Report: ExxonMobil Spends Millions Funding Global Warming Skeptics

[GreenEarthAl]

A new investigation by Mother Jones magazine has revealed that ExxonMobil has spent at least $8 million dollars funding a network of groups to challenge the existence of global warming. We speak with the author of the report, a member of one the organizations that receives money from Exxon and a journalist covering environmental and climate change issues.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/22/1338256

[Qdrop]

it's a hard topic to discuss for me.....

i've shown before how skeptical i am about global warming, on a scientific level AND on a social activist level (group think, psychology ect).

it enrages me when i hear people candidly refer to a "global, scientific consensus on global warming and it's causes"... which does not, and CANNOT exist.

of course the fact that EXXON mobil is funding what will likely be biased studies (or at least biased reports after the research is sifted through) doesn't help anything.

does this mean that EXXON's findings will categorically be wrong? well no....but again, it would stand to reason that they will be biased.

as are studies funded by green-earth, ecological groups.
though, EXXON has the right to defend themselves and fund studies to do so....
how could one not expect that?


so who do you believe? (or more interestingly- WHY?)

it is virtually impossible to step away from the bias on this topic.
virtually every study seems tainted by one sides bias or anothers.

we must simply stick to what we know, scientifically:

natural process DOES produce green house gas.
human industry DOES produce green house gas.
green house gas CAN and DOES trap heat within the atmosphere and CAN increase global temperature.
natural process DOES account for over 90% fo the green house gas, not human industry.
it is NOT KNOWN if the small percentage of green house gases produced by human industry has a measurable effect on total global warming.
ie- it is NOT KNOWN if any current measured global warming is caused by human industry rather than natural process.
it is NOT KNOWN if any current measured global warming will continue or will have disasterous effects on human civilization.
it IS KNOWN that global warming and global cooling has occured numerous times in the earth's past...prior to human industry.
it is NOT KNOWN if any human involvement in industry reform would have any measurable effect on global warming.

the previous and current pattern models used by most scientific studies predicting global warming have been shown to be shakey or flawed at best, if not wrong.

what all this means...is that we DO NOT KNOW enough about global warming to make any concrete claims.

repeating "there is a global scientific consesus that global warming is real and we are causing it" does not make it true.
even if you repeat it 1,000 times.

remember, that's what the GOP and Foxnews does with certain talking points they want to force.
does that make them any more right?

[Ali]

it's a hard topic to discuss for me.....

no shit (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=44847&)

i've shown before how skeptical i am about global warming, on a scientific level AND on a social activist level (group think, psychology ect).and you got owned.

Fact: ExxonMobil makes LOTS of MONEY from OIL

any reason why they'd want to sponsor people who are anti-global warming?

Why spend the money?

[Qdrop]

and you got owned.

translation: "people made fun of you and called you a republican. which i liked."

never got owned once on that thread.
there simply doesn't exist any concrete evidence to own anyone.
period.


Fact: ExxonMobil makes LOTS of MONEY from OIL
*slaps hand to face in awe*

any reason why they'd want to sponsor people who are anti-global warming?

Why spend the money? yeah, um....did you read my post above?
jesus, you're like a robot.


oh, and:

and you got owned.


repeating "[you got owned]" does not make it true.
even if you repeat it 1,000 times.

[bb_bboy]

Thanks for the link Al.

I take an interest in the portion of the aricle that states "there really is no debate about global warming. What you have on the one side are more 2,000 scientists from 100 countries reporting to the U.N. in what is the largest and most rigorously peer-reviewed scientific collaboration in history. What you have on the other side are basically a very small handful of so-called greenhouse skeptics, the majority of whom have been paid by the coal and oil industries ...." This statement forces us to examine the credibility of the two sides in this 'debate' before we even begin to examine their individual arguments.

Issues like global warming are often hard to discuss because while most indidviduals cannot, even given long preiods of time, perform an objective analysis of the scientific data presented by either side, they can immeadiately perform a subjective analysis of the credibility of both of these sides. I think that if people would spend as much time independently investigating the intricacies of either group's credibiltiy as they do trying to make a worthwhile interpretation of complex environmental systems from scientific data, then they could better discuss the debate in terms of its major influencers and take away a better understanding of its voerall implicaitons. This article, specifically in the quotation above, does just that by taking more than a superficial look the major groups involved with this debate.

Another step in this investigatory process would be to pose the "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" question in regards to the development and funding of those groups receiving monies fron Exxon et al. In other words, did these groups begin, catch the attention of Exxon and then begin to receive funding from the corporation, or did the corporation have a veiled role in the actual organization and start up of these groups. The answers to these types of questiosn could help to substantiate or negate the claims made in the article.

Just some poorly organized thoughts. Blah.

[Qdrop]

Thanks for the link Al.

I take an interest in the portion of the aricle that states "there really is no debate about global warming. What you have on the one side are more 2,000 scientists from 100 countries reporting to the U.N. in what is the largest and most rigorously peer-reviewed scientific collaboration in history. What you have on the other side are basically a very small handful of so-called greenhouse skeptics, the majority of whom have been paid by the coal and oil industries ...." This statement forces us to examine the credibility of the two sides in this 'debate' before we even begin to examine their individual arguments.

Issues like global warming are often hard to discuss because while most indidviduals cannot, even given long preiods of time, perform an objective analysis of the scientific data presented by either side, they can immeadiately perform a subjective analysis of the credibility of both of these sides. I think that if people would spend as much time independently investigating the intricacies of either group's credibiltiy as they do trying to make a worthwhile interpretation of complex environmental systems from scientific data, then they could better discuss the debate in terms of its major influencers and take away a better understanding of its voerall implicaitons. This article, specifically in the quotation above, does just that by taking more than a superficial look the major groups involved with this debate.

Another step in this investigatory process would be to pose the "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" question in regards to the development and funding of those groups receiving monies fron Exxon et al. In other words, did these groups begin, catch the attention of Exxon and then begin to receive funding from the corporation, or did the corporation have a veiled role in the actual organization and start up of these groups. The answers to these types of questiosn could help to substantiate or negate the claims made in the article.

Just some poorly organized thoughts. Blah.

great post.

[Qdrop]

here's some other sources:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/etc/faqs.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/etc/synopsis.html

(last i checked, PBS, Nova, and Frontline don't get funded by Exxon....or have ever been accused of any right, corporate leaning.)

and here is a great and recent debate:

http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript813.html

[D_Raay]

Blah Blah Blah... If there is a chance it is a problem, it most certainly should be addressed...

[Qdrop]

Blah Blah Blah... If there is a chance it is a problem, it most certainly should be addressed...

well, i hear you....i'm not about putting our head in the sand.

but shit man....
the Kyoto treaty would cost our economy billions....probably trillions...

that's a huge price tag for something we AREN'T EVEN SURE WILL HAVE AN EFFECT on something WE AREN'T EVEN SURE WILL EFFECT US.

i say we spend the money on more research....before we spend it on kyoto restictions....

but yes....it SHOULD be addressed.

[EN[i]GMA]

Global Warming is, in my mind, like abortion or gun control, a debate that is so dogmatic that it can never be resolved.

People who think it exists have their studies that they bandie about, and those who think it's make up have theirs, and there is zero chance for reconcilliation.

I have honestly heard nothing but rhetoric about it, so much so that I probably know no actual facts for or against, but yet I know it's both immpending diaster for humanity and not happening at all.

Amazing how that works.

[ASsman]

I say, wait it out. Then laugh at who was wrong. Right before we all die.

[D_Raay]

You could equate the same logic with a certain memo entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S.".

[Ali]

well, i hear you....i'm not about putting our head in the sand.

but shit man....
the Kyoto treaty would cost our economy billions....probably trillions...

that's a huge price tag for something we AREN'T EVEN SURE WILL HAVE AN EFFECT on something WE AREN'T EVEN SURE WILL EFFECT US.

i say we spend the money on more research....before we spend it on kyoto restictions....

but yes....it SHOULD be addressed.

kyoto's going to cost everybody trillions, especially those countries who consume the most

the money is being spent on research

unfortunately, the research is aimed at proving that there's no global warming

something is being done

to prove the the big fat US of fucking greasball A can go on consuming all the world's resources and belching out CO2 and god knows what else, just because of the precious fucking economy

[Qdrop]

kyoto's going to cost everybody trillions, especially those countries who consume the most

the money is being spent on research

unfortunately, the research is aimed at proving that there's no global warming

something is being done

to prove the the big fat US of fucking greasball A can go on consuming all the world's resources and belching out CO2 and god knows what else, just because of the precious fucking economy

see, that's nothing but rhetoric.
just opinionated, biased banter.

i might as well respond that all french smell bad....and they are cowardly, cheese eating surrender monkeys......

[yeahwho]

Yeah, fuck it, lets just roll the dice. Why should basic human common sense come into play? Stupid monkeys (http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm).

[Qdrop]

Yeah, fuck it, lets just roll the dice. Why should basic human common sense come into play?
who says roll the dice?

address the issue with more research.
don't ignore it.


Stupid monkeys (http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm).
those rainforest "facts" are pretty wildly inaccurate as i have seen....

[yeahwho]

who says roll the dice?

address the issue with more research.
don't ignore it.


those rainforest "facts" are pretty wildly inaccurate as i have seen....

Wildly inaccurate? OK. You do the research that proves them wrong. I could load up this sight with gig after gig on forest depletion and it's effects on the atmosphere and species survival, much of it current data (meaning irreversible damage has been done), less of it speculation. But why? I'm not going to bother discussing something that is basic knowledge being taught in schools in every district in the civilized world from K-12 and beyond.

Earth cannot be re-booted.

[Qdrop]

Wildly inaccurate? OK. You do the research that proves them wrong. I could load up this sight with gig after gig on forest depletion and it's effects on the atmosphere and species survival, much of it current data (meaning irreversible damage has been done), less of it speculation. But why? I'm not going to bother discussing something that is basic knowledge being taught in schools in every district in the civilized world from K-12 and beyond.


my my....so arrogant and "matter-of-fact" with your beliefs, huh?

and i could load up this board with data saying otherwise....
would you believe it?

probably not....

[Qdrop]

oh, what the hell:

http://www.reason.com/0202/cr.rb.debunking.shtml

and a follow up: http://www.reason.com/0205/fe.rb.green.shtml

(and make sure you do some research on Reason magazine before you dismiss them as some rightwing pulp rag)

those are just 2 of many many articles and studies i have read that shed some light on the Doomsday machine running rampant in the environmentalist left.

again, do i think all is peach-keen with the global environment?
no, there is plenty of work to be done and alot of areas that need immediate conservation, ect..

but i don't believe that trumped up "doomsday" rhetoric is the way to get it done.
neither is mercilessly attacking those that think it IS trumped up doomsday rhetoric....

[yeahwho]

Ronald Bailey (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=11). Tool.

[Qdrop]

Ronald Bailey (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=11). Tool.

i'm sorry...what on that page makes him a tool?

the fact that he doesn't agree with you?


not much of any expose really....

[EN[i]GMA]

How is the situation so bad that it could kill us all in a few years/generations, but not so bad that it is irreperable?

It seems mighty convenient that we're all going to die, but only if we don't follow these directions.

It's almost like someone is using this as an excuse to push an ideology...

[D_Raay]

Earth cannot be re-booted.
Was that yours or someone elses's yeahwho?

[yeahwho]

It's such an overthought agenda, fucking treehuggers. What a bunch of spastics these enviromentalists are. I think they're up to no good. Why the fuck do they keep sending out these impending doom scenarios, yet I wake up and everything is fine.

Sure, we'll just start making new rain forests for our great, great, great grandchildren. They'll really appreciate our efforts. Just as you really appreciate the efforts of the past generations and their great job of getting us to this point. Go sell crazy somewhere else, the mecury (http://www.greenfacts.org/mercury/l-2/mercury-1.htm#0) release on this planet alone is just one issue the current administration is in denial about, as it builds up in our food chain. Repairing this planet is where in priorities? When do you propose we start? What is the tipping point? Studies? More studies? Is that what we need to do? Let's have some more studies (http://www.nature.ca/notebooks/english/worldmap.htm).

croak (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040811081242.htm)

[yeahwho]

Was that yours or someone elses's yeahwho?

me in a fit reading what some think is reasonable thought on our enviroment.

[Qdrop]

GMA']
It's almost like someone is using this as an excuse to push an ideology...

(lb)


which is sad.....because there ARE some very relavant ecological areas that need immediate addressing...
but the credentials of many of these "eco-guards" are forever tainted when they get caught using inflated or flawed data/research....and when they attempt to make EVERY fucking concern a DOOMSDAY concern.

the little boys who cry wolf....and all that.

when you yell too loud about EVERYTHING....people just tune you out.

[Qdrop]

It's such an overthought agenda, fucking treehuggers. What a bunch of spastics these enviromentalists are. I think they're up to no good. Why the fuck do they keep sending out these impending doom scenarios, yet I wake up and everything is fine.

Sure, we'll just start making new rain forests for our great, great, great grandchildren. They'll really appreciate our efforts. Just as you really appreciate the efforts of the past generations and their great job of getting us to this point. Go sell crazy somewhere else, the mecury (http://www.greenfacts.org/mercury/l-2/mercury-1.htm#0) release on this planet alone is just one issue the current administration is in denial about, as it builds up in our food chain. Repairing this planet is where in priorities? When do you propose we start? What is the tipping point? Studies? More studies? Is that what we need to do? Let's have some more studies (http://www.nature.ca/notebooks/english/worldmap.htm).

croak (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040811081242.htm)

you're not helping.

your sarcastic jibes just fan the fires of apathy.

you are you own worse enemy....worse than ANY money grubbing BIG OIL/COAL executive....
but you just don't see it.

[yeahwho]

you're not helping.

your sarcastic jibes just fan the fires of apathy.

you are you own worse enemy....worse than ANY money grubbing BIG OIL/COAL executive....
but you just don't see it.

Dude, nobody is helping. I see that. You on the other hand have done just a knockout job presenting to us how we are going to magically bring back everything we use from this planet. :rolleyes: Of course sarcasm by Qdrop is rare, along with solutions. There really isn't a middle road today on the enviroment. When toxicity becomes commonplace, then we accept it, the middle road is gone.

[EN[i]GMA]

http://www.techcentralstation.com/042505C.html

[Whois]

Earth cannot be re-booted.

Sure it can, but most species would be wiped out...as long as our species is destroyed I'm happy.

[EN[i]GMA]

Maybe not exactly what you're looking for as this deals with Kyoto explicitly, but still worth looking at: http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb109/hb_109-48.pdf

[SobaViolence]

sorry q,

but i couldn't care less about economy
especially when i'm told corporations a)should be given a fair listen to and b)they wouldn't do devious things.

i'd rather tread on the side of precaution. because cars, factories, etc pollute. wether it's global warming, asthma or smog. emissions need to be curved, ozone or not. poison isn't fun injesting. (!)

[D_Raay]

Q, you know who James Baker is right? Not exactly a poster boy for liberal economic concerns. Anyways, even he is now saying maybe something needs to be done about global warming...

[D_Raay]

me in a fit reading what some think is reasonable thought on our enviroment.
Nice quote... We should have a sticky quote thread for gems like this...

[D_Raay]

especially when i'm told corporations a)should be given a fair listen to and b)they wouldn't do devious things.
Yeah they move their money into off shore accounts so they don't have to pay as many taxes and maximize their earnings... But, there are actually people on their side right on this board. It's mind-boggling and a bit worrying. I guess some people don't mind being piggy backed by a bunch of empty suits...

[yeahwho]

GMA']http://www.techcentralstation.com/042505C.html

Dr. Patrick Michaels (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=4). Tool

[yeahwho]

GMA']Maybe not exactly what you're looking for as this deals with Kyoto explicitly, but still worth looking at: http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb109/hb_109-48.pdf
^^ ^^
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels doing another crack up job.

Some of you, like the Big Oil corporations, will likely counter that the study/link below conducted by 1,300 scientists in 95 counties or that the Scripps Institution of Oceanography's claim that it has conclusive proof that global warming is indeed a problem was researched by a bunch of quacks (http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/article_detail.cfm?article_num=666).

Seven of the 10 warmest years in the 20th century occurred in the 1990s. The Arctic ice pack has lost about 40 percent of its thickness during the last four decades. The global sea level has risen nearly three times faster during the past 100 years as compared to the previous 3,000. The amount of human-produced heat-trapping gases, especially carbon dioxide, is about 31 percent above what is was a century ago and far higher than it has been at any time in the past 460,000 years. The worldwide emissions of fossil fuels increases at a rate of nearly 1 percent per year.

Ten percent to 30 percent of mammal, bird and amphibian species are threatened with extinction. More earth has been changed to cropland since 1945 than in the 18th and 19th centuries combined. The Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree in the past century.

Blame it on El Nino (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/basics/wnino0.htm). Bush (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/04/26/saudis_offer_little_gas_price_relief/) is going to bat for the little guy today.

[Ali]

GMA']Maybe not exactly what you're looking for as this deals with Kyoto explicitly, but still worth looking at: http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb109/hb_109-48.pdfyour sources are biased (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=44847&)

[Qdrop]

Yeah they move their money into off shore accounts so they don't have to pay as many taxes and maximize their earnings... But, there are actually people on their side right on this board. It's mind-boggling and a bit worrying. I guess some people don't mind being piggy backed by a bunch of empty suits...

that is just short of slander against me or others like me who have skepticism about global warming.
such a time-tested character attack: the argument of intimidation and slander.

if you back any belief held by the right, than you "don't mind being piggy backed by a bunch of empty suits"

that is practically partisan politics.

"you're with us all the way.....or you're with them!"

pathetic.


and D, i really don't give a shit what polititions from the right or left say about global warming.
i care what the scientists say....ALL of them...not just the eco ones you yeahwho links.

[Ali]

Let's get this straight.

Enough scientists agree that there is too much CO2 going into the atmosphere, so that the WHOLE FUCKING WORLD decides to agree to reduce emissions.

A few corporate-sponsored scientists 'prove' that there's no reason for the US to ratify the treaty.

Who do you side with?

[Qdrop]

whoa whoa whoa...
see, this is what i'm talking about.

Enough scientists agree that there is too much CO2 going into the atmosphere,
let's clarify that:
(again, from PBS.org)
Do we know just how this extra CO2 will change the climate?

"Not really. Greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane "force" the climate by trapping energy in the climate system. But it's just part of a very complex system involving other forcings. For example, as mentioned above, there are forcings like the sun's illumination which varies over cycles of a decade or more. Or, volcanoes which spread ash into the air and create a cooling effect. Other human pollutants like sulfate aerosols (also produced by coal burning) actually cool the climate system by reflecting incoming sunlight. But the biggest uncertainty is due to feedbacks which either amplify (positive) or dampen (negative) the effects of a forcing. The principal positive feedback is water vapor. Increased CO2 causes warming...leading to more water vapor which is itself a greenhouse gas...leading to more warming. Warmer ocean water bubbles out the dissolved CO2 which then leads to more warming, more water vapor and so on. But there are negative feedbacks also. Water vapor can form clouds which reflect incoming sunlight and thus have a cooling effect. Finally, there are delays or inertias in the system, notably the oceans which can absorb large amounts of heat for a time. The oceans, therefore, act as a break on the climate system retarding change, delaying any warming and cooling. To make things worse, the regional effect of a climate change is not intuitive. In high latitudes, the increased water vapor might fall as snow leading to major surprises as increased fresh water run off halts or slows the so-called thermohaline circulation (driving the Gulf Stream) which plunges far northern surface waters to the abyssal depths returning them to the southern hemisphere. Interrupting this current might plunge the North Atlantic into a deep freeze."
------

get your shit straight.



A few corporate-sponsored scientists 'prove' that there's no reason for the US to ratify the treaty.
just a few, huh? that's fuckin bullshit.
it's manufactured consent.....

you're such a puppet....

they say "jump", you say "how high?"

Who do you side with? with science.

[yeahwho]

So now that PBS.org has chimed in with how weather effects the earth, let's use some of the charts (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/etc/graphs.html#3) from the same article to go over my previous post, which by the way, PBS most likely was supplied by the same scientists from scripps, who have unequivocally stated global warming is a problem on earth where I'm currently residing.

I'll be the first to admit, scientific knowledge is not always used for good purposes, nonetheless on the whole it is better than ignorance, or so I believe. The overwhelming evidence is beginning to become, undeniable. Watching the auto companies scrambling to sell off their SUV's and Full Size truck stock for 2005 is an indicator.

It still amazes me that the car corps are able to sell the image of an SUV driver as a rebellious fuck-everyone break-all-the-rules individualistic type all the while moving millions (http://www.jdpa.com/businessservices/automotive/publications/powerreport/200302/0203_PINp.htm) of units per year . Am I the only one who sees the irony in this?

[Qdrop]

So now that PBS.org has chimed in with how weather effects the earth, let's use some of the charts (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/etc/graphs.html#3) from the same article to go over my previous post, which by the way, PBS most likely was supplied by the same scientists from scripps, who have unequivocally stated global warming is a problem on earth where I'm currently residing.
sigh....

please go reread my earlier posts....

again:
green house gas CAN and DOES trap heat within the atmosphere and CAN increase global temperature.
natural process DOES account for over 90% fo the green house gas, not human industry.
it is NOT KNOWN if the small percentage of green house gases produced by human industry has a measurable effect on total global warming.
ie- it is NOT KNOWN if any current measured global warming is caused by human industry rather than natural process.
it is NOT KNOWN if any current measured global warming will continue or will have disasterous effects on human civilization.
it IS KNOWN that global warming and global cooling has occured numerous times in the earth's past...prior to human industry.
it is NOT KNOWN if any human involvement in industry reform would have any measurable effect on global warming.

JESUS CHRIST! WILL YOU JUST FUCKING BEND, YEAHWHO!?!?!
JUST ADMIT THAT THERE IS NO CONSENSUS!! THERE ISN'T!!
ADMIT IT!

that doesn't mean that there isn't any global warming (there likely is) and it doesn't mean it will not be harmfull to us in the future....

BUT WE DON'T FUCKING KNOW!!

dude, just bend....
i'm not the one being stubborn here....


I'll be the first to admit, scientific knowledge is not always used for good purposes,
yes, it's findings can be twisted by any user (from EITHER SIDE!) to support anyones agenda.

nonetheless on the whole it is better than ignorance, or so I believe. exactly, so looking, in an unbiased nature, at what we know and WHAT WE DON'T KNOW... what do you conclude?

come on, man...work with me....meet me halfway.


The overwhelming evidence is beginning to become, undeniable.
says WHO? the eco watchers of course....people who need funding to survive.
how do they continue to get funding? by "proving" that they are necessary and the problem is very serious.
everyone has an agenda.

Watching the auto companies scrambling to sell off their SUV's and Full Size truck stock for 2005 is an indicator.
that's based on public sentiment....not necessarily science. and has more to do with the rising gas prices.

t still amazes me that the car corps are able to sell the image of an SUV driver as a rebellious fuck-everyone break-all-the-rules individualistic type all the while moving millions of units per year . Am I the only one who sees the irony in this?
that doesn't surprise me at all.....

[yeahwho]

Dude, even JPMorgan Chase (http://www.wastenews.com/headlines2.html?id=1114530189) has a more sympathetic ear than you.

Consensus? WTF are you trying to tell me? Consensus? I'm not an eco-terrorist, just a schlump who happens to have a casual interest in species survival. The auto manufacturers have a glut because ma and pa America have been hit right between the eyes with evidence of heavy fuel use. Even GWB is beginning to bend. Consensus?

[Qdrop]

Dude, even JPMorgan Chase (http://www.wastenews.com/headlines2.html?id=1114530189) has a more sympathetic ear than you.
but this is the point i'm getting at....
they do this, not because of any scientific consensus....but because of public pressure....purely public pressure.
it's a PR move...brought on by bullying and the manufactured consent of the public.


Consensus? WTF are you trying to tell me? Consensus? I'm not an eco-terrorist, just a schlump who happens to have a casual interest in species survival. yeah, we all do. if the earth dies...we ALL die...including the rich.
the rich would never knowingly sell out thier own futures for a very short term profit.
that's nonsensical.
you know that.....but you will ignore this point as you have in the past.


The auto manufacturers have a glut because ma and pa America have been hit right between the eyes with evidence of heavy fuel use. Even GWB is beginning to bend. Consensus? PR moves based on manufactured consent and consensus of the public.

give the people and the activists what they want...whether they're right or not. just appease them...
you can't complain...at least you are getting what you want.
it's just a shame that such misleading and unethical techniques were used to get it.
do the ends justify the means, yeahwho?

if so, does the same go for the Iraq war?

[D_Raay]

but this is the point i'm getting at....
they do this, not because of any scientific consensus....but because of public pressure....purely public pressure.
it's a PR move...brought on by bullying and the manufactured consent of the public.
How the fuck would you know? And how is the "public" bullying JP Morgan?

[D_Raay]

All the things that we need to do to solve global warming are things that we ought to be doing for our economy and to assure our prosperity anyway. If we raise fuel-efficiency standards by one mile per gallon, we can yield more oil...twice the amount of oil that's in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. If we raise fuel-economy standards by 5.6 or 7.6 miles per gallon, we can end our Persian Gulf imports into this country. We would be able to end our dependence on foreign dictators who hate democracy, who are despised by their own people.


"You can't smoke in a bar, but you can drive through a restaurant? A little smoke from a cigar is intolerable, but a lot from a Hummer is no problem? Of course, the Hummer is made by General Motors, the owner of other gas-guzzling Fuck-You-mobiles like the Escalade and the Suburban. And they just lost a billion dollars in one quarter. Because it suddenly got a lot less sexy to drive one of these fake macho vehicles now that it costs a hundred bucks to fill it up..."
--Bill Maher

[Qdrop]

How the fuck would you know? And how is the "public" bullying JP Morgan?

you file through study after study and piles of research and you come with about a 100 differant opinions.
the only consensus in this area are the ones i listed at the beginning of this thread...everything else, politics and big money aside, are scientifically debatable....and unable to be proven at this time.

THEREFORE, you CANNOT say that JP Morgan is simply "listening to the truth" or "heading the good word" or listening to science, ect....because there is no tantamount voice that can say one way or the other.

JP Morgan, and other companies and polititions who appear to be "coming around" are doing so because the constant mind fucking of the public has everone matter-of-factly believing a "global warming truth" that doesn't exist (meaning no "smoking gun", no scientific conclusions available at this time).....and now the voice isn't just coming from activists...but also the brain-fucked public.
that's who JP Morgan and polititions cater to.

[Qdrop]

All the things that we need to do to solve global warming are things that we ought to be doing for our economy and to assure our prosperity anyway. If we raise fuel-efficiency standards by one mile per gallon, we can yield more oil...twice the amount of oil that's in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
we don't know how much oil is in that refuge actually. but i get your point.

If we raise fuel-economy standards by 5.6 or 7.6 miles per gallon, we can end our Persian Gulf imports into this country. We would be able to end our dependence on foreign dictators who hate democracy, who are despised by their own people.
sounds great to me just as a practicality....less pollution and oil consumption is just sound practice in general...for a myriad of reasons.

but to say that it will effect global warming one way or the other is just ignorant.
no one knows.....you need to understand that.


"You can't smoke in a bar, but you can drive through a restaurant? A little smoke from a cigar is intolerable, but a lot from a Hummer is no problem? Of course, the Hummer is made by General Motors, the owner of other gas-guzzling Fuck-You-mobiles like the Escalade and the Suburban. And they just lost a billion dollars in one quarter. Because it suddenly got a lot less sexy to drive one of these fake macho vehicles now that it costs a hundred bucks to fill it up..."
--Bill Maher
"...no one's dick is that small."

you needed to finish the quote.
:D

[yeahwho]

So JP Morgan and the brain fucked public in your opinion should just disregard this study (http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/article_detail.cfm?article_num=666) as inconclusive opinion. It is the study no one has been able to refute.

"The new ocean study, taken together with the numerous validations of the same models in the atmosphere, portends far broader changes," said Barnett. "Other parts of the world will face similar problems to those expected--and being observed now--in the western U.S. The skill demonstrated by the climate models in handling the changing planetary heat budget suggests that these scenarios have a high enough probability of actually happening that they need to be taken seriously by decision makers."

Coinky Dink? I think not, I've lived my whole life in the NW, we have the beautiful Cascade mountain range, this year I took back my new snowboard, why? We only had a dozen days of skiing. 12 days. The whole winter. A drought (http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/dw/drought/droughthome.htm) condition is already in effect.

Securing Oil Fields in Iraq was priority #1 over searching for WMD, I'm no Einstien nor do I want to debate you about Global warming...just saying......

[Qdrop]

So JP Morgan and the brain fucked public in your opinion should just disregard this study (http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/article_detail.cfm?article_num=666) as inconclusive opinion.
i'm not saying disregard anything. i'm saying take that study in with the hundereds of others, and you will see that there is NO conclusive evidence, no consesus...no smoking gun.

see, it is you who is disregarding studies. you disregard any study or research that doesn't state that global warming is caused by human industry and the world is in danger.

take your own advice.


It is the study no one has been able to refute. we both know you are making that up.
just stop.



Coinky Dink? I think not, I've lived my whole life in the NW, we have the beautiful Cascade mountain range, this year I took back my new snowboard, why? We only had a dozen days of skiing. 12 days. The whole winter. A drought (http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/dw/drought/droughthome.htm) condition is already in effect.
dude, just stop.
you have no idea what you're talking about.

okay....well, last summer was one of the coldest summers in rochester in almost a decade...so therefore, there is no global warming.
yeah...it's that easy.

[yeahwho]

I'm amazed at how little of this you must be following, or perhaps you just like to argue. I've never once denied any of your links, I find most of these studies to have a certain degree of validity. The Scripps report is funded by not only private donors, if you ever bother to look at page 19 of the PDF 2004 annual financial report, it is funded also by Conoco, ExxonMobile and a whole consortium of energy companies. It is far from biased. As a matter of fact, it is the fairest representation available on the topic.

I am far from biased on this subject, kneejerk reactions are your bailiwick.

[Qdrop]

I'm amazed at how little of this you must be following, or perhaps you just like to argue. I've never once denied any of your links, I find most of these studies to have a certain degree of validity. The Scripps report is funded by not only private donors, if you ever bother to look at page 19 of the PDF 2004 annual financial report, it is funded also by Conoco, ExxonMobile and a whole consortium of energy companies. It is far from biased. As a matter of fact, it is the fairest representation available on the topic.
great...now keep reading other studies and compare and contrast.


I am far from biased on this subject, kneejerk reactions are your bailiwick.
oh stop.

i'm done arguing.

give me a hug.

[yeahwho]

My novacaine is wearing off from an earlier root canal, now is time for Vicodin, King Vicodin. I'm sure most of my fight will soon dissolve into drool and loud music.

I will go out and dry hump a tree for you.

[Whois]

My novacaine is wearing off from an earlier root canal, now is time for Vicodin, King Vicodin. I'm sure most of my fight will soon dissolve into drool and loud music.

I will go out and dry hump a tree for you.

Don't forget to shoot some video!

:eek: (y)

[Ali]

I'm amazed at how little of this you must be following, or perhaps you just like to argue. Bingo!

Admit it, Qtip. You are clueless. The only reason you come here is so that you can waste people's time while getting off on the attention.

You don't have many friends, do you?

[Qdrop]

Bingo!

Admit it, Qtip. You are clueless. The only reason you come here is so that you can waste people's time while getting off on the attention.

You don't have many friends, do you?

oh, like your even fucking following this conversation. (or are capable of doing so.)
you just scanned the thread, looking for any posts saying something negative about qdrop, then quoted it and added your now canned, predictable jibes....

you're as predictable as the sunrise.

now go play with the other kids and leave the adults alone....

[EN[i]GMA]

Well, that sure was constructive.

Let's see here, after the battle the sides remain exactly the same.

Now how the fuck did I know that's exactly what would happen?

Hmm...

[Qdrop]

GMA']Well, that sure was constructive.

Let's see here, after the battle the sides remain exactly the same.

Now how the fuck did I know that's exactly what would happen?

Hmm...

that's the BBMB politcal section.

[D_Raay]

that's the BBMB politcal section.
The only thing that YOU, Q, need to understand, is this is NOT about politics.
I side with humanity on this issue and give the littlest of shits what politicians think about it. Especially oil family ones.

[Qdrop]

The only thing that YOU, Q, need to understand, is this is NOT about politics.
I side with humanity on this issue and give the littlest of shits what politicians think about it. Especially oil family ones.

that's great.

except HOW to you go about "siding with humanity"? what standard and information do you use? science?.......or "liberal line towing"?

i ask this because saying something like "siding with humanity" certainly seems heroic and respectable....but also rather empty because it dances around HOW you came to this conclusion. (that humanity IS in certain danger)

[Ali]

Maybe it's not Environmentalism that's wrong, but Environmentalists and the way in which they operate.

This article (http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=3888006) in the Economist caught my eye. Essentially, it says that the Green Movement needs to package their product in a way that's more appealing to the Greedheads than telling them they've got to spend money on reducing the shit they pump into the air, soil and water, or else. “THE environmental movement's foundational concepts, its method for framing legislative proposals, and its very institutions are outmoded. Today environmentalism is just another special interest.” Those damning words come not from any industry lobby or right-wing think-tank. They are drawn from “The Death of Environmentalism”, an influential essay published recently by two greens with impeccable credentials. They claim that environmental groups are politically adrift and dreadfully out of touch. Here's what they suggest If this new green revolution is to succeed, however, three things must happen. The most important is that prices must be set correctly. The best way to do this is through liquid markets, as in the case of emissions trading. Here, politics merely sets the goal. How that goal is achieved is up to the traders.

A proper price, however, requires proper information. So the second goal must be to provide it. The tendency to regard the environment as a “free good” must be tempered with an understanding of what it does for humanity and how. Thanks to the recent Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the World Bank's annual “Little Green Data Book” (released this week), that is happening. More work is needed, but thanks to technologies such as satellite observation, computing and the internet, green accounting is getting cheaper and easier.

Which leads naturally to the third goal, the embrace of cost-benefit analysis. At this, greens roll their eyes, complaining that it reduces nature to dollars and cents. In one sense, they are right. Some things in nature are irreplaceable—literally priceless. Even so, it is essential to consider trade-offs when analysing almost all green problems. The marginal cost of removing the last 5% of a given pollutant is often far higher than removing the first 5% or even 50%: for public policy to ignore such facts would be inexcusable. If governments invest seriously in green data acquisition and co-ordination, they will no longer be flying blind. And by advocating data-based, analytically rigorous policies rather than pious appeals to “save the planet”, the green movement could overcome the scepticism of the ordinary voter. It might even move from the fringes of politics to the middle ground where most voters reside. Happy Q?

Something still needs to be done, however.

Report: Air Pollution Lower, Still Threat (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=710917)

Large scale ozone losses (http://www.physorg.com/news3902.html)

Arctic Ozone Layer Still Thinning (http://www.sci-tech-today.com/news/story.xhtml?story_id=130007AD8O0I)

[Qdrop]

Happy Q?

Something still needs to be done, however.



yes, Ali.
the sentiments expressed in that article are very similar to what i'm saying....as far as where one's sentiments comes from and how you PRESENT your views.
it's saying that people should go BEYOND the rhettoric and present the enviroment and it's maintanence as a pragmatic, economic vision....rather than an emotional, pompous, "i'm on the side of humanity" approach.

part of that is sticking with science and research....and letting research dictate our actions, rather than emotion and self-righteous blood letting....

and research takes time....


and yes, there is MUCH that needs to be done with the environment NOW.
but with limited funds, ect....we need to start with the most pressing and relavant needs...and go from thier.
not ALL environmental issues are equal....some need more immediate attention than others.

[Ali]

not ALL environmental issues are equal....some need more immediate attention than others.Such as...

[Qdrop]

Such as...

things as simple as clean drinking water in 3rd world nations...
that's an IMMEDIATE need as far as i'm concerned.

toxic dumps, industrial pollution reaching community drinking water and local water tables.
that's immediate..

hold on, i gotta find this article i read that really presented this well....

[Qdrop]

in the meantime, here's a good one talking about Lomberg's book.

http://www.reason.com/0202/cr.rb.debunking.shtml

Debunking Green Myths
An environmentalist gets it right.
By Ronald Bailey

The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World, by Bjorn Lomborg, New York: Cambridge University Press, 496 pages, $27.95


Modern environmentalism, born of the radical movements of the 1960s, has often made recourse to science to press its claims that the world is going to hell in a handbasket. But this environmentalism has never really been a matter of objectively describing the world and calling for the particular social policies that the description implies.

Environmentalism is an ideology, very much like Marxism, which pretended to base its social critique on a "scientific" theory of economic relations. Like Marxists, environmentalists have had to force the facts to fit their theory. Environmentalism is an ideology in crisis: The massive, accumulating contradictions between its pretensions and the actual state of the world can no longer be easily explained away.

The publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, a magnificent and important book by a former member of Greenpeace, deals a major blow to that ideology by superbly documenting a response to environmental doomsaying. The author, Bjorn Lomborg, is an associate professor of statistics at the University of Aarhus in Denmark. On a trip to the United States a few years ago, Lomborg picked up a copy of Wired that included an article about the late "doomslayer" Julian Simon.

Simon, a professor of business administration at the University of Maryland, claimed that by most measures, the lot of humanity is improving and the world’s natural environment was not critically imperiled. Lomborg, thinking it would be an amusing and instructive exercise to debunk a "right-wing" anti-environmentalist American, assigned his students the project of finding the "real" data that would contradict Simon’s outrageous claims.

Lomborg and his students discovered that Simon was essentially right, and that the most famous environmental alarmists (Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich, Worldwatch Institute founder Lester Brown, former Vice President Al Gore, Silent Spring author Rachel Carson) and the leading environmentalist lobbying groups (Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, Friends of the Earth) were wrong. It turns out that the natural environment is in good shape, and the prospects of humanity are actually quite good.

Lomborg begins with "the Litany" of environmentalist doom, writing: "We are all familiar with the Litany....Our resources are running out. The population is ever growing, leaving less and less to eat. The air and water are becoming ever more polluted. The planet’s species are becoming extinct in vast numbers....The world’s ecosystem is breaking down....We all know the Litany and have heard it so often that yet another repetition is, well, almost reassuring." Lomborg notes that there is just one problem with the Litany: "It does not seem to be backed up by the available evidence."

Lomborg then proceeds to demolish the Litany. He shows how, time and again, ideological environmentalists misuse, distort, and ignore the vast reams of data that contradict their dour visions. In the course of The Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg demonstrates that the environmentalist lobby is just that, a collection of interest groups that must hype doom in order to survive monetarily and politically.

Lomborg notes, "As the industry and farming organizations have an obvious interest in portraying the environment as just-fine and no-need-to-do-anything, the environmental organizations also have a clear interest in telling us that the environment is in a bad state, and that we need to act now. And the worse they can make this state appear, the easier it is for them to convince us we need to spend more money on the environment rather than on hospitals, kindergartens, etc. Of course, if we were equally skeptical of both sorts of organization there would be less of a problem. But since we tend to treat environmental organizations with much less skepticism, this might cause a grave bias in our understanding of the state of the world." Lomborg’s book amply shows that our understanding of the state of the world is indeed biased.

So what is the real state of humanity and the planet?

Human life expectancy in the developing world has more than doubled in the past century, from 31 years to 65. Since 1960, the average amount of food per person in the developing countries has increased by 38 percent, and although world population has doubled, the percentage of malnourished poor people has fallen globally from 35 percent to 18 percent, and will likely fall further over the next decade, to 12 percent. In real terms, food costs a third of what it did in the 1960s. Lomborg points out that increasing food production trends show no sign of slackening in the future.

What about air pollution? Completely uncontroversial data show that concentrations of sulfur dioxide are down 80 percent in the U.S. since 1962, carbon monoxide levels are down 75 percent since 1970, nitrogen oxides are down 38 percent since 1975, and ground level ozone is down 30 percent since 1977. These trends are mirrored in all developed countries.

Lomborg shows that claims of rapid deforestation are vastly exaggerated. One United Nations Food and Agriculture survey found that globally, forest cover has been reduced by a minuscule 0.44 percent since 1961. The World Wildlife Fund claims that two-thirds of the world’s forests have been lost since the dawn of agriculture; the reality is that the world still has 80 percent of its forests. What about the Brazilian rainforests? Eighty-six percent remain uncut, and the rate of clearing is falling. Lomborg also debunks the widely circulated claim that the world will soon lose up to half of its species. In fact, the best evidence indicates that 0.7 percent of species might be lost in the next 50 years if nothing is done. And of course, it is unlikely that nothing will be done.

Finally, Lomborg shows that global warming caused by burning fossil fuels is unlikely to be a catastrophe. Why? First, because actual measured temperatures aren’t increasing nearly as fast as the computer climate models say they should be -- in fact, any increase is likely to be at the low end of the predictions, and no one thinks that would be a disaster. Second, even in the unlikely event that temperatures were to increase substantially, it will be far less costly and more environmentally sound to adapt to the changes rather than institute draconian cuts in fossil fuel use.

The best calculations show that adapting to global warming would cost $5 trillion over the next century. By comparison, substantially cutting back on fossil fuel emissions in the manner suggested by the Kyoto Protocol would cost between $107 and $274 trillion over the same period. (Keep in mind that the current yearly U.S. gross domestic product is $10 trillion.) Such costs would mean that people living in developing countries would lose over 75 percent of their expected increases in income over the next century. That would be not only a human tragedy, but an environmental one as well, since poor people generally have little time for environmental concerns.

Where does Lomborg fall short? He clearly understands that increasing prosperity is the key to improving human and environmental health, but he often takes for granted the institutions of property and markets that make progress and prosperity possible. His analysis, as good as it is, fails to identify the chief cause of most environmental problems. In most cases, imperiled resources such as fisheries and airsheds are in open-access commons where the incentive is for people to take as much as possible of the resource before someone else beats them to it. Since they don’t own the resource, they have no incentive to protect and conserve it.

Clearly, regulation has worked to improve the state of many open-access commons in developed countries such as the U.S. Our air and streams are much cleaner than they were 30 years ago, in large part due to things like installing catalytic converters on automobiles and building more municipal sewage treatment plants. Yet there is good evidence that assigning private property rights to these resources would have resulted in a faster and cheaper cleanup. Lomborg’s analysis would have been even stronger had he more directly taken on ideological environmentalism’s bias against markets. But perhaps that is asking for too much in an already superb book.

"Things are better now," writes Lomborg, "but they are still not good enough." He’s right. Only continued economic growth will enable the 800 million people who are still malnourished to get the food they need; only continued economic growth will let the 1.2 billion who don’t have access to clean water and sanitation obtain those amenities. It turns out that ideological environmentalism, with its hostility to economic growth and technological progress, is the biggest threat to the natural environment and to the hopes of the poorest people in the world for achieving better lives.

"The very message of the book," Lomborg concludes, is that "children born today -- in both the industrialized world and the developing countries -- will live longer and be healthier, they will get more food, a better education, a higher standard of living, more leisure time and far more possibilities -- without the global environment being destroyed. And that is a beautiful world."

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

and the thing is....NONE of you can actually dispute much, if any, of this.
all yeahwho and others do is post links of character assasinations of Lomberg himself...and call him "a tool".


i'd like to see ANY of you attack the data and the science.

[yeahwho]

Another glowing review from Ronald Bailey, Tool, he must of creamed his jeans when this Bjorn Lomborg came along with the "Skeptical Enviromentalist."

I would be the first to admit nothing would make me happier than a valid representation of facts that proved all was hunky dory with our enviroment. This is old news, the book, it is also trying to debunk years of serious studies from serious scholars. I think Lomborg is a smart man, but the people who dispute his findings are of the same caliber and actually much more versed in our planets survival than he.


by Qrop...and the thing is....NONE of you can actually dispute much, if any, of this.
all yeahwho and others do is post links of character assasinations of Lomberg himself...and call him "a tool".


i'd like to see ANY of you attack the data and the science.

As far as attacks. How about a level response?

I won't do it myself, let's let the experts do it. link (http://www.grist.org/advice/books/2001/12/12/of/)

I'm presenting to you a study that is current, not some fluff. The Scripps report is highly respected by even our own Goverment. When these findings were presented just a few months ago, they were on the front page of every major paper in this Country and the World, all media reported it. It is significant. It is mainstream. It is legit, 1,300 of our planets brightest scientists work on this study for years.

You want to believe all is fine, go ahead...the part that is the goofiest (of which many parts are) is when they talk about deforestation;

One United Nations Food and Agriculture survey found that globally, forest cover has been reduced by a minuscule 0.44 percent since 1961

WTF? Then read the numbers they come up with after that, it's all over the map. I may be a lot of things, but to say that forest cover in the past 50 years has only been reduced by 0.44% to me is laughable. That is pure Bullshit, it makes them look bad. Which makes it hard to read.

[Qdrop]

Another glowing review from Ronald Bailey, Tool, he must of creamed his jeans when this Bjorn Lomborg came along with the "Skeptical Enviromentalist."
character attacks.
too easy.

i'm not saying that looking at someones history, affiliation, and source of funding is not valid...
but that seems to be ALL that liberal every do in response to studies that contradict thier beliefs.


I would be the first to admit nothing would make me happier than a valid representation of facts that proved all was hunky dory with our enviroment. This is old news, the book, it is also trying to debunk years of serious studies from serious scholars. I think Lomborg is a smart man, but the people who dispute his findings are of the same caliber and actually much more versed in our planets survival than he.
well, that's purely speculation and opinion on your part then....which you must admit, is rather bias.



I won't do it myself, let's let the experts do it. link (http://www.grist.org/advice/books/2001/12/12/of/)

I'm presenting to you a study that is current, not some fluff. The Scripps report is highly respected by even our own Goverment. When these findings were presented just a few months ago, they were on the front page of every major paper in this Country and the World, all media reported it.
well, so is the michael jackson trial.....that doesn't dictate validity.
global warming is hot button...it sells....that's why it's front page stuff.

It is significant. It is mainstream. It is legit, 1,300 of our planets brightest scientists work on this study for years.
i'm not knocking it...


You want to believe all is fine, go ahead
i never said that

...the part that is the goofiest (of which many parts are) is when they talk about deforestation;

One United Nations Food and Agriculture survey found that globally, forest cover has been reduced by a minuscule 0.44 percent since 1961

WTF? Then read the numbers they come up with after that, it's all over the map. I may be a lot of things, but to say that forest cover in the past 50 years has only been reduced by 0.44% to me is laughable. That is pure Bullshit, it makes them look bad. Which makes it hard to read.

why do you "feel" it's bullshit?

think about it....where have you heard otherwise? and from what sources? what were those sources agenda's?
you instantly felt that that number was BS because you've been browbeaten and brainfucked almost since birth by eco-biased activism.
our generation is rife with it.
you've been brainwashed (which is not your fault) to an extent that you are conditioned to think such a low number is BS.

obviously you haven't been to ever forest on earth to document de-forestation over the past 40 years....so you have get your numbers from somewhere....

what's the phrase?....."who cooks for you?"

[yeahwho]

I'm not directing any of my viewpoint from a liberal stance. As a matter of fact I'm being conservative with the facts.

As far as deforestation of our planet, one of many factors contributing to the decline of quality air, go ahead and pretend 0.44% of our forests have been depleted since 1961. I honestly think you would rather pick and choose facts to suit your needs.

This isn't about what I think, it's about facts and sorting through them, checking sources and hedging our bets. I'm not going with Lomborgs findings.

In my heart I know he's right, but my perfectly functioning brain says he's a horses ass.

It's really endless, I present to you valid studies of the damage done and you come back with wishful thinking. We are having profound effects on our planet. We are rapidly depleting the forests, we are impacting (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2005/2005032318608.html) our atmospere with fossil fuels.

It's really, really happening. And it is becoming much more evident as technology catches up to research, or vice versus.

[D_Raay]

that's great.

except HOW to you go about "siding with humanity"? what standard and information do you use? science?.......or "liberal line towing"?

i ask this because saying something like "siding with humanity" certainly seems heroic and respectable....but also rather empty because it dances around HOW you came to this conclusion. (that humanity IS in certain danger)
Obviously, by my statement, you twit, science...

[D_Raay]

in the meantime, here's a good one talking about Lomberg's book.

http://www.reason.com/0202/cr.rb.debunking.shtml

Debunking Green Myths
An environmentalist gets it right.
By Ronald Bailey

The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World, by Bjorn Lomborg, New York: Cambridge University Press, 496 pages, $27.95


Modern environmentalism, born of the radical movements of the 1960s, has often made recourse to science to press its claims that the world is going to hell in a handbasket. But this environmentalism has never really been a matter of objectively describing the world and calling for the particular social policies that the description implies.

Environmentalism is an ideology, very much like Marxism, which pretended to base its social critique on a "scientific" theory of economic relations. Like Marxists, environmentalists have had to force the facts to fit their theory. Environmentalism is an ideology in crisis: The massive, accumulating contradictions between its pretensions and the actual state of the world can no longer be easily explained away.

The publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, a magnificent and important book by a former member of Greenpeace, deals a major blow to that ideology by superbly documenting a response to environmental doomsaying. The author, Bjorn Lomborg, is an associate professor of statistics at the University of Aarhus in Denmark. On a trip to the United States a few years ago, Lomborg picked up a copy of Wired that included an article about the late "doomslayer" Julian Simon.

Simon, a professor of business administration at the University of Maryland, claimed that by most measures, the lot of humanity is improving and the world’s natural environment was not critically imperiled. Lomborg, thinking it would be an amusing and instructive exercise to debunk a "right-wing" anti-environmentalist American, assigned his students the project of finding the "real" data that would contradict Simon’s outrageous claims.

Lomborg and his students discovered that Simon was essentially right, and that the most famous environmental alarmists (Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich, Worldwatch Institute founder Lester Brown, former Vice President Al Gore, Silent Spring author Rachel Carson) and the leading environmentalist lobbying groups (Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, Friends of the Earth) were wrong. It turns out that the natural environment is in good shape, and the prospects of humanity are actually quite good.

Lomborg begins with "the Litany" of environmentalist doom, writing: "We are all familiar with the Litany....Our resources are running out. The population is ever growing, leaving less and less to eat. The air and water are becoming ever more polluted. The planet’s species are becoming extinct in vast numbers....The world’s ecosystem is breaking down....We all know the Litany and have heard it so often that yet another repetition is, well, almost reassuring." Lomborg notes that there is just one problem with the Litany: "It does not seem to be backed up by the available evidence."

Lomborg then proceeds to demolish the Litany. He shows how, time and again, ideological environmentalists misuse, distort, and ignore the vast reams of data that contradict their dour visions. In the course of The Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg demonstrates that the environmentalist lobby is just that, a collection of interest groups that must hype doom in order to survive monetarily and politically.

Lomborg notes, "As the industry and farming organizations have an obvious interest in portraying the environment as just-fine and no-need-to-do-anything, the environmental organizations also have a clear interest in telling us that the environment is in a bad state, and that we need to act now. And the worse they can make this state appear, the easier it is for them to convince us we need to spend more money on the environment rather than on hospitals, kindergartens, etc. Of course, if we were equally skeptical of both sorts of organization there would be less of a problem. But since we tend to treat environmental organizations with much less skepticism, this might cause a grave bias in our understanding of the state of the world." Lomborg’s book amply shows that our understanding of the state of the world is indeed biased.

So what is the real state of humanity and the planet?

Human life expectancy in the developing world has more than doubled in the past century, from 31 years to 65. Since 1960, the average amount of food per person in the developing countries has increased by 38 percent, and although world population has doubled, the percentage of malnourished poor people has fallen globally from 35 percent to 18 percent, and will likely fall further over the next decade, to 12 percent. In real terms, food costs a third of what it did in the 1960s. Lomborg points out that increasing food production trends show no sign of slackening in the future.

What about air pollution? Completely uncontroversial data show that concentrations of sulfur dioxide are down 80 percent in the U.S. since 1962, carbon monoxide levels are down 75 percent since 1970, nitrogen oxides are down 38 percent since 1975, and ground level ozone is down 30 percent since 1977. These trends are mirrored in all developed countries.

Lomborg shows that claims of rapid deforestation are vastly exaggerated. One United Nations Food and Agriculture survey found that globally, forest cover has been reduced by a minuscule 0.44 percent since 1961. The World Wildlife Fund claims that two-thirds of the world’s forests have been lost since the dawn of agriculture; the reality is that the world still has 80 percent of its forests. What about the Brazilian rainforests? Eighty-six percent remain uncut, and the rate of clearing is falling. Lomborg also debunks the widely circulated claim that the world will soon lose up to half of its species. In fact, the best evidence indicates that 0.7 percent of species might be lost in the next 50 years if nothing is done. And of course, it is unlikely that nothing will be done.

Finally, Lomborg shows that global warming caused by burning fossil fuels is unlikely to be a catastrophe. Why? First, because actual measured temperatures aren’t increasing nearly as fast as the computer climate models say they should be -- in fact, any increase is likely to be at the low end of the predictions, and no one thinks that would be a disaster. Second, even in the unlikely event that temperatures were to increase substantially, it will be far less costly and more environmentally sound to adapt to the changes rather than institute draconian cuts in fossil fuel use.

The best calculations show that adapting to global warming would cost $5 trillion over the next century. By comparison, substantially cutting back on fossil fuel emissions in the manner suggested by the Kyoto Protocol would cost between $107 and $274 trillion over the same period. (Keep in mind that the current yearly U.S. gross domestic product is $10 trillion.) Such costs would mean that people living in developing countries would lose over 75 percent of their expected increases in income over the next century. That would be not only a human tragedy, but an environmental one as well, since poor people generally have little time for environmental concerns.

Where does Lomborg fall short? He clearly understands that increasing prosperity is the key to improving human and environmental health, but he often takes for granted the institutions of property and markets that make progress and prosperity possible. His analysis, as good as it is, fails to identify the chief cause of most environmental problems. In most cases, imperiled resources such as fisheries and airsheds are in open-access commons where the incentive is for people to take as much as possible of the resource before someone else beats them to it. Since they don’t own the resource, they have no incentive to protect and conserve it.

Clearly, regulation has worked to improve the state of many open-access commons in developed countries such as the U.S. Our air and streams are much cleaner than they were 30 years ago, in large part due to things like installing catalytic converters on automobiles and building more municipal sewage treatment plants. Yet there is good evidence that assigning private property rights to these resources would have resulted in a faster and cheaper cleanup. Lomborg’s analysis would have been even stronger had he more directly taken on ideological environmentalism’s bias against markets. But perhaps that is asking for too much in an already superb book.

"Things are better now," writes Lomborg, "but they are still not good enough." He’s right. Only continued economic growth will enable the 800 million people who are still malnourished to get the food they need; only continued economic growth will let the 1.2 billion who don’t have access to clean water and sanitation obtain those amenities. It turns out that ideological environmentalism, with its hostility to economic growth and technological progress, is the biggest threat to the natural environment and to the hopes of the poorest people in the world for achieving better lives.

"The very message of the book," Lomborg concludes, is that "children born today -- in both the industrialized world and the developing countries -- will live longer and be healthier, they will get more food, a better education, a higher standard of living, more leisure time and far more possibilities -- without the global environment being destroyed. And that is a beautiful world."

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

and the thing is....NONE of you can actually dispute much, if any, of this.
all yeahwho and others do is post links of character assasinations of Lomberg himself...and call him "a tool".


i'd like to see ANY of you attack the data and the science.

This whole article should be flushed down an Iraqi toilet. If there any left in operation.

[Qdrop]

As far as deforestation of our planet, one of many factors contributing to the decline of quality air, go ahead and pretend 0.44% of our forests have been depleted since 1961. I honestly think you would rather pick and choose facts to suit your needs.
who's pretending?
that comes from the study YOU posted.

edit: never mind...i thought you were referring to the scribbs report you posted.
but you are referring to the article from Reason.com that i posted.


It's really endless, I present to you valid studies of the damage done and you come back with wishful thinking.
wishful thinking?
i'm supporting everything i say....i'm pointing to science, not wishfull thinking.
i'm analyzing culture, politics, and psychology....

how is that wishful thinking?

i'm not really even taking side....
time and time again....i'm saying more research needs to be done.
and that we need to look at ALL the research out there....
find the median.

and who's the one "picking and choosing his facts?"

[Qdrop]

Obviously, by my statement, you twit, science...

you mean the science and studies that agree with YOUR sentiments...

cause i've been posting links and showing plenty of science....but that has no bearing on your position.

it's funny how flustered you get when you really have nothing to back up your sentiments or beleifs, but yet are unwilling to conceide even an inch.

what's next? personal attacks on me?....

what are you....an "Ali" alias?

[Qdrop]

This whole article should be flushed down an Iraqi toilet. If there any left in operation.

an excellant retort.

you really backed up your statement well.

[yeahwho]

who's pretending?
that comes from the study YOU posted.[QUOTE]
No, it doesn't, it comes from your Ronald Bailey article.

[QUOTE]Lomborg shows that claims of rapid deforestation are vastly exaggerated. One United Nations Food and Agriculture survey found that globally, forest cover has been reduced by a minuscule 0.44 percent since 1961.

This why shit like this happens to people like Lomborg. Pic. (http://www.anti-lomborg.com/images/piesmall.gif) Article (http://www.anti-lomborg.com/press1.htm).

Figure it out OK? He is old news, his site sucks, even the Oil companies stay away. Controversy sells, this is swiftboat caliber facts.

[Qdrop]

the way you were wording your post, it seemed you were also getting that figure from the your link....scribbs report.

anyway....you're still just responding with character attacks.
i guess that's all you got left.


ya know....i'm not even saying that lomberg's book, or that article are the fucking Bible to me...
i sincerely doubt that all of his research is 100% accurate and without flaws.

my real point is for you to be exposed to other data, other reseach without the knee-jerk reaction of immediate dismisal and an flurry of google seaches of the name i quote so you can link some character attack blog...

guess it's pointless, huh?

[yeahwho]

the way you were wording your post, it seemed you were also getting that figure from the your link....scribbs report.

anyway....you're still just responding with character attacks.
i guess that's all you got left.

It's better than 0. I'm showing you what scientists and enviromentalists think of a Lomborg. Each topic broken down word by word and scenario by scenario and fact by fact. The final results were a pie in the face. Not my attack, somebody else's.

I'm doing the math.

[Qdrop]

It's better than 0. I'm showing you what scientists and enviromentalists think of a Lomborg. Each topic broken down word by word and scenario by scenario and fact by fact. The final results were a pie in the face. Not my attack, somebody else's.

I'm doing the math.

and you're tellin me the reasons for thier attacks are purely scientific?
are you really that naive?

are you even remotely listening to anything i type? if not, just put me on ignore.
seriously, i tire of our endless dances....

[yeahwho]

and you're tellin me the reasons for thier attacks are purely scientific?
are you really that naive?

are you even remotely listening to anything i type? if not, just put me on ignore.
seriously, i tire of our endless dances....
I am stupid and you are smart. Is that what you want? OK, smart guy, you go on and on how the greens are on a self serving agenda, I won't dispute you, even when you ask.

Now you can have a nice easy go of it.

[Qdrop]

I am stupid and you are smart. Is that what you want? OK, smart guy, you go on and on how the greens are on a self serving agenda, I won't dispute you, even when you ask.

Now you can have a nice easy go of it.

i'm asking for a happy medium....

not a patrionizing surrender.

[ASsman]

Fucking circle jerk....

[D_Raay]

you mean the science and studies that agree with YOUR sentiments...

cause i've been posting links and showing plenty of science....but that has no bearing on your position.

it's funny how flustered you get when you really have nothing to back up your sentiments or beleifs, but yet are unwilling to conceide even an inch.

what's next? personal attacks on me?....

what are you....an "Ali" alias?
I am by no means "flustered" as you put it... I lost interest in this particular thread, and am simply fucking with you... Try not to be so much of a moron and I will refrain from further attacks... With the way you spell however that may be asking too much...
You can't handle the fact you may be wrong on this issue. Therefore there is no point at all arguing it with you anymore or ever again... yeahwho and Ali and Enigma are right and you are wrong... Deal, young padwan, deal...

[Qdrop]

I am by no means "flustered" as you put it... I lost interest in this particular thread, and am simply fucking with you...
that's awesome.

Try not to be so much of a moron and I will refrain from further attacks...
weren't you the one patting your self on the back for "only posting when I have something to truly offer the conversation"?
hmm....guess that went out the window with your zest for informed debate.

With the way you spell however that may be asking too much...
ahh....resorting to old faithful "spelling nazi" attack.
you've really just become "one of the crowd" on here, D.

what happened to you, D?....you used to be cool.....

You can't handle the fact you may be wrong on this issue.
wrong about what? i'm not even taking one side....
my point is that no one can make categorical claims one way or the other....there is no consensus...
and you should be open to both sides of the debate...


Therefore there is no point at all arguing it with you anymore or ever again... particularly when you don't even bother to back up your stance with anything anymore...you just make generic, rhetorical comments....and follow the ALI school of thought: "your spelling is bad. you're stupid. you're stubborn. you're wrong....and you're getting owned...cause i said so."
you've really gotten good at reducing debates into schoolyard name calling.
you should be proud.

yet you consider yourself an informed activist of some kind.

yeahwho and Ali and Enigma are right and you are wrong... Deal, young padwan, deal... case in point.
:rolleyes:

[Qdrop]

Fucking circle jerk....

yep.

and once again....i'm on the outside.

"scram, Qdrop.....can't you see we're trying to jerk off?!?! you're ruining the mood!"

[D_Raay]

You are claiming to be a centrist on the issue Q...
At every given opportunity you seek to debunk the more popular and reasonable "Green" stance on this issue. While you do very little to debunk the conservative , big oil side of it. Nothing wrong with that at all except that with an issue such as this you have to have conviction. That's how things get changed. Why do you always paint a big target on yourself? You like the debate, but then claim to be insulted and seek to demoralize some of us. The "playground" antics ensue because you stop making any genuous arguments just continue to debate just to debate. Do some work! Really, are we supposed to take the side of a company that just made 8 billion dollars profit last quarter? A 44 percent increase in profit while we are paying record prices at our gas pumps.

[Qdrop]

You are claiming to be a centrist on the issue Q...
At every given opportunity you seek to debunk the more popular and reasonable "Green" stance on this issue. While you do very little to debunk the conservative , big oil side of it. well, primarily because of the audience.
as i said, my real point to just get people to be skeptical of both sides of a stance.
obviously, there is no shortage of big oil debunking on this board...the conservative side is no more well equiped to declare global warming a myth then the Green are to declare it a coming catastrophe.
i'm just bringing balance to the board, as few, if any, actually give the liberal left or Green side much skepticism on here.

Nothing wrong with that at all except that with an issue such as this you have to have conviction. That's how things get changed. but make sure your conviction is justified....or you look like a fool.

Why do you always paint a big target on yourself? because i refuse to categorically side with the left.

You like the debate, but then claim to be insulted and seek to demoralize some of us. i never start us down that road....

The "playground" antics ensue because you stop making any genuous arguments just continue to debate just to debate. translated: "you refuse to back down. so we get mad."

Do some work! that's all i ever do on this section.

Really, are we supposed to take the side of a company that just made 8 billion dollars profit last quarter? A 44 percent increase in profit while we are paying record prices at our gas pumps. it's not about sides....
it's about giving skepticism to both sides....
make no assumptions....know the facts....

[yeahwho]

SFGate (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/04/29/MNGT1CHITP1.DTL)

Every day the picture becomes clearer what the role is in Human activity and greenhouse gases. Here is todays findings. Link (http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&gl=us&ncl=http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml%3Fstory_id%3D33915).

Most of the world - with the exception of the US and Australia - has signed up to the Kyoto protocol to limit greenhouse gas emissions and further global warming. The US government has repeatedly argued that scientific opinion about global warming is divided. With this new research, US government-funded scientists have once again told the US administration that they believe global warming is real, and inexorable.

This is not theory, these are not mistakes, it is not a liberal stance. Reality is what these reports represent. Very sobering. And that is just for today.

[D_Raay]

Ah, but the hulking pariah that is the US could never be wrong, what do you think we have all those lobbyists for?

[Ali]

things as simple as clean drinking water in 3rd world nations...
that's an IMMEDIATE need as far as i'm concerned.how about clean drinking water in the US? Bush has been under increasing pressure from environmental groups alarmed by reversals of environmental protections within the U.S. One of the country's oldest and largest environmental groups, the Sierra Club launched a series of radio ads criticizing the President today.

Running in nine states, the ads focus on Bush's decision against reducing cancer causing arsenic in Americans' drinking water and his about face on a campaign pledge to cut the C02 pollution that causes global warming.

"The public cares about clean air and clean water and they need to know that President Bush is making irresponsible choices that put their families' health at risk," said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club.

"President Bush is ignoring sound science and the public's demand to keep drinking water safe and reduce the carbon dioxide pollution that causes global warming. No one wants to drink arsenic when they turn on their tap, but President Bush caved to the mining industry and halted an effort to make our drinking water safer," said Pope.

Last week the Bush administration announced a roll back of new rules that would have reduced the amount of arsenic allowed in American drinking water.

According to the National Academy of Sciences, long term exposure to low concentrations of arsenic in drinking water can lead to skin, bladder, lung, and prostate cancer. Non-cancer effects of ingesting arsenic at low levels include cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and anemia, as well as reproductive and developmental, immunological, and neurological effects.
U.S. Pulls Out of Kyoto Protocol (http://www.mapcruzin.com/news/news032901a.htm)

[Qdrop]

SFGate (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/04/29/MNGT1CHITP1.DTL)

Every day the picture becomes clearer what the role is in Human activity and greenhouse gases. Here is todays findings. Link (http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&gl=us&ncl=http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml%3Fstory_id%3D33915).

Most of the world - with the exception of the US and Australia - has signed up to the Kyoto protocol to limit greenhouse gas emissions and further global warming. The US government has repeatedly argued that scientific opinion about global warming is divided. With this new research, US government-funded scientists have once again told the US administration that they believe global warming is real, and inexorable.

This is not theory, these are not mistakes, it is not a liberal stance. Reality is what these reports represent. Very sobering. And that is just for today.
okay....
now research some varying or opposing views....
see what those say....
annalyze why there are differances and opposition BEYOND "oh, they're paid off by big oil and industry".

that is, if your heart can stand it....

[Ali]

okay....
now research some varying or opposing views....
see what those say....
annalyze why there are differances and opposition BEYOND "oh, they're paid off by big oil and industry".

that is, if your heart can stand it....Being a Centrist, you can hardly dismiss views for or against global warming, can you?

Anyway. It's been found time and time again that the scientists claiming that there's no need to reduce emissions because global warming's happening anyway, are somehow linked to Big Business. There's no need for anybody to prove anythihng they don't believe in, that's up to you to do.

Just don't forget to present both sides to every argument, OK? Being a Centrist means that you have to refute every point you make.

Or are you just a stupid hypocrite who likes the sound of his own voice?

[Qdrop]

Being a Centrist, you can hardly dismiss views for or against global warming, can you?
correct....and i'm not really categorically dismissing views for global warming altogether either....
i understand I DO come across as especially skeptical, if not cynical, on such views...
particularly on this board...
but mostly to bring balance and get people to check thier beliefs...force them to defend them and not just swallow anything that is fed to them by the left.

truth be told.....i do think that global temperatures are rising....i think that is inevitable.
i would also not be surprised if human industry is contributing to it on a measuerable scale.

what i don't know (nor does anyone else) is how much that will effect the earth, and if human intervention is even possible.

to clarify, if human industry is contributing....we can perhaps cap or reduce to halt that contribution.
BUT, the misconception that sweeps the minds of the left is that human industry is the SOLO cause of global warming....and that just reducing or stopping human industry contributions would halt all future global warming.

sorry kids....at most, human industry contribute ONLY about 5% of green house gases that CAN contribute to global warming.

this is why i am skeptical of the Kyoto treaty...


Anyway. It's been found time and time again that the scientists claiming that there's no need to reduce emissions because global warming's happening anyway, are somehow linked to Big Business. There's no need for anybody to prove anythihng they don't believe in, that's up to you to do.
show me.

Being a Centrist, you can hardly dismiss views for or against global warming, can you?
Just don't forget to present both sides to every argument, OK? Being a Centrist means that you have to refute every point you make.
you, like D, seem to liken the term "centrist" to "fence sitter", or someone who takes no side at any point.
i don't use the term in the dictionary definition sense.

when i call myself a centrist, i liken it more "independant"....meaning that while i don't habitualy take any one political side, or identify with any political pole....i can and do still have varying sentiments that side with both...

pro-choice.....and pro-death penalty....ect.

but see, you know this...so does D...
you just constantly like to bring up this "centrist bashing" theme for the uniformed on-lookers....


Or are you just a stupid hypocrite who likes the sound of his own voice? well we know what YOU think.....

[yeahwho]

okay....
now research some varying or opposing views....
see what those say....
annalyze why there are differances and opposition BEYOND "oh, they're paid off by big oil and industry".

that is, if your heart can stand it....

Uh, this is a goverment funded study, as in the USA. NASA et;al. It isn't some theory. It is undisputable at this point and time. I'm not posting theory or Greenpeace studies. Honestly, this is what is currently considered the most balanced and fair representation on Global warming. Not one scientist has opposed it. Soooo, it would be rather hard to just come out myself and say, "NASA (http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20050502-08085600-bc-climate-imbalance.xml) is all fucked up in their thinking", so why don't you do it. Prove NASA wrong. I'm sure they trumped this all up.

It is generally accepted within scientific circles that man has had a hand in Global warming. Now it is without a doubt true. It would be folly for me to doubt what is becoming common knowledge.

Your man would be William Kininmonth (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/11/26/1101219743320.html?oneclick=true), he says,
"I do not believe this research team has made a compelling case to suggest that their computer models are sufficiently realistic to justify the implications of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming that they make," William Kininmonth, author of the book "Climate Change: A Natural Hazard."

Of course his book title about sums up his viewpoint. "Climate Change: A Natural Hazard." So I guess our goverment and the major oil companies only fund studies which prove humans have a hand in Global warming. Odd. Yet the lone wolves and renegades who work independently of US money and Oil Company funding are saying all is fine. Whack.

[Qdrop]

Uh, this is a goverment funded study, as in the USA. NASA et;al. It isn't some theory. It is undisputable at this point and time. I'm not posting theory or Greenpeace studies. Honestly, this is what is currently considered the most balanced and fair representation on Global warming. Not one scientist has opposed it. Soooo, it would be rather hard to just come out myself and say, "NASA (http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20050502-08085600-bc-climate-imbalance.xml) is all fucked up in their thinking", so why don't you do it. Prove NASA wrong. I'm sure they trumped this all up.
it is being shown time and time again that the global mean temperature is rising....that is correct.


It is generally accepted within scientific circles that man has had a hand in Global warming. Now it is without a doubt true. we both know that is not true.
tell me, how is that proven?
how have they proven that the increased global mean temp. is being effected by human industry?
without any links....just use your brain and tell how they would go about proving that THIS period of global warming (as opposed to the many previous periods of global warming in the earth's past) is being pushed by human industry.

tell me....what kind of data would they need to prove this?
does it exist?


Your man would be William Kininmonth (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/11/26/1101219743320.html?oneclick=true), he says,
"I do not believe this research team has made a compelling case to suggest that their computer models are sufficiently realistic to justify the implications of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming that they make," William Kininmonth, author of the book "Climate Change: A Natural Hazard."

Of course his book title about sums up his viewpoint. "Climate Change: A Natural Hazard." So I guess our goverment and the major oil companies only fund studies which prove humans have a hand in Global warming. Odd. Yet the lone wolves and renegades who work independently of US money and Oil Company funding are saying all is fine. Whack. so what does that tell you? that it isn't all about politics and money...but also about valid scientific disagreement?
hmmmmm.....

[yeahwho]

we both know that is not true.
tell me, how is that proven?
how have they proven that the increased global mean temp. is being effected by human industry?
without any links....just use your brain and tell how they would go about proving that THIS period of global warming (as opposed to the many previous periods of global warming in the earth's past) is being pushed by human industry.

tell me....what kind of data would they need to prove this?
does it exist?

Have you ventured to actually read the Scripps study or James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies? The criteria by which greenhouse gases are measured and studied go into great detail. You read them and tell me how they came up with it. Then I will believe you actually have a clue, like even the once reluctant ExxonMobile, (within the past 90 days have you) does. It's weirder than weird to me that what is all the buzz amongst scientists and just common people doesn't register with you.

Read the study. I'm not going to break this down for you. The data does exsist! That is why every major media outlet is reporting this.

Dude, ExxonMobile is now accepting the findings. Clue in just a little.

[Qdrop]

"It is this high degree of visual agreement and statistical significance that leads Barnett to conclude that the warming is the product of human influence. Efforts to explain the ocean changes through naturally occurring variations in the climate or external forces- such as solar or volcanic factors--did not come close to reproducing the observed warming. "

see, this is what i have a problem with....as do others.

the problem with proving that human industry is playing a role in the current global warming is that there is NO CONTROL subject.... no previous measured data from previous global warmings (without human industry) to measure against. (for obvious reasons).

using archeology, ect....they can make general theories on those rates...but nothing specific....it's just not possible.

thus studies like the scribbs report have to use extrapolations and theorized data....of the current conditions...to draw conclusions about the current conditions....with nothing to measure them against, except for current conditions.
that's getting into dangerous waters....theory based on theory.

that doesn't mean it's false....it just means that it's not a smoking gun.

[Qdrop]

Dude, ExxonMobile is now accepting the findings. Clue in just a little.

do you find that statement ironic....considering the name of this thread?

[yeahwho]

So more and more rational people are coming out with more and more studies that PROVE humans have a hand in Global warming, but the older, cozy comfortable studies (which of course aren't theories now are they?) make sense. Because dammit! If it floats it must die! What am I to do, I have but a casual passing interest in Global warming, I've always been suspicious of blatant consumption of fossil fuels...(It makes me gag and I've heard carbon monoxide can actually kill a human) so for the sake of my own sanity, I'm going with the Major Leaguers on this one. Those being the mainstream folks who for the the past forever never claimed any connection between the man and Global Climate change......until this year, 2005. Now they do say we have a hand in Greenhouse effect.

Earth is not depleting heat at the rate it is consuming heat. Part of the reason, this is for sure, is because of man. How much is our responsibility? We will be finding out. That is significant news. Bush will not be aable to stop this news....and all of this just in, recently, like the past 100 days.

[yeahwho]

do you find that statement ironic....considering the name of this thread?
Mother Jones is always ironic. ExxonMobile is jumping on the bandwagon because Scripps was doing thermodynamic deep sea research of another type which benefitted in Drilling for Oil....just so happens that it will look good for them. Ironic, lucky, exploitive...whatever....it never filters down to 6 pack Joe.

[Qdrop]

So more and more rational people are coming out with more and more studies that PROVE humans have a hand in Global warming, but the older, cozy comfortable studies (which of course aren't theories now are they?) make sense.
why did we suddenly regress 10 posts?

did you read my previous posts?

it's so difficult to PROGRESS in a debate with you, yeahwho....you have a tendancy to become circular and to start reposting sentiments and statements from DAYS ago....rather than moving forward with what info and sentimenets we have shared since....


Earth is not depleting heat at the rate it is consuming heat. Part of the reason, this is for sure, is because of man. though i don't necessarily doubt it...we cannot be sure.

How much is our responsibility? We will be finding out. meaning "how much do human contribute?" that is an interesting question.

[yeahwho]

why did we suddenly regress 10 posts?

did you read my previous posts?

it's so difficult to PROGRESS in a debate with you, yeahwho....you have a tendancy to become circular and to start reposting sentiments and statements from DAYS ago....rather than moving forward with what info and sentimenets we have shared since....

though i don't necessarily doubt it...we cannot be sure.

meaning "how much do human contribute?" that is an interesting question.

We regress every time you refute current science. Here are some respected publications outside of the NYTimes, Washington Post et;al...all saying the same thing, some with objective viewpoints, but none of the highest regarded scientists on Earth refuting the findings. Why? Why is that?
Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20050502-08085600-bc-climate-imbalance.xml)
SciTech Today (http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=33915)
TopTechNews (http://www.toptechnews.com/news/Scientists--Earth-s-Energy-Is-Imbalanced/story.xhtml?story_id=0020007ERNFG)
AstroBiology (http://www.toptechnews.com/news/Scientists--Earth-s-Energy-Is-Imbalanced/story.xhtml?story_id=0020007ERNFG)
Space Ref (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=16773)
NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/apr/HQ_05111_Earth_Energy.html)

When you say, though i don't necessarily doubt it...we cannot be sure. These people are sure. They are very sure.

[Qdrop]

We regress every time you refute current science.
oh jesus.
of all the nerve....


Here are some respected publications outside of the NYTimes, Washington Post et;al...all saying the same thing, some with objective viewpoints, but none of the highest regarded scientists on Earth refuting the findings. Why? Why is that?
Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20050502-08085600-bc-climate-imbalance.xml)
SciTech Today (http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=33915)
TopTechNews (http://www.toptechnews.com/news/Scientists--Earth-s-Energy-Is-Imbalanced/story.xhtml?story_id=0020007ERNFG)
AstroBiology (http://www.toptechnews.com/news/Scientists--Earth-s-Energy-Is-Imbalanced/story.xhtml?story_id=0020007ERNFG)
Space Ref (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=16773)
NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/apr/HQ_05111_Earth_Energy.html)

When you say, though i don't necessarily doubt it...we cannot be sure. These people are sure. They are very sure.

okay, first of all....all of those articles are refrencing and reporting on the same study.
as have virtually all of your links so far, other than the scribbs report.

and they are reporting, not annayzing, for the most part.

also from your articles:

"Not everyone is convinced of course.

"I do not believe this research team has made a compelling case to suggest that their computer models are sufficiently realistic to justify the implications of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming that they make," William Kininmonth, author of the book "Climate Change: A Natural Hazard," told BBC News Online."

---------------
"Right now the numbers don't quite add up," Trenberth said. The best estimate for melting glaciers is between 0.6 and 1 millimeter per year (0.02 inches to 0.04 inches). The expansion of the ocean is 1.6 millimeters per year (0.06 inches) and inland storage is minus 0.9 millimeters.

"This means you're around 1.5 millimeters per year (of sea-level rise), whereas the observed is around 3 mm per year, so there is a little bit of mismatch that is not fully accounted for there," Trenberth said.

The Hansen paper does not resolve this discrepancy, but it does warn that a large imbalance can lead to dramatic melting over time."
-----------------

if there is an error in some of there data....what is right and what is wrong?

[Ace42]

"This means you're around 1.5 millimeters per year (of sea-level rise), whereas the observed is around 3 mm per year, so there is a little bit of mismatch that is not fully accounted for there," Trenberth said.

if there is an error in some of there data....what is right and what is wrong?

It doesn't matter if the error is in favour of the global warming argument.

Google for "Global Dimming" - there should be a Horizon transcript on it.

(EDIT: Here is is - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml)

It is a relatively recent phenomenon that has been slanting Climate Change statistics for the last 60 years, and it is only now people are going "oh shit oh shit oh shit, we didn't think there might be this natural phenomenon giving us a temporary lucky break..."

Fact is, the 1.6 mm rise is a lot less because it reflects predictions based on older more linear predictive measurements. If anything, this suggests that the "error" is that a lot of scientists were overly conservative with their predictions.

So, that leaves us with "Well, the sea level's going up a lot more than we expected, and climate anomalies are happening a lot more than we expected. But, because we didn't expect it, they MIGHT suddenly do a U-turn just as inexplicably, and we'll all be fine!"

I don't buy it. Just the airplane contrails above the USA can have a one degree effect *right across the nation* - and you think that millions and millions of tons of greenhouse gases can't?

Also, Guardian article a few days ago "Climate change is speeding the erosion of the Ozone layer" - apparently we no only have <60% of the Ozone protecti on we are supposed to.

Your argument was very much in vogue even up to a decade ago, but since then things have been getting worse and quicker. That is no longer theoretical, that is alarming.

[Qdrop]

It doesn't matter if the error is in favour of the global warming argument. ehh....
an error is an error....and could point to poor computation in other areas, perhaps?


Google for "Global Dimming" - there should be a Horizon transcript on it.

(EDIT: Here is is - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml) i'll look into it.


Fact is, the 1.6 mm rise is a lot less because it reflects predictions based on older more linear predictive measurements. If anything, this suggests that the "error" is that a lot of scientists were overly conservative with their predictions. perhaps...but i think it shows to greater root problem with a history of poor data assembly, extrapolations, and model prediction.
i still haven't a whole lot of faith in them.

after all....NASA or meteorology in general can't predict what the weather will be like in rochester in 2 weeks, but they can predict future weather patterns on a global scale 100 years from now?

no, those are not identical areas of study....but are similar models as far as meteorological understanding.

what it really comes down to is prediction....and how they predict.


So, that leaves us with "Well, the sea level's going up a lot more than we expected, and climate anomalies are happening a lot more than we expected. But, because we didn't expect it, they MIGHT suddenly do a U-turn just as inexplicably, and we'll all be fine!" point taken.
just sheds light on a deeper problem i feel....


I don't buy it. Just the airplane contrails above the USA can have a one degree effect *right across the nation* - and you think that millions and millions of tons of greenhouse gases can't? of course they can, have, and will. no one questions that,
"the biggest uncertainty is due to feedbacks which either amplify (positive) or dampen (negative) the effects of a forcing. The principal positive feedback is water vapor. Increased CO2 causes warming...leading to more water vapor which is itself a greenhouse gas...leading to more warming. Warmer ocean water bubbles out the dissolved CO2 which then leads to more warming, more water vapor and so on. But there are negative feedbacks also. Water vapor can form clouds which reflect incoming sunlight and thus have a cooling effect. Finally, there are delays or inertias in the system, notably the oceans which can absorb large amounts of heat for a time. The oceans, therefore, act as a break on the climate system retarding change, delaying any warming and cooling."

---- circa 2000


Also, Guardian article a few days ago "Climate change is speeding the erosion of the Ozone layer" - apparently we no only have <60% of the Ozone protecti on we are supposed to. yeah, the Ozone is another area i want look more into.
can't comment on that much....

[Ace42]

yeah, the Ozone is another area i want look more into.
can't comment on that much....

I'm just lucky that I don't need to go outside much.

[Qdrop]

How is this four pages? Ridiculous. Anyone who doesn't think global warming is a problem is a dolt.

another victim of the brain-fucking....

[yeahwho]

another victim of the brain-fucking....

It's contagious, a real epidemic. even the corporations most culpable are changing their tune. The seven dwarves of the Tobacco giants full knowledge of harm of their product and the denial in the courts,ended up costing them Billions upon Billions of dollars in settlements. The mistakes of yesterdays corporations weigh in heavily on current producers of soot and carbon waste by-products.

Of course you think I'm talking out of my ass. The odds of the NASA Goddard study being reversed in our lifetimes is slim. The more I read the more I understand the criteria and standards these people are putting upon themselves. For no particular profit.

Do you feel like we all are stupid? Those guys on the BBMB have closed minds?
The 1300 scientists working with scripps (who are partially sponsered by Major Oil corps.) are ignorant and slanted. How about an altogether different study with an altogether different criteria by those looneys at NASA?

More studies will be done, and the skeptics (God Bless 'em...really! They play an important role) will continue to debunk the mainstream thought...just as the Tobacco Companies denied their products health risks, but the Major oil corps do not want that label, they have to begin to take a different stance.

The chickens have come home to roost. The gig is up. The facts this current administration have tried to hide have been revealed. Perhaps this current record high (8.2 billion dollars in Exxonmobiles 4th quarter last year, A record profit, the most ever made by a company in one quarter) profit taking is a parting gift for all the free reign and entitlements Major Oil have enjoyed the past 100 years.

More Studies, I welcome them.

[Qdrop]

More Studies, I welcome them.

as do I.

i'll believe that humans are playing an intricate role in global warming AND that we can do anything about it when everyones math lines up.

then i'll be right there with you in the activist crowd, holding up the "stop global warming NOW!" sign.



i just really think you are missing a key point about this global warming/kyoto treaty contraversy: you seem to be under the impression that humans alone are causing the global warming, thus humans alone can just change our industry practices and stop it.

again....even you most beloved scientists on the Green say human contribute much less than 10%...probably more like 5% of the green house gases that cause global warming.

even if we limit or remove our 5%...what of the other 95% ?

what do we do about that? the earth will still continue to warm anyway, correct?

and DON'T answer that with "well, Qdrop....should just do nothing? huh? just give up! huh?..."

no sarcasm or patronizing...

just answer that question....

this is where my misgivings about the kyoto treaty come in...

[yeahwho]

Finger pointing will commence. I'm sure major wars will commence. I have no easy answers for the path we have chosen. Some of the scales represent very depressing scenarios. When/If reality matches these warming trends, it will be too late to turn back. Kind of like the Lung Cancer victim smoking on his death bed.

It is all very depressing and eye-opening.

Watching GWB and his administration pretend NASA said nothing last week is amazing. This is his activities (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/04/20050429-2.html) the day the study was submitted.

[D_Raay]

Of all the people out there, I think Zell Miller said it best on the Daily Show, "Washington DC stands for Don't Care, they just don't care". "Is that both sides you are talking about?", "Yes..."

[Qdrop]

Finger pointing will commence. I'm sure major wars will commence.
so you admit that even if we remove or limit our 5%, the earth will continue to warm to due to the other 95% of the naturaly occuring greenhouse gas.
and then fingerpointing and wars will commence.

okay, so what's the point in spending trillions and trillions on the kyoto treaty again?

are you finally seeing my point on that?
just a little?


I have no easy answers for the path we have chosen.
we chose?
we "chose" about 5% of it. the rest is naturally occuring.

Some of the scales represent very depressing scenarios. When/If reality matches these warming trends, it will be too late to turn back. Kind of like the Lung Cancer victim smoking on his death bed. sooo....what value does the kyoto treaty have, then?

perhaps it would be more valuable to spend those trillions and trillions on adapting to the apparent global warming that could happen if the natural green house gases continue to accumulate and the water vapor/cloud cover does not balance it out....

[yeahwho]

so you admit that even if we remove or limit our 5%, the earth will continue to warm to due to the other 95% of the naturaly occuring greenhouse gas.
and then fingerpointing and wars will commence.

okay, so what's the point in spending trillions and trillions on the kyoto treaty again?

are you finally seeing my point on that?
just a little?


we chose?
we "chose" about 5% of it. the rest is naturally occuring.

sooo....what value does the kyoto treaty have, then?

perhaps it would be more valuable to spend those trillions and trillions on adapting to the apparent global warming that could happen if the natural green house gases continue to accumulate and the water vapor/cloud cover does not balance it out....

No, I'm not saying what you so much want me to say. I'm going with the current studies. Not some horseshit that all the current warming trends are Nature made. 95% Nature? I cannot BS myself that much. I wish I could, but the recent combinations of deforestation, overfishing, mercury pollution and carbon bingeing play much, much more of a role than 5% of greenhouse gases.

Kyoto has value, it really is an attempt to reverse this trend, a much more noble cause than the major oil companies drilling for oil in ANWR. Trillions and Trillions will be spent on Global Warming anyway. Guaranteed. One way or the other.

[Qdrop]

No, I'm not saying what you so much want me to say. I'm going with the current studies. Not some horseshit that all the current warming trends are Nature made. 95% Nature? I cannot BS myself that much. I wish I could, but the recent combinations of deforestation, overfishing, mercury pollution and carbon bingeing play much, much more of a role than 5% of greenhouse gases.


seriously, stop talking and go research that....

find any fucking study you want.....

prepare to enjoy that taste of your foot....

then we can continue this part of the conversation....

[yeahwho]

seriously, stop talking and go research that....

find any fucking study you want.....

prepare to enjoy that taste of your foot....

then we can continue this part of the conversation....

Once again I haven't the slightest clue of what your talking about. I've found 2 studies. I wish I could taste my foot, I always fall about an 1"1/2 short. Maybe yoga or yogurt could help.


So this is the end of this conversation. Let the cards fall where they may.

[Qdrop]

Once again I haven't the slightest clue of what your talking about.

find the most greenest study you can find...and tell me what the MOST extreme numbers say about what percentage of green house gases in the atmosphere today are from human industry. (and don't confuse that with what % of recent increases in green house gases are man made...that percentage is high).

that's the elephant in the room, yeawho.....
don't you dare run away now....

oh christ...there are soooo many elephants in the room on this topic.

why was there a measure warming trend from 1900-1945, when industry was far less then it is now?....but then from 1945-1975 (when industry increased exponentially world wide), the warming trend leveled...and since then...there has been a slight cooling!

the previous explanation was that, while industry was emiting C02, it was also emitting aerosols, which temporarily cool the earth and mask warmth...but aerosols have a tiny life cycle in the atmosphere (compared to co2)...so the popular prediction was that once the aerosols left, we would see more warming later in the century...
but we haven't ....

look at your studies: where do they get thier temp measurements from? surface temps or satelite resource?

surface temps are riddled with error, and often situated withing large cities- where local temp WILL increase as city industry increases.

satellite global temp readings are the most accurate we have....and they show a cooling over the past 20 years or so....

you speak of a consensus...particularly with the scribbs report....

"there are thousands of scientist that agree on that report, qdrop"...

really?

read this:
"Let me say something about this idea of scientific consensus. Well, you really shouldn't go by numbers. I think it's significant to straighten out misconceptions. One misconception is that 2,500 IPCC scientists agree that global warming is coming, and it's going to be two degrees Centigrade by the year 2100. That's just not so. In the first place, if you count the names in the IPCC report, it's less than 2,000. If you count the number of climate scientists, it's about 100. If you then ask how many of them agree, the answer is: You can't tell because there was never a poll taken. These scientists actually worked on the report. They agree with the report, obviously, in particular with the chapter that they wrote. They do not necessarily agree with the summary, because the summary was written by a different group, a handful of government scientists who had a particular point of view, and they extracted from the report those facts that tended to support their point of view.

For example, they came up with a conclusion--the only conclusion of this 1996 report--that there's a discernible human influence on climate. I don't know what that means. Nobody really knows what that means. On the one hand, it's easy to agree with a statement "a discernible human influence on global climate." Sure, why not? Nights are getting warmer. Maybe that's it. On the other hand, it certainly does not mean--as politicians think it does--it does not mean that the climate models have been validated, that there's going to be a major warming in the next century. It does not mean that. And they don't say that. They just imply it."

now look at your scribbs report again....
use that same logic.

more:
"No one has been caught falsifying data. No one has been caught falsifying calculations. But inevitably, when you have a particular point of view--(and this works both ways--you tend to suppress facts or data that disagree with your point of view, and you tend to favor data, observations that support your point of view. You become selective in the way you present your observations.

Take an example. Take the UN Science Advisory Group, the IPCC. In their report--which is a very good report, by the way...which is close to 600 pages without an index, so no one really reads it except dedicated people like me--there's a five-page summary of the report that everyone reads, including politicians and the media. And if you look through the summary, you will find no mention of the fact that the weather satellite observations of the last twenty years show no global warming. In fact, a slight cooling. In fact, you will not even find satellites mentioned in the summary.

Now, why is that? These are the only global observations we have. These are the best observations we have. They cover the whole globe. The surface observations don't cover the whole globe. They leave out large chunks of the globe. They don't cover the oceans very well, which is 70 percent of the globe. So you see, the summary uses data selectively, or at least it suppresses data that are inconvenient, that disagree with the paradigm, with what they're trying to prove. This happens often, unfortunately.

Now, you'll also notice that people who are skeptical about global warming generally do not have government support for their work. They don't have to write proposals to government agencies to get money. They tend to be people who have other sources of income. They might even be retired and live on pensions, or they might [have] other sources of income that do not depend on writing research proposals to federal agencies. And if you look at research proposals to federal agencies, you will find that people who write a proposal saying, "I'm going to do research to show that global warming is not a real threat"...they're not likely to get funding from any of the government agencies.

Do you think, then, this is no longer operating as "normal" science, that there's some kind of pathological mechanism here?

I think climate science is on its way to becoming pathological, to becoming abnormal in the sense that it is being guided by the money that's being made available to people. I don't blame people for accepting money. And the people who take the money and do research, by and large, are doing very competent research. [But] you'll find them very careful not to speak out against the global warming "threat"--(I'm putting "threat" in quotes, of course. And you'll find also that when they do speak out, as many of them do, they suffer consequences. They lose support. And I can give you examples of that. Or they have other consequences that are equally disagreeable. And if you're a young professor at a university and want to get tenure, or if you want to get a permanent academic position, you must do published research. And to do published research, you must write proposals to get money to do the research. So you're locked into a vicious spiral here. You have to go along with the current wisdom that global warming is a threat. Otherwise, you're not going to get the job that you want. "

just an OUNCE of skepticism, yeawho.....just a little bit....
use your head....

[Ace42]

so you admit that even if we remove or limit our 5%, the earth will continue to warm to due to the other 95% of the naturaly occuring greenhouse gas.
and then fingerpointing and wars will commence.

Even if you assume that is correct (I do not) then that still is an illogical conclusion.

If naturally heating = cooling, then mankind increases heating by 5%, that is STILL going to mean a net increase in heating of 5%

That is a constant cumulative increase. Indeed, as the gross heating increases, the value of that heating percentage will increase dramatically. Eventually, that 5% *will* be the difference between climates that are hospitible to human life, and those which cannot sustain it.

Now, on the other hand, humans have also effected the cooling side of the balance. If you have read the "Global Dimming" transcript I included earlier, you'd know that heavy particles cause more and denser clouds, which let less light through.

These asthma-causing, lung-sloguhing smogula are thankfully being reduced significantly, due to improved legislation, industrial scrubbers, catalytic convertors, etc etc. The cooling offered by these pollutants is reducing, despite their sister-pollutants (Greenhouse gases) increasing.

why was there a measure warming trend from 1900-1945, when industry was far less then it is now?....but then from 1945-1975 (when industry increased exponentially world wide), the warming trend leveled...and since then...there has been a slight cooling!

Quite simply, melting of the ice caps. As you know, when chemicals change state, they require more energy to facilitate this. When the ice started to melt, the *cooling* effects were limited, non-existant, later beneficial. This unsustainable raiding of the arctic larder is unacceptable for obvious reasons. Not only has it lead to a substantial increase it water level around the world, but also endangers the gulf stream, etc. Not to mention the fact that the reflective properties of ice-fields is proportional to their size. As they melt, this effect is exponentially reduced.

The problems with the ice-caps melting and the subsequent chain-reaction is described in the Horizon article.

I personally wouldn't be gambling the entire world on what amounts to "several lucky breaks due to perfectly understandable fluctures in the rate of global cooling might be taken to suggest that the periods of heating, and corresponding climate change are not increasing significantly because of human intervention."

[catatonic]

I'm just going to jump in without reading your posts and say that Air America Radio had someone look at all the peer reviewed articles on climate change.

0 out of 900 or so said global warming wasn't caused by human activity.
25 % said nothing.
75% said it was caused by human activity.

http://www.med.harvard.edu/chge/course/geopolitical/allergens/rogers_05.pdf

page 6.

[yeahwho]

that's the elephant in the room, yeawho.....
don't you dare run away now....

now look at your scribbs report again....

just an OUNCE of skepticism, yeawho.....just a little bit....
use your head....
It's Scripps (http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/article_detail.cfm?article_num=666), not Scribbs. The other report is NASA, James Hansen, a past skeptic who one of your darlings loved...Hansen has been the skeptic (http://www.rense.com/general19/globalss.htm) you so much want to hear about, but no longer is he the skeptic. You are the lone winner in this debate Qdrop. I will not budge or bring out statistics and models that cover the whole globe and the depths of our oceans, the 400,000 years of global climate changes NASA has extensively studied and the peaks they discovered 65 million years ago when mass extinction happened.

The study is flatout frightening, it shows the smoking gun of human contribution. If it is wrong I'd be elated. Really. Nothing current is changing anybody's mind. Yet.

This delay provides an opportunity to reduce the magnitude of anthropogenic climate change before it is fully realized, if appropriate action is taken. On the other hand, if we wait for more overwhelming empirical evidence of climate change, the inertia implies that still greater climate change will be in store, which may be difficult or impossible to avoid.
James Hansen (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/climate/2004-10-27-hansen_x.htm)

*edit* Qdrop, you can consider yourself the winner, of what I do not know. You resort to name calling and baiting. I am not running away. I have told you in a mature and responsible way what I believe is happening on Global warming. I'm showing you the links and studies that I am getting the info to make "my decision." You are trying to debate someone who has already defended his position at least 10 times.

You can claim yourself the winner, I agree more with David than you.

[Humiliation]

GMA']Global Warming is, in my mind, like abortion or gun control, a debate that is so dogmatic that it can never be resolved.

Only in the US it seems. I hate my pm John Howard. He is licking bush's ass so bad that we don't do anything without his permission. The US and Australia are the only 2 countries who haven't signed the Kyoto treatee. Global warning coud be a very serious thing, and just because there is no hard evidence that human industry is worstening doesn't mean it isn't. The only people who don't benefit from it are the corprations who have their pockets lined with millions of dollars ANYWAY. Why does that concern us?

[Qdrop]

Even if you assume that is correct (I do not) then that still is an illogical conclusion.

If naturally heating = cooling, then mankind increases heating by 5%, that is STILL going to mean a net increase in heating of 5%
first, let me reiterate....5% of the total green house gas in the atmosphere.
now if you consider the percentage of green house gases emitted in the last century, the bulk of them are from human industry...


That is a constant cumulative increase. Indeed, as the gross heating increases, the value of that heating percentage will increase dramatically. Eventually, that 5% *will* be the difference between climates that are hospitible to human life, and those which cannot sustain it. you assuming no balance will take place....and more importantly...you assume the gross heating will increase...and at constant and dangerous level. where do you get that assumption from?

climate models?

yeah....do just a hint of research on all the current climate models out there...and how emabarrasingly inaccurate and uncorroberated they are from one to the next.
even the most ardent global warming supporters are embarrassed by them, and struggle to cover up and explain thier shortcomings.


Now, on the other hand, humans have also effected the cooling side of the balance. If you have read the "Global Dimming" transcript I included earlier, you'd know that heavy particles cause more and denser clouds, which let less light through.
These asthma-causing, lung-sloguhing smogula are thankfully being reduced significantly, due to improved legislation, industrial scrubbers, catalytic convertors, etc etc. The cooling offered by these pollutants is reducing, despite their sister-pollutants (Greenhouse gases) increasing.

these polutants are referred to, in part, as aerosols:

"But the question is: Are they important in relation to the aerosol effects? Or, put it this way: Are the aerosol effects hiding the effect of carbon dioxide now? We can tell. We can find an answer to this, because we can look for fingerprints in the climate record. Since aerosols are mostly emitted in the northern hemisphere, where industrial activities are rampant, we would expect the northern hemisphere to be warming less quickly than the southern hemisphere. In fact, we would expect the northern hemisphere to be cooling. But the data show the opposite. Both the surface data and the satellite data agree that, in the last 20 years, the northern hemisphere has warmed more quickly than the southern hemisphere. So it contradicts the whole idea that aerosols make an important difference.

This is very embarrassing to the modelists, because they have been using the aerosol as an excuse to explain why the models do not agree with observations. I suggest that they now will have to look for another excuse. "

i am still reading your article link however....


Quite simply, melting of the ice caps. As you know, when chemicals change state, they require more energy to facilitate this. When the ice started to melt, the *cooling* effects were limited, non-existant, later beneficial. This unsustainable raiding of the arctic larder is unacceptable for obvious reasons. Not only has it lead to a substantial increase it water level around the world, but also endangers the gulf stream, etc. Not to mention the fact that the reflective properties of ice-fields is proportional to their size. As they melt, this effect is exponentially reduced.

well, it's not that simple. you are dismissing many other variable that contribute to heating and cooling beyond the greenhouse...

but yes, ice melts when the global climate increases....and this means more water. more water and higher global climate means more water vapor....water vapor/cloud cover cools the earth.
balance.

"There's no question that if the ocean warms, the water will expand and sea level will rise. But that's just one factor. Another factor is that mountain glaciers will tend to melt and, therefore, add water to rivers, and rivers will add the water to the ocean, and that also will produce a rise.

But counterbalancing this is the fact that more water will evaporate from the ocean because it's now warmer. And this will come down as rain all over the earth. And some of the rain will come down over the Antarctic, where it will turn into ice and accumulate. Then the question is: Which is more important, the accumulation of ice --which will lower sea level because it takes water from the ocean and puts it on the ice cap--or, the other factors that raise sea level? You can't decide these questions by theory. You have to do measurements. "

how much balancing will occur?
speculation. pure speculation.

so you are saying that the platuea of global warming from 1945-1975, and subsequent slight cooling since then (according to satelite data) is because of increased water vapor from ice cap melting.

okay. and the problem here is?

(and if you are going to go into the world of feedbacks, inertia, ect....be carefull...that is an extremely theoretical area...and we will both stuggle to find good sources...)

also, do some balanced research on the glacier and ice cap melting being recorded.
how much is happening? has it happened before? how many times?
was it prior to human contributions to the climate?

yes, ace....i'm using the word: red herring.


I personally wouldn't be gambling the entire world on what amounts to "several lucky breaks due to perfectly understandable fluctures in the rate of global cooling might be taken to suggest that the periods of heating, and corresponding climate change are not increasing significantly because of human intervention." eh? well, that's you....

but if i were you, i wouldn't pretend to undstand a incredibly complex climate system that the finest climatologist minds in the world admit they still don't have a strong understanding of.
you're not smarter than them.

[Humiliation]

Doesn't it seem sussed that when that when we release more CO2 that their is global warming. That, should be proof enough to, at the very least, not gamble on the fact we are having no profound effect on it, not to mention it couldn't be doing too much good to the environment regardless.

[Qdrop]

Doesn't it seem sussed that when that when we release more CO2 that their is global warming. That, should be proof enough to, at the very least, not gamble on the fact we are having no profound effect on it, not to mention it couldn't be doing too much good to the environment regardless.

because it's a myth that higher levels of C02 always corrolate to a warmer earth....

geologist have shown that numerous times thoughout our earth history....global warming has occurred independant of C02.....the higher concentrations of C02 often coming after an extensive global warming....

see, the greenhouse gas effect has only been done and proven IN A LAB, with the first expirment in the early part of this century.
a lab can not take into account all of the complex variable in a global climate system.
greenhouse gases DO trap heat....this is true scientifically.
but to make the leap that this will automatically happen in our climate system without any other balances taking place naturally is shakey ground.
that is all speculation.

that doesn't mean it's wrong.....but it shows that there IS room for debate and there cannot be a scientific consensus.

unfortunately, being a global warming skeptic of any kind now-a-days is being likened to being a evolution-doubter, ect.
like "only joe six-pack doubts global warming...while he drowns some iraqi muslim babies in oil then prays to president bush"...

"eco-friendlies" have a virtual smear campaign going on against anyone who doubts or is at least skeptical of global warming.
it's evident right here on this board.

[Ace42]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html

Your source was found Qdrop.

It was found... Wanting.

Singer, a leading climate change skeptic, is a frequent contributor to the Wall Street Journal and other publications.

In a February 2001 letter to the Washington Post, Singer denied having received money from the oil industry. SEPP, however, has received multiple contributions from ExxonMobil. In addition, Singer's current CV on the SEPP website states that he served as a consultant to several oil companies. Singer is listed as a $500 plus contributer to the Center for Individual Rights. Singer's publications include "The Scientific Case Against the Global Climate Treaty" (SEPP, 1997), "Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate" (The Independent Institute, 1997) Singer signed the Leipzig Delcaration.

PhD in Physics, Princeton. Former Director, US Weather Satellite Service. Former Professor of Environmental Science, Univeristy of Virginia. Former Deputy Administrator EPA.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1

I'm as eager to avoid trading pro-/con- scientific papers as you are, but could you at least try to find supporting positions that *aren't* incredibly suspect?

[Qdrop]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html

Your source was found Qdrop.

It was found... Wanting.


yeah...i posted the pbs link on the first page of this thread.
it was certainly no secret where i was getting those quotes from.


http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1

I'm as eager to avoid trading pro-/con- scientific papers as you are, but could you at least try to find supporting positions that *aren't* incredibly suspect?

yes, and i read ALL of that as well....as i was also checking the veracity of C02.org and others...

yes, there is funding from exxon....and no, that doesn't make me happy.

if your read on, in that exxon page....you will notice that the contributions rarely (actually, i don't think they did at all) go to singer directly.
they went to groups and foundations that singer worked with....or had some offiliation with.

thus, it's not fair to say that singer was getting this money directly into his bank account and buying sports cars....

his work and his skepticism far preceded any funding links by exxon...

and it not unfathomable that exxon, who of course want to protect thier interests, would seek out existing skeptics and fund their research.
that doesn't make thier work flawed....
could that taint singer's future work and sentiment?....well, yes...it could.

don't get me wrong....i really wish singer and other groups would turn down any contributions from questionable/biased sources....it certainly taints the image...and makes them suspect.
but people like singer or any other skeptics aren't going to get thier funding from anyone else....

there is some misconception that all gov't money/grants goes to global warming skeptics who work for big oil.
total bullshit!....the EPA and and other gov't agencies are pushed by green lobbyists (who have PLENTY of money by the way) to fund only "green-friendly" studies.

so, to be fair, it works both ways:

(to repeat)

"Now, you'll also notice that people who are skeptical about global warming generally do not have government support for their work. They don't have to write proposals to government agencies to get money. They tend to be people who have other sources of income. They might even be retired and live on pensions, or they might [have] other sources of income that do not depend on writing research proposals to federal agencies. And if you look at research proposals to federal agencies, you will find that people who write a proposal saying, "I'm going to do research to show that global warming is not a real threat"...they're not likely to get funding from any of the government agencies.

Do you think, then, this is no longer operating as "normal" science, that there's some kind of pathological mechanism here?

I think climate science is on its way to becoming pathological, to becoming abnormal in the sense that it is being guided by the money that's being made available to people. I don't blame people for accepting money. And the people who take the money and do research, by and large, are doing very competent research. you'll find them very careful not to speak out against the global warming "threat"--(I'm putting "threat" in quotes, of course. [b]And you'll find also that when they do speak out, as many of them do, they suffer consequences. They lose support. And I can give you examples of that. Or they have other consequences that are equally disagreeable. And if you're a young professor at a university and want to get tenure, or if you want to get a permanent academic position, you must do published research. And to do published research, you must write proposals to get money to do the research. So you're locked into a vicious spiral here. You have to go along with the current wisdom that global warming is a threat. Otherwise, you're not going to get the job that you want

whether it comes from singer's mouth or not...
you can't doubt the veracity of that statment....

BOTH sides can be considered suspect.