The Global Warming Challenge

[darin]

Yeppers! I refuse to do some really stupid things and get all guilty but I am quite happy to lend my voice/vote to broader efforts to do the best I can for our environment in toto.

Oh, on the poster - I'll take that on advice. I just get a kick out of discussing the issues

Ya know - the United Nations Global Warming guys don't believe there's anything we can do to change what's happening to the planet.

[darin]

It only means nothing if you assume there are no scientific papers which claim anthropogenic global warming is incorrect. If that is your assumption, I find it strange that you feel you can make the claim that science says anthropogenic global warming is incorrect - when you can provide no actual examples of it saying that.

No - it means nothing because your challenge is stupid.

[PostmodernProphet]

If Dr. Baliunas truly feels that way about the way science is done, then the fact that she has worked for numerous Exxon front organizations in the past should be enough to convince you she is biased.

??...biased?....everyone is biased.....I'm biased, your're biased, she's biased.....the question is, do you recognize the fact that the 'peer review journals' are biased?..........

I think it is obvious that you do recognize the fact, otherwise you would have simply asked for publications from people who are skeptical about anthropological causes, instead of restricting it to scientific journals.....it's a handy way for liberals to avoid looking at facts, if they can employ liberal scientists to screen out the competition......

[red states rule]

??...biased?....everyone is biased.....I'm biased, your're biased, she's biased.....the question is, do you recognize the fact that the 'peer review journals' are biased?..........

So far all the dire forcasts for the global warming nuts have not happened

According to Al we have less then ten years to live

[SpidermanTUba]

Global warming is a hoax. Al Bore is not living his life as he demands we live ours - why does he not lead by example?

Of course global warming is a hoax, its obvious. The world is so gosh darn big, and all these scientists are conspiring together because they are greedy people. The only exception is people like Dr. Baliunas, who works for Exxon front companies in published in financial magazines.

So since its such a hoax, there has to be dozens of scientific papers which claim it is wrong. I just want one.

[SpidermanTUba]

Ya know - the United Nations Global Warming guys don't believe there's anything we can do to change what's happening to the planet.

And this was published by whom when and where?

Oh wait, i forgot, you don't argue with facts.

[Nukeman]

And this was published by whom when and where?

Oh wait, i forgot, you don't argue with facts.

POT MEET KETTLE...................

[SpidermanTUba]

??...biased?....everyone is biased.....I'm biased, your're biased, she's biased.....the question is, do you recognize the fact that the 'peer review journals' are biased?..........

Everyone's biased! This obviously means the researchers who were paid by ciagarette companies to do research on cigarettes were just as unbiased as scientists who get paid by oil companies to promote the idea that global warming is wrong.

I think it is obvious that you do recognize the fact, otherwise you would have simply asked for publications from people who are skeptical about anthropological causes, instead of restricting it to scientific journals.....it's a handy way for liberals to avoid looking at facts, if they can employ liberal scientists to screen out the competition......

I think its obvious you are attempting to rationalize the obvious conflict of interest in a climate scientists working for an oil company with the fallacy that not only is everyone biased, but they are all pretty much biased the same amount.



"restricting it to scientific journals" OH GOD NO, LET'S NOT RESTRICT SCIENCE TO THE REALM OF SCIENCE! Obviously the people most qualified to comment on the climate are economists, petroleum engineers, and astrophysicists on Exxon's payroll, not CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.





Hey, let's just assume there's a mass conspiracy of research climate scientists to promote a hoax of global warming - EVEN THOUGH THERE ISN'T A SHRED OF EVIDENCE.

We'll draw our "facts" on global warming from financial magazines, right wing newspapers, the backs of cereal boxes, and political blogs, because its obvious they are all just as qualified to comment on it as climate scientists (and the climate scientists seem to be concluding something we don't want to hear!)


Meanwhile we'll pretend that a scientist working at a publicly funded University makes more money than a scientist who gets paid by Exxon to promote their agenda. That's where all the real money is! Its in the Universities, with public funding, yeah! In the graduate program I'm in, I've always heard if I want to make the real money I need to sell my soul and work for a University, instead of following my dream of being a corporation front man.

[darin]

So - this thread has served TWO purposes:

1) To show SANTA CLAUS is REAL
2) To show SpidermanTUba needs betta debate skillz.

[PostmodernProphet]

Here is a link to the paper in the Physical Review Letters

thank you for that source.....I have finished reading it.....I think I understood less than 1% of it (I am reminded WHY I don't subscribe to scientific journals).......

I will have to take your word for it that it does not support a claim that there is not an anthropological cause to global warming, though certainly the scientist I originally quoted seemed to think it did....

in the meantime, refer to one of the several other sources I cited.....

[SpidermanTUba]

So far all the dire forcasts for the global warming nuts have not happened

According to Al we have less then ten years to live

Can you cite specific references to these "forcasts"? Or did you make them up in your head?

Al who? What papers has he published?







Another day, and still, only one poster even feels the needs to prove anything they are saying. PostmodernProphet, though he produce a paper written by as astrophysicist on Exxon's payroll that have been thoroughly debunked, they are peer reviewed articles hence he has satisfied the challenge. Postmoden - I invite you to now participate with me in the thread which I will entitle "Global Warming - the Scientific Debate"


The rest of you who claim global warming is a hoax still have yet to produce one paper. You'd think if there were so many scientists who don't believe in it there would be evidence of that.

[PostmodernProphet]

"restricting it to scientific journals" OH GOD NO, LET'S NOT RESTRICT SCIENCE TO THE REALM OF SCIENCE! Obviously the people most qualified to comment on the climate are economists, petroleum engineers, and astrophysicists on Exxon's payroll, not CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.

several points.....there is no reason at all to assume that scientists only write in scientific journals.....they also write books, articles, letters....they give interviews to the press, television, etc.....some of them have even been known to post on the internet......

second, there is no basis to claim that everyone who does not believe there is an anthropological cause to global warming is on the payroll of Exxon, any more than there is a reason to believe that everyone who supports the idea is the recipient of a federal grant to save us from the phenomena.....

third, there are many areas of science that study data relevant to the history of the earth's climate than simply "climate" scientists.....

now, perhaps you could explain this to me.....the history of our planet shows periodic warming and cooling cycles that follow a fairly stable and repeating pattern.....

according to that repeating pattern a current cycle of peak warming is not only expected, but probably overdue.....

now, if global warming is anthropological, can you explain to me all the preceding periods of global warming which could not possibly have been anthropologically caused?

[SpidermanTUba]

several points.....there is no reason at all to assume that scientists only write in scientific journals.....they also write books, articles, letters....they give interviews to the press, television, etc.....some of them have even been known to post on the internet......

Their books (except text books) and popular magazine articles do not go through a rigorous peer review process.

second, there is no basis to claim that everyone who does not believe there is an anthropological cause to global warming is on the payroll of Exxon,

Of course not. An economist wouldn't need a financial incentive from Exxon to do that, he's already got one.
Now name one scientist in a relevant field (physics, climate science, geology, etc.) who believes anthropogenic global warming is incorrect that has no ties to the petroleum industry.

now, perhaps you could explain this to me.....the history of our planet shows periodic warming and cooling cycles that follow a fairly stable and repeating pattern.....

according to that repeating pattern a current cycle of peak warming is not only expected, but probably overdue.....

You're asserting that a global warming trend is expected to happen naturally at this time based on the historical record.

You have provided no evidence of this assertion.

Please do.

now, if global warming is anthropological, can you explain to me all the preceding periods of global warming which could not possibly have been anthropologically caused?

Your implicit assumption in this question is that knowledge of why the current warming trend is mostly man made would give one knowledge of the cause of every single warming trend in Earth's history. This assumption is incorrect.

But I will tell you this. The presence of large amounts of greenhouse gases such as CO2 in the atmosphere can cause global warming. The source of these gases - whether they are man made or naturally produced - is irrelevant to their effect. The simple fact that greenhouse gases produced naturally can trigger warming in no way implies that man made greenhouse gases would not trigger warming - in fact, it implies the exact opposite. You should also know that the effects of the various greenhouse gases are non-linear in nature. For instance, in an atmosphere where there is much more methane than CO2, methane is a far more effective greenhouse gas per unit mass than CO2. But as the CO2 levels rise, the amount of heat trapped by the CO2 per unit gram of CO2 also rises. Double the Co2 content in the air, and you more than double the amount of heat trapped by the CO2.

[PostmodernProphet]

Now name one scientist who believes anthropogenic global warming is incorrect that has no ties to the petroleum industry.

I would have no idea....can you provide me with a list of scientists who HAVE published papers claiming an anthropological cause for global warming that haven't received federal funding for their research?

[PostmodernProphet]

odd, it seems that in your previous post you agree with much that I had stated....so much so that you even used the same punctuation......