Global Warming is over.

[cale]

I'm sorry, but how is that any way relevant to the validity of AGW? Exploiting the science does not make the science any less factual. Great argument

[Fusion]

Because AGW is one of only a few scientific ideas where positive data/graphs/studies are needed for further political and commercial use.
If you don't understand that connection, and if you don't understand that no real reasonable steps are being taken to actually solve anything without huge expense sent down certain drains, than I feel sorry for your blindness.

[nando]

huh? that makes absolutely no sense at all.

so, do things like materials science not need new graphs/studies/data for commercial use? how about drugs? genetics? astrophysics? brain research? cancer?

wow.

[Fusion]

Why did you skip over the word political?
There mere fact that there are Green political parties worldwide that push a green agenda without actual problem solving, but still effect our lives with retarded legislation proves that positive AGW hockey stick type stuff is mandatory (for them) and anyone trying to question that or point to mistakes and fraud is considered ignorant, crazy, and a "denier". Actually, they couldn't even exist without being based on the AGW idea.
There are no political parties with programs based on genetics, astrophysics or cancer. And none of those fields consider disagreement as denying something, rather a valid contribution to the science that should be looked at.

[herbivor]

Why did you skip over the word political?
There mere fact that there are Green political parties worldwide that push a green agenda without actual problem solving, but still effect our lives with retarded legislation proves that positive AGW hockey stick type stuff is mandatory (for them) and anyone trying to question that or point to mistakes and fraud is considered ignorant, crazy, and a "denier". Actually, they couldn't even exist without being based on the AGW idea.
There are no political parties with programs based on genetics, astrophysics or cancer. And none of those fields consider disagreement as denying something, rather a valid contribution to the science that should be looked at.

I'm sorry, but how is that any way relevant to the validity of AGW? Exploiting the science does not make the science any less factual. Great argument

[Q5Quint]

Sometimes I feel like somebody is beating me in the head with a hockey stick.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study (BEST) is poised to release its findings next week on the cause of recent global warming.
UPDATE (9 pm, 7/28): A NY Times op-ed by Richard Muller, BEST’s Founder and Scientific Director, has been published, “The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic.”

Koch-Funded Study Finds ‘Global Warming Is Real’, ‘On The High End’ And ‘Essentially All’ Due To Carbon Pollution

[nando]

Why did you skip over the word political?
There mere fact that there are Green political parties worldwide that push a green agenda without actual problem solving, but still effect our lives with retarded legislation proves that positive AGW hockey stick type stuff is mandatory (for them) and anyone trying to question that or point to mistakes and fraud is considered ignorant, crazy, and a "denier". Actually, they couldn't even exist without being based on the AGW idea.
There are no political parties with programs based on genetics, astrophysics or cancer. And none of those fields consider disagreement as denying something, rather a valid contribution to the science that should be looked at.

maybe it's because the power to restore the enviroment is something that can be best handled on the political side.

and there are definitely other sciences that are useful politically, like economics.

yeah there are lots of envirowacko groups out there, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the science.

[Q5Quint]

The issue for me is that the believer/disbeliever debate has turned into a non-debate. No matter what science is brought forward from either side the other will fight to disprove it in any and all ways possible. I cant post a graph of global temperatures of the last 400k years because you will say it is faked. You cant post info about a climate skeptic conference because I will say it is fake. The debate becomes inconclusive rambling and we end up with 37 pages of bullshitting back and forth.

I try to never 'hear/say' anything because I am not the source. I source articles because I don't know a damn thing about arctic ice core drilling to find co2 levels of the last 400k years. I must rely on the scientific knowledge of.... scientists.... to give me the information I need to draw a conclusion. I have found and read lots of great information on atmospheric levels of co2, methane, ice melting, global temperatures etc and you are attempting to convince me that all that is a conspiracy and faked/manipulated.

While I believe that could be possible, it could also be possible that we didn't go to the moon. It could also be possible that trickle-down economics work and our government is based on our Christian founding-fathers values.

Data. This is all about DATA. Observable, re-creatable, factual data. We look at data, and we draw conclusions.

I don't pretend to have all the data or all the answers- but I am smart enough to be able to look for DATA when I don't know. There is a big shitstorm surrounding this climate stuff because literally billions and billions of dollars of industry riding around its conclusion and many things are bias and tainted because of that necessary perversion of monetary valuation.

My personal theory is that these skeptics exist so that industry can slowly introduce higher-efficiency vehicles at a rate that maximizes profits for the automotive, fossil-fuel, and electrical generation industries. What better way to make a extra few hundred-billion than to cast a shadow of doubt into a overwhelming majority of scientific theory AND maximize your profit/returns for another 15 years? At the end of it we have a slow and happy shift to a greener and less polluting industry that is still pumping out billions and at the same time keeping most of the middle class enslaved to car and house payments they can barely afford.

What if we built our own houses, fixed our own vehicles, and ran our own farms and business... would we have more free time to see how industry and its necessity/convenience has actually enslaved 90% of our time and earnings? Would we actually see the impact that we are having on this planet or would we still be angry that it costs $100 to fill up the urea exhaust filter on the $50k f-250?

To me that is what the AGW debate is actually about.... not global climate change in a 5deg F sense but global climate change in a reactionary turtle brain sense into a forward thinking and logical brain.

If we keep shitting into the air the winds of shit are eventually going to blow up a shitstorm of shit rain all over all of our shit.

[gwb72tii]

i don't think the skeptics are pro pollution, anti-science etc at all.
like i said before, scientists like mann have pretty much cast a doubt on anything the pro AGW camp says anymore. as does climategate, hansen(NASA) and the co-opting of the AGW science by left wing lunatics with purely political goals having nothing to do with climate.
with mann's hockey stick hypothesis (yes kershaw, hypothesis) proven to be based on inaccurate and cherry picked data, why doesn't the pro AGW camp throw the bum out on his ear (as republicans did to aiken). until you guys police your own, your credibility is more than a little suspect

i read somewhere, and i can probably find a link, that mckitrick found that inputing random credit card numbers into mann's model resulted in, get ready............................a hockey stick graph

[Fusion]

Noone answered why there's no solution brought forward for the plastic in the oceans.
Something we know is there, know is man-made, know is hurting the environment and ocean life.
Maybe because you can't base your political program on it, justify subsidizing half-assed private projects on it, change the auto industry with it, raise ulitity prices because of it, and make a shitload of money in the process.

The title "scientist" does not necessarily mean non-corrupt, honest, unbiased individual.

[LBJefferies]

"The fallibility of methods is a valuable reminder of the importance of skepticism in science. Scientific knowledge and scientific methods, whether old or new, must be continually scrutinized for possible errors. Such skepticism can conflict with other important features of science, such as the need for creativity and for conviction in arguing a given position. But organized and searching skepticism as well as an openness to new ideas are essential to guard against the intrusion of dogma or collective bias into scientific results."

This is one of the best possible quotes that could ever be quoted in the history of quoting. I have been saying damn near these exact words to countless people and it is nice to have someone back me up for a change. Who was the quote from by the way?

Without skepticism, you do not have science, you have faith. And history has shown us how dangerous faith can be. Science, and particularly AGW, have turned into a religion for the left. They have lost sight of the true goal of science, which is to understand the world, and have twisted it into a political war with the right. Anyone who dares question, as any good scientist should, is shunned and treated like a crazy person. The more vocal and militant that environmentalists get about AGW, and the more severe their actions and words are on the issue, the more that it needs to be questioned. It gets harder and harder to weed through the bullshit and find the truth when an issue becomes as politicized as this has. And that is what the pro-AGW folks don't understand. It is not about denying science, it is not about political bias, it is not about being anti-environment, it is only about not falling for the bullshit.

[herbivor]

i don't think the skeptics are pro pollution, anti-science etc at all.
like i said before, scientists like mann have pretty much cast a doubt on anything the pro AGW camp says anymore. as does climategate, hansen(NASA) and the co-opting of the AGW science by left wing lunatics with purely political goals having nothing to do with climate.
with mann's hockey stick hypothesis (yes kershaw, hypothesis) proven to be based on inaccurate and cherry picked data, why doesn't the pro AGW camp throw the bum out on his ear (as republicans did to aiken). until you guys police your own, your credibility is more than a little suspect

i read somewhere, and i can probably find a link, that mckitrick found that inputing random credit card numbers into mann's model resulted in, get ready............................a hockey stick graph

Would you care to comment on the other scientists and their data that has produced similar results as Mann's 1998 analysis? What is your opinion of the Wahl-Ammann 2007 study as compared to the 2004 McIntyre critique? What is your opinion of the different statistical techniques used in each study? What are your opinion of the climate analysis when you combine all the various proxies, including ice cores, coral, lake sediments, glaciers, boreholes & stalagmites? Have you analyzed those results with the same conclusion you have of Mann's analysis. What are your opinions of the NOAA's Paleoclimatological evidence in recent years, and the fact that they produce similar results without the bristlecone pine data included in Mann's study? Please do tell us specifically how those studies are statistical anomalies as well. And don't worry, you can be as detailed as possible with your calculations to show me the flaws in the statistical techniques used, I'm intelligent enough to understand them.

[LBJefferies]

Noone answered why there's no solution brought forward for the plastic in the oceans.
Something we know is there, know is man-made, know is hurting the environment and ocean life.
Maybe because you can't base your political program on it, justify subsidizing half-assed private projects on it, change the auto industry with it, raise ulitity prices because of it, and make a shitload of money in the process.

The title "scientist" does not necessarily mean non-corrupt, honest, unbiased individual.

Goddammit I FUCKING LOVE YOU. I fucking love to hear my own words come from an intelligent persons mouth. I think I am going to give birth.

[herbivor]

Noone answered why there's no solution brought forward for the plastic in the oceans.
Something we know is there, know is man-made, know is hurting the environment and ocean life.
Maybe because you can't base your political program on it, justify subsidizing half-assed private projects on it, change the auto industry with it, raise ulitity prices because of it, and make a shitload of money in the process.

The title "scientist" does not necessarily mean non-corrupt, honest, unbiased individual.

There are solutions, and they have been brought forward, but like GW, the industry and politicians have squashed them due to their expense. And besides, GW is a greater threat than the plastics. Why are you trying to detract from the topic anyway? We can discuss a million other environmental problems. This thread is devoted to global warming, which many scientists would likely agree is one of the most important to resolve.

[LBJefferies]

There are solutions, and they have been brought forward, but like GW, the industry and politicians have squashed them due to their expense. And besides, GW is a greater threat than the plastics. Why are you trying to detract from the topic anyway? We can discuss a million other environmental problems. This thread is devoted to global warming, which many scientists would likely agree is one of the most important to resolve.

He is not detracting from the topic. He makes a very good point about the political biases inherent within the global warming debate. What he is saying is right, and it makes this WHOLE discussion worthless.