Washington Post Article: Icebergs Melting

I see my work is done here.

Thanks to me, and major assists from Dungheap and Onclear, we have demonstrated that this tweaking of the data, was just good housekeeping. And according to the denialist dude that "found" the error, was little more than "fun". It has virutally no impact on the global climate debate.

That's when these types of threads degenerate into 8th grade insults, and questions about what liberals are personally doing to reduce CO2
 
Topspin said:
he means a 70's show about the kids in Wisconsin
Nobody besides Kelso actually said "BURNNNN"
Click to expand...
Are you that old too? We said it all the time when we "burned" each other. You do know the writers took most of that stuff from their own memories, right?
 
Cypress said:
I see my work is done here.

Thanks to me, and major assists from Dungheap and Onclear, we have demonstrated that this tweaking of the data, was just good housekeeping. And according to the denialist dude that "found" the error, was little more than "fun". It has virutally no impact on the global climate debate.

That's when these types of threads degenerate into 8th grade insults, and questions about what liberals are personally doing to reduce CO2
Click to expand...
No you've just demonstrated that as data changes we should never say stupid things that Gore does like:
"This debate is over" or just deny scepticism on the basis of wanting to press on with legislation of having government regulate everything in the name of saving us from a possibly non-existent threat.

Clearly we are learning more all the time and assumptions should not be made until we are clear on what is going on with climate change.
 
TheDanold said:
No you've just demonstrated that as data changes we should never say stupid things that Gore does like:
"This debate is over" or just deny scepticism on the basis of wanting to press on with legislation of having government regulate everything in the name of saving us from a possibly non-existent threat.

Clearly we are learning more all the time and assumptions should not be made until we are clear on what is going on with climate change.
Click to expand...

This is so dishonest, but it represents the goal of the deniers. As long as their is an impression of fevered debate, we shouldn't move forward with anything. Dano takes it one step further: as long as we are "still learning," we should hold off. Is there ever a time when we won't still be "learning" on ANY topic, including the climate?

It completely ignores that many aspects of climate research ARE conclusive, and we know enough to begin moving in a clear direction. Also, it's typical emotionalism to say that there will be legislation "having the government regulate everything." Dano is even opposed to modest incentives for alternative energy technologies, even with considerations like national security & the boost that homegrown energy sources will ultimately provide for our economy.

His only consideration on this is ideological. He doesn't care about the science, or "learning more."
 
'Clearly we are learning more all the time and assumptions should not be made until we are clear on what is going on with Iraq."

Dano you mispelled iraq, I fixed it for ya.

That was my thoughts after 911.
 
Onceler said:
This is so dishonest, but it represents the goal of the deniers. As long as their is an impression of fevered debate, we shouldn't move forward with anything. Dano takes it one step further: as long as we are "still learning," we should hold off. Is there ever a time when we won't still be "learning" on ANY topic, including the climate?

It completely ignores that many aspects of climate research ARE conclusive, and we know enough to begin moving in a clear direction. Also, it's typical emotionalism to say that there will be legislation "having the government regulate everything." Dano is even opposed to modest incentives for alternative energy technologies, even with considerations like national security & the boost that homegrown energy sources will ultimately provide for our economy.

His only consideration on this is ideological. He doesn't care about the science, or "learning more."
Click to expand...


I agree his only consideration is ideological, but I always wonder, what are he and those like him afraid of? "Giving in" to the liberals?" Losing ground? Are they so paranoid that they believe that if they finally admit this, it would give "the liberals" some sort of prize that would legitimize them in some manner?

With some conservative churches now rallying to this cause, why must it still be perceived as a liberal vs conservative issue? When it's an issue not of liberal survival but of human survival. Crazy.
 
Darla said:
I agree his only consideration is ideological, but I always wonder, what are he and those like him afraid of? "Giving in" to the liberals?" Losing ground? Are they so paranoid that they believe that if they finally admit this, it would give "the liberals" some sort of prize that would legitimize them in some manner?

With some conservative churches now rallying to this cause, why must it still be perceived as a liberal vs conservative issue? When it's an issue not of liberal survival but of human survival. Crazy.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. It was so great to see parts of the evangelical movement take up the cause (it always made sense to me as a religious issue - protecting God's creation & all that). I saw a special on it, and some of the religious leaders were upset that their colleagues were getting involved; when they interviewed them (guys like Dobson), it was clear that their only motivation was political, and exactly what you said: not wanting to cede anything to a perceived "liberal" cause.

With Dano & others, I try to argue the national security issue more than the global warming science, but they're always dismissive of that....as though they really can't see the benefit of keeping our billions in the domestic economy instead of pumping it into the hands of our "friends" in the Middle East....
 
TheDanold said:
No you've just demonstrated that as data changes we should never say stupid things that Gore does like:
"This debate is over" or just deny scepticism on the basis of wanting to press on with legislation of having government regulate everything in the name of saving us from a possibly non-existent threat.

Clearly we are learning more all the time and assumptions should not be made until we are clear on what is going on with climate change.
Click to expand...

Science can never prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.

At best, all it can do is offer explanations for natural phenomena, with varying degrees of confidence.

Climate change is one of the most studied scientific topics in the last 30 years, and the consensus is that we are 90% certain that humans are affecting climate. That is one of the strongest and most robust consensus' in modern science. There will always be some tweaking of data, and some uncertainty. I don't know what you want to wait for....93% certainty? 95% certainty?
 
Cypress said:
Science can never prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.

At best, all it can do is offer explanations for natural phenomena, with varying degrees of confidence.

Climate change is one of the most studied scientific topics in the last 30 years, and the consensus is that we are 90% certain that humans are affecting climate. That is one of the strongest and most robust consensus' in modern science. There will always be some tweaking of data, and some uncertainty. I don't know what you want to wait for....93% certainty? 95% certainty?
Click to expand...
That number is pulled out of your ass. The reality is that a lot of the sceptics are not that free or willing to voice their opinions. We have seen the global warming enviroleftists issue death threats, threats to end their jobs, to decertify them and to deny them funding.
There is precious little incentive to voice your scepticism other than a strong opinion that it is the right thing to do.

What we really need to do is stop having government fund climatology science both in university and government research, allow it to be done privately so that there is no bias towards them getting more funding based on their being a "problem".
If it was your mortgage and livelihood at stake as a gov researcher, and you found evidence that contradicted human contribution to global warming, would you present it?

I find it very sobering and a great warning that a lot of the sceptics are actually older, more experienced researchers who are already ok or secure financially for life and have little need to worry about losing funding or job security for speaking out on the truth.

Warming is caused by the sun's increased activity:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170
 
What we really need to do is stop having government fund climatology science both in university and government research, allow it to be done privately so that there is no bias towards them getting more funding based on their being a "problem".

//

no bias ? ROTFLMAO
 
Cypress: "Climate change is one of the most studied scientific topics in the last 30 years, and the consensus is that we are 90% certain that humans are affecting climate. That is one of the strongest and most robust consensus' in modern science."

TheDanold said:
That number is pulled out of your ass.

snip
Click to expand...



"the (2007 IPCC report) concluded that it was at least 90% certain that human emissions of greenhouse gases rather than natural variations are warming the planet's surface."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top