• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

No global warming since 1995?

As for the science itself, my view is that, if I had to choose, I would say it's -- say -- 95% sure that global warming is a scientific fact. I don't think it reached the point of being 99.99% sure (like, say, evolution) but certainly it has long passed the "hypothesis" stage and reached the "theory" stage, using these words in the honorable sense these words are used in science, not in the "it's just a theory" / "it's just the hypothesis" sense creationists & co. use it.
 
drkitten said:
You're not "wondering," though. You've decided that none of it is valid.
Click to expand...

No, skeptical about it, not "decided".

drkitten said:
In particular, you're suggesting the existence of some global conspiracy to silence all dissent
Click to expand...

No, that's not what I said. Please read the posts for content next time. Nothing about global conspiracy. ("What other scientists have silenced themselves for fear being ostracized?")

(ad hominem attack not reproduced here..)
[/QUOTE]
 
Of course, science being used -- almost invariably, although, alas, not invariably, not by the scientists themselves -- as an excuse for hysteria and moral sanctimoniousness, is hardly confined to global warming. It ranges, historically, from the terrible (evolution used to justify racism) to the almost comic (scientists saying that maybe, if certain hypotheses hold, then perhaps Mars had some sort of life --> "LIFE ON MARS!!!! DID YOU HEAR THAT?!")
 
Upchurch said:
Are those the "shenanigans" you are referring to? Could you be specific on what you think what was said and what it implies?
Click to expand...

It's just beginning and I am loving it...From a left-wing paper.

"In a unique experiment, The Guardian has published online the full manuscript of its major investigation into the climate science emails stolen from the University of East Anglia, which revealed apparent attempts to cover up flawed data; moves to prevent access to climate data; and to keep research from climate sceptics out of the scientific literature.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/ipcc-report-author-data-openness
 
easycruise said:
No, skeptical about it, not "decided".

No, that's not what I said. Please read the posts for content next time.
Click to expand...

I did. And I stand by what I wrote.

If you want to suggest a plausible reason why this global conspiracy to hide "the truth" exists and how it manages to keep all of the scientists world-wide under its thumb, feel free.

Until then, you're a conspiracy-theory nutcase.
 
Maybe you can take it up with the Guardian.

""Our analysis finds previously undisclosed evidence of slipshod use of data and apparent efforts to cover that up. It also finds persistent efforts to censor work by climatic sceptics regarded as hostile – especially those outside the scientific priesthood of peer review – or those able to generate headlines in media outlets thought unfriendly, like Fox News. We would agree with Judy Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, a leading climate scientist who maintains contacts with both camps, who says: "There are two broad issues raised by these emails ... lack of transparency in climate data, and 'tribalism' in some segments of the climate research community."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/climate-change-data-request-war
 
Last edited:
drkitten said:
Until then, you're a conspiracy-theory nutcase.
Click to expand...

Nice try, but No, actually YOU are the CT nutcase. I said that scientists might self-censor themselves. YOU said that there is a ""existence of some global conspiracy to silence all dissent "". The perception of the individual scientist might not be the correct global reality YOU think there is.

Trying to stay on the "tenure track" will make a budding professor do illogical things. Like not upset his more esteemed colleagues?
 
Last edited:
easycruise said:
Nice try, but No, actually YOU are the CT nutcase. I said that scientists might self-censor themselves.
Click to expand...
You are saying that nearly all scientists are self-censoring themselves. That requires coordination.


easycruise said:
YOU said that there is a ""existence of some global conspiracy to silence all dissent "". The perception of the individual scientist might not be the correct global reality YOU think there is.
Click to expand...
How else could this nearly complete self-censorship you propose happen? By what mechanism do you propose that these scientists are silencing themselves?


easycruise said:
Trying to stay on the "tenure track" will make a budding professor do illogical things. Like not upset his more esteemed colleagues?
Click to expand...
How many climate scientists do you think are still on tenure track? What prevents them from talking after they reach tenure?

You don't know much about science, do you?
 
Upchurch said:
You are saying that nearly all scientists are self-censoring themselves. That requires coordination.
Click to expand...

"Nearly all"? No, I didn't say that. Please improve your reading comprehension skills, OK? I said.."What other scientists have silenced themselves for fear being ostracized"".

How else could this nearly complete self-censorship you propose happen? By what mechanism do you propose that these scientists are silencing themselves?
Click to expand...

"Nearly complete"? Please explain this conspiracy theory of yours. I'm all ears for this woo-woo stuff of yours. I see a number of scientists coming out against AGW or are agnostic about the cause of GW.... Long list here..Please let me know when you edit this wiki.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

You don't know much about science, do you?
Click to expand...

Nice ad hominem attack, let me try...You don't know much about reading skills, logic, cockroach theory, skepticism, do you? But you are fond of inventing conspiracy theories, I give you that.
 
Last edited:
easycruise said:
No, I didn't say that. Please improve your reading comprehension skills, OK? I said.."What other scientists have silenced themselves for fear being ostracized"".
Click to expand...
Maybe you don't understand that there is a high level of consensus in the scientific community concerning AGW?


easycruise said:
"Nearly complete"? Please explain this conspiracy theory of yours. I'm all ears for this woo-woo stuff of yours. I see a number of scientists coming out against AGW or are agnostic about the cause of GW.... Long list here..Please let me know when you edit this wiki.......
Click to expand...
One, that list is tiny compared to the total population of climate scientists.

Two, a good number of those that are coming out against AGW are not climate scientists (Professor of Geography? really?).

Three,
According to the results of a one-time questionnaire-based statistical survey published by the University of Illinois, with 3146 individuals completing the survey, 97% of the actively publishing climate scientists (as opposed to the scientists who are not publishing actively) agree that human activity, such as flue gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, is a significant contributing factor to global climate change. According to additional sources, the majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points.
Click to expand...


easycruise said:
Nice ad hominem attack, let me try...You don't know much about reading skills, logic, cockroach theory, skepticism, do you.
Click to expand...
Not an ad-hom, but an observation. What you are suggesting shows either a staggering lack of information about scientific opinion about global warming or a lack of knowledge about how science, in general, works. Possibly both.

Now, if you could explain yourself a little better, maybe you could provide a mechanism for how this break down in the scientific process you are JAQing off about might occur without the existence of some great conspiracy. I'd love to know how you think this might happen.
 
Upchurch said:
What shenanigans are you referring to? I hope you know better than to rely on out-of-context quotes cherry-picked from stolen emails?
Click to expand...

Here's one..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...tudent-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html

An excerpt...

"But some researchers have expressed exasperation at the IPCC's use of unsubstantiated claims and sources outside of the scientific literature. Professor Richard Tol, one of the report's authors who is based at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin, Ireland, said: "These are essentially a collection of anecdotes.

"Why did they do this? It is quite astounding. Although there have probably been no policy decisions made on the basis of this, it is illustrative of how sloppy Working Group Two (the panel of experts within the IPCC responsible for drawing up this section of the report) has been.

"There is no way current climbers and mountain guides can give anecdotal evidence back to the 1900s, so what they claim is complete nonsense."
----------------------
end of excerpt
 
No global warming since 1995?

No sweat. I heard on the radio this morning that too much CO2 is turning the oceans to seltzer.

Great fallback position. Full speed ahead with the program to save the planet.
 
Abdul Alhazred said:
Great fallback position.
Click to expand...

lol

the earth isn't warming

okay the earth is warming but it's cause of volcanoes

okay it's not volcanoes it's solar irradiance

okay it's not solar irradiance it's solar mass ejections

okay it's not solar mass ejections but there's no such thing as a global temperature so this discussion is non-scientific

okay you can define solCLIMATEGATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom