Global Warming???

[FutureSDguy]

jrp1, i’m not impressed by your posturing. I would suggest you read some of the links I provide and rebut them. Your personal attacks are not helping to demonstrate AGW whatsoever. By “extra-terrestial” I am referring to solar influences. There is no definitive evidence that CO2 caused the global warming this century. That is my premise. Now contradict it, and spare me your posturing. And don’t even dare to question my interest in the truth.

[no_such_reality]

Fact: the average supporters knowledge of the subject is equivalent to a media bombardment reporting what things supposedly said in a 10 second TV synopsis of a 200 page scientific report.

[FutureSDguy]

LOL. True.

[FutureSDguy]

DrChaos: “Anthropogenic global warming was indeed suggested as a prediction for the future back in the 1960’s or 1970’s before the instrumental record clearly showed an abnormal trend. It was a prediction, based on physics. It turned out to be true.”

Do you have a citation for this 1960-70’s prediction of anthropogenic warming, based on physics?

Also, while you are at it, could you help me by pointing me to where the rate of temperature rise in the past century was greater than anytime since the last ice age? (I believe that this data is needed to show that the recent warming is not natural.)

Thanks

[bigtrouble]

I remember a couple of years ago, Pres. Bush stated that evolution was a “theory” and that creationism should be taught along side natural selection in schools. The next day he gave a big speech talking about the threat of avian flu mutating very quickly, and soon would include human to human transfer.

If you don’t get the absolute stupidity of this inconsistency, there is no way you will be able to judge the scientific evidence of ANYTHING.

[FutureSDguy]

Where’s the inconsistency? The only point to be debated here is whether creationism should be taught concurrently with evolution, or just one or the other.

[ucodegen]

@Borat
Here’s the Source Watch entry about junkscience.com, as well as the background about it’s creator, Steven J. Milloy.

Humm, proof by character assassination.. good!!! real science there!! That reference does not prove whether what he has said is correct or incorrect. It only tries to impugn the author. This is not how science is done!!

@drunkle
In addition, any scientist would know that doing all your references from one site, a blog no less (realclimate.org) would get you laughed out of the scientific community.

and yet you point to junkscience? huh?

I don’t use him as sole source, and if you had paid attention I pointed out that he refers to other sources in support of his contention, while realclimate.org doesn’t!. In fact, using your reference (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosmic_rays_and_climate.html), within the first paragraph, junkscience.com/Milloy has referenced at least 6 background articles (both pro and con to his position). This is how real science articles are written. Personally, I do not support all that Milloy states, but the method he uses is actually scientifically sound, while the method that realclimate.org uses is not scientifically sound.

[ucodegen]

@1jrp1

To FutureSDoilguy:

Ohhh.. another proof by attempted character assassination, name calling.. doing real good there!!

@bigtrouble

I remember a couple of years ago, Pres. Bush stated that evolution was a “theory” and that creationism should be taught along side natural selection in schools. The next day he gave a big speech talking about the threat of avian flu mutating very quickly, and soon would include human to human transfer.

If you don’t get the absolute stupidity of this inconsistency, there is no way you will be able to judge the scientific evidence of ANYTHING.

And this has relevance how?? Non sequitur..

[FutureSDguy]

Both junkscience and realclimate are advocacy blogsites. Realclimate, to me, is a handbook for countering AGW skeptics, not unlike what religious cults have to counter outside influences and criticisms. Junkscience is the same in the opposite direction. I don’t think citing either one proves anything other than establish whose side we are on, and one must read between the lines to sense bias and scientific validity. In the end, only one side can be right: either man’s CO2 0.28% contribution to greenhouse gases (source: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html) is going to cause the earth’s temperature to skyrocket out of control (source: An Inconvenient Truth), or man has nothing to do with climate change, and the point of having these debates is to compare notes, challenge our biases and suppositions, and hopefully force the other side to submit to reason.

[ucodegen]

Realclimate, to me, is a handbook for countering AGW skeptics, not unlike what religious cults have to counter outside influences and criticisms. Junkscience is the same in the opposite direction. I don’t think citing either one proves anything other than establish whose side we are on, and one must read between the lines to sense bias and scientific validity. In the end, only one side can be right:

Actually, I tend to believe that the truth is somewhere in between with special interests pulling on the poles at both ends.

[Borat]

@Borat
Here’s the Source Watch entry about junkscience.com, as well as the background about it’s creator, Steven J. Milloy.

Humm, proof by character assassination.. good!!! real science there!! That reference does not prove whether what he has said is correct or incorrect. It only tries to impugn the author. This is not how science is done!!

Character assassination? Huh? How dare you accuse me of that. The Source Watch site simply points out who this Malloy guy is and how he gets paid, nothing more, nothing less. He is a paid advocate of corporate interests, his entire career depends on keeping them happy. That doesn’t mean that everything he says is true or false, but it does tell you what his motivation is. I find it incredible that people accuse scientists of having a financial motivation while ignoring the fact that many of the “debunkers” do too.

[FutureSDguy]

I do too in other areas outside of CO2 emissions; man pollutes the local environment. A half billion years ago–it is 450M or 650M, not sure–the earth was very cold yet had 10x CO2. Anthropogenic CO2 being the primary reason for 20th century warming is still an unproven theory that was borne out of 1. the need to assign blame to man for global climate change, and 2. noticing correlations in the geological record.

Let them call me FutureSDoilguy. Chances are they guzzle more gas than I do because i don’t have the need to drive much. Their obsession with “big oil” just further shows that they don’t have any real science to stand on.

[ucodegen]

I find it incredible that people accuse scientists of having a financial motivation while ignoring the fact that many of the “debunkers” do too.

The truth is, they both have financial motives. Too often scientists are shown w/o any financial motives while “debunkers” are claimed to have financial motives. People have only been exposing that scientists have the same motives as the debunkers.. to put respective motives in perspective (Publish or perish) (Bring in grant money or not get tenure)..

[FutureSDguy]

Borat: “That doesn’t mean that everything he says is true or false, but it does tell you what his motivation is. I find it incredible that people accuse scientists of having a financial motivation while ignoring the fact that many of the “debunkers” do too.”

This is all the reason to evaluate articles on their own merits, and weigh them against other sources. Source watch is a mechanism by which one tries to impugn the author and sway readers against considering the merits of the article. The more that you guys do this, the more I believe that you don’t have anything scientific to say.

[FutureSDguy]

dup (getting server response really slow!)

[Author]

Posts