Log in

View Full Version : The Global Warming Debate takes the highest stage:


Qdrop
03-21-2007, 03:49 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17718399/

Gore takes warming warning to Congress
Big emission cuts and ban on many new coal power plants a must, he says

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

the other side:

http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Global-Warming-Environmentalism/dp/1596985011/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-8213456-6708132?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174510239&sr=1-1

great book.

Let's get it going, people.
start the banter.

Schmeltz
03-21-2007, 04:21 PM
I think D_Raay, Sobaviolence, and myself have all started threads this year with "We're fucked" in the title - referring to the unstoppable pace of climate change and the effects it's going to have on our societies. The fact is that there is no "other side" to this issue. There's nothing to debate, it has been demonstrated time and time and time again that human activity is the dominant contributor to global warming and books like the above, weaving tapestries of fantasy and conspiracy around shadowy left-wing organizations allegedly devoted to destroying our way of life just for fun, do precious little to counter the actual science.

The only issue, when it comes to climate change, is how we will choose to react to it. Will we continue to pursue economic and social practices that are drastically and negatively altering the biosphere, or will we adopt new economic and social practices (GASP SHOCK HORROR) that make fewer demands on the environment? Personally I'm more than convinced that the aristocrats who make up the economic and political elite of the Western world are fully willing to sell us all out in the name of profits and let the planet go to the dogs so long as they can maintain their own lifestyles. I saw David Suzuki speak at my university a few semesters ago and he stressed that it would actually be rather easy to produce a drastic reduction in emissions levels and other forms of pollution, and to ease the strain of human consumption on the biosphere's regenerative capacity, if our efforts to do so could be separated from money. And I don't see that getting any more likely.

Qdrop
03-21-2007, 04:45 PM
I think D_Raay, Sobaviolence, and myself have all started threads this year with "We're fucked" in the title - referring to the unstoppable pace of climate change and the effects it's going to have on our societies. The fact is that there is no "other side" to this issue. There's nothing to debate, it has been demonstrated time and time and time again that human activity is the dominant contributor to global warming and books like the above, weaving tapestries of fantasy and conspiracy around shadowy left-wing organizations allegedly devoted to destroying our way of life just for fun, do precious little to counter the actual science.



oh, we have SO much to discuss.

were do we start?

cite some "irrefutable science" that proves the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate, that humans are the cause, that there is a consensus....

I want to see where your arrogance lies....

Schmeltz
03-21-2007, 04:53 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

Qdrop
03-21-2007, 05:00 PM
having watched AIT, and read the book....
and having since explored the other side of the debate and seeing the science behind everyone's claims....

1.) The earth IS warming.

2.) There is NO solid evidence or consensus that it is warming at an unprecedented rate.

3.) The data and models that most environmentalists, statesmen, and "part-time" climatologists use have been smashed time and time again by scientists on BOTH sides of the line.

4.) there is NO solid evidence that proves how much or IF humans are contributing to warming at an substantial rate.

5.) there is ABSOLUTELY NO consensus or solid theories on how any warming (particularly the mild warming we are experiencing now) will effect the planet.


6.) Pretending that the above are not true without citing valid links and data will lead to cancer of your rectum.
the "everybody knows now...there is no debate" line is not valid.

Qdrop
03-21-2007, 05:02 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

ohhh...you're linking to the IPCC!

how fun.

i have to eat dinner first...but let's talk about the IPCC and there recent reports.
you'll love this....
you might want to get your data in order in the meantime....

Schmeltz
03-21-2007, 05:32 PM
Hmm, I take it you have data equally comprehensively researched and exhaustively analyzed by experts of comparable standing to those of the IPCC which has managed to yield a diametrically opposite conclusion? Interesting, I wonder where it could come from. Or do you just have some silly bullshit about how the IPCC hates America and capitalism and that's the only reason why anyone anywhere would ever consider that global warming might be aided by human activity?

Well, I suppose we'll be subjected to it anyway.

Qdrop
03-21-2007, 06:51 PM
Hmm, I take it you have data equally comprehensively researched and exhaustively analyzed by experts of comparable standing to those of the IPCC which has managed to yield a diametrically opposite conclusion? Interesting, I wonder where it could come from. Or do you just have some silly bullshit about how the IPCC hates America and capitalism and that's the only reason why anyone anywhere would ever consider that global warming might be aided by human activity?

Well, I suppose we'll be subjected to it anyway.

ya...anyway.

about that IPCC....you know much about it...other than the casual wikipedia skim-through?
were you aware, perhaps, that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is NOT a scientific body?
SHOCKING!
It's actually a consensus-oriented POLITICAL body.
if you bother to look up the IPCC process (on their own website at www.ipcc.ch), it makes it clear that the choice of authors and reviewers, as well as the final review of its Reports, is conducted by GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, who may OR MAY NOT be scientists.
but you probably already knew that.
and about the consensus that people always like to claim the IPCC report shows: those documents only come mildly close to any kind of consensus in their SUMMARIES, WHICH ARE WRITTEN BY DIFFERENT AUTHORS THAN THE ACTUAL RESEARCH, and generally mis-characterize the underlying work.

but you knew that. right?

the funny thing is, only the summaries are ever reported on, or mentioned in politicians speeches.

Another popular resevior for Greens is the much touted NAS (U.S National Academy of Science). Alarmists just LOVE quoting that report.
Yet, one of the members on that 11 person panel (among others), MIT's Lindzen, wrote a Wall Street Journal editorial about the dangers in only looking at the summaries, and not the body of the report.
Look him up.
I quote:
"As one of the eleven scientists who prepared the report, I can state that this is simply untrue (in reference to a consensus on anthropamorphic global warming and impending catastrophic harm to the environment). As usual, far too much public attention was paid to the hastily prepared summary rather than to the body of the report."

interesting.

In fact, the FULL IPCC report, while a nice description of research activities in climate science, is NOT specifically directed at policy.

did you know that?

The SUMMARY for Policymakers is, but THAT is a VERY different document.
One prepared by and represents a consensus of GOVERNMENT representatives (many of whom are also their nations KYOTO representatives- no bias there!) rather than scientists.
basically, what you get there is a bunch of alarmist claptrap, with no data or evidence to back it up.

but you knew that...right?

speaking of consensus....is the current "consensus" on global warming and anthropamorphic global warming the same as the relatively recent "consensus" on the impending ICE AGE that was predicted in the 70's-80's....all the way up to 1992?
remember that?
I quote from Newsweek, nov. 23 1992:
"The advent of a new ice age, scientists say, appears to be guaranteed. The devastation will be astonishing"
-Gregg Eastbrook.

hmm...what happened to that ice age?
I'm confused.

are you?

of course not.

Qdrop
03-21-2007, 06:55 PM
If you have the balls to look at this from the other side:

http://www.climateaudit.org

Schmeltz
03-21-2007, 07:25 PM
So basically you consider the publication process of the IPCC, in which summaries are prepared by writers other than those directly involved in data assessment, to be a sufficient indictment of its findings as unsound and its contributors and directors as motivated by some hateful burning desire to shape global policy in accord with their own evil agendas, whatever those might be.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I don't buy that. Criticisms of the politicization of the IPCC are nothing new and quite frankly I would hardly expect any panel of this kind to be free of that sort of thing, people being what they are. It doesn't change the facts behind the findings, which are summarized in the Wikipedia article and available in detail on the IPCC site, and which I note you didn't even bother to address.

And if you want to talk about people who may OR MAY NOT be scientists, look to your own sources. Stephen McIntyre is not a scientist, he is a mining executive. He may have made valuable contributions to the discussion process surrounding climate change, but he's still not a scientist.

Look, there's no way every scientist, author, and researcher in the world is ever going to agree on anything, even something as pressing as climate change. But trying to deny the problem of human agency in the alteration of this planet's biosphere, on the basis of petty political squabbling, in the face of continued affirmation of its factuality, is absolutely irresponsible and superficial.

Qdrop
03-21-2007, 08:47 PM
So basically you consider the publication process of the IPCC, in which summaries are prepared by writers other than those directly involved in data assessment, to be a sufficient indictment of its findings as unsound and its contributors and directors as motivated by some hateful burning desire to shape global policy in accord with their own evil agendas, whatever those might be. evil agenda?
eh....not too sure about that.
I think perhaps those at the VERY top of the environmental "movement" have some rather insidious agendas that DON'T include saving the earth...

but otherwise...yeah, that pretty much sums up what i'm saying.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I don't buy that. Criticisms of the politicization of the IPCC are nothing new and quite frankly I would hardly expect any panel of this kind to be free of that sort of thing, people being what they are. It doesn't change the facts behind the findings, which are summarized in the Wikipedia article and available in detail on the IPCC site,
wait, hold on....a summary of....a summary....both of which are compiled by non-scientists (for the most part) is your source?
really?

and which I note you didn't even bother to address. address wikipedia's summary of a biased summary?
didn't Stephen Colbert already mock the piss out of wikipedia and it's "truth by consensus" system?
oh...wait...i get it....
truth by consensus....
that's the common thread here..huh?

And if you want to talk about people who may OR MAY NOT be scientists, look to your own sources. Stephen McIntyre is not a scientist, he is a mining executive. I'm not concerned about McIntyre....I was directing people to the message board on that site...that hosts plenty of skeptics that may get you look at things in a different perspective.

He may have made valuable contributions to the discussion process surrounding climate change, but he's still not a scientist. but he is someone is stands to have his industry DECIMATED by fabricated science and alarmist BS....all the way up to Mr. Gore on Capitol Hill today...calling for strict caps and reduction on all coal usage.

Look, there's no way every scientist, author, and researcher in the world is ever going to agree on anything, even something as pressing as climate change. as well they shouldn't.
consensus, other than in a very general sense, is foreign to science.
skepticism is it's strength.

But trying to deny the problem of human agency in the alteration of this planet's biosphere, on the basis of petty political squabbling, in the face of continued affirmation of its factuality,
continued affirmation of it's factuality?
please...do share...in detail.

please make reference to the vaunted "hockey stick" graph too...
that's fun to tear apart.

or bring up Al Gore's "928 scientific papers" that purport a consensus on anthropamorphic global warming.
yeah...bring that up....i'd like to talk about that too.

come on...we're only getting started here.
after all...you, Draay, and soba have pretty much stated that there is "no other side" to this...
so i guess i have a lot of ground to make up.


and you still haven't mentioned anything about that supposed "ice age" that was so so certain as little as 15 years ago by "leading climate scientists"...
funny how that always gets a deafening silence from environmentalists.

or that streak of well documented global warming back in the 1300's, that was actually greater and more pronounced than any current warming.
yet...there was no industry back then.
odd.
what caused that?

Schmeltz
03-21-2007, 09:23 PM
so i guess i have a lot of ground to make up.


Yeah. Feel free to start at any time. All you've really done is suggest that the publication process of the IPCC data could be improved. What about the actual data that appears to show that human activity is having a negative impact on the biosphere? Shouldn't that be our actual topic for discussion? If you're that concerned about sources then there's always RealClimate (http://www.realclimate.org), which is maintained by actual scientists - widely acclaimed career experts in environmental studies, actually - and contains tons of information demonstrating the factuality of the human contribution to climate change - like here. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/how-much-of-the-recent-cosub2sub-increase-is-due-to-human-activities/) Or here. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87) You might note that these experts will cite the IPCC reports every now and then; oddly enough they seem to actually consider those findings relevant material, and not just alarmist bullshit.


but he is someone is stands to have his industry DECIMATED by fabricated science and alarmist BS


Ah, now we come to it: the notion that it is allegedly impossible to separate the health of the planet from the health of our industries, but we should choose the health of our industries as the more important. You know, the invention of the automobile did two things: one, it ushered in the frenetic pace of fossil fuel consumption that has led us to this conversation, and two, it spelled the doom of the stagecoach industry. Within just a few years after the mass-production of the automobile began, nobody was buying or using horse-drawn stagecoaches anymore. They disappeared from the streets and fields and an entire industry collapsed.

Should we have kept using stagecoaches instead of switching to cars, just to avoid decimating a healthy and productive industry? No. Should we continue to burn massive amounts of fossil fuels instead of reducing our consumption of them and developing alternate sources of energy, just to avoid decimating other healthy and productive industries? No. You're right when you say that instituting caps on emissions and on fossil fuel burning industries might have negative economic repercussions. On the other hand, is any sacrifice too great to make if the health of the planet is at stake? I don't believe so. If the reduction of the human footprint on the world's ecology involves the decimation of some industries, then that's just the way it's got to be - the alternative is to simply watch the natural world deteriorate until it takes us all with it. And then won't we look stupid for worrying about money instead of our own future. Not that we don't already.

fucktopgirl
03-21-2007, 09:45 PM
hey, there is no global warming...just the normal cycle of the planet. The growth of the human population and the industrialisation , the fossil combustible...all that have nothing to do with it. Glacier don't melt at all , it is an illusion!

Bunch of alarmist!

D_Raay
03-21-2007, 10:52 PM
evil agenda?
eh....not too sure about that.
I think perhaps those at the VERY top of the environmental "movement" have some rather insidious agendas that DON'T include saving the earth...

but otherwise...yeah, that pretty much sums up what i'm saying.
Oh but you don't mind implying it.

Why don't you just get straight in bed with the deniers and call it a socialist plot to bring down capitalism.

On the other hand, is any sacrifice too great to make if the health of the planet is at stake? I don't believe so. If the reduction of the human footprint on the world's ecology involves the decimation of some industries, then that's just the way it's got to be - the alternative is to simply watch the natural world deteriorate until it takes us all with it. And then won't we look stupid for worrying about money instead of our own future. Not that we don't already.

And that's really all there is to it.

Ali
03-22-2007, 04:29 AM
You know, I'm actually starting to agree with Qtip on this issue.

Sort of ;)

I was all for Kyoto, back when it was first suggested, but recently GW (unfortunate acronym) has become such a political football that people have stopped taking it seriously.

And what's being done about it? Carbon credits? Pollute as much as you want and then bung a few bucks at a website which promises to plant some trees, or whatever? It's like paying the Catholic church tithes for your sins. And Biofuels? Never a solution. Already the price of Corn has soared, creating economic hardship for those who depend on it as part of their staple diet. It's all wrong. We're looking for new ways to waste energy, instead of trying to waste less of it and produce it more cleanly.

The earth is warming, that's a fact. How much of it has to do with human activity is debatable and debate we will, because there's no clear way of showing how much is natural (Ice ages come and go, the last one's on its way out.). The accepted view is that the CO2 in the atmosphere acts as a blanket, trapping heat which would usually escape into space. But it's difficult to prove exactly how much is trapped and what effect it has.

Arguing about the causes of GW is fiddling while Rome burns and the 'measures' being taken to combat are pointless.

What people SHOULD be concerned about is energy. How much of it we waste through over-use of cooling and heating or driving SUV's and how we produce it. The debate should not be about whether or not we are causing the earth to heat up, but how we can use less energy and produce our energy using methods which don't pump loads of CO2 into our atmosphere and pollute our water. We should be a LOT more concerned about water shortages (and floods) which are the result of Global Warming.

Energy production and use is the key to all our woes. If we can utilise other sources of energy more frugally, then we won't have to burn coal and oil and will not have to worry about whether or not we are speeding up the natural warming of the earth (which we surely are) nor fight for access to these resources.

QueenAdrock
03-22-2007, 08:56 AM
hey, there is no global warming...just the normal cycle of the planet. The growth of the human population and the industrialisation , the fossil combustible...all that have nothing to do with it. Glacier don't melt at all , it is an illusion!

Bunch of alarmist!

I sure hope you're joking, because that sounds just as it would coming out of George W. Bush's mouth.

The ice shelfs are breaking off and melting.
Perhaps the most startling evidence of global warming is the Larsen Ice Shelf in Antarctica. The ice shelf is part of the West Antarctica Ice Shelf, which is roughly the size of Greenland. Scientists believed the Larsen Ice Shelf to be extremely stable, and said it would last centuries, if not millenia.

But in 1995, pieces of the ice shelf began melting into the ocean. Over a period of 35 days in 2002, pieces the size of Rhode Island broke off and melted.
http://www.westbranchtimes.com/article.php?id=1582


Either way, I find it to be a bunch of shit that people say "Global warming doesn't exist! That means we don't have to change our lifestyles, lol!" Okay, let's say hypothetically it is alarmist. Does that therefore mean we should continue to pollute the air with our emissions, just because supposedly it's not contributing to global warming? We can continue to pollute the air and disrupt the environment? I personally think global warming is real, and we have to deal with it appropriately. But even if you don't believe that, what's the harm in trying to cut down emissions? Nothing but good things can come out of less consumption.

Let's say everyone agrees that there is no problem with human interaction and we continue along the path we are. Let's say it turns out in the long run that we were wrong. What's the worst case scenerio? Cities underwater, polar bears and penguins dead, etc. etc. Now, the other side of the coin. Let's say everyone agrees that human interaction IS a factor, and we change our lifestyles to help combat it. Let's say that that hypothesis was incorrect. What's the worst case scenerio there? People have bought more fuel-efficient cars that pollute the air less.

My point is, there may be no SOLID evidence, but it's better to be safe than sorry. I don't see what the big problem is with trying to be more environmentally-conscious, trying to cut back on driving and trying to conserve when possible. Most of the time, when I hear people yell "You're being an alarmist!" it's because they're so tied to their SUVs that they're unwilling to change their lifestyles, and I find that to be selfish and wasteful.

icy manipulator
03-22-2007, 09:49 AM
come to australia and you'll feel the fucking effects of global warming. it's illegal to have a bath now in some parts of the country

Qdrop
03-22-2007, 10:00 AM
Yeah. Feel free to start at any time. All you've really done is suggest that the publication process of the IPCC data could be improved.
I'm trying to show that the bulk the IPCC report does NOT support a consensus on man-made global warming NOR does make any reference to policy changes.
the SUMMARY does, which is written by another group of people entirely (mostly gov't officials on the KYOTO payroll, not scientists).
That's quite a black eye for the "Bible" that the IPCC report seems to be to environmentalists.

What about the actual data that appears to show that human activity is having a negative impact on the biosphere? Shouldn't that be our actual topic for discussion?
why yes, yes it should.
I assume by "data" you are referencing the "hockey stick chart(s)", initially popularized (if not created) by Michael Mann from the University of Virginia. It tracks and projects global temps over the past 1000 years, and contrast them to the rise in global industry (man-made CO2)
This is the Holy Grail of the environmentalists across the globe.
Gore showed his "variation" of it in AIT (remember that whole dramatic scene of him on the platform machine, rising up as he followed the "projected" clime in average global temp on the screen?).
This was touted at the "smoking gun", and still is.
despite the fact that it has since been dismantled and denounced.....by none other than the NAC itself (though it used the nicest terms it could to avoid the environmentalist backlash).
The Hockey Stick was first published in Nature magazine, but was later put under severe scrutiny by 2 CANADIAN economists and mathematicians, McKitrick and McIntyre. They were the first to really look at how Mann collected and presented his data- and it was pretty shocking.
He literally rewrote geological/climate history....and fudged his own initial findings to "fine-tune" his data....by completely disregarding the well established global warming of the middle ages...and flattenning the "little ice-age" that proceeded it.
Not only that, but they found out Nature magazine never bothered to check his data, his methods, or his archiving. They just published it.
And the IPCC, in 2001, did the same thing when they referenced it in thier report.

It got so messy, that the NAC itself was called to launch an investigation on Mann's work.
Even with some of the actual Authors of the original "Hockey Stick" report (who worked with Mann) on the panel....the NAC still ultimately found in thier June 2006 report, that while they could not duplicate his finding from the original data, the best they could say about the 90's being the warmest decade of the past 1000 years was "perhaps plausible" at best.
This from an organization who funding comes completely from the environmentalist gravy train.
They found that, when the original unadulterated data he originally collected was used....the could not verify his ultimate findings about past or present temps or rates of increase.
ouch.
The best the panel could say was that the current avg. temps were about the same as anytime in the past 400 years.
double ouch.

so what did the media report on this finding by the NAC?
hah.....CNN stated reported that the NAC "SUPPORTED" the IPCC initial report.

what's going on here?

so there's your "proof" of man-made global warming.

but there's so much more.
have you ever seen the correlation between average arctic temps over the last 120 yrs compared to CO2 measurements over the same span....and then compared those average Arctic temps over the past 120 years and compared them to measured Solar activity.
This was done by Harvard-Smithsonian astro-physicist Willie Soon.
take a look and tell me which of those seem to show a more likely cause in temp change.

Also consider this: the ever present "90's temp increase" that many (particularly Gore) have had a blast showing on charts has a peculiar link to history that always gets glossed over:
all of those global average temps over the decades (over a century now) have come from thermostat stations through-out the globe. they have them all over the place....though only about 58 total (pre-1990).
Now, casting aside the obvious margin of error you will probably get from one station to the other....let's consider what so many of these global average temp charts always seem to show: a huge increase in temp. increase rate from 1990 to about present.
Wow. seems like all our CO2 is really catching up to us all of the sudden, huh?
we're "at the tipping point"....almost to the point of no return.
at these rates....this planet will be Venus in less than 100 yrs...right?

but hold on....when this marked increase really started (about 1990)...what was taking place in the world?
oh yeah....that whole collapse of the USSR thing.
funny thing about that....when the USSR collapsed...so did funding for their temperature stations.....many of them began to rapidly close down.
no more data.
no where were most of their stations? Siberia and other very cold climates.
and rather suddenly....that data from cold stations was gone...and taken from the global average.
so what do you think that did to the "global average" just as quick?
the increase in avg. global temp virtually mirrors the closing of those stations.
must be a coincidence though.
after all....the "debate is over".

You might note that these experts will cite the IPCC reports every now and then; oddly enough they seem to actually consider those findings relevant material, and not just alarmist bullshit. not surprising...considering what would happen to thier funding if they didn't.

Should we continue to burn massive amounts of fossil fuels instead of reducing our consumption of them and developing alternate sources of energy, just to avoid decimating other healthy and productive industries? No.
agreed.

You're right when you say that instituting caps on emissions and on fossil fuel burning industries might have negative economic repercussions. On the other hand, is any sacrifice too great to make if the health of the planet is at stake?
that's the thing.... is it really making the planet healthier....as far global temps?
despite the cry's to the contrary....it doesn't appear so.

see, I'm all for finding better sources of energy....cutting down pollution, etc.
who isn't?
It's just about prioritizing....and going after the REAL problems FIRST!

Qdrop
03-22-2007, 10:05 AM
You know, I'm actually starting to agree with Qtip on this issue.

Sort of ;)

I was all for Kyoto, back when it was first suggested, but recently GW (unfortunate acronym) has become such a political football that people have stopped taking it seriously.

And what's being done about it? Carbon credits? Pollute as much as you want and then bung a few bucks at a website which promises to plant some trees, or whatever? It's like paying the Catholic church tithes for your sins. And Biofuels? Never a solution. Already the price of Corn has soared, creating economic hardship for those who depend on it as part of their staple diet. It's all wrong. We're looking for new ways to waste energy, instead of trying to waste less of it and produce it more cleanly.

The earth is warming, that's a fact. How much of it has to do with human activity is debatable and debate we will, because there's no clear way of showing how much is natural (Ice ages come and go, the last one's on its way out.). The accepted view is that the CO2 in the atmosphere acts as a blanket, trapping heat which would usually escape into space. But it's difficult to prove exactly how much is trapped and what effect it has.

Arguing about the causes of GW is fiddling while Rome burns and the 'measures' being taken to combat are pointless.

What people SHOULD be concerned about is energy. How much of it we waste through over-use of cooling and heating or driving SUV's and how we produce it. The debate should not be about whether or not we are causing the earth to heat up, but how we can use less energy and produce our energy using methods which don't pump loads of CO2 into our atmosphere and pollute our water. We should be a LOT more concerned about water shortages (and floods) which are the result of Global Warming.

Energy production and use is the key to all our woes. If we can utilise other sources of energy more frugally, then we won't have to burn coal and oil and will not have to worry about whether or not we are speeding up the natural warming of the earth (which we surely are) nor fight for access to these resources.

You give me hope, man.
not everyone is a lemming after all.

bravo to using your OWN brain.

Schmeltz
03-22-2007, 11:13 AM
I assume by "data" you are referencing the "hockey stick chart(s)"


I just ignored most of what came after that, because I'm not referencing outdated hockey stick charts, I'm referencing IPCC findings - which you have yet to demonstrate are faulty or flawed, even if their publication process leaves something to be desired - and I linked you to other data which I note you have summarily ignored.


This was done by Harvard-Smithsonian astro-physicist Willie Soon.


Yes, but there are detailed rebuttals of his work available here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=109#SB03) and here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/a-new-take-on-an-old-millennium/#more-253).


and rather suddenly....that data from cold stations was gone...and taken from the global average.


Interesting that the world's top climatologists would fail to take into account something as basic and fundamental as a fluctuating sample size. Even more interesting that there was no international funding available to maintain data collection from Soviet weather stations. What's your source on that? I notice you didn't bother to cite one.


not surprising...considering what would happen to thier funding if they didn't.


I'm going to guess nothing, considering RealClimate is not funded by anybody. Honestly, am I wasting my time providing you with source material? I did you the courtesy of investigating the material you gave me. I suppose it's too much for me to expect the same.


agreed.


Then why are we arguing?


The debate should not be about whether or not we are causing the earth to heat up, but how we can use less energy


A huge part of the problem is that if we're not causing the earth to heat up, then why should we bother using less energy - especially if doing so might mean changing both our personal lifestyles and an entire sector of the economy? Profligate energy consumption is profitable - why do you think Exxon spends all that money promoting anti-climate change studies (routinely torn apart by actual climatalogists, by the way, but that doesn't stop their funding and publication by the industry)? Because if people start consuming less, and making the right choices to preserve this planet, the guys at the top start making less money. And we certainly can't have that.

So QueenAdrock is wrong, there is going to be some harm that comes out of using less emissions. But it depends largely on the relative value of that harm. I don't consider putting a dent in the oil industry's enormous profit margins real harm, especially when weighed against the ecological health of the planet. But there are very wealthy and powerful interests who would disagree. That's the real problem.

Qdrop
03-22-2007, 12:56 PM
I just ignored most of what came after that, because I'm not referencing outdated hockey stick charts, I'm referencing IPCC findings - which you have yet to demonstrate are faulty or flawed, even if their publication process leaves something to be desired - and I linked you to other data which I note you have summarily ignored.
the IPCC findings referenced that Hockey Stick data by Mann in their report.
which i demonstrated to be shoddy at best.

so....what exactly are you not getting here?
the IPCC data, and it's summary is flawed.



Yes, but there are detailed rebuttals of his work available here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=109#SB03) and here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/a-new-take-on-an-old-millennium/#more-253).

so who's right? who's "science is better"?
both sides have funding to be had.
are you going to pretend that realclimate is not a mouthpiece for the environmentalist left, who all have significant ties to corporate america and funding that needs to be justified.

eveybody has something to "gain" by being "right".
so who's science is better?
how do you know?

so how can the "debate be over"?


Interesting that the world's top climatologists would fail to take into account something as basic and fundamental as a fluctuating sample size. very interesting in deed.
you see my point.

Even more interesting that there was no international funding available to maintain data collection from Soviet weather stations. What's your source on that? I notice you didn't bother to cite one.
the data and chart I am referring to was compiled by Ross McKitrick ( http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=100 )...feel free to google his name and make connections and ties to big business and show how he simply must be a corporate stooge.

cause, you know....all Green climate scientists are beings of pure ethical light with no special interest to be found.


Honestly, am I wasting my time providing you with source material? I did you the courtesy of investigating the material you gave me. I suppose it's too much for me to expect the same. this from the guy how has yet to piece together that the IPCC's report referenced (by your own admission now) outdated and flawed data.



Then why are we arguing? because I've yet to see you admit to some shady science on the side of the greens.

i don't want to hear a "you're right, Qdrop".
i just want to hear "yeah...I guess both sides could have some bias and some agenda's that could sway their findings....perhaps more skepticism is necessary, and the debate is NOT over..."
that's not asking much.



.A huge part of the problem is that if we're not causing the earth to heat up, then why should we bother using less energy - especially if doing so might mean changing both our personal lifestyles and an entire sector of the economy?. because more efficient energy means cheaper energy...more wealth to go around.
less pollution.
less dependency on Oil, particularly middle east Oil.
Lots of good reasons.
Global Warming just probably isn't one of them.

and Kyoto and other proposed caps and limits (like Gore is proposing) are based on disingenuous data and will have little to no effect on the gross outcome...yet cost the world trillions.

why would people want to cripple the economic systems of much of the world, when little benefit will be gained environmentally?
That's the question i keep asking.
who's pulling the strings on the environmentalist movement....and what are they really after?

Schmeltz
03-22-2007, 01:14 PM
so....what exactly are you not getting here?


I suppose I don't get why you consider the flaws in Mann's study to be the final word on this issue. This is a good rundown (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11) of the "Hockey Stick" issue, which specifically addresses the findings of McIntyre and McKitrick and provides information on followup studies that take their position into account.


so who's right? who's "science is better"?


It's not a matter of which side's science is better, but of the comprehensive picture painted by all findings and studies taken together. I don't need to pretend that RealClimate isn't a "mouthpiece for the environmentalist left" because that's nothing but a straw man you dreamt up out of nowhere (and with no facts or evidence to support it whatsoever).


all Green climate scientists are beings of pure ethical light with no special interest to be found.


I have nowhere said or even implied that. But you're getting very good at knocking down all these fake arguments you set up on my behalf.


i just want to here "yeah...I guess both sides could have some bias and some agenda's that could sway their findings....perhaps more skepticism is necessary


Skepticism is always necessary and findings need to be constantly methodically reviewed, dissected, reassessed, and reexamined in the light of new information. Satisfied? Nothing you've said has sold me on the idea that the ever-growing body of work on the direct contribution of human activity to climate change is nothing but alarmism, and nothing you've said indicts or invalidates any of the science to that effect.

Schmeltz
03-22-2007, 01:15 PM
who's pulling the strings on the environmentalist movement....and what are they really after?


Gosh, Qdrop, I don't know. The Jews? The Commies? The Rothschilds? What exactly are you trying to imply here? You're starting to sound like Carlos.

QueenAdrock
03-22-2007, 01:56 PM
So QueenAdrock is wrong, there is going to be some harm that comes out of using less emissions. But it depends largely on the relative value of that harm. I don't consider putting a dent in the oil industry's enormous profit margins real harm, especially when weighed against the ecological health of the planet. But there are very wealthy and powerful interests who would disagree. That's the real problem.

Also true. I don't consider Exxon getting less money to be true harm, because those guys already have swimming pools full of cash. The types in charge of these kinds of operations care about one thing: profits for themselves. I'm pretty sure that some of these people would sell their first born if the price was right. It doesn't help that Bush has extreme bias, an unparalleled loyalty to people who he's friends with or provide him with things. So that means if the oil industry is friends with Bush, you better believe this administration is going to protect them and defend them and take the position that will keep them on top, where he thinks they belong.

It's the same with anything. All issues are politicized and decisions are made for selfish reasons, not because it's the "right" thing to do (morally, environmentally, economically, whatever). It's even better when they come out after all this bullshit and say that they're religious, holy, and righteous people who really care. Bullshit, I say. They know exactly what they're doing, they know it's wrong, I'd even argue that their whole church crap is just for show (and for ensuing support of the people) and they don't believe it one bit. They just know that if you come off as a white-bread Jesus-loving "normal" guy, then you can shit all over the rest of the world for your gain, because everyone has this image of you being an awesome guy who does no wrong.

I've become quite jaded towards politicians, if you can't tell.

Anyways, tangent aside, I agree with you that putting a dent in their vast profits isn't really "harm," in my opinion. I don't know how the Bush administration can argue against global warming and nobody really questions WHY they feel that way and argue so passionately for the other side. I'd love to see some reports come out saying "This is why Bush doesn't want to do something about global warming, look at his ties." But the "liberal" media doesn't really like reporting on that sort of thing. Sigh.

Qdrop
03-22-2007, 02:01 PM
I suppose I don't get why you consider the flaws in Mann's study to be the final word on this issue. This is a good rundown (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11) of the "Hockey Stick" issue, which specifically addresses the findings of McIntyre and McKitrick and provides information on followup studies that take their position into account..
man, you love RealClimate.org..huh?

and your link doesn't work.


It's not a matter of which side's science is better, but of the comprehensive picture painted by all findings and studies taken together..
in other words....debate.

but i thought the debate was over?



.I have nowhere said or even implied that. But you're getting very good at knocking down all these fake arguments you set up on my behalf..
so....Green climate scientists and Green climate organizations can be factually flawed and have agendas?
will you concede that point?


Skepticism is always necessary and findings need to be constantly methodically reviewed, dissected, reassessed, and reexamined in the light of new information. Satisfied?. so....the debate is not over?

Nothing you've said has sold me on the idea that the ever-growing body of work on the direct contribution of human activity to climate change is nothing but alarmism, and nothing you've said indicts or invalidates any of the science to that effect. most of what i said in preceding posts did just that.
and there's tons more.
but you don't want to hear it, huh?

because Environmentalism is your religion.
religious believers don't let science or facts get in the way.
they have set beliefs....and they will not sway.
Faith.
they want to believe.

I'm sorry I'm not dressed for church.

Qdrop
03-22-2007, 02:07 PM
Gosh, Qdrop, I don't know. The Jews? The Commies? The Rothschilds? What exactly are you trying to imply here? You're starting to sound like Carlos.

i really don't know.

whoever controls energy, controls everything.

things like Kyoto, and Gov't control/rationing of energy....particularly on a global scale.
gosh.....who ever controls that....controls everything.

Bush and his Neocons lied to start a war.

Doesn't seem like a stretch for certain entities to lie about the environment to get control of a nation's/region's/the world's energy.
plus, there's ALOT of profit to be made by certain sectors and corporations by implementing certain environmental/industrial changes.

Schmeltz
03-22-2007, 02:22 PM
and your link doesn't work.


That's odd, it works fine for me. Copy and paste in your browser: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11. I do rather like RealClimate, it reminds me strongly of TalkOrigins - a forum for interaction with accredited and tenured experts on issues for debate, and a valuable source of detailed information.


in other words....debate.


I guess in the very general sense that emerges from the lack of an absolutely universal consensus, but then there's never going to be such a thing. Everything knowable about climate change will never be known, no matter how hard we try. But debate in terms of a serious challenge to the scientific consensus on human contribution to climate change - no. Only refinement and clarification of a grim and unsettling picture.


most of what i said in preceding posts did just that.
and there's tons more.
but you don't to hear it, huh?


No, none of what you said did anything of the kind. You have yet to demonstrate that global warming is not caused by human activity, you've merely raised some objections to the science that says it is, which I've countered with information from actual experts in the field. And I didn't say I don't want to hear your case - in point of fact, I have examined and researched every point you've raised and gone out of my way to come up with answers to them. The fact that all you can come up with is feeble shit like "Environmentalism is your religion" just goes to show how painfully out of your depth you are, I suppose.


whoever controls energy, controls everything.


Exactly. You're arguing on the side of the people who control energy and have a vested interest in detracting from the very real, meticulously assessed, and highly economically and socially relevant concerns raised by experts on the condition in the environment. And your assertion is that those experts are motivated solely by the concoction of some grand scheme to displace the elites at the top of the energy industry in order to appropriate it for their own nefarious purposes?

How crazy do you have to be to think that that's actually true? That silly shit holds about as much weight as the 9/11 conspiracy theories, mang. You have no evidence for the existence of such a thing and proposing it just goes to show, even further, how brutally irrelevant your stance is on this issue.

Qdrop
03-22-2007, 03:18 PM
That's odd, it works fine for me. Copy and paste in your browser: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11.

got it to work now.
boy, we can start a whole new thread about that page alone.
there is alot a dodging going on their retorts...

and "state of the art models"?
by whose standards? the most hottly contested debate is the ability and reliability of climate models, precisely because so little is ultimately known about climate variables and long term effects of those variables.
state of the art?
i take it, these are MUCH better than those models uses as late as 1992 to predict the coming "Ice Age".

"Some proxy-based reconstructions suggest greater variability than others. This greater variability may be attributable to different emphases in seasonal and spatial emphasis (see Jones and Mann, 2004; Rutherford et al, 2004; Cook et al, 2004). However, even for those reconstructions which suggest a colder "Little Ice Age" and greater variability in general in past centuries, such as that of Esper et al (2002), late 20th century hemispheric warmth is still found to be anomalous in the context of the reconstruction (see Cook et al, 2004)."

failing to mention that previous middle-ages global warming was stronger and more pronounced than any current warming we have now....and they didn't have any industry back then.

oh wait, here it is:
"This is a mis-characterization of the actual scientific conclusions. Numerous studies suggest that hemispheric mean warmth for the late 20th century (that is, the past few decades) appears to exceed the warmth of any comparable length period over the past thousand years or longer, taking into account the uncertainties in the estimates (see Figure 1 in "Temperature Variations in Past Centuries and The So-Called 'Hockey Stick'"). On the other hand, in the context of the long-term reconstructions, the early 20th century appears to have been a relatively cold period while the mid 20th century was comparable in warmth, by most estimates, to peak Medieval warmth (i.e., the so-called "Medieval Warm Period"). It is not the average 20th century warmth, but the magnitude of warming during the 20th century, and the level of warmth observed during the past few decades, which appear to be anomalous in a long-term context. Studies such as those of Soon and associates (Soon and Baliunas, 2003; Soon et al, 2003) that consider only ‘20th century’ conditions, or interpret past temperature changes using evidence incapable of resolving trends in recent decades , cannot meaningfully address the question of whether late 20th century warmth is anomalous in a long-term and large-scale context."

so, we are no warmer now...then we were during the medieval warming period...
but now it's just getting warmer faster than ever in the past 2 decades...
but...failing to mention the curious correlation between the abandonment of numerous cold climate temperature stations...in the past 2 decades.
hmm....
and why does Soon's research not resolve the trends in recent decades? what are they basing that on?
the Arctic temps alone, matched to solor activity in the past 100 years is virtually identical.


"The first falsehood holds that the "Hockey Stick" is the result of one analysis or the analysis of one group of researchers (i.e., that of Mann et al, 1998 and Mann et al, 1999). However, as discussed in the response to Myth #1 above, the basic conclusions of Mann et al (1998,1999) are affirmed in multiple independent studies. Thus, even if there were errors in the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction, numerous other studies independently support the conclusion of anomalous late 20th century hemispheric-scale warmth."

they might want to check with the NAC on that....

and funny how many of these same climatologists and their respective organizations were SO SURE about the IMPENDING ICE AGE on 20-30 years ago.
i guess they just got a lot smarter.
and this time...THIS TIME....they got it right......right?

boy, if i had the time...i could just do this all day...

heh...great site, man. real nice.



But debate in terms of a serious challenge to the scientific consensus on human contribution to climate change - no.
THERE IS NO CONSENSUS.
and you're patently and demonstrably wrong....but, hey....I'm all for freedom of religion.
just don't force it upon me.

Only refinement and clarification of a grim and unsettling picture.
REPENT NOW, SINNERS! FOR THE END IS NIGH!

just like that impending ice age a few decades ago.....but....but this is different.


No, none of what you said did anything of the kind.
man, you always waste my time in the long run.
at least Ali is slowly opening to some skepticism.

You have yet to demonstrate that global warming is not caused by human activity, but the burden is on YOU to prove that it is.
you're making the claim.

you've merely raised some objections to the science that says it is, which I've countered with information from actual experts in the field. oh, and my info didn't come from experts in the field? or related fields like mathematics (when analyzing data and showing trends)
those guys all went to college too, ya know.
Sorry, the Greens don't have patent on higher education in climate research and related fields.
they just claim to.

And I didn't say I don't want to hear your case - in point of fact, I have examined and researched every point you've raised and gone out of my way to come up with answers to them.
like they say in the rap world "but you ain't tryin to here me, though..."

The fact that all you can come up with is feeble shit like "Environmentalism is your religion" just goes to show how painfully out of your depth you are, I suppose. sorry, but that's the response you get when you demonstrate the same "line in the sand" mentality as a creationist, a 9/11 denier, etc....



. You're arguing on the side of the people who control energy and have a vested interest in detracting from the very real, meticulously assessed, and highly economically and socially relevant concerns raised by experts on the condition in the environment. but again...you are trying the claim that the "real" scientists and experts are all on the Green side.....they fight for the earth and for truth.
the other side fights for $$.
that is simply not true.
each side has a lot of vested $$ interest. Don't pretend the Greens come from a higher, purer place.

And your assertion is that those experts are motivated solely by the concoction of some grand scheme to displace the elites at the top of the energy industry in order to appropriate it for their own nefarious purposes?
oh hell, i don't want to get side-tracked into that shit.
i'm not a conspiracy theorist...and i really don't want to speculate too much on who's pulling who's strings and why...

i'm just trying to stick the science...and the fact that THE DEBATE OVER ANTHROPAMORPHIC GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT OVER.

Qdrop
03-22-2007, 03:48 PM
and for the love of all things holy (like the environment, i guess)...STOP FUCKING DODGING THE "IMPENDING ICE AGE" alarmism from the Greens only 2-3 decades ago.

If you want to shack up with them....you need to answer for that too.
why were they so wrong then....but so "right" now?

why are you so sure?

don't just link me to realclimate.org.

i want YOU to respond.

Schmeltz
03-22-2007, 04:09 PM
"state of the art models"?
by whose standards?


The experts who contribute to RealClimate have advanced degrees, years of experience, and hundreds of peer-reviewed publications under their belts. I should think their standards for climate change models are quite high - in point of fact, I would imagine that they and the institutions with which they have worked have contributed to the development and understanding of these models quite significantly. If their work doesn't measure up to the standards of some middle manager at a print shop somewhere, I doubt it costs them a lot of sleep.


failing to mention the curious correlation between the abandonment of numerous cold climate temperature stations...in the past 2 decades.



First of all, there are a number of issues that they did not address that logically must must be addressed for their conclusions to be tenable. MM04 failed to acknowledge other independent data supporting the instrumental thermometer-based land surface temperature observations, such as satellite-derived temperature trend estimates over land areas in the Northern Hemisphere (Intergovernmental Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Third Assessment Report, Chapter 2, Box 2.1, p. 106) that cannot conceivably be subject to the non-climatic sources of bias considered by them. Furthermore, they fail to reconcile their hypothesis with the established large-scale warming evident from global sea surface temperature data that, again, cannot be influenced by the local, non-climatic factors they argue contaminate evidence for surface warming. By focusing on thermometer-based land observations only, and ignoring other evidence conflicting with their hypothesis, MM04 failed to address basic flaws in their arguments. - Much more here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=41)



and why does Soon's research not resolve the trends in recent decades?


There are two objections raised to Soon in the section immediately preceding the one you quoted, and lots more raised elsewhere on the site, which you could have found by entering "Willie Soon" into the "Search" box conveniently located at the top of the screen. I mean, you're sitting there making me look shit up for you when you could just as easily have all your questions and objections answered by the experts themselves by digging through the site. The laziness in your research doubtless affects your understanding of this issue.


they might want to check with the NAC on that


I assume you meant the NAS? Check the biographies of the contributors - some of them have worked for the NAS, as well as for government ministries, international panels, private institutions and foundations, and any number of other organizations relevant to the topic at hand.


THERE IS NO CONSENSUS.


Qdrop says no, the experts say yes. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/just-what-is-this-consensus-anyway/) Nobody's "forcing" anything on you, you're the one who started this thread.


oh, and my info didn't come from experts in the field?


No, it didn't. You've cited an economist, a lawyer, and a mining executive, I've cited climatologists. You brought a knife to a gunfight, mang. I don't doubt that education and experience in those fields serves your sources well in their contributions to our understanding of climate change, but the bottom line is that they are not experts, and my sources are. I mean a lawyer might be an intelligent man with high degrees of familiarity with mathematics and finance, but it doesn't mean you want him auditing the firm's accounts. Now does it?


each side has a lot of vested $$ interest.


I don't deny it. But environmental scientists are not fighting for a forty billion dollar profit margin. Exxon is. You can't seriously think that all this science is just a fabrication meant to secure comparatively meagre amounts of funding. How do we know any science isn't different? What if it's all made up just to steal our tax dollars? Do try to stay within the bounds of reality.


oh hell, i don't want to get side-tracked into that shit.


Then don't bring it up.

Schmeltz
03-22-2007, 04:13 PM
and for the love of all things holy (like the environment, i guess)...STOP FUCKING DODGING THE "IMPENDING ICE AGE" alarmism from the Greens only 2-3 decades ago.

If you want to shack up with them....you need to answer for that too.
why were they so wrong then....but so "right" now?

why are you so sure?

don't just link me to realclimate.org.

i want YOU to respond.

I need more information. Who exactly posited this argument, in which publications? What was their methodology and how does it compare to more modern analytical and data collection tools? Why would being wrong before mean being wrong now - surely it's possible to be wrong about one thing but right about another?

Qdrop
03-22-2007, 05:30 PM
The experts who contribute to RealClimate have advanced degrees, years of experience, and hundreds of peer-reviewed publications under their belts. I should think their standards for climate change models are quite high - in point of fact, I would imagine that they and the institutions with which they have worked have contributed to the development and understanding of these models quite significantly. If their work doesn't measure up to the standards of some middle manager at a print shop somewhere, I doubt it costs them a lot of sleep.
and the scientists who are skeptical must just be dumb.
or bought off.

their degrees and years of experience don't count, i guess.







There are two objections raised to Soon in the section immediately preceding the one you quoted, and lots more raised elsewhere on the site, which you could have found by entering "Willie Soon" into the "Search" box conveniently located at the top of the screen. I'll get right on it.

I mean, you're sitting there making me look shit up for you when you could just as easily have all your questions and objections answered by the experts themselves by digging through the site. The laziness in your research doubtless affects your understanding of this issue.

hmm...
I need more information. Who exactly posited this argument, in which publications? What was their methodology and how does it compare to more modern analytical and data collection tools? Why would being wrong before mean being wrong now - surely it's possible to be wrong about one thing but right about another?

those in glass houses....



I assume you meant the NAS? yep

Check the biographies of the contributors - some of them have worked for the NAS, as well as for government ministries, international panels, private institutions and foundations, and any number of other organizations relevant to the topic at hand.
which is all the more damning when the NAS was unable to support the IPCC's report back in June 2006.

I bet your foot tastes terrible.



Qdrop says no, the experts say yes. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/just-what-is-this-consensus-anyway/)
hah....funny...that IPCC report all comes from the SUMMARY (ie- not written by the authors of the original IPCC report...who's data is flawed to begin with).
we went through this posts ago...
dude, keep up.

by the way, have you ever looked up the people on the IPCC....

and when talking about "climate experts", funny who constitutes as an "expert".
i didn't know gynocologists were experts on climate. or lepidopterists (buttefly experts), landscape architects...
they've all been quoted by Green groups as "experts".



No, it didn't. You've cited an economist, a lawyer, and a mining executive, I've cited climatologists.
MIT's Lindzen and Prof. Soon have no clout with you?
why?

mathematicians commenting on poor data collection is not valid?

I don't doubt that education and experience in those fields serves your sources well in their contributions to our understanding of climate change, that's better.
but the bottom line is that they are not experts, and my sources are. do you list the IPCC panel among them. lest we forget, that's not a scientific body. yet you continuously keep pulling data from that...and your beloved realclimate.org basically links every other sentence to it.
like i mentioned...look up some of the people on that thing.
and make sure the data is not coming from the SUMMARY.

I mean a lawyer might be an intelligent man with high degrees of familiarity with mathematics and finance, but it doesn't mean you want him auditing the firm's accounts. Now does it? who better to analyze someone's data and data collection than a mathematician?
Economists are pretty good at it too...probably better.
have you read Freakanomics?



I don't deny it. But environmental scientists are not fighting for a forty billion dollar profit margin. sure about that?

You can't seriously think that all this science is just a fabrication meant to secure comparatively meagre amounts of funding. you need to do more research.
just saying.

How do we know any science isn't different? What if it's all made up just to steal our tax dollars? Do try to stay within the bounds of reality. it's a valid point, though.
who do you trust?
and why?

Qdrop
03-22-2007, 05:39 PM
I need more information. Who exactly posited this argument, in which publications? What was their methodology and how does it compare to more modern analytical and data collection tools? Why would being wrong before mean being wrong now - surely it's possible to be wrong about one thing but right about another?

you have a lot of work ahead of you.

and you're not gonna like what you find.

i'm sorry man.
just take it in stride.

--------

Look, i think me and you are done here on this topic for now.
i've failed to insert even an ounce of skepticism into your thought process.
my bad, i guess.

hopefully, some onlookers will take a look at some of the things i've posted, though.

later.

Schmeltz
03-22-2007, 05:55 PM
and the scientists who are skeptical must just be dumb.


If you'll check the link I gave you about what constitutes "consensus," you'll learn a little more about the place of skepticism within the scientific process.


those in glass houses....


Mmmm, not quite. I gave you a resource you could check at leisure, I didn't just throw a vague idea at you with no starting point. Try again. Give me your source on this ice age thing and I'll look at it. I'm not going searching for it just because you say it's out there.


which is all the more damning when the NAS was unable to support the IPCC's report back in June 2006.


Strictly speaking, it was only Lindzen who dissented. And even he admits that human activity is causing CO2 to build up in the atmosphere. More in link below.


MIT's Lindzen and Prof. Soon have no clout with you?


I've given you links that contain rebuttals to Soon, here's one with rebuttals to Lindzen. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/richard-lindzens-hol-testimony/) It's not like these skeptics haven't raised valid points, but equally it's not like theirs is the last word and their own work is just as subject to review, testing, and, it seems, repudiation, as anyone's.


hah....funny...that IPCC report all comes from the SUMMARY


You're confusing the fact that the scientific consensus gels with the IPCC summary with the fact that the IPCC summary doesn't always follow the IPCC report accurately. That doesn't mean the scientific consensus is necessarily flawed. Sorry but if it comes down to you saying there's no consensus and the experts saying there is one, I'm going to trust the experts.


who better to analyze someone's data and data collection than a mathematician?
Economists are pretty good at it too...probably better.


Did you check the link? The data collection is one of the most flawed things about McIntyre and McKitrick's work. One of them.


sure about that?


Perfectly. Especially since you have provided absolutely zero evidence why I shouldn't be.

Echewta
03-22-2007, 05:58 PM
I enjoy taking this debat to a much more "down to earth" debate Qdrop.

Lets not look at the global picture but maybe by state or city.

There is smog in Los Angeles. Sometimes its so bad that you can't be outside to go for a hike, ride a bike, etc. without having some issues with breathing. Even worse for kids who aren't allowed outside for recess or can have issues with asthma. Traffic gets worse and worse every year as more houses and more cars and more people populate the city and create more pollution that causes more damage.

So F global warming. Why shouldn't we require higher MPG for car companies who have been getting away with the same limits for decades? What happened to the electric car? Where is mass transportation? What aren't more homes energy efficiant? Why aren't their building limits or rules to create infrustructure if you are going to build a 1000 homes? Etc. etc.

This country is bent on thinking about me instead of we so lets get to it. I want a clean city for me so government, get to it. Force people to do the right thing which just might benefit everyone else and the polar bears but what do I care?

Schmeltz
03-22-2007, 05:59 PM
Look, i think me and you are done here on this topic for now.
i've failed to insert even an ounce of skepticism into your thought process.
my bad, i guess.

hopefully, some onlookers will take a look at some of the things i've posted, though.

later.

Given that every source you cited has been rebutted in detail by my own... no, you haven't really convinced me why their stance is superior. I hope everyone following this thread (is there anyone out there? - nice, Echewta is here) checks out your info, because it's really only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to global warming skepticism. But, to use a rather apt metaphor, that iceberg just keeps shrinking, especially on the question of whether human activity is producing potentially damaging levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and I hope everyone realizes that as well.

So you might be done with this topic, but I'm certainly not. Fun to tango, though - when you get a little better maybe I'll let you lead. :D

DroppinScience
03-22-2007, 07:50 PM
I like what that Oklahoma Senator said... global warming is a ruse devised by the Weather Channel to get their ratings up. The jig is up, boys! :rolleyes:

QueenAdrock
03-22-2007, 08:45 PM
You know, that makes sense. I HAVE been watching the weather channel more since temperatures rose. :eek:

Wait, no I haven't.

D_Raay
03-22-2007, 11:00 PM
and the scientists who are skeptical must just be dumb.
or bought off.

their degrees and years of experience don't count, i guess.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml

"In my more than three decades in the government I've never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public."
James Hansen

D_Raay
03-22-2007, 11:18 PM
What exactly are we supposed to come around and be skeptical of?

There IS a consensus with all scientists that the earth is indeed warming (facts and data don't have an agenda). Even if the skeptics are right and man isn't causing global warming, should we just go ahead and add more carbon to the atmosphere and hope that it never does have an impact?

This whole issue is only a debate because some rich fuck's don't want to lose money.

Ali
03-23-2007, 03:32 AM
I enjoy taking this debat to a much more "down to earth" debate Qdrop.

Lets not look at the global picture but maybe by state or city.

There is smog in Los Angeles. Sometimes its so bad that you can't be outside to go for a hike, ride a bike, etc. without having some issues with breathing. Even worse for kids who aren't allowed outside for recess or can have issues with asthma. Traffic gets worse and worse every year as more houses and more cars and more people populate the city and create more pollution that causes more damage.

So F global warming. Why shouldn't we require higher MPG for car companies who have been getting away with the same limits for decades? What happened to the electric car? Where is mass transportation? What aren't more homes energy efficiant? Why aren't their building limits or rules to create infrustructure if you are going to build a 1000 homes? Etc. etc.

This country is bent on thinking about me instead of we so lets get to it. I want a clean city for me so government, get to it. Force people to do the right thing which just might benefit everyone else and the polar bears but what do I care?
Pretty soon, Global Warming becomes local.

But people don't realise that. The only way to get people to do something is to remind them that it's going to affect their local environment (like reduce the smog in LA).

Which is why it's so hard to get the US govt to comply, seeing as all the heavy industry which produces nearly everything bought by the US is made in China or India.

And it can backfire when something required to reduce global emissions is planned in places where people live. I have an extremely Green uncle in Dorset and another in Devon, both very, very keen on alternative energy... until they received planning applications for Wind Turbines on hills near their homes. Dorset and Devon are very windy areas and are excellent places to put wind turbines, but you try and tell these guys that! Suddenly, wind turbines are inefficient, a con, etc.

Ali
03-23-2007, 03:37 AM
What exactly are we supposed to come around and be skeptical of?

There IS a consensus with all scientists that the earth is indeed warming (facts and data don't have an agenda). Even if the skeptics are right and man isn't causing global warming, should we just go ahead and add more carbon to the atmosphere and hope that it never does have an impact?

This whole issue is only a debate because some rich fuck's don't want to lose money.The debate's about whether or not humans are responsible for Global Warming and whether or not we can do anything about it.

Rich fucks (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php) are paying scientists to 'prove' that it's completely natural and we can go on burning coal and oil and driving huge cars and flying all over the place all the time.

Qdrop
03-23-2007, 08:18 AM
What exactly are we supposed to come around and be skeptical of?

There IS a consensus with all scientists that the earth is indeed warming (facts and data don't have an agenda).
yes, as it has for billions of years, then cooled, then warmed....

Even if the skeptics are right and man isn't causing global warming, should we just go ahead and add more carbon to the atmosphere and hope that it never does have an impact?
no, no....
and I can just say, THAT is all I really wanted this debate to turn to....just a bit of skepticism and a "what if skeptics have a point".
thanks, D. I appreciate you being cordial.

I DO believe that pollution is a big issue and will continue to be (for reasons OTHER than global warming).
I DO think that not being energy conscious and not striving for better energy efficiency and sustainability will get us into trouble in the long run.
I DO think that our love-affair with Oil (and subsequently the middle east) brings us nothing but misery.

I think that clean drinking water for every human being is a must.
I think that children dying by the millions from fuckin mosquito bites is a tragedy that simply should not happen in this day and age.
I think genocide (like Darfur) is beyond comprehension, and should have our utmost attention and action.
I think our education system in this country alone is a fuckin joke, and needs a complete paradigm shift.

^THESE things are REAL. there is NO debate on those things. THEY SHOULD take priority. THOSE things we can fix.

so how can i support diverting our attention and funds to something that is so vague, so uncertain, as man-made global warming and the "theoretical" damage it "may" do in far future?

If your house in on fire, should you worry about the chance of your cell phone causing brain cancer, cause a few studies made some correlations?
you should probably worry more about your house burning down first....cause there is no debate on whether fire can burn a house down.
prioritize.
rationalize.

Shit, we probably have a better understanding and can project when the next giant asteroid will hit the earth and kill us all (than global warming)....maybe we should start spending trillions on an "anti-asteroid" weapon....

how can anyone justify spending trillions of dollars and crippling entire world economies with something like Kyoto....when we have no final say on the effects of man on global warming, don't know how much we will warm, and have no idea what the real results may or may not be?
hell, according to the projections from some of the alarmist greens, Kyoto wouldn't do shit.....nothing short of killing 2/3 of the world population and going back to living off the land would stop the "death of our planet".
yet many quote these Green's studies, than say "we must take action and it starts with Kyoto!"

while Al Gore sat on Capitol Hill a few days ago, screaming that if we don't spend trillions on stopping green house gases or we'll all die.......how many died in Darfur? How many children died from lack of clean drinking water on that day alone?

This whole issue is only a debate because some rich fuck's don't want to lose money. it's a debate because the science is still very unclear, there are too many variables, too much $$ is at stake on BOTH sides...and bascially....there is still a debate....because there is STILL ALOT OF ROOM FOR DEBATE.

Carlos
03-23-2007, 11:30 AM
whoa.. came in late on this one...

Both my parents were hippies, I have been recycling, and been 'green' all my life. So you may wonder why I take this view on things...

But the IPPC is a pile of shite - it is a UN body, not a scientific body - fact. Scientists that don't even agree with their findings, stay on the list of scientists agreeing with their finding, until they complain, and get taken off.

There is no doubt that the planet is warming, however I have seen NO hard scientific evidence that shows a direct link (and this is the crucial crux of the matter) with human activity and global warming. But there is strong evidece (collated from differnet scientific studies independent of each other) to show that sun spot activity does have a direct and corresponding link with our planets temperature - funny that, a gigantic ball of fire that craetes ALL heat on this planet has something to do with the temperature of the planet :rolleyes:

this does not mean that we should carry on the way we are going, and DOES NOT mean that we are not responsible for polluting our seas, and fields, deforesting our vital rainforests, and basically treating the earth like a piece of shit. But none of that is being talked about by the politcians!!

So why all the fuss about 'carbon', I'll tell you - it's about saving the oil, the world is about to reach peak oil, which is the point at which all oil in the world will start to go down - many countries have already reached their peak oil point. So it allows the oil companies to charge more for fuel whilst the rich can use as much as they like - cos they can offset it. In other words energy will become a luxury, not a right in future - scarcity = control, abundance = freedom.
It is a smoke screen (sorry bout pun) and is not in any way focussing on the main problems that we face in regard to our environment.

Why is there no talk about REAL alternative energies, sources of energy that could not be 'supplied' but would just be 'on tap'. In othe words could not be charged... this could have been done over a hundred years ago by Nicola Tesla, by JP Morgan blocked it because 'they couldn't put a meter on it'.. it's all about the money!

I highly recommend everyone on this forum to watch this film (bit low budget, but very very important)
Race to Zero Point:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=5359419035322337224&q=race+to+zero+point

Qdrop
03-23-2007, 01:02 PM
whoa.. came in late on this one...

Both my parents were hippies, I have been recycling, and been 'green' all my life. So you may wonder why I take this view on things...

But the IPPC is a pile of shite - it is a UN body, not a scientific body - fact. Scientists that don't even agree with their findings, stay on the list of scientists agreeing with their finding, until they complain, and get taken off.

There is no doubt that the planet is warming, however I have seen NO hard scientific evidence that shows a direct link (and this is the crucial crux of the matter) with human activity and global warming. But there is strong evidece (collated from differnet scientific studies independent of each other) to show that sun spot activity does have a direct and corresponding link with our planets temperature - funny that, a gigantic ball of fire that craetes ALL heat on this planet has something to do with the temperature of the planet :rolleyes:

this does not mean that we should carry on the way we are going, and DOES NOT mean that we are not responsible for polluting our seas, and fields, deforesting our vital rainforests, and basically treating the earth like a piece of shit. But none of that is being talked about by the politcians!!

So why all the fuss about 'carbon', I'll tell you - it's about saving the oil, the world is about to reach peak oil, which is the point at which all oil in the world will start to go down - many countries have already reached their peak oil point. So it allows the oil companies to charge more for fuel whilst the rich can use as much as they like - cos they can offset it. In other words energy will become a luxury, not a right in future - scarcity = control, abundance = freedom.
It is a smoke screen (sorry bout pun) and is not in any way focussing on the main problems that we face in regard to our environment.

Why is there no talk about REAL alternative energies, sources of energy that could not be 'supplied' but would just be 'on tap'. In othe words could not be charged... this could have been done over a hundred years ago by Nicola Tesla, by JP Morgan blocked it because 'they couldn't put a meter on it'.. it's all about the money!

I highly recommend everyone on this forum to watch this film (bit low budget, but very very important)
Race to Zero Point:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=5359419035322337224&q=race+to+zero+point

jesus, how can you be so on point with this...and be so rational...
and still think 9/11 was an inside job.

you are truly an enigma.

but anyhow....great post man.

Carlos
03-23-2007, 01:31 PM
jesus, how can you be so on point with this...and be so rational...
and still think 9/11 was an inside job.

you are truly an enigma.

but anyhow....great post man.

:D too funny... it's amazing how easily people are labelled, and put into a box, but I won't hold it against ya ;)

Maybe, just maybe because I am rational and objective with every topic, and don't take anything at face value?

I have Maths and physics A levels, as well as philosophy, I try come to all subjects with an open, and objective mind.
I abopt occams razer to all things, so if something cannot be, then you must look at all possible angles. Even if it is almost unthinkable.
That is why I know that 911 isn't how our gov's/media have proclaimed it to be - because it just doesn't stack up on a scientific, or even military basis (those planes should have been blown from the sky - fact).

The same goes for the latest green media/political craze... we are being conned into thinking that carbon trading, and rationing will solve our planet..
It won't - a new form of energy is the solution, not only to saving our planet, not from global warming; as it has done that many times already (funnily enough when we weren't even here), as it has cooled many time over too - to save our planet from destructing our natural resources, and beauty.
It would allow all people on this planet to be able to have clean water, power, and a 'civilised' existence, and most important, self sufficient. Imagine if you weren't at the mercy of a major corporation to get you energy, what is to stop a corporation increasing the price of energy - oh yeah shit, they do it all the time. The less oil there is, the more it goes up.

Please, please watch the vid I posted up, the more people that are aware that there is potentially a limitless source of energy, not just an indirect and marketable source from coal/oil etc.. then we might start getting there.

Schmeltz
03-23-2007, 01:47 PM
however I have seen NO hard scientific evidence that shows a direct link (and this is the crucial crux of the matter) with human activity and global warming.


That certainly isn't due to a lack of evidence.


If your house in on fire, should you worry about the chance of your cell phone causing brain cancer, cause a few studies made some correlations?
you should probably worry more about your house burning down first....cause there is no debate on whether fire can burn a house down.


This is really the crux of the matter, because global warming is the house, not the cell phone, in that analogy. I'm certainly not going to argue that we shouldn't spend as much time and effort as is needed to put a stop to the vicious and appalling crises of genocide, starvation, disease, resource shortage, and so on that continue to affect hundreds of millions of people. Of course we should. But if we don't do all we can starting right now to deal with the changing climate, those things are going to be writ large not just on Darfur or the Third World, but on all humanity. It's not a matter of having to sacrifice entire economies and populations to deal with the changes, but of realizing that if these changes aren't dealt with, we stand a good chance of losing those economies and populations anyhow. Better the devil you know, I say.

And anyway, I don't think it's true that implementing changes like the Kyoto Protocol will necessarily cost us trillions of dollars and everything we hold dear about our lifestyles. It will if we continue to conceive of our economies as bound to the consumption of fossil fuels and other resources - which a great many wealthy people are trying desperately to convince us should be the case. But it won't if we can develop a different approach to our economic activities. This is the thing that irks me about the whole situation, is that we already have the tools at our disposal to begin developing solutions to this problem: we've created enormous systems of self-perpetuating intellectual and physical resources than ever before, and I think it's fully within our ability to employ them in producing a productive reaction to climate change. Both private corporate conglomerates and public government institutions contain vast reserves of labour, knowledge, finances, research, and the potential for even more. But they're all geared towards consumption for monetary profit, rather than development for societal profit - even though there's really no reason the two can't coexist.

The demand for a solution to the problems of climate change is only going to increase. Those in a position to supply the solution stand not only to save the world but to make a tidy profit doing so. That is, if they could possibly conceive of freeing their minds from their slavish devotion to the status quo. You know the real reason why children in Africa don't have clean drinking water? Because nobody's though of a way to make money off of providing it to them. Not because it can't be done. And if saving the lives of children isn't thought of as a good enough end to justify the means, it doesn't surprise me that the state of the biosphere is regarded so poorly either.

D_Raay
03-23-2007, 01:54 PM
yes, as it has for billions of years, then cooled, then warmed....
Yes, but there weren't SUV's scurrying away from dinosaurs in every corner of the world...

I DO believe that pollution is a big issue and will continue to be (for reasons OTHER than global warming).
I DO think that not being energy conscious and not striving for better energy efficiency and sustainability will get us into trouble in the long run.
I DO think that our love-affair with Oil (and subsequently the middle east) brings us nothing but misery.

I think that clean drinking water for every human being is a must.
I think that children dying by the millions from fuckin mosquito bites is a tragedy that simply should not happen in this day and age.
I think genocide (like Darfur) is beyond comprehension, and should have our utmost attention and action.
I think our education system in this country alone is a fuckin joke, and needs a complete paradigm shift.

^THESE things are REAL. there is NO debate on those things. THEY SHOULD take priority. THOSE things we can fix.

Well sure, and I can appreciate that and I completely agree with you.
However, you can't blame these so called "alarmists" for being terrified of what they are told by scientists as being a unique threat to our way of life.
Especially when you consider the stunning lack of progress undertaking any of these things you just mentioned.

DroppinScience
03-23-2007, 05:42 PM
I enjoy taking this debat to a much more "down to earth" debate Qdrop.

Lets not look at the global picture but maybe by state or city.

There is smog in Los Angeles. Sometimes its so bad that you can't be outside to go for a hike, ride a bike, etc. without having some issues with breathing. Even worse for kids who aren't allowed outside for recess or can have issues with asthma. Traffic gets worse and worse every year as more houses and more cars and more people populate the city and create more pollution that causes more damage.

So F global warming. Why shouldn't we require higher MPG for car companies who have been getting away with the same limits for decades? What happened to the electric car? Where is mass transportation? What aren't more homes energy efficiant? Why aren't their building limits or rules to create infrustructure if you are going to build a 1000 homes? Etc. etc.

This country is bent on thinking about me instead of we so lets get to it. I want a clean city for me so government, get to it. Force people to do the right thing which just might benefit everyone else and the polar bears but what do I care?

I personally appreciate this much more than silly back-and-forth arguments of "is this science real?", "my scientist's data is better than your scientist's data", etc. which go nowhere.

yeahwho
03-24-2007, 02:53 AM
If only I wasn't working all week, this is my bailiwick. Nothing intrigues me more than my fellow humans who believe Global Warming is not being sped up with mans abuse of carbon. It's so obvious by all common sense that we're visibly fucking up the environment, take a walk down to the local strip mall and checkout the surroundings.

Global average air temperatures have risen about 1.2 degrees over the past century. The warming is also apparent in the oceans, in boreholes sunk deep in the ground, in thawing tundra and vanishing glaciers.

Earth's climate has swung from steamy to icy many times in the past, but scientists believe they know what triggered many of those fluctuations. Erupting volcanoes and slow ocean upwelling release carbon dioxide, which leads to warming. Mountain uplifting and continental drift expose new rock, which absorbs carbon dioxide and causes cooling. Periodic wobbles in the planet's orbit reduce sunlight and set off a feedback loop that results in ice ages.

All of those shifts happened over tens of thousands of years — and science shows none of them is happening now.

Instead, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are increasing at a rate that precisely tracks man's automotive and industrial emissions.

"The process is 1,000 times faster than nature can do it," Battisti said.
From this article in our local newspaper last year. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/nation-world/globalwarming/1.html)

Here is a post I put on last week....Nazi Tactics from this President to squelch such talk of man being bad. (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1435768&postcount=1)

I've done the math and am ready to debate, but I'm also working 14 hour days...Love this topic though, I don't know why it's still debatable, it's true. Some people are debating this issue with less than truth.

sam i am
03-29-2007, 03:41 PM
Echewta would have a great point if he'd lived in LA in the 1970's (did you?).

I grew up in the San Fernando Valley when we had STAGE 3 smog alerts and were not allowed to go outside during recess for fear of straining our little lungs and filling them with CO2.

By EVERY AVAILABLE MEASURE, smog levels in Los Angeles are significantly better today then they were back then, despite a prolific increase in population, emissions, etc.

So.....what happened? Maybe warming helped rather than hurt, if you can attrivute warming to LA.

Maybe the volume of emissions increased, but air quality got better with carbon trading, emissions trading, the end of the catalytic converter....i.e., much like what is occurring "naturally" now : industry and government partnering to come up with solutions rather than having alarmist agendas rammed down our throats.

When it is explained logically, not irrationally, even anti-environmentalists like myself can be persuaded to recycle, lessen my "carbon imprint," and go plant some trees, which, by the way, are still the best, renewable-resource, way to take CO2 out of the atmosphere and replace it with that stuff that keeps us alive...O2.

Finally, on the whole science "thing :" Do any of you that are sure of humanity's impact on the warming of the globe think that maybe the Sun has something to do with our warming and cooling cycles over the milennia?

Let's get busy...

yeahwho
03-30-2007, 01:55 PM
Echewta would have a great point if he'd lived in LA in the 1970's (did you?).

I grew up in the San Fernando Valley when we had STAGE 3 smog alerts and were not allowed to go outside during recess for fear of straining our little lungs and filling them with CO2.

By EVERY AVAILABLE MEASURE, smog levels in Los Angeles are significantly better today then they were back then, despite a prolific increase in population, emissions, etc.

Carbon emissions from vehicles have decreased over the past 4 decades, not just in LA but across all of the Nation. Unfortunately LA now is #1 in particulate pollution, short term and long term (http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=50752). You may not visualize the ozone and particulate levels, but they have increased steadily.

So.....what happened? Maybe warming helped rather than hurt, if you can attrivute warming to LA.

Maybe the volume of emissions increased, but air quality got better with carbon trading, emissions trading, the end of the catalytic converter....i.e., much like what is occurring "naturally" now : industry and government partnering to come up with solutions rather than having alarmist agendas rammed down our throats.

When it is explained logically, not irrationally, even anti-environmentalists like myself can be persuaded to recycle, lessen my "carbon imprint," and go plant some trees, which, by the way, are still the best, renewable-resource, way to take CO2 out of the atmosphere and replace it with that stuff that keeps us alive...O2.

I agree with the general premise of your thinking on how "Global Warming" is presented to the current population. I am sick of celebrity causes and Greenpeace tactics, some of the brightest minds in science are now convinced global warming has been accelerated by man in the past 100 years. It isn't a cause or a moral issue, it is an engineering problem. How colleges teach, how manufacturers produce and the materials used. A new criteria for production and consumption is needed. This will take a new mindset.

Only an aggressive research and development program might find ways of breaking our dependence on fossil fuels or dealing with it. This is where the problem must be solved.

Finally, on the whole science "thing :" Do any of you that are sure of humanity's impact on the warming of the globe think that maybe the Sun has something to do with our warming and cooling cycles over the milennia?

This whole science "thing" just overwhelms many, more and more conclusive evidence has convinced the brightest minds of our time to act, The American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://www.aaas.org/) has also added it's name to the banner of mankind's involvement in Global Warming, AAAS statement on Climate (http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf)from December of 2006.

Many of thought of the Sun's impact on global warming (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002549458_globalsidesun09.html), yet the problem is this;

All the efforts to blame the sun for global warming founder on one simple observation that most scientists accept as true: For the past three decades — when warming has intensified and accelerated — solar activity hasn't increased.

sam i am
04-26-2007, 10:20 AM
Many of thought of the Sun's impact on global warming (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002549458_globalsidesun09.html), yet the problem is this;

All the efforts to blame the sun for global warming founder on one simple observation that most scientists accept as true: For the past three decades — when warming has intensified and accelerated — solar activity hasn't increased.

Except that temperatures have also measurably increased on Mars, Venus, and Mercury, as well as the Moon with it's face towards the Sun.

Explain that.

QueenAdrock
04-26-2007, 02:35 PM
"Its," Sam. Not "it's". :mad:

yeahwho
04-26-2007, 03:16 PM
Except that temperatures have also measurably increased on Mars, Venus, and Mercury, as well as the Moon with it's face towards the Sun.

Explain that.

Sounds like Rush Limbaugh and many other conservatives, they believe in Global Warming, yet says it's because of "Solar Flares" from the suns cycles.

Here is a link to an article from Live Science (http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html) explaining some facts about the differences between planetary warming patterns.

I'm pretty sure mankind helped with the rapid CO2e (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type.png) buildup in planet earths atmosphere.

I am going to step up to the plate and accept responsibility for damaging the environment. Why is it conservatives are so liberal on CO2 emissions?

sam i am
04-29-2007, 03:48 AM
"Its," Sam. Not "it's". :mad:

No. I was being possesive with the Moon's ownership of it's face....therefore, "it's" was correct.

sam i am
04-29-2007, 03:56 AM
Here is a link to an article from Live Science (http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html) explaining some facts about the differences between planetary warming patterns.

There's an awful lot of "coulds" and "maybes" in there....sounds like the debate is still ongoing and inconclusive. However, it occurs to me that there exists a logical, rational argument that can be made that sublimates the growing temperatures in all of the solar bodies irradiated by the Sun to solar activity. After all, the Sun controls far more of our atmosphere by sheer volume than we could possibly ever hope to acheive on our own.

I'm pretty sure mankind helped with the rapid CO2e (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type.png) buildup in planet earths atmosphere.

Wikipedia, as always, is suspect at best. Taking what they have to offer at face value is not the best argument to be made in the favor or defense of any argumentative point of contention.

CO2 was, and will continue to be, an integral part of the atmosphere of the Earth. Most CO2 was seen as helpful to slow down the rate of Global Cooling 35-50 years ago. Time magazine had the Great Cooling of the Earth on it's cover!

I am going to step up to the plate and accept responsibility for damaging the environment. Why is it conservatives are so liberal on CO2 emissions?

We're always liberal when it comes to personal freedoms trumping woebegone and baseless fearmongering.

Schmeltz
04-29-2007, 04:26 AM
Most CO2 was seen as helpful to slow down the rate of Global Cooling 35-50 years ago.


Yeah, and it's not like science has changed or made any progress in the last 50 years.

Is this what happens when you get old? You start thinking that everything is exactly the same as it was when you were young? *Shiver*

yeahwho
04-29-2007, 08:55 AM
There's an awful lot of "coulds" and "maybes" in there....sounds like the debate is still ongoing and inconclusive. However, it occurs to me that there exists a logical, rational argument that can be made that sublimates the growing temperatures in all of the solar bodies irradiated by the Sun to solar activity. After all, the Sun controls far more of our atmosphere by sheer volume than we could possibly ever hope to acheive on our own.

And the point your making is? This logical, rational argument would have to prove that the planet earth is not being warmed up by man, that the majority of scientists, not debaters have decided to back peddle on their findings. The overwhelming majority believe the current warming trend is far too rapid for solar activity to be the cause. Many of the recent findings have been countered by some of the highest scientific criteria ever used. This is not some fly by night organization.

This is what is happening. Reread the live science response and study the accelerated CO2e (man made carbon) emissions. Do you think it's all bullshit? I am not advocating you have to not be objective in "Global Warming", it's just pretty embarrassing when someone hinges everything on a hope....hope it's just that crazy sun going through it's solar flares....in a completely erratic way that is different than any recorded the past 650,000 years.

Wikipedia, as always, is suspect at best. Taking what they have to offer at face value is not the best argument to be made in the favor or defense of any argumentative point of contention.

CO2 was, and will continue to be, an integral part of the atmosphere of the Earth. Most CO2 was seen as helpful to slow down the rate of Global Cooling 35-50 years ago. Time magazine had the Great Cooling of the Earth on it's cover!


How about that stanchion of US capitalism the Wall Street Journa (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117693844558574775-NbSeoraF2l5kKND6GgTzsAsHLDA_20070520.html?mod=tff_ main_tff_top)l? They seem to be able to adapt to a leaner lifestyle, why not do it before the goverment gets it's hands on regulating everything we consume?

We're always liberal when it comes to personal freedoms trumping woebegone and baseless fearmongering.

I'm not fearmongering anything, I'm just trying to understand how to keep this planet in as good as shape as I can for the grandchildren of our troops. Some custodianship and ability to change for the better.

yeahwho
04-29-2007, 04:31 PM
Wikipedia, as always, is suspect at best. Taking what they have to offer at face value is not the best argument to be made in the favor or defense of any argumentative point of contention.

Excellent point, although current usage (http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Wikipedia07.pdf) of Wikipedia (http://www.bizreport.com/2007/04/us_wikipedia_users_are_wealthy_and_welleducated.ht ml) is very popular and growing rapidly (I view gaining knowledge as a good thing) the criticisms (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/16/wikipedia_britannica_science_comparison/) of Wikipedia do hold some validity (http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/multimedia/438900a_m1.html), but overall the majority of users find it to be an excellent quick reference to links on any given topic.


National Geographic (http://green.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-overview.html?source=G2300)

MSN Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567022/Global_Warming.html)

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05 (http://www.bartleby.com/65/gl/globalwa.html)

Yahoo Education Site (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/globalwa;_ylt=AldUYeZ._1mUN3i2IBDXl0dSt8wF) (I just like the name)

The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/environment/) (Cute how it says "Protecting Our Nation's Environment")

The Other White House (http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2002/112602.asp)

Conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_warming) (yes, this is for real)

The Time Magazine Global Cooling article (http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf), 1974, Newsweek (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek/) had an article too.

Here are the facts to date (http://globalwarming.sdsu.edu/global_warming_facts_doc.html), easily digested and documented. It is the point you are debating, the point that scientists worldwide overwhelmingly agree upon. That wasn't the case a few decades ago, today the evidence and studies have been through so much peer review and counter review it is becoming harder and harder to debate. Could these studies be wrong? Sure they could, but the science being used is from all categories chemistry, meteorology, biology, environmental, archeology, microbiology, et;al. Many different fields of science which often conflict with each other using the most technological advances on the planet earth.

to summarize,

I'm kind of being convinced that the carbon cycle has been thrown out of balance by human CO2e.

sam i am
05-01-2007, 04:52 PM
Yeah, and it's not like science has changed or made any progress in the last 50 years.

Is this what happens when you get old? You start thinking that everything is exactly the same as it was when you were young? *Shiver*

I'm not as old as you make me out to be...just better informed and wiser.

You start thinking that everything is new and better when you are young? You have no respect for the valued opinions of your elders? *Shiver*

Schmeltz
05-01-2007, 04:55 PM
just better informed and wiser.


Nothing you've ever written will serve to convince me of that, I'm afraid.

sam i am
05-01-2007, 05:01 PM
Nothing you've ever written will serve to convince me of that, I'm afraid.

And, unfortunately, vice versa.

And I thought we had a "moment" back when we were discussing the Roman days....

Ah, for the remembrances of our yesterdays....