I happened to catch this segment on GMA this morning and was pretty alarmed — not just by the alarmist rhetoric, but by some of the things that GMA reported as fact. Before anyone accuses me of being an environmental ostrich, all I am asking is to have a few words added to most global warming stories. Words like “believed by many” or “estimated” would do for starters. Instead, it is often declared that scientists say or warn us, about things that “will” happen, rather than “many” scientists say it is “possible.” You can read the GMA report at Newsbusters, but my “alarm” went off when I heard that temperatures are the warmest in a million years. Just exactly how accurate were the thermometers 999,999 years ago anyway? I sure would like to get hold of one of them because we have several in our home and vehicles and they rarely ever all say the same thing. I pass three time and temperature signs in a one mile stretch on the way to Wal-Mart and the temps generally vary a few degrees. I am sure those caveman thermometers were accurate within hundreths of a degree though.
Mantis:
To respond to your point, I will comment and make linkages
1.) Hockey Stick: NAS Committee Hearings on Hockeystick
Your link just validated my point that the hockey stick graph is for the Northern Hemisphere only. He states that the graph is confirmed by dozens of other studies. It also does not state how they confirmed Mann’s data. The problem is most reports using the hockey stick graph use the mann graph such as the NAS report earlier this year.
2) Ice core data: Debunking Jaworowski: I do not have time tonight to go over all the points in your link, but here are a few.
Point 1) There probably would not be evidence in the senate testimony record since he probably did not testify personally before the Senate. Also he could have been ask to prepare this testimony but it was never brought forward in a hearing.
Points 12 & 13) I followed the links in the article to see where Jarowowski is wrong for calling into question Callenders methodology for presenting his data. All the links say that Callender was correct and more recent studies have confirmed it but they failed to provide any actual evedince such as the actual study data.
I will try and comment on other points when I get some more free time.
Why don’t I provide links?
Waste of time. Just spend 5 minutes following links from someone like muirego. …….
No link I could provide you would make a damn bit of difference to you.
If you look hard enough you’ll find a graph showing surface temps taken the same way for 100 years. Four of the top 10 (including #1) are from the 1930s, four more are from the 2000s.
Posted by: KobeClan
This is getting hard to watch KobeClan squirm so much so I’ll help him out here. It’s the liberal humanitarian side of me that hates to see people suffer so.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D_lrg.gif
BTW,
Before anybody writes to tell me that gravity is a fact, you are wrong. We can describe the properties of gravity but still don’t know what it is.
Posted by: KobeClan
Good point and this why people like Kobe should NOT be in charge of our space program. He’d STILL be saying we need more data on the theory of gravity before we send anyone to the moon.
muirego:
You’ve proved my point , again. TWICE.
If you had the intelligence of a gnat you would have noticed the graph you linked to shows the highest annual mean temp for the US just happens to be in the 1930s. If you keep looking you’ll find a similar graph for worldwide temps. Again, you send me zebra pix. The first thing you need to do when you get to high school is have some science teacher teach you how to read a graph.
As for the gravity thing, there’s a one million pound prize in England for the first person or persons to uncover the nature of gravity. A smartass moonbat like yourself who has all the answers could probably use the coin. It’ll get you out of your parent’s basement.
Maybe you could find a graph to send them to prove your theory.
Wow, this discussion is still going.
KobeClan, I think it’s obvious that we affect our environment, how much and in what way is the question I think we need to ask.
I believe we contribute to the warming of the planet, it’s not hard to believe, and there are legitimate supporting arguments.
I think the fact that liberals tend to be the most diehard proponents of global warming, turns you from healthy skepticism to outright denial.
However, doing a bit of research on the planet’s oil supplies, I think we’ll run out of, or be pumping very little of it in 50 years. I read an estimate that said we can expect a global temperature increase of 1-2 degrees in this time.
Not world-ending by any means.
Mantis claims above that he’s “no troll.”
Ok, mantis’ credibility now shot. I would tend to believe the exact OPPOSITE of what he says, based on his obvious lack of self-insight and perspective.
The good Lord has blessed us with an array of idiot lefty trolls on this website.
Here is a scientific study for you, from the JFK University, no less:
“A dream researcher from John F. Kennedy University in California has discovered fundamental differences between the dream worlds of people on the ideological left and the ideological right.
Among his findings, Kelly Bulkeley discovered that liberals are more restless sleepers and have a higher number of bizarre, surreal dreams — including fantasy settings and a wide variety of sexual encounters. Conservatives’ dreams were, on average, far more mundane and focused on realistic people, situations and settings…”
There you have it: Lefties, bizarre and surreal; Righties focused on realistic situations.
Proves my intuition correct.
However, doing a bit of research on the planet’s oil supplies, I think we’ll run out of, or be pumping very little of it in 50 years. I read an estimate that said we can expect a global temperature increase of 1-2 degrees in this time.
Heralder
Every hear of a little thing called COAL?
Heralder:
However, doing a bit of research on the planet’s oil supplies, I think we’ll run out of, or be pumping very little of it in 50 years.
They been saying the same thing for the past 40 years. We keep discovering new oil finds, and improving technology to get more oil out of existing finds. There is potentially 200 billion barrels of oil in the Bakken “oil play” in Montana that have yet to be drilled. Also there are 100s of billions of oil in tarsands around the world. Canada has an estimated 150 – 200 billion barrels in known tar sand deposits.
We currently have more oil supply today than we did 15 – 20 years ago.
The last time I heard the term “germ theory” was 30 years ago in college as a historic term. In my 30 years since I haven’t heard it until today.
I’m surprised you’ve heard of it at all considering you asked ‘Or do you still say “the theory of infectious disease”‘. It’s not as if I run around talking about germ theory all day, only if I’m discussing the foundations of microbiology. I was responding to your question. Glad you got a good laugh though. Btw only idiots and fourteen year olds write Bwahahahaha!. Which one are you?
Also, since you seem to think that germ theory is so archaic, I wonder what you think of Newton’s laws of motion. They’re only the foundation of physics the same way germ theory is the foundation of modern medicine, but they’re so old!
“Dr. White, This patient has Amoxicillin resistant pneumococcal pneumonia, how should we treat him?”
“Well, Dr. Black, the germ theory of disease suggests…”
There is a difference between theory and practice, friend. All 1st year medical students learn about germ theory.
And you say that not having data for a very large portion of the globe will not effect the accuracy of the data. Bwahahahaha!
I’m still waiting for you to explain how the absence of polar data would significantly alter the plotting of the graph. Are you asserting that it was much warmer at the poles for the first 40 years of the century, respectively? This seems unlikely to me; how could it work in light of what we know about global climate?
The theory of the solar system? The theory of the EMS? The theory of the round earth??
Kobe, it’s clear that you don’t understand what a scientific theory actually is, you don’t have to keep demonstrating it over and over again.
sean nyc,
Yes. However, transmuting coal to oil is negative energy, meaning it takes more resources to turn it to oil that what you get out of it. Not viable, in other words. Some factories still run on coal, but I doubt we’ll be seeing coal-powered cars instead of ethanol-powered cars.
ejmad,
Admittedly, the estimates of world oil reserves are shakey at best. What we need to take into account, however, is population growth. Also, as I was saying in an earlier post, how would a billion more cars in China affect this?
Heralder,
I wasn’t talking about converting coal to oil. I’m talking about burning coal for electricity. GHGs are still released.
Granted, they’re stationary rather than mobile sources making it much easier to capture emissions, but the ability to capture 100% of emissions economically does not exist.
mantis:
I hoped you took the time to check the link that muirego said would make me “squirm”. The one to refute my claim that the hottest year on record was in the ’30s. The one that SHOWED the hottest year on record for the US was in the ’30s? Bwahahahaha!
If you would bother to go back and read what you wrote, you should be embarassed. Alas, you’re incapable of it.
Theory becomes fact. Deal with it.
BTW, 1st year med school WAS the last time I heard the term “germ theory”. Like I said, college professors and moonbats.
BTW, you used the term “Newton’s Laws of motion”, not “Newton’s theories of Motion”. CURIOUS.
Also, if you don’t understand why missing data from the polar icecaps is significant, you might want to take a course in statistical analysis.
Apples and oranges, ya know.
MEGO after the first 100 or so comments to this, but the article below nicely addresses dissent from the current “concensus” on climate change.
http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2006/09/hey_hey_ho_ho_t.html
Basically, leftists are attempting to stifle dissent from their predetermined world view.
I hoped you took the time to check the link that muirego said would make me “squirm”. The one to refute my claim that the hottest year on record was in the ’30s. The one that SHOWED the hottest year on record for the US was in the ’30s?
First of all, it’s not my fault that muirego doesn’t know what he/she’s talking about. That he showed you a chart of annual mean temperatures in the contiguous US is irrelevant, the charts I linked to which look at global temperature are quite relevant (here’s another). You also continue to ignore the fact that the 5 hottest years on record, globally, are all in the last 8 years. What do you have to say about that?
If you would bother to go back and read what you wrote, you should be embarassed. Alas, you’re incapable of it.
What exactly should I be embarrassed about?
Theory becomes fact. Deal with it.
Deal with your ignorance of scientific method.
BTW, 1st year med school WAS the last time I heard the term “germ theory”.
I’m sorry you stopped reading after your first year. Maybe you should try it again sometime.
BTW, you used the term “Newton’s Laws of motion”, not “Newton’s theories of Motion”. CURIOUS.
Not really, the fact that he calls them laws doesn’t make them facts; they are still theoretical, and well-supported in dealing with most physical motion. However, if you were familiar with physics you would know that the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics showed that the laws break down sometimes. How could that happen if they are laws, and therefore facts? Oh, because they are theoretical and subject to further experimentation and acquisition of new knowledge.
If all scientists were like you and decided that theories become facts after a period of confirming experimentation, we would not have relativity or quantum mechanics. Science continues to question well-supported theories as it is an evolving system of knowledge. You would do well to recognize that.
Also, if you don’t understand why missing data from the polar icecaps is significant, you might want to take a course in statistical analysis.
What I don’t understand is why you think that during the first 40 years of the century that the data for the poles would vary significantly relative to the data from the rest of the globe. Given what we know about the relation of polar temperatures to global temperatures for the next 60 years of the century, it is quite easy, statistically, to extrapolate the likely polar temperatures for the first 40 years. You would understand that if your knowledge extended beyond Statistics 101.
MANTIS:
Theories: Theory of Relativity, theory of quantum mechanics, theory of gravity.
Facts: The Earth is round, the Sun is the center of our solar system, “germs” cause diseases, the Periodic Table, elements, molecules, SPERM!!, the atmosphere, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
Theories become facts. Deal with it.
Statistical analysis of unlike sets of data has a name: educated guess. BWAhahahahahaha!!
Come on, mantis. Take off the tinfoil hat. If you’re unwilling to admit theories become facts,you’ll never get out of your parent’s basement.
Theories: Theory of Relativity, theory of quantum mechanics, theory of gravity.
Well, you’ve got something right, so that’s a start. By the way most people who know what they’re talking about call it the theory of gravitation, and there’s more than one theory of relativity.
Facts: The Earth is round, the Sun is the center of our solar system, “germs” cause diseases, the Periodic Table, elements, molecules, SPERM!!, the atmosphere, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
Wrong. The Earth being round is a hypothesis, and a proven one at that. This fact is explained by the theory of gravitation and the big bang (plus the nebular hypothesis). Ditto the planets revolving around the Sun. That germs exist and cause disease are facts, or rather proven hypotheses, how this happens is theoretical. And on and on.
You see, what you fail to grasp, not surprisingly at this point, is that facts are things observed or measured (scientists usually call them evidence), whereas theories interpret, correlate, and explain that evidence. Theories do not become facts, they explain facts.
Come on, mantis. Take off the tinfoil hat. If you’re unwilling to admit theories become facts,you’ll never get out of your parent’s basement.
I wear a tinfoil hat because I understand science? Am I claiming some vast conspiracy or something? No, I’m just explaining science, though your skull is clearly too thick to comprehend. And it’s interesting that you think I live in my parent’s (sic) basement, since you previously thought I must be a college professor, which you believe to be an insult. Not surprising from someone who refuses to admit when he’s wrong.
I think a refresher in the scientific method is due for you, friend. Start with Karl Popper. He would be quite amused with your “theories become facts” idea.
mantis:
Actually. mantis, I get great pleasure watching you making a fool of yourself. When you begin to use “(sic)” on a thread, its the equivalent of calling someone a Nazi.
parent’s
parents’
What makes you think I didn’t assume you lived in the basement of your mother’s house, your father long gone when she refused to throw you out at the age of 40?
Give it up, mantis. A proven hypothesis is called a fact. You really need to read your own postings:
“That germs exist and cause disease are facts, or rather proven hypotheses, how this happens is theoretical. And on and on.”
So you agree with me but I’m Wrong?? It would have been easy for you to just say “I mispoke”. But the vanity of a moonbat is too great.
Wait, you don’t know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis? Ok, I give up. Go read a book.
Pope Albert [Gore] I of the Church of the Enviromentalists:
“Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore warned hundreds of U.N. diplomats and staff on Thursday evening about the perils of climate change, claiming: Cigarette smoking is a “significant contributor to global warming!”
There’s some science for ya! Hell yeah!