|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
December 3rd, 2005, 05:58 PM
posted to alt.global-warming,sci.environment,talk.environment,rec.outdoors.fishing
|
|||
|
|||
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
"Coby Beck" wrote in message
news:RG8jf.134470$S4.127402@edtnps84... "Dave" wrote in message oups.com... From Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th edition. Theory: a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree. OK, this seems to fit well. And I'll concede that proof is not the right word in my previous post. Fact would be more like it. I don't doubt that there's enough data for some degree of verification, but that doesn't rise to the level of fact. Let's remember that professional scientists are as human as the rest of us, and as vulnerable to consensus and predjudice. And no diversion was intended. While one truth does not drive out another, one may certainly have more relevance and more demonstrable effect. Untill I see more factual (empirical if you like) evidence, I won't rush to bark up the wrong tree. Best Wishes............Dave Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence? So what do people think? Is it time for me to give up waiting for an answer to this question...again? -- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com") 
|
|
#2
December 3rd, 2005, 06:46 PM
posted to alt.global-warming,sci.environment,talk.environment,rec.outdoors.fishing
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
"Coby Beck" wrote in message news:v1lkf.232653$ir4.101812@edtnps90... "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:RG8jf.134470$S4.127402@edtnps84... "Dave" wrote in message oups.com... From Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th edition. Theory: a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree. OK, this seems to fit well. And I'll concede that proof is not the right word in my previous post. Fact would be more like it. I don't doubt that there's enough data for some degree of verification, but that doesn't rise to the level of fact. Let's remember that professional scientists are as human as the rest of us, and as vulnerable to consensus and predjudice. And no diversion was intended. While one truth does not drive out another, one may certainly have more relevance and more demonstrable effect. Untill I see more factual (empirical if you like) evidence, I won't rush to bark up the wrong tree. Best Wishes............Dave Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence? So what do people think? Is it time for me to give up waiting for an answer to this question...again? -- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com") You seem to think any pseudo science pronouncement is proof. So what do you require for real proof?
|
|
#3
December 5th, 2005, 09:51 PM
posted to alt.global-warming,sci.environment,talk.environment,rec.outdoors.fishing
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
"Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:v1lkf.232653$ir4.101812@edtnps90... "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:RG8jf.134470$S4.127402@edtnps84... "Dave" wrote in message oups.com... From Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th edition. Theory: a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree. OK, this seems to fit well. And I'll concede that proof is not the right word in my previous post. Fact would be more like it. I don't doubt that there's enough data for some degree of verification, but that doesn't rise to the level of fact. Let's remember that professional scientists are as human as the rest of us, and as vulnerable to consensus and predjudice. And no diversion was intended. While one truth does not drive out another, one may certainly have more relevance and more demonstrable effect. Untill I see more factual (empirical if you like) evidence, I won't rush to bark up the wrong tree. Best Wishes............Dave Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence? So what do people think? Is it time for me to give up waiting for an answer to this question...again? You seem to think any pseudo science pronouncement is proof. So what do you require for real proof? Proof is a mathmatical concept and is not relevant to climate science. What is important is data and a coherent theory that is consistent with this data. The reason I am very confident that AGW is real and a pressing concern follows. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwa...ent/index.html http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milanko...les#The_future http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ide_400kyr.png http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/02-03/05-12/warming.html http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...ort-18375.html http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1110222129.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../holocene.html http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=154 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-5.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...paleolast.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2...Comparison.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:H...Variations.png http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.radix.net/~bobg/climate/halpern.trap.html http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142 -- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
|
|
#4
December 5th, 2005, 10:17 PM
posted to alt.global-warming,sci.environment,talk.environment,rec.outdoors.fishing
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
"Coby Beck" wrote in message news:kD2lf.136704$y_1.114672@edtnps89... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:v1lkf.232653$ir4.101812@edtnps90... "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:RG8jf.134470$S4.127402@edtnps84... "Dave" wrote in message oups.com... From Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th edition. Theory: a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree. OK, this seems to fit well. And I'll concede that proof is not the right word in my previous post. Fact would be more like it. I don't doubt that there's enough data for some degree of verification, but that doesn't rise to the level of fact. Let's remember that professional scientists are as human as the rest of us, and as vulnerable to consensus and predjudice. And no diversion was intended. While one truth does not drive out another, one may certainly have more relevance and more demonstrable effect. Untill I see more factual (empirical if you like) evidence, I won't rush to bark up the wrong tree. Best Wishes............Dave Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence? So what do people think? Is it time for me to give up waiting for an answer to this question...again? You seem to think any pseudo science pronouncement is proof. So what do you require for real proof? Proof is a mathmatical concept and is not relevant to climate science. What is important is data and a coherent theory that is consistent with this data. The reason I am very confident that AGW is real and a pressing concern follows. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwa...ent/index.html http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milanko...les#The_future http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ide_400kyr.png http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/02-03/05-12/warming.html http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...ort-18375.html http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1110222129.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../holocene.html http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=154 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-5.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...paleolast.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2...Comparison.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:H...Variations.png http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.radix.net/~bobg/climate/halpern.trap.html http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142 -- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com") Proof is also used outside of mathmatics. Been to court for a traffic ticket? And you use things like Wikipedia. They are in the news for the fact that the facts may not be true. And the question regards Global Warming is what is the cause? You need more proof than what you post as to say it is mankinds actions that are causing the warming. We have had warming and cooling for eons. Even when Mankind was not around.
|
|
#5
December 6th, 2005, 01:50 AM
posted to alt.global-warming,sci.environment,talk.environment,rec.outdoors.fishing
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net... "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:kD2lf.136704$y_1.114672@edtnps89... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... You seem to think any pseudo science pronouncement is proof. So what do you require for real proof? Proof is a mathmatical concept and is not relevant to climate science. What is important is data and a coherent theory that is consistent with this data. The reason I am very confident that AGW is real and a pressing concern follows. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwa...ent/index.html http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milanko...les#The_future http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ide_400kyr.png http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/02-03/05-12/warming.html http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...ort-18375.html http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1110222129.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../holocene.html http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=154 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-5.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...paleolast.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2...Comparison.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:H...Variations.png http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.radix.net/~bobg/climate/halpern.trap.html http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142 Proof is also used outside of mathmatics. Been to court for a traffic ticket? And you use things like Wikipedia. They are in the news for the fact that the facts may not be true. And the question regards Global Warming is what is the cause? What specifically did you find wrong with the evidence and explanation I presented? You need more proof than what you post Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence (proof, if you prefer)? -- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
|
|
#6
December 6th, 2005, 04:35 AM
posted to alt.global-warming,sci.environment,talk.environment,rec.outdoors.fishing
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
"Coby Beck" wrote in message news:G76lf.136987$y_1.135187@edtnps89... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:kD2lf.136704$y_1.114672@edtnps89... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... You seem to think any pseudo science pronouncement is proof. So what do you require for real proof? Proof is a mathmatical concept and is not relevant to climate science. What is important is data and a coherent theory that is consistent with this data. The reason I am very confident that AGW is real and a pressing concern follows. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwa...ent/index.html http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milanko...les#The_future http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ide_400kyr.png http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/02-03/05-12/warming.html http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...ort-18375.html http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1110222129.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../holocene.html http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=154 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-5.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...paleolast.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2...Comparison.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:H...Variations.png http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.radix.net/~bobg/climate/halpern.trap.html http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142 Proof is also used outside of mathmatics. Been to court for a traffic ticket? And you use things like Wikipedia. They are in the news for the fact that the facts may not be true. And the question regards Global Warming is what is the cause? What specifically did you find wrong with the evidence and explanation I presented? You need more proof than what you post Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence (proof, if you prefer)? -- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com") Something other than you have shown. And if I could come up with a great proof of what is causing global warming, I would be cashing large grant money checks.
|
|
#7
December 6th, 2005, 04:44 AM
posted to alt.global-warming,sci.environment,talk.environment,rec.outdoors.fishing
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
k.net... "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:G76lf.136987$y_1.135187@edtnps89... http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwa...ent/index.html http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milanko...les#The_future http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ide_400kyr.png http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/02-03/05-12/warming.html http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...ort-18375.html http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1110222129.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../holocene.html http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=154 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-5.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...paleolast.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2...Comparison.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:H...Variations.png http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.radix.net/~bobg/climate/halpern.trap.html http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142 Proof is also used outside of mathmatics. Been to court for a traffic ticket? And you use things like Wikipedia. They are in the news for the fact that the facts may not be true. And the question regards Global Warming is what is the cause? What specifically did you find wrong with the evidence and explanation I presented? You need more proof than what you post Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence (proof, if you prefer)? Something other than you have shown. C'mon! You reject all the data from all the scientific institutions specializing in atmosphere ocean and climate, you reject the opinions of institutions like NASA GISS, NOAA, BAS, EPA, NAS etc etc and glibly demand proof. I'm just asking you, what is missing? What would you accept as "the smoking gun" of findings? Do you need proof that the CO2 increase is anthropogenic? That the temperature is rising? That is rising at an unatural rate? That it is higher now than in thousands of years? That CO2 absorbs IR radiation? That ancient ice is melting around the globe? That ocean temperatures are rising? That CO2 in the ocean is rising? That in the ancient past massive influxes of GHG shot the temperature up for a hundred thousand years? Would all of that convince you? -- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com") And if I could come up with a great proof of what is causing global warming, I would be cashing large grant money checks.
|
|
#8
December 6th, 2005, 04:09 PM
posted to alt.global-warming,sci.environment,talk.environment,rec.outdoors.fishing
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
In article . net,
"Bill McKee" wrote: "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:kD2lf.136704$y_1.114672@edtnps89... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:v1lkf.232653$ir4.101812@edtnps90... "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:RG8jf.134470$S4.127402@edtnps84... "Dave" wrote in message oups.com... From Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th edition. Theory: a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree. OK, this seems to fit well. And I'll concede that proof is not the right word in my previous post. Fact would be more like it. I don't doubt that there's enough data for some degree of verification, but that doesn't rise to the level of fact. Let's remember that professional scientists are as human as the rest of us, and as vulnerable to consensus and predjudice. And no diversion was intended. While one truth does not drive out another, one may certainly have more relevance and more demonstrable effect. Untill I see more factual (empirical if you like) evidence, I won't rush to bark up the wrong tree. Best Wishes............Dave Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence? So what do people think? Is it time for me to give up waiting for an answer to this question...again? You seem to think any pseudo science pronouncement is proof. So what do you require for real proof? Proof is a mathmatical concept and is not relevant to climate science. What is important is data and a coherent theory that is consistent with this data. The reason I am very confident that AGW is real and a pressing concern follows. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwa...ent/index.html http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milanko...les#The_future http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ide_400kyr.png http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/02-03/05-12/warming.html http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...port-18375.htm l http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1110222129.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../holocene.html http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=154 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-5.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...paleolast.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2...Comparison.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:H...Variations.png http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.radix.net/~bobg/climate/halpern.trap.html http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142 -- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com") Proof is also used outside of mathmatics. Been to court for a traffic ticket? And you use things like Wikipedia. Also GISS, IPCC, NASA, NOAZA, NAS... They are in the news for the fact that the facts may not be true. Yet your side sites CO2science and SEPP. And the question regards Global Warming is what is the cause? Increased CO2 due to human activities. You need more proof than what you post as to say it is mankinds actions that are causing the warming. Then go out and read the damn science! We have had warming and cooling for eons. Even when Mankind was not around. So? It's totally illogical to say that since X didn't cause Y 1 million years ago, it can't cause Y today.
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Global warming off topic? Just wondering... | sandy | Fly Fishing | 10 | September 26th, 2005 04:29 AM |
| Rolling Stone - Bush is worst environmental president ever | Sportsmen Against Bush | Fly Fishing | 0 | December 4th, 2003 09:02 AM |
| Fish much smarter than we imagined | John | General Discussion | 14 | October 8th, 2003 10:39 PM |
| Fish much smarter than we imagined | John | UK Sea Fishing | 10 | October 8th, 2003 10:39 PM |
| Fish much smarter than we imagined | John | Fishing in Canada | 10 | October 8th, 2003 10:39 PM |
Hybrid Mode
