VIIV

I think an independent review (not Crichton's argument from a bias against science) would turn up more good science (examining the paleo record, for instance, which examines what happened during previous climate changes and and can be used to confirm hypothesis) than some might realize. And you clearly are smart enough to know that what is missing in the pirate example above is basic reasoning. There is no hypothesis of why or how the "global average temperature" might be related to the number of pirates, and so no expriment can be designed test it.

My real point in the beginning was that scientists, doing real science using the scientifc method, have reached consensus; my timing was fortuitous given the recent announcement by the IPCC. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling. They may all be wrong. Scientists using the scientific method may turn that consensus around as more data is developed. After all, the consensus was that the sun revolved around the earth until better models were developed. But I reject Crichton's "belief", and the efforts of politicians to confuse people on this issue, and the actions of Exxon-Mobil's AEI to bribe scientists with $10K to undermine the IPCC report.

We don't understand all the details about climate interactions, and continued research is needed to better understand climate dynamics. What we should do about it is a valid and open question worthy of debate and will require political action. But climate scientists have repeatedly attempted to make clear there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Isn't it time for all of us to listen?

Sorry for the long message. I'm sure everyone wants to get back to discussing e60s. I didn't want my part to end on a note that in retrospect could be read as attacking or maligning you personally, which was never my intent. PM me if you want to continue the dialogue (I've enjoyed challenging myself to clarify my position, even if it won't change your mind).

BMWskipper

Maybe some random facts for you to consider:

- Did you know that 96% of the CO2 emissions are caused by earth itself (i.e. vulcanic eruptions and so forth)?

- Did you know that altough that for the past 100 years temperatures have been rising, the average temperature since 1998 has gone down (at least for Holland)?

- Did you know that only 30% of scientists are supporting the theory that humans cause global warming, 20 percent is against that theory and the remaining 50% can't either support or deny the theory?

- Did you know that the (south) polar ice cap actually has been gaining more ice?

- Did you know that Al Gore's movie has nothing to do with scientific assumptions, but is considered more of a SF-movie by scientists?

- Did you know that during the middle ages the temperature has been more higher then it is know, and that nature has its cycles in which the climate change (for example the ice ages)? So the climate change actually is a natural process, which has been going on for millions of years?

And most important of all, did you know that the media is only covering the catastrophical view of the theory that global warming will cause havoc around the world, and that the media keeps ignoring scientists and reports that prove otherwise?

Maybe you should worry more about the fact that these fears are being spread as facts around without any people contesting it, and people "en masse" are believing these kind of UNPROVEN nonsense? Scientists can't even predict the weather for the coming few weeks right, but only make assumptions. So how to they even want to predict the changes in the climate.

Think about that boy, and then it will change the way you view society as a whole.

(No, I don't work for Shell, Haliburton or Exxon)

But hell, maybe I'm wrong, and we are doomed after all. But until then, I will continue to enjoy rolling in my dads W12 to University and back.

VIIV

Wow, that's amazing! Please provide a source for this interesting "fact."

A number of your other points are in no way inconsistent with global warming and are in some cases incorporated in the current understanding of the phenomena.

BMWskipper

I hope that your Dutch is a bit up to date......
http://video.google.nl/videoplay?doc...06459400589360

It could very well be that a number of my other points are incorporated in the current understanding of the phenomena, but what exactly do you view as the "current" understanding?

VIIV

That doesn't help me. But "Science," Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686 reported an analysis of 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003. The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% took no position. None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

info@trinityautosport

im just saying.. that caught my attention most, for his movie is in regards to all issues of global warming. where else would al gore get his information as he was appointed as the chairman of the presidential committee that oversees environmental protection and natural resources during the clinton administration? plus the scientists who took part in making his movie "an inconvenient truth?" it is pretty sad that it seems to be coming true. my girlfriend who is indonesian just told me that in some certain parts of indonesia presently, there is very unusual flooding and it never even came close to how bad it is right now. i mean it is obvious in parts of the world that there have been climate changes and drastic temperature changes over what is considered "usual". just voicing what i think and what ive studied.

UUronL

VIIV - no hard feelings, I'm enjoying this too.


At its core, this debate is all about nothing more than beliefs. I'm knowledgeable enough to realize that the science can't say either way. So whether it's 25% or 50% undecided, some portion of the legitimate scientific community agrees and will not take a stand either way. There is nothing that would -prove- either way what might happen, or if anything can support the theorized effect called "Global Warming".

Certainly the pirate example is a bit of satire. We all know the differences - that's why it's funny. But as with all satire, there is an important political and/or social message lurking just underneath the humor. I'm willing to say I simply don't know. What I do know however is that strict application of the scientific method would reject entirely all of the conclusions that Global Warming alarmists and their pet studies and panels have come to. Bending, discarding, or perverting the scientific method "because there just isn't time", or "because this is just too important" doesn't fly either. There have been countless other times in human history when this has happened and we have let our instincts, common sense, or gut reactions override what the science was or wasn't telling us. These instances invariably make their way onto the highlight reel of "most embarrassing scientific moments in human history".

The "other side" would gain a lot of my respect if they simply admitted that they have no way to know for sure... but really -mean- it. That, and go about making their actions and debate congruous with such a position. The current lynch mob mentality that dominates the interaction between believers and non-believers is certainly not helping to encourage dialog.

tachyon

Interesting documentary debunks global warming as caused by mankind theory. The Great Global Warming Swindle is worth a look.

nickolas_g

So what credentials does Al Gore bring to the picture? What is his degree in again? A

gain Chrighton has never pretended to publish any books or documentaries that are based on fact only fiction. He publishes and does a great job at entertaining.

info@trinityautosport

just heard something about it last week while in my ap government class. the teacher brought in a video of i think it was glen beck as a counter against us "liberals" who presented global warming to him for some credit. well according to studies from the UN were reported and presented by beck, animals and livestock contribute more to global warming than cars and trucks worldwide. it was said that to decrease global warming, become a vegetarian. anyone hear something like this? or any other news about it?


EDIT: man as i was typing this i was hearing global warming from my tv to find out that the movie "the day after tomorrow" is on. how appropriate while being on this thread haha.