An inconvenient truth

[Hippikos]

The question is how much and how bad.

I call that a debate. The problem with the whole global warming debate is that it is not approached in a scientific way (as it should) but is poluted by politics, from both scientists and politician with their own agenda. In the current hyped world, accelerated through the Intarnet, all world events are turned into instant doom scenarios to satisfy the human sensation papillae.

Some still insist that man is not complicit - when a chart for the past 400,000 years demonstrates how obvious the problem is.

How obviousis the problem? Are you suggesting that man is causing the global warming for the last 400,000 years?

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

...scientists...with their own agenda...

Science?

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Flint

Science?

No, grant money.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Flint

Science?

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

No, grant money.

To do . . . science ???

[tw]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

I call that a debate. The problem with the whole global warming debate is that it is not approached in a scientific way (as it should) but is poluted by politics, from both scientists and politician with their own agenda.

But scientists don't have agendas. Science simply follows the facts and evidence. It is politicians who are acting as scientists with political agendas - even having White House lawyers now rewrite all NASA papers.

How obviousis the problem? Are you suggesting that man is causing the global warming for the last 400,000 years?

I am suggesting you look at the chart for the past 400,000 years that was posted earlier in this thread. And no, that chart is not sufficient as proof. That chart demonstrates to the layman what science has proven elsewhere. Notice what the chart provides and what xoxoxoBruce completely ignores - the numbers.

[xoxoxoBruce]

OK, show me the chart, bullshit artist.
I don't see any chart, I don't see any link.
Put up or shut up. :p

[Bullitt]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

OK, show me the chart, bullshit artist.
I don't see any chart, I don't see any link.
Put up or shut up. :p

*cough* *cough* passes link from post #71 to Bruce under the table http://www.cellar.org/attachment.php...&d=1059007053]
*cough*

[whistles and walks away]

[xoxoxoBruce]

OK, then tell me what kind of thermometers they were using 400,000 years ago? F? C? K?
Did they write it down in pencil or ballpoint pen?
It's strictly speculation, they have no better idea what the temperature was than they do the color of the Dinosaurs.
Extrapolating from co2 levels doesn't work, because there are more variables involved than a direct correlation of temperature and co2 levels.
That's not science, it's voodoo.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

OK, show me the chart, bullshit artist.

xoxoxoBruce has just proved that he denies by ignoring numbers. He does exactly what a George Jr White House lawyer would do to become a science expert. He has ignored charts and numbers as science proof. The numbers (that chart) were provided which Bruce would have known if he did not routinely ignore numbers in multiple posts.

xoxoxoBruce posted on 2 Oct 2006 at 1255 hours Cellar time no facts (not a single useful number, just disparaging remarks). He said:

Thank you Rush Limbaugh. C'mon, tw. You know damn well the Earth has warmed and cooled over and over again. How many "Ice Ages" have there been? What was it, 15, 12, maybe 10 thousand years ago the glaciers melted in Ohio?

Well apparently xoxoxoBruce does not know this by first learning numbers. His accusation is what White House lawyers have promoted - without numbers. Well if I was a lying lawyer, then I too would post accusatory and factually irrelevant Rush Limbaugh rhetoric. Bruce did not bother to look at the chart when post after post referred to that chart.

A reply to xoxoxoBruce was posted on 2 Oct 2006 at 1603 hours - using facts and numbers - and no disparaging comments. That reply referred to numbers and claims that xoxoxoBruce ignored. The reply noted important numbers which are appreciated by looking at the chart. Apparently xoxoxoBruce ignored the chart AND ignored numerical facts to keep making his global warming claims. Ignoring numbers is a classic Rush Limbaugh tactic.

xoxoxoBruce - you have posted claims without numbers as any junk scientist would do. Numbers from the chart demonstrated why your assumptions were wrong. Now we know why you deny. You ignored that 2 Oct reply. Following replies also referenced that chart ... and you still ignored the chart. Exactly what a White House lawyers must do to deny global warming – as Cheney ordered.

xoxoxoBruce - why should we believe anything you have posted when you did not even bother to look at that chart – and then posted insults?

Temperature changes over tens of thousands of years can explain a temperature change in but 100 years?

Where was the logic in that – your reasoning? Natural temperature changes occurred over tens of thousands of years – not 100 years. In the past 100 years, environmental changes were 59 times faster than any other in 1 million years. Changes that took tens of thousands of years now occur in only hundreds. Somehow, xoxoxoBruce claims that proves man was not complicit? He can only make that claim by not posting numbers and by ignoring a chart.

A chart referenced in so many replies to xoxoxoBruce is 2 Oct 2006 at 1603 hours. Same chart has been reposted in the Cellar repeatedly meaning that anyone denying global warming had to repeatedly ignore the chart – as xoxoxoBruce did. If I say xoxoxoBruce is the "bullshit artist', well at least I have posted proof. He even ignored the chart.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

OK, then tell me what kind of thermometers they were using 400,000 years ago? F? C? K?
Did they write it down in pencil or ballpoint pen?

But again, Bruce. If you first learned science instead of accusing like a White House lawyer or Rush Limbaugh, then you never asked that silly question. Had you read studies and numbers before making conclusions, then you knew exactly "what kind of thermometers they were using". If you had bothered to first learn about global warning even from one issue of Scientific American - September 2006 - then you already had that question answered. IOW you post as if an expert – and do not even know how data is collected.

Your posts expose a reality. You know global warming does not exist just like a White House lawyer is a scientist. You have just met the definition of anti-American.

Why should anyone believe your accusations when you don't even know how data is collected? You never even bothered to first read any science - and yet somehow you are so knowledgeable? And you call me a 'bullshit artist"? You are better advised to insult yourself for not bothering to first learn numbers. You could not even bother to look at that chart. The word is called credibility.

[Hippikos]

Originally Posted by Flint

To do . . . science ???

Opposed to what you think, many scientists are not as objective as they should be...

[xoxoxoBruce]

TW, you were wrong on Oct 2nd at 1603 hours and you still are. You link to a chart with nothing to back it up. Cherry picking an unsubstantiated chart, even if it shows what I've been saying all along about the natural swings in the temperature, is not evidence. It's bullshit, you keep telling the same lie over and over, hoping to convince people by repetition, just like Bush & Company.
How about some real evidence, if you believe that chart, back it up. Where do you get the temperature, 400,000 years ago within 5 degrees? One wild ass guess is not evidence. That's why there is only a chart and nothing to back it up. Ignore the numbers? Yes, when they come without evidence.
Show me the evidence, Rush. :p

Why is that chart an attachment, but linked to, like it was in an article somewhere other than here?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by tw

But scientists don't have agendas.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Opposed to what you think, many scientists are not as objective as they should be...

That's why we have peer review. Bad science will be exposed and dis-credited.
The scientific community is a self-correcting system with an expansive web of checks and balances.

In order to for "science" to have a "bias" it would require a monolithic agreement among 100% of all scientists, to "pretend" to have proven something and "fool" the rest of us. That's a laughable premise. Occam's Razor...

[Hippikos]

I know that and many reports used are not peer reviewed. And what does peer review means if peers themselves don't know? I remember Hawking's theory was widely peer reviewed and accepted, however he was forced to admit decades later that his theory was incorrect. Hawking's persona has been constructed and marketed, his story manipulated and controlled, for the purpose of his own glorification and selling his book, and this has occurred, as it could only occur, with his cooperation or at least acquiescence. Many scientists do have their own agenda, being it glorification or or for monetary reasons.

The scientific community is a self-correcting system with an expansive web of checks and balances.

To be correct, one has to be sure what's right and as far as I know re global warming everything is still out.