Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

This continual hammering on "proof" doest not go along with scientific thought or methodology.

Most peer-reviewed articles, including those in more general publications such as Science are no longer available to the general public, either online or in hard copy, unless you pay fairly sizable amounts of money for the privilege.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Evidence that the earth is warming is overwhelming. The body of expert opinion is that it is anthropogenic. Its an uncomfortable message, so lets ignore it.

Has anybody on either side said 'let's ignore it?' Can you provide a quote to that effect?

Continued disputation of the conclusions by non-expert opinion amounts to the same thing.

Does it? Or maybe those on your side who refuse to even consider opposing points of view are 'ignoring it'?

This continual hammering on "proof" doest not go along with scientific thought or methodology.

Most peer-reviewed articles, including those in more general publications such as Science are no longer available to the general public, either online or in hard copy, unless you pay fairly sizable amounts of money for the privilege.

Peer review by trained climatologists that find flaws with the data is convincing to me ... .

"Peer review" by a gynecologist or physicist or civil engineer or Doctor of Chemistry of a paleontological climate model is not particularly convincing to me and much of the 'peer review' cited includes professions like these.

Foxfyre wrote:

Peer review by trained climatologists that find flaws with the data is convincing to me ... .

But aren't "trained climatologists" those persons, you'd called "environmental wackos" earlier?

Vast chunks of rock threatens to fall from Eiger as global warming opens up crack:

Quote:

Crowds gather to see chunk fall off Eiger

And what data do you have that global warming is not occurring? There is no scientific data that presently disputes it.

Foxfyre wrote:

"Peer review" by a gynecologist or physicist or civil engineer or Doctor of Chemistry of a paleontological climate model is not particularly convincing to me and much of the 'peer review' cited includes professions like these.

Please tell me, Foxfyre, which journal has gynecologists and civil engineers peer-review paleontological climate models. (Physicists and chemists are a different case. The greenhouse effect is closest to the field of spectroscopy, and the people working in spectroscopy are mostly chemists and physicists. At my university, for example, the climatology students attended the same courses as the physicists during their first three semesters. That's how close the fields are.)

I keep an open mind. I recommend that to everybody.

...Just wondering Walter, have many of these Swiss ever visited the Grand Canyon?...

...Answer: it does not fit the conclusion, so we ignore the evidence.

Foxfyre wrote:

I keep an open mind. I recommend that to everybody.

But not so open that your brains fall out. And not kept open as a feint to avoid making a painful decision.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I keep an open mind. I recommend that to everybody.

But not so open that your brains fall out. And not kept open as a feint to avoid making a painful decision.

But open enough to not be a sheep swallowing the poltically correct line that is fed to me. Open enough to not agree to policy based on faulty science or being manipulated by those who have less interest in the science than they do in using it to coerce others for political purposes. Open enough not to see the hypocrisy where it exists and the unworkable solutions that are proposed and/or policies implemented. And open enough to sort out the good science from the bad science and to recognize real issues and problems and be willing to work toward real solutions as necessary to deal with them.

Foxfyre wrote:

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I keep an open mind. I recommend that to everybody.

But not so open that your brains fall out. And not kept open as a feint to avoid making a painful decision.

But open enough to not be a sheep swallowing the poltically correct line that is fed to me. Open enough to not agree to policy based on faulty science or being manipulated by those who have less interest in the science than they do in using it to coerce others for political purposes. Open enough not to see the hypocrisy where it exists and the unworkable solutions that are proposed and/or policies implemented. And open enough to sort out the good science from the bad science and to recognize real issues and problems and be willing to work toward real solutions as necessary to deal with them.

In that case you are truly wasting your prodigious abilities and time on a2k

and mine bye.

[On that long list of 2000 or 20000 or whatever number it is of 'scientists' who have 'peer reviewed' the data, you will find numerous professions that I think even you would find dubious as credible peer review.

I checked into this thread after a day, and Walter, you win the prize for one of the most humorous posts.

Just wondering Walter, have many of these Swiss ever visited the Grand Canyon?

Foxfyre wrote:

[On that long list of 2000 or 20000 or whatever number it is of 'scientists' who have 'peer reviewed' the data, you will find numerous professions that I think even you would find dubious as credible peer review.

Which long list are you talking about? Perhaps someone posted it when I wasn't paying attention to this thread, but in any case I don't know which list you are referring to.

Parados asserts there is no scientific data that disputes global warming. What about no changes in temperature in upper levels of the atmosphere, as recorded by satellites? That is being ignored at present, but if there are any significant changes looming there, you could bet we will hear about it. How come we don't hear about it now? Answer: it does not fit the conclusion, so we ignore the evidence.