If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NewsMax)   "Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change... attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless -- but very costly"   (newsmax.com) divider line 544
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

12408 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Dec 2007 at 1:12 PM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



544 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-12-11 05:39:54 PM
You know what the great thing is. The people who try to discredit MMGW use the same questions every time.

So it gets easier and easier to show the counter arguments each time. And each time we organize them better.

So keep it up guys.

Though if you have real question about MMGW please ask them. I like explaining things to those people.

However I think there are a few people on here who make fake arguments on purpose to discredit MMGW and that pretend their mind is not made up when it actually is.
 
2007-12-11 05:40:08 PM
Farkwod: If only Newsmax this study had a shred of credibility.

FTFY.
 
2007-12-11 05:41:16 PM
amazing_live_seamonkeys: GRed: 7of7: It's funny how they only believe the research when it's convenient for their greed political agenda.

There, fixed that. Now the statement can be applied to conservatives *and* liberals. Wouldn't want to leave anyone out.


An appeal to a motive is not a logical fallacy. It's an informal fallacy, meaning it is not per se invalid. It is only invalid if it is claimed to invalidate the original position. Watch and learn:

A: I support position X!

B: You only support X because you were paid to support X. Therefore, X is wrong.

That is invalid. But this is not:

A: I support position Y!

B: You only support position Y because you were paid to support Y. If you'll look at the data you have for confirming Y, you'll notice these explanatory gaps and jumps in the data. I looked up the same statistics and you just cherrypicked the ones that support Y. In fact, there is credible evidence that militates against Y. Why doesn't your model account for this data?

A: Because I'm a shill... *sad face*

So you see, calling into question someone's motives (like, say, the science adviser for a highly-politicized tabloid like NewsMax) is great. Science may be objective, but the data that is gathered is rarely objective. There's almost not such thing as a truly "brute" fact. By selecting and shading the facts, you can manipulate scientific models to get them to say what you want.

So who do you believe? The hard answer is that you've got to learn to be discriminating and give everything a skeptical once-over. However, don't become dogmatic in your skepticism: when the proof is there, admit it and move on.
 
2007-12-11 05:41:41 PM
mjtonfark: I think you and I are on different points, let me try to clarify. You are asking when has the climate changed as quickly as it has now. The problem with that question is that there are counter arguments to the premise that the climate is changing fast, or more importantly, that its changing at a "we're in imminent danger" speed.

Does that make sense or am I still missing your point?


So you are saying you don't think there is even climate change right now?
 
2007-12-11 05:44:13 PM
Ryan2065: Did you get my source showing the consensus of scientist saying what conditions will occur because of global warming?

Did you read it?
 
2007-12-11 05:46:37 PM
keithgabryelski: Man, it's like groupthink = scientific consensus for some people


FTFY
 
2007-12-11 05:47:41 PM
"Climate Change" is fine. Just stop calling it "Global Warming". I get kinda stabby when I hear an article about "Global Warming" while I'm shoveling my driveway.
 
2007-12-11 05:49:49 PM
PurplePimpSaber: No...the science in the paper itself is sound. But the scope is very narrow, and the statements they are making in the article are in no way supported by the limited conclusions that could be drawn from the data, as myself, Unright, and JonSnow all concluded by reading the article.

Are the quotes cited in the Newsmax article taken from within the paper, or pulled from some other context?
 
2007-12-11 05:50:34 PM
Corvus: Though if you have real question about MMGW please ask them. I like explaining things to those people.

What are we supposed to do about global warming?
 
2007-12-11 05:50:56 PM
keithgabryelski:
I suspect you will not accept any evidence. This just means we are at an impasse and I have little need to respond to you in the future.


I'm not advocating for or against, I'm saying the evidence is incomplete and has holes on either side of the argument(s). There are a ton of questions to be answered before a true impact of global warming can be determined or what if anything can and should be done about it. I understand that you don't agree with this.

As for moving the goal post, how do you post a pic? That is if you don't mind responding at least one more time :)
 
2007-12-11 05:51:51 PM
Thray: Are the quotes cited in the Newsmax article taken from within the paper, or pulled from some other context?

From an interview with the authors of the paper, I suppose. They aren't in the paper itself.
 
2007-12-11 05:52:16 PM
Savage Belief: pic saying DENIERS

I think the accepted term is "denialist"...I was hung with that one a few weeks ago.
 
2007-12-11 05:52:59 PM
mjtonfark: I think you and I are on different points, let me try to clarify. You are asking when has the climate changed as quickly as it has now. The problem with that question is that there are counter arguments to the premise that the climate is changing fast, or more importantly, that its changing at a "we're in imminent danger" speed.

See the problem is, if you have a contradicting view point I will not argue that.

We can debate if global warming is real.

We can debate what the impact of current global warming is.

We can debate how much man is contributing to the current global warming.

But I will not debate the argument that there is NO global warming and man is not contributing to global warming that is happening now.

Because this a contradictory point of view that tells me, you are here not to debate a subject, but only here to try to disprove a subject and to give others the impression that the other side is wrong. And you will use whatever fallacies and lies to put it into question. You will just take the opposing view no matter what the argument made is or how much proof there is.


So do you believe in global warming? Or do you believe man is not contributing to GW to make a difference?

Please tell me what you think.
 
2007-12-11 05:53:18 PM
Yeah, but if that is really true, hen 5-10 million useless parasites would be out of a free place to suck to the public nipple, and would have to actually go out and work for a living.

Boo hoo de hooty hoo.

Also, fat chance.

So it is better to crucify the messenger, even if he speaks the truth.

\\\ wouldn't be the first time someone spoke the truth and got crucified for it.
 
2007-12-11 05:53:49 PM
paygun: Corvus: Though if you have real question about MMGW please ask them. I like explaining things to those people.

What are we supposed to do about global warming?


That's a real good question.
 
2007-12-11 05:56:42 PM
IXI Jim IXI: "Climate Change" is fine. Just stop calling it "Global Warming". I get kinda stabby when I hear an article about "Global Warming" while I'm shoveling my driveway.

Yeah I agree. I am lazy and say global warming. One day all the people who refute climate change out of hand will actually read a paper on Climate chance and go.

"But you told us it was 'global warming' it says here some areas will get colder"

actually some already have.
 
2007-12-11 05:57:33 PM
Corvus: What are we supposed to do about global warming?

That's a real good question.


So nobody knows, or what?
 
2007-12-11 05:57:34 PM
Corvus: Ryan2065: Did you get my source showing the consensus of scientist saying what conditions will occur because of global warming?

Did you read it?


Sorry, work got busy all the sudden. I went through to page 10 on the second link and while it gives examples of what they think might happen, it says nothing about a consensus. This is the key, I just want to know there is a scientific consensus on what will happen if global warming continues. I'm not caring about what will happen, I want to know the scientists all agree (well 90% as you said).
 
2007-12-11 06:01:22 PM
Noam Chimpsky: Zeppelininthesky: Noam Chimpsky: Mars has 15 times the density of CO2 as Earth and no global warming. Inconvenient...that.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Mars does not have the same atmosphere as on Earth. Look at Venus. It has an out of control Greenhouse effect. The atmosphere on Venus was at one time pretty much the same as here on Earth.

What Venus does is irrelevant to the fact that CO2 in the Mars atmosphere is 15X more dense than the CO2 in Earth's atmosphere. Where is the runaway global warming?


There is less atmospheric pressure on Mars. The CO2 is so dense that does accumulate and falls as snow and gathers at the poles.

Venus has almost 96.5% CO in its atmosphere. Its atmosphere has almost the same density as Earths atmosphere.
 
2007-12-11 06:01:32 PM
Dancin_In_Anson: I think the accepted term is "denialist"...I was hung with that one a few weeks ago.

If you don't believe in it and have reasons that's fine. But there are many people who repeat the same questions they have been shown wrong multiple times. Or have the contradicting belief of Climate Change is not happening and also believe it is currently caused naturally. You can't believe something is not happening and happening at the same time.

It's hard not to call someone a "Denier" when they hold beliefs that oppose themselves or deny things that are unanimous scientific fact like burning fossil fuels create CO2.
 
2007-12-11 06:02:01 PM
Corvus: mjtonfark: I think you and I are on different points, let me try to clarify. You are asking when has the climate changed as quickly as it has now. The problem with that question is that there are counter arguments to the premise that the climate is changing fast, or more importantly, that its changing at a "we're in imminent danger" speed.

Does that make sense or am I still missing your point?

So you are saying you don't think there is even climate change right now?


Corvus, I'm not sure if you're being facetious to bait me or you were asking seriously. Assuming the later, I don't know of anyone who denies climate change. That's kind of the whole point, what causes it, how much is it changing and how much do we effect it.
 
2007-12-11 06:03:22 PM
There is something that perhaps some of you more intelligent types can help me understand. I personally, have not settled in my mind whether or not I buy into the whole MMGW thing because of this question.

How do we know how much CO2 was in the atmosphere 100,000, 1,000,000, or even 10,000,000 years ago?

The information that I have frequently heard relates to ice core samples taken from the arctic regions. I question the validity of these ice samples however due to the dynamic nature of ice layers in arctic regions.

For example: as a tree grows, it develops a "ring" for each growing season that it survives. This allows us to accurately date tree's based on the number of "rings" the tree has.

Ice sheets, however, are dynamic in nature. One year might yield a new layer, but the next year might be a little warmer and therefore we might lose many layers. Multiple warm years could mean losing thousands of years worth of records. Since we can't know for sure how warm certain periods of time were, we can be certain how many layers were lost and how many were gained.

I'm very uneducated on the subject, but I'm trying to learn because it is a subject that is going to have a dramatic effect on both our lives and our economy either way it goes.

Perhaps one of you guys can provide a good explanation to my question?
 
2007-12-11 06:04:40 PM
Lane83: A: I support position Y!

B: You only support position Y because you were paid to support Y. If you'll look at the data you have for confirming Y, you'll notice these explanatory gaps and jumps in the data. I looked up the same statistics and you just cherrypicked the ones that support Y. In fact, there is credible evidence that militates against Y. Why doesn't your model account for this data?

A: Because I'm a shill... *sad face*


_______________________________________________________________________________ _


A: I support position Y
B: You are a conservative therefore your motives are evil and your science is wrong. Therefore Y is false.

= Invalid



YOU: If you'll look at the data you have for confirming Y, you'll notice these explanatory gaps and jumps in the data. I looked up the same statistics and you just cherrypicked the ones that support Y. In fact, there is credible evidence that militates against Y. Why doesn't your model account for this data?
ME: You only support position Y because you were paid to support Y.



I never said that rejecting something based on the arguer's motives is the same as rejecting the argument because of inconsistencies in the argument. So, in effect you have successfully argued against a point I never made.

That is a img512.imageshack.us

*sad face*
 
2007-12-11 06:05:38 PM
Ryan2065:

Sorry, work got busy all the sudden. I went through to page 10 on the second link and while it gives examples of what they think might happen, it says nothing about a consensus. This is the key, I just want to know there is a scientific consensus on what will happen if global warming continues. I'm not caring about what will happen, I want to know the scientists all agree (well 90% as you said).


Do you know what the IPCC is and how it works?

http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm

They were created so scientist from around the world could all get together and make a consensus about climate change.


It's strange for all the people who talk about Al Gore all the time, that not many people know of the IPCC or what they do.
 
2007-12-11 06:06:20 PM
Unright: From an interview with the authors of the paper, I suppose. They aren't in the paper itself.

Okay, thanks. Just seems like such a massive butchery of the paper. Nothing new for news media, but I'm kind of surprised that some of the guys themselves would overreach their study.
 
2007-12-11 06:07:17 PM
Dancin_In_Anson
Savage Belief: pic saying DENIERS

I think the accepted term is "denialist"...I was hung with that one a few weeks ago.


Yeah, I guess that does make it sound more eeville.
 
2007-12-11 06:07:36 PM
mjtonfark: Corvus, I'm not sure if you're being facetious to bait me or you were asking seriously. Assuming the later, I don't know of anyone who denies climate change.

Well you can scroll up and see some people who were.

Many people deny climate change is occurring. That seems to me the argument you were making earlier. You made it sound like the average temperature rising is in debate.
 
2007-12-11 06:09:49 PM
Ryan2065: want to know the scientists all agree (well 90% as you said).

That's not what I said. You either read that wrong on accident or on purpose I said something like "scientist say there is a 90% chance" that's not the same as "90% of scientist".
 
2007-12-11 06:10:52 PM
I have a question. What about Antarctica? It seems the northern most tip is warming up a bit, but the rest is getting colder and the ice is building. How do all you non-denialists explain that?

Wouldn't large a portion of the globe getting cooler nullify the use of the term Global Warming?
 
2007-12-11 06:16:04 PM
Corvus: They were created so scientist from around the world could all get together and make a consensus about climate change.

It's strange for all the people who talk about Al Gore all the time, that not many people know of the IPCC or what they do.


So basically your assertion is since the IPCC is made up of scientists from around the world that any documents they release should be considered scientific consensus?

Can you even find anything that says there is a scientific consensus on what will happen if we don't stop global warming? Technically you said there was a consensus that said if we don't stop warming now it would be like a meteor hitting the earth.

I realize there are reports saying what they think will happen, but I haven't read any saying there was a consensus.
 
2007-12-11 06:18:08 PM
Ryan2065: I realize there are reports saying what they think will happen, but I haven't read any saying there was a consensus.

How many would be a "consensus" for you one thousand?

Or would you like to keep it open so you can move the goal posts more?
 
2007-12-11 06:18:25 PM
Corvus: That's not what I said. You either read that wrong on accident or on purpose I said something like "scientist say there is a 90% chance" that's not the same as "90% of scientist".

Corvus: Scientists have a 90% consensus and they think if we don't start doing things now it is too late.
 
2007-12-11 06:20:18 PM
Ryan2065: Scientists have a 90% consensus and they think if we don't start doing things now it is too late.

I meant they have a consensus view that it is 90%.

Do you think polling makes something more likely to happen?
 
2007-12-11 06:22:16 PM
Gawdzila I wonder who bankrolled them...

I'm wondering how that CO2 producing failmobile got in that position. Jesus.
 
2007-12-11 06:23:34 PM
What I fail to understand is how everyone assumes that global warming is a bad thing. Most people are quick to jump on the band wagon of say global warming wil cause draught, famine sea levels to rise, etc. However, many fail to see that global warming can have a great many benefits to society. FOr instance, a temperature rise will not cause a draught it infact can cause just they opposite, more rain fail in arid areas. Temperature rises will cause more water in the oceans to evaporate, causing more cloud formation on a global level, when that high pressure system hits the low pressure systems over the sahara it will rain. enough to end many of the yearly draughts that kill hundreds of thousands of people. people need to realize that the earth and its weather is far more complicated then most people can comprehend and further involvement by the world to try and correct the change will only cause more trouble then good, case in point is yellowstone, when first established mans involvement in preservation almost decimated many of the wildlife in the area.
 
2007-12-11 06:24:00 PM
Corvus: How many would be a "consensus" for you one thousand?

Or would you like to keep it open so you can move the goal posts more?


A consensus is a % not a solid number. I myself believe a consensus should be higher than 90% but if you can show 90% then I'll shut up =)
 
2007-12-11 06:26:24 PM
Savage Belief: I have a question. What about Antarctica? It seems the northern most tip is warming up a bit, but the rest is getting colder and the ice is building. How do all you non-denialists explain that?

Wouldn't large a portion of the globe getting cooler nullify the use of the term Global Warming?


That's why the better term is Climate Change. The globe as a whole is warming, and that causes certain climate patterns to shift. Processes that formerly brought a little more warmth to that section of the Antarctic have changed. When you think about it, when you have average temperatures rising and a pocket of cooling, that means that places not in that region of cooling are warming even moe than the average indicates. No one has EVER said that warming would be spread evenly across the planet. It would be silly to think it would.
 
2007-12-11 06:26:36 PM
Corvus: mjtonfark: Corvus, I'm not sure if you're being facetious to bait me or you were asking seriously. Assuming the later, I don't know of anyone who denies climate change.

Well you can scroll up and see some people who were.

Many people deny climate change is occurring. That seems to me the argument you were making earlier. You made it sound like the average temperature rising is in debate.


Most of the people that I've seen called deniers, aren't denying change. They are denying a combination of the rate of change and man's impact on it.
Anyway off to dinner, nite all. :)
 
2007-12-11 06:27:00 PM
So, all you a$$holes telling everybody what fricken morons they are for not jumping on the scientifically "proven" CO2 oh noes we are all going to die bandwagon keep this in mind before jumping on the next one. When a group of scientists come to a consensus about a new emerging theory it will still change a few times before being set in stone. Oh yeah, and suck it.
 
2007-12-11 06:28:01 PM
Corvus: I meant they have a consensus view that it is 90%.

Do you think polling makes something more likely to happen?


Nope, but we don't know the future. Polling people who know what they are talking about is a good way to figure out what is likely to happen. You said scientists have a consensus on what will happen if we don't stop global warming now but have failed to show that scientists do actually have some sort of consensus.
 
2007-12-11 06:28:17 PM
Ryan2065: So basically your assertion is since the IPCC is made up of scientists from around the world that any documents they release should be considered scientific consensus?

Yes. That's what they are for.

Why do you think it's so important to know what scientist who don't know about the subject as much think?

Many scientist support the IPCC and said you guys go off and figure it out.
 
2007-12-11 06:28:54 PM
dillopher: What I fail to understand is how everyone assumes that global warming is a bad thing. Most people are quick to jump on the band wagon of say global warming wil cause draught, famine sea levels to rise, etc. However, many fail to see that global warming can have a great many benefits to society. FOr instance, a temperature rise will not cause a draught it infact can cause just they opposite, more rain fail in arid areas. Temperature rises will cause more water in the oceans to evaporate, causing more cloud formation on a global level, when that high pressure system hits the low pressure systems over the sahara it will rain. enough to end many of the yearly draughts that kill hundreds of thousands of people. people need to realize that the earth and its weather is far more complicated then most people can comprehend and further involvement by the world to try and correct the change will only cause more trouble then good, case in point is yellowstone, when first established mans involvement in preservation almost decimated many of the wildlife in the area.

Citations needed.
 
2007-12-11 06:29:46 PM
Ryan2065:

Nope, but we don't know the future. Polling people who know what they are talking about is a good way to figure out what is likely to happen. You said scientists have a consensus on what will happen if we don't stop global warming now but have failed to show that scientists do actually have some sort of consensus.


Well then answer my question. How many would be a good number for you? 1 thousand, 2 thousand?
 
2007-12-11 06:32:30 PM
Corvus: Well then answer my question. How many would be a good number for you? 1 thousand, 2 thousand?

Take 90% of however many scientists there are weighing in on the climatology discussion and there is your number. If there are only ten, then 9, if there are 1 million, then 900,000. This is the way consensus works.
 
2007-12-11 06:33:12 PM
JDAT: So, all you a$$holes telling everybody what fricken morons they are for not jumping on the scientifically "proven" CO2 oh noes we are all going to die bandwagon keep this in mind before jumping on the next one. When a group of scientists come to a consensus about a new emerging theory it will still change a few times before being set in stone. Oh yeah, and suck it.

And thank you for playing "Grasping for Straws". Here's a towel for your mouth...you got a bit of froth there.
 
2007-12-11 06:34:28 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/12/11/arctic.melt.ap/index.html
 
2007-12-11 06:35:13 PM
oops.
Link
 
2007-12-11 06:35:37 PM
FreeCrime I am going to repost this in every comments section until someone finally gives me an answer What the fark does "THIS" mean in fark lingo??? /perturbed

It's simply another stupidly overused term by cliquish Farkers who have no creativity, vocabulary or perhaps even HTML skills. Read some threads and you'll see an abundance of such lameness to include terms like ad hominem, strawman, meme, and schadenfreude. They can't help themselves. They learn a new term from Fark and regurgitate it incessantly in the feeble hope of extablishing some street cred and being welcomed by their cyber peers. Definitely THIS!
 
2007-12-11 06:36:50 PM
dillopher: What I fail to understand is how everyone assumes that global warming is a bad thing. Most people are quick to jump on the band wagon of say global warming wil cause draught, famine sea levels to rise, etc. However, many fail to see that global warming can have a great many benefits to society. FOr instance, a temperature rise will not cause a draught it infact can cause just they opposite, more rain fail in arid areas. Temperature rises will cause more water in the oceans to evaporate, causing more cloud formation on a global level, when that high pressure system hits the low pressure systems over the sahara it will rain. enough to end many of the yearly draughts that kill hundreds of thousands of people. people need to realize that the earth and its weather is far more complicated then most people can comprehend and further involvement by the world to try and correct the change will only cause more trouble then good, case in point is yellowstone, when first established mans involvement in preservation almost decimated many of the wildlife in the area.

There might be some positive aspects to Climate Change when taken from a distance. But what is concerning is that it will effectively "reshuffle the deck." Meaning that places that were formerly agriculturally rich might be less so and that places that were less rich might be more so (after they have been worked for a while. . .it takes time for fertility in soil to change after the climate changes.) Places that were wet might be dry. Places that were dry might be wet. Some warm places might getr cooler. Some cold places might get warmer. What this means is chaos and movement. Cities in places they are well adapted to will have to spend boatloads readapting. Irrigation patterns will have to be modified on a massive scale. Buildings will have to be retrofitted to fit their new climate. People's habits, bounded in routine and tradition will have to change in some areas.

Massive flux is bad for international relations EVEN IF we see a net increase in farmable/inhabitable land (and adaptations to said changes will take time and money.)
 
2007-12-11 06:39:53 PM
Ryan2065: Take 90% of however many scientists there are weighing in on the climatology discussion and there is your number. If there are only ten, then 9, if there are 1 million, then 900,000. This is the way consensus works.

I don't think a poll like that exists. That's not how science works. It doesn't work by popular vote. People have scientist who are top in their field study something and people believe them.

But the vast majority do support the IPCC.

Here are almost 12,000 signatures of scientist The Consensus on Global Warming:
(new window)

Do they all agree on ever aspect. Of course not. But to say we shouldn't worry about climate change because some say it will be bad and other say it will be very bad is stupid.
 
Displayed 50 of 544 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report