Man made global warming is real.

Started by Diomedes, January 23, 2007, 11:37:52 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

shorebird

I feel like this, with the way technology is going, I would say that in our lifetime we will see more personal cars that run on electric , or something else, like hydrogen, than you will see still running on gas. Look how far technology has come in just 100 years. It's gonna' happen. 

Geowhizzer

In Florida, there is no emissions testing or inspection of passenger vehicles at all.  I cannot speak for commercial vehicles, as it is beyond my area of knowledge.

Supposedly, the police can stop a car at any time for an "inspection," but I've never heard of it actually happening.

Event Horizon

Quote from: methdeez on January 27, 2007, 10:49:49 AM
Dude, I am not going to 'bone up'. My local library doesn't have a christian nutjob reference section. I just want to hear you make more of that gibberish talk which you think is english.

You are trying to hint somehow that fossils could only have been buried by the flood as described in the bible.
Please, I just want you to lay out your whole theory. Do me a favor. Maybe you will convert me!

Care to answer the question?

I don't care to convert you. I am prepared to defend what I believe.

Cerevant

Quote from: Event Horizon on January 28, 2007, 02:25:45 PM
Care to answer the question?

I don't care to convert you. I am prepared to defend what I believe.

The problem is, when you believe in magic, there is nothing science can say to convince you - any rational reasoning and physical evidence can be overcome by the "god made it that way" argument.

Yay confirmation bias...
QuoteConfirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis.
An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself.

PoopyfaceMcGee

Quote from: Cerevant on January 29, 2007, 10:45:20 AM
Yay confirmation bias...
QuoteConfirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis.

That's the way all evidence/information works when there are two sides to an argument, including this one.

ice grillin you

That's the way all evidence/information works when there are two sides to an argument

not arguments that involve religion
i can take a phrase thats rarely heard...flip it....now its a daily word

igy gettin it done like warrick

im the board pharmacist....always one step above yous

PoopyfaceMcGee

Yes, even those, whether you think it makes any sense or not.

Diomedes

Quote from: Cerevant on January 29, 2007, 10:45:20 AMThe problem is, when you believe in magic, there is nothing science can say to convince you - any rational reasoning and physical evidence can be overcome by the "god made it that way" argument.

Grand slam
There is considerable overlap between the intelligence of the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists." - Yosemite Park Ranger

ice grillin you

Yes, even those, whether you think it makes any sense or not.

no because arguments that contain religion are basd on belief not evidence or fact
i can take a phrase thats rarely heard...flip it....now its a daily word

igy gettin it done like warrick

im the board pharmacist....always one step above yous

Diomedes

exactly...confirmation bias involves the preference for this evidence over that.

in discussions with superstitious people, there is no evidence.   their belief is cited as evidence, and that don't rate...
There is considerable overlap between the intelligence of the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists." - Yosemite Park Ranger

Cerevant

Quote from: FFatPatt on January 29, 2007, 10:47:16 AM
Quote from: Cerevant on January 29, 2007, 10:45:20 AM
Yay confirmation bias...
QuoteConfirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis.

That's the way all evidence/information works when there are two sides to an argument, including this one.

Yes, this is why we have peer-reviewed science.  Science actively seeks critical review.  Science knows that it is inherently flawed, and wants to correct itself.  Religion / Dogma seeks to stifle criticism, and defend the status quo.
An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself.

Diomedes

Quote from: Cerevant on January 29, 2007, 11:04:52 AMYes, this is why we have peer-reviewed science.  Science actively seeks critical review.  Science knows that it is inherently flawed, and wants to correct itself.  Religion / Dogma seeks to stifle criticism, and defend the status quo.

batting 1000
There is considerable overlap between the intelligence of the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists." - Yosemite Park Ranger

Seabiscuit36

QuoteWASHINGTON (AP) -- Later this week in Paris, climate scientists will issue a dire forecast for the planet that warns of slowly rising sea levels and higher temperatures.

But that may be the sugarcoated version.

Early and changeable drafts of their upcoming authoritative report on climate change foresee smaller sea level rises than were projected in 2001 in the last report. Many top U.S. scientists reject these rosier numbers.

Those calculations don't include the recent, and dramatic, melt-off of big ice sheets in two crucial locations:

They "don't take into account the gorillas -- Greenland and Antarctica," said Ohio State University earth sciences professor Lonnie Thompson, a polar ice specialist. "I think there are unpleasant surprises as we move into the 21st century."

Michael MacCracken, who until 2001 coordinated the official U.S. government reviews of the international climate report on global warming, has fired off a letter of protest over the omission.

The melting ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are a fairly recent development that has taken scientists by surprise. They don't know how to predict its effects in their computer models. But many fear it will mean the world's coastlines are swamped much earlier than most predict.

Others believe the ice melt is temporary and won't play such a dramatic role.

That debate may be the central one as scientists and bureaucrats from around the world gather in Paris to finish the first of four major global warming reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The panel was created by the United Nations in 1988.

After four days of secret word-by-word editing, the final report will be issued Friday.

The early versions of the report predict that by 2100 the sea level will rise anywhere between 5 and 23 inches. That's far lower than the 20 to 55 inches forecast by 2100 in a study published in the peer-review journal Science this month. Other climate experts, including NASA's James Hansen, predict sea level rise that can be measured by feet more than inches.

The report is also expected to include some kind of proviso that says things could be much worse if ice sheets continue to melt.

The prediction being considered this week by the IPCC is "obviously not the full story because ice sheet decay is something we cannot model right now, but we know it's happening," said Stefan Rahmstorf, a climate panel lead author from Germany who made the larger prediction of up to 55 inches of sea level rise. "A document like that tends to underestimate the risk," he said.

"This will dominate their discussion because there's so much contentiousness about it," said Bob Corell, chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, a multinational research effort. "If the IPCC comes out with significantly less than one meter (about 39 inches of sea level rise), there will be people in the science community saying we don't think that's a fair reflection of what we know."

In the past, the climate change panel didn't figure there would be large melt of ice in west Antarctica and Greenland this century and didn't factor it into the predictions. Those forecasts were based only on the sea level rise from melting glaciers (which are different from ice sheets) and the physical expansion of water as it warms.

But in 2002, Antarctica's 1,255-square-mile Larsen B ice shelf broke off and disappeared in just 35 days. And recent NASA data shows that Greenland is losing 53 cubic miles of ice each year -- twice the rate it was losing in 1996.

Even so, there are questions about how permanent the melting in Greenland and especially Antarctica are, said panel lead author Kevin Trenberth, chief of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado.

While he said the melting ice sheets "raise a warning flag," Trenberth said he wonders if "some of this might just be temporary."

University of Alabama at Huntsville professor John Christy said Greenland didn't melt much within the past thousand years when it was warmer than now. Christy, a reviewer of the panel work, is a prominent so-called skeptic. He acknowledges that global warming is real and man-made, but he believes it is not as worrisome as advertised.

Those scientists who say sea level will rise even more are battling a consensus-building structure that routinely issues scientifically cautious global warming reports, scientists say.

The IPCC reports have to be unanimous, approved by 154 governments -- including the United States and oil-rich countries such as Saudi Arabia -- and already published peer-reviewed research done before mid-2006.

Rahmstorf, a physics and oceanography professor at Potsdam University in Germany, says, "In a way, it is one of the strengths of the IPCC to be very conservative and cautious and not overstate any climate change risk."

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
"For all the civic slurs, for all the unsavory things said of the Philadelphia fans, also say this: They could teach loyalty to a dog. Their capacity for pain is without limit." -Bill Lyons

Cerevant

Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on January 29, 2007, 11:25:00 AM
QuoteWASHINGTON (AP) --

University of Alabama at Huntsville professor John Christy said Greenland didn't melt much within the past thousand years when it was warmer than now. Christy, a reviewer of the panel work, is a prominent so-called skeptic. He acknowledges that global warming is real and man-made, but he believes it is not as worrisome as advertised.

An editor needs to be fired over this.  How can the farging AP claim to be an unbiased news agency when it shows such blatant bias.
An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself.

Event Horizon

Quote from: Cerevant on January 29, 2007, 10:45:20 AM
Quote from: Event Horizon on January 28, 2007, 02:25:45 PM
Care to answer the question?

I don't care to convert you. I am prepared to defend what I believe.

The problem is, when you believe in magic, there is nothing science can say to convince you - any rational reasoning and physical evidence can be overcome by the "god made it that way" argument.

Yay confirmation bias...
QuoteConfirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis.

We could leave religion out of the discussion entirely. Beginning with one basic assumption, the hydroplate theroy's (Dr. Walt Brown)subterranean water and applying only the laws of physics, many scientific questions can be answered including the one you refuse.