Global Warming?

[chuck34]

Since the Healthcare debate has split off to now be talking about Global Warming, or Climate Change, or whatever you want to call it today, I figured I'd start a new thread for that discussion.

It is a very complex issue.

In order for me to buy into all the hysteria, 4 questions must be answered first. And they have to be answered in order.

1) Is Global Warming happening?
2) Is man the cause?
3) Is warming a bad thing?
4) Can we (humans) do anything to change course.

If you can answer those 4 questions with an un-equivical 'YES'. Then we can talk about wrecking our econonmy. Until then, keep studying.

[BDunnell]

If evidence that is entirely unequivocal is put forward, it will still be disagreed with for reasons of self-interest and lack of knowledge of the subject. And it always strikes me as interesting that global warming tends to be the one scientific theory on which people voice scepticism as if they know something the scientists don't. You very rarely hear any doubts expressed, and certainly not as widely, about other well-known scientific theories. Why don't so many people feel they have some sort of knowledge of these subjects? Again, self-interest.

[donKey jote]

if any answer is an un-equivocal "Possibly", then you can talk about trying to fix it anyway without wrecking any economy. Until then, keep grinding your axes :dozey:

[Robinho]

Since the Healthcare debate has split off to now be talking about Global Warming, or Climate Change, or whatever you want to call it today, I figured I'd start a new thread for that discussion.

It is a very complex issue.

In order for me to buy into all the hysteria, 4 questions must be answered first. And they have to be answered in order.

1) Is Global Warming happening?
2) Is man the cause?
3) Is warming a bad thing?
4) Can we (humans) do anything to change course.

If you can answer those 4 questions with an un-equivical 'YES'. Then we can talk about wrecking our econonmy. Until then, keep studying.

i think i knwo where this one will go, and quickly, but before it does, my thoughts.

1) Yes, undoubtedly the global aggregate temperatures are rising

2) not necessarily the cause (or only cause) but certainly contributing towards the speed of change

3) not necessarily for everyone or all areas, but are the areas that are going to find themselves in a better climate, with the ability to house or feed more than they do currently, happily going to give up their land to the displaced (see Bangladesh for one example) or feed the hungry for little or no profit - if so we have no problem, move the people form the areas that are not hosptiable and worry when/if we run out of space or food for everyone

4) i believe that yes, Man can at least slow the change if not change the course. neccesity hads always been the mother of invention, the ability for Humans to create technologies to solve problems is ceaseless. Perhaps the technology(ies) have not been invented yet, perhaps a combination of what is available can make a massive difference. IMO the economic payoff for the successful products or inventions that are able to make the difference in reducing Carbon emissions or removing carbon from the atmosphere will be huge to the org, nation or whoever has the ability to produce a change.

it may be that either we are not the cause (or sole cause), or that its too late to effect a massive change, but regardless we will need alternative energies/cleaner fuels etc anyway in the relatively near future.

personally i see a balanced approach to be the key - we can make a small difference each and every one of us, if we all take part, without any great hardship to ourselves, just simple prudence over excess. combined with prolifewration of new trechnologies, many of which are coming on stream, and for me the most important one, reforestation rather than deforestation.

if we are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and reducing the capacity for its removal we are only heading in one direction. Reduce emissions and increase capacity for removal and it has to be a good thing IMO. that capacity may have to come from technological means in the short term. i have read about some artificial measures that are in their infancy that can do this.

i don't feel the need to get drawn into a long a complex debate, both side will produce evidence, and invariabley ignore the other sides. frpom what i've seen before i feel thats more the "no manmade global warming" camps approach, but both sides are guilty to some extent.

on balance what i've seen, read, een advised and personally belive is that it is happening, we are contributing (note, not causing) and that we can and should do something about it. it might be wetter, warmer and slightly stormier for me in the UK, but those in marginal conditions will get hit hard, and are already, and often cannot help themselves - if we're not going to help them by attempting to fix the problem then we have to fix the result - rehouse and feed the people unlucky enough to be born into areas and conditions far beyond their control that will drown, starve etc these unlucky people

[Firstgear]

1) Is Global Warming happening?


We've just had nine consecutive months (the average temp of the month as a whole) of cooler than average temps. This is a new record for us.

I'm waiting for the Global Cooling thread.

[chuck34]

1) Yes, undoubtedly the global aggregate temperatures are rising

What is your reference temperature/time to state that temperatures are rising? If we take 1998 as the base, we are cooling. If we take 1979 as the base, we are warming. If we take 1936 as the base, we are cooling. If we take the late 1700's/early 1800's (Little Ice Age), we are warming. If we take the time of Christ we are cooling. If we take the last Ice Age, we are warming. See the problem?


2) not necessarily the cause (or only cause) but certainly contributing towards the speed of change

How much do you think man contributes to the yearly output of CO2?


3) not necessarily for everyone or all areas, but are the areas that are going to find themselves in a better climate, with the ability to house or feed more than they do currently, happily going to give up their land to the displaced (see Bangladesh for one example) or feed the hungry for little or no profit - if so we have no problem, move the people form the areas that are not hosptiable and worry when/if we run out of space or food for everyone

That's the key, IMHO. We might actually be better off with a bit of warming. Wide swaths of Siberia and the Canadian Plains may be opened up to farming with a bit of warming. Do we really know that Bangladesh, or anywhere else, will be less hospitable to humans? It has been warmer in man's past.


4) i believe that yes, Man can at least slow the change if not change the course. neccesity hads always been the mother of invention, the ability for Humans to create technologies to solve problems is ceaseless. Perhaps the technology(ies) have not been invented yet, perhaps a combination of what is available can make a massive difference. IMO the economic payoff for the successful products or inventions that are able to make the difference in reducing Carbon emissions or removing carbon from the atmosphere will be huge to the org, nation or whoever has the ability to produce a change.

If you really want to reduce carbon emissions then one technology that already exists that would be a huge step towards that end would be nuke power. Yet for some reason most of the "Global Warming types" are anti nuclear power. Why is that?


As a whole you seem to be on the right track. You have a fairly well thought out point of view. You seem to think that the truth is somewhere in the middle, which it most certainly is. :-)

[chuck34]

If evidence that is entirely unequivocal is put forward, it will still be disagreed with for reasons of self-interest and lack of knowledge of the subject. And it always strikes me as interesting that global warming tends to be the one scientific theory on which people voice scepticism as if they know something the scientists don't. You very rarely hear any doubts expressed, and certainly not as widely, about other well-known scientific theories. Why don't so many people feel they have some sort of knowledge of these subjects? Again, self-interest.

Same can be said the other way around. There are plenty of scientists out there that don't agree with Global Warming. And more come out every day. Yet they are labeled as some sort of kooks or wierdos. So to blindly believe the scientists that say Man-made Global Warming is happening and will destroy us all, without one ounce of questioning is also a self-interest thing.

There is plenty of data out there on both sides of this question. Most of it is not too hard to understand, if you take a few minutes to think about it.

[chuck34]

We've just had nine consecutive months (the average temp of the month as a whole) of cooler than average temps. This is a new record for us.

I'm waiting for the Global Cooling thread.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner.

Why is it that the 19 years of warming ('79-98) are more important, and a better representation of the future than the 11 years of cooling ('98-'09)?

[chuck34]

if any answer is an un-equivocal "Possibly", then you can talk about trying to fix it anyway without wrecking any economy. Until then, keep grinding your axes :dozey:

I'm all for cleaning up the environment, especially if it has a positive economic bennifit. Nuclear power anyone?

[BDunnell]

Same can be said the other way around. There are plenty of scientists out there that don't agree with Global Warming. And more come out every day. Yet they are labeled as some sort of kooks or wierdos. So to blindly believe the scientists that say Man-made Global Warming is happening and will destroy us all, without one ounce of questioning is also a self-interest thing.

How so? It's not in my self-interest for me to think that man-made global warming is a real threat.

[BDunnell]

We've just had nine consecutive months (the average temp of the month as a whole) of cooler than average temps. This is a new record for us.

I'm waiting for the Global Cooling thread.

Nine months? Hardly much. I would suggest that a few months' worth of cooler weather does not constitute much evidence against a trend. Maybe climate change, rather than any reference to warming, is also a better term.

[chuck34]

absolutely RIGHT (http://www.internet-grocer.net/co2.htm)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdHjhJTf6RE
:dozey:

That is great! Who is the scientist speaking?

[Drew]

We've had this before and I stick by what I said then. I can't say that I believe global warming 100%, but that chucking all that crap up into the atmosphere can't be a good thing. Any kind of energy that can be made abundantly and cheaply enough here, can only ever be a good thing for the economy.

[chuck34]

How so? It's not in my self-interest for me to think that man-made global warming is a real threat.

I can't get into your head, so I don't know, and won't speak to your mindset. But it seems that many who are pushing this agenda want us to surrender control over many areas of our lives to the government, so that they can "protect" us.

[chuck34]

Nine months? Hardly much. I would suggest that a few months' worth of cooler weather does not constitute much evidence against a trend. Maybe climate change, rather than any reference to warming, is also a better term.

Climate Change? Perfect. Temps go up, bad. Temps go down, bad. It's a win-win then.

[donKey jote]

Dong! Dong! Dong!
It's called "Global" climate change. Not "my back yard" warming (or cooling).
http://scienceavenger.blogspot.com/2009/01/global-cooling-eleven-year-trend.html
:dozey:

[chuck34]

We've had this before and I stick by what I said then. I can't say that I believe global warming 100%, but that chucking all that crap up into the atmosphere can't be a good thing. Any kind of energy that can be made abundantly and cheaply enough here, can only ever be a good thing for the economy.

Nuclear Power. Why aren't the "greens" pushing that?

[donKey jote]

That is great! Who is the scientist speaking?

some self-proclamed pseudo-scientist who forgot to mention that during the Cambrian there were no land plants and the sea levels were several tens of meters higher than today (no, I have no scientific proof that the world was ever that old either ;) ).

http://blogs.nwf.org/arctic_promise/2009/03/rep-shimkus-too-little-global-warming-pollution.html

Cherry-pick the facts to match your axe. :dozey:

[donKey jote]

Nuclear power anyone?
Absolutely (also for Iran ;) ), but as a physicist I guess I'm slightly biased :dozey:

[chuck34]

some self-proclamed pseudo-scientist who forgot to mention that during the Cambrian there were no land plants and the sea levels were several tens of meters higher than today (no, I have no scientific proof that the world was ever that old either ;) ).

http://blogs.nwf.org/arctic_promise/2009/03/rep-shimkus-too-little-global-warming-pollution.html

Cherry-pick the facts to match your axe. :dozey:

I have no axe to grind, unless you count reasoning. Are you saying that plants do not use CO2 as food?

Here's one for you. Instead of picking a temperature as "normal", and drawing a horizontal line saying "see how much warmer we are now than then". How about we look at the trend. It looks to me like we are warming at about 0.5degreesC per century, and oscilating about that.

[donKey jote]

Nuclear Power. Why aren't the "greens" pushing that?
beats me :p :
scared of another Harrisburg?
scared of the by-products of nuclear energy, be it waste or nucular weapons?

[Rollo]

It is a very complex issue.

In order for me to buy into all the hysteria, 4 questions must be answered first. And they have to be answered in order.

1) Is Global Warming happening?
2) Is man the cause?
3) Is warming a bad thing?
4) Can we (humans) do anything to change course.

If you can answer those 4 questions with an un-equivocal 'YES'. Then we can talk about wrecking our economy. Until then, keep studying.

1. Statistically speaking, it's probable, but not un-equivocally "yes".

2. Logically it's probable, but not un-equivocally "yes".

3. Heck no. If places like Fiji, Samoa and California sink below the surface of the seas it's their own damn fault for living there. The climate gave them their place in the sun and the climate will take it away, you have to take the good with the total flooding and destruction of your homes.

4. We probably could do things like replanting all the trees that would have been carbon sinks, that we've removed since about the 1400s - in the case of Britain, her once proud stands of oaks are now at the bottom of the ocean as discarded ships, and in places like Brazil, they were cut down for arable farming land - but all of that would cost incredible amounts of money and as we've previously learnt in other threads, people's lives ultimately aren't worth saving.

[chuck34]

some self-proclamed pseudo-scientist who forgot to mention that during the Cambrian there were no land plants

How about during the Jurassic, or Cretaceous?

http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif

[chuck34]

beats me :p :
scared of another Harrisburg?
scared of the by-products of nuclear energy, be it waste or nucular weapons?

Harrisburg? Modern reactors can't "melt down". The boron expands when heated. That pushes the rods apart, stopping the chain reaction. And better methods of containing the coolant have been put in place.

By-products can be recycled. That is if we didn't have laws that prevented that.

[chuck34]

1. Statistically speaking, it's probable, but not un-equivocally "yes".

Based on what? When is your starting point?


2. Logically it's probable, but not un-equivocally "yes".

What percentage of the yearly CO2 output is man-made?


3. Heck no. If places like Fiji, Samoa and California sink below the surface of the seas it's their own damn fault for living there. The climate gave them their place in the sun and the climate will take it away, you have to take the good with the total flooding and destruction of your homes.

How many degrees will the temperature have to rise for these disasters to happen?


4. We probably could do things like replanting all the trees that would have been carbon sinks, that we've removed since about the 1400s - in the case of Britain, her once proud stands of oaks are now at the bottom of the ocean as discarded ships, and in places like Brazil, they were cut down for arable farming land - but all of that would cost incredible amounts of money and as we've previously learnt in other threads, people's lives ultimately aren't worth saving.

I'm good with replanting trees. They need some food though don't they?

[Robinho]

What is your reference temperature/time to state that temperatures are rising? If we take 1998 as the base, we are cooling. If we take 1979 as the base, we are warming. If we take 1936 as the base, we are cooling. If we take the late 1700's/early 1800's (Little Ice Age), we are warming. If we take the time of Christ we are cooling. If we take the last Ice Age, we are warming. See the problem?



How much do you think man contributes to the yearly output of CO2?



That's the key, IMHO. We might actually be better off with a bit of warming. Wide swaths of Siberia and the Canadian Plains may be opened up to farming with a bit of warming. Do we really know that Bangladesh, or anywhere else, will be less hospitable to humans? It has been warmer in man's past.



If you really want to reduce carbon emissions then one technology that already exists that would be a huge step towards that end would be nuke power. Yet for some reason most of the "Global Warming types" are anti nuclear power. Why is that?


As a whole you seem to be on the right track. You have a fairly well thought out point of view. You seem to think that the truth is somewhere in the middle, which it most certainly is. :-)

like i said, i'm not going to get drawn into throwing data back and forth, partly because i am far too lazy and short on time to go back and reseach all the sources i've read - save to say that the publications and sources i trust do tend towards the view i hold.

for me the problem is warming at the ice caps, the rate of polar ice melting and the increase in extreme global weather phenomena. Bangladesh has large areas lost to the sea at the moment. the problem for them is not "heat", but the wider effects of a warmer and wetter climate, i think its pretty inevitable that even a small increase ocean levels would take large parts of Bangladesh for good. for Africa the already marginal areas will be inhospitable if slightly drier/warmer. these areas often seem to be the already econmically disadvantaged (for whatever reasons) and will be hit hardest by any further difficulties.

i agree that undoubtedly large area might become available for farming if a degree or 2 warmer, but will this food sit in mounds in storage because those who need it most canot afford it? - this is a social issue rather than environmental, but the 2 will inevitabley go hand in hand.

you've certainly hit the nail on the head with Nuclear power - historically Nuclear power has a seriousl poor repuation - not without warrant given the likes of Chernobyl, but the technology is vastly different now than it was then, and is hugley safer. there is still the issue of the radioactive byproducts, but we have to find a way to manage that. finally there is the link between the byproducts and Nuclear weapons, which is what stops the woder world from letting what we view as less secure countires from exploring Nuclear power. for me Nuclear is the perfect "short term" (100yrs or so) option to fill the gap until we get other clean energy sources on stream.

the problem with Nulcear power and "green" movements is that the historic, dangerous and unpopular nuclear power stations were the things that greens lobbied against - the informed see this as not an issue now, but the wider populous of ignorant tabloid readers still believe that Nuclear power is a great evil because of the problems and hysteria 30+ years ago.

i agree that perhaps aggregate global temps are fluctuationg up and down in recent history, but temps at the margins are rising, and quickly. this affects the wider weather systems and things like storm systems and air and ocean currents.

i don't remeber where i saw it, but i have seen data that the rate of change in a number of markers (not just temp) but levels of sea ice, levels of CO2, levels of other gases (greenhouse and others) and associated phenomena, that have been measured as rising before, and changing at a much faster rate than ever before in preiods of climate change, and that the end result could be to throw us completley of the natural warming/cooling cycle (BBC or Channel 4 documentary i believe). the results of this are unkown as we cannot predict or model based on histrical data and reseach if we are heading somewhere we don't think the planet has been before - if we can do something to avoid this then i hope we do. if not i'm sure we can/will adapt, but it could be messy compared to a bit of sacrifice now (i'm not talking just fuel efficient cars, personal transport is a drop in the, albeit still something we can affect and it makes sense to anyway)

neither side has the answer and both have their own agendas, but i'd rather err on the side of caution, given the amount of data in support of man made climate change. if they are right the consequences are far worse than those if they are wrong and its all natural, it will right itself and nature will find a way - if that is the case we've lost nothing by trying to live within our means

[Robinho]

I'm good with replanting trees. They need some food though don't they?


yeah they do, there needs to be a balance - we are missing that balance at the moment and should seek to redress it. less CO2 output and more capability to use CO2 would be a damn good start, before we start messing with entire new technologies.

[chuck34]

neither side has the answer and both have their own agendas, but i'd rather err on the side of caution, given the amount of data in support of man made climate change. if they are right the consequences are far worse than those if they are wrong and its all natural, it will right itself and nature will find a way - if that is the case we've lost nothing by trying to live within our means

I agree with this 100%. We should do what we can to be good stewards of the environment. But what I disagree with totally are the Draconian measures many support "to save the planet". Just look at cap-and-trade as an example. It may be a perfectly sensable and workable plan, if you can get EVERYONE to agree to it, with no cheating or playing games. But the fact that China and India have stated that they have NO intention of EVER agreeing to any such system, means the whole system will break down. To the detriment of those countries that have signed on.

[donKey jote]

I have no axe to grind, unless you count reasoning.
People tend to apply reason to data they are fed, using the type of reasoning they are fed. I believe we are on different diets, that's all.


Are you saying that plants do not use CO2 as food?
Sure they use it as food in the sense that plants convert the Carbon in it into carbohydrates via photo-synthesis. OK, granted, it IS similar to what we do with a hamburger or a Bratwurst.


Here's one for you. Instead of picking a temperature as "normal", and drawing a horizontal line saying "see how much warmer we are now than then". How about we look at the trend. It looks to me like we are warming at about 0.5degreesC per century, and oscilating about that.
What do you expect me do as a scientist? (apart from give you an arrogant condescending answer ;) :p : )
I wouldn't disagree with your interpretation of that chart in particular. If I could care less about climate change, I would however ask you where you obtained it, how it was generated (using what data), who validated it, are there any other comparable sets of data that show the same or other trends etc. And I clearly wouldn't give it much thought if you found it on fox news or some other conspiracy or raving loony sceptic site on t'internet. :)

[donKey jote]

How about during the Jurassic, or Cretaceous?

http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif

Junkscience? (http://junkscience.com/Junkman.html)
"Steve Milloy is: the founder and publisher of JunkScience.com; a co-founder and portfolio manager of the Free Enterprise Action Fund (the first conservative/libertarian mutual fund); and a long-time columnist for FoxNews.com . " -> archetypical axe-grinder ?

no further comment ;) :laugh:

[donKey jote]

for me Nuclear is the perfect "short term" (100yrs or so) option to fill the gap until we get other clean energy sources on stream.

the problem with Nulcear power and "green" movements is that the historic, dangerous and unpopular nuclear power stations were the things that greens lobbied against - the informed see this as not an issue now, but the wider populous of ignorant tabloid readers still believe that Nuclear power is a great evil because of the problems and hysteria 30+ years ago.


yep :up:

short term as Uranium sources are not unlimited, 100 years is probably on the optimistic side

[donKey jote]

convert the Carbon in it into carbohydrates
holy guacamole how badly can a donkey express himself :laugh:
of course the carbon in CO2 is still carbon in carbohydrates :dozey:

[Drew]

Nuclear Power. Why aren't the "greens" pushing that?

I don't really know, but i'd have to guess Chernobyl and it's not a 100% renewable energy source have a few things to do with it.

[Alexamateo]

) Is Global Warming happening?
2) Is man the cause?
3) Is warming a bad thing?
4) Can we (humans) do anything to change course.


1. Yes, we are in a general warming period.

2. Because we are part and parcel to this planet, we have an affect, but we are not the cause.

3. No, to the contrary, warming periods are associated with increased prosperity and production. To be certain, cooling is associated with increased crop failure and famine. Look at what happened in 1816, when a series of massive volcanic eruptions pumped so much ash and debris into the upper atmosphere that it was referred to as the "year without a summer" or the "poverty year". Warming we can deal with and adapt to, too cool can be devastating.

4. Yes, the clue is in the answer to #3. If global warming starts to truly be a problem, the temperatures can be moderated by injecting particulate matter into the upper atmosphere. I also read recently of a man patenting an idea for ocean based aerators that have a tremendous cooling effect. All technologically feasable now without taxing ourselves into an economic disadvantage with developing countries that are not going to sign on to whatever agreements the west may come up with.

But really, I don't see this as a problem. 40 years from now we'll see this as quite the boondoggle, I am sure.

[chuck34]

People tend to apply reason to data they are fed, using the type of reasoning they are fed. I believe we are on different diets, that's all.

It might surprise you then that I started out as a believer in man-made global warming. Sometimes you must question what you are being fed.


What do you expect me do as a scientist? (apart from give you an arrogant condescending answer ;) :p : )

If you're a scientist, I'd expect you to debate the merits of the data, not give me an arrogant condescending answer.


I wouldn't disagree with your interpretation of that chart in particular. If I could care less about climate change, I would however ask you where you obtained it, how it was generated (using what data), who validated it, are there any other comparable sets of data that show the same or other trends etc. And I clearly wouldn't give it much thought if you found it on fox news or some other conspiracy or raving loony sceptic site on t'internet. :)

Wow, so you can't find any fault with the data, so you attack my supposed source? Well I didn't get it from Fox or any other "conspiracy or raving loony sceptic site". By the way are you going to label anyone who questions AGW as "loony", and not look at the data for yourself?

I don't remember where I got this particular graph (another forum about another topic I think). But it does pretty much match the data from NASA. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ It also seems to match the data from the NOAA. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globtemp.html It just looks different when you don't force a "perfect" temperature line to it.

[chuck34]

Junkscience? (http://junkscience.com/Junkman.html)
"Steve Milloy is: the founder and publisher of JunkScience.com; a co-founder and portfolio manager of the Free Enterprise Action Fund (the first conservative/libertarian mutual fund); and a long-time columnist for FoxNews.com . " -> archetypical axe-grinder ?

no further comment ;) :laugh:

So you are going to throw out anyone who ever has had a tie to Fox as an Axe-grinder? Can I do the same for anyone attached to NBC? How about the NOAA? And Al Gore? Or the IPCC?

Everyone has an agenda. It's our job to sift through that and try to take a peak at the truth. Sort of like seeing the same data in a different light. See above.

Also, if you don't believe the CO2 levels as presented, please inform us all what the CO2 level was in the Jurassic period.

[Roamy]

How would you guys ever expect to fix this. You can't even handle a few rag heads riding camels blowing you sh!t up. Just lay face down and take your rightful place in history as bike racks for muslims.

[Drew]

Right back at ya fousto, but with Mexicanos instead of rag heads!

[Roamy]

we love them - they bring tequila

[Wade91]

1) Is Global Warming happening?
2) Is man the cause?
3) Is warming a bad thing?
4) Can we (humans) do anything to change course.
1 maybe

2 maybe

3 depends on what kinda climent you already live in

4 no

[chuck34]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/09/forecasting-the-earth%e2%80%99s-temperature/#more-10710

An interesting read. But I'm sure it will be dismissed as "axe-grinder" off hand, rather than actually reading and analysis what is said.

[donKey jote]

Wow, so you can't find any fault with the data, so you attack my supposed source?
Not attacking anything, just :laugh: ing at it.

I don't know about the data, but I doubt the (IPCC?) used the data in your chart to extrapolate their prediction. ;)

[donKey jote]

So you are going to throw out anyone who ever has had a tie to Fox as an Axe-grinder? .
Not necessarily, no. I just found it amusing that I mentioned Fox in a post and what do you come up with next? An article by some libertarian (or whatever it is they like to call themselves) Foxman ! :laugh:


Can I do the same for anyone attached to NBC? How about the NOAA? And Al Gore? Or the IPCC?
sure you can, others "on your side" do it constantly :)


Everyone has an agenda. It's our job to sift through that and try to take a peak at the truth. Sort of like seeing the same data in a different light. See above.
Nah, let's just jump on the sceptic conspiracy band wagon. The establishment is out to get us!


Also, if you don't believe the CO2 levels as presented, please inform us all what the CO2 level was in the Jurassic period.
It's not that I don't believe what the geologist mentioned in your chart estimated. I don't see how it's really relevant.
Anyway, I'll get back to you when I've finished studying how dinosaur farts compare to today's cattle methane. Far more interesting.

[chuck34]

Not attacking anything, just :laugh: ing at it.

I don't know about the data, but I doubt the (IPCC?) used the data in your chart to extrapolate their prediction. ;)

I do believe this is the same temperature data that the IPCC used. So keep laughing it up.

[chuck34]

Not necessarily, no. I just found it amusing that I mentioned Fox in a post and what do you come up with next? An article by some libertarian (or whatever it is they like to call themselves) Foxman ! :laugh:

Do you have a list of approved sources so that I can quote from there?


sure you can, others "on your side" do it constantly :)

And no one on "your side" has ever dismissed anyone/anything for no reason? You lot are the only source of "the truth"?


Nah, let's just jump on the sceptic conspiracy band wagon. The establishment is out to get us!

Everyone is NOT out to get you. Just spend 10 minutes and look at the actual data with your own eyes. LOOK at it, don't dismiss it because you don't like the source. If you find flaws with it, point out the flaws. Have a discussion. If I am so wrong, and my sources so flawed, it shouldn't take much for someone of your intelligence and all the facts to prove me wrong.


It's not that I don't believe what the geologist mentioned in your chart estimated. I don't see how it's really relevant.
Anyway, I'll get back to you when I've finished studying how dinosaur farts compare to today's cattle methane. Far more interesting.

It goes to my point that CO2 levels have been MUCH higher in the past, and plants/animals thrived. Do you deny that, or do you just not care?

[Rollo]

It goes to my point that CO2 levels have been MUCH higher in the past, and plants/animals thrived. Do you deny that, or do you just not care?

Big deal.

Even 50 years ago there was a very large Brazillian Rainforest, 400 years ago a majority of Europe was forested. About 90% of West Africa's forests have been destroyed in the past 100 years. Prior to European involvement about half of the North American continent was forested, and it continued to be cleared until the 1920s when the rate more or less stopped.

You can argue all you like about CO2 levels going back eons but quite frankly it means **** all, when you consider that the mechanisms which used to exist to regulate levels are now gone.

Therefore whatever statistics you may wish to present are worthless. It is simply impossible to breathe without lungs.

[donKey jote]

Do you have a list of approved sources so that I can quote from there?
far be it from me to impinge on your right to quote whatever you want :dozey:


And no one on "your side" has ever dismissed anyone/anything for no reason? You lot are the only source of "the truth"?
ask rhetoric questions and get rhetoric answers?


Everyone is NOT out to get you.
that's only what they lead you to believe :eek: :p :


Just spend 10 minutes and look at the actual data with your own eyes. LOOK at it, don't dismiss it because you don't like the source. If you find flaws with it, point out the flaws. Have a discussion. If I am so wrong, and my sources so flawed, it shouldn't take much for someone of your intelligence and all the facts to prove me wrong.
10 minutes is all one needs to understand what hundreds of people have been studying in detail for the last couple of decades? Damn those foxguys must be good!
I'm picky with what I choose to LOOK at. Of course I question the source when I can. Where did you get that chart of the multi-decadal osc and the IPCC prediction again?
I'll never claim to be more intelligent than a donkey or that I have many facts let alone all of them... Discussion? Neither of us are climate experts so discussing matters of faith or disbelief is a waste of time in my view. Feel free to prove to yourself that you are right though, while fine-tuning your debating skills (bonus!).


It goes to my point that CO2 levels have been MUCH higher in the past, and plants/animals thrived. Do you deny that, or do you just not care?
I simply don't see how it's relevant to us, now. Unless of course man thrived alongside dinosaurs (http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=73668). :eek:
(Plenty of FACTS here: http://www.dinosaursandman.com/ , LOOK at them ;) )

[ShiftingGears]

Deforestation is something that needs to be dealt with first and foremost.

[anthonyvop]

Deforestation is something that needs to be dealt with first and foremost.
Why?

The only place where it is really taking place are in poor, socialist countries. You have to have nation change first.

[Rollo]

The only place where it is really taking place are in poor, socialist countries. You have to have nation change first.

Amen to that :D You said it, not me.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Oldgrowth3.jpg

[anthonyvop]

Amen to that :D You said it, not me.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Oldgrowth3.jpg

Ahh nice try.

It says "virgin" forest.

How about a map of just plain forested land in the US? You might be surprised.

BTW the map is bogus. I can show you 100's of thousands of "Virgin Forested land in Florida right now...I don't care what your silly map says.

[chuck34]

10 minutes is all one needs to understand what hundreds of people have been studying in detail for the last couple of decades? Damn those foxguys must be good!
I'm picky with what I choose to LOOK at. Of course I question the source when I can. Where did you get that chart of the multi-decadal osc and the IPCC prediction again?
I'll never claim to be more intelligent than a donkey or that I have many facts let alone all of them... Discussion? Neither of us are climate experts so discussing matters of faith or disbelief is a waste of time in my view. Feel free to prove to yourself that you are right though, while fine-tuning your debating skills (bonus!).


10 minutes would be a good start. You may be able to start to see things in a new light. Then if you're interested, you can dig deeper. You probably won't as we all just have axes to grind.

The multi-decadal chart that I showed with the linear trend comming out of the Little Ice Age and with the IPCC prediction, I believe I got it from a forum mainly about Space Flight. But they also have other topics. Sort of like how this is a motorsport fourm, but with this section.

But don't take my word for it, or theirs. Go to the NASA sight with the "raw" temp data. Plot it out for yourself, add a trend line. Try others too, not just linear. Then go to the IPCC site. I'm sure you can find their prediction there.

And you are right, I'm not a climate expert. But I do deal with looking at data, and predicting future trends, and past patterns. Looking back at temperature/CO2 patterns, it's clear there is a predictable pattern. It is also true that man may change that pattern. But I really don't see any evidence of that, yet. As I said before, the 11 years of warming from '79 to '98 doesn't really tell us much, as that is not even a blink of an eye on the geologic time scale. So why is so much weight placed on that small snap shot of time?

So if you don't want to have a discussion because you don't feel qualified, that's fine by me. Stop now. But aren't we all just amatures talking about stuff on the internet anyway? What's the harm in looking at things? All I ask is that if you want to discuss things, stick to the data. If you just want to say I'm some sort of conspiracy kook, then that's fine too. But you won't get any more out of me.

[BDunnell]

And you are right, I'm not a climate expert. But I do deal with looking at data, and predicting future trends, and past patterns. Looking back at temperature/CO2 patterns, it's clear there is a predictable pattern. It is also true that man may change that pattern. But I really don't see any evidence of that, yet.

What would make you think differently, then? I would suggest the answer is 'nothing'.

By the way, which other common scientific theories as regularly espoused do you disagree with, or is it only this one about which you are concerned?

[chuck34]

What would make you think differently, then? I would suggest the answer is 'nothing'.

By the way, which other common scientific theories as regularly espoused do you disagree with, or is it only this one about which you are concerned?

Are you asking why I don't buy into Global Warming? If that is what you are asking, then the answer is simple. I looked at the data, saw some flaws. That started me thinking about alternatives.

Other "common" scientific theories, I don't agree with? I don't know, nothing right now really. But in the past? Let's see ....

- 30 years ago: We're headed for an ice age.
- 50 years ago: Man can't survive in space.
- 70 years ago: Man can't travel faster than the speed of sound.
- 100 years ago: We can't figure out the orbit of Mercury, and other things using Newtonian physics.
- 500 years ago: The Earth is flat.
- 800 years ago: The Earth is the center of the Universe.

You see "common scientific theories" no matter how "regularly espoused" are not always right. Follow the data to see if it's right. Then if it's not, follow the money.

Why do you blindly follow "the scientists"? Many of whom are not climate scientists any more than you or I.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Wade hit it right....

Two maybes , warming wont suck if it ever comes to Canada (the arctic has lost a lot of ice BUT I cant remember the quality of hot summers I used to see here in Ontario. The last few have been cool and wet)

As for what we can do? Well what I don't want to see happen is exactly what the politicians are bent on, Cap and trade. It has been a boondoggle, it will hurt a limping economic situation, and the Chinese, Indians and other developing nations are NOT going to play the game. When you realize the size of those populations, and the poor pollution/climatic concerns of the ChiCom's in how they do business, is there ANY point to trying to take 5% of the CO2 output out of the Western nations economies?


As for this fiction conservatives/right wing people don't care about the enviroment, that is bunk. I have lived a pretty green lifestyle most of my life instinctively. I didn't need some government campaign to save fuel, turn the lights off, use less wattage bulbs or just be concerned about preserving nature. What I resent is the righteous holier than thou crap that comes out of people on the left who are using eco issues to drive their agenda. Global warming was the buzz word. Now in North America, cool summers and hard winters are now making the buzz word "climate change". Hurricanes like Katrina were expected to be more numerous after that fateful year by the Al Gore crowd, and we have had LESS storms on average since......

THe one thing all political stripes should grasp is that the climate will do what it does. The earth has warmed and cooled without us. It will continue to do so. We should search for truth, and accept where it leads us, and look at solutions that are practical (nuclear power). The politicization of this issue has done it no good....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Are you asking why I don't buy into Global Warming? If that is what you are asking, then the answer is simple. I looked at the data, saw some flaws. That started me thinking about alternatives.

Other "common" scientific theories, I don't agree with? I don't know, nothing right now really. But in the past? Let's see ....

- 30 years ago: We're headed for an ice age.
- 50 years ago: Man can't survive in space.
- 70 years ago: Man can't travel faster than the speed of sound.
- 100 years ago: We can't figure out the orbit of Mercury, and other things using Newtonian physics.
- 500 years ago: The Earth is flat.
- 800 years ago: The Earth is the center of the Universe.

You see "common scientific theories" no matter how "regularly espoused" are not always right. Follow the data to see if it's right. Then if it's not, follow the money.

Why do you blindly follow "the scientists"? Many of whom are not climate scientists any more than you or I.


Chuck...Ben drank the Kool Aid....

To him, mankind is the evil causing that, enough people have told him so, and he isn't questioning the validity of it.

Global warming is here, I can agree to that. But we had global climate change when the earth was inhabited by dinosaurs and things got warmer, and we had an ice age with the Neanderthals and they didn't drive SUV's. This fiction our CO2 is causing it doesn't account for the fact that the earth has heated and cooled a few times regardless of CO2 levels. Are they symptomatic or the cause? You can find very reputable scientific people on both sides of this, and to ignore this reality is to be pushing a political agenda wrapped up in Green...which I find reprehensible...

[F1boat]

I am not sure about the warming and I am not sure what causes it. For me people should be careful, however, because pollution if for real and tons of crap and rubbish are bad no matter cold or hot. I also believe that we should protect the wildlife and the nature.

[BDunnell]

I am not sure about the warming and I am not sure what causes it. For me people should be careful, however, because pollution if for real and tons of crap and rubbish are bad no matter cold or hot. I also believe that we should protect the wildlife and the nature.

There's a position I would hope everyone can agree with.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I am not sure about the warming and I am not sure what causes it. For me people should be careful, however, because pollution if for real and tons of crap and rubbish are bad no matter cold or hot. I also believe that we should protect the wildlife and the nature.

Of course we should be careful. Still doesn't change the fact on a planet with 6 billion people, there will be pollution and short of killing 5 billion people in the next 5 minutes, we need to make decisions that will help the enviroment AND not do harm to the average citizen, whereever he lives.

I just despise using this willingness of the average citizen to make the planet more "green" is being used as a political pry bar to change society....

[BDunnell]

Of course we should be careful. Still doesn't change the fact on a planet with 6 billion people, there will be pollution and short of killing 5 billion people in the next 5 minutes, we need to make decisions that will help the enviroment AND not do harm to the average citizen, whereever he lives.

I just despise using this willingness of the average citizen to make the planet more "green" is being used as a political pry bar to change society....

I don't feel under the undue pressure of any conspiracy aimed at societal change at all, and think that the very notion is, with respect, bollocks.

[F1boat]

Mark, that's the way things are. Left politicians use green ideology to present themselves as the good guys. The right-wing use the religious right, to me this is more dangerous and horrible. But that's the way things are. Politicians desire power. They will use anything to get it and that's why they should not be trusted, at least not entirely. That's why, in my country, I am a 'pragmatic" voter and have voted for center-left and center-right parties and candidates...

[Mark in Oshawa]

Mark, that's the way things are. Left politicians use green ideology to present themselves as the good guys. The right-wing use the religious right, to me this is more dangerous and horrible. But that's the way things are. Politicians desire power. They will use anything to get it and that's why they should not be trusted, at least not entirely. That's why, in my country, I am a 'pragmatic" voter and have voted for center-left and center-right parties and candidates...

The Conservatives have their share of religious loons, and the left has their loopy types for sure. The problem is the loopy Greens are getting ears of the centerists and they are using the enviroment as a hammer to try to control the lifestyle and freedom and liberty of people. This has little to do with the enviroment. Kyoto was an agreement that was designed to handcuff the first world and wisely, the US didn't agree to it ( Al Gore was part of that too, and yet didn't insist the US follow this path to ruin ). When you have political games like that, there is no point in trying to have a rational discussion on global warming, since politicians are jumping into the fray and using it as a weapon. The science of what is happening is very murky, despite what some may feel, and politicians would be wiser to solving problems they can truly understand...

[BDunnell]

In my experience, politicians simply do not think of global warming as some means of controlling the population, but rather as an environmental hazard, pure and simple.

[Mark in Oshawa]

In my experience, politicians simply do not think of global warming as some means of controlling the population, but rather as an environmental hazard, pure and simple.

IN your experience?? You have WAY more faith in your government than I would Ben...sorry to yell at you but you NEVER see a problem with politicians getting involved when you agree with them. I don't trust any politician, right or left when he tries to tell me he is helping me when it is clear that he may have other motives.

Where Iam coming from is politicians are NOT seeing this as just an enviromental concern. There are a LOT of people making their political hay on this issue to get elected whereas years before they did nothing on the subject until they saw a way to use it. Look no further than Al Gore who didn't push for the US to pass Kyoto hardly at all. He gave it lipservice at best. Then 4 years after his loss to Dubya, he comes out as the new Green Warrior. Global warming has been used by others but Gore has reinvented himself, all the while living in an 20000 square foot home and flying the world on private jets using the fiction of "Carbon offsets"; which we all know are ways limo libreals use to buy their guilt to be carted off. Humble activist types such as Darryl Hannah who lives in a modest bunglow driving rarely but when she does, a diesel powered by recycled french fry grease deserves to be a green activist worthy of praise. Al Gore is a fraud who cant get elected so he is now trying to use his platform to change society in ways he couldn't when he actually was elected. He didn't care then, because he didn't push the US Congress to adopt Kyoto in any real way. Like many things he and Clinton advocated, it was done for show....not for effect.

We have politicians who will use green legislation to tell me what kind of light bulbs I am allowed to have, who want to put meters on my house so THE GOVERNMENT can control my electrical use at peak times, and we have politicians that seem to think by putting a green tax on everything and using the money as they see fit, this somehow moves the bar on climate change. When a government signs cap and trade, which can and will hurt people in the economy who just work and hold jobs, this is NOT helping. It is a bogus idea and has not worked. Large corporations buy and sell the carbon credits and continue on as always.

The great fiction of the whole global warming movement is this belief that politicians can solve the problem. They cannot do so yet because no one has really identified what will solve it and there are many, such as the Gaia believers who are likely right that the earth will get warmer, regardless of the weak and stupid policies of governments who are trying to hammer the private sector into paying for any solution. The earth has warmed and cooled many times before, and did so without our help or efforts to stop it.

I don't require at politician to try to save me. They cant fix tangable problems such as homelessness by the few who refuse to participate in society, they cannot create full employment, and they cannot stop child poverty while spending billions on it. These are truly man made problems and they cant solve these, but now we are to believe they can put mother nature back in her place? It is naive and foolish....

[Drew]

In my experience, politicians simply do not think of global warming as some means of controlling the population, but rather as an environmental hazard, pure and simple.

Whether they use it to control the population is alot more subjective. But they certainly use it in other ways, other than worrying about the environment itself, especially to raise taxes. The environment is just the government's new weapon to bring in laws and taxes, just like terrorism is :)

[BDunnell]

IN your experience?? You have WAY more faith in your government than I would Ben...sorry to yell at you but you NEVER see a problem with politicians getting involved when you agree with them. I don't trust any politician, right or left when he tries to tell me he is helping me when it is clear that he may have other motives.

I am simply referring to personal experience. It has nothing to do with faith in government, and rather more to do with my experience of working in politics and seeing that those I encountered — admittedly not in government — were not hell-bent on controlling the population by way of measures aimed at protecting the environment. I would categorise your views on politicians as being close to paranoia. There is not always a need for this. Be cynical, yes, but not paranoid.

[F1boat]

The Conservatives have their share of religious loons, and the left has their loopy types for sure. The problem is the loopy Greens are getting ears of the centerists and they are using the enviroment as a hammer to try to control the lifestyle and freedom and liberty of people. This has little to do with the enviroment. Kyoto was an agreement that was designed to handcuff the first world and wisely, the US didn't agree to it ( Al Gore was part of that too, and yet didn't insist the US follow this path to ruin ). When you have political games like that, there is no point in trying to have a rational discussion on global warming, since politicians are jumping into the fray and using it as a weapon. The science of what is happening is very murky, despite what some may feel, and politicians would be wiser to solving problems they can truly understand...

Well to me about controlling lifestyle I fear the religious loons way more than the Greens. To me most of the Greens are really caring about environment, although naturally some leaders may be using their ideas for power. But you know, about pollution and the warming, it is hard to overreact. If the Greens are wrong and we do what they advice, we'll end up with clean planet, and although the warming might not be the problem, it's nice. But of the Greens are right we will be really saving our a$$e$.
The trouble is that the religious loons from the right in the US (not in West Europe, though) believe that "Lord Allmighty" will save us or the "blessed Armageddon" will come. The guys with the petrol companies welcome such nonsense, as they want more and more money.
So I trust lefties more that righties on this matter.

[chuck34]

In my experience, politicians simply do not think of global warming as some means of controlling the population, but rather as an environmental hazard, pure and simple.

Just follow the money. That's usually enough motivation for many to try and control the population.

What companies are Al Gore owner/part owner of? What boards does he sit on?

Many of the scientists that study the climate are dependent upon government grants for their research/livelyhood. As someone said earlier in the thread something to the effect of "What motivation does anyone have for there being catistrophic global warming? Wouldn't it be much better for everyone if there was no such thing?" Well the answer is quite simple, funding. If there is no big problem to study, if the climate is doing what it always does, why would governments hand out grants?

So the scientists "pump up" or "exagerate" some of their findings in order to get more funding. Some companies see a profit motive for pushing these findings in the public. Some politicitions latch on to the findings to garner contributions from the companies/PACs that are pushing their agenda. And there you have the building blocks for government takeover/control over large portions of our lives.

It doesn't have to start out as an evil conspiracy to take over our lives (although there may be those in the green movement that think like that). It can all start rather "innocently", and morph into an uncontrolable thing of it's own that leads to government takeover of portions of our lives.

[chuck34]

Well to me about controlling lifestyle I fear the religious loons way more than the Greens. To me most of the Greens are really caring about environment, although naturally some leaders may be using their ideas for power. But you know, about pollution and the warming, it is hard to overreact. If the Greens are wrong and we do what they advice, we'll end up with clean planet, and although the warming might not be the problem, it's nice. But of the Greens are right we will be really saving our a$$e$.
The trouble is that the religious loons from the right in the US (not in West Europe, though) believe that "Lord Allmighty" will save us or the "blessed Armageddon" will come. The guys with the petrol companies welcome such nonsense, as they want more and more money.
So I trust lefties more that righties on this matter.

No. If the Greens are wrong, they will have wrecked our economy for nothing.

There are "religious loons", and there are "green loons" both are dangerous. But the vast majority of religious people and green people are reasonable people.

Everything in moderation.

[F1boat]

Everything in moderation.

Well said!

[donKey jote]

Just follow the money.
Which money... the petrol money, or the fox news lobbyist's money?
Oh, how silly of me. I forgot you only apply "Just follow the money" to Al Bore. :)

[chuck34]

Which money... the petrol money, or the fox news lobbyist's money?
Oh, how silly of me. I forgot you only apply "Just follow the money" to Al Bore. :)

Yes follow the petrol dollars too. The money that comes from the oil/petrol companies is no more/no less important than the government grant dollars. Follow All the money. Then you will realize that EVERYONE has an agenda. Then look at the data for yourself, and decide.

Whatever you do don't take the "scientist's" word for it. On either side. Use your own logic to look at the arguments on both sides. Then make up your own mind.

[BDunnell]

Whatever you do don't take the "scientist's" word for it. On either side. Use your own logic to look at the arguments on both sides. Then make up your own mind.

I consider the assumption that those of us who are not scientists can make up our own minds on such complex matters rather arrogant, but I suppose anyone can think they look like an expert on an internet message board, can't they?

[donKey jote]

All "scientists" are equally trustworthy, but some are more scientist than others... :laugh:

I tend to take a scientist's word over a "scientist's" word, especially in his specialist field, all other "facts" being equal ;)
Sorry, NOT EVERYONE has an agenda. Sure there is bad or sloppy science, but it is also peer reviewed (together with the good science) and gets weeded out in the end (different research groups tend to take glee in pointing out other groups' errors ;) ).
"scientists" on either side? Well it's a shame one side seems to steer clear from this and prefers to publish solely in blogs or self-interest websites. If I were to take anyone's word for it without doing my own research, I know where I'd start. :)

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

[BDunnell]

Many of the scientists that study the climate are dependent upon government grants for their research/livelyhood. As someone said earlier in the thread something to the effect of "What motivation does anyone have for there being catistrophic global warming? Wouldn't it be much better for everyone if there was no such thing?" Well the answer is quite simple, funding. If there is no big problem to study, if the climate is doing what it always does, why would governments hand out grants?

So the scientists "pump up" or "exagerate" some of their findings in order to get more funding. Some companies see a profit motive for pushing these findings in the public. Some politicitions latch on to the findings to garner contributions from the companies/PACs that are pushing their agenda. And there you have the building blocks for government takeover/control over large portions of our lives.

It doesn't have to start out as an evil conspiracy to take over our lives (although there may be those in the green movement that think like that). It can all start rather "innocently", and morph into an uncontrolable thing of it's own that leads to government takeover of portions of our lives.

If you want to live with such paranoia hanging over you, then fine. I am perfectly happy with research into all sorts of matters being funded. Again, I would suggest that your disagreement with this goes no further than those looking into climate change because of your personal doubts about the results of the research many of them have published. What other scientific research do you view with the same scepticism because of its state funding, then? What other state-funded research leads you to believe that it is at the root of a grand conspiracy to wield greater control over us all?

Still, I suppose we should be grateful that the American right wing still has some critical faculties left. There wasn't much sign of them during the Bush years, over issues such as, in particular, terrorism and Iraq. So many of you just lapped up everything the administration had to say, unthinkingly and uncritically.

[chuck34]

All "scientists" are equally trustworthy, but some are more scientist than others... :laugh:

I tend to take a scientist's word over a "scientist's" word, all other "facts" being equal ;)
Sorry, NOT EVERYONE has an agenda. Sure there is bad or sloppy science, but it is also peer reviewed (together with the good science) and gets weeded out in the end (different research groups tend to take glee in pointing out other groups' errors ;) ).
"scientists" on either side? Well it's a shame one side seems to steer clear from this and prefers to publish solely in blogs or self-interest websites. If I were to take anyone's word for it without doing my own research, I know where I'd start. :)

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

If you look at it there are so many problems with the "peer review" of many of these studies, it's not funny. One group positively reviewing another's research so that their own gets a good review. Follow the money.

[chuck34]

If you want to live with such paranoia hanging over you, then fine. I am perfectly happy with research into all sorts of matters being funded. Again, I would suggest that your disagreement with this goes no further than those looking into climate change because of your personal doubts about the results of the research many of them have published. What other scientific research do you view with the same scepticism because of its state funding, then? What other state-funded research leads you to believe that it is at the root of a grand conspiracy to wield greater control over us all?

Still, I suppose we should be grateful that the American right wing still has some critical faculties left. There wasn't much sign of them during the Bush years, over issues such as, in particular, terrorism and Iraq. So many of you just lapped up everything the administration had to say, unthinkingly and uncritically.

I'm happy with science being funded as well. But there are serious questions with a lot of what is going on in the AGW research crowd.

I'm not the only one that is sceptical of research because of funding. Any time that research comes out that doubts AGW, then it is brushed off because some of the funding comes from oil companies.

It always comes back to "Bush is evil" doesn't it?

[donKey jote]

If you look at it there are so many problems with the "peer review" of many of these studies, it's not funny. One group positively reviewing another's research so that their own gets a good review. Follow the money.
Any examples other than "scientists" moaning in their websites about how the "establishment" won't take any notice of them ?

Certainly wasn't what I came across in my field, but I guess it's been a while.

Ever thought that there might be a third group who would make mincemeat of any "false positives" ?
Oh I forgot, they're "all" in on the scam. Follow thy leader. :)

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

[BDunnell]

It always comes back to "Bush is evil" doesn't it?

Not always, no. But there are good reasons why it can do.

[BDunnell]

If you look at it there are so many problems with the "peer review" of many of these studies, it's not funny. One group positively reviewing another's research so that their own gets a good review. Follow the money.

Ever been involved in such a process, or discussed it in detail with those involved? Indeed, how deep and professional is your knowledge of the academic community?

[Alexamateo]

Like any other profession, science is ridden with clannishness and clubbiness. This would be in no way surprising, except that scientists deny it to be the case. The pursuit of scientific truth is held to be a universal quest that recognizes neither national boundaries nor the barriers of race, creed or class. In fact, researchers tend to organize themselves into clusters of overlapping clubs. .

Broad, William & Wade, Nicholas - BETRAYERS OF THE TRUTH: Fraud and Deceit In The Halls of Science, (NY: Simon & Schuster, 1982) p. 180

Science in not an abstract body of knowledge, but man's understanding of nature. It is not an idealized interrogation of nature by dedicated servants of truth, but a human process governed by the ordinary human passions of ambition, pride, and greed, as well as by all the well-hymned virtues attributed to men of science. But the step from greed to fraud is as small in science as in other walks of life. .

Broad, William & Wade, Nicholas - BETRAYERS OF THE TRUTH: Fraud and Deceit In The Halls of Science, (NY: Simon & Schuster, 1982) p. 223

I am...an advocate of the position that science is not an objective, truth directed machine, but a quintessentially human activity, affected by passions, hopes, and cultural biases.

GOULD, S. J. THE PANDA'S THUMB, (NY: W.W. Norton, 1982) p. 225


Just a few quotes to add to the discussion and say that Science and scientist are subject to the same human foibles as the rest of society.

FYI William Broad is the senior science writer at the New York Times and a two-time Pulitzer winner, and SJ Gould was an American Paleontologist and Evolutionay Biologist.

[chuck34]

Ever been involved in such a process, or discussed it in detail with those involved? Indeed, how deep and professional is your knowledge of the academic community?

And how about your credentials?

[chuck34]

Question for the class. If I am wrong because "I don't believe the scientists". Why is it that you are not wrong because you don't believe the growing number of scientists that think AGW is a load of BS? Which scientists are right? Which ones are wrong? How do you know, especially if you think scientists are somehow beyond questioning? What other scientific theories do you blindly believe? May I suggest a few?

- 30 years ago: We're headed for an ice age.
- 50 years ago: Man can't survive in space.
- 70 years ago: Man can't travel faster than the speed of sound.
- 100 years ago: We can't figure out the orbit of Mercury, and other things using Newtonian physics.
- 500 years ago: The Earth is flat.
- 800 years ago: The Earth is the center of the Universe.

I would suggest that your blind belief in AGW is nothing more than politics.

[BDunnell]

And how about your credentials?

Numerous friends in the academic community, with whom I have long discussed matters of research, this apart from my own university studies. But I note you avoid the question and instead chose to direct it back at me.

[BDunnell]

Question for the class. If I am wrong because "I don't believe the scientists". Why is it that you are not wrong because you don't believe the growing number of scientists that think AGW is a load of BS?

Growing number? Says who? Prove it.


Which scientists are right? Which ones are wrong? How do you know, especially if you think scientists are somehow beyond questioning?

The same could be said of you. And I can say for sure that my view on the matter is not tainted by self-interest and a belief in a mass political conspiracy, which I don't think does much for the validity of your opinion.

[chuck34]

Numerous friends in the academic community, with whom I have long discussed matters of research, this apart from my own university studies. But I note you avoid the question and instead chose to direct it back at me.

So you have friends, great, what about actual scientific experience?

You posted the question to me first so it's up to you to prove your credentials.

But if you must know. I am a mechanical engineer. As such I look at data all day long looking for trends, and causes of those trends, etc. Close to this stuff, although not exact.

Now you, what did you study at university?

[chuck34]

Growing number? Says who? Prove it.

I'm not falling into that trap. You'll just brush off anyone that I put up as some quack, or kook, or wierdo, or conspiracy type. It's a fruitless venture with people without an open mind. If you truly want to know, do a search on your own. "The tuth is out there". :-)


The same could be said of you. And I can say for sure that my view on the matter is not tainted by self-interest and a belief in a mass political conspiracy, which I don't think does much for the validity of your opinion.

And you HAVE said it of me. Despite what you seem to believe, my view on the matter is also not tainted by self-interest or a belief in a mass political conspiracy. I just put up what I see. If it's a conspiracy then it's a conspiracy. But the more likely answer is that it is a bunch of scientists that are looking for funding.

If you are a climatologist, how do you get funding? By asking to study the climate that isn't doing anything out of the ordinary, or by studying the catastrophy of man made global warming? Which one do you think the politicians will fund? And once a politician has funded such research, he or she must justify said funding to his or her constiuents. Once he/she has justified it to people who refuse to question the findings, they will demand that the Congressman/Senator do something about this problem. And the pols are more than happy to "do something". Then the whole deal really starts snowballing.

Is that really so hard to believe?

[BDunnell]

So you have friends, great, what about actual scientific experience?

You posted the question to me first so it's up to you to prove your credentials.

But if you must know. I am a mechanical engineer. As such I look at data all day long looking for trends, and causes of those trends, etc. Close to this stuff, although not exact.

Now you, what did you study at university?

German and Politics. My lack of scientific research is neither here nor there, because I am not seeking to demonstrate the superiority of my opinion (or, more correctly in your case, 'what I reckon') over the generally held view of many experts in the field. The reason I brought this up is because your comments on the peer review process are clearly based on ignorance, because this is not how it has ever come across to me. But, again, the facts in relation to this shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of 'what you reckon', should they?

[Tomi]

Question for the class. If I am wrong because "I don't believe the scientists". Why is it that you are not wrong because you don't believe the growing number of scientists that think AGW is a load of BS? Which scientists are right? Which ones are wrong? How do you know, especially if you think scientists are somehow beyond questioning? What other scientific theories do you blindly believe? May I suggest a few?

- 30 years ago: We're headed for an ice age.
- 50 years ago: Man can't survive in space.
- 70 years ago: Man can't travel faster than the speed of sound.
- 100 years ago: We can't figure out the orbit of Mercury, and other things using Newtonian physics.
- 500 years ago: The Earth is flat.
- 800 years ago: The Earth is the center of the Universe.

I would suggest that your blind belief in AGW is nothing more than politics.

u forgot, 2000 years ago, not scientific but human is christian gods creation.

[chuck34]

over the generally held view of many experts in the field.

Science and scientists are NEVER wrong now are they?

- 30 years ago: We're headed for an ice age.
- 50 years ago: Man can't survive in space.
- 70 years ago: Man can't travel faster than the speed of sound.
- 100 years ago: We can't figure out the orbit of Mercury, and other things using Newtonian physics.
- 500 years ago: The Earth is flat.
- 800 years ago: The Earth is the center of the Universe.



The reason I brought this up is because your comments on the peer review process are clearly based on ignorance, because this is not how it has ever come across to me. But, again, the facts in relation to this shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of 'what you reckon', should they?

Clearly eh? Perhaps you simply don't know. Afterall you have admitted no scientific research experience. Whereas I have and do study thing scientifically every day.

[BDunnell]

I'm not falling into that trap. You'll just brush off anyone that I put up as some quack, or kook, or wierdo, or conspiracy type. It's a fruitless venture with people without an open mind. If you truly want to know, do a search on your own. "The tuth is out there". :-)

'Falling into that trap?' What, the 'trap' of wondering whether such an assertion is true? Doing a search is pointless, because there is no factual evidence of numbers of scientific climate change sceptics growing, and you know it.



And you HAVE said it of me. Despite what you seem to believe, my view on the matter is also not tainted by self-interest or a belief in a mass political conspiracy. I just put up what I see. If it's a conspiracy then it's a conspiracy. But the more likely answer is that it is a bunch of scientists that are looking for funding.

If you are a climatologist, how do you get funding? By asking to study the climate that isn't doing anything out of the ordinary, or by studying the catastrophy of man made global warming? Which one do you think the politicians will fund? And once a politician has funded such research, he or she must justify said funding to his or her constiuents. Once he/she has justified it to people who refuse to question the findings, they will demand that the Congressman/Senator do something about this problem. And the pols are more than happy to "do something". Then the whole deal really starts snowballing.

Again, I think you are allowing your notion of a grand conspiracy to get in the way here. This is the basis of your dismissal the research being done and your questioning of the motives behind it. Of course climate change research has grown in importance and received greater priority, because of the genuine belief in the need to research the topic. That this genuine belief exists, both in academic and political circles. I have no doubt. But I don't hear other sections of the academic community complaining about losing out or being treated unfairly as a result of these changing priorities. Instead, from what I hear, they are all increasingly strapped for resources at present, no matter what the field of research.

[chuck34]

'Falling into that trap?' What, the 'trap' of wondering whether such an assertion is true? Doing a search is pointless, because there is no factual evidence of numbers of scientific climate change sceptics growing, and you know it.

Really? So do a Google search of Global Warming Skeptics and see what you turn up. I'm sure it's just a bunch of kooks, and conspiracy theorists, or maybe axe-grinders.


Again, I think you are allowing your notion of a grand conspiracy to get in the way here. This is the basis of your dismissal the research being done and your questioning of the motives behind it. Of course climate change research has grown in importance and received greater priority, because of the genuine belief in the need to research the topic. That this genuine belief exists, both in academic and political circles. I have no doubt. But I don't hear other sections of the academic community complaining about losing out or being treated unfairly as a result of these changing priorities. Instead, from what I hear, they are all increasingly strapped for resources at present, no matter what the field of research.

I just layed out a very reasonable path to get where we are, and you call that a grand conspiracy? Now who is being dismissal?

Ask yourself the question I posed earlier. If you are a climatologist, how do you get money to live off of? By saying the climate is doing the same thing it has for eons, or by saying we're headed for a disaster?

No conspiracies there, just a simple question.

[BDunnell]

Clearly eh? Perhaps you simply don't know. Afterall you have admitted no scientific research experience. Whereas I have and do study thing scientifically every day.

Tell me, why — except because it's 'what you reckon' to be the case, and leaving aside your conspiracy theories — are you so doubtful about such academic research methods?

[BDunnell]

Ask yourself the question I posed earlier. If you are a climatologist, how do you get money to live off of? By saying the climate is doing the same thing it has for eons, or by saying we're headed for a disaster?

I do not believe that research is being falsified, which is what you are suggesting. Were I a researcher in the field, I think I would be insulted by most of your insinuations, which I imagine you have never followed up by speaking to anyone involved in the field. After all, according to you, what's important is what the layman believes from their study of the evidence.

[Alexamateo]

Really? So do a Google search of Global Warming Skeptics and see what you turn up. I'm sure it's just a bunch of kooks, and conspiracy theorists, or maybe axe-grinders.

.

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

[chuck34]

Tell me, why — except because it's 'what you reckon' to be the case, and leaving aside your conspiracy theories — are you so doubtful about such academic research methods?

I have put forward one reason already. Have you gone to the NASA site for temps that I posted some time ago? Have you plotted the data there? Have you placed a linear fit line onto said data? Have you seen that it fits the theory that we are still warming at about 0.1deg C after the Little Ice Age?

And the big one ... Have you asked yourself why every alarmist study shows a flat horizontal line at 1979? Why is that year so special? Why is that the perfect temperature for the Earth? Why is it so horrible if the globe is slightly warmer than it was in 1979?

New stuff ... What is an Uban Heat Island? Why is satalite data offset periodically? How does painting, or lack thereof, of temperature measuring stations in 3rd world nations effect Global Warming? There are hundreds (or more) of questions that you need to ask yourself.

Look at the data, coming from everywhere. Follow the money, flowing to all sides. If you really want to know about these things that is the path to follow. If you truly have an open mind you will see things you never thought of before.

[chuck34]

I do not believe that research is being falsified, which is what you are suggesting. Were I a researcher in the field, I think I would be insulted by most of your insinuations, which I imagine you have never followed up by speaking to anyone involved in the field. After all, according to you, what's important is what the layman believes from their study of the evidence.

Not falsified per-se. Just mis-interpreted.

[chuck34]

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

Don't you know those aren't "real" scientists? ;-)

[BDunnell]

Not falsified per-se. Just mis-interpreted.

Go and tell them that, and see what they say.

[chuck34]

Go and tell them that, and see what they say.

Have any emails or phone numbers?

See Alex's link. I'd bet some of them would agree.

[BDunnell]

I have put forward one reason already. Have you gone to the NASA site for temps that I posted some time ago? Have you plotted the data there? Have you placed a linear fit line onto said data? Have you seen that it fits the theory that we are still warming at about 0.1deg C after the Little Ice Age?

And the big one ... Have you asked yourself why every alarmist study shows a flat horizontal line at 1979? Why is that year so special? Why is that the perfect temperature for the Earth? Why is it so horrible if the globe is slightly warmer than it was in 1979?

New stuff ... What is an Uban Heat Island? Why is satalite data offset periodically? How does painting, or lack thereof, of temperature measuring stations in 3rd world nations effect Global Warming? There are hundreds (or more) of questions that you need to ask yourself.

Look at the data, coming from everywhere. Follow the money, flowing to all sides. If you really want to know about these things that is the path to follow. If you truly have an open mind you will see things you never thought of before.

But I am not a scientist. I cannot hope to analyse such things to any degree of ability. I suspect the same is true of anyone without having undertaken lengthy studies in the specific field. As with other forms of science, engineering and related subjects, I consider it best to rely on the work of those who are genuinely capable in the field. I wouldn't expect a non-professional to offer me a reliable diagnosis of an illness based on opinion or reading a few articles. Nor would I expect most people to be arrogant enough to think they could offer something meaningful in that respect.

[chuck34]

But I am not a scientist. I cannot hope to analyse such things to any degree of ability. I suspect the same is true of anyone without having undertaken lengthy studies in the specific field. As with other forms of science, engineering and related subjects, I consider it best to rely on the work of those who are genuinely capable in the field. I wouldn't expect a non-professional to offer me a reliable diagnosis of an illness based on opinion or reading a few articles. Nor would I expect most people to be arrogant enough to think they could offer something meaningful in that respect.

So you automatically think that the one's who have their theory being pushed at the moment are correct? Why discount other scientific opinions? I do not claim to know all the facts. As I said I started out believing in global warming. But when presented with other data I changed my mind. Why are you so afraid of questioning your current opinion?

[Alexamateo]

Not falsified per-se. Just mis-interpreted.

Well, the predictions are all based on modeling, and in any model you have to assign a weight or value to whatever particular variable or input. I believe and the models are showing that the weight and importance assigned to CO2 has been done incorrectly and/or other variables have not been assigned their proper weight or missed entirely.

Now, because the models have not been performing as predicted, this is the reason for the growing ranks of skeptics.

Like I said before, I believe warming is actually to man's overall benefit, although some will be negatively affected of course, and if it truly is a problem a clue for dealing with it lies in volcanic eruptions (i.e. particulate matter in the upper atmosphere leads to a temporary drop in global temperatures.)

[chuck34]

Well, the predictions are all based on modeling, and in any model you have to assign a weight or value to whatever particular variable or input. I believe and the models are showing that the weight and importance assigned to CO2 has been done incorrectly and/or other variables have not been assigned their proper weight or missed entirely.

Yep, the age old saying "crap in, crap out". Models are only as good as the data put into them.


Now, because the models have not been performing as predicted, this is the reason for the growing ranks of skeptics.

Have the climate models ever been right? I only seem to recall them being adjusted, down, in the last 10-15 years. Maybe I missed one or something?


Like I said before, I believe warming is actually to man's overall benefit, although some will be negatively affected of course, and if it truly is a problem a clue for dealing with it lies in volcanic eruptions (i.e. particulate matter in the upper atmosphere leads to a temporary drop in global temperatures.)

I'm not sure that would be a good idea. Too much chance for too many un-intended consequences.

[Alexamateo]

I'm not sure that would be a good idea. Too much chance for too many un-intended consequences.

Unintended consequences??? What does that mean??? :D :s pin: ;)

[Mark in Oshawa]

But I am not a scientist. I cannot hope to analyse such things to any degree of ability. I suspect the same is true of anyone without having undertaken lengthy studies in the specific field. As with other forms of science, engineering and related subjects, I consider it best to rely on the work of those who are genuinely capable in the field. I wouldn't expect a non-professional to offer me a reliable diagnosis of an illness based on opinion or reading a few articles. Nor would I expect most people to be arrogant enough to think they could offer something meaningful in that respect.

Ben, you are not a climatologist or in the field, BUT you are quite willing to believe that man is causing global warming based on scientests saying so. Never mind that there are a number of reputable people who are disputing it and the IPCC panel's findings. You WANT to believe in this, and I am maybe not sure that is wise. I think the earth is going to warm up with or without our messing with CO2 levels. I am not naive enough to say it wont happen, and it is all a hoax, but I do see a lot of people acting like there shouldn't be a debate and they have all the answers, and that is utter folly.

[donKey jote]

Clearly eh? Perhaps you simply don't know. Afterall you have admitted no scientific research experience. Whereas I have and do study thing scientifically every day.
oooh! Scientific research experience now no less!
I'll just have to sit back and enjoy your show :)

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

p.s. you wouldn't be related to a certain daveturbo by any chance... the thread dynamics here ring a bell somehow :laugh:

[Mark in Oshawa]

Donkey...I believe he is an engineer. That is a practical scientest is it not?

[chuck34]

oooh! Scientific research experience now no less!
I'll just have to sit back and enjoy your show :)

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

p.s. you wouldn't be related to a certain daveturbo by any chance... the thread dynamics here ring a bell somehow :laugh:

I am not a research scientist in the sence that I am in an academic setting all day. But I am a Mechanical Engineer who works in R&D all day.

At any rate, my credentials are not the debate here. If you are, or if you are not a scientist, it isn't that hard to do some basic research into the subject. And if you are willing to take one scientist's word that AGW is happening because they are apparently some sort of super-human type that is beyond questioning. Why don't you apply that same logic to the scientists that say AGW is bunk?

You can't believe one set of scientists over another without asking yourself some questions.

Start with what I have already suggested. Ask yourself why 1979 had the "prefect" temperature.

[donKey jote]

Sure, anyone can play around with data, but scientific research means a bit more in donkeyworld... the way he keeps banging on about "scientists", their motives, or "blind belief in scientific theories" of the past, simply imply he doesn't know much at all about academic scientific research and the processes involved, other than what he finds on his skeptic blogs :)

[chuck34]

Sure, anyone can play around with data, but scientific research means a bit more in donkeyworld... the way he keeps banging on about "scientists", their motives, or "blind belief in scientific theories" of the past, simply imply he doesn't know much at all about academic scientific research and the processes involved, other than what he finds on his skeptic blogs :)

Why is it that you are so afraid to question your beliefs? If I am so wrong, it will be easy to prove me wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt, shouldn't it?

Come on bring on the data.

And if you know so much about how scientific research works, and I don't, well educate me. What don't I know.

Again, I can find reputable scientists that think this is all bunk (the link Alex gave earlier is a good start). What makes them so much "less right" than the scientists you believe? How is their scientific method flawed.

Stop attacking me and start showing some data.

[donKey jote]

sorry I was still writing when you posted...

If you are, or if you are not a scientist, it isn't that hard to do some basic research into the subject.
basic research or internet search?


And if you are willing to take one scientist's word that AGW is happening because they are apparently some sort of super-human type that is beyond questioning. Why don't you apply that same logic to the scientists that say AGW is bunk?
Have I said that anywhere? I merely said who I would tend to believe more. I don't take anyone's word for granted.



You can't believe one set of scientists over another without asking yourself some questions.
Sure I ask myself questions. As I think I mentioned, first of all I question the source and their motives... just like you do except we're on different diets. I tend to give peer reviewed articles more of the benefit of the doubt than weblogs or forum members.


Start with what I have already suggested. Ask yourself why 1979 had the "prefect" temperature.
Who stated it had the "perfect" temperature anyway? Who cares about 1979? Is it as relevant as your Jurassic CO2 levels?
I really couldn't be bothered. :)

[donKey jote]

Why is it that you are so afraid to question your beliefs? If I am so wrong, it will be easy to prove me wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt, shouldn't it?
Because... because if I can't believe my beliefs anymore my whole world will fall apart? :dozey:
You are clearly a daveturbo clone, aren't you?



Come on bring on the data.
I don't have any relevant data. Does that in anyway prove you know anything, or otherwise?


And if you know so much about how scientific research works, and I don't, well educate me. What don't I know.
What do you want to know?


Again, I can find reputable scientists that think this is all bunk (the link Alex gave earlier is a good start). What makes them so much "less right" than the scientists you believe? How is their scientific method flawed.
If they are reputable they are just as believable. Find me some if you really want to prove your point, and then show me their money.
Thinking it is bunk per se does not make them "less right". Where and how they choose to publish their results simply makes them more or less credible - in my view of course.


Stop attacking me and start showing some data.
I'm not attacking you and I don't have any data. I come here to chit chat not to write a thesis.

[BDunnell]

At any rate, my credentials are not the debate here. If you are, or if you are not a scientist, it isn't that hard to do some basic research into the subject.

As I said, it is amazing how people can consider themselves experts nowadays without the slightest credentials, something fed by the internet, in my opinion. It's like the endless 'Have Your Say'-type things trumpeted by BBC News and other media outlets. Who cares?

[BDunnell]

Ben, you are not a climatologist or in the field, BUT you are quite willing to believe that man is causing global warming based on scientests saying so. Never mind that there are a number of reputable people who are disputing it and the IPCC panel's findings. You WANT to believe in this, and I am maybe not sure that is wise. I think the earth is going to warm up with or without our messing with CO2 levels. I am not naive enough to say it wont happen, and it is all a hoax, but I do see a lot of people acting like there shouldn't be a debate and they have all the answers, and that is utter folly.

I believe one side of the argument has it right because the weight of opinion is, like it or not, in that direction. As I am not a scientist and would never be so arrogant as to make any claims for my ability to analyse such complex issues, this is what I have to go on. And while others may deny it there is an enormous amount of self-interest amongst many of those who do not think this way.

[chuck34]

I believe one side of the argument has it right because the weight of opinion is, like it or not, in that direction.

Really?

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

"The over 700 dissenting scientists are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers"


As I am not a scientist and would never be so arrogant as to make any claims for my ability to analyse such complex issues, this is what I have to go on.

What do you go on now?


And while others may deny it there is an enormous amount of self-interest amongst many of those who do not think this way.

Who's self interest is being looked after? The 700 skeptical scientists or the 52 "true believers"?

[chuck34]

I'm not attacking you and I don't have any data. I come here to chit chat not to write a thesis.

So if all you want to do is chit chat, and not actually discuss this, why do you post on this topic at all? Your only line of reasoning appears to be, "a bunch of scientists that I saw on TV told me this is happening, so the ones that I don't see on TV that say it isn't must be wrong. But don't question me because I'm not a scientist." Well that just doesn't really get us anywhere in a discussion now does it?

Let's start with asking the question as to why every alarmist paper has a horizontal line attached to 1979. Which makes it seem as if any temp. above said line is bad, any temp. below that line is good. Why do they do that, and is that the right thing to do?

If you want to discuss those points, lets go. Other than that I'm done with you.

[Roamy]

I'm not attacking you and I don't have any data. I come here to chit chat not to write a thesis.

Amen brother

I just said f___ the islams and got a 47 page reply about the life and times of hitler and then some girl told me I was demented and they were all fine people. WTF do I know. Well I know that when it gets hot people are going to die and Canada is going to get populated. So there you have all the answers.

[donKey jote]

So if all you want to do is chit chat, and not actually discuss this, why do you post on this topic at all? Your only line of reasoning appears to be, "a bunch of scientists that I saw on TV told me this is happening, so the ones that I don't see on TV that say it isn't must be wrong. But don't question me because I'm not a scientist." Well that just doesn't really get us anywhere in a discussion now does it?.
I couldn't be bothered discussing your "points". I'm here to chit chat, not to debate just for the sake of it, pontificate, bash my bible around or drone on about tidbits I found on t'internet. I'm still posting here because I feel like responding to your posts when you direct them at me or -ocassionally- when I think they are a load of codswallop.
I saw a bunch of scientists on TV? If you say so :dozey:
Unlike yourself, and despite not being a climate expert by any means, I actually have an open mind on the whole deal. I simply find your stance amusing... that 500 skeptics and 52 UN ( :eek: ) appointed scientists and the other thousands of independent climate research groups are all pouring over your chart pondering about whether a linear fit is better than a periodic fit and how the TRUTH hangs on it. Or that somehow your industry or economy is in danger if it adapts to the times, and not under threat if it carries on in it's present ways. Or that politicians and research groups are out to sink your (is it not theirs too?) economy.


Let's start with asking the question as to why every alarmist paper has a horizontal line attached to 1979. Which makes it seem as if any temp. above said line is bad, any temp. below that line is good. Why do they do that, and is that the right thing to do?
"every alarmist paper has a horizontal line attached to 1979"
if you say so, I guess you've studied them all and more :dozey:


If you want to discuss those points, lets go. Other than that I'm done with you.
I don't want to discuss jurassic plant food levels or isolated charts or fits, no.
Specially not now fousto has revealed the answers :up:

I will however continue to question some of your sources, fears or inaccuracies, if I may
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

[donKey jote]

So there you have all the answers.
ah fousto good to see you're still putting your crystal buttplug to good use :up: :laugh:

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

[Roamy]

yea it keeps my head out !!

[donKey jote]

bonus!
(pun intended)
:dozey: :laugh:

[555-04Q2]

Since the Healthcare debate has split off to now be talking about Global Warming, or Climate Change, or whatever you want to call it today, I figured I'd start a new thread for that discussion.

It is a very complex issue.

In order for me to buy into all the hysteria, 4 questions must be answered first. And they have to be answered in order.

1) Is Global Warming happening?
2) Is man the cause?
3) Is warming a bad thing?
4) Can we (humans) do anything to change course.

If you can answer those 4 questions with an un-equivical 'YES'. Then we can talk about wrecking our econonmy. Until then, keep studying.

Global warming is a natural phenomenon. Every so many tens of thousands of years, the earth warms up, melts the ice caps, then gets cooler again and the ice caps return. Its happened before and it will happen long after humanity is gone.

I'm not going to stop driving my big fat high performance cars etc and start using a Toyota Prius because some guy who is paid to prove human global warming exists amazingly says that human global warming does exist.

BTW, its a well known fact that scientists are idiots. This week eggs are good for you, the next they are bad for you, then they are good for you again...

[BDunnell]

BTW, its a well known fact that scientists are idiots.

Rather a sweeping statement, and totally unfounded.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ben...they may not be idiots, but they have as many different ways of justifying their opinion on here as the idiots on this board, including you and I. The fiction they are all on side with Global Warming is a nice way of killing the debate, and totally unfounded, but I would expect nothing less from Al Gore, the so called great debater that Dubya somehow managed to out fox....

[chuck34]

I couldn't be bothered discussing your "points". I'm here to chit chat, not to debate just for the sake of it, pontificate, bash my bible around or drone on about tidbits I found on t'internet. I'm still posting here because I feel like responding to your posts when you direct them at me or -ocassionally- when I think they are a load of codswallop.
I saw a bunch of scientists on TV? If you say so :dozey:
Unlike yourself, and despite not being a climate expert by any means, I actually have an open mind on the whole deal. I simply find your stance amusing... that 500 skeptics and 52 UN ( :eek: ) appointed scientists and the other thousands of independent climate research groups are all pouring over your chart pondering about whether a linear fit is better than a periodic fit and how the TRUTH hangs on it.

So you are now the arbiter of the the TRUTH? Ok then tell me where a linear fit with a slope of 0.1degC/century is wrong. It won't be hard since I am so obviously wrong. I would love to know the answer.


Or that somehow your industry or economy is in danger if it adapts to the times, and not under threat if it carries on in it's present ways. Or that politicians and research groups are out to sink your (is it not theirs too?) economy.

So you don't think that the US economy will be in shambles if we adopt Kyoto or some form of it, especially if China and India do not? Explain to me how that can be.

There are some politicians that ARE out to sink our economy, don't kid yourself about that. They seem to think that we have been unfair to the rest of the world and need to "spread the wealth around". They aren't the majority, but they are out there. The rest of the scientists/poiticians have just been co-opted into that thinking because they see $$$$.


"every alarmist paper has a horizontal line attached to 1979"
if you say so, I guess you've studied them all and more :dozey:

Show me some that don't. Every one that I have seen does. I'd love to be wrong though.


I don't want to discuss jurassic plant food levels or isolated charts or fits, no.
Specially not now fousto has revealed the answers :up:

That was a very minor and tangential point that I brought up once. Yet you seem to want to sidetrack the whole debate on that one thing.

And what "isolated charts" are you refering to? The chart of the NASA data presented with a linear fit a 0.1degC/century that shows a sinusoidal decadal ocilation? That one? The one that you won't debate? That one? Where is it wrong? You want to debate the NASA data? Ok fine we can do that, you might not like the outcome though. You want to debate the validity of the linear fit? Tell me why it's wrong. You want to debate the IPCC prediction? Are you saying they are always right?


I will however continue to question some of your sources, fears or inaccuracies, if I may
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

Good. Good. Question sources, but question your own as well. You can't just dismiss the 700+ scientists that are skeptical of AGW because it doesn't fit with your agenda. Prove that they are wrong. That is why I keep asking why 1979 seems to be presented as the "perfect year".

But I'm sure you will just brush me off again as having "read something on the internet", and suggesting that I don't have the rational ability to reason for myself. That's fine, disparage me all you want. I'm not the point in all this. LOOK AT THE DATA.

[donKey jote]

I'd rather listen to a scratched record, thanks :)
:dozey:
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

[chuck34]

I'd rather listen to a scratched record, thanks :)
:dozey:
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

Great, go then. I don't really care. I just don't understand why you continue to post here if you don't want to talk about the issue. There are hundreds of other topics to post on here, why choose this one?

I suppose you just want to "prove your mental supperiority" over me. Yet you don't post ANYTHING on the actual topic. That's strange? Or maybe not.....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Insults are the last refuge of scoundrals....or something like that...

Global Warming...coming to an overpriced government run boondoggle near you.....

[555-04Q2]

Rather a sweeping statement, and totally unfounded.

Bullsh!t. One day they say one thing, the next they say something else. They are full of sh!t, period :down:

An old school friend of mine is a scientist based in the marine field and he admitted to me a few years back while we were talking that he has no idea how scientists come to over 90% of their conclusions. Most scientific work is an estimation, not a cold hard fact.

[chuck34]

A possible explaination of climate variation. Could it be that the sun plays a large role in temperatures on the Earth? Naw, couldn't be, must be more axe-grinding by a bunch of scientists that are payed off by Exxon, or Fox News or some other boogie man, right?

http://www.cjonline.com/news/local/2009-09-20/earth_approaching_sunspot_records

[rah]

A possible explaination of climate variation. Could it be that the sun plays a large role in temperatures on the Earth? Naw, couldn't be, must be more axe-grinding by a bunch of scientists that are payed off by Exxon, or Fox News or some other boogie man, right?

http://www.cjonline.com/news/local/2009-09-20/earth_approaching_sunspot_records

The sun option for explaining AGW or GW has been run up the flag pole and failed. Yes the sun does influence the climate, however it does not relate to most of the recent warming.

[Roamy]

Ha Ha I have to laugh - Like this world has any chance of combating Global Warming. We are lucky to make ice for a cocktail. Forget it - if it doesn't cool down you will die - so what we all die. just a matter of age preference as to when you do. This planet is over populated but all the economics are tied to growth. So you we whatever are dead. If global warming doesn't get you some plague will. We you us did not control population growth so we are doomed it is just a matter of what year. Worrying about Global Warming is just to sell newspapers.

[chuck34]

The sun option for explaining AGW or GW has been run up the flag pole and failed. Yes the sun does influence the climate, however it does not relate to most of the recent warming.

How so? Looks like a strong correlation to me. What am I missing?

http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/images/sunspot-lenght-&-teperature.gif

[F1boat]

I want to ask something Americans. Is it true that in the 80ies there were talking about the threat about new ice age? On the warming, as I said, I don't think that this is the problem, but pollution is. Pollution may kill us all, no matter whether the crap is cold or hot.

[chuck34]

I want to ask something Americans. Is it true that in the 80ies there were talking about the threat about new ice age? On the warming, as I said, I don't think that this is the problem, but pollution is. Pollution may kill us all, no matter whether the crap is cold or hot.

It was the 70's, but yes there was talk of a new ice age. By many of the same people that are now going on about how we're all gonna burn up.

And yes pollution is a problem. We've come a long way to clean things up, and should continue to do so. However, do not confuse CO2 with pollution.

[rah]

How so? Looks like a strong correlation to me. What am I missing?

http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/images/sunspot-lenght-&-teperature.gif

I will try and find some old graphs for you. For a start I would steer clear of that website. Secondly I would include some more data into the graph, like say the last 20 years.

[rah]

It was the 70's, but yes there was talk of a new ice age. By many of the same people that are now going on about how we're all gonna burn up.

And yes pollution is a problem. We've come a long way to clean things up, and should continue to do so. However, do not confuse CO2 with pollution.

There was some talk by a few scientists that there might be an ice age coming. To my knowledge none of these same scientists are "going on about how we're all gonna burn up."

Pollution is a problem but not enough is being done to clean it up. CO2 is definitely a pollutant.

Even if you totally ignore the effect of CO2 on AGW then you still have the problem of ocean acidification.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I will try and find some old graphs for you. For a start I would steer clear of that website. Secondly I would include some more data into the graph, like say the last 20 years.

Why steer clear? Because you don't like that answers? Is the data from that site less valid because you don't like what it says or because of a rational reason?

See, most of what I am finding in this debate (and it still is one, despite the best efforts of the likes of Al Gore) is the proponents of GW is a man-made issue refuse to look at all the data on the table. If they don't respect or like the data from people not on side, it is automatically declared invalid.

Just like this myth CO2 is a pollutant. In the strictest sense, it is NOT. It is a natural gas that plants use to create O2 that we need. Now I will buy into we shouldn't put as much of it into the air as we do. There is nothing wrong with the idea we should try to be as careful with changing the balance of gases in the atmosphere but it is NOT a pollutant.

GW I will admit likely is happening. Just like it happened many times in the past. Where I have to keep going back to though is the people wanting to save us from it always start by attacking economic activity, creating more taxes to pay for efforts, and restricting human activity in developed nations, while then turning a blind eye to the activities of the Chinese and India, where the rapid growth of industry is not even factored into things like Kyoto. IT is silly to think if the US economy was culled by 5% it might mean something when the Chinese economic engine is growing by leaps and bounds. This isn't science, or logical, it is economic control of the world's largest economy....

[rah]

Why steer clear? Because you don't like that answers? Is the data from that site less valid because you don't like what it says or because of a rational reason?

See, most of what I am finding in this debate (and it still is one, despite the best efforts of the likes of Al Gore) is the proponents of GW is a man-made issue refuse to look at all the data on the table. If they don't respect or like the data from people not on side, it is automatically declared invalid.

Just like this myth CO2 is a pollutant. In the strictest sense, it is NOT. It is a natural gas that plants use to create O2 that we need. Now I will buy into we shouldn't put as much of it into the air as we do. There is nothing wrong with the idea we should try to be as careful with changing the balance of gases in the atmosphere but it is NOT a pollutant.

GW I will admit likely is happening. Just like it happened many times in the past. Where I have to keep going back to though is the people wanting to save us from it always start by attacking economic activity, creating more taxes to pay for efforts, and restricting human activity in developed nations, while then turning a blind eye to the activities of the Chinese and India, where the rapid growth of industry is not even factored into things like Kyoto. IT is silly to think if the US economy was culled by 5% it might mean something when the Chinese economic engine is growing by leaps and bounds. This isn't science, or logical, it is economic control of the world's largest economy....

I say steer clear because the site is not very scientific. I know that you will come back at me on this, but it looks like the site produces have built their site around denial and not science. You can tell this by just looking through it.

CO2 is pollution when it is above natural levels. Just because something is also produced naturally does not make it less of a pollutant.

I do not attack the economy or the USA when I talk about AGW. My opinion is that the USA should be a leader in this area and that it is letting a new industry and its opportunities get away at a critical time.

[chuck34]

I say steer clear because the site is not very scientific. I know that you will come back at me on this, but it looks like the site produces have built their site around denial and not science. You can tell this by just looking through it.

So how is the science that I linked to wrong? You say that since 1980 the sun's output/temperatures don't correlate (and I've seen other websites that claim that as well). However, I have yet to find a graph like the one I linked to. I have seen daily sun output and things like that, but I can't seem to find a yearly deal. If you have such data I'll be glad to look at it.

As for the website "issues" you and others claim. I understand that not everything on that site is 100% true, but the same can be said of other sites too. You hav to try and correlate with other sites/data. The data I linked to seems to be redily accepted by most, apart from the issues of stopping at 1980.


CO2 is pollution when it is above natural levels. Just because something is also produced naturally does not make it less of a pollutant.

What are natural levels? Do you know how much of the yearly amount of CO2 produced is man-made? Simple question, right? And it seems to be an important one, because it will give us an indicator of how much impact man can make on the climate if we cut X% of our CO2 production.


I do not attack the economy or the USA when I talk about AGW. My opinion is that the USA should be a leader in this area and that it is letting a new industry and its opportunities get away at a critical time.

Yes, let's be a leader. I'm all for that. But let's not be a Jim Jones type leader, ok? That's what this cap-and-trade BS is. If we adopt those type of draconian measures, we will be committing economic suicide at this point. I'm sorry as much as you, and even I, would LOVE to see green tech take over, it just is not to the point where that is feasible yet. Why does it have to be forced on us when it isn't ready? Why not wait until they are proven out? At that point you won't have to tax ANYONE one single dime to use this stuff. They will want to use it.

Oh wait, that's sort of the point isn't it? To tax the "rich" countries to give the "poor" countries money.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/01/01/nasas-hansen-obama-use-global-warming-redistribute-wealth

[Hondo]

I believe the climate is changing, but naturally as it has before. I don't believe you can attach a speed or time limit to the change to claim it's not natural. Just because you're seeing something in a loop you haven't seen before doesn't mean it's not natural. There are still animal species being discovered that we haven't seen before but that doesn't mean we created them, it merely means we haven't seen them before.

Government loves Climate Change because it has the potential of becoming the Mecca of all taxation and control. Anytime those b@st@ards want more money or regulation for or on anything, they will tie it by the weakest thread they can find, back to climate change and return to the well of tax revenue filled by the irrational and stupid to drink deeply.

After all these years government still struggles to get weather forecasts completely accurate. Under perfect conditions, they can make it rain a little bit. They can't stop rain or divert storms. They can't control wind speeds. They can't stop or divert tornados or hurricanes. They can't even predict exactly where a hurricane will make landfall until it does. They can't predict or stop volcanos or earthquakes. They can't stop or prevent droughts or modify ocean currents. Exactly what are these clowns going to do about climate change? Someone tell me exactly what they are going to do, how they are going to do it, how long it will take, and the exact dates of the new, stabilized seasons along with the exact temperature ranges, rainfall ranges, tide tables, and daily amount of sunlight and I'll be happy.

Look at poverty and education. There's a couple of man made problems the government has been fighting for decades. The result? Both have gotten worse. Government solution? Raise your taxes and throw more money at the problem. Result? Both have gotten worse. Solution? Throw more money at it. Thats all they know how to do.

I want to see something work before I give them one thin dime. End a drought somewhere. Reclaim 100 square miles of desert into useable farm land.

I can't believe people still fall for this nonsense.

[BDunnell]

I can't believe people still fall for this nonsense.

'Nonsense' in your opinion, NOT in fact. Were you to be put in a room with two climatologists, one whose research shows that man-made climate change does exist and is a threat, the other holding the opposing view, and listen to their evidence, do you think that you would be able to come up with an informed judgment on which was correct? I very much doubt it. Your own personal bias and self-interest would naturally come into it.

Leaving this aside, is it not a good idea to end our reliance on fossil fuels, develop cleaner modes of transport and energy production/generation, and generally live more efficiently? I believe it is, even if the notion of climate change didn't exist. Yet apparently some people believe that efforts aimed at so doing do not constitute legitimate activity.

[Hondo]

'Nonsense' in your opinion, NOT in fact. Were you to be put in a room with two climatologists, one whose research shows that man-made climate change does exist and is a threat, the other holding the opposing view, and listen to their evidence, do you think that you would be able to come up with an informed judgment on which was correct? I very much doubt it. Your own personal bias and self-interest would naturally come into it.

Leaving this aside, is it not a good idea to end our reliance on fossil fuels, develop cleaner modes of transport and energy production/generation, and generally live more efficiently? I believe it is, even if the notion of climate change didn't exist. Yet apparently some people believe that efforts aimed at so doing do not constitute legitimate activity.

The nature of climate change is much like religion, an article of faith. Considering the scientists involved in the climate sort of thing can't come to an agreement on the subject, laymen are left to decide for themselves whom to believe and why they believe them. To the government, it's a gold mine.

I am all for alternative energy development and far less reliance on fossil fuels and the silly-assed, third world goat herders that peddle them. Giving money to the government to develop alternative energy won't do it though. Why would you give money to the people that many other people claim are in the pocket of Big Oil, to cut the throat of Big Oil? That isn't going to happen. In addition, how much regulation seems to be aimed at discourging alternative energies? Deed and zoning restrictions on solar arrays and windmills. Minimum speeds and safety regulations on vehicles, etc. If there were not a whole boatload of regulations and restrictions in the way, many an individual would have already formed corporations, sold shares, and been well down the road of alternative energy development and use.

[BDunnell]

The nature of climate change is much like religion, an article of faith. Considering the scientists involved in the climate sort of thing can't come to an agreement on the subject, laymen are left to decide for themselves whom to believe and why they believe them.

And that needs changing, but how? Even the results of a definitive, utterly impartial study would still not be believed by many, so what's the point?



I am all for alternative energy development and far less reliance on fossil fuels and the silly-assed, third world goat herders that peddle them. Giving money to the government to develop alternative energy won't do it though. Why would you give money to the people that many other people claim are in the pocket of Big Oil, to cut the throat of Big Oil? That isn't going to happen. In addition, how much regulation seems to be aimed at discourging alternative energies? Deed and zoning restrictions on solar arrays and windmills. Minimum speeds and safety regulations on vehicles, etc. If there were not a whole boatload of regulations and restrictions in the way, many an individual would have already formed corporations, sold shares, and been well down the road of alternative energy development and use.

Some very good points there.

[chuck34]

'Nonsense' in your opinion, NOT in fact. Were you to be put in a room with two climatologists, one whose research shows that man-made climate change does exist and is a threat, the other holding the opposing view, and listen to their evidence, do you think that you would be able to come up with an informed judgment on which was correct? I very much doubt it. Your own personal bias and self-interest would naturally come into it.

The same could be said of you, I would suspect. You seem to have as much bias and self-interest as anyone, although I don't know you so I don't know for sure.


Leaving this aside, is it not a good idea to end our reliance on fossil fuels, develop cleaner modes of transport and energy production/generation, and generally live more efficiently? I believe it is, even if the notion of climate change didn't exist. Yet apparently some people believe that efforts aimed at so doing do not constitute legitimate activity.

Of course all of those things are great and wonderful. As long as they are economically viable (ie. without government subsidies), and reliable (ie. work on a cloudy, windless day).

[BDunnell]

The same could be said of you, I would suspect. You seem to have as much bias and self-interest as anyone, although I don't know you so I don't know for sure.

As I've said before, self-interest doesn't come into it. I am an aviation enthusiast and journalist, and a car and motorsport enthusiast, but I certainly feel that there will need to be some reductions in both air and car journeys, or, better, the development of massively more efficient technology in both fields.



Of course all of those things are great and wonderful. As long as they are economically viable (ie. without government subsidies), and reliable (ie. work on a cloudy, windless day).

Have all existing technologies survived entirely without government subsidies, then? I hate to tell you that it's not just technologies that appeal to those of us on the left that have received governmental financial backing.

[chuck34]

As I've said before, self-interest doesn't come into it. I am an aviation enthusiast and journalist, and a car and motorsport enthusiast, but I certainly feel that there will need to be some reductions in both air and car journeys, or, better, the development of massively more efficient technology in both fields.

So if you are so "pure of heart and action", why must you assume that everyone else is some sort of zelot who won't see reason. Perhaps some of us have looked at the data and seen it for what it is? ... Inconclusive, at best.


Have all existing technologies survived entirely without government subsidies, then? I hate to tell you that it's not just technologies that appeal to those of us on the left that have received governmental financial backing.

How much subsidies did the auto industry get back at the time of Ford and before? The airplane in the Wright Bros. day? I would say that tech should at least be proven on some level first. Actually I personally would prefer NO government subsidies for ANYONE. But that's probably not feasable.

[BDunnell]

So if you are so "pure of heart and action", why must you assume that everyone else is some sort of zelot who won't see reason. Perhaps some of us have looked at the data and seen it for what it is? ... Inconclusive, at best.

Everyone else isn't. Far from it. But a lot of people are.



How much subsidies did the auto industry get back at the time of Ford and before? The airplane in the Wright Bros. day? I would say that tech should at least be proven on some level first. Actually I personally would prefer NO government subsidies for ANYONE. But that's probably not feasable.

In some countries, the lack of government support held back important developments. Look at the jet engine in the UK. Because the government wasn't interested, we lost a potential lead. I wasn't really thinking back as far as the Wright brothers and the early motor manufacturers, but about other energy sources.

[Hondo]

Everyone else isn't. Far from it. But a lot of people are.



In some countries, the lack of government support held back important developments. Look at the jet engine in the UK. Because the government wasn't interested, we lost a potential lead. I wasn't really thinking back as far as the Wright brothers and the early motor manufacturers, but about other energy sources.

The UK and the USA weren't interested in the jet...until the Nazis became very interested. Governments like to fund weapon systems.

I don't see why an electric car with a small, very small diesel engine couldn't be set up to function like a diesel-electric submarine.

[BDunnell]

The UK and the USA weren't interested in the jet...until the Nazis became very interested. Governments like to fund weapon systems.

But that's my point. The British should have been, because we led in terms of the technology at that stage. Because of conservative (with a small 'c') and backward attitudes, no assistance was given and we gave up that lead.

[chuck34]

Interesting article.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM=

“We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to “try and find something wrong.” The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong."

Very scientific and open minded, eh? No bias or self-interest protecting at all. So much for "peer reviewed" science.

[Roamy]

From what all I see and read there is no quick solution to fix global warming. With the current burn rate of the polar caps it appears that a few things are fairly real.
1. purchasing real estate in Amsterdam is a bad investment as well as New Orleans.
2. We may be too late so perhaps it is best to stay fully pissed for the remaining duration.
3. This could get Osama out of that freaking cave.
4. We are going to need one hell of a pipeline to pump water back up there.
5. Dubai in english means "Goodbye"
6. People living on the 3rd floor and above will have a higher life expectancy.

[Malbec]

The airplane in the Wright Bros. day? I would say that tech should at least be proven on some level first. Actually I personally would prefer NO government subsidies for ANYONE. But that's probably not feasable.

The Wright Brothers didn't get government subsidies but Langley did from the war department, which is why the Smithsonian insisted until very recently that Langley was the first person to achieve powered flight when the rest of the world disagreed.

Computers were first developed with state funding as was the internet. So was/is rocket technology and space flight. Antibiotics are another example, pharm companies wouldn't touch penicillin with a bargepole but the British government pushed them aside and funded its development and production forcing pharm to cooperate.

I'd say state funding of various projects has had a pretty major impact on our lives.

[chuck34]

The Wright Brothers didn't get government subsidies but Langley did from the war department, which is why the Smithsonian insisted until very recently that Langley was the first person to achieve powered flight when the rest of the world disagreed.

So you're saying Langley wasted government money in not providing an airplane, but the Wright's did it without government money? Sounds like you're arguing my case for me. And the Smithsonian tried to say that he produced the first airplane because they had money invested as well and didn't want it to be seen as a waste.

Plus Langley demonstrated his concept on his own with gliders and models before the gov. stepped in.


Computers were first developed with state funding as was the internet. So was/is rocket technology and space flight. Antibiotics are another example, pharm companies wouldn't touch penicillin with a bargepole but the British government pushed them aside and funded its development and production forcing pharm to cooperate.

Computers had been around for a while before the gov. got involved. Analog computers had been around, and there were some early models of digitals before the gov. really started funding them in WWII. It's hard to say exactly what the first "true" computer was. But forms of them had been around for a long time, proving their usefullness. Then WWII broke out and governments contracted with people to speed them up, and make them more usefull.

Liquid rockets were first proved out by Robert Goddard out of his own pocket, until he was able to get a grant from the Smithsonian. Later his work was picked up by von Braun who was writing a Doctorial thesis on rockets when he was tapped by the Germans to help them out. So again, rockets were at least partially proven out before governments stepped in.

Don't know much about penicillin, but from what you say it sounds like it was proven out before the gov. picked it up for wider production.

But the moral of the story I was trying to tell was that most new technology has taken a simmilar route. First step is someone figuring something out. Then they tinker with it a bit. After they get a "proof of concept" they are furthered along by either private investment (my prefered method) or goverment grants. After that either the private investors become a corp., or the government contracts out the production. And the product/service is subjected to the forces of the free market (except for some specific cases).

The point in this life cycle that most green tech is at is the government grant/private investment to further the research. But for some reason many are wanting to skip this step and go straight to the "sale", only using forced or coercive measures, bypassing the free-market. But we keep being told how all this stuff is so great, and how it will save tonnes of money, etc. Well if that is the case, why must the consumer be FORCED into buying it?


I'd say state funding of various projects has had a pretty major impact on our lives.

There is no doubt about that, but the results are not always "good". We could make a list of all the failed government projects (and thank you for starting that list with Langley), but this isn't really the place for that debate.

[chuck34]

A better way of stating what I said above may be:

The government did not force any private person to buy an airplane or even fly in one. Yet we are being forced to buy more fuel efficient cars.

The government did not tax any business for not using computers. Yet business are being taxed for creating "carbon emissions".

The government did not force penicillin in to anyone's body. Yet the government is forcing un-reliable wind and solar power down our throats.

[Hondo]

I don't know about other countries so this applies mainly to the USA. Back when everybody was moaning about the outrageous profit levels the oil companies were hauling in, it should be remembered that the government was also hauling in tremendous taxes on those profits in addition to the regular taxes charged per gallon at the pump by the state and federal governments. The Feds charge 18.4 cents a gallon on gasoline and 24.4 cents on diesel. The state tax rates vary and some states allow cities and counties to add additional taxes. The government has no interest at all in developing cheaper, cleaner fuels and sources of energy. My God, look at the revenue they stand to lose and you get the opportunity to make up somewhere else if they abandon fossil fuels. Consider the regulatory agencies that could be down sized or done away with completely by using cleaner forms of energy. Government likes to grow, not shrink.

By the way, the Federal gas tax started in 1932 as a TEMPORARY tax at the cost of 1 cent a gallon. Funny how those temporary taxes and fees just kind of hang around forever.

[steve_spackman]

Global warming is a myth, a lie so governments can dictate how one lives his/her life.

[BDunnell]

A better way of stating what I said above may be:

The government did not force any private person to buy an airplane or even fly in one. Yet we are being forced to buy more fuel efficient cars.

The government did not tax any business for not using computers. Yet business are being taxed for creating "carbon emissions".

The government did not force penicillin in to anyone's body. Yet the government is forcing un-reliable wind and solar power down our throats.

Forcing wind and solar power down our throats? Quit the victim mentality.

[BDunnell]

So you're saying Langley wasted government money in not providing an airplane, but the Wright's did it without government money? Sounds like you're arguing my case for me.

No, the point being made was that government funding for the Wrights would have clearly been a better idea than giving it to Langley.

[chuck34]

Forcing wind and solar power down our throats? Quit the victim mentality.

What victim mentality? How would you describe cap and trade, other than doing all they can to force these things down our throats through taxation?

[chuck34]

No, the point being made was that government funding for the Wrights would have clearly been a better idea than giving it to Langley.

Exactly my point. Governments are usually fairly bad at deciding who to give money to. The markets are better, although not perfect by any stretch of the imagination.

[BDunnell]

Exactly my point. Governments are usually fairly bad at deciding who to give money to. The markets are better, although not perfect by any stretch of the imagination.

In the aeronautical examples cited, private enterprise was not exactly queuing up to offer funding either.

[BDunnell]

What victim mentality? How would you describe cap and trade, other than doing all they can to force these things down our throats through taxation?

You feel victimised by this. I wouldn't.

[steve_spackman]

The markets are better, although not perfect by any stretch of the imagination.

Oh thats so true, they are just as bad, if not worse than the government

[chuck34]

In the aeronautical examples cited, private enterprise was not exactly queuing up to offer funding either.

Really?

In 1909 the Wright Bros. incorporated for $100,000, 1/3 share of all stock in the company, and 10% of every plane sold. Quite a lot for those days.

Curtiss didn't have much trouble. Etc. etc. Need I go on?

[chuck34]

You feel victimised by this. I wouldn't.

I don't really feel victimised. I just think it's wrong. The same way many on the left felt/feel "wronged/victimised" by the war in Iraq.

Although I don't agree with them I do see their point. But as we say here, "Elections have consequences". So I don't feel victimised per-say, just motivated to "change" things in 2010 and beyond.

[chuck34]

Oh thats so true, they are just as bad, if not worse than the government

I don't think I'd say worse. Just as bad in some cases maybe, but I don't really think worse. I'm sure you'll find examples, and that's fine. You trust the gov., I trust the people. Just a difference of opinion, that's all.

[Rollo]

Actually I personally would prefer NO government subsidies for ANYONE. But that's probably not feasable.

What is your opinion on the Eisenhower Interstate System? Probably the biggest piece of subsidy ever created?

[Hondo]

What is your opinion on the Eisenhower Interstate System? Probably the biggest piece of subsidy ever created?

I consider roads and bridges for public use that serve the public's needs, infrastructure which along with national defense are two of government's legitimate responsibilities to build and maintain. In addition, if popular opinion indicates a specialized route between 2 areas could be built, maintained, and operated at a slight profit through the use of tolls, I have no problem with that either.

I do have problems with government building hotels, stadiums, railways, bus lines, F1 races and the like. Going into the deal it's always "we'll build this for x amount of cash by so and so date but it will generate 3x amount of revenue over blah blah period of time...". It seldom does what they claim it will do but voters don't learn and pass the next one too. I think the ballots on stuff like that ought to have each voter's name and address on it. The way it works is simple. If you are on the dole and/or don't pay taxes anyway, you don't get to vote. If you vote for the project and and the costs run over and the revenues run under how it was being advertised, you and those that voted for it will make up the differences via some special "vote yes" tax.

[BDunnell]

I don't really feel victimised. I just think it's wrong. The same way many on the left felt/feel "wronged/victimised" by the war in Iraq.

I don't feel either wronged or victimised about the war in Iraq, and don't know anybody who does. However, I do feel that it was and is deeply wrong. There is a big difference.

[chuck34]

What is your opinion on the Eisenhower Interstate System? Probably the biggest piece of subsidy ever created?

It falls squarely into the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, as they are INTERstate highways.

[chuck34]

I don't feel either wronged or victimised about the war in Iraq, and don't know anybody who does. However, I do feel that it was and is deeply wrong. There is a big difference.

No difference what so ever. I feel that taxing people for producing "carbon" is deeply wrong. You see that as me feeling "victimised". You feel that the war was deeply wrong. So by your logic you must feel victimised as well.

[chuck34]

Back on topic.

Question for anyone. I've asked it before, but no one has answered it yet.

How much of the CO2 released yearly is man-made?

[BDunnell]

No difference what so ever. I feel that taxing people for producing "carbon" is deeply wrong. You see that as me feeling "victimised". You feel that the war was deeply wrong. So by your logic you must feel victimised as well.

If you can't see the difference between feeling wronged by something and feeling that something is wrong, then words fail me.

[BDunnell]

Back on topic.

Question for anyone. I've asked it before, but no one has answered it yet.

How much of the CO2 released yearly is man-made?

Why would anyone on here, except any climatologists we may have lurking, know the answer to that?

[chuck34]

Why would anyone on here, except any climatologists we may have lurking, know the answer to that?

The answer is out there, and fairly easy to find. Don't you think that is an important question to ask, especially if you are going to be taxed for it?

And by that logic, do you participte in any dicussions in the motorsports sections? I mean if you've never driven an F1 car, IndyCar, Rally car, etc. How can you possibly debate the races, or who's better, and the like?

[donKey jote]

Well I'm still in the middle of my research. I freely admit it's not going too well... this is all I could find so far:
http://www.rollitup.org/newbie-central/706-cheap-way-make-co2-your.html

:andrea:

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

[BDunnell]

The answer is out there, and fairly easy to find. Don't you think that is an important question to ask, especially if you are going to be taxed for it?

Why 'especially if you are going to be taxed for it'? I would have thought that considerations of whether damage will be caused to the environment come before taxation, but then I speak as someone who has never lost a moment's sleep about taxation.



And by that logic, do you participte in any dicussions in the motorsports sections? I mean if you've never driven an F1 car, IndyCar, Rally car, etc. How can you possibly debate the races, or who's better, and the like?

There is quite a big difference between offering an opinion on motorsport and researching detailed scientific matters and interpreting the data. I would prefer to leave the latter to experts.

[chuck34]

Why 'especially if you are going to be taxed for it'? I would have thought that considerations of whether damage will be caused to the environment come before taxation, but then I speak as someone who has never lost a moment's sleep about taxation.

That's just it. How do you know that YOU are causing damage to the environment? Or for that matter that anyone is causing any damage to the environment? Because some scientists tell you it's so? What if other scientists tell you it's BS? Who do you believe?

That is what this all boils down to. Who do you believe? I know it seems hard, but really it isn't. You seem like a smart guy. Some rudimentary investigation would lead you to an answer. Even if you don't agree with me, I don't care. Just do SOME research on your own. But if you don't care how much or why you're being taxed, then I guess it doesn't really matter. Why don't you pay me $50 tax for trying to inform you? Or how about if I wanted $1,000 per year so that I could fund putting Bibles on the door step of every household I could? Or maybe $10,000 to feed my friends? Wouldn't you do some research for that?


There is quite a big difference between offering an opinion on motorsport and researching detailed scientific matters and interpreting the data. I would prefer to leave the latter to experts.

Why is there a difference? Is there no science in motorsport? I'm sure there are a whole bunch of race care engineers out there that would be wondering why they spent so much time and effort in school then.

[Camelopard]

That's just it. How do you know that YOU are causing damage to the environment? Or for that matter that anyone is causing any damage to the environment? Because some scientists tell you it's so? What if other scientists tell you it's BS? Who do you believe?



I can believe we are damaging the environment just by looking out my window, did you read about the dust storms here in Australai, if not I sugest you look at Rollo's post 'Life on Mars'? My car was covered in fine dust again this morning, turning to mud when it started raining.

Did you know that Australia has lost over 80% of it's trees since whiteman invaded this place? That's just in 200 years. To make matters worse we are still removing top cover to plant crops and run animals on land that is marginal at the best of times.

Didn't they teach you anything at school about the 'dust bowls' in the USA in the thirties?

http://drought.unl.edu/whatis/dustbowl.htm

Did you know that the Sahara is meant to growing at a rate of 1/2 a mile per month?

[chuck34]

I can believe we are damaging the environment just by looking out my window, did you read about the dust storms here in Australai, if not I sugest you look at Rollo's post 'Life on Mars'? My car was covered in fine dust again this morning, turning to mud when it started raining.

There have been dust storms in the past, and there will be again in the future. They are a nasty fact of life. I am sorry that you have had to deal with the mess, but we all have different messes to deal with no matter where we live.

But this is not a sign of global warming. In fact pretty much every article I read, the scientists interviewed go out of their way to point that out. One example:
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSSYD488537
"Weather scientists are reluctant to directly link climate change with extreme weather events such as storms and droughts, saying these fluctuate according to atmospheric conditions"

Another interesting article (I'm sure this one will be ignored because it doesn't come from the "right" source):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/23/the-australian-dust-storm-from-space/
"Apparently when lakes dry after having water they leave behind very fine particles that is carried up & stays up. Seems that this is a world wide phenomenon, when lakes fill and empty completely and nothing to do with the dreaded Climate Change. In other words, if the lakes did not fill, and the drought was worse, then this might not have happened!"

So perhaps it's not the dry weather that caused it, but wet weather?



Did you know that Australia has lost over 80% of it's trees since whiteman invaded this place? That's just in 200 years. To make matters worse we are still removing top cover to plant crops and run animals on land that is marginal at the best of times.

Well let's just stop planting crops and letting animals graze then. That'll solve everything won't it. Except for hunger that is.


Didn't they teach you anything at school about the 'dust bowls' in the USA in the thirties?

http://drought.unl.edu/whatis/dustbowl.htm

Nope, never heard of it, thanks. I guess that was because of all the SUVs driving around and what not too?


Did you know that the Sahara is meant to growing at a rate of 1/2 a mile per month?

The Sahara has always been just as it is today. It has never once changed. It is a monument to the way land NEVER changes anywhere. That is unless the evils of modern mankind are taken into account.

Oh wait ...
http://www.livescience.com/history/060720_sahara_rains.html

[BDunnell]

That's just it. How do you know that YOU are causing damage to the environment? Or for that matter that anyone is causing any damage to the environment? Because some scientists tell you it's so? What if other scientists tell you it's BS? Who do you believe?

That is what this all boils down to. Who do you believe? I know it seems hard, but really it isn't. You seem like a smart guy. Some rudimentary investigation would lead you to an answer. Even if you don't agree with me, I don't care. Just do SOME research on your own. But if you don't care how much or why you're being taxed, then I guess it doesn't really matter. Why don't you pay me $50 tax for trying to inform you? Or how about if I wanted $1,000 per year so that I could fund putting Bibles on the door step of every household I could? Or maybe $10,000 to feed my friends? Wouldn't you do some research for that?

[...]

Why is there a difference? Is there no science in motorsport? I'm sure there are a whole bunch of race care engineers out there that would be wondering why they spent so much time and effort in school then.

Read my contributions on the motorsport sections of the forums. I rarely, if ever, make any contributions on technical matters. Why? Because there are people here who know more than me, and I don't have a great grasp of such things. Others on the forums clearly have some sort of professional technical background, making their comments on these subjects of value. Mine wouldn't be. I apply the same reasoning to scientific matters. Maybe you ought to recognise the limitations of your knowledge as well.

[chuck34]

Read my contributions on the motorsport sections of the forums. I rarely, if ever, make any contributions on technical matters. Why? Because there are people here who know more than me, and I don't have a great grasp of such things. Others on the forums clearly have some sort of professional technical background, making their comments on these subjects of value. Mine wouldn't be. I apply the same reasoning to scientific matters. Maybe you ought to recognise the limitations of your knowledge as well.

I know that I'm not an expert. But why should that limit my ability to question things? I don't know why you and Donkey keep making me the subject of this discussion. If either of you feel that I am wrong in my assertions, then by all means let me know. I very well may be wrong. I am not an expert. I am still looking at any and all data that comes out on the subject, as I enjoy learning about subjects that have such a potential to effect us all.

You seem to think that you don't have enough knowlege to question things. That's fine. I can't argue with that. But why are you discussing this at all then? I don't understand that. There are plenty of topics through out these and other boards where I don't know enough to participate in the discussion, so I don't. I may read through things to learn something, but I don't participate.

You on the other hand feel that somehow since you don't know enough to discuss things, that others must not as well. While I am no expert on this topic, I do have enough common sence to question things, look for answers, ask other questions that come up. Those are things that we ALL can do, on any subject, wether we are "experts" or not.

No it seems that you have taken up the cause of the Global Warming Alarmists. And like them you insult, and put down anyone who would dare question you. THAT IS THE EXACT OPOSITE OF SCIENCE. If your science can not stand up to questioning (particularly from a non-expert) then you really don't have much ground to stand on. That is what I see, a theory that doesn't appear to be holding it's ground the more people question it. And the more flaws people point out in the theory, the more defensive the true believers become.

So if you don't know enough to discuss this topic, STOP. It's easy. If you have questions, ask them. If you think I'm wrong, point me to where I can find the right answer. If you have another take on something, then bring it up. You know, discuss things. Don't just shut down debate because "you don't know enough".

[BDunnell]

I know that I'm not an expert. But why should that limit my ability to question things? I don't know why you and Donkey keep making me the subject of this discussion. If either of you feel that I am wrong in my assertions, then by all means let me know. I very well may be wrong. I am not an expert. I am still looking at any and all data that comes out on the subject, as I enjoy learning about subjects that have such a potential to effect us all.

You seem to think that you don't have enough knowlege to question things. That's fine. I can't argue with that. But why are you discussing this at all then? I don't understand that. There are plenty of topics through out these and other boards where I don't know enough to participate in the discussion, so I don't. I may read through things to learn something, but I don't participate.

You on the other hand feel that somehow since you don't know enough to discuss things, that others must not as well. While I am no expert on this topic, I do have enough common sence to question things, look for answers, ask other questions that come up. Those are things that we ALL can do, on any subject, wether we are "experts" or not.

No it seems that you have taken up the cause of the Global Warming Alarmists. And like them you insult, and put down anyone who would dare question you. THAT IS THE EXACT OPOSITE OF SCIENCE. If your science can not stand up to questioning (particularly from a non-expert) then you really don't have much ground to stand on. That is what I see, a theory that doesn't appear to be holding it's ground the more people question it. And the more flaws people point out in the theory, the more defensive the true believers become.

So if you don't know enough to discuss this topic, STOP. It's easy. If you have questions, ask them. If you think I'm wrong, point me to where I can find the right answer. If you have another take on something, then bring it up. You know, discuss things. Don't just shut down debate because "you don't know enough".

I think not seeking to debate something because you don't know enough is a perfectly reasonable position to adopt. People used to do it all the time before the internet came along and gave credence to all sorts of bonkers viewpoints.

[chuck34]

I think not seeking to debate something because you don't know enough is a perfectly reasonable position to adopt. People used to do it all the time before the internet came along and gave credence to all sorts of bonkers viewpoints.

That is a perfectly reasonable stand point.

But then why are you debating this? Particularly if your only point seems to be that you don't know anything.

That's the bonkers viewpoint.

[BDunnell]

That is a perfectly reasonable stand point.

But then why are you debating this? Particularly if your only point seems to be that you don't know anything.

That's the bonkers viewpoint.

My viewpoint is that I believe the case has been proved already and we should just put up with it. And before you say that this is down to a lack of critical faculties on my part, I say again that the American right could have done with (and could still do with) adopting a more questioning attitude on certain other issues.

Oh, going back to some of my previous points, here's something to watch, though I doubt you'll find it that amusing given your apparent belief in the significance we should attach to the opinions of the general public — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQnd5ilKx2Y

[chuck34]

My viewpoint is that I believe the case has been proved already and we should just put up with it. And before you say that this is down to a lack of critical faculties on my part, I say again that the American right could have done with (and could still do with) adopting a more questioning attitude on certain other issues.

Ah yes, the "science is settled" argument. Therefore there must be NO scientists out there that disagree, are there? Let no one question anything. BDunnell says it's all over, and Al Gore, that great scientific mind agrees. All hail the end of debate!

Might want to check out some of this then.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=skepticism+of+global+warming&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&oi=scholart


Oh, going back to some of my previous points, here's something to watch, though I doubt you'll find it that amusing given your apparent belief in the significance we should attach to the opinions of the general public — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQnd5ilKx2Y

It is amusing. I can laugh at myself if it's warented. And if I was the only one that thought Global Warming was BS, I'd be able to laugh at myself. But I'm not. There are plenty of scientists that also think it's BS. See above link.

[BDunnell]

Ah yes, the "science is settled" argument. Therefore there must be NO scientists out there that disagree, are there? Let no one question anything. BDunnell says it's all over, and Al Gore, that great scientific mind agrees. All hail the end of debate!

The difference between you and I here is that you somehow think that your knowledge of the matter indicates that you know more than a lot of the scientists who have investigated the matter. I am making no such claim of additional knowledge either way, though I do have an opinion on the subject. This, in a nutshell, is my objection to your view.

By the way, I am genuinely apologetic to have suggested that you don't have a sense of humour. That was unwarranted.

[chuck34]

The difference between you and I here is that you somehow think that your knowledge of the matter indicates that you know more than a lot of the scientists who have investigated the matter. I am making no such claim of additional knowledge either way, though I do have an opinion on the subject. This, in a nutshell, is my objection to your view.

Then you are totally missing my point. I do NOT know more than any climatologist. However, there are two camps of climatologists. THAT is my point. The science IS NOT settled. There is disagreement on wether or not AGW is happening. I have looked at the arguments on boths sides of the issue, and for me, it is quite clear that the evidence is inconclusive at best.

If I have come off as "knowing more than scientists" then I am sorry. That is not my intention at all. I am just trying to point out that not every climatologist believes in AGW. And therefore, since the science is not settled, why are we basing public policy on it? Especially when it is easy to see how many of these policies can lead to economic hardships, to say the least?


By the way, I am genuinely apologetic to have suggested that you don't have a sense of humour. That was unwarranted.

Don't worry about it. I wasn't offended. I just want to fight the stereotype that all conservatives are humorless.

That brings up another point. Why is it that you are automatically a "right winger" if you don't believe Global Warming is a crisis? There are lots of Republicans including that "bastion of scientific thought", GWB, that have the opposite view. I would imagine that there are at least a few Democrats that don't believe either, although they may be fewer and farther between. My point is that this doesn't have to be a right/left deal.

[BDunnell]

Then you are totally missing my point. I do NOT know more than any climatologist. However, there are two camps of climatologists. THAT is my point. The science IS NOT settled. There is disagreement on wether or not AGW is happening. I have looked at the arguments on boths sides of the issue, and for me, it is quite clear that the evidence is inconclusive at best.

If I have come off as "knowing more than scientists" then I am sorry. That is not my intention at all. I am just trying to point out that not every climatologist believes in AGW. And therefore, since the science is not settled, why are we basing public policy on it? Especially when it is easy to see how many of these policies can lead to economic hardships, to say the least?

But we go back again to one of my main points — how would you and other sceptics know if the science was/is settled? And yes, you and others holding the sceptical view do come across to me as thinking you know more than the scientists do; specifically, it's the notion that those scientists who have concluded that man-made climate change is a genuine threat couldn't have taken into account natural phenomena that I have the most problem with. That and the conspiracy theory.



That brings up another point. Why is it that you are automatically a "right winger" if you don't believe Global Warming is a crisis? There are lots of Republicans including that "bastion of scientific thought", GWB, that have the opposite view. I would imagine that there are at least a few Democrats that don't believe either, although they may be fewer and farther between. My point is that this doesn't have to be a right/left deal.

I agree, and have never said that everyone who doesn't consider man-made climate change a threat is right-wing.

[chuck34]

But we go back again to one of my main points — how would you and other sceptics know if the science was/is settled? And yes, you and others holding the sceptical view do come across to me as thinking you know more than the scientists do; specifically, it's the notion that those scientists who have concluded that man-made climate change is a genuine threat couldn't have taken into account natural phenomena that I have the most problem with. That and the conspiracy theory.

I have posted many links, and could post more if you like, that refute that AGW is a crisis. Links to scientific research. Not just "nutjobs on the internet". What else do you want? You seem to have picked your side and refuse to hear any other arguments.

Honestly, you don't have to believe me. Just look at the other points of view, and at least acknowlege that they may have a point. I understand that those scientists who study "climate change" really believe it. I just think that there may be other explanations or errors in their data. You and other "true believers" tend to totally dismiss any other points of view out of hand, with no data to support your argument other than scientist X believe this. And that is totally counter to science. And I have a problem with that.


I agree, and have never said that everyone who doesn't consider man-made climate change a threat is right-wing.

Perhaps you haven't, but others have, and I don't understand it.

[Camelopard]

I was replying directly to your quote:


That's just it. How do you know that YOU are causing damage to the environment?


As I said I can prove WE are 'causing damage to the environment' just by looking out my window.

I didn't say it was linked to climate change, (although in my opinion it probably is).

I guess you are going to tell me that the disaster that is (was) the Aral Sea was a natural phenonomem and not caused by man's greed just like the dust bowl years in the thirties?

[GridGirl]

Then you are totally missing my point. I do NOT know more than any climatologist. However, there are two camps of climatologists. THAT is my point. The science IS NOT settled. There is disagreement on wether or not AGW is happening. I have looked at the arguments on boths sides of the issue, and for me, it is quite clear that the evidence is inconclusive at best.

If the evidence of global warming is inconclusive at best do you not think that it might to a good idea to air on the side of caution when it comes to environmental policy? That 'DOH' moment if and when it is proved to be 100% occuring and is too late to put right could be pretty loud.

[GridGirl]

That's just it. How do you know that YOU are causing damage to the environment? Or for that matter that anyone is causing any damage to the environment? Because some scientists tell you it's so? What if other scientists tell you it's BS? Who do you believe?

Do YOU seriously think you are causing absolutely no damage to the environment? The word naive springs to mind.

[anthonyvop]

If the evidence of global warming is inconclusive at best do you not think that it might to a good idea to air on the side of caution when it comes to environmental policy? That 'DOH' moment if and when it is proved to be 100% occuring and is too late to put right could be pretty loud.

Do you think it is wise to hurt the economy, deny people access to technology and restrict freedom based on faulty evidence?

[GridGirl]

What do you mean exactly by restricting the economy and denying people access to technology? How will it restrict your freedom?

To be fair it doesn't even need to be environmental policy set by government that is needed to have some degree of positive effect on environmental damage without affecting capitalism greatly. Turning off a light switch as you leave a room for example is free. Turning items off at a plug rather than leaving them on standby is again free. It doesn't hurt the economy and it's not denying you your freedoms. It may even save you money. :p A little thing done by alot of people could also help. It's not all about increasing taxes and making you drive solar powered cars. :rolleyes:

[Roamy]

So now you are telling me that we have had all these environmentalists and Sierra Clubs for years on years shutting down all the good projects, golf courses, salmon fishing etc. Now starving the farmers in California over some screwy little fish. After all of this we are burning up and going to hell in a lead sled. Greenland is cracking apart with the artic caps. The Brazilians have killed off most of the rain forest. Now you are telling me if I drive a gay car and turn out the light I may live. Somehow Cohiba, Cabernet, Ferrari sound a whole hell of a lot better. :)

[GridGirl]

I forgot your American and you have rights because I would have said Obama should tax the hell outta you. :p If no country us willing to go for major reform then you've gotta start with small things. Even the global warming sceptics could get their head around doing the little things without affecting your freedoms and the economy? Then again Fousto, you have the right to keep all your lights switched on and no one can stop you. :p :D

[BDunnell]

If the evidence of global warming is inconclusive at best do you not think that it might to a good idea to air on the side of caution when it comes to environmental policy?

No. Many, if not all, of the measures are desirable anyway, as is the technological development required to ensure that people can keep driving and flying while not causing environmental damage.

[BDunnell]

Do you think it is wise to hurt the economy, deny people access to technology and restrict freedom based on faulty evidence?

I am assuming you are one of those ridiculous people who feel that technology aimed at being more environmentally-friendly somehow doesn't count as technology.

[Roamy]

I forgot your American and you have rights because I would have said Obama should tax the hell outta you. :p If no country us willing to go for major reform then you've gotta start with small things. Even the global warming sceptics could get their head around doing the little things without affecting your freedoms and the economy? Then again Fousto, you have the right to keep all your lights switched on and no one can stop you. :p :D

actually I am good with the lights. But what I fail to comprehend is if the meltdown is now so severe - where is the solution to turn it around?? no one is doing jack except flapping their gums.
BTW what do you think the light bill was for the singapore GP??

[chuck34]

If the evidence of global warming is inconclusive at best do you not think that it might to a good idea to air on the side of caution when it comes to environmental policy? That 'DOH' moment if and when it is proved to be 100% occuring and is too late to put right could be pretty loud.

Yes of course, let's do all we can to be good stewards of the environment. NO ONE would oppose that. What I have a problem with is government imposing draconian measures that will hurt us economically. Cap and Trade will only ship more jobs from the US to India and China. That is a real threat to many people RIGHT NOW. Not a maybe threat to people at some point down the road.

There needs to be a balance. And right now we are about right (more could probably be done for the environment) but many of the measures being proposed do too much to tip things away from an economic environment that is helpful to everyone.

Also, that 'DOH' moment will be pretty loud if we wreck our economy, no one has a job, and we find out Global Warming was all natural fluctuations.

[chuck34]

Do YOU seriously think you are causing absolutely no damage to the environment? The word naive springs to mind.

I never once said that did I? Again, there needs to be a balance between not hurting the environment, making sure that people have enough to eat, and making sure people have jobs.

[555-04Q2]

Good news! My old friend, Santa Claus, visited me today and confirmed that man is causing global warming after all!

Tomorrow my best friend, Bigfoot, will be visiting me to confirm Santa Claus's research findings!

And on Friday, Mickey Mouse is coming over for dinner with my kids!

[chuck34]

These two articles are well worth the read. The first one may be a bit easier to read, but they are really pretty much the same.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/27/quote-of-the-week-20-ding-dong-the-stick-is-dead/#more-11229
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168

Posted without comment at this time.

[Hondo]

Cap and trade will only provide more tax revenue for the government whose only plan is to open the gates of a new and endless revenue wonderland. As they have no "specific" plan or plans to save us all, the generated tax money will be "lent" quietly out the backdoor to keep funding their other failed projects.

The only way to sell the final concepts of "New World Orders", "One World Governments", and Global Economies is to voluntarily get the world populations on the same page. To do that you either have to bribe them all or convince them they are all in danger from a common enemy, in this case Global Warming.

[olla86]

I think that Global Warming is happening not with us but with our children's children. Our activity is the cause of this and I think that Global Warming is not a good thing. Humans should change methods of management...

[Hondo]

I note that the folks who want so desperately for us to believe their claims about climate change and the exact causes thereof 10 years down the road, failed in any sort of specifics, to predict of the latest Indonesian earthquake. At least they haven't come up with a tax to fund a program to prevent earthquakes. But then again, they get caught in pretty short order on that one.

I can't help but wonder how much of Indonesia will remain above water and for how long? Anybody want to do the math on how much the oceans will rise if Indonesia sinks completely?

[ShiftingGears]

I note that the folks who want so desperately for us to believe their claims about climate change and the exact causes thereof 10 years down the road, failed in any sort of specifics, to predict of the latest Indonesian earthquake. At least they haven't come up with a tax to fund a program to prevent earthquakes. But then again, they get caught in pretty short order on that one.

I can't help but wonder how much of Indonesia will remain above water and for how long? Anybody want to do the math on how much the oceans will rise if Indonesia sinks completely?

Easy. Since Indonesia isn't sinking, but the water levels are rising, the water levels will rise to the height of the tallest peak before Indonesia is completely submerged.

Which is 5029 metres.

[Hondo]

Easy. Since Indonesia isn't sinking, but the water levels are rising, the water levels will rise to the height of the tallest peak before Indonesia is completely submerged.

Which is 5029 metres.

You ought to get some sort of Nobel Prize for that.

[ShiftingGears]

You ought to get some sort of Nobel Prize for that.

Why thank you.

[BDunnell]

The only way to sell the final concepts of "New World Orders", "One World Governments", and Global Economies is to voluntarily get the world populations on the same page. To do that you either have to bribe them all or convince them they are all in danger from a common enemy, in this case Global Warming.

I find the fact that you, a clever chap, believe in such nonsensical conspiracies quite staggering. Your evidence is zero, too.

[Dave B]

I note that the folks who want so desperately for us to believe their claims about climate change and the exact causes thereof 10 years down the road, failed in any sort of specifics, to predict of the latest Indonesian earthquake. At least they haven't come up with a tax to fund a program to prevent earthquakes.
Earthquake prediction has nothing to do with climate change, the two are totally and utterly disconnected. :dozey:

[donKey jote]

it's a conspiracy I tell you :)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327273.800-climate-change-may-trigger-earthquakes-and-volcanoes.html

[chuck34]

So still no one has done the simple thing of asking/answering how much CO2 humans produce a year and comparing that to the overall percentage of yearly CO2? Nor asking how the climate would be effected if we turned off 10%, 20%, 50%, or 100%. Pretty important questions to aks about all this, don't you think?

I'll start out the research for you. I know, I know, "But I'm not climate scientists so how could I possibly know the truth?" But for those of you with a bit of curiosity, here you go.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=how+much+co2+do+humans+produce+a+year&aq=3&oq=how+much+co2+do+humans+&aqi=g4

[chuck34]

These two articles are well worth the read. The first one may be a bit easier to read, but they are really pretty much the same.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/27/quote-of-the-week-20-ding-dong-the-stick-is-dead/#more-11229
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168

Posted without comment at this time.

So no one has anything to say about these? I'm sure basing your models and predictions on statistically insignificant "proxies" doesn't bother anyone? Interesting.

The science truely must be settled then.

[GridGirl]

This is a forum where people come to debate and not to feel like we're back at school and our science teacher is giving us homework.

[chuck34]

This is a forum where people come to debate and not to feel like we're back at school and our science teacher is giving us homework.

Fine. Don't do any research into what is going to affect your life. I don't really care either way. But if you don't understand what is going on now, don't b!tch about it later, ok?

My point in making you do your "homework" is because no one seems to want to believe what I say. So I'm trying to point people that care in the right directions. I think it's better for people to learn things on their own, not be told. But if you'd rather be told everything, that's fine too. What do you want to know?

[GridGirl]

Fine. Don't do any research into what is going to affect your life. I don't really care either way. But if you don't understand what is going on now, don't b!tch about it later, ok?

I don't object to reading up on the subject. I object to being told what to read and then being questioned as to why I don't want to talk about it or why it apparently doesn't bother me. I'd prefer to make my own decisions about what I read upon the subject.


My point in making you do your "homework" is because no one seems to want to believe what I say. So I'm trying to point people that care in the right directions. I think it's better for people to learn things on their own, not be told. But if you'd rather be told everything, that's fine too. What do you want to know?

The main problem with people not wanting to believe in what YOU say is most probably because they have their OWN opinions. Your right direction is not THE right direction for everyone. :)

[chuck34]

I don't object to reading up on the subject. I object to being told what to read and then being questioned as to why I don't want to talk about it or why it apparently doesn't bother me. I'd prefer to make my own decisions about what I read upon the subject.

But as you said this is "a forum where people come to debate". Without anyone talking about anything, how do we have debate?


The main problem with people not wanting to believe in what YOU say is most probably because they have their OWN opinions. Your right direction is not THE right direction for everyone. :)

I understand that I am not right on many, many things, and that my direction is not THE right direction for everyone. But again, this is "a forum where people come to debate". So please point out where I am wrong, let's debate that. I welcome that. That is why I'm here. That is what I want to do. But you must understand that you can not just stop at the old "your sources are biased argument" and get away with it from me. I want real debate/discussion. I want you to think about things and have a real reason why "my sources are biased and therefore wrong". If there is a problem with their data collection, please point that out. If there is data that completely contridicts their assertions please point that out.

NO ONE, including you, has said one thing about the tree ring proxies used in most temperature re-crations being obviously cherry-picked to show bias. And since this is "a forum where people come to debate", I sort of expected a bit of debate on the subject. Forgive me for thinking that.

"The science is settled", so there is no need for debate, right?

[Rollo]

So still no one has done the simple thing of asking/answering how much CO2 humans produce a year and comparing that to the overall percentage of yearly CO2?

Do you really want that information? The EPA has that.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac.html

The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since the mid-1700s.
These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v315/n6014/pdf/315045a0.pdf

CO2 levels in the atmosphere have only been recorded since 1958, which over the course of the data isn't enough to support anyone's conclusion.

[chuck34]

Do you really want that information? The EPA has that.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac.html

This source only says that CO2 has "increased from approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to 382 ppm in 2006", and " Almost all of the increase is due to human activities" (but don't say exactly how much). Which is not wrong per-say. But they fail to mention that CO2 levels have risen and fallen many times before man had any influence. The data is there in the graphs they present, they just don't mention it.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac_majorghg.html#fig1

Look at the graph on the left there. It's very cyclic. Then in the middle they cherry pick data from the last 10,000 years. The years that just happen to correspond to an increase. Giving you the the impression that this is somehow "out of the norm". But what would happen if you did the same graph using CO2 data for a 10,000 year span centered about 150,000 years ago? You know the last time that CO2 had a dramatic up-tick. Wouldn't it look dramatic and "unprecidented" as well? Same deal with the graph on the far right.

If you cherry-pick data, you can make it show whatever you want it to. But that doesn't mean that data outside the range you pick is invalid.



The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since the mid-1700s.
These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v315/n6014/pdf/315045a0.pdf

I have to pay to see what data you are looking at there, and I really don't have money to throw at this problem right now. But ice core data that I have seen over the span of 400,000 years shows a very cyclic nature. Much like what I discussed above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

The point is that your percentages don't mean much if there is a cyclic nature to the problem. I can pick and choose the start date to illustrate what I want with a dramatic percentage increase. That just doesn't tell the whole story. If I have a dollar, and you give me one. That's a 100% increase in my earnings for the week. Does that now mean I'm rich?


CO2 levels in the atmosphere have only been recorded since 1958, which over the course of the data isn't enough to support anyone's conclusion.

Not enough data to support anyone's conclusion you say. Yet we're supposed to fork over a giant increase in taxes to "fix" this problem?

The data isn't in yet, but if you give me $1,000,000 I'll be able to buy you a dinner. Why don't you do it?

[Rollo]

If you cherry-pick data, you can make it show whatever you want it to. But that doesn't mean that data outside the range you pick is invalid.

Can you please provide the data from 2015-2215? That's really the only important data that exists. Please provide links... No?


Not enough data to support anyone's conclusion you say. Yet we're supposed to fork over a giant increase in taxes to "fix" this problem?
The data isn't in yet, but if you give me $1,000,000 I'll be able to buy you a dinner. Why don't you do it?

Once you break something, it requires more effort to fix it than if it wasn't broken. Statistical data going back 650,000 years does show a cyclical trend which is fine, but the past 200 years have been significantly different, and are an anomaly far outside the trends.

If the answer is that we have caused the problem (which nobody can either prove or not prove) then $1,000,000 isn't going to be able to afford dinner... and there won't be anyone alive left either to eat it.

[GridGirl]

But as you said this is "a forum where people come to debate". Without anyone talking about anything, how do we have debate?

Without anyone talking about anything just let the thread die. This my dear friend is the natural evolution of the forum! :p

[chuck34]

Can you please provide the data from 2015-2215? That's really the only important data that exists. Please provide links... No?

Exactly. I don't have it, and you don't have it. No one has it. The only thing that anyone has is model that has yet to be right.


Once you break something, it requires more effort to fix it than if it wasn't broken. Statistical data going back 650,000 years does show a cyclical trend which is fine, but the past 200 years have been significantly different, and are an anomaly far outside the trends.

How have the last 200 years been "significantly" different? What factors are "significant"? How much change constitutes "significance"?


If the answer is that we have caused the problem (which nobody can either prove or not prove) then $1,000,000 isn't going to be able to afford dinner... and there won't be anyone alive left either to eat it.

You keep saying yourself that no one cane prove this one way or the other. So if that's the case, wouldn't the more prudent course of action be to take small, easy steps to clean things up? Small things like turning off lights you don't need. Up to big things like switching to nuke power. You know doing proven, reliable things that we know are better for the environment, but don't kill our economy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/31/AR2009053102077.html
"The proposed legislation would have a trivially small effect on global warming while imposing substantial costs on all American households"
"The future cost to the typical household would rise significantly as the government reduces the total allowable amount of CO2"
"The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the resulting increases in consumer prices needed to achieve a 15 percent CO2 reduction -- slightly less than the Waxman-Markey target -- would raise the cost of living of a typical household by $1,600 a year"
"a 15 percent fall in U.S. CO2 output would lower global CO2 output by less than 4 percent"

So you are ok with paying $1,600 more per year for a meger 4% decrease in CO2? And what will a 4% decrease in CO2 do to global temperatures? If you can tell me that a 4% decrease in CO2 will have a "significant" effect on global temperatures, and that that effect will be totally positive (no un-intended consequences) perhaps I will start to think about it.

I don't know what kind of money you make at your job, but I know I sure can't afford another $1,600 a year on something that no one can tell me with really any degree of certainty will be a good thing. Can you afford that? And don't give me the standard line "we can't afford not to". Prove it.

[chuck34]

Without anyone talking about anything just let the thread die. This my dear friend is the natural evolution of the forum! :p

The beauty of the internet forum is that you don't have to participate. I understand that you don't care about this issue. You are fine with paying more taxes on any "issue" that your politicians tell you are important without understanding them. That's your choice. So if you choose not to learn anything further, or don't want to hear about other possible explainations on this issue, just stop clicking on this thread. No one is forcing you to read this.

I, on the other hand, think that this issue is important. I also think that there are people out there that may want to learn something about this. I know I do. I don't have all the answers. I'm learning things every day on this and other issues. It's great, you should open your mind and try it some time.

[Rollo]

How have the last 200 years been "significantly" different? What factors are "significant"? How much change constitutes "significance"?

There are two broad way to answer these questions (which are the same question worded three ways)?

Assuming that the earth does go through natural cycles, then the last 200 or so years are markedly different. Mankind changed from being a largely agrarian society to one of mass technological industry.
Perhaps you'd like to convince me that factories, power stations, motor vehicles, concrete and major land scuplting are part of the natural environment.

The other way to answer this question is by re-asking it. How much change actually does constitute significance? Is it even possible to use statistical analysis to answer the question?
Can a bird fly backwards? Or will it just fly bum-first into a semi doing 70mph?

[chuck34]

There are two broad way to answer these questions (which are the same question worded three ways)?

Yes three questions that are the same, asked for effect.


Assuming that the earth does go through natural cycles, then the last 200 or so years are markedly different.

So then you have statistics that show "markedly"? What percentage increase defines "markedly".


Mankind changed from being a largely agrarian society to one of mass technological industry.

Clearly there has been a change. No one denies that. But how much effect does that have on the environment? Should be easy to quantify right? All I'm asking is something along the lines of Xppm increase in CO2 will translate to Xdeg. of temp. change.


Perhaps you'd like to convince me that factories, power stations, motor vehicles, concrete and major land scuplting are part of the natural environment.

Again the fact that a change has happend is not in question. The question is, how much of an effect to the environment will there be.

An example, probably not a great one: If we add 1,000 gallons of water to a bath tub, that's a big change. Now lets add that to Lake Michigan, or the Pacific Ocean. Not much of a change, but it is technically a change. It's all about the "significance" of said change.


The other way to answer this question is by re-asking it. How much change actually does constitute significance?

THAT IS THE QUESTION I'M ASKING, AND THE QUESTION THAT NEEDS TO BE ASKED, AND ANSWERED. Until someone can actually answer that question, is it too much to ask that you not raise my taxes?

[rah]

I really do not think there is an acurate way to say that x% increase in CO2 will bring about X deg increase in AGW. People have been trying for some time. The first was in the 50's i think and he found that if you double the CO2 in the atmosphere then you would get a 2.5 Celcius increase. But this is flawed because he ignored to many variables.

But for all that ASFAIK the decade warming trends have been pretty close to IPCC predictions.

Don't ignore other problems that an increase in CO2 presents. It's not all about warming.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I really do not think there is an acurate way to say that x% increase in CO2 will bring about X deg increase in AGW. People have been trying for some time. The first was in the 50's i think and he found that if you double the CO2 in the atmosphere then you would get a 2.5 Celcius increase. But this is flawed because he ignored to many variables.

But for all that ASFAIK the decade warming trends have been pretty close to IPCC predictions.

Don't ignore other problems that an increase in CO2 presents. It's not all about warming.

You are right. I would take the envio Nazi's a lot more seriously if they had been going on about the CO2 absorbtion into the oceans, causing ph levels to go wacky. An acidic ocean is a very dangerous thing, and CO2 going into the sea makes carbonic acid. Of course....they keep going on about warming, and Canada has had two summers straight with little summer to them. The people in Western Canada had a hot early summer, but are seeing snow already....hard to take global warming seriously when the ancedotal local evidence says it is crap.....

[rah]

You are right. I would take the envio Nazi's a lot more seriously if they had been going on about the CO2 absorbtion into the oceans, causing ph levels to go wacky. An acidic ocean is a very dangerous thing, and CO2 going into the sea makes carbonic acid. Of course....they keep going on about warming, and Canada has had two summers straight with little summer to them. The people in Western Canada had a hot early summer, but are seeing snow already....hard to take global warming seriously when the ancedotal local evidence says it is crap.....

first of all calling anyone a nazi is pretty nasty. The acidity of the oceans is a massive concern and will probably be the biggest thing to happen soon. AFAIK there are many environmental groups worried about this, but it does not get as much of a play on TV for some reason.

2 cool summers in Canada hardly relates to AGW.

[chuck34]

first of all calling anyone a nazi is pretty nasty. The acidity of the oceans is a massive concern and will probably be the biggest thing to happen soon. AFAIK there are many environmental groups worried about this, but it does not get as much of a play on TV for some reason.

2 cool summers in Canada hardly relates to AGW.

But "unprecidented" dust storms in Austrailia does relate to AGW, with no mention of the fact that little dust storms occur regularly, and big ones do as well? "Unprecidented" ice melt in the Artic, with no mention of the "unprecidented" ice creation in the Antartic? "Unprecidented" heat for 2 days here or there, but cool weather is just weather not climate? It goes on and on.

Why is it only "weather" when it doesn't suit your hypothesis, but it's an "unprecidented disaster" when it does?

Or to put it a bit more precisely. Why is 30 years of slight warming more valid than 10 years of slight cooling?

[Daniel]

But "unprecidented" dust storms in Austrailia does relate to AGW, with no mention of the fact that little dust storms occur regularly, and big ones do as well? "Unprecidented" ice melt in the Artic, with no mention of the "unprecidented" ice creation in the Antartic? "Unprecidented" heat for 2 days here or there, but cool weather is just weather not climate? It goes on and on.

Why is it only "weather" when it doesn't suit your hypothesis, but it's an "unprecidented disaster" when it does?

Or to put it a bit more precisely. Why is 30 years of slight warming more valid than 10 years of slight cooling?
Couldn't agree more. I've kept out of this but I can stay silent no more. My problem is that the proof is in the pudding and all that seems to be predicted is unpredicability like the fact that we'll have the possibility of wetter summer or warmer winters and shiznit like that. Predictions like that are self-fulfilling because people for instance in the UK are always going to be bitching about how wet it is during the summer and so on and so forth.

Just as an example look at the weather records in the UK
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/extremes/
Now how many of those were set in the last 15 years or so? Now if the weather were going to be so much more extreme I'd be expecting a lot more of those records to have been broken since we started polluting the air with CO2.

Call me in 20 years when the predictions of these scientists have been proven to be correct and then we can start calling Global Warming fact perhaps.

Now that's not to say I don't think we should take steps to combat this possible threat but I'm sufficiently suspicious to not be bothered by it in my day to day life.

[Robinho]

decent read here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299426.stm

IMO its not the local weather, even the phenomena, that are the issue, its the average temp at the ice caps, the resultant sea level rises and the larger scale changes in seasonal phenomena over larger areas that may or may not occur also.

i don't buy into the "its been warmer/cooler/drier/wetter* here so it must/must not be true theory, these scales are not long enough nor over sufficient area to rerally measure global change, but the aggregate global temp rise is my worry.

*delete as applicable

i'm all for waiting for the definitive proof one way or the other, as long as we can have definitive proof that we have time to wait - bit of a conundrum!

tbh honest i think we are sufficiently far down the line in attempting to control CO2 outputs, clean energies, reducing emissions for the sceptical community to reverse the trend without serously definitive evidence. and even then we still need to replace fossil fuels anyway - politically and environmentally

[Daniel]

decent read here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299426.stm

IMO its not the local weather, even the phenomena, that are the issue, its the average temp at the ice caps, the resultant sea level rises and the larger scale changes in seasonal phenomena over larger areas that may or may not occur also.

i don't buy into the "its been warmer/cooler/drier/wetter* here so it must/must not be true theory, these scales are not long enough nor over sufficient area to rerally measure global change, but the aggregate global temp rise is my worry.

*delete as applicable

i'm all for waiting for the definitive proof one way or the other, as long as we can have definitive proof that we have time to wait - bit of a conundrum!

tbh honest i think we are sufficiently far down the line in attempting to control CO2 outputs, clean energies, reducing emissions for the sceptical community to reverse the trend without serously definitive evidence. and even then we still need to replace fossil fuels anyway - politically and environmentally
A lot of sceptics though have shown issues with how the data is manipulated and gathered so there is sufficient grounds to be sceptical. The only way I ever see this being properly disproved is if the global temps get colder and CO2 rises long term which is a possibility.

[Robinho]

and here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299079.stm an atempt to explain reasons for cooling, alternatives to manmade warming etc, again an interesting read

[rah]

But "unprecidented" dust storms in Austrailia does relate to AGW, with no mention of the fact that little dust storms occur regularly, and big ones do as well? "Unprecidented" ice melt in the Artic, with no mention of the "unprecidented" ice creation in the Antartic? "Unprecidented" heat for 2 days here or there, but cool weather is just weather not climate? It goes on and on.

Why is it only "weather" when it doesn't suit your hypothesis, but it's an "unprecidented disaster" when it does?

Or to put it a bit more precisely. Why is 30 years of slight warming more valid than 10 years of slight cooling?

Not sure if you have me mixed with someone else but I have never said that the recent dust storms result from AGW. There is no unprecidented ice creation in Antarctica, I would check your sources on that. There have been increases in some areas but decreases everywhere else.

Wether and climate are two different things. Check the definitions if you like.

There has not been 10 years of slight cooling so I am not sure what you are on about.

[rah]

Couldn't agree more. I've kept out of this but I can stay silent no more. My problem is that the proof is in the pudding and all that seems to be predicted is unpredicability like the fact that we'll have the possibility of wetter summer or warmer winters and shiznit like that. Predictions like that are self-fulfilling because people for instance in the UK are always going to be bitching about how wet it is during the summer and so on and so forth.

Just as an example look at the weather records in the UK
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/extremes/
Now how many of those were set in the last 15 years or so? Now if the weather were going to be so much more extreme I'd be expecting a lot more of those records to have been broken since we started polluting the air with CO2.

Call me in 20 years when the predictions of these scientists have been proven to be correct and then we can start calling Global Warming fact perhaps.

Now that's not to say I don't think we should take steps to combat this possible threat but I'm sufficiently suspicious to not be bothered by it in my day to day life.

So far the IPCC predictions have been pretty good. Not sure what you are after. A climatologist cannot tell you what the weather will be next week, its not what they do.

That website showed climate extremes for the UK. Hardly represents the planet. Also as far as I can tell all those records were set after we started polluting the air with CO2.

20 years will be too late.

[chuck34]

decent read here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299426.stm

IMO its not the local weather, even the phenomena, that are the issue, its the average temp at the ice caps, the resultant sea level rises and the larger scale changes in seasonal phenomena over larger areas that may or may not occur also.

i don't buy into the "its been warmer/cooler/drier/wetter* here so it must/must not be true theory, these scales are not long enough nor over sufficient area to rerally measure global change, but the aggregate global temp rise is my worry.

*delete as applicable

i'm all for waiting for the definitive proof one way or the other, as long as we can have definitive proof that we have time to wait - bit of a conundrum!

tbh honest i think we are sufficiently far down the line in attempting to control CO2 outputs, clean energies, reducing emissions for the sceptical community to reverse the trend without serously definitive evidence. and even then we still need to replace fossil fuels anyway - politically and environmentally

Your own article says that these CO2 levels have been around before. Isn't that at least some evidence that perhaps this isn't all man made?

"The new research was able to look back to the Miocene period, which began a little over 20 million years ago.

At the start of the period, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere stood at about 400 parts per million (ppm) before beginning to decline about 14 million years ago - a trend that eventually led to formation of the Antarctic icecap and perennial sea ice cover in the Arctic."

[chuck34]

Not sure if you have me mixed with someone else but I have never said that the recent dust storms result from AGW.

Perhaps you haven't said it. But other "true believers" have.


There is no unprecidented ice creation in Antarctica, I would check your sources on that. There have been increases in some areas but decreases everywhere else.

http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

Towards the bottom of that page there is a graph that shows both Artic and Antartic ice. The Antartic has grown. While not as much as the Artic has lost, but it is still an increasing trend. And "unprecidented" isn't my word, it's what you ALWAYS hear/read in stories about AGW.

Another story to mull over.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/08/antarcticas-ice-story-has-been-put-on-ice/


Wether and climate are two different things. Check the definitions if you like.

Of course and that's my point. When it's hot, I've seen the "true believers" come out and say, "see Global Warming we're all gonna die". Then if it's cold those same people say "It's only weather". Can't have it both ways.


There has not been 10 years of slight cooling so I am not sure what you are on about.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Sept_09.jpg

From that it sure looks like we've cooled off since about 1998. Looks like we're down about 0.4 degees from the peak in '98. And only slightly above '88. It all goes back to my earlier point of what do you use as your baseline? What do you pick as the "perfect temperature". And when did that happen. Everyone in the AGW crowd seems to have picked 1979/80. Why?

And I still have some issues with the raw data here too.

[chuck34]

So far the IPCC predictions have been pretty good.

Really? Might want to look at this.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/10/08/the-ups-and-downs-of-methane/

And as methane is one of the bigger green-house gasses, shouldn't they be getting that one right?


Not sure what you are after. A climatologist cannot tell you what the weather will be next week, its not what they do.

So how long a time scale do they work on? I'll have to dig it up, but I think it's probably been at least 5 years or so ago that everyone was screaming about ice free summers in the Artic within 5-10 years. Is that not a long enough time scale? I'm sure it's not since it doesn't fit their projections. It'll be explained away as "natural variation". How many "natural variations" have to cover up your projections before you realize that the "natural variations" are the dominant factor, and what you have been studying is within the noise floor?


That website showed climate extremes for the UK. Hardly represents the planet. Also as far as I can tell all those records were set after we started polluting the air with CO2.

Given enough time I'm sure others could find simmilar results for most of the planet. I know that every night on the weather they give the record high/low each day. I haven't noticed any trend of the record highs being in the last few years. I know it's anecdotal and not very scientific, but I'll look up the data later if I get motivated.


20 years will be too late.

Why? And that's what they've been saying for probably about 10 years now. Ever hear of the "Boy Who Cried Wolf"?

[rah]

Perhaps you haven't said it. But other "true believers" have.
http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html
Towards the bottom of that page there is a graph that shows both Artic and Antartic ice. The Antartic has grown. While not as much as the Artic has lost, but it is still an increasing trend. And "unprecidented" isn't my word, it's what you ALWAYS hear/read in stories about AGW.

Another story to mull over.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/08/antarcticas-ice-story-has-been-put-on-ice/

Of course and that's my point. When it's hot, I've seen the "true believers" come out and say, "see Global Warming we're all gonna die". Then if it's cold those same people say "It's only weather". Can't have it both ways.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Sept_09.jpg

From that it sure looks like we've cooled off since about 1998. Looks like we're down about 0.4 degees from the peak in '98. And only slightly above '88. It all goes back to my earlier point of what do you use as your baseline? What do you pick as the "perfect temperature". And when did that happen. Everyone in the AGW crowd seems to have picked 1979/80. Why?
And I still have some issues with the raw data here too.
Really? I can't remember seeing any scientist claim that the dust storms were a result of AGW. There were warnings that it could have helped or could happen more often though.

I really think you should read the article you linked to. It should help you understand what is actually going on. Read what you can on how Antractica reacts differently. Also check on the difference between sea ice and glacial movement and formation.

Bringing what others have said in some media somewhere without showing what they have actually said does not help the argument.

But thats the thing, if you studied the graph instead of glancing at at the begining and end you will see that the average temp of the decade is still rising. 0.18 deg for 1998 - 2007 0.19 deg for 1999-2008.

[chuck34]

Really? I can't remember seeing any scientist claim that the dust storms were a result of AGW. There were warnings that it could have helped or could happen more often though.

Could be, but I did see a few media reports saying that, and I've heard talk, etc. So how much more often will we expect these dust stroms then?


I really think you should read the article you linked to. It should help you understand what is actually going on. Read what you can on how Antractica reacts differently. Also check on the difference between sea ice and glacial movement and formation.

So again, it's Global Warming's fault that Antartica is cooler (except the penensula) and the glaciers, sea ice, and snow pack are growing? And it's Global Warming's fault that glaciers and sea ice are melting in the Arctic? Can't have it both ways. As for glaciers, what do you think makes them move?


Bringing what others have said in some media somewhere without showing what they have actually said does not help the argument.

What didn't you understand about what I said and why I linked to those sites? I though it was fairly self explanitory.

You claimed that there wasn't ice creation in the Antartic. So I linked to data showing that there was in fact more ice in the Antartic than in the "magic year" of 1979. And that in fact the snow melt in the Antartic was at an all time low last year.

What didn't you understand about that? I'll try and help you.


But thats the thing, if you studied the graph instead of glancing at at the begining and end you will see that the average temp of the decade is still rising. 0.18 deg for 1998 - 2007 0.19 deg for 1999-2008.



Not sure if you are looking at the same data as I am on this one. If you use the raw data, it looks like the annomoly for '98 was about 0.75, and in '07 it was about 0.6. That's a DECREASE of 0.15 deg or so. But maybe you were looking at the 13 month average. Well in that case '98 is about 0.5 and '07 is about 0.3. Again a DECREASE of about 0.2 deg.

Your other decade, '99-08, does show a slight increase. I'll give you that one. It is about half a degree or so. And what, exactly, is the significance of half a degree C global average temperature rise? And is a half a degree C rise more or less significant than a half a degree C drop? What factors are affected by either? Do humans survive better when it's warmer or cooler? What about crops?

But do you really think that a single decade out of the whole history of the planet is a good measure? Or even using one single decade out of this data set would be good enough for seeing a trend?

[rah]

Could be, but I did see a few media reports saying that, and I've heard talk, etc. So how much more often will we expect these dust stroms then?

So again, it's Global Warming's fault that Antartica is cooler (except the penensula) and the glaciers, sea ice, and snow pack are growing? And it's Global Warming's fault that glaciers and sea ice are melting in the Arctic? Can't have it both ways. As for glaciers, what do you think makes them move?

What didn't you understand about what I said and why I linked to those sites? I though it was fairly self explanitory.

You claimed that there wasn't ice creation in the Antartic. So I linked to data showing that there was in fact more ice in the Antartic than in the "magic year" of 1979. And that in fact the snow melt in the Antartic was at an all time low last year.

What didn't you understand about that? I'll try and help you.

Not sure if you are looking at the same data as I am on this one. If you use the raw data, it looks like the annomoly for '98 was about 0.75, and in '07 it was about 0.6. That's a DECREASE of 0.15 deg or so. But maybe you were looking at the 13 month average. Well in that case '98 is about 0.5 and '07 is about 0.3. Again a DECREASE of about 0.2 deg.

Your other decade, '99-08, does show a slight increase. I'll give you that one. It is about half a degree or so. And what, exactly, is the significance of half a degree C global average temperature rise? And is a half a degree C rise more or less significant than a half a degree C drop? What factors are affected by either? Do humans survive better when it's warmer or cooler? What about crops?

But do you really think that a single decade out of the whole history of the planet is a good measure? Or even using one single decade out of this data set would be good enough for seeing a trend?

No idea, I have done no research into dust storms. But with the climate changing it will affect different areas in different ways. It should also be said that there has not been a dust storm like that in the last 30 years, so I would not call it a regular thing.

Antarctica is a very different place from the rest of the world and is partially isolated due to winds. Read what you can about it because it is very facinating. This is an article that deals with warming in Antarctica http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/state-of-antarctica-red-or-blue/
Antarctica will not react the same as the Arctic because it is a very different place.

Sorry I think we got our wires crossed. I was talking about this statement: "Of course and that's my point. When it's hot, I've seen the "true believers" come out and say, "see Global Warming we're all gonna die". Then if it's cold those same people say "It's only weather". Can't have it both ways."

I was looking at the same data, but when you look at a graph like that you do not just look at the start year and end year and ignore every year in between. Thats not how you get an average.

A decade does not show much, but I was not claiming it does, you were. GW has not stopped, it continues as predicted.

GW will be bad for the planet and bad for humans, it will adversly effect our food source and biodiversity.

[chuck34]

No idea, I have done no research into dust storms. But with the climate changing it will affect different areas in different ways. It should also be said that there has not been a dust storm like that in the last 30 years, so I would not call it a regular thing.

Ok this is a different issue, and perhaps we are on the same page anyway. But if the last storm like this was 30 years ago, and the one before that was about 30 years before that, I'd call that fairly regular. But anyway, it's a seperate point.


Antarctica is a very different place from the rest of the world and is partially isolated due to winds. Read what you can about it because it is very facinating. This is an article that deals with warming in Antarctica http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/state-of-antarctica-red-or-blue/
Antarctica will not react the same as the Arctic because it is a very different place.

Antarctica is a very different place, but it's still on the "Globe" is it not? Therefore it should effect/affect Global Warming, right? So again, if it suits the purpose it is reported as "proof" of AGW. If it doesn't fit, "it's weather", or "a very different place".


I was looking at the same data, but when you look at a graph like that you do not just look at the start year and end year and ignore every year in between. Thats not how you get an average.

I didn't look at the start year and the end year. Far from it, the data starts in 1978/9, and I never mentioned that year at all.


A decade does not show much, but I was not claiming it does, you were. GW has not stopped, it continues as predicted.

Agreed, a decade does not show much. So how long does it take to show something? Where do we go back to? The 1930's? The 1850's? The 1700's? Mid-evil era? The time of Christ? When?


GW will be bad for the planet and bad for humans, it will adversly effect our food source and biodiversity.

Why? If large areas of the planet are warmer, won't we then be able to grow more crops? Especially in large areas of Canada and Siberia? Why will a warmer climate be bad for biodiversity? Aren't there more and varied life forms in the tropics than anywhere else? I just don't see how a few degrees warmer on average can be all that bad.

[bluuford]

For the first I like to thank Daniel for telling me about that nice thread. It is nice to see that some people in this forum have a good brain and analytical thinking ability! As a rally enthusiast and researcher whose salary comes from „climate changes” topic.. I like to clarify a few things here and give a few explanations. Who is actually scientist? Well I have published bit over 20 scientific papers, published one book and been editor for one book, so I believe I am young scientist 
In science there is no such word like “belief”, when someone says that he believes in something, then he is not scientist (maybe priest or smth) and when you read and article and you can find that someone believes in something then better don’t trust it. In science you have to prove things not believe all kind of things. You can believe that Hirvonen wins in GB but if you want to say it in scientific way you have to prove it and give confidence level for your analyses.
So a few things: Q1. Why melting is so much bigger in many places in Greenland? A1: If climate warms a bit then the amount of water vapor increases and at the same time the amount of precipitation grows. That means more snow on the glaciers and if you add enough snow to glacier then it starts to flow faster and melt faster on the sides. And that is the effect that some scientists are measuring and assuming that glaciers are melting faster. Glacier itself is self-functioning system which melting process is poorly affected by the weather changes around glacier.
Q2: What is the most important greenhouse gas? A2: Believe it or not, it is water vapor and the fact is that no climate model is taking it into account. The amount of CO2 or CH4 is much less significant.
Q3: Why we have measured temperature increase? Temperature increase can be sometimes very local. In Baltic Sea and on the west Estonian coast we have measured approximately 2 degrees temperature growth in last 50 years. But the effect is very local and caused by the fact that cyclonic activity has shifted little bit to the north and leaving us south from the centrum of cyclones, that means significant temperature changes (average temperature increase more than 2 degrees is real possibility). Moreover, many measuring points are established near to the major cities and densely populated areas. In last 50 years the population in cities has grow more than twice, widening the cities and spreading the cities on the grounds of the Meteo stations. This can cause something like 1 degree average temperature increase compared to the situation when the city was not present. So, we have two factors. If we have places like Estonia, with very high local change, many stations in cities and many stations without any change, then that two degrees and cities give un-proportionally big share as the longest existing timelines are usually measured near to the cities.
Q4: IPCC and sea level rise? A4: Do you know the latest estimation by IPCC for the sea level rise in next 100 years? It was 5-25 cm. Do you know the penultimate estimation by IPCC? It was nearly 50cm. Do you know what the estimate was approximately 15 years ago by IPCC? It was up to 2.5 meters (Sorry, don’t remember the exact number, it is approximate). I see a clear trend and the fact that more data gives us better changes for the analyses and we can make our models more precise. I have also contributed for IPCC and can say that it has gone better and better each year, but it has still long way to perfection.
Among the researches we are doing some bets. The next bet is: which European parliament is going to trash CO2 emissions plans? One of my colleagues (nearly 70 years old) put his bet on the next parliament staff. I put my bet on 20 years and said that in 20 years we are going to sell C02 to warm up the climate! Can you imagine the problem when the sea level decreases, harbors are getting dry, beaches are moving away from hotels (Well my specific scientific interest is on shores), ships cannot pass shallow places, bigger heating costs, and more ice on the sea etc.
I haven’t seen a scientific article yet where someone can prove me clearly that climate change is manmade (Well I read at least 100 or 200 articles per year). Many have proved that climate is fluctuating

Well, these are just some good and clear examples I felt might fit here.

[chuck34]

{snip}


Thank you for your contribution here. Your level-headed analysis seems to be very well thought out. I only wish other scientists would take your view. Look at the science and let it lead you to a conclusion. Don't take a stand and pick the data that supports your belief.

[chuck34]

Anyone still thinking this isn't at least partially about control?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/16/obama-poised-to-cede-us-sovereignty-in-copenhagen-claims-british-lord-monckton/

"I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement."

And if you think that these are just the ravings of a "right-winger", there is a link within the link I provided to the actual treaty. Read it for yourself and decide. Pay particular attention to paragraph 38 as they do in the original article.

[rah]

Ok this is a different issue, and perhaps we are on the same page anyway. But if the last storm like this was 30 years ago, and the one before that was about 30 years before that, I'd call that fairly regular. But anyway, it's a seperate point.

Antarctica is a very different place, but it's still on the "Globe" is it not? Therefore it should effect/affect Global Warming, right? So again, if it suits the purpose it is reported as "proof" of AGW. If it doesn't fit, "it's weather", or "a very different place".

I didn't look at the start year and the end year. Far from it, the data starts in 1978/9, and I never mentioned that year at all.

Agreed, a decade does not show much. So how long does it take to show something? Where do we go back to? The 1930's? The 1850's? The 1700's? Mid-evil era? The time of Christ? When?

Why? If large areas of the planet are warmer, won't we then be able to grow more crops? Especially in large areas of Canada and Siberia? Why will a warmer climate be bad for biodiversity? Aren't there more and varied life forms in the tropics than anywhere else? I just don't see how a few degrees warmer on average can be all that bad.

There was not a dust storm like this 30 years ago, I used 30 years because that is about my recollection. Supposedly there has not been one this bad in 70 years. No idea when the next one will be. But we can both agree that this is a different point.

Antarctica is on the globe, but not all the globe warms at the same speed. Some will get warmer and some cooler. But the average global temp rises.

But your point in the argument was that GW has slowed or stopped because the last ten years have been cooler.

No, because the areas that we currently grow crops in will also get warmer and non productive for crops. We are seeing this already happen in Aus. Not only that, but with ocean acidity increasing, ecosystems in the ocean will start to break down reducing the amount of food we can take from it. There are also large areas of land in India and China that rely on annual melts from glacies to support much of the worlds rice farming. These glaciers are melting faster than they are being replenished.