Climate change is too important an issue to take chances. We must act to protect the planet, for our children's sake, whether you believe the scientists, or not, we cannot take the chance of inaction.
Praise to Apple. Boo to the chamber, whose only interest in making money for corporations, no matter the cost to our planet.
Praise to Apple. Boo to the chamber, whose only interest in making money for corporations, no matter the cost to our planet.
The only thing I see coming out of this fraud called global warming is corporations and Al Gore will get rich....the rest of us will be sucked dry. We are quickly being put back in to our place as peasents.
Well, leaving aside the intricacies of space-time as it relates to the "existence" of facts (for the sake of argument, we'll assume that a fact does not exist at previous times), it can still be true that x, y or z will happen in 2050. Now, which should we suppose to be more likely to be true: those things predicted by a theory that has a high degree of confirmation based on [models applied to] historical data (global warming), or those things predicted by the theories that have no general acceptance in the scientific community (global warming denial)?
Put another way, past experience indicates that severing your aorta will result in a rather quick death, and most of the medical community will assure you of the same. Still, it's only a theory, or hypothesis, since it hasn't been tested on every living person, and it's possible some might survive. If you see a doctor who tells you that, based on his research, you'll be just fine after severing your aorta, who would you choose to believe? It's not yet a fact that you are dead, but if you sever your aorta, it's most likely true that you will be.
That's a pretty flawed comparison as I'm talking about the environment and you're talking about the part of the body that keeps you alive but I'll go with it anyway. What if there was a rash of new research that shows that you can, in fact, survive through severing your aorta. Do you continue to believe what was previously believed or do you allow for science to do what it's meant to do and continue to research and refine?
(aka, there are tons of new studies that show that the fears of the late 90's were, at best, sensationalist claims and including the data from the past decade shows an arguably negligible amount of warming "expected" over the next 100 years using those same climate models. Again, it's a horrible, horrible comparison you use since our climate models are very much so in beta (if not alpha) simply because of the lack of data. Do you really expect to predict the next 100 years based off 20-30 years of decent data? If so I've got some land to sell you...)
Edit: Here's the main point of it if you don't want to click
"There are several causes of an urban heat island (UHI). The principal reason for the nighttime warming is that buildings block surface heat from radiating into the relatively cold night sky. Two other reasons are changes in the thermal properties of surface materials and lack of evapotranspiration in urban areas. Materials commonly used in urban areas, such as concrete and asphalt, have significantly different thermal bulk properties (including heat capacity and thermal conductivity) and surface radiative properties (albedo and emissivity) than the surrounding rural areas. This causes a change in the energy balance of the urban area, often leading to higher temperatures than surrounding rural areas. The energy balance is also affected by the lack of vegetation in urban areas, which inhibits cooling by evapotranspiration."
Pretty standard application of "no duh" science. Which is hotter? Grass or Asphalt? Is Asphalt hotter than grass after the sun has gone down? Just puts some numbers to the natural observation
Quote:
Originally Posted by X38
...
Since you speak for all science, how do you explain the discrepancies in weather station records? ...
Check your dated assumptions at the link; the current state of the science is that the UHIE effect on the global temperature record is small to negligible. This is not something new or overlooked. It has been accounted and compensated for since 1938. All subsequent work has taken it into account. Debates over just how to compensate for it began seriously as early as 1967. After much debate the issue was pretty much settled, in terms of figuring out how to compensate for the urban effect and detecting a warming trend anyway, by 1990. More technical background information here.
Model developers adjust, weight, correlate against each other models continuously to adjust for model bias reduction. Current methods are discussed here.
Apple is super protective about its high margins, and is one of the most profitable companies in the US. If the US Chamber of Commerce is at odds with Apple over climate change, either the Chamber does not represent businesses like it says it does or Apple knows something that everyone else doesn't. While Steve Jobs is often seen as a super genius inventor god, I doubt that he's the only CEO in the US who has found a way for his company to be environmentally friendly and make record profits every year.
That's a pretty flawed comparison as I'm talking about the environment and you're talking about the part of the body that keeps you alive but I'll go with it anyway. What if there was a rash of new research that shows that you can, in fact, survive through severing your aorta. Do you continue to believe what was previously believed or do you allow for science to do what it's meant to do and continue to research and refine?
(aka, there are tons of new studies that show that the fears of the late 90's were, at best, sensationalist claims and including the data from the past decade shows an arguably negligible amount of warming "expected" over the next 100 years using those same climate models. Again, it's a horrible, horrible comparison you use since our climate models are very much so in beta (if not alpha) simply because of the lack of data. Do you really expect to predict the next 100 years based off 20-30 years of decent data? If so I've got some land to sell you...)
Your statement about "sensationalist claims" is untrue, your assertion about the data is incomplete and out-of-date. I suggest you freshen the current state of climate science, and therefore your assertions, here or here.
Your statement about "sensationalist claims" is untrue, your assertion about the data is incomplete and out-of-date. I suggest you freshen the current state of climate science, and therefore your assertions, here or here.
Do you really want to go back and forth with links because I can go at it all day. You give me a link and I'll give you a link that says "meh, not so much." The simple fact that we can do this doesn't raise any flags to you at all? Really?
EDIT: If you do really want to do this I'll play, at least until I'm bored.
That's a pretty flawed comparison as I'm talking about the environment and you're talking about the part of the body that keeps you alive but I'll go with it anyway. What if there was a rash of new research that shows that you can, in fact, survive through severing your aorta. Do you continue to believe what was previously believed or do you allow for science to do what it's meant to do and continue to research and refine?
(aka, there are tons of new studies that show that the fears of the late 90's were, at best, sensationalist claims and including the data from the past decade shows an arguably negligible amount of warming "expected" over the next 100 years using those same climate models. Again, it's a horrible, horrible comparison you use since our climate models are very much so in beta (if not alpha) simply because of the lack of data. Do you really expect to predict the next 100 years based off 20-30 years of decent data? If so I've got some land to sell you...)
Actually, it's a comparison very much to the point: to the point of showing that the way science-deniers like yourself toss around the words "theory" and "hypothesis" is based on a complete ignorance of the meaning of the words, and of science.
I have no doubt that industries and groups who feel threatened by controls on greenhouse emissions have hundreds of people (maybe more) with science credentials (distinguished from actual scientists) churning out "tons" of studies saying that it isn't a problem. Yet, the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community, most of whom do not stand to profit financially regardless of the conclusion arrived at, remains that the threat of global warming is indeed very real. (Clearly, they don't find your "studies" compelling.) So, why exactly should we believe you (and other science-deniers), as opposed to the consensus of the climatology community?
The only thing I see coming out of this fraud called global warming is corporations and Al Gore will get rich....the rest of us will be sucked dry. We are quickly being put back in to our place as peasents.
If you want to talk about being sucked dry, let's talk about how gasoline was $0.80 a month before Septemeber 11th, 2001 and how its over $3 now, and peaked at over $4.50 last year.
Consumers really won't be affected cap and trade legislation. At worst, we'll have to pay slightly higher gasoline taxes (which are nothing compared to the price of oil anyway), and companies that deal with the cap and trade system badly will not be able to simply pass costs down the line since products are already priced just about as high the market will bear. At best, it's a net benefit to everyone. More jobs can be created as the country adjusts its sources of energy and less CO2 in the air means less CO2 in the sea, which benefits marine life and the fishing industry.
Do you really want to go back and forth with links because I can go at it all day. You give me a link and I'll give you a link that says "meh, not so much." The simple fact that we can do this doesn't raise any flags to you at all? Really?
EDIT: If you do really want to do this I'll play, at least until I'm bored.
...
Please refrain from posting junk science links; this isn't a game. Instead, I'll re-post my comments from another thread, though it may be lost on you.
Illusory free-thinkers employ denialism though rhetorical tactics (conspiracy, selectivity, false experts, impossible expectations, moving goalposts, argument from metaphor, violations of informal logic) to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there are none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are only effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.
A contrarian is one who takes a contrary view or action, especially an investor who makes decisions that contradict prevailing wisdom. Contrarians may have a good strategy for making money in the stock market, but how many have a hidden agenda to undermine faith in the stock market itself? Moreover, if the scientific consensus somehow reversed itself, the deniers wouldn't suddenly reverse themselves. They aren't contrarians.
All scientists are skeptics. Hence the motto 'Take nobody's word.' Skeptics can be convinced by the facts; deniers cannot. Skeptics do not continue repeating arguments that have been discredited. Deniers do. Deniers are not driven by a need to know the truth.
Behaviorally, climate denialism attracts a certain mind-set. They are delighted to be among the select few who have discovered the Big Secret - the Great Scientific Conspiracy. Only they can see through the lies. It's what sets them apart from the sheep around them.
An accepted scientific "consensus" is that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Therefore, according to junk science rationale, and the possible existence of any "free-thinkers" who may believe otherwise ? it doesn't. That's precisely why it's futile to engage in rational debates with climate change deniers ? the quality of their thought processes doesn't reward scrutiny. It's energy wasted that could otherwise be applied to solutions.
For those who feel that they have a valid scientific argument or uncertainties, I suggest taking them, along with supporting evidence, to a place where they can be held up to scrutiny with climate scientists ... e.g., RealClimate or SkepticalScience. Forewarning, noise will not be tolerated, but serious valid arguments, sound reasoning, and respectful questions to expand your knowledge are encouraged and will be accorded a professional response. For those who can't resist anonymous bloviating amongst the close-minded, link to junk science sites like ClimateAudit, Wattsupwiththat, or ClimateResistance ... many of whom are funded by special interests often under the cover of "think tanks", e.g., here, here, here, and here, to manufacture uncertainty rather than the pursuit of truth and solutions. They're known not for debate, but for the cloistering of the scientifically illiterate to keep each other warm by propagating their myths unthinkingly and uncritically by the willing media and those on blogs seeking their self-deluded genius moments. However, these diatribes serve no constructive purpose in a safe, unrelated forum, e.g., AI, with endless streams of techy-sounding gobbledegook, discredited junk science, emotionally charged accusations/innuendo, and/or noisy nonsense aimed at an audience who doesn't understand complex statistics and who are thought to be impressed by jargon, liberal-baiting, and/or ad hominem snarky asides.
Please don't obstruct those who passionately care and are enthusiastically willing to do more than engage in rhetorical gamesmanship. To be a responsible citizen and global neighbor, our call-to-action is to productively contribute and lead with dignity in "building a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. (Obama)"
With the aforementioned in mind, I sincerely hope that everyone can get onboard and join a worthwhile cause ... something larger than oneself.
Actually, it's a comparison very much to the point: to the point of showing that the way science-deniers like yourself toss around the words "theory" and "hypothesis" is based on a complete ignorance of the meaning of the words, and of science.
I have no doubt that industries and groups who feel threatened by controls on greenhouse emissions have hundreds of people (maybe more) with science credentials (distinguished from actual scientists) churning out "tons" of studies saying that it isn't a problem. Yet, the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community, most of whom do not stand to profit financially regardless of the conclusion arrived at, remains that the threat of global warming is indeed very real. (Clearly, they don't find your "studies" compelling.) So, why exactly should we believe you (and other science-deniers), as opposed to the consensus of the climatology community?
Science deniers? Umm, so, wait, let me get this straight. If I present a scientific finding that disputes yours *I'm* the denier? Umm, I'm actually 100% sure that goes against the fundamental prinicple of the scientific method. I don't deny any of the scientific foundings you can present but you categorically reject all of mine. You should check your other foot - I think that's the shoe you're looking for...
Also, as far as consensus is concerned... "Here's a quote from a Dec. 13 letter to Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon, by 100 top scientists, many of whom are themselves on the U.N. International Panel on Climate Change: ''In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is 'settled,' significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of human-caused global warming.'' and here is a link to the scientists that signed said article: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004
Like I just said, if you wanna go link for link I'll do it but if you simply ignore the science of the other side because you think it's tainted how is that any less scientific than the findings of those who get their money from those who would benefit the most from climing significant global warming. I.E. Applying your argument just to the dissenters views is the most unscientific of all.
Actually, it's a comparison very much to the point: to the point of showing that the way science-deniers like yourself toss around the words "theory" and "hypothesis" is based on a complete ignorance of the meaning of the words, and of science.
...
Precisely. Climate science too has more than one conclusive independent line of evidence for climate change (i.e., global warming).
Most members of the general public do not appreciate what scientists mean by the term ?theory?. There is little in common between a theory like Oliver Stone?s theory of the Kennedy assassination in his film ?JFK? and what a scientist calls a theory. Stone?s theory is supported by innuendo and unsubstantiated assertions which are often in many arguments erroneously called ?facts?.
To a scientist a ?fact? is not a ?fact? until is is demonstrated to be true. A fact is not merely an element of an argument for or against a particular issue. Only after an assertion is demonstrated to be true can the ?fact? be used to build a logical chain of reasoning that elevates a hypothesis to a theory. Of course a theory in science relies on many ?facts?.
Please refrain from posting junk science links; this isn't a game. Instead, I'll re-post my comments from another thread, though it may be lost on you.
Illusory free-thinkers employ denialism though rhetorical tactics (conspiracy, selectivity, false experts, impossible expectations, moving goalposts, argument from metaphor, violations of informal logic) to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there are none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are only effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.
Behaviorally, climate denialism attracts a certain mind-set. They are delighted to be among the select few who have discovered the Big Secret - the Great Scientific Conspiracy. Only they can see through the lies. It's what sets them apart from the sheep around them.
An accepted scientific "consensus" is that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Therefore, according to junk science rationale, and the possible existence of any "free-thinkers" who may believe otherwise ? it doesn't. That's precisely why it's futile to engage in rational debates with climate change deniers ? the quality of their thought processes doesn't reward scrutiny. It's energy wasted that could otherwise be applied to solutions.
For those who feel that they have a valid scientific argument or uncertainties, I suggest taking them, along with supporting evidence, to a place where they can be held up to scrutiny with climate scientists ... e.g., RealClimate or SkepticalScience. Forewarning, noise will not be tolerated, but serious valid arguments, sound reasoning, and respectful questions to expand your knowledge are encouraged and will be accorded a professional response. For those who can't resist anonymous bloviating amongst the close-minded, link to junk science sites like ClimateAudit, Wattsupwiththat, or ClimateResistance ... many of whom are funded by special interests often under the cover of "think tanks", e.g., here, here, here, and here, to manufacture uncertainty rather than the pursuit of truth and solutions. They're known not for debate, but for the cloistering of the scientifically illiterate to keep each other warm by propagating their myths unthinkingly and uncritically by the willing media and those on blogs seeking their self-deluded genius moments. However, these diatribes serve no constructive purpose in a safe, unrelated forum, e.g., AI, with endless streams of techy-sounding gobbledegook, discredited junk science, emotionally charged accusations/innuendo, and/or noisy nonsense aimed at an audience who doesn't understand complex statistics and who are thought to be impressed by jargon, liberal-baiting, and/or ad hominem snarky asides.
Please don't obstruct those who passionately care and are enthusiastically willing to do more than engage in rhetorical gamesmanship. To be a responsible citizen and global neighbor, our call-to-action is to productively contribute and lead with dignity in "building a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. (Obama)"
With the aforementioned in mind, I sincerely hope that everyone can get onboard and join a worthwhile cause ... something larger than oneself.
You did exactly what I thought you'd do "your science sucks and mine is always right." I don't even understand how to get through to you people. I can link to scientific articles, I can link to scientific studies, I can link to scientific studies done by people who get no funding FROM ANYONE and you'll still claim it's crap because you don't like it.
I'll freely admit you've got a lot of scientific articles to back up your stance but the difference between me and you is that I recognize the otherside of a legitmate argument whereas you will not.
To a scientist a “fact” is not a “fact” until is is demonstrated to be true. A fact is not merely an element of an argument for or against a particular issue. Only after an assertion is demonstrated to be true can the “fact” be used to build a logical chain of reasoning that elevates a hypothesis to a theory. Of course a theory in science relies on many “facts”.
well no duh - that's exactly what I'm trying to tell you and when I say it it's stupid but when you said it it's ok? Are you kidding me??? It has to be PROVEN to be a fact in the world of science - do you not see the clear hypocrisy of your argument? Really?? Man, I feel sad for you, I really do.
Now we will hear all the usual Rush / Fox News comments and pseudo science from the wing nuts ... Meanwhile, well done Steve.
Well we heard from the usual "???", well the other side has no counterpart to Rush, but Heaven knows, they tried to "BUY" their way with that joke Air American radio to get them one! BUT, they do have the PMSNBC'ers and the Crazy Nightly Nuts from CNN that more than willingly spews the tripe of this administration and the ideas of the leftist loons!
Yeah that's right, Well Done Steve Jobs... You're so concerned about Global Warming, but yet, you haven't sold your polluting corporate jet? And fly commercial like the rest of us?! WHY STEVE, WHY????
You're so concerned about the ability to "advance a 21st century approach to climate change." and yet you don't manufacture your product here in the US where these laws coming from these Democratic A$$holes in Washington can ensure the American people that Apple is not adding to the carbon emissions problem, WHY STEVE, WHY????
Where are ALL your Apple products made STEVE??? What laws regarding the environment does the country that manufactures those products have, when it comes to the global warming concern??? INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW STEVE???
Or, are you and Apple the typical hypocritical company that thinks thinner packaging and glass and aluminum casing absolves you from other polluting ways??? How much has Apple lobbied the Taiwanese government regarding their environmental policies???
Comments
Praise to Apple. Boo to the chamber, whose only interest in making money for corporations, no matter the cost to our planet.
Praise to Apple. Boo to the chamber, whose only interest in making money for corporations, no matter the cost to our planet.
The only thing I see coming out of this fraud called global warming is corporations and Al Gore will get rich....the rest of us will be sucked dry. We are quickly being put back in to our place as peasents.
Well, leaving aside the intricacies of space-time as it relates to the "existence" of facts (for the sake of argument, we'll assume that a fact does not exist at previous times), it can still be true that x, y or z will happen in 2050. Now, which should we suppose to be more likely to be true: those things predicted by a theory that has a high degree of confirmation based on [models applied to] historical data (global warming), or those things predicted by the theories that have no general acceptance in the scientific community (global warming denial)?
Put another way, past experience indicates that severing your aorta will result in a rather quick death, and most of the medical community will assure you of the same. Still, it's only a theory, or hypothesis, since it hasn't been tested on every living person, and it's possible some might survive. If you see a doctor who tells you that, based on his research, you'll be just fine after severing your aorta, who would you choose to believe? It's not yet a fact that you are dead, but if you sever your aorta, it's most likely true that you will be.
That's a pretty flawed comparison as I'm talking about the environment and you're talking about the part of the body that keeps you alive but I'll go with it anyway. What if there was a rash of new research that shows that you can, in fact, survive through severing your aorta. Do you continue to believe what was previously believed or do you allow for science to do what it's meant to do and continue to research and refine?
(aka, there are tons of new studies that show that the fears of the late 90's were, at best, sensationalist claims and including the data from the past decade shows an arguably negligible amount of warming "expected" over the next 100 years using those same climate models. Again, it's a horrible, horrible comparison you use since our climate models are very much so in beta (if not alpha) simply because of the lack of data. Do you really expect to predict the next 100 years based off 20-30 years of decent data? If so I've got some land to sell you...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island
Edit: Here's the main point of it if you don't want to click
"There are several causes of an urban heat island (UHI). The principal reason for the nighttime warming is that buildings block surface heat from radiating into the relatively cold night sky. Two other reasons are changes in the thermal properties of surface materials and lack of evapotranspiration in urban areas. Materials commonly used in urban areas, such as concrete and asphalt, have significantly different thermal bulk properties (including heat capacity and thermal conductivity) and surface radiative properties (albedo and emissivity) than the surrounding rural areas. This causes a change in the energy balance of the urban area, often leading to higher temperatures than surrounding rural areas. The energy balance is also affected by the lack of vegetation in urban areas, which inhibits cooling by evapotranspiration."
Pretty standard application of "no duh" science. Which is hotter? Grass or Asphalt? Is Asphalt hotter than grass after the sun has gone down? Just puts some numbers to the natural observation
...
Since you speak for all science, how do you explain the discrepancies in weather station records? ...
Check your dated assumptions at the link; the current state of the science is that the UHIE effect on the global temperature record is small to negligible. This is not something new or overlooked. It has been accounted and compensated for since 1938. All subsequent work has taken it into account. Debates over just how to compensate for it began seriously as early as 1967. After much debate the issue was pretty much settled, in terms of figuring out how to compensate for the urban effect and detecting a warming trend anyway, by 1990. More technical background information here.
Model developers adjust, weight, correlate against each other models continuously to adjust for model bias reduction. Current methods are discussed here.
I wasn't aware of this, do you have any relevant links? I'm not trying to bash you, just curious as to the facts and methodology.
I wonder which cities are causing the unprecedented melting of the polar ice.
That's a pretty flawed comparison as I'm talking about the environment and you're talking about the part of the body that keeps you alive but I'll go with it anyway. What if there was a rash of new research that shows that you can, in fact, survive through severing your aorta. Do you continue to believe what was previously believed or do you allow for science to do what it's meant to do and continue to research and refine?
(aka, there are tons of new studies that show that the fears of the late 90's were, at best, sensationalist claims and including the data from the past decade shows an arguably negligible amount of warming "expected" over the next 100 years using those same climate models. Again, it's a horrible, horrible comparison you use since our climate models are very much so in beta (if not alpha) simply because of the lack of data. Do you really expect to predict the next 100 years based off 20-30 years of decent data? If so I've got some land to sell you...)
Your statement about "sensationalist claims" is untrue, your assertion about the data is incomplete and out-of-date. I suggest you freshen the current state of climate science, and therefore your assertions, here or here.
I wonder which cities are causing the unprecedented melting of the polar ice.
Whoops...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...c_ice_mystery/
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574...57-401,00.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/1...not-shrinking/
http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...83-601,00.html
Your statement about "sensationalist claims" is untrue, your assertion about the data is incomplete and out-of-date. I suggest you freshen the current state of climate science, and therefore your assertions, here or here.
Do you really want to go back and forth with links because I can go at it all day. You give me a link and I'll give you a link that says "meh, not so much." The simple fact that we can do this doesn't raise any flags to you at all? Really?
EDIT: If you do really want to do this I'll play, at least until I'm bored.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...A-EDF6D8150789
(there's probably a hundred or so links in the latter that point to questions about the global warming claims of Gore and Co.)
You have 100 or so for me?
That's a pretty flawed comparison as I'm talking about the environment and you're talking about the part of the body that keeps you alive but I'll go with it anyway. What if there was a rash of new research that shows that you can, in fact, survive through severing your aorta. Do you continue to believe what was previously believed or do you allow for science to do what it's meant to do and continue to research and refine?
(aka, there are tons of new studies that show that the fears of the late 90's were, at best, sensationalist claims and including the data from the past decade shows an arguably negligible amount of warming "expected" over the next 100 years using those same climate models. Again, it's a horrible, horrible comparison you use since our climate models are very much so in beta (if not alpha) simply because of the lack of data. Do you really expect to predict the next 100 years based off 20-30 years of decent data? If so I've got some land to sell you...)
Actually, it's a comparison very much to the point: to the point of showing that the way science-deniers like yourself toss around the words "theory" and "hypothesis" is based on a complete ignorance of the meaning of the words, and of science.
I have no doubt that industries and groups who feel threatened by controls on greenhouse emissions have hundreds of people (maybe more) with science credentials (distinguished from actual scientists) churning out "tons" of studies saying that it isn't a problem. Yet, the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community, most of whom do not stand to profit financially regardless of the conclusion arrived at, remains that the threat of global warming is indeed very real. (Clearly, they don't find your "studies" compelling.) So, why exactly should we believe you (and other science-deniers), as opposed to the consensus of the climatology community?
themed on carbon capture and sequestration is reproduced here:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=163040886856
(going to the original source at sciencemag.org itself requires registration).
Any business organization that does not see greentech as a win-win opportunity,
instead choosing to argue with a silverback-gorilla physics Nobelist (forget 'sjobs'
for the nonce) is simply out-of-their-league, enough to be "disintermediated".
The only thing I see coming out of this fraud called global warming is corporations and Al Gore will get rich....the rest of us will be sucked dry. We are quickly being put back in to our place as peasents.
If you want to talk about being sucked dry, let's talk about how gasoline was $0.80 a month before Septemeber 11th, 2001 and how its over $3 now, and peaked at over $4.50 last year.
Consumers really won't be affected cap and trade legislation. At worst, we'll have to pay slightly higher gasoline taxes (which are nothing compared to the price of oil anyway), and companies that deal with the cap and trade system badly will not be able to simply pass costs down the line since products are already priced just about as high the market will bear. At best, it's a net benefit to everyone. More jobs can be created as the country adjusts its sources of energy and less CO2 in the air means less CO2 in the sea, which benefits marine life and the fishing industry.
Do you really want to go back and forth with links because I can go at it all day. You give me a link and I'll give you a link that says "meh, not so much." The simple fact that we can do this doesn't raise any flags to you at all? Really?
EDIT: If you do really want to do this I'll play, at least until I'm bored.
...
Please refrain from posting junk science links; this isn't a game. Instead, I'll re-post my comments from another thread, though it may be lost on you.
Illusory free-thinkers employ denialism though rhetorical tactics (conspiracy, selectivity, false experts, impossible expectations, moving goalposts, argument from metaphor, violations of informal logic) to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there are none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are only effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.
Joseph Romm has stated:
A contrarian is one who takes a contrary view or action, especially an investor who makes decisions that contradict prevailing wisdom. Contrarians may have a good strategy for making money in the stock market, but how many have a hidden agenda to undermine faith in the stock market itself? Moreover, if the scientific consensus somehow reversed itself, the deniers wouldn't suddenly reverse themselves. They aren't contrarians.
All scientists are skeptics. Hence the motto 'Take nobody's word.' Skeptics can be convinced by the facts; deniers cannot. Skeptics do not continue repeating arguments that have been discredited. Deniers do. Deniers are not driven by a need to know the truth.
Behaviorally, climate denialism attracts a certain mind-set. They are delighted to be among the select few who have discovered the Big Secret - the Great Scientific Conspiracy. Only they can see through the lies. It's what sets them apart from the sheep around them.
An accepted scientific "consensus" is that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Therefore, according to junk science rationale, and the possible existence of any "free-thinkers" who may believe otherwise ? it doesn't. That's precisely why it's futile to engage in rational debates with climate change deniers ? the quality of their thought processes doesn't reward scrutiny. It's energy wasted that could otherwise be applied to solutions.
For those who feel that they have a valid scientific argument or uncertainties, I suggest taking them, along with supporting evidence, to a place where they can be held up to scrutiny with climate scientists ... e.g., RealClimate or SkepticalScience. Forewarning, noise will not be tolerated, but serious valid arguments, sound reasoning, and respectful questions to expand your knowledge are encouraged and will be accorded a professional response. For those who can't resist anonymous bloviating amongst the close-minded, link to junk science sites like ClimateAudit, Wattsupwiththat, or ClimateResistance ... many of whom are funded by special interests often under the cover of "think tanks", e.g., here, here, here, and here, to manufacture uncertainty rather than the pursuit of truth and solutions. They're known not for debate, but for the cloistering of the scientifically illiterate to keep each other warm by propagating their myths unthinkingly and uncritically by the willing media and those on blogs seeking their self-deluded genius moments. However, these diatribes serve no constructive purpose in a safe, unrelated forum, e.g., AI, with endless streams of techy-sounding gobbledegook, discredited junk science, emotionally charged accusations/innuendo, and/or noisy nonsense aimed at an audience who doesn't understand complex statistics and who are thought to be impressed by jargon, liberal-baiting, and/or ad hominem snarky asides.
Please don't obstruct those who passionately care and are enthusiastically willing to do more than engage in rhetorical gamesmanship. To be a responsible citizen and global neighbor, our call-to-action is to productively contribute and lead with dignity in "building a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. (Obama)"
With the aforementioned in mind, I sincerely hope that everyone can get onboard and join a worthwhile cause ... something larger than oneself.
Actually, it's a comparison very much to the point: to the point of showing that the way science-deniers like yourself toss around the words "theory" and "hypothesis" is based on a complete ignorance of the meaning of the words, and of science.
I have no doubt that industries and groups who feel threatened by controls on greenhouse emissions have hundreds of people (maybe more) with science credentials (distinguished from actual scientists) churning out "tons" of studies saying that it isn't a problem. Yet, the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community, most of whom do not stand to profit financially regardless of the conclusion arrived at, remains that the threat of global warming is indeed very real. (Clearly, they don't find your "studies" compelling.) So, why exactly should we believe you (and other science-deniers), as opposed to the consensus of the climatology community?
Science deniers? Umm, so, wait, let me get this straight. If I present a scientific finding that disputes yours *I'm* the denier? Umm, I'm actually 100% sure that goes against the fundamental prinicple of the scientific method. I don't deny any of the scientific foundings you can present but you categorically reject all of mine. You should check your other foot - I think that's the shoe you're looking for...
Also, as far as consensus is concerned... "Here's a quote from a Dec. 13 letter to Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon, by 100 top scientists, many of whom are themselves on the U.N. International Panel on Climate Change: ''In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is 'settled,' significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of human-caused global warming.'' and here is a link to the scientists that signed said article: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004
Like I just said, if you wanna go link for link I'll do it but if you simply ignore the science of the other side because you think it's tainted how is that any less scientific than the findings of those who get their money from those who would benefit the most from climing significant global warming. I.E. Applying your argument just to the dissenters views is the most unscientific of all.
Actually, it's a comparison very much to the point: to the point of showing that the way science-deniers like yourself toss around the words "theory" and "hypothesis" is based on a complete ignorance of the meaning of the words, and of science.
...
Precisely. Climate science too has more than one conclusive independent line of evidence for climate change (i.e., global warming).
Most members of the general public do not appreciate what scientists mean by the term ?theory?. There is little in common between a theory like Oliver Stone?s theory of the Kennedy assassination in his film ?JFK? and what a scientist calls a theory. Stone?s theory is supported by innuendo and unsubstantiated assertions which are often in many arguments erroneously called ?facts?.
To a scientist a ?fact? is not a ?fact? until is is demonstrated to be true. A fact is not merely an element of an argument for or against a particular issue. Only after an assertion is demonstrated to be true can the ?fact? be used to build a logical chain of reasoning that elevates a hypothesis to a theory. Of course a theory in science relies on many ?facts?.
Please refrain from posting junk science links; this isn't a game. Instead, I'll re-post my comments from another thread, though it may be lost on you.
Illusory free-thinkers employ denialism though rhetorical tactics (conspiracy, selectivity, false experts, impossible expectations, moving goalposts, argument from metaphor, violations of informal logic) to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there are none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are only effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.
Joseph Romm has stated:
Behaviorally, climate denialism attracts a certain mind-set. They are delighted to be among the select few who have discovered the Big Secret - the Great Scientific Conspiracy. Only they can see through the lies. It's what sets them apart from the sheep around them.
An accepted scientific "consensus" is that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Therefore, according to junk science rationale, and the possible existence of any "free-thinkers" who may believe otherwise ? it doesn't. That's precisely why it's futile to engage in rational debates with climate change deniers ? the quality of their thought processes doesn't reward scrutiny. It's energy wasted that could otherwise be applied to solutions.
For those who feel that they have a valid scientific argument or uncertainties, I suggest taking them, along with supporting evidence, to a place where they can be held up to scrutiny with climate scientists ... e.g., RealClimate or SkepticalScience. Forewarning, noise will not be tolerated, but serious valid arguments, sound reasoning, and respectful questions to expand your knowledge are encouraged and will be accorded a professional response. For those who can't resist anonymous bloviating amongst the close-minded, link to junk science sites like ClimateAudit, Wattsupwiththat, or ClimateResistance ... many of whom are funded by special interests often under the cover of "think tanks", e.g., here, here, here, and here, to manufacture uncertainty rather than the pursuit of truth and solutions. They're known not for debate, but for the cloistering of the scientifically illiterate to keep each other warm by propagating their myths unthinkingly and uncritically by the willing media and those on blogs seeking their self-deluded genius moments. However, these diatribes serve no constructive purpose in a safe, unrelated forum, e.g., AI, with endless streams of techy-sounding gobbledegook, discredited junk science, emotionally charged accusations/innuendo, and/or noisy nonsense aimed at an audience who doesn't understand complex statistics and who are thought to be impressed by jargon, liberal-baiting, and/or ad hominem snarky asides.
Please don't obstruct those who passionately care and are enthusiastically willing to do more than engage in rhetorical gamesmanship. To be a responsible citizen and global neighbor, our call-to-action is to productively contribute and lead with dignity in "building a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. (Obama)"
With the aforementioned in mind, I sincerely hope that everyone can get onboard and join a worthwhile cause ... something larger than oneself.
You did exactly what I thought you'd do "your science sucks and mine is always right." I don't even understand how to get through to you people. I can link to scientific articles, I can link to scientific studies, I can link to scientific studies done by people who get no funding FROM ANYONE and you'll still claim it's crap because you don't like it.
I'll freely admit you've got a lot of scientific articles to back up your stance but the difference between me and you is that I recognize the otherside of a legitmate argument whereas you will not.
To a scientist a “fact” is not a “fact” until is is demonstrated to be true. A fact is not merely an element of an argument for or against a particular issue. Only after an assertion is demonstrated to be true can the “fact” be used to build a logical chain of reasoning that elevates a hypothesis to a theory. Of course a theory in science relies on many “facts”.
well no duh - that's exactly what I'm trying to tell you and when I say it it's stupid but when you said it it's ok? Are you kidding me??? It has to be PROVEN to be a fact in the world of science - do you not see the clear hypocrisy of your argument? Really?? Man, I feel sad for you, I really do.
I got mine from university and years of teaching...
You sure you want to make that known?!
Now we will hear all the usual Rush / Fox News comments and pseudo science from the wing nuts ... Meanwhile, well done Steve.
Well we heard from the usual "???", well the other side has no counterpart to Rush, but Heaven knows, they tried to "BUY" their way with that joke Air American radio to get them one! BUT, they do have the PMSNBC'ers and the Crazy Nightly Nuts from CNN that more than willingly spews the tripe of this administration and the ideas of the leftist loons!
Yeah that's right, Well Done Steve Jobs... You're so concerned about Global Warming, but yet, you haven't sold your polluting corporate jet? And fly commercial like the rest of us?! WHY STEVE, WHY????
You're so concerned about the ability to "advance a 21st century approach to climate change." and yet you don't manufacture your product here in the US where these laws coming from these Democratic A$$holes in Washington can ensure the American people that Apple is not adding to the carbon emissions problem, WHY STEVE, WHY????
Where are ALL your Apple products made STEVE??? What laws regarding the environment does the country that manufactures those products have, when it comes to the global warming concern??? INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW STEVE???
Or, are you and Apple the typical hypocritical company that thinks thinner packaging and glass and aluminum casing absolves you from other polluting ways??? How much has Apple lobbied the Taiwanese government regarding their environmental policies???
*SILENCE FROM APPLE*
Yeah, that's what I thought!
How's all that change working out for ya?!
How's all that change working out for ya?!
Not too bad - I've almost got enough to get one of those new potato soft tacos from Taco Bell!