How many scientists really dispute global warming?

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from droskill:

When you say night follows day, and, specifically, that the sun will come up tomorrow, you're still making a prediction. You're just making a prediction with a extremely, extremely high degree of confidence. At some point in the future, maybe when the sun burns out, or some other event happens, that prediction may not be true.

Your second statment "a statement of fact would be that 100 years from now the earth, assuming it still exits, will have a measurable temperature" is just what you say it is - an assumption that is used in constructing an prediction, model or argument. It is not, however, a statement of fact.

We place bets all the time based on confidence in our predictions - we have a high degree of confidence that we will not die flying based on the statistics and historical data related to deaths from flying. We start our cars everyday with a large degree of confidence that they will not blow up.

And I thought I would be accused of splitting hairs. Wow! OK, on the day the sun burns out, night will not follow day on planet earth. However, night will always follow day on any existing planet which spins on a axis and revolves around a burning star/sun.
The point is, climate cultists are speaking as if their climate models for the future are fact, when in fact, they are not. Their models are specualtion based on extrememly limited historical data, some of which has been manipulated to achieve a personal foregone conclusion. Doesn't exactly instill the high degree of confidence, now does it?

 

[droskill]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

And I thought I would be accused of splitting hairs. Wow! OK, on the day the sun burns out, night will not follow day on planet earth. However, night will always follow day on any existing planet which spins on a axis and revolves around a burning star/sun.
The point is, climate cultists are speaking as if thier climate models for the future are fact, when in fact, they are not. Their models are specualtion based on extrememly limited historical data, some of which has been manipulated to achieve a personal foregone conclusion. Doesn't exactly instill the high degree of confidence, now does it?

Most climate scientists I've read speak about how their models have been tracking to actuals, and talk about predictions from their models with degrees of confidences, error ranges, and other statistical qualifications. They also usually look at multiple scenarios that represent a low, median and high prediction.

The rest of your statement is really your opinion - that the data has been manipulated to serve their ends (as opposed to, for instance, normal data correction for errors, or errors by scientists themselves). You're entitled to your opinion, but to me, the idea that all climate scientists are engaged in a worldwide conspiracy to continue the global climate change theory just doesn't hold water. There are too many people, across too many organizations and countries for this to be the case. But again, you're entitled your opinion.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from droskill:

Most climate scientists I've read speak about how their models have been tracking to actuals, and talk about predictions from their models with degrees of confidences, error ranges, and other statistical qualifications. They also usually look at multiple scenarios that represent a low, median and high prediction.

The rest of your statement is really your opinion - that the data has been manipulated to serve their ends (as opposed to, for instance, normal data correction for errors, or errors by scientists themselves). You're entitled to your opinion, but to me, the idea that all climate scientists are engaged in a worldwide conspiracy to continue the global climate change theory just doesn't hold water. There are too many people, across too many organizations and countries for this to be the case. But again, you're entitled your opinion.

I am not suggesting that all, or even most scientists are engaged in some great conspiracy. The climate is changing, no doubt. How much and why are in question. The research needs to continue. What I'm saying is that "climate cultists" have leeched on to the science and made it a political issue of their own. Those are the people that I have issue with, of which a few are scientists, but most are of the Al Gore ilk...in it for the power, political manipualtion and money.

 

[droskill]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

I am not suggesting that all, or even most scientists are engaged in some great conspiracy. The climate is changing, no doubt. How much and why are in question. The research needs to continue. What I'm saying is that "climate cultists" have leeched on to the science and made it a political issue of their own. Those are the people that I have issue with, of which a few are scientists, but most are of the Al Gore ilk...in it for the power, political manipualtion and money.

So if you agree that the climate is changing and that most scientists are acting in good faith, then how do you reconcile that with a position of being a global climate change skeptic? Maybe you are not, but looking at your prior posts, you seem to be.

For most of the scientific community, there is an answer with a high degree of confidence - that the planet is warming, and that humans are causing the warming. Again, this is across numerous scientists, organizations and countries. What is your answer to that?

 

[DWV]

http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.h...www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from droskill:

So if you agree that the climate is changing and that most scientists are acting in good faith, then how do you reconcile that with a position of being a global climate change skeptic? Maybe you are not, but looking at your prior posts, you seem to be.

For most of the scientific community, there is an answer with a high degree of confidence - that the planet is warming, and that humans are causing the warming. Again, this is across numerous scientists, organizations and countries. What is your answer to that?

I'm a skeptic that any change occuring is of the catastrophic nature that the cultists claim it will be, especially in the time frame they promote. I also take issue with the speculation that human activity is the primary cause of the warming. Part of the cause, certainly. To ignore sun spot activity as the cultists do is to ignore all the contributing factors. There may be other variables as well.
Should we continue to reduce emissions? Yes, at a sensible rate which will not devistate our economy as the cultists would have us do. Should pollutants be regulated and controlled? Absolutely! Corporate America would turn the world in to a sewer left unchecked.
All of this can be done in a sensible time frame, unless you think, as the cultists do, that the end of the world as we know it is right around the corner. If that is truely the case, then we need to shutdown all industry on a global scale as of today. The "science" just isn't there to justify that.

 

[droskill]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

I'm a skeptic that any change occuring is of the catastrophic nature that the cultists claim it will be, especially in the time frame they promote. I also take issue with the speculation that human activity is the primary cause of the warming. Part of the cause, certainly. To ignore sun spot activity as the cultists do is to ignore all the contributing factors. There may be other variables as well.
Should we continue to reduce emissions? Yes, at a sensible rate which will not devistate our economy as the cultists would have us do. Should pollutions be regulated and controlled? Absolutely! Corporate America would turn the world in to a sewer left unchecked.
All of this can be done in a sensible time frame, unless you think, as the cultists do, that the end of the world as we know it is right around the corner. If that is truely the case, then we need to shutdown all industry on a global scale as of today. The "science" just isn't there to justify that.

Can you point to a creditable scientific study that shows sunspot activity is a large contributor to global climate change? Can you point to scientific papers which identify and quantify these other contributing factors that you mention?

If you cannot, then why do you believe these factors to be contributing to global climate change? What is the basis of your conclusion?

Similarly, when most of the scientific community continually produces research which supports the global warming thesis, and produces models which are proven to be accurate or, in some cases, turn out to be understating the measurement (such a temperature or something like ice breakdown rates, etc.) - what is your basis for deciding that the threat is understated?

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from droskill:

Can you point to a creditable scientific study that shows sunspot activity is a large contributor to global climate change? Can you point to scientific papers which identify and quantify these other contributing factors that you mention?

If you cannot, then why do you believe these factors to be contributing to global climate change? What is the basis of your conclusion?

Similarly, when most of the scientific community continually produces research which supports the global warming thesis, and produces models which are proven to be accurate or, in some cases, turn out to be understating the measurement (such a temperature or something like ice breakdown rates, etc.) - what is your basis for deciding that the threat is understated?

Credible being the operative word, eh? I'm guessing that what you call credible and what I'd call credible would be two different things, so why go there. There's plenty of sun spot research for those that care to look for it.
The threat being understated? Well, let's see. During the 70's we were all going to freeze to death by the turn of the century. When it was apparent that wasn't going to happen the gang went for the burn to death scare. That being difficult to quantify it has now been refined to climate change. Well no shit, the climate changes. The cultists can only cry wolf for so long before it becomes obvious they are long on show and short on substance. We're at that point, and some would argue long past it. The "threat" is managable with prudent thought and action. No need to close up shop just yet, unless of course you have a political agenda for the dismantling of America. Then it's a crisis for sure.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

To ignore sun spot activity as the cultists do is to ignore all the contributing factors.

Actually solar radiation has been extensively researched and analyzed (and rejected as a primary cause of global warming.)

It absolutely has not been ignored. You might want to retract that it has been ignored.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Actually solar radiation has been extensively researched and analyzed (and rejected as a primary cause of global warming.)

It absolutely has not been ignored. You might want to retract that it has been ignored.

Rejected by who, the cultists? It may not be the primary source, but it absolutely plays a role, and that's what's being ignored. The possibility that anything other than evil humans, especially Americans, could even remotely be the cause of any climate shift. It simply must be human activity and nothing else for the cult to survive.
Hell, a contributing source could be gamma rays from starbursts throughout the universe. Taken from a science article:
"There is also speculation that waves of cosmic rays streaming down the spiral arms of the galaxy could have contributed to past episodes of mass extinction on earth".
You want the link? OK! Why embarrass you later.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070319174510.htm
Of course you say it's out of context and absurd. Blah, blah, blah. You cultists have a political agenda, nothing more, nothing less. Anything other than the evils of mankind just won't do.