Global warming trap.

[old dogg]

Not denying that climate change is not happening,just that the cause is not proven. We should not panic and jump the gun to fix the problem when its not known what it will take to fix it or if it can be fixed. By rushing in all we may do is cause a whole new set of problems.
Also there are people like Al Gore ( he`s not the only one) who take a science issue and turn it into a political issue, this is just plain wrong and does nothing but to divide people.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
You are a shining example to the reader of the silliness, ignorance, and closed-mindedness of those politically driven to attack global warming not with scientific arguments, but rather from uninformed pseudo-science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmm.....silliness, ignorant, and close-minded. Gee I have the trifecta.
<Sigh> Based on your alledged PhD in engineering, I thought you might have a freshman understanding of science. The man-cause global-warming sceptics don't have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the MCGW cultists. The MCGW cultists have been properly criticize for:
1. Shoddy research
2. Falsified research
3. Making outrageous claims without evidence to back up their assertions.

My favorite example of a MCGW cultists is Michael Mann and his hockey stick graph. He publish the results of his tree-ring thermometer research, got busted modifying the data ommitting the medievil warming period, then claimed this data was properly modified using mathematical "algorytms". Then he refused to release these mysterious algorythms in his methodology. My father has a PhD in chemistry and he said not submitting a complete methodogy would be grounds for rejecting research out-of-hand. What good is a methodology section if it does not include the information necessary to replicate the experiment....

Michael Mann will NEVER release the mysterious algorythms because then it will confirm the allegations he is a man-causes global warming fraud.... I suspect he is just the tip of the iceberg... There is a lot of govt money available for those who will say man causes global warming...

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would assert its not. I have a PhD in engineering with considerable experimental experience.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh? Please post the methodology used in the 1880-2007 temperture readings. I look forward to perusing them. How exciting! I can wait to read this. Sorry...I mistakenly thought these did not exist. I will await this post with great anticipation! I am particularly interested whether the methodology in 1880 is the same as 2007.

BTW what does your educational background have to do regarding the existence of this methodology?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. YOU were the one who dismissed all the data out of hand as unreliable. I don't need to post why I think temp readings are credible. Since experts in the field who have studied this area their whole lives have never to my knowledge shown this data to be consistently erroneous in some biased direction (you see, it doesn't just have to vary, it all has to vary in the same direction to change averages), then I'll accept it until someone shows it to be unreliable. If those who are experts in this field find it credible, YOU should provide some rationale and data to show it isn't, if that's your assertion.

But of course, this is all a waste of time. You can't provide any rationale to dismissing all this data other than it conflicts with whatever agenda you want to advocate. If this same data showed that global warming was not occurring, you'd be first in line throwing this data in your threads and screaming it's validity. This bias is laughably obvious.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would assert the methodology used in 1880 is VASTLY different than the methodology used in 2007.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would assert its not.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should quit this thread after this post, your credibility is gone.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would assert the methodology used in 1880 is VASTLY different than the methodology used in 2007.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would assert its not.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should quit this thread after this post, your credibility is gone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I am merely asserting that I have no reason to doubt the experts in the field. And on toip of that, the process of taking temperature readings isn't complicated enough to be "VASTLY" different between eras. If that's cause to ruin my credibility, so be it.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
Lol. YOU were the one who dismissed all the data out of hand as unreliable. I don't need to post why I think temp readings are credible. Since experts in the field who have studied this area their whole lives have never to my knowledge shown this data to be consistently erroneous in some biased direction (you see, it doesn't just have to vary, it all has to vary in the same direction to change averages), then I'll accept it until someone shows it to be unreliable. If those who are experts in this field find it credible, YOU should provide some rationale and data to show it isn't, if that's your assertion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again the burden of proof is on those claiming the accuracy of temperture readings in 1880 are accurate enough to based scientific observations upon. I have nothing to prove. It is self-evident the scientific methodologies in 1880 are inferior to those of today (except of those of MCGW cultists). It is also self-evident that thermometers are more accurate today than they were in 1880. In Michael Mann's 'research', he used studied the gowth rings of trees to estimate tempertures back in the 1500s. I find his methodology laughable since there is no way to know with any certainty that this methodology is any good.

The MCGW cultists only have a tiny percentage of data and yet they make outlandish claims that man is causing the earth to warmth. Like all religions, faith is a requirement. At like all religions and cults, the MCGW crowd relies on faith since they don't have the data necessary to based their opinions on science....