Originally posted by wittywonkahttp://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA679.htm
This is a tough question. Let me think...
YES!
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200703/NAT20070315b.html
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
http://www.nzclimatescience.org
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070218-100445-1207r.htm
http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=14429&cid=18&cname=Opinion
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=CIRVFYJFUDABHQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/04/08/nrclimate08.xml&page=1
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18881
http://science.nasa.gov/NEWHOME/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm
http://www.stuff.co.nz//timaruherald/4064691a6571.html?source=email
http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunder/id24.html
http://www.andrewkrause.com/the-global-warming-hoax/
Originally posted by SpastiGovNo, that's rich. "I can't prove it so I'll make you." Lol.
Geeez wonka that's rich! I can easily say the same: "prove" it!
All I have seen from you is links to emotively charged sites that repeat the Al Gore mantra.
So go on. Prove it yourself!
I'll post what I posted in your other trash thread.
"A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change. The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords 'global climate change.'...75% of the abstracts were...either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view [of the existence of global warming]...none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_global_warming
Your turn. I'll be waiting, as always.
Originally posted by SpastiGovGoing back to your earlier post. My analogy is perfectly valid within the constraints that you normally have to place on these things. They were claiming that trace amounts of something couldn't have an effect, I brought up an example, from an unrelated field where they do.
Don't be a ninny. I have repeatedly posted evidence, ie., numbers, facts and arguments, even peer-reviewed! from qualified scientists who totally refute the current alarmists' claims, but because you and others of your ilk can't seem to handle opposing views in any way shape or form, you simply discount it as not valid. You will discount any argument that ething of a fashion and which has many opposing voices in the scientific community.
Now back to this one, and your two numbered points.
1) Name one paper, published in a peer reviewed climatology journal that disputes the anthropogenic warming theory. You'll have a job as as far as I know there hasn't been one in over a decade.
2) No climatologists dispute anthropogenic warming. So the people whose arguments you are using may well be qualified in related fields, but not in climatology which is by the argument you've just presented, I'm afraid, the relevant one.
Oh, and with regard to the paragraph about "the alarmist side is tainted with strong emotive etc." and this stuff about recourse to emotive and threatening tactics. You lot spend your whole time claiming that the entire field of climatology has made up this theory to get more funding, and claim that people who believe the evidence do so out of religious zeal. It almost beggars belief.
Frankly the scientific argument has already been settled. The climatology field is pretty much unanimous about the anthropogenic global warming theory, any uncertainty is about the extent of the temperature shift. As the models are refined and we get more data we'll start to see the predictions becoming more precise.
Edit: Just seen your list of quotes. I had a very quick look at the two that looked respectable. Namely www.nzclimatescience.org after a very cursory glance I concluded that it was a propaganda site that had little to do with science. Dr. David Bellamy was the most prominent name and while doubtless well qualified he is certainly not a climate scientist. The NASA link is ten years out of date, the field's moved on since then (and the links from the page seemed to be broken).
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA679.htm
Lol. This article sites Roland Barthes. Interestingly, he died in 1980. Surely you would agree with me, Spasti, in saying that a lot has changed in the science of global climate change in the past three decades?
This article also sites Bruno Latour, a "sociologist of science," which is a "subfield of sociology that deals with the practice of science." So, in other words, he isn't a scientist, let alone a scientist in a field of climate, weather, etc.
In addition, this article sites PH Borcherds, who is a physicist. Again, lacking in relevant qualification.
Finally, the author of the article, Philip Scott, is a professor in biogeography, the science that deals with "the geographical distribution of animals and plants."
So, seeing as the author is not qualified to make assumptions of his own, seeing as he cited other scientists or non-scientists that were also not qualified, and seeing as he did not provide any statistics or facts of his own but merely launched a verbal assault on the support of the AGW theory, surely you would agree with me, Spasti, in saying this source is irrelevant, biased, and a waste of time.
You would look less foolish if you would simply post one reliable link (if that's even possible) instead of swarming us with ridiculous and irrelevant sites.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtExactly.
...the people whose arguments you are using may well be qualified in [their] related fields, but not in climatology...
Edit - As for what you said about out-of-date articles, I discovered that, also, in his first link. Interesting style of arguing, wouldn't you agree?
Referring to your NASA link. I did a small amount of digging, following some links I found this page (dated 2nd July 2007) which gives a rather different picture to your out of date data: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/GlobalWarmingQandA/
A particularly interesting point is the question about "Why do scientists think that the warming we have seen over the last 50 years is due to anthropogenic causes. The answer they give is that without it the computer models cannot reproduce the warming effect. This is what is known as disproving a null hypothesis. Basically what they did was run the model without CO_2 emitted by humans and tried to see if they got the same effect, the null hypothesis being anthropogenic emissions have no effect on global temperatures. The fact that they didn't get an effect without anthropogenic emissions demonstrates within whatever confidence range they were using that the null hypothesis is false and so the warming over the last 50 years is due to our emissions of CO_2. So there's some proof for you.
Originally posted by SpastiGovIf there is too much politics, emotion etc, why do your posts and links often contain so much? Especially putting words into people's mouths, claiming that they believe the CO2 should be removed from the atmosphere. You must be really desperate for anything to say to try to ridicule someone's argument.
Don't be a ninny. I have repeatedly posted evidence, ie., numbers, facts and arguments, even peer-reviewed! from qualified scientists who totally refute the current alarmists' claims, but because you and others of your ilk can't seem to handle opposing views in any way shape or form, you simply discount it as not valid. You will discount any argument that ...[text shortened]... ething of a fashion and which has many opposing voices in the scientific community.
Your little number on how we're going to complain about the big oil companies is rather strange, seeing as how that was said in response to claims that all climatologists are making false claims for the money. It's a political point either way. You need only pick up on it if someone actually mentions it - stop jumping to conclusions and wait for someone to answer your post before ridiculing a non-existent response
Also, when you want an expert opinion, you look to the scientists qualified in the field, not related fields. You can use scientists in related fields to back up only after you have cited ones in the field in question.
Most importantly, go to this site before posting any more of your myths >> http://www.realclimate.org/
might be easier to prove spasti is an idiot if you take the links he posted and comment on them.
Today's link is:http://www.andrewkrause.com/the-global-warming-hoax/
(i can only read a set amount of garbage before i get bored so one link at a time, and please do some yourselves)
Andrew Krause(that is probably the guy) is a spastiGov clone. for the better part of his essay(literature not science), he supplies not a single fact or figure. Only words. In fact for half his essay, he goes on to explain the english language.
Where he does offer some figures("carbon has increased by 30% since the 19th century"😉 he gives the same "earth is really big" argument that spasti offers. From his point of view, it doesn't matter that Co2 has increased by 30% from the natural level, but it is more important that it has risen from 0.028% to 0.036%. This according to mr andrew cannot have any impact whatsoever because earth is really big and in all the universe, such a small increase doesn't make an impact.
After that he goes on to mention how the sun and cosmic rays are really responsible for global warming missing the point that co2 is really a greenhouse gas and if we dump more and more co2 in the atmosphere then we are enhancing the warming that the sun apparently caused. even if the man made co2 is not entirely responsible for global warming, it is stupid to say it has no effect whatsoever.
And like all spastiGovs out there he finishes his literature masterpiece by attacking gore and a few others and saying that since they made mistakes, all the ideas that they support must be wrong also.
Really spasti dude, is this what you call proof? This is how serious you are about the topic?
Originally posted by wittywonkaTrotting out the Oreskes "consensus" study? Shame, shame, shame. Her "research" was discredited years ago:
No, that's rich. "I can't prove it so I'll make you." Lol.
I'll post what I posted in your other trash thread.
"A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change. [b]The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate cha ...[text shortened]... iki/Scientific_consensus_on_global_warming
Your turn. I'll be waiting, as always.
Benny Peiser of John Moores University found that:
• Nearly three times as many studies (3 percent) either rejected or doubted that humans are a cause of the current warming as those that explicitly endorsed the "consensus view" that humans are causing warming (1 percent).
• Another 29 percent implicitly accepted the consensus view, but most focused on the projected impacts of climate change rather than its causes.
• Two-thirds of all of the studies either made no mention of human influence or dealt with methodological issues, possible responses to climate change or natural factors that contribute to it.
Hans von Storch and Dennis Bray conducted their own "global warming" survey among their fellow climate scientists worldwide in 2003. They asked, "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic (human) causes?"
• Of the 530 responses, a majority (55.8 percent) indicated moderate to strong support for the consensus view, while 30 percent indicated varying degrees of skepticism.
• The number of scientists who strongly disagreed with the consensus view (10 percent) outnumbered those who most strongly supported it (9 percent).
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterDo you want to give references for those studies?
Trotting out the Oreskes "consensus" study? Shame, shame, shame. Her "research" was discredited years ago:
Benny Peiser of John Moores University found that:
• Nearly three times as many studies (3 percent) either rejected or doubted that humans are a cause of the current warming as those that explicitly endorsed the "consensus view" that hum ...[text shortened]... sensus view (10 percent) outnumbered those who most strongly supported it (9 percent).
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI've had a bit more time to look at this. I checked on Wikipedia and found the following things out.
Trotting out the Oreskes "consensus" study? Shame, shame, shame. Her "research" was discredited years ago:
Benny Peiser of John Moores University found that:
• Nearly three times as many studies (3 percent) either rejected or doubted that humans are a cause of the current warming as those that explicitly endorsed the "consensus view" that hum sensus view (10 percent) outnumbered those who most strongly supported it (9 percent).
Benny Peiser and the Oreskes study:
Benny Peiser works at Liverpool's John Moores University, he works in the field of Social Anthropology. He is interested in the effects of ancient climate change and catastrophic events on current thinking. He is not a climatologist as such but it is interesting to see what he thinks. From what I gather reading the Wiki article and one of the links given there - written by him, he does not dispute the anthropogenic climate change theory. Furthermore he has accepted that he made some errors in his analysis of the Oreskes study. See the last reference given on the Wikipedia entry.
His position on the issue is that the vast majority of Climate scientists agree with the consensus position, but that there are one or two who remain skeptical. His initial analysis used a different search strategy to Oreskes which caused problems with his analysis. I think that this is far from totally discrediting the Oreskes study. And I think that you have misrepresented, or at least omitted, his actual position on this issue.
Dennis Bray appears to be an Emeritus Professor in the Department of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience at Cambridge University. He is most certainly not a climate scientist, although his work on the chemistry of bacteria (recent work seems to focus on E.Coli.) may bring him into contact with the climatology people - a large fraction of methane emissions are due to an anerobic bacterium which lives in rice paddy fields.
Hans von Storch is a Climate Scientist. His position is that he is convinced that anthropogenic climate change exists. What he is concerned about is the doomsday scenarios that are sometimes being presented. He is concerned that the science is being "oversold".
I cannot find a reference to the, presumably informal, study that you are quoting from. Can you please give me a reference - there is a limit to the amount of time I want to spend hunting for these things on the internet.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
Originally posted by SpastiGovOh, you misunderstand, I'm just trying to show you how you can consider CO2 poisonous, that is all.
That is so silly it's hardly worth responding to. But to humour you: Again, your comparison is totally specious because the atmosphere is a HELL of a long way from that happening isn't it! We are talking hundredths of a percent concentration of a naturally occuring gas that plants thrive on for goodness sake!!
IF we are talking about those concentration ...[text shortened]... t have a point. But we clearly are not, so you have just wasted my time with that stupid post.
Hell, even chocolate is poisonous, I think eating 20lbs is a leathal dose. 😕