650 Scientists Dissent over Global Warming

[SN]

More scientists voicing their opinon that Algore is full of shit.
BTW- I agree with the dissenters, I believe we are actually in a Global Cooling phase being driven by low sun spot activity among other things.

here is the link for those who want to read the full story, I just posted the first few paragraphs.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise? - Warming Fears in 'Dustbin of History'

POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
The U.S. Senate report is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition rising to challenge the UN and Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [ Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' ]

Full Senate Report Set To Be Released in the Next 24 Hours – Stay Tuned…

[Whitebean54]

I think its a cycle, much like everything else on this planet.

[Greenhat]

Of course it's a cycle... but you can't have gloom and doom over a cycle that is primarily related to sun activity... wouldn't make former VP Gore a penny.

[Whitebean54]

Of course it's a cycle... but you can't have gloom and doom over a cycle that is primarily related to sun activity... wouldn't make former VP Gore a penny.

I couldn't agree more....you would think that asshole would have enoughmoney from inventing the internet and ice water:rolleyes::D

[Fofo]

It seems more sensible for global warming to be a cycle to me as well.

Good luck telling most people that, however. I know from experience the majority of people have taken Al Gore's global warming theory hook, line and sinker, and

swallowed the goddamn hook too.

[ekaphoto]

Lets not forget the cottage industry scientest have created by doing yet another study on global warmings impact on everything from bugs to human reproduction etc etc.

What ever you do there are all the votes politicans make by jumping on the bandwagon.

Yet these same scientest can't explaine the warming trend that happened from the ninth to the thirteenth century. It was so warm they were growing grapes in England. From the 13th to about 1850 it was called the little ice age. Why that happend they can't explaine once again. Yet they can predict the future and say it is us causing global warming? Pure bullshit IMHO.

[Greenhat]

Critical thinking is becoming rarer and rarer...

[past]

From what I've read, there does appear to be conflict between scientists on global warming. I'm not a scientist, so I can't interpret the data in any meaningful way, and I'm not about to posit any thoughts on the apparent phenomenon.

So it seems like:

If global warming does exist, and we act, we can conceivably prevent a lot of destruction.

If global warming does exist, and we don't act, then we're sowing the seeds of self-destruction.

And since there doesn't appear to be a consensus on it, we should act as if it is a problem whether or not it exists to prevent the consequences of non-action.

[Greenhat]

So it seems like:

If global warming does exist, and we act, we can conceivably prevent a lot of destruction.

If global warming does exist, and we don't act, then we're sowing the seeds of self-destruction.

And since there doesn't appear to be a consensus on it, we should act as if it is a problem whether or not it exists to prevent the consequences of non-action.

First, let's assume global warming exists. What does that mean? It means that the average temperature on Earth goes up for a period of time. Regardless of cause. Has that happened before? Yes. Pretty obviously. Were the results destructive? No. In fact they were the exact opposite. Some of the most productive time in recorded history.

Now, the sheer arrogance that claims that we, the human race, can influence even slightly the temperature of the Earth? That is where the problem lies.

[Offroad]

It seems more sensible for global warming to be a cycle to me as well.

Good luck telling most people that, however. I know from experience the majority of people have taken Al Gore's global warming theory hook, line and sinker, and

swallowed the goddamn hook too.

Ain't that the damed truth! I can't even convince my grandson that there's no global warming because "his teacher" said there "was". :mad:

[Bravo Five Romeo]

...and many doctors say there is no link between cigarettes and lung cancer.
...and many "scientists" claim to disprove evolution
...and many "engineers" believe the WTC was destroyed in a controlled explosion.

My point?

There are countless scientists, doctors, engineers, etceteras who will skew their findings, omit conclusions that don't support their beliefs... all to support their cause... usually motivated by either money or political or religious beliefs.

The hyperbole laden article attached clearly has a political axe to grind and is more about distraction and changing the argument rather than disproving a widely held scientific reality.

Though the causes and exact nature of global warming are still debated in legitimate circles... the fact that global warming exists is not.

As to the article on the senate subcommittee's site...
The senate committe on EPW is chaired by Jim Inhofe, who has on multiple occasions cited false data to debunk global warming.
This is the same Senator who said global warming was a conspiracy perpetrated by the weather channel to boost ratings.

[T-Rock]

Are Houstonians to blame for "Global Warming" :D

Surprise flurries warm Houston hearts

Fluffy flakes bring delight to some, consternation to others — and tie a 64-year-old record...

"It's really coming down," said Ramirez, 33, as he tried dragging a large envelope across his window. "This is crazy. It's Houston — we shouldn't need to keep ice scrapers in our cars."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6156862.html

[stllearnin]

A GREAT series of videos by an Australian geologist, Dr. Bob Carter looking at warming/cooling trends. Very smart, very solid, and very simple break down of the data that is available.

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno

Each video is just under 10 min each. Part 1 though is the best though to check out. Part 3 & 4 is an analysis of the temperature gathering methods and the problems therein.

[Tracy]

From what I've read, there does appear to be conflict between scientists on global warming. I'm not a scientist, so I can't interpret the data in any meaningful way, and I'm not about to posit any thoughts on the apparent phenomenon.

OK, so why the comments listed below?

So it seems like:

If global warming does exist, and we act, we can conceivably prevent a lot of destruction.

If global warming does exist, and we don't act, then we're sowing the seeds of self-destruction.

And since there doesn't appear to be a consensus on it, we should act as if it is a problem whether or not it exists to prevent the consequences of non-action.

You can take your statement and apply it every 'problem' in the book. Firearms, Global Warming, Global War on Terror, Economy, Corporal Punishment, Unregistered Pets, etc. Sounds an awful lot like Socialism, Communism and Nazism. I know that's inflammatory but the point here is that logic path you describe is waaay too easy to justify any action; regardless of cost and no responsibility taken. Zum behfel...

Global climate is a dynamic system. It always changing; and has been for billions of years.

Not one single climate model posited by the IPCC fits the observed or predicted global temperature data.

Not one single climate model has made a connection between energy use and climate.

Accurate models are very crucial to any global policy change in energy production. If we get this wrong, we will implode the entire infrastructure we rely on.

The USA did not endorse the Kyoto Protocols or other emission reduction plan because it will have no net impact on the temperature.

The great thing about our way of life is the life expectancy. It's double what third-world countries enjoy. There's a reason first-world scientists garner so-many Nobel Prizes and other accolades: they don't have to play "hunter-gatherer" every day of their lives AND do research. That's what our energy profile does for us right now. There's no amount wind power, solar power, water power that can replace it.

The energy density that oil and coal give us is second only to nuclear power. By-the-way, all nuclear plants emitted less pollutants in the last 50 years than all of the coal and oil plants for one year.

Bottom line: The UN IPCC and Mr. Al Gore screwed up badly. They got their facts wrong, built a model based on bad information, and then tried to implement sweeping emissions changes. We saw this behavior several times before in the last 100 hundred years: General Ludendorf endorsing Hitler's plans; because he needed scapegoat for his ineptitude during WW1.

If we were to lock-step with Al Gore and the UN IPCC, who'd be most affected by the policies? Third-world countries. They need electrical energy in large amounts to improve their lives at the standards we enjoy. But the UN IPCC and Mr. Gore say they can't have oil or coal plants and alternative energy doesn't have the requisite density. Nuclear is out of the question as well, because of the terrorist potential. Nuclear can be made safe for general use, but the other extreme politicians are too scared.

Or, we could just ignore the plight of the third-world populaces and hoard the energy for ourselves. That's a viable alternative by your concerns listed above.

"Consensus is not Science" Michael Crichton (RIP)

[Greenhat]

...and many doctors say there is no link between cigarettes and lung cancer.
...and many "scientists" claim to disprove evolution
...and many "engineers" believe the WTC was destroyed in a controlled explosion.

I'd like links to:

MDs who claim there is no link between nicotine and lung cancer (I did a search, couldn't find one).

Any scientist who claims to disprove adaptive evolution.

Any scientist who claims to prove macro evolution (because they're lying).

Demonstrating that macro evolution (the idea that all life has evolved from a relatively few common ancestors) has some serious flaws as a theory is not the same as disproving it, although that phrase is commonly used.

[Tracy]

...and many doctors say there is no link between cigarettes and lung cancer.
...and many "scientists" claim to disprove evolution
...and many "engineers" believe the WTC was destroyed in a controlled explosion.

Many scientists and politicians claim that global warming is all the fault of carbon emissions.

What's my point?

There are countless scientists, doctors, engineers, etceteras who will skew their findings, omit conclusions that don't support their beliefs... all to support their cause... usually motivated by either money or political or religious beliefs.

There are a number of them that sit on the IPCC.

The hyperbole laden article attached clearly has a political axe to grind and is more about distraction and changing the argument rather than disproving a widely held scientific reality.

Annnd the report on Climate Change and "An Inconvenient Truth" are not hyperbole-laden and laced with wrong information?

Though the causes and exact nature of global warming are still debated in legitimate circles... the fact that global warming exists is not.

True enough. How many global warming cycles has the Earth endured? How many were humans responsible for? 1) All of them. 2) None of them.

Show me the facts, draft the model, predict the future temperature and then we can talk. The only model thus far that has the best correlation between global temperature effects and environmental causes is the Sun-Spot Cycle Model. Not. Carbon. Emissions.

The sun-spot theory/model matches backwards in time and so far seems to match near-term predictions.

As to the article on the senate subcommittee's site...
The senate committe on EPW is chaired by Jim Inhofe, who has on multiple occasions cited false data to debunk global warming.
This is the same Senator who said global warming was a conspiracy perpetrated by the weather channel to boost ratings.

Another Senator, Al Gore, said global warming was also a conspiracy by big business. One of his big "faux-pas" in his movie was that the increase in carbon-dioxide, a "greenhouse gas", caused the polar ice to melt. Wrong. The increase in C02 occurred after the polar melt; by 700 years. So, do we blame our medieval ancestors for this mess?

Explain this to me: Why the fascination with C02 as a greenhouse gas? What percentage does it represent in the "greenhouse gases"? Hint: This is a trick question.

Pick your poison.

[Greenhat]

A GREAT series of videos by an Australian geologist, Dr. Bob Carter looking at warming/cooling trends. Very smart, very solid, and very simple break down of the data that is available.

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno

Each video is just under 10 min each. Part 1 though is the best though to check out. Part 3 & 4 is an analysis of the temperature gathering methods and the problems therein.


Excellent set of links.

[Offroad]

stllearnin, thx for the video links. This weekend when my grandson comes over I'm not going to feed him until he watches all four. (nothing liking starving a teenage boy to win a point) :D

[Greenhat]

This chart points out what Al Gore and company don't want to discuss:

[Greenhat]

I strongly recommend that anyone who is interested in "Global Warming" watch all four of the videos that stillearnin gave the links for. They are very, very good.

[Camel]

Though I have never been the least bit interested in this matter, I found these videos to be very interesting, and quite informative. I personally take the stand point that we are quite arrogant in assuming that we have any idea what is going on, I do however appreciate that people are constantly laboring to try and further understand what is going on. After all, it wasn't long ago that the scientific community supported the idea that the earth was flat. I'll keep riding until this thing stops spinning. :D

[trident86]

"State of Fear", by Michael Crichton offers a number of different viewpoints on global warming. It didn't seem to push any particular point over any other, except to say that most of our predictions based upon analysis of varying data have been wrong. There was also a hint that some scientists are paid off by corporations to skew or release incomplete data to reinforce points or policies.

If you can't stand Crichton, I would at least read the author's note at the back of the book. It'll stretch your brain cells.

[ET1/ss nuke]

All you really need to understand is 9th grade physical science. The first two laws of thermodynamics are as follows:

1. Matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. They can be converted from one to the other (E=mcc), but all the matter and energy - including heat energy - the universe has ever possessed is still in existence.

2. Every time energy is used, and every time matter is converted to energy, and every time energy is converted to matter, some of it is wasted in such a way that it is no longer available for future use (a.k.a. entropy). Boiling water in a pot on a stove requires that some energy be used to get the metal pot hotter, when you really only needed to get the water hot. When you are done boiling the water you no longer need the pot to be hot, but you can't recover the energy used heating it.

Combining 1 with 2, since time began the universe has been running out of energy. Stars burn up their fuel. Our planet's orbit is slowly decaying. Earth's core is cooling off. Given time, the unavoidable result is not just global, but universal cooling.

If we really are experiencing global warming, we better enjoy it while it lasts, try to find out what caused it, and do lots and lots more of whatever that was.

[rt nail]

From what I've read, there does appear to be conflict between scientists on global warming. I'm not a scientist, so I can't interpret the data in any meaningful way, and I'm not about to posit any thoughts on the apparent phenomenon.
So it seems like:
If global warming does exist, and we act, we can conceivably prevent a lot of destruction.
If global warming does exist, and we don't act, then we're sowing the seeds of self-destruction.
And since there doesn't appear to be a consensus on it, we should act as if it is a problem whether or not it exists to prevent the consequences of non-action.

Global warming does exist. So does global cooling. There has been warming and cooling since the earth was formed. The vikings lived grazed cows and sheep and grew crops on Greenland for several generation and then it got cold again; some went indig and the rest moved on to other places.
The earth changes. Weather cycles change. Man and animals adapt. Man tends to forget two very important laws. The first is the law of unintended consequences and the second it cause and affect. If you try to fix a problem that doesn't exist (or fix something you can't fix) all you do is fuck up something someplace else......

[Cold1]

Global warming research = money.
It is just the latest bandwagon for barely PhDs to jump on and make a name for themselves. Lots of publicity and little chance of being proven wrong anytime soon. By the time most of their models predict major changes most of the researchers will be dead.

I work with some of the smartest People on the east coast. In our informal conversations I have noticed a trend, the PIs with the most liberal views agree with global warming, the others think it is crap.

Lets just look at it another way.
There are no weather men that can predict the weather 2 days in advance with 100% accuracy, so how can a scientist predict the future global temp years from now?

[SN]

The UN doesn't have a political axe to grind. The constant calls for letting the UN "solve" the problem are apolitical?


[QUOTE] Though the causes and exact nature of global warming are still debated in legitimate circles... the fact that global warming exists is not.


then why was 208 the coolest year in the last decade? why substitute Sept data for Oct data and claim it was the warmest Oct on record?

Have these experts considered a hotter sun cycle as a possible cause?

Why do equal numbers of experts claim a cooling cycle similar to the mid 1800's vice your global warming cycle?

BTW- The weather channel GW "goddess" isn't a scientist, she is an on air personality, just like algore. Put the GW data and models to the same test other met models go through and see what happens. Others have, and the GW models failed the controlled tests, which makes the models suspect.

GW/GC are natural cycles that we need to live with. The carbon footprint shit is another attempt by socialists (who moved to "green" parties when socialist countries collapsed in the 90's) to run my life.

[Scotty]

I'm of the belief that you can't help but affect any environment you live in. Whether it's carbon emission, pollution, whatever, we're affecting it. Enough to overheat the entire planet, I doubt it, if anything the crap we're putting into our environments is blocking the sun and will make it colder... but I'm no scientist.

I do want all of my illegitimate children and their future illegitimate children to have a place to live that's habitable, so I do "my part" to not be wasteful, but I'm not sure we'll ever have a definitive answer on whether or not we're to blame for all the Earth's woes.

Scotty

[Panda]

That was an excellent resource Stll.

Unfortunately, as is the case with a lot of suppositions and beliefs with this matter and others, the sheer lack of good solid resources, education and intelligence based on this type of critical thinking and empirical data is damn near criminal.

Also unfortunate is the fact that until the scientists, educators and government start looking at and teaching both sides of this issue with an objective frame of mind, and the medialogical resources admit they do not have the skill or background to verify and/or support the suppositions behind global warming, there is very little that can or will be done to mitigate the damage thats already been done in biasing people against the real facts behind the issue.

Hindsight is a bitch, but it is also how most people end up figuring out they have been acting like idiots. (course then they are to busy avoiding the consequences to put any real thought into it!!) :rolleyes:

[RGR.Montcalm]

I do want all of my illegitimate children and their future illegitimate children to have a place to live that's habitable, so I do "my part" to not be wasteful

So what you're saying is you've given up one handed sex?:eek::biggrin:

[Tracy]

That was an excellent resource Stll.

Unfortunately, as is the case with a lot of suppositions and beliefs with this matter and others, the sheer lack of good solid resources, education and intelligence based on this type of critical thinking and empirical data is damn near criminal.

Now you know how OJ walked...

Also unfortunate is the fact that until the scientists, educators and government start looking at and teaching both sides of this issue with an objective frame of mind, and the medialogical resources admit they do not have the skill or background to verify and/or support the suppositions behind global warming, there is very little that can or will be done to mitigate the damage thats already been done in biasing people against the real facts behind the issue.

What the Greenies can't accept is that humans are not directly responsible for the so-called "global warming". Until the ex-socialists can find another windmill to tilt at, we have to put up with their histrionics. Hell, quite a few are already declaring 'victory' because there is 'dialog' over this grave issue. Bullsh*t.

Hindsight is a bitch, but it is also how most people end up figuring out they have been acting like idiots. (course then they are to busy avoiding the consequences to put any real thought into it!!) :rolleyes:

We won't have to wait too long before they'll figure out that their cause is lost. Unfortunately, they won't go away. I ought to start a lottery on what their next cause will be...

[Tracy]

Nice synopsis here:

http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/evidence-of-sunspot-involvement-in-climate-change-compelling/

[Max Power]

I do not believe in man-made global warming, same reasons as all those above.

And like Scotty, I'all for keeping environmental consequences in mind when doing things. Not because I want to care for the environment - if we piss it off enough it will take care of us - but because if I have the ability to do so, I fully believe I should. In the city I live in they do curbside recycling at no additional cost. There is no reason NOT to recycle, and it does piss me off to see houses without the orange bag out front on trash day. Pure laziness.

Same thing on the carbon footprint issue. If we can reasonably afford to do so we should.

In both cases there is a much larger issue - strategic/national security issues. Nothing would make me happier than to see this country have 0% reliance on hydrocarbons and other non-renewable materials. Not because of the environment but because it reduces our dependence on others and thereby their inluence on us. The strategic/national security benefits are WAY more important.

So, uh... In summation... Global warming (man made) is pure crap.

[Whitebean54]

It is snowing in Louisiana.....I rest my case. ;)

[Panda]

We won't have to wait too long before they'll figure out that their cause is lost. Unfortunately, they won't go away. I ought to start a lottery on what their next cause will be...

As long as it doesn't involve Reid or Pelosi....;)

[Patrick7]

It is snowing in Louisiana.....I rest my case. ;)

No shit huh? My wife called to tell me and I thought she was making it up. I was in shorts two days ago.

With regards to this issue most data people use to support their theory of warming is about 5000 years old max. That is nothing compared to the billions of years the planet has been around. Like SN said, models are just that, models. Garbage in = garbage out, I can skew them by dropping a decade here or there for the last 2000 years and make it say what I want.

This website is full of people with common sense, regardless of what side people are on, I am always impressed that people back up their thoughts with facts. Appreciated the link Still Learning, never watched those before.

[Almighty Bones]

I to do not believe in global warming being a man made phenom. Its cyclic as was mentioned. I remember being in grade school and being told that we were coming up on a new ice age. Now its the opposite.

Reguardless we should still perserve our environment. I live in a valley between mountains that during the winter mostly traps our air. It sucks having red alert air quality days and being told we recommend you don't go outside today. Living with it until the next strong set of winds clears it out. Thats what my kids breath. I have a filtration system for my tap water. The amount of harmful particles might not be high enough to be issued a warning by the Government, but cancer and all these diseases come from somewhere and something. We should look into cleaner resources to gain energy independance as was also mentioned, but for our health and or our childrens health. So while I disagree with their skewed up angles, in the end the best result would be cleaner power etc for our own good.

[Scotty]

So what you're saying is you've given up one handed sex?:eek::biggrin:

LMAO! It was NEVER one handed... And with female aid as often as possible.

I take it you still haven't seen my comment on the announcement thread of your daughter's engagement, huh? I'm still in "duck and cover" mode... :D

Scotty

[RGR.Montcalm]

I take it you still haven't seen my comment on the announcement thread of your daughter's engagement, huh? I'm still in "duck and cover" mode... :D

Scotty

I have... and considered the source...:biggrin:

to answer the question- I don't know but a lot of folks tell me she is gorgeous...

After all, she's MY daughter...:biggrin:

[RGR.Montcalm]

Its a shame that "Big Al" doesn't have to give back the Nobel prize and the $1 million bucks...

[Scotty]

I have... and considered the source...:biggrin:

to answer the question- I don't know but a lot of folks tell me she is gorgeous...

After all, she's MY daughter...:biggrin:

LOL, congrats again. /duck and cover = replace with "slightly cautious of a trap". :biggrin:

Scotty

[MakoZeroSix]

I wouldn't be suprised to learn that these global warming deniers are all funded by the oil companies, as the scientists who "dissented" before them were.

Then again, I'm sure many other scientists are influenced/controlled by the environmental lobby, but between them and the oil lobby I know who has more assets.

The way things are today, it's nearly impossible to discern the truth value of any given statement; with technology the way it is, you can always find people to give an opposite opinion and come up thousands of pages of graphs and complicated data to show why they're right and the other guy is wrong.

You can go on thinking that pouring hydrocarbons into the atmosphere is a good thing if you like. I'd rather err on the side of discretion. You can always give a snappy little Rush Limbaugh esque soundbite like "It's snowing in a place that is usually warm!" and ignore that the average global temperatures are higher than they've ever been. And that the population of the earth is expanding exponentially, using more and more of this stuff. I don't think we'll be under water in 20 years, but why not gradually phase out fossil fuels in exchange for cleaner ones?

I never understood why conservatives are so hostile to environmentalism; they're always out in nature shooting fuzzy animals, camping, fishing and so forth, yet they routinely oppose things like the clean water act, clean air standards, ect. Yet its the pasty faced fuckstick liberals in the big cities who are left defending a nature they rarely venture out into. WTF?

Personally, I think more of you would want to protect nature if the dirty hippies and that loser Al Gore weren't into it.

[Max Power]

I never understood why conservatives are so hostile to environmentalism; they're always out in nature shooting fuzzy animals, camping, fishing and so forth, yet they routinely oppose things like the clean water act, clean air standards, ect. Yet its the pasty faced fuckstick liberals in the big cities who are left defending a nature they rarely venture out into. WTF?

Personally, I think more of you would want to protect nature if the dirty hippies and that loser Al Gore weren't into it.

x10000000000-aw-hell-infinity

My thoughts exactly.

[Oldpogue]

MZ6 - I'm with you on this subject but I've already taken my lumps on it so I'll just stand by and watch.

[Panda]

You can go on thinking that pouring hydrocarbons into the atmosphere is a good thing if you like. I'd rather err on the side of discretion. You can always give a snappy little Rush Limbaugh esque soundbite like "It's snowing in a place that is usually warm!" and ignore that the average global temperatures are higher than they've ever been. And that the population of the earth is expanding exponentially, using more and more of this stuff. I don't think we'll be under water in 20 years, but why not gradually phase out fossil fuels in exchange for cleaner ones?

I never understood why conservatives are so hostile to environmentalism; they're always out in nature shooting fuzzy animals, camping, fishing and so forth, yet they routinely oppose things like the clean water act, clean air standards, ect. Yet its the pasty faced fuckstick liberals in the big cities who are left defending a nature they rarely venture out into. WTF?

Personally, I think more of you would want to protect nature if the dirty hippies and that loser Al Gore weren't into it.

I don't believe that clean air was the exact issue. I am sure most of us agree that we would enjoy our children living long and healthy lives without running the risk of gods-knows-what every time they take a breath of air or take a drink of water.

BUT, that is not the issue here. Do I want the REAL environmental issues being argued by people who are not willing to research or stand up to the FACTS? Do I want them argued through a non-sensical global warming scare that is just going to make everyone that much more skeptical when the real issues come out?

Don't you think that those arguments should stand on their own and not be cross contaminated with a bunch of BS that wouldn't hold up in a Victoria Secret store???

Arguing the two together just doesn't work.

[Greenhat]

You can go on thinking that pouring hydrocarbons into the atmosphere is a good thing if you like.

I suggest watching the videos. It isn't about hydrocarbons or pollution. It's about CO2. Carbon Dioxide. The stuff plants need to make oxygen for us to breathe.


I never understood why conservatives are so hostile to environmentalism; they're always out in nature shooting fuzzy animals, camping, fishing and so forth, yet they routinely oppose things like the clean water act, clean air standards, ect. Yet its the pasty faced fuckstick liberals in the big cities who are left defending a nature they rarely venture out into. WTF?

Personally, I think more of you would want to protect nature if the dirty hippies and that loser Al Gore weren't into it.

Teddy Roosevelt is the original conservationist. I don't think you'll find many conservatives that are hostile to conservationism or real environmentalism. Opposed to fear tactics and bagging sheep farts? Yep.

[Tracy]

I wouldn't be suprised to learn that these global warming deniers are all funded by the oil companies, as the scientists who "dissented" before them were.

Then again, I'm sure many other scientists are influenced/controlled by the environmental lobby, but between them and the oil lobby I know who has more assets.

The way things are today, it's nearly impossible to discern the truth value of any given statement; with technology the way it is, you can always find people to give an opposite opinion and come up thousands of pages of graphs and complicated data to show why they're right and the other guy is wrong.

I am a global warming denier and I'm not funded by anyone. I do not believe this so-called global warming the environmentalists are alarmed about is rooted in the last hundred years of industrial revolution.

It's possible to discern the truth. First, I read technical magazines. A lot. Second, if I have questions on say, climate, I talk to a climatologist. Third, I instantly suspect liberals and/or hippies because they have a reputation for seizing on some emotional issue and blowing it out of proportion. Any cause they stand for makes me want to study and find out where they screwed up. Fourth, occasionally they're right, but screw up the execution phase. Which means more research on my part to figure out how to do it over.

You can go on thinking that pouring hydrocarbons into the atmosphere is a good thing if you like. I'd rather err on the side of discretion. You can always give a snappy little Rush Limbaugh esque soundbite like "It's snowing in a place that is usually warm!" and ignore that the average global temperatures are higher than they've ever been. And that the population of the earth is expanding exponentially, using more and more of this stuff. I don't think we'll be under water in 20 years, but why not gradually phase out fossil fuels in exchange for cleaner ones?


Bad Analogy.

Hydrocarbons-->Carbon Monoxide-->Air Pollution.
??? --> Carbon Dioxide --> Global Warming???

What's the most abundant "green house" gas by percentage?
What percentage is carbon dioxide?

If you want to discuss air pollution and better uses for hydrocarbons, I'm in agreement with you. Having been raised in Los Angeles, believe me I want clean air ASAP.

I I never understood why conservatives are so hostile to environmentalism; they're always out in nature shooting fuzzy animals, camping, fishing and so forth, yet they routinely oppose things like the clean water act, clean air standards, ect. Yet its the pasty faced fuckstick liberals in the big cities who are left defending a nature they rarely venture out into. WTF?

Personally, I think more of you would want to protect nature if the dirty hippies and that loser Al Gore weren't into it.

I want to protect nature worse than you. But I want to understand the mechanism better. Second, I do not want to crush our infrastructure doing it. Evironmentalism is a game rich countries play, not third-world countries. They can't afford carbon-sequestration, pollution credits (the ultimate Ponzi scheme), solar power or a hydrogen economy.

With regards to population growth, we're operating at a net loss. The increases you speak off are happening in third-world countries. Coincidentally, that's where the famine and disease is too. I see three options:

Darwin: Let them die off.
Liberal: Set up a welfare program to totally support them, because they can't do it themselves.
Conservative: Move the survivors somewhere else and give them the tools and training to take care of themselves.

I spent about 10 years in Africa and nobody listened to a f*cking thing I had to say. But Mr. George Clooney and friends go there for a few days and all of a sudden it's the "worst crisis the world has known..."

Bullsh*t.

[MakoZeroSix]

Third, I instantly suspect liberals and/or hippies because they have a reputation for seizing on some emotional issue and blowing it out of proportion. Any cause they stand for makes me want to study and find out where they screwed up. Fourth, occasionally they're right, but screw up the execution phase. Which means more research on my part to figure out how to do it over.


I agree. I also suspect oil companies and other rich, powerful organizations of not having our best interests at heart. Like with Dick Cheney's secret energy meeting when he first took office. When they fund scientists that come to a conclusion that there is no global warming, I am skeptical. Like when Phillip Morris had all those scientists say that smoking was all good.

It's possible to discern the truth. First, I read technical magazines. A lot. Second, if I have questions on say, climate, I talk to a climatologist

Lots of techincal journals and climatologists have opposing views of the same issue.

Personall, I listen to my little sister, who's a scientist. She thinks global warming is real. I know she's smart, and not beholdent to a special interest. And she certainly isn't liberal.

Hydrocarbons-->Carbon Monoxide-->Air Pollution.
??? --> Carbon Dioxide --> Global Warming???


So, burning hydrocarbons releases no carbon dioxide into the atmosphere??


Teddy Roosevelt is the original conservationist. I don't think you'll find many conservatives that are hostile to conservationism or real environmentalism. Opposed to fear tactics and bagging sheep farts? Yep

Great point. And every conservatives hero President Bush has gutted many environmental protections, ones for clean water and air, not having anything to do with global warming. All while Rush chortles with glee at thwarting the plans of the Greenpeace crowd. Roosevelt would be disgusted.

With regards to population growth, we're operating at a net loss. The increases you speak off are happening in third-world countries. Coincidentally, that's where the famine and disease is too. I see three options:

Darwin: Let them die off.

I like the plan.

[SN]

Personall, I listen to my little sister, who's a scientist. She thinks global warming is real. I know she's smart, and not beholdent to a special interest. And she certainly isn't liberal.

What kind of scientist?
A physicist is a scientist, but I wouldn't ask one to forecast weather.

I would tend to believe someone like Dr Gray, or the head of OCAR when they dispute the GW crowd.

[nofear]

EXCELLENT discussion.

Do I believe in "Global Warming". To be honest, I really don't care if the planet is getting hotter or colder. I don't give a toss.

What I hate, is seeing my nation spending billions of dollars on some carbon emission capture venture to "prevent" global warming. I'd prefer those billions be spent on something productive that is proven to be needed.

Do I believe in being more environmentally-conscious and not wasting our planet's resources? Hell yeah!! But not out of some misguided belief that putting a can of coke in the recycling bin will stop global warming. I do it for the same reason I clean my home. Because I want to look after it.

As has already been mentioned, the book "State of Fear" outlines a lot of relevant information as well as pointing out the attitutudes and personalities of those people involved. It's probably supportive of the global-warming-is-cyclic faction, but to me it is only that way to point out the flaws in the hippy faction's emotive arguments.

The book itself urges you to do your own research and keep an open mind.

I have no proof that global warming is real or not. I have no evidence to dispute it.

But I'm not jumping on the band-wagon.

[OldSwabbie]

These scientist CRACK me up. Its almost beyond my ability to NOT laugh my ass off at every one of them.

We have no "Reference Point" to know whats HOT or whats COLD for the earth. We have a good idea what the averages have been for quite a long time ~ but what about larger thermal cycles or changes? Again - we cant know. Without a "Ground Reference" or a KNOWN reference we have nothing but a sliding scale. Thats one of the first things you learn in Electronics.. Whats the Ground reference for the circuit.

The thing that REALLY Kills me? Get this ~ We have these Global Warming scientist giving us all this data and what Was, IS, and IS to come... BUT yet these CLOWNS cannot even give us a clear path were a Hurricane is going to land. Just a big ole "Cone of Uncertainty"...and that is something that is HAPPENING right then!

But, by golly they can tell us FOR SURE that in XX number of years without a shadow of a doubt the Oceans WILL rise, the Temperature WILL be XXX and the earth will be Toast..

They are FOS...

[rt nail]

[QUOTE=Max Power;1078171]Same thing on the carbon footprint issue. If we can reasonably afford to do so we should.

In both cases there is a much larger issue - strategic/national security issues. Nothing would make me happier than to see this country have 0% reliance on hydrocarbons and other non-renewable materials. Not because of the environment but because it reduces our dependence on others and thereby their inluence on us. The strategic/national security benefits are WAY more important.

QUOTE]

So we should not drill for the oil that is available within our continental shelf? We should not use coal? We should not process the oil shale or use natural gas? Why in the hell not if, as you say, global warming is not man made..... The only thing that makes sense is to use all the energy sources available to include nuclear energy. Not doing so will just drive up the cost of all energy and raise hell with the economy. The prez elect's idea of millions of new jobs from green energy is crap. Cap and trade is crap. Worrying about an individuals carbon footprint is crap.

[Tracy]

I agree. I also suspect oil companies and other rich, powerful organizations of not having our best interests at heart. Like with Dick Cheney's secret energy meeting when he first took office. When they fund scientists that come to a conclusion that there is no global warming, I am skeptical. Like when Phillip Morris had all those scientists say that smoking was all good.

Completely irrelevant. The observed global temperature data has not been altered. The ice core samples and the TTPs for determining atmospheric composition and global temperature have not been altered. Not by big oil or anyone else.

Something to consider: "Big Oil" also employs scientists and engineers. Do you really think they can shut them all down if the "global warming" effect was exclusively man-made?

Lots of techincal journals and climatologists have opposing views of the same issue.

Dr. John Christy, climatologist. Doesn't believe the IPCC findings, not funded by anyone except the US Government. NASA to be exact.

Personally, I listen to my little sister, who's a scientist. She thinks global warming is real. I know she's smart, and not beholden to a special interest. And she certainly isn't liberal.

Fair enough. What's her field of expertise? Does she do research in the field, or read the journals like the rest of us? I'm just an engineer with graduate certificates in Computer Science and Geographic Information Systems/Remote Sensing. The whole global controversy affects my work in remote sensing; because I have to understand the effects it may have. I had to write a briefing paper for US Army South on the global warming and the propaganda surrounding it.

So, burning hydrocarbons releases no carbon dioxide into the atmosphere??

Nope. If you're going to fixate on C02 emissions from burning hydrocarbons, please answer the following:

What are the components of so-called greenhouse gases?
What percentage, by volume, does each component occupy?
What is the largest component of greenhouse gases?
Is carbon dioxide a part of the greenhouse gases?

What were the levels of C02 in the atmosphere, by percentage, in the last:
a) 10 years.
b) 100 years.
c) 200 years.
d) 500 years.
e) 1000 years.
f) 5000 years.
g) 10000 years.
h) 50000 years.

Which system emits the most C02 on an annual basis today:
1) Man-made systems.
2) Vegetation.
3) Oceans.

What are amounts in billions of metric tons?

Great point. And every conservatives hero President Bush has gutted many environmental protections, ones for clean water and air, not having anything to do with global warming. All while Rush chortles with glee at thwarting the plans of the Greenpeace crowd. Roosevelt would be disgusted.

I'm not interested in politics. Consensus is not science. I have no idea what Mr. Limbaugh has to do with the issue.

[Greenhat]

But, by golly they can tell us FOR SURE that in XX number of years without a shadow of a doubt the Oceans WILL rise, the Temperature WILL be XXX and the earth will be Toast..

They are FOS...


Yep.

[MakoZeroSix]

Okay, fuck it. Let's just keep burning fossil fuels that come from a volitile area of the world with the ever expanding population and make no attempt to curtail our energy use or clean it up. We can just pretend that Mount Killamanjaro still has snow 5 years from now, and that all those huge chunks of receding glaciers breaking off are an optical illusion. Hope that works out for you all.

[Max Power]

Okay, fuck it. Let's just keep burning fossil fuels that come from a volitile area of the world with the ever expanding population and make no attempt to curtail our energy use or clean it up. We can just pretend that Mount Killamanjaro still has snow 5 years from now, and that all those huge chunks of receding glaciers breaking off are an optical illusion. Hope that works out for you all.

Remember, I agree with your final conclusions as I said above. Being smart about what we do to the Earth is good, especially since we have advanced far enough technologically to make it almost a no brainer. If we CAN minimize our impact, we SHOULD.

But there are some flaws in your statement above. This year was colder than last (once the right data was used from Russia) in fact it isn't even in the top 10 warmest years list (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Top10.warmest.doc) and the Arctic ice cap actually GREW in size tremendously, back to 2000 levels. In one year.

The naivete and arrogance that goes into thinking that we can change the environment in any significant way (human output of CO2 is nothing when compared to the oceans, volcanic activity, etc.) amazes me.

Man made global warming is crap. Global warming and global cooling are real, but humanity plays no role in that.

[24/7]

Man influenced global warming – humbug

The pendulum is swinging left and so goes stuff like this.

Politicians - see it as a way to raise taxes, gain control and build power.

Press – Does not support critical thinking and is generally devoid of objectivity, they support those who are striving to forward the agenda – dissenters do not get a platform so objective discussion is not being heard by the general populace.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

Press – Does not support critical thinking and is generally devoid of objectivity, they support those who are striving to forward the agenda – dissenters do not get a platform so objective discussion is not being heard by the general populace.You mean the kooks don't get a voice.
Global warming is an accepted scientific fact.
The causes of global warming, the speed of global warming... these are issues with a grey area that can be debated.dissenters do not get a platform so objective discussion is not being heard by the general populace.Yep... same with holocaust deniers, 9/11 "truthers", moon landing conspiracy theorists, and other dissenters who are large in numbers but not given a platform from which to debate their side.

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

There was an excellent documentary I caught some time ago about a creationist scientific group trying to prove the world was only 7,000 years old.
They published books offering scientific proof that the world was young and, among many claims, for examle, that the Grand Canyon was not formed over milions of years, but rather during the great flood of the Bible.

Their findings were rejected by the majority of the scientific community, as most geoloigists pointed out that this group had done selective research to support their claims... ignoring any data which disproved them and only using the few pieces of data that might support their theories when presented without all the overwhelming data that disproved it.

In this documentary, the creationist scientists were trying hard to debate the mainstream scientists in public forums and were being ignored.

The documentary showed an interview with a respected geoligist who gave an answer that relates to this global warming "controversy" as well.
He explained why he would not debate with the creationist scientists.
He said to debate them would create the impression that there was a debate within the scientific community when there is not. To debate their points on an equal level would give them credibility and give the appearance that their claim was as legitimate... that there were two sides to the issue when there weren't.

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

If a mathametician with an agenda wants to claim 2 plus 2 equals five, not four... he can not claim that other mathameticians are trying to supress legitimate debate within the math world by not debating his side or dismissing his theories.

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

There are millions of people who believe the WTC was destroyed by controlled demolitions and/or that there were no hijacked planes on 9/11. There are countless "scientists" who have offered proof to support these beliefs.
There are countless videos, articles, and books supporting this belief... as scientific fact.

The reality that hijacked planes crashed into the buildings is what caused the towers to collapse is a proven fact with mountains of physical evidence and the laws of physics to support it.
That has not, however, stopped some scientists from selectively finding evidence that contradicts reality.

It is the same with global warming.
There is a mass movement attempting to debunk the existence of global warming... who somehow believe global warming is a sham designed to support a political agenda... just as 9/11 "truthers" believe their science and believe 9/11 was a sham to support a political agenda.

[MakoZeroSix]

Remember, I agree with your final conclusions as I said above. Being smart about what we do to the Earth is good, especially since we have advanced far enough technologically to make it almost a no brainer. If we CAN minimize our impact, we SHOULD.

But there are some flaws in your statement above. This year was colder than last (once the right data was used from Russia) in fact it isn't even in the top 10 warmest years list (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/gr...10.warmest.doc) and the Arctic ice cap actually GREW in size tremendously, back to 2000 levels. In one year.

The naivete and arrogance that goes into thinking that we can change the environment in any significant way (human output of CO2 is nothing when compared to the oceans, volcanic activity, etc.) amazes me.

Man made global warming is crap. Global warming and global cooling are real, but humanity plays no role in that.


Well- I'm not saying we should halt all industry immediatly and all live in communes and such. All I'm saying is that we realize that massive consumption of fossil fuel probably isn't such a great thing for many reasons, and start to shift to green technology.

And alot of people who used to say global warming was bullshit, now say, "well, its real, but its not man made". At what point do they go "Well, okay, its man made, but we can't do anything about it". Seems like incrementalism to me.

And your data on the icecaps- I have no way of knowing if that's true or not. There are all kinds of scientists that say that the polar ice caps have shrunk, ect. Now they're saying they suddenly came back? Some scientists say that the past ten years have been the hottest. Some say, no that's not true. People are going to believe whatever they want to believe, and have plenty of "evidence" to support it. I'm just saying that in case it is true, we act to reverse the problem.

[Dumpsterchair]

I work at a national lab and I watch how competitive it is to get funds for your research from DOE. There is no money available for people wanting to do research to disprove GW (at least at DOE national labs). There are accolades and boat loads of money available for those wanting to further the theory.

I don’t know if GW is man made or not and I am all for conservation, but the above has to be considered when looking at the current arguments being made.

[Greenhat]

Okay, fuck it. Let's just keep burning fossil fuels that come from a volitile area of the world with the ever expanding population and make no attempt to curtail our energy use or clean it up. We can just pretend that Mount Killamanjaro still has snow 5 years from now, and that all those huge chunks of receding glaciers breaking off are an optical illusion. Hope that works out for you all.

Gee, nothing like bringing logic and sense to the discussion rather than emotion and FUD, is there?

Read your paragraph. Talk about FUD.

Did you bother to look at the videos posted? I'm pretty sure you didn't.

There are plenty of good reasons to make efforts to reduce our use of petroleum without resorting to panic-laden wailing without the slightest bit of actual factual basis. Mount Killamanjaro without snow in 5 years? C'mon. That is exactly the kind of crap that isn't helping. It's nonsense. You know it, I know it... so why undermine your whole argument with it?

[Greenhat]

Global warming is an accepted scientific fact.

If you mean that the Earth goes through periods of warming and cooling? Then yes, it's an accepted fact.

If you mean that the Earth is currently in a period of excessive warming? No, it is not an accepted fact.

If you mean that mankind is contributing significantly to changes in global temperature? That is also not an accepted fact.

[Max Power]

Well- I'm not saying we should halt all industry immediatly and all live in communes and such. All I'm saying is that we realize that massive consumption of fossil fuel probably isn't such a great thing for many reasons, and start to shift to green technology.

And alot of people who used to say global warming was bullshit, now say, "well, its real, but its not man made". At what point do they go "Well, okay, its man made, but we can't do anything about it". Seems like incrementalism to me.

And your data on the icecaps- I have no way of knowing if that's true or not. There are all kinds of scientists that say that the polar ice caps have shrunk, ect. Now they're saying they suddenly came back? Some scientists say that the past ten years have been the hottest. Some say, no that's not true. People are going to believe whatever they want to believe, and have plenty of "evidence" to support it. I'm just saying that in case it is true, we act to reverse the problem.

Totally agree on the first part, its just the reasons behind doing so that we disagree on.

I'll have to dig up the data on the ice caps, my fault for not posting a link the first time.

As for the temp issue, the last 7 years (2000-2007) are all on record as being in the top 10 for worldwide temperature (the US data is different). 2008 is nowhere on that list. Too soon to say if its a new trend, but 2008 was a deviation from the trend, for sure. Same for the ice caps (still looking to find that article/data).

[Greenhat]

http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=2101

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=EAS20081101&articleId=10783

http://climatereality.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/global-cooling-predictions.doc

http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EVIDENCEFORPREDICTINGGLOBALCOOLINGFORTHENEXTTHREED ECADES.doc

http://nov55.com/gbcool.html

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=23556

http://www.almanac.com/timeline/index.php

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4503

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=37AE6E96-802A-23AD-4C8A-EDF6D8150789

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8

Regarding Global Warming being "scientific fact"

[Panda]

http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=2101

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=EAS20081101&articleId=10783

http://climatereality.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/global-cooling-predictions.doc

http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EVIDENCEFORPREDICTINGGLOBALCOOLINGFORTHENEXTTHREED ECADES.doc

http://nov55.com/gbcool.html

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=23556

http://www.almanac.com/timeline/index.php

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4503

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=37AE6E96-802A-23AD-4C8A-EDF6D8150789

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8

Regarding Global Warming being "scientific fact"

:biggrin:

Appreciated! But now I'll be reading again all day instead of working!! :p

[Greenhat]

A few more:

http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=131538

http://www.independent.org/events/detail.asp?eventID=31

Even the IPCC doesn't state that Global Warming is a fact. It states that during the second half of the twentieth century, average surface temperatures went up, very likely due to the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

[MakoZeroSix]

[QUOTE][Did you bother to look at the videos posted? I'm pretty sure you didn't.

There are plenty of good reasons to make efforts to reduce our use of petroleum without resorting to panic-laden wailing without the slightest bit of actual factual basis. Mount Killamanjaro without snow in 5 years? C'mon. That is exactly the kind of crap that isn't helping. It's nonsense. You know it, I know it... so why undermine your whole argument with it?
/QUOTE]

No, I'm hung over and teaching a bunch of nugs how to use software over the weekend, I don't have time to watch all kinds of videos and read through reams of reports. In the past, I've seen plenty of evidence on both sides that says either GW is real or it is bullshit. I think there are some convincing arguments on both sides as well. I am against the liberal hysteria that says we are all going to die in 20 years because of it, and I am against right wing talk show nonsense that says that mankind's pollution is harmless to the biosphere. So, as usual, I am taking a moderate position on an issue. I am advocating erring on the side of caution rather than rolling the dice.

What the hell is FUD anyway?

[CPTAUSRET]

[QUOTE][Did you bother to look at the videos posted? I'm pretty sure you didn't.

There are plenty of good reasons to make efforts to reduce our use of petroleum without resorting to panic-laden wailing without the slightest bit of actual factual basis. Mount Killamanjaro without snow in 5 years? C'mon. That is exactly the kind of crap that isn't helping. It's nonsense. You know it, I know it... so why undermine your whole argument with it?
/QUOTE]

No, I'm hung over and teaching a bunch of nugs how to use software over the weekend, I don't have time to watch all kinds of videos and read through reams of reports. In the past, I've seen plenty of evidence on both sides that says either GW is real or it is bullshit. I think there are some convincing arguments on both sides as well. I am against the liberal hysteria that says we are all going to die in 20 years because of it, and I am against right wing talk show nonsense that says that mankind's pollution is harmless to the biosphere. So, as usual, I am taking a moderate position on an issue. I am advocating erring on the side of caution rather than rolling the dice.

What the hell is FUD anyway?



FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt)

[Greenhat]

As for the temp issue, the last 7 years (2000-2007) are all on record as being in the top 10 for worldwide temperature (the US data is different).

Not even close. What are you using as your limits?

There are at least a couple of thousand years when the Earth was warmer than it was during those seven years... (mid-Holocene)

[24/7]

[QUOTE=Bravo Five Romeo;1079016]You mean the kooks don't get a voice. Global warming is an accepted scientific fact.

Thanks, you prove my point.

Open (public) scientific dialog between opposing sides is needed...lay the scientific cards on the table. Challenge the science, if the results are solid there will be no doubt or maybe one side will end looking as kooks or the other will look like the wizard behind the curtain - blowing smoke.

Junk science supporting a agenda gets a ton of support when it brings power and money to the key players.

[RAT]

I work at a national lab and I watch how competitive it is to get funds for your research from DOE. There is no money available for people wanting to do research to disprove GW (at least at DOE national labs). There are accolades and boat loads of money available for those wanting to further the theory.

I don’t know if GW is man made or not and I am all for conservation, but the above has to be considered when looking at the current arguments being made.

Bingo.... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/6666248#6666248

RIP... MC...

MC made the connection between LBJ Admin and Cancer to the GlobWarming.... It is all about funding... I can't wait to get funding for doing analysis on the PSC business. I think we can get right about 150million if we get 3 more people on board.

I love the US Government. :D

RO!!!

[Max Power]

Not even close. What are you using as your limits?

There are at least a couple of thousand years when the Earth was warmer than it was during those seven years... (mid-Holocene)

Posted the link in my previous post, its a single source, but it contains all the information you want (quick answer - 1880 to now).

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Top10.warmest.doc

EDIT - I stand corrected. 2008 made it into the top 10 at #9.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

Open (public) scientific dialog between opposing sides is needed...lay the scientific cards on the table. Challenge the science, if the results are solid there will be no doubt or maybe one side will end looking as kooks or the other will look like the wizard behind the curtain - blowing smoke.
Not true.
Look no further than the 9/11 "truthers" for that.

35 years ago legitimate news organisations (print, radio, and TV) would not give moon landing conspiracy theorists a legitimate forum to present their case... nor would NASA host a debate with them.
It was irresponsible.

Now, thanks to the 24 hour news cycle and the overall decline of journalitic responsibility the media gives a voice to the conspiracy nuts, like the 9/11 "truthers." Even it's just to shut them down and debunk them, by acknowledging them and giving them a forum, it gives them the apearance of legitimacy, as though there is another (albeit less likely) theory.
The 9/11 Truth movement has millions of believers and is growing, regardless of how often it's been debunked. Slick presentation and public attention has given it a sense of legitimacy.
There's an old saying...
An individual person may be smart... but people as a whole are stupid.

As to your suggestion that by allowing an open debate on the issue would expose them as kooks if they were really kooks... also not true.

Just as in a political debate, the person speaking can choose to disregard points that make his position look bad and only stick with the talking points and information that supports his position.

Global warming is a fact.
What is, however, legitimately debated is the cause, the end results, whether it's cyclic, whether man has had any impact on it, and many other factors.

[RAT]

B5R,

Why I agree with 99.9999% of your statement except the Global Warming...

The earth is 4.5 billion years old.

The weather people and the scientist can not even get the weather 100% right.

There was this old famer in Tomball Texas who had a cow Bessy (True story 1979). THe cow could predict the weather better than the people at Texas AM, NASA, and NOAA... Just by the way she would act and give milk.

Now having watched Storm Chaser and seeing the PHD weather goo rue vs the young guy who thinks the Dr is a Tool... I have to agree with the young guy with all the wiz bang funding and gizmo's the Dr has.... He has hit 1/4 of the Tornado's the young guys who are in the field hit.

The Dr. has the right pedigree.... When it comes to money the right pedigree is what people want. Not some guy with just a BS with a proven track record.

Happens in the LEO and Mil as well... Generals like to talk to Lt's way before they will talk to a PVT. and the Head of a Department will talk to the University and think tanks way before they speak to the Officer on the beat everyday.

RO!!!!

[Max Power]

And your data on the icecaps- I have no way of knowing if that's true or not. There are all kinds of scientists that say that the polar ice caps have shrunk, ect. Now they're saying they suddenly came back? Some scientists say that the past ten years have been the hottest. Some say, no that's not true. People are going to believe whatever they want to believe, and have plenty of "evidence" to support it. I'm just saying that in case it is true, we act to reverse the problem.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/cold-science/2002-01-13-antarctic-cooling.htm - Antarctic cooling trend

http://www.adn.com/news/environment/story/555283.html - expansion of Alaskan glaciers

No matter what, we've only been monitoring ice extent since we started putting satellites up to monitor ice extent. In the grand scheme of things, that's nothing compared to how long the Earth has been around. So who is to say what's normal? The Earth goes through cycles, that's the way it is and its the way its always been.

[Greenhat]

Posted the link in my previous post, its a single source, but it contains all the information you want (quick answer - 1880 to now).

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Top10.warmest.doc

EDIT - I stand corrected. 2008 made it into the top 10 at #9.


Over a period of 128 years... :rolleyes:

[Max Power]

Over a period of 128 years... :rolleyes:
Not really sure where the disconnect is, as I'm fairly confident we're of the same opinion here...

I don't believe anything recently experienced (i.e. since humans have been around) would qualify for a top 10 list encompassing a period since life began until now. But man made global warming proponents use more recent periods, as evidenced above, to claim that man is responsible for warming (by using temp data since the Industrial Revolution). The fact that over these same periods we've seen a recent decline is relevant to this discussion. On the larger scale of Earth's entire existence, its pretty much irrelevant, something man made warming proponents tend to gloss over or outright ignore.

[Greenhat]

Humans have been around about 2.5 million years based on archeological evidence. Homo Sapians have been around for around 300,000 years, and across most of the earth for at least (including the Americas) 14,000 years. The mid-Holocene was between 5,000 - 7,000 years ago.

[Xdeth]

It's real, there are certainly debateable aspects and forecasts but trend since industrial revolution are far exceeding recorded temps / CO2 levels since it would even matter to us for comparison purposes. More importantly I don't really see why the general legislating of industrial gasses and pollution is not embraced regardless of the reasons.

[Greenhat]

It's real, there are certainly debateable aspects and forecasts but trend since industrial revolution are far exceeding recorded temps / CO2 levels since it would even matter to us for comparison purposes. More importantly I don't really see why the general legislating of industrial gasses and pollution is not embraced regardless of the reasons.


Could it be that the general legislation also includes Carbon Dioxide (not a pollutant) and animal generated methane (do you really think we need to bag sheep and cow farts?).

As for the comparison thing:

The two largest periods of human improvement are both marked by warm periods, one of which was significantly warmer than the temperatures we are currently discussing.

[Xdeth]

We should decrease the C02, Methane, and CFC's to allow return to pre-industrial levels, because that is the human contribution to warming since then, there is no argument over that cause/effect even by the critics of GWM that I have ever seen, only arguments are over the degree and future trends.

As to the rest of the global events in climate leading to warming and cooling, past, present or future, leave that to mother nature, we can't control it.

What part of this bothers you, seriously. Legislation over cow farts is another matter.

[Greenhat]

We should decrease the C02, Methane, and CFC's to allow return to pre-industrial levels, because that is the human contribution to warming since then, there is no argument over that cause/effect even by the critics of GWM that I have ever seen, only arguments are over the degree and future trends.

As to the rest of the global events in climate leading to warming and cooling, past, present or future, leave that to mother nature, we can't control it.

What part of this bothers you, seriously. Legislation over cow farts is another matter.

According to archeological evidence from the mid-Holocene, CO2 levels were significantly higher then than now...Methane? Unknown. On the other hand, methane levels were probably significantly higher during the Juraissic period. CFCs? Probably lower. CFCs are claimed to contribute to global cooling, not global warming.

What "pre-industrial" levels do we return to?

"that is the human contribution to warming since then, there is no argument over that cause/effect even by the critics of GWM that I have ever seen"

You need to look more. Seriously.

[Xdeth]

All you really need to understand is 9th grade physical science. The first two laws of thermodynamics are as follows:

1. Matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. They can be converted from one to the other (E=mcc), but all the matter and energy - including heat energy - the universe has ever possessed is still in existence.

2. Every time energy is used, and every time matter is converted to energy, and every time energy is converted to matter, some of it is wasted in such a way that it is no longer available for future use (a.k.a. entropy). Boiling water in a pot on a stove requires that some energy be used to get the metal pot hotter, when you really only needed to get the water hot. When you are done boiling the water you no longer need the pot to be hot, but you can't recover the energy used heating it.

Combining 1 with 2, since time began the universe has been running out of energy. Stars burn up their fuel. Our planet's orbit is slowly decaying. Earth's core is cooling off. Given time, the unavoidable result is not just global, but universal cooling.

If we really are experiencing global warming, we better enjoy it while it lasts, try to find out what caused it, and do lots and lots more of whatever that was.

Sir, I must trump your 9th grade physics with 13th year cosmology, although I never took that :) It's going to get way hotter before it gets cold.

In about 5-8 billion years the sun burning out of fuel and expanding into a Red Giant will pushing the Earths orbit outward and simultaneously smoking us like a cheap cigar, it won't be cold on Earth for a couple hundred million years after that. The vacation home on Pluto might be nice though.

[Xdeth]

According to archeological evidence from the mid-Holocene, CO2 levels were significantly higher then than now...Methane? Unknown. On the other hand, methane levels were probably significantly higher during the Juraissic period. CFCs? Probably lower. CFCs are claimed to contribute to global cooling, not global warming.

What "pre-industrial" levels do we return to?

"that is the human contribution to warming since then, there is no argument over that cause/effect even by the critics of GWM that I have ever seen"

You need to look more. Seriously.

It's a one liner exponential equation (radiation absorbtion rates of gases)based on observed parts per million C02 measured since 1890. Pre-industrial levels are predicted based on half life of the compound in the atmosphere since we could have put it there, 10-15 years?

I don't have anything else to add, I'm not a climatoligist and parroting the critics or proponents of GWM based on past performance to predict future events reminds me of derivatives trading, which I do know something about.

You can't reliably use it to predict what you should be doing NOW, or even the cause behind something occurring without sufficient hindsight. I say make the changes now becasue the hindsight is well, the place where we live. What side would you rather err on?

[Greenhat]

Here's the fundamental problem to that argument. It assumes that carbon-dioxide increases cause warming (that cause/effect issue) which is not actually demonstrated scientific fact. During each of the warm periods in the Earth's history, CO2 levels were higher than during the cool periods. Let's consider flipping the cause and effect and see what result we get, shall we? What if increased CO2 levels are a normal result of cyclic warming? In other words, just as beyond our control as the rest of the environment. And if the globe was in a cyclic (rather than man-made) warming cycle for the last hundred years or so (which long-term data seems to support) than any measurements of CO2 differences over that time period are not necessarilly a result of man.

There's another problem with the concept. It's a simple equation about a very complex system. It doesn't take into account a great number of factors and fails when empirically tested in the actual environment (the environment seems to self-correct).

In the meantime, the folks who study the sun as well as archeologists who study the long-term cycles say that we may be closing on another cooling cycle.

I'm all for clean emissions - but that has nothing to do with CO2 or Global Warning FUD. I don't believe computer models that fail when tested empirically that claim that CO2 is going to destroy us all (especially considering that mankind thrived in an era that was roughly 5 degrees C hotter than the globe currently is).

[Xdeth]

Can I interest anyone in some carbon offsets, bio-fuel, or windmills?

I love trees.

:biggrin:

[RAT]

Can I interest anyone in some carbon offsets, bio-fuel, or windmills?

I love trees.

:biggrin:

I am in this for the Tax Credits... I am getting Killed.... It snowed in Houston so I lost about 10,000 that I am going to have to pay in Tax this year now. :mad:

RO!!!

[Xdeth]

I am in this for the Tax Credits... I am getting Killed.... It snowed in Houston so I lost about 10,000 that I am going to have to pay in Tax this year now. :mad:

RO!!!

http://www.chicagoclimatex.com

http://nymex.greenfutures.com/

EUREX has carbon contracts as well, but it looks like what you need are weather contracts.

http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/weather/index.html

I love this, Trade Unit $200.00 times the respective CME Snowfall Index , WTF is that. :cool:

[RAT]

http://www.chicagoclimatex.com

http://nymex.greenfutures.com/

EUREX has carbon contracts as well, but it looks like what you need are weather contracts.

http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/weather/index.html

I love this, Trade Unit $200.00 times the respective CME Snowfall Index , WTF is that. :cool:

One of the groups I am involved with is a wind energy company. They track the weather and wind. There are areas of the world that are better for wind than others. It is all just gambling. They have a frekking staff that can't get the weather right 80% of the time and that is great numbers when you are right 20% of the time. They are pretty good on the wind. Other stuff is crap...IMHO...

You should get in this stuff.. It is like pissing into the wind and hitting you back in the face. LOL It will piss you off when you are talked down to by some Mid-30s PHD... I just want to smack the shit out of them.

RO!!!

[stllearnin]

You know something is up when a meteorologist from CNN is calling b.s. on man-made global warming

From http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081218205953.aspx

Some of the highlights include...
“You know, to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant,” Myers said. “Mother Nature is so big, the world is so big, the oceans are so big – I think we’re going to die from a lack of fresh water or we’re going to die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure.”

And...

“If we go back really, in recorded human history, in the 13th Century, we were probably 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than we are now and it was a very prosperous time for mankind,” Lehr said. “If go back to the Revolutionary War 300 years ago, it was very, very cold. We’ve been warming out of that cold spell from the Revolutionary War period and now we’re back into a cooling cycle.”

[MikeC2W]

Global Warming. True or not we are all fools.

They want to tax what you exhale and fart, and people are falling for it.

Very sad state of affairs, it's all about money and utopian socialistic bullshit that completely ignores soloar cycles and the like. Blinding us to the real issues going on which could very well hurt us in the end.

We're screwed.