User Name Password Register
DaniWeb IT Discussion Community
All
What is DaniWeb IT Discussion Community?
You're currently browsing the Geeks' Lounge section within the Coffee House category of DaniWeb, a massive community of 426,811 software developers, web developers, Internet marketers, and tech gurus who are all enthusiastic about making contacts, networking, and learning from each other. In fact, there are 1,924 IT professionals currently interacting right now! Registration is free, only takes a minute and lets you enjoy all of the interactive features of the site.
Please support our Geeks' Lounge advertiser: Programming Forums
Views: 8838 | Replies: 163
Reply
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,556
Reputation: MidiMagic is on a distinguished road 
Rep Power: 7
Solved Threads: 115
MidiMagic's Avatar
MidiMagic MidiMagic is offline Offline
Posting Maven

Re: Global warming!!

  #61  
Jun 20th, 2007
I'm no scientist, but I do entertain opposing arguments -- much akin to the scientific method -- and try to consider the whole.

But the arguments have to be valid. Affirming the consequent is an invalid argument.

Scientists are NOT going to make simple logical mistakes as MidiMagic suggested.
Most of the people making these claims are social or environmental scientists. They do not follow the rigor that physical scientists use.

Social and environmental scientists usually can't perform experiments, because they will destroy the only sample they have if they try any experimentation. So they observe and record data, and make conjectures.
Last edited by MidiMagic : Jun 20th, 2007 at 10:21 pm.
Daylight-saving time uses more gasoline
Reply With Quote  
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,834
Reputation: joshSCH is on a distinguished road 
Rep Power: 0
Solved Threads: 9
joshSCH's Avatar
joshSCH joshSCH is offline Offline
Banned

Re: Global warming!!

  #62  
Jun 21st, 2007
Originally Posted by vegaseat View Post
If you do reseaarch on global warming, it will be very difficult to get funding, if you do not subscripe to the 'gorist' junk science view of things. As jwenting says, this view has been elevated to the status of a religion.
Why would the Republicans not fund you?
Originally Posted by lasher511 View Post
I do not think that a scientist is going to publish a paper or do research against global warming because nobody would give them the funding to do so. Mainly because it would make the company funding them look bad. Where as there is alot more funding out there for research proving it because it makes the company giving the funding look like they care about the enviroment.
What the hell ever happened to biased scientific research? Would it look bad if the United States government funded scientists who came up with clear evidence that Global Warming was NOT occurring? I don't think so.. I know there are many companies out there that would cut funding if scientists found evidence refuting a popular topic.. however, there are organizations who fund for the sole purpose of discovering and Science.

Originally Posted by MidiMagic View Post
All of the claims I presented as being global warming claims came from the Discovery Channel special as quotes by actual "experts".
I would hardly use the Discovery Channel as evidence..


Originally Posted by MidiMagic View Post
So have I. I used to work in labs.
Oh, WOW! You are clearly an expert now.
Last edited by joshSCH : Jun 21st, 2007 at 12:54 am.
Reply With Quote  
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 999
Reputation: EnderX is an unknown quantity at this point 
Rep Power: 4
Solved Threads: 1
EnderX EnderX is offline Offline
Posting Shark

Re: Global warming!!

  #63  
Jun 21st, 2007
Originally Posted by joshSCH View Post
What? I can't see all scientists posting data simply because their publishers and benefactors said to.. Theres no way that some scientist wouldn't publish truthful information.

It's not always a matter of publishing truthful information, it's a matter of making certain the truthful information is made widely known. I don't have the exact reference on hand at the moment (I'll try to grab a notebook and write it all down later today) but I remember a fairly interesting bit I read recently involving research done on the chemical substance we call DDT that faced that exact problem.

The basic gist was this:
1. Experiment done. Result: "Ooh, DDT Bad!"
2. Results published in well-known magazine.
3. Experimental error found. Experiment redone. Result: "We were wrong before."
4. Results taken to same well-known magazine.
5. Well-known magazine rejects new-experiment story because it isn't anti-DDT.
6. New-experiment results finally published in mostly-unknown magazine.

Yes, the truthful information was eventually published. But those who only read the well-known magazine, and not the little-known one, never heard about it. It goes back to my description of the gatekeepers of the community. It's far easier to keep popular opinion going the way you want if you emphasize the side you agree with and de-emphasize that you disagree with.

Originally Posted by joshSCH View Post
Besides, global warming has two sides. The Republicans would rather it not be happening, its in their best interest if businesses didn't have to spend a buttload of cash 'saving' the environment from global warming.. Theres always two sides.. and I would think the republicans would be trying desperately to get scientific evidence out there that global warming is not occurring.. especially since they're typically the wealthier party.


So how come the evidence of publication factors seems to indicate that most non-academic publishers (the ones who can sway public opinion; public opinion is one of the best weapons for and against research I can think of) will blanketly accept the 'Pro-warming' arguments and evidence, but blanketly reject the 'Anti-warming' arguments and evidence? Sure, there are two sides, but they're not being viewed equally nor given equal weight in presentation.
"No trees were harmed in the production of this post. However, several electrons were severely inconvenienced."

Kumquat.
Reply With Quote  
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,640
Reputation: Dave Sinkula is a glorious beacon of light Dave Sinkula is a glorious beacon of light Dave Sinkula is a glorious beacon of light Dave Sinkula is a glorious beacon of light Dave Sinkula is a glorious beacon of light Dave Sinkula is a glorious beacon of light 
Rep Power: 17
Solved Threads: 143
Colleague
Dave Sinkula's Avatar
Dave Sinkula Dave Sinkula is offline Offline
long time no c

Re: Global warming!!

  #64  
Jul 19th, 2008
Americans for Prosperity Crashes Al Gore's Speech

Note to mods about me reviving this old thread: I didn't want to create yet another one of these.
Reply With Quote  
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,135
Reputation: Ene Uran is an unknown quantity at this point 
Rep Power: 6
Solved Threads: 66
Ene Uran's Avatar
Ene Uran Ene Uran is offline Offline
Veteran Poster

Re: Global warming!!

  #65  
Jul 19th, 2008
Oh sweet Jesus, I had one too many beers. I read "Global Warning" and actually looked at this! I am sorry!
drink her pretty
Reply With Quote  
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 1,089
Reputation: GrimJack is on a distinguished road 
Rep Power: 7
Solved Threads: 8
GrimJack's Avatar
GrimJack GrimJack is offline Offline
Veteran Poster

Re: Global warming!!

  #66  
Jul 20th, 2008
Heh, heh, Ene - I was suckered too. But then again, you notice that this revival did not even add to the discussion; just some BS from out of the blue. Next, Dave will post the 3 typos in AG's book that prove it is all lies. Sigh! He's got nothing.

Move along, nothing to see here.
If only ignorance were painful....
GrimJack
AMD a64 3200+ 939
ASUS A8V Deluxe
G-force 7300GT/512meg AGP
Reply With Quote  
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,640
Reputation: Dave Sinkula is a glorious beacon of light Dave Sinkula is a glorious beacon of light Dave Sinkula is a glorious beacon of light Dave Sinkula is a glorious beacon of light Dave Sinkula is a glorious beacon of light Dave Sinkula is a glorious beacon of light 
Rep Power: 17
Solved Threads: 143
Colleague
Dave Sinkula's Avatar
Dave Sinkula Dave Sinkula is offline Offline
long time no c

Re: Global warming!!

  #67  
Jul 20th, 2008
That post was for fun. If you want me to add to the discussion, I'll submit this.
Reply With Quote  
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 1,089
Reputation: GrimJack is on a distinguished road 
Rep Power: 7
Solved Threads: 8
GrimJack's Avatar
GrimJack GrimJack is offline Offline
Veteran Poster

Re: Global warming!!

  #68  
Jul 21st, 2008
Now this post is INTERESTING and thought-provoking - I knew you had it in you.

Give me a couple hours for research before I accept this guy's word on what he did for a living and what other researchers say on the same topic.
If only ignorance were painful....
GrimJack
AMD a64 3200+ 939
ASUS A8V Deluxe
G-force 7300GT/512meg AGP
Reply With Quote  
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 1,089
Reputation: GrimJack is on a distinguished road 
Rep Power: 7
Solved Threads: 8
GrimJack's Avatar
GrimJack GrimJack is offline Offline
Veteran Poster

Re: Global warming!!

  #69  
Jul 21st, 2008
Originally Posted by Dave Sinkula View Post
That post was for fun. If you want me to add to the discussion, I'll submit this.
Dave, I know you are not particularly vested in much of what you post, and I honestly enjoy the research you force me to do. I will take each of David Evans point by point:
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
This couldn't be more wrong. Here are some of the signatures he says are missing. Granted this is from a site that states "Climate Science from Climate Scientists" so you might consider them 'differently' focused than someone who writes for "The Australian" which has been a climate change denier for the last decade.
2 There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None.
This is pure denial - as if he denies it often enough it will become true see:

The blue bands show temperature changes modelled using only natural forcings, while the red bands include anthropogenic forcings as well. The black line shows observations. Clearly, we must include anthropogenic forcings if we want to match the observations. The 2nd picture is just pure joy to look at and though it supports my point I don't want add too much more 'science' to this post -- I could also 'nitpick' rest of his points but why bother, the pattern continues.
Last edited by GrimJack : Jul 21st, 2008 at 2:11 am. Reason: had to add a logical negative so the statement said what I meant
Attached Images
File Type: png Global.png (78.1 KB, 2 views)
File Type: png MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Time_Lat_v03_2.png (34.2 KB, 2 views)
If only ignorance were painful....
GrimJack
AMD a64 3200+ 939
ASUS A8V Deluxe
G-force 7300GT/512meg AGP
Reply With Quote  
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,640
Reputation: Dave Sinkula is a glorious beacon of light Dave Sinkula is a glorious beacon of light Dave Sinkula is a glorious beacon of light Dave Sinkula is a glorious beacon of light Dave Sinkula is a glorious beacon of light Dave Sinkula is a glorious beacon of light 
Rep Power: 17
Solved Threads: 143
Colleague
Dave Sinkula's Avatar
Dave Sinkula Dave Sinkula is offline Offline
long time no c

Re: Global warming!!

  #70  
Jul 22nd, 2008
Well if AGW is your religion, then fine. Just consider posts such as these to be in jest.
Reply With Quote  
Reply

Only community members can participate in forum threads. You must register or log in to contribute.

DaniWeb Geeks' Lounge Marketplace
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

 

Thread Tools Display Modes

Other Threads in the Geeks' Lounge Forum

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 8:09 am.
Forum system based on vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2003 - 2008 DaniWeb® LLC