|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 9:57 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I am not your witness on the stand, either, counsel. I would appreciate your not badgering me like that.
According to the scientific method, the burden rests with those articulating the theory. I would say that they have failed to establish it because they have chosen a pathway that artificially constructed consensus while suppressing all challengers. And we now have direct evidence of this.
Why are you so wedded to their theory? The fate of the world hangs in the balance? Do you have any idea how many different groups of people in different times and places in human history have sold their politics/religion based on that line...? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| I am not your witness on the stand, either, counsel. I would appreciate your not badgering me like that. |
In that case, I apologize for the aggression of my speech. Rather, let me politely ask you, "Is anthropogenic global warming happening, yes or no?"
| Gopher wrote: |
According to the scientific method, the burden rests with those articulating the theory. I would say that they have failed to establish it because they have chosen a pathway that artificially constructed consensus while suppressing all challengers. And we now have direct evidence of this.
Why are you so wedded to their theory? The fate of the world hangs in the balance? Do you have any idea how many different groups of people in different times and places in human history have sold their politics/religion based on that line...? |
1) You didn't clearly answer my question. Is that a no? No, with all certainty, it's not occuring?
2) I'm not wedded to their theory, I've repeatedly said I remain uncertain. I'm simply not wililng to reject it, especially when many of the changes called for are changes we should be making anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They have gone about supporting their theory unscientifically and at the expense of suppressing all challengers.
The theory that they have articulated cannot apparently survive other scientists' scrutiny -- at least their actions show how insecure they themselves feel about it.
Is anthropogenic global-warming occurring? Please show me a theory that has advanced and is supported by rigorous and transparent application of the scientific method and I will comment on it. Do you really find it that unreasonable that I ask for that, Fox? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:45 pm Post subject: Re: Warming conspiracy is exposed |
|
|
| Axiom wrote: |
Here's a story to be followed very closely
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/hadleycru-says-leaked-data-is-real.html
The director of Britain's leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine.
In an exclusive interview, Jones told TGIF, "It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails."
"Have you alerted police"
"Not yet. We were not aware of what had been taken."
Jones says he was first tipped off to the security breach by colleagues at the website RealClimate.
"Real Climate were given information, but took it down off their site and told me they would send it across to me. They didn't do that. I only found out it had been released five minutes ago."
TGIF asked Jones about the controversial email discussing "hiding the decline", and Jones explained what he was trying to say�. |
Thank God, this lie is being exposed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
They have gone about supporting their theory unscientifically and at the expense of suppressing all challengers.
The theory that they have articulated cannot apparently survive other scientists' scrutiny -- at least their actions show how insecure they themselves feel about it. |
Great. I'm not defending them.
| Gopher wrote: |
| Is anthropogenic global-warming occurring? Please show me a theory that has advanced and is supported by rigorous and transparent application of the scientific method and I will comment on it. Do you really find it that unreasonable that I ask for that, Fox? |
What I think is reasonable is an answer of, "Yes," "No," or, "I'm not sure." I've all ready given the answer, "I'm not sure." If your answer is, "No," then say, "No." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pass, Fox. I will not be badgered. You have my position; take it or leave it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Were these dudes researching this issue? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
Were these dudes researching this issue? |
No idea. But it seems those guys were working on atmospheric temperature, which is murky and difficult. Ocean acidity is as easy as dipping something that measures pH into the ocean. Its increased by 30% almost everywhere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This site (Skeptical Science: Examining the claims of global warming skepticism), as far as I can tell, contains every graph, every bit of information cited in favor of AGW.
Whether it persuades you personally or not, there's quite a lot of data.
Is it the skeptics' position that, in the light of the emails scandal, there is now a dark, or darker, shadow of doubt over all this data?
Even granting that the emails scandal is indeed gross misconduct (I don't know what to think yet), direct refutations of the evidence still needs to be provided to win over the fence-sitter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Why are you so wedded to their theory? The fate of the world hangs in the balance? Do you have any idea how many different groups of people in different times and places in human history have sold their politics/religion based on that line...? |
Eloquent. Like the Boy Who Cried Wolf? But it doesn't establish much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From the article itself:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rising-ocean-acidity-erodes-alaska-fisheries
But others are more cautious about stating that Arctic ecosystems are any more at risk by acidification than tropical ones.
Cold water holds more gas than warmer water - the reason why a refrigerated can of cola fizzes less aggressively when opened than a warm one. While this means frigid waters off Alaska's coasts can absorb more carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, it also means the waters were naturally more acidic and that species in those waters are adapted to lower pH levels.
"It won't necessarily have a more severe impact," said Oceana marine scientist Ellycia Harrould-Kolieb. "It's having an earlier impact." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
Were these dudes researching this issue? |
No idea. But it seems those guys were working on atmospheric temperature, which is murky and difficult. Ocean acidity is as easy as dipping something that measures pH into the ocean. Its increased by 30% almost everywhere. |
Everywhere. The article seems to be talking only about Arctic waters in relation to tropical waters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am having a little trouble identifying this assertion in the article. Can you help Kuros. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Whether it persuades you personally or not, there's quite a lot of data. |
Eloquent but it hardly establishes much.
There are other websites out there. Try the Marshall Institute, for example.
And you like data, no? How about this data? Why can your people's models not account for such data as this?
| Quote: |
�The average October temperature of 50.8�F was 4.0�F below the 20th Century average and ranked as the 3rd coolest based on preliminary data.
�For the nation as a whole, it was the third coolest October on record. The month was marked by an active weather pattern that reinforced unseasonably cold air behind a series of cold fronts. Temperatures were below normal in eight of the nation's nine climate regions, and of the nine, five were much below normal. Only the Southeast climate region had near normal temperatures for October.
�Statewide temperatures coincided with the regional values as all but six states had below normal temperatures. Oklahoma had its coolest October on record and ten other states had their top five coolest such months.
�Florida was the only state to have an above normal temperature average in October. It was the sixth consecutive month that the Florida's temperature was above normal, resulting in the third warmest such period (May-October).
�The three-month period (August-October) was the coolest on record for three states: Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Five other states had top five cool periods: Missouri (2nd), Iowa (3rd) , Arkansas (5th) , Illinois (5th) and South Dakota (5th) . Every climate division in Kansas (nine) and Nebraska (eight) recorded a record cool such period.
�For the year-to-date (January - October) period, the contiguous U.S. temperature ranked 43rd warmest. No state had a top or bottom ten temperature value for this period. |
And now, Fox, allow me to turn your question around and send it right back to you. Is anthropogenic global warming, or any global warming, for that matter, occurring, yes or no? You might want to change your name here to Adlai, by the way...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
