Liberals are...smarter!

[ElasticNinja]

*sigh*

You refuted my points by:

Himilaysian Glacier scandal (one thing out of thousands of pages)

Saying the IPCC is biased (I've read up on it months ago, its fairly well run, and its far from the only research body)

Saying a) its good (?)
b) its not OUR fault
Accusing me of lack of research, well I've been reading up on this for years, sorry if I cant remember EVERYTHING

_______

If you really want sources I'll get them but I'm busy with exam art project :/


TBF ye also made some valid arguments
Peat bogs - agree, they also are an important wildlife habitat



Deforestation - very true


I would like more info on orbital patterns though, I looked it up before and found little relating to AGW (this was like two yrs ago), any info would be greatly appreciated

 

[zauper]

*sigh*

You refuted my points by:

Himilaysian Glacier scandal (one thing out of thousands of pages)

Saying the IPCC is biased (I've read up on it months ago, its fairly well run, and its far from the only research body)

Most of them are biased too. The IPCC was still the "big" meeting of minds that everyone points to. Yet, like the first article I posted indicates, it violated 60 of ~124 forecasting principles in projecting temperatures, and another 40ish were unable to be verified by auditors. That doesn't sound very good.

Saying a) its good (?)

Yes, there are elements of burning fossil fuels that are good. Specifically; cooling the atmosphere via S02 (vs shortterm heating from not burning fossil fuels) and improving plant growth (and thus access to food globally) due to C02 presence. There are cases in the desert where plants are now able to grow.

Rising atmospheric C02 concentrations are expected to enhance primary productivity 50% in arid regions of the world with a doubling of C02 (Strain and Bazzaz, 1983; Mooney etal., 1991; Melillo et al., 1993). Recent findings support this prediction (Smith et al., 1987,2000;Chapter 5)

Link: Information Bridge: DOE Scientific and Technical Information - Sponsored by OSTI
The actual study is on C3/C4 plant growth in deserts, but it still discusses it.

There are other ways in which the burning of fossil fuels are good; I pointed to earthworms at the bottom of my post. Did you know that Aristotle called earthworms "the intestines of the earth"? They are really central to all food-growing functions of the earth.

b) its not OUR fault

There are some reasons why it's not our fault. There are also reasons why it doesn't exist / studies are off. If all you're looking at is historical tracking of temperature; there are several reasons why it's flawed, most of which are covered by BW's posts.

There are also reasons why other ways of looking at it are flawed. (e.g. satelites can't account for urban heat centers, models can't account for cloud formation properly), etc.

I would like more info on orbital patterns though, I looked it up before and found little relating to AGW (this was like two yrs ago), any info would be greatly appreciated

This is the most common theory of orbital oscillation (sorry for linking wikipedia):
Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While the Antarctic ice sheets formed approximately 34 million years ago, the parts of the core described in this paper were deposited during a period lasting about 400,000 years, approximately 24.1 to 23.7 million years ago.

Global temperatures at that time were perhaps 3 to 4 degrees C higher than they are today, similar to those predicted for the next century by current climate models that incorporate global warming effects. The amount of carbon dioxide in the air at that time is believed to have been approximately twice current levels.

Antarctic Seafloor Core Suggests Earth's Orbital Oscillations May Be The Key To What Controlled Ice Ages

Article is about a core of ice found on the atlantic.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Thanks Zauper, will read links now
Nice to see a well thought out post

 

[batgeek]

As for 99% consensus I meant about scientific community

yes. please provide your source.

 

[byteware]

I thought the initial ridiculous post was by SamsungVibrant?

You are right. I apologize shadowninty.

 

[SamsungVibrant]

I thought the initial ridiculous post was by SamsungVibrant?

Ridiculous post? Oh please, my post far from being ridiculous, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

 

[zauper]

Ridiculous post? Oh please, my post far from being ridiculous, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Not only ridiculous, but also clearly indefensible -- I notice that you didn't bother defending it against any of the posts in the last few days.

 

[byteware]

Ridiculous post? Oh please, my post far from being ridiculous, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

As has been stated, you couldn't even defend a single point that you made. You couldn't find anything to support a single statement that you made. You stated your opinion, it was countered by facts, and you just ignored them and kept on going.

And you think your post was far from ridiculous? Really?

 

[SamsungVibrant]

My original post is accurate and does not need clarification, thus no defense is required.

For example, if you disagree that the Bush administration was a major blow to the research community because Bush and other republicans have a lack of knowledge about science, then you clearly are clueless and I will not sit here and list proof. Call any professor conducting research in life sciences at any of the the top 10 research Universities in the nation and ask them their opinion. Do it, find a professor from a University website, read about their research work, every professor has a bio page, email them, see what they say. That's your answer. I'm done.

 

[zauper]

My original post is accurate and does not need clarification, thus no defense is required.

For example, if you disagree that the Bush administration was a major blow to the research community because Bush and other republicans have a lack of knowledge about science, then you clearly are clueless and I will not sit here and list proof. Call any professor conducting research in life sciences at any of the the top 10 research Universities in the nation and ask them their opinion. Do it, find a professor from a University website, read about their research work, every professor has a bio page, email them, see what they say. That's your answer. I'm done.

This has, what exactly, to do with our discussion of global warming?

Out of curiosity, would you agree that the NIH is one of the major sources behind funding life sciences research?

Would you agree, then, that Bush's commitment to doubling the funding of the NIH during his presidency was a boon to the life sciences industry?

To be fair, the 5-year plan for doubling NIH funding began prior to Bush. But.... it began as a push from Republicans in the Senate. Specter, in particular... if you were curious.

 

[byteware]

My original post is accurate and does not need clarification, thus no defense is required.

Translation. I spanked your butt, and you can't defend your statements. It's ok. Although, you would make Liberals seem a little smarter if you would just admit what everyone else already knows.

For example, if you disagree that the Bush administration was a major blow to the research community because Bush and other republicans have a lack of knowledge about science

This isn't true in the slightest, that wasn't the claim you made either.

For instance, you cannot provide any proof that indicates Bush knows any less about science than Clinton or Obama.

You cannot provide proof that Republicans politicians or voters know any less about science than the corresponding Democrats.

This is just a little something you tell yourself at night to help you sleep a little better... ("They disagree with me because they are stupid and I am smart....")

then you clearly are clueless and I will not sit here and list proof.

You will not list proof, because you cannot. I've been goading you into providing proof for just one of your statements... any of your statements...

You have not, because you cannot.

Call any professor conducting research in life sciences at any of the the top 10 research Universities in the nation and ask them their opinion. Do it, find a professor from a University website, read about their research work, every professor has a bio page, email them, see what they say. That's your answer. I'm done.

Let's go again with facts.

The Total Research grants provided in 1998, before Republicans took control of Congress was $9.579 Billion.

The Total Research grants provided in 2006, before Democrats took control of Congress was $19.624 Billion.

Republicans doubled the amount of funding available for Grants.

http://report.nih.gov/ndb/ppt/ndb_2008_Final.ppt

I'm done.

When you are done having your ridiculous statements being smacked down... please, feel free to provide some proof to back them up.