The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 19 of 54 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 540

Thread: Speaking of Global Warming

  1. #181
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Oakdale,ct.
    Posts
    2,699

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caryalsobrook View Post
    Michael Mann and Phillip Jones sure did a good job of MAKING IT UP!!!

    Oh I forgot, they are the generally recognized reputable authority.
    NO, they are only TWO out of HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS of scientists who believe we have a growing problem.-Paul
    there's no good reason to fatten up a retriever.

  2. #182
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Shelbyville, Tn
    Posts
    1,447

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paul young View Post
    NO, they are only TWO out of HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS of scientists who believe we have a growing problem.-Paul
    No they were not 2 out of hundreds, they were two of the most prominant if not THE MOST PROMINANT OF SCIENTISTS who suck on the gov. tit. Sort of like A-Rod and Pete Rose. Michael Mann said he concluded that global temperature was constant up until the beginning of the industrial revolution and THEN with the invention of the internal combustion engine, global temperatures began to rise. Only problem is he lied about the data and colluded with Philip Jones to hide it. Evidently you fail to acknowledge that THERE WAS NO INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE and Philip Jones even ADMITTED that global temperatures were at least as high if not higher during medieval times. The problem you now have is since the scientists supported the viewpoint that global temperatures were relatively constant for the last 2000 years and ONLY started to rise with the invention of the internal combustion engine and NOW we find out that the opposite is true, one may very well conclude that the invention of the internal combustion engine MAY not be the cause of todays global temperature. If you believe otherwise then tell me the CAUSE of global temperatures as high if not higher during medieval times. As for the hundreds and hundreds of scientists, tell me those who debunked Mann's conclusions rather that exclaim enthusiasticly that THERE IS THE PROOF AND Michael Mann proved it.

  3. #183
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,432

    Default

    Right, so since the planet has been warm before and man did not cause it, that means that man couldn't cause it now. Great logic.

    by the way, someone already was disparaging Dr. Mann earlier in this discussion and I posted a link in his defense which came directly from him.

  4. #184
    Senior Member Mike Tome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Brunswick, MD
    Posts
    1,774

    Default

    You do know that Michael Mann was exonerated of any wrong doing... right? Not only by a panel of scientists at Penn State, but also by the OIG and NSF. So, claims that he "lied" or "falisified data" have actually been found to be false. Just an update....
    Mike Tome
    Duckdog's Fast Autofocus
    GMHRCH-III WR North Star's Deuce of Diamonds

    MHR WR Pondview's Bar None 1994-2006

    Duckdogphotography.smugmug.com


  5. #185
    Senior Member HuntClub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Washington County, Mn
    Posts
    146

    Default

    Right, since the planet has been a little warmer lately, and nature was the cause before, you're convinced man caused it recently. Great logic.

  6. #186
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Shelbyville, Tn
    Posts
    1,447

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Tome View Post
    You do know that Michael Mann was exonerated of any wrong doing... right? Not only by a panel of scientists at Penn State, but also by the OIG and NSF. So, claims that he "lied" or "falisified data" have actually been found to be false. Just an update....
    You do know that scientists who wanted to testify before his fellow scientists at Penn State Univ. were DENIED the opportunity to testify don't you. You do know all involved were gov. funded organizations don't you? You do know that it is ACCEPTED protocol to provide ACTUAL and ACCURATE data when publishing scientific papers don't you?. You do know that Phillip Jones DID resign and MAN UP to his actions and the true findings of the study don't you? You do know that each group you cite has a vested interest in keeping Michael Mann at Penn state Univ. don't you? You do know that O J Simpson was also found not guilty don't you?

    Let me say here that I am also concerned about the environment and was concerned when the theory of man made global warming was put forward. Who in their right mind would not be. The earth and the solar system will destroy itself soon enough without the help of man. The thing that disturbs me the most is that to be consiered a "reputable scientist", you must believe in significant man made global warming. Any who offer their theory as to global warming different from those of Michael Mann's ilk, are dismissed as kooks or "chronies of the Koch brothers". Never mind the significance of their findings.

    Personally, I don't think we have the means or ability to determine the impact of man as to global warming. It may be as hard as proving or disproving the existance of God. Scientists can make mistakes. That was SO EVIDENT in the theories put forth when Mt. St. Helens erupted, something that would be far easier than predicting the effect of man on global warming.

    What I do know is that without energy, we cannot clothe, and feed the people. We cannot heat and cool our homes and we will not be able to get too work. Anyone who believes energy can be provided with wind and solar, is a believer in a pipe dream. Of course nuclear would help but we even reject that. How much is considered significant man made global warming? How much must we reduce the use of carbon fuel? Questions I never hear answered and knowledge the people should be aware of before energy policy is based on unproven theories.

  7. #187
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Shelbyville, Tn
    Posts
    1,447

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry V View Post
    Right, so since the planet has been warm before and man did not cause it, that means that man couldn't cause it now. Great logic.

    by the way, someone already was disparaging Dr. Mann earlier in this discussion and I posted a link in his defense which came directly from him.
    I didn't say what caused it. But I certainly would not come to the conclusion that if global warming was caused by something other than man 500 years ago that global warming MUST be caused by man TODAY. Now THAT is logic I would reject.

    As to Mann, he withheld data and changed it. He even colluded with Philip Jones as shown by their e-mails to have done so. He violated protocol when he published his findings. You can say he is innocent all you want to but THOSE ARE THE FACTS.

  8. #188
    Senior Member Mike Tome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Brunswick, MD
    Posts
    1,774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caryalsobrook View Post
    You do know that scientists who wanted to testify before his fellow scientists at Penn State Univ. were DENIED the opportunity to testify don't you. You do know all involved were gov. funded organizations don't you?
    Didn't know that... where did you hear it?

    Quote Originally Posted by caryalsobrook View Post
    You do know that it is ACCEPTED protocol to provide ACTUAL and ACCURATE data when publishing scientific papers don't you?
    Yep, I know that....

    Quote Originally Posted by caryalsobrook View Post
    You do know that Phillip Jones DID resign and MAN UP to his actions and the true findings of the study don't you?
    Well, I do know that he stepped down willingly until the controversy could be investigated, but subsequently he was reinstated into the Climatic Research Unit as Director of Research because there were no findings of wrong-doing.

    Quote Originally Posted by caryalsobrook View Post
    You do know that each group you cite has a vested interest in keeping Michael Mann at Penn state Univ. don't you?
    I did not know this... how so? Could you elaborate. but first... I'm not really a believer that this is a government conspiracy, given the real data that are available. So, please, cite some credible sources other than someone's blog.

    Quote Originally Posted by caryalsobrook View Post
    You do know that O J Simpson was also found not guilty don't you?
    I'm really not sure what this has to do with the situation we're discussing.
    Mike Tome
    Duckdog's Fast Autofocus
    GMHRCH-III WR North Star's Deuce of Diamonds

    MHR WR Pondview's Bar None 1994-2006

    Duckdogphotography.smugmug.com


  9. #189
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,432

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HuntClub View Post
    Right, since the planet has been a little warmer lately, and nature was the cause before, you're convinced man caused it recently. Great logic.
    No, wrong. Your side has presented the "it's just nature/nature caused it before" argument, the "evil greedy scientists and their data are tainted lies" argument, the "there is too much uncertainty" argument, and the "cosmic rays are the cause" argument among others.

    I have presented and defended the case that warming is occurring and that humans are the likely cause because I am convinced that:

    1) The evidence strongly suggests that humans have caused the increase in CO2 and have presented the evidence here. A reasonable person cannot look at the evidence and deny that CO2 has increased in the atmosphere and that burning centuries worth of stored carbon-based fuels in one century is the most likely cause. If you want to argue that CO2 has not increased or that this will not cause climate change, go ahead, but no one has.

    2) CO2 is without a doubt a greenhouse gas and that it is now at levels never seen in many many thousands of years. If you want to argue that is not a greenhouse gas and that is not at record levels, good luck. No one has yet.

    3) The vast majority of scientists that study and model climate report that an increase in CO2 will result in a warming of the planet and change the earth's climate. One of the only legitimate scientist arguing against this is Dr. Lindzen from MIT. He accepts the idea that CO2 has and will increase global temperatures but that this will then create a negative feedback loop where water vapor will increase causing increased cloud formations which will reflect enough sunlight to offset any temperature increases caused my increased CO2. This too is a nice theory, but as I mentioned a few posts ago, based on what I have read, there is just as much if not more likelihood that positive feedback will accelerate rather than offset CO2 induced warming. If you want to argue on Mr. Lindzen's theory, go for it. If you want to argue the cosmic ray theory, go for it. Any other theories, let's hear them.

    4) The evidence supports the fact that 90+% of climate scientist have concluded that the planet is warming and CO2 is the primary driver. There are published papers on this, not just an online poll. If you want to site the online poll signed by Perry Mason and one of the spice girls, go for it. If you have other evidence, present it

    5) The empirical evidence that the earth is warming is irrefutable. Mann's hockey stick graph has been affirmed through multiple different methods. If you want to cite opinion pieces written by conservative bloggers who cherry pick data and lie about the findings of research papers and are called on it by the authors, go for it. If you have some science that shows a cooling trend, please post.

    6) The skeptic and denier industry funded largely by the fossil fuel industry has been very successful casting doubt and uncertainty just like the tobacco industry did 40+ years ago.
    Congratulations your side is winning. They have the money.
    Last edited by Henry V; 09-11-2013 at 06:39 PM.

  10. #190
    Senior Member HuntClub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Washington County, Mn
    Posts
    146

    Default

    A little sensitive are we? I was merely responding to you're little rant about logic. Along those lines, I was pointing out to you that you are using the same philosophy for your belief as you used to refute anothers. I really could care less about this issue, why? Because you're not going to change your habits, I'm not going to change mine, the country cannot afford to and won't anyway for the sheer inconvenience of it. And don't give me any talk about how you get 2% of your energy from a electron fairy somewhere. Is there a problem, maybe. If there was, there is a solution. A solution that is as moot as babbling on and on about greenhouse gases.

Posting Permissions

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