This was an eye opener - cont.

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15405718#post15405718 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
yes excelent read...though i fear some people may take his third to last paragraph the wrong way.......

So you agree with the article? That article supports a cautious and moderate approach, as I have been advocating since this thread started.

What is wrong with the third to last paragraph? It demonstrates that global warming can be reduced. I do think that paragraph is a somewhat speculative, but I see no problem with giving a perspective of where we stand when it comes to reducing global warming.

That was written by a NASA climatologist (one of the many scientists you keep referring to). He makes it pretty clear how politicians, media, and the general public have misinterpreted modeling results (as I have said from the beginning).

Now, do you want to refute the claims of this PhD that you have so much faith in?

Scott

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15405631#post15405631 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
yes you have more background in the subje ct than i do, but the experts have more than you! so i should trust you because you know more than i d, when people who no more than you do tell you that your wrong!

Well, now that you have read that article, you can see that both me and the climatologist are telling you the exact same thing. So, you don't have to listen to me anymore, you can listen to him.

The problem is that you get your info from the wrong sources. Instead of going to the horse's mouth (the climatologists), you rely on secondary sources like news articles, politicians, etc. to tell you what to believe.

Scott

 

[jdhuyvetter]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15407508#post15407508 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ScooterTDI

The problem is that you get your info from the wrong sources. Instead of going to the horse's mouth (the climatologists), you rely on secondary sources like news articles, politicians, etc. to tell you what to believe.

Scott

Well put!!!!

 

[stugray]

ctenophors rule

"oh and sorry if i called you an internet climatologist, i thought i was talking to everyone on a whole, which meant you could have been left out sinse you are an actual climatologist but......symantex symantex.

oh, and besides the badge, which i am sure is nice and shiny, what are your credentials....i have a shirt that says "stunt man" but i am actualy a lowely fish store employee."

VERY GOOD! You passed the test!

I was just checking to make sure you didnt fall for the "Well I work at the Laboratory for Atmospheric & Space Physics" as any climatology credentials at all.

Yes it is shiny, but all I do there is help fly spacecraft.
I am not a climatologist, however I do know a lot about how the current fleet of spacecraft get their data to the scientists.

Stu

 

[Superstretch18]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15408189#post15408189 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by stugray
...I do know a lot about how the current fleet of spacecraft get their data to the scientists.

Stu

Illudium space modulator? LOL...

 

[Dingo44]

I read that article you linked Scooter, that pretty much jives with my thoughts on the subject. It seems that opinions from scientists like the one who wrote the article are not reported on as much as alarmist's opinions are. I guess it goes back to the fact that news is ratings driven and crisis sells. It's funny how when it's reallty hot or really cold both sides of the fence will claim that particular day as "proof" of their beleifs when this Dr. points out how GW increases the probability and intensity of extreme hot and cold spurts. That article shows a very level-headed approach to the issue, we don't need to destroy business or go back to the stone age to fix things, just don't be reactionary.

Ctenophor, you completely got that quote I posted wrong. Where did I mention percipitation? I merely presented a fact collected from a UK institution that advocates man made GW. They were surprised with the findings for that particular area. I was pointing out that there is so much conflicting data and how the earth is so damn complex we could never difinitivley say what exactly is going on.

 

[Dingo44]

Rossini, go away.

 

[ScooterTDI]

I feel like we may be getting closer to a consensus here...

I only wish I had found that article 6 pages ago...

Scott

 

[ctenophors rule]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15407508#post15407508 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ScooterTDI
Well, now that you have read that article, you can see that both me and the climatologist are telling you the exact same thing. So, you don't have to listen to me anymore, you can listen to him.

The problem is that you get your info from the wrong sources. Instead of going to the horse's mouth (the climatologists), you rely on secondary sources like news articles, politicians, etc. to tell you what to believe.

Scott

ok, again, you show me an article writen by ione or a group of climatologist...what about the vast majority of his peers that do believe? your refuting many with a few......

 

[ctenophors rule]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15407508#post15407508 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ScooterTDI
Well, now that you have read that article, you can see that both me and the climatologist are telling you the exact same thing. So, you don't have to listen to me anymore, you can listen to him.

The problem is that you get your info from the wrong sources. Instead of going to the horse's mouth (the climatologists), you rely on secondary sources like news articles, politicians, etc. to tell you what to believe.

Scott

ok i will believe your one climatologist over the majority of his peers....that makes perfect sense...and oh when the next climatologist i speak to tells me it isn't real i will believe him, and then the next that tells me that it is real, and so on, until i meet every climatologist and have the final ones answer......

 

[ctenophors rule]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15409458#post15409458 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Dingo44
I read that article you linked Scooter, that pretty much jives with my thoughts on the subject. It seems that opinions from scientists like the one who wrote the article are not reported on as much as alarmist's opinions are. I guess it goes back to the fact that news is ratings driven and crisis sells. It's funny how when it's reallty hot or really cold both sides of the fence will claim that particular day as "proof" of their beleifs when this Dr. points out how GW increases the probability and intensity of extreme hot and cold spurts. That article shows a very level-headed approach to the issue, we don't need to destroy business or go back to the stone age to fix things, just don't be reactionary.

Ctenophor, you completely got that quote I posted wrong. Where did I mention percipitation? I merely presented a fact collected from a UK institution that advocates man made GW. They were surprised with the findings for that particular area. I was pointing out that there is so much conflicting data and how the earth is so damn complex we could never difinitivley say what exactly is going on.

maybe not but we can have a conscensus of the experts believeing in something...and if the majority of experts believe something...who are you to refute them? the can be wrong? *** I could be wrong, you could be wrong everyone here could be wrong....but these are experts,,,,thewy have devoted their entire lives to the study....but because it is a complex thing....they can't be right..or rathr, you know more than they do and it is more likely they will be wrong than you....all those scientist against you....

and still no one has been able to find a credible organisation on par with NAS or AAAS that doesn't support AGW.....so...where are your credible sources.

credibility scale...

top organisations...nas AAas

big buissinesses switching their normal bias/.....exxon

phd winning scientist ....

not for profit organisations.....

the media....

joe shmoes like you and me.....

give me something that gits in the first two...so far i have only gotten the third to first.....but i have supplied the first and second........

 

[Dingo44]

I've got no problem with people who advocate man made GW, I've got a problem when they try to force feed me their solutions, when some solutions will cause more harm than good. I want a clean environment, I grew up in So. California, and when people would litter beaches my friends and I would nearly go to blows until they cleaned up after themselves. I just want it done in a way that keeps our way of life relatively intact.

When people accept what they here on TV with a religious fervor, then we have problems. That article Scooter posted is a great example of how the science gets lost in the translation to media, when the Jeopardy answer was wrong.

 

[Dingo44]

Dude, stop asking the same questions when people have been patiently answering you over and over again. Several people have posted links by experts and we've gone back and forth providing stats on dissenting experts, so quit it already, move on, you're stalling the conversation.

 

[Dingo44]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15410069#post15410069 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
ok i will believe your one climatologist over the majority of his peers....that makes perfect sense...and oh when the next climatologist i speak to tells me it isn't real i will believe him, and then the next that tells me that it is real, and so on, until i meet every climatologist and have the final ones answer......

Oh man... once again the point of the article went flying way over your head. The Dr. who wrote the article agrees with your point of view, he just disagrees with the alarmists. He's basically saying we should act responsibly to help slow down GW. Chicken little mentalities never pay off, they just get everyone worked up and acting on an emotional base, instead of a logical base, doing something for the sake of doing something.

 

[ctenophors rule]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15410218#post15410218 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Dingo44
Dude, stop asking the same questions when people have been patiently answering you over and over again. Several people have posted links by experts and we've gone back and forth providing stats on dissenting experts, so quit it already, move on, you're stalling the conversation.

you're giving me the name of scientist...i want a big organisation......do you have any?

i can copy and paste a few 100 of them........if you like......andi have personaly researched them all....they all fall into the first column of credibility....

stop gving me individual scientist,unless you wanna copy and paste tens of thousands of them, and then i can spend a few days researching them all.....

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15410047#post15410047 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
ok, again, you show me an article writen by ione or a group of climatologist...what about the vast majority of his peers that do believe? your refuting many with a few......

I am willing to bet that most scientists would agree with that article.

Here is a challenge to you.....

Find ONE primary source from a reputable climatologist that puts forth an alarmist position.

Honestly, over the past few days I have looked at a lot of reputable climatological studies and I have yet to find any that advocate an alarmist position.

Scott

 

[ctenophors rule]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15410642#post15410642 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Dingo44
Oh man... once again the point of the article went flying way over your head. The Dr. who wrote the article agrees with your point of view, he just disagrees with the alarmists. He's basically saying we should act responsibly to help slow down GW. Chicken little mentalities never pay off, they just get everyone worked up and acting on an emotional base, instead of a logical base, doing something for the sake of doing something.

no he doesn't agree with my point of view....he believes that goba warming won't be as bad as the mojority of his peers do! should i believe him, one person over the majority of his peers scientist, and the majority of every other scientific group...like chemist and doctors...i know their is a better word than group i just can't think of it.....


the article didn't fly over myhead...though my resonses ay be flying over yours......

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15410809#post15410809 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
you're giving me the name of scientist...i want a big organisation......do you have any?

i can copy and paste a few 100 of them........if you like......andi have personaly researched them all....they all fall into the first column of credibility....

stop gving me individual scientist,unless you wanna copy and paste tens of thousands of them, and then i can spend a few days researching them all.....

I gave you a NASA climatologist who wrote an article that NASA thought was good enought to publish as one of its scientific briefs. Is that not reputable?

Scott

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15410833#post15410833 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
no he doesn't agree with my point of view....he believes that goba warming won't be as bad as the mojority of his peers do! should i believe him, one person over the majority of his peers scientist, and the majority of every other scientific group...like chemist and doctors...i know their is a better word than group i just can't think of it.....


the article didn't fly over myhead...though my resonses ay be flying over yours......

Thats not what he is saying at all. Re-read it. He is saying that there are reasonable ways to deal with the problem and there are unreseable ways. He is advocating for reasonable ways to deal with the problem.

What did you mean when you said it was an excellent article?

Scott

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15410094#post15410094 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
maybe not but we can have a conscensus of the experts believeing in something...and if the majority of experts believe something...who are you to refute them? the can be wrong? *** I could be wrong, you could be wrong everyone here could be wrong....but these are experts,,,,thewy have devoted their entire lives to the study....but because it is a complex thing....they can't be right..or rathr, you know more than they do and it is more likely they will be wrong than you....all those scientist against you....

Ok, so earlier you made a comment about how the Earth being flat was "biblical science". How is your faith in the scientists any different from the scientists faith in god/bible back then? Apparently, both are beyond question in your mind?

There have literally been thousands of times throughout history in which the majority of scientists have been wrong. That is called scientific revolution and scientific advancement. That is the reason we have moved forward in medicine, technology, space exploration, etc. It isn't something to be feared. That is the way science works.

Scott