Anti Global Warming Scientist a fraud?

Discussion in 'World News / Current Events Forum' started by CPLZ, Feb 23, 2015.

  1. Ron Gilmore

    Ron Gilmore Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    13,515
    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    nd
    We are having a very profound affect on things, from causing extinction of species to changing the landscape etc... however I doubt anyone is going to argue or dismiss this. However the issue regarding the warming is in a entirely different conversation. While some may try to use frogs as was her interest or monarch butterflies, or for that matter honey bees as examples of AGW, when they are related to other activities of man.

    I grew up on a farm in central ND that was once part of a salt water sea. Geogrpahic changes, of our continents and other on going naturally occurring events where the cause. That same area not to many years ago where ice covered as well. Have rock deposits on the farm that are only found in Canada normally with the exceptions of deposits from the glaciers as they melted.

    Normal erosion that is occurring will result in the future of the Great Lakes disappearing as the natural plug at Niagara is steadly retreating to the rivers headwaters. This is going to occur man or no man. Think of the impact that will have! However the zealots are claiming the retreat is man made or faster than they think it should be.

    Her book talks about the acidification of the sea and loss to coral life, but does not talk about the fact that many of the so called areas are reforming as part of the normal cycles. So I am not dismissing what she is advocating but the cause and affect is highly in doubt.

    Man also has to be given credit for recognizing mistakes and fixing them. I think we will in the future move away from fossil fuels, real science will find a solution. The find will come faster when politics get the heck out of the way and stop picking winners that are not. Wind and solar for example cannot sustain a constant flow of energy requiring a backup because the sun does not shine all the time nor does the wind blow all the time .

    We have went through the BS corn ethanol as well, simply not a replacement fuel alternative. Got to be one of the dumbest green ideas I have ever encountered.

    One thing to keep in mind is this, many who promote the AGW agenda are do as I say not as I do!! Al Gore is the poster child of this, but when you look around few of the zealots really embrace what they preach! Kind of the church matron looking down her nose at some unwed teen for having sex outside of marriage but when you look at the date of the wedding and date her first child was born, one would have to believe that a 5 month pregnancy produced 8lb baby!!!!

    So be concerned, look and learn, but be prepared to avoid the kool aid like 97% figures floated around, and it is not one sided either!! Both sides of the debate have either been flat out wrong or intentional in trying to deceive!! The truth can be found but my opinion is that to get it is not coming from what we currently know but what we will find in the future simply because as you so precisely point out the earth is very old and a 10-100 or even 500 year period is not a mark on a yard stick!!

    I am a AGW skeptic to the point that I do not believe the data being used to promote it. I am a firm believer that we are warming trend and have been since before the end of the ice age, and that we have not yet uncovered or disclosed the cause!
     
  2. API

    API Political Action Forum Moderator Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    22,093
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Location:
    SoCal
    Dang, did a turd float down the stream? :rolleyes:
     
  3. blood of the ram

    blood of the ram Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    4,375
    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2013
    Location:
    Cali
    I put up a poll on this topic a while back. I was somewhat surprised to see that there were 8 or 10 folks in this forum who discounted global warming and who also stated they had advanced degrees in a relevant field.

    So I guess that this forum either attracts a wildly disproportionate number of hunters with advanced degrees than you would fin from a random population sample... Or perhaps there's another explanation.
     
  4. fishnfool

    fishnfool Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    4,476
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    I avoid the AGW debate like the plague for fairly obvious reasons. One large reason is that I'm not remotely qualified or researched enough (on the literature) to wager an opinion on the matter and debating people with even less understanding on the topic who possess little to no scientific background is an exercise in futility. The "debate" is nothing more than a race to see who can regurgitation the most internet tripe with the most emoticons....regardless of the side one espouses.

    Where I do interject is generally regarding opinions of science as a whole, and particularly when those opinions are expressed as fact with zero evidence to back it up. When dealing with a scientific topic, the hypocrisy is ironic to say the least.

    So that said, I have zero intention of debating hockey sticks, data, measurement techniques, computer models, etc.

    What I am curious about is what specific information you have used to base such a firm belief on? You have tossed out every bit of research that concludes otherwise, and apparently know something others do not, or ignore, or dismiss. I'm not looking to debate your opinion (and won't)....I'm merely curious on what makes you so firm in said belief. In one breath you say "we don't know, and can't know", but in another you reach a rather specific conclusion.
     
  5. Ron Gilmore

    Ron Gilmore Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    13,515
    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    nd
    fish lets simply look at the temp data from NASA, how reliable is it and if this data is used does it not make the study itself come into question. We should be able to rely upon NASA to be accurate not tweak or guess and if they do not have enough complete data then say so! This may sound simplistic but for a layman with an understanding of how varibles can and do affect outcomes. The peer reviews have done a poor job in challenging the insertions of data that cannot be produced but are needed to form a conclusion.

    Thus I have lost a lot of faith in the process as well as the validity of the data period!!
     
  6. API

    API Political Action Forum Moderator Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    22,093
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Location:
    SoCal
    FWIW... In April, 2013, a Washington Post commentary tested this issue. Here we are two year later and I'd doubt thoughts are much different.

    How Americans see global warming

    One striking data set indicates that trust in climate scientists is decreasing. Now... why is that?

    Interesting how that attitudes towards GW appear easily categorized by political orientation. Hey, that seems to be how the koolaid market is targeted too.
     
  7. fishnfool

    fishnfool Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    4,476
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    I have no clue about the NASA temp data, so no comment on it's validity or not. Let's say it is completely invalid. A very dramatic change in our climate is still occurring. This is obvious to both laymen and scientists studying topics across very diverse fields.

    You firmly believe this a natural change resulting from the recession of the last ice age. Even if the NASA data is bunk, and the vast majority of research on the topic as a whole is bunk, I still fail to see how such a firm conclusion could be made.

    You understand the folly of using an erroneous conclusion to substantiate a different conclusion don't you?
     
  8. OneShotBandit

    OneShotBandit Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    8,007
    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2001
    Location:
    Indiana
    I remember seeing a picture of it (or the next great Ice Age) on TIME magazine in the 70s. I was in High School! :cool:
     
  9. Ron Gilmore

    Ron Gilmore Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    13,515
    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    nd
    fish simple question what is normal? We have people that are using assumptions of normal with no real basis for doing so? I am sorry but that remains my issue with AWG, it also is my issue with so much of the research that has been done. They make the assumption of knowing what is normal and I certainly do not!!

    I know that you do not want to debate the hockey stick but it really underscores the point! We look at the Arctic but really have no idea what normal is but scientist have made this assumption as to what they believe is normal. I will make this other point in that even using normal requires assumptions we should not make. Normal assumes static with no change just minor fluctuations either side.

    I have asked this of people who work and do research in the climate field! If they where placed in time during the retracting of the ice sheets, how would they treat that ? Would they assume that the ice was normal? See fish my view is that man has to attach these terms of normal, average etc.. to justify self worth and value. In doing so they are inserting into research a factor that should not be!

    So you in your statement that I highlighted in red is a prime example of an assumption that you use as a basis but really to the planet is it? We do not know and can only guess! Thus we do not have complete enough data to make such assumptions if one is honest!!!

    We know for example that a huge volcano or volcanos exploded creating and changing the landscape in and around Yellowstone. Science predicts that another such eruption is going to occur but do not know when. I use this only to illustrate the fact that it is of recent discovery that the previous eruption occurred. Lots of inaccurate assumptions where made prior to this.

    Then there is the issue of mass extinctions that occurred wiping out dinosaurs and most recently large mammals. Was this a result of so called dramatic change in climate? Lots of theory's abound on this!!

    So I hope you take this and digest it for what it is! Science is to incomplete to be making the assumptions that we are seeing a dramatic change in climate!! We may be seeing a natural evolving change, we may as well be seeing an accelerated change!! The only thing I do know is that we do not have the science to determine which!! And anyone that claims we do is making assumptions and nothing more!!!
     
  10. fishnfool

    fishnfool Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    4,476
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    I can see where you arrive at the statements you presented, but I think you are framing the concepts a bit erroneously, and part of that stems from a lack of the scientific process as a whole. Particularly regarding what a hypothesis is, what an assumption is, and what differentiates the two.

    Where you miss the boat is the starting point of the process. That's illustrated by your concept that "normal" equates to static, or that "normal" it is a "state" at all.

    The climate is constantly in a state of flux, correct. However, there is no assumption about what that state "should be", or what is a "normal" flux. In fact, there are no assumptions made at all.

    There are hypotheses (not assumptions) regarding that flux....i.e the climate is changing; the rate of current change is X, the rate of past changes was X; the cause(s) of past changes was X, the cause(s) of this current change is X, etc.

    Now there are a myriad of ways to test those hypotheses, and they can only be accepted or rejected based on evidence from those tests. There is no silver bullet, and some data, methods, etc. are better than others. Your acceptance or rejection of those hypotheses must depend entirely on the evidence collected...

    Flawed, incomplete, or insufficient methods/data may make you reject the hypothesis, but rejection based on those factors does not mean the hypothesis is wrong. It just means you cannot accept it as true. It certainly does not mean the opposite hypothesis can be concluded. To accept the opposite, there must be evidence to support it.

    With regard to global warming, you seem to be making exactly that folly. If you disagree with the evidence (and I highly doubt you or I or any other laymen remotely has a grasp on the extent of said evidence), you really are only able to reject the current hypothesis. You are not free to make conclusions (it's a natural process, man cannot possibly impact something so large, it's caused by the sun, CO2 has little effect, etc) without evidence to support them.
     

Share This Page