NFR - Global Warming Poll

Do you believe in Global Warming?


  • Total voters
    198
Status
Not open for further replies.

Philster

Active Member
#76

It's not the washington post, which seems to read like "people magazine" without the balance judging from the link... but Here is a good jumping off point. Now there are no blatant attempts to scare you, and you do have to read all the words carefully...
http://journals.cambridge.org/downl...84a.pdf&code=d42a1631f3e40804ad870197ef071dd8

Oh by the way folks, Don't swallow something because it agrees with your general beliefs. Do you really believe that temps have gone up by 6 degrees since 1950 in antarctica as stated in the article GT provided? Because from 1850 to 1990 the accepted increase is .6 celsius, which is about 1 degree Farenheit. Apparently in the last 7 years it's gone up 5 degrees... Those numbers make Al Gore's flick look downright conservative! I can see how a reporter, with no training could read .6 celsius and go with 6 Farenheit though... Although the reporter did sneak through the qualifier "over the western peninsula"... Suprisingly clever. If you only look at winter temps in that area you can REALLY "manipulate" the data:beer2:
 

smc

Active Member
#78
It's not the washington post, which seems to read like "people magazine" without the balance judging from the link... but Here is a good jumping off point. Now there are no blatant attempts to scare you, and you do have to read all the words carefully...
http://journals.cambridge.org/downl...84a.pdf&code=d42a1631f3e40804ad870197ef071dd8
Bad link Philster. Always test your data.

Oh by the way folks, Don't swallow something because it agrees with your general beliefs. Do you really believe that temps have gone up by 6 degrees since 1950 in antarctica as stated in the article GT provided? Because from 1850 to 1990 the accepted increase is .6 celsius, which is about 1 degree Farenheit. Apparently in the last 7 years it's gone up 5 degrees... Those numbers make Al Gore's flick look downright conservative! I can see how a reporter, with no training could read .6 celsius and go with 6 Farenheit though... Although the reporter did sneak through the qualifier "over the western peninsula"... Suprisingly clever. If you only look at winter temps in that area you can REALLY "manipulate" the data:beer2:
.6 or 6 degress (of separation?) Antartica, or the South Pole, which is the subject of the paragraph you have an issue with is actually warming, with the exception of the western pennisula. An interesting anomaly apparently beyond the scope of that article. The paragraph you question specifically cites the temperature increase at the Western Peninsula of Antartica. What's so sneaky or "clever" about that?

Or maybe it's just the "fear mongering" that bothers you. I have to agree, there is plenty of hyperbole and more going around, on both sides of this issue.

You seem to have a decent sense of humor, overshadowed by unfortunate tendency to be condescending. You inferred earlier that you are a teacher. On the one hand, it's probably a good thing that your undergrads are held to such seemingly rigorous standards. On the other hand, it's a shame that you do not hold yourself to the same. Your unbalanced and unsubstantiated characterization of the CCX is just one example.

But enough - I think that I can say, with a .99 p value, that I'm not going to change your mind or your approach. I don't have to. This is much bigger than you or me. :beer2:

I will also say that, contrary to the apparent majority of this board, I admire Al Gore and what he is doing regarding our environment. Is he perfect? Far from it. Has he done well, while doing good? I'd have to say yes. I do not begrudge him this, nor do I pretend to know or make judgments on the details of his financial life.

Philster, you've thrown some spit balls up, hoping they would stick as a Third World perspective. Here's an article by Wangari Maathai, someone I admire, with credentials backed up by accomplishments. She offers a slightly different take on things and perhaps answers some questions on the issues posed by other readers in this and the related thread.

http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2007/10/19/nobel-prize-gore-oped-cx_hwm_1022maathai.html

An iceberg the size of Florida? Take a look at Philsters ego! :eek:

Back to watching the river.
 

chadk

Be the guide...
#79
climate change is here now and mankind is accelerating the rate at which it is occurring. how sure are they? 96% sure.
Let's say I take a crap on the beach at low tide tomorrow. I bet you could get 99% agreement that Chadk is personally accelerating the rate at which pollution is being introduced into the ocean.

Now before I have a VW bus full of Green Peace pot heads from Evergreen State college hunt me down for killing the whales or something, shouldn't some analysis be done to see what my impact is compared to all other impacts? So what if 99% agree that I had some impact. 90% of that same group might conclude that my impact is so low compared to other impacts, that we should direct our time, resources, legislation, etc to dealing with specific, quantifiable, problems - where real, observable, measureable results can be achieved.
 

Philster

Active Member
#80
Bad link Philster. Always test your data.



Wow... Not sure why the link won't work... Cut directly from the page... I'll try to figure out why because it is interesting reading. try this one http://journals.cambridge.org/production/action/cjoGetFulltext?fulltextid=247890

I honestly don't understand this paragraph ".6 or 6 degress (of separation?) Antartica, or the South Pole, which is the subject of the paragraph you have an issue with is actually warming, with the exception of the western pennisula. An interesting anomaly apparently beyond the scope of that article. The paragraph you question specifically cites the temperature increase at the Western Peninsula of Antartica. What's so sneaky or "clever" about that?" Not being condescending, Just don't get the first half...

As to being condescending... I give as I get. Look at GTs posts on Global warming in the "Al Gore's Mistakes" thread. I at least try to provide information while everyone who disagrees with him is mentally deficient.

My Ego. It's healthy. I have it turn its head and cough every morning. So far so good!
 

gt

Active Member
#81
yes, the first step is to discredit the person posting the information. step two is to post something which might make the reader doubt what he/she has just read. interesting rovian strategy which has been quite successful in the PAST. but, the general public, at least the majority, have seen through this smoke and mirrors dance.

now anyone here could have done this, but since no one took the time to contact the source of the washington post article, i took it upon myself to do so. here is his complete response via email:


----------------------------------------------


Thanks. There is no error nor confusion. The figure in the article is accurate.
-doug struck

+++++++++
Doug Struck
The Washington Post
tel:) 1-978-254-5470
email: [email protected]



----------------------------------------------


carry on, but unless you can post something crediable, this discussion has run its course.
 

Philster

Active Member
#82
Philster, you've thrown some spit balls up, hoping they would stick as a Third World perspective. Here's an article by Wangari Maathai, someone I admire, with credentials backed up by accomplishments. She offers a slightly different take on things and perhaps answers some questions on the issues posed by other readers in this and the related thread.

http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2007/10/19/nobel-prize-gore-oped-cx_hwm_1022maathai.html
.
Cool Lady. Lots of African Women have started grassroots movements of significant import. Cottage industries, distribution networks. Al Gore is important to her. He brought needed publicity and money no doubt. Are we surprised she likes him? I wonder how she would feel if she knew he use 12 to 20 times the energy his fellow citizens use? Her public face wouldn't change because she needs him, and I'd do the exact same thing in her place. I'm all for reforestation. Heck, I think I'm the only one here who's brought that up:confused:

Here's a little reading to get you in the mood for further reading on my "third world spitballs"
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/working_papers/wp23.pdf

Section 2 is very interesting to anyone who thinks going along with Kyoto type things won't impact their lifestyle or standard of living.

Watch that river SMC... It's just waiting for you to drop your vigilence... Then it will strike!
 

smc

Active Member
#83
I honestly don't understand this paragraph ".6 or 6 degress (of separation?) Antartica, or the South Pole, which is the subject of the paragraph you have an issue with is actually warming, with the exception of the western pennisula. An interesting anomaly apparently beyond the scope of that article. The paragraph you question specifically cites the temperature increase at the Western Peninsula of Antartica. What's so sneaky or "clever" about that?" Not being condescending, Just don't get the first half...

As to being condescending... I give as I get. Look at GTs posts on Global warming in the "Al Gore's Mistakes" thread. I at least try to provide information while everyone who disagrees with him is mentally deficient.

My Ego. It's healthy. I have it turn its head and cough every morning. So far so good!
Ah hell, now you go and get all sincere on me :p

I thought for sure, since you the offered the Mark Twain and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy references, that you'd get the reference to "6 Degrees of Separation" - a fairly apt metaphor for this subject.

Both articles you provide are excellent. Thank you. Whether we like it or not, our lifestyles and standard of living are already being affected.

Watch that river SMC... It's just waiting for you to drop your vigilence... Then it will strike!
I live on the river. I watch, not out of fear for what it might bring, but for the fascination of a single eddy, a momentary current dancing to oblivion. You and I, our ego's and the River, have that much in common at least. Also, the fishing is not bad sometimes. ;)
 
#85
"My Ego. It's healthy. I have it turn its head and cough every morning. So far so good!"

With the exceptions of some claims by a two-letter poster, that's the funniest thing I've read in a looong while. Well done!
 

Philster

Active Member
#86
Ah hell, now you go and get all sincere on me :p

I thought for sure, since you the offered the Mark Twain and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy references, that you'd get the reference to "6 Degrees of Separation" - a fairly apt metaphor for this subject.
;)
Ooooh... i got the 6 degrees reference. I guess I was just over analyzing and looking for something cryptic seriously buried in there. I was rereading it like Kevin Costner going over the zabruder film in JFK. Trying to find some meaning in the Antarctic vs. North Pole stuff... Back and to the left... Back and to the left... I tend to overanalyze in case you hadn't noticed:beer2: The sneaky and clever part is restricting it to that area which is goes against the trend of the rest of the continent! Good for scaring the simple minded. Not so good for reasoned rational discussions.

Back to my bunker, where Carl Rove and I control the world!
 
#87
Oh by the way folks, Don't swallow something because it agrees with your general beliefs. Do you really believe that temps have gone up by 6 degrees since 1950 in antarctica as stated in the article GT provided? Because from 1850 to 1990 the accepted increase is .6 celsius, which is about 1 degree Farenheit. Apparently in the last 7 years it's gone up 5 degrees... Those numbers make Al Gore's flick look downright conservative! I can see how a reporter, with no training could read .6 celsius and go with 6 Farenheit though... Although the reporter did sneak through the qualifier "over the western peninsula"... Suprisingly clever. If you only look at winter temps in that area you can REALLY "manipulate" the data:beer2:
Philster,
After all this talk of over-analyzing and manipualting data perhaps you should recheck your math skills before flaunting your ego. Once again, check your data.

Pete
 

Philster

Active Member
#88
Philster,
After all this talk of over-analyzing and manipualting data perhaps you should recheck your math skills before flaunting your ego. Once again, check your data.

Pete
Sorry to break it to ya, but you get older, the decades kinda merge. The 90's have so far been my most memorable, and I wore an onion on my belt the whole time. I'm likely to write 1997 half the time on my checks, since I only write about 3 checks a year anymore. A little error due to haste. I don't carefully proof this stuff. I write it, try to be clear and move on.

If you are insinuating that invalidates everything I've said, so be it. GT says the reporter said the numbers are right, so I guess in 17 years the temperature increased by around 3 degrees celsius (feel free to run the numbers and be more precise!). There I said it. The temperature at the Antarctic increased by 3 degrees celsius in 17 years. Nope. No matter how many times I type those words, it's still sounds like BS...

I love that ya'll are making this about me. I really don't think I'm that special. Besides being brilliant, ruggedly handsome, extremely potent, and a seriously great cook, there really isn't anything remarkable about me:cool:. I have a healthy disrespect for authority, and I guess that requires some arrogance. But I also have enough self-awareness to recognize that in myself.

Cheers!
 
#89
Philster,
In no way am I trying to invalidate everything you have said... I just think when you are putting this much time into a discussion trying to invalidate others' work and to prove that data is manipulated to achieve greater affect, you should perhaps be more cautious with your own work if you want others to listen. I just can't take someone seriously that shuns a lot of great statistical work but replies with simple arithmetic errors.

Pete
 

Philster

Active Member
#90
Philster,
In no way am I trying to invalidate everything you have said... I just think when you are putting this much time into a discussion trying to invalidate others' work and to prove that data is manipulated to achieve greater affect, you should perhaps be more cautious with your own work if you want others to listen. I just can't take someone seriously that shuns a lot of great statistical work but replies with simple arithmetic errors.

Pete
It's not my work. So instead, of attacking me, where do you come down on the 6 degree increase?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts