toldailytopic: Do you believe mankind is causing global warming?

[danoman31]

Seriously, how can you people believe this when heat records are being shattered all over the world and ice is melting in the arctic?

The only lie is the one denialists have swallowed.

My graphs are bigger smarter and prettier. And no I won't show you mine, there's no point, you'll just post one after another attempting to show mine are flawed and so the game goes on. I suggest reading "God according to God" by Gerald Schroeder

 

[danoman31]

Watch the video I linked, this mail is explained in it. You will see what "Mike's nature trick" really is. The mails has been cleared, there is nothing suspicious about it once you understand what they are actually referring to.
The temperature where you live isn't representative of the global average temperature which is what is at stake here. The scientific data is conclusive on the fact that the average global temperature is rising.

For the sake of arguement, lets say tomorrow we found ourselves back to oh lets say life as in the 12th century. Would global warming/climate change/ green house effect etc come to an end/stalled or be diminished. I better clarify the 12th century analogy. We wouldn't actually be in the 12th century, we'd still know what we know now, just not have any of the stuff we have today ie. cars trains boats ships planes , you know all the stuff you claim contributes to warming. Maybe even a decline in population to help your claim if you wish.

 

[danoman31]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for July 13th, 2011 10:01 AM

toldailytopic: Do you believe mankind is causing global warming?

It's not a question of belief, but of fact. The facts are easily available. But thanks for raising the issue.

My facts trump yours,:baby: nanny nanny boo boo.

 

[danoman31]

Here's a good example of the way the people who stole those emails carefully edited what they released to fool the gullible.

From the folks at Factcheck.org, who specialize in debunking all sorts of dishonesties:

Claims that the e-mails are evidence of fraud or deceit, however, misrepresent what they actually say. A prime example is a 1999 e-mail from Jones, who wrote: "I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline." Skeptics claim the words "trick" and "decline" show Jones is using sneaky manipulations to mask a decline in global temperatures. But that’s not the case. Actual temperatures, as measured by scientific instruments such as thermometers, were rising at the time of the writing of this decade-old e-mail, and (as we’ve noted) have continued to rise since then. Jones was referring to the decline in temperatures implied by measurements of the width and density of tree rings. In recent decades, these measures indicate a dip, while more accurate instrument-measured temperatures continue to rise.

Scientists at CRU use tree-ring data and other "proxy" measurements to estimate temperatures from times before instrumental temperature data began to be collected. However, since about 1960, tree-ring data have diverged from actual measured temperatures. Far from covering it up, CRU scientists and others have published reports of this divergence many times. The "trick" that Jones was writing about in his 1999 e-mail was simply adding the actual, measured instrumental data into a graph of historic temperatures. Jones says it’s a “trick” in the colloquial sense of an adroit feat — "a clever thing to do," as he put it — not a deception. What’s hidden is the fact that tree-ring data in recent decades doesn’t track with thermometer measurements.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

Factcheck has a history of debunking both liberal and conservative bullhockey. You've been rolled, I'm afraid.

Finally the smartest idiot on the internet makes an appearence. I miss Zakath.

 

[danoman31]

It's pretty funny watching how the evidence trail breaks down in this thread - notice how GW denier posts are made up largely of personal opinion and the occasional well-refuted youtube videos.

The other posts present data based on temperature and ice-core samples from a variety of different sources, and peer reviewed research that represents the majority opinion of scientists from a wide variety of disciplines.

So much for common sense. As the British columnist Charlie Brooker once observed on the subject: "Hey, I'm no scientist. I'm not an engineer either, but if I asked 100 engineers whether it was safe to cross a bridge, and 99 said no, I'd probably try to find another way over the ravine rather than loudly siding with the underdog and arguing about what constitutes a consensus while trundling across in my Hummer."

I wonder how Galileo would feel about that. Poor dude, nobody believed him. Thank God the church set him straight. It all has to do with ones agenda you moron.

 

[danoman31]

So if there's one scientist who disagrees with E=Mc^2, it plunges the validity of the equation into doubt until said scientist is converted or dies of old age?

Thank goodness for idiots like you, you make me feel smart. I think I love you.

 

[danoman31]

Which means nothing at this time. Einstein's theory of general relativity is still the best theory that makes the best predictions and best explains the available data.
You need actual data to criticize a scientific theory, not just the speculation that it might be obsolete in 25 years.

Can you give us some examples of doubt when it comes to Einstein's theory? Some phenomena that it fails to describe maybe?

Fact remains, those who do not believe in global warming have failed to present any evidence that support their assertions. Where is the data that support their ideas? All I have seen is conspiracy theories about it being a ploy for socialism which is at best a ridiculous claim. Not interested in conspiracy theories, I'm interested in scientific data.

Plenty of evidence has been presented, you just refuse to accept/believe it. God knows what I mean, do you. Its really simple.

 

[danoman31]

Did Einstein's theory invalidate Newton's theory? No. It is more precise than Newton's theory, and applicable under more circumstances than Newton's.

But we still use Newton's theory to accurately navigate spacecraft.

Likewise when something better than Einstein's theory comes along, we will still be able to calculate tiny changes in orbits based on relativity.

We really, really need a national standard for science education.

And you can be the one who sets that standard, whew, thought all was lost. Now we're truly saved. Teach on Garth.

 

[danoman31]

How is this relevant? How are completely separate issues relevant to the question of global warming? How about looking at the scientific evidence for global warming instead of portraying it as merely a political issue? It is a political issue because the scientific evidence for it is strong, not the other way around. It is a serious issue, so of course it will become a political issue.

Does your head hurt, mine does. Where are my pills. Man, you just don't get it. I'm gonna need some bigger pills.

 

[The Barbarian]

Sounds like danoman didn't get his nap today.

 

[melanchthon]

No I do not believe mankind is causing global warming. I am not convinced the earth is warming. I am a physical chemist who developed mathematical models for my Ph.D. If a model cannot reproduce the existant empirical evidence; how can it be used to predict the future. Science is continually manipulated to meet the agendas of extremely suspect groups of people. My father told me .. believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see; good advice.

 

[melanchthon]

Sorry, I have a relevant Ph.D. in physical chemistry from the University of Toronto and I, like many other 'real' scientists are not convinced that this hypothesis is correct. It fails to take into account historical data; any model that cannot correctly account for known empirical data cannot predict the future.

 

[The Barbarian]

No I do not believe mankind is causing global warming. I am not convinced the earth is warming. I am a physical chemist who developed mathematical models for my Ph.D. If a model cannot reproduce the existant empirical evidence; how can it be used to predict the future.

James Hanson used a relatively primitive form of the present model to accurately predict warming a decade earlier. Sounds pretty good to me.

Science is continually manipulated to meet the agendas of extremely suspect groups of people.

Unfortunately, true:

US scientists were pressured to tailor their reports on global warming to fit the Bush administration's climate change scepticism, a congressional committee heard on Tuesday 30 January. In some cases, this occurred at the request of a former oil-industry lobbyist...Rick Piltz, a former US government scientist, told the committee that former White House official Phil Cooney took an active role in casting doubt on the consequences of global climate change. Piltz said he resigned in 2005 as a result of pressure to soft-pedal findings on global warming.

Cooney, who was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute before becoming chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, also resigned in 2005. He went on to work for oil giant ExxonMobil, which was recently accused of spending $16 million on supporting climate sceptics.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11074-us-climate-scientists-pressured-on-climate-change.html

 

[danoman31]

Sounds like danoman didn't get his nap today.

I did take a nap, but when I wake up I wake up to reality, you, who knows where you wake up to. By the way found an article in todays paper that offered more evidence that global warming is a lie. You need to send them an e-mail telling them they're wrong because your data is factual and theirs is flawed. Just thought you'd like to know.:dizzy:

 

[The Barbarian]

By the way found an article in todays paper that offered more evidence that global warming is a lie. You need to send them an e-mail telling them they're wrong because your data is factual and theirs is flawed. Just thought you'd like to know.

Well, why not share this data with us? We'll take a look at it and see what you have.

Or not. I'm guessing "not" is your alternative of choice.