UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

View Poll Results: Climate Change: Manmade or Natural?
Global Warming - Burning Fossil Fuels is going to kill the planet! 21 75.00%
Global Warming - It's a natural climate cycle, Manmade CO2 is not causing it. 0 0%
Global Cooling - Chlorofluorocarbons from your fridge are killing the enviroment! 0 0%
Global Cooling -It's a natural climate cycle, Manmade chemicals are not causing it. 0 0%
Climate Change - Does not exist. 0 0%
Climate Change - Exists but mankind is not causing it/can not do anything to stop or change it it. 7 25.00%
Acid Rain - Human Emissions are going to kill the enviroment, certainly a problem back in the 80s. 0 0%
Voters: 28. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-29-2011, 05:05 PM   #1
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Articuno Global Warming

Recently retitled: "Climate Change"

Does it exist?


Is it Manmade or purely Natural?

What do you think?
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2011, 05:08 PM   #2
Tyranidos
beebooboobopbooboobop
 
Tyranidos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Krusty Krab
Posts: 3,808
Send a message via AIM to Tyranidos Send a message via MSN to Tyranidos
It certainly exists and to argue against that is pretty ignorant, and is definitely manmade. But, I'm one of those people that think that if it exists then the earth can deal with it, which may mean wiping out all life on the planet.
__________________
Tyranidos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2011, 05:13 PM   #3
Emi
ACHILLESSSSS
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Agartha
Posts: 11,152
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
It exists.

It is man-made.

Also, Tdos, this may be the one thing that Earth can't handle. Look at Venus, runaway global warming caused it to become a blistering fireball.

Arguing against it existence is futile, Irene being a piece of evidence towards that. No Cat 1 hurricane gets THAT big.
__________________


Quote:
Zelphon - Today at 5:29 AM
If the current political climate has taught me anything
It's that a purge via gay witches may very well be necessary
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2011, 05:59 PM   #4
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
I'm quite curious what all your facts are then.

Most Global warming "facts" are stem from the same "Hockey Stick Graph," which was already a proven fraud.

Consensus does not make science.

Edit: mistake in name of the graph - Hockey Stick, not hockey puck

Last edited by unownmew; 08-29-2011 at 08:10 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2011, 06:04 PM   #5
Emi
ACHILLESSSSS
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Agartha
Posts: 11,152
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
I'm quite curious what all your facts are then.

Most Global warming "facts" are stem from the same "Hockey Puck Graph," which was already a proven fraud.

Consensus does not make science.
Yet, many of the things predicted to be caused by global warming have already happened. Flooding, stronger storms, droughts, etc.
__________________


Quote:
Zelphon - Today at 5:29 AM
If the current political climate has taught me anything
It's that a purge via gay witches may very well be necessary
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2011, 06:15 PM   #6
Tyranidos
beebooboobopbooboobop
 
Tyranidos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Krusty Krab
Posts: 3,808
Send a message via AIM to Tyranidos Send a message via MSN to Tyranidos
Like I said, arguing that climate change doesn't exist is pretty ignorant. Check these graphs out. While temperature/carbon dioxide levels fluctuate each year, the overall trend is that both are getting higher and it isn't a coincidence that it's happening at the same time humans are industrializing.

And Venus is a shitty example.
__________________
Tyranidos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2011, 06:21 PM   #7
Emi
ACHILLESSSSS
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Agartha
Posts: 11,152
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyranidos View Post
Like I said, arguing that climate change doesn't exist is pretty ignorant. Check these graphs out. While temperature/carbon dioxide levels fluctuate each year, the overall trend is that both are getting higher and it isn't a coincidence that it's happening at the same time humans are industrializing.

And Venus is a shitty example.
Not really. It's hot temperature has nothing to do with being close to the sun, like everybody who doesn't believe in will tell you. Runaway global warming caused it, and that was natural. Not manmade.
__________________


Quote:
Zelphon - Today at 5:29 AM
If the current political climate has taught me anything
It's that a purge via gay witches may very well be necessary
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2011, 07:39 PM   #8
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyranidos View Post
Like I said, arguing that climate change doesn't exist is pretty ignorant. Check these graphs out. While temperature/carbon dioxide levels fluctuate each year, the overall trend is that both are getting higher and it isn't a coincidence that it's happening at the same time humans are industrializing.

And Venus is a shitty example.
Personally, I find it ignorant to accept Manmade Global Warming without some serious skeptical thought, and hard truthfinding first.
Yeah, the general trend is upward, we are in agreement that the Global Climate changes. The Earth has in the past, been much warmer then it is now, without industrious humans dirtying up the atmosphere. It's simply a global cycle. Eventually the temperatures will start dropping again, maybe not in our lifetime, but they will. And none of the super catastrophes global warming proponents say will happen, will happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeVA View Post
Not really. It's hot temperature has nothing to do with being close to the sun, like everybody who doesn't believe in will tell you. Runaway global warming caused it, and that was natural. Not manmade.
Yes, it's hot temperatures are caused mostly by the gases in it's atmosphere, as well as constant opaque yellow cloud cover, and incessant storms, but CO2 is not the only gas in there, and definitely not the reason the planet is a barren wasteland.

It wasn't "runaway" anything. The elements never stabilized in the first place, and H2O does not exist on it.

Last edited by unownmew; 08-29-2011 at 07:45 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2011, 07:51 PM   #9
Talon87
Shenmue III, baby!
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,160
Send a message via AIM to Talon87
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Personally, I find it ignorant to accept global warming without some serious skeptical thought, and hard truthfinding first.
This kind of comment betrays your expectation that he hasn't. But that isn't very fair of you. What if he has? Why do you automatically assume that you are the better-read, better-informed participant of the discussion between the two of you? It's no more fair than for him to assume that you haven't given the matter some serious skeptical thought too. Neither party, I feel, should treat the other as though he is the one who has only read Highlights for Children®'s version of the events and nothing else.

Neither of you has provided much in the way of direct links to scholarly research. So far, Tyranidos is the only person to have linked any supporting evidence at all and it was one graph. But at least he posted something. Before you rail against his lack of having given the matter some serious thought, I would suggest that you share with us:
  • links not to OpEds but to primary sources explaining what is wrong with conventional thinking about global warming; and
  • links to primary sources defending your personal thoughts on the matter
That would be a nice start. It would at least give people something to read (if they haven't already) and some actual points to be debated with you rather than a back-and-forth "nuh-uh!" "uh-huh!" "nuh-uh!" "uh-huh!".

I don't care to debate global warming on a small Pokeyman webforum, though, I must admit. At least not tonight. But for those of you who do, I would politely encourage you to respect that the onus of evidence rests with each and every one of you. You can't just say "science has shown that ..." or "a recent study disproves the belief that ...". That isn't going to cut it. Not if you want a real discussion.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2011, 08:17 PM   #10
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Understood Talon. I said I find it ignorant, because, I've read much which leads much to be desired in the Global Warming Proponent's arguments. And, I felt lightly attacked myself by his comment saying it's ignorant to disagree with it. The ignorant thing, is to accept something without much knowledge on it. I never meant to say he was ignorant though.

As for proof, well, I was going to get into that, but I didn't really see anything that needed direct countering in the form of actual proof at the moment.

I had a really good article about global warming last year when I did a research paper about it, but I've since lost it. Once I find it again, I'll show you guys.

Edit: While this isn't the article I was looking for, it is quite good, and not nearly as long as the one I was seeking.
Hocky Stick Hoax
and another
Corrupt Peer Review System?

Last edited by unownmew; 08-29-2011 at 08:49 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2011, 09:14 PM   #11
Tyranidos
beebooboobopbooboobop
 
Tyranidos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Krusty Krab
Posts: 3,808
Send a message via AIM to Tyranidos Send a message via MSN to Tyranidos
Tyranitar

Cool outdated information bro.

It may seem like a natural trend and that the Medieval Period was hotter than it is now, but who knows if we've peaked yet? This suggests that the arctic circle hadn't been touched the natural warming and cooling trends until about 1900 i.e. the onset of the Industrial Revolution.
__________________
Tyranidos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2011, 03:13 AM   #12
deoxys
こばやし だいすき~
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: 私の尾を食べてください OwO
Posts: 6,482
Bill Nye says it, therefore it is truth. Watch.

To answer your question, 'climate change', as it should be properly called, does exist, and there is irrefutable evidence of such. It is a fact, and it shouldn't even be up for debate. It's essentially the same thing as asking if the sky is blue or if water is wet. It's not even a debatable topic.

It is not man made. It is a completely natural cycle that takes place every few hundred years, and sometimes, a large change every few thousand. We bounce back and forth between extreme conditions, the ice age on one end and complete global warming on the other. The current warming period is supposed to be a natural bounce back from the Little Ice Age in the 16th-19th centuries, which was a bounce back from the Medieval Warm Period before then, however, I am of the opinion that as it stands, man made emissions are indeed throwing a wrench into this cycle and a. increasing the speed in which the Earth is warming and b. will make the end result of the process much, much more warmer than it is supposed to be.

So, in short, my opinion is that it indisputably does exist, it is normally completely natural, not man made, but during the present time, our emissions are helping it along and do indeed have an effect on our atmosphere. That's what pollution does, and the greenhouse effect is a real thing and it needs to stop happening.

We should really cut it out.

/two cents

edit: If you want articles or whatever... I mean, I really just wanted to pop in and give my opinion and pop out, but I should know better, that never happens on UPN, lol. Anyway, just ask and I'll go look for some. I'm way too tired to care right now

edit 2: Ah, I see you tried correcting it to 'Climate Change'. Well then, good show.

Last edited by deoxys; 08-30-2011 at 03:29 AM.
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2011, 03:17 AM   #13
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,328
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
Quote:
Originally Posted by deoxys View Post
Bill Nye says it, therefore it is truth. Watch.

To answer your question, 'climate change', as it should be properly called, does exist, and there is irrefutable evidence of such. It is a fact, and it shouldn't even be up for debate. It's essentially the same thing as asking if the sky is blue or if water is wet. It's not even a debatable topic.

It is not man made. It is a completely natural cycle that takes place every few hundred years, and sometimes, a large change every few thousand. We bounce back and forth between extreme conditions, the ice age on one end and complete global warming on the other. The current warming period is supposed to be a natural bounce back from the Little Ice Age in the 16th-18th centuries, however, I am of the opinion that as it stands, man made emissions are indeed throwing a wrench into this cycle and a. increasing the speed in which the Earth is warming and b. will make the end result of the process much, much more warmer than it is supposed to be.

So, in short, my opinion is that it indisputably does exist, it is normally completely natural, not man made, but during the present time, our emissions are helping it along and do indeed have an effect on our atmosphere. That's what pollution does, and the greenhouse effect is a real thing and it needs to stop happening.

We should really cut it out.

/two cents
This. So this.
__________________
Spoiler: show
Rangeet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2011, 06:51 AM   #14
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyranidos View Post
Cool outdated information bro.

It may seem like a natural trend and that the Medieval Period was hotter than it is now, but who knows if we've peaked yet? This suggests that the arctic circle hadn't been touched the natural warming and cooling trends until about 1900 i.e. the onset of the Industrial Revolution.
I fail to see how sunspot records, proof of a hoaxed graph (which is still a base for many global warming accounts), and proof of a corruptible peer review system can be counted as "outdated" information.

Even if temperatures haven't peaked, we're still no where close to the temperatures of the medieval warming period. As well, it's proof that Humankind did not contribute to the warm temperatures in that period, so what evidence is there to say that we are actually contributing to this warming?

Instead of simply saying, "no, that's outdated, things have changed since then," and "Who knows what the future may bring?" how about you counter me with some actual information and real studies?

Also, your article fails to provide any source material for it's claims, which is automatically discrediting. If the study exists, why would it not cite it then? Are we not supposed to study their "conclusive" evidence for ourselves? I'd like to see this study they claim has irrefutable proof of manmade global warming, perhaps you could find it for me?

Edit: Here we go, I found the Article I was looking for. All 91 pages of it.
The Wegman Report, an analysis of Mann et al's Hockey Stick graph and his close association with his Peer Reviewers. (It's a PDF file)
When you look at it, you'll see there's plenty of places where Scholastic Dishonesty is likely to have occurred. Whether you believe it did or not, the possibility can not be ruled out.
And yet, Mann is still a very prominent Global Warming activist, with a high position in the UN. If he faked one thing, why is he allowed to preside over the crisis that was originally brought up from his faked work?

Last edited by unownmew; 08-30-2011 at 07:51 AM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2011, 07:34 AM   #15
Talon87
Shenmue III, baby!
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,160
Send a message via AIM to Talon87
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Even if temperatures haven't peaked, we're still no where close to the temperatures of the medieval warming period.
Science begs to differ!

Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Comparison.png
Parent Source: Wikipedia's article on the Medieval Warm Period
Parent Parent Sources:
(dark blue 1000-1991): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (199. , The Holocene, 8: 455-471. doi:10.1191/095968398667194956

(blue 1000-1980): M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). , Geophysical Research Letters, 26(6): 759-762.

(light blue 1000-1965): Crowley and Lowery (2000). , Ambio, 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). , Science, 289: 270-277. doi:10.1126/science.289.5477.270

(lightest blue 1402-1960): K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). , J. Geophys. Res., 106: 2929-2941.

(light turquoise 831-1992): J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). , Science, 295(5563): 2250-2253. doi:10.1126/science.1066208.

(green 200-1980): M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). , Geophysical Research Letters, 30(15): 1820. doi:10.1029/2003GL017814.

(yellow 200-1995): P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). , Reviews of Geophysics, 42: RG2002. doi:10.1029/2003RG000143

(orange 1500-1980): S. Huang (2004). , Geophys. Res Lett., 31: L13205. doi:10.1029/2004GL019781

(red 1-1979): A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). , Nature, 443: 613-617. doi:10.1038/nature03265

(dark red 1600-1990): J.H. Oerlemans (2005). , Science, 308: 675-677. doi:10.1126/science.1107046

(black 1856-2004): Instrumental data was jointly compiled by the w:Climatic Research Unit and the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre. Global Annual Average data set TaveGL2v [2] was used.


Even the least fearful studies have concluded that we are at least close to the Medieval Warm Period's apex temperatures. (See the blue lines. You can see the aquamarine one on the very far right peaking out from under the black line, and it is very nearly at the projected temperature for the Medieval Warm Period.) The more fearful ones claim that temperatures were never as high during the Medieval Warm Period as they are today (see the green, yellow, and red lines). And the black line shows runaway temperature inflation. Whether we side with the one extreme (black), the other extreme (blue), or the middle ground (green and yellow), the fact remains that ten different studies all show that we are very close, if not already beyond, the apex temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2011, 07:59 AM   #16
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Hmm, that looks suspiciously like the Hockey Stick Graph, which I just finished proving as a fraud.
And the actual data only reaches to 2000, while the projection of that data (which projection is at best an educated guess), only reaches to 2004, so there's no data on whether temperatures have leveled out, dropped unexpectedly, or continued their "dramatic upward spike" since then.

Also, 3 of your parent parent sources are from Mann himself, the creator of the Hockey stick fraud graph. Unfortunately none of your sources are web sources so it's going to be difficult to find the parent sources of your parent parent sources. It's my bet however, that they all stem from Mann et al's "conclusive" Hockey Stick graph at some point or another. The fact remains, that we are trusting these 10 sources to be absolutely honest, or based on honest studies, 3 of which are already highly dubious, with the other 7 quite likely based off a single dubious study.

You can see why I have this suspicion by reading Section 5 of the Wegman Report, starting on page 38. Though I would highly recommend you read the entire thing.

Last edited by unownmew; 08-30-2011 at 08:13 AM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2011, 08:25 AM   #17
Talon87
Shenmue III, baby!
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,160
Send a message via AIM to Talon87
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Hmm, that looks suspiciously like the Hockey Stick Graph, which I just finished proving as a fraud.
Don't twist the facts. The black line is the most extreme, the one you'd be quickest to label as the Hockey Stick, yet it was done by the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre and had nothing to do with either Michael Mann or Penn State. The aquamarine line, which as I already explained is the most conservative one of the data sets (as it suggests a very extreme apex for the Medieval Warm Period and a less impressive apex for modern times versus what others of the graphs depict), also had nothing to do with Michael Mann or Penn State and also, even as the most conservative of the trends there, depicts modern peak temperatures being within 0.1°C of the apex temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period. Claiming that these studies used Mann's data is ridiculous. The entire point behind these ten different studies is that each used its own data sets. Even Mann, who as you point out appears several times in this chart, produced different data sets for different papers. No one graph "builds upon," as you seem to be implying, the foundation of Mann's hockey stick data set, whether that data set be valid or hogwash.

"Unfortunately none of your sources are web sources so"
You have a lot of nerve, you know that!? You post a link to a politically-motivated pundit's website and you have the gall to turn around and tell me, "Eh, you cited the actual papers Wikipedia used to produce this graph -- but since I don't have access to those journals, they don't count for shit"? I may as well throw that right back in your face: "the site you linked earlier lists over 20 different sources but since Rangeet and T-Dos don't have ready access to them your site's claims are all make-believe." Not very appealing or convincing a rebuttal, is it? Let's discuss facts, please.

Quote:
And the actual data only reaches to 2000, while the projection of that data (which projection is at best an educated guess), only reaches to 2004, so there's no data on whether temperatures have leveled out, or continued their "dramatic upward spike" since then.
You do realize that one centimeter on that x-axis corresponds to 200 years, don't you? You wouldn't even be able to tell the difference between 2000 and 2011, dude. Not without busting out the fine-tooth comb. The graph is meant to illustrate changes over multiple decades or even centuries, not changes within a decade. What's more, changes within a decade are arguably inconsequential to both the planet and the species versus changes in the long run. If in the last three years we'd seen average global cooling, but if in the last twenty years we had seen runaway global warming, would you suddenly advocate changing our climate policy because we were "out of the woods" or even more extremely "we were wrong all along"? I sure wouldn't. I would say "keep doing what we've been doing because it seems to be working" and I would say give it 20+ years before drawing any permanent conclusions. You're way too hasty to form conclusions based on only a few years' worth of data. Very unscientific. Larger data set = better data set, always.

As for the Wegman Report, that's as contentious as Mann's research data you are so quick to discount! You're using the black kettle to disprove the pot's own whiteness! In the Nature article "Copy and Paste" (Nature 473 (7348 ): 419–420. 2011. doi:10.1038/473419b. PMID 21614031), they discuss how Wegman et al plagiarized a good number of other authors' works. And when I say "plagiarized," I mean both the less obvious but still childishly stupid "thinly disguised paraphrases" as well as the blatantly obvious and just downright retarded "text lifted word for word from other sources." Does that invalidate his claims? Not necessarily. Plagiarism is its own beast, and it need not have any say necessarily in whether mathematical proofs made by a statistician are true or false. But if you're going to try and use Wegman to call into question Mann's credentials, I'm going to have to LOLWUT at you and ask if you really accept that Wegman is the moral paragon you seem to be implying he is. As you put it yourself, "If he faked one thing, why is he allowed to preside over the crisis that was originally brought up from his faked work?" If that argument applies to Mann, then it most definitely also applies to Wegman. You can't be choosy, dude, like a Christian choice-picking which Old Testament claims are to be taken literally and which are to be taken metaphorically. It's all or none, dude. Either both sources are unreliable or else neither of them is: and both for the reason of lack of academic integrity.

Last edited by Talon87; 08-30-2011 at 08:27 AM.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2011, 09:05 AM   #18
Mercutio
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
What a fucking stupid question. It's not one or other. It's both.
Mercutio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2011, 09:24 AM   #19
Emi
ACHILLESSSSS
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Agartha
Posts: 11,152
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post


Yes, it's hot temperatures are caused mostly by the gases in it's atmosphere, as well as constant opaque yellow cloud cover, and incessant storms, but CO2 is not the only gas in there, and definitely not the reason the planet is a barren wasteland.

It wasn't "runaway" anything. The elements never stabilized in the first place, and H2O does not exist on it.
I never said a single thing about CO2. I know that there are many more gases on Venus, the most notable being sulfur oxides. And how do you know there was not water on Venus? Did you travel in time billions of years ago? And, it was runaway pollution from volcanic activity that caused it, not elements not being stable.
__________________


Quote:
Zelphon - Today at 5:29 AM
If the current political climate has taught me anything
It's that a purge via gay witches may very well be necessary
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2011, 09:24 AM   #20
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
Don't twist the facts. The black line is the most extreme, the one you'd be quickest to label as the Hockey Stick, yet it was done by the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre and had nothing to do with either Michael Mann or Penn State. The aquamarine line, which as I already explained is the most conservative one of the data sets (as it suggests a very extreme apex for the Medieval Warm Period and a less impressive apex for modern times versus what others of the graphs depict), also had nothing to do with Michael Mann or Penn State and also, even as the most conservative of the trends there, depicts modern peak temperatures being within 0.1°C of the apex temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period. Claiming that these studies used Mann's data is ridiculous. The entire point behind these ten different studies is that each used its own data sets. Even Mann, who as you point out appears several times in this chart, produced different data sets for different papers. No one graph "builds upon," as you seem to be implying, the foundation of Mann's hockey stick data set, whether that data set be valid or hogwash.
I was referring to the graph as a whole, not just one line. Each graph has a very similar shape. There are only two possibilities for this similiarity. Either each study found the same thing seperately, or, they are working in collusion either knowingly, or unknowingly, by using one set of data points (produced by Mann et al), and studies that took from Mann's data points.
You say the former, while I suspect the latter. There is nothing ridiculous about being skeptical of the honesty of a groups findings. That's what the peer review system was set up for, to allow independent scientists to use their own data to reconstruct, or disprove a theory.

In the US judicial system, you are innocent until proven guilty, but with science, truth can only be found when claims are false until proven absolutely true. To be a scientists is to be a skeptic. You can not prove the data points are independent, and I, due to lack of the resources, can not prove that they are dependent. But I do have substantial evidence that would make one suspicious.


Quote:
"Unfortunately none of your sources are web sources so"
You have a lot of nerve, you know that!? You post a link to a politically-motivated pundit's website and you have the gall to turn around and tell me, "Eh, you cited the actual papers Wikipedia used to produce this graph -- but since I don't have access to those journals, they don't count for shit"? I may as well throw that right back in your face: "the site you linked earlier lists over 20 different sources but since Rangeet and T-Dos don't have ready access to them your site's claims are all make-believe." Not very appealing or convincing a rebuttal, is it? Let's discuss facts, please.
If you want to pull politics, I can easily say that while my website is politically motivated in one direction, global warming, Mann et al, and numerous other "prominent" global warming activists" are politically motivated in the other direction. Both statements could easily be true. Just because one thing is motivated in one political direction, does not mean it can not contain truth. "Al Gore is a democrat, so, obviously he must be politically motivated with his global warming views." You see how simple it is to make biased claims?
So, as you say, lets discuss facts, and leave politics out of it. Regardless of what political views a site has, Republican or Democrat, lets look at their actual evidence, not their affiliations.

I never said the journals were meaningless, I was saying, I have heavy doubts about the validity of their claims, I can not prove them either way at the moment, but I have evidence that should give someone a dose of heavy suspicion. Everyone should take their sources with a grain of salt. But, where there's smoke, there's usually a fire.


Quote:
You do realize that one centimeter on that x-axis corresponds to 200 years, don't you? You wouldn't even be able to tell the difference between 2000 and 2011, dude. Not without busting out the fine-tooth comb. The graph is meant to illustrate changes over multiple decades or even centuries, not changes within a decade. What's more, changes within a decade are arguably inconsequential to both the planet and the species versus changes in the long run. If in the last three years we'd seen average global cooling, but if in the last twenty years we had seen runaway global warming, would you suddenly advocate changing our climate policy because we were "out of the woods" or even more extremely "we were wrong all along"? I sure wouldn't. I would say "keep doing what we've been doing because it seems to be working" and I would say give it 20+ years before drawing any permanent conclusions. You're way too hasty to form conclusions based on only a few years' worth of data. Very unscientific. Larger data set = better data set, always.
I would personally say, we need more and varied studies in order to know the truth about global warming, and we should not be jumping on the "Crisis!" ship and invoking costly legislation to fix a problem when there is still no "proven" theory, and all we have is a "Consensus" of Human Scientists (which Humans are by their very nature, imperfect, biased, and subject to greed and emotion. And which consensus, is still not even a true scientific consensus yet.) I'm not saying corruption can be proven, but, I am saying that we should give a very heavy dose of skepticism to the claims, especially when it comes to enacting restrictive and costly legislation and investments.

Quote:
As for the Wegman Report, that's as contentious as Mann's research data you are so quick to discount! You're using the black kettle to disprove the pot's own whiteness! In the Nature article "Copy and Paste" (Nature 473 (7348 ): 419–420. 2011. doi:10.1038/473419b. PMID 21614031), they discuss how Wegman et al plagiarized a good number of other authors' works. And when I say "plagiarized," I mean both the less obvious but still childishly stupid "thinly disguised paraphrases" as well as the blatantly obvious and just downright retarded "text lifted word for word from other sources." Does that invalidate his claims? Not necessarily. Plagiarism is its own beast, and it need not have any say necessarily in whether mathematical proofs made by a statistician are true or false. But if you're going to try and use Wegman to call into question Mann's credentials, I'm going to have to LOLWUT at you and ask if you really accept that Wegman is the moral paragon you seem to be implying he is. As you put it yourself, "If he faked one thing, why is he allowed to preside over the crisis that was originally brought up from his faked work?" If that argument applies to Mann, then it most definitely also applies to Wegman. You can't be choosy, dude, like a Christian choice-picking which Old Testament claims are to be taken literally and which are to be taken metaphorically. It's all or none, dude. Either both sources are unreliable or else neither of them is: and both for the reason of lack of academic integrity.
I'm having a hard time finding that Nature reference in the Bibliography. I will keep looking, but I have to go to class now, so I will address this segment later. In the meantime, I would ask that you read more on the Wagman Report and bring up the actual parts in it that you disagree with, or can prove false.

Last edited by unownmew; 08-30-2011 at 09:27 AM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2011, 09:35 AM   #21
Emi
ACHILLESSSSS
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Agartha
Posts: 11,152
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Basically, this is one of those Titanic situations. With both sides bickering and arguing like two kids in a sandbox, instead of trying to look at what is happening with an objective view, we will never know who is right until it is too late to turn back. You tell us not to yell "Crisis", and yet, if an army was headed towards the US, would not the first thing to do would be to assume that they are trying to invade us? Same thing here, with temperatures rising, and also greenhouse gases, not just CO2, also rising, is it best for the human race to bicker and yell at each other on "if" global warming will happen, or to try to prevent it from happening, even if it won't.
__________________


Quote:
Zelphon - Today at 5:29 AM
If the current political climate has taught me anything
It's that a purge via gay witches may very well be necessary
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2011, 12:54 PM   #22
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeVA View Post
I never said a single thing about CO2. I know that there are many more gases on Venus, the most notable being sulfur oxides. And how do you know there was not water on Venus? Did you travel in time billions of years ago? And, it was runaway pollution from volcanic activity that caused it, not elements not being stable.
My apologies. You said it was runaway global warming, and I took that to mean, like claims of Global warming on earth, it was due to vast and ever-increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. Since you have clarified your statement, I can see where I was wrong.

As for water, I agree, I can not prove one way or another whether water exists or not on Venus, however, I recalled hearing that there was not, and it seems highly unlikely due to such instability.

Regarding my statement about elements being unstable, I was using "elements" as a term for factors, such as weather factors (atmospheric composition), and environmental factors (volcanic activity), not actual elements like atoms and molecules, Helium, and Oxygen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
As for the Wegman Report, that's as contentious as Mann's research data you are so quick to discount! You're using the black kettle to disprove the pot's own whiteness! In the Nature article "Copy and Paste" (Nature 473 (7348 ): 419–420. 2011. doi:10.1038/473419b. PMID 21614031), they discuss how Wegman et al plagiarized a good number of other authors' works. And when I say "plagiarized," I mean both the less obvious but still childishly stupid "thinly disguised paraphrases" as well as the blatantly obvious and just downright retarded "text lifted word for word from other sources." Does that invalidate his claims? Not necessarily. Plagiarism is its own beast, and it need not have any say necessarily in whether mathematical proofs made by a statistician are true or false. But if you're going to try and use Wegman to call into question Mann's credentials, I'm going to have to LOLWUT at you and ask if you really accept that Wegman is the moral paragon you seem to be implying he is. As you put it yourself, "If he faked one thing, why is he allowed to preside over the crisis that was originally brought up from his faked work?" If that argument applies to Mann, then it most definitely also applies to Wegman. You can't be choosy, dude, like a Christian choice-picking which Old Testament claims are to be taken literally and which are to be taken metaphorically. It's all or none, dude. Either both sources are unreliable or else neither of them is: and both for the reason of lack of academic integrity.
Ah, I see where I was wrong now. Apparently I had misread your post and was looking for the wrong thing. I found this article Copy and Paste, which seems to be what you were referring to. And thank you for bringing it to my attention, for I was unaware of it until now.

However, I do not see much of your alleged accusations in this article. What I read is: 2 of the authors of the Wegman Report, with an unspecified number of coauthors, helped author a paper on the social network analysis of Mann et al, 2 years after the Wegman Report was published, which had several sections plagiarized from the Wegman Report, and Wikipedia. While I agree this is a troubling case of Academic Dishonesty, and certianly puts the Wegman Report and it's authors into questionable territory, there is no conclusive evidence that Wegman and the other author were the ones who did the actual plagiarizing, (though they are still liable for what the other coauthors did, and well as failing to ensure the quality of the report), nor that anything in the Wegman report itself was actually plagiarized. As well, the article neither names the controversial paper that was pulled, nor cites any sources for their allegations, which leads to it's own discredibility.

Also, while I do not agree with Academic Dishonesty, even if the entire Wegman Report was plagiarized, it does not mean the findings or data is wrong. We can take from Wegman et al's numerous sources listed in the Wegman Report (if they were available), and their mathematical formulas, to arrive at our own truth. If you do not trust my source (The Wegman Report), you're welcome to go straight to the parent sources and find your own conclusion, just as I said I would do with your graphs sources since I do not trust them.

Long papers just make it convenient to see a point of view, but if you disagree, that's why sources are cited, so you can prove or disprove that view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeVA View Post
Basically, this is one of those Titanic situations. With both sides bickering and arguing like two kids in a sandbox, instead of trying to look at what is happening with an objective view, we will never know who is right until it is too late to turn back. You tell us not to yell "Crisis", and yet, if an army was headed towards the US, would not the first thing to do would be to assume that they are trying to invade us? Same thing here, with temperatures rising, and also greenhouse gases, not just CO2, also rising, is it best for the human race to bicker and yell at each other on "if" global warming will happen, or to try to prevent it from happening, even if it won't.
When the "Fix" for the Crisis results in the degradation of our economy, loss of jobs, money laundering schemes, gross government empowerment and interference, hypocritical fear-mongers, and hostile, unfounded, insults to skeptics. I think I'd rather take my chances with nature's resilience then trying to "fix a problem" that probably can't be fixed anyway, and is just being used as a lever to empower elites anyway.

Last edited by unownmew; 08-30-2011 at 01:00 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2011, 01:06 PM   #23
Selena
Aroma Lady
 
Selena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,755
You do know that most "solutions" for the alledged problem is just stop using fossil feuls, right? Fossil feuls are finnite, so wether the climate runs wild or not, we're already starting to run low. (starting, as in past the halfway point) Sooner or later we have to ditch fossil feuls anyway. So why not sooner, if we start later we still have those economical problems and whatnot, if at all.
__________________
Trainer level 3: 53 KO \\ 187 TP \\ 37.5 SP
21 win 29 loss 1 draw (17/21/1 Without DQ)

B- grade ref.
Quote:
Originally Posted by empoleon dynamite View Post
Shouldn’t the Hoff be doing something if he’s still around? I have strict rules about leaving the pool, and I’m sure vanishing the pool out of existence breaks those rules in some way :P
Selena is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2011, 01:16 PM   #24
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by milotic111 View Post
You do know that most "solutions" for the alledged problem is just stop using fossil feuls, right? Fossil feuls are finnite, so wether the climate runs wild or not, we're already starting to run low. (starting, as in past the halfway point) Sooner or later we have to ditch fossil feuls anyway. So why not sooner, if we start later we still have those economical problems and whatnot, if at all.
Actually, most solutions involve "Forcing" people and companies to stop using or reduce usage of Fossil Fuels, either through extra taxation, or harsh regulation.

I completely agree however, eventually we will be forced to move to a different fuel source, simply because our supply is gone. However, this is incredibly difficult, in that, Wind and Solar Power are completely inefficient, costing more energy in their production then they will ever produce in their lifetime. Electricity still relies on Coal Burning (so your electric cars are still "dirtying" up the atmosphere), or nuclear power (a flat "No" from the current Administration).

And all of society as a whole relies on Fossil Fuels, so changing is going to take a HUGE amount of effort. Instead of regulating their use, and forcing people to pay for inefficient energy sources, I would suggest using Fossil Fuels even more (opening more refineries, and allow more drilling), while spending money on researching serious alternative energy sources, opening more Nuclear power plants (which many democrats flat out refuse to allow), and waiting for the genius or scientific breakthrough to provide a viable, efficient, and cheap, alternative to Fossil Fuels. Once that is provided, and as supply of Fossil Fuels starts to dwindle and increase prices, people will switch over quickly, without a fuss. And until that is provided, you are simply forcing unnecessary discomfort on people.

Here's an interesting site. There's no sources, so obviously these claims will need further research, but it does give you something to think about.
Causes of Global Warming

Last edited by unownmew; 08-30-2011 at 01:37 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2011, 02:01 PM   #25
Tyranidos
beebooboobopbooboobop
 
Tyranidos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Krusty Krab
Posts: 3,808
Send a message via AIM to Tyranidos Send a message via MSN to Tyranidos
The problem with this issue is that's it's so politically charged that it's nigh impossible to get an objective view on it.
__________________
Tyranidos is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:08 AM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.