The problem here is not the causal linkage, but in your terminology. Like most denialists, you suggest a level of conviction that does not exist. At best, all scientists have ever done is suggest possible connections, with terms like may or potentially or theoretically. And this makes sense, since the prognostications are based off of physics. Models, in turn, are not built on the premise of any past historical correlation, but are built on those same physical laws via the formation of a theoretical framework. Statistical extrapolation is a bad thing, which is why mechanistic models are used for prediction. When you suggest a certainty that does not exist and was never claimed to exist, you betray your ignorance of the studies and, more importantly, your disrespect of the methodologies they utilize. A person of your background should be ashamed to take such a position and the disengeniousness it implies.
<object width="853" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IbmnODQPFcM&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IbmnODQPFcM&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="853" height="505"></embed></object>
Okay I apologize for my tone and how I worded things. you do understand how people who do not believe in AGW feel now right? You make some valid points that I agree on. I was not simply denying with 100% certainty that Global Warming exists or doesn't exists. I agree it may have came off like that but you might have missed my angle. I was actually trying to mock how the AGW supporters behave. They seem to want to believe Global Warming exists no matter what the data tells them or how flawed the data is. They refuse to debate or even have an open discussion on the topic. Instead they just turn to absolutes like the "science is done this is no longer a debate anymore, its a fact" (our leaders Obama and Gore both have said this). From recent developments it is CLEAR the science is not even CLOSE to being settled. Here is just a few facts/events from recent development -head scientists from the IPCC now agree there is no warming for the last 15 years (you do understand the significance of this. They have been releasing data, charts, graphs, etc showing trends of warming up till now. Does this mean they falsified the data? Sure seems like it and they are starting to admit to it) -head scientists from IPCC agree they have not been very organized and they lost or misplaced papers/data -Mann can not be found or located for comment. Mann is the guy responsible for his famous hockey stick graph. Starting to look more and more like the falsified data to prove a point again. Also there was a general consensus on here that people who deny AGW were in the minority. I kept on saying this wasn't true, it was just our politicians, media, IPCC, etc were screaming so much louder and have more power and access to the media. As of today there are over 31,486!!! scientists that have signed a petition claiming CO2 is not causing global warming. Almost 10,000 of these scientists have PhD's. http://www.petitionproject.org/ Now again I agree that consensus does not prove a point in science but these are people who are way more qualified than you and I or anyone on this board on the topic and if they have doubts why aren't we hearing more open discussions/debates on the topic. Like a lot of people on this board they seem to just want to dismiss the opposition. -
great post... if i could rep you i would!!!!! Thats the trouble with extremists.. Left or RIght.... all they want to do is yell louder instead of debate.
Among the more consistent hallmarks of GW Denialists - aside from their general silliness and disengenuity - is the incredbly consistent way in which they revert to the same flawed stock arguments again and again. It's as if you are playing checkers against a very slow-witted child, who has e-mailed you his list of moves, in this case, over a week in advance: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=5091352&postcount=214
Let's see, if I'm an adult with a functional level of intelligence, reading this graph below leads me to one conclusion. You tell me how I should interpret this data if you have an alternative explanation. edit: and to reiterate my earlier prediction - I'm going to take the guess (IF he responds) that the usual suspects in the GW Denialist industry (I mean who doesn't get their hard climate change science from an economist at the university of guelph!) are going to be trotted out in response. Stupid, stupid stupid. You'll never make it into a magnet school program at this rate my child.
good point... but if you take that data back alot further than you will see that the earth has gone through cyclical periods of warming and cooling since it formed.
It's pretty obvious, I can also tell you that it didn't come from a British newspaper article quoting GW denialists that you got via FREEPER. Thanks for following my prediction to the letter. Don't eat too much paste, and work hard on those multiplication tables...
why do you always have to be so condescending to those who have a different opinoin than you? it's pretty Ironic that you told him to not eat too much paste, and work hard on those multiplication tables, when you are the one acting childish.
so, is that a "no, you can't share the data?" could you perhaps share the underlying code, that powers the model, that, when fed the data, produced your pretty picture? MGIA.
You know exactly where it came from, as could anybody with a modicum of experience in using the internet. Or the ability to read, insofar as it's actually written on the graph. Now please - do as I say and CTRL-V some pseudo-science from the GW Denialist industry; Hopefully this will serve as a beacon for your intellectual kindred in the Lone Star State (30% of whom believe man walked with dinosaurs today according to a new survey... ) and will kindle many new friendships!
Sigh . . . again the very stupid child analogy comes true. Paste your silly critique and then be done...otherwise we're at the part of the thread where you run away.
Really Sam? Have you been paying attention to all the recent developments? It is you sir who is stuck back in 2001. Of course that graph is going to show warming because it was DESIGNED to show warming!! If you want a graph I can draw you a graph also. Have you not been paying attention to the IPCC admitting they might have falsified data and skewed graphs to present their view? Have you not been paying attention that the head scientists of the IPCC now admit there has not been any signs of global warming the last 15 years?!!??! Isn't that contradicting the very graph you pulled from their (IPCC) website? So head scientists are contradicting their own graphs and data!! Which has been my point the means where they gather temperature measurements have been flawed and they now are starting to admit to it!! Let's not forget the earth goes through natural cooling and warming cycles here. But if you want graphs, data, charts here you go. This is what scientists at the IPCC even admit to and what they are referring to now when they say there are "no signs of global warming for the past 15 years". It is a bit more involved than simply looking at simple flawed avg temperature graph so try to follow. http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/no-warming-for-fifteen-years/ --------------- The plot works like this – The thick black line is the trend from x year to present in degrees C per decade. The Red line is the lower confidence limit and the blue is the upper – calculated with corrections for AR1 autocorrelation Quenouille style as used in Santer et al. If the black line stays between the confidence limits, it represents a statistically insignificant trend. No significant warming since 1993 – 17 YEARS! No significant warming since 1993 17 years – no significant warming!! ...three of four measurements show no significant global warming for the last 15 years and came very close to clearing the 17 year mark.
very good post Pop Rox. I am not quite sure why acts so childish and he always has to add personal attacks and insults to all his posts. Very ironic indeed
I promise that I will type four letters for you if you tell me which of these GW Denialist theories you have espoused on this BBS in the past that you currently subscribe to: 1. Humans are causing global warming which saved the planet from an ice age: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=90252 2. Solar Flares are causing Global warming http://bbs.clutchfans.net/archive/index.php/t-125362.html 3. Global warming as not happening at all http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=85338 Obviously - even a not terribly bright individual would realize that simultaneously holding these three beliefs is illogical as they are either partially, or in the case of 3, absolutely, mutually exclusive. Can you tell me which one you believe now? Just post 1, 2 or 3. In return, I will post exactly where the graphic came from, which you already know the answer to and have already done. Deal?
