Posted by Michelle Steiner on April 20, 2009, 8:14 pm
> Had you actually taken the link and read the report you would know
> that it is scientific, not political.
To those who seek to denigrate and diminish the effects of global
climate change, it is a political issue; therefore they believe that all
views opposing theirs on the subject are politically based.
--
It's now time for healing, and for fixing the damage the GOP did to America.
Posted by David T. Johnson on April 20, 2009, 9:20 pm
Was Istoben wrote:
>
>> As far as 'greenhouse gases' the biggest 'greenhouse gase' in the
>> atmosphere is not carbon dioxide, but water, and there is already more
>> than enough of both water and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to
>> block, within a few hundred meters of the ground, all of the infrared
>> radiation they are capable of blocking. If you are truly interested
>> in global climate, rather than just the political topic of 'carbon
>> emissions caps,' you need to acquire some understanding of the basic
>> physics of electromagnetic radiation, absorption by gases, and gas
>> kinetics in order to develop a realistic understanding of what is even
>> meant by 'greenhouse gas.' Then start to consider the earth's climate
>> as a massive, complex and dynamic engine of global water movement
>> driven by external solar heat input rather than as a warm rock
>> surrounded by a thermal gas barrier. Most of the people, such as
>> yourself, who want to discuss climate change in forums like this, seem
>> to have no technical education and are more interested in the
>> political issues.
>>
> I am an electrical engineer. The link I sent you is in fact the
> consensus finding, to date, of climate scientist from many countries.
> Their science is subject to peer review. If you knew anything at all
> about the scientific method you would appreciate their work.
>
> Had you actually taken the link and read the report you would know that
> it is scientific, not political. Moreover, you would know it addresses
> the role played by water vapor and the other gases in our atmosphere.
> It addresses the sun's radiation.
The IPCC is not a scientific body, but a political one. Their entire
raison d'etre is to compile information on global climate change that
supports their political objectives. Any 'peer review' that they claim
to have done was done by other non-scientists of a like mindset. In
contrast to that, a scientific organization does not have a political
view but exists to provide a means of publish and exchange techical
information regardless of what 'political' view it might support or
disprove. Real peer review does not address the popularity of the
results or conclusions but the soundness of the process which was used
to arrive at them.
>
> You must somehow come to understand that we have evolved and adapted to
> the climate and land mass afforded by the mix of gasses in our
> atmosphere. Once you do you will realize we are changing that mix and,
> as a consequence the atmosphere will no longer be suitable for some
> creatures and the habitable land mass will shrink in the face of our
> burgeoning population.
The 'mix of gases' in the atmosphere, the habitable land mass, the
evoluion of humans, and human population growth are all topics unrelated
to the alleged 'greenhouse gas' impact of CO2, although your reference
to them suggests a philosphical orientation that the
'CO2-is-killing-planet-earth' bunch often shares as some sort of ersatz
religion which seems to expound on the evilness of mankind's changes to
Mother Earth.
>
>
Posted by Was Istoben on April 20, 2009, 9:48 pm
> The IPCC is not a scientific body, but a political one.
No, it is a scientific body.
Their entire
> raison d'etre is to compile information on global climate change that
> supports their political objectives.
Doesn't it seem strange to you that scientists from so many different
nations have the same political objective? What would that political
objective be?
Any 'peer review' that they claim
> to have done was done by other non-scientists of a like mindset.
Not true. The work of these scientists is subject to scientific review.
In
> contrast to that, a scientific organization does not have a political view
> but exists to provide a means of publish and exchange techical information
> regardless of what 'political' view it might support or disprove. Real
> peer review does not address the popularity of the results or conclusions
> but the soundness of the process which was used to arrive at them.
You are putting a political label on science. They have no political
motivation whatever.
Our National Academy of Sciences endorsed their findings.
I'm disappointed that you make such stong yet completely unsubstantiated
statements. From time-to-time one of the few scientists that disagree with
the IPCC published a filing contradicting their work. Each and every one of
these challenges has proven false through scientific review. Even the
infamous "hockey stick" controvery was laid to rest by our own Academy of
Sciences. Still, there are people like you who cling to junk science for
reasons I cannot fathom. I'll give you this: If you are wrong and we do
nothing the cost in lives and dollars will be higher than anything
civilazation has faced to date. If the IPCC is right and we do something,
we will be free from the yoke of middle east oil and healthier in the
absence of atmospheric pollutants. Take your pick.
Posted by David T. Johnson on April 21, 2009, 4:23 am
Was Istoben wrote:
>
>> The IPCC is not a scientific body, but a political one.
>
> No, it is a scientific body.
>
> Their entire
>> raison d'etre is to compile information on global climate change that
>> supports their political objectives.
>
> Doesn't it seem strange to you that scientists from so many different
> nations have the same political objective? What would that political
> objective be?
>
> Any 'peer review' that they claim
>> to have done was done by other non-scientists of a like mindset.
>
> Not true. The work of these scientists is subject to scientific review.
>
> In
>> contrast to that, a scientific organization does not have a political
>> view but exists to provide a means of publish and exchange techical
>> information regardless of what 'political' view it might support or
>> disprove. Real peer review does not address the popularity of the
>> results or conclusions but the soundness of the process which was used
>> to arrive at them.
>
> You are putting a political label on science. They have no political
> motivation whatever.
>
>
> Our National Academy of Sciences endorsed their findings.
>
> I'm disappointed that you make such stong yet completely unsubstantiated
> statements. From time-to-time one of the few scientists that disagree
> with the IPCC published a filing contradicting their work. Each and
> every one of these challenges has proven false through scientific
> review. Even the infamous "hockey stick" controvery was laid to rest by
> our own Academy of Sciences. Still, there are people like you who cling
> to junk science for reasons I cannot fathom. I'll give you this: If
> you are wrong and we do nothing the cost in lives and dollars will be
> higher than anything civilazation has faced to date. If the IPCC is
> right and we do something, we will be free from the yoke of middle east
> oil and healthier in the absence of atmospheric pollutants. Take your
> pick.
>
>
>
Do you even know what 'science' is? Scientists ask questions, formulate
hypotheses to attempt to answer their questions, and conduct
experimental studies to test their hypotheses. If they find something
new or interesting, they write about what they've observed and publish
it so that others can benefit from their work. 'Politicians' gather up
information to support their agenda, commission reports to validate
their position, collect helpful endorsements from political allies,
declare further investigation to be unneeded, and strike out at anyone
that disagrees. Now which category do you think the IPCC and their
'report' fits into?
CO2-is-warming-the-world fans look at a warming climate and increasing
CO2 concentration and conflate the two with a circular reasoning process
that goes like this:
1) A rising CO2 concentration will cause an increase in the average
global temperature.
2) The average global temperature has increased.
3) Therefore, the rising CO2 concentration caused an increase in the
global average temperature.
I'm looking forward in the next few years to seeing how the
CO2-is-warming-the-world fans ill explain our presently cooling climate
that began in 2007. I expect their 'explanation' to include a tap
dancing segment.
--
Posted with OS/2 Warp 4.52
and Sea Monkey 1.5a
Posted by Was Istoben on April 21, 2009, 12:48 pm
> Do you even know what 'science' is? Scientists ask questions, formulate
> hypotheses to attempt to answer their questions, and conduct experimental
> studies to test their hypotheses. If they find something new or
> interesting, they write about what they've observed and publish it so that
> others can benefit from their work.
Exacty. This is precisely what the IPCC has done.
'Politicians' gather up
> information to support their agenda, commission reports to validate their
> position, collect helpful endorsements from political allies, declare
> further investigation to be unneeded, and strike out at anyone that
> disagrees. Now which category do you think the IPCC and their 'report'
> fits into?
Clearlly the IPCC fits into the first category. Read their latest report.
If it is too technical for you, read their executive summary.
Regarding your second paragraph, please explain how a group of scientists
from dozens of different nations managed to agree on a political objective
and tell us what that objective is? Frankly, you sound a bit paranoid to
me. Are you thinking they stand to gain something by reporting the
consequences of carbon emissions? If so, what?
XML site map
> that it is scientific, not political.