[excon]

Has the link between temperate rise and CO2 been conclusively proven by correlation. ie; more CO2, more temperature. No! it hasn't excepting in a laboratory.

Hello again, clete:

Psssst... The lab is where scientists PROVE their theories, and apparently, they DID.

excon

[paraclete]

Hello again, clete:

Psssst... The lab is where scientists PROVE their theories, and apparently, they DID.

excon

Ex I hate to break this to you, but there is no substitute for the real world and where the weather is concerned it helps to look out of the window or in the case of theories, see if they work outside the LAB!

I remember some great theories concerning weather, like cloud seeding or the southern occillation index

[excon]

Hello again, clete:

Let me ask you the same question I asked tom. Where did you learn to distrust science? I'll bet it was in church...

excon

[cdad]

Hello again, clete:

Let me ask you the same question I asked tom. Where did you learn to distrust science? I'll bet it was in church...

excon

I would like to take a stab at answering this question that you posed.

I learned to distrust science when it went from being science to politics. There is no place for that in science. Science is normally based on fact or solid theory. Politics is based on niether. That was the tipping point for me.

[paraclete]

Hello again, clete:

Let me ask you the same question I asked tom. Where did you learn to distrust science? I'll bet it was in church...

excon

No Ex don't let your liberal bias show. I learned to distrust science when I learned that I was being lied to. As the University Professor said on the first day. "forget everything you have have been taught, it is either wrong or out of date. We had to teach you something so we taught you that"

So EX why should I believe this stack of bull we have been shovelled in the name of climate science, so much of it has turned out to be exactly the same!

[excon]

I learned to distrust science when it went from being science to politics.

Hello again, dad:

I DID address those individual scumbag scientist who willingly prostitute themselves for 30 pieces of silver. But, you're indicting the ENTIRE field of science. Personally, I don't believe a world wide consensus of scientists is lying...

excon

[paraclete]

Hello again, dad:

I DID address those individual scumbag scientist who willingly prostitute themselves for 30 pieces of silver. But, you're indicting the ENTIRE field of science. Personally, I don't believe a world wide consensus of scientists is lying...

excon

Hi Ex where did you learn about the 30 pieces of silver? I bet you learned it in a Church...

You really do need to get to be more specific and tell us which scientists you think are lying and which are not. You say there is consensus world wide but that is picking and choosing which opinions, Yes, scientists have opinions, you choose to believe. When there is wide spread conflicting opinion it is reasonable to question what is proven and what is not. So far very little is proven, there is much erronious data, and even more erronious opinion and that is setting aside the deliberate distortions.

[excon]

So far very little is proven, there is much erronious data, and even more erronious opinion and that is setting aside the deliberate distortions.

Hello again, clete:

Yeah, those bastard scientists... Take a look around. I know somebody hired them to fool us about the roundness of the globe... It's plainly flat, as you can see.

It's hard to explain science to science deniers.

excon

[paraclete]

Hello again, clete:

Yeah, those bastard scientists... Take a look around. I know somebody hired them to fool us about the roundness of the globe... It's plainly flat, as you can see.

It's hard to explain science to science deniers.

excon

Well Ex, the Earth is not flat here but I'm not so sure about the shape where you live. You see being on the other side of the Earth provides a different perspective, here the skys are clear and not full of that stuff you keep telling us everyone is dumping in the atmosphere. What I don't like is being told I have to respond to what is a Northern Hemisphere problem, which I note your own nation is doing as little as possible about. We are accused of having a large carbon footprint but on an output per square mile basis it is actually small. Not only that but my nation has actually met it's Kyoto obligations.

So when it comes to science deniers, whatever they might be, I think you will find them in your own balliwick

[tomder55]

There is pressure put on the scientific community to tow the line . That is undeniable .Recently departed Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology [and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years"],upon her retirement ,expressed relief that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. She refutiated the idea that conclusions can be made by modelling . This is a quote from her statement to the US Senate .

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical. “The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system”.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...d-6e2d71db52d9

[excon]

There is pressure put on the scientific community to tow the line . That is undeniable .

Hello again, tom:

These days, I don't know WHO would be putting pressure on their community besides their benefactors. IF that's so, not only is it an indictment of science, it's an indictment of business too. Admittedly, my viewpoint of science comes from a time when pure science was practiced. That happened mostly in our university's. While they were funded by business interests, they were NOT beholden to them.

The benefactors of old wanted scientists to do science... If the benefactors of today want scientists to become PR hacks, and PRETEND to do science, so that they come up with predetermined conclusions, that's, pure and simple, an indictment of the business community AND the field of science...

I may be wearing rose colored glasses, but as I've said before, I refuse to believe that scientists willingly PROSTITUTE themselves, even IF there is pressure to do so... It's an anathema to their life's pursuit... Certainly some will, of course.. But, it's like becoming a cop simply because it's easier to steal. MOST cops don't do that... As much as I hate 'em, I do NOT believe ALL cops are corrupt, IN SPITE of the pressure to do so...

You, on the other hand, and willing to indict an entire field... You wouldn't believe me if I indicted ALL the cops... I don't believe you when you indict ALL the scientists...

excon

[tomder55]

I don't indict all scientists . The true scientists are beginning to show their mettle and confront conscensus orthodoxy . Perhaps you can brush off the opinion of someone as distinguished as the late Joanne Simpson ,but I can't . No one can claim that she was ever bought. I can't say the same for the leading climatologists who advanced the hypothesis of man made AGW . Their emails to each other were released and it proved what many have suspected .

[excon]

Perhaps you can brush off the opinion of someone as distinguished as the late Joanne Simpson ,but I can't .

Hello again, tom:

Now, we're getting down to it... Nobody brushes off distinguished scientists. Certainly not me. But when a CONSENSUS of the worlds scientists say otherwise, from a scientific point of view, the CONSENSUS has it.

There are some distinguished scientists who say that vaccinations cause autism. Lots of people BELIEVE it, too. But, the world wide consensus of scientists, say it's bunk. Now, you can choose to believe the few, or you can choose to believe the many. I choose the many.

excon

[paraclete]

There is pressure put on the scientific community to tow the line . That is undeniable .Recently departed Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology [and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years"],upon her retirement ,expressed relief that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. She refutiated the idea that conclusions can be made by modelling . This is a quote from her statement to the US Senate .

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...d-6e2d71db52d9

Thank you Tom I know Ex doesn't get it because he has swallowed the pseudo science hook line and sinker. Someone modelled it on a computer so it must be right. I would also like him to consider that someone also modelled a near miss for Earth by Apophis in 2036 unless, according to the model, it passes through a window half a mile wide. Give me a break please. Ex, please deny Apophis is a problem because I think it is a greater problem than climate change.

[excon]

Someone modelled it on a computer so it must be right.

Hello again, clete:

Someone?? SOMEONE?? Dude! A WORLD WIDE CONSENSUS of scientists is just a tad more than someone... Dude!

Exocn

[paraclete]

Hello again, clete:

Someone??? SOMEONE????? Dude!! A WORLD WIDE CONSENSUS of scientists is just a tad more than someone.... Dude!

exocn

Give me a break, Ex, a world wide consensus of scientists didn't model climate on their computers, like all scientific endeavour some scientists modelled specific aspects of climate and presented their findings to their peers, some of whom agreed with the hypothesis, and some who had other data didn't. The more we look at this question and the modelling, the more flaws we find in the hyopthesis. It is a hypothesis, EX! a HYPOTHESIS, an UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS! Please tell me you don't believe that a model that could produce a prediction of a zone of falling temperature in Antartica right beside a zone of rising temperature could be considered accurate?


Recently the hypothesis was that the cold water from melting glaciers/ice in the Artic would cause the great conveyor to shut down, recently we are told that modelling now shows this isn't so. It is computer generated BS, EX! Not facts, Hypothesis! Theory! We go from predicting an ice age to predicting world wide flooding and the best yet is that global warming will produce an ice age. We think the water will rise metres this century and then we find we are talking in inches. The sooner we take these scientists and remove their tenue and their funding the better

What do we know for sure?
Glaciers are melting
The Earth continues to warm as it has done since the end of the ice age
The Earth has long term cycles of warming and cooling.
Climate doesn't have a norm, it is variable

[excon]

Give me a break, Ex, a world wide consensus of scientists didn't model climate on their computers,

Hello again, clete:

Give YOU a break... Dude! Look.. I don't know HOW a world wide consensus of scientists came up with their conclusions... I don't CARE - just like I don't care HOW they determined that getting vaccinated will prevent disease... All I care about is that a CONSENSUS of scientists tell me that something is fine, and that's cool with me.

You don't trust them... I don't know why. But you trust them enough to take a pill... Science grounds me... It must be a real scary world if you can't trust science. How do you know the bridge you're about to cross will hold you?? But, I got it. You DON'T trust science... Cool.

It's like I said earlier, it's hard to explain science to science deniers...

excon

[paraclete]

Hello again, clete:

Give YOU a break... Dude! Look.. I dunno HOW a world wide consensus of scientists came up with their conclusions... I don't CARE - just like I don't care HOW they determined that getting vaccinated will prevent disease... All I care about is that a CONSENSUS of scientists tell me that something is fine, and that's cool with me.

You don't trust them... I dunno why. But you trust them enough to take a pill... Science grounds me... It must be a real scary world if you can't trust science. How do you know the bridge you're about to cross will hold you??? But, I got it. You DON'T trust science... Cool.

It's like I said earlier, it's hard to explain science to science deniers...

excon

You miss the point Ex you cannot put medical science and drug therepy, which goes through a rigorous proving process that takes years, and a publish and be damned attitude surrounding climate science which requires nothing be proven in the same pot and call them both science. The only thing they have in common is that the person doing the research has a degree, which is a certificate that they did some study somewhere. I've got one too! In fact I have several pieces of paper attesting to something.

What I don't trust is the process and the rigor with which these predictions were derived, particularly since there is evidence of tampering with data, vested interest, lack of critical thinking, and taking a very short term view of a subject which requires a long term perspective. Do some research yourself EX and look at what some very emenient people are saying on this subject.
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/12...rig-50353.html
Here is a recent speaker at Cancun EX he says he has no idea whether the models he is using are right or wrong. And you call this science

[excon]

Do some research yourself EX

Hello again, clete:

Then we're back to square one. I'm a layman. I don't DO research. I look around the world and come up with conclusions. I conclude that when you throw garbage into the air, you pollute. I've observed pollution before. I know where it comes from. Pollution has consequences... You don't believe that. You won't be convinced of that. Fine. I am. That's because I'm NOT a science denier... My layman's observations and a world wide consensus of scientists coincide with each other.

Because you don't trust THIS field of science, you belittle the scientists who do it. I guess because you don't want to believe them. Makes no sense to me... But, I'm NOT a science denier. You can't explain science to one of them. They TRUST certain scientist, but not others... I don't know what to say about that. It's like there is no answer that will satisfy a birther... There's no answer that will satisfy a science denier...

excon

[paraclete]

Ex
Did you bother to read the article I provided? If you had you would have seen there was a debate between two researchers in the same field, one refuting the others methodology and this is typical of the whole issue of global warming and climate change.

You keep talking about throwing garbage in the air, if you think CO2 is garbage you had better cut down all the trees because they put CO2 in the air some of the time, you had better kill all the humans because they breathe out CO2. Do we need to change the carbon cycle we have hitched ourselves too for other reasons? No debate there, we should and we will, But, and it is a big BUT, we need to make the change with considered forethought or we may find we have a bigger problem than we started with. Current technologies aren't the answer, they rely too heavily on rare earths which have high pollution in refining and are in inadequate supply to solve the problem anyway.
This is where the profit incentive will not make the correct decisions for us. Just look at the mess converting corn to ethanol has caused
Like you, I know how to identify problems, but finding solutions that requires more than science