Reaper

Yeah, I know. The reason for this thread is so that someone like SkepticLance. doesn't go off and pollute the other threads that are intended for a legitimate scientific discussion about these sort of issues; in other words, this thread is intended so that we don't have to endure 11+ pages of repetitive crap on otherwise good threads. Just think of this as quarantine for the deniers .

Whoa there, I wasn't thinking that far ahead . ============================ I'll see if I can sign up tonight or tomorrow morning.

Alright, this thread is specifically designed to address all of SkepticLance's, and other global warming "skeptics" claims and/or misunderstandings. Here, they can present their position, and any evidence/data/references that they might have to support their position. While we can go on and either verify or debunk their claims. This is an effort to keep these types of fights all over the place, and more specifically to keep politics out of it. It's time to settle this issue once and for all. Hopefully, this thread will become a comprehensive compendium of why the so-called global warming skeptics are wrong. Well, with that out of the way, begin... So, to start with, as we keep saying in just about every other thread on this subject, average global temperatures are increasing at an exponential rate, and is predicted to climb to about 3 C or more by 2100 according to our climate models. The models so far have been accurate in predicting current climate change, which you can view on this link: http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/models-dont-work.html For more specific quotes:

Alright, perhaps a new thread is in order here. I'll make a thread specifically designed to address and debunk all of SkepticLance's claims. He clearly is just cherry-picking quotes BTW.... Hopefully, this will keep all of this crap from the other threads on the ecology/environmental subsection.

I guess putting quote boxes around every single one of your claims and answering them is ignoring what you said. Ok: 1) Here is information on what we know about the clouds and their connection with global warming in a nutshell: http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/warming_clouds_albedo_feedback.html 2) Biological effects have been accounted for. We know EXACTLY how much is being absorbed back into the carbon cycle. In fact, we do know the biological impact on other gases such as methane. 3) Once again, name an uncertainty that has NOT BEEN DEBUNKED. As far as we know, they have already been shown to have negligible effect, or are not adequate to account for what we observe. :eek::eek: Wait just a minute! Let me pinch myself to see if I am dreaming or hallucinating. No, I'm not. Ok, lets repeat that quote again, with emphasis added: Did I just read what I thought I read? How could someone, especially one who is a microbiologist and presumably had some training in science, possibly be this far misled and misinformed? Are you kidding me? One of the very basic things you learn in introductory science and experimentation is that you ALWAYS have to include the uncertainty The uncertainty has to be quantified. And why, because of the instruments you are using. All instruments and measurements have some sort of uncertainty because they are limited to some degree. Thats why we have something called "significant figures", so that you can ACCOUNT FOR THE UNCERTAINTY. All climate models do this! In fact, every single science experiment, prediction, and measurement that has EVER been done since Galileo does this! The uncertainty is even included in the graphs and data we have provided for you to review over, and it tells exactly how much! To say that uncertainty cannot be quantified in science, well, you aren't doing any science, your just either denying something, preaching, or at the very least misleading other people about the quality of your measurements. Ok, maybe I'll get over this once I go walk around outside and take a deep breath. Yes, and they have already been addressed. Reread all the posts. And this is quite ironic given the number of references we've provided, and yet you still refuse to acknowledge it. You on the other hand are quite happy picking data plots (READ: data plots) that correspond to your argument. But this isn't about predicting the future in general. This is about prediction what may happen if things continue the way they are. And there is every reason to believe that the models are more or less accurate. Especially since some of these models made in the past (and note, they were LESS ACCURATE before) have actually been right about how the climate would change over a couple of decades!! iNow said ; "So, how is it, precisely, that you feel the climate models fail?" And can you point to where they failed? Because, I can show a bunch of climate predictions that have been correct, albeit off by a very tiny amount. No you have not. All you've done was cherry picked data, and without providing a reference so we could validate, and then used that little subset of what was actually presented to support your views. Among that you've ignored just about everything else we've presented! In short, it was a major strawman. Pretty much, your argument basically is "We don't know what may end up actually happening, therefore the climate models are wrong", and that's invalid. It's an argument from ignorance. And I've (and everyone else) have provided plenty of evidence to back my claims. I've provided data tables, graphs, and above all, links that demonstrate how climate models actually work. Not just in this thread too where this debate has been taking place. You on the other hand have provide little, if any! And the references you did provide do not support your argument. Therefore, we are going to ask you again: Do you have any genuine evidence that supports your position, one that hasn't been debunked, one that we can check for its reliability, and above all one that is peer reviewed. If you don't or can't find any, then why on Earth do you insist on continuing this pointless argument, and denying the data and measurements despite the overwhelming evidence in favor of it

Yes, I agree. If you use euphemisms, then yes. It is a really big stretch though. And I'm not denying that mooeypoo made ad hominems, just making a counter point to Severian. An ad hominem is still an ad hominem, regardless of who started it. And it doesn't make it any more right either. That is all I pointed out. And in my opinion, he should know better than to respond like that. How ironic . I'm done fighting. You can side with who ever you want. I feel my argument was solid enough.

Now your just making a strawman. First off, not all of the military's actions are necessarily fighting "with prejudice". And second, you know very well what I meant, you're just now using vague words, because the way you are using then now could mean just about anything. Prejudice against what for example? Severian was making a point that just because mooeypoo was in the military (and might have beat the crap out of people) means that her morals are somehow flawed, inaccurate, or that she is just a bad person in general, which as I have clearly demonstrated is false. But so what if they do beat the crap out of people? That still doesn't mean that their morals should be called into question. I've demonstrated some examples where doing this might actually be the right thing to do. Well, excuse me, but beating people up is technically NOT a moral code whether or not you want to admit it. It is an action. But doing that doesn't necessarily mean anything in terms of ethics, unless you call into question their intentions. Seriously guys (and not just ParanoiA), what is the matter with admitting that you are wrong? Severian was making a bunch of baseless assumptions and playing semantic word games, his arguments were invalid, and that's why he got pwn3d. The comment I made a little while back was to demonstrate where he made the ad hominem, because he stated he did no such thing. And, in that particular context, it was indeed intended as an attack. Look at the language of his posts! That is very clearly an attack on another member, despite his claims to the contrary.

You can ignore the rest of my post Severian, I don't care. If fact, I don't care if you ignore what everyone else said on this thread. I have no interest in continuing; it is a pointless debate. =========================== Well, no, in this case, as I said before the sole purpose of the KKK's existence is to promote racial inequality, so, as you said, the person who joins is most likely to be racist. This only holds if the person is NOT racist. However the KKK make their intentions very clear. As for the military, as far as I know the original purpose was one of self defense, though our leaders have indeed used it for offense and conquest. But that still has nothing to do with the morality of the individual soldiers. The only time could be their morals are called into question is if they do join during a war, or willingly participated in one, that they know for certain to be very wrong. However, as Milgram's experiments have shown, one can be manipulated into doing something wrong without even realizing it, and even be pressured or tricked into thinking that it is okay and that it is the right thing to do! So even if their morals could be called into question, some situations make that very tricky and you do walk a fine line between valid objections and then just downright ad hominems and baseless attacks. And this can happen anywhere, not just the military. And just because force is used doesn't mean that those who use it have their morals/ethics are wrong or are questionable; after all, we use force to detain criminals. We also use force to stop people from doing acts deemed a danger to everyone else for that matter. Does using force mean that their morals should be called into question? I think not. Your example was just a false analogy. And, Severian's point was just plain wrong. ================================== Well, this thread has gone way off topic. I don't mind if they started mashing the delete button.

Except that it wasn't quite correct, or an adequate justification. Oh really? Well, I suppose the fact that you didn't reply to my other points means that you knew very well that your arguments were invalid.

No, not really. Have you considered that the enemy troops might actually be forced into it? That's not to say that our troops aren't immune either, just look at Guantanamo. I'm sure you've heard of Milgram little experiment in this regard. Whether that is good or bad depends on the situation. Not only that, while the nations at war will certainly cite some moral, or other justification, the actual reasons we go to war usually have nothing to do with morals or agreeing with people in general. What ever the wills of the state may be, it is NOT an accurate description of the morals, ethics, or opinions of people who actually serve in the military, on both sides, even in times of war. And everyone is entitled to opinions, but trying to state them as fact is another issue, especially when using them to attack another person. Except that the KKK clearly expresses it's distaste for people of other races or ethnic groups. It's sole purpose is to promote racial inequality, so yes, anybody who does join it will be a person who is racist. As for the military, the reasons that people join the military are usually varied, ranging from the fact that it may be compulsory, or national pride, or pushing ones limits, etc. So here the analogy fails.

Just because it is not completely understood doesn't mean we don't know anything about it.

Really? That's pretty neat. Do they frequent events near the Boston area, because I live around there. I wouldn't mind if they didn't though, but it would be nice to actually be part of those events. He is one of the founders, which is why this organization caught my interest. You mean Bill Nye the Science Guy? I used to watch that show all the time when I was a little kid:D. He seems a bit aged now. Gives me one more reason to join it then . I'm going to look into it and I'll let you guys know when I'm actually a member. I better not be disappointed.

I would also like to note that there are cave paintings which give a reliable account on what the climate may have been like at the time that they were put on the walls. And, many of these have indeed been verified by physical evidence. This shows even more reason to trust the climate models and the measurements taken for the past and present. I think, SkepticLance, that this now just puts your assumptions out of the frying pan and into the fire. Unless, of course, you can provide any evidence to the contrary. And, read, EVIDENCE. More specifically, PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, or a PEER-REVIEWED paper, or DATA. That should be easy enough, shouldn't it? Otherwise, I don't see why you still cling on to your mistaken assumptions, especially since you even admitted that the data provided did actually predict some pretty dire consequences should our problems continue to go unchecked...

WHAT!? you did make ad hominems. Here is one such one: And you just did it again, with this very statement. It isn't our fault that you got pwn3d. You are starting to dig yourself into a hole here... Read iNow's post. And this is an ad hominem and a non-sequitur. Criticizing the beliefs of one group of people does not mean that they are anti-(insert ethnic group here), or are attacking them. Severian, I'm actually quite surprised that these generalizations and ad hominems are coming from you, especially because you of all people should know better than this. And don't you dare try to play semantic word games with me, because I can guarantee that you (or anyone else for that matter) will not win. I'm quite skilled in making words having any meaning I want them too.. ======================================= Anyways......enough of my rant. Back to the discussion. As before, I stand by my original statement, that this teacher did indeed cross the line, way over. It is, as I said before, never ok to throw ad hominems, especially inside of a classroom. I think so. If someone who has the ability to do that would like to that is.

Oi Pangloss! When are you going to learn that not everything is political. The climate models just predict what will happen; whether it is good or bad is a purely arbitrary value assigned by us.

SkepticLance, just because there was no dramatic increase in temperature in a little period in the past doesn't mean that it won't happen in the future. We have consistently shown you that your analysis is wrong, wrong, WRONG!!!! Especially since we know exactly how much it is changing by right now. ============================ As for the rest of the people on this thread, I admire your patients with this guy. Especially given the fact that he has been doing this sort of thing for over a year.

I've been thinking about joining it for a little while now, but before I spend my money on it ($30.00 a year), I'm just wondering; what exactly does it do? And what exactly does it offer? What type of events do they hold? I've been looking at the website, but I want to hear from people who actually know something about it. Also, I think one member here, can't remember who though, did state that they were a member of it.

I meant liquid water, sorry if that wasn't clear.

It might even expose an underground water source...

Tell me guys, how long do you think forever is? Or what it feels like? Or something...

A lot more, and this will probably keep on happening forever.

Because much more people are being born than people are dying off. And it doesn't take that much to actually give birth either; for example the average age of the population in Africa (where they have some of the highest birthrates) is much lower than industrialized nations, but the reason they are increasing in population is because of high birthrates. While in industrialized nations (well, mostly the western ones), population growth is either stagnant or falling, but the average age of it is getting higher. Oh, ok then. The reason I mentioned it is because it sounded a little like what I read in that book. But thanks for making your questions clearer. Well, yes, our society today does face a huge amount of problems regarding those specific areas. Most of it though is due to human irresponsibility though. As for what will ultimately happen, I have absolutely no idea. But, there is some evidence that we are beginning to adress those problem. For example, in western Europe they are implementing high taxes on fossil fuels to encourage people to buy energy efficient technology and to make the switch to more sustainable methods. In Iceland, they are experimenting with hydrogen power, coming right from their many geysers. China I know recently developed quite a few programs that are aimed at maintaining their ever growing needs. As for the U.S., well, at least more people are aware of these problems. How this will play out, we don't know. But, I do know this, if we as a whole survive this century, then we probably will be ok for many hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of years to come;) .

That's ashame. What always amazes me about politics or politicians is just how willing they are to cut funding on fundamental science research, despite the fact that this very thing that got us out of the dark ages and allowed us to be where we are today. But then, they are only focused on short-term goals that have immediate effects, rather than going for what is best, and ultimately what is more interesting. My guess is, is so that they could make it more attractive to people who would otherwise not care, and/or certainly don't understand anything about the universe around them and aren't patient enough to find out. In this day and age people are more and more only concerned about short-term, quick money schemes, and using 80 M (which I'm sure is only a fraction of the GNP of the UK) seems like, well, a lot of money. ================================== I don't know what the state of fundamental science research is in the UK, or near where you live, but I know for sure that here in the U.S. its pretty much getting to the point where its pretty much ignored for the most part (though private firms and other special interest groups are keeping it alive for the time being). It's now to the point, I believe, where if you do ask for a grant to fund fundamental research, they probably won't give it to you simply because, well, because they just don't get it, if you know what I mean. Just don't let it get that way over where you live, because it will happen if nobody does anything. Oh, I know all about that. It's not just fundamental research, but also research where there are going to be immediate and benefical effects. Science education is getting much worse too.

Political issues aside, is there any reason why you choose to limit the data set to 30 years? Because, as we have already demonstrated, the increase is NOT linear. The projections are based on the assumption that we will continue to pour in greenhouse gases at an exponential rate. And, if we keep doing that, then a prediction of ~3 C rise in global climate is not that unreasonable. Well, you are going to have to show us the data for this claim then, because as we keep saying this assumes an exponential rise. You have to remember that this is an increase in average global temperatures. What may seem like a small change could indeed cause some really bad weather patterns and catastrophic changes in local climates, especially since the change is happening within a very short time. I think someone mentioned before that if the average temperature decreased by 5 C, we would have an ice age.

So...uh, yeah, did the teacher cross the line? =================================== And cut the fight both of you (Severian and mooeypoo). This is not a religious debate thread, and there were so many ad hominems and other generalizations on both sides. I'm not going to go over them simply because of the sheer number of them, but the overall message is grow up, and stop squabbling over petty little differences. I think we can all agree that there are some values that are very clearly good, while other values are not, and whether they are Christian or otherwise is irrelevant. I mean seriously, for people who claim to be "rational" and "moral", I don't see any evidence of it.