Global Warming

[LongLiveYorke 38]

The past decade was the warmest in history:New York Times Article:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/...warming.html?hpNASA Story:http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/...lysis-2009.html(There are some nice charts in the NASA article)But please, don't let this discourage you from posting the fact that it's cold outside wherever you are on any particular day. I'm sure that evidence stands up. Thanks.

[hblask 1]

The past decade was the warmest in history:New York Times Article:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/...warming.html?hpNASA Story:http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/...lysis-2009.html(There are some nice charts in the NASA article)But please, don't let this discourage you from posting the fact that it's cold outside wherever you are on any particular day. I'm sure that evidence stands up. Thanks.

Freezing rain here today.Which is actually quite warm for this time of year.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Freezing rain here today.Which is actually quite warm for this time of year.

Well, you live in Minnesota, so you're the only one who's allowed to post about how cold it is where you live.

[SweetDee 0]

The past decade was the warmest in history:New York Times Article:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/...warming.html?hpNASA Story:http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/...lysis-2009.html(There are some nice charts in the NASA article)But please, don't let this discourage you from posting the fact that it's cold outside wherever you are on any particular day. I'm sure that evidence stands up. Thanks.

Wouldn't that be recorded history? I mean, saying it's the warmest in history sounds nice but there is absolutely zero ways to prove that. Not to mention, what exactly does ten years say? Compared to poker that's akin to declaring yourself pro after 1 good session.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Wouldn't that be recorded history?

Well, maybe, I guess there's a chance that it's a bit colder than the time when the Earth was a giant ball of magma. Thanks, thanks for your clarification.

[SCYUKON 0]

The past decade was the warmest in history:New York Times Article:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/...warming.html?hpNASA Story:http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/...lysis-2009.html(There are some nice charts in the NASA article)But please, don't let this discourage you from posting the fact that it's cold outside wherever you are on any particular day. I'm sure that evidence stands up. Thanks.

I was wondering where you have been. Missed ya. At any rate, I would suggest rolling over towww.climategate.comwhere there are numerous articles (or even earlier in this thread as well) showing how the number of weather stations has been reduced from 6000 to 1000, and golly gee, the weather stations eliminated are consistently in higher altitude areas, and hence colder.I would be interested in seeing your response to the work exposing the biased removal of observations. And welcome back!

[85suited 0]

can't reason with religion

[brvheart 1,752]

I know this has been touched on but it's pretty hilarious.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...et=0&page=1The IPCC’s 2007 report, which won it the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high”. But Syed Hasnain, the Indian glaciologist erroneously quoted as making the 2035 prediction, said that responsibility had to lie with them. “It is the lead authors — blame goes to them,” he told The Times. “There are many mistakes in it. It is a very poorly made report.”He and other leading glaciologists pointed out at least five glaring errors in the relevant section.

[SCYUKON 0]

This is pretty funny, climategate in a nutshell:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b-6U5MwyDM...layer_embedded#

[SCYUKON 0]

Oh dear, global warming is causing too much heat in the kitchen, so some of the rats (this one a Canadian too!) are starting to desert the sinking ship that is the IPCC:http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2488011

[Don Giovanni 0]

whats with this thread? global warming isnt even cool anymore.

[SCYUKON 0]

whats with this thread? global warming isnt even cool anymore.

Sure it is - now the liberal newspapers are even making fun of the IPCC.

[SCYUKON 0]

And now the hardly surprising news that the Geico Caveman knew about Glaciergate before IPCC:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle7009081.eceAnd the other liar Phil Jones has been officially busted for not handing out the datahttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle7004936.eceNow all we need is for Michael (little) Mann to be found guilty in the Penn State Review and we will have a hockey stick hat trick.So delicious. If anyone ever posts again that the "science is settled", I will be forced to laugh at you, like Republicans at Obama.

[brvheart 1,752]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010...aws-peer-review

[vbnautilus 48]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010...aws-peer-review

The purpose of peer review is not to expose intentional deception. And of course this kind of stuff happens, but its not nearly as bad (in my field at least) as this article makes it sound, and you can really not keep the truth down forever even with these kind of tactics (current case included). First, in the review process, a paper is never reviewed by only one person. You always have at least two reviews, and often three. You can also request that your paper not be reviewed by specific people if you feel they would have a conflict of interest. My grad school mentor included an exclusion of this one other professor in every paper he ever sent in, since he was convinced the guy hated him and would reject any paper out of spite. Also, in the case of a reviewer who is just totally out of line, there is always an appeal process. I have a friend whose paper was torn apart by a reviewer who was way off-base, possibly due to personal bias. My friend wrote in a protest to the editor, they sent it out to new reviewers, and it was ultimately published, in a very high end journal. One of the papers they were talking about in this article, seems to have been published despite this guy's attempt to suppress.

[Balloon guy 158]

The purpose of peer review is not to expose intentional deception. And of course this kind of stuff happens, but its not nearly as bad (in my field at least) as this article makes it sound, and you can really not keep the truth down forever even with these kind of tactics (current case included). First, in the review process, a paper is never reviewed by only one person. You always have at least two reviews, and often three. You can also request that your paper not be reviewed by specific people if you feel they would have a conflict of interest. My grad school mentor included an exclusion of this one other professor in every paper he ever sent in, since he was convinced the guy hated him and would reject any paper out of spite. Also, in the case of a reviewer who is just totally out of line, there is always an appeal process. I have a friend whose paper was torn apart by a reviewer who was way off-base, possibly due to personal bias. My friend wrote in a protest to the editor, they sent it out to new reviewers, and it was ultimately published, in a very high end journal. One of the papers they were talking about in this article, seems to have been published despite this guy's attempt to suppress.

Sounds like the notion that peer reviewed published papers are not very good indicators of what is truth or not....More like a sorority popularity poll by the drama queens of each field.No wonder you guys pretend creationist are lacking by not having met the peer reviewed 'criteria'

[CaneBrain 95]

No wonder you guys pretend creationist are lacking by not having met the peer reviewed 'criteria'

My sticking point was that creationists think fossils are a test from God. Tomayto, tomahto I guess.

[Balloon guy 158]

My sticking point was that creationists think fossils are a test from God. Tomayto, tomahto I guess.

That is a straw man, I am a creationist and I don't think it's a test.

[CaneBrain 95]

That is a straw man, I am a creationist and I don't think it's a test.

Then how do you reconcile the age of fossils with the supposed age of the Earth as written in Genesis?

[Balloon guy 158]

Then how do you reconcile the age of fossils with the supposed age of the Earth as written in Genesis?

Lots of twisted logic and misdirections

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

only the most literal interpretation of genesis gives an actual age of the earth. when you realize that a large portion of the torah that was given to the jews is clearly written for ease of understanding based on the knowledge available at the time of its writing, a metaphorical interpretation is much more logical.for example: many times in leviticus, the israelites are instructed to avoid things that are unclean. with modern science, we understand that many of those things described as unclean are more likely to pose a danger to humans if not treated or cooked properly because of the bacteria or fungus native to what is being described. as the israelites at one point were a relatively small group of people living in close proximity, things like disease had a higher chance to wipe them out. without understanding what bacteria was, they "magically" developed a set of laws that acted as a barrier to disease. in the same way that "watch out for oysters that have these traits or coloration, crabs that come from water that has these properties" is much less practical than "shellfish are unclean", the hebrew word "yom" used in genesis (which can mean day, but also "period of light and dark" or several other abstract measures of time) would be an easy way to explain that God created things intentionally and according to a plan. Plenty of biblical scholars agree with me, plenty disagree, but I mean, the first books of the bible don't exactly fly by, and the authors of the bible aren't shy about using metaphors elsewhere to get to their points. Trying to use a specific english definition of a hebrew word along with a literal interpretation of something written thousands of years before people thought in time in terms of "eons" seems ... silly?

[CaneBrain 95]

only the most literal interpretation of genesis gives an actual age of the earth. when you realize that a large portion of the torah that was given to the jews is clearly written for ease of understanding based on the knowledge available at the time of its writing, a metaphorical interpretation is much more logical.for example: many times in leviticus, the israelites are instructed to avoid things that are unclean. with modern science, we understand that many of those things described as unclean are more likely to pose a danger to humans if not treated or cooked properly because of the bacteria or fungus native to what is being described. as the israelites at one point were a relatively small group of people living in close proximity, things like disease had a higher chance to wipe them out. without understanding what bacteria was, they "magically" developed a set of laws that acted as a barrier to disease. in the same way that "watch out for oysters that have these traits or coloration, crabs that come from water that has these properties" is much less practical than "shellfish are unclean", the hebrew word "yom" used in genesis (which can mean day, but also "period of light and dark" or several other abstract measures of time) would be an easy way to explain that God created things intentionally and according to a plan. Plenty of biblical scholars agree with me, plenty disagree, but I mean, the first books of the bible don't exactly fly by, and the authors of the bible aren't shy about using metaphors elsewhere to get to their points. Trying to use a specific english definition of a hebrew word along with a literal interpretation of something written thousands of years before people thought in time in terms of "eons" seems ... silly?

I have no problems with this extremely healthy view of Genesis other than that the most politically active religious people DO NOT SHARE IT.

[Balloon guy 158]

I have no problems with this extremely healthy view of Genesis other than that the most politically active religious people DO NOT SHARE IT.

Again you make a case with no basis.Most of this country believes in God, and classifies themselves as Christian.Yet currently the only 'movement' I know of to teach creation is asking it to be taught 'along side' the lie of evolution.Hardly an extremist view like you imply.Madilyn O'Harre ( who cares how you spell her name ) won a legal case that made atheism a tax exempt religious institution. The basic premise of which is taught in all schools, evolution. No one shouts separation of church and state when a recognized tax exempt status religious institution's main faith based theory is taught to all children, but ask to teach the notion that maybe DNA didn't accidently fall into place and has a Designer... It's Inquisition 2 Return of the Dark Ages.Besides...this Christian founded country is a perfect example that we all would prefer to live in a country with foundation in a Judeo-Christian principles than one founded in evolution based principles. Know what I mean?

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

Naked Cowboy for president

now we're talking!It is pretty unfortunate the number of people who feel that common sense, belief in God and intelligence are mutually exclusive.

[Balloon guy 158]

now we're talking!It is pretty unfortunate the number of people who feel that common sense, belief in God and intelligence are mutually exclusive.

They usually wrap the cloak of 'open-mindedness' around them whilst doing it too.