|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,823 Likes: 516
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,823 Likes: 516 |
Quote:
This is an interesting finding. A couple of points. The previous studies are not "false" while this study is "true." It is never that simple, especially with multivariable outcomes like myocardial infarction (diet, air pollution, unemployment rate, weather, general stress level, distribution of age of population, etc., etc.).
For example, in a particular region, with a particular set of variables and a high incidence of risk factors, smoking bans may lead to short term reductions in the rate of infarction. In those particular regions, the bans may have a positive effect.
This data set argues that when you take all the data together at the national level, all the regions showing positive effects are balanced by regions showing no effects or negative effects. That doesn't mean that for specific regions, there aren't positive effects.
You are getting hung up on thinking that there has to be a "right" and "wrong" answer. But as with many things, what is right for Ohio may not be right for Montana, or the nation as a whole.
So, in other words, a smoking ban has no effect on heart attacks in non smokers. That was pretty simple.
Or, are you inferring that global warming has many causes - none of which are man made?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,647 Likes: 207
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,647 Likes: 207 |
All I can say is that anyone who attempts to have a discussion about global warming using local weather conditions is a complete idiot.
It is pretty obvious that real science has disappeared from the American culture, this thread is proof of it.
Thanks for the laughs....
No one has mentioned the Icelandic volcano explosion as a possible contributing factor?
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,823 Likes: 516
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,823 Likes: 516 |
Quote:
All I can say is that anyone who attempts to have a discussion about global warming using local weather conditions is a complete idiot.
It is pretty obvious that real science has disappeared from the American culture, this thread is proof of it.
Thanks for the laughs....
And yet we are supposed to believe that scientists can tell us the exact mean temperature from 100 or 1000 years ago based on a sample of ice - that, truth be known - may have only frozen 50 years ago? Or 500 years ago?
We are supposed to believe in man made global warming because they put temp. recording stations on asphalt? Or beside air conditioners on top of steel buildings?
You're right - thanks for the laughs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,823 Likes: 516
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,823 Likes: 516 |
We're supposed to believe that science can tell us the earth warmed 1 degree compared to 10o0 years ago? And they use temp. readings from back when the Pony Express was popular in order to convince us of that? Or they dig up some ice and tell us what the mean temp. was 1000 years ago?
You're damn right it's laughable.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
And you have cited.........um........nothing that is proven as well.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v392/n6678/full/392779a0.html
This is the original article that set all of this off. It compiles accepted data from dozens of groups (spanning 50 references) consisting of "the collection of annual-resolution dendroclimatic, ice core, ice melt, and long historical records used by Bradley and Jones6 combined with other coral, ice core, dendroclimatic, and long instrumental records."
It has withstood a number of challenges to it's statistical methods, and the conclusions of the paper have not been changed (as of yet).
Quote:
I will forgive you. Forgive me if I continue to say man made global warming is a farce - all the top scientists in the world and they can't prove it??????
A common misconception about science is that there is absolute proof about anything. Our theories change rapidly in response to data, especially in the modern era.
Accepted, current climatological data is consistent with man-made global warming. It is not absolute proof of it. Conversely, future, better data may disprove it. We aren't there yet.
Quote:
I'm going to cut some ice out of my pond - you, or any scientist, come and tell me what day it froze, what the temperature was that day - or even that week........then tell me what the summer temps were here based on that ice. Okay?
Because when you say - or someone said - they take ice core samples and can tell what the temp. was, I don't believe them. And if they could do that for 50 years ago - 150 years ago, etc.........then they can do that with the ice from my pond.
You up to the challenge? After all, if science thinks it can tell us what the weather was, temps and all, based on an ice sample from 200 years ago or more - surely they can tell me all the details I want for only 4 weeks ago based on my ice, right?
I'm not going to pretend that I'm a complete expert on climatology. I personally do not have the technical know how to do what you are asking. But a climatologist does. They can measure temp as well as time frame by measuring the levels of certain isotopes at particular points in the ice. It is kind of like carbon dating used in archaeology.
But I have skimmed this article above, and a few of the follow ups. I have yet to see evidence that disproves man-made climate change. The paper above does mention solar irradiance and volcanic eruptions as contributing to warming in the past. But those warming events, to the best of their measurements, were not as drastic as recent events.
Note in all my arguments that I have never said that man-made climate change is absolute fact, or that it is my religion. The data is consistent with it being possible. It should be studied further. As we collect more and more data, we will be more sure or skeptical of the theory.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
and when you are extrapolating data from tree rings, coral reefs and ice cores.. it's not exactly accurate. And who's to say we don't have better instruments or better ways to measure today than we even had 50 years ago? And there's really nothing to really say Global Warming is man-made.. You can assume and make a theory off of data showing greenhouse gases going up as well as temps going up, but that still doesn't mean that is the cause.
Absolutely true. The connection b/w climate change and man made is correlative. Which is why I have never said it is fact or fully proven (nothing is). It calls for further study, not a discarding of the theory.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,647 Likes: 207
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,647 Likes: 207 |
No one is asking you to believe the exact mean temperature from an ice core sample. That is not the purpose of ice core samples.
There are a lot of problems with the global warming science, much of it is speculation and postulation.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,823 Likes: 516
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,823 Likes: 516 |
I want to say right up front here - I enjoy reading your posts on topics like this - you don't come across as a know it all, it's my way or the highway, I'm smarter than you, etc kind of person. I appreciate that out of you.
I still see no proof of man made global warming when you consider the warming and cooling of the last 100, 1000, 10000 years. It is a natural occurrence.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
So, in other words, a smoking ban has no effect on heart attacks in non smokers. That was pretty simple.
Not sure how this fits with global warming, but no, I said that smoking bans can have positive short term effects in particular locales, and no effects in other locales. That is what the cited study says, not that everything before it was false, and this one single study is the sole shining truth.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
I want to say right up front here - I enjoy reading your posts on topics like this - you don't come across as a know it all, it's my way or the highway, I'm smarter than you, etc kind of person. I appreciate that out of you.
I still see no proof of man made global warming when you consider the warming and cooling of the last 100, 1000, 10000 years. It is a natural occurrence.
And I appreciate that you don't throw out personal attacks, but instead are willing to have an adult conversation.
I sincerely hope you are right. I would rather not have to spend boatloads of money or have a difficult (impossible?) job of trying to get every country in the world to agree and follow environmental regulations.
But I am not as optimistic that that will be the case; we will just probably agree to disagree. I think there is current data that is consistent with man-made global warming, but I would like more data to be collected in order to be more sure of this.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Sorry, but that sounds exactly like what Global Warmists say when people have a differing opinion to them.. "You don't believe it?? You are against science!!!! and will never agree with anything science!"
I'm sorry you feel that way, but in essence this type of study is about as good as it gets. It's simple, well controlled, and informative. It answers the question and allegations that Arch put forth, and shows it for what it is, belief only.
Quote:
or more correctly spoken scientific theories have been proven wrong
Exactly. Science is self-correcting. It's made to take shoddy hypotheses and put them through the ringer. If they don't survive and are proven wrong? So be it. But the important part is to admit that the hypothesis was wrong, and change your thought process and mind overall. You can't keep harping on a debunked theory or else you'd get no where. However, and this is where some people get confused, science isn't one paper. It isn't two. The process to get to a full on theory, with thousands of experiments performed and re-performed is science. Too often the media sniffs out the odd-balls, the anti-vaccine and perpetual motion quacks and gives them time in the spotlight, all in the name of balance. This sometimes leads to certain papers getting out, which people then latch onto. Homeopathy, vaccination, etc. all have their own "science" to them. That doesn't make them any less of a pseudoscience.
Quote:
More recently it has be a link between vaccines and Autism.
This was one mans crusade, who lied and cheated to get into a reputable journal. His fame-seeking behavior's have led to young children's deaths all over the world due to scaring people away from vaccines. He's since been removed from medical practice in the UK and his papers have all been struck from their journals. This is a great example of how science works, and why it should always top biased beliefs and anecdotes.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it untrue or false. Ice core dating works and is very similar to looking through rock strata. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_coreIf people wanna know how ice cores work read it, if you want to be lazy be ignorant. Also no one disputes that climate shifts and changes are unnatural occurrences. The problem is science does not know how humans are affecting that change. It's a catch 22 situation. Scientist won't have the evidence that is undeniable until it is too late.Although to blindly sit there and say that humans are in no way affecting the earth and its ecosystem is baffling. We pollute the air, the sea, land, cut down forests, kill species of animals/pants and everything in between. It is plan to see humans are contributing to carbon emissions...etc the problem is science cannot accurately forecast how dramatic those contributions will be.Whether or not those contribution turn out to big or small humans still need to conserve, develop non-fossil fuels, and treat out planet generally better. Quote:
There are a lot of problems with the global warming science, much of it is speculation and postulation.
So is all science. Take for example gravity, we can't see, touch, taste, or sense gravity. We can see the effects of gravity but I cannot show you gravity. I cannot grab a cup and get you a cupful of gravity. All I can do is say that I will drop the ball and it will hit the ground in X amount of seconds.There is a monumental difference between viewing the effects of gravity and showing you what gravity is. To this point gravity is a theory and is a postulation as is most science.
Seriously there is something wrong with how science is viewed in America. We are people who come from great inventors and thinkers. Franklin, Edison, Bell, Ford...etc. Do you think they were right with everything they hypothesized? No they changed their hypothesis as new data became available. I cannot fathom why people look at science with such disdain and criticism when they are fundamentally reliant upon the very science they condemn. I am truly dishearted by the attitude of not only this board but America in general towards science. We are truly no better than our un-"civilized" ancestors. For people used to make fun of people who thought the world was round and the sun was the center of our solar system too. I leave you with this.
Since last year the school board voted to have high school biology teachers raise doubts about Darwin's 145-year-old theory and suggest an alternative Christian explanation for life. The city has since been deeply riven over the issue of separation of church and state. In response to controversies Rev. Ray Mummert is quoted as saying
Quote:
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture" Rev. Ray Mummert,
If that doesn't tell you there is something fundamental wrong with how America is beginning to view science then I absolutely have nothing than can convince you. Its fine if you disagree with a theory or hypothesis but to throw away years of data and proof is asinine unless you can propose a better theory or hypothesis with more/better proof. Science will always back the person with the most proof. Science is a truth seeker.
Go Browns!!![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/BrowniePoints/AndersonSnowPic.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Tell me I'm reading that graph wrong - the first link you gave.
The way I read it is:
Class 4 (CRN4) (error >= 2C) - Artificial heating sources <10 meters.
Class 5 (CRN5) (error >= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.
Those 2 classes account for 69% of the data?
And science is based on that?
No, you have it right, they account for a large portion of data. But what it shows is that position generally doesn't matter that much, and if anything shows a cooler trend.
Another point, this isn't what climate science is solely based on. There's a lot of other methods for observing changes over the past 30 years. Satellite ocean temp is one method that has been in the news recently.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
If you are so sure about yourself, explain the emails that proved that the sceintists were creating a hoax.
You realize those emails were gone over with a fine toothed comb right? And after the investigators, all three different committees of them, sifted through all the emails for context there was no evidence of wrong doing. This is just a way to attempt to discredit these people by attacking character, not their science. It's false, straight up.
Quote:
Also, there are scientists recently that again have said we could be on the edge of a small ice age.
As I just said in the post above this one, science comes in all stripes. It's up to the hypothesizers to prove their hypothesis correct. So far, have they published anything of note? How rigorous were the methods? What type of stats did they employ? All of these are important to keep in mind when evaluating a research paper. Just because one person said it, doesn't make it true. Homeopaths would have you believe they found that water has memory of things that were dissolved in them. They even have papers showing it. However, it doesn't change the fact that physics says this cannot be true. It's impossible in this universe for these processes to take place. The point is, don't believe everything you read. And until it's been vetted by multiple sources, remain skeptical.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Since last year the school board voted to have high school biology teachers raise doubts about Darwin's 145-year-old theory and suggest an alternative Christian explanation for life.
Where do you live loki?
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,647 Likes: 207
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,647 Likes: 207 |
Quote:
Quote:
Since last year the school board voted to have high school biology teachers raise doubts about Darwin's 145-year-old theory and suggest an alternative Christian explanation for life.
Where do you live loki?
Tennessee ??? 1925????
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Alabama just passed some legislation i think.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Ahhh the Dover trials, where intelligent design was outed as creationism and as such couldn't be taught in schools. Yeah, fun times. 
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658 |
Quote:
This is an interesting finding. A couple of points. The previous studies are not "false" while this study is "true." It is never that simple, especially with multivariable outcomes like myocardial infarction (diet, air pollution, unemployment rate, weather, general stress level, distribution of age of population, etc., etc.).
For example, in a particular region, with a particular set of variables and a high incidence of risk factors, smoking bans may lead to short term reductions in the rate of infarction. In those particular regions, the bans may have a positive effect.
This data set argues that when you take all the data together at the national level, all the regions showing positive effects are balanced by regions showing no effects or negative effects. That doesn't mean that for specific regions, there aren't positive effects.
You are getting hung up on thinking that there has to be a "right" and "wrong" answer. But as with many things, what is right for Ohio may not be right for Montana, or the nation as a whole.
I think you are misunderstanding. For a decrease of 30% in say Dayton, there would be an offset of a 30% increase in Helena. No one was reporting the 30% increase in Helena. It was silenced.
In other words, they never reported the negative effects.
Thomas - The Tank Engine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Quote:
and when you are extrapolating data from tree rings, coral reefs and ice cores.. it's not exactly accurate. And who's to say we don't have better instruments or better ways to measure today than we even had 50 years ago? And there's really nothing to really say Global Warming is man-made.. You can assume and make a theory off of data showing greenhouse gases going up as well as temps going up, but that still doesn't mean that is the cause.
Absolutely true. The connection b/w climate change and man made is correlative. Which is why I have never said it is fact or fully proven (nothing is). It calls for further study, not a discarding of the theory.
Exactly, and yet there is a lot of people out there living as if it is FACT as opposed to being a theory and is trying to solve something that may not need to be solved. Personally, I think we can go towards a more greener source of energy, but as it stands now we depend on oil. We simply cannot cut it out cold turkey without major consequences like some people want and are trying to force by law.
As far as ice core sampling and the such.. I just don't see it as an accurate measurement. For all we know, any data gathered by those means can still have a X amount of error either way.. Even in the slightest, it's inaccurate considering people are gasping about the 1 degree rise in temperature over 100 years.
(Some) People are getting too wrapped up into Global Warming and turning it into a religion as opposed to what it is... A scientific theory.
Just as much as (some) people are turning science into a religion as well.. There are people out there that believe evolution is a fact as opposed to a theory. It just cannot be proven to be true just as much as Christians cannot prove that God created everything, and who's really to say that maybe God used evolution as a tool to create His creations..
But the problem is that there's too many people preaching Global Warming as an absolute truth rather than the theory that it is.
edit:
on a side note: It's snowing in Australia... in the summer.
edit: added (some) in front of people to not confuse (some) people into thinking I mean all people when I use the term "people."
Last edited by ~TuX~; 12/21/10 05:10 AM.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png) "Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
Just to prove a point. All science is theories. How many times do I have to repeat myself. For example: Gravity is a theory Newtonian Physics is built upon theories All science is based upon theories. Seriously you calling Global warming a theory actually strengthens it. Quote:
Here's an example of a mostly right theory. The 'Law of Gravity' is really only a theory, did you know that? (There's actually no such thing as a 'law' in science ... only a theory that most scientists accept as being mostly correct). What we mostly know about gravity was first described by Isaac Newton some 400 years ago, and his theory was so perfectly descriptive of what we experience in our ordinary world, that it was generally accepted to be true ... at least, until the 20th century, when Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking showed that there is more to gravity than Newton realized. A new theory of gravity, one that will also explain what happens inside black holes, is now generally accepted to be 'mostly true'.
Does this mean that Newton's theory of gravity is now wrong? Well, yes, ... but it was mostly correct. In fact, Newton's theory correctly describes how gravity will behave in our everyday world. It just wasn't a complete theory ... it didn't explain black holes.
Another example of a theory that is not perfect, but is mostly correct, is the simple set of equations that detemine how fast something is moving. To find an object's speed, you divide the distance travelled by the time it took. For example, if it is 80 km to the nearest town, and it takes you 1 hour to get there, your average speed was 80 km/h. This is so obvious, that most people would consider it to be universally true.
But of course it's not. It's only an incomplete description of how things move. It's almost totally correct. What it does not explain properly is motion that is very fast ... at speeds approaching the speed of light. A better theory by Albert Einstein, which accepted all of the old description as being true, but for low speeds , also explained speeds must faster than normal experience would make us familiar with.
Do you see what we're getting at here? Just because a theory is not 100% correct, does not make it 100% wrong! In fact, most current theories in science that are decades or centuries old are probably mostly correct ... we just haven't finished them yet! The very process of scientific enquiry ensures that theories will always be reexamined and added to, as new facts emerge. But the old theories are not thrown out ... they continue to be accepted as useful, and mostly correct, with the new ideas included to make them stronger.
http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/theories/inscience.html
I take great offense to you comparing science to a religion. Look at the history Catholic Church and the atrocities it committed. Science is flexible, ever changing, and willing to admit mistakes and accept new ideas something that most major religions are not. For example when was the last bible, Qua'ran, or Halakha update? Science books get updated every year with new THEORIES and new evidence. Science books try to be clear and provide evidence for their theories. Most major religions offer up passages which can be interpretable as the reader sees fit.
Maybe you got confused let me help . Scientology is a religion. Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the natural world.(per wiki definition) Science is the reason we still aren't riding horses and using flint rocks as weapons. You rely on science sooo much it makes me laugh that you try to degrade it. Your car, your house, medicine, internet, phones, most foods in the supermarket...etc all have traces of science. Maybe you should do some real research for yourself about what science is and stop listening/looking for sound bytes.
Go Browns!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303 |
Quote:
and who's really to say that maybe God used evolution as a tool to create His creations..
That's preposterous, it has to be one or the other! My television tells me so. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
I take great offense to you comparing science to a religion. Look at the history Catholic Church and the atrocities it committed. Science is flexible, ever changing, and willing to admit mistakes and accept new ideas something that most major religions are not. For example when was the last bible, Qua'ran, or Halakha update? Science books get updated every year with new THEORIES and new evidence. Science books try to be clear and provide evidence for their theories. Most major religions offer up passages which can be interpretable as the reader sees fit.
Perhaps you should tell the people that act like a) global warming is a religion to them and b) science is a religion to them instead of telling me that. You should re-read what I wrote.. I didn't say all people were but there are many out there that do treat science and global warming as a religion whether they want to admit it or not.
And me calling Global Warming a theory does in fact strengthen it as a theory, though it still does not mean a) that it is our fault b) fixable or c) infallible.
edit: well I didn't say many, but when I say People, I do not mean all people..
Last edited by ~TuX~; 12/21/10 05:14 AM.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,161 Likes: 844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,161 Likes: 844 |
Quote:
Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it untrue or false. Ice core dating works and is very similar to looking through rock strata.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
If people wanna know how ice cores work read it, if you want to be lazy be ignorant.
I'll read it, but I fail to see how it can be anything beyond interpreted, extrapolated data prone to extremely high levels of error.
There's this mystical city called Cleveland where daily temperatures are known to regularly fluctuate by as much as 25 degrees or more.
The annual variance in low,mean and high temperatures - however you want to wrangle it - is 90-95 degrees.
And you want me to accept that you can view an ice core sample and gain accurate enough insight from a 1/4 inch slice of ice into the mean temperature for an entire year and have enough accuracy in doing so that we should be alarmed by an extrapolated one degree increase in the calculated temperatures over the last hundred plus years? Furthermore, the deeper from the core you pull, the less granularity you have in the data. You completely lose scope as layers compress under the massive weight of the ice above.... .thus where a slice from above *may* represent one year, down lower it could be nearly a century.... you TOTALLY lose all detail. A span of 30 years is a blip, and you lose all insight into the sort of short-term cyclical fluctuations that the alarmists are constantly pointing to as "evidence".
Additionally, the very nature of periodic warming means that entire years of records will be periodically lost... and lastly, that entire Wiki is riddled with the words "may", "can", "could"... lots of ambiguous, non-committal wording.
Can things be learned from the cores? Absolutely, I have little doubt of that.
Can enough clarity and certainty be extruded from them to declare the short-terms cycles we're seeing is signs of anything grander? I'm not buying that at all.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461 |
Quote:
Quote:
and who's really to say that maybe God used evolution as a tool to create His creations..
That's preposterous, it has to be one or the other! My television tells me so.
First .... I et the satirical comment ..... just so no one misunderstands. lol
Why woouldn't God use scierntific processes to accomplish His goals? I never understood the either/or when it comes to God/science. It's like ..... "Well, God created everything except scientific processes, so any mention of science is offensive to God". 
The Bible says that God created all of infinity in 7 days. However ..... what is a day before the sun and/or universe existed? What is a day to God? I believe that this wording was used for 2 purposes in the Bible. First, because no one in those days could or would ever comprehend the concept of 4 billion years. Second, to demonstrate the timelessness that is God. He is beyond time, so a day to him is billions of years to us.
Anyway ..... back to the global warming hoax ....... I believe that it is one of the biggest hoaxes of all time perpetrated upon otherwise rational people on a global scale. It is positively frightening that so much data could be poorly collected and misused to advance, not a scientific agenda ..... but rather a political agenda.
Anyway ..... time to go see the doc.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
I think you are misunderstanding. For a decrease of 30% in say Dayton, there would be an offset of a 30% increase in Helena. No one was reporting the 30% increase in Helena. It was silenced.
In other words, they never reported the negative effects.
No, I understood it.
But that is very different from what you originally said. You said that these findings made the old studies "false." That isn't true. The findings still hold in those particular locations. That doesn't change. You are right that the negative data was likely "silenced," but this doesn't have the malicious connotation that I think (I don't mean to put words in your mouth if I'm wrong) you are perceiving here. And you made my second point, the fact that even if there are no short term benefits in some locales, but there are well-defined, clear long term benefits, then the ban is still justified.
But you do hit on an important problem in many fields in science. Publication of negative data is a difficult thing that needs to be worked on. (This is all negative data, not just associated with global warming and smoking). There are several reasons that journals don't publish as much negative data as they should, and the media plays a role as well.
First, in the past all journals answered to a bottom line, and, just like news stations, they want to publish what is "sexy." Publishing anything that says "well, its not this" isn't deemed sexy, even though it can be extremely important. This is starting to be corrected by moving away from for-profit journals towards open-access journals, where the peer review process becomes more transparent and what is deemed interesting isn't as beholden to a bottom line.
Second, I suspect that some of this negative data is published out there somewhere if you dig deep enough at a medical school library. But news stations are in the for-profit business as well. They are not going to report on what doesn't correlate with heart attacks, only what does. This is the more common way in my experience that data gets "silenced." News stations want a two-second sound byte, and data is never that simple.
These two things are usually accountable for data "silencing." Believe me, scientists submit plenty of negative stuff to journals (I review articles in my field). The editors don't always publish them, and the news media usually doesn't report on them when they are published.
I would say though that if you are using this as an analogy to the global warming field that the situations aren't directly comparable. The global warming field has already moved past small regional studies and on to global data sets. Further, those global data sets have been put through the ringer for the last decade with testing and re-testing, and the scientific consensus is that the majority of the data is consistent with man-made global warming.
This study is the first study that I know of to tackle smoking bans on a large scale. As such, it is interesting, but until testing and re-testing can be done, it's not as certain.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
NRTU.
I have seen here some folks who definitely should know better dismissing the Greenland evidence as only concerning one small area. First, Greenland is not small, and second, a significant warming of such a large land mass is not a strictly local event.
This time period is labeled the Little Climactic Optimum, I have seen it referenced in several different sources. There is debate on when it started and stopped, and exactly how long it lasted, but sometime between 1000 and 1500, for 200 to 400 years, there was a distinct and major warming that affected not only Greenland, but at least most of Europe, and in particular the entire Scandanavian area, the resulting population increase being thought to be responsible for the Viking era of exploration and colonization.
The data is largely from harvest yields and such, I have not seen much concerning an attempt to "prove" it was a global event. However, my understanding is that such a degree of warming over such a large area was by definition "global"
The importance of this event is that the causes are natural, not man-made. This does not mean that any real or imagined current event is NOT man-made, but it does contradict the assertion that such warming could ONLY be man-made. Very few, if any, of the "Warmists" make any mention whatsoever of the fact that any warming trend could be a totally natural happening.
There is also little to no mention of long-term cycles of weather, climate, Solar output, planetary orbit, etc. One of my favorite expressions is "Compared to WHAT?" I am fairly short, compared to average US male height, although only two hundred years ago I would be just a bit below average, and compared to a tribe of African Pygmies I would be fairly tall.
So perhaps the Earth is only now getting out of a period of unusually cool temperatures, and coming back to a more "normal", temperature, "warmer" only by comparison with recent history.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 Likes: 53
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 Likes: 53 |
Quote:
Also no one disputes that climate shifts and changes are unnatural occurrences. The problem is science does not know how humans are affecting that change. It's a catch 22 situation. Scientist won't have the evidence that is undeniable until it is too late.Although to blindly sit there and say that humans are in no way affecting the earth and its ecosystem is baffling. We pollute the air, the sea, land, cut down forests, kill species of animals/pants and everything in between. It is plan to see humans are contributing to carbon emissions...etc the problem is science cannot accurately forecast how dramatic those contributions will be.Whether or not those contribution turn out to big or small humans still need to conserve, develop non-fossil fuels, and treat out planet generally better.
Here here....I agree completely ...especially with the bolded statement.....I am by no means ignorant of the fact that man contributes and affects the environment with which he occupies. Ants have an effect upon the environment they occupy as well. The question is How MUCH???? I am alos not ignorant of the fact that our climate may be changing. But the changes are VERY inconclusive and Nothing can be shown that it is anything out of the ordinary....It can only be shown that it is happening. Now is the time they pull out the hockey stick graph ...  which has been selectively taken. When looked over a greater period of time...it shows nothing out of the ordinary. And if in fact things are warming...Nothing has been shown that MAN is the cause. or at least to what degree. How much has the increase average tempurature of the sun and increase in radiation been taken into account. We are just now starting to understand the magnetic fields protecting this planet and know that a shift in poles may be coming soon....what effect does this have? Quite simply there are far too many variables that are not being considered....Why???
Because Global Warming is not Science.....DC had a point when saying that experiments were done with preconcieved results. Global Warming is not about science...or saving the planet....it is about money, power, and politics. And therfore results will be what the money pays them to be. Not what the facts determine them to be. Do you think a Green Company is going to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into research only to be told that they are wrong???? No the research will be molded to fit their conclusions to make their ideas viable. Through selective omissions, and shaped research.
IF Global Warming WAS science....I might actually have more confidence it it....But it is not looking for how the model works...it is looking for how has man destroyed the earth.......so that these Green companies and politicans can build products and enact laws to be successful. So I will do MY part to conserve and such, but I will NOT help fuel the political engine that is driving the Global Warming Madness. I will not support policies that will cripple our companies with regulations that will have no overall effect when no other company in the world will have to enact the same. I will not put thousands upon thousands of Americans out of work so that a few hundred can get jobs in a specialized Green field....I will not buy hybrids that pollute the earth in their build process FAR more than a 57 Caddy in 5 lifetimes....just because it is supposed to be "Green" technology......
Now concerning this...
Quote:
I take great offense to you comparing science to a religion. Look at the history Catholic Church and the atrocities it committed. Science is flexible, ever changing, and willing to admit mistakes and accept new ideas something that most major religions are not. For example when was the last bible, Qua'ran, or Halakha update? Science books get updated every year with new THEORIES and new evidence. Science books try to be clear and provide evidence for their theories. Most major religions offer up passages which can be interpretable as the reader sees fit.
Oh please!!!!! Hows the air up there in that ivory tower??? Science never produced any atrocities???
Chemical Weapons like VX gas ( and others that are far worse), The Atomic Bomb, and many more killing machines were created by "science".
That doesn't fit your description....what about the experiments of Josef Mengele and others like him or Eugenics....does that fit your description of atrocity???
And science is not all so open minded and willing to admit it is wrong as you claim.....Eratosthenes proved the world was round and even very closely calculated its circumference somewhere around 200 BC but it was not widely accepted by "scientists" for another 1600-1700 years. Some scientists accepted it...but most did not. Heck the guy even predicted the tilt of the earth and the distance to the sun....
Science produces knowledge...which is a wonderful thing. But without the philosophy, spiritualness, morality, and wisdom (that many times that entity called "religion" you besmirch can provide).....knowledge is the most dangerous thing in the world....without those things it is like a loaded handgun in the hands of a small child. These 2 things, science and religion(or if you prefer philosophy or spiritualness) were not meant to be an either or proposition....they were meant to work together in concert. They need to be in balance. There have been MANY times in the past where religion has over stepped its bounds......But I fear we are approaching a time where science is overstepping its bounds. Neither situation is good for man.
Last edited by PETE314; 12/21/10 10:08 AM.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
I have seen here some folks who definitely should know better dismissing the Greenland evidence as only concerning one small area. First, Greenland is not small, and second, a significant warming of such a large land mass is not a strictly local event.
And it may not be strictly local. But the fact remains that the old work only had data for Europe. Considering that land is only about 30% of the world's area, and Europe in total is only a small fraction of total land, it is hard to make global conclusions from a local set of data. In contrast, with more tech know-how to measure temperatures past and present, the work of the last 10 years is more inclusive of direct and indirect data from around the world.
Quote:
The importance of this event is that the causes are natural, not man-made. This does not mean that any real or imagined current event is NOT man-made, but it does contradict the assertion that such warming could ONLY be man-made. Very few, if any, of the "Warmists" make any mention whatsoever of the fact that any warming trend could be a totally natural happening.
None of the peer-reviewed scientific literature I have seen has said that warming is ONLY man-made. Rather, it's come from the angle that it's likely that man is one component of the warming, and it's also likely the only component we could potentially control. That makes it worthy of further study. You are right that there are a subset of people out there who have carried the conclusions too far. That is true of any science that makes it's way into the media (stem cells will cure everything, classical mechanics was the "final" theory, etc.)
Quote:
So perhaps the Earth is only now getting out of a period of unusually cool temperatures, and coming back to a more "normal", temperature, "warmer" only by comparison with recent history.
Entirely possible. The only way we will know is to keep studying it, not by dismissing global warming completely.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
It can only be shown that it is happening. Now is the time they pull out the hockey stick graph ... which has been selectively taken. When looked over a greater period of time...it shows nothing out of the ordinary. And if in fact things are warming...Nothing has been shown that MAN is the cause. or at least to what degree. How much has the increase average tempurature of the sun and increase in radiation been taken into account. We are just now starting to understand the magnetic fields protecting this planet and know that a shift in poles may be coming soon....what effect does this have? Quite simply there are far too many variables that are not being considered....Why???
It's not that other variables aren't being considered. You answered your own question. We don't understand a lot of these things yet. You can't include stuff in models that you don't understand and don't have a lot of data for. The current theory is based on measurements to the best of our current technical ability. They cannot be based on belief, only current data.
That doesn't mean that if better measurements in the future prove it incorrect that there was some kind of conspiracy. Science and theories constantly evolve as new data becomes available.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 Likes: 53
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 Likes: 53 |
Quote:
It's not that other variables aren't being considered. You answered your own question. We don't understand a lot of these things yet. You can't include stuff in models that you don't understand and don't have a lot of data for. The current theory is based on measurements to the best of our current technical ability. They cannot be based on belief, only current data.
Ahhh but conclusions and policies are being made despite the fact we don't really know or understand what is going on...Policies that have MASSIVE and sweeping effects on economies and livlihoods. Not much in the positive mind you....unless you subscribe......And that is the problem.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 Likes: 53
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 Likes: 53 |
Quote:
Entirely possible. The only way we will know is to keep studying it, not by dismissing global warming completely.
But we are not studying it...we are trying to fit it to a preconcieved notion. I would agree if we were TRULY studying it....But we aren't....
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,161 Likes: 844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,161 Likes: 844 |
Quote:
That makes it worthy of further study.
And yet it gets used as the basis of national policy because it is taken as fact.
Not one soul can definitively point to human influence as an indisputably significant factor in the warming, yet policies are being set world-wide based upon that. It is being rammed down our throats as such. Gov't spending is being divvied up based upon it, taxes created - hell, entire pieces of legislation like Cap and Trade have been created for it.
It all boils down to one thing: Money. It is the artificial creation of a market.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 174
Practice Squad
|
|
Practice Squad
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 174 |
Quote:
Global Warming was real. It's the theory that it was because of Man that is the debate.
Absolutely.
This "man made" global warming hoax is being perpetrated by left wing capitalist hating liberals with the assistance of one the branches of the Democrat party...the national media.
There were how many ice ages in the Earths history? There had to of occurred some serious global warming periods througout the Earths history as well....without SUV's or humans.
Another example of capitalist hating...recall how the media fear mongerers kept reminding us of the inevitable environmental and economic disasters that are due to occur because of the BP spill in the gulf.
Oh yes...how can we forget those looney tune environmental nut-jobs on some beach in Florida holding hands and singing "Kumbaya"
Well? Not much happening is there? Some tar balls? Where did all the oil go?
FYI, the amount of oil actually spilled could not even fill the Super Dome 1/7th of the way up! Take out your map and place a pencil dot in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico. That dot probably covers more area than the Lousiana Super Dome. The ocean is huge.
Most of the oil has been dissolved by microbes...the same microbes that dissolve the oil currently leaking into the oceans naturally all over the globe 24/7...bet the liberal idiots don't know that. I bet they also didn't know that crude oil is natural, it is a product of the earth, not some toxic man made chemical that is being dumped.
I think people are waking up to the man made global warming hoax.
The November elections have instilled confidence in me that people are finally realizing what frauds the Democrat liberals, Obama, and the national media are.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
Quote:
And yet it gets used as the basis of national policy because it is taken as fact.
Not one soul can definitively point to human influence as an indisputably significant factor in the warming, yet policies are being set world-wide based upon that. It is being rammed down our throats as such. Gov't spending is being divvied up based upon it, taxes created - hell, entire pieces of legislation lie Cap and Trade have been created for it.
It all boils down to one thing: Money. It is the artificial creation of a market.
And in the mean time we are losing jobs to other countries that don't have said policies the group that are pushing said policies are standing there saying only the GOP are responsible for the job losses.
And for the record I am for alternative energy but we should design, test and implement them with out crippling our economy and infrastructure. See California as a reference.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
Quote:
You realize those emails were gone over with a fine toothed comb right? And after the investigators, all three different committees of them, sifted through all the emails for context there was no evidence of wrong doing. This is just a way to attempt to discredit these people by attacking character, not their science. It's false, straight up.
Not really...they were reviewed in house and by organizations that had ties, so it was far from an independent review. There may not be any evidence of wrong doing but many feel there was a huge opportunity for them to cover up anything that would have been embarrassing.
There has been a huge list of people who have come out and said they were discriminated against in peer review and had funding pulled when their data didn't support Man Made Global Warming. That is far from Scientific Method definition that I am use to.
Please read (when you have the time) the link I have on the first page to John Coleman's comments on Global Warming. I would love to hear a clear intelligent rebuttal to his comments.
![[Linked Image from mypsn.eu.playstation.com]](http://mypsn.eu.playstation.com/psn/profile/Letherface.png)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
Quote:
Just to prove a point.
All science is theories. How many times do I have to repeat myself. For example:
Gravity is a theory
Newtonian Physics is built upon theories
All science is based upon theories. Seriously you calling Global warming a theory actually strengthens it.
Yes, it is a theory and it strengthens it's arguments. But at one time scientists had a theory the world was flat and the Earth was the center of the universe. So just because it is a theory doesn't mean it is true.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,161 Likes: 844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,161 Likes: 844 |
Technically, Gravity is a Law... it is merely our understanding of how it works that is only a Theory.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Quote:
I take great offense to you comparing science to a religion. Look at the history Catholic Church and the atrocities it committed. Science is flexible, ever changing, and willing to admit mistakes and accept new ideas something that most major religions are not. For example when was the last bible, Qua'ran, or Halakha update? Science books get updated every year with new THEORIES and new evidence. Science books try to be clear and provide evidence for their theories. Most major religions offer up passages which can be interpretable as the reader sees fit.
Perhaps you should tell the people that act like a) global warming is a religion to them and b) science is a religion to them instead of telling me that. You should re-read what I wrote.. I didn't say all people were but there are many out there that do treat science and global warming as a religion whether they want to admit it or not.
And me calling Global Warming a theory does in fact strengthen it as a theory, though it still does not mean a) that it is our fault b) fixable or c) infallible.
edit: well I didn't say many, but when I say People, I do not mean all people..
I agree that many treat science as a religion. I have said it before and it incenses many people here, but it is true. At it's core, science is an ever-changing adaptable to current evidence as noted by many in this thread. However, with the $$$ associated with it, there will always be people that latch onto one of these theories and push that agenda to the point it becomes thought of as fact by the general populace (even if it is truly theory and possibly even a shaky theory at that).
It was noted on the atrocities of the Catholic Church, however at the core of Christianity, such atrocities should not occur. Those atrocities occur when individuals hold onto one or a few particular beliefs so hard and rigidly that they refuse to accept anything else and lash out at it.
In short, it's a people problem, not a 'science' or 'religion' problem.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Another global warming prediction
gone wrong
|
|
