Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 126
  1. #21  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,266
    Quote Originally Posted by The Night Owl View Post
    Not so fast. The list you provided comes from the following webpage promoting the idea that the global warming going on now is part of a natural cycle...

    http://www.cgfi.org/2007/10/04/the-l...arming-scares/

    Figuring prominently at the top of the list is a bit of text which I can only assume you omitted on purpose because it undermines your point...

    CITATION OF THE WORK OF THE FOLLOWING SCIENTISTS DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THEY NECESSARILY SUPPORT OUR CONCLUSIONS


    What? Did you honestly think I wouldn't check?

    :D



    The instrumental temperature record is not a climate model. The instrumental temperature record is just that... a record of temperatures based on measurements by instruments such as satellites and surface stations. Models are used for prediction purposes.
    It doesn't imply that they all reject it either. The line you quote is very ambiguous. The implication is that some do support the theory that the current climate change is cyclical in nature and some don't.

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Senior Member The Night Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    It doesn't imply that they all reject it either. The line you quote is very ambiguous. The implication is that some do support the theory that the current climate change is cyclical in nature and some don't.
    The disclaimer about the list is not ambiguous. The list itself is ambiguous.

    How many of the scientists listed on the CGFI webpage support the CGFI's position? 1%? 50%? 99%? We don't know because all we have is a bulky list of scientists who might or might not support the CGFI's position.
    Last edited by The Night Owl; 08-26-2008 at 09:38 AM.
    Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Senior Member The Night Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,586
    This is cute...

    So, I randomly choose one of the studies cited on the CGFI list Sonnabend posted and looked it up...

    Climate and the Collapse of Maya Civilization
    Gerald H. Haug,1* Detlef GŁnther,2 Larry C. Peterson,3 Daniel M. Sigman,4 Konrad A. Hughen,5 Beat Aeschlimann2


    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../299/5613/1731

    Why does the CGFI believe that a study about climate change many centuries before the industrial revolution refutes AGW?

    No scientists on either side of the global warming debate are claiming that Earth has not gone through natural warming and cooling cycles. Let me repeat that... no scientists on either side of the global warming debate are claiming that Earth has not gone through natural climate changes.

    The fact that Earth, like any planet, goes through natural climate changes does not mean that the climate going on now is the result of a natural cycle. It may be but it may not be. This is where science comes in.
    Last edited by The Night Owl; 08-26-2008 at 09:54 AM.
    Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Sonnabend
    Guest
    No its a scientific theory which is nearly unanimously accepted among climatologists (the people who actually make a living studying this stuff)
    THAT is a LIE.

    That was my point. You., Eyelids and LP seem to have a major problem with reading comprehension.; Maybe you need a course in the subject, "peer reviewed" of course.

    Jackass.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,266
    Quote Originally Posted by The Night Owl View Post
    This is cute...

    So, I randomly choose one of the studies cited on the CGFI list Sonnabend posted and looked it up...

    Climate and the Collapse of Maya Civilization
    Gerald H. Haug,1* Detlef GŁnther,2 Larry C. Peterson,3 Daniel M. Sigman,4 Konrad A. Hughen,5 Beat Aeschlimann2


    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../299/5613/1731

    Why does the CGFI believe that a study about climate change many centuries before the industrial revolution refutes AGW?

    No scientists on either side of the global warming debate are claiming that Earth has not gone through natural warming and cooling cycles. Let me repeat that... no scientists on either side of the global warming debate are claiming that Earth has not gone through natural warming and cooling cycles.

    The fact that Earth, like any planet, goes through natural warming and cooling cycles does not mean that the global warming going on now is the result of a natural cycle. It may be but it may not be. This is where science comes in.
    It doesn't mean that it is not part of the cycle. In short we are taking positions on something that neither side can valid its position as the true position. Kind of silly argument if you ask me. Is there a problem with both sides saying "hey we just don't know... we're looking in to it" and leave it at that?

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Senior Member The Night Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    It doesn't mean that it is not part of the cycle. In short we are taking positions on something that neither side can valid its position as the true position. Kind of silly argument if you ask me. Is there a problem with both sides saying "hey we just don't know... we're looking in to it" and leave it at that?
    I'm not agnostic about global warming. There is considerable scientific evidence that the global warming going on now is either the result of human activities or partly the result of human activities.
    Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Sonnabend
    Guest
    The fact that Earth, like any planet, goes through natural warming and cooling cycles does not mean that the global warming going on now is the result of a natural cycle.
    The fact that Earth, like any planet, goes through natural warming and cooling cycles does not mean that the global warming / cooling /" climate change"/ (whatever you liberals rebadge it as in an effort to look "well informed") going on now is the result of Man made influence either.

    No one knows. How fucking hard is it for you lot to say four simple words:

    "We could be wrong"


    Yet all the warmenistas are carrying on and saying "the science is settled" (it isn't by a long shot) "its unanimous" (it isn't, and anyone who says it is, is lying) and calling those who dare to ask questions as akin "holocaust deniers"...anything to shut down debate.

    Scratch a leftist, find a fascist.

    Every. single. time.
    Last edited by Sonnabend; 08-26-2008 at 10:02 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Senior Member The Night Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonnabend View Post
    THAT is a LIE.

    That was my point. You., Eyelids and LP seem to have a major problem with reading comprehension.; Maybe you need a course in the subject, "peer reviewed" of course.

    Jackass.
    Wilbur is right. The list of climatologists who outrightly reject AGW is very short.
    Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Senior Member The Night Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonnabend View Post
    "We could be wrong"[/B]
    I have always maintained that the science supporting AGW could be all wrong. Science is never certain. Certainty is attainable only in mathematics.
    Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Senior Member LogansPapa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Surf City, USA
    Posts
    3,782
    Quote Originally Posted by Nubs View Post
    If all sea ice were to melt tomorrow, sea level would not rise 1 inch
    Nice qualification. How much would it rise if the ice melted off, say Greenland?
    At Coretta Scott King's funeral in early 2006, Ethel Kennedy, the widow of Robert Kennedy, leaned over to him and whispered, "The torch is being passed to you." "A chill went up my spine," Obama told an aide. (Newsweek)
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •