The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 13 of 54 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 540

Thread: Speaking of Global Warming

  1. #121
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,456

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by huntinman View Post
    Knock yourself out... Do all the research you want. The climate is always CHANGING. That's how we get AVERAGES. I believe Mother Nature controls that, not man. So I don't spend a lot of time worrying myself over a little change one way or the other.

    I do however laugh at libs who think they have the answers on how to control the climate. That's comical.
    Great insights. Can you please show me where anyone has posted anything related to people who "think they have the answers how to control the climate." At least you are consistent in your denial despite the facts, way earlier in this thread people posted evidence of humans changing the climate, after you posted it was not possible. You were proven wrong then and now you forget these posts and default to "its always changing" so why worry. Very convenient.

  2. #122
    Senior Member huntinman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    7,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry V View Post
    Great insights. Can you please show me where anyone has posted anything related to people who "think they have the answers how to control the climate." At least you are consistent in your denial despite the facts, way earlier in this thread people posted evidence of humans changing the climate, after you posted it was not possible. You were proven wrong then and now you forget these posts and default to "its always changing" so why worry. Very convenient.
    I can't figure out why you want to debate with little old me? I'm just a bumpkin sitting here in TN who happens to believe that man has no control over the climate. You are free to believe as you wish (no matter how dumb it is). If man is responsible for the global warmin...er Climate change or whatever Buzzword you are using this week, what caused the last ice age to melt? There were no cars pumping out nasty old pollutants way back then. Not too many cattle passing gas either. Hell, there wasn't even an Al Gore bloviating his hot air all over the place warming things up. Denial... Now that's a liberal buzzword...
    Bill Davis

  3. #123
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,456

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by huntinman View Post
    I can't figure out why you want to debate with little old me? I'm just a bumpkin sitting here in TN who happens to believe that man has no control over the climate. You are free to believe as you wish (no matter how dumb it is). If man is responsible for the global warmin...er Climate change or whatever Buzzword you are using this week, what caused the last ice age to melt? There were no cars pumping out nasty old pollutants way back then. Not too many cattle passing gas either. Hell, there wasn't even an Al Gore bloviating his hot air all over the place warming things up. Denial... Now that's a liberal buzzword...
    I simply asked you to support your statement. I guess that could qualify as a debate but I would call it a simple question. If you make false claims or statements that you cannot support, you may get called on them. I know that this seldom happens in the echo chamber but every once in a while you may get a question or two rather than a high five.

    It is very clear what you believe on this topic. I can't figure out why you care to repeatedly post what you believe on this topic without supporting your point of view with any facts when asked about it.

  4. #124
    Senior Member huntinman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    7,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry V View Post
    I simply asked you to support your statement. I guess that could qualify as a debate but I would call it a simple question. If you make false claims or statements that you cannot support, you may get called on them. I know that this seldom happens in the echo chamber but every once in a while you may get a question or two rather than a high five.

    It is very clear what you believe on this topic. I can't figure out why you care to repeatedly post what you believe on this topic without supporting your point of view with any facts when asked about it.
    All you have to do is look at the weather reports. They go up... They go down... Been doing it for eternity. Unless you look at the doctored data put out by the "believers".
    Bill Davis

  5. #125
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,456

    Default

    Gerry, This is the third time you site a recent article by Mr. Singer in American Thinker. They must be paying him well.

    Regarding the content of the article, Mr. Singer starts off by blasting the “false” hockey stick graph. This is a common denier tactic. Please do a search on “hockey stick denier” and you will find many articles on this data and how the scientific process has been used to evaluate historic world temperatures and the independent analysis of the historic temperature record which have come to similar conclusions as the original and subsequent Mann graphs. Quite honestly this is old data which has been superseded by additional analysis You will also find many articles where deniers use the graph to inject “uncertainty” into the argument. Here is an article with Dr. Mann defending himself against the false accusations just like those presented by Mr. Singer. http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...e-hockey-stick another defense is presented at http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

    Your author then posts two graphs but does not clearly state their relationship or post all the values for the x-or y-axis. Without the scale of the axis, how do we know these graphs are comparable? Trust Mr. Singer? I don’t know about you, but if you are going to shoot down someone else’s scientific results with a graph, you really ought to present solid and clear data to make your case. He also cites the MWP and LIA, which, as I understand it were primarily a change in the northern european climate. Does the other graph only apply to northern Europe? My understanding is the the MWP was a climate phenomenon in the north atlantic region, not worldwide. If this is the case, then no legitimate scientist would compare these graphs and reach any conclusion, unless they have a different agenda. I also find it interesting how the author makes a statement like “Mr. Mann quietly published a paper that documents the medieval warming period. I wonder how a scientist “quietly” publishes one paper versus any other? Why include such a strange statement except to cast some false insinuation about someone??

    Your author then posts a couple of CO2 related graphs that clearly show a thousand years of record and huge increases in CO2 levels in the past 100 years. Please note that the second graph is one which demonstrates that the increase in CO2 is due to burning of fossil fuels (which your author affirms later). He then points out the little tiny blip in the graph for the medieval period and suggests that because there is not a synchronization of the CO2 increase and then warming that this somehow negates the possibility that the CO2 increase now could lead to climate change. In an earlier response to this claim posted by you I posted links to articles that respond to this often used climate denier argument regarding the medieval period and CO2 levels. Here is one again http://jcmooreonline.com/2012/04/01/...l-warm-period/

    Mr Singer then goes on to try and say there is no relationship between the temperature and CO2 graphs. Gerry do you see one? I sure do but then again if you do not believe the data in the first graph you might not, but that is exactly the set-up here, isn’t it?. First, present the hockey stick as false, then compare to CO2 and discount the obvious relationship because the first graph is false and if you do not believe that because there is not perfect agreement in the relationship between the variables. SOme people take this hook, line, and sinker.

    In the temperature record section he makes some claim about the real record but does not provide a citation for his data. At one point he questions why the Mann hockey stick stops at 1980 and insinuates it was purposely done to hide something. This is entirely disingenuous. I would think that Mr. Singer does know that the graph was published in 1989 and likely submitted for publication a year or two earlier and that it was based years of previous analysis. Raising this “1980” issue shows Mr. Singer’s true intent here which is to raise uncertainty. This is disingenuous just as is raising the climategate issue. It is red meat for fellow deniers.

    The CO2 data is pretty clear and it is hard to argue with the conclusion that humans are causing it to rise. In point 6 he again is raising the uncertainty card which is kind of funny. He points out that CO2 started increasing earlier than temperatures which seems to suggest that he wants a more direct linkage and less lag time.

    In his conclusion he jumps to talking about climate sensitivity. A bit of a disconnect if you ask me. Note that he carefully brings up some cherry picked data about the “near surface” and the “near-absence of tropical atmospheric warming”. I wonder what has been happening in the atmosphere as a whole an at the surface, and what is happening with ocean temperatures. Why is he only cherry picking these elements of the available data?.

    Since you like Mr. Singer, and called him seemingly “fair minded” in an earlier post you may want to see a review of some of his tactics at http://grist.org/article/more-from-the-dark-side/ and http://www.skepticalscience.com/fred...l-warming.html

    The information on him at Wikipedia is also interesting especially who finances his organization and his established viewpoint on the relationship between secondhand smoke and cancer.

    Maybe Mr. Singer should publish his theories and evidence in the scientific literature or take his time going through proper scientific channels to challenge what is being published.

  6. #126
    Senior Member swampcollielover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    1,983

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by henry v View Post
    gerry, this is the third time you site a recent article by mr. Singer in american thinker. They must be paying him well.

    regarding the content of the article, mr. Singer starts off by blasting the “false” hockey stick graph. This is a common denier tactic. Please do a search on “hockey stick denier” and you will find many articles on this data and how the scientific process has been used to evaluate historic world temperatures and the independent analysis of the historic temperature record which have come to similar conclusions as the original and subsequent mann graphs. Quite honestly this is old data which has been superseded by additional analysis you will also find many articles where deniers use the graph to inject “uncertainty” into the argument. Here is an article with dr. Mann defending himself against the false accusations just like those presented by mr. Singer. http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...e-hockey-stick another defense is presented at http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

    your author then posts two graphs but does not clearly state their relationship or post all the values for the x-or y-axis. Without the scale of the axis, how do we know these graphs are comparable? Trust mr. Singer? I don’t know about you, but if you are going to shoot down someone else’s scientific results with a graph, you really ought to present solid and clear data to make your case. He also cites the mwp and lia, which, as i understand it were primarily a change in the northern european climate. Does the other graph only apply to northern europe? My understanding is the the mwp was a climate phenomenon in the north atlantic region, not worldwide. If this is the case, then no legitimate scientist would compare these graphs and reach any conclusion, unless they have a different agenda. I also find it interesting how the author makes a statement like “mr. Mann quietly published a paper that documents the medieval warming period. I wonder how a scientist “quietly” publishes one paper versus any other? Why include such a strange statement except to cast some false insinuation about someone??

    Your author then posts a couple of co2 related graphs that clearly show a thousand years of record and huge increases in co2 levels in the past 100 years. Please note that the second graph is one which demonstrates that the increase in co2 is due to burning of fossil fuels (which your author affirms later). He then points out the little tiny blip in the graph for the medieval period and suggests that because there is not a synchronization of the co2 increase and then warming that this somehow negates the possibility that the co2 increase now could lead to climate change. In an earlier response to this claim posted by you i posted links to articles that respond to this often used climate denier argument regarding the medieval period and co2 levels. Here is one again http://jcmooreonline.com/2012/04/01/...l-warm-period/

    mr singer then goes on to try and say there is no relationship between the temperature and co2 graphs. Gerry do you see one? I sure do but then again if you do not believe the data in the first graph you might not, but that is exactly the set-up here, isn’t it?. First, present the hockey stick as false, then compare to co2 and discount the obvious relationship because the first graph is false and if you do not believe that because there is not perfect agreement in the relationship between the variables. Some people take this hook, line, and sinker.

    In the temperature record section he makes some claim about the real record but does not provide a citation for his data. At one point he questions why the mann hockey stick stops at 1980 and insinuates it was purposely done to hide something. This is entirely disingenuous. I would think that mr. Singer does know that the graph was published in 1989 and likely submitted for publication a year or two earlier and that it was based years of previous analysis. Raising this “1980” issue shows mr. Singer’s true intent here which is to raise uncertainty. This is disingenuous just as is raising the climategate issue. It is red meat for fellow deniers.

    The co2 data is pretty clear and it is hard to argue with the conclusion that humans are causing it to rise. In point 6 he again is raising the uncertainty card which is kind of funny. He points out that co2 started increasing earlier than temperatures which seems to suggest that he wants a more direct linkage and less lag time.

    In his conclusion he jumps to talking about climate sensitivity. A bit of a disconnect if you ask me. Note that he carefully brings up some cherry picked data about the “near surface” and the “near-absence of tropical atmospheric warming”. I wonder what has been happening in the atmosphere as a whole an at the surface, and what is happening with ocean temperatures. Why is he only cherry picking these elements of the available data?.

    Since you like mr. Singer, and called him seemingly “fair minded” in an earlier post you may want to see a review of some of his tactics at http://grist.org/article/more-from-the-dark-side/ and http://www.skepticalscience.com/fred...l-warming.html

    the information on him at wikipedia is also interesting especially who finances his organization and his established viewpoint on the relationship between secondhand smoke and cancer.

    Maybe mr. Singer should publish his theories and evidence in the scientific literature or take his time going through proper scientific channels to challenge what is being published.
    my science is better thAn your science......???!!! Nothing new here we all beleive what we beleive....so move on!

  7. #127
    Senior Member zeus3925's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    West Twin Cities Metro, MN
    Posts
    2,167

    Default

    This is the kind of stuff industries put up when their little rice bowl is threatened by scientific findings.

    Remember smoking and cancer? 90% of the science must be wrong. .

    Asbestos causing lung cancer? Nah, the science is all wrong.

    Lead paint is responsible for brain damage in kids? Nah, the science is all wrong.

    DDT wiping out eagles and contaminating mother's milk? Nah, the science is all wrong.

    Industrial pollution into Lake Erie is responsible for fish die off or hepatitis in kids swimming in the lake? Nah, the science is all wrong.

    Asbestos laden mine waste contaminating the whole Lake Superior Basin. Nah, the science is all wrong.

    Germs cause disease? You kidding me? Something I can't see? I have to wash my hands every time I pick my nose before I grind hamburger? The science is all wrong.

    Silica causing black lung disease? Nah, the science is all wrong.

    Evolution? Preposterous. The science is all wrong.

    Space travel? God won't let it happen. The science is all wrong.

    A vacuum? No such thing, the science is all wrong.

    The earth is a spheroid? Just look around you on that one. The science is all wrong.

    The earth orbits the sun. That's a statement made by lens grinders to sell more telescopes. The science is baloney.

    Or how about this one for those Down River Detroit and Lake Erie Catholics: You mean I can't eat muskrat on Friday? It lives in water. It must be fish. The science is all wrong.
    Last edited by zeus3925; 08-22-2013 at 07:50 PM.
    Zeus

    I don't want to feed an ugly dog!

  8. #128
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Shelbyville, Tn
    Posts
    1,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry V View Post
    Gerry, This is the third time you site a recent article by Mr. Singer in American Thinker. They must be paying him well.

    Regarding the content of the article, Mr. Singer starts off by blasting the “false” hockey stick graph. This is a common denier tactic. Please do a search on “hockey stick denier” and you will find many articles on this data and how the scientific process has been used to evaluate historic world temperatures and the independent analysis of the historic temperature record which have come to similar conclusions as the original and subsequent Mann graphs. Quite honestly this is old data which has been superseded by additional analysis You will also find many articles where deniers use the graph to inject “uncertainty” into the argument. Here is an article with Dr. Mann defending himself against the false accusations just like those presented by Mr. Singer. http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...e-hockey-stick another defense is presented at http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

    Your author then posts two graphs but does not clearly state their relationship or post all the values for the x-or y-axis. Without the scale of the axis, how do we know these graphs are comparable? Trust Mr. Singer? I don’t know about you, but if you are going to shoot down someone else’s scientific results with a graph, you really ought to present solid and clear data to make your case. He also cites the MWP and LIA, which, as I understand it were primarily a change in the northern european climate. Does the other graph only apply to northern Europe? My understanding is the the MWP was a climate phenomenon in the north atlantic region, not worldwide. If this is the case, then no legitimate scientist would compare these graphs and reach any conclusion, unless they have a different agenda. I also find it interesting how the author makes a statement like “Mr. Mann quietly published a paper that documents the medieval warming period. I wonder how a scientist “quietly” publishes one paper versus any other? Why include such a strange statement except to cast some false insinuation about someone??

    Your author then posts a couple of CO2 related graphs that clearly show a thousand years of record and huge increases in CO2 levels in the past 100 years. Please note that the second graph is one which demonstrates that the increase in CO2 is due to burning of fossil fuels (which your author affirms later). He then points out the little tiny blip in the graph for the medieval period and suggests that because there is not a synchronization of the CO2 increase and then warming that this somehow negates the possibility that the CO2 increase now could lead to climate change. In an earlier response to this claim posted by you I posted links to articles that respond to this often used climate denier argument regarding the medieval period and CO2 levels. Here is one again http://jcmooreonline.com/2012/04/01/...l-warm-period/

    Mr Singer then goes on to try and say there is no relationship between the temperature and CO2 graphs. Gerry do you see one? I sure do but then again if you do not believe the data in the first graph you might not, but that is exactly the set-up here, isn’t it?. First, present the hockey stick as false, then compare to CO2 and discount the obvious relationship because the first graph is false and if you do not believe that because there is not perfect agreement in the relationship between the variables. SOme people take this hook, line, and sinker.

    In the temperature record section he makes some claim about the real record but does not provide a citation for his data. At one point he questions why the Mann hockey stick stops at 1980 and insinuates it was purposely done to hide something. This is entirely disingenuous. I would think that Mr. Singer does know that the graph was published in 1989 and likely submitted for publication a year or two earlier and that it was based years of previous analysis. Raising this “1980” issue shows Mr. Singer’s true intent here which is to raise uncertainty. This is disingenuous just as is raising the climategate issue. It is red meat for fellow deniers.

    The CO2 data is pretty clear and it is hard to argue with the conclusion that humans are causing it to rise. In point 6 he again is raising the uncertainty card which is kind of funny. He points out that CO2 started increasing earlier than temperatures which seems to suggest that he wants a more direct linkage and less lag time.

    In his conclusion he jumps to talking about climate sensitivity. A bit of a disconnect if you ask me. Note that he carefully brings up some cherry picked data about the “near surface” and the “near-absence of tropical atmospheric warming”. I wonder what has been happening in the atmosphere as a whole an at the surface, and what is happening with ocean temperatures. Why is he only cherry picking these elements of the available data?.

    Since you like Mr. Singer, and called him seemingly “fair minded” in an earlier post you may want to see a review of some of his tactics at http://grist.org/article/more-from-the-dark-side/ and http://www.skepticalscience.com/fred...l-warming.html

    The information on him at Wikipedia is also interesting especially who finances his organization and his established viewpoint on the relationship between secondhand smoke and cancer.

    Maybe Mr. Singer should publish his theories and evidence in the scientific literature or take his time going through proper scientific channels to challenge what is being published.
    Michael Mann belongs in the NY rubber room of teachers who are retained because it would cost more to fire them but are not allowed in the classroom for fear of abusing children. He published his findings but then delayed for years from providing his data. There was also a fellow of great notoriety in the limate change field who colluded with him to withhold the data. their private e-mails obtained from Penn State Univ showed that. The man from England at least had the decensy to resign his post. When doing so he did state that the global temperature during the medievl period around 1400( notice Mann's findings start around 1600) was has high and may have even been higher that today. He also went on the say he still BELIEVED that man made global warming was a fact.

    I will say that if you read enough scientific studies on the subject it is obvious that picking the time frame for the study can significantly change the conclusion. I have an article which goes back 100's of million years using co2 content in glacial ice to determing global temperature.

    There is one piece of data that I see missing from the pro man made global warming group and that is the percent co2 put into the atmosphere by man. I have seen it to be calculated a low as 7%, mening that if you got rid of all co2 emissions caused by man, you would reduce co2 by no more than 7%. Do you have any data on the 5 of man's contribution of co2 Henry or zeus?

  9. #129
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Pac NW
    Posts
    4,284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zeus3925 View Post
    Silica causing black lung disease? Nah, the science is all wrong.

    Evolution? Preposterous. The science is all wrong.
    Silica causes silicosis which is a scarring of the lung tissue creating a reduction in lung capacity, hard rock miners term it being rocked up - Black Lung is causes by Coal Dust which is not silica.

    Evolution - I don't believe anyone with a scientific background made that statement - In this case Sarge, what do you believe?
    __________________________

    Marvin S

    Everyone's friend is No One's friend

    Someday your life will flash before your eyes. It's your responsibility to make sure it's worth watching!

  10. #130
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,456

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caryalsobrook View Post
    ......There is one piece of data that I see missing from the pro man made global warming group and that is the percent co2 put into the atmosphere by man. I have seen it to be calculated a low as 7%, mening that if you got rid of all co2 emissions caused by man, you would reduce co2 by no more than 7%. Do you have any data on the 5 of man's contribution of co2 Henry or zeus?
    Funny you should bring this up. I mentioned it in my last message and pulled it directly out of the article Gerry Cited in post 113. The author, who is an ardent skeptic, states:
    3. It is often claimed by skeptics that the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 (from fossil-fuel burning) is tiny -- less than a percent. The data clearly show that the contribution is 400 minus 280 parts per million (ppm) -- roughly 30% of the current concentration.
    Since we are now 30% above stable historic concentrations this means that we humans are basically responsible for the entire amount above the long term average.

    The fourth graph that he presents also shows the signature of CO2 from burning fossil fuels and his text states
    The sharp decrease of C-13 in the 20th century indicates that its source is most likely biogenic; fossil fuels from ancient plant material and biota would fit this specification.
    Given this evidence, the data you requested is not missing. The measured and undisputed increase in CO2 is, in fact, mostly due to burning fossil fuels. Agreed?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •