Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2  Next  

Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Page 1 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
the silent platform





Joined: 09 Sep 2006
Posts: 81
Reputation: 40.9Reputation: 40.9Reputation: 40.9Reputation: 40.9
votes: 1
Location: Winnipeg

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:13 pm    Post subject: global warming debate, help me out here Reply with quote

hey guys,

i've been a little (a lot) out of the loop lately with the whole global warming debate. i posted the lorne gunter article about glo-bull warming the other day and got this response from a liberal on the board:

"here's the deal, steve:
if you can find a peer-reviewed report or paper that is in the same league as the IPCC report [which was produced by 600+ authors in 40 countries, and reviewed by 600+ experts and governments] that claims that the temperature of the earth is NOT increasing due to human activity, then i think you'll have an argument. or, rather, your argument will have the same weight of scientific expertise and rigor behind it as ours does."


can someone sum up for me what i should say to him? i know this is a cheap trick but i am so busy right now, i literally don't have time to answer him in as much detail as i'd like. i usually argue with this guy for pages and pages and pages, so the motivation is there but i just don't have the time right now and i don't want him to think that he has won the argument!

thanks in advance

--steve
DM Schwartz





Joined: 08 Sep 2006
Posts: 45
Reputation: 34.4Reputation: 34.4Reputation: 34.4

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

first you could correct that the technical summary was indeed written by 31 people along with 18 contributing authors and not the 600+ that he/she claims.

Then you could direct said person to http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/C.....ccess.html just so they understand how much consensus there is.

For you I would suggest going to

Steve McIntyre's site http://www.climateaudit.org although his site has had some DOS attacks recently since posting about GISS's temperature update for the US, he should be back online soon.

Roger Pielke's site is good http://climatesci.colorado.edu/

Friends of Science has links to publications http://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=8

The Danish Space Agency is good too. http://www.spacecenter.dk/

I hope that helps
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anyone deluded enough to believe that the IPCC report is science can never be convinced otherwise. The correct response is to stop wasting your time trying, you will have better luck tilting at windmills.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://biggierection.blogspot......ng-on.html - comments on todays latest... nasa admits their climate figures were wrong. so much for that peer-reviewed study; they were using bad data 8)

I also compiled a list of climate articles here;

http://biggierection.blogspot......ebate.html
(last update was in march, but still - a good set of resources)
the silent platform





Joined: 09 Sep 2006
Posts: 81
Reputation: 40.9Reputation: 40.9Reputation: 40.9Reputation: 40.9
votes: 1
Location: Winnipeg

PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 12:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

just for fun, heres his reply:


yeah, i'd heard there were a couple of the (six hundred!) experts from the IPCC group that disagreed with its final conclusion. a few things:

1) *of course*. six hundred is a HUGE number. when you have that many people contributing to a paper, there are going to be disagreements. that's the nature of a consensus, and the fundamental statistical reality of dealing with large groups of people whose opinions on a topic can vary. a consensus is a best-fit approximation of the group's opinion. it *does not* have to be unanimous - it just has to be the general opinion held by a significant majority of the group. the consensus of the IPCC was that global warming is "very likely" happening and is "very likely" caused by human activity.

2) scientists consult people who disagree with them. it's very different from the world of politics blogs and op-eds, and maybe hard to understand. when you're an international working group studying a theory as important and controversial as global warming, you *do* examine and take into account whatever data and research you can find that works to refute the theory. of course you do! it'd be bad science not to! so, yes, the report very likely does contain contributions from individual researchers who disagree with the final conclusion. in fact, i'd be considerably more suspicious of the 'political nature' of the report if there WEREN'T dissenters -- the fact that there are dissenters, and that the comments are open for public review, means that there was real debate! that's a GOOD THING. and you know what? at the end of it all, the fact remains that the vast majority of those six hundred experts *agreed* with the final conclusion of the paper.

3) jesus dude - "the great global warming swindle"? ff.org? frontiers of freedom? are you joking? come on, you've gotta be able to do better than that. this is what i'm talking about: you can't fight this argument with op-eds, right-wing commentary websites and biased documentaries. get some *science*, and then we'll talk. PEER REVIEWED. no more of this michael-moore-style selective-facts propaganda bullshit.

by the way, just to bring home the point that you're outgunned in this fight, steve:

Quote:

Is there really "consensus" in the scientific community on the reality of anthropogenic climate change? As N. Oreskes points out in a recent article in Science, that is itself a question that can be addressed scientificially. Oreskes took a sampling of 928 articles on climate change, selected objectively (using the key phrase "climate change") from the published peer-reviewed scientific literature. Oreskes concluded that of those articles (about 75% of them) that deal with the question at all, 100% (all of them) support the consensus view that a significant fraction of recent climate change is due to human activities. Of course, there are undoubtedly some articles that have been published in the peer-reviewed literature that disagree with this position and that Oreskes's survey missed, but the fact that her sample didn't find them indicates that the number of them is very very small. One could debate whether overwhelming consensus is adequate grounds for action on climate change, but there are no grounds for debating whether such consensus actually exists.

www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=80

www.sciencemag.org/cgi...12/31/2004 <--- PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL
www.washingtonpost.com...Dec25.html
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 12:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

the silent platform wrote:
1) *of course*. six hundred is a HUGE number. when you have that many people contributing to a paper, there are going to be disagreements. that's the nature of a consensus, and the fundamental statistical reality of dealing with large groups of people whose opinions on a topic can vary. a consensus is a best-fit approximation of the group's opinion. it *does not* have to be unanimous - it just has to be the general opinion held by a significant majority of the group. the consensus of the IPCC was that global warming is "very likely" happening and is "very likely" caused by human activity.


The funding these scientists get is contingent on their theory being true. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the majority advocate the theory. It sure beats unemployment.

Quote:
so, yes, the report very likely does contain contributions from individual researchers who disagree with the final conclusion


"very likely does" - the guy clearly hasn't even read the report. It doesn't. It doesn't address any of the points raised by opponents.

Quote:
3) jesus dude - "the great global warming swindle"? ff.org? frontiers of freedom? are you joking? come on, you've gotta be able to do better than that. this is what i'm talking about: you can't fight this argument with op-eds, right-wing commentary websites and biased documentaries


Why are his scientists, who have a financial stake in global warming, more reliable sources than ours who stand to gain nothing from speaking out against it?

Quote:
get some *science*, and then we'll talk. PEER REVIEWED. no more of this michael-moore-style selective-facts propaganda bullshit


The scientists in "the great global warming swindle" are scientists who have won many prestigious awards. Now they didn't invent the internet like Al Gore did so maybe he has a point.
mrsocko





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The silent platform wrote
Quote:
jesus dude


I would appreciate if you did not use the name Jesus in that context. Thanks.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrsocko wrote:
The silent platform wrote
Quote:
jesus dude


I would appreciate if you did not use the name Jesus in that context. Thanks.


In fairness to him he was quoting the loser from the other website. But yes, please edit out offensive terms in the future.
the silent platform





Joined: 09 Sep 2006
Posts: 81
Reputation: 40.9Reputation: 40.9Reputation: 40.9Reputation: 40.9
votes: 1
Location: Winnipeg

PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

woops.... sorry?

i'll be more careful in the future
Bleatmop





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 953
Reputation: 17.5Reputation: 17.5
votes: 10

PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This all goes to show that you can't debate with someone who has already made up their mind. They will take whatever supports their point but ignore all valid criticisms. This guy doesn't not want a debate, he wants to show the world his brilliance about how he's right and you're wrong. (I don't think you're wrong, btw).

I like how he does that typical switching the premise of his arguments bit. First he says that there is a consensus of over 600 scientists on that report. Then you point out that there is not the consensus that he states there is, so he changes his argument and begins saying that the dissent in the report is a good thing and only further proves his point. If he were being intellectually honest (and actually wanted a debate) he would admit that he was wrong on that point and either A) change his opinion or B) continue his argument without using that discussion point in it.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 2:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I tell you, the only way your friend will stop trying to convince you is if 19 weeks have passed since you stopped replying to his arguments on climate change. Just stop, spend that energy looking for a better job, or growing better tomatoes; you will get more out of it in the end.
the silent platform





Joined: 09 Sep 2006
Posts: 81
Reputation: 40.9Reputation: 40.9Reputation: 40.9Reputation: 40.9
votes: 1
Location: Winnipeg

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 3:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

haha i know, but this is a dude i argue with often. hes a sociology major living in montreal (la-de-fuckin-dah) and i usually kick his ass, but this time i got in over my head. i never jump into debates that i know i can't win but this one i seem to come up short.

for the record, i think global warming is a huge scam, based purely on common sense. dr. timothy ball (climatologist) from right here in my hometown of winnipeg, pointed out what i was already thinking - our whole continent was a frickin' ice rink a few thousand years ago. scientists still don't know how THAT ended, how are we supposed to believe that our emissions that might cause a 2 degree rise in heat over the next century a) is believable and b) is worth spending trillions of dollars on???

BUT, to be the devils advocate here (predicting what my moron colleague will say next), i'll challenge you with these:

craig wrote:
The funding these scientists get is contingent on their theory being true.
...
Why are his scientists, who have a financial stake in global warming, more reliable sources than ours who stand to gain nothing from speaking out against it?


i found this on wikipedia:

Scientists who participate in the IPCC assessment process do so without any compensation other than the normal salaries they receive from their home institutions. The process is labor intensive, diverting time and resources from participating scientists' research programs.[48] Concerns have been raised that the large uncompensated time commitment and disruption to their own research may discourage qualified scientists from participating.[49]

so do they really receive compensation? indirectly, i would conclude from the above statement? if you have any proof of the compensation they receive (the stake they have in keeping global warming true), please let me know! it'd be useful.

thanks

--steve
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

the silent platform wrote:
Scientists who participate in the IPCC assessment process do so without any compensation other than the normal salaries they receive from their home institutions. The process is labor intensive, diverting time and resources from participating scientists' research programs.[48] Concerns have been raised that the large uncompensated time commitment and disruption to their own research may discourage qualified scientists from participating.[49]


Just because they don't receive funding for that particular study doesn't mean that the vast majority of their funding isn't dependent on the theory.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrsocko wrote:
The silent platform wrote
Quote:
jesus dude


I would appreciate if you did not use the name Jesus in that context. Thanks.


Politically correct anyone?? just saying...

:?
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

biggie wrote:
mrsocko wrote:
The silent platform wrote
Quote:
jesus dude


I would appreciate if you did not use the name Jesus in that context. Thanks.


Politically correct anyone?? just saying...

:?


It is his religion. If calling your beliefs a "cop-out" is outrageous then I don't think it is too much to ask that his beliefs be respected.
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Page 1 of 2

Goto page 1, 2  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


global warming debate, help me out here

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB