Global Warming Skeptics vs. The Scientific Consensus

[Fraggle145]

I found this page interesting... I think it presents both sides fairly well (although some of the language is biased).

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/

http://s3.amazonaws.com/infobeautiful/climate_skeptics_960.gif

[OUHOMER]

I am with the skeptics

[soonerhubs]

So my question is this: Have all other plausible predictor variables been ruled out?

Could this be due to solar activity alone, and, if not, how does this get ruled out?

[olevetonahill]

Anybody with a lick of sense KNOWS the climate is Changing.

Is Mankind at fault ? Sure , I garendayumtee we contribute to it . How Much ? who the hell really knows .
Cuttin all the trees down in the Amazon aint helping :mad:
Im thinkin even if WE cut out all the Carbon emissions , this place is still gonna warm up . Maybe not as fast but just as sure .

So what the Polar bears are gonna Die out . Its OUR job to save em ?
Hell folks we need to get in our time machines and go back and save the Dinos also :rolleyes:

[Fraggle145]

So my question is this: Have all other plausible predictor variables been ruled out?

Could this be due to solar activity alone, and, if not, how does this get ruled out?

I'm sure not every one of the thousands of predictor variables are accounted for by every model. That said the sun and its movements are a pretty big component and are included to the extent of the field's knowledge. I mean its the sun!

If you look at the consensus conclusions, it basically says its about the sun and how it will interact with the CO2 that is the main concern. The sun is driving the system, the worry is that we are ahead of schedule compared to when the sun is going to make us warmer by the natural cycle.

[Fraggle145]

Anybody with a lick of sense KNOWS the climate is Changing.

Is Mankind at fault ? Sure , I garendayumtee we contribute to it . How Much ? who the hell really knows .
Cuttin all the trees down in the Amazon aint helping :mad:
Im thinkin even if WE cut out all the Carbon emissions , this place is still gonna warm up . Maybe not as fast but just as sure .

So what the Polar bears are gonna Die out . Its OUR job to save em ?
Hell folks we need to get in our time machines and go back and save the Dinos also :rolleyes:

Hell I ain't worried about the polar bears (okay I am maybe a little, but that's cuz of what I do :O ). I'm more worried about what happens to humans, and more than that any genes I pass on out there. :D

[1890MilesToNorman]

I don't see any Sun data on that page nor does anyone ever add the Sun's activity to their data. Water vapor has a bigger impact on warming than does CO2, where is that data? Temps usually rise before CO2 levels so what does that mean? This **** ain't settled by a long way so you believers please stop saying it is.

Who wants to adopt a polar bear? I am starting an agency to do jes that. There is a background check so go shred the documents that might be incriminating before you send in yer app.

Pass this skeptic a beer and let the free for fall begin. :pop:

[JohnnyMack]

Did we have an ice age?

Did it melt?

[Fraggle145]

I don't see any Sun data on that page nor does anyone ever add the Sun's activity to their data. Water vapor has a bigger impact on warming than does CO2, where is that data? Temps usually rise before CO2 levels so what does that mean? This **** ain't settled by a long way so you believers please stop saying it is.

Who wants to adopt a polar bear? I am starting an agency to do jes that. There is a background check so go shred the documents that might be incriminating before you send in yer app.

Pass this skeptic a beer and let the free for fall begin. :pop:

Right you dont. If you click the linky he basically was showing pretty much what he was able to find out on both sides from the internet.

The fact that the sun data and the data on water vapor isnt readily available to you doesnt meant that (1) doesnt exist, (2) isnt used in climate models that are used to attempt to explain the rise that we have been seeing in temperature.

[SCOUT]

Right you dont. If you click the linky he basically was showing pretty much what he was able to find out on both sides from the internet.

The fact that the sun data and the data on water vapor isnt readily available to you doesnt meant that (1) doesnt exist, (2) isnt used in climate models that are used to attempt to explain the rise that we have been seeing in temperature.

This is a pretty cool comparison, thanks for posting it. The information you reference here in this quote is one of the reasons I struggle with believing the conclusions being presented by many of the climatologists. We are often presented things like; it doesn't mean that it wasn't factored in, that information may have been used, that information wasn't complete etc. I don't really want to make life altering decisions based on models that aren't available to be reviewed. If we have concrete conclusions, there needs to be concrete answers to all of these types of questions.

[StoopTroup]

Nerds. :D ;)

[1890MilesToNorman]

Right you dont. If you click the linky he basically was showing pretty much what he was able to find out on both sides from the internet.

The fact that the sun data and the data on water vapor isnt readily available to you doesnt meant that (1) doesnt exist, (2) isnt used in climate models that are used to attempt to explain the rise that we have been seeing in temperature.

Why is the buzz word CO2 then if all of the other factors are figured in ? (and I know not all factors are in the models because they don't know all the factors to include)

I've had 7 inches of snow in the past 48 hours and NONE of it was forecast? How in the hell can they get something 5, 10 or 20 years out correct if they can't get a 24 or 48 hour weather forecast correct? :eek:

[MrJimBeam]

I've had 7 inches of snow in the past 48 hours and NONE of it was forecast? How in the hell can they get something 5, 10 or 20 years out correct if they can't get a 24 or 48 hour weather forecast correct? :eek:

Cause if they don't forcast something they'll lose their grant money.

[StoopTroup]

Is there Grant Money for Rheumatism Medicine?

http://www.ricksproshop.com/mainwensite_html/images/granny_clampett_small.jpg

[1890MilesToNorman]

Someone needs to send me some grant money to help pay to get this fair and warm crap out of my driveway!!

[JohnnyMack]

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

[Fraggle145]

Why is the buzz word CO2 then if all of the other factors are figured in ? (and I know not all factors are in the models because they don't know all the factors to include)

I've had 7 inches of snow in the past 48 hours and NONE of it was forecast? How in the hell can they get something 5, 10 or 20 years out correct if they can't get a 24 or 48 hour weather forecast correct? :eek:

Basically, because after factoring in all the other stuff the only way the current models of climate warming show the increase in temperatures that we are currently seeing is by factoring in the CO2. The other elements dont appear to have such a drastic effect when everythign else is considered.


This is a pretty cool comparison, thanks for posting it. The information you reference here in this quote is one of the reasons I struggle with believing the conclusions being presented by many of the climatologists. We are often presented things like; it doesn't mean that it wasn't factored in, that information may have been used, that information wasn't complete etc. I don't really want to make life altering decisions based on models that aren't available to be reviewed. If we have concrete conclusions, there needs to be concrete answers to all of these types of questions.

Dude I hear you, it is one of science's largest problems is that the data is available to other scientists and in the literature, but not to the public.

[C&CDean]

I think believing a bunch of pointy headed nerds' speculation and guess work is infinetly more stupid than believing in the Bible.

Color me a skeptic (as Oklahoma is fixin' to record it's coldest December in history).

[1890MilesToNorman]

Did Bill Gates build these climate models? Time for a reboot before we get the blue screen of death. :rolleyes:

[Bourbon St Sooner]

You know what this board needs? Another 20 page GW thread.

[soonerscuba]

I think believing a bunch of pointy headed nerds' speculation and guess work is infinetly more stupid than believing in the Bible.
Signed,

Germ theory.

[C&CDean]

Germ theory. Enlighten me.

[IB4OU2]

Anybody with a lick of sense KNOWS the climate is Changing.

Is Mankind at fault ? Sure , I garendayumtee we contribute to it . How Much ? who the hell really knows .
Cuttin all the trees down in the Amazon aint helping :mad:
Im thinkin even if WE cut out all the Carbon emissions , this place is still gonna warm up . Maybe not as fast but just as sure .

So what the Polar bears are gonna Die out . Its OUR job to save em ?
Hell folks we need to get in our time machines and go back and save the Dinos also :rolleyes:

Well, all I know is all the OVJ process emissions in Eastern Okla. have made all the trees lose their leaves and nobodies seen a sign of Bigfoot in ages. :D

[soonerscuba]

Germ theory. Enlighten me.Basically the idea the microscopic organisms and proteins are the root of the vast majority of disease. It was actually hotly contested for most of human history, with some wingbats rejecting it to this day. Spontaneous generation, the humors, and plain old God's wrath were pretty much the only explanations for the most common illnesses for the majority of human history, some pointy heads took great personal risks in the face traditional powers to advocate the idea eventually shaped medicine as we view it today, not to mention saving a boat load of lives. While I'm OK with being a skeptic, I find it silly to reject them out of hand because you don't like their results.

For my two cents, I'll take global warming seriously when we make efforts to actually reduce the amounts of greenhouse gases, the cap and trade deal seems stupid if you aren't actually addressing the problem, just making money of it.

[JohnnyMack]

For my two cents, I'll take global warming seriously when we make efforts to actually reduce the amounts of greenhouse gases, the cap and trade deal seems stupid if you aren't actually addressing the problem, just making money of it.

Well said.

[Boarder]

I am against the cap and trade, too, if it will just mean trading around credits and not addressing the problem. But, it seems to have worked fairly well in the sulfur emissions realm where it was instituted. I kind of prefer the market trade thing to straight regulations.

But, the emissions reductions should be the main focus by companies. Not that they are big on doing normative things.

I don't have time to look it up right now, but there is a survey that shows the strength of beliefs in climate change. Those who believe in cc rate the strength of beliefs at around a 7 where those who are skeptics rate thier own beliefs in the 4 range. It shows that skeptics seem to be basing thier beliefs from a defensive posture. And, it's totally split down party lines. Maybe after Friday at 3:30 I can find the link for you. It is out there, I promise.

[OklahomaTuba]

This Enron invented carbon trading scam that won't do a damn thing to change the climate, and will only result in us paying more for everything.

[OklahomaTuba]

For my two cents, I'll take global warming seriously when we make efforts to actually reduce the amounts of greenhouse gases, the cap and trade deal seems stupid if you aren't actually addressing the problem, just making money of it.Or when the people pimping this fear mongering, like Algore, stop flying around the world in their private jets and start living their life like they demand the rest of us to live.

But I guess one can't make billions of dollars from spreading fear and trying to hurt people economically by flying commercial and living in only one house.

[Boarder]

Or when the people pimping this fear mongering, like Algore, stop flying around the world in their private jets and start living their life like they demand the rest of us to live.

So what you're saying is that you will not think of people who actually live a lifestyle that matches their "save the Earth" ideology as dirty tree-hugging hippies? I doubt it.

Let's say that Algore stopped flying around in a private jet promoting his movie (which he should, if he believes it). Would you change your belief or take it a bit more seriously? I doubt it. It's just yet another ad hominem attack that is so prevalent around here. Using the "but, but, but...he's doing it, too!" is not a good basis for belief, as most of our mothers explained to us in preschool.

[1890MilesToNorman]

It's much easier to take what a guy says as serious when his actions back it up. And No, Gore has long since lost his credibility so a change in his lifestyle would be meaningless.

[Boarder]

What I mean by all that is that for most CC skeptics, the proponent's lifestyle wouldn't matter so that's kind of weak excuse.

[Fraggle145]

Who really gives a flying **** about Al Gore?

[Boarder]

neocons

[1890MilesToNorman]

Folks should live by their own conscience but don't force this unproven theory on the world in the form of higher costs until it is fact, not theory. These carbon credits, treaties and CAP-Trade will drive up costs to thousands of corporations who in turn will raise the costs of their services to all citizens of the world. It's bad business based on questionable theory. Why is that so hard to understand?

[C&CDean]

Heh. Look at da Boarder. Neocons. Heh. I remember when the only thing he'd say was "beep beep, the truck stops here..."

[C&CDean]

Do you know how good it feels to be "unenlightened?" I don't have a ****ing clue what y'all are talking about (carbon credits/treaties/cap trades/etc.) and I don't WANT to know about any of it. Alls I know is that when I wake up the sun is starting to come up, and I go to the window and look at the thermometer outside I go "****, it's 17 damn degrees again."

In other words, I ain't wasting one second of my life worrying or even giving serious thought to global warming. Kinda like ghosts and UFOs. Prove it to me - without any doubt - and I'll jump on board. Till then, meh.

[1890MilesToNorman]

They trying to pick yer pocket Dean so I'll watch yer back fer ya. :D

[TopDawg]

Basically the idea the microscopic organisms and proteins are the root of the vast majority of disease. It was actually hotly contested for most of human history, with some wingbats rejecting it to this day. Spontaneous generation, the humors, and plain old God's wrath were pretty much the only explanations for the most common illnesses for the majority of human history, some pointy heads took great personal risks in the face traditional powers to advocate the idea eventually shaped medicine as we view it today, not to mention saving a boat load of lives. While I'm OK with being a skeptic, I find it silly to reject them out of hand because you don't like their results.

For my two cents, I'll take global warming seriously when we make efforts to actually reduce the amounts of greenhouse gases, the cap and trade deal seems stupid if you aren't actually addressing the problem, just making money of it.

I love Bill Bryson's book A Short History of Nearly Everything. He spends a good portion of it discussing the widespread objections to scientific theories that are a part of our everyday lives now.

[TopDawg]

In other words, I ain't wasting one second of my life worrying or even giving serious thought to global warming. Kinda like ghosts and UFOs. Prove it to me - without any doubt - and I'll jump on board. Till then, meh.

That's how I felt about them WMD's everybody was convinced they had in Iraq. Guess that's what's good about being in power. When you're in power, you get to decide what to doubt and what not to doubt. And if you don't agree...deal with it.

[Fraggle145]

Folks should live by their own conscience but don't force this unproven theory on the world in the form of higher costs until it is fact, not theory. These carbon credits, treaties and CAP-Trade will drive up costs to thousands of corporations who in turn will raise the costs of their services to all citizens of the world. It's bad business based on questionable theory. Why is that so hard to understand?

Regardless of cap and trade, which I have said before I am not sure about cuz i dont know much about teh economics, the simple fact of the matter is that it is almost impossible to prove something. The only facts you can really know is when something is disproven. I mean even the "Law" of gravity is a theory and it has been changed by Einstein and now quantum mechanics. Until something is disproven, you ask what is the data pointing towards.

[batonrougesooner]

The whole premise is off. When it comes to global warming there is no "scientific consensus"

[Veritas]

The whole premise is off. When it comes to global warming there is no "scientific consensus"
I saw a climate hysterical claim the other day that "99% of scientists" agreed about global warming. I was hoping her opposition on the panel would request a citation on that one.

[TopDawg]

The whole premise is off. When it comes to global warming there is no "scientific consensus"

I'm skeptical that there's no scientific consensus. ;)

[Veritas]

Who really gives a flying **** about Al Gore?
The people that give a **** about Al Gore flying do. :D

[lexsooner]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the National Academy of Sciences and NASA, among others, supports the theory of global warming. The NAS is made up of our brightest scientists, including many Nobel laureates, researchers who have made this country the world leader in science and technology, and not exactly quacks and moon beamers. I think their endorsement gives the theory lots of credibility. Else you want to dismiss them as quacks, but accept their role in making this country a leader in science and technology and otherwise great?????

[KABOOKIE]

Well, being as NASA has used the flawed data from the Hadley CRU to base their findings, I'd say they're not really quacks rather, they've been duped into believing man is the cause.

Now, they know their **** when it comes to launching a man into outer space. Climate research? Not so much.

[Frozen Sooner]

I think believing a bunch of pointy headed nerds' speculation and guess work is infinetly more stupid than believing in the Bible.

Color me a skeptic.


Kinda like ghosts and UFOs. Prove it to me - without any doubt - and I'll jump on board. Till then, meh.

Heh.

[lexsooner]

I think believing a bunch of pointy headed nerds' speculation and guess work is infinetly more stupid than believing in the Bible.

Color me a skeptic (as Oklahoma is fixin' to record it's coldest December in history).

LOL! You are really funny. You may not mean to be, but you are. I guess when you get sick, you go to a witch doctor, not some physician whose stupid theories are based on the work of a bunch of pointy headed nerds. You crack me up! What do Einstein and those pointy headed researcher nerds know which the working man does not? LOL!

[KABOOKIE]

I ain't going to see a doctor who practices in theories.

[ndpruitt03]

A scientific census isn't very scientific. Science is always about questioning if things are true or not.

[ndpruitt03]

I ain't going to see a doctor who practices in theories.

That's basically what all doctors really do. They practice based off educated guesses.

[Fraggle145]

A scientific census isn't very scientific. Science is always about questioning if things are true or not.

Actually it is... When deductive reasoning fails, it helps to be able to use induction.

[ndpruitt03]

Actually it is... When deductive reasoning fails, it helps to be able to use induction.

You know that thing called gravity and newton's laws. Science today still doesn't know why it works. But it does. Those are all theories based off of fact, but actually explaining why they work can't actually be done as of now.

[OUWxGuesser]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

There's some data, have at it!

While the public debates whether we actually global warming, climate change, etc. I'd say most reasonable scientists such as myself are busy putting constraints on the anthropogenic impact. If you don't believe we have an impact, I'lll just flat out say we'll never convince you. Unfortunately, most of the media picks up on our gas release (haha), but you also need to consider land use change (agriculture, cities, etc.), pollution (holy crap we can actually cool the Earth too!), etc.

We're busy trying to reduce uncertainties in computer models. Right now we count on (or at least hope) that aerosol and cloud impacts somewhat negate each other so GHGs still have the biggest impact. We have come up with dozens of possible feedbacks that suggest this may be true. Unfortunately, a few watts per meter square here and there of forcing is a HUGE deal.
And leads to a very large uncertainty in CLIMATE SENSITIVITY.


That's the question up for grabs folks... the CLIMATE SENSITIVITY. The range of answers right now go from we have an impact, but the Earth system can cope to oh crap, we're doomed (in terms of climate change at least). Sadly the media and politicians love extremes and just polarize the issue (see Gore's latest quotes).

[KABOOKIE]

Just quickly looking. Some of that "raw data" was already averaged and indexed per month. And there's a few scripts in there that appear to adjust mean temperartures with some bias.

[Veritas]

Just quickly looking. Some of that "raw data" was already averaged and indexed per month. And there's a few scripts in there that appear to adjust mean temperartures with some bias.
Yeah, I don't like to see a mean without standard dev.

[I Am Right]

Forecast for Copenhagen
issued Wednesday December 16 at 11:30 hours

Thursday
Cloudy weather. Maximum day temperatures around minus 3 degrees Celsius, minimum night temperatures around minus 5 degrees Celsius. Up to fresh wind.

Friday
Cloudy with a little snow. Maximum day temperatures around minus 3 degrees Celsius, minimum night temperatures around minus 8 degrees Celsius. Up to fresh wind.

Saturday
Sunny spells. Maximum day temperatures around minus 3 degrees Celsius, minimum night temperatures around minus 10 degrees Celsius. Light winds.

Sunday
Cloudy with a little snow. Maximum day temperatures around minus 1 degrees Celsius, minimum night temperatures around minus 5 degrees Celsius. Light to moderate winds.

Monday
Cloudy with a little rain and snow. Maximum day temperatures around 2 degrees Celsius, minimum night temperatures around 0 degrees Celsius. Up to fresh wind.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

The people that give a **** about Al Gore flying do. :D

I don't give a flying **** about Al Gore, but I'm wondering if you're going to keep the chickenhawk coach as your avatar.

[Fraggle145]

You know that thing called gravity and newton's laws. Science today still doesn't know why it works. But it does. Those are all theories based off of fact, but actually explaining why they work can't actually be done as of now.

So essentially you are saying that we havent definitively proven that gravity exists? I would agree with you, since we still dont know exactly how it works. Hence, I would say gravity is not a fact because we dont know how exactly how it works. Hell it could be the flying spaghetti monster controlling everything with his invisible noodly appendages. All we know for sure as a fact is that there is something happening. and even that we dont know for sure... If I really wanted to be a ball buster I could argue that gravity may not even exist, but we just perceive it to exist and everything else we perceive may be nonexistent as well, and the only fact that we can ever know for sure is "I think therefore, I am."

Inductively however, it seems that every time you "drop" something it goes down, and that things are attracted to other things, etc... So we assume it to be a fact by induction, not deductively.

[ndpruitt03]

So essentially you are saying that we havent definitively proven that gravity exists? I would agree with you, since we still dont know exactly how it works. Hence, I would say gravity is not a fact because we dont know how exactly how it works. Hell it could be the flying spaghetti monster controlling everything with his invisible noodly appendages. All we know for sure as a fact is that there is something happening. and even that we dont know for sure... If I really wanted to be a ball buster I could argue that gravity may not even exist, but we just perceive it to exist and everything else we perceive may be nonexistent as well, and the only fact that we can ever know for sure is "I think therefore, I am."

Inductively however, it seems that every time you "drop" something it goes down, and that things are attracted to other things, etc... So we assume it to be a fact by induction, not deductively.

The problem with global warming is that it's not based on factual information.

[Fraggle145]

The problem with global warming is that it's not based on factual information.

Right... :gary:

[1890MilesToNorman]

Gravity is man made! So stop it. It's costing us billions of dollars a year just to get our planes and rockets off the ground.

[Breadburner]

[youtube]<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/w0CXaItBT_w&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/w0CXaItBT_w&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>[youtube /]

[Howzit]

[youtube]<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/w0CXaItBT_w&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/w0CXaItBT_w&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>[youtube /]

I either feel vindicated or have changed my view...not sure which.

[49r]

Next time try typing it in this way:

w0CXaItBT

But yeah, I totally agree with Howzit on how the message of this video has affected me. Or I don't. I guess I'll never know becuase I didn't see it.

[JohnnyMack]

Oops.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/

[ndpruitt03]

Oops.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/

yep global warming is based on lies.

[Fraggle145]

It looks to me like these statements are coming from an economic firm (Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA)) and not from "the russians" as is claimed by the article. We'll just have to see as more information becomes available.

[I Am Right]

Previous snow record 1914 2.5 inches currently 10" as of 4PM today.

[ndpruitt03]

Previous snow record 1914 2.5 inches currently 10" as of 4PM today.

That is just XMas snow.

[Boarder]

Wow, today's weather, coupled with that high of 69 eleven days ago (31 degrees above average) kind of gives credence to the wild swings in weather that the warmers predicted.

Now I'm scared! :eek:

[I Am Right]

Crap

[I Am Right]

Dallas gets Xmas snow fall first in 80 ys. "if it is consensus, it is not science." "Consensus does not equal truth"

[Chuck Bao]

Yeah, I'm wavering too. I mean did they ever really prove that smoking cigarettes causes cancer. It seems to be the same argument all over again except this time it is on a planet-wide scale.

[soonerhubs]

Yeah, I'm wavering too. I mean did they ever really prove that smoking cigarettes causes cancer. It seems to be the same argument all over again except this time it is on a planet-wide scale.

Yep. If only we had a thousand other earths to put in a clinical trial. ;) So no, not exactly the same.

[SoonerBorn68]

Global Warming--->Climate Change--->Climate Sensitivity

I guess we're looking for the magic word...

[ndpruitt03]

The climate has been changing for roughly 4 billion years, it'll probably keep changing for another couple billion years till the sun burns the atmosphere away.

[Okla-homey]

Dallas gets Xmas snow fall first in 80 ys. "if it is consensus, it is not science." "Consensus does not equal truth"

At various times throughout human history, scientific "consensus" held that the Earth was at the center of our solar system, that bleeding the sick allowed "vile humours" to escape thus helping heal them, that tomatoes were poisonous to humans, that witches floated when dropped into a body of water and that powered flight was impossible.

[ndpruitt03]

At various times throughout human history, scientific "consensus" held that the Earth was at the center of our solar system, that bleeding the sick allowed "vile humours" to escape thus helping heal them, that tomatoes were poisonous to humans, that witches floated when dropped into a body of water and that powered flight was impossible.

Or how about the earth being flat and if you go far enough you will just sail off the earth?

Or that the sun is made out of coal?

Both were thought to be scientifically true at one point.

[I Am Right]

At various times throughout human history, scientific "consensus" held that the Earth was at the center of our solar system, that bleeding the sick allowed "vile humours" to escape thus helping heal them, that tomatoes were poisonous to humans, that witches floated when dropped into a body of water and that powered flight was impossible.

Scienific "consensus" also held that the world was flat.

[OUHOMER]

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/w0CXaItBT_w&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/w0CXaItBT_w&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>


fixd, I hope i am not disappointed

[yermom]

you guys crack me up

[King Barry's Back]

I love Bill Bryson's book A Short History of Nearly Everything. He spends a good portion of it discussing the widespread objections to scientific theories that are a part of our everyday lives now.

Does he spend any time discussing objections to scientific theories that were once widely held but are now discredited? Like, that putting live leeches on sick people would make them more healthy?

Or that "bleeding" a sick patient would help to return an already weakened person to health?

EDIT: Sorry, some of this was addressed in earlier posts that I hadn't read when I posted, but my post was specifically addressing the selective memory of the crusading press when defending climate change enablers. (Hey, I think I just coined something. If they call us "deniers," let's call them "enablers.")

Or that the earth is at the center of the universe?

These are just ones I happen to know of from grade school. I am sure there are more.

Just because a "scientist" believes something, and just because a non-scientist doesn't buy it, doesn't automatically make the non-scientist wrong.

[Boarder]

Yeah, and people believed in sea monsters, too! And gremlins! And...and...and..

How many of these scientific consensus theories that have been disproven have come from the last century? Much less the last couple of decades?

[SCOUT]

Yeah, and people believed in sea monsters, too! And gremlins! And...and...and..

How many of these scientific consensus theories that have been disproven have come from the last century? Much less the last couple of decades?

Eugenics was probably not that good of an idea.

[SCOUT]

I thought of some more.
Smoking won't hurt you
Eggs are good for you
Eggs are bad for you
Egg yolks are bad for you but the whites are good for you
Coffee will kill you
Coffee is actually good for you
I honestly can't remember where they last left coffee
Bird Flu
Swine Flue
SARS
Ebola
Acid Rain
Wine is bad for you
Wind is good for you
Hell, this century we thought handling mercury was no big deal. Actually lead too.

[Fraggle145]

I thought of some more.
Smoking won't hurt you

I dont recall this being a consensus especially after data was available that wasnt biased by big tobacco.


Eggs are good for you
Eggs are bad for you
Egg yolks are bad for you but the whites are good for you


Coffee will kill you
Coffee is actually good for you
I honestly can't remember where they last left coffee


Wine is bad for you
Wine is good for you

Food and nutrition science has become refined over the years as we are more and more capable of separating food into its different nutrients and have more data. I would hazard a guess that we have more data now on climate than we have had on any of these at the time they were supposedly a consensus in the scientific community. Finally i would also hazard the guess each of these likely didnt have the same level of support (for lack of a better term) as the current consensus on climate has across multiple disciplines.



Bird Flu
Swine Flue
SARS
Ebola

I dont know what the consensus on each of these was? :confused: That they can kill you? that they probably will kill a lot of people? They all did kill quite a few people, swift action using another consensus of germ theory and vaccination probably helped them not kill near as many.


Acid Rain Acid rain still happens... The fact that it happens less noticeably is due to the regulations that have been put in place since the 1980s. Since something was acted on it really isnt a newsworthy story any more. There are still acidic lakes and the ocean is becoming more acidic due to acid deposition. If you want to see the effects look to coral reefs.


Hell, this century we thought handling mercury was no big deal. Actually lead too.

Again a lack of information and data, with not near as much as the climate datasets out there. Instead of a consensus based on data this is probably much better characterized as unanimity of ignorance.

Just my thoughts on some of those.

[Fraggle145]

Eugenics was probably not that good of an idea.

I think this is another case of more data and theory, basically once we understood genetics and selection of alleles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy_Weinberg) and the occurrence of mutation there was no longer any support. I would bet that there was more support for this among governments wishing to maintain power and set forth what they perceived as ideal rather than a scientific consensus, granted however many prominent scientific names did support eugenics.

[Crucifax Autumn]

If this century (the 21st) we thought handling mercury was safe why did that movie "Prophecy" in the 70s have some Indian bear monster mutant baby creature caused by mercury from a paper mill? Seems like some B-movie screenwriter knew it was bad.

[hellogoodbye]

Again a lack of information and data, with not near as much as the climate datasets out there.

Getting off the consensus topic a little, I would submit that there are some that feel the same concerning AGW data (and the popular causastion inferences derived from it).

Not a political or social angle here, just an awareness of the complexity and the multiple diciplines involved with global climate science. In that regard, especially considering the time frames involved, there is nothing human oriented to compare to climate science, IMO.

[I Am Right]

Record cold in upper mid central state, RECORD, not even close, but pardon me for posting facts.

[bluedogok]

Well, the Global Warming Protesters are out in droves :D

http://www.maniacworld.com/global-warming-protesters.jpg

[I Am Right]

S. Faces Record Cold Weather; Florida Crops May Avoid Damage
Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A By Dan Hart

Jan. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Cold, windy weather enveloping the U.S. from the northern Plains to the East Coast may continue to break temperature records today. In south Florida, orange growers may escape most crop damage.

The National Weather Service issued hard-freeze warnings for last night and this morning for southern Alabama and Georgia and the northern part of Florida, including the panhandle. Such warnings alert growers of temperatures that may fall below 32 degrees Fahrenheit (zero Celsius) for more than three consecutive hours.

A low of 20 degrees was forecast for Jacksonville, Florida, overnight, which would break the existing record of 22 degrees, said Dave Samuhel, a meteorologist for AccuWeather.com Inc. in State College, Pennsylvania. Typical temperatures for Jacksonville this time of year are 42 degrees, he said.

In Florida, citrus-growers will likely avoid major crop damage since below-freezing temperatures wouldn’t last long enough, Samuhel said.

“I don’t expect widespread damage,” he said.

The next few weeks will be key to the outlook for agriculture, said Bobby Barden, president of the Sebring, Florida-based Highlands County Citrus Growers Association, in a telephone interview.

Next Weekend

A cold blast expected next weekend “is supposed to be stronger” than the current weather pattern, Jack Scoville, a Price Group Inc. vice president in Chicago, said in an e-mail yesterday.

Orange-juice futures on Dec. 31 fell the most in four months on speculation that the freezing weather forecast for this week for many parts of the U.S. won’t damage Florida’s citrus crop. Orange juice rose 90 percent last year on bets the harvest would decline in the state, the world’s second-largest orange grower.

The futures for March delivery tumbled 7.85 cents, or 5.7 percent, to $1.2905 a pound on ICE Futures U.S. in New York, the biggest drop for a most-active contract since Aug. 14. The price gained 51 percent since the end of 1999.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture last month estimated that Florida’s orange crop will be 0.7 percent smaller than earlier forecast because adverse weather reduced fruit size. Brazil is the world’s biggest orange producer.

To contact the reporter on this story: Dan Hart in Washington at

[yermom]

Ever studied any statistics?

[StoopTroup]

I was wondering what the weather in phlorida was like. Glad I know I can come to this thread and find out any ole time I want.

[I Am Right]

Ice Slows Operation At N.J. Nuclear Power PlantSALEM, N.J. (CBS 3) ― Click to enlarge1 of 1
CBS

Close




numSlides of totalImages Related Slideshows The Tattooed Ladies Of Hollywood Openly Gay Celebrities Real Or Fake? Celebrity Infidelity Scandals Jewish Celebrities Mummers 110th Annual New Year's Day Parade Celebrity Snapshots A nuclear power plant South Jersey was forced to partially shut down due to ice build-up on the Delaware River.

Officials said the power plant in Salem County had to shut down one generator and reduce power in another at about 8 a.m. Saturday due to floating ice on the river.

Ice was accumulating on rotating screens used to take water to a non-radioactive part of the plant.

Plant officials told Eyewitness News that it is the first time that they had to take this unusual step because of ice.

Officials are continuing to monitor the situation to determine when the plant can resume full operation.

[I Am Right]

Winter of 2009-2010 Could Be Worst in 25 Years
Posted 2010-01-04
Nearly the entire eastern half of the United States is enduring bitterly cold temperatures not experienced since 1985. Even Florida, which has been hovering around freezing le

By Jon Auciello
AccuWeather.comNearly the entire eastern half of the United States is enduring bitterly cold temperatures not experienced since 1985. Even Florida, which has been hovering around freezing levels overnight recently, is also feeling the almost-nationwide chill.

"It'll be like the great winters of the '60s and '70s," said AccuWeather.com Chief Meteorologist and Expert Long Range Forecaster Joe Bastardi.

The last time a large swath of severely low temperatures struck the nation was in January 1985. That historic arctic outbreak had below-zero temperatures Fahrenheit stretching from Chicago eastward to New York City, and all the way south to Macon, Ga.

While Bastardi says the upcoming days will bring cold not seen since 1985 or 1982, he believes this winter is shaping up much that of like 1977-78. That winter, nearly all of the United States east of the Rockies had a cold October followed by a warm November, with the cold returning in December.

What is most interesting in this case is what followed, where the months from January through March can all be classified as very cold, relative to normal.

"If it stays this cold for this long, will the groundhog even want to come out on Feb. 2?" wonders Senior Vice President and Chief Meteorologist Elliot Abrams.

This winter has already been rough for many areas of the country, with several blizzards dumping high accumulations of snow upon the Plains, mid-Atlantic and New England.

The cold air currently streaming across the Upper Midwest into the East and South will only compound the winter problems of the nation, especially since these depths have not been experienced across such a wide area simultaneously in decades.

Over the past 20-plus years, when below-normal cold periods have arrived in the winter they tend to have been limited to one region, according to Bastardi.

Temperatures have not been this low since the winter of 2002-03, which is known as the benchmark for frigid conditions in the last decade. However, that year the cold was not as widespread as what is happening now.

With the entire eastern half of the country in the throes of this arctic snap, this is shaping up to be the coldest winter in many people's memories.

[ndpruitt03]

The high later this week is expected to be in the teens. **** GLOBAL WARMING!

[49r]

Heh. Joe Bastardi.

[TopDawg]

Does he spend any time discussing objections to scientific theories that were once widely held but are now discredited? Like, that putting live leeches on sick people would make them more healthy?

Or that "bleeding" a sick patient would help to return an already weakened person to health?

EDIT: Sorry, some of this was addressed in earlier posts that I hadn't read when I posted, but my post was specifically addressing the selective memory of the crusading press when defending climate change enablers. (Hey, I think I just coined something. If they call us "deniers," let's call them "enablers.")

Or that the earth is at the center of the universe?

These are just ones I happen to know of from grade school. I am sure there are more.

Just because a "scientist" believes something, and just because a non-scientist doesn't buy it, doesn't automatically make the non-scientist wrong.

It's been over a year since I've read it, but I can't think of any example he gives of a time that a "non-scientist" disproved a scientist on anything. There are probably many examples of times when a scientist believed something--and many people agreed with him--and another scientist believed differently--and many people agreed with him. Whenever the issue was resolved you had many scientists that were wrong and many non-scientists that were right.

But that's just like this issue. This whole "the scientific consensus has been wrong before" argument doesn't fly. I mean, it's obviously correct, but it does nothing to shed any light on this issue.

The scientific consensus on the earth being flat was wrong. But the scientific consensus changed so that it said the earth is round. But if "globe is round" deniers had said "The scientific consensus was wrong when...blah blah blah" well, they'd have been right that the scientific consensus had been wrong before but they'd be wrong about the shape of the earth.

In other words, if global warming skeptics think "The scientific consensus has been wrong before" is a reasonable argument to back up their side, they must grant that "A new scientific consensus has changed the way we think and improved our lives before" is a reasonable argument to back up the other side.

[TopDawg]

I'm not sure whether global warming is real or not. But just as I would have issue with someone judging our athletic department by this year's football season, I have issue with people who judge the global warming issue by what's going on around them.

If the debate was over Florida's temperatures this winter and whether they were higher or lower, that article would certainly be compelling evidence. But I went to Kenya last year and, guess what...they were having an unseasonably warm spell that was ruining their farming. However, I wouldn't expect you to believe that global warming is real based on that observation alone (or even when combined with other similar experiences).