Page 1 of 3
#2
It's certainly an interesting twist on things.

|_|0|_|
|_|_|0|
|0|0|0|
▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄
#3
Yes, I do believe humans aren't the cause for mars' warming. As for the earth's own climate change I think he should make a bigger effort finding that out conclusively.
████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
#4
This evidence points towards the scientifically logical answer.
You who build these altars now

To sacrifice these children
You must not do it anymore
#6
Even though the global warming is maybe not because of humen, I believe that cutting down on oil usage is essential.
DeVillains!
#8
Quote by Kensai
Yes, I do believe humans aren't the cause for mars' warming. As for the earth's own climate change I think he should make a bigger effort finding that out conclusively.


I love that elmo
Angus = god
#9
Quote by Ylasto
Even though the global warming is maybe not because of humans, I believe that cutting down on oil usage is essential.


+1.

For the right reasons though, it isn't going to miracilously 'solve' the warming, but we just haven't got much of it left.
You who build these altars now

To sacrifice these children
You must not do it anymore
#11
Quote by the bartender
+1.

For the right reasons though, it isn't going to miracilously 'solve' the warming, but we just haven't got much of it left.


Well a lot of people seem to use their disbelief of global warming as a reason to drive a big car regardless of the fact that we're running out of resources
#12
I believe that global warming would most likely happen anyway and that humans just speed up the process. Temperatures on earth have dropped causing ice ages on our planet so I don't find it difficult to believe that the temperature would rise too.
Quote by Tyler Durden
It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything.

Erowid
#14
Over the last two decades, proxy evidence of local or planetary warming has been observed on Mars,[35] Pluto,[36] Jupiter, [37] and Neptune's largest moon Triton.[38] It has sometimes been asserted in the popular press that this points to a solar explanation for the recent warming on Earth.[39] Physicist Khabibullo Abdusamatov claims that solar variation has caused global warming on Earth,[40] and that the coincident warmings "can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."[41] This view is not accepted by other scientists. Planetary physicist Colin Wilson responded, "His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," and climate scientist Amato Evan stated, "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."[35] Charles Long of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, who studies radiative transfer, says "That's nuts ... It doesn't make physical sense that that's the case."[42] Jay Pasachoff, an astronomy professor at Williams College, said that Pluto's global warming was "likely not connected with that of the Earth. The major way they could be connected is if the warming was caused by a large increase in sunlight. But the solar constant — the amount of sunlight received each second — is carefully monitored by spacecraft, and we know the Sun's output is much too steady to be changing the temperature of Pluto."[36] Instead, scientific opinion is that these changes are caused by other factors, such as orbital irregularities or (in the case of Mars) changes in albedo as a result of dust storms[43].
]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change#Warming_on_other_planets.3F
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#15
Quote by Zoot Allures
Well a lot of people seem to use their disbelief of global warming as a reason to drive a big car regardless of the fact that we're running out of resources


Couldn't their fondness of big cars be the reason for their disbelief of global warming ?

On the other hand, big companies are advertising CO2 neutrality because it sells, not because they care about the environment. People will always do things for the wrong reasons, it's science's job to find out what the good reasons are .

EDIT: to the above ^: I see all kinds of people say that it's bollocks, but nobody explains why. Naming other possible explanations doesn't make this explanation wrong.
You who build these altars now

To sacrifice these children
You must not do it anymore
Last edited by the bartender at May 18, 2010,
#16
I've never been a particularly strong believer in Global Warming, because I did a project going through temperature data throughout the years. With data as vague as that (once you get back past the mid-1970s the data is mostly extrapolated beyond a few measurments... once you breach the mid-1930s its almost all extrapolation)... you can skew it to show just about anything. I "analyzed" with two different mechanisms and got two different conflicting results.

This seems much more logical too me than Human's ****ing things up. There's no question there's a greenhouse effect, but cyclic weather patterns and the rising and lowering of sun temperature due to fluctuations of internal star pressure makes much more sense to me.
#18
Quote by ZanasCross
I've never been a particularly strong believer in Global Warming, because I did a project going through temperature data throughout the years. With data as vague as that (once you get back past the mid-1970s the data is mostly extrapolated beyond a few measurments... once you breach the mid-1930s its almost all extrapolation)... you can skew it to show just about anything. I "analyzed" with two different mechanisms and got two different conflicting results.

This seems much more logical too me than Human's ****ing things up. There's no question there's a greenhouse effect, but cyclic weather patterns and the rising and lowering of sun temperature due to fluctuations of internal star pressure makes much more sense to me.


I love you.
You who build these altars now

To sacrifice these children
You must not do it anymore
#19
Quote by the bartender

EDIT: to the above ^: I see all kinds of people say that it's bollocks, but nobody explains why. Naming other possible explanations doesn't make this explanation wrong.
You see all kinds of people say what's wrong? That changes in solar irradiance doesn't account for warming on Earth or Mars?
The other explanation that I bolded accounts for warming on Mars, solar irradiance doesn't because, as the same paragraph points out, it has been too stable to account for warming, and if it were responsible for our and Mars' Global warming then we would also see it on other similar planets, but we do not.

There are always individual dissenters in any scientific field, it is also usually a warning sign when they go above the heads of the scientific community and straight to the press. However, even ignoring that the fact remains that there is a massive scientific consensus about Climate change being the result of human factors, the kind of rare consensus that is always the result of massive amounts of evidence. No national academy of science in the industrialised world or scientific organisation of national or international standing dissents anymore. The dissenters are increasingly grasping at straws.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#20
Quote by ZanasCross
I've never been a particularly strong believer in Global Warming, because I did a project going through temperature data throughout the years. With data as vague as that (once you get back past the mid-1970s the data is mostly extrapolated beyond a few measurments... once you breach the mid-1930s its almost all extrapolation)... you can skew it to show just about anything. I "analyzed" with two different mechanisms and got two different conflicting results.

This seems much more logical too me than Human's ****ing things up. There's no question there's a greenhouse effect, but cyclic weather patterns and the rising and lowering of sun temperature due to fluctuations of internal star pressure makes much more sense to me.


It's a combination of the ability of data to be manipulated like you say and the fact that the government are saying it. I have a really hard time believing anything which is clearly helping any political agenda..

All in all i dunno :/
#22
Quote by Ur all $h1t
*post*


I have a few things to say about that:

- history shows that being with more doesn't automatically mean you are right. Science and democracy are entirely different things.

- Scientist have more and more become bussinessmen and politicians. It would suicide for a big adacemy to raise doubts about wether global warming is caused by humanity or not.

- Solar irradiance DOES cause warming/cooling on planets, we know that as fact.
You who build these altars now

To sacrifice these children
You must not do it anymore
#23
Quote by Zoot Allures
It's a combination of the ability of data to be manipulated like you say and the fact that the government are saying it. I have a really hard time believing anything which is clearly helping any political agenda..

All in all i dunno :/

Zanas isn't the only person who's considered that data can be manipulated, the entire point of publishing research in the way that scientists do is so that people can examine that data. Other scientists have examined it, and collectively the vast majority have reached much the same conclusion (although it took a long time and a lot of evidence to reach it), that our activities are responsible for much of the variation in climate change.

I don't give a shit what the government has to say about it, but I do care about what the science says. Also, business has an opposite agenda, and business's agenda is usually much more persuasive. Luckily the scientific method is robust enough to resist a lot of manipulation from any outside agenda.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#24
Quote by Ur all $h1t
I don't give a shit what the government has to say about it, but I do care about what the science says. Also, business has an opposite agenda, and business's agenda is usually much more persuasive. Luckily the scientific method is robust enough to resist a lot of manipulation from any outside agenda.


I highly disagree with this.

Can you tell me the two main financial sources for scientific research?

exactly, governments and large companies.

Now I'm not saying that science has become corrupted or anything, but this does raise the possibility of a conflict of interests alot, especially in such extremely big cases.
You who build these altars now

To sacrifice these children
You must not do it anymore
Last edited by the bartender at May 18, 2010,
#25
Quote by the bartender
I have a few things to say about that:

- history shows that being with more doesn't automatically mean you are right. Science and democracy are entirely different things.

No shit, scientific consensus isn't democracy in action, not in any way. Scientific consensus is the result of the accumulation of evidence.

- Scientist have more and more become bussinessmen and politicians. It would suicide for a big adacemy to raise doubts about wether global warming is caused by humanity or not.

Bullshit, absolute bullshit. If they have the evidence then it's not. They'd have no trouble getting funding if they had even the merest sniff of such evidence.

- Solar irradiance DOES cause warming/cooling on planets, we know that as fact.

Except that we also know that it doesn't account for the variance because we can measure it. We also know that other planets don't warm in a way that lends credence to such an explanation at all.
Have a read
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#26
it's gonna be like knowing, solar flares and massive heating, just without the aliens taking children to big wheat fields crap...
I'M GONNA GIVE YOU A BAD CASE OF SOMEONE SHOT ME IN THE HEAD!!!
#27
Quote by the bartender
I highly disagree with this.

Can you tell me the two main financial sources for scientific research?

exactly, governments and large companies.

Now I'm not saying that science has become corrupted or anything, but this does raise the possibility of a conflict of interests alot, especially in such extremely big cases.

Except that both those sources of funding would greatly love to discover that global warming wasn't happening. It's a huge headache for politicians and business alike, especially for business. The fact is that despite this funding bias in favour of non anthropogenic explanations the anthropogenic explanation has won out in the evidence.

The same could be said for smoking research back in the day. The finding that tobacco caused health problems created a huge headache for politics and especially business; yet despite a huge funding bias from business to find that it was harmless the evidence was too strong and the truth won out.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
Last edited by Ur all $h1t at May 18, 2010,
#28
Quote by Ur all $h1t
Bullshit, absolute bullshit. If they have the evidence then it's not. They'd have no trouble getting funding if they had even the merest sniff of such evidence.


Sadly, non-scientists tend to think differently than you do now.
Welcome to the real world buddy.


Except that we also know that it doesn't account for the variance because we can measure it. We also know that other planets don't warm in a way that lends credence to such an explanation at all.
Have a read
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm


Oh hi, I'm mister Ice Age and I'd like to have a word with you.

Quote by Ur all $h1t
Except that both those sources of funding would greatly love to discover that global warming wasn't happening. It's a huge headache for politicians and business alike, especially for business. The fact is that despite this funding bias in favour of non anthropogenic explanations the anthropogenic explanation has won out in the evidence.

The same could be said for smoking research back in the day. The finding that tobacco caused health problems created a huge headache for politics and especially business; yet despite a huge funding bias from business to find that it was harmless the evidence was too strong and the truth won out.


I disagree. If a politician states that he or she does not believe in Global Warming, it would be political suicide. The same goed for companies, as 'being green' sells these days. They have all the reasons to believe in Global warming.
You who build these altars now

To sacrifice these children
You must not do it anymore
Last edited by the bartender at May 18, 2010,
#29
Global warming/cooling is a natural process, the earth goes through broad cycles of 'greenhouse' and 'icehouse' conditions over millions of years. The point is that we're now seeing change, that in the past has been observed over millions of years, occuring over decades.

And to the guy saying scientists are being influenced by politicians and businesses. Why the hell would businesses be influencing scientists to believe in global warming? Apart from making a niche market of 'environmentally friendly' things etc., the effort of reducing carbon emmissions and going to lengths not to damage the environment is a considerable cost to most businesses, and governments are constantly being encouraged to spend more and more on reducing their environmental impact.
#30
Quote by the bartender
Sadly, non-scientists tend to think differently.
Welcome to the real world buddy.

I don't particularly care what non scientists think about scientific phenomenon or the workings of the scientific method.

Oh hi, I'm mister Ice Age and I'd like to have a word with you.

No shit, just because such phenomena explained previous climate changes doesn't mean that they explain it now. That argument is weak as water. They don't explain it this time, no one has provided evidence that they do and there is a wealth of evidence to show that they don't including measures of solar irradiance and what is happening on other planets not being consistent with such an explanation. Anthropogenic explanations however do explain it.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#31
Quote by the bartender
I disagree. If a politician states that he or she does not believe in Global Warming, it would be political suicide. The same goed for companies, as 'being green' sells these days. They have all the reasons to believe in Global warming.

That's a remarkably recent phenomenon and one that has nothing to do with what scientists will or won't say. Scientists have been calling for a change in drug policy (towards legalisation) for years and years and such pleas have fallen on deaf ears in politics.
It may be political suicide to say it right now (and rightly so given the massive amount of evidence that any politician saying it would be wilfully ignoring) but that wouldn't mean that scientists won't say it because you can make any claim you like in science provided you have the evidence. Funding concerns do apply but not here because there is a massive amount of money waiting for anyone who could show evidence that the current consensus is wrong and such a conclusion would be in the interests of the powers that be.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#32
Quote by Ur all $h1t
I don't particularly care what non scientists think about scientific phenomenon or the workings of the scientific method.


the problem is that these people DO have an influence on it.

Quote by Ur all $h1t

No shit, just because such phenomena explained previous climate changes doesn't mean that they explain it now. That argument is weak as water. They don't explain it this time, no one has provided evidence that they do and there is a wealth of evidence to show that they don't including measures of solar irradiance and what is happening on other planets not being consistent with such an explanation. Anthropogenic explanations however do explain it.


this is shenanigans. I suggest you read the book "The human measure" written by a highly knowledgeable professor of the 'TU Delft' named 'Salomon Kroonenberg'.

Quote by StonaLemons
And to the guy saying scientists are being influenced by politicians and businesses. Why the hell would businesses be influencing scientists to believe in global warming? Apart from making a niche market of 'environmentally friendly' things etc., the effort of reducing carbon emmissions and going to lengths not to damage the environment is a considerable cost to most businesses, and governments are constantly being encouraged to spend more and more on reducing their environmental impact.


Do you think practically every company in the world would 'go green' if they wouldn't make a profit out of it? like I said, 'being green' sells massively these days, enough to make the changes they have to make profitable AND to force every company to join in. If you don't follow the flow, you are commiting suicide.
You who build these altars now

To sacrifice these children
You must not do it anymore
#33
Quote by Ur all $h1t
Scientists have been calling for a change in drug policy (towards legalisation) for years and years and such pleas have fallen on deaf ears in politics.


Irrelevant to this matter, nor politicians, nor companies are likely to benefit from this.

Quote by Ur all $h1t
It may be political suicide to say it right now but that wouldn't mean that scientists won't say it because you can make any claim you like in science provided you have the evidence.


like I said: scientist think that way. Other people don't.

Quote by Ur all $h1t

Funding concerns do apply but not here because there is a massive amount of money waiting for anyone who could show evidence that the current consensus is wrong and such a conclusion would be in the interests of the powers that be.


shenanigans, like I have explained before, such a conclusion would NOT be in the interests of the powers that be in the current situation.
You who build these altars now

To sacrifice these children
You must not do it anymore
Last edited by the bartender at May 18, 2010,
#34
Quote by the bartender
the problem is that these people DO have an influence on it.
No shit, I've acknowledged and explained that influence already. Their influence would push massively towards non anthropogenic explanations, the recent "lets all go green" phenomenon does not counter this at all. Heaps of powerful companies have much more to gain by not going green than by doing so, and can even go green on the surface while still funding research to the contrary. The green phenomenon is very recent, the evidence for the most part is not.
Politicians might win votes by being green (although not that many, given that green parties still tend to do really badly and genuine green policies remain fairly unpopular due to them being massively expensive) but they would also win votes by showing that they don't need to be. There are also many bodies that will fund any research that looks promising.
The funding bias has always been against human factors, yet the consensus has gone with it. It makes the evidence more persuasive, not less.


this is shenanigans. I suggest you read the book "The human measure" written by a highly knowledgeable professor of the 'TU Delft' named 'Salomon Kroonenberg'.

Read it. I suggest you read one of the many meta-analyses of the peer reviewed evidence itself.

Do you think practically every company in the world would 'go green' if they wouldn't make a profit out of it? like I said, 'being green' sells massively these days, enough to make the changes they have to make profitable AND to force every company to join in. If you don't follow the flow, you are commiting suicide.

Do you think practically every company in the world wouldn't fund a scientist who could show evidence that global warming isn't happening/isn't caused by their activities.
Quote by the bartender


shenanigans, like I have explained before, such a conclusion would NOT be in the interests of the powers that be in the current situation.

Even if you had, and you very much have not at all, funding bias alone could not even hope to explain the amounts of evidence in favour of the anthropogenic explanation and the massive failure of any other hypothesis.

Quote by the bartender



like I said: scientist think that way. Other people don't.


I agree, that's why I only listen to scientists.
Scientists regularly go against the funding grain, a quick browse of the scientific literature on illegal drugs would show this.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
Last edited by Ur all $h1t at May 18, 2010,
#35
^if you had posted this 10 years ago, I would have completely agreed with you.

however, this is 2010, and the things of which you say that "have had no influence at all" obviously did.

also this:
Even if you had, and you very much have not at all, funding bias alone could not even hope to explain the amounts of evidence in favour of the anthropogenic explanation and the massive failure of any other hypothesis.


is an extremely unscientific way of saying things.

I did explain that, wether you agree or disagree is irrelevant to that matter.

I agree, that's why I only listen to scientists.
Scientists regularly go against the funding grain, a quick browse of the scientific literature on illegal drugs would show this.


Like I said, the drugs issue is totally irrelevant to this matter due to the huge differences between the two.
You who build these altars now

To sacrifice these children
You must not do it anymore
Last edited by the bartender at May 18, 2010,
#36
Honestly, if we can't trust science and the consensus of the scientific community, what CAN we trust?

As a general rule of thumb, I tend to trust the experts when it comes to matters of science. Global warming is, to me, no different. If the consensus ever swings the other way (if a significant enough amount of evidence comes around suggesting that global warming trends are not heavily influenced by man), then I will likely change my own opinion.

Until then, I consider all of this unfounded "it's a conspiracy" talk I've been hearing from climate change doubters to be utter bullshit.

Leave science to the scientists, please.
WILDCARD, BITCHES!!

Call me Patrick! My username sucks anyway
Last edited by zippidyduda at May 18, 2010,
#37
Quote by the bartender
^if you had posted this 10 years ago, I would have completely agreed with you.

Much of the research done that supports the anthropogenic explanation was conducted then.

however, this is 2010, and the things of which you say that "have had no influence at all" obviously did.

Of course they did, but they also had a huge influence in the other direction. I acknowledge a funding bias, although I don't think that it goes in the direction you are stating. Companies going green is a PR exercise, it wouldn't result in them funding biased research to show that their previous actions were the cause of climate change. Particularly when most of them have no intention of actually stopping those actions in any real way any time soon.

also this:


is an extremely unscientific way of saying things.

It's not really. No other hypothesis has come close to accounting for the variance yet and there are massive amounts of evidence in favour of the anthropogenic explanation.
I did explain that, wether you agree or disagree is irrelevant to that matter.

You didn't. You made vague statements about companies going green (which has only taken off in the past few years) and stuff about climate change scepticism being political suicide, despite the fact that voters don't appear to care very much about green concerns over other concerns as exhibited by their voting patterns. Furthermore even if what you were claiming was true, that still wouldn't prove that there was the kind of massive funding bias necessary to make the consensus faulty.


Like I said, the drugs issue is totally irrelevant to this matter due to the huge differences between the two.
No, no they're not. The drugs issue is analogous here if there is indeed the kind of funding bias of which you speak. Politics and business have very real and proven interests in keeping illegal drugs illegal, the latter fund the former and the former have fired scientists who disagreed with them, even recently. However the literature still shows a very real bias against current drug policy and the views promoted by politics and business.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#38
If the Sun throwing out more energy it would have been picked up by the numerous weather satalites designed to pick up that sort of thing.
#39
Now we can either stick to this discussion where I will repeatedly say that your arguments are bullshit, and you will do the same about mine, or we can just say goodbye to it and accept the fact that we completely disagree.
You who build these altars now

To sacrifice these children
You must not do it anymore
#40
Quote by the bartender
Now we can either stick to this discussion where I will repeatedly say that your arguments are bullshit, and you will do the same about mine, or we can just say goodbye to it and accept the fact that we completely disagree.


READ: I'm all out of counter-arguments, but I'm too stubborn to admit that someone other than myself could have a point. So, I'll just be on my way.
WILDCARD, BITCHES!!

Call me Patrick! My username sucks anyway
Page 1 of 3