When entire forests are dying across several states it is called evidence. Strong evidence.
Rejecting any evidence that does not fit with one's pre-conceived notions is hardly skeptical.
Welcome to the board.
When entire forests are dying across several states it is called evidence. Strong evidence.
Rejecting any evidence that does not fit with one's pre-conceived notions is hardly skeptical.
Welcome to the board.
It's becoming less and less arguable especially considering what has been learned over the past 5 years.
What do you suggest as an alternative? Those 'people' are eminent scientists incidentally, and here are some of their findings.
(and welcome to the forum!)
corplinx
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 8,952
The data seems fairly reliable and is accepted by most of the scientific community. Why hold out on the idea that the planet is warming?
What is debatable:
A. What percentage of the warming is due to AGW and what percentage is natural?
B. Whether corroborative evidence, models, and trending are true. You will find a lot of misinformation on both sides of the issue.
Personally, debating A is out of my league. Are we in a cooling period but AGW has raised the temp 1.6 degrees? (-1GC, +1.6AGW). I don't have enough free time to study it due to the demands of a normal sex life.
However, debating B is much funner. Some things fail the smell test right away while others turn out to be real meat. However, the AGW fanatics hang on every new piece of evidence as established fact sometimes.
For instance, is the antartic cap really melting like the latest study showed?
maybe not:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=030306H
However, if you read this thread you have the impression that it is true.
TCSDaily, aka Tech Central, is an arm of the DCI Group, a right wing political lobbying organization funded in part by Exxon and is not a credible source for scientific information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tech_Central_Station
corplinx
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 8,952
Oh noes! Varwoche used fanatic technique #27. Any piece of news funded in part by any energy company is by default wrong.
Try reading the last paragraph in the article Varwoche. You might be surprised.
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2005
- Messages
- 19,788
Here's a link to January temps for the last 110 years: http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/cag3/hr-display3.pl
or maybe http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
Looking at the variations possible, how the hell can anybody come up with the .9f trend?
I think anybody can see the "waviness" in the overall picture. Why would anybody think that just because we are at a peak, that we are on a one way, upward, trend?
In light of the cyles/waves, what do you think the 'trend' would be for any other 110 year span?
Maybe I'll go back to that site to look up it's paleoclimatology section. Perhaps there are other "100 year graphs" that would show trends, either up or down.
I personally think that, on average, we are having average temperature.
ETA, I just went to that site: http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
and broke down that graph to 4 sections of 25 years. Each section showed a greater trend than the 110 year graph, some +, some -. I still say that AGW is bad science. Only now I think it's bad statsitic analysis too.
or maybe http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
Looking at the variations possible, how the hell can anybody come up with the .9f trend?
I think anybody can see the "waviness" in the overall picture. Why would anybody think that just because we are at a peak, that we are on a one way, upward, trend?
In light of the cyles/waves, what do you think the 'trend' would be for any other 110 year span?
Maybe I'll go back to that site to look up it's paleoclimatology section. Perhaps there are other "100 year graphs" that would show trends, either up or down.
I personally think that, on average, we are having average temperature.
ETA, I just went to that site: http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
and broke down that graph to 4 sections of 25 years. Each section showed a greater trend than the 110 year graph, some +, some -. I still say that AGW is bad science. Only now I think it's bad statsitic analysis too.
Last edited:
Looking aside, it is possible to make statistical analyses.
Looking at the climate behavior in various places in North America, it's very obvious that when you get a 20-year drought every year for 10 years, something is changing, eh?
When you get a 10-year lack of snowfall 4 years running, something's changing, right?
Well, maybe not, it's always POSSIBLE that's just random fluctuation. It's possible that there is a "cycle". Many things are possible.
I mean, we do have 1000 year readings on ice cores, but anything's possible.
You mean "what does the tendency of administration apologists to make ridiculous propangadistic accusations like the one quoted above have to do with an election?"
I can smell an election in the air, just from the vilification that's popping up. Your king is in trouble, and you're riding to the rescue.
"And it's government on horseback again"
Yep, disagree with the conservative Bush apologists, and they call you names.
No, corps, you go get some help, and stop handing out diagnoses to people you don't know for problems you only imagine they have.
Yep, it's election time again.
No, it's not wrong by default. It's not even read by default, for the same reason that I'd be disinclined to read about science at MoveOn, Newsmax, Greenpeace, Drudge or any number of agenda-driven sources. This is based on the not-enough-time-in-the-day (NETID) principle, especially given the myriad of credible data sources available to us.
Tech Central is part and parcel of a right-wing political lobbying organization. They lack credibility. Despite which, yes, it's possible for an organization lacking credibility to post truthful information. But alas, NETID.
Consider the Larouche link posted earlier Corp. Is there not a point at which you rule out a data source based on lack of credibility?
Here on the other hand are examples of data sources that I find credible.
Last edited:
No, no, that's no good, it's not about science any more, it's about what wins the election.
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2005
- Messages
- 19,788
Perhpa you didn't read the fine print in the second paragraph at http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
Climate Summary
February 2006
The average temperature in February 2006 was 35.8 F. This was 1.2 F warmer than the 1895-2006 average, the 45th warmest February in 112 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.
1.46 inches of precipitation fell in February. This was -0.55 inches less than the 1895- 2006 average, the 9th driest such month on record. The precipitation trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.00 inches per decade.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not only was there NO precipitation trend, the month in question was the 45th warmest, of 110. Seems pretty average, if you ask me.
That site will let you see graphs of any month, or I think, annual data. Feb, 2006 just came up first.
2 years ago, it showed NO TREND, without 2005, supposedly the hottest year on record. Why don't you try the whole 20th century, 1900 to 2000 ?
But I have a big question too: Since all the linkage to AGW vs GW uses computer models, is the AGW theory falsifiable? Could some scientist prove it is a lie, or would others just say "He used a bad model"? Sort of like the Xtians saying "Evolution is just YOUR theory"....
Perhaps the issue of having to use statistics wasn't clear to you the first time?
Weather is noisy. You have to filter the measurements. Yeah, really. From one month you can not create a trend in any direction.
corplinx
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 8,952
corplinx
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 8,952
Your right. Its just a puppet site for the big corporate polluters. Its in the same league as newsmax or Larouche. You can try harder to ignore dissenting opinions by equipping a tinfoil hat to keep out airwaves that might have charts, graphs, logic, and evidence like the article I linked.
The article I linked doesnt debunk GW or AGW. The article critiques the recent paper published in Science claiming more melting that their last study from this year. Don't be afraid.
"Strumming up a movement"? I didn't say that, I am simply pointing out that the same apologists are creeping out of the woodwork with the same old methods, namely vilify, vilify vilify, and please to call it "telling the truth". It's an observation, and your quack-psychologist ranting doesn't address the simple fact that we have Art screaming "LIAR" at the top of his lungs, BP babbling on about "meds", and so on.
If you don't want to be identified with those people and their tactics, don't use them yourself.
And you know that the offyear congressional elections are rather important, just like I do, besides.
Canada Mints
New Blood
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2006
- Messages
- 7
Strong evidence of what? If I agree that entire forests across several states are dying, do you know why? Its not pollution, insects, tree disease etc etc? You are sure its due to global warming and that that warming is due to CO2 from man made sources?
My pre-conceived notion is "prove it", I am skeptical that man is causing global warming due to CO2 addition to the atmosphere.