cool48 said: Final-Fan said: There is no dispute in the mainstream scientific community that humans are affecting global climate and that the effect is higher temperature. That is where you are wrong: http://www.kafalas.com/urbcol74.htm   It's time we had more respect for science. Collect the data first, then draw the conclusions. In the case of global warming, the data just don't support the conclusion that the Earth's climate is changing in any significant way. The Science & Environmental Policy Project, which circulated a petition against the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, collected the signatures of 17,000 scientists to dispute the conventional wisdom on global warming. Now, I'm certainly not going to argue that the number of signatures, in and of itself, means much -- but what it does suggest is that global warming is not scientific Truth, even if it has become political Truth.

Just to quote the website you pulled up

"The Science & Environmental Policy Project was founded in 1990 by atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer on the premise that sound, credible science must form the basis for health and environmental decisions that affect millions of people and cost tens of billions of dollars every year.

A non-profit, 5013 educational group, its mission was to clarify the diverse problems facing the planet and, where necessary, arrive at effective, cost-conscious solutions.

Over the years, SEPP's authoritative critiques of UN documents used to shore up the Climate Treaty negotiated at the 1992 Rio de Janeiro "Earth Summit" have been widely quoted. Its debunking of NASA's announcement of "record" chlorine in the Arctic stratosphere (the "ozone hole over Kennebunkport") attracted the attention of the press and Congress. The Project has been tapped by both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill for objective, science-based information on global warming, ozone depletion, chemical risk, clean air standards, and other issues. The Project has been cited hundreds of times by the major news media. Articles and editorials by SEPP-affiliated scientists have been published in leading journals and newspapers, including the Wall Street Journal, Miami Herald, Detroit News, Chicago Tribune, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Memphis Commercial-Appeal, Seattle Times, Orange County Register, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, New Straits Times (Malaysia), and Finanz und Wirtschaft (Switzerland), among many others.

Today, with an expanded program of policy and research analysis, and with an international network of scientists working pro bono, SEPP has an impact far greater than its size might suggest. Not surprisingly, Outside magazine, a mainstream environment-oriented publication with some 350,000 subscribers, has lauded SEPP President S. Fred Singer as one of "The Ones to Watch.""

 

Notice a problem here, not one signle legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journal with accompanying data, Just alot of talk and spear shaking at the established scientific community for attention. 

 

Final-Fan said: cool48 said: OnlyIsrael said: cool48 said: OnlyIsrael said: @cool So, you're saying that your personal beliefs can alter peer reviewed data obtained through the scientific method that has been scrutinized by hundreds of college educated experts on the topic? Yes obviously, I am not a robot I will not believe some other people that claim that Global Warming is going to kill us and go against what I think is the truth. I want to be absolutely clear on this so I don't and am not misunderstanding you. You assert that your pesonal beliefs on specific physical data has the ability to alter said data? No I'm saying that my beliefs allow me to choose what I think is true and believe whichever data I want too. I don't think we're really disagreeing here just maybe not understanding eachother correctly, all I'm saying is that I won't believe everything that is said out there. I am the first one to say that Wikipedia is not completely trustworthy, but check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_dissenting_organizations "...no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate." What about that data?

And why did you choose Wikipedia over my source?

I'll tell you why it is because that is what you really believe not what 17 000 other scientists believe. That's what I'm trying to explain to you guys. We obviously have to listen to what everyone around us has to say but we can't always think what everyone tells us we have to learn to make our own choices and believe what really want to believe

cool48 said: Final-Fan said: That is where you are wrong: http://www.kafalas.com/urbcol74.htm   It's time we had more respect for science. Collect the data first, then draw the conclusions. In the case of global warming, the data just don't support the conclusion that the Earth's climate is changing in any significant way. The Science & Environmental Policy Project, which circulated a petition against the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, collected the signatures of 17,000 scientists to dispute the conventional wisdom on global warming. Now, I'm certainly not going to argue that the number of signatures, in and of itself, means much -- but what it does suggest is that global warming is not scientific Truth, even if it has become political Truth.

 

Have you actually poked around that site? The whole thing is a hack job politically motivated anti environmental movement. And one with poor spelling I might add. Those guys have slightly less credibility than the swift boat veterans for truth.

stof said: @ shams. Its the Internet. Full of Global warming and Lunar landing doubters and Ron Paul supporters. As for everyone in this thread arguing on the side of sanity. Give it up. If someone still doesn't believe in human caused climate change, they're not going to no matter how it's explained. They've given up on reason far too long ago.

 I suppose this is the more rational approach and am now adopting it in regards to this thread

from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine :

"When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names."

Paging Dr. M*A*S*H, Global Warming is here to see you.

cool48 said: You mean if 10 000 000 scientists would tell you that pigs can fly you would believe them??? The problem with people is that they listen to whatever they're told they're followers. The reason we we're able to invent stuff and not just act like animals is because wealways had the ability to think and come to our own conclusions. I will not listen to scientists or Al Gore simply because of there title.

 

 So go ahead and do that. Ignore what your doctor, vet and any other medical or scientific expert tells you. They are all scientists with titles after all.

You must instinctively knows what correct and incorrect and would never make an incorrect decision while lacking any valid information. Heck, we should all do this, I'll go down to my barber tomorrow and have him bleed me to get my humors back in balance, those evil spirits that came up from some swamp gas have me feeling a bit under the weather.

 

Final-Fan said: from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine : "When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names." Paging Dr. M*A*S*H, Global Warming is here to see you.

I feel stupid because I did not understand that at all, however I do like that you are researching a lot to prove your point.

Well as much as I like to argue about this stuff it's getting late and I have to go.

I just wanted to say that I do believe we polute to much and that we do have to stop, heck if I see garbage lying on the ground I'll pick it up, even when I'm with my friend and they throw crap on the ground I'll still pick it up.

Where I do not agree is that I will not listen to Al Gore who tells us to stop polluting but then turns around, makes millions out of his videos, accepts awards (for himself) and uses 10x more energy than the average american home. That is what you call a hypocrite.

G'night. 

cool48 said: Final-Fan said: cool48 said: OnlyIsrael said: cool48 said: OnlyIsrael said: @cool So, you're saying that your personal beliefs can alter peer reviewed data obtained through the scientific method that has been scrutinized by hundreds of college educated experts on the topic? Yes obviously, I am not a robot I will not believe some other people that claim that Global Warming is going to kill us and go against what I think is the truth. I want to be absolutely clear on this so I don't and am not misunderstanding you. You assert that your pesonal beliefs on specific physical data has the ability to alter said data? No I'm saying that my beliefs allow me to choose what I think is true and believe whichever data I want too. I don't think we're really disagreeing here just maybe not understanding eachother correctly, all I'm saying is that I won't believe everything that is said out there. I am the first one to say that Wikipedia is not completely trustworthy, but check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_dissenting_organizations "...no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate." What about that data? And why did you choose Wikipedia over my source? I'll tell you why it is because that is what you really believe not what 17 000 other scientists believe. That's what I'm trying to explain to you guys. We obviously have to listen to what everyone around us has to say but we can't always think what everyone tells us we have to learn to make our own choices and believe what really want to believe

When I said "not completely trustworthy", I meant that the site sometimes gets vandalized or slightly biased. This is a pretty comprehensive and well-sourced list and with an issue as well-known as global warming I can guarantee that people from both sides of the issue are watching like hawks for FUD to kill.

As for why I don't trust your site, it's because it's a joke. See stof and my post for details, as well as "When you look at real temperature data for the 20th century as a whole, there isn't much evidence that the Earth's climate has warmed more than about one degree Fahrenheit."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Final-Fan said:

edit: random internet citations vs. peer reviewed academia. No accountability FTW!