Global Warming Retreats

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
jim3au		#51	[-]
Posts: 1393 (25-Mar-2008 21:22:39) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I would love to know what NASA are saying about the data from Aqua. Some of our contributors here believe that it is because of a conspiracy to keep the American Public mis-informed. That would be bad, but as I point out, NASA and other government funded research in America are most reluctant to contradict the global warming or anti-global warming positions. Americans should be concerned that their scientific organisations feel the need to not adopt a position in the debate. Even the news about the Arctic sea ice disappearing is very conservatively stated.
DCmontana		#52	[-]
Posts: 419 (25-Mar-2008 21:38:31) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	1937 was the warmest year on record!
xtvpry		#53	[-]
Posts: 2089 (26-Mar-2008 20:53:33) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Jim said: - "NASA and other government funded research in America are most reluctant to contradict the global warming or anti-global warming positions." Exactly. You said it. If Research Institutes provide the public with contradictory advice, the public with get confused and stop trusting them. The scientific consensus though, can be and often is spectacularly wrong. There is a group think and funding grants at stake. Just look at the following about the size of the Milky Way. Another 'scientific consensus' bites the dust http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/02/another_scientific_consensus_b.html Thomas Lifson Another alleged "scientific consensus" turns out to be wrong. And this time, the data disproving proving the consensus view was gathered from the internet. From the University of Sydney: It took just a couple of hours using data available on the internet for University of Sydney scientists to discover that the Milky Way is twice as wide as previously thought. Astrophysicist Professor Bryan Gaensler led a team that has found that our galaxy - a flattened spiral about 100,000 light years across - is 12,000 light years thick, not the 6,000 light years that had been previously thought. Proving not all science requires big, expensive apparatus, Professor Gaensler and colleagues, Dr Greg Madsen, Dr Shami Chatterjee and PhD student Ann Mao, downloaded data from the internet and analysed it in a spreadsheet. "We were tossing around ideas about the size of the Galaxy, and thought we had better check the standard numbers that everyone uses. It took us just a few hours to calculate this for ourselves. We thought we had to be wrong, so we checked and rechecked and couldn't find any mistakes." Consensus may be the way Quaker Meetings are conducted, but consensus has nothing to do with science, which is based on data and logic. So the warmist claim that there exists a "scientific consensus" on man-made global warming is utterly bogus.
Carthaginian		#54	[-]
Posts: 45 (27-Mar-2008 04:16:32) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Razor wrote: 3. It is very hard to find someone of any scientific reputation on the planet, who is not actually being paid to deny global warming, who does not recognize it as a fact. Strange that here in the US, the people who are trumpeting global warming are the ones that you find under cooperate sponsorship... the most widely broadcast Global Warming warnings on US radio (the 'Envirominute') are, for example, sponsored by John Kerry's inlaws.
jim3au		#55	[-]
Posts: 1395 (27-Mar-2008 14:38:44) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	xtvpry, I have been pleased to note that there has been easing of the droughts in those parts of the USA suffering from droughts [and not floods]. There is nothing funny about droughts. Whereas you might have a cool summer, I will not be able to resist posting the occasional news bulletin like the following. Temperatures Smash Records
xtvpry		#56	[-]
Posts: 2090 (27-Mar-2008 20:28:35) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Jim, No need to resist your inclinations - as if you would anyway - post away, by all means.
Starviking		#57	[-]
Posts: 136 (28-Mar-2008 09:07:12) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Nightwatch2: I don't recall quoting strat-esphere or whatever it is. I did quote a number of links that link to actual scientists and scientific papers. read the links. I'm not suggesting you did, I was referring to xtvpry's first message in this topic - which was from the blog concerned. As for the links, you posted a link to another thread - I will check through that as time permits. Nightwatch2: I have also seen a direct quote, somewhere, from both the Met Office and the head of the IPCC that did say directly that global warming had temporarily stopped. And concerning the blog in question - it just said it had stopped. A falsehood. I'm not even sure saying 'global warning had temporarily stopped' is correct - 'The effects of global warming had temporarily stopped' is probably better from a scientific perspective. Nightwatch2: "The sad thing is - these blogs are being used as 'sources' by some people here." which is the same sort of thing the Global Warming/Climate Change Hysterics all do - quote blogs and nonsense by anyone who says what they want to hear despite lack of qualifications, questionable motives (lobby or paid agents), or simply a political ax to grind. A suggestion - try applying the same standards to that side of the debate. I quote scientific papers. If YOU want to have the same standards applied to "Global Warming/Climate Change Hysterics" then YOU do it. Starviking.
Starviking		#58	[-]
Posts: 137 (28-Mar-2008 09:17:46) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	xtvpry: Thomas Lifson Another alleged "scientific consensus" turns out to be wrong. And this time, the data disproving proving the consensus view was gathered from the internet. From the University of Sydney: Rubbish. Pure rubbish. The link he posts is engaging in hyperbole - yes, the information is avaiable through the internet - from academic databases. As for alleged "scientific consensus" - science BUILDS on available information. If Professor Gaensler's results check out IT becomes the new consensus. Thomas Lifson Consensus may be the way Quaker Meetings are conducted, but consensus has nothing to do with science, which is based on data and logic. So the warmist claim that there exists a "scientific consensus" on man-made global warming is utterly bogus. Rubbish. Science is based on observation and the formulation of theories to account for those observations. If the observations are repeatable (i.e. people get similar results), then the theory that accounts for those observations with the least amount of supposition becomes the accepted theory explaining the observations. Consensus is needed to get the theory accepted. Starviking
JBG.historypolitics...		#59	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 29 (28-Mar-2008 23:38:01) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	"Consensus is needed to get the theory accepted." Starviking, I have the same problems that others here have with this concept of "consensus". As a concept it was not something that I came across studying History and Philosophy of Science at Uni, though that was many years ago and one of the courses names - Perspectives on Science and Technology ( pronounced "pissed" ) described our state when we got to what was a late lecture after some hours in the grandstand bar. The concept we did study at some length was that of the scientific paradigm. Might it not be more profitable to discuss the issue in terms of the scientific paradigm rather than consensus? I will be interested to hear your thoughts on that. cheers Jonathan
Starviking		#60	[-]
Posts: 144 (31-Mar-2008 11:57:55) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	JBG wrote: "Consensus is needed to get the theory accepted." Starviking, I have the same problems that others here have with this concept of "consensus". As a concept it was not something that I came across studying History and Philosophy of Science at Uni, though that was many years ago and one of the courses names - Perspectives on Science and Technology ( pronounced "pissed" ) described our state when we got to what was a late lecture after some hours in the grandstand bar. The concept we did study at some length was that of the scientific paradigm. Might it not be more profitable to discuss the issue in terms of the scientific paradigm rather than consensus? I will be interested to hear your thoughts on that. I would be very interested - but I'd need you to define what you mean by scientific paradigm - or point me in the direction of a good intro. It seems to be a term more from the HPoS side of things, rather than in science itself. Case in point - my well thumbed copy of the Larousse Dictionary of Science and Technology (1997 ed) has no entries for scientific paradigm or paradigm. Starviking

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Global Warming Retreats

Another 'scientific consensus' bites the dust

Quick Reply