It's Hot! But Fox Only Talks About Global Warming When It's Snowing

[Defiant47]

I'm not going to argue with you guys...
You said show you the thousands of scientists that agreed, and I did.

I am sure, that of those 9000+ PhDs from America alone, that signed this, many many many of them are smarter than any of us posting on this site (I know that is a hard pill for some of you to swallow), and of those, many are likewise well educated in the topic at hand.

I know, it means you guys MAY not be right... you MAY be... I'm just saying, when you get soooooo wrapped up in something you don't really know that much about, it's guesswork at best.

• The majority of these people are no smarter than us when it comes to climate change.
• Many of the people on the petition are unverifiable.
• Still no major scientific body has cast any doubt on the fact that global warming is occurring, thanks in large part to human activities.

Did you even read the rebuttals posted?

Like I said, the truth is out there folks.

 

[Rashiminos]

Yep, in places like arXiv.org

 

[Berzerker]

So why aren't countries actively pursuing a warming policy if warming is so great? Why all the efforts to cut those nourishing life-giving warming emissions by businesses and governments?

What efforts? The last century was a "warming policy" and that aint gonna change significantly in the near future.

This is the irreducable problem people run into making these various isolated claims that Teh Science Is Wrong.

And who said, "Teh Science Is Wrong"?

For their arguments to make sense they need to be positing either entirely unconvincing pop-psych theories of mass-delusion or what amounts to a grand conspiracy involving not just world leaders, governments and research institutes and all the thousands of individuals therein, but also people as diverse as David Cameron, Marius Kloppers (head of BP) and the Pope.

I dont see any "science" in your response

 

[Arwon]

So which is it. Are all the professional science organisations and acadamies 1. uniformly incompetent 2. lying for some reason or 3. right?

 

[Rashiminos]

So which is it. Are all the professional science organisations and acadamies 1. uniformly incompetent 2. lying for some reason or 3. right?

A mixture of 1 and 2, with 2 being a controlling minority.

 

[Arwon]

That's... a pretty vast conspiracy right there, especially given the self-interest scientists all have in proving others wrong via peer review. And all the money from carbon-intensive industry lobby groups that would be available for scientists who could prove that there's no point trying to curb emissions.

 

[Rashiminos]

That's... a pretty vast conspiracy right there.

Not really. The incompetent ones are not in on the details. They accept and 'reproduce' from the same sources, giving credibility where it should not be due.

Then there are the politics of grant money.

 

[Arwon]

Yet a bunch of random forum posters and News Corp journalists are clever enough to figure it all out, of course.

 

[Rashiminos]

Yet a bunch of random forum posters and News Corp journalists are clever enough to figure it all out, of course.

Nope. The details...

 

[Arwon]

What?

 

[Rashiminos]

What?

Forum posters and journalists are no more competent (arguably a tad less) on average. It's usually not that the study contains incorrect data, but that the interpretations are off. You have personally observed poster bias on these forums. This is also true of scientists (despite notions of creditability (), especially when they get a little help in framing their areas of inquiry.

 

[Defiant47]

Then there are the politics of grant money.

What politics of grant money? What grant money do you think governments will give to scientists to render a foregone conclusion? "Hey guys, we know that you've proven global warming is happening... can you keep doing it some more?"

Wouldn't it be easier to receive grant money for ground-breaking new discoveries? E.g. that global warming isn't real, contrary to universally accepted scientific consensus?

 

[Arwon]

Yeah it seems especially laughable the idea that the Australian research agencies such as CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology and our universities have been told to find big climate threats in their research, given the dominance the fossil fuel lobby has over our major parties and given that they spent a decade publishing during the Prime Ministership of John freaking Howard.

 

[Rashiminos]

What politics of grant money? What grant money do you think governments will give to scientists to render a foregone conclusion? "Hey guys, we know that you've proven global warming is happening... can you keep doing it some more?"

Wouldn't it be easier to receive grant money for ground-breaking new discoveries? E.g. that global warming isn't real, contrary to universally accepted scientific consensus?

Not all legitimate topics get grants, and then some contrary papers are (falsely, as per #2) derided, whereupon future requests are denied. Reputation assassination works.

For a bit of the first part: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8490481.stm

Those agencies do not necessarily need to be told. They just need to be able to accept things that aren't. There is precedent for that sort of belief (the incompetence comes in part from a lack of interdisciplinary cross-checking).

There's also the less malefic version of getting it wrong: http://idlewords.com/2010/03/scott_and_scurvy.htm

The loop-de-loop on the causes of scurvy.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm not going to argue with you guys...
You said show you the thousands of scientists that agreed, and I did.

You don't think the field of science they're in is relevant?

I am sure, that of those 9000+ PhDs from America alone, that signed this, many many many of them are smarter than any of us posting on this site (I know that is a hard pill for some of you to swallow), and of those, many are likewise well educated in the topic at hand.

Many? Howmany? Have you looked into this?

Question: would you let a climatological scientist do a diagnosis on you when you go to the doctors office? Or would you rather have someone do it who studied medicine?

By the way, the very first one on the list is a Creationist. Granted, it's the only one I checked, but it's not a good start.

I know, it means you guys MAY not be right... you MAY be... I'm just saying, when you get soooooo wrapped up in something you don't really know that much about, it's guesswork at best.

Irony.

 

[Berzerker]

So which is it. Are all the professional science organisations and acadamies 1. uniformly incompetent 2. lying for some reason or 3. right?

Why are you asking me? What are they right about?

 

[Tee Kay]

Of course, this is stuff (except the first one) just from the last week! Seems like these "Lord Monckton sycophants" are dissenting the premise that the majority of global warming is human CO2 induced.

Most of the articles didn't actually disputes the contention that the majority of global warming is human CO2 induced. They dispute the degree of warming and the role that different factors play in influencing our climate.

This may sound surprising, but climate scientists are indeed aware that there are trees on this planet.

The Daily Mail one is, well, let's say that anyone who quotes the Daily Mail forfeits all their credibility on anything forever and ever.

 

[Dale]

Most of the articles didn't actually disputes the contention that the majority of global warming is human CO2 induced. They dispute the degree of warming and the role that different factors play in influencing our climate.

Since when is 66% natural forcing accounting for modern global warming (over the last few years quite a few models show up to 95% natural forcing if you add cosmic radiation [still infancy research topic] into the equation) allowing for "the majority of global warming is human CO2 induced"? At BEST it could be 33% of warming, which is obviously NOT a majority. And considering they only recently found an additional 20 trillion watts of energy from internal radioactive decay, and that Trenberth's "missing heat" actually seeps out to space, the IPCC models which didn't account for those new findings (or worse, assumed them to enter deep ocean) are now incorrect.

This may sound surprising, but climate scientists are indeed aware that there are trees on this planet.

Yeah but they didn't have a formula to work out how much carbon they sink, till now.

The Daily Mail one is, well, let's say that anyone who quotes the Daily Mail forfeits all their credibility on anything forever and ever.

True, but it's just an identical report to hundreds of reports on the same news from newspapers all around the world (with their spin on it). The important part is that numerous solar research institutes are predicting a solar minimum (including NASA).

NOTE: I do not deny that global warming or AGW is occurring, just that the IPCC is over-exaggerating the situation to promote "Big Green Business" (Al Gore) and Green-Socialism (UN politics).

 

[kochman]

Like I said, the truth is out there folks.

Sure it is... It is also arrogant to say you are absolutely right in the face of the controversy, which is what you are doing.
I'm not going either way on the debate, just pointing out that there is controversy, it is not fact, and acting like your way is the only way is not a good way to approach a conversation...

 

[Cutlass]

Sure it is... It is also arrogant to say you are absolutely right in the face of the controversy, which is what you are doing.
I'm not going either way on the debate, just pointing out that there is controversy, it is not fact, and acting like your way is the only way is not a good way to approach a conversation...

The point is that there really is no controversy. 60/40 is a controversy. Even 70/30 is a controversy.

98/2 is not a controversy. It's as close to conclusively proven as science ever gets. And a lot more proven than many sciences get.