Conservapedia

Changes

Talk:Science of global warming (view source)

Revision as of 04:49, December 19, 2008

11,550 bytes added ,  04:49, December 19, 2008
→‎Scientists
Line 1: Line 1: −
{{protected|TK}}
   
[[/Archive 1]]
 
[[/Archive 1]]
 
[[/Archive 2]]
 
[[/Archive 2]]
Line 115: Line 114:  
</blockquote>
 
</blockquote>
 
--<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 07:01, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
 
--<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 07:01, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
:Lord Monckton released the names of some of the papers that the study claims reject the consensus outright.  Out of seven or so studies that Monckton mentioned, only two actually reject the consensus, and that's if you give the anti-AGW crowd the benefit of the doubt.  Peiser tried the same trick before, and in the end, he only found one or two (out of the thirty-odd that he claimed) that rejected AGW outright.  The Oreskes study was flawed, but this one's even worse.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 12:57, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
    
==Are the images really necessary?==
 
==Are the images really necessary?==
Line 296: Line 297:     
Can we add something about how the media has flip-flopped between catastrophic global warming and cooling over the past 100 years? Or should that go on the [[Global Warming Controversy]] page? [[User:Donaldson|Donaldson]] 17:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
 
Can we add something about how the media has flip-flopped between catastrophic global warming and cooling over the past 100 years? Or should that go on the [[Global Warming Controversy]] page? [[User:Donaldson|Donaldson]] 17:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
==Science and opinion==
 +
 +
Position statements are not science. Saying that "X believes something" is unrelated to the truth of falsehood of that thing. Many individuals and organizations have made statements about [[global warming]], and it has become one of the most discussed political controversies of modern times.
 +
 +
 +
[[Global warming theory]] has been used to justify [[wealth redistribution]], a pet project of [[Socialists]]. But this article is not about economic benefits. It's about the science of the world's climate. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:13, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Problem With Top Image ==
 +
 +
The top image is inaccurate. No official predictions were made about global warming until 1992. Any predictions in 1980 would have been the work of a lone climatologist, and not the work of the scientific consensus. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:05, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
 +
:Prove it. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:07, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
The proof is in the fact that the IPCC (which is the only organization that had ever produced long range climate forecasts) was not created until 1988, as per their website http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:32, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
:Who determines when a "prediction" is "official"? Or better yet, when. Just because a prediction happened to be wrong doesn't make it not official. Its evident that environmentalists are backpedaling. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 01:57, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
::I'd assume it would be the organizations in charge of such efforts who determine when a prediction is official. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 02:01, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
::Exactly. There was no organization for predicting the climate until the IPCC (there are now several). Thus, any predictions made prior to that would have been the work of an independent forecaster, and would not have reflected the views of the overall scientific community. Also, even if there had been someone creating such forecasts at that time, that graph is inaccurate in the sense that the "predicted" line is linear, whereas the predicted increase in temperature is, and always has been, exponential. Thirdly, the graph itself is out of date. It only goes up to 1996. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 12:32, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
:::You're welcome to find a "true" graph... if you can. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
The graph from this site is accurate. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Comparing-IPCC-projections-to-observations.html [[User:TheNobleSith4|TheNobleSith4]] 00:49, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
:None of those graphs represent global warming accurately. You're welcome to find a better one, just remember that it must be accurate and reflect reality, not what environmentalists pretend it to be. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 01:05, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
==IPCC==
 +
You removed the IPCC part stating they arent a scientific group but CP's own page states they are
 +
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 08:01, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Communism? ==
 +
 +
What does the fall of communist nations have to do with global warming?
 +
 +
http://www.conservapedia.com/Science_of_global_warming#False_Claims_of_.22Consensus.22
 +
 +
I'm going to remove it. '''[[user:FernoKlump|<font color="#000066" >FernoKlump</font>]]''' 17:47, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
==Sources==
 +
I think this a great source work for us to mine quotes and thoughts: [http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming1.pdf Comments on Global Warming by the founder of the Weather Channel]. It starts with:
 +
 +
::It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming... it is a SCAM.
 +
 +
::Some misguided scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long-term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental extremism type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
 +
 +
::Environmental extremist, notable politicians among them then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.
 +
 +
::Now their ridiculously manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.
 +
 +
::I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.
 +
 +
And just gets better from there.  Also [http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php Global Warming Hoax] refutes many warming myths.  [http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10488 The Heartland]'s common sense environmental page has a list of references on this topic. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Barr vs Obama/McCain ==
 +
 +
Should it in the politics section mention the fact that: [[Barack Obama]] and [[John McCain]] both subscribe to the theory that Global Warming exists, is caused by human activity, and that human activity must be curtailed to prevent Global Warming; and that [[Bob Barr]] is the <i>only</i> candidate to disagree with humans-are-all-bad theory of Global Warming, and to disagree with proposals to legislate limitations on economic activity for the appeasement of anti-Global Warming activists?
 +
 +
:Not unless we clarify what "exists" means; and how much is caused by human activity.
 +
 +
:Temperature is up, around the globe, since 1850. But how much of this is a return to average from abnormally low temperatures? (See [[Little Ice Age]].) And how much does human activity affect global air temperatures, compared to [[solar variation]] and [[cosmic rays]]?
 +
 +
:If you can nail down the candidates' exact positions, by all means add them. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:04, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
::Here's a link to a YouTube video of John McCain says the "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it is real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a cap-and trade proposal]".... at the end McCain says "the debate is over"; obviously, unless you think Global Warming is man made, there would be no "solution" to use "cap and trade". [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 13:18, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
:: For solar variation and cosmic rays, there was a study on that published [http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf here].  News articles on the article [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/11/scisun111.xml] [http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/11/climatechange.climatechange1] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm] --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 19:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
:::"a new analysis of data on the sun's output in the last 25 years of the 20th century has firmly put the notion to rest?" - Try not to supply one-sided sources if you want anyone to pay attention to you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:33, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
:::: In all fairness, any source that is going to try to prove a point will be one sided.  The links for cosmic rays and the solar influence are also one sided.  The important thing to do would be to show ''all'' the links and ''all'' the data and let people draw conclusions from that rather than just having a site that supports one side of the controversy and represses the other. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:10, 19 June 2008 (EDT
 +
 +
== Obama's carbon cap a "far-reaching, giant tax"? ==
 +
 +
Jpatt, please try not to completely break sentences by re-inserting your edits. Also, I need a reliable source that says that Obama's suggested carbon cap is a tax. A source that calls said tax far-reaching and giant would be even better. I have looked, and the closest thing I could find when I made my edits was that the carbon cap would accomplish the same a tax would, but that most definitely doesn't mean that it ''is'' a tax. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 17:58, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
: I didn't reinsert the entire edits, just the far reaching tax. Since you took it out already, I am not going to source. As for the 'far-reaching and giant tax', what do you call  ''( "an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions)''? So for the sarcasm, but I don't call it a stimulus package. Economy wide is far reaching and giant. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:06, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
 +
::You equate a price set by market forces with a tax. I don't know what you would call ''that'', but I would call it "wrong". At ''best'', it's inaccurate and potentially misleading to simply state that he wants to introduce a tax. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 18:20, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
 +
:::First, market forces aren't setting a price, but the Obama government, for an item not charged today. Second, who will pay for the measure? Let's see, loss of many jobs, cost of living increases, $10.00 a gallon gas. If I am not mistaken, the American people will pay the increased costs because "we can't have our thermostats at 72 degrees", unless we pay up. Increase in costs is called a tax. Wrong? doubt it. Misleading? Obama's plan is more misleading than my explanation. A Cap is not a Tax, that is debatable,-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:18, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Idoltry ==
 +
 +
I global warming idoltry?[[User:American78|American78]] 22:17, 5 September 2008 (EDT)American78
 +
 +
I just wanted to say, finally, I found a bunch of people who realized how stupid the idea of man made global warming is, and actually look at the facts. Thank you.
 +
 +
==Scientists==
 +
 +
We need to get actual scientists to write this article. It's too complex for us laymen. Can we get in touch with MIT Professor [[Richard Lindzen]] or retired atmospheric physicist [[Fred Singer]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:48, 17 December 2008 (EST)
 +
: I am a scientist who worked with the British Antarctic Survey until last year, but I accept that claims of authority on here can be dubious. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 10:51, 17 December 2008 (EST)
 +
:Maybe we could get some people not noted for their incredible partisanship on one side or the other, rather than two people who are famous for taking a side on the matter?--[[user:TomMoore1|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore1|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 23:49, 18 December 2008 (EST)
TomMoore1
27

edits

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:MobileDiff/421633...590356"