What we're being told - is wrong.

[homersapien 11,812]

Raptor, give it up. Homer is way above us. He is just too humble to admit that he is smarter than God.

Wow.

I actually had to think about that for a minute. Congratulations.

How can one be "too humble" when they think they are "smarter than God"?

:dunno:/>

Good question wise one.

Thanks.

I'll consider that a compliment.

[AURaptor 1,137]

No. Newsweek is a popular current events magazine. Realscience is the faux-scientific special interest front (where you found the Newsweek article)

How is 'Realscience' even an issue here ? The article is is from NEWSWEEK, 37+ years ago. What the frak difference does it matter who posts the article?

Well, because "realscience" is a political front that uses articles posted in a (non-scientific) popular magazine which is where you found the link to begin with?

If you still don't get it, that all adds up to a very lightweight case for your original statement (about the majority of scientists...)

Does that help?

Nope. All I see is you denying that which doesn't sync up with what the AGW folks are saying NOW. My point is pretty crystal clear. Popular movements in science often can flip, and what is held as true today may not be so tomorrow.

global cooling, meet global warming.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

In light of every other lie the government tells, research is still free for those who wish to take the time to do it. Add to the axis tilt are solar flares, and we have the makings of a changed climate with stronger than normal storms. This tilt theory also backs up my thoughts on hurricanes hitting NY state. I'm thinking of moving to Uruguay to live and retire. This weekend we will witness a planetary alignment of three other planets in the solar system. Good luck everyone.

http://www.timeslive...ow-this-weekend

What happens if you take a rubber ball and add a metal strip around the mid section to make it heavier... then float the ball in water? The heavy point will be on the bottom, so the planet will continue to rotate, but it will do so on it's side.

http://www.divulgenc...e_variables.htm

Normal 23.5 degree tilt

49.5 degree tilt

[homersapien 11,812]

No. Newsweek is a popular current events magazine. Realscience is the faux-scientific special interest front (where you found the Newsweek article)

How is 'Realscience' even an issue here ? The article is is from NEWSWEEK, 37+ years ago. What the frak difference does it matter who posts the article?

Well, because "realscience" is a political front that uses articles posted in a (non-scientific) popular magazine which is where you found the link to begin with?

If you still don't get it, that all adds up to a very lightweight case for your original statement (about the majority of scientists...)

Does that help?

Nope. All I see is you denying that which doesn't sync up with what the AGW folks are saying NOW. My point is pretty crystal clear. Popular movements in science often can flip, and what is held as true today may not be so tomorrow.

global cooling, meet global warming.

No, what I am denying is that there was a general belief in global cooling generally agreed to by the scientific community 45 years ago. "Popular movements" in science do not often "flip. In fact, it is very rare, and when it does happen it takes a long time.

Simply pulling up an article claiming the earth is cooling, written for a popular magazine, does not represent anything like the sort of consensus that exits today regarding global warming.

You are simply grasping on to this anomaly for purely political reasons. In fact it is politics alone that fuels the "denier" community, not science.

[homersapien 11,812]

In light of every other lie the government tells, research is still free for those who wish to take the time to do it. Add to the axis tilt are solar flares, and we have the makings of a changed climate with stronger than normal storms. This tilt theory also backs up my thoughts on hurricanes hitting NY state. I'm thinking of moving to Uruguay to live and retire. This weekend we will witness a planetary alignment of three other planets in the solar system. Good luck everyone.

http://www.timeslive...ow-this-weekend

What happens if you take a rubber ball and add a metal strip around the mid section to make it heavier... then float the ball in water? The heavy point will be on the bottom, so the planet will continue to rotate, but it will do so on it's side.

http://www.divulgenc...e_variables.htm

You are another denier motivated by political thinking. Furthermore, you don't understand how scientific research is conducted. There a many natural influences determining climate. I can assure you that scientists are far more aware of all of them as you.

One of the primary concepts of experimental design is controlling variation. In other words, all of the climate influencing factors are taken into account either through he experimental design or through the statistical analysis. In this case, the effects of greenhouse cases are measured in the context of other natural sources of climate variation.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

In this case, the effects of greenhouse cases are measured in the context of other natural sources of climate variation.

Including methane gases from cow ####?

[AURaptor 1,137]

No, what I am denying is that there was a general belief in global cooling generally agreed to by the scientific community 45 years ago. "Popular movements" in science do not often "flip. In fact, it is very rare, and when it does happen it takes a long time.

Simply pulling up an article claiming the earth is cooling, written for a popular magazine, does not represent anything like the sort of consensus that exits today regarding global warming.

You are simply grasping on to this anomaly for purely political reasons. In fact it is politics alone that fuels the "denier" community, not science.

So, let's see. 1 " popular magazine " article = nothing.

How about 2 ?

[homersapien 11,812]

If you could link us to this scientific data linking tornadic activity to climate change, that would be great. I know of several computer models linking climate change and rising sea levels to more intense and more frequent hurricanes.

Also, it is hard for me to understand how someone from your point can say "close your eyes & listen to your piper.", when all of the scientific data points in the climate change direction. You seem to be the one with their eyes closed...

Because much of the same language for global warming was used by the vast majority of the scientific community almost 40 years ago. Only it was global COOLING which the were railing against, not warming.

Show me one literature review or position paper by a scientific society that supports that claim.

As I promised, I looked into this after I got my broadband back. First, I went back to the Newsweek article and discovered, to no surprise, it was written by a reporter, not a scientist. Furthermore, while there are quotes, there are zero references to any sources backing the claim up.

I then search "global cooling" and one of the first hits was a literature review in Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

It's pretty extensive, so I will just quote a few choice excerpts:

"Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles. In contrast to the global cooling conjecture, the current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the 20th century.^[1]"

^"In the 1970s, there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. Of those scientific papers considering climate trends over the 21st century, only 10% inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming.^[2] The general public had little awareness of carbon dioxide's effects on climate, but Science News in May 1959 forecast a 25% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000, with a consequent warming trend.^[3] The actual increase in this period was 29%. Paul R. Ehrlich mentioned climate change from greenhouse gases in 1968.^[4] By the time the idea of global cooling reached the public press in the mid-1970s temperatures had stopped falling, and there was concern in the climatological community about carbon dioxide's warming effects.^[5] In response to such reports, the World Meteorological Organization issued a warning in June 1976 that a very significant warming of global climate was probable.^[6]"

^"

1975 Newsweek article [edit]

An April 28, 1975 article in Newsweek magazine was titled "The Cooling World",^[33] it pointed to "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change" and pointed to "a drop of half a degree [Fahrenheit] in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968." The article claimed "The evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it." The Newsweek article did not state the cause of cooling; it stated that "what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery" and cited the NAS conclusion that "not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."

The article mentioned the alternative solutions of "melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting Arctic rivers" but conceded these were not feasible. The Newsweek article concluded by criticizing government leaders: "But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies...The longer the planners (politicians) delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality." The article emphasized sensational and largely unsourced consequences - "resulting famines could be catastrophic", "drought and desolation," "the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded", "droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons," "impossible for starving peoples to migrate," "the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age."^[33]

On October 23, 2006, Newsweek issued a correction, over 31 years after the original article, stating that it had been "so spectacularly wrong about the near-term future" (though editor Jerry Adler claimed that 'the story wasn't "wrong" in the journalistic sense of "inaccurate."').^[34]"

Please note the Wikipedia article is thoroughly sourced.

[homersapien 11,812]

No, what I am denying is that there was a general belief in global cooling generally agreed to by the scientific community 45 years ago. "Popular movements" in science do not often "flip. In fact, it is very rare, and when it does happen it takes a long time.

Simply pulling up an article claiming the earth is cooling, written for a popular magazine, does not represent anything like the sort of consensus that exits today regarding global warming.

You are simply grasping on to this anomaly for purely political reasons. In fact it is politics alone that fuels the "denier" community, not science.

So, let's see. 1 " popular magazine " article = nothing.

How about 2 ?

Please see my post above.

These sort of magazines are not good places to obtain scientific understanding.

[homersapien 11,812]

In this case, the effects of greenhouse cases are measured in the context of other natural sources of climate variation.

Including methane gases from cow ####?

Yep.

But as an interesting aside, I would point out that methane from cows is largely a function of human activity. (Farming).

[AURaptor 1,137]

Please see my post above.

These sort of magazines are not good places to obtain scientific understanding.

So, no amount of evidence will sway you, and it's only an " anomaly " when it doesn't conform with your wished for beliefs.

Got it.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

In this case, the effects of greenhouse cases are measured in the context of other natural sources of climate variation.

Including methane gases from cow ####?

Yep.

But as an interesting aside, I would point out that methane from cows is largely a function of human activity. (Farming).

It would be worse if we didn't eat them. There would be cows all over the place. India worships the cow, so they are heavy weighted in bovine excrement.

[homersapien 11,812]

Please see my post above.

These sort of magazines are not good places to obtain scientific understanding.

So, no amount of evidence will sway you, and it's only an " anomaly " when it doesn't conform with your wished for beliefs.

Got it.

No, you don't have it at all. In fact, that's an absurd interpretation of my position.

In fact, I am swayed by the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence supporting climate change as a result of CO2 introduced since the beginning of the industrial age.

But you are partially correct in that no amount of politically-motivated BS on the internet will dissuade me from agreeing with the existing scientific consensus.

[homersapien 11,812]

In this case, the effects of greenhouse cases are measured in the context of other natural sources of climate variation.

Including methane gases from cow ####?

Yep.

But as an interesting aside, I would point out that methane from cows is largely a function of human activity. (Farming).

It would be worse if we didn't eat them. There would be cows all over the place. India worships the cow, so they are heavy weighted in bovine excrement.

Not exactly. India doesn't "worship" the cow. Hindus consider them sacred, or more accurately, taboo. Otherwise cows are raised as domesticated farm animals just as they are everywhere else in the world. Regardless, if it weren't for human activity, methane from cows would be a non-issue.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Please see my post above.

These sort of magazines are not good places to obtain scientific understanding.

So, no amount of evidence will sway you, and it's only an " anomaly " when it doesn't conform with your wished for beliefs.

Got it.

No, you don't have it at all. In fact, that's an absurd interpretation of my position.

In fact, I am swayed by the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence supporting climate change as a result of CO2 introduced since the beginning of the industrial age.

There is no such ' over whelming evidence'. But that wasn't what I was talking about here.

But you are partially correct in that no amount of politically-motivated BS on the internet will dissuade me from agreeing with the existing scientific consensus.

That's not what I said. And there is no such thing as ' consensus ' in science. Meaning, it's not part of the scientific method.

[homersapien 11,812]

Please see my post above.

These sort of magazines are not good places to obtain scientific understanding.

So, no amount of evidence will sway you, and it's only an " anomaly " when it doesn't conform with your wished for beliefs.

Got it.

No, you don't have it at all. In fact, that's an absurd interpretation of my position.

In fact, I am swayed by the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence supporting climate change as a result of CO2 introduced since the beginning of the industrial age.

1) There is no such ' over whelming evidence'. But that wasn't what I was talking about here.

But you are partially correct in that no amount of politically-motivated BS on the internet will dissuade me from agreeing with the existing scientific consensus.

That's not what I said. And there is no such thing as ' consensus ' in science. Meaning, it's not part of the scientific method.

There is overwhelming evidence for climate change. And while there is may be no such thing as "consensus in science or the scientific method" there is certainly such a thing as consensus among scientists and global scientific organizations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

You probably think the theory of evolution is a hoax too.

[AURaptor 1,137]

See, you've fallen for the classic trap, of assuming that if i don't buy into global warming, I must think evolution is a 'hoax'.

Evolution has physical evidence. AGW has computer models, and " consensus " in the scientific community.A community which survives greatly at the whim of a vast political movement which, golly gee, just so happens to have the exact same goals and motivations as those who believe in global warming.

What ARE the odds ?

* AGW - It comes down to this... if there really is such a thing, that man's the primary contributor to the change in the planet's climate, there's very little we can do about it. Even taking the most drastic measures, altering the lives of billions of people, and spending trillions of dollars, causing a massive upheaval of our economic and social way of life, the impact of all that we can do would take decades to see, if ever seen at all.

But , if it's NOT real, and the Earth is merely going through its ebb and flow of altering climate, as it's done for billions of years, then the entire AGW nonsense is nothing but mankind collectively running around in circles, wasting precious time, money and resources on an imaginary " crisis " , where it could be focusing more on doing tangible good, like helping the the poor, spending that $ on improvements on an array of areas, from water treatment , transportation, improving education...

While still focusing on cleaning up this planet, we can also not fritter away our lives worry about a problem which may or may not exist.

[homersapien 11,812]

See, you've fallen for the classic trap, of assuming that if i don't buy into global warming, I must think evolution is a 'hoax'.

Evolution has physical evidence. AGW has computer models, and " consensus " in the scientific community.A community which survives greatly at the whim of a vast political movement which, golly gee, just so happens to have the exact same goals and motivations as those who believe in global warming.

What ARE the odds ?

"Classic trap". Gee I wasn't aware. I was just pointing out a close similarity in mind set. Evolution deniers are marching to the beat of a religious agenda which, in their minds, cannot be reconciled to the truth.

AGW deniers are marching to the beat of a political agenda which likewise keeps them from recognizing the simple truth.

So, while different in terms of motivation, the mind set is very similar.

But I am glad to hear that you are at least willing to accept the reality of evolution. I suspect a relatively high percentage of AGW deniers don't.

[homersapien 11,812]

* AGW - It comes down to this... if there really is such a thing, that man's the primary contributor to the change in the planet's climate, there's very little we can do about it. Even taking the most drastic measures, altering the lives of billions of people, and spending trillions of dollars, causing a massive upheaval of our economic and social way of life, the impact of all that we can do would take decades to see, if ever seen at all.

Well as much as I hate to admit it, the cynical side of me pretty much agrees with you on this.

As a species we are far from being able to react to anything much beyond short term personal interest. The only ones that think about the actual future tend to be highly educated philosophers, economists and scientists.

As far as taking "decades" I should remind you that I am working on my seventh, so "decades" doesn't really seem like a awful long time to me. And I don't even have children to think about

But , if it's NOT real, and the Earth is merely going through its ebb and flow of altering climate, as it's done for billions of years, then the entire AGW nonsense is nothing but mankind collectively running around in circles, wasting precious time, money and resources on an imaginary " crisis " , where it could be focusing more on doing tangible good, like helping the the poor, spending that $ on improvements on an array of areas, from water treatment , transportation, improving education...

While still focusing on cleaning up this planet, we can also not fritter away our lives worry about a problem which may or may not exist.

Well see, this is sort of a matter of degree. Would shifting to a less carbon-intensive energy source really require a drastic upheaval in our quality of life? Do we really need a 6k lb SUV to run to the store for a bag of groceries?

I propose that we could divert a lot of the resources dedicated to a very wasteful and inefficient lifestyle today and do a lot more "tangible" good (immediate good) than we are doing and not sacrifice a damn thing in terms of quality of life.

It sounds to me like you would much rather maintain status quo, stick our head in the sand, and keep on perpetuating a lifestyle that is not sustainable at any rate, at least if you feel all those poor disadvantaged people deserve to live exactly the way we do. The earth simply cannot sustain a global population with an American lifestyle based on existing technology. That's simply fact, not "nonsense"

And what in hell is the

point

of improving education when you simply deny it's results as manifested in scientific reality (for example)?

[jj3jordan 2,125]

* AGW - It comes down to this... if there really is such a thing, that man's the primary contributor to the change in the planet's climate, there's very little we can do about it. Even taking the most drastic measures, altering the lives of billions of people, and spending trillions of dollars, causing a massive upheaval of our economic and social way of life, the impact of all that we can do would take decades to see, if ever seen at all.

Well as much as I hate to admit it, the cynical side of me pretty much agrees with you on this.

As a species we are far from being able to react to anything much beyond short term personal interest. The only ones that think about the actual future tend to be highly educated philosophers, economists and scientists.

As far as taking "decades" I should remind you that I am working on my seventh, so "decades" doesn't really seem like a awful long time to me. And I don't even have children to think about

But , if it's NOT real, and the Earth is merely going through its ebb and flow of altering climate, as it's done for billions of years, then the entire AGW nonsense is nothing but mankind collectively running around in circles, wasting precious time, money and resources on an imaginary " crisis " , where it could be focusing more on doing tangible good, like helping the the poor, spending that $ on improvements on an array of areas, from water treatment , transportation, improving education...

While still focusing on cleaning up this planet, we can also not fritter away our lives worry about a problem which may or may not exist.

Well see, this is sort of a matter of degree. Would shifting to a less carbon-intensive energy source really require a drastic upheaval in our quality of life? Do we really need a 6 ton SUV to run to the store for a bag of groceries?

I propose that we could divert a lot of the resources dedicated to a very wasteful and inefficient lifestyle today and do a lot more "tangible" good (immediate good) than we are doing and not sacrifice a damn thing in terms of quality of life.

It sounds to me like you would much rather maintain status quo, stick our head in the sand, and keep on perpetuating a lifestyle that is not sustainable at any rate, at least if you feel all those poor disadvantaged people deserve to live exactly the way we do. The earth simply cannot sustain a global population with an American lifestyle based on existing technology. That's simply fact, not "nonsense"

And what in hell is the

point

of improving education when you simply deny it's results as manifested in scientific reality (for example) anyway? :dunno:/>

You know somebody with a six ton SUV?

Our lifestyle IS sustainable for a very long time. There is plenty of oil.

Our lifestyle without oil would cease ( yours too) because we have no other option for energy that works.

Global population? Let me invite you to fly jet route L888 sometime. There is plenty of room on this planet.

Your facts and reality are political footballs to extort money and control. If you want to go, fine, as for me, leave me alone.

[homersapien 11,812]

* AGW - It comes down to this... if there really is such a thing, that man's the primary contributor to the change in the planet's climate, there's very little we can do about it. Even taking the most drastic measures, altering the lives of billions of people, and spending trillions of dollars, causing a massive upheaval of our economic and social way of life, the impact of all that we can do would take decades to see, if ever seen at all.

Well as much as I hate to admit it, the cynical side of me pretty much agrees with you on this.

As a species we are far from being able to react to anything much beyond short term personal interest. The only ones that think about the actual future tend to be highly educated philosophers, economists and scientists.

As far as taking "decades" I should remind you that I am working on my seventh, so "decades" doesn't really seem like a awful long time to me. And I don't even have children to think about

But , if it's NOT real, and the Earth is merely going through its ebb and flow of altering climate, as it's done for billions of years, then the entire AGW nonsense is nothing but mankind collectively running around in circles, wasting precious time, money and resources on an imaginary " crisis " , where it could be focusing more on doing tangible good, like helping the the poor, spending that $ on improvements on an array of areas, from water treatment , transportation, improving education...

While still focusing on cleaning up this planet, we can also not fritter away our lives worry about a problem which may or may not exist.

Well see, this is sort of a matter of degree. Would shifting to a less carbon-intensive energy source really require a drastic upheaval in our quality of life? Do we really need a 6 ton SUV to run to the store for a bag of groceries?

I propose that we could divert a lot of the resources dedicated to a very wasteful and inefficient lifestyle today and do a lot more "tangible" good (immediate good) than we are doing and not sacrifice a damn thing in terms of quality of life.

It sounds to me like you would much rather maintain status quo, stick our head in the sand, and keep on perpetuating a lifestyle that is not sustainable at any rate, at least if you feel all those poor disadvantaged people deserve to live exactly the way we do. The earth simply cannot sustain a global population with an American lifestyle based on existing technology. That's simply fact, not "nonsense"

And what in hell is the

point

of improving education when you simply deny it's results as manifested in scientific reality (for example) anyway? :dunno:/>

You know somebody with a six ton SUV?

Sorry that was a typo. I meant to say 6,000 lbs. Thanks for catching it.

Our lifestyle IS sustainable for a very long time. There is plenty of oil.

Depends on what you mean by "our". If the rest of the world is successful in getting even close to "our" lifestyle (which they most definitely want), the planet cannot sustain it for a "very long" time. In fact, I don't think the environment would make it to that point.

(Of course, by "planet" I am referring to an environment that we would want to live in. Obviously the planet will be here long after we have disappeared.)

Our lifestyle without oil would cease ( yours too) because we have no other option for energy that works.

Humans existed before the oil economy and will exist after the oil economy, at least assuming we don't ruin the environment first. And depending on how much effort we put into developing a substitute our quality of life doesn't have to really change all that much.

But you are correct in that our current lifestyle would most definitely change "without oil", by definition. The real question is would that necessarily be a bad thing?

Global population? Let me invite you to fly jet route L888 sometime. There is plenty of room on this planet.

That's a specious argument. It's not "room" that is an issue. I have no doubt the entire population of the earth would fit in Antarctica (for example).

Your facts and reality are political footballs to extort money and control. If you want to go, fine, as for me, leave me alone.

Damn, you got me figured out. I am out to take your money and control your life. :-\

Like I said, deniers are obsessed with making AGW a political issue when in fact, it's a scientific one. But I find it somewhat amusing they are adamantly opposed to taking the political risk, which is clearly survivable in any case, while perfectly willing to take on the scientific risk, which may not be.

Never underestimate the power of wishful thinking.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Tell Hugo Chavez how " scientific " AGW is.

[homersapien 11,812]

Doesn't help to post it twice. I didn't understand it the second time either.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Doesn't help to post it twice. I didn't understand it the second time either.

Maybe this will help. Watch it twice, if you need to.

[homersapien 11,812]

Doesn't help to post it twice. I didn't understand it the second time either.

Maybe this will help. Watch it twice, if you need to.

Sorry. I don't watch videos on command. I pay by the byte. Maybe I'll catch it next time I'm in the library.

Plus, its a very lazy substitute for making your own argument. But I completely understand why you might go that route.