Uh oh, global warming models wrong? *gasp*

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

What is dishonest about his statement? Watch any show on creation v evolution and they will present countless top names from the science world who believe strongly in intelligent design.

You really want to get this debate rolling? Go in one of the countless evolution/creationism threads and I will hand you your rear.

This one: Awesome simple evolution comic
Or this one: A argument for creationism
We can go in an F2B thread if you want: Is my friend correct on this theory...

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

My views aren't based on what a man in a black suit with white collar told me.. it's based on the odds.

Odds are there's no god. But that's neither here nor there. It's not the topic of the thread.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

I don't find his statement to discredit him in the least nor do I believe his findings to be as insignificant as you suggest.

What exactly are his findings? In your own words, please.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

Again, my views on global warming are based on what seems like a long history of dishonesty.

So, not on data? Not on scientific consensus? Color me shocked.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

the scientists credited with much of Gore's later points came out to be frauds and liars (Climategate)

There was no such thing as Climategate. All scientists involved were absolved of any wrongdoing other than some colorful language perhaps.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

and more data has been presented as of late disproving CC than bolstering it.

Such as?

Originally Posted by 'busa

Odds are there's no god. But that's neither here nor there. It's not the topic of the thread.

Fair let's leave that aside.

Originally Posted by 'busa

What exactly are his findings? In your own words, please. [/COLOR]

Already labeled out pretty clearly on page one

Originally Posted by 'busa

So, not on data? Not on scientific consensus? Color me shocked.

This is ridiculous. Then again, you discredit any data to the contrary of your view so I suppose, from your point of view, it makes sense.

Originally Posted by 'busa

There was no such thing as Climategate. All scientists involved were absolved of any wrongdoing other than some colorful language perhaps.

This is frankly ridiculous. The individuals involved in such were omitting data points that contradicted their "findings".

Originally Posted by 'busa

Such as?

Such as this very "finding" we are discussing in this very thread. But you immediately discredit them and move along.

Originally Posted by 217Bimmer

if you don't believe that human activity is contributing to a change in the earth's climate, you are an idiot. simple as that.

Originally Posted by evolved

Very true, but it's a question of the impact that we are having.

I don't disagree that we are impacting the environment, but I don't think that the western world is as guilty as everyone would like to believe we are.

Russia, India and China have atrocious environmental records.
They have levels of pollution in those nations that we have never seen in the states, Canada or western Europe.

Despite our levels of consumption, the West still has clean air, clean water and safe transportation. It was the US that first insisted on a catalytic converter for cars and the US that first adopted the EPA (by Nixon). And we led the way with the Clean Water Act and numerous laws to protect our marshlands, waterways and even our public dumps have regulations.

The air in South western Canada and the American Northwest does not meet EPA standards for clean air in many areas. Why? Because the air from Russia, China and India travels in a circle , in a northerly jetstream and carries its pollutants with it.

Do you realize how polluted it must be if it is so nasty after traveling so far?

I don't think it is necessary for the US and the West to raise our standards for pollution control as much as it is important for Russia, India, China and other nations to raise their standards to ours. And enforce the standard. That would have a greater impact than anything we could do.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

Fair let's leave that aside.

I'd to talk to you about it! Look at all these wonderful threads where we could talk:
Awesome simple evolution comic
A argument for creationism
Is my friend correct on this theory...

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

Already labeled out pretty clearly on page one

It is not. I already pointed it out. Show me, in your own words, where the information is at all significantly saying anything that "debunks" the theory.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

This is ridiculous. Then again, you discredit any data to the contrary of your view so I suppose, from your point of view, it makes sense.

No. I discredit data that has no scientific value, is not considered seriously (with good reason) by the scientific community and shows a patter of falsehood and bias.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

This is frankly ridiculous. The individuals involved in such were omitting data points that contradicted their "findings".

Show me. Meanwhile, read this:

'Climategate' review clears scientists of dishonesty over data
'Rigour and honesty' of scientists not in doubt but Sir Muir Russell says UEA's Climatic Research Unit was not sufficiently open

The climate scientists at the centre of a media storm were today cleared of accusations that they fudged their results and silenced critics to bolster the case for man-made global warming.
Sir Muir Russell, the senior civil servant who led a six-month inquiry into the affair, said the "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the world-leading Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) are not in doubt. They did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, the panel found, while key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any "competent" researcher.
The panel did criticise the scientists for not being open enough about their work, and said they were "unhelpful and defensive" when responding to legitimate requests made under freedom of information (FOI) laws.
The row was sparked when 13 years of emails from CRU scientists were hacked and released online last year. Climate change sceptics claimed they showed scientists manipulating and suppressing data to back up a theory of man-made climate change. Critics also alleged that the scientists abused their positions to cover up flaws and distort the peer review process that determines which studies are published in journals, and so enter the scientific record. Some alleged that the emails cast doubt on the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Announcing the findings, Russell said: "Ultimately this has to be about what they did, not what they said."
He added: "The honesty and rigour of CRU as scientists are not in doubt ... We have not found any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments."
The review is the third and final inquiry into the email affair, dubbed "climategate", and effectively clears Professor Phil Jones, head of the CRU, and his colleagues of the most serious charges. Questions remain over the way in which they responded to requests for information from people outside the conventional scientific arena, some of whom were long-standing critics of Jones.
"We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA," the report, commissioned by UEA, said.
It also criticised the CRU scientists for failing to include proper labels on a 1999 graph prepared for the World Meteorological Organisation, which was the subject of an infamous email about Jones using a "trick" to "hide the decline". The panel said the result was misleading, though they accepted this was not deliberate as the necessary caveats had been included in the report text.
Separately, it was announced today that Phil Jones has accepted the new post of director of research at CRU. The vice chancellor of UEA, Professor Edward Acton, said this was "not a demotion but a shift in emphasis of role" for Phil Jones. "CRU will be more closely integrated in the bigger school of environmental sciences and a key difference is to place some of the administrative burden that Phil had before this incident on the head of the school," said Prof Acton. Jones will be more free to direct and conduct his own research.
Future FOI requests for the CRU will be directed though the head of the school, Professor Jacquie Burgess, and the ultimate responsibility for such requests will lie with the vice-chancellor, as highlighted in the Russell report.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

Such as this very "finding" we are discussing in this very thread. But you immediately discredit them and move along.

I'm still here, aren't I?

Originally Posted by Raymond42262

I don't disagree that we are impacting the environment, but I don't think that the western world is as guilty as everyone would like to believe we are.

Russia, India and China have atrocious environmental records.
They have levels of pollution in those nations that we have never seen in the states, Canada or western Europe.

Despite our levels of consumption, the West still has clean air, clean water and safe transportation. It was the US that first insisted on a catalytic converter for cars and the US that first adopted the EPA (by Nixon). And we led the way with the Clean Water Act and numerous laws to protect our marshlands, waterways and even our public dumps have regulations.

The air in South western Canada and the American Northwest does not meet EPA standards for clean air in many areas. Why? Because the air from Russia, China and India travels in a circle , in a northerly jetstream and carries its pollutants with it.

Do you realize how polluted it must be if it is so nasty after traveling so far?

I don't think it is necessary for the US and the West to raise our standards for pollution control as much as it is important for Russia, India, China and other nations to raise their standards to ours. And enforce the standard. That would have a greater impact than anything we could do.

It's important for all of us to do something. If we do it first and do it better, our own quality of life will improve, our standard of living will rise, and we'll set a precedent and have the high ground to demand change.

If we don't, they'll continue to pollute, we'll continue to pollute and we're all fvcked.

Originally Posted by 'busa

I don't really care to look up each individual person, but Einstein was a deist at best

Yeah, deist's tend to get labeled as Christians a lot I notice by those on the religious right. I guess it has something to do with trying to make the argument that our founding fathers were all Christian.

Originally Posted by 'busa

It's important for all of us to do something. If we do it first and do it better, our own quality of life will improve, our standard of living will rise, and we'll set a precedent and have the high ground to demand change.

If we don't, they'll continue to pollute, we'll continue to pollute and we're all fvcked.

We've been doing it since 1972.
The US is the one with clean air laws, water laws, rules governing public dumps, recycling etc....


It is the rest of the world that needs to catch up to us.

The US and the Western World are not the villains in this case.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...bage-City.html

Originally Posted by faelar

Yeah, deist's tend to get labeled as Christians a lot I notice by those on the religious right. I guess it has something to do with trying to make the argument that our founding fathers were all Christian.

One of the signers of the Declaration of Independence was Jewish, but I don't know his name and I am too lazy to look it up.

Originally Posted by Raymond42262

We've been doing it since 1972.
The US is the one with clean air laws, water laws, rules governing public dumps, recycling etc....

It is the rest of the world that needs to catch up to us.

The US and the Western World are not the villains in this case.

There's lots more to be done. How can we even ask anyone else to get their sh*t straight, when the US is the only country in the world where global warming has become a question of political affiliation.

For the most part, I agree with you.

Originally Posted by 'busa

There's lots more to be done. How can we even ask anyone else to get their sh*t straight, when the US is the only country in the world where global warming has become a question of political affiliation.

For the most part, I agree with you.

That's incorrect, there are several European presidents and politicians who prominently refer to AGW theory as bunk.

Again, I'd like to point out 'busa and his successful re-direct of the conversation away from the study itself and to the religious beliefs of the author as well as several ancillary points not relevant to the discussion. Bravo sir, bravo.

Originally Posted by Act of God

That's incorrect, there are several European presidents and politicians who prominently refer to AGW theory as bunk.

There is a British guy that started it all. I forget his name.
But he was the original author of the study that began the global warming BS. He admitted that the results were fabricated.
How much more evidence does someone need ?

There's a guy who said this and there are dudes who said that. If you're going to try and make a statement worthy of a debate, please be more specific.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

I think the simplest (and therefore more profound) explanation I have heard deals with the probabilities. Is it really easier to believe that the big bang (probabilities of which have been calculated as infinitesimal) occurred as described in children's books or that something somewhere somehow was involved in the establishment of what we have today?

Since when does "ease of underrstanding/believability" become the basis of truth? (I know I'm oversimplifying your point, but I'm at work so I'm abeviating my thoughts for the sake of time, lol.) I apreciate you using odds as the cornerstone of your argument, but IMO the "odds" of something like the existence of a god cannot be measured. There's a pen on my desk... what are the odds that I purposely throw it across the room right now? It's imesurable because it's not mathmatical... it's emotional; based on will, not occurences or motions set forth. See what I'm getting at?

Wish I had time to eloborate, lol.

Originally Posted by 'busa

But we should ask real experts what they think. Anyone have Kirk Cameron's number?

Has his field of expertise evolved beyond bananas?

Originally Posted by Lair

Has his field of expertise evolved beyond bananas?

Nothing evolves in Kirk's world.

Originally Posted by Act of God

That's incorrect, there are several European presidents and politicians who prominently refer to AGW theory as bunk.

Global warming or not, fossil fuels will not last forever.

The Chinese have taken the issue very seriously. They are now the worlds leader in installing, producing and investing in clean energy. The one thing China has going for it that Western Nations don't, is it has no political grid lock or multiple parties to deal. Decisions are made based on the general welfare of the Nation, not special interest.

The American media never really talked about this, but the reason the Chinese walked out of the climate summit in late 2009, was because it was ticked off at America for not doing its fair share and then demanding that others do more.

China is now the largest manufacturer and exporter of clean energy technology. The United States has slipped and is now behind both China and Germany. With a dysfunctional government, it's pretty much guaranteed that the U.S. will not pass a new aggressive energy policy in time to compete in the global market. The one industry we should be leading on, is the one that we will find ourselves dependent on other nations for. All this while our Congress can't even come together on a f'ng increase on the debt.

Originally Posted by 'busa

There's a guy who said this and there are dudes who said that. If you're going to try and make a statement worthy of a debate, please be more specific.

You have more time on your hands than I do.
Be a pal and research it for me.

I think it was related to climategate...see, I have already got you started in the right direction...

I have no problem with clean energy, renewable energy or getting off oil.

Originally Posted by Raymond42262

You have more time on your hands than I do.

No, I don't.

Originally Posted by Raymond42262

Be a pal and research it for me.

No pal, chief!

Originally Posted by Raymond42262

I think it was related to climategate...see, I have already got you started in the right direction...

Oh, goody. Work already done and posted. Climategate was completely debunked and all scientists absolved of all wrongdoing. Science was determined to be sound and solid.

See how easy that was!

Originally Posted by 'busa

No, I don't.
No pal, chief!


Oh, goody. Work already done and posted. Climategate was completely debunked and all scientists absolved of all wrongdoing. Science was determined to be sound and solid.

See how easy that was!

This was just as easy.....

In the first half, research scientist Dr. Roy Spencer argued that new NASA satellite data contradicts global warming models. The satellite data showed that during a warm year, the Earth actually loses energy/heat into space much more so than any of the climate models that the UN used to predict global warming, he reported. The satellite data also suggests that cloud cover would further act to cool temperatures, rather than heat things up as the UN climate models predicted, he continued.

Spencer also talked about his new e-book, Fundanomics, in which he contends that money is not wealth, but just a means of exchange. Prosperity or wealth is achieved by people having the freedom to produce as much "stuff" for each other as possible that is needed and wanted, he explained. He further suggested that the disparity between the rich and poor acts as a motivation for entrepreneurs to take the risk that will raise the standard of living for everyone. Government inefficiency hurts the economy, and goes against free market ideas, he added.

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2011/07/28