Man-made global warming

Originally posted by Metal Brain
says the guy who doesn't trust PBS. You are the idiot.

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]heavy sigh

That's what I thought, I am being too subtle... I should be more direct and just spit it out.[/b]

Originally posted by googlefudge
What I said is that PBS (along with any and every other MEDIA outlet) is not a
reliable SOURCE.

Journalists are not scientists, they are not experts, and they make mistakes
(some deliberate).
Both in how they report a story and in what stories to report.

If you want to know what the science says on a topic you check to see what
the actual sc ...[text shortened]... really pretty clueless about this issue and should
shut up and listen to those that aren't.

Originally posted by googlefudge
What I said is that PBS (along with any and every other MEDIA outlet) is not a
reliable SOURCE.

Journalists are not scientists, they are not experts, and they make mistakes
(some deliberate).
Both in how they report a story and in what stories to report.

If you want to know what the science says on a topic you check to see what
the actual sc ...[text shortened]... really pretty clueless about this issue and should
shut up and listen to those that aren't.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Fine. I will rely on a scientist. Siegfried Fred Singer.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html

The fact that climate changes is not in itself a threat, because, obviously, in the past human beings have adapted to all kinds of climate changes.

We all know that cities are warmer than the suburbs or surrounding countryside. So there's clear indication that human beings, in producing energy, in just living, generate heat.

Originally posted by twhitehead

The fact that climate changes is not in itself a threat, because, obviously, in the past human beings have adapted to all kinds of climate changes.

I have always wondered how anyone can believe such ridiculously stupid logic. Its as stupid as saying: there have always been earthquakes, tornadoes, volcanoes, and hurricanes, and man has sur ...[text shortened]... or to the heat island effect. The main factor is the materials involved and lack of vegetation.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
His statements are true no matter how stubborn you want to be. You can call anything you want stupid or ridiculous but it doesn't make it so.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is nevertheless a stupid ridiculous argument, and I am correct to label it so. My label doesn't make it so, nor did I suggest it did.

[b]There was a warming period at about 1100 AD and people did just fine.
How much warming? Which people?
There was an earthquake about the same time, and I am sure 'people did just fine' although a few thousand ...[text shortened]... ole article yet, so maybe you can help by summarizing the points you think are important.[/b]

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You are blatantly stupid for not reading the whole article! Sure climate change can be bad for people, like the ice age!

Earthquakes have nothing to do with climate change. You are making ridiculous arguments. I think you are experiencing sore loser syndrome. You just have your mind made up and don't want to be confused with facts.

...There was a warming period at about 1100 AD and people did just fine...

Originally posted by googlefudge
Actually he's making perfectly correct, well reasoned, and well articulated points.
And is doing so in a clam and polite manner.

You on the other hand...

Well lets just say that raving lunatic would be an apt description of how you are
sounding.

Your insults sound very much like attributes in yourself you are trying to pin on others
in a bl ...[text shortened]... ortions.


That you don't get this says a lot more about you than it does about us.

Dr. Singer has a background in atmospheric science, so he knows a bit about the models climatologists use. Those models aren't exactly like weather prediction models, but they are similar to a large degree. Anyone who's ever seen a weather forecast knows that these models aren't always accurate. That's not necessarily the fault of the model - the problem is often that these sort of models (those attempting to predict chaotic systems such at the Earth's atmosphere) are very sensitive to the data you put in them.

The evidence that man has some influence on the climate is pretty solid, but it's extremely hard to give accurate estimates on what that influence is. Those "two degrees" in the IPCC report aren't an exact prediction; perhaps it's better to say: "something like 0 to 5 degrees, maybe". If you want to predict the influence of global warming on specific areas it becomes even harder.

One of the main problems for climatologists is that there is not much data available, and what is available often is not very accurate. They then have to apply this data to models which are very sensitive to the accuracy of the data, and making accurate predictions becomes very difficult.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You are blatantly stupid for not reading the whole article!

climate change[s] is not in itself a threat

Originally posted by Metal Brain
DR. Singer

Let me say something about this idea of scientific consensus. Well, you really shouldn't go by numbers. I think it's significant to straighten out misconceptions. One misconception is that 2,500 IPCC scientists agree that global warming is coming, and it's going to be two degrees Centigrade by the year 2100. That's just not so. In the firs ...[text shortened]... next century. It does not mean that. And they don't say that. They just imply it.

... So, the bottom line: The vast majority of scientists who conduct climatological research and publish their results in professional journals say humans are the cause of global warming. There is essentially no controversy among actual climate scientists about this.

The Consensus Project measured the level of consensus in published, peer-reviewed climate research that humans are causing global warming. In the most comprehensive analysis to date, we analysed 21 years worth of peer-reviewed papers on “global warming” or “global climate change”. Among the 12,465 papers, we identified over 4,014 abstracts authored by 10,188 scientists that stated a position on human-caused global warming. Among those 4,014 abstracts, 97.1% endorse the consensus. Among the 10,188 scientists, 98.4% endorse the consensus. Read the full paper here.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Cook_2013_consensus.pdf

The overwhelming consensus is consistent with a number of other studies that have found similar results (follow the link below for more details). The Consensus Project is one indicator among many that there is a consensus of evidence and a consensus of scientists, all agreeing that humans are causing global warming.

Climate 'Skeptics' are like Galileo
Link to this page
The skeptic argument...

Climate 'Skeptics' are like Galileo
"I mean, it -- I mean -- and I tell somebody, I said, just because you have a group of scientists that have stood up and said here is the fact, Galileo got outvoted for a spell" (Texas Governor Rick Perry)
What the science says...

The comparison is exactly backwards. Modern scientists follow the evidence-based scientific method that Galileo pioneered. Skeptics who oppose scientific findings that threaten their world view are far closer to Galileo's belief-based critics in the Catholic Church.

I RECEIVED a letter the other day. It was handwritten in crabbed penmanship so that it was very difficult to read. Nevertheless, I tried to make it out just in case it might prove to be important. In the first sentence, the writer told me he was majoring in English literature, but felt he needed to teach me science. (I sighed a bit, for I knew very few English Lit majors who are equipped to teach me science, but I am very aware of the vast state of my ignorance and I am prepared to learn as much as I can from anyone, so I read on.)

It seemed that in one of my innumerable essays, I had expressed a certain gladness at living in a century in which we finally got the basis of the universe straight.

I didn't go into detail in the matter, but what I meant was that we now know the basic rules governing the universe, together with the gravitational interrelationships of its gross components, as shown in the theory of relativity worked out between 1905 and 1916. We also know the basic rules governing the subatomic particles and their interrelationships, since these are very neatly described by the quantum theory worked out between 1900 and 1930. What's more, we have found that the galaxies and clusters of galaxies are the basic units of the physical universe, as discovered between 1920 and 1930.

These are all twentieth-century discoveries, you see.

The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong. The young man then quoted with approval what Socrates had said on learning that the Delphic oracle had proclaimed him the wisest man in Greece. "If I am the wisest man," said Socrates, "it is because I alone know that I know nothing." the implication was that I was very foolish because I was under the impression I knew a great deal.

My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Dr. Singer has a background in atmospheric science, so he knows a bit about the models climatologists use. Those models aren't exactly like weather prediction models, but they are similar to a large degree. Anyone who's ever seen a weather forecast knows that these models aren't always accurate. That's not necessarily the fault of the model - the proble to the accuracy of the data, and making accurate predictions becomes very difficult.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Actually...

We have a big influence on the climate

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-warming-35-percent.htm


And we have good enough data and models to know that.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/we ...[text shortened]... and I'll say it again, Singer has a background in being a denier for hire funded by big oil...