The coming Ice Age

[whatthe?]

You and Jay both keep talking about "the "facts" [being] distorted, cherry picked, ect to support what ever is decided." Do you have any evidence showing that this is done by scientists? Not by politicians... not by the media... certainly not by any nutjob (left or right... they're still nutjobs) with a blog... by scientists. Any evidence at all?

Please see post 419 and 345. I don't think this guys blog is peer reviewed. His opinions must be ok and valid though because you "listen to the scientists.":awesomework:

 

[ZedMikey]

Please see post 419 and 345. I don't think this guys blog is peer reviewed. His opinions must be ok and valid though because you "listen to the scientists.":awesomework:

Of course his blog isn't peer-reviewed. It's a blog. Try checking out his CV. He's well published in peer-reviewed journals.

By the way, would you mind pointing out where I've said anything positive or negative about the content of his blog? For the life of me, I can't seem to find where I said his opinions must be valid because he's a scientist.He can post whatever he wants on his blog, and he does. He outlines his thoughts on what should be done to curb our carbon emissions. Good for him. It's his peer-reviewed literature that matters in the scientific community.

 

[whatthe?]

His blog was posted, not any of his peer reviewed articles. That's why I referenced posts 345 and 419. 345- because you state who you listen to. 419 because of my belief that people protect their job and then their agenda ahead of their scientific purity, especially those on the govs dime. He is in this group so I am skeptical of him and his opinions.

 

[ZedMikey]

His blog was posted, not any of his peer reviewed articles. That's why I referenced posts 345 and 419. 345- because you state who you listen to. 419 because of my belief that people protect their job and then their agenda ahead of their scientific purity, especially those on the govs dime. He is in this group so I am skeptical of him and his opinions.

His blog was posted, I scanned it, then moved on to his CV and some of his peer-reviewed papers. You know... the science. His blog, at least the article posted, is mostly about his opinion on what should be done about AGW. I'm interested in his opinion, but that's not science. When it comes to science, I listen to the scientists. That's why I checked out some of his papers. Do I care what he thinks should be done in response to the science? Sure. More than I care what you think, even. But it's still just his opinion.

 

[whatthe?]

More than I care what you think, even.

You must care a lot then. :D

 

[zig80toy]

ok. suppose the ice is melting, sea levels rising, etc... now what?

 

[whatthe?]

Make your Prius float.

 

[Clark]

ok. suppose the ice is melting, sea levels rising, etc... now what?

If you live within 5ft of sea level you've got about 100 years to move. It's like owning a house on the river, then acting suprised when it floods, that's the part i don't get. I think we can all agree it's getting warmer, and sea levels are rising, regardless of the cause. What's ironic, is they think we can stop it, or that we should stop it, or that stopping it won't cause other problems, yet unknown.

Best thing to do is move to the mountains, chop some wood, and plant some food. Then relax and let these yahoo's worry about a couple feet of water in a hundred years, that we can't do anything to stop.

 

[ZedMikey]

If you live within 5ft of sea level you've got about 100 years to move. It's like owning a house on the river, then acting suprised when it floods, that's the part i don't get. I think we can all agree it's getting warmer, and sea levels are rising, regardless of the cause. What's ironic, is they think we can stop it, or that we should stop it, or that stopping it won't cause other problems, yet unknown.

Best thing to do is move to the mountains, chop some wood, and plant some food. Then relax and let these yahoo's worry about a couple feet of water in a hundred years, that we can't do anything to stop.

"They" don't know what "they" are talking about if "they" think we can stop climate change. Unless we can suddenly stop the changes in orbital eccentricity, obliquity, and precession, we are at the mercy of orbital forcings (among other things, of course). We can still change the anthropogenic contribution to the greenhouse effect, however. I think you will find that to be what "they" are really saying.

 

[Jaydog]

Total loser... PhD in Atmospheric Science in 1978, researcher from 1974 to present, and around a hundred peer-reviewed publications. Psh... what does he know?

That means nothing to me, I have sat under Professors with numerous PhDs that are totally sold out to their ideology, and will hand pick the data that supports their cause, his blog is written as though AGW is an uncontested fact, we all know that it isn't, it is still a theory, is the CO2 levels high? Yes, Is the Earth warming? We aren't sure if it still is, but it has been. Those are the two facts that are clear, now there are two camps of scientists, one side believes in AGW, the other side believes in natural occurring reasons for it, you subscribe to the scientists that believe in AGW, and I subscribe to those that don't, both sides have peer reviewed papers which means nothing to me because of the cherry picking of data that occurs and the manipulation of numbers to get their peers to agree with their position.

Also, I think a big difference between us is that you believe that scientists don't lie and are inherently good, I believe all people are inherently bad and given the right circumstances will be dishonest and fudge facts to get the outcome desired. Scientists have come up with climate models believing that the data provided by other scientist were correct, that is where all the hype began 10+ years ago, and where the public and the democrats began this hysteria thinking that humans were causing the destruction of the world, this hype went over the top and has lead to regulations that destroy the economy, business, etc.

Over the past year or so, there have been numerous things coming out showing that the hype was just that...hype, but there are still a few diehards just like the UW Prof that won't budge an inch and will continue to blame everything on AGW.

 

[ZedMikey]

I've officially decided that I can no longer give you the benefit of the doubt, Jay. I'm sorry. I think you really are as dense as you sound. I'll keep going through the motions here, but I've completely given up on your ability to understand a word I say.

That means nothing to me, I have sat under Professors with numerous PhDs that are totally sold out to their ideology, and will hand pick the data that supports their cause, his blog is written as though AGW is an uncontested fact, we all know that it isn't, it is still a theory, is the CO2 levels high? Yes, Is the Earth warming? We aren't sure if it still is, but it has been. Those are the two facts that are clear, now there are two camps of scientists, one side believes in AGW, the other side believes in natural occurring reasons for it, you subscribe to the scientists that believe in AGW, and I subscribe to those that don't, both sides have peer reviewed papers which means nothing to me because of the cherry picking of data that occurs and the manipulation of numbers to get their peers to agree with their position.

First off... here we go with the "it is still a theory" bull**** again. Climate change will always be a theory. There is nothing else for it to be. Ever. It cannot graduate from being a theory to being something else. It is and always will be a scientific theory. Just like the theory of gravity, atomic theory, germ theory, blah, blah, blah...

Next... we ARE sure it is still warming. 2011 was cooler than the past few years, but it was a La Ni

 

[zig80toy]

That

 

[ZedMikey]

That

 

[Jaydog]

I've officially decided that I can no longer give you the benefit of the doubt, Jay. I'm sorry. I think you really are as dense as you sound. I'll keep going through the motions here, but I've completely given up on your ability to understand a word I say.


First off... here we go with the "it is still a theory" bull**** again. Climate change will always be a theory. There is nothing else for it to be. Ever. It cannot graduate from being a theory to being something else. It is and always will be a scientific theory. Just like the theory of gravity, atomic theory, germ theory, blah, blah, blah...

Oh the Irony...I'll try again...AGW CONTRIBUTING TO GLOBAL WARMING IS THE THEORY I WAS REFERRING TO.

How many times has the Earth gone into an Ice Age and then warmed up again without humans contributing to it? THIS IS ANOTHER CYCLE WE ARE IN, plain and simple without politics.

 

[ZedMikey]

Oh the Irony...I'll try again...AGW CONTRIBUTING TO GLOBAL WARMING IS THE THEORY I WAS REFERRING TO.

I know exactly what you meant. Anthropogenic effects on climate are part of a theory... and that theory is a scientific theory, just like the others I mentioned.

How many times has the Earth gone into an Ice Age and then warmed up again without humans contributing to it? THIS IS ANOTHER CYCLE WE ARE IN, plain and simple without politics.

Many times, but the data shows that the warming we are experiencing is at least partially caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. The other forcings just don't add up.

 

[whatthe?]

You make very good points, but again, that's policy/politics. That's a completely different discussion.

Maybe for you, but not most people. I'll say it again, (just like you do with jaydog and theory) the two cannot be separated, there's too much money and politics involved. I know trying to separate the two makes it simpler for you but it's a myopic, small view that doesn't encompass the topic. Jaydog, ZM is correct about the scientific definition of theory. I believe you're using the more layman definition of a theory. But if you're just doing it to poke ZM...:haha:

 

[ZedMikey]

Maybe for you, but not most people. I'll say it again, (just like you do with jaydog and theory) the two cannot be separated, there's too much money and politics involved. I know trying to separate the two makes it simpler for you but it's a myopic, small view that doesn't encompass the topic. Jaydog, ZM is correct about the scientific definition of theory. I believe you're using the more layman definition of a theory. But if you're just doing it to poke ZM...:haha:

I'd believe you or Trashy would do it to troll me, but I've given up hope that Jay is trolling. :flipoff:

I know you think the two cannot be separated, and I disagree. I don't see sufficient evidence to believe that the scientific community (not individual scientists... the community as a whole) is somehow tainted by political influence. We can go down this road, if you'd like, but we've already discussed the points I think you'll bring up.

 

[whatthe?]

A lot of the research in this area is funded by the government and people are beholding to their source of funding. If you don't think scientists are influenced a great deal by money and politicians who want something from the money they're giving out, well around and round we go.

 

[WHITE TRASH1]

I don't give a **** what is causing it I just hope the earth hurries up and implodes so zedmiguel will finally shut the **** up. :flipoff:

 

[ZedMikey]

A lot of the research in this area is funded by the government and people are beholding to their source of funding. If you don't think scientists are influenced a great deal by money and politicians who want something from the money they're giving out, well around and round we go.

The federal government does spend a ton on climate research, and I can understand why you would think that people are beholden to the funding source. I have a couple questions for you, and I know they've come up before...

1. Why do you think the money would stop flowing if their research was solid, but didn't agree with some predetermined conclusion? The federal government certainly doesn't have the bias of some private sources of funding for climate research (and they do exist, but the dollar amounts are considerably smaller).

2. If it is all about money, why doesn't OPEC throw more money at climate science? They could certainly afford to spend more than then our .gov does.

3. What percentage of people do you think are so blinded by money that they would be professionally unethical in order to have to avoid looking for another funding source for research? A horribly non-scientific example that (IIRC) came from another 4x4 board I'm on... A thread was posted about professional ethics and what people would do in certain situations, and a huge number of people posted up times that they were asked to do something unethical by a boss and refused, knowing it was going to cost them their job. They did it anyway... they refused to compromise their ethics. I would put money on any of my coworkers or colleagues at UW doing the same thing. Someone, somewhere will do it, of course. But do you really think a large enough percentage of people, many of whom have spent decades in academia where academic dishonesty is treated VERY harshly, would give in to the green that the scientific community as a whole would be affected?

4. Would YOU act unethically to keep a job?

 

[Jaydog]

There are two definitions of theory, there is the theory that is a set of principles, like guitar theory, gravity etc. Then there is the theory that is a supposition, or a guess to explain an event. Climate change is the first, AGW is the second. :D

 

[ZedMikey]

I don't give a **** what is causing it I just hope the earth hurries up and implodes so zedmiguel will finally shut the **** up. :flipoff:

I prefer ZedMiguelito, thank you very much! :fawkdancesmiley:

I'm not sure even the end of the world would be enough to make me shut up... I like to argue too much. :awesomework:

 

[ZedMikey]

There are two definitions of theory, there is the theory that is a set of principles, like guitar theory, gravity etc. Then there is the theory that is a supposition, or a guess to explain an event. Climate change is the first, AGW is the second. :D

Unfortunately, you are incorrect. AGW is part of the scientific theory of climate change.

 

[whatthe?]

1. If scientists did show that we have no influence on global climate and could do nothing to change it their usefullness to politicians would be minimal. Politicians want "science" to back them so their policies and laws don't look silly. What would be the use of funding an area if the scientist in this area said the data shows we don't and can't make any difference.

2.OPEC doesn't need to. We're not going to stop using oil anytime soon. Let the climate loons think what they want, OPEC's future is secure until there's no more oil.

3.I don't have a percentage (like they're going to turn themselves in, so we know) but I have numerous examples from several gov agencies doing environmental science. I would say it's significant and in these agencies it did influence policy and kept their funding going. These people believe in what they're doing so they'll get the data that confirms it. I doubt climate scientists are any more immune.

4. Probably not if I hold myself to the same standard as climate scientists.:D

 

[ZedMikey]

1. If scientists did show that we have no influence on global climate and could do nothing to change it their usefullness to politicians would be minimal. Politicians want "science" to back them so their policies and laws don't look silly. What would be the use of funding an area if the scientist in this area said the data shows we don't and can't make any difference. Then we should see a difference in funding and research conclusions between Republican-controlled and Democrat-controlled Congresses. Different political agendas = different "science" to back it up, right? Do we see this difference?

2.OPEC doesn't need to. We're not going to stop using oil anytime soon. Let the climate loons think what they want, OPEC's future is secure until there's no more oil. You're probably right here...

3.I don't have a percentage (like they're going to turn themselves in, so we know) but I have numerous examples from several gov agencies doing environmental science. I would say it's significant and in these agencies it did influence policy and kept their funding going. These people believe in what they're doing so they'll get the data that confirms it. I doubt climate scientists are any more immune. Would you mind citing these examples?

4. Probably not if I hold myself to the same standard as climate scientists.:D Why do you think climate scientists are less ethical than other scientists, you, or anybody else? You seem to be implying that climate scientists are inherently less ethical than other people.

....

 

[Jaydog]

Unfortunately, you are incorrect. AGW is part of the scientific theory of climate change.

You were right when you said you would argue anything! :haha: Just google Theory and argue with the dictionary! :hi:

 

[Jaydog]

So, if Co2 causes the Earth to warm up how can you explain this chart?

 

[ZedMikey]

You were right when you said you would argue anything! :haha: Just google Theory and argue with the dictionary! :hi:

:rolleyes: A dictionary would probably form more coherent arguments...

 

[CrustyJeep]

So, if Co2 causes the Earth to warm up how can you explain this chart?

Well for starters, that chart doesn't show global mean temperature, it shows central England temperature. Seriously? You cannot be that dumb...

 

[Jaydog]

Well for starters, that chart doesn't show global mean temperature, it shows central England temperature. Seriously? You cannot be that dumb...

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that England was exempt from Global Warming :booo: