-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Global Warming Happy Fun-Time
- Thread starter Angel of Ioren
- Start date
Free episodes:
P
pixelsmith
Guest
methane is a GHG we should be more concerned about rather than CO2 which is required for life on earth. but you cant demonize humans for farting too much because it is too funny to talk about.
Snidely Whiplash
Paranormal Maven
"Global Warming Happy Fun-Time" how apropos.
Muadib
Paranormal Adept
LOL. You did exactly what I predicted you would do. You can't attack the science so you attack the guy who runs IPCC and you have the balls to sit there and say you're scientific? YOU HAVEN'T POSTED ONE DECENT PIECE OF SCIENCE IN THIS ENTIRE ARGUMENT. I put that in caps because I think you have a serious problem with reading comprehension. You keep throwing out BS and saying "we're at loggerheads about the science" More BS. Nobody but you and your retarded band of global warming deniers is disputing any of the multiple decades of research and science behind the fact of AGW. All you continue to do is talk about the guy who runs the IPCC exactly like I knew you would, you fail. The fact that he writes porn is just as irrelevant today as it was yesterday. Grow up and realize that politics and science are, in fact, two different things. You've been so thoroughly handled on the scientific side of this argument that all you can do is throw BS around. Your entire argument is based on your faith that there's a conspiracy and your lack of faith in one guy who runs the IPCC, like that's supposed to invalidate the science. You've presented no new data and no alternative model to explain the decades of global warming data, just like every other global warming denier you have absolutely no case whatsoever. The fact that you're deluded enough to call yourself scientific after all this is just the icing on the cake of your delusions.
Muadib
Paranormal Adept
QFE. The problem is he has no real scientific facts or arguments to back up his position, it was debunked and destroyed a long time ago, so he has to talk about politics and how he's light years ahead of everyone else. Anyone who reads this debate can see right through his BS, no science, no alternative model that fits the data, just talk about the IPCC and how the guy writes porn.
Muadib
Paranormal Adept
I just can't stop laughing about the stupid porn crap he keeps bringing up, like if Einstein was alive today and he wrote some kind of porn novel, that would invalidate his theory of relativity. Keep dreaming you right wing moral crusader you. Nothing but gut based reactions and damn the data and science. What a joke.
Muadib
Paranormal Adept
This is the biggest red herring of them all. What good is your supposed 12 years of research if it's led you to the retarded, erroneous position that you take today? In 10 years, I'll still be able to tell the difference between what is politics and what is actual science. You could study this thing for 100 years and if you were still spouting the same political crap with absolutely zero science to back up your position it wouldn't impress me in the least. Just like it doesn't impress me one bit right now, today, in 2012. You are still dead wrong, and you can't provide any scientific data or models to prove that you aren't. Case closed.
Muadib
Paranormal Adept
I'd just like to post an article I found on a blog that I thought was relevant to this debate, it shows why Pixel's argument is a flawed piece of garbage and why he can't find any peer reviewed science to back up his position: It doesn't exist anymore. I'll highlight some relevant sections. This will probably be the last article I post because at this point it's apparent that Pixel's faith in his erroneous conclusions and the god of AGW denial won't allow him to change his position, y'know, like a real scientific minded person would do with mounds of data that contradicts their views. Just further proof that while he says everyone who doesn't agree with him on this subject is part of some religious belief system, it's actually the opposite that's true. Just like his claim that we're unscientific, once again, the opposite is true. Strike that, I wouldn't even compliment him by saying he's unscientific, he's political, which is even worse. Anyway this will explain why he can't find any real science data to back up his argument, even when I gave him the name of 3 or 4 databases of science literature to look through, he cant find anything that supports his position and that's all you need to know if you pride yourself on being scientific, something which our friend Pixel is clearly not.
Science in modern times is generally done through a process known as peer review. There are a variety of journals for each field with very strict barriers to publication. In any scientific field, performing original research which yields a completely novel conclusion is the primary way that scientists gain prestige and recognition, and the way that scientific knowledge is advanced. Any time our understanding of the world changes in any significant way, you can expect to find a citation of the primary research as published in a mainstream scientific journal.
For instance, Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity was first released in the form of the paper “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” in the German journal Annalen der Physik. The groundwork for some of the basic protocols of the internet was laid out in Vinton Cerf’s 1974 paper, “A Protocol for Packet Network Intercommunication”, in the journal of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. You get the idea — ideas are regarded as significant only once they are published in journals significant to the field.
The reason the barriers to publication are strict is because, well, science isn’t blogging. It is highly competitive. When I say that it is peer reviewed, what I mean is that each paper is passed through a multi-stage process where anonymous experts in the same field will read the paper thoroughly and look for reasons why it isn’t good enough to publish. These reasons might include:
countryworld.
This may seem a little long winded, but I’m explaining it in order to give context to this information:
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The short answer to your question is that in the scientific literature on Earth Science and Climatology, peer-reviewed publications on the subject don’t just lean towards Global Warming as a reality; it is overwhelmingly one sided in that direction. The journals support it. Numerous major coalitions of scientists in related fields have issued statements indicating unanimous support for it. You can read all the details in that linked article. Of course, since it’s a Wikipedia article you don’t have to assume it’s true, but you should read the overview and then follow up on the linked references for backing.
The reason I wanted to explain the peer review process is because without this understanding, it’s easy for a layman to dismiss a consensus like that as “argument from authority,” but that’s not the case. Like all disciplines, gaining a thorough understanding of the fields of geology and climatology requires many years of education and specialized training, and most people like you and me simply don’t have that background. So, the way that we get an understanding of the state of scientific knowledge is by surveying the peer-reviewed literature. The preponderance of published papers tend to be on the side that is supported by research, data and evidence.
That doesn’t mean that we take the words of those scientists on “faith.” Because the system is transparent, if this issue is important to you then you’re more than welcome to participate in the educational process, perform your own research, and win a Nobel Prize by overturning the consensus view through new research. But as a layman, you should at least recognize and understand that lots of people are already trying to do that, and as far as the peer review process is concerned, this has been a settled question for quite a while now.
I’d also like to point out that trying to pin the science entirely at the feet of one guy like Al Gore (or the guy who runs IPCC or CRU) is a means of trivializing and dismissing the thousands of scientists who actually performed the original research. Al Gore didn’t invent GW any more than he invented the internet. (Actually, he never claimed to have invented the internet either, but that’s a separate lie.) Al Gore’s role has been to popularize the science.
In that sense, he’s more like… let’s see… Morgan Freeman in March of the Penguins. If you were some kind of anti-penguin person, you could spend a lot of the time attacking the movie and its conclusions by digging up dirt on Morgan Freeman. But ultimately, the movie rests on the work that thousands of zoologists did learning about penguin mating habits, and Morgan Freeman’s contributions to the work as a whole are more or less trivial. When somebody attacks Global Warming by calling Al Gore a liar, to me that is a primary indicator that the person has not done even the most basic research on the topic.
If you’d like to review the research that supports Global Warming, and presentations by a public figure like Al Gore upset you, you would do well to disregard popularized explanations and go straight to the research papers. You can start by browsing Google Scholar, which aggregates professional papers:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=climate+change
has about two million of them, so that could keep you busy for a while.
If you need summaries, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has a good overview of the basics at:
AR4 SYR Synthesis Report
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as well:
NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries
I also find this page fairly helpful (though it is, distinctly, an advocacy page):
10 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Science in modern times is generally done through a process known as peer review. There are a variety of journals for each field with very strict barriers to publication. In any scientific field, performing original research which yields a completely novel conclusion is the primary way that scientists gain prestige and recognition, and the way that scientific knowledge is advanced. Any time our understanding of the world changes in any significant way, you can expect to find a citation of the primary research as published in a mainstream scientific journal.
For instance, Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity was first released in the form of the paper “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” in the German journal Annalen der Physik. The groundwork for some of the basic protocols of the internet was laid out in Vinton Cerf’s 1974 paper, “A Protocol for Packet Network Intercommunication”, in the journal of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. You get the idea — ideas are regarded as significant only once they are published in journals significant to the field.
The reason the barriers to publication are strict is because, well, science isn’t blogging. It is highly competitive. When I say that it is peer reviewed, what I mean is that each paper is passed through a multi-stage process where anonymous experts in the same field will read the paper thoroughly and look for reasons why it isn’t good enough to publish. These reasons might include:
- Lack of original research
- Use of outdated information
- Flawed methodology
- Incorrect analysis of the data
- Failure to fully document all methods and relevant information
- All of these are hallmarks of global warming denial arguments, which is why they have no published, peer reviewed scientific articles to present
This may seem a little long winded, but I’m explaining it in order to give context to this information:
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth’s climate system is unequivocally warming and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. This scientific consensus is expressed insynthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.
Also:No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion.
The short answer to your question is that in the scientific literature on Earth Science and Climatology, peer-reviewed publications on the subject don’t just lean towards Global Warming as a reality; it is overwhelmingly one sided in that direction. The journals support it. Numerous major coalitions of scientists in related fields have issued statements indicating unanimous support for it. You can read all the details in that linked article. Of course, since it’s a Wikipedia article you don’t have to assume it’s true, but you should read the overview and then follow up on the linked references for backing.
The reason I wanted to explain the peer review process is because without this understanding, it’s easy for a layman to dismiss a consensus like that as “argument from authority,” but that’s not the case. Like all disciplines, gaining a thorough understanding of the fields of geology and climatology requires many years of education and specialized training, and most people like you and me simply don’t have that background. So, the way that we get an understanding of the state of scientific knowledge is by surveying the peer-reviewed literature. The preponderance of published papers tend to be on the side that is supported by research, data and evidence.
That doesn’t mean that we take the words of those scientists on “faith.” Because the system is transparent, if this issue is important to you then you’re more than welcome to participate in the educational process, perform your own research, and win a Nobel Prize by overturning the consensus view through new research. But as a layman, you should at least recognize and understand that lots of people are already trying to do that, and as far as the peer review process is concerned, this has been a settled question for quite a while now.
I’d also like to point out that trying to pin the science entirely at the feet of one guy like Al Gore (or the guy who runs IPCC or CRU) is a means of trivializing and dismissing the thousands of scientists who actually performed the original research. Al Gore didn’t invent GW any more than he invented the internet. (Actually, he never claimed to have invented the internet either, but that’s a separate lie.) Al Gore’s role has been to popularize the science.
In that sense, he’s more like… let’s see… Morgan Freeman in March of the Penguins. If you were some kind of anti-penguin person, you could spend a lot of the time attacking the movie and its conclusions by digging up dirt on Morgan Freeman. But ultimately, the movie rests on the work that thousands of zoologists did learning about penguin mating habits, and Morgan Freeman’s contributions to the work as a whole are more or less trivial. When somebody attacks Global Warming by calling Al Gore a liar, to me that is a primary indicator that the person has not done even the most basic research on the topic.
If you’d like to review the research that supports Global Warming, and presentations by a public figure like Al Gore upset you, you would do well to disregard popularized explanations and go straight to the research papers. You can start by browsing Google Scholar, which aggregates professional papers:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=climate+change
has about two million of them, so that could keep you busy for a while.
If you need summaries, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has a good overview of the basics at:
AR4 SYR Synthesis Report
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as well:
NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries
I also find this page fairly helpful (though it is, distinctly, an advocacy page):
10 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Angel of Ioren
Friendly Skeptic
Interestingly, Einstein was a bit of a perv.
Albert Einstein, sex-fiend - Boing Boing
I guess that means relativity is wrong - back to the drawing board folks!
Muadib
Paranormal Adept
ROFL! So in Pixel's eyes, if we apply the same "logic" (quotes because it's nothing of the sort) then the 100's of experiments, all the peer reviewed papers and decades of research that have proven relativity right are now invalid because Einstein was a sex freak. Lmfao. Guess we need to rewrite the physics books. What an asinine way of thinking, the fact that he calls that scientific is blatantly fraudulent, not to mention offensive.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
yes i did. you didnt read it. duh.
Muadib
Paranormal Adept
What a total disappointment this has been. I predicted it would be exactly that, but still, this guy Pixel builds himself up as a fount of scientific knowledge on the subject, yet he makes the same retarded rookie mistakes that every global warming denier makes every single time. 12 years of research my ass. I'd be surprised if he researched this subject for more than the two hours it took him to listen to 'insert crazy conspiracy crackpot radio show host here' He really hyped himself up, both on the forums and in PM's to me as 'the guy to talk to' about global warming, yet when I asked him to do a simple thing like sum up his position and post some science to back up his claims, he's either unable or he simply refuses to do so. Nothing but a bunch of hot air and bullshit imo.
His so called scientific theories and vast knowledge of global warming simply don't stand up to the light of real science. His refusal to change his retarded position when faced with the mountains of facts and evidence of AGW goes to show that, as I've said before, this is nothing more than a belief system that he's bought into, hook line and sinker. I've had more intelligent arguments with fundamentalist Christians trying to defend the existence of God. At least they were honest that they were coming from a position of belief and faith, rather than trying to lie about all the facts and scientific data they've accumulated, then refusing to post any of it. Not to mention the stupid assertions about how I just have to dig a little more and I'll suddenly find the smoking gun that will bring me around to his crazy "it's all a big conspiracy maaaaaan" position. In the future, if you're going to try and argue something from a scientific perspective, save the bullshit and bring some facts, it'll go a long way toward helping your cause. Or just don't open your mouth in the first place, I mean it only took me about 10 minutes total to refute the crap you put forward, but I could've spent that 10 minutes jerking off to the IPCC guys porn novel and it would've been time better spent.
His so called scientific theories and vast knowledge of global warming simply don't stand up to the light of real science. His refusal to change his retarded position when faced with the mountains of facts and evidence of AGW goes to show that, as I've said before, this is nothing more than a belief system that he's bought into, hook line and sinker. I've had more intelligent arguments with fundamentalist Christians trying to defend the existence of God. At least they were honest that they were coming from a position of belief and faith, rather than trying to lie about all the facts and scientific data they've accumulated, then refusing to post any of it. Not to mention the stupid assertions about how I just have to dig a little more and I'll suddenly find the smoking gun that will bring me around to his crazy "it's all a big conspiracy maaaaaan" position. In the future, if you're going to try and argue something from a scientific perspective, save the bullshit and bring some facts, it'll go a long way toward helping your cause. Or just don't open your mouth in the first place, I mean it only took me about 10 minutes total to refute the crap you put forward, but I could've spent that 10 minutes jerking off to the IPCC guys porn novel and it would've been time better spent.
Muadib
Paranormal Adept
I said real scientific facts, not the crap you post from oil employees and political think tanks. Peer reviewed, scientific facts. Where are they? I've yet to see any. Feel free to re post them, I'm not going back to look at crap that's already been thrown out by real researchers and scientists.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
and the crap you post is ok?.. i have yet to see anything at all posted by you that has not been thrown out by REAL scientists. your peer reviewed crap has been discredited because of the controlled peer review process that was ADMITTED to by your scientists at IPCC. this is no secret except to you i guess.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
maybe you can try to post something from real scientists not involved with the nearly disbanded bunch of con men at the IPCC.
Angel of Ioren
Friendly Skeptic
Pixel, this is what is frustrating about any kind of discussion with you on a topic that you think you know anything about. When someone posts anything that contradicts your thoughts on it, you refute it by basically calling a conspiracy.
An article from a reputable science journal? CONSPIRACY!!!!!
Something from a political think tank (like the Heartland Institute)? The truth.
How does that make any sense? Please step back and think about it, okay?
Muadib
Paranormal Adept
Prove that it's been thrown out and discredited by the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, not your bullshit think tanks and right wing conspiracy websites. The peer review process is only controlled in that it throws out bullshit that doesn't pass muster, y'know, like everything you've posted on this issue. Bullshit that was tossed years ago and isn't even a consideration amongst real scientists. That's why you can't find a single peer reviewed piece of science that supports your position, they don't exist anymore because crap like that doesn't make it into journals because it doesn't pass muster with real scientists from around the globe. In other words, it's total and utter bullshit, like your entire argument. All politics and no science. Keep up the faith bro.
Muadib
Paranormal Adept
This is why the crap you spew doesn't make it into journals, these are the "controls" of the peer review process that you now so disdain, even though in the beginning of this farce you specifically said you wanted peer reviewed scientific proof, now you have it and because it doesn't support your position, it's garbage. You'd rather talk about the guy who runs IPCC and porn all day, like that has anything to do with science.
- Lack of original research
- Use of outdated information
- Flawed methodology
- Incorrect analysis of the data
- Failure to fully document all methods and relevant information
- I'd like to add to this in saying that if the IPCC and every other scientist from every other country on the planet that agrees AGW is a fact is wrong, the only way you could prove it would be to come up with data that supports your conclusion and an alternative model to explain said data. You would be a star in the scientific community if you could do this, the world would owe you a debt of gratitude, nobody wants this to be true, but it is and the science proves it. Unless you think you can prove otherwise, I'll be waiting.