View Full Version : 'Skeptics Guide' To Global Warming...
Webmaster
12-08-2006, 15:50
See the attached PDF.
Rasputin
12-08-2006, 16:51
I watched An Inconvenient Truth (http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Al-Gore/dp/B000ICL3KG/sr=8-1/qid=1165618209/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-7059968-7033220?ie=UTF8&s=dvd) a couple of weeks ago, and I became convinced. Definitely should be watched no matter which side of the glacier you find yourself.
Mandeigh Wells
12-08-2006, 16:52
I just saw it tonight.
Cliff Hargrave
12-08-2006, 17:16
I watched An Inconvenient Truth (http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Al-Gore/dp/B000ICL3KG/sr=8-1/qid=1165618209/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-7059968-7033220?ie=UTF8&s=dvd) a couple of weeks ago, and I became convinced. Definitely should be watched no matter which side of the glacier you find yourself.
Watching a movie by Al Gore convinced you? Do a web search on that movie and you will find tons of folks disputing every little detail of it with their own factual data.
I would be more convinced if the agenda hadn't become the home for every displaced, left-wing wacko.
To me, the science on this is probably not as strong as some on the "enviornmental" side of the argument would have you believe. I have become less convinced that it global warming is occuring the more I look at the data. However, whether you believe in global warming or not, to me, is not the issue. You would have to be a complete fool to think that dumping chemical waste into rivers and oceans, burning coal and oil which sends clouds of noxious gas into the atmoshpere, burying nuclear waste in the ground, and depleting natural resources is actually GOOD for the enviornment. Of course its not!
I have never understood the manner in which this issue has always broken down along party lines. For democrats, I think maybe it is time to stop using the scare tactics and start exploring ways to get business to change as that, I believe, is the only way in which we can change. The last time I checked, it is pretty hard for the consumer to purchase something that does not exist. On the conservative side, I would think people who are so proud of their faith would want to be better stewards of the planet that God gave us in order to pass it on to their children and grandchildren. I am honestly amazed that Republicans are not more in tune with moving towards a more enviornmentally friendly America. I would think that conservation of what we have been given by God would fall right in line with other "traditional family values".
No matter which side of the political spectrum you fall on, simply the idea that global warming COULD be true even if it is only a 50-50 chance, should be enough for us to change the way we do things...
Mandeigh Wells
12-08-2006, 17:46
I have become less convinced that it global warming is occuring the more I look at the data. which data?
Rasputin
12-08-2006, 17:48
Watching a movie by Al Gore convinced you? Do a web search on that movie and you will find tons of folks disputing every little detail of it with their own factual data.
I would be more convinced if the agenda hadn't become the home for every displaced, left-wing wacko.
But have you seen it?
which data?
There are several studies which have been published on the likelihood of global warming. A quick search of scientific journals will find hundreds if you are really interested.
In one of the several research methodology classes I was forced to take, we often used this debate as an example of how to manipulate research to say what you wish it to say. The professor did a good job of not coming down on either side but of pointing out the flaws of logic in both arguments. I learned alot about research, and quite a bit about this issue by default... My notes are filed in a box somewhere in a storage rental unit or I would dig them out and try to find the studies we looked at. Some good stuff in there though.
James O'Neill
12-08-2006, 18:56
There is allot of dispute as to whether the planet as a whole is warming at all. As I understand it, some places are getting warmer; most significantly, places directly effected by urban sprawl. But other places have actually gotten significantly cooler over time. It is not as clear cut as Mr. Gore would have us all believe, that's for sure.
Conversely pollution and urban sprawl do play major factors in local eco-systems. Far more so than the Republicans would lead us to believe.
As usual, the Reality of the situation lies somewhere in between. It's just that everyone seems to be more than willing to bend the rules in support of their relative "Truths" and statistics can be easily manipulated.
Cliff Hargrave
12-08-2006, 19:44
But have you seen it?
No, just a trailer for it. But anything Al Gore is associated with is immediately suspect since he is such a liar and left wing dingbat.
The questions I would like to see answered are:
1. Is it really happening or not.
2. If it is actually happening, are we humans responsible for it or is it some natural process the earth goes through?
3. If it's actually happening, and we are responsible, can we fix it?
4. If it's actually happening, what are the consequences?
The political divide comes from the environmental movement becoming the new home for the far left hippie movement that wants to destroy capitalism and the evil corporations. The kind of people that chain themselves to trees to stop logging.
Then on the flip side you have the companies that just pollute without consequence. It doesn't matter what we western countries do when the rest of the world, former com-bloc countries, and third world nations pollute without regard.
Most of us are caught in the middle of this stuff and just want straight answers without an agenda attached.
R. Johnson
12-08-2006, 20:59
Since I'm too lazy to read that whole thing I'm just going to say Sen. Inhoffe is my hero.
elder999
12-08-2006, 21:24
No, just a trailer for it. But anything Al Gore is associated with is immediately suspect since he is such a liar and left wing dingbat.
The questions I would like to see answered are:
1. Is it really happening or not.
2. If it is actually happening, are we humans responsible for it or is it some natural process the earth goes through?
3. If it's actually happening, and we are responsible, can we fix it?
4. If it's actually happening, what are the consequences?
1. Unquestionably-supporting data to follow.
2. As near as can be determined at this time, a combination of the two, with a preponderance of the scientific evidence aimed towards human causes.
3. Maybe, but certainly not for long.
4. Only time will really tell, but we're seeing some of them in the natural world already-the speculations on longer term effects are interpolations from these.
Okay.
Because isotopic fractions of the heavier oxygen-18 (18O) and deuterium (D) in snowfall are temperature-dependent and a strong spatial correlation exists between the annual mean temperature and the mean isotopic ratio (18O or δD) of precipitation, it is possible to derive ice-core climate records. The record based on an ice core drilled at the Russian Vostok station in central east Antarctica was obtained during a series of drillings in the early 1970s and 1980s and was the result of collaboration between French and former-Soviet scientists. Drilling continued at Vostok and was completed in January 1998, reaching a depth of 3623 m, the deepest ice core ever recovered . The resulting core allows the ice core record of climate properties at Vostok to be extended to about 420,000 years.
The strong correlation between atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations and Antarctic temperature is confirmed by the extension of the Vostok ice-core record. From the extended Vostok record, scientists have concluded that present-day atmospheric burdens of carbon dioxide and methane seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years. Temperature variations estimated from deuterium were similar for the last two glacial periods
At any rate, this method of reassembling the historic climate changes is considered to be accurate (isotopes don't lie, the government does!) to within plus or minus 5%.
TO make all that above short-there is incontrovertible evidence that the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is higher than it's been in close to half a million years. It's been that high before, and the planet was even warmer then (on a whole) than it is now.
The evidence from the last century pretty much indicates that the global mean temperature is rising. Again, the issue of why it is is the one that has become, for a variety of reasons, politicized by both sides of the debate-syour somewhat biased description of that divide notwithstanding, Cliff, your interpretation of it is basically correct.
However:
This report (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html), from the National Research Council and the National Academy of Sciences, conluded that:
recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."
A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that the Earth is running a fever and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree during the 20th century.
The report was requested in November by the chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., to address naysayers who question whether global warming is a major threat.
In repsonse, the American Petroleum Institute (http://www.api.org/), the industry's trade group (some of those willful capitalist polluters who have been really trying hard to say that there is no global warming, since one of the principal causes, if not the principal cause is thought to be their profit..er..product) said:
While consensus on climate change remains a work in progress, we do know enough to take the risk seriously and to rule out inaction as an option".
Additionally, Science magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific paperson global warming published between 1993 and 2003 and found that not a single one challenged the consensus that earth's temperature is rising due to human activity. While there are scientific papers that do so, they are not "peer-reviewed" which is the simple gold standard of scientific publishing. Of course, one could attribute this to some sort of liberal-biased science community anti-capitalist conspiracy.
However...
We all know and have seen that the polar ice caps are melting at, as far as we know, unprecedented rates, whatever the cause (though we can be pretty certain that they have been smaller, and even non existant in the past). In addition to being one of the drivers of the world's climate due to thermal driving of the world's ocean currents, the polar ice also plays a fundamental role in reflecting a majority of the sunlight directed towards earth, thus ensuring that the earth's atmosphere didn't reach higher temperatures. (At most times of the year, one of the poles of the planet are the part that is pointed most directly at the sun). This melting process is pernicious: as the poles melt, they reflect less sunlight, the earth's atmoshpere and ocean's absorb more heat, the poles melt more and continue to reflect less and less. Addtionally, the added cold fresh water to the oceans may well effect the thermal conveyor currents that drive our climate, as these currents are effected by differential temperature and salinity.
Short term effects we're seeing right now: species of wildflowers are dying off-becoming extinct, as mountain meadows convert into high desert. Species of bees are dying off, possibly becoming extinct, because the flowers they depend upon are going away. Pollination of crops is effected by the lack of bee species. Additionally, there are some "good effects": corn crops came in earlier this year and last, and in Pueblo, Colorado they actually got two harvests. Melons can be grown in areas where the season was previously too short.
Longer term effectsp-I dunno, I'm just a scientist, and not a meteorologist or biologist...hell, I'm a knuckle-dragging, bo-er, device-making engineer.
(Don't even make devices, more like I live to unmake them, but that's neither here nor there..) One thing, for sure, they won't effect most of us, if there are any-they'll effect our kids and grandkids.
Of course, by the time our grandkids are adults, the world may be burning something else, either because we've come up with something else, or we've run out of oil., and thus, the ability to mine coal.....
Wood and dung, perhaps.
Oh, and BTW, I haven't seen An inconvenient Truth, because I didn't need to, and because I think AL Gore is a wooden nit....
David Craik
12-08-2006, 22:06
Though I can't give the intelligent explanation Jeff (Aaron) has, there certainly seems to be a lot of indications that it is occurring, particularly in polar bear habitat. Air temperatures in the Arctic have on average increased by about 5°C over the last 100 years. Arctic sea ice extent decreased by approximately 3 per cent per decade between 1978 and 1996, and the summer minimum thickness of arctic sea ice has decreased by 40 per cent over the last 30 years.
I've read too about some of what Aaron is talking about. The range of many species of cold weather wildflowers is 'migrating' northward, while sagebrush is taking over the places where these flowers formerly grew.
In 2004, researchers discovered four drowned polar bears in the Beaufort Sea (not my Beaufort of course - Alaska :D). This is an unprecedented find -polar bears are incredibly strong swimmers. Reaseachers attributed the drownings to the fact that the polar ice cap retreated a record 160 miles north of the Alaskan coast. It was simply too far to swim to find solid ice.
And while this is nothing more than an appeal to authority, one helluva lot of pretty brilliant scientists - who would have nothing to gain by supporting a particular position, or the Kyoto Protocol for that matter - insist that global warming is a reality. I believe I will listen more closely to them than say, a politician.
elder999
12-08-2006, 23:08
And while this is nothing more than an appeal to authority, one helluva lot of pretty brilliant scientists - who would have nothing to gain by supporting a particular position, or the Kyoto Protocol for that matter - insist that global warming is a reality. I believe I will listen more closely to them than say, a politician.
And, I should add, that while what some may call a "liberal" (a loaded word whose meaning has morphed as much as "conservative") I think Bush was right to not sign Kyoto, which placed far too much burden on the U.S., rather than imposing a strict across the board standard. Though, of cours I have doubts about his motivations for doing so...
Additionally, the scientific process needs arguments like these-and "global warming," as a theory, almost falls into the same category as "intelligent design," in that it is largely untestable: we cannot limit all the factors but one and then make observation, except for computer modeling based on past data, which is suspect by those opposed to the concept, sometimes for legitimate reasons-at least, their questions are legitimate.There are, however, some incontrivertable facts:
1) Since about 1750, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from 286 parts per million to 380 parts per m,illion, mainly from fossil fuels.
2)CO2 levels have not been that high in the past 420,000 (see post above) to 650,00 years.
3) CO2 continues to build in the atmospher at a rate of about 1.5 parts per million per year.
4) THe Earth's temperature has warmed about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1880 and is now warmer than it has been in 400 years.
5) Average global tempreature is likelty to rise somewhere between 2 and 10 degrees by 2100.
6) The heat will cause (is causing) global ocean levels to rise 3 to 39 inches in this century.
And, apropos of what David added (quite intelligently, I might add)
you should have a look here (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-09-25-warming-study_x.htm?csp=34):
The planet's temperature has climbed to levels not seen in thousands of years, warming that has begun to affect plants and animals, researchers report in Tuesday's issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The Earth has been warming at a rate of 0.36°F per decade for the last 30 years, according to the research team led by James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.
That brings the overall temperature to the warmest in the current interglacial period, which began about 12,000 years ago.
The researchers noted that a report in the journal Nature found that 1,700 plant, animal and insect species moved poleward at an average rate of about four miles per decade in the last half of the 20th century.
The warming has been stronger in the far north, where melting ice and snow expose darker land and rocks beneath allowing more warmth from the sun to be absorbed, and more over land than water.
Lastly,to clarify I should add that while our climate's principle driver is the sun, the transfer of solar energy is conducted by the so-called global conveyor, or thermohaline current, which is dependent upon two other factors: temperature differences and salinity. The likelihood that melting polar ice caps are affecting the state of this current are very high, given that they are reduciing the salinity of the current as well as introducing new variations in temperature differential. Additionally, as I said, the process is pernicious: the polar ice caps reflect a great deal of the sun's heat back away from the polar regions, but as they melt, less and less heat is reflected away, and they will melt faster.
Our grandhildren are so screwed.
Cliff Hargrave
12-09-2006, 09:06
Interesting that comparisons are made from the 1700s to as far back as 650,000 years ago. We have only been burning fossil fuels at any large amounts for maybe 100 years.
Tony Dismukes
12-09-2006, 09:35
1. Is it really happening or not.
2. If it is actually happening, are we humans responsible for it or is it some natural process the earth goes through?
3. If it's actually happening, and we are responsible, can we fix it?
4. If it's actually happening, what are the consequences?
Good questions. As I understand it:
1. Yes. The evidence has convinced the overwhelming majority of climate/earth scientists working in the field. Some dissenting questions had been raised by a few scientists (discrepancies between different forms of measurement, etc) , but those have largely been answered.
2. The case for human causation of global warming is reasonably strong, but not as overwhelming as the evidence that global warming is occurring. To use a law enforcement analogy, if global warming was a crime, you'd probably have enough evidence to arrest the human race and probably get an indictment, but there's enough reasonable doubt that a good lawyer might be able to get us off in court. Of course, that may change as further research is done. One piece of evidence for the current global warming being anthropogenic is the sheer speed of the process compared to past cycles of global warming. There's also a decent theoretical body of work examining how carbon emissions might lead to warming, although there are still details to be worked out.
3. Unknown. Any changes made which influence the climate take years to play out. No one knows for sure if we've already steered things over the cliff or not. The best argument I would make is "when you're in a hole, stop digging!" We may or may not be able to make things better, but we can almost certainly make things worse.
4. No one knows for certain until it happens, but the folks who study this stuff for a living have a lot of speculations based on what they do know about how the climate and ecosystems work. None of those speculations is very optimistic. Mass extinctions. Drowned coastal cities. Increased intensity of hurricanes. A change in the predominant currents of the Atlantic could (oddly enough) cause Europe to become much, much colder than it currently is. (If you look at a map, Europe is about the same latitude as Canada, but it's warmed by currents in the Atlantic which bring warm water up from the south.)
It's possible that once an equilibrium point is reached, a warmer earth might be a friendlier place for humans and life generally. The problem is in the speed of transition. These cycles of warming normally take tens of thousands of years to occur. At the current pace, we might only have a hundred years to a) move thousands of cities inland or abandon them entirely, b) adapt to overwhelming changes in the economy (what happens if America no longer has a suitable climate for growing wheat? at the same time as hundreds of other massive disruptions are occurring?), c) deal with mass migrations as some countries become entirely unlivable as others become more appealing, d) deal with ecological consequences as those species which can't adapt fast enough go extinct. What happens if one of those species is a bee that we need to pollenize our crops? Or a fish which makes a food staple for the local population?
It's all theoretical at this point, because we've never been through this before. Given that the people who spend their lives studying the questions are scared, however, I'd say that's cause for the rest of us to worry.
Oh, and whatever you think of Al Gore's politics, the climate scientists who have seen his movie have all so far given it a thumbs up.
I saw a documentary on Global Warming, part of which talked about the global conveyor and the effect of fresh water on it. Current findings seem to indicate that it is slowing down. The initial effect of this will be a "cooling" of Europe similar to what happened in the last ice age since the warm southern waters will no longer reach Europe to moderate tempertures. So in a nut shell global warming leads to an ice age. If that is what the scientific data says then I won't waste time arguing it.
Trying to decide if it is occurring is problem # 1. Deciding who to blame, nature or manufacturing is at least #2. And since the USA already has so many laws in place to minimize pollution, any solution to global warming MUST be GLOBAL in its inactment.
I have also heard that a volcano like Mt. Pinotuba (sp?) in the Phillapines will release more CO2 in one explosion than all of human activity since the beginning of the industrial revolution. If that indeed is the case then we are talking a de minimus effect on nature by human activity. Having said that I am all for less pollution, more efficient production and energy use, including cheaper energy.
I also am hopeful that man is adaptable an will learn how to take advantage of the changing global climate. Perhaps Kansas will become a premier vineyard while the NorthWest Terratories become covered in corn year round.
Peace
Dennis
Cliff Hargrave
12-09-2006, 09:57
I have also heard that a volcano like Mt. Pinotuba (sp?) in the Phillapines will release more CO2 in one explosion than all of human activity since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
I have heard that too, about volcanos and forest fires.
Mandeigh Wells
12-09-2006, 10:08
Global warming is happening, it is a problem that is escalating and no amount of denial is going to help...making small changes in lifestyle that reduce co2 emisssions from everyone (many of which also save money, if thats the biggest driver in your life) will make a difference. No action means probably no planet for your kids.
It looks like a fairly simple choice to me......regardless of who makes a film about it.
Jason T Gatts
12-09-2006, 10:22
Not that it changes my opinion on the issue, but I haven't seen any evidence that inaction might mean "no planet for your kids" (maybe someone has alluded to our great great great grandkids though).
To address something Tony D. said in his above posts, current research on climate change indicates that changes can happen much quicker than previously thought. Ice Core studies show mini periods of cooling and heating,in tens or hundreds of years, not the thousands we learned in science class in the 60's and 70's. There is also indications tht global climate was much more variable in the past and that we have been the beneficiary of what is an unusually long period of climate stability.
Peace
Dennis
Tony Dismukes
12-09-2006, 11:01
No action means probably no planet for your kids.
I haven't seen any evidence that inaction might mean "no planet for your kids"
"No planet for your kids" is definitely an overstatement. In all but the most extreme predicted scenarios, humanity is expected to survive. It might be more accurate to say no action may mean starvation, forced migrations, flooding, economic disruption, and other hardships for your kids. Maybe not until they're older, though. The grandkids and great-grandkids may get the worst of it.
Mandeigh Wells
12-09-2006, 11:06
Not that it changes my opinion on the issue, but I haven't seen any evidence that inaction might mean "no planet for your kids" (maybe someone has alluded to our great great great grandkids though).
You don't watch the news then? The polar ice caps are not melting, there's no droughts or flooding or extreme weather occurences happening more frequently, the coral reefs are not bleaching, the warmest consecutive days on record have not been broken for the last two years?
alluding to great, great, great grandkids?????? with over 70million tons of CO2 going into the atmosphere daily.....you think we can do that for at least the next three generations.....well good luck.
Jason T Gatts
12-09-2006, 11:19
I should have listened to my gut and stayed out of the political threads - oh well.
I didn't say it shouldn't be researched further or that we shouldn't be concerned or that we shouldn't do anything; I was just suggesting that my children having no planet to live on was a bit of an exaggeration. My parent's generation talked about environmental concerns and many were legitimately concerned that my generation would be living in a polluted wasteland - yet I'm not having any trouble breathing.
I do my share to be a good steward of the Earth (as an individual). I'm not a member of any "Save the Planet" group, but I do what I can within reason.
I'm sorry if my environmental concerns lack the sense of urgency that others demonstrate, but I am more concerned with the drug dealer or convicted child molester down the street than I am with some people's predictions of impending world doom.
Mandeigh Wells
12-09-2006, 11:40
Jason, I wasn't having a go at you, just in the thought that we can afford to ignore this situation.
I do my share to be a good steward of the Earth (as an individual). that's all everybody needs to do.
Jason T Gatts
12-09-2006, 11:43
I agree. If individuals would do their part it would be much less of a politically heated issue (assuming "individuals" includes powerful political and business leaders).
I'm actually glad that there are people out there doing more than their share because I know that many people are not doing their part at all.
And thanks for clearing it up that you weren't "having a go at" me, I'm still not completely comfortable with forum conversations, it seems that often times I'm missing something, appearing offensive/defensive when not intending to be or "taking things the wrong way". It's amazing how much facial expressions, body language, etc. must play a huge role in daily conversations.
elder999
12-09-2006, 12:46
I have also heard that a volcano like Mt. Pinotuba (sp?) in the Phillapines will release more CO2 in one explosion than all of human activity since the beginning of the industrial revolution. If that indeed is the case then we are talking a de minimus effect on nature by human activity. Peace
Dennis
It's simply not true. Volcanos do regularly emit CO2 into the atmosphere, even when they're not erupting. The annual average for CO2 emissions from volcanos, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, is 145-250 million tons per year, including submarine volcano activity, and the somewhat wide range accounting for eruptions.
CO2 emissions from human activity, which includes fossil fuel burning and refining, as well as activities like cement production, is a whopping
24 billion tons per year.
In short, human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 than volcanos do, the equivalent of 17,000 volcanos like Kilauea, which releases about 15 million tons a year.
elder999
12-09-2006, 12:53
Interesting that comparisons are made from the 1700s to as far back as 650,000 years ago. We have only been burning fossil fuels at any large amounts for maybe 100 years.
Coal is a fossil fuel, one that we've been burning for a long time. The firsts documented mining of coal in North America was 50 tons in 17.Burning wood or peat, and activities like the smelting of metal also release CO2 into the atmosphere. Because of it's isotopic characteristics, as well as where layers of soot, say, are found in the ground, scientists are not only able to track the history of CO2 emissions (including ancient volcanic ones, but can pinpoint when the amount of atmospheric lead or mercury from metal smelting and coal burning began to increase.
Jason T Gatts
12-09-2006, 12:54
Not to be nitpicky, but it sounds like you're giving figures for regular volcano emmision when what you quoted specifically states an erupting volcano. So to make your point accurately you're going to need figures of erupting volcanoes.
Jason T Gatts
12-09-2006, 12:57
Sorry, I went back and reread your post and it does appear that you do include erupting volcanoes as well, but are there any figures available for an eruptiing volcano comparative to the one in Abbax8's quote.
Tony Dismukes
12-09-2006, 13:01
My parent's generation talked about environmental concerns and many were legitimately concerned that my generation would be living in a polluted wasteland - yet I'm not having any trouble breathing.
Just wanted to point out that part of why we're not having trouble breathing is because your parent's generation actually did something about their concerns. The EPA and various environmental laws made a big difference in this country. Without them, we might have the sort of severe pollution problems that China is currently struggling with.
Jason T Gatts
12-09-2006, 13:04
Just wanted to point out that part of why we're not having trouble breathing is because your parent's generation actually did something about their concerns. The EPA and various environmental laws made a big difference in this country. Without them, we might have the sort of severe pollution problems that China is currently struggling with.
Fair enough.
Good point, Tony.:bow:
elder999
12-09-2006, 13:28
The biggest concerns following Pinatubo were SO2, which was huge, and dust. However, based upon the amount of SO2 released, Pinatubo released on the level of 600 million to a billion tons of CO2. Interestingly, in the period prior to its eruption, its CO 2 emissions increased dramatically, with a whopping 42 million tons recorded in the month prior. Pinatubo was not as big as Krakatoa, but much bigger than Mt. St. Helens in terms of emissions and atmospheric effects, and dramatically less than the annual man made contribution....
Again, from the USGS website, here (http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Projects/Emissions/Reports/Pinatubo/pinatubo.html)
Cliff Hargrave
12-09-2006, 13:59
The pdf file Robert posted sure does debunk most everything, including Gore's movie. If shows a history of climate hysteria and media hype.
Tony Dismukes
12-09-2006, 15:17
The pdf file Robert posted sure does debunk most everything, including Gore's movie.
It'll take me a while to work through all the claims Inhofe makes in the pdf, but here are some immediate reactions:
Senator Inhofe claims global warming is a huge hoax. The overwhelming consensus among earth scientists who have studied the subject is that global warming is real, probably man-made, and likely to be a huge problem. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change) If I have to choose between believing that an entire branch of the scientific community is committing a hoax, or a politician is, I know which one I believe.
Inhofe makes a big deal about media worries of a new ice age back in the 70's. That's a good example of how the mainstream media does a poor job of science reporting. There was never a scientific consensus at the time backing the idea of an impending ice age, merely a few speculative papers. Now there is a scientific consensus, backed by data from a wide variety of sources, supporting the idea of anthropogenic global warming.
Inhofe does highlight a number of scientists who disagree with the consensus. It'll take me a while to check each of those out and evaluate their arguments. (This might be a good place to start - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consens us) It must be noted, however, that those scientists are in a very small minority.
Tony Dismukes
12-09-2006, 21:17
Oh, Inhofe makes a big deal of the letter signed by 60 scientists to the Canadian Prime Minister, suggesting that the threat of global warming is overblown. I found this in reference to that letter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Counting_experts_.2F_Pe titions_and_attacks_on_them
As with the earlier statements, critics pointed out that many of the signatories are non-scientists, or lack relevant scientific backgrounds. For example, the group included David Wojick, a journalist, and Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist. In addition, more than half the signatories cited past or emeritus positions as their main appointments. Only two (Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer) indicated a current appointment in a university department or recognized research institute related to climate science. [21]. One of the signatories has recanted, claiming that his signature was obtained through a misleading statement of the letter's intent.[22]
Tony Dismukes
12-09-2006, 22:20
I'm still working my way through Inhofe's claims and lists of scientists who oppose the mainstream consensus. I'll just post one more thing, then leave it for the night.
According to Inhofe's claims in the pdf posted by the boss:
On July 24, 2006 The Los Angeles Times featured an op-ed by
Naomi Oreskes, a social scientist at the University of California San Diego and the author of a 2004
Science Magazine study. Oreskes insisted that a review of 928 scientific papers showed there was
100% consensus that global warming was not caused by natural climate variations. This study was
also featured in former Vice President Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” http://epw.senate.gov/fact.
cfm?party=rep&id=259323
However, the analysis in Science Magazine excluded nearly 11,000 studies or more than 90 percent of
the papers dealing with global warming, according to a critique by British social scientist Benny Peiser.
Peiser also pointed out that less than two percent of the climate studies in the survey actually endorsed
the so-called “consensus view” that human activity is driving global warming and some of the studies
actually opposed that view.
Here's some more information on Mr. Peiser (http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1056)
Peiser's "claim to fame" in the war on climate change science was a 2005 study that he claimed refuted an earlier study by Dr. Naomi Oreskes. Originally published in the prestigious publication, Science, the Oreskes study looked at 928 research papers on climate change and found that 100% agreed with the scientific consensus. Peiser originally stated in January, 2005 that Oreskes was incorrect and that "in light of the data [Peiser] presented... Science should withdraw Oresekes' study and its results in order to prevent any further damage to the integrity of science." On October 12, 2006, Peiser admitted that only one of the research papers he used in his study refuted the scientific consensus on climate change, and that study was NOT peer-reviewed and was published by American Association of Petroleum Geologists Peiser's incorrect claims were published in the Financial Post section of the National Post, in a May 17, 2005 commentary authored by Peiser himself. (Source: www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/) (Source: www.sciencemag.org/) (Source: www.abc.net.au/)
Peiser states "an overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed"
On October 12, 2006 Peiser states: "I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact." However, he also states that "... this majority consensus is far from unanimous," and that "there is a small community of sceptical researchers that remains extremely active." (Source: www.abc.net.au/)
Peiser is NOT a climate scientist
According to an ISI search of publications Peiser has published 3 research papers in peer-reviewed journals: Sports Medicine, 2006; Journal of Sports Sciences (2004); and, Bioastronomy 2002: life among the stars (2004). None of these studies are related to human-induced climate change.
I should also note that Peiser's critique of Dr. Oreskes' article did not appear in a peer-reviewed journal.
By the way, the site I linked to above has information on some of the other signatories of the letter to the Canadian prime minister. So far, I'm not finding any of them besides Lindzen and Spencer who have published any peer-reviewed research in the field.
elder999
12-09-2006, 22:34
I should also note that Peiser's critique of Dr. Oreskes' article did not appear in a peer-reviewed journal.
By the way, the site I linked to above has information on some of the other signatories of the letter to the Canadian prime minister. So far, I'm not finding any of them besides Lindzen and Spencer who have published any peer-reviewed research in the field.
Good job, Tony-you've made the point I was trying to make with my reference to "928 peer reviewed papers," and their concensus...my bad.
Excellent information, especially from Aaron. Thankyou.
Someone in this thread mentioned that it was a political thread. It is not.
I take pity on the people who do not listen to information just because of the person who is giving it to them.
So Al Gore did 'An Inconvenient Truth', who cares. I haven't seen it myself, more because I couldn't justify spending money to find out what I already know. So if you don't believe things such as global warming, think of a better excuse than something along the lines of 'oh, but this politician said it'. I have heard this excuse many times, almost as many as 'oh, but this politician doesn't believe in global warming'. Either way, it's rather annoying.
Tony Dismukes
12-10-2006, 14:13
Danielle, you're completely right that the existence and cause of global warming are scientific questions, not political ones. However, there are plenty of political (and scientific, economic, and moral) questions associated with the issue of what to do about global warming.
For example:
Are available resources better spent mitigating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitigation_of_global_warming) or adapting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation_to_global_warming) to global warming?
Are critics who claim that reducing carbon emissions enough to stop global warming would be economically crippling correct?
Are those who claim that adapting to the consequences of global warming would be less expensive than drastically reducing carbon emissions correct?
How certain (70%, 90%, 99%?) do we need to be that the consequences of man-made global warming will be devastating before it becomes appropriate to make the drastic economic changes involved in major reduction of carbon emissions?
How certain (70%, 90%, 99%?) do we need to be that the economic consequences of a major reduction of carbon emissions will be devastating in order for that to be a valid excuse for not mitigating global warming?
If analysis shows that wealthy nations will have the resources to sucessfully adapt to the consequences of global warming, while certain poorer nations in vulnerable areas (such as Indonesia) will not, what is the responsibility of the wealthier nations to those more vulnerable ones?
Different strategies for mitigation/adaptation will put the largest burden on different countries. For example, immediate drastic reduction of carbon emissions would be hardest on industrialized nations, while waiting and adapting to the effects of global warming might be roughest on poorer nations. How do we balance these conflicting needs? How do we get everyone who needs to participate in a solution on board, given that the costs will not be evenly distributed?
Is the Kyoto Protocol a useful tool in combatting global warming?
If not, how could it be improved?
If the effects of global warming cause mass migrations from certain geographic areas or nations which are no longer habitable, how do we resettle the refugees without wars or other conflicts? The newly non-habitable areas are likely to be balanced by newly desirable areas, but those desirable areas will probably belong to someone else.
If the wealthy nations opt to devote resources to helping the poorer nations adapt, how can we keep that aid from being skimmed off by corrupt local rulers who then leave their populations in the lurch?
Given the degree of uncertainty as to the nature and severity of global warming effects, how can we maintain the maximum flexibility in preparing to deal with those consequences without falling into the trap of doing nothing and setting aside no resources until it's too late?
Some scientists have proposed various geo-engineering technological solutions for reversing the effects of global warming. (Carbon sequestration, screening out sunlight, etc). Given the inherent uncertainty in any such plan, how desperate should we be before we let someone experiment with the entire global climate? If there are unexpected negative consequences, who will be held responsible?
As you can see, the list of questions with at least some political component goes on and on. Unfortunately, we can't start seriously addressing those issues until we stop politicizing the issue of whether global warming is happening in the first place.
Excellent information, especially from Aaron. Thankyou.
Someone in this thread mentioned that it was a political thread. It is not.
I take pity on the people who do not listen to information just because of the person who is giving it to them.
So Al Gore did 'An Inconvenient Truth', who cares. I haven't seen it myself, more because I couldn't justify spending money to find out what I already know. So if you don't believe things such as global warming, think of a better excuse than something along the lines of 'oh, but this politician said it'. I have heard this excuse many times, almost as many as 'oh, but this politician doesn't believe in global warming'. Either way, it's rather annoying.
Ah, but I disagree. It is a political one, especialy when you have a politician manipulating it for his own agenda. So I won't go see it. It would be difficult to seperate fact form fiction.
I also agree that it is a topic or concern we should be aware of and take every precaution to take care of this planet.
This stuff always reminds me of old sci-fi movies I used to watch as a kid where we, as a human race, needed to find another place to live because we depleted all our resources on our planet.
This is our home, lets take care of it.
This is our home, lets take care of it.
I think that is what it all comes down to. No matter what side of the scientific argument you come down on or what side of the political aisle you may be on, everyone should be able to agree to that...
Tony Dismukes
12-10-2006, 16:25
Just for the record, I did pretty much finish looking into all the claims made by Senator Inhofe in the attached pdf.
I don't want to monopolize this thread with a 20-page debunking of the debunking, but here's the summary.
I haven't yet seen An Incovenient Truth*, so I can't directly comment on Inhofe's critique of that movie. However, here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=299) is a review by an actual climate scientist (bio (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/eric-steig/)).
* I do plan on seing the movie, based on a recommendation from my father. Dad's not a climate scientist, but he is a scientist and he's very picky about people making scientific arguments.
Inhofe spends a lot of time criticizing press coverage of global warming. Since news media coverage of science just about always sucks, I didn't think it was even worthwhile to see which criticisms I agreed/disagreed with.
I spent quite a bit of time looking into Inhofe's scientific claims rebutting the mainstream consensus and didn't find anything convincing. If anyone wants details, let me know. If you want to do your own investigating, this blog (http://www.realclimate.org/) run by actual climate scientists might be a place to start.
Inhofe's claims that there is no scientific consensus in the field is either delusional or a lie.
Inhofe's claim that global warming is a huge hoax would imply that the overwhelming majority of researchers in the field of climate science were guilty of deliberate scientific fraud. It's certainly conceivable that the scientific consensus in the field could be wrong. That's happened before and will happen again. But to imagine that most of the scientists in entire field of science are deliberately lying is just flat out insane.
As I said before, when it comes to a choice between politicians and scientists, I know which I find more trustworthy.
Politcians always resort to invective when it comes to subjects that involve Science. Whether you agree with it or not, only 5% of the Politicians in Canberra actually read the Report on Stem-Cell research before voting. A personal stance is fine but that kind of negligence to your electorate is wrong.
I think that Politicians forget what they are elected for - it's not supposed to be the quick way to a comfortable directorship.
I actually studied Environemental Science for my BSc. I'm by know means a leftist greeny tree-hugger (my lead into the course was more of a Geological background). However, as Tony says, it's just good practice to look after the planet.
elder999
12-10-2006, 19:13
I should just add that science has always been political-we can go as far back as Aristotle, but a better example would be Galileo's conflict with the Vatican (at the time very much the political power) over heliocentricity.
I should just add that science has always been political-we can go as far back as Aristotle, but a better example would be Galileo's conflict with the Vatican (at the time very much the political power) over heliocentricity.
Yes, but that was when science and religion (religion at the time you could say was politics) were more intertwined. The global warming issue is also not disagreeing with doctrine either.
To a certain extent I believe this issue is being used to encite argument politically for votes, well, why else would they talk about it. From what I have heard the dirty politicians talking about, there is generally two sides.
Side 1 - Will tell you that they believe in global warming and give promises (if elected of course) to set up things such as alternative energy reduce green house emissions.
Side 2 - Gives the impression that anyone supporting side 2 are green hugging hippies without actually saying it. Admits there is evidence (how coudl they not) but refuses to admit how strong the evidence is. Does nothing to say how we are helping to warm the planet instead telling us that the higher emissions help our growing economy and will continue this way, if elected.
Fun fun fun.
elder999
12-10-2006, 23:39
Yes, but that was when science and religion (religion at the time you could say was politics) were more intertwined. The global warming issue is also not disagreeing with doctrine either.
Well, working backwards, we have the politics of stem-cell research,the number of planets in the solar system, cloning, primate research, animal experimentation, the political implications of the human genome (eugenics), euthanasia, pain management, evolution vs. “Intelligent design,” the Soviet rejection of entire fields of scientific endeavor as “capitalist and bourgeois," biological warfare, the Chinese Cultural Revolution’s dismissal of entire fields of science as "degenerate,"-to the point of sending some scientists to "reeducation camps," the Space Race, nuclear power, nuclear warfare, the development of the thermonuclear weapon, the development of the atomic bomb, the absorption of Nazi scientists into the post-war establishment , eugenics (again-for real this time and many others), the Nazi rejection of entire fields of science as “Jewish,” Nazi scienitific assertions of the inferiority of the “Jewish race,” the scientific assertions of the inferiority of the “black race,”scientific assertions of the inferiority of the “Native American Race,” scientific assertions of the inferiority of the “yellow race,” chemical warfare, evolution, the flat earth, the hollow earth, the Lost World (just kidding!)…..I could go on, but you get the idea, and don’t even get me started on the political implications of my work…..
Webmaster
12-11-2006, 11:55
UN downgrades man's impact on the climate (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/10/nclimate10.xml)
Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece)
Mandeigh Wells
12-11-2006, 14:03
Never ever believe anything you read in the British press :fear:
Webmaster
12-11-2006, 15:24
Never ever believe anything you read in the British press :fear:
Or, in the American press for that matter.
Lets not even look at water vapor.
from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
Water vapor is a natural greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect. Whats interesting is that they don't mention what exactly that percentage is.
here: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
we find that:
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect.
If you take into account water vapor, then man's contribution to the total greenhouse gases is 0.28%. I wonder if we can even measure the total amount of greenhouse gases to within 0.28%???
Whats interesting is that we want to replace fuel burning cars, with fuel cell cars, which only emit water vapor...... Great trade there, heck if we are going to contribute, lets at least contribute where it matters most.
Most people against global warming, are red neck republican type people, who live in the back woods, farmers, loggers, hunters,..... In other words, people who make their living off the environment. They don't want to screw up the environment any more than the city dwellers do. What they want is for people to respect the environment, and look before they leap. In California, someone suggested we should put an additive in our gas to help the environment, so right away, we did. Turns out, that additive is worse for the environment, dangerous to humans and makes us get much less gas mileage. But, its for the environment. All the anti global warming folks I know, are all for taking care of the land. They are out of a job, and you are out of food, if we don't. (people seem to forget that the evil farmers grow the food you eat, before it magically appears in the grocery store) What they want is for people to slow down, and really look at proposed changes, BEFORE, we make them, to avoid more things like this gas additive.
People are opposed to oil drilling off the California coast, where companies would have to file environmental impact reports, and then build and maintain there operation under the watchful eye of every environmental group out there trying to sue them. So, as a result, we have our oil drilled half way around the world, with no environmental impact studies, no environmental laws or concerns of any kind, where the environmentalists can not watch over. Then, it has to be put in a boat, and shipped half way around the world to us. (we never have problems with boats full of oil....) Yes, we should get off oil. But in the mean time, I think we should be drilling where we can maintain the most control on the environmental impact that the drilling causes. Not close our eyes, and expect 3rd world nations to have the same respect for the environment that you have.
What I am trying to point out here, is that whether people are pro or anti Global Warming, pro or anti environmentalist, not very many people are for trashing the environment. Those that do, should be punished. And while we have changes to make, those changes should be carefully considered and studied first. We have made too many bad decisions in the name of the environment, because people make decisions based on fear and emotion, not on fact.
I grew up on a walnut orchard. We could not spray hershy's chocolate sauce, peanut butter or garlic juice on our trees. (they work great for controlling certain bugs) The anti pesticide crowd have determined that the residue of these chemicals, left on the out side of the hull, which is out side of the shell, which surrounds the nut meat, may cause cancer. So, now instead of using chemicals you can buy and eat at the grocery store, we now spray manmade chemicals, which you can not eat.
Lets just look (at facts), before we jump, thats all I ask.
elder999
12-11-2006, 16:32
UN downgrades man's impact on the climate (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/10/nclimate10.xml)
Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece)
We've know about cow flatulence for a long time-however, this does count as a man-made influence. We keep the cows in much greater numbers than ever before, and much greater numbers than they ever would have without us...heck, we pretty much made them what they are today.
Tony Dismukes
12-12-2006, 17:53
Jay Leno recently found a Time magazine from the 70's... The cover story "gloal cooling" a new ice age?
As previously mentioned, that was strictly media sensationalism that did not reflect any sort of scientific consensus. At that time the available data was insufficient to draw any sort of firm conclusions. The present worries about global warming are based on the concerns of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, who feel that the data is now sufficient to draw conclusions.
According to my Almanac, the hottest record setting days are all in the late 1800's early 1900's?
Even if your Almanac was a reliable historical record (which I doubt), it would only be reflecting the temperatures measured at one particular place. The data scientists are looking at are reflecting average temperatures worldwide, as based on a variety of methods for gathering that information.
Besides, Al Gore went off the deep end after losing the election, remember?
Umm ... no. I do remember that a few years ago he made a few passionate speeches critical of the Bush administration, in response to which some Republican spinmeisters tried to portray him as unhinged. At this point in time, the majority of the U.S. population has largely come into agreement with his criticisms of the Bush administration. In fact, I've seen some conservative/Republican bloggers criticize Bush more severely than Gore did.
But in any case, that's irrelevant. Al Gore happens to be just one person trying to spread information about global warming. If you don't like the man, fine. Don't bother seeing his movie. As was said above, the existence and cause of global warming are scientific questions. Check and see what the actual scientists have to say. http://www.realclimate.org/ I recommend you start by checking out the "Highlights" section on the sidebar. (Scroll down just a little ways.)
and that would be a completely unbiased resource, composed of scientists whose funding and jobs, do not depend the existance of global warming in response to human activity......?
Tony Dismukes
12-12-2006, 19:22
and that would be a completely unbiased resource, composed of scientists whose funding and jobs, do not depend the existance of global warming in response to human activity....?
The field of climate science, with funding and jobs for those involved in it, did indeed exist before the scientific community decided that anthropogenic global warming was a reality. Has the funding for the field increased significantly since they came to that conclusion? I have no idea. If you have any verifiable information on the subject, please share.
If funding for climate science research has indeed drastically increased in response to concerns about global warming, then that might be cause of subconscious bias among some researchers. For that bias to convince 99% of the researchers in the field, many of whom would have secure jobs regardless? Unlikely. Scientists are a pretty argumentative lot. If you have holes in your data or your logical reasoning, someone is going to point it out.
The field of climate science, with funding and jobs for those involved in it, did indeed exist before the scientific community decided that anthropogenic global warming was a reality. Has the funding for the field increased significantly since they came to that conclusion? I have no idea. If you have any verifiable information on the subject, please share.
If funding for climate science research has indeed drastically increased in response to concerns about global warming, then that might be cause of subconscious bias among some researchers. For that bias to convince 99% of the researchers in the field, many of whom would have secure jobs regardless? Unlikely. Scientists are a pretty argumentative lot. If you have holes in your data or your logical reasoning, someone is going to point it out.Why are the scientists hired by Cheveron any different than the scientists hired by a University? The Cheveron Scientists bring money to Cheveron, by proving that global warming does not exist. The University scientist brings money to the University, by proving that it does. If a University scientist, proves global warming is not happening, the University loses many grants, because they are based on solving a non issue. I fail to see how one scientist, getting paid to produce the conclusion his employer wants, is any more pure, or unbiased than any other scientist getting paid to produce the conclusion that his employer wants.
But the other side uses scientists and methods that this side does not accept.... If you look real close you will see both camps following this logic. Neither camp accepts the other camps "experts" as such, nor their methods as valid.
I suspect the truth, (whats really going on, independent of politics and money) is somewhere in the middle. I also think that as terrible as we are now, with regard to the environment, it is easier to make things worse, instead of better. Too many times we use the emotional "we must save the environment, or our grandchildren will die...." argument, to make changes before we know enough about the changes we are suggesting. Too many times, we have allowed our emotion to make thing worse, instead of better.
With man's contribution to greenhouse gases amounting to less than 1%, and our inability to measure the total amount of greenhouse gases to within 1%, I suspect we have a little while longer to make changes. Lets study them first. What is the effect of trading CO2 emissions (a greenhouse gas), for water vapor emissions (another greenhouse gas)? One car, no big deal. What happens when all cars are emitting water vapor (a greenhouse gas)? Then the amount being released is significant, or at least as significant as the amount of CO2 being released. Should we be mandating the change to fuel cell cars, and getting rid of fuel cars now, thus trading emissions of one greenhouse gas for another? Or should we slow down, and use our technology, to study this a bit to make sure we aren't screwing things up more?
Yeah, somewhere in the middle maybe. I do think that you can't pump all the pollution into the atmosphere and not have something go wrong? Like taking heart medication but it gives you an ulcer? I figure the universe as some kind of balance and if you have extra of one thing you have less of something else. It's just hard to form a position when everybody seems to have an agenda? Does the drug companies really want a cure for cancer? To listen to 'em they're working feverishly to put themselves out of business for mankind? I just don't know, and the more I learn, the more I don't know
I agree with you there. Especially the part about pumping more pollution into the air. Yes, water vapor is natural, so it shouldn't be a problem. But, animals have been exhaling CO2 for thousands of years before cars were invented. CO2 is just as natural as water vapor. How do we know that a substantial increase in water vapor is any better for the environment than CO2?
Tony Dismukes
12-13-2006, 16:47
The University scientist brings money to the University, by proving that it does. If a University scientist, proves global warming is not happening, the University loses many grants, because they are based on solving a non issue.
You're assuming facts not in evidence. The university scientists (which would be most scientists in the field) are mostly performing basic research, not working to solve a particular environmental issue. Has the consensus on global warming drastically increased funding for climate science? I already said that I don't know. If you think that you know, please provide some backing evidence. If you have evidence that the majority of climate scientists would find their jobs in danger if global warming was disproven, please share that as well. I would note that a large number of climate scientist are doing research that is not based on proving or disproving global warming, yet most of those scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming.
I fail to see how one scientist, getting paid to produce the conclusion his employer wants, is any more pure, or unbiased than any other scientist getting paid to produce the conclusion that his employer wants.
But the other side uses scientists and methods that this side does not accept.... If you look real close you will see both camps following this logic. Neither camp accepts the other camps "experts" as such, nor their methods as valid.
I think you're confusing the debate between environmental activists and industry spokesmen with the debate among scientists. Scientists carry out their debate through the presentation of evidence, especially the publication of peer-reviewed research. Unlike political activists, they don't get to dismiss counter arguments by saying "You took money from Chevron, I'm not listening to you."
I think you're also mistaken if you think that there are two "camps", as such, among scientists. There are a handful of respected scientists in relevant fields* who still a) doubt that global warming is happening or b) believe that global warming is happening, but think the cause may not be man-made or c) believe that global warming is real and man-made, but that the consequences won't be all that bad. These scientists make their arguments by presenting evidence. Those scientists who disagree make theiir counter arguments by presenting evidence and research of their own. At this point in time, probably 99% of the scientists in the field have been convinced by the believers in man-made global warming, not the skeptics. Having looked at the summaries of the arguments on both sides, I'm convinced by the majority as well, although obviously I don't have the expertise to critically analyze the details of individual studies.
* There are also some skeptics who have not done any work or published any peer-reviewed research in relevant fields. Those skeptics can fairly be dismissed as not experts on the subject. That's just the way science works and has nothing to do with the political advocacy on any issue.
Tony Dismukes
12-13-2006, 23:48
Okay, in partial support of William's argument, I have been able to verify that funding for research on climate change has skyrocketed over the last couple of decades. I don't know how much of that is new funding and how much of it was redirected from other areas of climate science. Still, I imagine at least a significant portion of it may be additional funds which might not be available to climate scientists otherwise.
Cliff Hargrave
01-03-2007, 09:43
Tony, dissect this when you have the time.
http://www.cei.org/pdf/5539.pdf
Tony Dismukes
01-03-2007, 12:50
Cliff, are there any points in particular you'd like me to respond to in that piece? The author has 10 pages of short bullet-point claims without citation or explication. For me to respond adequately (with explanatory detail and/or citations) to each one would take at least 30 pages and quite a bit of time. Even if I had the available time, I don't think anyone here wants to read a response/dissection that long
If you tell me which points seem particularly important or persuasive to you, I'll be willing to do the research and see what I find on those topics. I'm kind of enjoying educating myself more on the subject.
I read through Cliff's article, and immediately found it very interesting, and informative, something everyone should read, and know about. Then, I realized that the author accuses Gore, of not citing sources for some of his points, while the author sites very few of his own points. The author accuses Gore of being very one sided in his approach, even as he himself, lambasts Gore in a very one sided way.
What I do find here, is a good list of points to research, if you do want to know more.
What I think this article does point out is that both sides are guilty of the same misinformation tactics, and one sided views. I put the same value on what Gore says, as what I put on Mr Lewis. They are both onesided opinions in need of more information or rather, a more openminded view of the existing information. I think that making massive changes in response to either is a huge problem, as neither has enough research to know for sure. We have a history of making changes too fast, and by so doing, causing exactly the opposite effect. If we have learned anything, we should have learned to look before we leap.
Cliff Hargrave
01-03-2007, 13:20
Cliff, are there any points in particular you'd like me to respond to in that piece?
No. I just didn't feel like reading it all right now :)
This is just an excerpt from his book that details those points.
Tony Dismukes
01-03-2007, 14:53
No. I just didn't feel like reading it all right now
Tell you what, the author has different categories of claims (One-Sided, Misleading, Exxagerated, Wrong, etc). I'll try to look at the first 2-3 claims in each section and evaluate them. That should be enough of a random sampling to determine whether the author is making a fair case.
I think I have answers already to some of them, but others will require research. I'll try to post some sort of response by the weekend.
Tang-Soo-Architect
01-04-2007, 07:35
It's all caused by a lack of Pirates.
You see over the recent centuries the average global temperature has gone up, yet the number of pirates on the high seas has gone down. You can look up the figures yourselves.
Therefore the solution to global warming is more swash-buckling.
:p
Webmaster
01-18-2007, 12:49
So would anyone like to take on this article at Junkscience.com?
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
So would anyone like to take on this article at Junkscience.com?
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
These skeptics have something to say about that skeptic.
http://skepdic.com/refuge/junkscience.html
stuart stratford
01-18-2007, 14:50
What does the usa do to cut co2 corbon emition gasses? just like to know if it is just europe doing ther bit to save the world
Webmaster
01-18-2007, 15:05
What does the usa do to cut co2 corbon emition gasses? just like to know if it is just europe doing ther bit to save the world
Don't know Stuart, but with spelling like yours, the English speaking world is doomed with or without global warming. :laugh:
stuart stratford
01-18-2007, 15:21
point taken,
that is my poor typing (and spelling too !).
What does the usa do to cut co2 corbon emition gasses? just like to know if it is just europe doing ther bit to save the world
We are engineering a fuel cell car, which only puts out water vapor, to replace the CO2 producing cars. Water vapor is a naturally occuring chemical, just like CO2. Water Vapor is a green house gas, just like CO2. The planet has systems to control the amount of water vapor in the air, just like it has systems to control the amount of CO2. But, lets hurry up and get rid of all the CO2 producing cars, and switch to water vapor producing cars before we make any studies on the effect of the increased amount of water vapor on the green house effect. I am serious here. Humans are responsible for 0.28% of the total amount of green house gases in the atmosphere. Those people supporting the Global Warming idea, will make LOTS of money when we mandate that all cars use fuel cells. Then they will be able to fully fund a study, to determine what difference the change water vapor makes, instead of studying the effect of CO2, while being under funded. I for one, would like to wait until we can measure the total amount of green house gases, such that the error rate is smaller than mans contribution to the total amount. Perhaps, once they make their money off the fuel cell cars, they will be able to make that measurement for me....
stuart stratford
01-18-2007, 16:40
Cars dont realy contribute to it that much a tiny 2% of it comes from cars more comes from cows than cars FACT but the real big hitters are jets they burn kerocene and the by product of burning that is yes u guessed it co2 and factorys from burning coal which produces co2 as well in the future china will overtake the usa because they rely on that more than any other resorce and its booming econamy which means it can only increase
so i think for now hydrogen fuel cell cars are a waste of time for now but still every little helps ther is too much money invested in travel company to do anything. Oh year the reason cows are worce than cars is because they produce a gas called methane methane is mor damaging to the environment than co2. that was a mouth full or finger cramping.
Use periods every once in a while. It makes reading your post much easier. (just hit the . key randomly, it will really help)
So, cars produce 2% of the total CO2 that humans are reponsible for. Thats 2% of the 0.28% of the total green house gases. I agree. Its a waste of time and money.
However, I also think that worrying about producing 0.28% of the total green house gases is a bit of a waste as well.
stuart stratford
01-18-2007, 17:36
ok i realy dont know what most of this crap is so important this planet has changed climate since the dawn of time it is natural and its us stupid humans thinking we can control it WRONG and what we cant control and what we dont know is the bassis of our fear and it dosent help when our media crack it up to be bigger issue than it is sea levels will rise it is just what happens get used to it ok we will just have to adapt and change in order to survive
life will find a way.
Webmaster
01-18-2007, 18:01
Stuart, enough already! Trying to read your post without at least a half-hearted attempt at punctuation and decent spelling is very difficult and it's getting old. As I have suggested before, type your post into a word processing program and then cut and paste it when you post.
Either you start to make an effort at improvement, or I will give you a break from the forums that you can devote to some basic English classes.
stuart stratford
01-18-2007, 18:06
Stuart, enough already! Trying to read your post without at least a half-hearted attempt at punctuation and decent spelling is very difficult and it's getting old. As I have suggested before, type your post into a word processing program and then cut and paste it when you post.
Either you start to make an effort at improvement, or I will give you a break from the forums that you can devote to some basic English classes.
it dosent work on my pc im i have had enough of this is rich coming from an american
it dosent work on my pc im i have had enough of this is rich coming from an american
I guess there is an insult there, hard to tell with your sentence structure. You think an Englishman would have better command of the English language.
Webmaster
01-18-2007, 20:52
it dosent work on my pc im i have had enough of this is rich coming from an american
I have no clue what you are trying to say except that something does not work on your PC. No problem, go to here (https://www.google.com/accounts/ServiceLogin?service=writely&passive=true&continue=http%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2F<mpl=WR_tmp_2_lfty&nui=1&utm_campaign=en&utm_source=en-et-more&utm_medium=more)and try the Google online word processing software.
Webmaster
01-19-2007, 08:41
Here is a another item you might enjoy reading.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=3a9bc8a4-802a-23ad-4065-7dc37ec39adf
Webmaster
01-20-2007, 07:57
These skeptics have something to say about that skeptic.
http://skepdic.com/refuge/junkscience.html
So the argument against him is that he has accepted money from Philip Morris. The climate change advocates practically fund their careers from the NSF and various resources. No climate change, no money. Both have financial interests which may color their views. The real question is, what's wrong with the facts he is presenting?
Tony Dismukes
01-20-2007, 09:43
So the argument against him is that he has accepted money from Philip Morris.
Robert, are you sure you actually read that criticism of Mr. Milloy's site? Phillip Morris is not mentioned anywhere, neither is Mr. Milloy's funding.
The criticism being argued is of his approach and his site in general, so they aren't offering a debunking of any of his specific articles in detail. I'll try to reread and respond to his greenhouse article later this weekend. (I know, I know - I promised to respond to Cliff's link over a week ago. I was down with a bad sinus infection for a few weeks and it kind of hurt my motivation to do any work that I didn't have to. I'm feeling a bit better now, and more up for the research.)
Webmaster
01-20-2007, 10:16
Robert, are you sure you actually read that criticism of Mr. Milloy's site? Phillip Morris is not mentioned anywhere, neither is Mr. Milloy's funding.
Yes, but I was being preemptive since that is what the majority of the criticism of Mr. Millory is on most other sites. Attacking the messenger is the normal mode of operation for most, and not the science involved.
I realize that you, and maybe others seem to think that scientists are somehow "pure as the wind driven snow" and are above financial consideration, and personal and political agendas. As someone that has worked for the past seven years at a major research university (and in two separate departments) I can ensure you they are not. Here is the reality check that many folks need.
First, most researchers are extremely liberal in their political views and have personal or political agendas.
Second, these same researchers are the ones that sit on funding boards of organizations like the National Science Foundation and judge those proposals submitted for funding. They are also the ones that make up the reviewers and editors of the peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Third, I have prepared, proof written, and been in on the planning sessions of well over a hundred funding proposals and research manuscripts.
Fourth, I have seen with my own eyes how proposals are geared toward certain agendas, and the conclusions of research molded to fit the expectations of reviewers of scientific journals and progress reports and renewal proposals manipulated for the reviewers when a grant is in need of renewal.
Fifth, the salaries of most researchers and their staff are funded through their grants. Either they get them and keep them (through renewals) or they don't get paid. It's that simple. So they prepare proposals, write reports and publish manuscripts that meet whatever the current trend or agenda is at the time.
There is a saying amongst scientists, "Publish or Perish". From what I have seen over the years supports this. So excuse me if I think that most of the researchers out there are "full of it" and their research cannot be trusted because I have seen them manipulate results, stretch their conclusions, and otherwise do whatever it takes to get funded over and over again.
Webmaster
01-20-2007, 10:44
Just a quick follow-up to my previous post.
A good example of how things can be bent in order to gain funding is as follows.
Following 9-11, there was literally billions of dollars that were being spent on research related to homeland security. So when that money became available, many (or most that I knew of anyway) looked for a homeland security connection in their field of research and submitted proposals accordingly. Those that had novel ideas and got in early, got gobs of money. That was the current "trend" and where the money was. So everything got twisted to conform to where the money is at. While homeland security is still a big deal with regard to grant money, so is climate change research. So now, you have scientists everywhere looking for a climate change angle to their research. Those that get funding of course want to keep it once the grant has expired, thus they had better make sure that their conclusions and manuscripts favorably support the "agenda" or they do not get renewed.
So before you buy everything (or anything for that matter) published by the scientific community, then you need to look at the old saying, "Follow the money".
Expertise still counts for something and according to this site, Milloy does not have expertise in climatology, "He holds a bachelor's degree in Natural Sciences, a law degree and a master's degree in biostatistics."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=JunkScience.com
Webmaster
01-20-2007, 13:36
Expertise still counts for something...[/url]
Yes it does, and it is amazing how many of these scientists that are slobbering all over the climate change thing don't have any expertise in climatology either. It is equally amazing how many of those that are climatologist dispute the climate change business (for instance, Dr. Gray from Colorado State).
Let me pose a common sense question. The Climate Change "Scareologist" claim that if the ice in the Antarctic melts, it will raise the sea level and flood out coasts. OK, we know that water is one of the few things that actually expands when frozen (as opposed to contracting). So here's the question...
I take a glass, fill it part way with water and then drop enough ice into it so that the water level is raised to the brim. When the ice melts, does it cause the water to overflow the glass? No, it does not. So why do we think that ice in the Arctic or Antarctic that is already in the water going to cause the sea level to change if it melts? What makes this different than that glass? Oh and for those that are not aware, the various Ice Shelfs in the Antarctic are in the water.
I take a glass, fill it part way with water and then drop enough ice into it so that the water level is raised to the brim. When the ice melts, does it cause the water to overflow the glass? No, it does not. So why do we think that ice in the Arctic or Antarctic that is already in the water going to cause the sea level to change if it melts? What makes this different than that glass? Oh and for those that are not aware, the various Ice Shelfs in the Antarctic are in the water.
I am not sure if your ice experiment works but it seems to me that ice being lmore dense than water means it has less volume, when the ice melts that means more volume of water in the sea.
Cliff Hargrave
01-20-2007, 14:17
I am not sure if your ice experiment works but it seems to me that ice being lmore dense than water means it has less volume, when the ice melts that means more volume of water in the sea.
Now you are making me squeeze my brain back to junior high science class. If I am not mistaken, isn't water the only substance that expands when frozen and everything else in the world shrinks when frozen? I remember something like that. So actually ice takes up more space than liquid water. Which is why ice floats, it's less dense than water. Is that right or did I just dream it? It's been a long time since school...........
Now you are making me squeeze my brain back to junior high science class. If I am not mistaken, isn't water the only substance that expands when frozen and everything else in the world shrinks when frozen? I remember something like that. So actually ice takes up more space than liquid water. Which is why ice floats, it's less dense than water. Is that right or did I just dream it? It's been a long time since school...........
Actually I stand corrected, ice is less dense than water, that is why it floats.
Webmaster
01-20-2007, 15:00
Actually I stand corrected, ice is less dense than water, that is why it floats.
Also, because it expands, it has more volume and displaces more water. So when the ice melts in our imaginary glass, it will not push water over the brim, but instead the water level will go down.
Tony Dismukes
01-21-2007, 01:52
So why do we think that ice in the Arctic or Antarctic that is already in the water going to cause the sea level to change if it melts? What makes this different than that glass? Oh and for those that are not aware, the various Ice Shelfs in the Antarctic are in the water.
Scientists are not worried that melting Arctic ice will raise the sea level, for precisely the reason you point out. They are worried about the ice sheets that are sitting on top of land in the Antarctic melting. Those ice sheets could make a huge difference in sea level. The ice shelfs in the water on the edge of the continent which have been melting are just the early warning sign. Once those are out of the way, the land based ice is next to go. (It's actually kind of complicated, and there are several possible scenarios here. Once concern is that as the ice shelfs on the edge of the continent melt, the rate at which the grounded ice flows into those shelfs will increase.) http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BPJU5/$File/chapter_5.pdf
I believe there are other potential hazards which come with the melting of the Arctic ice cap. As the area covered in ice decreases, the albedo of the region decreases, which means more solar radiation is absorbed, leading to more ice melting, and so on in a positive feedback loop which could accelerate the whole global warming process. Another concern is that the melted ice would reduce the salinity of the ocean which could potentially shut down the Atlantic "conveyor belt" currents which keep Europe temperate.
The Greenland ice shelf is another source of worry. If the Greenland Ice Sheet melted completely,sea level would rise 7.6 meters. http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BPJTK/$File/chapter_4.pdf
Webmaster
01-21-2007, 08:42
Scientists are not worried that melting Arctic ice will raise the sea level, for precisely the reason you point out.
Excuse me Tony, but that is one of the scare tactics that they use. Of course, just a few years ago, we were all being terrified over the coming global ice age. :rolleyes:
Oh, from page 77 of your reference...
We remind the reader, however, that the precipitation scenarios used in the sensitivity analyses of this chapter were based on our initial assumptions that precipitation will change with saturation vapor pressure or its derivative.
You know what they say about assuming don't you!
Since we are obviously not going to solve this issue here, or convert those on either side of the issue, then let's just agree to disagree. However, there is plenty of stuff to call into question the whole Climate Scare debate and it's important that both side of the controversy be presented and folks make up their own mind:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_skeptics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1833902.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_skeptic
http://www.skepticism.net/faq/environment/global_warming/
In the meanwhile, I am going to lock myself in my home and get my personal affairs in order since every day we hear about some stupid nonsense that is going to kill us all. Eventually, one of them might actually come true! :laugh:
In the meanwhile, I am going to lock myself in my home and get my personal affairs in order since every day we hear about some stupid nonsense that is going to kill us all. Eventually, one of them might actually come true! :laugh:
Already in the works. I have plenty of ammo in case I get overrun by the conspiracy theorists.
Tony Dismukes
01-21-2007, 10:26
Excuse me Tony, but that is one of the scare tactics that they use.
Tell you what, Robert. If you can find me a citation from a single scientist working in climatology or any of the earth sciences claiming that ocean levels would be directly raised by the melting of those ice masses which currently reside in the water (the Arctic ice cap or the Antarctic ice shelves) as opposed to the melting of land-based ice on Greenland or the Antarctic, I will send you a check for $20. I'll throw in another $15 if you can find a quote from Al Gore making that claim. C'mon, free money! You can use it to stock your survival kit for the coming apocalypse. :)
Those wikipedia links are good. I recommend anyone interested in the subject not only read the article on the controversy, but also follow the linked related articles and primary sources.
Webmaster
01-21-2007, 11:07
I am willing to concede that I am wrong, but I have heard in interviews that the ice shelf's melting was going to kill us all. From a quick check of the references, it appears that the ice shelfs are buffers for the ice sheets. However, I don't have the time to search through a bunch of scientific gobbily-gook. On the other hand, this article implies (http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/10-30-2003-47098.asp) as such.
"We have shown that the Larsen ice shelf has progressively thinned due to the combined effects of surface and basal ice melting," Dr Shepherd said.
"The previously undetected imbalance may provide a simple link between the regional climate warming and the successive disintegration of of Larsen ice shelf sections, and suggests that fluctuations in the surrounding ocean should be considered in any future assessment of climate change."
Now, when it comes to melting arctic ice, there is a bunch of stuff that says it will raise sea levels.
http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2470
The Arctic melt season has lengthened by 10-17 days, shrinking the amount of ice buildup that remains from year to year. As sea ice thins and recedes from coastlines, indigenous hunters and fishers are finding themselves cut off from traditional hunting grounds. Coastal communities face more violent and less predictable weather, rising sea levels, and diminishing access to food sources.
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/qthinice.asp
And along Arctic coastlines, entire villages will be uprooted because they're in danger of being swamped.
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2004/11/08/arcticmelt041108.html
The development threatens to raise global water levels and submerge low-lying regions around the world, including parts of Florida and already flood-prone Bangladesh.
I don't necessarily dismiss that there are some changes in the weather and climate. The real question is whether it's a natural pattern of nature, or if us terrible humans are to blame. :rolleyes:
Anyway, I will now go and make my peace with my maker in anticipation of this or some new dreamed up crisis that will end all life on earth. Geeze, I don't know what I would do it I could not wake up each morning with some new crisis for me to be scared about. :laugh:
Tony Dismukes
01-21-2007, 12:43
Robert, your third link is a good illustration of why I never rely on the popular media for analysis of scientific issues. In this case, the reporter conflates the potential changes in sea-level due to melting land ice with the other hazards which may result from melting sea ice. By placing the quote from Dr. Correll in proximity to the mistaken claim that melting sea ice would raise sea level, they present the implication that he is endorsing that claim. In fact, what his quote says is that current projections predict a certain rate of rising seas at a certain level of increased global temperature. He never attributes that rise to melting sea ice. I don't expect that the reporter was trying to be deceptive, merely that he/she was scientifically ignorant enough not to know the difference between sea and land ice.
The first link is to an advocacy group, who should know better than to make such a basic mistake, since they should be studying the issue in depth if they're going to be advocates. As far as I can tell, the author of the article, Danielle Massey, is not a scientist. To her credit, that was the only obvious error I found in the article in a quick scan.
The NRDC, at your second link, got it right:
Melting glaciers and land-based ice sheets also contribute to rising sea levels, threatening low-lying areas around the globe with beach erosion, coastal flooding, and contamination of freshwater supplies. (Sea level is not affected when floating sea ice melts.)
Webmaster
01-21-2007, 14:03
The NRDC, at your second link, got it right:
Then why did they say this?
3. How does this dramatic ice melt affect the Arctic?
The melting of once-permanent ice is already affecting native people, wildlife and plants. When the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf splintered, the rare freshwater lake it enclosed, along with its unique ecosystem, drained into the ocean. Polar bears, whales, walrus and seals are changing their feeding and migration patterns, making it harder for native people to hunt them. And along Arctic coastlines, entire villages will be uprooted because they're in danger of being swamped. The native people of the Arctic view global warming as a threat to their cultural identity and their very survival.
Here's another "Al Gore is twisting the truth about global warming" piece: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
About the author of the article: Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. How do his qualifications affect how his article should be received? Or is he, too, in someone's pocket on this issue?
Jeff Cook
Tony Dismukes
01-21-2007, 17:02
Then why did they say this?
The swamping they're referring to is due to "melting glaciers and land-based ice sheets ", not floating sea ice. The section I quoted (only two paragraphs after the section you quoted), explicitly makes that clear.
Webmaster
01-21-2007, 17:17
How do his qualifications affect how his article should be received? Or is he, too, in someone's pocket on this issue?
Oh probably Jeff! He either smokes cigarettes or he has at least tried one somewhere in his lifetime, so he is obviously a slave to Phillip Morris! :eek:
Dr. Lindzen's testimony to Congress: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf
It seems to be a great look into the science AND politics of this issue.
If anyone finds anything to discredit Dr. Lindzen, please let me know.
Jeff Cook
Tony Dismukes
01-21-2007, 17:38
Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. How do his qualifications affect how his article should be received?
Dr. Lindzen is a highly qualified expert in the field, and I take his objections more seriously than almost any other global warming skeptic for that very reason. Nevertheless, his opinions place him in a very small minority in the field. I've tried to read up on what I can find of his arguments, and the counterarguments of the majority. So far as I can tell, as a non-expert, it seems like they've answered all of his arguments, but he hasn't answered all the arguments of those presenting evidence in favor of anthropogenic climate change.
I should also note that Dr. Lindzen, although he has made numerous public statements in the press regarding his skepticism on anthropogenic climate change, has not published any peer-reviewed research of his own to contradict the consensus.
Here are some links discussing Lindzen's arguments:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lindzen-point-by-point/
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm
I found this rather hysterical website http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Richard_S_Lindzen.html that screams at the reader, with very poor grammer and spelling, what a monster Dr. Lindzen is. The same accusations - OPEC and the tobacco companies have him their payroll, yada yada yada.
Thanks for the links Tony. I will check them out.
Jeff Cook
Webmaster
01-21-2007, 17:50
I found this rather hysterical website http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Richard_S_Lindzen.html that screams at the reader, with very poor grammer and spelling, what a monster Dr. Lindzen is. The same accusations - OPEC and the tobacco companies have him their payroll, yada yada yada.
Thanks for the links Tony. I will check them out.
Jeff Cook
Yep, he is a shill of BIG tobacco, BIG oil, BIG cookies, BIG auto, BIG paper, BIG computers, BIG fast-food and probably a member of the Illuminati and secretly pushing for the New World Order (he is probably in league with the Anti-Christ too!). :laugh:
The funny thing about these attempts to discredit folks with the evil "questionable associations" is that for some reason, most folks are more than happy to give the scientists on the other side of the argument a pass for the "questionable associations".
Indeed, Robert.
Tony, I read your first link, then did a little checking on the author. I find a disturbing trend with these scientists, on both sides of the issue, attacking the person rather than debunking the science. For instance, we have this little gem:
' "If you want to prove yourself a brilliant scientist, you don't always agree with the consensus," said Daniel Kirk-Davidoff, a former student of Lindzen's at MIT. "You show you're right and everyone else is wrong."
He certainly enjoys showing he's right and everyone else is wrong," Kirk-Davidoff continued. "If you have a ten minute conversation with him, you can tell that." ' From http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/08/the_contrarian.php?page=2
Now, that certainly doesn't prove which one of these guys is right. But it is disturbing that these "professionals" make public remarks attacking each others' personalities. Especially over an important issue such as this.
Jeff Cook
Tony Dismukes
01-21-2007, 18:23
Now, that certainly doesn't prove which one of these guys is right. But it is disturbing that these "professionals" make public remarks attacking each others' personalities. Especially over an important issue such as this.
Too true. Of course, scientists are human too, so they're just as prone to stupid egotistical personal squabbling as martial artists are. :)
In any case, the scientific debate won't be settled by personal remarks, but by the presentation of evidence in the publication of peer-reviewed research. That's where I think Lindzen is way, way behind in this argument.
Webmaster
01-21-2007, 18:27
But it is disturbing that these "professionals" make public remarks attacking each others' personalities. Especially over an important issue such as this.
From what I have seen with my own eye and heard with my own ears, most of these "professionals" would gladly cut their own children's throat when it comes to competing for funding.
starkjudo
01-21-2007, 18:48
Broadcast Meteorologist James Spann takes a big shot at the Weather Channel and the global warming hysteria:
http://www.jamesspann.com/wordpress/?p=650
"I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype."
Yep, he is a shill of BIG tobacco, BIG oil, BIG cookies, BIG auto, BIG paper, BIG computers, BIG fast-food and probably a member of the Illuminati and secretly pushing for the New World Order (he is probably in league with the Anti-Christ too!). :laugh:
That is a bit boorish considering the criticisms of Milloy didn't mention Tobacco etc. , in fact it is off a skeptic page. It seems you are only skeptical of any science that doesn't agree with your opinion.
In any case I have stated no opinion because I don't have the neccessary expertise in climatology so if this is going to come down to argument from authority I am sure the number of scientists like Lindzen are in the minority.
Webmaster
01-22-2007, 08:32
That is a bit boorish considering the criticisms of Milloy didn't mention Tobacco etc. , in fact it is off a skeptic page. It seems you are only skeptical of any science that doesn't agree with your opinion.
In any case I have stated no opinion because I don't have the neccessary expertise in climatology so if this is going to come down to argument from authority I am sure the number of scientists like Lindzen are in the minority.
Boorish or not, the fact is that whenever a person does not tow the "established line", there are those that will not debate the science, but will instead attack the messenger. It is also a fact that in several hit pieces on Milloy, it is cited that he is/was on the Phillip Morris payroll. Phillip Morris=Big Tobacco.
Actually, I am skeptical of most science and that includes those that agree with me and those that do not. The problem is that there is very little research being done in which there is not an agenda from one side of a debate or another. The fact is that researchers must get funding in order to pay their own salaries, and those of their research staff. It is a reality that most of the funding sources or the communities which approve that funding or peer-review their research papers have an agenda. I can assure you that if you do not play the game, you don't get your research funded and you don't get your papers published. There is gobs of money in the whole climate change and the money is in support of climate change. Do you really think that someone would get a paper published or a grant renewed if his/her research showed it was a bunch of hogwash? I may be boorish and distrustful of most research, but if you think so, then you are incredibly naive.
Boorish or not, the fact is that whenever a person does not tow the "established line", there are those that will not debate the science, but will instead attack the messenger. It is also a fact that in several hit pieces on Milloy, it is cited that he is/was on the Phillip Morris payroll. Phillip Morris=Big Tobacco.
Actually, I am skeptical of most science and that includes those that agree with me and those that do not. The problem is that there is very little research being done in which there is not an agenda from one side of a debate or another. The fact is that researchers must get funding in order to pay their own salaries, and those of their research staff. It is a reality that most of the funding sources or the communities which approve that funding or peer-review their research papers have an agenda. I can assure you that if you do not play the game, you don't get your research funded and you don't get your papers published. There is gobs of money in the whole climate change and the money is in support of climate change. Do you really think that someone would get a paper published or a grant renewed if his/her research showed it was a bunch of hogwash? I may be boorish and distrustful of most research, but if you think so, then you are incredibly naive.
"but will instead attack the messenger.", you mean like your satirical response to my posting on Milloy? You make it sound like I am some conspiracy nut.
Please do not put words in my mouth, I never said you were boorish on most research, this is something you have added. I said your response to my post on Milloy's credentials is boorish, and again you bring up the Big Tobacco criticism although there was no mention of it in the Skepdic article.
Webmaster
01-22-2007, 08:47
You make it sound like I am some conspiracy nut.
Are you? ;)
Are you? ;)
LOL - okay, friends again?
Webmaster
01-22-2007, 09:04
LOL - okay, friends again?
Of course. Silly crap like this is no reason to not be.
Webmaster
01-22-2007, 09:07
I should also note that Dr. Lindzen, although he has made numerous public statements in the press regarding his skepticism on anthropogenic climate change, has not published any peer-reviewed research of his own to contradict the consensus.
To the contrary, below is his list of publications. If you look carefully, he has a number of publications on this topic.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/PublicationsRSL.html
Tony Dismukes
01-22-2007, 09:19
Thanks for that list, Robert. I'll have to spend some time looking through those.
BTW, I think I've worked out most of my response to your junkscience.com link, but I'll have to wait until I get off work this evening to write it up in detail.
Webmaster
01-22-2007, 10:56
Very interesting article...
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4487421.html
Cliff Hargrave
01-22-2007, 14:56
The most important message in this thread however, is that we all chose the wrong professions. We could have been researchers and made some serious coin with those grants. :wink2:
The most important message in this thread however, is that we all chose the wrong professions. We could have been researchers and made some serious coin with those grants. :wink2:
I don't think academics make a lot of money though, a law degree or MBA would be the way to go if you want to make a lot of money.
I know ph.Ds in physics that went to medical school once they saw the job prospects in academia.
Webmaster
01-23-2007, 10:19
Here is just one example of research funding with strings attached.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200701/NAT20070123a.html
Just to add to the debate, it should be interesting once this report comes out.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/01/23/climate.report.ap/index.html
Brian Dugger
02-02-2007, 10:01
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003552433_climate02m.html
Question (rhetorical) and food for thought, I remember in school studying about climate shift cycles over numerous years. Why are our esteemed mental giants/scientific "authorities" saying that man is surely to blame, when according to their science--this has happened in the past before man ever treaded on this mudball?:up:
Webmaster
02-02-2007, 10:07
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003552433_climate02m.html
Question (rhetorical) and food for thought, I remember in school studying about climate shift cycles over numerous years. Why are our esteemed mental giants/scientific "authorities" saying that man is surely to blame, when according to their science--this has happened in the past before man ever treaded on this mudball?:up:
Admin note: I have merged Brian's thread with an existing thread on Climate Change.
Yeah, I love how they use words like likely. Nothing like being sure and putting your butt on the line with something more concrete!
Webmaster
02-02-2007, 10:11
Punxsutawney Phil Predicts Early Spring (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070202/D8N1KLVO2.html)
This is obviously another sign of global warming and that we are all doomed! :laugh: I wonder if Al Gore will take credit for Phil?
Brian Dugger
02-02-2007, 11:02
Punxsutawney Phil Predicts Early Spring (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070202/D8N1KLVO2.html)
This is obviously another sign of global warming and that we are all doomed! :laugh: I wonder if Al Gore will take credit for Phil?
Well, Robert, this method of "research and conclusion" has as much validity as the data the global mental giants/astute scientist have pawned off on the media and the U.N. Good thing about this method is; at least we'd come closer to getting away with shooting the test subject.
Webmaster
02-04-2007, 15:20
The controversy continues. Below are links to a series of articles at Canada.com.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=1d78fc67-3784-4542-a07c-e7eeec46d1fc&k=0
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=ae9b984d-4a1c-45c0-af24-031a1380121a&k=0
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=b228f4b0-a869-4f85-ba08-902b95c45dcf&k=0
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=63ab844f-8c55-4059-9ad8-89de085af353&k=0
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=fee9a01f-3627-4b01-9222-bf60aa332f1f&k=0
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=17fad0e2-6f6b-41f3-bdd8-8e9eeb015777&k=0
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=9bc9a7c6-2729-4d07-9629-807f1dee479f&k=0
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=069cb5b2-7d81-4a8e-825d-56e0f112aeb5&k=0
It's zero outside WITHOUT THE WIND CHILL!!!
Bring on GLOBAL WARMING (:crazy: ) GAWD PLEASE NOW!!!!!!!!
Peace
Dennis
Webmaster
02-05-2007, 14:07
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
Robert, there you go again, letting the facts get in the way of a good hysteria.
Science has been ignored and misused in so many ways by people seeking power and popularity it makes me sick.
Peace
Dennis
I'd rather take the cautious view than one that is effectively head in the sand.
Prudence wins.
starkjudo
02-05-2007, 18:14
I'd rather take the cautious view than one that is effectively head in the sand.
Prudence wins.
What's prudence here? Destroy economies over some guesswork science? Cautious to me here is wait until science is a little more proven on the subject before we make any drastic changes to current methods.
What's prudence here? Destroy economies over some guesswork science? Cautious to me here is wait until science is a little more proven on the subject before we make any drastic changes to current methods.
Destroying Economies is a little overblown. Events like the Depression had more effect than a gradual reduction in emissions would. I know it's a hot topic but there is nothing wrong with the science.
In time, the need to move away from a petrol economy could lead to these reductions. Whether it's by environmental concern or as an Anti-terror move, it's a winner for politicians of any hue.
It was a long time ago but I did actually study Climate Change at University. I'm not claiming the science is exact but at present there is a lot more evidence to suggest we have more impact than was previously thought.
Do you think caution is not warranted in any form?
starkjudo
02-05-2007, 20:07
Do you think caution is not warranted in any form?
Sure caution is warranted, when it's warranted. This on the otherhand, has no real proof to back it up, only supposition. It's the latest in a long line of Chicken Little hysteria claims dating back to the 60's "Population Bomb."
Population Bomb (currently most of Europe is dying). Next came Global Cooling (did not work) Next came Global Warming (but the data proves otherwise).
How come they can't predict next weeks weather but KNOW what will happen in 10 years?
I am all for conservation of energy and clean energy. If it saves me money I'm for it. I just am tired of liars and doomday sayers.
Peace
Dennis
Well, I guess in the end, we all will see what happens.
I don't plan on having children so the result is somewhat academic for me....
Edit: Oop, I see there is a link to this article above. Sorry.
I copied this from another forum I visit.
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition."Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg." . For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com
Brian Dugger
02-06-2007, 14:05
One decade its cooling,twenty years later its warming. People are freakin' out over conspiracy theories, Area 51 and UFOs. Now its penguins all over the place. What are these poor pitiful gloom/doom folks gonna' think of next to pull sympathy and more importantly the bottom line?:mad:
Disagreeing is fine but why do the people who don't agree with Global Warming always end up with the "It's stupid" comments?
Just say you disagree.
It's also not just about "Global Warming". Greenhouse effect, Global Cooling etc are also relevant. All have Natural and Human contributing factors.
Some places will actually get colder - Aberdeen for example, if the Gulf Stream shifts due to Arctic Meltwater increasing, the balmy temperatures which have resulted in it winning countless "UK in Bloom" awards will plummet to more Siberian temps :eek:
How come they can't predict next weeks weather but KNOW what will happen in 10 years?
Dennis
I think climatology and weather forecasting are two different things.
In any case Dennis, with your science background you would know that any small sample size like a few days is bound to be volatile, but a greater sample size is more predictable due to the law of large numbers.
Webmaster
02-07-2007, 08:16
I think climatology and weather forecasting are two different things.
In any case Dennis, with your science background you would know that any small sample size like a few days is bound to be volatile, but a greater sample size is more predictable due to the law of large numbers.
That is total BS in this case. With short-term forecasting, you can look at the prevailing currents, weather systems as they appear, and a variety of other factors in coming up with a forecast. With long term forecasting (like in decades), you are factoring in a lot of unknowns (since you cannot exactly look at the various things which go into a forecast by looking at satellite maps) and WAGS (wild-a$$ed guess) in order to come up with a forecast. Weather is a multitude of factors which have to be considered and not just a simple matter of one or two major sets of data, but literally hundreds of factors which must be accounted for with regard to their interaction with each other. The various computer "models" used by climatologist are like any other computer program, some are good, some are crap. Either way, what you get for results is what is used for data, and if it's garbage, then the results you get are garbage. From my own computer experience, I can tell you that you can get any result you want from anything depending upon the program and the data you feed it.
Brian Dugger
02-07-2007, 08:27
Disagreeing is fine but why do the people who don't agree with Global Warming always end up with the "It's stupid" comments?
Heh, because it is. Just like conspiracy theories, Area 51, UFOs, :alien: s, and steppin' on cracks in the sidewalk are better off written on a roll of Charmin. I'm not gonna say empirically there isn't some truth in it, but the whole "sky is falling" bit and budget is asinine, while Charmin maintains its unique obvious intrinsic purpose. The only varible on that is 50% chance of having a roll on the rung.:up:
Toby Threadgill
02-07-2007, 14:59
Hello, been there done this......
I remember back 30 years ago when scientists presented evidence that said cholroflurocarbons and other chemical compounds were damaging the ozone layer. Skeptics went crazy, presenting all sorts of arguments against it. Conspiracy theories abounded. One even claiming that the reason for eliminating CFC’s had nothing to do with the environment, but was instead due to the fact that Dupont’s patent for R-12 was expiring and that Dupont had paid off these scientists to create this phoney crisis. A vocal minority of scientists even showed up debunking the ozone crisis while the vast majority of researchers provided convincing sciientific data that the ozone cirisis was real. In 1987 The Montreal Protocol was passed and later amended with support from the Reagan and Bush administrations. It’s guidelines constrained and proposed to eventually stop the production and use of all these damaging chemical compounds. The Montreal Protocol has since led to a reversal of ozone depletion, and ozone levels are expected to return to normal in the coming decades. It is considered one of the most significant successes in global cooperation to avoid an environmental crisis to date.
Sorry but you skeptics of climate change have no credibility when compared to the growing mountain of scientific data. The debate is actually over, you just don’t know it. Even the Pentagon and major US corporations now accept climate change as real, influenced by man made factors and support measures to combat it in the future.
I hate to rehash but....
We have doubled the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere since the 1990’s. In 2005 the number rose to 7.9 BILLION TONS. Imagine that number in your head for a second. 7.9 BILLION TONS! Get it ?
7.9 BILLION ..”A THOUSAND MILLION” TONS. Thats 21 million 650 thousand TONS of pollution currently spewing EVERY DAY from tailpipes and smoke stacks around the world.
Indisputable fact. Ice core measurments have proven that until the industrial revolution carbon doxide levels had never been above 280 PPM in the last 400.000 years. Prior to the Industrial revolution these fluctuations were caused by natural events. Whether you believe the present situation is caused by natural events or the burning of fossile fuels by man, in 2004 carbon dioxide levels broke 380 ppm. This figure is not in dispute and should be of concern to everyone!
At the same time population growth and uncontrolled logging has been destroying the largest carbon dioxide consuming and oxygen generating engine in the world, the tropical rainforest. The Amazon rainforest is critical because more than 20 percent of the worlds oxygen is produced there while at the same time absording huge levels of carbon dioxide. At the beginning of the 20th century rainforests covered 14 % of the world and produced almost 42% of the worlds oxygen. Now rainforests only cover a mere 6% of the worlds surface and without change, current estimates conclude that the last remaining rainforests could be consumed in less than 40 years. I don’t know how any rational person can believe our present behavior is responsible, sensible or benign.
Whether you currently believe or dismiss climate change you should read this for a historical overview of this research;
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
I'm no tree hugger but I'm not stupid either. I’m a Goldwater Republican and I marvel at the stupidity of those that think environmental issues are somehow a ‘liberal” issue. How small minded and depressingly ignorant is that? People who politicise enviornmental issues as irrelevant and not worthy of concern have their heads up the butts and I guess they like the smell. We are poisoning our world and ourselves, essentially crapping in our own beds, sleeping in the crap and then demonstrate shock when we get sick.. Yeah.. I know...It’s a simple coincidence that cancer rates are statisticly skyrocketing to levels never experienced in human history. Eating food laced with chemicals, breathing polluted air and trashing our planet are no reason for concern.......Because its a "liberal" issue. How friggin dumb is that?
I have no children and in my remaining lifetime the problems presented by climate change and pollution will probably be minimal, but for those of you who have children or grandchildren, and rationalize doing little to nothing to treat our environment more responsibily, I say shame on you. The future generations who will be poisoned and crippled by our irresponsible behavior today, will despise their ancestors, dumbfounded by their lack of foresight, malicious selfishness, lack of social conscience and environmental irresponsibility.
As I said at the beginning, I’ve been there and done this already. The same kind of people that questioned the ozone crisis 25 years ago, are now questioning climate change despite overwhelming evidence of its existence and cause. They kind of remind me that there are people who still adamantly argue that the earth is flat. The scientific community and its research methods have been vindicated by the success of the ozone crisis. The debate concerning climate change is OVER....No matter what a minority of skeptics delude themselves into believing.
Such behavior is now just a distraction from action.
Webmaster
02-07-2007, 15:11
Hello, been there done this......
You are right. We've been there and done that in this very thread. Your arguments are just a rehash of those previously made, and while you can cite the CFC/Ozone issue, those of us that think that Global Warming is a crock can cite the debacle of the Global Cooling Crisis. The fact is that the only reason that the debate is over is because those that have made up their minds have decided it is over. There are many scientists (see the links I have previously posted) that do not feel the debate is over and that further study is in order or that causes such as sun cycles are more likely the cause. They just don't get their message out because it does not meet the agenda that is being pushed. The fact of the matter is that there is very little hard evidence for global warming being caused by man. If that was the case, then they would cite that evidence and not just keep reminding us that there is a "consensus" of scientists that think so. The problem is that "consensus" is not a valid scientific method and never has been.
Toby Threadgill
02-07-2007, 16:59
Robert,
Sounds like your not reading all the data. I was skeptical of the ozone issue as I grew up in the air conditioning business. In time I went out and read all the arguments on both sides. My father never believed it but he didn't live to see that he was wrong. I eventually realized the bulk of data supported the reality of ozone depletion. With the reduction of CFC's the ozone layer is recovering and the ozone hole is shrinking. The scientist's were proven right.
As was the case 25 years ago, I kept an open mind. I've investigated and read a ridiculous number of articles on both sides of the debate. Frankly the skeptics are even less convincing on climate change than they were on ozone depletion. That's because artifical refrigeration of air did not start on a large scale until around WW2 , therefore the concept of CFC's impacting the ozone layer had a very short gestation. Scientific research on carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere started in the mid 1800's. There is an enormous legacy of data and research that has been compiled in that time. You can of course choose to doubt mans impact on the environment but do you dismiss climate change as actually happening? If you don't accept it whether created by natural causes or man, you really are just ignoring the data. The fact that the atmosphere and oceans are warming is no longer up to debate. Industry is already acting on the data in a broad way, studying how to address this issue in the future. Insurance companies are studying the impact of coastal areas and how to address future claims based on rising ocean levels. The Pentagon is already considering the geopolitical impact of climate change and the potential political hot spots created by famine and other increasingly severe natural disasters.
Regardless of cause, if oceans rise due to significant warming a disaster like Katrina in New Oreans will seem like a fart in the wind. Imagine a Katrina flood surge that never recedes. Florida would look like the keys, Belgium would be mostly under water and Holland would cease to exist. In China they fear up to 150 Million displaced, half the population of the entire US. Thank about the logistical, enonomic and social disruption caused by such a environmental occurance. The blame game is not important. Regardless of cause, its the reality we face that needs to be dispassionately considered.
Healthy skepticism is one thing. Denial is something else all together. If before you die a hurricane hits Nova Scotia or Fairbanks, Alaska hits 100 degress or my house in Evergreen, Colorado experiences a blizzard of 400 inches, will you be concvinced then, or will you chalk that up to a natural fluctuations?
Respectfully
Webmaster
02-07-2007, 18:55
Robert,
Sounds like your not reading all the data. I was skeptical of the ozone issue as I grew up in the air conditioning business. In time I went out and read all the arguments on both sides. My father never believed it but he didn't live to see that he was wrong. I eventually realized the bulk of data supported the reality of ozone depletion. With the reduction of CFC's the ozone layer is recovering and the ozone hole is shrinking. The scientist's were proven right.
I have read the arguments on both sides of the issue and I have reached a different conclusion. The problem with the "data" is that it is inconclusive and much of the projections as to what will happen is based on computer models fueled with data that is no more than WAGs. Yes, the scientists were proven right on the ozone issue (not that satellite imagery could not plainly show a hole in the ozone layer), but what about the scientists that come out against the "man is at fault" side of the argument? Many are eminent scientists within their fields, and they have a difference of opinion. Just because they are skeptical and don't fold into the "consensus" does not mean they shills for big oil or have an interest other than good science. As I stated before, concensus is not a valid scientific method, but for some reason, many seem to think that it is.
You can of course choose to doubt mans impact on the environment but do you dismiss climate change as actually happening? If you don't accept it whether created by natural causes or man, you really are just ignoring the data.
No, natural cycles of nature have occurred as far back as can be measured. We've had hot cycles (far hotter than the current doomsday predictions) in the past, and cold cycles in our past. We know that for sure, and we can safely say that past pre-industrial age warming cycles were not man's fault (unless we had a LOT of campfires all burning at once). So what has caused these warming and cooling cycles in the past? Who knows, but there are a number of scientists that have done a very good job of matching up these weather cycles with solar activity. We are only starting to understand the influence that the sun has on our atmosphere, and as more data comes in, we will know more.
Healthy skepticism is one thing. Denial is something else all together. If before you die a hurricane hits Nova Scotia or Fairbanks, Alaska hits 100 degress or my house in Evergreen, Colorado experiences a blizzard of 400 inches, will you be concvinced then, or will you chalk that up to a natural fluctuations?
As I said, natural weather cycles happen and in the past they have been far worse than the doomsday predictions of the Global Warming wonks. Whether the disasters you state above are due to man's influence or natural cycles does not matter when people suffer, but I will reserve judgement on who or what is to blame until the rest of the data is in. Meanwhile, I predict (based on past behavior) that within another twenty years, we will be discussing another "invented" crisis and this one will have fallen out of vogue.
Respectfully, :bow:
Webmaster
02-07-2007, 19:30
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/642-2.html
http://biocab.org/Global_Warming.html
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0
http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/358953.stm
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N29/EDIT.jsp
http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/2002/jan_16_02.htm
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/suns_direct_role_in_global_warming_may_be_underest imated_9015
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1951175,00.html
http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/global/pd020801g.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/03/030321075236.htm
There is a lot more, but I got bored pasting links. Remember, the simplest answer is more often the right answer.
Brian Dugger
02-08-2007, 06:37
These same 'scientists' and geological historians have told us about these cycles for years. They claim these warming and cooling trends have taken place even before man set foot on this 'mudball'. My contention is that whether humans are present or not, this cycle will always continue. Perhaps with/without the chlorofluorocarbons and depleted ozone layer. Now, has man contributed? You bet, along with many other beautiful and horrific things for which we have been responsible. I'm just not going to get frenzied and sound like a "Miss America" pageant contestant or be like "the seven dwarfs" that denied the effects of smoking and tobacco use. One of the first explanations I heard is school had to do with solar flare activity. That to me is still the most plausible argument.
I'm posting here because no one offered an opinion on my theory that fat vegetarians are really the ones behind Global Warming.
1) Vegetarians eat food that causes flatulance.
2) Fat vegetarians eat a lot of food that causes flatulance, so therefore are a lot more flatulant.
3) Flatulance releases methane gas into the atmosphere.
4) Methane gas is a green house gas that contributes to Global Warming.
5) To save the planet from Global Warming, we must eat all fat vegetarians.
One thing not mentioned in this thread is what is the solution to CO2 emissions (besides eating fat vegetarians). I can't afford a new hybrid car. There is NO public transportation I can use to get to work. I have insulated my house, switched to compact flourescent light bulbs and have lowered my electric use (this is purely selfish - any money I save can be put to better use like buying beer:D ). No one is going to live in the dark and freeze. If we are serious about getting away from fossil fuels in energy production then the only viable alternative is nuclear energy. There is no way we can produce enough energy with solar, wind or biofuels to meet our needs. Around the world right now there are over 2000 plants worldwide, most outside the USA. Why aren't more people screaming for more nuclear plants?
Peace
Dennis
That is the problem with Hybrids, new Technology costs money. Of course driving a nice big truck is fine but in an age where oil is only gettting more expensive, is it false economy?
As for Nuclear, what about the waste issues? Is that another Liberal lie?
That is the problem with Hybrids, new Technology costs money. Of course driving a nice big truck is fine but in an age where oil is only gettting more expensive, is it false economy?
As for Nuclear, what about the waste issues? Is that another Liberal lie?
Nuclear waste is a concern, but so is CO2 apparently. Nuclear waste has been stored successfully. As time goes on other options to storage may become available.
I actually believe we should take advantage of all available options, hydroelectric, wind, solar, biofuels, nuclear, ocean waves and geothermal.
Peace
Dennis
Nuclear waste is a concern, but so is CO2 apparently. Nuclear waste has been stored successfully. As time goes on other options to storage may become available.
I actually believe we should take advantage of all available options, hydroelectric, wind, solar, biofuels, nuclear, ocean waves and geothermal.
Peace
Dennis
You see, scarily we almost agree! What oil that remains should be used more frugally. Serious $$$ needs to be invested in Solar and Geothermal. In Australia, it's scandalous that the world leaders in Solar Tech are moving offshore due to lack of Govt assistance (Tax breaks etc)
You see, scarily we almost agree! What oil that remains should be used more frugally. Serious $$$ needs to be invested in Solar and Geothermal. In Australia, it's scandalous that the world leaders in Solar Tech are moving offshore due to lack of Govt assistance (Tax breaks etc)
I think serious money needs to be spent on nuclear research, hopefully leading to fusion power.
Solar and Geothermal power works only in certain locations. The power grid can distribute it but the fact remains that all countries need to increase their energy production steadily as all countries become more energy dependent.
There is still alot of oil and coal available to extract and there are ways to use it cleanly if new plants would be built. We have probably 300 years left at current rates of use before that supply is exhausted. In the meantime research in ALL areas of energy production needs to be done.
Peace
Dennis
elder999
02-09-2007, 08:42
3) Flatulance releases methane gas into the atmosphere.
This is not true-the primary flammable component in human flatulence is hydrogen, in the form of hydrogen sulfide. Healthy humans produce very little if any methane.
Otherwise pretty funny, though.:laugh:
Brian Dugger
02-09-2007, 09:15
This is not true-the primary flammable component in human flatulence is hydrogen, in the form of hydrogen sulfide. Healthy humans produce very little if any methane.
Otherwise pretty funny, though.:laugh:
You forgot to mention that bacteria produces this as well as the probable obesity problems. Plenty o'stink to go around, eh?:rolleyes:
This is not true-the primary flammable component in human flatulence is hydrogen, in the form of hydrogen sulfide. Healthy humans produce very little if any methane.
Otherwise pretty funny, though.:laugh:
Dang, and I just got done quartering the one I bagged last night. I guess I'll just have to go back to hog hunting until deer seasons starts up again. I was so looking forward to an entertaining way to save the planet.
Webmaster
02-11-2007, 09:54
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml
Webmaster
02-11-2007, 10:54
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
Global warming causes cathedrals to be built!!!! HMMMMM????
Now I know why some people want global warming stopped.:laugh:
Peace
Dennis
I think serious money needs to be spent on nuclear research, hopefully leading to fusion power.
Solar and Geothermal power works only in certain locations. The power grid can distribute it but the fact remains that all countries need to increase their energy production steadily as all countries become more energy dependent.
I agree. With regards to Solar - there has been work done that indicates that the Entire energy usage in Australia could be supplied from Solar Power - it would entail large arrays out in the desert but the feasibility is there.
Fusion, unfortunately, seems to be perpetually out of reach. I'd much rather we didn't use Fossil fuels for the next 300 years.
Brian Dugger
02-12-2007, 10:17
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
Fascinating the allusions the writer makes in the article regarding this experiment's difficulties with obtaining funding, is it not?
starkjudo
02-12-2007, 10:45
Apparently, the Czech aren't buying into it one bit.
http://newsbusters.org/node/10773
"Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?"
Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't.
Webmaster
02-12-2007, 10:55
Apparently, the Czech aren't buying into it one bit.
http://newsbusters.org/node/10773
I read that this morning. Heck, we've always known that Algore was a lunatic. What took him so long? :laugh:
Tang-Soo-Architect
02-13-2007, 08:12
Maybe the question we should be asking is not how much human kind is affecting global warming, but whether should we be allowing ourselves to affect global warming.
It seems to me that people jump on the GW bandwagon and overhype it becasue it is somehthing that they can point at and say 'look! this affects us all no matter where you live'
If all the rainforests ( in fact all the plant life) on earth disappeared tomorrow there would still be enough oxygen in the atmosphere to support us mammals for over 100 years, but that's not the problem is it? The problem is that deforestation is destroying natural habitats.
Similarly arguing if we are or are not contributing to global warming (if it even is occuring) is a bit of a waste of time. The climate is changing and if we are even making a tiny contribution we have a responsibility to make sure that we control it.
We've only got one world and would be a shame to spoil it.
Cliff Hargrave
02-13-2007, 18:33
Drudge headline:
HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER SNOW/ICE STORM
;)
Drudge headline:
HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER SNOW/ICE STORM
;)
:laugh: :laugh:
Brian Dugger
02-15-2007, 08:48
Here's another to ponder. Yesterday I went to Wally World to get a cash card for the Murphy Oil gas pump. The pumps are now equipped with this machine to sell Additech. One of the "benefits" of using Additech with your gasoline is : "it will help reduce emissions to help reduce the effects of global warming". Then why sell it with the gas?:cool: When are our captain's of politics and industry going to make their minds?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17168544/?GT1=9033
If you play it they will come?
Soon the global warming alarmist will admit that the sun's activity is to blame however we will find that HUMANS are the cause of the sun's variability.
Take Me Now Lord!
Peace
Dennis
Cliff Hargrave
03-01-2007, 09:33
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070228/wl_canada_afp/canadaenvironmentkyoto_070228180440
jaberwoky123
03-01-2007, 09:41
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070228/wl_canada_afp/canadaenvironmentkyoto_070228180440
WTFO????....people NEVER cease to AMAZE me......Hide the tinfoil hats!!!:D:
chandlerp
03-01-2007, 16:00
Australia to ride waves of power
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/28/australia.wave.reut/index.html
One way for coastal communities to combat climate change
Cliff Hargrave
03-04-2007, 16:02
http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=CZ434669U&news_headline=global_warming_is_lies_claims_docume ntary
Webmaster
03-04-2007, 18:50
The Great Global Warming Swindle
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
And now Mars is going to heck in a handbasket and it's our fault because of our SUVs!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Meanwhile, we find out that "Gore a Hypocrite Over Power Bill"
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/27/D8NIGG3O0.html
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_world&id=5072659
But of course he has an excuse since he buys "Carbon Offsets"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset
The problem is that he buys them from himself
http://www.ecotality.com/blog/?p=350
...because the company he bought his "carbon offsets" from Generation Investment Management LLP, was founded by (he is also the Chairman of) Al Gore!
http://www.generationim.com/about/team.html
Now that is what I call an Inconvenient Truth! :laugh:
Cliff Hargrave
03-05-2007, 13:15
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388
Webmaster
03-05-2007, 13:42
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388
Ah, you beat me to it Cliff! ;)
"Claude Allegre, one of France's leading socialists and among her most celebrated scientists, was among the first to sound the alarm about the dangers of global warming."
He's now having second thoughts!
Webmaster
03-06-2007, 08:57
Global Warming: now it hits brothels
http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=39945&in_page_id=2
:laugh: :laugh:
DaNinjew
03-06-2007, 18:08
Perhaps the best reason to go green! You can thank our Canadian Cousins...
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=d81c6fbf-8575-45c0-9274-c24f8f536910&k=27670
Webmaster
03-06-2007, 21:52
Perhaps the best reason to go green! You can thank our Canadian Cousins...
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=d81c6fbf-8575-45c0-9274-c24f8f536910&k=27670
Green Sex?
http://www.budoseek.net/temp/Orion_slavegirl.jpg
Works for me! :D
Brian Dugger
03-07-2007, 08:24
Green Sex?
http://www.budoseek.net/temp/Orion_slavegirl.jpg
Works for me! :D
Where's Mark (Ramirez)? I think it's time unfurl the 'bamboo sheets' and set sail on the polluted seas, arrggh! Still think Yvonne Craig is the best orion slave girl. We won't even talk about the batgirl outfit. Talk about some global warming, whew!:laugh:
Webmaster
03-07-2007, 08:40
Still think Yvonne Craig is the best orion slave girl. We won't even talk about the batgirl outfit.
You can keep her. I will just take the whole bunch.
http://www.budoseek.net/temp/Orion_slave_girls.jpg
Aye Captain! Indeed from prepubescence to adulthood I have always wanted my own Orion slave girl.
That particular slave girl was played by Bobbi Sue Luther..
http://us.imdb.com/name/nm1550452/
That is a close call but Craig gets the nod as hottest Orion slave girl, if only because only Kirk would get in the sack with an insane green woman, Archer didn't have the gonads.
Webmaster
03-12-2007, 10:08
And even more...
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2938762&page=1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml
Webmaster
03-12-2007, 16:03
Sun Blamed for Warming Earth and Other Worlds
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html
Guess those evil SUVs are off the hook again. :rolleyes:
Webmaster
03-13-2007, 08:40
From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?ex=1331438400&en=2df9d6e7a5aa6ed6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
David Craik
03-13-2007, 09:11
This wouldn't be a pet issue of yours, would it Robert? :D
Webmaster
03-13-2007, 09:16
This wouldn't be a pet issue of yours, would it Robert? :D
What would make you think that? :p
Money Quote from Webmaster's NY Times OP-ED link
“On balance, he did quite well — a credible and entertaining job on a difficult subject,” Dr. Oppenheimer said. “For that, he deserves a lot of credit. If you rake him over the coals, you’re going to find people who disagree. But in terms of the big picture, he got it right.”
William Hazen
Webmaster
03-13-2007, 09:30
Money Quote from Webmaster's NY Times OP-ED link
“On balance, he did quite well — a credible and entertaining job on a difficult subject,” Dr. Oppenheimer said. “For that, he deserves a lot of credit. If you rake him over the coals, you’re going to find people who disagree. But in terms of the big picture, he got it right.”
William Hazen
Of course Dr. Oppenheimer gives Al Gore high marks for accuracy. He advised Al Gore on his stupid movie. Why should he say that the advice he gave was wrong? :rolleyes:
You want money quotes?
“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”
Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.
“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.
“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”
In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.
Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”
Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”
Rasputin
03-13-2007, 10:40
What is not being mentioned is the fact that Robert Himself is the major cause of global warming. You should see Him when He gets hot under the collar.
:( :mad: :hot: :hot: :hot: :Flamethrower_emotic
Sceptical is ok and as a matter of fact so is bias. Gore's bias is obvious and so is Webmaster's
I have to ask myself however whether I can afford to be biased in the face of such severe consequences if that bias is based on a fallacy
That fallacy being... 6 Billion people (and counting) are not having a drastic effect on the biosphere resulting in extreme changes to the environment. Mass Extinctions...Massive Pollution...Famine...Drought...War over ever scarcer resources, and other such Macro Events have really nothing to do with me... or my actions...
But that is not the Bodhisattva Way.
I think I'll stick with doing the best I can to contributing to make the world a better place... and... honoring Mr. Gore for his efforts to make Joe Public aware of the possible Macro Effects of his/her personal behaviour. :)
William Hazen
Perhaps a better book for the sceptics would be "Collapse" by Jared Diamond. :) It paints a more personal picture of what happens when societies ignore Environmental and basic Macro Economic Issues.
Jay Bell
03-13-2007, 15:56
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?ex=1331438400&en=2df9d6e7a5aa6ed6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Cliff Hargrave
03-19-2007, 14:38
and a new twist :D
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272612158.shtml
Webmaster
03-19-2007, 14:52
and a new twist :D
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272612158.shtml
It gets more bizarre by the moment.
I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how other planets in our solar system (Mars, Jupiter and Pluto) are experiencing global warming when there is not an human or SUV to be found anywhere near them. I have noticed there seems to be a lot of silence on this matter. :D
starkjudo
03-19-2007, 15:18
It gets more bizarre by the moment.
I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how other planets in our solar system (Mars, Jupiter and Pluto) are experiencing global warming when there is not an human or SUV to be found anywhere near them. I have noticed there seems to be a lot of silence on this matter. :D
Well, Duh!
The Martian cloaking devices are also a major contributor to global warming :)
Webmaster
03-19-2007, 16:15
Well, Duh!
The Martian cloaking devices are also a major contributor to global warming :)
Yeah, and probably also his ray gun!
http://unn13.com/sophia/images/marvin_martian2_thiscartoon.jpg
starkjudo
03-19-2007, 16:25
Yeah, and probably also his ray gun!
Now we're going to have to have someone do a study on the effects of the Illudium Pew-36 Explosive Space Modulator on climate change. :rolleyes:
:nothingtogive:
In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.
Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”
Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”
heretic888
03-19-2007, 17:00
You want money quotes?
Yes, its called "quote mining". Its a common tactic of "skeptics" of evolutionary theory (please see CA113 (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113.html)), too.
Webmaster
03-19-2007, 21:02
Yes, its called "quote mining". Its a common tactic of "skeptics" of evolutionary theory (please see CA113 (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113.html)), too.
Well, it's better than cherry-picking your science (which is what the global warming nutcases do). :D
Here's some more good stuff...
Researchers Question Validity Of A 'Global Temperature' (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm)
Scientists blame Hollywood for increased fears over global warming (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=443043&in_page_id=1965)
heretic888
03-19-2007, 21:21
Well, it's better than cherry-picking your science (which is what the global warming nutcases do). :D
Actually, quote mining is "cherry-picking your science". It is precisely the act of selectively picking out the experts and studies that agree with a foregone conclusion, while selectively ignoring the experts and studies that disagree with said conclusion. The defining feature is a pattern of lobbing quotes, opinions, and names out without evincing any real understanding of either the positions of the aforementioned or the science underlying their arguments.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "global warming nutcases", but manmade global climate change is the majority position of the scientific community at this point. One is free, of course, to Google up the few dozen climatologists that say otherwise, but they are going against quite literally thousands of other scientists.
In any event, at the end of the day its just an Appeal to Authority and nothing more.
Here's some more good stuff...
Researchers Question Validity Of A 'Global Temperature' (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm)
Scientists blame Hollywood for increased fears over global warming (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=443043&in_page_id=1965)
I just finished reading these two articles. Neither of them disagree with the majority consensus of manmade global climate change. The first disputes the simplified term "global warming" --- and rightfully so, as the "average global temperature" tells us very little about nonrandom local fluctuations --- and, the second disputes some of the attempts to link recent natural disasters a priori to global climate change.
Perhaps you should spend the time to read the articles in question yourself before offering them as a "refutation" of the consensus position??
Webmaster
03-19-2007, 21:32
Perhaps you should spend the time to read the articles in question yourself before offering them as a "refutation" of the consensus position??
Perhaps you should consider that I am willing to offer articles which offer a variety of viewpoints? They were not meant to refute anything.
The first article refers to the difficulty in calculating a global temperature average, which brings into question some of the data being used. The second deals with Hollywood whipping folks into a state of fear with exaggerated claims.
Oh and by nutcases, I would be referring to folks like you that happily lap up everything that the media puts out. Oh and I think that Al Gore is a nutcase too.
Oh, I am still waiting for an explanation as to why Mars, Jupiter and Pluto are warming. I'll wait for you to explain it to me.
Finally, since when did consensus become part of the scientific method? Remember, global warming is just a theory, and has not been scientifically proven as fact.
heretic888
03-19-2007, 22:24
Perhaps you should consider that I am willing to offer articles which offer a variety of viewpoints?
Honestly, I think you just ran something like "global warming myth" in a Google search, then copy-and-pasted from the top five or so hits. Like I said before, quote mining.
The first article refers to the difficulty in calculating a global temperature average, which brings into question some of the data being used. The second deals with Hollywood whipping folks into a state of fear with exaggerated claims.
Yeah, and I'm pretty sure I just said that.... point being, neither of these articles conflicts with the scientific consensus at this point.
Oh and by nutcases, I would be referring to folks like you that happily lap up everything that the media puts out.
"The media", huh?? Unlike you, I don't acquire my scientific information from "the media". I acquire them from, well, scientists. And those silly little peer-reviewed journals they put out.
Oh and I think that Al Gore is a nutcase too.
Al Gore may be a putz, but I know nothing of his state of mind.
Oh, I am still waiting for an explanation as to why Mars, Jupiter and Pluto are warming. I'll wait for you to explain it to me.
This isn't exactly my area of expertise (this is like climatology meets astronomy, right?), but I'd be curious about the data to support this assertion. Over what length of time was this data gathered?? How was the data gathered?? What is the exact variance in the temperatures??
Finally, since when did consensus become part of the scientific method?
Communal confirmation or disconfirmation --- we usually call it "peer review" --- has always been a part of "the scientific method", something taught in most introductory physical science and social science courses (at least that was my experience in high school and undergrad). When an overwhelming majority of scientists within a given field of study support a certain position, one needs a damned fine explanation as to why the minority position is the correct one (something a little stronger than "its a liberal trick").
Remember, global warming is just a theory, and has not been scientifically proven as fact.
And it is exactly this type of language --- "its just a theory" --- that lead me to seriously believe you don't have a fundamental grasp of the science involved here (especially the silliness that a "theory" can graduate into a "fact"). I suspect your position is a knee-jerk reaction, based on "sticking it" to "the liberals".
This is exactly why I hate mixing politics and science.
Webmaster
03-19-2007, 22:41
Communal confirmation or disconfirmation --- we usually call it "peer review"
I work at a major university and I read peer reviews on papers all of the time. I also understand how the funding process works, and if you "go with the flow", you get funded. Right now, global warming is where the bucks are, and thus if you want to get funded, you had better be playing the right tune. I also know from experience that authors can and DO pick the reviewers on their papers in order to get more favorable reviews. I have also seen editors who because of a particular bias will carefully handpick their reviewers in order to get favorable or unfavorable reviews necessary to support that bias. I would love to tell you that the process is without corruption, but it is not. That and the need for funding is why I am skeptical with regard to global warming.
And it is exactly this type of language --- "its just a theory" --- that lead me to seriously believe you don't have a fundamental grasp of the science involved here (especially the silliness that a "theory" can graduate into a "fact").
There have been lots of theories that met with widespread acceptance that have been disproved. You have heard of Eugenics haven't you? Hitler did.
"The media", huh?? Unlike you, I don't acquire my scientific information from "the media". I acquire them from, well, scientists. And those silly little peer-reviewed journals they put out.
I have pages of reference that take a contrary view of the global warming silliness. Someday when I have time, I will post them, but unless you have access to these scientific journals (like subscriptions), they will be meaningless to you.
This is exactly why I hate mixing politics and science.
If that is really the case, then you should severely dislike everything that global warming represents. It is after all, all about politics.
Anyway, please feel free to believe anything you like. I will continue to get a laugh out of how you are being let by the nose by those that want you to change your lifestyle, but are unwilling to make those changes in their own lives. Meanwhile, go back and reread some of the links in this thread since you are coming into it a little late.
Webmaster
03-19-2007, 22:51
I have previously posted some of these links about warming on Mars, but here they are again for those that missed them.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast09feb_1.htm
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming030207.htm
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/07/1442211&from=rss
Here's a few about Jupiter...
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/04/21_jupiter.shtml
And one about solar effects warming us and other planets...
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html
I am going to bed now. Enjoy your delusions.
http://www.barking-moonbat.com/images/uploads/martian_message1.jpg
I am going to bed now. Enjoy your delusions.
One wonders if you're really a butterfly.
How rediculous is it that you take such offense when educated folks question you in your bully pulpit. Lots of cut and pasting going on to reinforce both sides points of "you." Why not take a break and have folks discuss their motives.
Mine are simple...it has to do with the first picture taken of the Earth from space shown in Gore's film.
This is a very small place... miraculous in it's creation if you ask me... I feel a responsibility to preserve it for future generations and live in harmony with all.
While you... because AL Gore is a Democrat... hide behind "scepticism" and attack his attempts to educate people about this very small place in the vast universe...
You only need to look in the mirror and ask yourself Mr Webmaster what you accomplish by efforts here... Elightenment? Self Satisfaction? Endlessly Changing Avatars of you and yourself in silly poses showing dominance over your UKE?
So how about it Mr Carver? Any chance you feel personally responsible for you actions in regard to the future of our little planet... or do you think 6+ Billion People Should all be driving Hummer 2's... own bass boats... and live in MACMansions inside of the gates of planned communities with names like Vesper Airs or Swampe Towne??? Better yet should we defend our rights to do as see fit in our little Constitutionally enshrined "Pursuit of Happiness" memes with the blood of our young men and woman?
I know this... Al Gore has spent tens thousands of dollars of his own money to get a message out because he feels a sense of responsibilty towards our little blue orb.
I know... I know... whats the point right? It's your bully pulpit but I can't help myself....I told you I actually try my best to act the Bodhisattva. :)
Perhaps I can buy you a cold drink one of these days. :)
Just one more question Mr. Carver...What do you think Bodhidarma's real reasons were behind his creation of the modern Eastern Martial Arts.
Sincerely,
William Hazen
starkjudo
03-20-2007, 22:59
One wonders if you're really a butterfly.
How rediculous is it that you take such offense when educated folks question you in your bully pulpit. Lots of cut and pasting going on to reinforce both sides points of "you." Why not take a break and have folks discuss their motives.
Mine are simple...it has to do with the first picture taken of the Earth from space shown in Gore's film.
This is a very small place... miraculous in it's creation if you ask me... I feel a responsibility to preserve it for future generations and live in harmony with all.
While you... because AL Gore is a Democrat... hide behind "scepticism" and attack his attempts to educate people about this very small place in the vast universe...
You only need to look in the mirror and ask yourself Mr Webmaster what you accomplish by efforts here... Elightenment? Self Satisfaction? Endlessly Changing Avatars of you and yourself in silly poses showing dominance over your UKE?
So how about it Mr Carver? Any chance you feel personally responsible for you actions in regard to the future of our little planet... or do you think 6+ Billion People Should all be driving Hummer 2's... own bass boats... and live in MACMansions inside of the gates of planned communities with names like Vesper Airs or Swampe Towne??? Better yet should we defend our rights to do as see fit in our little Constitutionally enshrined "Pursuit of Happiness" memes with the blood of our young men and woman?
I know this... Al Gore has spent tens thousands of dollars of his own money to get a message out because he feels a sense of responsibilty towards our little blue orb.
I know... I know... whats the point right? It's your bully pulpit but I can't help myself....I told you I actually try my best to act the Bodhisattva. :)
Perhaps I can buy you a cold drink one of these days. :)
Just one more question Mr. Carver...What do you think Bodhidarma's real reasons were behind his creation of the modern Eastern Martial Arts.
Sincerely,
William Hazen
If you really believe Al Gore A) caused harm to his bottom line to get out this "message" and B) did it out of a sole desire to make the world a better place, then you are :cuckoo:
William, you silly fool, if everyone had a bass boat, then I couldn't catch bass on the weekends!
The problem with this topic, AND the research, is it is colored deeply by politics. I think that is Robert's point. The global warming nuts are stamping their feet and claiming adamantly that global warming is a FACT, not a theory. Robert is saying "whoah, wait a minute. Fact? Then explain this" when he posts links to counterviews, other studies, and links to obvious political motivations.
Nobody here wants to see the planet run into the ground by us bipeds. A few of us also don't want to be held hostage to some money-and-power-hungry politicians who are trying to take advantage of the situation either. And some of us feel that the Gore-ical insults our intelligence when he makes unsubstantiated claims of fact that simply are not fact. Misrepresenting theory as fact is dishonest. The Gore-ical is dishonest.
Jeff Cook
Webmaster
03-21-2007, 06:37
How rediculous is it that you take such offense when educated folks question you in your bully pulpit. Lots of cut and pasting going on to reinforce both sides points of "you." Why not take a break and have folks discuss their motives.
I don't see anyone questioning my bully pulpit except you. Everyone else seems to be discussing the topic at hand. Personally I could give a rip about motives. That is not the subject of this thread. If they wish to start a thread about being led by the nose by politicians with an agenda or being 60's hippie throwbacks, then start a different thread.
Mine are simple...it has to do with the first picture taken of the Earth from space shown in Gore's film.
What you see may make you feel at one with Mother Gaia, and that is fine. Whatever...
This is a very small place... miraculous in it's creation if you ask me... I feel a responsibility to preserve it for future generations and live in harmony with all.
When you see small, I see something large and magnificent, at least in relation to us humans. We humans are pretty insignificant in the great scheme of things. I also agree that we should preserve our planet for future generations, and I have also been a strong conservationist. Thus, we take personal responsibility in our own lives and do our own part... something that your buddy Al Gore and most of the Hollywood "pretty people" should take note of. Otherwise, we would have never discussed Al Gore's hypocrisy in this thread.
While you... because AL Gore is a Democrat... hide behind "scepticism" and attack his attempts to educate people about this very small place in the vast universe...
I could care less whether he is a Democrat or Republican. He is still a nutcase and hypocrite that feels that sacrifices are for everyone else but himself. How about leading by example huh? Is that too difficult of a concept for you and his like to understand?
You only need to look in the mirror and ask yourself Mr Webmaster what you accomplish by efforts here... Elightenment? Self Satisfaction? Endlessly Changing Avatars of you and yourself in silly poses showing dominance over your UKE?
What in the hell does my avatars have to do with this argument? Stop acting like a baby! Jeeze!
So how about it Mr Carver? Any chance you feel personally responsible for you actions in regard to the future of our little planet...
Oh you mean like my two highly fuel-efficient cars, one of which gets over 40 miles to the gallon? Turning down my thermostat when not needed, turning off electrical appliances and using recycled products? I already take personal responsibility for my actions and do my part. How about you?
or do you think 6+ Billion People Should all be driving Hummer 2's... own bass boats... and live in MACMansions inside of the gates of planned communities with names like Vesper Airs or Swampe Towne???
Oh you mean like Al Gore? It's good enough for him but not OK for everyone else huh?
I know this... Al Gore has spent tens thousands of dollars of his own money to get a message out because he feels a sense of responsibilty towards our little blue orb.
:bsflag:
If you really think that, then you are out of your mind. Al Gore doesn't have to make personal sacrifices because his activities are funded by tax-exempt foundations and the hard work of others. Al Gore is more than happy to give lip-service to "personal responsibility" (meaning for everyone else) but failing to make that responsibility personal.
I know... I know... whats the point right? It's your bully pulpit but I can't help myself....I told you I actually try my best to act the Bodhisattva. :)
My elevation as your web Bodhisattva is my take on the bozos who claim all these ridiculous super-ultra martial arts titles. I figure if they can make that claim, I can go one better. Sorry you missed the joke.
Perhaps I can buy you a cold drink one of these days. :)
Is this part of the Prozac related mood swing thing?
Just one more question Mr. Carver...What do you think Bodhidarma's real reasons were behind his creation of the modern Eastern Martial Arts.
I would assume that "love and harmony" were his motivation. :laugh:
Or it could have been a matter of self-protection for the wondering monks who were spreading their religion, or just as the legends purport, because he saw a need for physical discipline amongst those who spent all their time meditating.
I am sure that his motivations had nothing to do with global warming. :D
Webmaster
03-21-2007, 06:43
The problem with this topic, AND the research, is it is colored deeply by politics. I think that is Robert's point.
Bingo!
The global warming nuts are stamping their feet and claiming adamantly that global warming is a FACT, not a theory. Robert is saying "whoah, wait a minute. Fact? Then explain this" when he posts links to counterviews, other studies, and links to obvious political motivations.
No kidding! I would have thought it was pretty obvious.
A few of us also don't want to be held hostage to some money-and-power-hungry politicians who are trying to take advantage of the situation either. And some of us feel that the Gore-ical insults our intelligence when he makes unsubstantiated claims of fact that simply are not fact. Misrepresenting theory as fact is dishonest. The Gore-ical is dishonest.
Or when Al Gore exaggerates the claims of gloom and doom (above and beyond what the proponents of Global Warming even claim) in order to scare people who do not take the time to do a little research and accept everything they hear on the "Idiot Box" or produced by Hollywood.
Al Gore is not only dishonest, but he is a royal hypocrite who believes that personal responsibility applies to everyone but himself.
Webmaster
03-21-2007, 08:32
I know this... Al Gore has spent tens thousands of dollars of his own money to get a message out because he feels a sense of responsibilty towards our little blue orb.
Just another word about the "sacrifices" that Al Gore makes... :rolleyes:
If Al Gore wanted to actually do more than "feel a sense of responsibilty" (sic), then he would make the sacrifices he expects from the rest of us. Instead, he...
1. Drives around in caravans of armored SUVs and limos rather then small fuel efficient vehicles. I doubt that Al Gore as ever driven or even rode in a car that gets more than 30 mpg, let along actually owned one.
2. Flys on private jets rather than using commercial airlines like the rest of us.
3. Owns three (maybe four) mansions, one of which uses many, many times the amount of electricity of the average American home.
4. He and other "true believers" allow themselves these excesses by purchasing "carbon credits" (from himself no less) so that he can absolve himself of making the sacrifices that he expects of everyone else.
The whole "carbon credit" thing is a major scam within a scam. I should sell BudoSeek Carbon Credits so that folks can feel good about themselves even if they do not make any personal sacrifices. Of course, I would take a portion of the money collected from these carbon credits and plant a tree or something.
However, what the whole carbon credit thing really says is even more fundamental. If says that those with money and influence can purchase "exceptions" (Indulgences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence#Controversy)) from the Church of Environmentalism so they can indulge in the excess they deny the rest of us. So if you are like most folks and don't have money and influence, then you are stuck holding the bag and expected to make the sacrifices in your own lifestyle. You of all people William (with your 60's counter-culture attitude) should be the first person to decry this practice where the Establishment (The Man) sticks it to the little people.
Yes, hypocrisy reigns supreme these days, or as Al Gore might say...
"Let them eat carbon".
starkjudo
03-21-2007, 10:13
Robert, William has obviously accepted Al Gore as his personal savior. Your heretical, blaphemous slanders will have no effect on him. ;)
Cliff Hargrave
03-21-2007, 10:27
I think it's a shame that only the rich can afford carbon credits. The poor, who are that way because the rich stepped on them to get to the top, cannot afford to take care of the planet. We should immediately raise taxes on the rich (income over $30K a year) and subsidize the purchase of carbon credits for the poor.
Musubi Dojo
03-21-2007, 10:28
I think it's a shame that only the rich can afford carbon credits. The poor, who are that way because the rich stepped on them to get to the top, cannot afford to take care of the planet. We should immediately raise taxes on the rich (income over $30K a year) and subsidize the purchase of carbon credits for the poor.
30K is rich? I'm definately moving to Texas......
Webmaster
03-21-2007, 10:34
Robert, William has obviously accepted Al Gore as his personal savior. Your heretical, blaphemous slanders will have no effect on him. ;)
I guess you are right. Challenging and changing someone's religious views is fraught with danger and rarely yields results.
starkjudo
03-21-2007, 16:13
http://newsbusters.org/media/2007-03-21-CNNGore.jpg
This pic makes it look like Al has a mullet. Therefore, we now have irrefutable evidence Al Gore has a mullet! :p
1960's - we had the population bomb. The prophets of doom insisted that ZPG ( zero population growth) was the only answer. The planet was doomed in 50 to 100 years we were told.
The truth is 40 years later the earth is still hear and there is still plenty of open areas.
1970's to 1980's - we were told of Global Cooling and the coming Ice Age. Man was the cause of global destuction by deforestation, pollution and toxic waste. As we destroyed ecosystems the world would cool and we would freeze to death. It didn't happen.
2000's - we are treated to Global Warming. This time around we cook ourselves to death. The scenario is the same the result is different. Humans are bad, especially humans that live in western industrialized nations that are democratically oriented. Humans in fact are pollution as far as the ecoterrorists are concerned. We and the earth will be fine as soon as we cease to exist.
If this was a novel someone could be sued for plagerism.
Peace
Dennis
Brian Dugger
03-22-2007, 07:31
If you really think that, then you are out of your mind. Al Gore doesn't have to make personal sacrifices because his activities are funded by tax-exempt foundations and the hard work of others. Al Gore is more than happy to give lip-service to "personal responsibility" (meaning for everyone else) but failing to make that responsibility personal.
This is true! Yeah, I saw all that in the 'house hearings'. From the academies to the house, the convinient truth here is that ole Al needed a good vault back into the political arena. Right now, the earth is going through a warming trend due to a variety of reasons (just as it does cooling). Just so happens that right now, ole Al is going to be 'smart' and exploit this (like mentioned above). Al's old politically buddy Bill does the same thing.
Webmaster
03-22-2007, 07:57
This is true! Yeah, I saw all that in the 'house hearings'. From the academies to the house, the convinient truth here is that ole Al needed a good vault back into the political arena. Right now, the earth is going through a warming trend due to a variety of reasons (just as it does cooling). Just so happens that right now, ole Al is going to be 'smart' and exploit this (like mentioned above). Al's old politically buddy Bill does the same thing.
LOL, and remember this is the same person that took credit for creating the internet. :laugh:
http://blogs.indystar.com/varvelblog/06132006a.jpg
http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com/images/cartoons/HelmetMd.JPG
Brian Dugger
03-22-2007, 08:13
LOL, and remember this is the same person that took credit for creating the internet. :laugh:
Well, you know Harvard and UCLA (ARPANET) are 'real' close to each other geographically speaking. Unless he did some work on any of the ARPANET while in service, his studies at Vanderbuilt would have been a real asset to building the network when he returned to resume religious studies before law school. :up:
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2007/02/gores_carbon_fo.html?campaign_id=rss_blog_nussbaum ondesign
Peace
Dennis
Webmaster
04-03-2007, 22:27
Good commentary on the Global Warming thing...
http://www.nysun.com/article/51681
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/business_of_global_warming_fee.html
Webmaster
04-04-2007, 21:59
More of Global Warming on Mars
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070404203258.5klhwqs4&show_article=1
Out of curiosity, has anyone here read the Stern Review? Or the summaries?
Webmaster
04-25-2007, 21:23
Fraud probe sought after carbon offset industry found to suffer 'serious credibility concerns'... (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html)
"Serious credibility concerns"... no kidding! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Webmaster
06-21-2007, 13:32
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4
This time, there is even some actual science involved.
starkjudo
06-24-2007, 21:30
Swedish scientist claims UN panel destroyed data to boose support for Global Warming
http://newsbusters.org/node/13698
No, just a trailer for it. But anything Al Gore is associated with is immediately suspect since he is such a liar and left wing dingbat.
The questions I would like to see answered are:
1. Is it really happening or not.
2. If it is actually happening, are we humans responsible for it or is it some natural process the earth goes through?
3. If it's actually happening, and we are responsible, can we fix it?
4. If it's actually happening, what are the consequences?
The political divide comes from the environmental movement becoming the new home for the far left hippie movement that wants to destroy capitalism and the evil corporations. The kind of people that chain themselves to trees to stop logging.
Then on the flip side you have the companies that just pollute without consequence. It doesn't matter what we western countries do when the rest of the world, former com-bloc countries, and third world nations pollute without regard.
Most of us are caught in the middle of this stuff and just want straight answers without an agenda attached.
I'm no scientist, but Aaron appears to be or at least is very knowledgeable about the subject. I couldn't understand the technical jargon but the regular language I understood. As for the questions you posted:
1- A trip to the Canadian north and a conversation with the natives would (I think) convince you that it is in fact happening.
2-I have heard the argument that this has happened before but scientists the world over agree that it has never happened at the rate it is happening now.As for responsibility, the facts are quite clear on this that industry is accelerating the process.
3-It can be fixed but we have to take steps now.
4-Consequences are catastrophic, maybe not in our lifetime but definitely in future generations.
5-Corporations are profit driven, regardless of the impact on society. Just look at how many products are still manufactured in the US. as compared to when you and I were still kids. Back in the late '60s , my ol' man used to take me to the hardware store and most of the products (tools,filters etc.) were stamped with a 'MADE IN USA' logo. Today the only item I've seen of late that is made in America was a 'Zippo' lighter. Everything else from China.
In 2003, I went to Shanghai China,partly for business and partly for pleasure, and what I saw happening down by the port was hair raising. Workers were systematically dissecting a scrap ship still in the water. From the TV tower in Pudong, you could see a huge slick of oil surrounding the chopped up ship, just drifting out to sea. It's accurate to say that ALL nations have to participate in stopping the pollution of land and sea.
Results of doing nothing? Texas will become an island!
starkjudo
06-25-2007, 09:26
Global Warming has happened before and it will happen again. It's folly to assume we can do anything to stop it. A sensible mankind adjusts to nature, and doesn't try to bend it to its will.
You're worried about it and you live South of Canada? Don't build in a flood plain ;)
Global Warming has happened before and it will happen again. It's folly to assume we can do anything to stop it. A sensible mankind adjusts to nature, and doesn't try to bend it to its will.
You're worried about it and you live South of Canada? Don't build in a flood plain ;)
Personally, it won't affect me other than using a higher number sun tan lotion, but maybe you caught the special on tv when scientists cored the ice shelf north of Hudson's bay to discover that the temperature pattern we are experiencing today is unprecedented, in other words this planet has not had such a rapid melt down as far back as when humans were still gathering nuts.How much further back should they go to convince people that we've got a problem ?
As far as adjusting to nature, I'm curious as to how people will adjust to searing temperatures well over the 100 degree mark in future generations?
Will we turn into a subterranean species? Maybe we should start digging now:laugh:
Cliff Hargrave
06-26-2007, 16:51
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118281532052547766.html?mod=home_personal_journa l_left
Climate Changes Are Making
Poison Ivy More Potent
June 26, 2007; Page D1
Poison ivy, the scourge of summer campers, hikers and gardeners, is getting worse.
New research shows the rash-inducing plant appears to be growing faster and producing more potent oil compared with earlier decades. The reason? Rising ambient carbon-dioxide levels create ideal conditions for the plant, producing bigger leaves, faster growth, hardier plants and oil that's even more irritating.
Although the data on poison ivy come from controlled studies, they suggest the vexing plant is more ubiquitous than ever. And the more-potent oil produced by the plants may result in itchier rashes. "If it's producing a more virulent form of the oil, then even a small or more casual contact will result in a rash," says Lewis Ziska, a plant physiologist for the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Beltsville, Md.
The latest research, led by Dr. Ziska, studied poison ivy plants in Maryland under different levels of carbon-dioxide exposure. One group of plants was exposed to about 300 parts per million of carbon dioxide -- about the same level found in the atmosphere in the 1950s. Another group was exposed to 400 parts per million of CO2 -- about the same level in the atmosphere today.
After about eight months, leaf size, stem length and weight and oil content of the plants raised at current carbon-dioxide levels were, on average, 50% to 75% higher than the plants under the 1950s conditions, according to the study, expected to be published this year in the journal Weed Science. Not only did the higher CO2 level double the growth rate, but it made for hardier plants that recovered more quickly from the ravages of grazing animals.
The latest research follows a Duke University report last year that higher carbon-dioxide levels create a chemical change in poison ivy that results in a more potent form of urushiol, the oil that triggers an itchy rash in about 70% of people exposed to it. "It is more abundant and allergenic," says Jacqueline E. Mohan, who led the Duke study and is now assistant professor at the University of Georgia in Athens.
Poison ivy is difficult to identify. Hikers have long known the adage "leaves of three, let them be." But poison ivy, usually found east of the Rocky Mountains, can sometimes have more leaves and look like a shrub or vine. The leaves can range from one to six inches, and be notched or smooth. Depending on the season, they can be red or green.
One Web site, www.poison-ivy.org, offers cards with life-size images to help identify the plant in its various incarnations. Long pants, long-sleeve shirts and socks can help, but clothes need to be removed and washed to avoid contact with urushiol that may have brushed on clothing. The oil can penetrate rubber gloves and boots, so vinyl gloves are recommended if you're trying to remove the plants.
One treatment, sold as IvyBlock, is rubbed on exposed areas before contact to prevent a rash. A 1995 study found the treatment prevented or significantly reduced poison ivy reactions.
Despite protective clothes and washing, Yale nursing professor Patricia Jackson Allen still contracted a rash on her forearms after gardening this weekend. The precautions prevented a more severe rash, but "I haven't found anything that works 100% for me,'' she says.
If you think you've come into contact with poison ivy, wash immediately. But if more than 10 minutes has passed, soap and water removes only about half the oil. A 2000 study found that Tecnu, an over-the-counter poison ivy wash, is about 70% effective in eliminating urushiol two to eight hours after exposure. Goop, a grease remover and Dial Ultra dishwashing soap were about 60% effective, according to a 2004 article in Pediatric Nursing. Rubbing alcohol also helps.
If exposure does occur, over-the-counter topical lotions may provide some relief. Severe cases can be treated with steroids by a doctor.
Poison ivy, the scourge of summer campers, hikers and gardeners, is getting worse.
That does it!!! Poison ivy is an occupational hazard for me. I'm buying carbon offsets today!
I don't believe in Global Warming BUT I have noticed that the poison ivy is abundant this year.
Peace
Dennis
sideslasher9
06-27-2007, 18:39
oh i think the earth is definately getting hotter, i mean al gore said so so it must be true:wink2: (something to think about... the majority of scientists need funding to finance research.a large amount of the funding comes from the government and corporations. where this funding comes from and how it affects results is very interesting to me. new scientific data, especially on inflammatory issues can create quite a stir and more importantly cause a lot of money to be made or lost. ..... now i hope that nobody takes this wrong but it seems to me that somebody is gonna make (or is already making) a whole crapload of money of the whole global warming thing............ )
Some have laid blame on the sun for global warming, citing astronomical data. Here is an astronomer's reply to that...
Sol is not to blame... (http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/)
yamatodamashii
07-06-2007, 13:10
Compare:
1. The Earth is getting warmer.
2. We are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
Therefore:
-We are making the world warmer.
1. Yang Cheng-Fu was fat.
2. Yang Cheng-Fu did taijiquan every day.
Therefore:
-Taijiquan makes people fat.
Quotation:: "There is nothing sacred in having your children blown up by Muslim terrorists."
The Moral: Don't give them the opportunity.
Well, there are some new updates coming out that don't look so good for the hand-wringing Gore-ical tree hugging crowd: http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm
It seems that the much-touted NASA global-warming study was flawed. Here is a short cut from the article: "NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events."
For a rather comprehensive list of articles on global warming, go to this page: http://schnittshow.970wfla.com/globalwarming.html - 211 links to articles about the global-warming hype.
Jeff Cook
I highly recommend everyone review this article about the Greenland ice sheets: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=175b568a-802a-23ad-4c69-9bdd978fb3cd
Jeff Cook
I highly recommend everyone review this article about the Greenland ice sheets: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=175b568a-802a-23ad-4c69-9bdd978fb3cd
Jeff Cook
Excellent post Jeff! Took me a while to read, but found it very interesting, although paragraph 5 does mention that Greenland survived the last ice age, thus making the study add more controversy to the whole subject of global warming. I also stand corrected for mentioning to Rob (Stark Judo ) that scientists had cored the ice shelf in the arctic ( Sorry Rob ). It was actually in Antartica, and their findings indicate that ocean levels will indeed rise to a catastrophic level, some day...???
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070425164935.htm
Webmaster
10-23-2007, 11:50
John Stossel takes on the myth of man-made global warming!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO9laiUXS1o
Nice find Robert.
What I see is the same group of people who years ago refused to admit that space research brought forth any practical benefit now deny what some scientists say about global warning. It's all agenda driven truth, which is the very worse kind of lies.
Peace
Dennis
starkjudo
10-23-2007, 19:03
John Stossel takes on the myth of man-made global warming!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO9laiUXS1o
Stossel is straight-up libertarian and one of the most fair reporters in the biz. I trust him, which is miles away from anyone else in the journalism business.
Cliff Hargrave
10-24-2007, 08:00
Wow, great video!
Webmaster
12-20-2007, 10:54
Consensus? I think not...
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
Webmaster
03-23-2008, 15:38
How can this be? I thought we were all doomed! I see a time in the near future that the Global Warming Alarmists will need to start marinading the crow the will be eating. :laugh:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
Hmm, I also wonder what this will do to Al Gore's "Carbon Credit" selling business? Class action lawsuit when it's show that he engaged in this racket to con people out of their money?
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528
Watch the entire program on-line, then go to the on-line "heated" (pun intended) discussion.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/
Watch the entire program on-line, then go to the on-line "heated" (pun intended) discussion.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/
This is your first post Blade?
Maybe you should introduce yourself before flogging this dead horse.
This is your first post Blade?
Maybe you should introduce yourself before flogging this dead horse.
I am a hispanic canadian involved in this subject for business reasons. Beyond the Science & the Politics there is a pile of money to be made in the Trading of GHG Emissions Reductions Certificates in the Voluntary and Pre-Compliance Markets.
How is that for an introduction? :D
I am a hispanic canadian involved in this subject for business reasons. Beyond the Science & the Politics there is a pile of money to be made in the Trading of GHG Emissions Reductions Certificates in the Voluntary and Pre-Compliance Markets.
How is that for an introduction? :D
oh that explains the interest. Welcome!
Webmaster
04-25-2008, 12:32
oh that explains the interest. Welcome!
Richardo is also one of my new students with lots of Aikido experience under him. Really nice guy and obviously very open minded to work out with us Jujutsu barbarians. ;)
Richardo is also one of my new students with lots of Aikido experience under him. Really nice guy and obviously very open minded to work out with us Jujutsu barbarians. ;)That is a very nice introduction, Sensei Robert but I am not as nice as you all are!:cool2:
Webmaster
05-06-2008, 11:06
Yeah, the rich and elite show us how it's done. :rolleyes:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=564215&in_page_id=1773
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.