Welcome to PatsFans.com

Man Made Global Warming - NOT so unanimous

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by BelichickFan, Jul 17, 2008.

  1. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,656
    Likes Received:
    221
    Ratings:
    +534 / 13 / -14

    #24 Jersey

    http://www.dailytech.com/Myth of Consensus Explodes APS Opens Global Warming Debate/article12403.htm

    I remember when Granny Pelosi called it "decided science" or something like that. Or maybe not :

    "The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming."

    According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low."
     
  2. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,205
    Likes Received:
    236
    Ratings:
    +580 / 6 / -2

    Oil lackey's I tell ya.
     
  3. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,789
    Likes Received:
    148
    Ratings:
    +417 / 4 / -15

    #18 Jersey

    Will you get rid of that little video and stop corruption our minds RW?!
     
  4. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,345
    Likes Received:
    499
    Ratings:
    +1,153 / 13 / -27

    #87 Jersey


    The one on the right is not so bad ... the one on the left is disturbing ...
    she looks like she's ready to pull off a Lorena Bobbit move.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorena_Bobbitt
     
  5. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,345
    Likes Received:
    499
    Ratings:
    +1,153 / 13 / -27

    #87 Jersey

    IMO ... this entire global warming stuff would be so much better if it were simply labeled as being earth friendly. Things we can do that do not harm our environment are fine. But, to make this world-wide scare that we are causing the warming is wrong because it is so untrue.

    The facts are that the earth is getting warmer and the oceans will rise ... so perhaps we should do what ancient man simply did and that was to move to higher ground ... what we should do to help ourselves. I think everyone wants to maintain status quo so they decide panic is better.
     
  6. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,205
    Likes Received:
    236
    Ratings:
    +580 / 6 / -2

    Well, i've been getting beaned with mod warnings over my "political" sigs when I post anywhere but in this forum, so I figured I'd go nonpolitical for a while. If you think those are corrupting in nature, you should've seen the one's I originally had in mind. Wowsers. :D
     
  7. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,205
    Likes Received:
    236
    Ratings:
    +580 / 6 / -2

    Never trust doomsdayers. They're always trying to sell you a bill of goods. Sadly, the hysteria is easily propogated. All you need to do, is point to a thunderstorm, and say "see, I told ya the planet is in trouble!". It's the easiest sell of alltime. The global taxes, carbon credit, behavior shaping crap just gets ignored.
     
  8. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,187
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +294 / 12 / -10

    Sorry righties, but your source is unreliable

    The right wing media needs to properly vet things. They get too many things wrong -- from Obama's madrassa to misinformation about the APS stand on global warming. What's pathetic is that the newspaper probably could have avoided this embarrassment simply by calling the APS.

    http://www.aps.org/\

    The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

    "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

    An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.
     
  9. PATSNUTme

    PATSNUTme Paranoid Homer Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    15,289
    Likes Received:
    90
    Ratings:
    +193 / 2 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    This is suppose to be science. The fact that there are left wing scientists and right wing scientist in this debate tells me the whole issue is just political and bogus.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2008
  10. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,187
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +294 / 12 / -10

    No, you mean you don't trust the scientists unless they have good corporate and Republican credentials. Stay ignorant! Trust Fox News! Trust Inhofe! Trust big oil! But, don't trust the legions of scientists who have devoted their lives to study and research with no other aim than trying to understand how things work. I admire your ignorance, RW, I really do. You whine about how our great country is on the decline, then complain about propaganda but only the propaganda of thinkers and scholars, not of oil companies, lobbyists, and Republican leaders. Keep up the good work! The polluters need patsies.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2008
  11. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,656
    Likes Received:
    221
    Ratings:
    +534 / 13 / -14

    #24 Jersey

    Re: Sorry righties, but your source is unreliable

    You need to quit this peer reviewed crap, Patters. You know why a lot of naysayers aren't peer reviewed ? Because their opinions and papers are shut out. They aren't allowed to be agreed with, they're ridiculed and ostracized. It's similar to if some minority (gays, blacks, orientals, whatever) were thought to be inherently dump with smaller brains - how many people would be jumping up and down to peer review and agree with that paper ? It's a stacked deck you're working with.
     
  12. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,187
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +294 / 12 / -10

    There is no debate. There are some scientists who do not believe in mmgw, but they are in the minority by far. Nearly all the key scientific organizations and experts believe in mmgw. That doesn't mean there aren't a few out there who do not believe in it, but I'm sure there are a few scientists who also believe we were created by aliens (the theory of I.D.) or who believe it's possible to bend a spoon by using brain waves.
     
  13. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,656
    Likes Received:
    221
    Ratings:
    +534 / 13 / -14

    #24 Jersey

    And there you have it. Thank you Stalin.
     
  14. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,187
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +294 / 12 / -10

    Re: Sorry righties, but your source is unreliable

    My point was the story you posted was wrong. The APS stands by its previous statement on mmgw. It's good to see that you attacked me rather than thanked me for correcting your post. I guess the truth isn't too important to you. Is it a Party thing?

    As far as peer reviews, I thought you were in technology? What do you do? I'm surprised you don't understand the importance of peer reviews. It plays a key role in technology, and has been used in such areas as QoS, MPLS, and probably all other high tech things that have to do with the internet. I would bet that whatever field you're in, at the invention and discovery level there is peer review. Peer review, at the very least, is key for establishing standards by which things are tested and reviewed. But, then again, maybe I misunderstood you, and you are not in technology.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2008
  15. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,656
    Likes Received:
    221
    Ratings:
    +534 / 13 / -14

    #24 Jersey

    Re: Sorry righties, but your source is unreliable

    I do not place importance on peer reviews of stacked decks. You said there is no debate. Granny said it's "decided science". I believe in peer reviews with open debate not closed minded people who have made their decision going in and who will be derided by their field if they dare to disagree with "decided science".
     
  16. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,187
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +294 / 12 / -10

    Re: Sorry righties, but your source is unreliable

    I gather you don't know what a peer review is, because your response makes no sense. Any qualified scientist can submit a paper for peer review. Typically, it's vetted at many different levels before it gets the seal of approval from some official body of scientists. Peer reviews by definition are open to debate.

    I am not a scientist, and my view has been consistent that it's the preponderance of scientific thinking and the sources I've trusted in the past that help me make up my mind. There are some scientists who do not believe in mmgw, but even some of them only disagree with some of the evidence, not all of it. If a major group does turn against mmgw, I would look into it seriously. In fact, that's why I went to the APS website, to learn more about them and get details on what I thought was a change of position.
     
  17. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,656
    Likes Received:
    221
    Ratings:
    +534 / 13 / -14

    #24 Jersey

    Re: Sorry righties, but your source is unreliable

    They are not open to debate if no-one is willing to debate for fear of being ostracized. Do you not get it ?
     
  18. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,187
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +294 / 12 / -10

    Re: Sorry righties, but your source is unreliable

    There are actually quite a few peer reviewed papers against mmgw, but compared to the numbers that believe in it, it's a small proportion.
     
  19. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,656
    Likes Received:
    221
    Ratings:
    +534 / 13 / -14

    #24 Jersey

    Re: Sorry righties, but your source is unreliable

    For the reason I described. Have you sold your car yet, btw ? Live by your words or stfu.
     
  20. Stokes

    Stokes In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Re: Sorry righties, but your source is unreliable

    Right Patters, you've got it. The process is that you submit your paper, and first it is reviewed by the editorial board to decide if it is worth moving to the next step (how good of a journal it is determines how strict they are, Cell, Science and Nature are the toughest, and it goes down from there). The next step is that the manuscript is sent by the journal to 3-4 scientists that work in the same field (Climatology, Oncology, etc etc). These 3-4 review the paper and either recommend publication, minor revisions and publication, further experiments and another chance at review, or rejection. Anything that is not peer-reviewed should not be taken seriously, because at that point it doesn't have to be anything more than opinion of the author. This is especially true for papers in climatology where the data is not clear and an author without review can draw whatever conclusions they want.

    On the other hand, BelichickFan does have a point that if your work is being reviewed by people who are sold on anthropogenic warming your work will be more harshly looked at because you are advancing a hypothesis alternate to what they believe. Some investigators my recommend rejection outright based solely on that (they have to provide reasons for their rejection, but just like you can call holding on every play in the NFL you can find a reason to reject any paper). It is also ridiculous how name recognition can get you so far. I routinely see substandard work published in the best journals depending on who the PI is on the paper. In those senses the peer-reviewed literature can be biased, but all in all its still the best system we have.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>