International Report Cites Global Warming Cause, Effects

[Piero]

Via CBS: "Next week, an international panel of top climate scientists, including Americans, will issue a long-awaited report on climate change.

The long-awaited report to be published next week puts hard scientific fact behind the cliché images of global warming. A final draft, obtained by CBS News, contains the strongest language yet on how fast the world is heating up and who to blame.

The answer? Us. " link (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/24/world/main2395489.shtml), link 2 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/22/tech/main2387304.shtml)

[H20cooled]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4487421.html

I won't argue that Global warming isn't happening. But I have one question for you.

How do you explain global warming happen at least 2 other times in the planets history if man was not even around to cause it then (ice ages)? There were no cars or factories to blame this on then. What makes you think that this isn't just a naturally occurring event completely beyond our control? This is obviously what happened in the past, correct. I will not buy into the theory that man is the one causing all this until someone can explain to me what the cause of the last 2 were from.

Not saying though that we shouldn't try to stop pollution and quite our dependence for oil though, just don't believe we are to blame for the warming.

[Piero]

don't ask me, ask the best climate science minds on the planet over the past 40 years...:) I'm not qualified.
Do you think the scientific community neglected to ask that same question?

[H20cooled]

I have yet to seen a single one of them bring that up. I think there is a huge push to make people blame humans for the problems and to actually ignore the real truth, and I also believe that most of them have NO idea what the cause is. And there are a lot of scientist who actually don't believe that its really happening, but they are very over shadowed by the very vocally believers. There is a lot of hype on the whole thing and people really get wrapped up in the excitiment and miss the facts.

Don't beleive everything you read and Al Gore tells you.

[Piero]

I don't believe everything I read, as insinuated. I haven't even seen Al Gore's movie.

Regardless of the subject, I'm certainly more likely to believe the worldwide scientific consensus from professionals who are qualified and scrutinized by peers, than I am likely to believe those who are not, like 'armchair scientists' .....i.e all of us here, including me.

We're not qualified either way...period. I don't believe for one second that I have answers that the best scientists across the planet have missed for decades...and I don't understand why anyone would presume to think that they do, sorry.

Now if in fact the current worldwide scientific community consensus is misguided, then it's up to those qualified and scrutinized professional climatologists to present that case in the same manner that the current theory has been formed. But again, we are certainly far from qualified either way. Science is about searching for truth, and certainly scientific theories have been corrected in the past, but we should leave the search and analysis to actual scientists qualified to do so, don't you think?

Nobody is saying not to question. nobody is saying not to learn. But , imo, we should keep a grounded perspective in the fact that we are not actually climatologists...and we should realize that our opinions are baseless compared to the most learned professionals in the field.

Above and beyond all of this is the hard reality that regardless of the truth(whether predominant theory is accurate or not), the most prudent thing to do is to play it safe so that our children are not paying the price in the future.

[drock59]

Rich I really dont want to get into another pissing match about this but for crying out loud....

When in history have CO2 levels ever been this high? Answer: Never Who cares if the cause is humans. Global Warming is happening. we need to make changes or we are going to have some serious issues. Bottom line.


EVERY peer reviewed scientific article has said that global warming is happening and we are making an impact, if not directly causing it......every one. Only about half of the mainstream media articles say its happening.

Never in the history of science has there been more consensus on a subject than Global Warming.


Above and beyond all of this is the hard reality that regardless of the truth(whether predominant theory is accurate or not), the most prudent thing to do is to play it safe so that our children are not paying the price in the future.

You get a gold star. Doesnt this make sense? Wouldn't it be better to take action and find out in 100 years that we were wrong about global warming then leave our world in crisis if it is true? This is the part I cannot comprehend.

Someone tell me how ceasing the use of fossil fuels to power just about everything a bad thing?

[H20cooled]

LOL, WOW people get really really emotional on somethings. I did not mean anything I said as an insult to anyone, I just think that people get really wrapped up in the excitement of things and tend to ignore the facts.

As for Co2 levels being high now, how do you know that they were not high in the past and thats what created global warming? They don't know that its; they don't know why global warming happened in the past and they do not know why its happening now. Everything cause that they come up with is a theory that it. The problem is they are taking theories and trying to past them off as facts.

As for EVERY peer review straighting that we are causing this, you are wrong maybe every peer review that you have heard of but no not everyone. I have read plenty of articles by climatologists and others that have said we have no proof that its happening and what the cause is and these were not some no armchair scientist.

On the fossil fuels did I once say that we should continue using them and not develop an alternative? Would I love to see factories stop dumping there waste into the oceans, rivers, and air; Hell yes. I will ask you this. If you think these things are bad what are you doing not to add to the problem?

[drock59]

You are right there have been several ice ages in the last several hundred thousand years....no doubt about. There has also been times of global warming in between the ice ages. However, scientists are able to use ice core samples(Drilling way down into the ice) to track the parts per million CO2 in the air back to 600,000 years.

IN the last 600,000 years co2 concentrations have never topped 250 ppm roughly. Today our Co2 concentration is about 360 ppm and is expected to rise to over 500 ppm within 50 years. This is so much higher than anything has been in 600K years(Source: Science Magazine). That is a long time.... we have a problem.

More CO2 in the atmosphere means warmer temperatures as more heat gets trapped in the atmosphere.

H2Ocooled, I would honestly LOVE to read any peer reviewed article discussing the myth of Global Warming. If you find one please pass it my way.

I guess I just assume that folks who dont buy Global Warming must think that alternative or cleaner energy is bad also. Thanks for straightening me out. :)


If you think these things are bad what are you doing not to add to the problem?

I carpool with a vehicle that gets 35 miles to the gallon and intend to buy a car that runs on alternate fuel as soon as possible.
I buy clean energy from my power company so they can invest in sustainable energy.
I use nearly all compact fluorescent light bulbs in my house.
I recycle everything.
I eat close to the Earth.
When i buy new appliances i find the most energy efficient model, even if its a bit more expensive.

How about yourself?

[Piero]

I'm not insulted, in case anyone wondered. :D

Some of the most entertaining debate on the subject is on Digg (http://www.digg.com/environment/Global_warming_the_final_verdict_2). I love reading the comments almost more than the articles.

[Piero]

some of the funnier, or more interesting comments from Digg (http://www.digg.com/environment/Global_warming_the_final_verdict_2):

"I think we can all agree that global warming is behind 9/11 attacks."

"As George Carlin once pointed out, the planet will be fine, it's the people living on the planet that will be ****."

good point here, and funny too, but still not a reason to not believe current science:
"Ah... a final verdict on a theory based on a computer model of a system that isn't well understood."

"Record snow in places it hardly does like Phoenix, Malibu, and Albuquerque. Insane record highs breaking well over 100 degrees in San Fransisco. Clearly Global Warming seems to be targeting Environmentalists..."

"The really chilling thing about the IPCC report is that it is the work of several thousand climate experts who have widely differing views about how greenhouse gases will have their effect. Some think they will have a major impact, others a lesser role. Each paragraph of this report was therefore argued over and scrutinised intensely. Only points that were considered indisputable survived this process. This is a very conservative document - that's what makes it so scary,' said one senior UK climate expert. Ok, that makes the United Nations, the European Union, several thousand climate experts and Steven f****g Hawking who think global warming is not only real but a serious, potentially catastrophic threat. Can we stop arguing over it now?"

liked this one:
"Theories don't necessarily equate to facts. They are simply scientific explanations based on current observations, experiments, and available data, and they can and do change when new evidence forces them to. It's just as foolish to claim that a theory is inherently true as it is to claim that a theory is inherently false. They are not proven, per se, but they are accepted as the best explanation of a specific phenomenon, based on the available evidence."

not how I would say it necessarily...but:link (http://www.digg.com/environment/Global_warming_the_final_verdict_2#c4877183)
"Ya, and thousands of climate scientists from hundreds of countries are making a mistake that sombody with college stats wouldn't make."

"1st the Internet, now Global Warming... Thanks a lot Al :)"

[H20cooled]

Me; lets see.

Drive a car that get 38mpg.
Yeah the CF bulbs on some and I have dimmers on others which really save a lot of life on them and power.
recycle everything that I can.
Compost in the garden.
Try to use organic and natural soaps and shampoos which are much better for us and the planet.
thats about all the I'm doing now. But in the future when I can afford it I plan to:
Build an earth sheltered house that will use concrete instead of trees, cut my heating and cooling cost by 75%, use the sun for lighting the home and heating the house. Use old hardwood for the floors. And more....

[Piero]

i knew you were a damn treehugger!! :)

I'm guessing everyone has goals for the health of the planet that are more shared than may appear initially. It's the details that bog us down i think. again, i defer to the professionals on that front.

[H20cooled]

LOL, not sure I'm a tree hugger. Part of my quest especially with my new house design is because I hate paying the government or some huge monopoly for power, so if I can cut that back to nothing I would be very happy. The other part is I want low maintenance and long lasting.

As for the car and mpg, I live in Portland and work in salem, the gas costs kill me so less use is a lot better.

Its all good though, hopefully we can leave our kids and our kids kids with a nice planet and oceans that they can enjoy like we can now.

[CCR]

Piero, Please go back and edit the languarage in your last post 1st page "f.....g" not good for any of us

[Piero]

uh ok, i didn't see any profanity...but i did remove the letter 'f' from the front of the 'f----' in one quote if that's what you were referring to. Sorry, I thought I was censoring it adequately by leaving the 'f' and changing the rest of the letters to dashes. I was also trying to leave it unaltered since it's a quote from someone else.

[oldbrownies]

What I don't ever see in these reports on climate change is the discussion of global dimming caused by soot and dust that is spewed into the atmosphere. Not that I don't think parts of the world are getting warmer. I guess I have a hard time following a theory that says all this damage to the enivronment is caused by one thing, when a more important factor in the environment is being depleted. Besides, if you tell people the world is going to grow dark, I think they would be a little more worried then if it got warmer, after all we are more scared of the dark than of warmth.

[Ronjunior]

I hear the cause years ago was from the dinosaurs smoking. After they filled the air, they died from lung cancer. :)

[oldbrownies]

stupid dinosaurs, smoking themselves to extinction, can't they read the surgeon general wanrings?

[drock59]

As George Carlin once pointed out, the planet will be fine, it's the people living on the planet that will be ****."

My personal favorite.



Yeah the CF bulbs on some and I have dimmers on others which really save a lot of life on them and power.
Compost in the garden.
Try to use organic and natural soaps and shampoos which are much better for us and the planet.
thats about all the I'm doing now.

Me too... i forgot these. Yeah for us!!!!!



What I don't ever see in these reports on climate change is the discussion of global dimming caused by soot and dust that is spewed into the atmosphere.

The Earth is recieving less and less sunlight....ie. less and less heat. If we clean up the air, the greenhouse effect will be boosted....awesome!

[oldbrownies]

if you stop the producers of the soot and smoke, you remove the greenhouse gas producers, I'm just saying there are things that are as or more hamfull than warmth.

For people out there that are worried about cleaning chemicals (like me) some of the "nasty" cleaning supplies are bio-degradable! Like comet, and it has become such a selling point that those that are biodegradable will say right on the lable! Surfactants and phosphates in soaps really worry me, especially in places like the south pacific, where the sewage flows right out on the reef

[drock59]

Doesnt comet have bleach?

[oldbrownies]

yes, but chlorine combines with oraganic cemicals to make things like salts.

[blown65]

I will probably buy a more fuel efficient car for daily driving needs. (My Caddy only gets about 15 or so city)

But I wont give up my toys that don't get good gas mileage.

[CCR]

uh ok, i didn't see any profanity...but i did remove the letter 'f' from the front of the 'f----' in one quote if that's what you were referring to. Sorry, I thought I was censoring it adequately by leaving the 'f' and changing the rest of the letters to dashes. I was also trying to leave it unaltered since it's a quote from someone else.

STILL THERE

[drock59]

I would like to know more about how chlorine is bound up naturally. I was under the impression that chlorine was difficult clean up. Arent salts kind of bad too? Salinization doesnt seem like a good thing.

[H20cooled]

I thought beach naturally evaporated and didn't cause any problems. Maybe I'm wrong

[fly guy]

This entire argument is silly. Everybody knows the earth is really only 6000 years old and dinosaurs never existed. (rock2)

[H20cooled]

Done, I edited the post

[oldbrownies]

I would like to know more about how chlorine is bound up naturally. I was under the impression that chlorine was difficult clean up. Arent salts kind of bad too? Salinization doesnt seem like a good thing.


Chlorine gas is hard to clean up, because highly reactive just like ozone and when it come in contact with organic materials it disolves them by bonding to them and makes other molecules, thats why it is bad for a fishes gills, and thats why it doesn't harm anything after sewage treatment, because in the sewer its surrounded by plenty of organic materials. Dechlorinators we might have used in tanks before RO did the same thing too, they just bind the chlorine into other molecules, often NaCl.

[Ronjunior]

Hey CCR, now go edit your post because your quote has the f word too. (enforcer)

What is all that hundreds of thousands of gallons of road deicer that's being used these days made of? Much of that will end up in our creeks, streams, rivers and eventually the ocean.

[Piero]

whoops, thanks H2, i really completely missed that one, I thought was referring to the other one, that's why i was confused. %#$@!#%! :)

[H20cooled]

I never noticed it either. But its all good now...

[DChemist]

What is all that hundreds of thousands of gallons of road deicer that's being used these days made of? Much of that will end up in our creeks, streams, rivers and eventually the ocean.

Road deicers are generally made of chloride salts; mostly calcium chloride but also sodium, magnesium and potassium chloride (also all found in your aquarium (scary) )...

[Chief]

My thoughts on global warming have changed since reading Michael Crichton's "State of Fear".

I know the book is a work of fiction, but he did 3 years of research on global warming before writing the book and has a 20 page bibliography on the texts that he used to write it.

He has some interesting comments at the end. He wrote:

"We desperately need a nonpartisan, blinded funding mechanism to conduct research to determine appropriate policy. Scientists are only too aware of whom they are working for. Those who fund research - whether a drug company, a government agency, or an environmental organization - always have a particular outcome in mind. Research funding is almost never open-ended or open-minded. Scientists know that continued funding depends on delivering the results that the funders desire. As a result, environmental organization "studies" are every bit as biased and suspect as industry "studies." Government "studies" are similarly biased according to who is running the department or administration at the time. No faction should be given a free pass."

Until there is a double blind study on global warming that is completely nonpartisan, I would question the results. Someone always has an agenda. I'm not saying that there isn't a problem, and I am not saying that we are not the cause of said problem, but I am saying that we need better proof.

Jay

[H20cooled]

Yep, thats what I've been trying to say all along (but you did a LOT better job then I have). The problem is we will probably never see anyone do the study, just to many people, agencies, and etc. that have agenda's to allow that to happen, the no global warming folks only want that out and the pro global warm folks only want that out.

[drock59]

"We desperately need a nonpartisan, blinded funding mechanism to conduct research to determine appropriate policy. Scientists are only too aware of whom they are working for. Those who fund research - whether a drug company, a government agency, or an environmental organization - always have a particular outcome in mind. Research funding is almost never open-ended or open-minded. Scientists know that continued funding depends on delivering the results that the funders desire. As a result, environmental organization "studies" are every bit as biased and suspect as industry "studies." Government "studies" are similarly biased according to who is running the department or administration at the time. No faction should be given a free pass."


um duh, right? Whoever gives the money for the study expects the correct results. :)


Until there is a double blind study on global warming that is completely nonpartisan, I would question the results.

Its going to get a little warming before this happens. An old saying..... snowballs chance in hades comes to mind.


I am saying that we need better proof.


What more proof do you need than more consensus from the scientific community than on any other topic in history. Even if all scientist had an agenda, it certainly cant be the same one. They all cannot get their funding from Greenpeace or Al Gore. They all cant be tree-hugging hippies. They all cant be Captain Conservative.

This is the part I cant understand...How much more consensus does one need?

[H20cooled]

This is the part I cant understand...How much more consensus does one need?

But this is the point that I've been trying to get out all along, you assume that all of the studies you have read are completely unbiased and that all of the scientists were honest. Do you know that for sure? I know there are a lot of studies that say, we are causing this, its fossil fuel, factories etc... But there have also been studies done that so the opposite of that (I posted a link in our last discussion on this), that person was a very well respected and qualified individual.

I found some links for you to read:
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/moregw.htm


This is all kind of a pointless argument until someone actually takes the time to an unbiased and honest study and until that point I will remain a skeptic.

[drock59]

This is all kind of a pointless argument until someone actually takes the time to an unbiased and honest study and until that point I will remain a skeptic.

Its great to be a skeptic, but there comes a point when you have to accept some truths. Also, i dont assume that ANY study is unbiased, nor that our understanding of Global Warming will absolutely change over time. Given the overwhelming scientific study on the subject at present, it is quite clear what is happening.

I assume that all studies are biased.


Thanks for the light reading.

[H20cooled]

By your reasoning though I should just accept that something is truth even if the studies and/or research is biased. I don't care how many scientific study are done if all of it is biased or flawed, just cause there are a millions studies pointing to one conclusion if they are all biased does not make them true. And really that is the problem with the whole Global Warming theory and until there is a real un-biased study done we will never not he truth. Now you can go around believing what your want just like I can but it doesn't make either of us right.

[Piero]

..that's why peer review and intense scrutiny by peers(even those who disagree) is a very crucial part of science. It minimizes that 'subjectivity' phenomenon, which is inherent in anything humans do...

We could take the next couple 100 years to examine the climate more closely with better technology to gather more evidence, but then the actual scenarios we are trying to predict will have already played out.

"The really chilling thing about the IPCC report is that it is the work of several thousand climate experts who have widely differing views about how greenhouse gases will have their effect. Some think they will have a major impact, others a lesser role. Each paragraph of this report was therefore argued over and scrutinised intensely. Only points that were considered indisputable survived this process. This is a very conservative document - that's what makes it so scary,' said one senior UK climate expert."

and...
frankly there are plenty of more obvious reasons to stop using fossil fuels beyond the debate about the details of climate change. The smart and safe thing for humanity to do is clean its act up regardless, imo.

Also, look at the dates and consider the sources when reading articles on any subject. Does the source have qualifications? Is the source scrutinized by the worldwide scientific community? Is there a consensus by others in the science presented? Has it been approved by a body of science or not?

[drock59]

Well said Piero...precisely the point i am trying to reach. If we wait long enough for an actual unbiased study(unattainable in my view) it will be too late. We will already have seen, or not, the ramifications.


something is truth even if the studies and/or research is biased Precisely my point. Almost all research has biased. Bias is the enemy of any legitimate scientist but on the same token, incredibly hard to eliminate. Your view on looking for an unbiased study seems flawed when it is so challenging to do so.

[H20cooled]

I give up, as I said before this argument is a waste of time. Because you believe your side is right you feel things like "If we wait long enough for an actual unbiased study(unattainable in my view) it will be too late." the problem with that is without an real proof you could be completely FALSE.

I'm not arguing whether or not we should develop an alternative for fossil fuel. What I really hate is the scare tactics that are being used to make people believe something that has not been proven to be true or false; its just a theory at this point. But when you present it as absolute truths and make crazy movies trying to scare everyone to believe the way you do it does NO one any good and in the end you have done more harm then good.

Thats it, I have nothing else to say on this subject....

Thank you everyone for the fun discussion...

[drock59]

Ok ok, you are right this is a waste of time.
But one last comment.


the problem with that is without an real proof you could be completely FALSE.

True...very true but isnt it worth the price to try and do something about it now and take action, rather than wait and see? Seems like a logical maneuver to me? I could be completely false or completely and utterly correct. If I am correct and we wait 50 years to solve the issue then what?

If we have pretty solid evidence that someone is going to blow up a building, but we are not positive, do we wait or do we do something about it?

Im with you on the fact that Global Warming may not be caused by us, but on the same token, I do not feel like we can afford to wait to take action any longer....just in case. That is my bottom line.

[Piero]

I guess I'm just comfortable leaving the heavy research and data analysis up to the worldwide body of climate scientists who are actually interested enough in the subject to make it their life's work.

I'm more concerned with trying to figure out if my auto mechanic is pullin' my leg, so I can spare a bit of faith in the scientific community since they have a better track record than the mechanic. :)

[H20cooled]

I have one question for you.

Do you think it's ok to lie or deceive people if it gets something accomplished that you believe needs changed? Cause until there it definitive proof that Global Warming is real and that we are causing it, that is basically whats being done with the scare tactics and movies.

[drock59]

Says you! Ill go with Piero and the rest of the scientific community.

[H20cooled]

What do you mean says me. I asked a simple question, what you can't answer it? You can only give a smart a$$ response. Never mind then I think people get the point that I'm making, but you can go on trying to deceive everyone into believe a bunch of hype and biased studies and maybe you will get them to freak out.

[Piero]

nope, i don't think it's ok to lie or deceive people in order to get them to save energy or use less fossile fuels, or dress up their pets, or wear balloon hats. :)

If I were to put my money on which side of the debate had a larger vested interest in deception though, I'd be betting on the oil industry's vested interest in survival and profit. Historically, I'd also assume the oil industry(and corporate america in general) has more experience with deception than the scientific community does.

[H20cooled]

If I were to put my money on which side of the debate had a larger vested interest in deception though, I'd be betting on the oil industry's vested interest in survival and profit. Historically, I'd also assume the oil industry(and corporate america in general) has more experience with deception than the scientific community does.
I completely agree with you on that, and I think that the oil companies are most likely the reason that we do not have a car that uses something else beside fossil fuels. They have HUGE pocket books and can afford to pay off politicians. I also don't think that its the scientific community that is trying to deceive people, I would but my money on the Environmental groups that also have huge pocket books. So, I guess we are all stuck between to groups with opposing agendas.

[drock59]

Cause until there it definitive proof that Global Warming is real and that we are causing it, that is basically whats being done with the scare tactics and movies.

Says you. Meaning, that is how you feel not how I feel. Im not trying to freak people out at all. Im looking at the fact provided by people who do this for a living. Its seems a bit naive to disregard the information provided by people who study this day in and day out. Seems....silly and childish not to take action.



Do you think it's ok to lie or deceive people if it gets something accomplished that you believe needs changed?

No. You can stand up and opine all you like but that is what it is...an opinion. Again, Ill stick with the facts as we know them now rather than wait it out and see what happens.

FYI you didnt answer my question either. :)

If we have pretty solid evidence that someone is going to blow up a building, but we are not positive, do we wait or do we do something about it?



Last point, agreed!

[H20cooled]

Says you. Meaning, that is how you feel not how I feel. Im not trying to freak people out at all. Im looking at the fact provided by people who do this for a living. Its seems a bit naive to disregard the information provided by people who study this day in and day out. Seems....silly and childish not to take action.
First of all I'm not saying that you are trying to freak people out, but that is definitely the purpose of the media and movies. The other thing is there are NO facts when it comes to Global Warming, so your argument that I'm being silly and childish be ignoring them is pointless. We've already discussed and you have agreed that studies can and are mostly likely biased to one side so I would also argue that what they might present as "facts" are not anything more then a guess.



No. You can stand up and opine all you like but that is what it is...an opinion. Again, Ill stick with the facts as we know them now rather than wait it out and see what happens.
As I said there are still NO facts, only a lot of theories pushed out by groups with agendas.



FYI you didnt answer my question either. :)
Last point, agreed!

Yes, if someone was going to blow up a building and we had proof that they are, then stop them. But if you have someone making theories that someone could blow up a building, you would not run out and announce it in every news paper and make movies about it.

Ok, I'm done now, we could go on and on like this forever...(nutty)

[Piero]

I completely agree with you on that, and I think that the oil companies are most likely the reason that we do not have a car that uses something else beside fossil fuels. They have HUGE pocket books and can afford to pay off politicians. I also don't think that its the scientific community that is trying to deceive people, I would but my money on the Environmental groups that also have huge pocket books. So, I guess we are all stuck between to groups with opposing agendas.

i agree with you there, H2.(agree) With that said, if the corporate/industry agenda is profit, then what's the agenda of the scientific community, the health of the planet and humanity? That doesn't sound so bad compared to the alternative.

I'm just as irritated by PETA-type extremists(at the risk of stereotyping) and impractical radical environmentalists as anybody. I'm even guilty of impersonating one occasionally, as some are well aware, because it's a reliable way to draw attention to a point(although some may not get it). But when faced with the realities mentioned previously, well, you can see where my chips lie.

I learned a lot about where you're coming from though, so thanks. Skepticism is a good thing regardless!

[Piero]

But if you have someone making theories that someone could blow up a building, you would not run out and announce it in every news paper and make movies about it.

maybe not, but you would probably tell the authorities, and it would be on the news i bet after they evacuated the building 'just in case'. :)

Preemptive safety measures are involved in almost every part of life, from fire hazards to the most obvious, terrorism, so why shouldn't we be preemptively safe with regard to the health of the environment? Someone once said, "better safe than sorry".

[cyenna]

I'd just like to note that in the past two hundred years humans have expanded to every part of this globe. A single species has exploited nearly every earthly resource and dominated all other species. Global warming is part of the natural cycle but temperatures have never raised at the rate that it is occurring today. With the expansion of human population and industrial economies (e.g., China) global warming is much worse and occurring at a much faster rate than mother nature can compensate as she has done in the past.

I do not see the report as a "scare" tactic. It's merely a truth. If you want scare tactics, ask Bush about Iraq.

[H20cooled]

I'd just like to note that in the past two hundred years humans have expanded to every part of this globe. A single species has exploited nearly every earthly resource and dominated all other species. Global warming is part of the natural cycle but temperatures have never raised at the rate that it is occurring today. With the expansion of human population and industrial economies (e.g., China) global warming is much worse and occurring at a much faster rate than mother nature can compensate as she has done in the past.

I do not see the report as a "scare" tactic. It's merely a truth. If you want scare tactics, ask Bush about Iraq.

I'm sorry but you are plain and simply wrong, temperatures have been raised in the past, if you do not believe that think about the Ice Ages of the past. Wouldn't you say that a meltdown of ice across the planet is a temperature change? Yes we as humans are all over the globe, and we are adding a lot of stuff to the planet that was probably not there in the past. But I do believe that the planet can handle it, I think I give the planet a lot more credit then others do and I think it is a LOT more resilient then you think it is. If you think about what happened in the past with the complete destruction of the dinosaurs that was a huge event and pretty much wiped everything out. But some how the planet kept going.

Also there is NO proof that the planet is actually warming at this time, here is a good quote from an article I read:

"While ground-level temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measure-
ments, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years. Even if the earth's temperature has increased slightly, the increase is well within the natural range of known temperature variation over the last 15,000 years. Indeed, the earth experienced greater warming between the 10th and 15th centuries - a time when vineyards thrived in England and Vikings colonized Greenland and built settlements in Canada."

[drock59]

We've already discussed and you have agreed that studies can and are mostly likely biased to one side so I would also argue that what they might present as "facts" are not anything more then a guess.

So we live in a fact less universe with absolutely no truths, check! Just playing around at this point. We are never going to agree with each other and that is ok. I just hope more people agree with me and science. (clap)



Ok, I'm done now, we could go on and on like this forever...

I think ive heard this before, but ya I think I am finally done here. Thanks for explaining your side so rationally. I honestly appreciate it....its nice to see both sides of the coin occasionally. :)

Piero, you have a nice way of putting things.

Someone once said, "better safe than sorry".
This is my bottom line and the point I have been trying to make all along.

[drock59]

I'm sorry but you are plain and simply wrong, temperatures have been raised in the past, if you do not believe that think about the Ice Ages of the past.

H2O, she is not wrong. Why are you stuck on the ice ages thing? There is data from the antarctic ice that dates back through the last three, if not more, ice ages. Temps never rose as fast and CO2 was never as high as it is now. Not wrong, just cold hard science( forgive the terrible pun.).



I do believe that the planet can handle it, I think I give the planet a lot more credit then others do and I think it is a LOT more resilient then you think it is.

Sure it is. It will just kill off every living thing on the planet until it has balance. Small, insignificant consequence. (scary) I think it is naive to think that over 6 Billion humans cannot have an impact on something like the planet Earth.

[cyenna]

I'm sorry but you are plain and simply wrong

I don't understand why you said I am wrong when I admitted that yes, there have been global warmings before. I think the thing we disagree on is whether or not the planet can handle the RATE at which it is warming. We shall agree to disagree.

Ok, sorry to keep pushing the subject.DOH!

[drock59]

bump?

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2007-01-30T210856Z_01_N30346494_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-WARMING.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C1-TopStories-newsOne-3


That is good. Terrible source too!

[Chief]

bump? muahahahahahaha

Thats got an evil tone to it. (laugh)

I don't think it is the message... I think it is the messenger. I think there is too much negativity in the message. "If we don't do this... This will happen." "If we don't clean up this... This will happen."

The end of the world, no hope for our children, etc.

How about a proactive approach. Let's do it because it is the right thing to do. We should want to clean up the world to keep it healthy, not because of some impending doom.

Let's be honest... The world will be here long after we have been extinct. It is not the world we are trying to save... It is our own self-destructive lives. We need to "want" to be better.

I think it needs to be for the right reasons. We cannot save the Earth. We do not have the proper knowledge to save it. We can do our best to be a good member of the planet though.

Let's start a postitive message. The current message talks about what will happen in 100 years. Most people won't care. Not their problem.

Start small, work big. Even at last years beach clean-up, we had very little response from our reefkeeping community. But guess what... I will be out there again next year, and the year after that until I can inspire some change.

I honestly don't know if global warming is a natural occurance or if we are causing it. There just isn't enough good data. But I do know that we are polluting our planet and that must change.

Jay

[drock59]

Well said, minus this part....:) :) :)


There just isn't enough good data.

[Chief]

Let's take this paragraph for example...


The report will draw on already published peer-review science. Some recent scientific studies show that temperatures are the hottest in thousands of years, especially during the last 30 years; ice sheets in Greenland in the past couple years have shown a dramatic melting

Where is the temperature data for the last 1000 years? As far as I knew we were only recording temp data since 1850. And why quote the ice melting in Greenland and not Antarctica. Antarctica holds 90% of the worlds ice, Greenland only 4%. Wouldn't it be more significant to report the ice melting there. There have been some studies that show that the ice in Antarctica is growing. That sea ice has increased since 1979. As with all biased studies, we only hear about one side of the argument. What if we only heard about one side of the politicians that we are voting for or one side of a murder trial. It is not fair.


In 2001, the panel said the world's average temperature would increase somewhere between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit and the sea level would rise between 4 and 35 inches by the year 2100

That is a large margin of error. If my math is alright, that is over a 400% margin of error (2.5 - 10.4 degrees). The sea level rise is about a 850% margin of error. That sounds like a guess to me. Even an educated guess is still a guess.

Again, I am not arguing against cleaning up the planet. I just want the truth. I hope this study sheds some light on the subject. But the data must be scrutinized.

Please take this lightheartedly. I am not trying to win anyone over. Everyone has a right to their opinion. And they should stand by their opinion. Like I said before. I just want the truth, and a proactive approach to obtain results.

Jay

[Piero]

science forums here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=26), here (http://www.sciforums.com/) , or here (http://www.thescienceforum.com/).

List of climate science resources, here (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/climate/climate-sci-resources.htm), and here (http://climate.weather.com/resources/resourcesHighlights.html?cm_ven=one_deg_resources&cm_ite=one_deg_header&from=one_deg_header).

[Chief]

Thanks for the links. Good reading.

Jay

[drock59]

Pretty sure I quoted how they are recording temperature and CO2 level a couple pages back. Ice core samples. They can go back hundreds of thousands of years.

[Piero]

Al Gore - Nobel Nominee (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1623952.ece)
The fight for the global climate is a fight for peace, say members of parliament Børge Brende and Heidi Sørensen, and they have nominated former US Vice-president Al Gore for a share of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Canadian environmentalist Sheila Watt-Cloutier is now nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.Former US VP Al Gore has thrust the global climate change issue into the public consciousness. The two green-thinking MPs suggest that Gore share the prize with Inuit Sheila Watt-Cloutier, in recognition for their efforts to put the danger posed by climate change on the global political agenda.

"This is clearly, absolutely, one of the important efforts to achieve conflict prevention. Climate change can lead to enormous flows of refugees on a scale the world has never seen before. Fighting climate change is immensely important work for global peace," Heidi Sørensen, member of parliament for the Socialist Left Party (SV), told Aftenposten.

[Piero]

The official UN report is released tomorrow. The media is a-buzz. LINK (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyid=2007-02-01T114423Z_01_L01886064_RTRUKOT_0_TEXT0.xml&src=E3_globalwarming)
CNN feature (http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/01/climate.talks.ap/index.html) on the report

[drock59]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070202/ap_on_sc/france_climate_change

[Twitterbait]

um... Yawn... yup, that sums it up for me. these same idiots (sorry, "scientists/media") were proclaming a new ice age 30 years ago and now we are all going to burn up because their "science" proves it.

Don't care... the gasses we produce in our cars don't even make it that high in the atmosphere because they weigh to friggin much. a little rain and they come down. big deal.

so you have me up against multiple threats right now. personally, I know there are people out there in this world who have goals and plans to kill people in my country. this is something we know so i figure we should put our efforts into the current known threat. we could spend a ton of money on this retarded baseless crap or we can put a little more effort into homlessness, and hunger. something tells me these threats will kill me a he** of a lot faster that a few degrees that some "scientist" is running around screaming about.

Piero, why don't you ever post reports on those problems???? Like the massive amount of homeless we have here in Oregon?

[drock59]

Im sorry, but that was one of the most ignorant and self serving posts I have ever read.



Don't care... the gasses we produce in our cars don't even make it that high in the atmosphere because they weigh to friggin much. a little rain and they come down. big deal.

What? What does it matter how high the CO2 is? It is still a greenhouse gas and still trap reflected heat from the sun. Obviously there will be more concentration of this gas toward the surface, as with any gas.


I know there are people out there in this world who have goals and plans to kill people in my country.

Gee I cant imagine why....


could spend a ton of money on this retarded baseless crap

Using words like retarded, makes you sound like a mean person. OH and baseless? Hmmm, people who spend their whole careers studying something must not have any idea what they are talking about. It has to be the media....oh wait, the liberal media.

Dont drink the cool-aid.

If you had a heart problem would you go talk to you neighbor about how to fix it? Would you listen to the pundit on the TV? Would you talk to your religious guru? No, you would go talk to a heart surgeon.



retarded baseless crap or we can put a little more effort into homlessness, and hunger.

Maybe we could solve those problems....sure, no problem. Especially if we didint spend over 350 billion dollars in Iraq. Imagine what we could do with all that money.

This is really uplifting: http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/01/08/economists_say_cost_of_war_could_top_2_trillion/


Piero, why don't you ever post reports on those problems???? Like the massive amount of homeless we have here in Oregon?

Just a shot in the dark here, but maybe he didnt talk about that because this thread is about Global Warming? Am I right or am i right?


We rely on Science so heavily and it has been correct so many times. Why is it so ridiculous to think they could be correct about Global Warming? Why is a bad thing to try and correct it?
I dont see the down side and its better to be safe than sorry.

Global Warming may not directly effect you Twitterbait, but that doesnt mean it will not grossly harm millions of people around the world, not to mention the wildlife we care for and love so much in our tanks. Why not try and stop that? Even if you are not sure its happening?


Do you feel that humans are not capable of changing conditions globally? There are six billion of us. We are able to effect the Earth in many ways.

[Piero]

um... Yawn... yup, that sums it up for me. these same idiots (sorry, "scientists/media") were proclaming a new ice age 30 years ago and now we are all going to burn up because their "science" proves it.

Don't care... the gasses we produce in our cars don't even make it that high in the atmosphere because they weigh to friggin much. a little rain and they come down. big deal.

so you have me up against multiple threats right now. personally, I know there are people out there in this world who have goals and plans to kill people in my country. this is something we know so i figure we should put our efforts into the current known threat. we could spend a ton of money on this retarded baseless crap or we can put a little more effort into homlessness, and hunger. something tells me these threats will kill me a he** of a lot faster that a few degrees that some "scientist" is running around screaming about.

Piero, why don't you ever post reports on those problems???? Like the massive amount of homeless we have here in Oregon?

DOH! oooookaaaaaaayyyy.

[Twitterbait]

Drock, I am entitled to my opinion and i gave it. think what you want but pretty much everyone i know agrees with me that global warming is more fiction than fact.

you have my thoughts, i assume that is what piero wanted (why else would he do this post?)

if you don't want my opinion then don't start a thread about it.

now, back to fish.

[Piero]

I agree Drock.
Today's CNN video (http://www.cnn.com/video/partners/clickability/index.html?url=/video/tech/2007/02/04/vo.coral.bleaching.reut) on climate change possibly affecting reefs. Miles Obrien feature (http://www.cnn.com/video/partners/clickability/index.html?url=/video/tech/2007/02/02/obrien.climate.warming.facts.cnn) on climate change.

"Education is everything, people!"
- Oprah

[drock59]

if you don't want my opinion then don't start a thread about it.

I didnt. :) I just have a hard time when people wont believe science because they are too stubborn to believe in it.

[H20cooled]

Man I can just see were this whole thing is going. Everything that seems wrong, looks wrong, or in someones opinion is wrong is going to get blamed on Global Warm. The media is having a HUGE hay day with it, but you know what they say this is no news like bad news right.

As for the topic, I'm done arguing, I think in the end we will all be surprised one way or the other.

[Twitterbait]

I didnt. :) I just have a hard time when people wont believe science because they are too stubborn to believe in it.


What science? you are totally ignoring all the scientists that are saying it is a load of crap. there are models that go both ways but it seems some people only hear what they want to hear. Have you read both sides or are you too busy listening to the media?

H2o has it right. and i have to agree. this conversation will go nowhere.
peace out.

[Piero]

What Science? This Science.
I still think what some may be neglecting to realize, is something that has been said over and over: The current reality is that the qualified scientific community has been debating climate change for 40 years, and at this point there is a general consensus, given existing data, from the major worldwide scientific bodies.

It's not the media who decide, although the media does hook onto it like flies on poop because it's good ratings. But it's the approved reports that are published by major scientific bodies and critiqued by 100s of scientists that actually matter. Hundreds of the best minds that society has to offer on the subject. Hundreds of scientists over the course of 4 decades have researching, collecting data, analyzing, and most importantly rigorously critiquing the findings of their peers.

So you see, a very significant part of the scientific process is constant, rigorous, and intense scrutiny by the peer community at large. This is an inherent part of science and the scientific method.

So with that said: If you still choose to challenge the scientific community from an uneducated(in climatology) position, it's essentially saying that you believe you're better at being a climate scientist than the best people society has to offer on the subject over the past four decades. And I'm sorry, with all due respect, i don't see how that's not naive on some level.

If an actual UN-backed climate scientist were posting, I'm sure even s/he would give up trying to claim the existing consensus has merit. At some point the civilian nay-sayers are just simply refusing to respect the findings of the subject authorities. It's equivalent to challenging a medical specialist regarding the predominant theories in their field. It just does not seem very sensible, imo. I think it was Captain Crunch, or was it Count Chocula who once said, "One of the first signs of wisdom is the realization that you know nothing"
------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think the debate needs to go anywhere here, because the debate that actually matters is not on a reef board, it's undertaken by climate scientists around the world, lots of 'em! :) Really there's not likely to be any debate here that measures up to the type scientists likely have at annual conventions. I don't think that's such an unrealistic thing to assume, do you?
------------------------------------------------------------
I was going to re-quote previous posts again since they appear to have addressed your points prior to them being made. Frankly the newest report from the UN is the freshest perspective. But instead, I'll quote some relatively old news on the consensus. This excerpt is from Science magazine, 2004.

(2004)The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes, Science
"The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen."

References and Notes
1. A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.
2. S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2 (1), 3 (2003).
3. See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
4. J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
5. National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
6. American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003).
7. American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
8. See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
9. The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the paper was not about climate change.
10. This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, "Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions.

10.1126/science.1103618

The author is in the Department of History and Science Studies Program, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. E-mail: noreskes@ucsd.edu

The editors suggest the following Related Resources on Science sites:
In Science Magazine

LETTERS
Consensus About Climate Change?
Roger A. Pielke, Jr.; and Naomi Oreskes (13 May 2005)
Science 308 (5724), 952. [DOI: 10.1126/science.308.5724.952]
| Full Text » | PDF »


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES:

Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Discussion.
B. Lovell (2006)
AAPG Bulletin 90, 405-407
| Full Text » | PDF »

Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Reply.
L. C. Gerhard (2006)
AAPG Bulletin 90, 409-412
| Full Text » | PDF »

Book review: The discovery of global warming.
R. Wilby (2006)
Progress in Physical Geography 30, 141-142
| PDF »

[Twitterbait]

http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm...=rep&id=263759 (http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759)

[drock59]

Author: SENATOR JAMES INHOFE CHAIRMAN, SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Im sure there is no spin or bias in that article. :)

Again, find me one peer reviewed article.

Piero, well done.

[H20cooled]

Not sure if anyone saw this; but in my opinion it points out what happens if you disagree with the "norm" view of humans are to blame for this. Really sad, but it doesn't surprise me a bit, i think most scientist are under a LOT of pressure to say whats popular even if they don't believe it.

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_020607_news_taylor_title.59f5d04a.html

[drock59]

i think most scientist are under a LOT of pressure to say whats popular even if they don't believe it.

What makes you think that?

And why is it sad that the governor wants to appoint someone with similar beliefs to himself? Dont most politicians do that? Pretty sure it happens in the White House, why not in Oregon?

[H20cooled]

Lets see, this guy has been the this position for a while now suddenly what he is saying is different then what the media and everyone is pushing so he gets fired. Yeah thats wrong and sad. But its exactly what I'm talking about pressure to say whats popular. If this guy had said what they wanted him to say (Global warming is our fault) he would have a job. How can you not see that as pressure?

[blown65]

I'm always wary of any information that is validated by someone taking it from CNN. Nearly all news media has an agenda, like a few that visit this forum.

[Piero]

Everyone has an 'agenda', if we want to be technical.

It's a fine line between intense skepticism and paranoid dementia. You know anyone without an agenda of any kind? I think people just like saying 'agenda'. I do.

CNN actually uses real tools to confirm information. I heard they used a pokey-stick to make sure Anna Nicole was unresponsive.

Seriously though, given a general paranoia regarding everyone's subjective agenda, what do we use to get our information from? I think a more pragmatic question is: What information are we the least wary about? CNN I'd guess is a good bet for several reasons, given the alternatives.

Don't trust 'dem fancy news folk? Go to the source, the reports. Don't trust 'dem fancy science folk? Get a doctorate in the field you're questioning. Don't trust that fancy-pants brain between yer ears? well...seek meds. oh, and send me some. :P

[blown65]

nvm, I dont wanna argue with this.

[Piero]

no worries. The inherent ubiquity of agendas across the media outlets should not prevent us from seeking information though, I don't think.

[drock59]

How can you not see that as pressure?

The feeling you get when you think this, is the feeling i have when people like you refuse to accept the scientific fact that Global Warming is happening. I see the pressure...certainly... but for crying out loud, I think there would be more dissent if it was all boiled down to over arching pressure. More consensus on global warming than any other scientific topic.



The inherent ubiquity of agendas across the media outlets should not prevent us from seeking information though,

Doesnt it seem kind of like, "DUH", to not get all your news from just a couple of sources? I dont know about everyone else, but I dont watch the nightly news and say, "Hmm, that sounds accurate." I always go check out the stories that I am truly interested in.

Seems that everyone has an agenda but if a person looks in enough places and reads enough stories , one can certainly come up with a meaningful and semi-accurate answer for ones self.

[drock59]

H20, you linked to this earlier in the thread:

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html

Its been ten years since that article was published. I just thought I would throw that out there. Im sure there is still some good info, but its pretty old when we are talking about Global Warming, no?

[H20cooled]

More info: Link (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070211-112902-4433r.htm)

The feelings I get is we are all being exposed to a complete and utter snow job be individuals and groups that have one agenda; to stop what they believe is causing problems whether or not it is actually causing problems.

Quotes from the article:


Scientists skeptical of climate-change theories say they are increasingly coming under attack -- treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present contrarian views about global warming.


"In general, if you do not agree with the consensus that we are headed toward disaster, you are treated like a pariah," said William O'Keefe, chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute, which assesses scientific issues that shape public policy.
"It's ironic that a field based on challenging unproven theories attacks skeptics in a very unhealthy way."


"There has been a broad, concerted effort to intimidate and silence them," said Myron Ebell, director of energy and global-warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "It's the typical politics of the hard left at work. I think these are real threats."

Here is another new theory on the cause: LINK (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml)

This just goes along with what I'm saying, NO one has any idea on the actual cause and its all just a bunch of theories.

Quotes:


Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who led the team behind the research, believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.

This, he says, is responsible for much of the global warming we are experiencing.


"We may see CO2 is responsible for much less warming than we thought and if this is the case the predictions of warming due to human activity will need to be adjusted."



And more new info: LINK (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece)
As I been saying....

Quotes:


When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works.


They (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

I find this quote very interesting

Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.

This is really good to

Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

[Piero]

I don't myself blindly follow politicians and journalists on the subject of science, I look towards the scientific community for direction because they are qualified, and so do the good politicians and journalists I suspect. The message comes from the majority of the scientific community(refers to previous posts about peer review, scrutiny, yadda yadda), the politicians and the media are just pointiong to the reports that are approved and published by the major scientific bodies.

Of course it's all just theories(see scientific method), but the current consensus revolves around the best theory we have at this point and time given available data. And the professionals have the burden of determining that, not us.

[H20cooled]

I don't myself blindly follow politicians and journalists on the subject of science, I look towards the scientific community for direction because they are qualified, and so do the good politicians and journalists I suspect. The message comes from the majority of the scientific community(refers to previous posts about peer review, scrutiny, yadda yadda), the politicians and the media are just pointiong to the reports that are approved and published by the major scientific bodies.

Of course it's all just theories(see scientific method), but the current consensus revolves around the best theory we have at this point and time given available data. And the professionals have the burden of determining that, not us.
This has nothing to do you with you, I'm referring to the scientific community in general feeling huge political and financial pressure on support the Global Warming theory. These sites and info that I posted all point to the HUGE pressure that they are feeling to pick the right thing. So, how can you go into this believe that you are getting the honest and unbiased truth if you know that scientist are being forced to choose between the truth or a job? That is my whole reason for doubting these theories.

[Piero]

I share your skepticism of outside influences. But again we're returned to the point I initially made: We're really not qualified to challenge the world's climate scientists on their research...whether they are subjective or not, imo.

[H20cooled]

So, whether or not the info you get is true or false you are going going to believe its true? Thats fine I prefer to remain a skeptic, I don't by into the sky is falling idea. I think this is a natural occurring event and nothing we do will stop it.

What I think is really funny is that now everything is causing Global Warming, Valentine bouquets are now bad. LINK (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/10/nbouquet10.xml)

[drock59]

I don't by into the sky is falling idea. I think this is a natural occurring event and nothing we do will stop it.

Really? Interesting. So do you agree that the past changes in Earths temperature are due to CO2? If not what are they due to? I have linked to and quoted a variety of sources that link past Earth temperature to CO2. Just wondering what you think is causing it and how that differs from the super duper majority of the scientific community.

Also, you say there is nothing we can do about it. Dont you think it is a bit naive to think that 6 billion humans cannot change the Earth?

I think that if scientists were really being pressured as much as you think they are, they would make more of a stink about it. There would be a zillion blogs, investigative reports and such about it.

Canada is supposedly supposed to house some of the skeptics to Human caused Global Warming:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6355273.stm

[drock59]

whether or not the info you get is true or false you are going going to believe its true?

I generally believe a wide variety of professionals in their field. If my car was broken and I took it to 1,000 mechanics and 950 of them told me I needed a new clutch, i would be inclined to get the clutch repaired. :) My clutch may not have a problem but I trust that the professionals who know much more about automobiles than I, do( and that not all 950 are trying to screw me over :) ).

[Piero]

H20,

So, whether or not the info you get is true or false you are going going to believe its true? nope, that's not what i said at all.


I don't by into the sky is falling idea. I think this is a natural occurring event and nothing we do will stop it.
What exactly are you basing that opinion on? Not being an actual climate scientist, you think it's a bit naive to claim you inherently know something the scientific community missed? (see previous posts addressing exactly this).

Try one of the actual climate science forums I linked if you're so skeptical about objectivity. Take your sketpicism to that arena, place it at the foot of real climate scientists who can post to the internet anonymously.

Again, we can choose to believe whatever we want here, but we're not climate scientists so we sound silly. We can debate for another 100 years, but we're debating something that will possibly play out in 50 years, so what's the safe, intelligent approach?

Additionally I believe these subjects were already specifically addressed on previous pages of the thread, so I'll point to those.

[Piero]

I generally believe a wide variety of professionals in their field. If my car was broken and I took it to 1,000 mechanics and 950 of them told me I needed a new clutch, i would be inclined to get the clutch repaired. :) My clutch may not have a problem but I trust that the professionals who know much more about automobiles than I, do( and that not all 950 are trying to screw me over :) ).

well said. As the sample size of (qualified) opinions grows, basic statistical analysis leans towards the vast majority.(are we going to debate the legitimacy of the science of statistical analysis next? We'll need a professional statistician for that)

The current reality is that the qualified scientific community has been debating climate change for 40 years, and at this point there is a general consensus, given existing data, from the major worldwide scientific bodies. In fact a very significant part of the scientific process is constant, rigorous, and intense scrutiny by the peer community at large. This is an inherent part of science and the scientific method.

With that said, if you still choose to challenge the scientific community from a RELATIVELY ignorant(in climatology) position, it's essentially saying that you believe you're better at being a climate scientist than the best people society has to offer on the subject over the past four decades. And I'm sorry, with all due respect, I don't see how that's not naive on some level.

At some point the armchair scientists who casually challenge the research of real scientist are just simply refusing to respect the findings of the subject authorities. It's equivalent to challenging a medical specialist regarding the predominant theories in their field - it's ego over intellect, imo. I still seriously doubt that any of the debate here measures up to the debate that real scientists likely undertake themselves, so i don't see why admitting that you 'don't know' seems so difficult for some.

I have my own thoughts. Most of them agree with predominant scientific theory because to me it seems logical and I do place - for lack of a better word - some 'faith' (not blind, mind you)in the scientific method and the scientific community. Some of my thoughts do question predominant theory details and are skeptical, but i would never go so far as to ask such questions without first acknowledging that I am clearly not qualified on the subject, despite my fascination with science.

[reefgeek84]

Global warming does exist, but not due to humans...I can find you as many people that say it is not due to humans, as ones that say it is human fault.

Everyone thinks Al gore is some great guy that he has all the answers...he is a tool. There is one huge discrepancy in his video...there is a part that he has a huge graph on the wall and he uses a lift to bring him up to the top to show the dramatic increase in c02 due to us humans. There are two lines on this graph..c02 and temp. and these lines follow each other almost identical. Well when he gets to the end of it the top graph (c02) goes like 90,000ft high ( I hope you get the sarcasm) and the bottom graph does not follow the same trend, he then does not even talk about it again, interesting...

Also, you are seeing way more reports of human cause come to light because the people behind it want you to believe it...the ones that are against it have known about this trend and there is nothing that can be done about it, so why try to solve the earth's natural cycle?

Also, this seems to be a fad and everyone wants to be part of the majority, it is human nature, (I can find you countless studies on this) so everyone is going with this story. Also people that disagree with the mainstream media, they can risk losing grants and their jobs...do not believe me? Oregon's Climatologist's job is now hanging in the balance, because he came out and said that it is not humans fault and stupid Ted (our retarded govener ((that one is for Drock :) ))) disagrees with him...so lets take his job away if there is a disagreement, so why would anyone speak up?

Most who believe the human cause of global warming have done no research to both sides...Give me sometime and I will find just as many people who disprove the theory of the human's causing it...the whole car thing does not hold water...cause the numbers would be cut down the middle if you are not one sided about the whole issue, so yes you would a tough time picking cause 50% would say the clutch needs to be replaced and the other 50% would say it was your syncros.

[reefgeek84]

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/archives/vol21/vol21_iss14/record2114.23.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/06/010615071248.htm
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/prog1.htm#suspend
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=4
Books disproving global warming...I searched global warming...which is the liberal (aka advocates) term for this change in the earth.
http://www.7nights.com/asterisk/store-books/product/0742551172/Unstoppable-Global-Warming-Every-1500-Years.html
http://www.amazon.com/Meltdown-Predictable-Distortion-Scientists-Politicians/dp/1930865791/sr=1-3/qid=1171351373/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/105-2584085-7600418?ie=UTF8&s=books
http://www.amazon.com/Shattered-Consensus-State-Global-Warming/dp/0742549232/sr=1-6/qid=1171351373/ref=sr_1_6/105-2584085-7600418?ie=UTF8&s=books
http://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Other-Myths-Environmental/dp/B000BZ6UR6/sr=1-7/qid=1171351373/ref=sr_1_7/105-2584085-7600418?ie=UTF8&s=books

15 mins of searching (including some skimming)...My point is simply that for every person you find to prove global warming is happening due to humans, I can find you someone else to disprove that. I will also believe climatologists over scientists any day... and majority of climatologists disagree that it is human caused. Would you like me to go on?

Anyone who does not like this...will claim that the people who have written this stuff are not their scientists so they are wrong.

[reefgeek84]

So, whether or not the info you get is true or false you are going going to believe its true? Thats fine I prefer to remain a skeptic, I don't by into the sky is falling idea. I think this is a natural occurring event and nothing we do will stop it.

What I think is really funny is that now everything is causing Global Warming, Valentine bouquets are now bad. LINK (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/10/nbouquet10.xml)
Yeah, I read about this too...

cows are also a cause http://www.tierramerica.net/2000/1126/acent.html

[CCR]

WOW a lot of reading. It took me so long to go through all the post's I had to take a nap!!!!!The redundancy was overwhelming. Was it “We disagree, to agree” or “We agree, to disagree” well witch ever it is, or was. But that’s what we humans do. The controversy will go on for a long long time. There is a never ending supply of hot buttons.

[fly guy]

WOW a lot of reading. It took me so long to go through all the post's I had to take a nap!!!!!The redundancy was overwhelming. Was it “We disagree, to agree” or “We agree, to disagree” well witch ever it is, or was. But that’s what we humans do. The controversy will go on for a long long time. There is a never ending supply of hot buttons.


I agree.

Wait a minute.....no i dont.....its YOU. I firmly DISAGREE!!!!

[nu2reef-n]

This kind of open discourse is what makes this site so good. Anywhere else and you guys would have been banned, and the thread closed. Let's hear it for the mods, or....er...the lack of them.=)

[reefgeek84]

This kind of open discourse is what makes this site so good. Anywhere else and you guys would have been banned, and the thread closed. Let's hear it for the mods, or....er...the lack of them.=)

Yeah, I agree...thanks guys for letting me stay around.

[drock59]

As am I....cause I am no longer offering anything useful to the thread...

Were you in the first place? You simply brought a bunch of rediculous links and a terrible tone to the thread.


Most who believe the human cause of global warming have done no research to both sides...Give me sometime and I will find just as many people who disprove the theory of the human's causing it...the whole car thing does not hold water...cause the numbers would be cut down the middle if you are not one sided about the whole issue, so yes you would a tough time picking cause 50% would say the clutch needs to be replaced and the other 50% would say it was your syncros.

Forgive me, i must be a little slow. I didnt understand your point or logic here.


Your going to quote wkik, and call into questions to validity of my sources...come one now...

Come on what? WHAT? Nary a one is peer reviewed. you cant claim much of anything and consider it lagit if its not peer reviewed. Period. End of story.


You know drock...you result to name calling on here when someone expresses something in a manner that differs from yours.

Ya, i called you a two year old bully so this is pretty obvious. I didnt realize it would upset your feelings so much, forgive me.


I have a good feeling you do not know where that quote comes from... I never said he was wise, it is a funny statement from the top comedian, who keeps me laughing which keeps me sane. I hate no one on this board...even you, but I always find it funny when someone strongly disagrees with you that you result to personal insults...it never fails with you...

Dane Cook maybe? I took it from your signature. do you know me? Did i say i hated you? Personal insults? you must get offended pretty easily, I apologize. However, please dont impugn my integrity and tell what I do and do not do on this board.

[drock59]

So in the words of a wise man, "I hate you, please go swallow a knife"- Dane Cook

FYI this was not meant to be directly aimed at anyone, I just thought it was funny. Seriously, I would not say that to anyone here.

[Ronjunior]

This thread is going to hell in a handbasket. (backtotopic)

[Piero]

Damn I give up, I was trying to find a clip from Home Movies referencing orange slices at the soccer game. :(
oh well, instead: yomomomomomeemo!
link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wmWDQW3MQE)

it was the greatest show (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=home+movies+brendon&search=Search)of all time. :(

[H20cooled]

Enough with the insults and rude comments; don't make me lock this. I know we can all play nice.

[Twitterbait]

Should have been locked a long time ago IMO. It can be nice to have a much more open and free site to play in... but it is not pleasant to get flamed. the very reason i never visit RC. threads like this really belong on climate forums, notwhere we are trying to discuss keeping our reef tanks happy.

just my thoughts.

[Piero]

Despite a few impulsive statements and over-reactions, I thought the thread self-regulated relatively well. It has been informative to all involved I think, and it is appropriately located in the off-topic forum. It has also been inactive for five days, until now. So as strong as your expressed desire to quiet the discussion, the need to post more disapproval is seemingly stronger.

I realize that the fluctuating intensity of such exchanges can appear exhausting or uncomfortable at times, but I've seen prep school debates and CNN broadcasts with more drama. There are plenty of trivial on-topic discussions of coral care with more conflict issues than this thread.

Effectively expressing clear, analytical, and objective thought on emotional and inherently subjective topics can be a challenge, especially while our own perspective is besieged. Effective debate though, imo, is often the product of contributors who embrace that challenge. The need to stifle natural tendencies towards reactionary or impulsive behavior can be daunting as well, but nobody is forced to participate.

[H20cooled]

Yeah I think it has strayed off a couple of times, but overall I think the discussion has been very civil. We try very hard not to over moderate like what is done on TRT and RC, but if it gets out of hand I will lock it.

Richard

[Piero]

Richard thank you for all your effort. Hopefully my attempts at presenting the community as one that is mature enough for self-moderation are not contradicted too quickly by a spat over doughnuts or something, eh? Everyone knows bagels are clearly superior anyway. :)

[H20cooled]

Man this just continues to get better and better. Now cows are more to blame for Global warming then vehicles. I guess we should now ban all beef... LINK (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0220/p03s01-ussc.html)


Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems," Henning Steinfeld, senior author of the report, said when the FAO findings were released in November.


Livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions as measured in carbon dioxide equivalent, reports the FAO. This includes 9 percent of all CO2 emissions, 37 percent of methane, and 65 percent of nitrous oxide. Altogether, that's more than the emissions caused by transportation.


"Arguably the best way to reduce global warming in our lifetimes is to reduce or eliminate our consumption of animal products," writes Noam Mohr in a report for EarthSave International.

Changing one's diet can lower greenhouse gas emissions quicker than shifts away from fossil fuel burning technologies, Mr. Mohr writes, because the turnover rate for farm animals is shorter than that for cars and power plants.

See, we all need to become vegetarians, ride our bike everywhere, and don't give anyone flowers....

[Piero]

heheh, yeah that could be applied to anything i suppose... there sure are a lot of methane pumps out there since we have to feed 6.5 billion people meat...

I can imagine if we had enough cows-a-farting in a closed system(like earth), eventually a methane concentration issue may arise, eh. Actually output of anything i a closed system unable to process it results in problems i guess.

ok so in order to save the world, everyone need sot stop farting...I'm gonna blame mexican food mostly! :P

[drock59]

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas. I believe it causes something like 20 times as much warming when compared to CO2. Also, i believe it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 18% of the greenhouse gases presently, the others being CO2 and Nitrous Oxide.

H20, I think the point here is that we are continuing to live a more and more affluent life. We eat a lot of meat in the US and developing countries ,who used to eat very little meat, now are eating more. Doesnt it stand to reason that more people eating meat= more methane= more greenhouse effect?

Dont get me wrong, im not saying that everyone should stop eating meat, but it is certainly something to marinate on....no pun intended.

If we did start eating less meat several things would happen. First, heart disease would decrease. Secondly, we wouldnt need to cut down a bunch of rain forest for cattle to graze. My sister in law works for a "meat" company and they get every last lb. of beef from south America. Lastly, if beef was eliminated from the diet of the planet, there would be a decrease in green house gases.

I am not sure why you are poking fun at this? It is logical that animals/cows are having an impact but not plausible to expect everyone to cease eating meat.

[H20cooled]

Why because its just like I've been saying all long; they are going to find away to blame everything on Global Warming. Its the new scape goat for every problem and issue. It just cracks me up, you watch its going to lose all credibility very quickly as everyone gets tired of seeing everything they loved blamed for Global warming...

[drock59]

That is exactly the problem though isnt it? Many many things Americans and Human beings love DOES contribute to global warming.

What exactly has been blamed for global warming that would not be good to change? Automobiles, Energy, Industry all seem like they could lead the world in a new frontier of energy.

[reefgeek84]

That is exactly the problem though isnt it? Many many things Americans and Human beings love DOES contribute to global warming.

What exactly has been blamed for global warming that would not be good to change? Automobiles, Energy, Industry all seem like they could lead the world in a new frontier of energy.
So, you must ride your bike, heat your house with solar panels and eat nothing....

I am sure you drive a car...there are only a few very common ways to heat your house and out of all of those electricity and natural gas produce the least amount of co2, and even if you do not eat meat, it takes be god awful horrible gas guzzling tractors and farm equipment to get you your veggies...

People are trying to blame everything on humans...the ice core samples from 400k years ago show that they were cooler then we are right now but had triple to c02 in the air...so explain to me how that can be, if humans c02 is the issue...it is earth's natural cycle.

There is a much bigger agenda then simply saving the enviroment to this whole global warming thing...if the government can control how we use our energy, they have a huge strong hold on us...
People who buy into this whole thing...is like the people that buy into...GPS in every car, so the government can tax people dependent on how they drive...no they want to keep tabs on us...

Your right Rich, the global warming fanatics are pushing this way to hard and people are going to get sick of it...it is like when you hear a song on the radio to much, you get tired of it...

Do we need other means of energy use? Yes, we should try to be as clean as we can...but thinking that the earth does not have normal warming and cooling period is crazy...Tell me once we all ride bikes, live off air and do nothing that takes energy what will be the reason for global warming then?

[Piero]

Why because its just like I've been saying all long; they are going to find away to blame everything on Global Warming. Its the new scape goat for every problem and issue.

I'm guessing there's just as much actual evidence behind methane's reactions in the atmosphere as here are co2. what is the proposed motivation 'they' have for blaming things that are not contributing? Just to draw attention? douibtful...I'm not much of a conspiracy fan, unless it has logic behind it.

so what are the chances a) they are scapegoating 'everything' on climate change, or b) there's actually evidence methane is a huge contributor along with c02?

[reefgeek84]

I'm guessing there's just as much actual evidence behind methane's reactions in the atmosphere as here are co2. what is the proposed motivation 'they' have for blaming things that are not contributing? Just to draw attention? douibtful...I'm not much of a conspiracy fan, unless it has logic behind it.

so what are the chances a) they are scapegoating 'everything' on climate change, or b) there's actually evidence methane is a huge contributor along with c02?


So lets take your thought on option B...what do we do about a major food source causing this methane problem? What is your proposal to solve this?

[Piero]

idunno, less breeding, more veggie burgers, and Gass-ex? :)

[drock59]

So, you must ride your bike, heat your house with solar panels and eat nothing....

I am sure you drive a car...there are only a few very common ways to heat your house and out of all of those electricity and natural gas produce the least amount of co2, and even if you do not eat meat, it takes be god awful horrible gas guzzling tractors and farm equipment to get you your veggies...

I choose to drive a car that gets over 30 miles per gallon. Couldnt the federal government raise the required limits for fuel efficiency. Toyota and Honda are kicking the butts of American car companies and in their respective countries, fuel efficiency standards are MUCH higher than ours.

To heat your house you could buy natural gas. If you use electric to heat your house, you could buy investments from your power company in wind, solar, biomass energy for very little each month. I do and I believe its an extra 7 dollars a month. That 7 dollars offsets a lot of CO2, not to mention i get a neat little report showing me exactly where my money is going.


People are trying to blame everything on humans...the ice core samples from 400k years ago show that they were cooler then we are right now but had triple to c02 in the air...so explain to me how that can be, if humans c02 is the issue...it is earth's natural cycle.

Sorry, this is not true. The ice core samples that date back 600K years show a close relationship between CO2 and global temperature. CO2 has NEVER EVER in the last 600K years been nearly as high in concentration as currently.


There is a much bigger agenda then simply saving the enviroment to this whole global warming thing...if the government can control how we use our energy, they have a huge strong hold on us...
People who buy into this whole thing...is like the people that buy into...GPS in every car, so the government can tax people dependent on how they drive...no they want to keep tabs on us...

The GPS thing will never happen, people wont stand for it. Secondly, if its a big government plot, who is in charge? Certainly not our fearless leader. Lets say for giggles, that you are correct and that its a conspiracy. What would change regarding our goverements hold on how we buy energy.

We would still buy and be taxed on the energy we buy from the power company. Fuels would still be taxed and regulated? I dont understand your reasoning.



Your right Rich, the global warming fanatics are pushing this way to hard and people are going to get sick of it...it is like when you hear a song on the radio to much, you get tired of it...

Maybe its more like the fire marshal telling you to replace that outlet or you are going to burn your house down. Soon enough the fire marshal is going to get pissed and insist that the outlet is fixed before you burn yourself and your kids up. You may get tired of it and think the marshall is wrong, but he is the expert...


Do we need other means of energy use? Yes, we should try to be as clean as we can...but thinking that the earth does not have normal warming and cooling period is crazy...

As clean as we can? Why not just plain old clean?

Also, I dont think anyone is resisting the fact that the Earth does have warming and cooling trends....youre right that is crazy. The issue is that we are causing unprecedented warming and levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.



Tell me once we all ride bikes, live off air and do nothing that takes energy what will be the reason for global warming then?

Natural periods of warming and cooling. It will still get warmer if we do all those things and lealve the CO2 in the atmosphere at its current level.

[reefgeek84]

I choose to drive a car that gets over 30 miles per gallon. Couldnt the federal government raise the required limits for fuel efficiency. Toyota and Honda are kicking the butts of American car companies and in their respective countries, fuel efficiency standards are MUCH higher than ours.

To heat your house you could buy natural gas. If you use electric to heat your house, you could buy investments from your power company in wind, solar, biomass energy for very little each month. I do and I believe its an extra 7 dollars a month. That 7 dollars offsets a lot of CO2, not to mention i get a neat little report showing me exactly where my money is going.



Sorry, this is not true. The ice core samples that date back 600K years show a close relationship between CO2 and global temperature. CO2 has NEVER EVER in the last 600K years been nearly as high in concentration as currently.



The GPS thing will never happen, people wont stand for it. Secondly, if its a big government plot, who is in charge? Certainly not our fearless leader. Lets say for giggles, that you are correct and that its a conspiracy. What would change regarding our goverements hold on how we buy energy.

We would still buy and be taxed on the energy we buy from the power company. Fuels would still be taxed and regulated? I dont understand your reasoning.




Maybe its more like the fire marshal telling you to replace that outlet or you are going to burn your house down. Soon enough the fire marshal is going to get pissed and insist that the outlet is fixed before you burn yourself and your kids up. You may get tired of it and think the marshall is wrong, but he is the expert...



As clean as we can? Why not just plain old clean?

Also, I dont think anyone is resisting the fact that the Earth does have warming and cooling trends....youre right that is crazy. The issue is that we are causing unprecedented warming and levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.




Natural periods of warming and cooling. It will still get warmer if we do all those things and lealve the CO2 in the atmosphere at its current level.

Well, you will never change my mind and I will never change yours...I will not jump on this band wagon of the sky is falling.

[drock59]

Honestly man, I am not saying the sky is falling. I would honestly like someone to show me a bit of peer reviewed science to back the "other" side. I just havnt seen it yet.

[Piero]

something makes me think there's more to it than someone simply deciding that 'the sky is falling'.

here's a simplification of how the scientific method works - ignore the right side of the diagram, obviously.

http://a4.vox.com/6a00c2251d306b604a00cd9713fbf44cd5-pi

[Piero]

the scientific method.... gives me goosebumps. Possibly one of the finest applications of the human brain...a perfect tool for finding truth. :)

http://www.ldolphin.org/SciMeth.GIF

[Piero]

Scientific method portal: link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Scientific_method)

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence, and subject to rules of reasoning.

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, there are features that distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of developing knowledge. Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy. Any hypothesis that cannot be subjected to a test is not considered to be scientific. These steps are repeated to refine hypotheses and allow for increasingly dependable predictions of future results. Theories that encompass whole domains of inquiry serve to bind more specific hypotheses together into logically coherent wholes. This in turn aids in the formation of new hypotheses, as well as in placing groups of specific hypotheses into a broader context of understanding.

Another facet shared by the various fields of scientific inquiry is that the process must be objective so that the scientist does not bias the interpretation of the results. There is also an expectation that scientists document all of their data and methodology for careful scrutiny by other scientists and researchers. A well documented set of data allows statistical measures of the reliability of the results to be established and allows others to verify results by attempting to replicating them.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/62/Three_models_of_theory_change.png

Did you know...

... that John Stuart Mill's canons form a systematic heuristic for debugging a problem?

1. Method of agreement: If a single common factor exists in all cases where a phenomenon occurs, then we can attribute the phenomenon to that factor.
2. Method of difference: If one set of circumstances leads to a given phenomenon, and another set of circumstances does not, and the sets differ only in a single factor that is present in the first set but not in the second, then the phenomenon can be attributed to that factor.
3. Method of agreement and difference: Also called simply the "joint method of agreement and difference", this principle simply represents the application of the methods of agreement and difference.
4. Method of residues: If a range of factors are believed to cause a range of phenomena, and we have matched all the factors, except one, with all the phenomena, except one, then the remaining phenomenon can be attributed to the remaining factor: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." — Sherlock Holmes in "A Scandal in Bohemia" by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
5. Method of concomitant variations: If across a range of circumstances leading to a phenomenon, some property of the phenomenon varies in tandem with some factor existing in the circumstances, then the phenomenon can be attributed to that factor. For instance, suppose that various samples of water, each containing both salt and lead, were found to be toxic. If the level of toxicity varied in tandem with the level of lead, one could attribute the toxicity to the presence of lead.

more (http://www.google.com/search?q=the+scientific+method&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)...

[reefgeek84]

Wow, that all is very pretty....

[Piero]

...it's the one tool we have to understand the universe, so in a way it is one of the most beautiful things in the universe. Especially since it came from one of the most beautiful manifestations of stardust: the human brain. ok, sry, tangent...

Hey who put Dimethyltryptamine in the orange slices?(drooler)

[drock59]

Wow, that all is very pretty....
Reefgeek, whats the beef? YOu seem all worked up? Do you find something wrong with the scientific method?

It seems when someone puts forth a good point you kind of dismiss it. Im not trying to get personal, im just wondering whats up with that?

[Piero]

no worries, it made me think about how beautiful the scientific method is, really. I've heard that some theoretical physicists break down in tears upon viewing the simplistic elegance of Einstein's equations, or rather....what they say about the universe...:)

[andy]

I think it is important to remember that there are no 'facts,' just theories backed up by sufficient evidence to make them widely accepted.

One can find highly intelligent, well educated scientists who disagree with just about any of the theories the rest of the world takes for granted as fact. And there are crackpots who point at well-supported theories and try to use them as supporting evidence for their own unsupported hypotheses.

Those who use the overwhelming evidence for mankind-influenced/accelerated global warming to advance their political agendas are every bit as bad as those who ignore that same evidence for the same reason. However, the existence of either doesn't invalidate the base theory.

Certainly, the scientific community has railroaded maverick thinkers with one-true-way-ism in the past, and been proven wrong. The scientific method *requires* those mavericks to exist, right or wrong. However, in the case of mankind-influenced global warming, I agree with those who count the theory as valid. My main reasons for this are:

The sheer number and credentials of those who support the theory. I know it is not liked (or even acknowledged) by several in this thread, but an overwhelming number of domain-appropriate scientists support the finding that mankind is influencing and accelerating global climate change.
My personal observations corroborate these findings

The first point provides a believable foundation for my acceptance of the theory. I have never been to Egypt. I've never met anyone from Egypt. However, enough people who's theories I respect insist there is actually a place called Egypt, and that there is a lot of really cool stuff there.

The second point personalizes my acceptance of the theory. In the case of my Egypt example, I've seen relics from ancient Egypt at the museum... the history of Egypt integrates with the history of the rest of the world as I understand it.. Egyptian food is really tasty... all of this supports the theory that there really is a place called Egypt. Is it possible that Egypt is a fraud? Sure. It's really unlikely, but it's possible -- someone could convince me with sufficient evidence. For climate change, I personally see evidence of climate change and observe large-scale behaviors by mankind that would contribute to this following scientific principles I personally feel I understand (for example, the statistically improbably number of warmest-years-on-record occurring within the past decade and a half combined with a huge amount of greenhouse gases being released to the atmosphere).

I find the overwhelming support for the theory from multiple scientific disciplines combined with my personal observations to be sufficient. I believe mankind is influencing/accelerating global climate change. Could I be wrong? Sure! But, it is going to take more to convince me than an extremely small contingent of scientists presenting poorly-supported, non-peer-reviewed evidence particularly when they appear to have a strong political motivation. Or, to stick with my example, some guy handing out leaflets in front of the mall isn't going to convince me that there is no Egypt ;)

[reefgeek84]

Reefgeek, whats the beef? YOu seem all worked up? Do you find something wrong with the scientific method?

It seems when someone puts forth a good point you kind of dismiss it. Im not trying to get personal, im just wondering whats up with that?
no, but those graphs can work for either side...both sides have their evidence to support their cases...

[reefgeek84]

I think it is important to remember that there are no 'facts,' just theories backed up by sufficient evidence to make them widely accepted.

One can find highly intelligent, well educated scientists who disagree with just about any of the theories the rest of the world takes for granted as fact. And there are crackpots who point at well-supported theories and try to use them as supporting evidence for their own unsupported hypotheses.

Those who use the overwhelming evidence for mankind-influenced/accelerated global warming to advance their political agendas are every bit as bad as those who ignore that same evidence for the same reason. However, the existence of either doesn't invalidate the base theory.

Certainly, the scientific community has railroaded maverick thinkers with one-true-way-ism in the past, and been proven wrong. The scientific method *requires* those mavericks to exist, right or wrong. However, in the case of mankind-influenced global warming, I agree with those who count the theory as valid. My main reasons for this are:

The sheer number and credentials of those who support the theory. I know it is not liked (or even acknowledged) by several in this thread, but an overwhelming number of domain-appropriate scientists support the finding that mankind is influencing and accelerating global climate change.
My personal observations corroborate these findings

The first point provides a believable foundation for my acceptance of the theory. I have never been to Egypt. I've never met anyone from Egypt. However, enough people who's theories I respect insist there is actually a place called Egypt, and that there is a lot of really cool stuff there.

The second point personalizes my acceptance of the theory. In the case of my Egypt example, I've seen relics from ancient Egypt at the museum... the history of Egypt integrates with the history of the rest of the world as I understand it.. Egyptian food is really tasty... all of this supports the theory that there really is a place called Egypt. Is it possible that Egypt is a fraud? Sure. It's really unlikely, but it's possible -- someone could convince me with sufficient evidence. For climate change, I personally see evidence of climate change and observe large-scale behaviors by mankind that would contribute to this following scientific principles I personally feel I understand (for example, the statistically improbably number of warmest-years-on-record occurring within the past decade http://www.pnwmas.org/forums/images/smilies/clap.gif
(clap)and a half combined with a huge amount of greenhouse gases being released to the atmosphere).

I find the overwhelming support for the theory from multiple scientific disciplines combined with my personal observations to be sufficient. I believe mankind is influencing/accelerating global climate change. Could I be wrong? Sure! But, it is going to take more to convince me than an extremely small contingent of scientists presenting poorly-supported, non-peer-reviewed evidence particularly when they appear to have a strong political motivation. Or, to stick with my example, some guy handing out leaflets in front of the mall isn't going to convince me that there is no Egypt ;)

I disagree...however...This is the most well written and thought out response from either side that anyone has ever written,...so you I give you major kodos for it.(clap)

[Piero]

yes well said. andy can I hire you for translation services? :)

[drock59]

no, but those graphs can work for either side...both sides have their evidence to support their cases...

Sure, it just so happens that one side is peer reviewed. That is the part of this that I dont understand. Or course there are many people and scientist that say we are not having an impact on Global Warming, but they have no scientifically accepted evidence of such. This is a problem for me. IF someone would come out with top notch, peer reviewed research acknowledging that humans are not the cause, I would love to read it and consider the views presented. Such a piece of literature has not been written to my knowledge.


This is the most well written and thought out response from either side that anyone has ever written,...so you I give you major kodos for it.
Andy, pretty much what I have been trying to get across in 15 pages of this thread, well said. :D

OH and reefgeek, what exactly are you disagreeing with? This is how you are confusing me....you dismiss the argument without stating what it is that you dont believe or disagree with. My whole motivation in this thread is the understand why/how people refuse to believe GW is happening despite overwhelming scientific evidence. Help me, please.

[reefgeek84]

Sure, it just so happens that one side is peer reviewed. That is the part of this that I dont understand. Or course there are many people and scientist that say we are not having an impact on Global Warming, but they have no scientifically accepted evidence of such. This is a problem for me. IF someone would come out with top notch, peer reviewed research acknowledging that humans are not the cause, I would love to read it and consider the views presented. Such a piece of literature has not been written to my knowledge.


Andy, pretty much what I have been trying to get across in 15 pages of this thread, well said. :D

OH and reefgeek, what exactly are you disagreeing with? This is how you are confusing me....you dismiss the argument without stating what it is that you dont believe or disagree with. My whole motivation in this thread is the understand why/how people refuse to believe GW is happening despite overwhelming scientific evidence. Help me, please.

I have stated what I disagree with the whole time...I disagree with humans causing global warming...I have listened to many people talk about global warming not being human's fault. I have also read a few books that state the same thing. I also watched "An inconvient truth" and he convinced me of nothing.

It comes down to, I will not convince you of something different and you will not do the same for me.

I really like what Andy, wrote...but the difference with Eygpt, I can go there...global warming is only shown on paper with theories and graphs, that are only well educated guesses.

There was a time when the world was considered flat.

[Piero]

I have listened to many people talk about global warming not being human's fault. I have also read a few books that state the same thing. I also watched "An inconvient truth" and he convinced me of nothing.

..and that's all we need to out-think the scientific community? I'm definitely increasingly more aware of the psychological influences driving your reasoning, than I am aware of any logic that may be behind it. I'm just missing the logic.


There was a time when the world was considered flat.
This fact actually supports my points I thought.

man i need a good science quote...where are they? "science teaches us to be skeptical and ignorant"

you got the skeptical part down pat...:)

[reefgeek84]

..and that's all we need to out-think the scientific community? I'm definitely increasingly more aware of the psychological influences driving your reasoning, than I am aware of any logic that may be behind it. I'm just missing the logic.


This fact actually supports my points I thought.

man i need a good science quote...where are they? "science teaches us to be skeptical and ignorant"

you got the skeptical part down pat...:)
the funny thing is peiro, I can call you skeptical on the belief that you are skeptical of the people who disagree with your thinking on this issue.

as for your first comment, there are scientists who disagree with humans causing global warming...so I am not out thinking anyone...How is me listening to other scientists, including OSU's own climatologist, that say this is just the earth's natural warming and we have nothing do to with it, is any different then your logic in believing the cites report? There is no difference...I have listened to people, read the books and seen evidence to show other then what you believe and drawn my own conclusion...how is that any different then what you have done? You simply want to try and make me look bad, so you keep questioning my logic, in hopes to making me look bad.

This comes from the guy who says, we as hobbyists, need to be more careful and not collect coral from the ocean, so that leads to tank raising, but then we are horrible people for using so much electricity, in order to have a lot of tanks to raise these frags in...You need to pick either or...

I have said many times...from what I have heard and read, I do not believe this whole thing...from what you and others in this thread have read believe that it is happening...nothing at this point will change either of our minds...but yet you continue to try and cut me down...

[Piero]

uh, ok, nuff said.
As much credit as you gave andy RG, I honestly don't get the impression that you understood what he said.

[reefgeek84]

as much credit as you gave andy RG, I honestly don't get the impression that you understood what he said, unfortunately.

I understand completely what he said... The experts provide the evidence, he then looks over the evidence, draws his own conclusions and from what he has read and seen, he believes that global warming is caused because of humans.

Its like talking to a brick wall....I am done with you Piero...You read only what you want to and twist it for the way you want it to seem...You should go into politics or media, cause you are exactly who they want writing for them....

[Piero]

Its like talking to a brick wall....I am done with you Piero...You read only what you want to and twist it for the way you want it to seem...You should go into politics or media, cause you are exactly who they want writing for them....

easy there....the only point I've ever made was that there are people more qualified than us whose job it is to do the real research. And those experts do have a current consensus. I think you fail to realize the significance of a United Nations approval, peer review, and the importance of considering the legitimacy of the sources from which you obtain your data.

There's a reason we have peer review and entire bodies of science that add credibility or dispute research. There's a reason we don't listen to individuals as much as we respect a consensus from hundreds of experts.

I've haven't once attempted to argue a detail of climate science that is clearly the domain of the experts. What specifically did I read and manipulate? I merely pointed out(repeatedly) that the experts know better than we do, and that they clearly DO have a consensus, as evident by the UN reports. Your claims that there is an equal and opposite argument against the current consensus declared by the UN reports, is mistaken, imo.

What major scientific bodies, international bodies, or otherwise are you referring to when you point to the equal amount of evidence to the contrary?

Given the fact that there clearly is a worldwide consensus of experts, as detailed by the UN report, anyone who claims to refute the current theory has the burden of discounting a HUGE body of work and hundreds of scientists. I'm sorry but like others have said here again and again, I don't see any evidence that there are any major international scientific bodies with peer-reviewed work who are refuting the UN report.

And even if there was an equal and opposite claim by an equally respected international body... you and I both would still only be qualified to stand on the sidelines and watch the experts figure it out. :)

[180Bob]

Author: SENATOR JAMES INHOFE CHAIRMAN, SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Im sure there is no spin or bias in that article. :)

Again, find me one peer reviewed article.

Piero, well done.

Here's a reference to one that took me a whole two minutes to fined:

Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics
Volume 95, Issue 1-2, January 2007, Pages 115-121

Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years

Zhen-Shan, L.Show author details, Xian, S.Show author details Correspondence address

The School of Geographic Sciences, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, China

Abstract

A novel multi-timescale analysis method, Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD), is used to diagnose the variation of the annual mean temperature data of the global, Northern Hemisphere (NH) and China from 1881 to 2002. The results show that: (1) Temperature can be completely decomposed into four timescales quasi-periodic oscillations including an ENSO-like mode, a 6-8-year signal, a 20-year signal and a 60-year signal, as well as a trend. With each contributing ration of the quasi-periodicity discussed, the trend and the 60-year timescale oscillation of temperature variation are the most prominent. (2) It has been noticed that whether on century-scale or 60-year scales, the global temperature tends to descend in the coming 20 years. (3) On quasi 60-year timescale, temperature abrupt changes in China precede those in the global and NH, which provides a denotation for global climate changes. Signs also show a drop in temperature in China on century scale in the next 20 years. (4) The dominant contribution of CO2 concentration to global temperature variation is the trend. However, its influence weight on global temperature variation accounts for no more than 40.19%, smaller than those of the natural climate changes on the rest four timescales. Despite the increasing trend in atmospheric CO2 concentration, the patterns of 20-year and 60-year oscillation of global temperature are all in falling. Therefore, if CO2 concentration remains constant at present, the CO2 greenhouse effect will be deficient in counterchecking the natural cooling of global climate in the following 20 years. Even though the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to re-consider the trend of global climate changes.

[drock59]

180Bob, thank you so much! Honestly, I have been waiting for someone to come up with 1. Im going to read this.

First impression.....this is talking about a very brief period of time in terms of Earth's history, unless you believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old. :)

Secondly, "Therefore, if CO2 concentration remains constant at present, the CO2 greenhouse effect will be deficient in counterchecking the natural cooling of global climate in the following 20 years."

It wont remain constant if current trends in CO2 production continue....that is the problem methinks.


I have stated what I disagree with the whole time...I disagree with humans causing global warming...I have listened to many people talk about global warming not being human's fault.
Sure you have, agreed. However when someone presents a very specific argument you dismiss it without referencing anything. That is what I am not understanding.


You simply want to try and make me look bad, so you keep questioning my logic, in hopes to making me look bad.

For me, i just want to try and understand your logic. That is why I would like to have specific responses. Currently I am still not understanding how people are not buying into the overwhelming scientific, peer reviewed research. That is all I am trying to figure out.


This comes from the guy who says, we as hobbyists, need to be more careful and not collect coral from the ocean, so that leads to tank raising, but then we are horrible people for using so much electricity, in order to have a lot of tanks to raise these frags in...You need to pick either or...

and you said I was the one always personally attacking people.

We have a mountain of peer reviewed evidence compared to proportionally very small amounts of "other" evidence, claiming global warming is happening and is human caused. . I dont understand how you cannot go with Science on this issue? No comprendo.

[reefgeek84]

180Bob, thank you so much! Honestly, I have been waiting for someone to come up with 1. Im going to read this.

First impression.....this is talking about a very brief period of time in terms of Earth's history, unless you believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old. :)

Secondly, "Therefore, if CO2 concentration remains constant at present, the CO2 greenhouse effect will be deficient in counterchecking the natural cooling of global climate in the following 20 years."

It wont remain constant if current trends in CO2 production continue....that is the problem methinks.


Sure you have, agreed. However when someone presents a very specific argument you dismiss it without referencing anything. That is what I am not understanding.



For me, i just want to try and understand your logic. That is why I would like to have specific responses. Currently I am still not understanding how people are not buying into the overwhelming scientific, peer reviewed research. That is all I am trying to figure out.



and you said I was the one always personally attacking people.

We have a mountain of peer reviewed evidence compared to proportionally very small amounts of "other" evidence, claiming global warming is happening and is human caused. . I dont understand how you cannot go with Science on this issue? No comprendo.

none of that was directed at you...I have left you alone, because you can read and have done that. I took a personal shot at peiro, because he does not read anything and only sees what he wants and he continues to try and make me look bad and stupid, but yet can not pull that off.

You however have not, you have simply disagreed and you can not understand where I am coming from and you have left it at that. You have taken a couple of personal shots at me, but no hard feelings, you are competent and I will leave it at that...

I disagree with your overwhelming community and peer reviewed evidence, because I have heard the same thing from the other side. You ask for people who I listen to...and I have named someone who is possibly losing their job over going against what you are saying. And he is at a very liberal school...OSU's climatologist, says it is natural warming and we have no impact on it. But yet, people still ask who these people are, and I have named them over and over.

again, I have my evidence you have yours...I have listened to both sides and drawn my conclusions...not much more to understand besides that...

[drock59]

very liberal school

I would have to argue this. There are some liberal areas of OSU but overall I would say it is VERY moderate.


I disagree with your overwhelming community and peer reviewed evidence, because I have heard the same thing from the other side.

How CAN you disagree.?.?..its out there on behalf of my view and not out there on behalf of your argument.


I have my evidence you have yours...I have listened to both sides and drawn my conclusions...not much more to understand besides that...

Surely there is! You are implying that all evidence is the same. That hearing someone talk about global warming is evidence, when in the scientific community, it is not. The type of evidence that we talk about and use is what sets us apart. That has been my bottom line from the get go.

[reefgeek84]

I would have to argue this. There are some liberal areas of OSU but overall I would say it is VERY moderate.



How CAN you disagree.?.?..its out there on behalf of my view and not out there on behalf of your argument.



Surely there is! You are implying that all evidence is the same. That hearing someone talk about global warming is evidence, when in the scientific community, it is not. The type of evidence that we talk about and use is what sets us apart. That has been my bottom line from the get go.

how is multiple scientists, talking and writing books about it not happening and saying this is normal climate change, not scientific. There is more then one scientific community out there....

[cyenna]

There is more then one scientific community out there....

Really? I'm a microbiology major, which one is more likely to hire me once I graduate? (scratch) :)

[drock59]

There is more then one scientific community out there....

But there is the real scientific community that puts its work through the scrutiny of the peer review process. There may be some other "communities" out there but none that can pass for real science through the time tested and tried and true methods. that is my beef.

The folks you listen to might have some really good stuff to say, why wont they get it peer reviewed? Maybe the conspiracy?!!!???!

[reefgeek84]

But there is the real scientific community that puts its work through the scrutiny of the peer review process. There may be some other "communities" out there but none that can pass for real science through the time tested and tried and true methods. that is my beef.

The folks you listen to might have some really good stuff to say, why wont they get it peer reviewed? Maybe the conspiracy?!!!???!

This is why people do not take your side seriously, because you say you will listen to other people, but in reality, you do not and do not acknowledge others.

That is like me saying, the way I have my tank is the only way to have it, because there is way more people who have done it this way. so I do not think they way of doing things is real or correct.

[Piero]

hehe, idunno cyenna but that sounds like a fascinating major.

I hear (http://www.digg.com/environment/ExxonMobil_reportedly_paid_groups_to_discredit_glo bal_warming) the money used to be especially good at exxon/mobile if you agreed to help the oil industry disprove climate change. Although apparently they admitted (http://www.digg.com/environment/Exxon_Finally_Admits_Global_Warming_Is_Real) recently that actually we'll need to start addressing climate change by reducing emissions. The first two Digg comments on that one were funny:

1) "In other news: Hell freezes over."
2) "...and quickly thaws."
---------------------------------
Today this came out:
Cheney: ‘There Does Not Appear To Be A Consensus’ That Global Warming Is ‘Caused By Man’

"Cheney added later in the interview, “I don’t know. I’m not a scientist.” But he appears comfortable enough in his knowledge to suggest that the scientists are all wrong." link (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/23/cheney-warming/)

check out some of the 111+ comments (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/23/cheney-warming/#comments) on that story too.

[drock59]

This is why people do not take your side seriously, because you say you will listen to other people, but in reality, you do not and do not acknowledge others.

That is like me saying, the way I have my tank is the only way to have it, because there is way more people who have done it this way. so I do not think they way of doing things is real or correct.

Forgive me, but it is both naive and ignorant to think that the scientific community and peer reviewed process has no room for people that think differently about a variety of topics. You still didnt answer my question, how can you refute the real scientific community? Its what science as we know it today is based on. I dont get it.

[reefgeek84]

Forgive me, but it is both naive and ignorant to think that the scientific community and peer reviewed process has no room for people that think differently about a variety of topics. You still didnt answer my question, how can you refute the real scientific community? Its what science as we know it today is based on. I dont get it.

Its all relative on what you think is the real community and what I think the real community is. Correct you are naive and ignorant for thinking there is not a difference of opinion on scientific topics. I however have accepted that fact. I have said time and time again...especially you and Piero will not convince me otherwise and I will not convince you other wise because you have your evidence and I have mine, but apparently that is falling on deaf ears.

[drock59]

. Correct you are naive and ignorant for thinking there is not a difference of opinion on scientific topics

Wow, im pretty sure i never said there shouldn't be a difference of opinion in the scientific community and/or on the topics within. However, apparently you will not buy into the notion that the scientific community is how all of "real" science is done. Not some quack writing his own thoughts and research down in a book for YOU and five other people to read.

Not to mention the incredible level of hypocrisy you exhibit by telling me im a terrible person for attacking you when really, that is all you have done in this thread, attack people.

Once again, you just attacked me and dismissed my question. Im beginning to see a trend here. My question, how can you refute the real scientific community?


your evidence and I have mine, but apparently that is falling on deaf ears.

Your "evidence" is not credible. Period. I would be more than happy to change my opinion if there was more peer reviewed evidence. I have no problem with that at all, but the fact remains your so called evidence is impotent without some sort of process to validate and confirm its findings.

[H20cooled]

Ok, last warning, please stop the insults and rudeness or it will be CLOSED.

[reefgeek84]

Wow, im pretty sure i never said there shouldn't be a difference of opinion in the scientific community and/or on the topics within. However, apparently you will not buy into the notion that the scientific community is how all of "real" science is done. Not some quack writing his own thoughts and research down in a book for YOU and five other people to read.

Not to mention the incredible level of hypocrisy you exhibit by telling me im a terrible person for attacking you when really, that is all you have done in this thread, attack people.

Once again, you just attacked me and dismissed my question. Im beginning to see a trend here. My question, how can you refute the real scientific community?



Your "evidence" is not credible. Period. I would be more than happy to change my opinion if there was more peer reviewed evidence. I have no problem with that at all, but the fact remains your so called evidence is impotent without some sort of process to validate and confirm its findings.
For the last time, what you call the real scientific community, I do not call the real scientific community...if you disagree with that, then fine. But I am entitled to my own thoughts...I have not said otherwise...for the last who knows how many pages, i have simply been defending who I listen to...You may not like them or think that they are credible, that is your choice and I accept that. You however can not accept that and that is your deal....I only insulted one person, and that was piero and he took that just fine...other then that I have insulted no one.

[andy]

I've been thinking about this discussion a fair bit and I'd like to make a few observations on the discussion itself, rather than on the subject of Climate Change.

As an outsider (that is, not a trained and practicing research scientist), when I look at 'Scientific Research' I see two different systems.

The first (and more common to my eye) is what I'll label as 'progressive science.' It is the research that advances established disciplines -- drug companies learning more about the chemistry of the brain so they can produce more marketable drugs are an example. In this case, the basic mechanisms of the human brain are universally understood and agreed upon; the research is just deepening that understanding. That's not to say there isn't disagreement within the community, there certainly is but that disagreement resides within the details. Nobody would argue, for example, that the brain is a complex clockwork mechanism driven by watch springs cranked by tiny gnomes (remember, Tom Cruise isn't a scientist (nutty))

The second category I'll call 'disruptive science.' Here, an entirely new set of fundamentals is being proposed. Rather than tweaking current understanding, there is the proposition that things just *aren't* as the majority believes them to be. The past is filled with examples... Newton, Darwin, Faraday, etc etc etc. Currently, string theory is in a similar place. Even though a lot of the argument around string theory is a meta-discussion regarding science vs. philosophy, similar mechanisms are at work.

By it's very nature, disruptive science is controversial. The establishment often will not (or *cannot*) make the leaps necessary to submit to the new theories, and because the disruption is a work in progress supporters often cannot immediately integrate data that seems at odds with their theories -- the whole process is evolutionary and requires time and iteration. It's still science, after all. So, the establishment often grabs onto these exception cases that haven't yet been integrated and uses them as 'proof' that the disruptive theories are false in toto, thus forcing the disruptors to go back to the drawing board and either integrate the exceptions or go "oh ****" and change careers ;)

It seems to me that climate change science is a disruptive science that is just transitioning to progressive science. There is a great body of evidence that supports the fundamental ideas, but the establishment still has a sufficient number of exceptions to justify the continued existence of the establishment. The climate change supporters have a bit more work to do before the establishment shrinks to Tom Cruise-like size.

Of course, any of the establishment's remaining exceptions *could* be the loose thread that unravels the whole body of work, but as each exception is resolved it becomes increasingly unlikely that the fundamental premise is false.

If this controversy was about the hinkey differences in particle behavior between the super-atomic (Newtonian) and sub-atomic (quantum) domains, it'd be a done deal -- not all the exceptions are integrated but enough have been for pretty much everyone to be on board. In the case of climate change, the stakes are enormous on both 'sides'. The establishment has a huge economic and political investment so will require a much tighter integration of 'exceptions.' This is understandable and a 'good thing' -- many of the changes needed to battle climate change will be very disruptive economically and politically, and making them if not needed would be wasteful beyond imagining. Of course, the stakes are equally high for those supporting climate change -- hundreds of millions of people and countless numbers of other species will suffer, and the long term threat to our civilization is significant if nothing is done.

"Yeah yeah, so what you longwinded fool?" Okay, trying to bring this home...

It's perfectly understandable then that we'll not agree with each other. Because of temperament, personality, education, politics, economics or whatever, some of us are more likely to align with the establishment and others with the disruptors. What's not perfectly understandable are statements along the lines of "I don't care what you say, you'll never convince me!" When either side (or both!) adopt that stance the discussion is no longer about science, it is about faith... and then we're screwed, because you can count the number of such conversions on the fingers of no hands. Open minds are needed on both sides.

[fly guy]

What's not perfectly understandable are statements along the lines of "I don't care what you say, you'll never convince me!" When either side (or both!) adopt that stance the discussion is no longer about science, it is about faith... and then we're screwed.


True story there. Well said

[Piero]

andy, very good point.

Finally it appears we're approaching what has been a seemingly predictable destination from page one. I'm just shocked it took so long to reach what was inherently obvious from the subject of the thread. So much wasted energy on details we're not qualified to analyze in the first place. It felt like reducing 10 cows to demi-glace.

So after everyone (eventually)realizes/accepts that we're not scientists/experts, we're naturally reduced to the debate regarding which qualified sources are actually the most credible. Some just needed to get past the hurdle of the "I know better than all the scientists" mentality. The debate about the legitimacy of sources may be the closest thing to a worthwhile approach on climate change from a bunch of civilians, but realistically it's probably just as merry-go-round susceptible as the irrational approach :) Frankly all the irrational conspiracy claims were a bit more interesting.

The important question is: what is the best way to react given a) some uncertainty, and b) the fact that either way...the events we are attempting to anticipate/predict will surely take place before we have absolute certainly as to their potential nature.

So in closing, you're lying across some train tracks and cannot see either way(not an expert on train coming). A vast majority of the people standing around claim that a train is coming and will run you over, another few people claim that is not the case. Given this information, what is the safe course of action given uncertainty?

Now, I don't know what tools and faculties some utilize in their search for data, but I've been sitting on these links waiting for reefgeek to point to them(just google 'global warming skeptics'). Frankly I still think the dissent against the consensus from the majority is relatively feeble and does not change the logical conclusion given uncertainty, but nevertheless here's a bone.

Remember, wiki is created by readers and can be unreliable regardless of stance, but nevertheless:
wiki: Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consens us)
wiki: global warming skeptics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Global_warming_skeptics)
wiki: previous global warming skeptics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Former_global_warming_skeptics)
wiki: scientific opinion on climate change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)

[reefgeek84]

What's not perfectly understandable are statements along the lines of "I don't care what you say, you'll never convince me!" When either side (or both!) adopt that stance the discussion is no longer about science, it is about faith... and then we're screwed, because you can count the number of such conversions on the fingers of no hands. Open minds are needed on both sides.
I agree with this...but where I come from is that until, i see more evidence of it and more people jump on board from the community of science I believe, then you, piero, drock will not convince me other wise...Maybe I did not get that across, I have an open mind, but again, I have said time and time again, I have read and listened to both sides and I have taken my stance and until more evidence comes forth my mind is made up...Not sure how that is not being open minded.

[reefgeek84]

So in closing, you're lying across some train tracks and cannot see either way(not an expert on train coming). A vast majority of the people standing around claim that a train is coming and will run you over, another few people claim that is not the case. Given this information, what is the safe course of action given uncertainty?

Now, I don't know what tools and faculties some utilize in their search for data, but I've been sitting on these links waiting for reefgeek to point to them(just google 'global warming skeptics'). Frankly I still think the dissent against the consensus from the majority is relatively feeble and does not change the logical conclusion given uncertainty, but nevertheless here's a bone.

Remember, wiki is created by readers and can be unreliable regardless of stance, but nevertheless:
wiki: Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consens us)
wiki: global warming skeptics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Global_warming_skeptics)
wiki: previous global warming skeptics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Former_global_warming_skeptics)
wiki: scientific opinion on climate change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)

I did not bring up wiki, because there is much discussion of ho unreliable the data is on it...It's funny that I have now become the target again, because I am the most outspoken...180bob, gave you an article and no one touched on it, with the exception of drock, who said it was to small of time period. It's just pointless now...

The whole train does not hold water, these comparisons keep being brought up...but you are comparing physical things that can be seen, compared to graphs and data that is generated on a computer and are educated guesses. There have been alot of things in the world, that were great on paper but never worked out...thus the saying "It may look good on paper..."

[Piero]

The whole train does not hold water, these comparisons keep being brought up...but you are comparing physical things that can be seen, compared to graphs and data that is generated on a computer and are educated guesses.

It's a metaphor. It has nothing to do with the train at all actually...it is quite simply alluding to the fact that we're presented with a situation where we are not the experts, and the experts may present conflicting claims. It's also illustrating the logical course of action give any circumstance involving imminent risk and levels of uncertainty. I could be wrong.

[reefgeek84]

It's a metaphor. It has nothing to do with the train at all actually...it is quite simply alluding to the fact that we're presented with a situation where we are not the experts, and the experts may present conflicting claims. It's also illustrating the logical course of action give any circumstance involving imminent risk and levels of uncertainty. I could be wrong.
I know it has nothing to do with a train, but it is a poor metaphor, cause again you are making the comparison of being able to see something as opposed to something that is an educated guess.

[Piero]

ok, then simply substitute something else for a train. Something that fits the criteria. I think what's being illustrated remains the same. I could be mistaken.

1) we're presented with a situation that potentially threatens us
2) we are not the experts, and the experts may present conflicting claims(even if it's 100:1)

When confronted with similar risk and levels of uncertainty, the logical course of action is still the safest option I would think, no?

[Lowman]

Guys, let's get back on topic here. I cleaned some of the personal shots.

[180Bob]

ok, then simply substitute something else for a train. Something that fits the criteria. I think what's being illustrated remains the same. I could be mistaken.

1) we're presented with a situation that potentially threatens us
2) we are not the experts, and the experts may present conflicting claims(even if it's 100:1)

When confronted with similar risk and levels of uncertainty, the logical course of action is still the safest option I would think, no?

The problem with the train metaphor is that in the case that we are presently discussing the train might actually not exists. If that is the case we may be laying on the sidewalk, and when we get up and move we may be stepping into the middle of a road and get run over by a car.

[Piero]

ok, but beyond my crappy attempt at an effective metaphor, am i making any sense? :) I don't think we should need a metaphor to see that the logical course of action is the safest option at our disposal.

[180Bob]

ok, but beyond my crappy attempt at an effective metaphor, am i making any sense? :) I don't think we should need a metaphor to see that the logical course of action is the safest option at our disposal.
In my opinion, by far the safest action in this case is to get all the hot air out of this discussion. It does no good to anyone to have people singing doomsday songs. Antarctica isn't all of a sudden going to melt, the fuzzy little polar bear aren't going to need Bermuda shorts next week, and Florida isn't going to be the next Atlantis. Is it likely that global temperature is rising, yes. Should we keep studying it, yes. But, I would of said the same thing during the global energy crisis of the 70's and the global cooling crisis of the 80's, and the sunburn scare of the 90's. They all deserve attention, but the sky is not falling!!!!

[Piero]

(chuckle)...you're right the sky is not falling, and there is no doomsday on my calendar yet, so I'm not sure to what urgency you're referring 180. I doubt anyone's under the illusion that we're actually contributing to the investigation here. It's just a casual debate, so you can have my spot in the bomb shelter if there is one.

clever anecdotes aside....
given the potential of imminent risk, and uncertainty, is not the most logical course of action the safest option available?

[180Brandy]

Yes you are right, since the IPCC statement was that the imminent risk was for a 4" rise in sea levels, I shall head out and buy a new pair of goulashes and if in the next 90 years it happens to rise 10 inches I will save my pennies for a pair of rubber boots. If the Chinese paper that I posted earlier is correct and we are headed for a cool down, I hope I will be able to trade these in for a new sweater. In all seriousness, scientists should keep studying this issue and politicians, former politicians and actors should quit blowing so much hot air, which I believe is the major cause of global warming.

[180Brandy]

That last post was that of my husband.

[andy]

Just a quick note... While a global average increase of sea level by 4" wouldn't prompt much response here than the wearing of galoshes, about a billion people in southeast Asia and the Pacific islands would be affected catastrophically.

[Piero]

good point andy. the effects are disproportionate to the actual rise. A few inches sounds small, but the impact is predicted to be serious I think.

Oregon and other States pledge to work on emissions, today (http://www.kgw.com/environment/stories/kgw_022607_env_global_warming.161bb874.html).

Given potential risk and uncertainty in any situation, can anyone think of a reasons why the safest option is not the most logical, regardless of subject?

[180Bob]

Just a quick note... While a global average increase of sea level by 4" wouldn't prompt much response here than the wearing of galoshes, about a billion people in southeast Asia and the Pacific islands would be affected catastrophically.
Andy do you have a peer-reviewed reference for this? I find it very difficult to believe that a 4" rise over a 100 year period will have any significant impact on many people.

[andy]

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/292.htm

There is evidence that SE Asia would be 'pulling up' the average, suffering a greater rise than just 4" I can't find peer-reviewed publication supporting that so take it as anecdotal -- though it seems clear *some* places will be affected more and others less, so even if there is some specific challenge to the SE Asian effect *somebody* will be dealing with > 4" rise.

A vast majority of the SE Asian population, agriculture and economy exist in areas that would be directly affected by a rise in sea level (no peer-review for this, an atlas will have to suffice ;)). Cyclones and storm-surges already cause terrible devastation, sea level rise would worsen things dramatically.

[180Bob]

good point andy.

Oregon and other States pledge to work on emissions, today (http://www.kgw.com/environment/stories/kgw_022607_env_global_warming.161bb874.html).

Given potential risk and uncertainty in any situation, can anyone think of a reasons why the safest option is not the most logical, regardless of subject?

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. I'm arguing that we should look at the risks objectively. We as a society have a finite number of resources. The question is which issues do we spend them on. My guess is that many more people will die from things which we know are happening than due to the couple degree rise in temperature that might happen due to global warming. The money spent on global warming will not be spent on, HIV/AIDS, malaria in north Africa, heart disease, cancer, malnutrition, monsoon/typhoon flooding in south east Asia, etc. We need a logical open discussion on the issues, not doomsday histeria.

[Piero]

The money spent on global warming will not be spent on, HIV/AIDS, malaria in north Africa, heart disease, cancer, malnutrition, monsoon/typhoon flooding in south east Asia, etc.

Yes, all very important causes, along with the habitability of the planet.


We need a logical open discussion on the issues, not doomsday histeria.

I agree. Doomsday hysteria is not productive.

[andy]

I think we're pretty much in agreement, Bob. Hysteria is bad (from both the Environmental Wingnuts, and the Do-What-We-Want-Cause-God-Will-Fix-It fringes), though it is my personal belief that the cost of dealing with the effects of climate change will dwarf the other costs you mention; of course, this level of detail is rapidly approaching "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" ;)

Unfortunately, I believe solving the problem is out of our control. It seems clear that China and India will continue to develop at breakneck speed, dumping carbon into the atmosphere at a rate that'd embarrass the most predatory western governments. It's relatively easy for us to say "SLOW DOWN!" with our solid middle class providing stability, but a country like China (with it's governmental inferiority complex, population pressures, imbalance between rural and agrarian standard of living, and popular political pressures) isn't likely to slow down one iota. Quite the opposite, actually; they'll speed up.

We in the west have to bring our big gun, technology, to bear. It's the only lever we have. Sure, we can never "afford" the kind of serious investment I think is required, but I look at all the billions upon billions of dollars being wasted in Iraq and I can't help wonder what would happen if it were being invested into clean energy research instead...

[180Bob]

Just a quick note... While a global average increase of sea level by 4" wouldn't prompt much response here than the wearing of galoshes, about a billion people in southeast Asia and the Pacific islands would be affected catastrophically.

From the report you cited earlier, the number of exposed would be a few tens of millions not a billion. This is assuming a rise of 1 meter, which is at the extreme end of what is predicted.

"As outlined in IPCC (1998), climate-related stresses in coastal areas include loss and salinization of agricultural land resulting from changes in sea level, likely changes in the intensity of tropical cyclones, and the possibility of reduced productivity in coastal and oceanic fisheries. Table 11-9 lists estimates of potential land loss resulting from sea-level rise and the number of people exposed, assuming no adaptation (Mimura et al., 1998; Nicholls and Mimura, 1998). These estimates of potential land loss and populations exposed demonstrate the scale of the issue for the major low-lying regions of coastal Asia. The results are most dramatic in Bangladesh and Vietnam, where 15 million and 17 million people, respectively, could be exposed given a relative change in sea level of 1 m (Brammer, 1993; Haque and Zaman, 1993)—though it should be recognized that a 1-m sea-level rise is at the extreme range of presently available scenarios. "

from http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/446.htm

[180Bob]

We in the west have to bring our big gun, technology, to bear. It's the only lever we have. Sure, we can never "afford" the kind of serious investment I think is required, but I look at all the billions upon billions of dollars being wasted in Iraq and I can't help wonder what would happen if it were being invested into clean energy research instead...

No questions on that one.

[andy]

I included the number of people living along the Asian Pacific rim who would likely be affected. The only countries specifically called out are those identified as the two highest. Many other countries, and several hundred million people live in areas likely affected. But, you are right; that number was my personal extrapolation, and wasn't taken from the study. Aside from a justified dig at me for my foolishness, do you have a point? 32 million people affected isn't enough? How many before taking it seriously?

[180Bob]

Andy:

My response was in no way intended to be a dig at you. I was personally interested in what the actual number of people affected would be. and thought you would be interested too. We all need to get our facts straight with this issue, just as we should of gotten our facts straight before the Iraq invasion. The 2001 Climate Report looked not only at the two countries mentioned about but also, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Japan, and Pakistan. As to your question as to whether 32 million is too few to worry about, the answer is: Absolutely Not. It does put it on the same scale as:

HIV/AIDs 2006 39 million living with Aids , ~3 million deaths per year http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm

Malaria: 300-500 million affected annually, 1.5-2.7 million deaths.
http://archive.idrc.ca/books/reports/1996/01-07e.html
http://www.searo.who.int/en/section10/section21/section338.htm

[Piero]

What's the average cost of a ring and a wedding, and how much money is wasted on empty ceremonies when the divorce rate is something like %65? If we put that cash towards HIV, maybe a vaccine would be in reach by now. :)

speaking of HIV. Do you know that in some villages in africa where HIV is rampant the natives actually believe that the disease originated from the condoms provided by health workers? :(

[andy]

Ironic that Africa can't contain AIDS for powerful cultural reasons and we can't contain our contributions to atmospheric carbon for powerful cultural reasons.

Aside from that morbid observation, I've tried 4 different drafts of follow ups but I just can't come up with a satisfactory response that weighs the potential future human and animal suffering resulting from climate change against these horrible statistics (http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/cause.php). Fix 'em all, I guess.

[180Bob]

What's the average cost of a ring and a wedding, and how much money is wasted on empty ceremonies when the divorce rate is something like %65? If we put that cash towards HIV, maybe a vaccine would be in reach by now. :)

speaking of HIV. Do you know that in some villages in africa where HIV is rampant the natives actually believe that the disease originated from the condoms provided by health workers? :(

I agree, that why when I got married is was in white jeans on the beach in Rockaway.

[reefgeek84]

What's the average cost of a ring and a wedding, and how much money is wasted on empty ceremonies when the divorce rate is something like %65? If we put that cash towards HIV, maybe a vaccine would be in reach by now. :)

speaking of HIV. Do you know that in some villages in africa where HIV is rampant the natives actually believe that the disease originated from the condoms provided by health workers? :(
I disagree with this... I earn my money and I can spend it how I want... I donate to charity, but I am not going to give up things that would make my future wife happy. This could go for a lot things that we do...Eating out, lets only eat at home and send all that money to another country, lets not have our tanks because it is a constant monthly bill, lets not take 4k vacations and give that to other countries. No one here can claim really fall complain and suggest this, cause I can promise you we all live in access. Sorry, my natural born right is to make my money and spend it, how I want.

I also think we need to take care of things domestically before we take care of the world...Call me insensitive or whatever you like, but that is how I work.

All I know is that the people who are screaming about mankind causing this, were the same people who were claiming we were going to be frozen by now.

We got through the past 4 ice ages, due to the world warming...and all these political leaders who are jumping on this band wagon are not practicing what they preach, I can assure you that Al gore is taking private jets to places and his power bill is 20x that of a normal house hold http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm

Sorry practice what you preach to me...

[andy]

Oh, come on now Reefgeek... Drudge? What's next, Limbaugh quotes? Don't make me get my Michael Moore Rhyming Dictionary. I'm just crazy enough to do it. The fact is, Gore buys his power from sustainable wind farms and purchases carbon allowances to offset his families consumption. Also known as practicing what he preaches.

[Piero]

DOH! classic.

[reefgeek84]

Oh, come on now Reefgeek... Drudge? What's next, Limbaugh quotes? Don't make me get my Michael Moore Rhyming Dictionary. I'm just crazy enough to do it. The fact is, Gore buys his power from sustainable wind farms and purchases carbon allowances to offset his families consumption. Also known as practicing what he preaches.

I searched and grab the first thing that I found...I was tired and wanting to get to bed. I will find some other stuff, trust me Al Gore is not the great guy that everyone thinks he is, because he made a Hollywood movie about the sky falling.

[andy]

I haven't seen the movie and am not a huge Al Gore fan anyways. He's a politician who rose through the Senate ranks and captured the bulk of the popular vote in a presidential election -- if you think you're going to shock me with proof of compromises he's made in his political or personal life, I'll save you the time. It's not possible to rise to that level without selling out. Witness John McCain's complete philosophical soul mortgage; pity that, I would likely have voted for him over Hillary (if I had a vote).

[reefgeek84]

I haven't seen the movie and am not a huge Al Gore fan anyways. He's a politician who rose through the Senate ranks and captured the bulk of the popular vote in a presidential election -- if you think you're going to shock me with proof of compromises he's made in his political or personal life, I'll save you the time. It's not possible to rise to that level without selling out. Witness John McCain's complete philosophical soul mortgage; pity that, I would likely have voted for him over Hillary (if I had a vote).

Well, at least we are on that page together...LOL...I am on the page with you as well that we need to be green, but just not on the belief of what is causing the warming :-)

[drock59]

http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/14790/1/Countdown-Gore-Energy.wmv

[Chief]

I couldn't believe it when I read this. This is not meant to insight anger. I thought it was funny.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070228/od_afp/canadaenvironmentkyoto;_ylt=AkFNvoTajAmob7k4blMSj4 YDW7oF

Jay

[180Brandy]

rofl rofl rofl Thats just crazy talk.

[drock59]

not a real unbiased source but worth thinking about.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html

[DChemist]

I don't want to stoke the fire... but this is interesting (I've been a lurker on this thread).
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/scientists-have-inconvenient-news-for-gore/2007/03/13/1173722471286.html

[reefgeek84]

I don't want to stoke the fire... but this is interesting (I've been a lurker on this thread).
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/scientists-have-inconvenient-news-for-gore/2007/03/13/1173722471286.html

Great article...

[180Bob]

I don't want to stoke the fire... but this is interesting (I've been a lurker on this thread).
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/scientists-have-inconvenient-news-for-gore/2007/03/13/1173722471286.html

That was basically my feeling. When science is first presented in the popular press, one should be very suspicious.

[Chief]

I finally got a chance to watch "An Inconvenient Truth" the other day. I had to wait for it to come to HBO because I wasn't going to pay for it. :D

It was very dramatic. I thought it was more show than science. Don't get me wrong. I believe in the message... to live cleaner, and healthier, but I didn't care for the delivery.

It posed all of the problems, but no real solutions. Small changes, but not a global plan.

This is a subject that is tough to sell. Most people don't care if the changes happen after their lifetime. People are used to their comforts.

I think we need a better proactive approach, and a good solid global solution, but who is going to put their neck out for that. We as the biggest polluting nation, should be the ones to step up, but it cannot be a band-aid.

Regardless, I still tell people that they should watch the movie. It is the idea of getting people involved whether they choose to believe in global warming or not, we should try to live cleaner.

Jay

[cyenna]

That was basically my feeling. When science is first presented in the popular press, one should be very suspicious.

why?(scratch)



I did not think the article was good. If you're going to quote, don't quote from bloggers. Quote from Nature or some other peer-reviewed journal. Not professor blogger from so and so university.

[180Bob]

why?(scratch)
I did not think the article was good. If you're going to quote, don't quote from bloggers. Quote from Nature or some other peer-reviewed journal. Not professor blogger from so and so university.

I agree, that why earlier in this thread I referenced the 2001 IPCC Report and "Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics".

[Piero]

nyt artical earlier this week. Digg it (http://www.digg.com/world_news/Scientist_are_upset_with_Gore_s_alarmism_on_global _warming)

[cyenna]

nyt artical earlier this week. Digg it (http://www.digg.com/world_news/Scientist_are_upset_with_Gore_s_alarmism_on_global _warming)

it's been dugged.
(laugh)

seems like the same article as before?

Anyway, in my opinion, i don't really care that Al Gore may have exaggerated global warming. The awareness that he brought is leading many people to take action - all of which is good. Quite frankly, I don't know why there is all this hoopla about his exaggeration. Why not jump on people who don't like genetically modified organisms because they are scared of mutations? Why not criticize those that are against stem cell research based on the fact that they're scared of rogue scientists and embryo farms? THOSE are the exaggerations that should be stopped. Those are the people who hinder science that can make society better.

[180Bob]

it's been dugged.
(laugh)

seems like the same article as before?

Anyway, in my opinion, i don't really care that Al Gore may have exaggerated global warming. The awareness that he brought is leading many people to take action - all of which is good. Quite frankly, I don't know why there is all this hoopla about his exaggeration. Why not jump on people who don't like genetically modified organisms because they are scared of mutations? Why not criticize those that are against stem cell research based on the fact that they're scared of rogue scientists and embryo farms? THOSE are the exaggerations that should be stopped. Those are the people who hinder science that can make society better.
All exaggerations should be stopped. They ALL hinder the way that science can maximally enhance society. This is true whether the exaggeration emanate from the left, right or middle.

[cyenna]

All exaggerations should be stopped. They ALL hinder the way that science can maximally enhance society. This is true whether the exaggeration emanate from the left, right or middle.

If there are no exaggerations then no one would do anything.

[180Bob]

If there are no exaggerations then no one would do anything.
My view is a little different. My view is that if we did away with all of the exaggerations we would do the right thing.

[cyenna]

hehe. i can respect that. :) i still disagree but if we all agreed then this would be a boring world.

[Cuttlefish]

Ok well I've tried to go through the entire thread but my bad eyesight means that ain't gonna happen but I did want to jump in here as a late comer and offer something I think you guys might find interesting. Hopefully. It's a speech given by Michael Crichton of Jurassic Park fame. He talks about the global warming in the context of politics in science and what really caught my attention is the part of the speech that talks about consensus in science. Please, whatever side of the argument you're on, don't use consensus among scientists as a point of arguement. It's been shown SO many times that consensus is almost meaningless. What's scary is how science has evolved to become entangled in politics. Hell, environmentalism IMO, is almost entirely about politics. Why have the US and Australia not signed on to the Kyoto Accord? Do some research. China and India (two of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gasses) would be completely exempt from having to lower their levels. Ok I'm done.


Anyway here's the link to the speech

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

and yes it's really called "Aliens Cause Global Warming"

[Piero]

hrm, very interesting and i will check that out. But in the world there exists false consensus..that's understood. The implications on this particular subject i think, are that the people qualified to agree or not are burdened with that risk. How does any data ever gain merit without some form of consensus? if I'm not mistaken it's a synonym for agreeing. Seems like the only way to get anything done in the world is for more than one person to agree...so I'm not sure i see an alternative.

[H20cooled]

If there are no exaggerations then no one would do anything.

Statements like this is my problem with the whole environmental movement in the first place, you believe that in order to get anyone to do anything about something that you believe is right its has to be blown up much worse then it is. The problem is the truth comes out eventually and you (not you personally of course) end up looking like an idiot and everyone stops believing anything that you say. You heard of the boy who cried wolf right....

[Chief]

Ok well I've tried to go through the entire thread but my bad eyesight means that ain't gonna happen but I did want to jump in here as a late comer and offer something I think you guys might find interesting. Hopefully. It's a speech given by Michael Crichton of Jurassic Park fame. He talks about the global warming in the context of politics in science and what really caught my attention is the part of the speech that talks about consensus in science. Please, whatever side of the argument you're on, don't use consensus among scientists as a point of arguement. It's been shown SO many times that consensus is almost meaningless. What's scary is how science has evolved to become entangled in politics. Hell, environmentalism IMO, is almost entirely about politics. Why have the US and Australia not signed on to the Kyoto Accord? Do some research. China and India (two of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gasses) would be completely exempt from having to lower their levels. Ok I'm done.


Anyway here's the link to the speech

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

and yes it's really called "Aliens Cause Global Warming"

I like Crichton because he first inspired me to think for myself. There is a wealth of information out there. You have but to pluck it from the tree.

Jay

[cyenna]

Statements like this is my problem with the whole environmental movement in the first place, you believe that in order to get anyone to do anything about something that you believe is right its has to be blown up much worse then it is. The problem is the truth comes out eventually and you (not you personally of course) end up looking like an idiot and everyone stops believing anything that you say. You heard of the boy who cried wolf right....


Well, please share your idea of what will motivate people if it is not fear.

[180Bob]

Well, please share your idea of what will motivate people if it is not fear. What motivates me is dreaming of a world that could be, not fear of one that I don't want it to be.

"You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one"

[Cuttlefish]

hrm, very interesting and i will check that out. But in the world there exists false consensus..that's understood. The implications on this particular subject though, are that the people qualified to agree or not are burdened with that risk. and how does any data ever gain merit without some form of consensus? remember it's just s synonym for agreeing. it's simply the opposite of disagreement. Seems like the only way to get anything done in the world is for more than one person to agree...so I'm not sure i see an alternative to consensus for giving opinions, data, anything merit.


Hey Piero,

I think I understand your point but I would disagree that the only way to get anything done in the world is for more than one person to agree. Some of the greatest discoveries in science have been brought about in the face of almost complete opposition. The point isn't even that a consensus is good or bad it's that it shouldn't be cited as evidence for global warming. Global warming may very well be a real phenomenon and it's not impossible (but it is extremely unlikely IMO) that humans have cause it but science has to come to these conclusions based on facts and logic.

[180Bob]

hrm, very interesting and i will check that out. But in the world there exists false consensus..that's understood. The implications on this particular subject though, are that the people qualified to agree or not are burdened with that risk. and how does any data ever gain merit without some form of consensus? remember it's just s synonym for agreeing. it's simply the opposite of disagreement. Seems like the only way to get anything done in the world is for more than one person to agree...so I'm not sure i see an alternative to consensus for giving opinions, data, anything merit.
Lets start with the definition of consensus:

a : general agreement : UNANIMITY <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports...from the border -- John Hersey> b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>
2 : group solidarity in sentiment and belief
usage The phrase consensus of opinion, which is not actually redundant (see sense 1a; the sense that takes the phrase is slightly older), has been so often claimed to be a redundancy that many writers avoid it. You are safe in using consensus alone when it is clear you mean consensus of opinion, and most writers in fact do so.

What we are really talking about here is a consensus of the opinions of scientists. We are asking scientist to be politicians. Science is not about opinions, it is not about faith, its about data. The problem with the data in the present discussion is that the data is not yet complete enough to completely describe the system that we need to understand. We have pretty good data for the last hundred years or so. Before that our data is very sparse and indirect. In the system we are trying describe we are looking for very small changes. We need to model this system very accurately, we need a precision <1% with an incomplete data set. Therefore the results of these models still remain questionable. As we gain more understanding, and gather more data to input into the models eventually this discussion will move out of the real of opinion and politics back to the realm of science.

[Piero]

I see your point eddie. M. Meade said, "Make no mistake that a small group of concerned citizens[or one in some cases] can change the world, for certainly it is the only thing that ever has." And I agree, facts and logic.

[reefgeek84]

I guess whether this is wrong or not...this is where I go... The theories of what is going to happen due to the humans causing the earth to warm and what our future holds is all done by models and predictions, no body knows for sure. I compare it to weather people, they all go through school and the best and most "accurate" models, they still can not predict tomorrows weather with 100% accuracy. So how can scientists pretend to know for sure what will happen years from now...Call this ignorant, call this stupid, call this insane...but this is also where I go with it, whether it is right or wrong.

[Piero]

So how can scientists pretend to know for sure what will happen years from now...Call this ignorant, call this stupid, call this insane...but this is also where I go with it, whether it is right or wrong.

I'd probably settle on 'uninformed'.
Once again though, nobody is claiming to know anything for sure. Unfortunately at this point in any discussion, an inability to move beyond fundamentally incorrect generalizations - points that were addressed on p.01 - exposes a logic system with which I fear I am unable to relate. I wish I knew the answer to bridging that divide, but it's difficult when we share different ideas of what constitutes logic.

[reefgeek84]

I'd probably settle on 'uninformed'.
Once again though, nobody is claiming to know anything for sure. Unfortunately at this point in any discussion, an inability to move beyond fundamentally incorrect generalizations - points that were addressed on p.01 - exposes a logic system with which I fear I am unable to relate. I wish I knew the answer to bridging that divide, but it's difficult when we share different ideas of what constitutes logic.

I just find it hard to believe graphs and computers that are educated guesses as to how our world is going to fall apart. There was a time when all the greatest minds in engineering with top of the line tools at the time, said the titanic can not be sunk, "she is unsinkable", but yet we see her at the bottom of th ocean. Everything is different on "paper". Again, uninformed, that is ok with me...

again this me just thinking, I am claiming that this is good thinking or anything of that sort...just where I go with it, thinking out loud if you will...

[Piero]

agreed. It definitely does involve some faith in the fact that the qualified people will give us the right information. I do share many of the same questions though. :)

[180Bob]

I just find it hard to believe graphs and computers that are educated guesses as to how our world is going to fall apart. There was a time when all the greatest minds in engineering with top of the line tools at the time, said the titanic can not be sunk, "she is unsinkable", but yet we see her at the bottom of th ocean. Everything is different on "paper". Again, uninformed, that is ok with me...

again this me just thinking, I am claiming that this is good thinking or anything of that sort...just where I go with it, thinking out loud if you will...

I doubt all the the greatest minds in engineering at that time would of said that "she is unsinkable". It of been possible that the would of agree that she was less likely that most to sink. The problem is that this was exaggerated by those that have vested interests in her commercial success to "she is unsinkable". This exaggeration and bad luck is what took her to the bottom.

[reefgeek84]

I doubt all the the greatest minds in engineering at that time would of said that "she is unsinkable". It of been possible that the would of agree that she was less likely that most to sink. The problem is that this was exaggerated by those that have vested interests in her commercial success to "she is unsinkable". This exaggeration and bad luck is what took her to the bottom.

Well of course not every engineer in the world was working on that, but do we need to be that literal?

You proved my point, that with stuff on paper and people having a vested interest, she was unsinkable and people bought into that...that is my point, depending who you asked she would not sink due to multiple walled "hulls" (I think that is what they were called, I am not a ship expert, but I know what I am thinking in my head (laugh) (nutty) ) but she was made of steel and we all know that steel sinks...So with computer models and vested interest, humans are causing global warming...Again I am not claiming this is science, nor holds any water, but I am just kind of thinking out loud here and explaining why I do not fully relay on a computer generated model.

[Cuttlefish]

...and much like the Titanic, the global warming predictions hold no water. ZING!!!! :)

[180Bob]

.So how can scientists pretend to know for sure what will happen years from now...Call this ignorant, call this stupid, call this insane...but this is also where I go with it, whether it is right or wrong.

I've never met a scientist that pretended to know anything. They take the best data they can find, put it in the best model they know how to build, and use that to make an estimation as to what is most likely to happen. How well these models do on predicting the future depends on many factors. If you really are interested on how scientists model such things, I can send you a copy of a paper that I just found, "The impact of natural and anthropogenic forcings on climate and hydrology since 1550", Clim. Dyn. 28, 3-34 (2007).

[Piero]

...and much like the Titanic, the global warming predictions hold no water. ZING!!!! :)

that zing was a lemon!

http://photo.gangus.com/d/26764-2/zing.jpg

[Cuttlefish]

Lol funny Piero

[Twitterbait]

Ok folks, i found a very fascinating video clip from the UK... it is a long one but very interesting. Supports my side a little more.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=global+warming

[Piero]

Thanks for the link.

here's the Digg entry. link (http://www.digg.com/politics/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle_2)

some of the comments:
-----------------------------
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece
-----------------------------
George Monboit's response to the film: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/channel-4s-problem-with-science/
-----------------------------

I am stunned that the majority of reactions here are in support of a sensationalist/tabloid polemic pseudo-documentary with faked evidence and quotes from either disreputable scientists or in the case of Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (as the program loved to say), quoted and edited completely out of context to the point of reversing the point of what he actually said!
At least check his own comments on the matter. Someone who was involved with the documentary and isn't too happy with the result.
http://puddle.mit.edu/~cwunsch/
I am not a believer or a denier. I was completely open-minded when I watched this and I am ashamed to say now, I was almost duped by it but decided to do some hard reading.
there is no debate or dispute.
As little as the CO2 is in the atmosphere, that doesn't make it nothing to think about.
Man is doing harm.
Think otherwise then you are just stupid, uneducated or maybe lazy and refusing to take the time to study the real facts.
-----------------------------
"Oh great a scientist that gets his funding from major energy companies.

http://www.desmogblog.com/oil-companies-funding-friends-of-science
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/07/what_does_tim_ball_mean_by_to.php"
-----------------------------

I still have to see even one SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATION which disproves global warming!
So infact we can't attack the global warming deniers science, because it has never been published! And don't refer me to blogs and newspaper articles.
-----------------------------

The Denial machine
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/

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

There are so many fun analogies we use to make sense of what is a mind bogglingly complex science. Instead of contributing another analogy for the science, let me add an analogy of the scientists.

The science and controversy behind global warming is as if you had a stomachache. 12,000 Doctors say you have an appendicitis and need an operation immediately, 100 say it is just gas.
-----------------------------

Here's the Gaurdian article today with a thorough thrashing of the Channel 4 misinformation special.
"Why Channel 4 has got it wrong over climate change"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2026124,00.html
-----------------------------

Well, well, well this latest news on the programme comes as no real suprise that controversial film maker Martin Durkin once again has been up to his old tricks!

" The Great Global Warming Swindle, screened by Channel 4 on Thursday night, convinced many viewers that it is indeed untrue that the gas is to blame for global warming.

But now the programme - and the channel - is facing a serious challenge to its own credibility after one of the most distinguished scientists that it featured said his views had been "grossly distorted" by the film, and made it clear that he believed human pollution did warm the climate.

Professor Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said he had been "completely misrepresented" by the programme, and "totally misled" on its content. He added that he is considering making a formal complaint."
Professor Wunsch said: "I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled."

- The Independent

Full article here :

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece
---------------------------------------

Misrepresentations of the facts and lack of joined-up thinking abound here!

If I may, I'll try to clear a few points up and remind the climate change sceptics of the current situation:

1. The basic physics and chemistry connecting 'greenhouse gasses' (e.g. water vapour, CO2, methane etc.) to warming of the atmosphere is rock solid and had been known about since 1824. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_Gas
2. We (industrial humans) have been putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than the biosphere can dispose of since just before the Industrial Revolution started in England. We have been emitting more of other greenhouse gasses from industry, agriculture and construction too.
3. No one is saying there haven't been significantly hotter or cooler periods; plenty of research is ongoing into how the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere were set up during these periods and how that relates to the various orbital and solar cycles.
4. The recent IPCC report says YES there is a large effect due to solar activity. They also say they are 95% certain that there is an effect that they cannot account for without human-created atmospheric changes.
5. YES, models can and are wrong. NO, that doesn't mean you can't actually learn from and use them to make broad predictions. (I'd argue that if complex interrelated models can't be trusted, then most of economics beyond the basics is similarly flawed)
6. CO2 is both the cause _and_ the effect of warming: Cause as a greenhouse gas (see above) and effect because warming can cause the release of greenhouse gasses due to many factors including decreasing glaciation and increased microbial action in once frozen areas.
7. CO2 does both follow and precede warming because of factors mentioned in 7 above and also because, in the example given in the film, the increase in CO2 came from volcanic activity which added lots of dust and sulphur particulates into the atmosphere. These particulates reflect heat back into space, hence causing what is called Global Cooling. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
8. EVEN if you can argue (wrongly) CO2 doesn't cause climate change, or man hasn't changed the atmosphere (he has), we do know CO2 DOES cause ocean acidification which has the potential to destroy the base of the food chain in the oceans. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Given the Sun is the primary cause of the recent warming - and obviously as the primary heat source in the solar system, it must be - then to mitigate the damage to human economies, lives and wildlife we get two choices:

1. Reduce the greenhouse effect by reducing the proportion of greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere;
2. Reduce the output from the Sun.

We clearly have a degree of control over the former, whereas the latter is basically sci-fi for now.

In summary: CO2 matters. So does other stuff. We don't get to control the other stuff.
--------------------------------------

more (http://www.digg.com/politics/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle_2)...
Again, given uncertainty and risk, isn't the most logical course of action the safest option available?

[Cuttlefish]

Geez Piero that's quite a response,

What I took away from the video and the responses I read from your post is that NO ONE can predict what will or won't happen. BOTH sides are notorious for making errors in the field of climatology. One point that the movie made and that the resoponses only proved (to me) is the shrill tenor of discourse. I think it was the first link you posted had a response with an ad hominem attack on the director and also cut into some of the scientists. Do you see why folks get defensive and even more skeptical? Why can't we agree that global warming is a very real possibility BUT that WAY more data should be gathered before we can draw conclusions and make predictions of catastrophe and hinder economic progress. Another point the movie makes and the responses prove is the level of politics in science today. That needs to stop ASAP or science will be relegated to junk science and history will put it in the same category of Yellow Journalism.

[Piero]

To be clear, I was just posting comments from a Digg thread. And yes, that first article seemed way too personal in terms of its justifications I think.

oh, there was one sentence from me in the previous post:
"Again, given uncertainty and risk, isn't the most logical course of action the safest option available?"

[Twitterbait]

When these "climatologists" can finally predict the local weather tomorrow with some degree of accuracy i may start to believe something they say about the whole world.

[cyenna]

When these "climatologists" can finally predict the local weather tomorrow with some degree of accuracy i may start to believe something they say about the whole world.

Fine. You can live in idleness and continue to believe what you may. Predictions may be exaggerated but the message is clear - humans need to change living behavior or there will be consequences.

Think about the things you throw away and know that they are going to sit in a landfill - never to degrade until a nuclear explosion. For example: plastic grocery bags, plastic cups, deodorants, aerosol containers, broken glass, waxed food containers, electronic equipment, broken light bulbs, kitchen appliances, the list goes on. If you think that nature can handle all that then I'd like to move into your world.

Sorry if i offend anyone but I strongly believe in making a difference.

[reefgeek84]

Fine. You can live in idleness and continue to believe what you may. Predictions may be exaggerated but the message is clear - humans need to change living behavior or there will be consequences.

Think about the things you throw away and know that they are going to sit in a landfill - never to degrade until a nuclear explosion. For example: plastic grocery bags, plastic cups, deodorants, aerosol containers, broken glass, waxed food containers, electronic equipment, broken light bulbs, kitchen appliances, the list goes on. If you think that nature can handle all that then I'd like to move into your world.

Sorry if i offend anyone but I strongly believe in making a difference.

I believe in this as well...However, this has nothing to do with global warming and emissions. The biggest thing and what most people do not want to conquer or even talk about is population control.

You are right we are a throw away society and this should change. We used to have places that repaired everything, shoes, VCRs, TV's, kitchen appliances...but now when one breaks we throw it away. This needs to change and so does people have 5 or 6 kids each and then they all move into houses. I guess this is mean, but my father has 8 children and I disagree with that...it is no longer a necessity in this world to have that many children. I believe these two things, will impact our world quicker then any global warming issues that may or may not be truth.

[cyenna]

I believe in this as well...However, this has nothing to do with global warming and emissions. The biggest thing and what most people do not want to conquer or even talk about is population control.



Just want to point out that many things contribute/enhance/whatever to global warming. Carbon dioxide emissions is not a sole source. If there were just one source to global warming then this "problem" would be much easier to understand.

[cyenna]

You are right we are a throw away society and this should change. We used to have places that repaired everything, shoes, VCRs, TV's, kitchen appliances...but now when one breaks we throw it away. This needs to change and so does people have 5 or 6 kids each and then they all move into houses. I guess this is mean, but my father has 8 children and I disagree with that...it is no longer a necessity in this world to have that many children. I believe these two things, will impact our world quicker then any global warming issues that may or may not be truth.

Agreed! All we need now is a new strain of influenza! (laugh)

[180Bob]

Fine. You can live in idleness and continue to believe what you may. Predictions may be exaggerated but the message is clear - humans need to change living behavior or there will be consequences.

Think about the things you throw away and know that they are going to sit in a landfill - never to degrade until a nuclear explosion. For example: plastic grocery bags, plastic cups, deodorants, aerosol containers, broken glass, waxed food containers, electronic equipment, broken light bulbs, kitchen appliances, the list goes on. If you think that nature can handle all that then I'd like to move into your world.

Sorry if i offend anyone but I strongly believe in making a difference.

I agree with you. That is why I will be out on a coastal beach this Saturday cleaning up plastic bags, cups, deodorants etc. that others have seen fit to toss out.

[Piero]

good stuff from a WIRED blog on the subject of GW debate.

How the Internet Is Not Like Science (http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/03/how_the_interne.html)

How to Argue About Global Warming (http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/03/how_to_argue_ab.html)

[H20cooled]

Just found this BBC video (http://video.google.com/url?docid=4499562022478442170&esrc=gvpl&ev=v&q=great+global+warming+swindle&vidurl=http://video.google.com/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D4499562022478442170%26q%3Dgrea t%2Bglobal%2Bwarming%2Bswindle&usg=AL29H22pzUdZvWIHIM0erTt9OUJbg2TtlQ) and all I can say it WOW, it explains a lot...

[inkto]

That was quite enjoyable. Good link.

But don't forget this one... Scam of 'The Global Warming Swindle' (http://video.google.com/url?docid=-1656640542976216573&esrc=gvpl&ev=v&q=great+global+warming+swindle&vidurl=http://video.google.com/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D-1656640542976216573%26q%3Dgreat%2Bglobal%2Bwarming %2Bswindle&usg=AL29H22hgktGZQbkF973TzR4FhoG1vgrsg)

It's not nearly as entertaining as the 'documentaries' on global warming (those in favor or against the mainstream beliefs.) It does, however, remind you that any demonstration, documentary or lecture with a budget behind it is intended to convey a specific message of who is right and who is wrong. The actual science is far too complex to express in political and/or activist driven agendas.

[H20cooled]

Yeah I thought it was one of the best videos that I have seen in a long time especially coming from the "mainstream" media. Everyone making statements were Professors, Doctors, and other professionals in the industry. It will be interesting to see how people are going to refute their claims.

[Piero]

The (current) global authority on the subject is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The first part of their report prompted this thread, and last week they released the second part of that report.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/04/06/dust.bowl.ap/

[H20cooled]

And your point is?

Does that mean you are not going to watch that video then, because you've already bought into the whole report completely?

[cyenna]

Does that mean you are not going to watch that video then, because you've already bought into the whole report completely?

That video is long. I watched the first ten minutes. Nice graphs- i like how they're animated(laugh) . The point they seem to be making is that climate change occurs. Ya, duh. Now where I disagree with them is the attitude they take: they seem believe that humans have no impact and that we should do nothing about climate change because "we shouldn't give in to propaganda". I'm not going to reiterate reasons on why humans do have an impact but I have to point out that: 1. this movie uses the same tactics that they accuse "the other side" of using 2. we should do something because climate change affects humans - just because the change was mild in the past ages doesn't mean this next one will be bearable.

A climate change will mean huge economic losses and people in warm third world countries will suffer even more. Climate change affects animals (which, btw, humans are the first species to be the cause of the mass extinction of other animals), it influences where people live and how they make their living. Out of all this global warming "stuff" i've seen nothing bad happen except for creating a bunch of naysayers who just like naysaying. Global warming (as defined in this debate, i.e., human influenced) pushes for "greener" legislation, it causes awareness, it necessitates innovation, and creates a progressive society. Why is that bad?

[H20cooled]

cyenaa,
Yes the video is long, but you completely missed the entire discussion of why humans are NOT impacting the earth. I'm not even going to discuss it anymore with you if you will not even take the time to watch the entire video.

[180Bob]

I watched the whole video several weeks ago. I found it to be as anti-global warming biased as others have been in support of human caused global warming. I personally have no doubt that man has changed the environment. It started when he/she took his first breath and exhaled carbon dioxide. The real question is how much we are changing the environment, and what we should do about it. Should we do nothing, or should we all give up our cars and walk. My view is that the truth is somewhere between the viewpoints.

[cyenna]

cyenaa,
Yes the video is long, but you completely missed the entire discussion of why humans are NOT impacting the earth. I'm not even going to discuss it anymore with you if you will not even take the time to watch the entire video.

ok then, have a nice life (laugh)

[H20cooled]

ok then, have a nice life (laugh)

How am I supposed to have a discussion with you about the video or the topic if you don't even want to watch the video?

[Piero]

without rehashing too much of what has already been established repeatedly:

I am not a UN climatologist, so I couldn't possibly debate the meaning or validity of climate science data. All I can do is try to debate the apparent validity of data sources. That being said: I do believe that the best minds in the world on the subject are involved with the UN IPCC. If the IPCC report is in fact misguided in any way, then there are qualified climate scientists who have the burden of proving that to their peers, not reef hobbyists.

Granted my 'faith' in the worldwide scientific community comes from a bias towards the validity of peer-reviewed scientific methods. But I suspect I'd probably arrive at the same conclusion if I simply used probability and statistics to determine the chances that various sources are providing accurate information.

I think perhaps a more pragmatic approach to determining the validity of sources like that video, would be to find out what the professional scientific community has said about it.

[Piero]

re: the film. I watched the first ten minutes which, to me, seemed full of some really questionable statements. Here are some real climate scientists responding to claims from the film:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/