Michigan Sportsman Forum banner
1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,468 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,371 Posts
junk science
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,090 Posts
junk science
I agree 100%. The only global warming studies that are based on real science are the ones funded by energy companies. They are truly the only unbiased people out there. Make sure you ignore everything else!:rolleyes:
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,371 Posts
You read a great deal into my two words TC
Who said anything about ignore?


Can't one evaluate methods of inquiry and conclusions or hypothesis derived from that inquiry (note: not ignore), and then assess them as non-scientific.

The methods and the extrapolation I have seen is based on questionable math models and questionable assumptions.

It is certainly fair to question our ability to gather reliable temp data over the expanse of history. (ie. What is a temp spike versus what is a reasonable fluctuation of nature when dealing with millions of years?)
To enact policy based on projections, which are based on limited input data and questionable simulations is fair game for challenge.

Who other than you introduced energy companies into this question?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
18,470 Posts
I'm sorry, I just don't believe that WE cause "Global Warming".

All of recorded human history is just a SPEC on the timeline of the Earths history. I believe that global temperature variations are NORMAL and not ALL caused by human intervention. I believe that there always has been and always will be fluctuations in regional and global weather patterns. As Amos points out, if you took ALL OF THE DATA that we have EVER collected and tried to extrapolate what is "normal" it wouldn't even be close to accurate when you take into account the length of time that the earth has been in existance.

Basically I just think that "Global Warming" is BUNK !

What caused the Dinosaurs extinction ?

I guess that was Dubya's fault too !


Don't even get me started on the Ozone hole....
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,090 Posts
Basically I just think that "Global Warming" is BUNK !
The methods and the extrapolation I have seen is based on questionable math models and questionable assumptions.

I didn't know we had two scientists on the site! So whats your backround PHD in mathematics? OR maybe a masters in enviromental science?

If you care to give up your membership in the flat earth society
take a look at this link

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html

It's the us govt's opinion on global warming. Probably the most conservative estimate of global warming out there with the exception of exxon!

The govt thinks global warming is real. They are just unsure how bad its going to be.

I can hear the replys now. "it must be leftover from clinton"

There are a lot scientists ( a whole lot) who think there is a good chance we are screwed. But hey why worry? It's impossible to for us to negatively effect the enviroment.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
18,470 Posts
I didn't know we had two scientists on the site! So whats your backround PHD in mathematics? OR maybe a masters in enviromental science?
I'm not a scientist and I don't have a PHD. But it's MY OPINION !
I don't have to have a PHD to have an opinion ! I may be wrong, I may be right. Who knows ? That's just the way I feel about the situation and I'm entitled to my opinion.

I'm not going to argue with you anymore.

Have a great day !
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,371 Posts
What is your standard for who is allowed to question policy in any field? I am required to have been a Senator in order to have an opinion about a particular law.

That is just silly.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,090 Posts
If someone wrote in on this site and said there should be no dove hunting because all the studies showing dove hunting won't negativelly effect them are wrong i would like to know if that person is a wildlife bioligist or a bum off the street. It makes a difference.


Whats silly is saying global warming doesn't exist. Actually silly isn't the word.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,371 Posts
There are lots of scientists who believe as you do. There are fewer who do not. That does not mean that the fewer are incorrect. And by the way, it is possible for a bum off the street to form good conclusions from solid data, and for a scientist to form bad conclusions from bad data.
My issue is not that Global Warming is not an acceptable theory. My point is that it is just that: a theory. Even in the source document on the EPA site which you linked, the language throughout the 16 pages is largely characterized by "potential" "possibility" and "points to." Not hard conclusions.
The computer models upon which the theories around Global Warming are constructed are, in my opinion without sufficient input: enough reliable data about geo-historical earth temps and how much current temps are the result of human activity.
In general, scientists agree that Global Warming "could be." From that, scores of theories are spawned about "potential" destruction of species, ecosystems etc. are put forth. From those theories scores of hysterical policy papers are put forth about what we as a nation should do to correct this potentiality.
They may all be right. Or they may not be.

I never said that global warming did not exist. I said assertions to is as "fact" are junk science. To question the "conventional wisdom" as to whether or not global warming is a provable or even a solid theory, is not silly.

There are lots of sources refuting global warming as a given. Here is one site which is, as far as I can tell, non-political, and primarily interested in debunking scientific assertions to the general population as if they were proven facts: www.junkscience.com
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,090 Posts
In general, scientists agree that Global Warming "could be."
From us govt.
"What's Known for Certain?
Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere........

It's well accepted by scientists that greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and tend to warm the planet........."

In general scientists agree that global warming is. The question is how bad.

I refernced the us govt site cause even with the current administration coming down hard the epa is still saying yeah its real and its fact. I could have referenced a thousand more independant credible scientific studies but in your opinion they're all just junk science.

What happens if we wait till the sh*t hits the fan and its too late to stop some of the worst case scenerios that you call hysterical now?
They may all be right.
Well, what if they are?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,371 Posts
What if the sky is falling?

What policies should we enact based on "what if?" And at what cost?

I think seeking cleaner modes of energy extraction, conversion, consumption and disposal are good things to do.

I think further privately-funded research on the global effects of human activity are a good thing.

I think you and everyone who thinks like you are free to persuade others to change behavior based on the theory you support.

I think it would be a mistake to make the drastic "Greenhouse" policy changes that some seek, which would likely have a serious negative impact on an economy, without better validation of popular theories.

By the way, how has teh current administration "come down hard" on the EPA? The EPA is largely what it has been for some time. Bush et al have suggested management changes but no drastic goal changes, nor how EPA research is funded.

Anyway, you and I are unlikely to come to a common view on this one so I will let it go.

An alternative view from the National Academy of Science:
NAS link


Does everyone remember in the seventies when speculation was afoot concerning global cooling? Guess we shoulda passed a bunch of laws to correct that :rolleyes:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,090 Posts
By the way, how has teh current administration "come down hard" on the EPA? The EPA is largely what it has been for some time. Bush et al have suggested management changes but no drastic goal changes, nor how EPA research is funded.
Care to take a look at this
http://www.heatisonline.org/disinformation.cfm

I could go thru and individually cut and paste a bunch of articles saying how bush has influnces the EPA but this isn't about bush.

funny read your link. nothing saying that global warming isn't real.

The majority of scientists who bash the global warming "theory" recieve funding from guess what? The oil industry.

Does it make sense that a small minority of scientisits (yes a small minority!) should be listened to or should the vast majority of scientists (those are people who actually study this stuff) who agree that global warming is fact.

but hey why worry about global warming? We all know people can't possibly negatively effect the enviroment.

:rolleyes:


I hope i'm wrong. I hope every scientist is wrong. But hoping won't make the problem go away.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,371 Posts
TC you continue to jump beyond or ignore what I say to get to your position. Did you miss the part where I encouraged further study on the subject? I did not reject data regarding a change in earths temps, I questioned the conclusions drawn from that data.

What the linked article from NAS points out, and what I was trying to say that the earth has warmed over the past 100 years, (about 1 degree Farenheit) but it is a mistake to take that measurement and draw sweeping conclusions from it. That extrapolation is what I and a few others view as a departure from solid science. Is the period in which we have been able to accurately measure earth and atmospheric temps a sufficient dataset to draw conclusions about millions of years? Maybe you think so, but I think it deserves more study before we all become Luddites.

The NAS article further points out that it is a mistake to politicize the scientific inquiry, and look for a political pro and a con in every incremental finding.

To me this discussion is not political, other than to point out that people are misusing science to make political points.
Reading back through your 23 posts, I am guessing for you it is political; please excuse me if I have assessed your perspective incorrectly.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,468 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Bush to Announce Ventures to Mars and the Moon, Officials Say

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/09/science/09SPAC.html?th


Without better understanding the workings of our own planet and how we affect it. Dreams would remain just that!

Terra-forming Mars

Terra-forming would most likely begin with attempts to raise sub zero temperatures and thicken the atmosphere. One option is to build factories on Mars that produce greenhouse gases. CFC's are being phased out on Earth because they contribute to global warming, but ironically this is exactly what will make them indispensable on Mars.

http://www.tvpc.co.za/Sci-tech/mars/mars.htm
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,090 Posts
this has nothing to do with politics.

in the last 100+ years has there been a huge change in the earths atmosphere with more greenhouse gases. Yes. Are you going to say no? They have been able to measure greenhouse gases for thousands of years past through ice sample etc.

These same greenhouse gases cause the earth to warm. Please find some studies that says they don't. Please.

Are you saying greenhouse gases have no effect on global warming? They don't exist? What effect do you think they have?

To just ignore the majority of science out there and only say the extrapolation is a departure from sound science is the eqivalent of burying your head in the sand.

I'm not saying become a luddite. but its easier to take small steps now than wait.

reading back through your 2684 posts i'm guessing that your never going to change your mind but maybe someone else will keep an open mind about it.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top