Global Warming?

[EE_Bota]

Having a group that mixes religion, and politics and discounts science is just plain ignorant. That is how you get the Paul Ryan's of the world believing in the magic woman's response to rape.
If you look up the Republican response to global warming 10 years ago before the Koch brothers bought them all off, they were the ones that put forward the carbon credit ideas.
Heat is power, and the heat at the equator wants to go to the north and the cold north wants to move south, the hotter the water at the equator the bigger the storms will be.That includes hurricanes, any big storm, and tornado's.
I believe everyone should have a space on their tax form, saying they do not believe in global warming, then if their property is damaged, they do not expect any help, it must be GOD's will.

Heat is power?

 

[TCJatko]

Having a group that mixes religion, and politics and discounts science is just plain ignorant. That is how you get the Paul Ryan's of the world believing in the magic woman's response to rape.
If you look up the Republican response to global warming 10 years ago before the Koch brothers bought them all off, they were the ones that put forward the carbon credit ideas.
Heat is power, and the heat at the equator wants to go to the north and the cold north wants to move south, the hotter the water at the equator the bigger the storms will be.That includes hurricanes, any big storm, and tornado's.
I believe everyone should have a space on their tax form, saying they do not believe in global warming, then if their property is damaged, they do not expect any help, it must be GOD's will.

You sir, are living proof of the dumbing down of America.

 

[EE_Bota]

You sir, are living proof of the dumbing down of America.

Cheer up, he's Canadian!

 

[turnkey4099]

Heat is power?

Well "heat" is the only way we have found to make useable "power"yet...other than water, wind and solar power of course.
When it comes to climate, heat is what drives the weather.

Harry K

 

[IslandTractor]

Ah yes. "Skeptical" Science, an oxymoron. The place where posts putting them in a bad light are deleted, censored, edited and past threads are "altered" to fit the narrative. If people follow your advice they should probably save the page because it may change or disappear the next time. Evidence available upon request.

John Cook is, how shall I say this......less than honest.

Well IslandTractor, I have been following this whole global warming charade since 1988 and even bought into it for a good 15 or so years. I began questioning the "experts" around 2003 when their predictions weren't materializing. My eyes were opened wide when the hockey stick debacle was first exposed in 2005 and the political cover given to Michael Mann. Didn't Climategate teach you anything?

So far from what I can see is all you've offered are Appeals to Authority and other logical fallacies, in addition to ad hominem attacks.

Skeptical science is hardly an oxymoron. Skepticism done honestly is a core feature of scientific endeavor. Check your definitions. Where are the appeals to authority? Are you referring to the well documented and referenced IPCC papers? If so you have a very odd perception of what scientific review and consensus position papers are. Do you also reject similar documents from the Institute of Medicine or other scientific bodies? Are the only reliable sources you trust non scientists posting unsubstantiated opinions on blogs?

I have only read the skepticalscience website for a month or two. I haven't seen serious posts deleted. They do delete nana nana bubu type posts but most of the discussion threads are pretty serious and debate specific science papers in detail rather than the type of crap that many TBN "skeptics" seem to find on dittohead blogs. I don't believe we have seen a skeptic here post any link to any science paper or professional quality skeptical review in the past several months. Just a lot of huffing and puffing with zero backup.. Oh, I forgot they have posted a few things from the Daily Mail rag (I recall Cat discovered that one) or some equally inane link posted by Top a couple of weeks ago even though he never read the paper (which directly contradicted his point). The essential problem seems to be that none of the so called skeptics here have any background in science and are purely motivated by their political views. They find blogs that post and repost discredited information but they literally never read or reference an actual study with methods and discussion. Houston for example is a retired coastie NCO (so he has done good things in the past) with apparently no science training at all who blithely states all the questions in climate science regarding AGW have been definitively resolved in his favor. There are real skeptics out there somewhere who understand the science but we haven't seen any on this thread in months.

 

[EE_Bota]

Skeptical science is hardly an oxymoron. Skepticism done honestly is a core feature of scientific endeavor. Check your definitions. Where are the appeals to authority? Are you referring to the well documented and referenced IPCC papers? If so you have a very odd perception of what scientific review and consensus position papers are. Do you also reject similar documents from the Institute of Medicine or other scientific bodies? Are the only reliable sources you trust non scientists posting unsubstantiated opinions on blogs?

I have only read the skepticalscience website for a month or two. I haven't seen serious posts deleted. They do delete nana nana bubu type posts but most of the discussion threads are pretty serious and debate specific science papers in detail rather than the type of crap that many TBN "skeptics" seem to find on dittohead blogs. I don't believe we have seen a skeptic here post any link to any science paper or professional quality skeptical review in the past several months. Just a lot of huffing and puffing with zero backup.. Oh, I forgot they have posted a few things from the Daily Mail rag (I recall Cat discovered that one) or some equally inane link posted by Top a couple of weeks ago even though he never read the paper (which directly contradicted his point). The essential problem seems to be that none of the so called skeptics here have any background in science and are purely motivated by their political views. They find blogs that post and repost discredited information but they literally never read or reference an actual study with methods and discussion. Houston for example is a retired coastie NCO (so he has done good things in the past) with apparently no science training at all who blithely states all the questions in climate science regarding AGW have been definitively resolved in his favor. There are real skeptics out there somewhere who understand the science but we haven't seen any on this thread in months.

Including you, of course, since you are supposed to be skeptical as well.

I do have a bit of a background in science, but it is mostly the wrong sort of science for climate science interpretation.

 

[madmax12]

Cheer up, he's Canadian!

That's funny!

 

[houstonscott]

So let me get this into a few words; The earth is either warming or cooling (but always cooling in the vacuum of space). You have chosen to believe from data complied by people who have admitted faking the data that the earth is warming. (real data shows no warming in last 16 years) Now on top of all that you claim that man is accelerating this process because you have proven science that mans production of CO2 is causing this process to accelerate. And after all that you want people to believe that limiting CO2 productions by one country will solve this and slow down this process so we can all live happily ever after, if we just do what you tell us. Yes some are just useful idiots. Think about what you really believe when put into simple english.

HS

 

[IslandTractor]

Including you, of course, since you are supposed to be skeptical as well.

I do have a bit of a background in science, but it is mostly the wrong sort of science for climate science interpretation.

You do not repost outrageous crap from denier blogs so you are not on my dishonor role of deniers. Yes, everyone should be skeptical about believing anything until they have been assured that the data has been verified and repeated or confirmed in some other way. I am convinced by the preponderance of evidence that AGW is real but I remain skeptical regarding best policies to pursue to mitigate the effects. I don't subscribe to the notion that we cannot take any action until the science is irrefutable. That's just my background as a clinician who needs to take action regularly with less than ideal data. We make decisions with best available data.

 

[Gator6x4]

So let me get this into a few words; The earth is either warming or cooling (but always cooling in the vacuum of space). You have chosen to believe from data complied by people who have admitted faking the data that the earth is warming. (real data shows no warming in last 16 years) Now on top of all that you claim that man is accelerating this process because you have proven science that mans production of CO2 is causing this process to accelerate. And after all that you want people to believe that limiting CO2 productions by one country will solve this and slow down this process so we can all live happily ever after, if we just do what you tell us. Yes some are just useful idiots. Think about what you really believe when put into simple english.

HS

Well to be exact more than one country believes Climate Change is occurring and something should be done to limit CO2 output. They signed a document called the Koyto Protocol. The US which for all purposes can be labeled a "Denier" signed the "Protocol" in 1998 but so far has failed to ratify it. The protocol expires in December 2012 so if foot dragging continues for another month and a half the signing question will become a moot one.


Real progress will need to be made to extend the Kyoto Protocol beyond its original expiration date of 31 December 2012. This extension is essential if progress is to be made and business will eventually feel the effects of any such extension as countries and regions enact new carbon regulations in response. In the meantime, carbon regulations will continue to emerge and evolve at the national and sub-national levels.
For a listing of the Nations that have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol to limit or reduce CO2 output review this: List of parties to the Kyoto Protocol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia