07-29-2011, 09:07 AM | #11 |
Drow Priestess
Join Date: March 13, 2001
Location: a hidden sanctorum high above the metroplex
Age: 54
Posts: 4,037
|
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
I don't care about the Heartland Group or their political leanings whatsoever because they are not the ones who did the research. NASA did the research and I don't think any rational person could claim that that organization engages in "junk science".
On this topic I have raised these points for the past several years: 1) alarmists overestimate our ability to impact global climate. According to the reports and predictions that were coming out 20 years ago, by now there should be no ice in the Arctic and the oceans should have risen at least a foot...neither of which has happened. Also, the predictions typically claimed 0.1 degree rise in average temperature each year...which also has not happened. Finally, when one large volcanic eruption can alter global temperatures by an average of 2 degrees then our importance is clearly minimized. 2) climate science does not follow the Scientific Method because a) there is no "control" Earth containing no human begins against which to measure experimental results, b) the studies begin with the same flawed premise of "human beings are disrupting global climate" rather than reaching conclusions afterwards--this is backwards. 3) alarmists want to enact legislation based on their faulty findings because they think the United States is the only country hurting the planet. I would like to see them try to go force carbon dioxide emissions on China--that would be funny.
__________________
Everything may be explained by a conspiracy theory. All conspiracy theories are true. No matter how thinly you slice it, it's still bologna. |
07-29-2011, 09:48 AM | #12 |
Drizzt Do'Urden
Join Date: April 9, 2001
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 68
Posts: 630
|
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
NASA did the research and I don't think any rational person could claim that that organization engages in "junk science".
Doubtful as Dr. Spencer resigned from NASA in 2001. Rebuttal. http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/...odel-down-roy/ To be fair and balanced here is Dr. Spencers website. http://www.drroyspencer.com/ Last edited by machinehead; 07-29-2011 at 10:29 AM. |
07-29-2011, 10:53 AM | #13 | |
Zartan
Join Date: July 18, 2001
Location: America, On The Beautiful Earth
Age: 50
Posts: 5,373
|
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
Quote:
__________________
Support Local Music and Record Stores! Got Liberty? |
|
07-29-2011, 11:36 AM | #14 |
Drizzt Do'Urden
Join Date: April 9, 2001
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 68
Posts: 630
|
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
The George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) is a politically conservative think tank established in 1984 in Washington, D.C. with a focus on the misuse of science to further right wing public policy. In the 1980s, the Institute was engaged primarily in lobbying in support of the Strategic Defense Initiative.[1] Since the late 1980s, the Institute has put forward environmental skepticism views, and in particular has disputed mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, although it continues to be active on defense policy. The George C. Marshall Institute has been described by Newsweek as a "central cog in the denial machine."[2] The institute is named after the World War II military leader and statesman George C. Marshall.
Historian Naomi Oreskes states that the institute has, in order to resist and delay regulation, lobbied politically to create a false public perception of scientific uncertainty over the negative effects of second-hand smoke, the carcinogenic nature of tobacco smoking, the existence of acid rain, and on the evidence between CFCs and ozone depletion.[3] The role of GMI in creating public doubt on these matters and swaying public policy was elaborated in the book "Merchants of Doubt", which details the motives of the organization's heads and their interests.[4] From Wiki Dr. Roy Spencer is also on the board of directors of this organization... |
07-29-2011, 12:40 PM | #15 |
Jack Burton
Join Date: May 31, 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 5,854
|
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
Also lol @ an attempt to cast doubt on the dangers of second-hand smoke! Wtf? Those tobacco companies must pay 'em a shitload of money.
__________________
Still I feel like a child when I look at the moon, maybe I grew up a little too soon... |
07-29-2011, 12:49 PM | #16 | ||
Zartan
Join Date: July 18, 2001
Location: America, On The Beautiful Earth
Age: 50
Posts: 5,373
|
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
Quote:
Quote:
We know this by the method of common sense. It is as it was. We can go look at it. For example April 2011 National Geographic article notes research into the acidification of the coral reef environments caused by Carbon Dioxide being absorbed in the ocean. It wasn't happening before and it's killing shit now. It's not the end of the world, but it is serious. I guess pollution probably doesn't matter to people who ascribe to the belief that the Climate is divinely immune to Human endeavors and simply fixes itself. There really is no argument against such magical irrational thinking other than to point out it is. There is danger in such stupidity. Extremists on one side scoring points against extremists on the other creates nothing but a bunch of useless noise. Does using NASA data to write an article which can be summed up with a tongue in cheek as "repeatedly mocking a group of environmentalists referred to as alarmists in order to say we told you so and I'm right" help obscure or highlight the middle ground where we find correct analysis?
__________________
Support Local Music and Record Stores! Got Liberty? |
||
07-29-2011, 12:57 PM | #17 |
Apophis
Join Date: October 19, 2001
Location: New York
Age: 37
Posts: 4,666
|
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
I haven't been on in awhile, and I'm glad most people responded with good arguments! I actually got a chance to look at this paper which "debunks" global warming. There are some serious, serious problems with the paper.
There is an irony to the paper. Essentially Spencer is using his model to show how the IPCC's models are quite inaccurate... except the robustness of his model has been a huge issue of contention. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-1.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-...er-part-2.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-...er-part-3.html And yes, we all know how dishonest the Heartland Organization is. Edit: Looks like machinehead posted a separately related link which has the same criticisms. The more the merrier when it comes to the scientific community! Last edited by SecretMaster; 07-29-2011 at 01:00 PM. |
07-29-2011, 01:43 PM | #18 |
Mephistopheles
Join Date: March 21, 2004
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL
Age: 69
Posts: 1,444
|
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
@Azred
Welcome back Mathsorcerer. Your posts are welcome here, and will get plenty of yakking! I know it can be pretty depressing over at the Oasis, with it having reached Right-wing Entropy. We haven't quite reached Left-wing Entropy here at Ironworks, and if we get the Oasans back, things will heat back up. So bring them over with you.
__________________
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759. Iraq and Afghan fatalities: 6,855 and counting. Silence IS consent. |
07-29-2011, 02:10 PM | #19 | |
Zartan
Join Date: July 18, 2001
Location: America, On The Beautiful Earth
Age: 50
Posts: 5,373
|
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
Quote:
__________________
Support Local Music and Record Stores! Got Liberty? |
|
07-29-2011, 02:22 PM | #20 | ||||
Drow Priestess
Join Date: March 13, 2001
Location: a hidden sanctorum high above the metroplex
Age: 54
Posts: 4,037
|
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
Hello to you, too. What happens at the Oasis stays at the Oasis and had absolutely nothing to do with me...as you well know. ************* The logical fallacy of False Cause; notice, specifically, the section on post hoc ergo propter hoc. Quote:
Note, also, the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam. Quote:
Next comes argumentum ad populum. Quote:
Finally, we have argumentum ad hominem. Quote:
People also fail to separate the issues of "climate change" and "environmental quality". I may not believe that humans are altering the climate but I do believe that we need to keep the environment healthy. I would still like to see anyone try and force countries like India and China to have the restrictions put onto them like alarmists have done in the United States. People are still engaging slash-and-burn agriculture in Brazil, but I don't hear people wailing about it.
__________________
Everything may be explained by a conspiracy theory. All conspiracy theories are true. No matter how thinly you slice it, it's still bologna. |
||||
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Talk about global warming, eh? | Link | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 19 | 07-16-2004 12:25 PM |
Global Warming: Who's to blame? | Avatar | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 31 | 09-03-2003 10:50 AM |
News for anyone interested in Global Warming. | MagiK | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 56 | 09-27-2002 10:17 PM |
Global Warming (time to stir the pot) | MagiK | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 22 | 05-16-2002 09:28 AM |
Global Warming! Please read and answer | Moridin | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 51 | 04-11-2001 08:01 AM |