Global warming trap.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFo...ouse_data.html

[/ QUOTE ]
I can confirm that the info on this page is authoritative for several reasons:

1. Trustworthy domain name
2. Last revised: January 10, 2003
3. Kick-ass spiral binding image at left side of page

[/ QUOTE ]

lol I was a little skeptical at first that page was accurate, but the spiral binding put me over the top, too.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
No, it's actually not. We can measure how much energy comes from the sun very accurately. Why are you posting about something you have no clue about?

[/ QUOTE ]
I debunked this claim in a previous post....
You would make a good MCGW cultists. You fulfill the requirement of making claims (sun's output is constant) without having the data (a minimum of 10,000 years data). If we had the solar output data for the ice age then we could make an educated response. Right now variable sun output is a hypothesis. The only difference between honest scientists and MCGW cultists is honest scientists claim their explanations are hypotheses while MCGW cultists claim their ideas are facts...

[ QUOTE ]
Ice ages are very very likely to be caused by natural long term cycles relating to the Earth's orbit, such as the Milankovitch Cycles.

[/ QUOTE ]
Translation: No one really knows other than these climate changes were causes by NATURAL factors not mankind. And MCGW cultists can NOT rule out natural factors for perceived global warming... As far as anyone knows, the temperture changes we are experiencing today are ALL NATURAL.....

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you please elaborate here? If scientists in the field think its credible data, why don't you? We certainly trust data from experiments in the 1880s all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
If we could go back to 1880 using a time machine, we would need to have outposts throughout the world which measured temperature. Then we would need perfect quality control to insure the process was uniformed. E.g If one is measuring the temperature in Siberia in the winter. Having a thermometer on the outside of a house would invalidate the readings because the warmth of the house would influence the temperature readings. Then with regard to accuracy of the thermometers used, the manufacturing process was not as precise as it is today. Errors of +/- one degree would invalidate the results... Have I made myself clear?

If you have taken a college science class, you would have to provide lab reports which include a methodology section. I would assert the methodology used in 1880 is VASTLY different than the methodology used in 2007. If you want more details, just provide the methodology section to me on these temperature readings from 1880-2007. (Hint you won't be able to because they don't exist)
. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Will you concede man did not cause the ending of the Ice Age? If so then will you concede that mother nature weilds a BIG CLUB with regard to climate?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is anyone arguing to the contrary?

Will you concede that prior to man's discovery of fire ALL forest fires were caused by nature? Does this lead you to conclude that forest fires aren't caused by man today or that because mother nature CAN cause forest fires that mother nature is causing them?

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
but... but... global warming is a new way for the left to seize power... zomg... planet... ahhh

[/ QUOTE ]
Well the Kyoto treaty definately benefits the Chi-Coms and the Indians. They are free to emit as much CO2 as they want to while the USA and other Western nations are required to reduce CO2 emissions. BTW...I read that China is now the biggest emmitter of CO2.

Then there is the carbon credit scam. China has a nice business of selling carbon credits DESPITE being the biggest emitter of CO2. The people that drafted the Kyoto treaty are complete morons...

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFo...ouse_data.html

[/ QUOTE ]
I can confirm that the info on this page is authoritative for several reasons:

1. Trustworthy domain name
2. Last revised: January 10, 2003
3. Kick-ass spiral binding image at left side of page

[/ QUOTE ]

lol I was a little skeptical at first that page was accurate, but the spiral binding put me over the top, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn, i should really read the whole thread before clicking on a link. Here I was getting suckered into going to bizarre fringe sites like the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center and The EPA. Instead I could have just dismissed the page based upon the domain name!

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Will you concede man did not cause the ending of the Ice Age? If so then will you concede that mother nature weilds a BIG CLUB with regard to climate?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is anyone arguing to the contrary?

Will you concede that prior to man's discovery of fire ALL forest fires were caused by nature? Does this lead you to conclude that forest fires aren't caused by man today or that because mother nature CAN cause forest fires that mother nature is causing them?

[/ QUOTE ]

The analogy doesnt work, because man-made fire can be experimentally reproduced in a matter of seconds. Climate change doesnt yet meet that standard.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
Will you concede that prior to man's discovery of fire ALL forest fires were caused by nature? Does this lead you to conclude that forest fires aren't caused by man today or that because mother nature CAN cause forest fires that mother nature is causing them?

[/ QUOTE ]
Your analogy tells me that we can NOT rule out natural causes for fires unless provided evidence to the contrary.

Unlike the global warming cultists, forensic arson investigators can identify the cause of fires with a high degree of accuracy. The difference is arson investgators gather evidence and can prove to a high degree of accuracy of whether a fire was natural or man-caused. The MCGW cultists can NOT make the same claim.... They STILL do not know why the Ice Age started and why it ended. Climatologists can NOT rule out natural factors for major climate shifts...

But I give you points for a clever analogy although I used it to strengthen my point....

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can you please elaborate here? If scientists in the field think its credible data, why don't you? We certainly trust data from experiments in the 1880s all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
If we could go back to 1880 using a time machine, we would need to have outposts throughout the world which measured temperature. Then we would need perfect quality control to insure the process was uniformed. E.g If one is measuring the temperature in Siberia in the winter. Having a thermometer on the outside of a house would invalidate the readings because the warmth of the house would influence the temperature readings. Then with regard to accuracy of the thermometers used, the manufacturing process was not as precise as it is today. Errors of +/- one degree would invalidate the results... Have I made myself clear?

If you have taken a college science class, you would have to provide lab reports which include a methodology section. I would assert the methodology used in 1880 is VASTLY different than the methodology used in 2007. If you want more details, just provide the methodology section to me on these temperature readings from 1880-2007. (Hint you won't be able to because they don't exist)
. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

So what is your overall program here? What quantum of evidence would convince you that something needed to be done about global warming? Would you require an actual time machine to go back and set up the appropriate 1880s monitoring stations, or do we just need another hundred years of hard data?

While skepticism is certainly a healthy position (particularly wrt the more populist GW promoters [Al Gore, I'm looking in your direction...]), you seem to be setting an absurdly high bar for GW proponents to meet. After all, the metaphysical question of whether or not human activities are increasing the Earth's surface temperature by 1 or 2 degrees Celsius is neither interesting nor important. The real question is whether the risk of future climate change justifies present intervention to prevent such change. Even if the evidence of GW was far below any scientific standard of proof, it could easily be worthwhile to take measures immediately, just to ward off the possibility of a catastrophe. It's really really disheartening that so much of the popular discourse on the subject is focused on the dumb question of whether or not GW is really happening and so little on the important question of what ameliorative measures are justified by what we know right now.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
What quantum of evidence would convince you that something needed to be done about global warming? Would you require an actual time machine to go back and set up the appropriate 1880s monitoring stations, or do we just need another hundred years of hard data?

[/ QUOTE ]
Now this is an intelligent question...my compliments.
Short answer....more hard data. And less research that relies on mathematical formulas with variables that have ZERO scientific evidence supporting them. This will take time because we would need a minimum of a thousand years of satellite data measuring the energy output fron the sun. The MCGW cultists will claim we can't wait because then it will be too late. To which I say nonsense. If man has the power to change the climate, then we can reverse the trend....if we chose to. But I think mother nature is the one driving the car....not man. The MCGW cultists have made so many silly claims without proof....they have ZERO credibility with me and I do not care to listen to the their "chicken little" claims that the 'sky is falling".

[ QUOTE ]
While skepticism is certainly a healthy position (particularly wrt the more populist GW promoters [Al Gore, I'm looking in your direction...]), you seem to be setting an absurdly high bar for GW proponents to meet.

[/ QUOTE ]
I expect that the scientific method be followed with no short cuts. Michael Crichton wrote a good speech about previous examples of bad science leading science in bad directions resulting in getting people killed. The title of his speech was designed to mock scientists for abandoning the scientific method.
http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...alwarming.html
Human nature has not changed in 25,000. There is little difference between a witch doctor in Africa who believes his incantations has the power to cause rain than a MCGW cultists who believes man can change the weather. Throughout the history of mankind, there has been a theme where man fantasises he can control nature.... Some things never change...

[ QUOTE ]
It's really really disheartening that so much of the popular discourse on the subject is focused on the dumb question of whether or not GW is really happening and so little on the important question of what ameliorative measures are justified by what we know right now.

[/ QUOTE ]
Get use to it. The MCGW cult has the burden of proof and they have been doing a lousy job in trying to prove their claims. The momentum favors the sceptics who have made inroads mocking many of the absurb claims from the MCGW cult.