Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[Persian Vol]

If there were equal grant amounts to fund both sides of issue, there would be no "consensus".

I find this statement odd. Giving money to people who actively want to try to prove global warming as inaccurate is undoubtedly unscientific and not credible. I think some people are not understanding the purpose of science. It's to assess reality, not to confirm your beliefs.

 

[ShowSomePride]

Look at the very first point of your link

"The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and the space"

How you think climate change does not relate to atmospheric science is beyond me. Your interpretation of their charter is meaningless.

You really think NASA designs these satellites and launches them? Are you that ignorant? Can you please tell me exactly how many rockets NASA uses of their own design right now? Or better yet, how many launches they conduct to put satellites in orbit without using ULA or SpaceX launch platforms.

Please point out in my post where I said that NASA directly designs, builds, and launches these satellites. Of course NASA does not do this work themselves. They contract out this work and then run these programs.

I have zero problem with NOAA overtaking more responsibility of climate change research. If you want NASA to do less of this that is not a problem you take up with me. Regardless of your opinions on this matter the fact remains that NASA runs our EOS program.

For the record, nuclear weapons development and testing actually falls under the Department of Energy, an agency you failed to list.

I specifically mentioned the National Labs, which fall directly under the DOE.

You have taken words out of my mouth where I did not speak them to make your point. I'm sorry if you were sensitive to me calling some ignorant here but you must see the hypocrisy in your own post. See this is why you lose credibility when you post, resorting to name calling and questioning of intelligence.

 

[hog88]

I find this statement odd. Giving money to people who actively want to try to prove global warming as inaccurate is undoubtedly unscientific and not credible. I think some people are not understanding the purpose of science. It's to assess reality, not to confirm your beliefs.

Most of the scientists "studying" global warming are paid to produce the results their benefactors want. Works both ways.

 

[Grand Vol]

Look at the very first point of your link

"The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and the space"

How you think climate change does not relate to atmospheric science is beyond me. Your interpretation of their charter is meaningless.

Care to point out where I said that?

And that definition is so far broad ranging it astounds me you even think it applies. Now, since we're on the subject of government agencies that are chartered with dealing with the climate and environmental studies, I do present NOAA's mission:

• Monitoring and observing Earth systems with instruments and data collection networks.
• Understanding and describing Earth systems through research and analysis of that data.
• Assessing and predicting the changes of these systems over time.
• Engaging, advising, and informing the public and partner organizations with important information.
• Managing resources for the betterment of society, economy and environment.

My, my, my. Does sound like they were created to do exactly that. Far more specific than a really vague "atmospheric phenomena."

Please point out in my post where I said that NASA directly designs, builds, and launches these satellites. Of course NASA does not do this work themselves. They contract out this work and then run these programs.

You inferred it. Just like you inferred I was some uneducated knuckle-dragger because I provided an answer you didn't like.

I have zero problem with NOAA overtaking more responsibility of climate change research. If you want NASA to do less of this that is not a problem you take up with me. Regardless of your opinions on this matter the fact remains that NASA runs our EOS program.

My point, which you missed or are ignoring, NOAA is by design and charter responsible for that science and monitoring of potential climate change. Not NASA. Someone decided some time back NASA needed a slice of that action and justified it via that real hazy "atmospheric phenomena" clause. And that, in my mind, takes away from their true mission of aeronautics and space research.

And it's a wonder why we have to use the Russians to get to and from the ISS at this point.

I specifically the National Labs, which fall directly under the DOE.

You have taken words out of my worth where I did not speak them to make your point. I'm sorry if you were sensitive to me calling some ignorant here but you must see the hypocrisy in your own post.

You inferred a great deal of what I posted. I'm not sorry for biting back when you accuse others, conservatives mainly, for being ignorant savages. You come across as a condescending dick? You're going to get it back in spades.

 

[ShowSomePride]

I'm not sorry for biting back when you accuse others, conservatives mainly, for being ignorant savages. You come across as a condescending dick? You're going to get it back in spades.

Well, congratulations, you've definitely shown me up in that department.

You've completely sidetracked and twisted my original posts. If you think NOAA should take up NASA's responsibilities in that department then that's fantastic. My frustration was more aimed at comments like "follow the money", not your point about NOAA

"Congress, in the report accompanying the FY 2005 appropriations bill for NASA, expressed support for a broad view of science as part of its vision for NASA. It called for "a strategy by which all of NASA's science disciplines, including Earth science, space science, and life and microgravity science, as well as the science conducted aboard the International Space Station, can make adequete progress towards their establish goals, as well as providing balanced scientific research....."

"Finally, in the NASA Authorization Act of 2005, Congress gave NASA program responsibilities as follows:....

The Administrator shall ensure that NASA carries out a balanced set of programs that shall include, at a minimum, programs in -
.......
(C) scientific research, which shall include, at a
minimum -
(ii) earth science research and research on the Sun-Earth connection through the development and operation of research satellites and other means"

I realize that this Authorization Act is from 2005, but my point is that as recent as of 2005 NASA's mission has been directed by Congress to include Earth Sciences. That has and will continue to change.

"An Assesment of Balance in NASA's Science Programs". 2006.

 

[McDad]

I find this statement odd. Giving money to people who actively want to try to prove global warming as inaccurate is undoubtedly unscientific and not credible. I think some people are not understanding the purpose of science. It's to assess reality, not to confirm your beliefs.

Valid point if we were discussing pure science with controlled variables and reproducible methods ( which is part of the scientific method ). Climate science is an observation discipline, at best.

Here's a parallel:
Once you're an MD, I suspect you will not take the drug company's research as infallible as it has a vested interest in the sale of the medicine.

 

[MercyPercy]

Most of the scientists "studying" global warming are paid to produce the results their benefactors want. Works both ways.

This is a conspiracy theory of the highest order if you believe most are being paid to fabricate the results. I would have accepted some, but most?

Alex Jones wants his talking points back.

 

[Grand Vol]

This is a conspiracy theory of the highest order if you believe most are being paid to fabricate the results. I would have accepted some, but most?

Alex Jones wants his talking points back.

It's not the results. It's the over exaggeration of said results that many have issue with. As well as the draconian measures suggested as a counter.

 

[hog88]

It's not the results. It's the over exaggeration of said results that many have issue with. As well as the draconian measures suggested as a counter.

Exactly.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

Thanks, George W. Bush!!

Yore welcome Archie Bunker!!

 

[MercyPercy]

It's not the results. It's the over exaggeration of said results that many have issue with. As well as the draconian measures suggested as a counter.

I'm sure you could find examples of such over exaggeration, but on the whole I tend to think he chicken littles are cancelled out by the folks with their heads in the sand.

I am willing to explore all ideas that have scientific merit, for or against our cumulative affect on the planet. I certainly understand the motivation to push the narrative from the perspective of alternative energy companies and do not doubt they have influence on the spin. However, I doubt they have more influence on the spin than big oil if we are talking dollar bills.

 

[Persian Vol]

Most of the scientists "studying" global warming are paid to produce the results their benefactors want. Works both ways.

Do you have any factual information that supports this?

The vast majority of scientists >90% believe that global warming exists and that humans have influenced it. How exactly would it be feasible to essentially bribe the entire scientific community? Not to mention that this matter is not just a domestic issue, but an international one. And even if they were to manipulate data to skew results, the validity and reliability of the data can easily be exposed by other scientists. This assertion seems nothing more than conspiracy and a lack of knowledge of how scientists operates, other than that they know stuff that we don't and are funded by the government (which is clearly the reason people are skeptical). Few situations trigger skepticism more than government involvement and knowledge that we can't comprehend firsthand. Although if anyone actually took time to read and digest a scientific paper, they would understand the scientific reasoning. But no, the majority of people find it more convenient to click on *insert political website* and get their information from there.

 

[Grand Vol]

I'm sure you could find examples of such over exaggeration, but on the whole I tend to think he chicken littles are cancelled out by the folks with their heads in the sand.

I am willing to explore all ideas that have scientific merit, for or against our cumulative affect on the planet. I certainly understand the motivation to push the narrative from the perspective of alternative energy companies and do not doubt they have influence on the spin. However, I doubt they have more influence on the spin than big oil if we are talking dollar bills.

I could. The problem is some of us believe that climate change is real, however, when we question exactly how much mankind is hurting it we get slammed as ignorant fools. Or suggest it's part of a naturally occurring cycle throughout the earth's history, we get scoffed at. Those of us that question the Chicken Littles (as you saw earlier) are ridiculed and have our intelligence questioned.

It's impossible to debate the matter with some.

 

[tumscalcium]

I could. The problem is some of us believe that climate change is real, however, when we question exactly how much mankind is hurting it we get slammed as ignorant fools. Or suggest it's part of a naturally occurring cycle throughout the earth's history, we get scoffed at. Those of us that question the Chicken Littles (as you saw earlier) are ridiculed and have our intelligence questioned.

It's impossible to debate the matter with some.

This.

What "to do about it" is also endlessly debatable.

 

[Persian Vol]

Valid point if we were discussing pure science with controlled variables and reproducible methods ( which is part of the scientific method ). Climate science is an observation discipline, at best.

Here's a parallel:
Once you're an MD, I suspect you will not take the drug company's research as infallible as it has a vested interest in the sale of the medicine.

There are many types research methods. Experimental studies, observational studies, longitudinal studies, case studies, cross sectional studies, etc.
I don't see any reason to believe that data from climatologist are any less valid other than that there are a lot of people who can't comprehend the validity of it. People who don't have a background education in physics most likely won't be able to fully comprehend the nature of how scientists research quantum physics, but that doesn't mean that their methods are any less scientific than another field.

If I were to be shown a drug, I most likely wouldn't allow the drug company and their research to be the basis of my decision on whether it would be wise or not to use the drug. Now if there was an article on the New England Journal of Medicine stating that this drug has been proven to be effective, and has been proven to be valid and reliable in an objective manner, then I would be more likely to show interest.

 

[hog88]

Do you have any factual information that supports this?

The vast majority of scientists >90% believe that global warming exists and that humans have influenced it. How exactly would it be feasible to essentially bribe the entire scientific community? Not to mention that this matter is not just a domestic issue, but an international one. And even if they were to manipulate data to skew results, the validity and reliability of the data can easily be exposed by other scientists. This assertion seems nothing more than conspiracy and a lack of knowledge of how scientists operates, other than that they know stuff that we don't and are funded by the government (which is clearly the reason people are skeptical). Few situations trigger skepticism more than government involvement and knowledge that we can't comprehend firsthand. Although if anyone actually took time to read and digest a scientific paper, they would understand the scientific reasoning. But no, the majority of people find it more convenient to click on *insert political website* and get their information from there.

To claim 90% of scientists believe humans influenced global warming would first require you to identify ALL scientists and their qualifications. I'll wait.

 

[McDad]

There are many types research methods. Experimental studies, observational studies, longitudinal studies, case studies, cross sectional studies, etc.
I don't see any reason to believe that data from climatologist are any less valid other than that there are a lot of people who can't comprehend the validity of it. People who don't have a background education in physics most likely won't be able to fully comprehend the nature of how scientists research quantum physics, but that doesn't mean that their methods are any less scientific than another field.

If I were to be shown a drug, I most likely wouldn't allow the drug company and their research to be the basis of my decision on whether it would be wise or not to use the drug. Now if there was an article on the New England Journal of Medicine stating that this drug has been proven to be effective, and has been proven to be valid and reliable in an objective manner, then I would be more likely to show interest.

I agree with your 2nd paragraph. With that said, even NEJM isn't infallible.
If you found the Climate Change Industry had a vested interest in alarmist predictions, would you also be skeptical of their findings (like you would a drug rep)?

 

[Persian Vol]

To claim 90% of scientists believe humans influenced global warming would first require you to identify ALL scientists and their qualifications. I'll wait.

I posted this earlier.

http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/public-views-on-climate-change-and-climate-scientists/

"Similarly, a Pew Research Center survey of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) found 93% of members with a Ph.D. in Earth sciences (and 87% of all members) say the Earth is warming mostly because of human behavior."

Seems pretty straightforward. Unless of course you are skeptical of Pew Research Center as well.

 

[tumscalcium]

I posted this earlier.

http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/public-views-on-climate-change-and-climate-scientists/

"Similarly, a Pew Research Center survey of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) found 93% of members with a Ph.D. in Earth sciences (and 87% of all members) say the Earth is warming mostly because of human behavior."

Seems pretty straightforward. Unless of course you are skeptical of Pew Research Center as well.

You're warming the earth. It's your fault.

 

[Persian Vol]

I agree with your 2nd paragraph. With that said, even NEJM isn't infallible.
If you found the Climate Change Industry had a vested interest in alarmist predictions, would you also be skeptical of their findings (like you would a drug rep)?

Nothing is infallible, but a reliable source is a reliable source nontheless. The beauty of science is that the results are objective, and if they weren't objective, they aren't proper results. Results can easily be disproven if they aren't ....
A) Reliable
B) Valid
C) Objective

The same way the fossil fuel industry has a vested interest in opposing the concept of human made global warming? Regardless of what industry is attempting to corrupt science, the vast majority of scientists are clearly leaning in one direction, and I don't believe that the majority of these scientists are all being paid off by green energy. It's easy to make the opposite argument toward fossil fuel.

 

[McDad]

Nothing is infallible, but a reliable source is a reliable source nontheless. The beauty of science is that the results are objective, and if they weren't objective, they aren't proper results. Results can easily be disproven if they aren't ....
A) Reliable
B) Valid
C) Objective

The same way the fossil fuel industry has a vested interest in opposing the concept of human made global warming? Regardless of what industry is attempting to corrupt science, the vast majority of scientists are clearly leaning in one direction, and I don't believe that the majority of these scientists are all being paid off by green energy. It's easy to make the opposite argument toward fossil fuel.

Now we're talking. Very good. The climate is not something that is testable via the scientific method. Earlier in this thread Bart posted horse**** about computer models are accurate and valid. Climate is observable but not testable and people draw their own conclusions.

Green energy isn't paying off anyone, as far as I know. That's a petty position. Governments fund climate "research". The more dire the predictions the more the funding train chugs along.

In my lifetime, oil would run out by the time I was 43, the Earth was going into ice age, another dustbowl was predicted, the ozone layer demise was inevitable, the Earth was warming, hurricane frequency would increase, etc. This is probably why the people my age and older hold climate "science" with profound skepticism.

 

[Grand Vol]

You're warming the earth. It's your fault.

I blame the Iranians. If they weren't pumping so much oil, there would be less pollution to go around.

 

[Grand Vol]

In my lifetime
oil would run out by the time I was 43 That would suck since my Stang isn't CNG friendly
the Earth was going into ice age I've got a pretty kickazz winter jacket. Don't know about the rest of you heathens
another dustbowl was predicted ebbs and flows on the drought situation
the ozone layer demise was inevitable Apparently, according to Bart at least, it's still a problem
the Earth was warming Contradicts your #2, but I'd rather be cold than hot. You can put on more clothing
hurricane frequency would increase Possibility of Gainesville getting hit? Maybe? Hopefully?

Yep.

This is probably why the people my age and older hold climate "science" with profound skepticism.

Something I discussed with Bart only to be scoffed at. And that's the problem with the legitimate scientists that attempt to bring up the point the climate is changing (which again, I don't doubt) in a reasonable fashion. They get drowned out by the ones that bring each and every doomsday scenario into play and screech about the coming apocalypse.

 

[Persian Vol]

Now we're talking. Very good. The climate is not something that is testable via the scientific method. Earlier in this thread Bart posted horse**** about computer models are accurate and valid. Climate is observable but not testable and people draw their own conclusions.

Green energy isn't paying off anyone, as far as I know. That's a petty position. Governments fund climate "research". The more dire the predictions the more the funding train chugs along.

In my lifetime, oil would run out by the time I was 43, the Earth was going into ice age, another dustbowl was predicted, the ozone layer demise was inevitable, the Earth was warming, hurricane frequency would increase, etc. This is probably why the people my age and older hold climate "science" with profound skepticism.

Can you give me a thorough explanation on why you think that climate change is something we can't gather information about and predict? I have a hard time understanding why you think climatologist do not undergo the scientific method like any other scientist.

Governments fund research in general. Not just climatologist. Unless you can provide me definitive evidence that the government is conspiring climate change as a fear tactic to gather support, this is nothing but a conspiracy theory.

I understand your position, but whatever scare tactics you were fed throughout your life does not take away from the thousands of scientific articles from a diverse range of international sources that support human influence on global warming. Whether it is within our lifespan or our grandchildrens, the threat is inevitable, and if there is the possibility of prevention, then we should take action.

 

[tumscalcium]

I blame the Iranians. If they weren't pumping so much oil, there would be less pollution to go around.

Indeed.