matcat1116
-
Posts
509 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by matcat1116
-
-
Are you kidding? Do you actually BELIEVE this?
You fancy yourself as smart, you shouldn't be so gullible.
To add to that,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567922598995730.html
-
I'm not reading a bit of this crap. I understand the debate and I respectfully disagree with the minority opinion in the scientific community.
I also know that Threestars has spent years studying meteorology. If you think you "won" some internet smack down, it's because you're too obtuse - by choice or act of God - I really dont care which - to see how flawed the entire premiss of your argument is.
It seems to me you're saying "this research is right and this other research is WRONG! The fact that there is so LITTLE science backing up my opinion PROVES IT'S RIGHT!" I say it proves you're a MORON. and the very scientist your defending would think so too ..
Yeah -- I'm an arrogant fvck soo...
buhbye.
Are you talking to me? Maybe you should specify next time...
-
Thanks, I have full access to them so no problem there. I do appreciate this.
I would just like to make one point. This is my personal opinion, but I would not read too much into articles published in journals of fields unrelated to the actual topic of discussion. I say this mainly because the "peers" that journal has access to are not necessarily knowledgeable in that field. And while they might well be able to evaluate the science based on the general method, they cannot (and I say this strongly) evaluate the content based on it suitability to the topic it is discussing. (I am mainly referring to the last link you provided.) While this does not immediately discredit the content of the article, big red flags are raised in my head and I am immediately some what skeptical of the content. If the author truly had a valid argument, they would have published it in a journal that is actually readily read by the science community of the topic of discussion.
OK, I am reading through this (http://weather.missouri.edu/gcc/LupoMOMed.pdf) article. I see why it is published in a medical journal. It is written nicely for someone without a background in climate related science to understand. Unfortunately it really is missing out a lot of details to back up the arguments. A good stating point, but to truly understand you need to delve a lot deeper than this article. (I mean you in the general sense, I am not poking at you matcat)
The man who wrote that is associate professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Missouri... regardless of where the link I obtained was published, I hope you're not trying to say that his opinion on global warming is any less credible...
That said, I understand oofrostono's desperate attempt at a comeback, but there you go, plenty of scientific journals (and ThreeStars' only minor qualm was with one of them). THIS is why I created this thread. Apparently our president and one of the two political parties selects the scientific journals they like and use only those to form policy.
-
That is all very nice, but once again, that is just a report that uses phrases like "a large body of research". I am sorry but I want cited peer-reviewed publications not hand-waving generalisations.
You're really persistent aren't you?
Ok, you want it, you got it.
Note that many of these require payment for full content.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/294/5546/1431b
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/Aug27-PIPGreview2003.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023644.shtml
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/Soon07-Nov8-PGEO-28n02_097-125-Soon.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t341350850360302/
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1997/97GL02207.shtml
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0707.1161
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01resources/climate_of_belief.pdf
http://weather.missouri.edu/gcc/LupoMOMed.pdf
I have a lot more I can post, but quite honestly, the Islanders are about to come on and I wanna watch. Let me know if you'd like some more though.
-
Yes I read it.
One was on some types Polar Bear population increasing, can you find any other studies that conclude the total population of polar bears are increasing?
The next was written by an Exxon sponsored columnist.
Another was on a region of the Arctic that saw increased ice coverage... which isn't representative of the entire planet.
One of the other blurbs was written by a physicist and electrical engineer.
The final excerpt is from a conservative author who quotes a sentence from a physicist who has been dead for 10 years and in 1994 said that global warming would make cold regions warmer and more carbon dioxide would help crops.
Once again, I'm still looking for peer reviewed, legit scientific studies.
No, it was a report that attempted to represent the total population of polar bears. Again, debate isn't over.
Please show me which scientific study I cited was run by an "Exxon sponsored columnist". Just because one posted about it doesn't mean that one ran the study.
Then why do people use arctic ice coverage as a proof when trying to claim global warming true?
Yes, and like I said, physics is a very important part of climatology.
The final excerpt is a quote of a physicist that studied at Princeton University and argued against global warming. Scientific "consensus" anyone?
Nice attempt to shoo away evidence you don't like.
Here's more... not a scientific journal, so don't pretend that I'm claiming it's one, but a dossier issued by the European Foundation about global warming. Scientific "consensus" anyone?
CAMPAIGNERS yesterday attempted to pour scorn on -
-
The science on Global Warming will never be 100% settled. There will always be inconsistencies and errors along the way that can be cherry picked to discredit 99% of other carefully conducted, accurate science.
I would be all for questioning global warming if it came in the form of ACTUAL numbers, research, and scientific explanation from independent, objective scientists who present legitimate peer reviewed research.
When I watch Fox News and read Drudge-report, attempt to discredit global warming by presenting simple minded people w/ "scandals" and anecdotal evidence (like the fact that it is snowing somewhere at in the US when is usually doesn't) I laugh. Why on earth would they choose such an intellectually shallow argument?
Why don't they present an actual BODY of data and facts into their argument. Maybe if they did that they could win over a few snobby intellectuals. Could it be that their simply isn't a large enough body of evidence that supports their argument?
Did you happen to completely ignore my post with Threestars?
-
Ok, seriously, statistics and probabilities associated with uncertainty in observations and results are incredibly difficult to convey to the public. It is a scientists job to convey the message to the public based on their expert judgement. They take into account all these factors and then put out their conclusion and this is what is presented to the public.
I do not understand why a scientist would have a desire to cover anything up or mislead the public. I cannot understand what they personally could possibly gain from this.
And know, you don't have to be a meteorologist do research into climate. By the way when I say meteorologist here I am not talking about the people that present your weather on TV. Rarely are they meteorologists. I don't understand why we should ignore a huge body of work done by people who have qualifications in the fields of meteorology and climate in favour of work done by people with qulaifications in other science areas. That baffles me. I don't think you should ignore either side, but I personally would put more faith in the people who study the subject for a living.
That's a very noble post. Too bad I never suggested ignoring either side. I suggested not passing/signing economically-damaging legislation and treaties based on a science that is still in very active debate. I suggested that quotes such as:
"All across the world, in every kind of environment and region known to man, increasingly dangerous weather patterns and devastating storms are abruptly putting an end to the long-running debate over whether or not climate change is real." -Barack Obama (this one is especially funny because studies have shown little to no increase in severity of hurricanes in recent times - http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes)
"Today we're seeing that climate change is about more than a few unseasonably mild winters or hot summers." - Barack Obama (this after 10 years of global temperature decrease)
attempt to convince the public that the debate is over, and that power needs to be placed in their hands to fix the problem.
Scientific debate is good. Power-greedy politicians aren't. The debate isn't settled.
-
Um meteorology and climatology are not very different, and you cannot do one with out a fair knowledge of the other.
True, but it doesn't mean you have to be a meteorologist to study climatology. Therefore it doesn't mean you can discard whole articles full of science research just because you've falsely deemed that physicists and chemists are unqualified.
If you believe that all science that is presented to the public is believed as 100% correct by the scientist that have worked on it then you have a misunderstanding of science at the research level. That is why error bars exist. Furthermore, dealing with real world observations of the weather and climate is possibly one of the most frustrating and least certain fields within all of science. Trying to convey this to the public is incredibly difficult.
I like your logic here. Climatology is one of the most frustrating and least certain fields within all of science, yet at the same time you claim that it's the scientists' duty to not show doubt of their conclusions to the public so that they can get the public to believe their conclusions and prevent the public from considering the possibility that an uncertain field of science is once again being uncertain. Am I the only one who finds this contradictory?
I ask again, why should they cover up those doubts in their presentations to the public if they're truly trying to be impartial and scientific in the matter?
If these scientists were telling the truth, then they'd have included their doubts on their results in "the least certain fields within all of science".
-
The second article is actually written by a biochemist, a chemist and an astrophysist Again I still don't understand why they are writing about climate stuff. Would you read some thing about biochemistry from a meteorologist? I don't get why everyone thinks they are qualified to be a climate expert. It really annoys me.
The problem is that the science of climate change (specifically climatology, VERY different from meteorology) involves all sorts of background fields, like biochemistry, chemistry, and physics. No, I wouldn't read something about meteorology by a biochemist. I would, however, read something about climatology by a biochemist. Or a chemist. Or a physicist.
The difference is that they may have haboured doubts about their results and data (which they kept within the confines of the scientific community), but in their expert opinion, they presented the case they did to the public. If they convey the doubts they have to the public do you really think the public would believe ANY of what they presented?
If they themselves don't believe their conclusions 100%, why should the public? Furthermore, why should they cover up those doubts in their presentations to the public if they're truly trying to be impartial and scientific in the matter? Answer: they're not. They're trying to deceive the public and the scientific community into thinking that their conclusions are concrete.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091212/ap_on_sc/climate_e_mails
Follow up look by AP into Climategate e-mails.
"E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data
-
Is this is a report by scientists, yes. Do these scientists have any formal qualifications in anything related to climate, no.
Would you go to a meteorologists if you were sick? No. People have training and earn qualifications for a reason.
My assertion comes from the above 2 "scientific articles". Neither are written by people who have qualifications in the subject they write about, and neither are PEER-reviewed.
The first one is written by two astrophysicists at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, one of whom has a Ph.D. in astrophysics.
The next article was written by a man who studied physics at Princeton and Stanford.
I'm not sure what to tell you if you seriously think that physics is unrelated to climate change. Ironically enough, I'm currently enrolled in IB Physics in high school. We're beginning a unit on climate change and how greenhouse gases affect it.
Maybe I should tell my teacher that he's unfit to teach it because he studies physics.
BTW, I think that 31,468 scientists singing the petition counts as peer review. Unless that's not enough peers for you.
-
Having done a little more digging, my spidey-senses were tingling apparently for the right reasons.
I'd just like to make one assertion. Before posting "science" that backs up your opinion, I suggest you investigate the provenance of the article and the credentials of the people who write it.
Articles that are written by and peer-reviewed by people who actually have some qualifications in the field they are writing about generally helps. Scientists that have studied and work in the fields that can be directly related to climate are generally a good starting point, and generally these people have invested quite a lot of time and effort learning about their discipline. Do you think they might know slightly more about this topic than say....a doctor of veterinary science?
Yeah I get that, I might have gone slightly off track of the original point of the thread. But my beef originally was with the scientists who signed that original letter. I still think they are utter fools.
And that isn't to say that I disagree with the OP.....the science is very much not settled and I think it is foolish of politicians to espouse that it is for their own purpose.
Scientists need to learn to stay out of politics.
May I see where you get this assertion from?
Still don't get why they're fools...
-
Good. I am glad. Do you also read the other side of the arguement?
Hey, I am not trying to tell you what to think. I just want to make sure you have read the facts to back up your opinion.
Read the title of this thread. It doesn't say "Global warming proven false without a doubt", it mocks the fact that Obama and the democrats insist the the debate is settled and the science is in, because clearly it's not.
-
In a study published in the journal Nature a number of polar researchers showed that they had observed a net cooling of 0.7 degrees in the region between 1986 and 2000. Another study published in Science showed that the East-Antarctic ice sheet had grown with 45 million metric tones between 1992 and 2003.Even a report from the WWF which is entitled "Polar bears at risk" and warns that the populations of the polar bears might become extinct due to global warming, supports that the number of polar bears is increasing. In the report the polar bears in the world are divided into 20 populations. It shows out that only 2 of these populations are decreasing, while 10 are stable, 5 are growing and 3 are not possible to comment about.
http://www.tsaugust.org/images/Climate_Change_Paper_from_Marshall_Inst.pdf is a link to a scientific article itself... so Three stars' first sentence is false in and of itself. That said, more examples of direct citations of reports (not opinion from them... citing their results and quoting the people that wrote them)
Martin Agerup, president of the Danish Academy for Future Studies and colleagues from Stockholm, Canada, Iceland and Britain say in their report that predictions of "extreme impacts" based on greenhouse emissions employed "faulty science, faulty logic and faulty economics".The study, published in the March 15 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, was conducted by Ken Minschwaner, a physicist at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro, N.M., and Andrew Dessler, a researcher with the University of Maryland, College Park, and NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.The researchers used satellite data on water vapor in the upper troposphere, about 6-9 miles above Earth.
The theory many scientists work with says the Earth warms in response to human emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, causing more water to evaporate from the ocean into the atmosphere.
But the existence and size of this effect, known as "positive water vapor feedback," have been contentiously argued for several years, NASA noted.
The new study indicated an increase in water vapor but not as high as many climate-forecasting computer models have assumed.
Take for instance the cooling trend in the lower five miles of the atmosphere, detected by weather balloons, and independently confirmed by NASA's orbiting satellites. This data, gathered from all over the globe, through precise microwave and radio measurements, shows an average drop of 0.19 -
Was that a joke? I really can't tell.
Thanks for the page of links to non-scientific conservative sources. The large majority of those links lead to opinion pieces by world net daily, capitalism magazine, and even one gem by climate-change expert John Stosell.
Like I said in my previous post (which you proved) , you are basing your knowledge on the subject from conservative opinion pieces with little to no scientific evidence.
If I pulled any of these articles as sources in a science class, my teacher would fail me.
Do you have any non biased fact based studies or numbers to base your conclusion off of, or just opinion articles (some 15 years old) from conservative sources that have a vested interest in being against global warming?
I'm still waiting for a variety of sources where a qualified individual who used the Scientific Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) starts drawing some conclusions refuting Global Warming. Use your own brain.
I love your need to insult people you disagree with.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/sanandaji9.html
http://www.tsaugust.org/images/Climate_Change_Paper_from_Marshall_Inst.pdf
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/nov/09/science.environment
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37612 (don't let the world net daily title fool you, it cites a study "conducted by Ken Minschwaner, a physicist at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro, N.M., and Andrew Dessler, a researcher with the University of Maryland, College Park, and NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md."
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/global-warming-extreme-weather-or-extreme-prejudice/#
http://capmag.com/article.asp?id=2004 (that one cites numerous studies)
And I can go on.
So, you continue ignoring evidence presented by very reputable scientists because you think it's "CUNSURVATIV PROPAGAHNDA"
See, I can be rude too.
-
You have been waging a war on the English language for quite some time. I always had a feeling legible English had a liberal bias.
Have you objectively looked at the lopsided amount of science proving global warming or are you just listening to conservatives blindly without knowing anything about the subject. Somehow I'm inclined to believe the latter.
http://www.liberty-page.com/cliches/globalwarming.html
-
You obviously dont know how NCLB runs. Ask any teacher 90% of them hate it because it truly is a bullsh!t act.
I'm not debating its effects, if you didn't notice. I'm debating the argument of whether or not it was government intrusion into the private sector. It was government intrusion into government, since it put the government-run schools up to standards set by the government. Its effect on education is unimportant for my argument.
-
Yeah, the closer you get it becomes an upclose view of the area directly in front of you but you strain to see the rest of the ice. Yet you can't really charge less to sit in the lower bowl than you do for the mezz and upper, teams are stuck between a rock and a hard place but even if prices were equal I'd take the mezz center ice or even corner above the lower corner.
I don't know how it is for the other sports, whether you have an issue seeing the other end of the field if you're sitting in the front of the endzone (probably) or can't see the whole field if you're front row at a baseball game.
I got the chance to sit first row behind the Mets dugout this past year, my cousin got the tickets from his company. Those seats were phenomenal and provided an outstanding view of the baseball diamond. I assume football must be pretty cool sitting down low too. For hockey though height is far better.
-
Oh that's very cool, didn't even notice it
-
I just realized something... if Wrigley Field doesn't have a video scoreboard, how did the players now time left in the period and on penalties?
-
I was in section 12 row 12 last night (behind the net, visiting attack zone twice). Wasn't really feeling them, when the play was in the other zone it was hard to see through the netting over the glass. It was my first time sitting in seats where I had to contend with the net and it kind of sucked. It was nice being so close to the action (I was right behind where Salvador went down) but I did end up going upstairs to see friends in 232 at one point and didn't feel bad about having $80 tickets in my pockets and sitting in $30 seats.
Is anybody else noticing that some of the mosts expensive seats in any NHL arena are often among the worst?
-
I don't really want to wade in on this discussion because it will just get me fired up and pissed off. But I would just like to go on record as stating that I truly believe the people that signed that letter are slightly missing the point. They just make the whole process of trying to make the population of the earth live a more sustainable life that much harder.
I think they are fools. And I say that with full respect of their qualifications.
Because they want an active debate on a scientific topic that is still far from agreed upon?
-
Health Care 1/6 of our ECONOMY
in Politics, Religion & War
Posted
Guess you missed that part