Is Global Warming a Leftist Urban Legend?

[wyly]

Lord, what did we do before we had you to save us all?

stumbled around blindly in the dark I suppose...but you're okay now I'm here to guide you, no need to be afraid anymore...

[wyly]

Looked in the mirror lately?

wow that's an original comeback.... ...

[William Ashley]

apparently not in Fells case...

you established his credentials as HARVARD PROF, I posted a link to a Harvard site where Harvard Archeologists repudiated him as an amateur...

Being a Harvard Prof should establish you as having high academic standards.

fiction doesn't count as knowledge...if I read a book on Archeology it'll be written by an Archeologist not a marine biologist with a specialty in sea urchins...I might as well read a comic book...

Personally I don't care who writes the book, if it is good and you learn from it that is a gain.

just where did you go to school? I was taught Vikings settled in Canada in the 60's and you believe it wasn't established fact until after Fell wrote his book in the 80's? and you learned this in a University archeology class?

I didn't, not even in the Canadian history colonization period and I was taught that the British and French were the people to discover north america - not even mention of the Portuguese slave trade. And you better believe the Columbus discovered America line was standard in America and even today still is commonly taught.

I took electives too that doesn't mean I know anything about Astronomy...and as you believed Vikings in N America weren't an established fact until the 80's your knowledge is very questionable...

I don't know about your university but if I take a course in Astronomy I will know something about astronomy, if your courses don't teach you anything in the field it is unfortunate you went to such a weak academic setting where a course didn't teach you material on subject matter that was applicable to the field.

he translated faked carvings...proving that he saw what he wanted to see...

If they are fake why are they protected? Petroglyph provincial park most certainly is "real" and a sacred native american site.

none, he's an scorned in archeology and he has no training in lingustics...

Untrue. He was a part of a team that studied the origin of Berber. Which as far as I can tell was a phoencian/viking/libyan trade language.

he interprets scratches in stone any way he wants, I guess those dumb injuns were too stupid to make their own scratches they needed superior euro celts to do it for them...

The deciphering made sense to me. Natives used bark for writing. Cave paintings do occur but I havn't encountered many rune engravings - while they could be out there - I haven't encountered talk of these native rune carvings except as done at the sites purported to be originating with European/African and Middle Eastern transcontinental tradespersons.

are you saying one book is idiotic and the other is genius?...sorry , dumb and dumber his lack of knowledge is there for all to see...

The later book references a couple things in the older book, but I think he and his base of material and evidence grew in the 6 years between the books.

b. 1917

study of Polynesian petroglyphs published in 1940

America BC 1976

Saga America 1980

Bronze Age America 1982

wrong..."Native copper implements are particularly common on sites in proximity to the copper sources of Lake Superior"

Well you prooved the critics wrong, but not Fell, also quite common - was about lake Huron where the mines were? And other sites. Hold on are you saying all this talk about natives being neolithic until colonization are false?

you have no idea...DNA ancestry tracing wasn't available in his day, it is now...there no european DNA introduced into native populations at the time he claims, NONE...DNA doesn't lie and it can't be hidden...

DNA tracing wasn't available in 1994?

same guy, same BS...

For someone who claims an interest in material you are awfully closed off to learning.

the article is about an Engineer who thinks he's an archeologist, do have an issue with real archeologists, does what they have to say not agree with Fish Doctors and Engineers?

Just cause it doesn't fit your mold of archaeology doesn't mean it isn't archaeology. Archaeology and Anthropology are relatively "new fields of study" being about a century old and they have been constantly changing. The physical evidence is there. Just cause you don't know ogam doesn't mean it isn't. (His specialty is actually very relevant in archaeology - learn a little)

impressive site let's look the other topics covered... LBJ Killed JFK! Mossad Link Found to One of Key 9-11 Hijackers, Evidence that AIDS was man-made. Fake Gold in Fort Knox! 73,846 US Iraq War Soldiers Dead ....this site doesn't do much for your credibility ...loonies...

Where is the evidence against it?

----

It has me wonder what was in his last unpublished book when he died at 77

1984

Alec Jeffreys introduces technique for DNA fingerprinting to identify individuals.

1985

Genetic fingerprinting enters the court room.

1993

An international research team, led by Daniel Cohen, of the Center for the Study of Human Polymorphisms in Paris, produces a rough map of all 23 pairs of human chromosomes.

It enters the scene soon after bronze age america.. his new book might have included DNA evidence.

Real papers like this:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/20638916/Radiocarbon-and-DNA-evidence-fora-pre-Columbian-introduction-of

http://www.sino-platonic.org/abstracts/spp133_precolumbian.html

Edited February 24, 2010 by William Ashley

[jbg]

Climate change, on the other hand, is a scientific theory, which I believe to be very well grounded in the evidence, but it is not in any way comparable to the Holocaust. Denying the Holocaust is spitting on the graves of six million people, denying climate change is disagreeing with a theory.

Exactly how I feel.

I do not think, by the way, Holocaust denial should be a crime; just exposed as bigotry. As for climate, they can call me a denier if I can call them a fraudster or a dupe.

[Mr.Canada]

To the OP, yes.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Being a Harvard Prof should establish you as having high academic standards.

Would you listen to a philosophy professor at Harvard about particle physics?

[Bonam]

Would you listen to a philosophy professor at Harvard about particle physics?

Depends on whether what he was saying was correct or not. That's the problem with all you guys debating global warming. You can't really critique science unless you understand it.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Depends on whether what he was saying was correct or not. That's the problem with all you guys debating global warming. You can't really critique science unless you understand it.

I leave climate science up to the climate scientists. If a climate scientists said something about climate I would be inclined to trust it. If a geologist said something about climate I would ask what the climate scientist says.

All the debating I have done is to point out when people have been wrong about what they are saying the scientists have said. Or pointing out when they are wrong about basic things that are learned in high school.

Also I understand science fine which is why I leave it up to the experts.

[Bonam]

I leave climate science up to the climate scientists. If a climate scientists said something about climate I would be inclined to trust it. If a geologist said something about climate I would ask what the climate scientist says.

All the debating I have done is to point out when people have been wrong about what they are saying the scientists have said. Or pointing out when they are wrong about basic things that are learned in high school.

Also I understand science fine which is why I leave it up to the experts.

Right. The problem comes along when two climate scientists are portrayed as disagreeing. Then one has to be able to understand the science for themselves if they want to form an educated opinion. Simply seeing which of the two scientists is "more popular" in the scientific community (i.e. who has more scientists agreeing with them) does not necessarily lead to the truth.

For example, if one read Einstein's paper in 1905 and evaluated it merely based on how many other scientists had the same views at the time, they would come to an incorrect conclusion about its validity. On the other hand, if one had some education in the fields of calculus, mechanics, and electrodynamics, one could see that the paper was incontrovertibly correct, regardless of what other scientists might think at the time. Of course, in that particular case, the scientific community came into agreement very quickly, but that is not always the case.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Bonam

[Guest TrueMetis]

Right. The problem comes along when two climate scientists are portrayed as disagreeing. Then one has to be able to understand the science for themselves if they want to form an educated opinion. Simply seeing which of the two scientists is "more popular" in the scientific community (i.e. who has more scientists agreeing with them) does not necessarily lead to the truth.

Not that big of a problem. Give it some time for them to debate in the scientific arena, you'll know a winner when the others mangled corpse is dragged out.

If I really wanted to I could learn enough about climate science to evaluate the papers on climate change but I'm just not that interested in Climatology like I am in subjects like paleantology. Though I do understand enough to get a basic understanding and tell that even when two scientists look like they are "disagreeing" they aren't always.

[Bonam]

If I really wanted to I could learn enough about climate science to evaluate the papers on climate change but I'm just not that interested in Climatology like I am in subjects like paleantology.

Indeed, I imagine this is also the case for most other posters here. So we've established that people here 1) cannot evaluate the papers on climate science and 2) are not that interested in climate science. So, why then are we having so many discussions on climate science and the validity of specific results from some of the papers on climate science, given that we have neither the expertise to do so nor the interest in doing so?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Indeed, I imagine this is also the case for most other posters here. So we've established that people here 1) cannot evaluate the papers on climate science and 2) are not that interested in climate science. So, why then are we having so many discussions on climate science and the validity of specific results from some of the papers on climate science, given that we have neither the expertise to do so nor the interest in doing so?

People like to argue? I only really get into it when people use intellectually dishonest tactics, or when people get basic things wrong as I said before. You would have to ask Shady or Waldo thier reasons. My reason is to try to keep it as honest as possible I've given my opinion on whether it's happening once I think. (Both of whom have said some questionable things [it may have been Wyly not Waldo])

[Michael Hardner]

Not that big of a problem. Give it some time for them to debate in the scientific arena, you'll know a winner when the others mangled corpse is dragged out.

Good question: how long did it takes Einstein's theory to be accepted ?

The link between CO2 and temperature has been known for a very long time now. The models have been in the scientific literature for years.

If I really wanted to I could learn enough about climate science to evaluate the papers on climate change but I'm just not that interested in Climatology like I am in subjects like paleantology. Though I do understand enough to get a basic understanding and tell that even when two scientists look like they are "disagreeing" they aren't always.

You could never get to the point where people on the board would buy into your expertise. It makes more sense, I think, for us to stay up on the literature and discuss the conclusions rather than getting any deeper into it than that.

[William Ashley]

Would you listen to a philosophy professor at Harvard about particle physics?

If he studied particle physics for 60 years, I would likely consider it conducive.

You don't need a degree to have knowledge, but it usually does establish a foundation in a field. If you know the history of the university and education - having a degree doesn't mean you and your fellow degree holders are the only people knowledgeable on a subject, sorry try again.

I'm not a "foundational reality via science" person. I feel science is too young, and that the world is not a "Static" reality. Things change, numbers have changed. I don't beleive in fundamental laws of energy because there is no basis for the origin of energy nor limits to types of effects of energy on the laws of science. So it really is anything goes, but what works for you for now ain't necesiarily bad I just tend to put my faith in god rather than mathematics. There is no reason to ignore the math though if there are no other indicators on a matter, but there is no requirement to depend on it if the answer won't be productive either way.

So sure it works inside the box but its still philosophy making the box. It is really simple to give examples of how science in practice works by repetition of experiments - when you get down to the fundamentals it gets very abstract and you have measurements based on time space quotients that are derived by arbirary consenus and pulses which exist through complex interactions. Example the atomic clock, or the speed of light over time - for distance. I don't like to reduce my existence to cold energy - it doesn't explain my consciousness so I'm not going to rest my final belief on that point. There is something magical and infinite to life, that a constrained reality doesn't provide, I won't limit my existence that way.

Fact is though, I don't see no messiah saying they will save the polar bears.. the world has a lot of issues, and the medium society has given us is to establish a plan to stop global crisis and hardship. So I think that it is rational and intelligent to try to avert crisis and ruin of society. I see there as being arguments, and when people try to scientifically deny scientific fact I find it to be issued because it is scientifically a real event.

Edited February 26, 2010 by William Ashley

[Guest TrueMetis]

Good question: how long did it takes Einstein's theory to be accepted ?

The link between CO2 and temperature has been known for a very long time now. The models have been in the scientific literature for years.

Yes that mangled corpse was buried a long time ago and the winner was clear. That there are some people who don't accept it is not my problem.

You could never get to the point where people on the board would buy into your expertise. It makes more sense, I think, for us to stay up on the literature and discuss the conclusions rather than getting any deeper into it than that.

Agreed.

[Bonam]

You could never get to the point where people on the board would buy into your expertise. It makes more sense, I think, for us to stay up on the literature and discuss the conclusions rather than getting any deeper into it than that.

The point isn't to become a renowned expert so that people would "buy into" your expertise. Rather, you just need to know enough to be able to make sense of what the papers are saying, so you can understand, for yourself, and make your own informed conclusions.

[waldo]

clearly... the Harper Conservatives are replying to the OP's question in the affirmative

Budget deep freeze will lead to end of climate research lab

In its budget last week, the Harper government provided no new money for the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmosphere Sciences. The foundation is the country's main fund for scientists studying everything from global climate models, to the melting of polar ice and frequency of Arctic storms, to prairie droughts and shrinking Rocky Mountain glaciers.

For many in the research community, the budget decision merely confirmed the view that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government remain skeptical of climate-change science and hostile to those who provide evidence that aggressive action must be taken to avert catastrophic global warming.

It's quite clear we have a government that says they believe this is an issue but really don't care about it.

[Smallc]

I'm very surprised about that. Given how committed Harper is supposed to be to northern sovereignty, you'd think he'd want to keep that lab operational.

[Alta4ever]

I'm very surprised about that. Given how committed Harper is supposed to be to northern sovereignty, you'd think he'd want to keep that lab operational.

Ah but the economy and the deficit are the two items that Canadians care most about

[waldo]

Ah but the economy and the deficit are the two items that Canadians care most about

This party will not take its position based on public opinion polls. We will not take a stand based on focus groups. We will not take a stand based on phone-in shows or householder surveys or any other vagaries of pubic opinion...

[Smallc]

Ah but the economy and the deficit are the two items that Canadians care most about

That may be, but the piddly amount that went to this lab in the north isn't the straw that was going to break the camel's back. Whether you agree with climate change theory or not, it was good policy for arctic sovereignty to keep it open.

[Alta4ever]

That may be, but the piddly amount that went to this lab in the north isn't the straw that was going to break the camel's back. Whether you agree with climate change theory or not, it was good policy for arctic sovereignty to keep it open.

Pennies add up

[Smallc]

Pennies add up

Yes, sure, but when something is your vision and your goal for a legacy, that's a different story.

[ironstone]

The Global Warming people seem to be quieting down lately for some reason.It must hurt when the foundations of their arguments seem to be crumbling around them.Lorrie Goldstein wrote an interesting article in the past week about who is paying for what.Global warming zealots have been saying for years,"follow the money",meaning look at who is footing the bill for some of the skeptics.Some of the money does indeed come from big oil.From 1996-2008,some 23 million dollars came from the largest oil company,ExxonMobil.Apparently this money pales in comparison to the amount of money spent on global warming research in the United States alone.Since 1989,79 BILLION dollars have been spent on global warming research.And still they are upset because they "can't account for the lack of global warming".It seems perfectly clear which side has been most successful in catching those massive research grants.

http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2010/03/10/13184951.html

[wyly]

The Global Warming people seem to be quieting down lately for some reason.

quiet is your perspective on the debate ending...Global warming is a fact and anthropogenic in nature, other than a handful of scientists it's accepted fact...the debate has shifted to how quickly change is coming, what will the extent of the damage and can change be slowed, stopped or reversed..

It must hurt when the foundations of their arguments seem to be crumbling around them.

please list the crumbling arguements...