toldailytopic: Man made global warming crisis: is the hoax finally dead for good?

[Delmar]

I personally know of people that claim the environment is unimportant and we can/should do whatever we want to it because God gave it to us for our personal use.

My guess is that those people are just yanking your chain. Nobody wants to drink nasty water or breath polluted air.

 

[Delmar]

See what I mean.... crop circles.

Crop circles are cool!

 

[DocJohnson]

An Inconvenient Question?

 

[Son of Jack]

Nobody wants to drink nasty water or breath polluted air.

Ummmm....speak for yourself...lain:

 

[Nick M]

China has officially excused their murder in the name of climate.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/10/content_9151129.htm

Population control called key to deal
By Li Xing (China Daily)
Updated: 2009-12-10 07:37 Comments(0) PrintMail


COPENHAGEN: Population and climate change are intertwined but the population issue has remained a blind spot when countries discuss ways to mitigate climate change and slow down global warming, according to Zhao Baige, vice-minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China (NPFPC) .

"Dealing with climate change is not simply an issue of CO2 emission reduction but a comprehensive challenge involving political, economic, social, cultural and ecological issues, and the population concern fits right into the picture," said Zhao, who is a member of the Chinese government delegation

Liberals are always looking for reasons to murder. Not enough food, so lets get rid of some people. Now too many people are heating up the earth. No real suprise on this one.

 

[DocJohnson]

How about looking at the actual scientific reports rather than just websites? Have you read the IPCC documents? How about the most recent nature papers?

If it isn't mankind what is it? Be specific now, since we can study and quantify the factors that influence climate.

The "anti" camps are not scientific at all as far as I can tell. They cherry pick data to show their point, while the "other side" sites will generally acknowledge points that disagree with their interpretation, but show them in the context of the entire climate picture.

I think this article (written by an IPCC coordinating lead author) should solidly debunk all of your theories regarding the peer-review process at the IPCC.

The IPCC claims that it has thousands of scientists and almost as many reviewers of the scientists' work to produce their reports. There are two problems, however. In the scientific world I move in, “review” means that your work is scrutinised by several independent, anonymous reviewers chosen by the editor.

However, when I entered the IPCC world, the reviewers were there at the worktable, criticising our drafts, and finally meeting with all us co-ordinators and many of the IPCC functionaries in a draftfest.

The product was not reviewed in the accepted sense of the word — there was no independence of review, and the reviewers were anything but anonymous. The result is not scientific.

 

[Alate_One]

I think this article (written by an IPCC coordinating lead author) should solidly debunk all of your theories regarding the peer-review process at the IPCC.

So because one person is disenchanted with IPCC review ALL climate science is wrong? You realize it doesn't all come through the IPCC.

Here's a figure which uses TEN peer reviewed journal articles for a temperature reconstruction.

The global count of receding glaciers An article from science, independent of all other climate data using 169 glaciers.

Loss of ice mass in Greenland - Data taken from a paper in Science.

Oddly this seems to match what the IPCC is saying . . . .

 

[DocJohnson]

So because one person is disenchanted with IPCC review ALL climate science is wrong? You realize it doesn't all come through the IPCC.

You're in denial. Just face it. It takes more faith to believe in your junk science than it does to believe in Bigfoot.

 

[kmoney]

You're in denial. Just face it. It takes more faith to believe in your junk science than it does to believe in Bigfoot.

Good refutation. lain:

 

[Truppenzwei]

Good refutation. lain:

Well, considering we have pointed him to sites that contain or point to the information he is after and he is completely uninterested in actually looking at the evidence what do you suggest we do?

Regards
T.

 

[Alate_One]

Well, considering we have pointed him to sites that contain or point to the information he is after and he is completely uninterested in actually looking at the evidence what do you suggest we do?

The sites you're pointing me to are bought and paid for by oil and gas companies (watts up with that etc.). Do you expect me to go to tobacco funded researchers for the "other side" to smoking too?

The history of the Manufactured Doubt industry provides clear lessons in evaluating the validity of their attacks on the published peer-reviewed climate change science. One should trust that the think tanks and allied "skeptic" bloggers such as Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit and Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That will give information designed to protect the profits of the fossil fuel industry. Yes, there are respected scientists with impressive credentials that these think tanks use to voice their views, but these scientists have given up their objectivity and are now working as lobbyists. I don't like to call them skeptics, because all good scientists should be skeptics. Rather, the think tanks scientists are contrarians, bent on discrediting an accepted body of published scientific research for the benefit of the richest and most powerful corporations in history. Virtually none of the "sound science" they are pushing would ever get published in a serious peer-reviewed scientific journal, and indeed the contrarians are not scientific researchers. They are lobbyists. Many of them seem to believe their tactics are justified, since they are fighting a righteous war against eco-freaks determined to trash the economy.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1389

 

[Alate_One]

You're in denial. Just face it. It takes more faith to believe in your junk science than it does to believe in Bigfoot.

No I think its YOU and your ilk that are in denial. Bigfoot has never been published in a peer reviewed journal. You don't want to believe the science because it contradicts some deep seated views you hold.

Science isn't perfect and it isn't 100% proof or accuracy but its a heck of a lot better than what the "skeptics" are putting out which is denialism. It can't possibly be human beings, it could be anything else but not HUMANS. No way . . . . I've never said there aren't natural cycles, but the warming we are seeing is not fully explained by them.

Research from many INDEPENDENT areas as I posted to you above shows the same pattern. How is it junk science? Because you say so? A half dozen different journals with different editors and staff didn't seem to think so. Yet you're clinging to a handful of websites as the "truth"?

 

[drbrumley]

The sites you're pointing me to are bought and paid for by oil and gas companies (watts up with that etc.). Do you expect me to go to tobacco funded researchers for the "other side" to smoking too?

The history of the Manufactured Doubt industry provides clear lessons in evaluating the validity of their attacks on the published peer-reviewed climate change science. One should trust that the think tanks and allied "skeptic" bloggers such as Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit and Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That will give information designed to protect the profits of the fossil fuel industry. Yes, there are respected scientists with impressive credentials that these think tanks use to voice their views, but these scientists have given up their objectivity and are now working as lobbyists. I don't like to call them skeptics, because all good scientists should be skeptics. Rather, the think tanks scientists are contrarians, bent on discrediting an accepted body of published scientific research for the benefit of the richest and most powerful corporations in history. Virtually none of the "sound science" they are pushing would ever get published in a serious peer-reviewed scientific journal, and indeed the contrarians are not scientific researchers. They are lobbyists. Many of them seem to believe their tactics are justified, since they are fighting a righteous war against eco-freaks determined to trash the economy.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1389

:rotfl: Everything you just said also applies to the Green movement.

 

[DocJohnson]

Bigfoot has never been published in a peer reviewed journal.

Actually, evidence of Bigfoot has been scrutinized by scientific review... and found much to be totally fabricated.

 

[Alate_One]

Actually, evidence of Bigfoot has been scrutinized by scientific review... and found much to be totally fabricated.

There's never been any positive evidence of Bigfoot published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. There have been thousands of papers showing positive evidence for climate change in peer reviewed journals. Yet you continue to assert bigfoot is more plausible than climate change?

I think its pretty clear who is delusional . . . . :rotfl:

 

[Alate_One]

:rotfl: Everything you just said also applies to the Green movement.

Who is this "green movement" who are they? Where does their money come from?

You realize Nature and PNAS are not "green movement" sponsored blogs and websites right?

 

[kmoney]

Well, considering we have pointed him to sites that contain or point to the information he is after and he is completely uninterested in actually looking at the evidence what do you suggest we do?

Regards
T.

Based on what I see, this debate consists of link wars. And personally, I think AO's links are winning. lain:

 

[Stripe]

Based on what I see, this debate consists of link wars. And personally, I think AO's links are winning. lain:

Atheists love to point to the popularity of an idea as if it is evidence for their idea.

 

[Truppenzwei]

Based on what I see, this debate consists of link wars. And personally, I think AO's links are winning. lain:

Indeed?

Why so?

Regards
T.

 

[kmoney]

Atheists love to point to the popularity of an idea as if it is evidence for their idea.

wat.