Gorebal Warming

I would have to agree that presenting a closed mind with ideas or examples is a fruitless endeavour. As you have already stated dbermanmd, you don't believe the majority of scientists and publications, however you Sir, are no Galileo Galilee, who in his quest for proof AGAINST the majority has done his OWN research, published treatises and the like to give his findings a voice.

Find the evidence that we are wrong, present it and you will have quite a few of us here read your findings. Heck you might even score a partial win by making us doubt. Do you have the scientific background to criticize ice core samples or sediment samples? I think it would really help if you could point us to scientific research that underscores your opinion. I am not trying to be confrontational, I *really* would like to know what you base your opinion on.

good hunting!

 

Science is not his game, but as you caught on, doubt is.

I'm starting to think that "Dr" Berman is paid a nickel by Exxon for every post he makes because he's just repeating the same 3 or 4 things over and over again in various threads. That, strangely enough, is exactly how marketing and propaganda work.

 

Personally, if I have a doctor telling me my child has a life-threatening illness, I don't go around asking second, third, fourth opinions, until finally the twentieth (with a correspondence qualification) says "there's nothing wrong with him", and then breath a big sigh of relief.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Mar 15 2007, 04:02 AM) [snapback]405963[/snapback]</div>

Show me the evidence....... Until then your banter is worthless.

 

All this talk about Galileo makes me a little queezy. Here's my problem with the argument:

"Scientific method" has become popular since the time of Galileo, when science was on a tight leash, held by religion. (Put in those terms, I guess we haven't come all that far after all...). So the general consensus in the science community, while not flawless, still tends much closer to "correct" than it used to. Saying "Galileo" doesn't make all scientists who voice the same research, data or opinions crazy, and if you think that way, it makes you look a little closed-minded.

Anyway, the real issue is that scientists publish research, and then some agenda-driven people come up with either lies, or misrepresentations of other scientists, or some bad "research" of their own just to fuel the talking points of people like Herr Berman. Then scientists refute those claims, but the claims, in the interest of "fair and balanced" journalism, have already gotten more press than they deserve.

 

I posted this in the other forum but here is a link with mor einfo on water vapor.

Water Vapor: Feedback or Forcing?

You can also doa search on that site for Beate Liepert or check these links. She was one of the scientists featured in the BBC documentary "Dimming the Sun" and focuses on the cooling effects of aerosols and could cover.

I will also link you to the http://www-indoex.ucsd.edu/ site AGAIN. I don't see how anyone can say cooling effects are not being taken seriously...

Does this disprove that climate models are not completely accurate? Not at all, they are completely aware of modeling short comings but they are also VERY aware of how accurate they can be and I'm sure they are much more knowledgable than you or I on the subject. Does it disprove that predictions made in the past have been wrong? No because some have been correct, although Michael Crichton tried to prove it wrong by chosing the wrong scenario lol.

 

Plenty of us readily admit and believe that the side effects of global warming are difficult to predict.

Personally, I'd rather keep believing there's a possibility that things could go wrong, than live in denial on Happy Planet where nothing ever goes wrong. I'd rather be preparing, and since the preparations will be a huge economy, and potentially reduced global conflict, then I don't see who should have a problem with it other than your benefactors, the oil companies. They should have a problem with it because they'll either spend a fortune re-tooling for the new energy market, or they'll go out of business.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 15 2007, 12:20 PM) [snapback]406208[/snapback]</div>

Do you honestly think that the people are just going to start acting less greedy and selfish? I dislike laws that require us to do that which should be common sense and second nature but so many of us has strayed down the path of ignorance, idiocy, and greed that we require the laws to ensure their business plans do not wreck us. Mind you I am not refering to laws for general people but laws that govern corporations and the incentives and subsidies that follow.

To enable the market to take up the slack in lue of laws we have to stop subsidizing the bad practices so heavily.

 

What are we going to do!!!! It's a disaster!!!! Damn humans make so much pollution its even afecting MARS!!!!!!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...rs-warming.html

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast09feb_1.htm

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars...age_031208.html

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...5c7f723&k=0

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=36049

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 15 2007, 12:40 PM) [snapback]406227[/snapback]</div>

I agree with you completely. Is this not why we have the UN though?

The highest growth rate may be in China but the U.S. still has the highest total output. This is definately a tough situation and we can thank extreme globalization for that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Mar 15 2007, 12:40 PM) [snapback]406228[/snapback]</div>

Dude, we're driving cars on Mars. That's the problem.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Mar 15 2007, 12:40 PM) [snapback]406228[/snapback]</div>

WOW! That is really interesting....

It's too bad most of this has been reviewed. Here is one article. I'm too tired to look up others because it's doubtful they will be read.

 

saying feb was one of the coldest months is supposed to mean something??

what about saying the winter of 2006-7 didnt start until feb??

i have a friend in upstate new york who didnt get their first snowfall of the season until the last week of jan. he lives a few minutes away from where the 1980 winter olympics was held. they had average temps in the low 60's for nearly the entire month of jan. well heck that was only 36º above the upper 20's average they normally have every winter and yes that is the average daytime high temp

and are we supposed to believe that GW# means every place will get warmer?? we all know that the tempd will get colder in many parts of the world while others will bake due to altered weather patterns

 

The reason I brought up Galileo is to show that a strong consensus, no matter how it came about, does stand a chance of being wrong. The majority of scientists at the time did not believe in a heliocentric system. They had also scientifically proven that items on a spinning surface would fly off into space.. it was easy to demonstrate.. try standing on the surface of a carousel without holding onto the poles. GG did spend years studying and refining his mathematical equations, even after he was sanctioned by the Pope. He and Kepler (and very few others) did not believe the dominant earth-centered Ptolemaic and Aristotelian theories to be correct in every case. I am trying to be the devils advocate here (I am probably failing) and find common ground by making room for error on behalf of both sides. Either side can be wrong, but not everyone wants to admit to that possibility.

To believe that we have 0 effect on the environment is not only foolish but dangerous. I rather err on the safe side then believe that the planet will just keep on taking the punches we dish out. I do not see anyone here saying that GCC is the sole responsibility of humankind, what I do see however is people making room for the possibility that humankind exasperates natural fluctions. It comes down to faith, doesn't it. You put your faith in the planet to heal itself and shrug of humankind's footprint, I put my faith in myself to coexist with the planet and limit my negative footprint.

Peace, Love and Chocolate!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 14 2007, 12:12 PM) [snapback]405599[/snapback]</div>

The 650,000 years is constructed from repeated ice cores, from the surface to bed rock, in Greenland and Antarctica; ocean sediments throughout the world and fossils contained in the sediments.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lywyllyn @ Mar 15 2007, 12:33 PM) [snapback]406264[/snapback]</div>

Science is not a belief system, but rather a nonbelief system, and must be based on reproducible, falsifiable evidence. Scientific knowledge changes as new evidence is brought to light through peer-reviewed published papers.