Noble-winning Climate Scientist wakes up.

[4G63]

Giaever announced his resignation from APS was due to the group's belief in man-made global warming fears.

Come on "scientists", put Science ahead of Politics!

[Galen Sevinne]

Giaever announced his resignation from APS was due to the group's belief in man-made global warming fears.

Come on "scientists", put Science ahead of Politics!

Yeah time to lower the 97% of Climate Scientist who endorse AGW to 95%. Wait...oh yeah, he won a Nobel in 1973 for physics. He isn't an actual climate scientist but just another scientist, albeit 82 years old, who signs on with Heritage and CATO and the rest of the Exxon think tanks.

As much as the anti-intellectual that you are I would think you would reject all scientists/academics? While he is not a climate scientist he still spent a lot of years in college??? I guess you are okay these smart fellas as long as they support your flat earth mentality?

[4G63]

Yeah time to lower the 97% of Climate Scientist who endorse AGW to 95%. Wait...oh yeah, he won a Nobel in 1973 for physics. He isn't an actual climate scientist but just another scientist, albeit 82 years old, who signs on with Heritage and CATO and the rest of the Exxon think tanks.

As much as the anti-intellectual that you are I would think you would reject all scientists/academics? While he is not a climate scientist he still spent a lot of years in college??? I guess you are okay these smart fellas as long as they support your flat earth mentality?

You are pretty small-minded aren't you?!? I'm not against "Intellectuals" or anyone with degrees but not questioning their reports/conclusions when there is legitimate questions as to there veracity is quite simply, stupid. As you know I'm a FF and I know numerous Fire Captains that would run circles around those you would consider "intellectual" because they're smart and can make quick decisions on their feet. Much like the military and police, thats a requirement when operating in dangerous situations. I also know several "higher ups" that have all the education required for their job but don't have the quick decision making because they're too analytical. Not that Climate Scientists and Fire Captains have a lot in common but your generalization that I don't respect "Intellectuals" is wrong. Its just that there's something to be said for being smart and having an education. There is a real world difference.

BTW, I debunked your "98% of Climate Scientists support AGW" in the other thread but you don't have the stones to address it. Care to now? You can do it here or in that thread, either way you'd finally have to admit that that false meme is an outright lie!

Bring it! Post #68 in that thread. Deal with it and prove me wrong once and for all. Or just admit you've been on this issue.

[jonboy79]

I still would love to hear how you or any of your climate scientists explains the cyclical nature of our climate prior to industrialization.

Until you can completely explain that, while also entirely ruling out the source of the previous warming periods, then you have ABSOLUTELY NO LEG TO STAND ON.

Coorelation and causality are two entirely different things. MMGW has shown me NOTHING to prove causation, and I have read nearly every link you have posted for going on three years now. Nothing has been posted with a timescale anywhere near large enough to even come to a conclusion. MMGW ONLY focuses on the period since industrialization, and COMPLETELY ignores the BILLIONS of years prior.

It's not the burning of fossil fuels that warms up the northern hemisphere in May-August. It's the path of the Earth through the cosmos, and the tilt of the planet's axis relative to the BIG BURNING BALL OF GAS, that is in no measure a constant.

Don't you think it's even reasonably possible that fluctuations in that burning ball of gas at least contributed to the warming of the planet?

[Galen Sevinne]

You are pretty small-minded aren't you?!? I'm not against "Intellectuals" or anyone with degrees but not questioning their reports/conclusions when there is legitimate questions as to there veracity is quite simply, stupid. As you know I'm a FF and I know numerous Fire Captains that would run circles around those you would consider "intellectual" because they're smart and can make quick decisions on their feet. Much like the military and police, thats a requirement when operating in dangerous situations. I also know several "higher ups" that have all the education required for their job but don't have the quick decision making because they're too analytical. Not that Climate Scientists and Fire Captains have a lot in common but your generalization that I don't respect "Intellectuals" is wrong. Its just that there's something to be said for being smart and having an education. There is a real world difference.

This is all anecdotal. Of course everyone knows someone who dropped out of high school and can fix anything around and I know plenty of PhDs who can't change their own oil. This isn't what I am talking about though. Understandiing how research is completed and whether its data is reliable or not depends on years of study in research methodologies. Climate science is so complex that one needs at least a basic understanding of doctorate level research to even begin to comment on it.

BTW, I debunked your "98% of Climate Scientists support AGW" in the other thread but you don't have the stones to address it. Care to now? You can do it here or in that thread, either way you'd finally have to admit that that false meme is an outright lie!

Bring it! Post #68 in that thread. Deal with it and prove me wrong once and for all. Or just admit you've been on this issue.

Do you understand that the link you presented:

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

Supports my claim? Truly and without exaggeration arguing with you guys about climate change and evolution or anything that requires a fundamental understanding of research design (ie science) is futile. For example:

This study where I quoted the 97% climate scientists endorse AGW asks I think it was 10 questions of which the first two are:


1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing
mean global temperatures?

The authors of the study report this fact:

With 3146 individuals completing the survey, the participant response rate for the survey was 30.7%. This is a typical response rate for Web-based surveys [Cook et al.,2000; Kaplowitz et al., 2004].

Based on empirical studies of web-based surveys, this particular one falls within the reliable range. There is nothing in the research design that suggests either AWG endorsers nor deniers are more likely to respond to the questionaire so one must accept the response rate to be random.

The results as reported by the authors:

Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2. In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions (Figure 1). In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who
also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.

As far as your theory about 10,000 recipients receiving the survey and 3000 responding being somehow flawed data, you have no evidence of that. Again, there is no evidence that either side of the argument was more likely to respond than the other. What we do know is that based on the research of response rates on web based surveys, this survey is reliable.

Sorry bro...in the end it is you that loses this debate. The link you provide to dispute me, is written in support of me! The fact that you don't understand that just illustrates that you just don't understand how to read this stuff.

The link that starts this thread is just as silly. I don't know how to help you understand that and after these types of debates with numerous climate deniers over the last 4 years, I have frankly grown bored.

[Greg]

Reposted from another thread where it was not responded to:

Both of these things (CO2 and temperatures rising) have happened to bigger degrees in the past without man causing it. This is well known. It is also well known that the rise in temperature PRECEDES the CO2 rise. When water gets warmer it releases CO2. The earth has been much hotter and had much higher levels of CO2 in its past. When it gets hotter CO2 comes out of the oceans.

By the way, both of these things are good for life. Animal life does better when it is warm and plant life does better with higher CO2 levels.

[Galen Sevinne]

Reposted from another thread where it was not responded to:

Both of these things (CO2 and temperatures rising) have happened to bigger degrees in the past without man causing it. This is well known. It is also well known that the rise in temperature PRECEDES the CO2 rise. When water gets warmer it releases CO2. The earth has been much hotter and had much higher levels of CO2 in its past. When it gets hotter CO2 comes out of the oceans.

By the way, both of these things are good for life. Animal life does better when it is warm and plant life does better with higher CO2 levels.

Do you really think that if such a simple line of thought could negate AWG competely there would be such a consensus view endorsing awg of climate scientists? Individuals are studying climate and climate irregularities for their entire professional careers and a simple sentence, dumbed down for the masses, saying its happened before so therefore it is insignificant negates all of their work? all their effort? Somehow, you, with probably no real scientific background has the answer that these guys who spend their entire careers in labs, looking at models, analyzing data somehow overlooked?

Don't you think that would be a little too simple? I mean, for real, don't even look at the actual data and live on statements like this but isn't there even just a bit of you that says, "yeah, that probably is a little too simple"?

Is there something religious about how you see this? Something like man isn't able to affect the universe that the almighty created so therefore there is a preconceived judgement? Is this why folks like yourself take such a rigid stand? Is this like the heretical stance of heliocentricism in the 16th century? Outside of big oil and conservative think tanks creating the narrative against science is there also a religious element that prevents you guys from reading the data instead of running around saying such things as your quote above.

I am not interested in debating the data as it stands onits own merit. I am more curious at the simplicity of your thought as in a simple paragraph stated in 4 mere sentences proves all! Maybe I need to go to church. Does it all become so simple??? "Don't worry about the famine in the horn of africa...hey, we have had famine before, it probably is meant to happen!"

[4G63]

As far as your theory about 10,000 recipients receiving the survey and 3000 responding being somehow flawed data, you have no evidence of that. Again, there is no evidence that either side of the argument was more likely to respond than the other. What we do know is that based on the research of response rates on web based surveys, this survey is reliable.

Really? You're that dense?

Either you count every person that received the survey or you don't. Just because they didn't respond doesn't mean that you can assume what their feelings are either way. Are you saying that the ones who failed to respond cannot be relied on for their opinion? Are they less of a "scientist" because they won't put their name to this survey? You can't make assumptions when dealing with "settled" scientific theories.

Your statement that "98% of Climate Scientists believe in AGW" cannot be correct when over half didn't respond to this survey. If we're gonna make assumptions like that (just like AGW itself) then you'll never get the support you need from those that have a cognitive and reasonable mind. It simply doesn't add up and certainly cannot be construed as reliable data when seeing the entire text of the survey results. Its all right there in black and white.

[Galen Sevinne]

And I guess any polling data is equally unreliable since they only poll maybe a thousand people yet they generalize that data to the entire population of the country.

You don't understand sampling. It makes it impossible to have an intelligent debate here.


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[jonboy79]

Do you really think that if such a simple line of thought could negate AWG competely there would be such a consensus view endorsing awg of climate scientists? Individuals are studying climate and climate irregularities for their entire professional careers and a simple sentence, dumbed down for the masses, saying its happened before so therefore it is insignificant negates all of their work? all their effort? Somehow, you, with probably no real scientific background has the answer that these guys who spend their entire careers in labs, looking at models, analyzing data somehow overlooked?

Don't you think that would be a little too simple? I mean, for real, don't even look at the actual data and live on statements like this but isn't there even just a bit of you that says, "yeah, that probably is a little too simple"?

Is there something religious about how you see this? Something like man isn't able to affect the universe that the almighty created so therefore there is a preconceived judgement? Is this why folks like yourself take such a rigid stand? Is this like the heretical stance of heliocentricism in the 16th century? Outside of big oil and conservative think tanks creating the narrative against science is there also a religious element that prevents you guys from reading the data instead of running around saying such things as your quote above.

I am not interested in debating the data as it stands onits own merit. I am more curious at the simplicity of your thought as in a simple paragraph stated in 4 mere sentences proves all! Maybe I need to go to church. Does it all become so simple??? "Don't worry about the famine in the horn of africa...hey, we have had famine before, it probably is meant to happen!"

Yes, it really is that simple. MMGWists have never proved causation or abnormality, PERIOD.

[Galen Sevinne]

Yes, it really is that simple. MMGWists have never proved causation or abnormality, PERIOD.

...simple is as simple does.

[jonboy79]

...simple is as simple does.

Then stop ignoring everything that ever happenned prior to the 1850's.

Show me where you have PROVen causality and abnpormality. It's a very simple tequest. You ignore this question every single time and it is the ONLY question that needs to be asked.

Seriously, prove to me that the conditions on the Earth are different then EVER before, and changing for a reason that can be proven to stem from the burning of fossil fuels.

Simpel question, and in need of a simple answer.

Do you deny an ice age? Do you deny we came out of that ice age without fossil fuels? Then prove that the cause of warming then is not the cause now.

NOt a single "scientist" on your side has even attempted to do so, it doesn't fit their agenda.
And of course, the graph that I have posted to end each and every one of this discussions, a simple graph that plainly proves you have MUCH more homework to do to even THINK about the possibility that man causes the climate change, a graph yoiu ignore every single time.