Map Makers Admit Mistake in Showing Ice Cap Loss in Greenland

[bb113]

I'm not convinced we aren't doing it personally.

[Matthew N. Wright]

I'm not convinced we aren't doing it personally.

I hear you. I'm not convinced we are.

[P4man]

I AM NOT saying that sudden changes due to man are not happening. I am saying that blindly accepting what "experts" tell you is bad, accepting what the media says is even worse.

Why do you put experts between quotation marks?
And why is it somehow smart to blindly disbelieve what is the overwhelming consensus among the worlds best scientists and instead do your own cherry picking "research"?  Do you consider yourself such a wold authority on climate science that you know better than all the worlds scientists combined, that you think you can do a better syntheses of all the available science than the IPCC  ? I find that notion as ridiculous as thinking you would be able to build a better space shuttle than NASA in your garage. They are only "experts" after all, what do they know.

[bb113]

Because I do research, I know how it goes.

[Matthew N. Wright]

I find that notion as ridiculous as thinking you would be able to build a better space shuttle than NASA in your garage. They are only "experts" after all, what do they know.

Hey now, rocket science is a tad bit different. Furthermore, that's comparing potential which can't really be measured easily. Someone could theoretically do better than NASA in their own garage given a number of influences. Nasa is just a big garage in that sense. Global warming however can only be understood with a large enough data set. No one says it isn't happening that I know of, they're just saying the current data set isn't enough. It'd be like judging bitcoin on this month's price fluctuations alone.

[bb113]

Also I am not doing my own "cherry picking", most of what I posted came from a website explaining AGW and responding to critics. Honestly I just accepted the consensus until I bothered to look into it a couple days ago. I suggest you do the same.

Watch this video to start:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJwayalLpYY

It is Richard Lindzen (who is basically the most, if not only, respected climatologist who is publicly skeptical of AGW) and another climatologist who believes it is happening. They go through critiquing NASA animations and agree on most points, it is not like these forum arguments at all. It is an hour long, but well worth your time. This is a big issue.

Guests:

Hadi Dowlatabadi is Canada research chair and professor in Applied Mathematics and Global Change at the University of British Columbia.

Richard Lindzen is a professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

[P4man]

Also I am not doing my own "cherry picking"
...
It is Richard Lindzen (who is basically the most, if not only, respected climatologist who is publicly skeptical of AGW)

How is that somehow not cherry picking?

Since you do science yourself, you know how science works. It would break down if no scientists would oppose a consensus view and try to argue against it.  Thats entirely healthy, and so you will not hear me smear Lindzen for that. The point is he is one man casting vague doubts on the science, many of his arguments have been thoroughly refuted (which has admitted to):
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen#Lindzen.27s_Discarded_Global_Warming_Arguments

The guy is a contrarian. Even if a smart one, he will try to argue anything. Thats good for science, but its not good to just dismiss the overwhelming body of evidence and take his word instead. FWIW, he also hardly believes in the link between lung cancer and smoking. Believe him on climate change at your own peril.

[bb113]

You missed my entire point. Do not trust any argument from authority 100%, ever. I don't think I know more than climate scientists about climate, but I know that they cannot know something like this is true with 100% confidence. I am very put off by the way it is played in the media. The data simply isn't there.

That said, I will follow that link. My mind isn't made up at all, like I said I have only been interested in this for a couple days now. Even when I do make it up, if you are going to trust an authority, don't pick me.


Also just because I posted one video it is cherry picking.... That is not the source of all my info. The main one so far is this site:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/

[P4man]

You missed my entire point. Do not trust any argument from authority 100%, ever.

What does that even mean? If scientists predict with 99% certainty that a meteorite is going to hit your town, do you evacuate? Or do you listen to the one guy who says its all bullocks and the measurements are probably off, thats its a government ploy for whatever conspiracy?
I dont know about you, but Id pack my bags if they predict a 10% probability. Would you wait for 100% certainty? Ie, after it hit?

Scientists are almost never 100% sure of anything. Climate science is no exception. You wont find any respectable scientist claiming they are 100% sure. IIRC, the IPCC put the number at 99% or 99.5% certainty that our fossil fuel burning is causing climate change. So how does that relate to the above statement, that you think its more like 50%? Or 5%? Or that 0.5%=50% ? Or that we should just bet the planet on their estimated 0.5% chance they got it wrong? Wouldnt even a 50% chance be enough to take measures?

FWIW, your hero Lindzen will only bet 1-50 odds that he is right and the planet will be cooler in 20 years. That makes him more skeptical than the IPCC, but not by much!

Also just because I posted one video it is cherry picking.... That is not the source of all my info. The main one so far is this site:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/

That domain alone shows its cherry picking. Its a site that looks for evidence to support a (political?) point. Thats not how science works. ITs not how the IPCC works. What IPCC does is review *all* relevant scientific research, whether its from Lindzen or anyone else, and try to condense that in to a readable consensus view. That is not cherry picking, its quite the opposite. You can not put that against a site like the above and somehow claim they are equal.  You might as well contrast some religious nut's book on "creationism" and contrast it with 100 years of science and conclude we really do not know if evolution is real.

[Bind]

The difference between potential and reality is that they are 100% polar opposites.

The global warming agenda (and pretty much all agendas) uses potential like the ordinance and statute law system uses it to make you guilty of causing harm or loss when in reality you havent.

On one hand there is the potential for harm and loss, which in reality is absolutely no harm or loss at all.

On the other hand there is real provable verifiable harm and loss.

Polar opposites that just sound dangerously similar.

Its exactly like an interloper with an agenda whispering in our ears, planting seeds in our minds to flourish and grow, to separate and divide and conquer us, making us debate and argue amongst ourselves, to split up a marriage or a relationship between best friends, mostly so we dont concentrate our efforts on the interloper.

... and it works extremely well until people research the history of the groups and people and families of the people behind it all.

its time we come together against the interlopers.

They are stealing our wealth, freedom, liberty, and sovereignty because of this potential.

[Matthew N. Wright]

The difference between potential and reality is that they are 100% polar opposites.

Potential encompasses reality.

[Bind]

Potential encompasses reality.

No. Potential has the "possibility" to encompass reality.

[Matthew N. Wright]

No. Potential has the "possibility" to encompass reality.

po·ten·tial   [puh-ten-shuhl]  Show IPA
adjective
1.
possible, as opposed to actual: the potential uses of nuclear energy.
2.
capable of being or becoming: a potential danger to safety.

Sounds like reality to me.

[Bind]

No. Potential has the "possibility" to encompass reality.

po·ten·tial   [puh-ten-shuhl]  Show IPA
adjective
1.
possible, as opposed to actual: the potential uses of nuclear energy.
2.
capable of being or becoming: a potential danger to safety.

Sounds like reality to me.

you are selectively reading, Matthew.

you ignored, "as opposed to actual".

I have the potential to break your face.

The point is... until it happens, its fantasy... not reality.

[Matthew N. Wright]

No. Potential has the "possibility" to encompass reality.

po·ten·tial   [puh-ten-shuhl]  Show IPA
adjective
1.
possible, as opposed to actual: the potential uses of nuclear energy.
2.
capable of being or becoming: a potential danger to safety.

Sounds like reality to me.

you are selectively reading, Matthew.

you ignored, "as opposed to actual".

I have the potential to break your face.

The point is... until it happens, its fantasy... not reality.

You're probably right. I was selectively reading only the first line of text you posted which was:

The difference between potential and reality is that they are 100% polar opposites.

I must have gotten it out of context.

[Bind]

and i stand by that statement.

IF it becomes reality, it is no longer potential.

Until it becomes reality, its potential... fantasy...  non-existent.

We are often guilty of the non-existent _INSERT_POTENTIAL_HERE_.

[P4man]

The difference between potential and reality is that they are 100% polar opposites.

The global warming agenda (and pretty much all agendas) uses potential like the ordinance and statute law system uses it to make you guilty of causing harm or loss when in reality you havent.

There are two separate issues here; on one hand, there is the public and media "debate" on whether or not the science behind AGW is sound. The simple answer is: it is. The scientific community is about as certain on this than they are on anything, so lets stop debating on conspiracy theories and quoting a handful members of the flat earth society and face the scientific facts . The comet is heading to your house,  or at least it is with 99% certainty.

The other debate is what, if anything,  to do about it. Thats a hugely complex debate that involves among others politics, economics and morals. Ill not pretend I, or anyone for that matter, has a conclusive answer to that. Its an important debate, so we must do it, but for the love of God, leave it to scientists to discuss the science and do not pervert it with political ideas just because its conclusions clash with your politics.  Doing so is as asinine as dismissing the science because of religious believes.  Some people still say the earth is flat and men walked with dinosaurs. Dont be as foolish when it comes to something as important as the future of our planet.

[bb113]

You missed my entire point. Do not trust any argument from authority 100%, ever.

What does that even mean? If scientists predict with 99% certainty that a meteorite is going to hit your town, do you evacuate? Or do you listen to the one guy who says its all bullocks and the measurements are probably off, thats its a government ploy for whatever conspiracy?
I dont know about you, but Id pack my bags if they predict a 10% probability. Would you wait for 100% certainty? Ie, after it hit?

Scientists are almost never 100% sure of anything. Climate science is no exception. You wont find any respectable scientist claiming they are 100% sure. IIRC, the IPCC put the number at 99% or 99.5% certainty that our fossil fuel burning is causing climate change. So how does that relate to the above statement, that you think its more like 50%? Or 5%? Or that 0.5%=50% ? Or that we should just bet the planet on their estimated 0.5% chance they got it wrong? Wouldnt even a 50% chance be enough to take measures?

FWIW, your hero Lindzen will only bet 1-50 odds that he is right and the planet will be cooler in 20 years. That makes him more skeptical than the IPCC, but not by much!

Also just because I posted one video it is cherry picking.... That is not the source of all my info. The main one so far is this site:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/

That domain alone shows its cherry picking. Its a site that looks for evidence to support a (political?) point. Thats not how science works. ITs not how the IPCC works. What IPCC does is review *all* relevant scientific research, whether its from Lindzen or anyone else, and try to condense that in to a readable consensus view. That is not cherry picking, its quite the opposite. You can not put that against a site like the above and somehow claim they are equal.  You might as well contrast some religious nut's book on "creationism" and contrast it with 100 years of science and conclude we really do not know if evolution is real.

I think the philosophy of science stuff is getting slightly off topic. In summary, you are correct no respectable scientist would claim they are 100% sure of something. Your constant appeals to authority are once again missing my point. I am not denying we are causing global warming. I am saying that many people who "believe" in it actually haven't put much thought into the actual evidence at all. Just go back to my original post and address the points I raise. I describe very clearly why I have doubts right now.

I don't think you followed the link to skepticalscience... stop assuming I am an idiot who doesn't understand how to use multiple sources. Also I have been reading through the most recent IPCC report:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-ts.pdf

Please find in there where they provide evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions will lead to catastrophic global warming. That is what I have been searching for.

[P4man]

I think the philosophy of science stuff is getting slightly off topic. In summary, you are correct no respectable scientist would claim they are 100% sure of something. Your constant appeals to authority are once again missing my point.

Well.. doh, in some case appealing to authority kinda makes sense, doesnt it? Particularly when the authority is not just a scientist or group of scientists, but a worldwide effort by the entire scientific community to formulate a consensus. IOW, something they can ALL agree on. There are lots of issues, projections and theories related to AGW where there is no such consensus, there lots of the questions to be answered,  but what is in the IPCC reports is something  every (or every minus one) world renowned expert in the field agrees on; who the f* then are you (not personally, but anyone questioning the science) to disagree with that, seriously?

I might chuckle a bit if some forum poster here argues against Dawkings theories on gravitational singularities and thinks he know better, but arguing against the authority that the IPCC represents is simply way way beyond that. There hasnt been a scientific publication with that kind of authority ever in the history of science. If you think Im exaggerating, name one.

I am not denying we are causing global warming. I am saying that many people who "believe" in it actually haven't put much thought into the actual evidence at all.

Good, as there is no reason for them, unless they are experts in the field or just curious.

Just go back to my original post and address the points I raise. I describe very clearly why I have doubts right now.

You mean the cloud stuff? Honestly, you think you stumbled across something the IPCC has not looked at? You think its likely you will stumble upon ANY issue related to AGW that has not been studied in depth by people far more qualified than you, and that their science is not taken in to account by the IPCC? You do understand how the IPCC works, right? If not, I suggest you start reading up on that first before wasting too much time.

Anyway, if I understand correctly you are paraphrasing a theory by Lindzen. A theory Lindzen himself apparently no longer stands by. As per my previous link:

An internal document (pdf) of the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) -- an industry front group that disbanded in 2002 -- reviewed some of the "contrarian" arguments used by Lindzen and other climate change skeptics that they later discarded. The document, which was obtained as part of a court action against the automobile industry[10].

...

In conclusion the GCC's science advisers was that "Lindzen's hypothesis that any warming would create more rain which would cool and dry the upper troposphere did offer a mechanism for balancing the effect of increased greenhouse gases. However, the data supporting this hypothesis is weak, and even Lindzen has stopped presenting it as an alternative to the conventional model of climate change."[12]

I don't think you followed the link to skepticalscience... s

I did not, and dont intend to, unless you can demonstrate the science on it is vetted by a peer review process thats at least marginally as thorough as the IPCC's.

Please find in there where they provide evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions will lead to catastrophic global warming. That is what I have been searching for.

Define catastrophic.

[RandyFolds]

There are two separate issues here; on one hand, there is the public and media "debate" on whether or not the science behind AGW is sound. The simple answer is: it is.

The scientific community is about as certain on this than they are on anything, so lets stop debating on conspiracy theories and quoting a handful members of the flat earth society and face the scientific facts . The comet is heading to your house,  or at least it is with 99% certainty.

You are mistaken. The simple answer is: no one knows.

I seem to recall points in history when the scientific community was certain that burning women would solve all their troubles. Now going along with group hysteria is solid science?

The russians are going to blow up the moon!