^^ agree 100%. your earlier post is great, too. SamFisher has clearly been abrasive about it, but his points are all logical and spot on. There have been threads upon threads about this historically, and it always comes back to the same one guy, supported by a similar list of "scientists"...what logical, intelligent person would continue to be on the fence about that guy or said list....even if some of the people on the list are genuinely relevant scientists with genuine concerns?? B-Bob, as someone with more knowledge on the subject than many others on this board, and since so many on this board really do seem to be numbers focused, in your opinion only, looking only at the sub-group of scientists you believe should have a voice in this (i.e. - not swayed by money, not an economist, etc.), what percentage believe in man-caused GW and what % don't and have (at least in their opinions) valid concerns?
Wow. JayZ, I am really not qualified to answer that, and I should emphasize I'm not a climate scientist. I've just looked at a ton of the data, and read some of the papers. And then I've seen a few key people give science-based talks on the topic. So that's what forms my view. I don't know the field of climate science well enough to give you a spot poll. From what I can tell, outside looking in, nearly all of the legit people conclude the earth's atmosphere is warming at a significant rate. And they would probably place the probability of human activity's influence as "likely." That just means they are confident in some effect of humans, not an exclusive contribution. But I think very few climate scientists would say "I am 99% sure that humans are causing the entire warming effect." I could be wrong though. I just don't see how you can be certain of something causal, as a scientist, without running the control experiment, which is sadly impossible. Is any of this helpful?
truthfully, i wish i hadn't started the thread. i had no idea it was going to be more about me than it was about global warming. clearly most of you know more about this than i do. i have no idea of the reputation of the scientists listed on the report or even Inhofe. i read the report and had questions stemming from it. better to avoid the topic altogether, because in the context of a hoops forum it's not all that important anyway. thanks.
to answer your first question: What do we do with this? see the irrelevance of it. why do you care who is "right" in the argument? we have a problem, let's solve it
Sorry, Max. Please ignore my points that mention you by name. My main post didn't even mention you, and that is what I'd like to hear your thoughts on. I'm serious, and I wish you could reply to that. Do they make sense? Separating the warming from the causes?
absolutely makes sense. is anyone actually denying global warming? my understanding is the argument centers entirely on the question of man's impact.
that's not what many of the articles you have posted in the past say - e.g. that global cooling is occurring and that there will be another ice age.
Ok..I don't remember what I believed about this in 2003. I imagine I was a lot more skeptical of all of it than I am today. Many of my beliefs and thoughts are different from what they would have been in 2003. I'm really good with that. T.J. called it a lack of integrity...I call it growing, because that sounds better to me and is more convenient. Also...is there an assumption that because someone posts an article they're adopting it? That's not at all what I was doing in this thread, no matter how much you want to assume otherwise. I posted this asking questions...not proclaiming truth. I know I've posted articles in the past that way, too...to fuel discussion and get some different perspective. I still have questions about all of this....I just don't think this is the place to ask them.
Interesting. I can't believe I missed this... The 400 is from a previous Inhofe screed, almost exactly a year ago. Here's a partial breakdown of that list... Those numbers are wrong however, as an economist is included twice. So now, Inhofe is taking this original discredited 400 and is adding 250. I'm sure they will be just as qualified.
That's only because we know you are wingnut libtard who values ideology above all else.. In these parts we call that "flip flopping."
thanks much for answering. I do think some people claim that you can't prove the warming, even now. But not you! And then others claim they know that humans are causing the warming. Ugh. The universe is probabilistic, except for the probability that you will probably enjoy a St. Whatever beer at the end of this day. Cheers.
Wait...I thought this has been the claim of the UN and other international scientific bodies who are studying this stuff. That it's unquestionably man-made.
^ I think B-Bob is saying there is no absolute certainty just a high degree of probability. This one problem with debating scientific principles which is that nothing is ever completely proven in science.
I think the scientific claim is contribution. The correlation between man-made greenhouse gas emissions and the change in temperature is alarming, a la cholesterol levels and heart disease. This is the inherent problem in the interface of science and policy. Lawmakers who have something to lose with a new policy will demand certainty. I'm shocked we ever got warning labels on cigs. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KX5jNnDMfxA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KX5jNnDMfxA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
I agree that's what B-Bob is saying. What I'm asking is....isn't the UN group who is studying climate change saying that it is UNQUESTIONABLY man-made?
i don't remember what you believed in 2003 either, but anyway the articles and the arguments you posted back then are the same ones you have consistently post now, made by the same people, saying the same thing. When you consistently post the same GW-denier stuff over and over again for years (same as a lot of other people have posted) even after a lot of people take the time to debunk or address it - it's not unlikely for someone to associate you with those views. Anyway the "hold on/we're not sure" view is essentially the same as the GW denier view in many instances which is more borne out of cynicism in many cases than actual doubt.
Hi Max, if wiki is correct, this is the take home message from IPCC's 2007 report: But what UN statements are you referring to?
Honestly, I'm not sure! I remember Meowgi posting a sort of "case closed" thread from some study that said the link was undeniable. I'm thinking it was the UN or another international body that put that together. maybe the stuff you just posted was it.
Maybe! The interesting line in all of that (assuming that's really from the report -- it was taking too long to download the real thing from IPCC), was the 5% chance that the warming is caused by natural climatic processes. I think some people take a 95% chance and say that's pretty damned sure, for a climate problem.
