http://www.tobaccoinstitute.com/Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
They had a fantastic series of gotchas with a prior conclusion in mind too. Some good reading for you if you don't want to read the document at the start of the thread.
Printable View
http://www.tobaccoinstitute.com/Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
They had a fantastic series of gotchas with a prior conclusion in mind too. Some good reading for you if you don't want to read the document at the start of the thread.
I think you're confusing "accounting" for the heat island effect on temp. recordings with "dismissing" the effect. Those are two very different things.Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
The first I heard of the Heat Island theory was in the book State of Fear by Michael Crichton. Here's what the Union of Concerned Scientist has published about it.
A 2011 Study also specifically addressed this issue. You can find more about that here and here.Quote:
3. What is the "urban heat island effect" and is it contributing to warming?
State of Fear characters suggest that the "urban heat island effect" may be responsible not only for heating in cities but also for global warming. They note that many long-term temperature stations are now surrounded by larger cities and could contribute to the warming seen in urban stations. While amplified warming does occur in cities and is an important local phenomenon, cities occupy only a small fraction of the planet compared to the vast area of oceans, ice caps, uninhabited mountains, and rural landscapes. Scientists are well aware and take measures to adjust for this effect so that the overall temperature trend is not biased. Temperature monitoring stations exist around the globe, on both land and sea, and we see a clear warming trend from many locations. Compared to the number of temperature stations for the U.S., it is clear that urban stations are a minor component of the U.S. temperature station network (Figure 2). The IPCC (2001) stated that urban heat island effects could contribute no more than six percent of the rising average temperature trends in 1990, and a National Academy study of the surface temperature record concluded that the global surface temperature trend accurately reflects warming.
Furthermore, temperature gauges are not the only way to measure temperature changes. Satellites operating since 1979 have monitored lower atmosphere (tropopause) temperature over the land and oceans. Although early satellite analyses indicated only a small amount of warming during this period, these early results overlooked a satellite sensor feature that we now know included cooling data from higher in the atmosphere. Corrected for this error, the satellite measurements are now in good agreement with the global average surface temperature trends.
The responses are pretty funny too.
Prof Dave Griggs is CEO of ClimateWorks Australia & Director of the Monash Sustainability Institute, Melbourne, comments:
“The paper confirms previous work that the observed warming of the Earth since the beginning of the 20th Century cannot be attributed to the urban heat island (UHI) effect. This comes as no surprise to climate scientists who take great care to take account of this effect in their work. It also confirms findings from other studies using very different methods. For example, looking at temperature trends on windy days and calm days also show no difference contrary to what you would expect from the urban heat island as the heat would build up more on calm days. So, hopefully this paper will help to put this urban (heat island) myth to bed.”
Prof Neville Nicholls is ARC Professorial Fellow in the School of Geography and Environmental Science at Monash University, Melbourne, comments:
“My first reaction on hearing the result of this study, namely that urbanization has NOT led to exaggerated estimates of global warming, was certainly not one of surprise! Those of us who have spent years checking the temperature data and using these to estimate global warming have always checked to ensure that this was not an issue. And even if you were worried about this possible issue, the fact that temperatures measured on small islands were showing similar warming, as do ocean temperatures and alpine snow and glacier shrinkage, and sea-ice retreat, should have put your mind at rest. Even satellite measurements of global temperature show similar warming to the land-based thermometers.
“Only those most desperate to dismiss global warming have tried to blame urbanization for the observed warming. But I guess it is always good to have yet another group confirm decades of work by climate scientists. Perhaps this will finally put to rest the furphy that the warming is caused by urbanization. I won’t hold my breath though. I guess those spreading misinformation about warming will just move on to another one of their furphies.”
Argument by Bad Analogy added to Argument by Poisoning the Wells. Good job distracting there WB, fallacious arguments are still fallacious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Do you really want to go down that road in this context? I'm actually thinking not. I was responding to someone who refuses to even read the article he's debating.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Hey, don't sell yourself short. You couldn't possibly get any dumber. :heart:Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
I'm glad you brought this up, because I think it illustrates the fundamental difference between the two sides. There are two kinds of science: rational and empirical. Rational means to use reason, empirical means to use experiment/data. The tricky part is that rational science is the only one that makes sense rationally and empirical science is the only one that makes sense empirically; put another way, there's no way for the two sides to talk to each other. Rational science leads to beautiful, elegant, simple systems. All you have to do is basic reasoning and their verity is confirmed. It is only in rationalism that you can say things like...Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
-correlation is not causation
-all people have bias
-people disagree
Note how all these things are true! This is what makes rationalism so seductive, combined of course with never having to put in any work or thought to your position whatsoever.
.
Of course, the people that take refuge in these observations do so only when it is convenient for them. All of empirical science is a logical fallacy, so it is technically correct to point out that logical fallacy whenever you don't cotton to whatever it is empirical science has shown in a particular arena. Categorically embracing rationalism is for twits, and there is no law against hypocrisy.
No you weren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I don't really watch it but instead of criticizing the channel you should address the issue about what the ex-head of green peace just said. All you people claiming there is global warming have no FACTS. No real DATA that shows it's happening. Just an al gore video with penguins in it and a bunch of scientist who's predictions are wrong. If you just look at the facts global warming is a moot point. Ohh and don't forget that your leader al gore sold his global empire built on climate change to a Muslim televisions network. It's all a big lie and people are making money on it. Now you know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
http://static.squarespace.com/static...oil-hat-2.jpegQuote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
I have 32 pages of facts, they're listed in the OP. None of them involve a head of Greenpeace (current or former) or Al Gore. You can refuse to believe in those facts, that's your right as a member of corvidae computer generatus, but they exist nevertheless.Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
Here's a good place to start your reasearch.Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
http://mediamatters.org/research/201...r-green/198266
and here
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/med...ent-on-patric/
and here
http://greenspiritstrategies.com/