting endured for approximately 2,500 years. It took a while for the skeptics to prove their point, but we now know that the consensus was wrong and did the exact opposite of what it was intended to do.. and people believed the consensus for centuries.
So legitimate skeptics are indeed needed. I would argue that almost every scientific advance was made by going against the consensus of the day.
"If one knows anything about science is that when certain proofs are offered in journals and such, they are open to criticism and peer review."
Yes, and on this subject, that process has already taken place, and has resulted in what is known as a scientific consensus. Peer review has brought us to the point we're at right now. There's a difference between healthy skepticism and irrational denial.
And citing "scientific" beliefs from thousands of years ago does nothing to support your case.
Why not? You think we are so advanced now that we can figure it all out? I've got news for you, in 1,000 years, humans will look at us the way we look at humans from 1,000 years ago. Come to think of it, the way our knowledge is expanding, it will look a lot worse than that.
My point is that science doubles back on itself all the time. It's right up until the time that it's proven to be wrong by better science. As humans continue to develop and get smarter by generation, we invariably make previous generations look very foolish.
It's not true that "Science doubles back on itself all the time". It rarely does that, but it does occasionally happen.
Have you not noticed that our world is much better at figuring stuff out nowadays? Computers have given us much greater certainty about a lot of things, and as we explore more, we learn more, and then can use everyone's knowledge and constructive criticism to continue to improve our knowledge.
AA, The problem with you and your ilk is that your three "questions" have all been answered, you just don't want to accept the answers.
If you want to contribute in a meaningful way, debate the solutions to the problems not that the problem exists in the first place.
That has already been decided whether you want to admit it or not.
ilk? I didn't know I was part of an ilk or that I was "the" problem. Oh well... I guess I'm part of the ilk that doesn't want to be bilked by GW alarmists... (Maybe Julia Jayne can have fun wit that one?)
I know answers have been put forth by GW supporters to my questions. As one can see, I even agree with the answer to the first question is that there is global warming. However, contrary to your dogmatic statement, I would argue the second two questions have not been definitively answered.
As with all science, the results are open for interpretation and the methodologies and techniques can be improved. Are we not in agreement on this point?
No,
Science is Science. Opinion is Opinion. One has nothing to do with the other.
The Science is in consensus. The answers are there for those with brains and the ability to think.
Your condescension not withstanding, we are in agreement that one needs brains in order to think. I will refer you to my reply to Clams in the posts above this regarding consensus.
AA, your post regarding consensus required no brains because you obviously weren't thinking when you wrote it.
If the science has been peer reviewed and there is no review that disputes it, then it becomes consensus, just like GW.
If you have any scientific research or scientific review that disproves the facts regarding global warming, please provide them.
Otherwise you prove my point.
Skeptical: Was there a scientific consensus that Pluto was a planet at one time? I was certainly taught that growing up. It seems pretty straightforward an evaluation compared to global warming, and yet here we are with one fewer planet.
This is what I'm talking about.
So Bruce,
You are holding out for the scientific evidence from 1000 years from now to prove this GW thing wrong.
So what other science from today do you think will be wrong 1000 years from now.
Maybe that the alchemists were right and you can make gold from other elements?
Bruce,
Why makes you not want to believe this science versus other science?
I do believe in global warming. What I don't believe is that global warming won't later be proven to be overstated at some point in the future by science.
I have been consistent in all the global warming threads. I agree that there is proof of global warming and proof that some of it is caused by human activity.
I don't believe we have the technology or will to reverse course at this time. Perhaps in the future we can solve this problem (if it's still deemed to be a problem) technologically but for right now we cannot, IMHO.
Bruce,
So we ignore it or deny it because we can't solve it right now.
Wow! That's great thinking.
If we all thought that wat then no problem would ever get solved, because that's what has fueled inventions and new technologies throughout history.
That was really stupid Bruce.
I wish I would have found this earlier but I just saw it today. It summarizes my position on glabal warming pretty accurately.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/newsweeks_global_warming_crusa.html
I also never said we shouldn't work towards a solution, only that we don't have a viable solution right now. So please don't put words in my mouth.
The GW advocates who say we need to do something RIGHT NOW have nothing to offer by way of a solution that will do any good and you know it.
My question, Skeptical, is are we supposed to believe everything "science" feeds us, no questions asked?....even when it is a consensus? Because as Bruce mentioned, Pluto was a planet, and it's this assertion and many others that lead us to not fully place our trust in "science". What gives you the idea that this concept is undeniably true? Even scientists will tell you they don't have all the answers. Does not the medical field use science daily, yet patients are encouraged to seek second opinions all the time, and patients are misdiagnosed all too often. But let's keep throwing out trust in science, because if it's "scientific", then it must be right.
Well Smitty,
Since scientists study this and know a heck of a lot more about the subject than you or I, then I would believe them over you.
As for Pluto, these scientists that we shouldn't believe developed better technology and were able to determine that Pluto did not actually fit the criteria of a planet and changed it's designation without you to tell them what to do.
You see, scientists are constantly researching and questioning their own data and adjusting their conclusions as new data comes to light.
Maybe they don't need stupid people with opinions and no facts to make decisions. They make decisions based on the available facts and information not stupid opinions.
That's just it Skeptical. Scientists have fed us so much crap that turns out to be untrue because "new data" has been revealed. When are we actually supposed to believe anything they say, without believing they have some sort of political agenda to push. Even scientists can skew numbers to make it look like real research to lead dummies like you and me to believe whatever they say. And as you said, they know a heck of a lot more than you and I, so who are we to challenge their authority. Well, when they go back on so much of their "research", I'm not going to blindly accept whatever science says. You yourself in an earlier post said that science is never 100% correct.
Smitty,
Please tell me, what other "crap" have scientists fed us?
What has science done to you to make you so angry and cynical towards it?
There must be some personal story that allows you to ignore reality and live in some fantasy world where science has no meaning.
Ok, because you are in the school of thought that seems to believe this is a problem, what is causing the problem, and what kind of problems are we likely to face. Don't give me generizations. You said I don't know anything. Then give me a real reason to believe your side of this debate, other than "You don't know what you're talking about," and "you are ignoring science." Tell me what the scientists say. Don't feed me lines from Al Gore and Leo Dicaprio. Tell me what you know. Facts and examples. And refrain from calling me "nuts" and believing you know what I'm about and how intelligent I am. Because you are raising the issue, tell me why it's a problem. Maybe we can start a meaningful conversation here, instead of you simply saying I'm "nuts" and I don't know what I'm talking about or what questions to ask. Enlighten me Skeptical.
Smitty,
Read the IPCC report and then come back to me with your questions. That's a report that is a compilation of 2100 scientists work in this field that says what is going on.
That's what the scientists are saying.
The conclusions are what I have stated previously. If you haven't read it then I stand by my statements that you don't know what you are talking about and you are nuts to continue to spout nonsense of which you have no knowledge.
This is a common talking point among conservatives. I have a couple of relatives and when you confront them with "experts in the field say..." they will tell you that they don't trust experts.
I've got one relative who insists that the old lawn yacht cars from 30-40 years ago are much safer than newer cars, despite the evidence to the contrary. I've got another in-law who tried to tell me that they got a cold from being cold, despite what all the experts know about that. You have to be exposed to a cold bug to get a cold. Sustained exposure to the cold can slightly weaken your immune system, so if you've been exposed, you might be slightly more likely to get sick, but the cold didn't make you get sick.
I don't understand who you trust if you don't trust experts. Do you trust people with an ax to grind? Do you trust people who have something to gain by giving out certain info and restricting access to contrary opinions?
ps. On second reading where did you pull out 'opinion is opinion'.
I maybe wrong, but It seems to me you are arguing against a point that was not made.
Because all you are offering is opinion, nothing more and opinions don't count in science, facts do.
Since when did theories become fact? I realize "facts" are used to create a theory, but let's be honest, if this GW idea was certainly true, why are scientists coming out with this "consensus" crap. Call it true if it's true, or false if it's false, just as you say "science is science" and "opinion is opinion".
I guess you don't understand about science. They can't hardly prove anything. The scientific method is about disproving things. In fact, a theory that withstands the tests of time and peer review is the highest level a scientific concept can attain.
Smitty,
You really have no clue what you are talking about do you? The facts are what scientists collect to make conclusions.
The facts are that the globe is warming.
The facts are that man is causing part of that warming trend due to the emission of green house gases.
The facts are that this warming effect, because it is rising faster than it would under normal conditions (without man's interference) will be deleterious to all living creatures in one way or another.
The only dispute is what to do about it.
Now, you can hide your head in the sand and pretend that you know more than the "scientists" who study this or you can except the facts and try to add your voice to a meaningful debate.
You make the choice.
"The facts are that the globe is warming."
No one is disputing this. It's part of the cycle.
"The facts are that man is causing part of that warming trend due to the emission of green house gases."
Man is only a "part" of that trend because of our very existence on this earth. Nothing more.
"The only dispute is what to do about it."
Well, as apparent by this very thread, that is not the only dispute, and there are many qualified individuals who believe that as well. But you discredit those scientists and qualified individuals because they are not part of the "consensus". If those scientists of the consensus have PROOF, then lay it all out there for all of us to see. But until then, there will always be speculation.
"Now, you can hide your head in the sand and pretend that you know more than the "scientists" who study this or you can except the facts and try to add your voice to a meaningful debate."
I never pretended that I know more than scientists. I am more than willing to concede that they are more knowledgeable and more qualified than me. But when you also have qualified individuals on the other side, that is cause for concern that this effort may be more of a waste of time than anything. If in fact GW is not an issue, then I would have already been contributing to a meaningful debate, one that would save this world trillions of dollars in their efforts to fix something that wasn't broken to begin with.
Smitty,
You really take the cake.
Name one scientist involved in climate research that disputes the facts that I laid out.
You can't, because there aren't any. There isn't one scientist, one bit of research or a single fact out there that disputes this.
There is only politically motivated morons with opinions that dispute it. There is no argument or debate amongst scientists. There is only opinions from uneducated people that buy into the political foolishness.
Yes Bob,
Because you say so and all of the scientists studying this say somehting different.
Thanks for your input.
- skeptical,
Thanks for your responce. Actually, I don't express my own opinions as much as those of scientists that I read in their reports. In this case it is the National Acadmy if Science that says the feedback amplitude and polarity must be assumed. Computer models based on assumption is not proof of anything.
Bob G.
So Bob,
Where do we go from here? Ignore the possibility that we are warming the globe and that the warming trend could destroy our habitat or maybe we continue to research and look for ways to reduce our impact on the globe?
Skeptical,
We go from here, in my opinion, in two ways. First we refocus our research away from global warming to Global Earth Observations which is a more basic scientific effort. Secondly, we covert to nuclear and hydrogen power to satisfy our energy needs and reduce air polutions of the air we breathe.
Bob
Nice Bob,
What hydrogen technology and where do we put the nuclear waste?