Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I suppose by your definition of the word 'theory', well not yours but Jay Gould's, I stand corrected.
If comparatively speaking, the word 'theory' legitimizes it enough in your 'mind' to stand alongside the 'theory of relativity or the 'theory of evolution', then I would have to concede I mispoke. The 'Hypothesis' of global warming' might be a more accurate description. Semantics, yes I know. but in this era of redefining words to fit an agenda I think it's acceptable. Mr Gould states,"in the american vernacular 'theory' often means 'imperfect fact'. No, "theory' always means imperfect fact. It does'nt mean something else when it becomes inconvenient. Unless you're Bill Clinton. 'Theories' such as 'relativity' and 'evolution' have proved themselves to be more 'fact' than 'theory' (more semantics) at this point, due to years of ongoing scientific testing and research. Global warming, in my view, has hardly reached that hallmark. But I suppose you prefer the Wikipedia 'everybody says so, so it's gotta' be true' approach to validating research. In which case, any further discussion is pointless.
@publicola
Wow. You found a statement that runs counter to mine. Genius! Someone should hire you for something science-y.
“Per the scientific consensus with respect to global warming, CO2 is the primary initiating driver, but there are other drivers as well, including other greenhouse gases, and, to a much smaller degree, the sun.”
First of all, the “scientific consensus” does not mean much. It just confirms that this is the current “paradigm” among a majority of “scientists” involved in climate study. No more, no less. Paradigms shift as new information is gleaned. Since there has been no physically observed validation of the paradigm as yet (as opposed to computer model outputs), it has still to be proven.
Secondly, there is a growing number of scientists who question that CO2 is the “primary driver”. Most agree with the basic greenhouse hypothesis (Arrhenius, Stefan-Boltzmann), which states that a doubling of CO2 should result in an increase of temperature of around 0.7C. But there is major disagreement on the assumed positive “feedbacks” used in climate models, which increase this impact by a factor of 4+ to 3.0C.
Thirdly, there have been many studies that show that the sun may be playing a much more important role in climate change than previously assumed, so the statement “to a much smaller degree, the sun” is questionable. Studies are underway at CERN that may result in a basic “paradigm shift” on the relative importance of the sun in climate change.
Max
wrote:What did man do to change the climate sufficient to convert the Middle East from a lush forest to a desert?
Animal grazing and crops would help with this transition. But who says there was no natural effect involved? Multiple causes can work together.
>Wow. You found a statement that runs counter to mine. Genius! Someone should hire you for something science-y.
It is not "something," it is the official statement of the National Academies, the non-profit non-governmental organization created by Lincoln to give scientific advice to the Congress and people of the United States. So on the one hand we have the NAS and on the other a guy with a keyboard on the Internet who calls himself shilohcool. For me, that's not a hard call.
Buster Bunns: "Over the last 100 years the climate shows a warming trend"
Yup - correlationg quite well with the advent of sigificant fossil fuel-generated CO2 emissions being released into the atmosphere, where CO2 concetrations have been increasing.
Here's a temp graph of the last 2000 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Buster Bunns: "and over the last 10 years the temperature has been demonstrated to be stable."
This NASA graph indicates otherwise:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/Fig1_2007annual.gif
In any event, 10 years is too short to determine a general trend, as taking various 10-year slices from that same graph demonstrates
Also: the 8 warmest years in the 150 global temperature record are all in past 10 years.
Buster Bunns: "Of course, advocates for anthropogenic warming in countering any questioning of their pet theory will point to climate models that show rising levels of man–made CO2 are indeed the cause."
According to the scientific consensus CO2 is the primary cause, but not the only one.
Buster Bunns: "What they do not point to is that these same models, when applied to historic climate data, are unable to recreate past known conditions (also known as ‘hindsight forecasting’)."
Lie. Climate models are plenty able to recreate past known conditions over the past 150 years.
Picture-Worth-1000-Words Dept:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm
Buster Bunns: "What we need is an honest assessment"
I love irony.
wrote:over the last 10 years the temperature has been demonstrated to be stable.
Source please. The data I find do not support this.
"...it is the official statement of the National Academies, the non-profit non-governmental organization created by Lincoln to give scientific advice to the Congress and people of the United States."
And as we all know, there are no political agendas at think tanks.
"So on the one hand we have the NAS and on the other a guy with a keyboard on the Internet who calls himself shilohcool. For me, that's not a hard call."
Kudos. Couldn't have been played better by Herr Olbermann himself. He's a journalist.
It’s amazing how you Apocalyptic Alarmists are so easily duped.
Let’s see….
We had a looming ice age in the 70’s, Ozone will kill us all in the 80’s, asteroids in the 90’s, Y2K predictions……now we have global warming.
Repent! The end is near!………Do any of you really understand how silly your rantings about global climate apocalypse is?
All of you Chicken Littles need to go read up about what Joe Goebells was up to 70 years ago. Take a good look at what Margaret Sanger, (yes, the hero of the feminist movement), thought about “inferior races” and Eugenics……millions of people brutally suffered and died due to scaremongering and scape-goating such as this.
All of these examples and you’ve learned nothing……………
You are being used……………
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
