Life In 19x19

i am curious on percentage of ppl believing global warming.
if yes..tell me if you think it is due to man made pollution.
I thought that more than 50% ppl shared my belief but i was mildly surprised on the reaction i got on other thread.

Real and man made pollution plays a significant role.

This is a false dichotomy. Not being real does not imply hoax.

Furthermore, it's unclear exactly what we're voting on here. Are we voting whether the Earth has gotten warmer recently? The data is fairly indisputable here. Are we voting on whether we believe it is man-made? Whether we believe it will be catastrophic? Whether we believe it's a serious issue that some hijack for political gain?

One really good source for cutting through a lot of the crap that gets built up around the global warming debate is potholer54's series on climate change. He reads the actual scientific papers and cites his sources. The first two videos cover the scientific evidence and debate (as of 2008, so probably a bit outdated), and the next several address many of the myths that have sprung up around global warming (which seem to linger on a long time).

If you haven't taken a serious look at the evidence yet, these videos are a very accessible introduction.

Global Warming... Yea right. Lets cover some recent news:

Artic Summer 45 days shorter than usual.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/03/unprecedented-july-cold-arctic-sees-shortest-summer-on-record-normally-the-high-arctic-has-about-90-days-above-freezing-this-year-there-was-less-than-half-that/
http://iceagenow.info/2013/08/unprecedented-july-cold-arctic-sees-shortest-summer-record/
http://conservativehideout.com/2013/08/04/uh-oh-arctic-has-record-short-summer-must-be-because-of-global-warming/

Arctic Ice Growing at exponential rate:
2013
http://guardianlv.com/2013/09/arctic-ice-cap-growing-at-tremendous-rate/
60% Growth http://sweetness-light.com/archive/predictions-off-arctic-ice-cap-grew-60-this-year
2012
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/
Excerpt:

So in a world that is warming up how is this possible? Other than red herring theoretical excuses
that are completely made up by scientist who have put their reputation on the line in saying
that global warming is occurring.

Earth is Actually Cooling:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/breaking-news-climate-cha_b_2994164.html
Excerpt:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/claim-global-cooling-not-warming-is-earths-coming-threat/article/2533902
"Like most major climate events, the past sea level rise was caused by the Sun and had little or nothing to do with mankind's industrial greenhouse gas emissions. Now that the Sun has entered a state of 'solar hibernation' and is cutting back on the energy by which it warms the Earth, a new and potentially dangerous decades-long drop in global temperatures has begun. The atmosphere and the oceans are cooling rapidly. Along with this next climate change to one of extreme global cooling, the oceans will contract, and sea levels will begin to drop as they always do during extended cold climates."


Therefore with 15 minutes of research I have overturned the last three decades of global warming advocates.

Uzziel wrote:Therefore with 15 minutes of research I have overturned the last three decades of global warming advocates.

I am rather amazed at this kind of statement.

How does a person think that they can do 15 minuted of layman googling and somehow overturn a scientific consensus that is built upon millions of hours of research by thousands of people that spent years to become experts.

It's like saying: I just learned go and am 20 kyu, and although all the professionals say this corner is dead, I have just looked at it for a few minutes and concluded it is alive.

HermanHiddema wrote:

Uzziel wrote:Therefore with 15 minutes of research I have overturned the last three decades of global warming advocates.

I am rather amazed at this kind of statement.

How does a person think that they can do 15 minuted of layman googling and somehow overturn a scientific consensus that is built upon millions of hours of research by thousands of people that spent years to become experts.

It's like saying: I just learned go and am 20 kyu, and although all the professionals say this corner is dead, I have just looked at it for a few minutes and concluded it is alive.

Because I am just finding what other "Scientist" are saying.

You see I am debating with "Evidence" and not my "Own" Personal statements or knowledge.

This is how I can make a statement as such.

Also considering the layman googling... What is that supposed to mean anyway?
Is there such a thing as a Professional Googler?
Does being a scientist make them a Scientific Googler?

Also per your example... If a 20kyu had a bunch of sources of evidence stating that corner was alive (from pros) with some
amateur saying it was dead. Would you discredit the 20 kyu for being 20 kyu?

Or

Would you read the evidence? That led the 20 kyu to form his opinion (based on pros literature) that the corner was alive?

Surely the corner may be dead, but being an amateur (even if you are greater than 20 kyu) gives
you no reason to invalidate what pros say.

Correct?

Magicwand wrote:i am curious on percentage of ppl believing global warming.
if yes..tell me if you think it is due to man made pollution.
I thought that more than 50% ppl shared my belief but i was mildly surprised on the reaction i got on other thread.

Dude... climate changed are not a matter of 'opinion'!
You won't get to the truth by polling. Heh...

Uzziel wrote:Global Warming... Yea right. Lets cover some recent news:

Here is what I have for you (Thanks TheBigH, I *love* this gif):

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Sk ... istsv3.gif

Now you know where all the articles you cite come from, and how misleading they are.
Now you can put it to rest and stop talking such nonsense.

Uzziel wrote:Because I am just finding what other "Scientist" are saying.

Well, from what I see you're finding articles by journalists, not by scientists.

Recent research on the literature found 24 peer reviewed scientific papers that do not ascribe global warming to man-made causes out of 13,950 total papers published in the last 20 years.

There simply is no scientific controversy on the issue.

HermanHiddema wrote:

Uzziel wrote:Because I am just finding what other "Scientist" are saying.

Well, from what I see you're finding articles by journalists, not by scientists.

Recent research on the literature found 24 peer reviewed scientific papers that do not ascribe global warming to man-made causes out of 13,950 total papers published in the last 20 years.

There simply is no scientific controversy on the issue.

Where is your evidence is this personal opinion?

Bantari wrote:

Uzziel wrote:Global Warming... Yea right. Lets cover some recent news:

Here is what I have for you (Thanks TheBigH, I *love* this gif):

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Sk ... istsv3.gif

Now you know where all the articles you cite come from, and how misleading they are.
Now you can put it to rest and stop talking such nonsense.

The guardian.
The huffington post.
The Washington Examiner.
Forbes.

Misleading huh?

How about the Climate Nasa scientist Dr. Melissa Tonnennsen. Guess she is misleading too.

So are you saying that Nasa is invalidated?

Evidence please.

Nonsense? Hmm Guess Nasa researchers speak nonsense.

What about meteorlogist Anthony Watts? From the forbes website... nope nope you must think that
is nonsense also.


Waiting for evidence. Not strawmen thanks!

Uzziel wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:

Uzziel wrote:Because I am just finding what other "Scientist" are saying.

Well, from what I see you're finding articles by journalists, not by scientists.

Recent research on the literature found 24 peer reviewed scientific papers that do not ascribe global warming to man-made causes out of 13,950 total papers published in the last 20 years.

There simply is no scientific controversy on the issue.

Where is your evidence is this personal opinion?

I am referring to the literature review done by James Lawrence Powell in 2012. (http://www.jamespowell.org/)

HermanHiddema wrote:

Uzziel wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:
Well, from what I see you're finding articles by journalists, not by scientists.

Recent research on the literature found 24 peer reviewed scientific papers that do not ascribe global warming to man-made causes out of 13,950 total papers published in the last 20 years.

There simply is no scientific controversy on the issue.

Where is your evidence is this personal opinion?

I am referring to the literature review done by James Lawrence Powell in 2012. (http://www.jamespowell.org/)

I completely agree with your source. Climate change is occuring. But as my more recent sources have said (2013 mind you and even a 2012) which specifically state there is no evidence for Global warming but rather global cooling.

My Nasa Climate scientist is also a more qualified source of information compared to "James Lawrence Powell".

Not only are all the articles post dated but one of mine come directly from a Nasa scientist.

You have also done nothing to refute the figures on Ice Growth in the artic area as well.

So you agree to the ice growth indicating no global warming?

Theoretical articles have no standing when it comes to documented fact such as the over growth of ice in 2012 and 2013 indicating a global cooling trend v.s. warming.

Also no scientific controversy?

Again more personal opinion... endless strawmans... you assume lack of scientific controversy but where is the evidence? At this point you are drawing your own conclusions.

Also who is James Lawrence Powell? Why should he be believed? What are his qualifications?

Uzziel wrote:Therefore with 15 minutes of research I have overturned the last three decades of global warming advocates.

Why do you think that scientific consensus has not changed?

Bill Spight wrote:

Uzziel wrote:Therefore with 15 minutes of research I have overturned the last three decades of global warming advocates.

Why do you think that scientific consensus has not changed?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-g ... 94164.html
"We're very embarrassed," said Dr. Melissa Tonnennsen, a climate scientist with NASA, "but we must admit that sign errors do occasionally occur. We normally discover them, but this one slipped by us for over a century. The climate is still changing -- we got that right -- it's just that everything is going in the other direction."

Because scientists thought they were right about global warming using climate changes as evidence for warming. This scientist proves that this assumption was wrong.

Climate change is occurring, but it is not warming as indicated by the scientist.

They should not have used climate change evidence to co-indicate a global warming affect.

This is what she is saying.