Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Koch Brothers pay to show global warming is real
Topic Started: Oct 31 2011, 08:01 PM (4,897 Views)
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
telcoman
Nov 13 2011, 03:57 AM
NGC is correct. A lot of these scientists trying to support the denier crowd are not climate scientists at all. It's like that list someone bought out a couple of years back. All the names were people like doctors & dentists. experts in their own field, sure, but climatology? I don't think so. Climate scientist who are on the denier side almost always turn out to be n the pay of industries with a financial interest in sweeping the problem under the carpet. After all we saw plenty of co-opted scientists working for the tobacco industry in the past as well. The fact is, however, the vast majority of climate scientists agree there is a problem, andthat man is a significant, if not the most significant, factor in it. There are a few who disagree, and many of them have changed their minds in the face of overwhelming evidence. Some skepticism is healthy, no one is denying that, but they are facing overwhelming evidence against their position, and to support it they can only cherry pick isolated bits of data, which is practicing bad science. After all there are some biologists out there who believe in Creation Science as well.
"NGC is correct. A lot of these scientists trying to support the denier crowd are not climate scientists at all...."

Please cite where he says this.

You're arguing consensus, justificationism, not science.

"Some skepticism is healthy, no one is denying that, but they are facing overwhelming evidence against their position, and to support it they can only cherry pick isolated bits of data, which is practicing bad science."

I cited data for over 11,000 years and 420,000 years. Brewster cited data for a little over 200 years, ignoring the last decade or so. Let's agree then that "to support it they can only cherry pick isolated bits of data, which is practicing bad science."

Brewster's own argument against Curry has bit him in the ass.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jim Miller
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
That is not unusual for our resident self-proclaimed expert.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Brew is one of the few people here actually presenting any scientific facts as evidence, rather than political dogma or co-opted pieces by the oil industry. That some here seem too dumb to separate fact from propaganda, is hardly his fault.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
telcoman
Nov 13 2011, 05:25 AM
Brew is one of the few people here actually presenting any scientific facts as evidence, rather than political dogma or co-opted pieces by the oil industry. That some here seem too dumb to separate fact from propaganda, is hardly his fault.
BS, telco. I've presented the last decade or more's data on temps, As well as data going back 11,000 years and 420,000 years. You're back to ad hom. You never answered how you defend that, how false argument can lead to true conclusions? Want to take a stab at it? I don't blame you if you don't.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
But isn't your argument just as squarely in the justificationist camp as well? Just in that you are accepting a different theory.

At least it seems you are accepting a different theory since you are - based on your postings - not withholding judgement.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

When then lets address that. Here is your graph:

Posted Image

First of all look at the scale used its a pretty wide one in both time & temperature and I see no reference as where it originated and how the data was obtained. Possibly you could reveal the source, a graph means nothing if you can't back up where the data to produce it came from. my granddaughter can draw up a graph like that.

Here is the one from the US environment agency (Link)

Posted Image, then look at this graph of the last 10 years.


Posted Image

Source


Now the one big factor on temperature change vs CO2 since the industrial revolution is the role of SO2 pollution which has had an offsetting effect. One reason for the rapid change as of late is the fact that SO2 pollution has been bought far more under control than carbon emissions.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Telco, the data below is from the same source. How can it be both good and bad data?

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

What source, I see no source given. You know, in medicine, nothing is accepted without proper journal research references. Where are yours? I don't see them. All you have posted are pretty graphs with no recognized organization or scientific data to back them up so I can scrutinize it and the people who provided the data. Please provide that, or your arguments are not worth the effort to read.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
ngc1514
Nov 13 2011, 05:42 AM
But isn't your argument just as squarely in the justificationist camp as well? Just in that you are accepting a different theory.

At least it seems you are accepting a different theory since you are - based on your postings - not withholding judgement.
I haven't argued any theory.

I am expressing skepticism, and mainly skepticism with Brewster's oversimplified hypothesis that man causes CO2 rise and that causes temp rise, and that skepticism bases on the simple fact his hypothesis doesn't fit the data of the last ten years or so. Nor does it account for data shown in post #103.

An explanation is valuable only inasmuch as it explains the phenomena at hand.

Let's face it, Bruce's hypothesis is not that of climatologists. His says nothing at all of feedback, as discussed in post #103. It considers not other factors, like you can find if you follow the link for the Deutsch ideas.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
telcoman
Nov 13 2011, 05:48 AM
What source, I see no source given. You know, in medicine, nothing is accepted without proper journal research references. Where are yours? I don't see them. All you have posted are pretty graphs with no recognized organization or scientific data to back them up so I can scrutinize it and the people who provided the data. Please provide that, or your arguments are not worth the effort to read.
For crying out loud, telco, look at what's posted, several times now:

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis