Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Ottawa_Chicklet
Joined: 8/5/2006
Msg: 22
view profile
History
Global Warming's New 'Consensus'Page 5 of 6    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)

Ottawa, I am not disputing there has been a slight increase in temperature recently. But historically speaking, what happened to Irelands' growing season? In our recorded history (no daily temps to go with it) Ireland once had a much longer growing season, heck Greenland was even smaller and may have had some actual green.
Cause and effect aren't as clear cut as they seem at first glance.


Heya, Tunz! I don't have any answers because I don't really know anything about this. All I can say with some degree of confidence, is that with climate change, comes some weidness. For instance, different plant life popping up in places never seen before.



global warming is a huge lie, the weather channel who are actually qualified to know these things have stated that the earth is actually cooling. I had to wear a jacket today and it's almost june ? Not that this is scientific proof but It kind of pisses me off waiting for summer.


Whoa! You've convinced me! Shoot I had to wear a coat today, too, so I guess global warming isn't true after all!

Sorry about the sarcasm, I just cannot stand another "I had to wear a coat today" anti-global warming rant. It's getting old, and it's not even close to being a valid argument.

BTW, the reason the last 2 or so years have been cooler is that we are currently going through a La Nina. The opposite to the El Nino that we experienced in 1998. Here's a link with a lot of interesting information:

http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/lanina.html



I'm not a climatologist, nor do I pretend to understand the the science behind all this, but I can tell you this: A couple of months ago NASA anounced that the Earth had actually cooled by about two degrees in the last one hundred years, This past winter America saw more snow cover than at any time in the last one hundred years,China just went through it's worst winter in over fifty years, a winter so severe that about 15-20 percent of it's forest land was destroyed by the extreme cold, and irredescent clouds, normally only seen in the polar regions, have been seen as far south as the eastern US seaboard.


See my post above. We are experiencing a La Nina. Things will be "back to normal" later in the year.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070228093721.htm



And the melting Antarctic ice sheet? Turns out there is a volcano under it that's starting to heat up. While "climate change" is certainly real,and a natural phenomenon, it appears that while the polar caps are warming, the rest is cooling. It wouldn't hurt to stop burning up so much middle eastern oil,though, as long as I don't have to give up my four wheel drive pick-up.


This s the first I've heard of this. Can you provide a link, please?



Sorry to burst your bubble but the planet has been cooling for the past 10 years.


There's no bubble to burst, because you are misinformed. You've been had by the denyers who have suckered you in with false information.

Each year after 1998 has proven to be cooler than the average recorded world temperature of 1998. However, that's deceiving. What you're not considering is that 1998 has proven to be the hottest year on record. Why is that? We experienced the strongest El Nino of the century. Toss the 1998 blip or record from the early 80's, and it's perfectly visible that the trend of higher temperatures continues.

Taken from an interesting website:

1998 was an unusually hot year as it featured the strongest El Nino of the century. In fact, from Jan to May, 2007 is tied with 1998 as hottest year on record. The WMO reported in August that January and April 2007 were the hottest on record.

However, when determining trends, you don't pick one month or year out of isolation - particularly if that year features a short term weather anomaly like El Nino. By this method, based on the fact that 2005 was .17°C hotter than 2000, you could conclude that the rate of global warming doubled from 2000 to 2005.
 Ottawa_Chicklet
Joined: 8/5/2006
Msg: 23
view profile
History
Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/23/2008 8:06:01 PM
Also, just because someone wrote it, and you(or I) read it, doesn't make it fact,and that goes for both sides. If someone really wants to believe in global warming, then they will, regardless of any evidence to the contrary.


Yeah, it's called sheer laziness. No wonder people are so misinformed.

Anyway, I don't particiapte in a lot of these threads simply because I feel I have little or nothing to offer. I will not form an opinion until I feel I have educated myself enough on the subject. I dunno, maybe it's the Capricorn in me. My door is open to other ideas, facts and contrary evidence. Yes, one should not take everything at face value, but there's enough resources out there to figure a lot out. So, based-on the information that I've read so far, I do believe that global warming/climate change is real.

BTW, it's not critical to believe or not. By simply using common sense, we can all join together and make our way of life so much better. In turn, Mother Nature will thank us. See post #5... he explains it much better that myself.

**Edit to add: I did a Google search on the volcano. Took me 5 seconds. ;-)

It's a good article, so I hope you take the time to read it. BTW, it reads:

Vaughan noted, however, that the hidden volcano doesn't explain widespread thinning of Antarctic glaciers.

So yeah, it's there and is responsible for some thinning and moving of glaciers, but certainly not the majority.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/080120-antarctic-volcano.html
 LoonyTunz
Joined: 8/11/2006
Msg: 24
view profile
History
Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/23/2008 8:14:18 PM

BTW, the reason the last 2 or so years have been cooler is that we are currently going through a La Nina. The opposite to the El Nino that we experienced in 1998. Here's a link with a lot of interesting information:

Sooooooo, couldn't a large part of the warmest years recently be attributable to El Nino? That fits the time frame and there was both hot and whacky weather when that effect was felt world wide.
 Ottawa_Chicklet
Joined: 8/5/2006
Msg: 25
view profile
History
Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/23/2008 8:27:56 PM
Good question.

The last El Nino started in the spring of 1997 and ended late 1998. BTW, 1998 is tied for the hottest year on record.

http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/vol5no2/article_2.html

As for typical durations, it ranges from 1/2 year to 1 1/2 years:

Global temperature anomalies during the ten strongest El Niños of the Twentieth Century are shown above. The width of the bar represents the character of the event. El Niño events have a duration varying between half a year to a year and a half. Over recent years, El Niño events have become more frequent as the global temperature anomalies associated with each El Niño continue to increase. This means that the extreme regional weather and climate anomalies associated with El Niño are being exacerbated by increasingly higher temperatures. The warmer conditions have been linked to higher concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/1998/enso/10elnino.html
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 26
Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/23/2008 8:36:07 PM
If someone really wants to believe in global warming, then they will, regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

Negative. This better describes people who made up their mind to deny manmade climate change. I believe that climate change is occurring because of the preponderance of the evidence; in the HIGHLY unlikely occurrence of the massive evidence taking a massive shift in the opposite direction, then I will all too gladly go with that. I mean, we are talking about bad "news" (not at all new) here after all.

It really comes down to knowledge of the scientific method, the scientific community, peer review, and scientific consensus in a relevant field of expertise. The OP's claims certainly do not qualify.

Edit: No need to be shy, OC. Your contributions are bang-on.
 get_mad_baby
Joined: 4/9/2005
Msg: 28
view profile
History
Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/24/2008 12:24:04 AM
Global warming deniers are the easily fooled type, see who most of these deniers voted for in the past two big elections. Seems that they are told anything by an authority figure and these dittoheads, unable to think for themselves, mindlessly repeat what they're told.

As for global warming, the rising amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is an undeniable fact.
Go here, read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere
Here's a quote
"Burning fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum is the leading cause of increased anthropogenic CO2; deforestation is the second major cause. As of 2004, around 27 gigatonnes of CO2 are released from fossil fuels per year worldwide..."

Us humans, are pulling hydrocarbons (coal, oil) which has been locked beneath the ground and we're putting it into the atmosphere.
"The increase in carbon dioxide concentration arises because the increase from human activity is not balanced by a corresponding sink."

Global warming deniers are not thinking for themselves, they seem suspicious of science and anything else that disturbs their oversimplified worldview.
 NamelessOne
Joined: 3/10/2008
Msg: 32
Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/24/2008 1:41:26 AM
Global Warming is nothing more than another gris-gris. It relies on a myth perpetuated by quack scientists looking to dip their beak in everyone else's pocketbooks 'for the good of humankind'. If you're wondering why a bunch of so-called conservatives like McCain (another Rockefeller Republican, thought Reagan got rid of you bozos), Gingrich (i'm sooooo ashamed of him) and even Bush (funny, didn't he reject Kyoto?) are supporting this crap. Follow the money. But like I said it's the same environmental myth in the same vein as recycling, which actually causes more trouble, more subsidies for vote buyers, and actually more pollution! As I said before it's another feel good belief, or in that case a gris-gris. Now i'm gonna go eat my steak!
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 35
Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/24/2008 9:41:18 AM

Spikes in temperature (blue) occur 400-600 years AFTER spikes in CO2 (red).


http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-does-CO2-lagging-temperature-mean.html
 faithnoman
Joined: 2/18/2007
Msg: 37
Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/28/2008 5:23:25 PM
The earth may be heating up a little faster than it would without us, but also keep in mind that where I live was once almost fully submerged, due to melted glaciers.

I think we should keep mind of how we do things, but I don't agree with all the chicken littles out there, spreading fear - it kinda reminds me of the Bush regime.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 41
view profile
History
Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/30/2008 2:14:38 PM
The original post is untrue. The consensus of any independent scientist, not funded by Republican "think tanks" (that's any oxymoron) still agree. In other words, unless you have been bought and paid for to be a shill for the corpora-tocracy, and you have two brain cells, you know global warming is a real problem and will cost us dearly in the future.

Do me a favor, anyone who doesn't believe this, be sure NOT to contact me as I don't suffer fools gladly.
 exodusi1
Joined: 8/19/2006
Msg: 44
view profile
History
Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/30/2008 6:07:02 PM
So, let me get this straight.

What exactly do republicans understand?

Obviously economics is out.

Obviously social conciousness is out.

Obviously Christianity is out.

Obviously diplomacy is out.

Obviously Science is out.

What's left?

There is no debate on GCC anymore. You may not like Al Gore, but the science is accurate and alarming. The "experts" are not debating IF GCC is happening, they are now ONLY debating if it can be reversed.

GS! Beautiful! A girl has to have standards!
 exodusi1
Joined: 8/19/2006
Msg: 46
view profile
History
Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/30/2008 6:48:31 PM
Sorry, I'll take my $100,000 education over your lack of knowledge any day!

Yes, I am Liberal. Get use to Liberals standing up for themselves better! I plan on making it standard fare from now on! I am tired of the ignorant bully types thinking that simply saying something the loudest will make them right!

Well, the VAST majority of educated people are on my side, not yours. So, enjoy your ignorance alone!
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 51
view profile
History
Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/2/2008 11:31:08 PM

The correlation between man and global warming has not been proven. It in fact can't be proven at this time. It can be inferred by proxy data but the disagreements about that are rife.

Saying there is a consensus about a theory that hasn't been proven means that consensus has been declared by someone not in the scientific community. Theories undergo extremely grueling testing before acceptance. Trying to stifle discussion is counter-productive. Calling people uneducated or stupid because they disagree with you is silly. I merely means they see things through different perspectives.


"Proof" is a mathematical tool, not a scientific one. There are many scientific theories that have yet to be proven. Gravity is one. The correlation between human activity and global warming has been explicitly endorsed by every national scientific organization with any link to the climate. That may not constitute 'proof', but it certainly demonstrates widespread acceptance WITHIN THE CLIMATE SCIENCE COMMUNITY of the basic premise that human activity is warming the climate.

Whatever rife disagreements are to be found on that basic premise are almost entirely outside of the climate science community in places like these forums, bolstered by the handful of skeptics with bona fide climate science credentials whose minority theories have been unable to survive the peer review process.

There is indeed vigorous debate within the climate science community over the severity and imminence of the wide range of impacts anticipated as a result of climate change, made especially challenging because there is no evidence that the atmosphere has seen this rapid of an increase in greenhouse gasses in all of human history.

There is even more vigorous debate between policy makers over which strategies will most effectively minimize those impacts, yet the governments of every free country in the world, even the Bush administration, have also explicitly endorsed the connection between human activity and global warming.

They just can't agree on what to do about it.

You're absolutely right that name calling is counter productive, as is stifling discussion. But please understand that to dispute the connection between global warming and human activity today is much like someone thirty years ago disputing the connection between tobacco use and cancer. So much like it that some of the same scientists once employed by tobacco companies to dispute that link are now paid by fossil fuel companies to fuel the climate change skeptic cause.

This debate will rage on between those who support the results of the scientific method and those who aren't yet ready to accept those conclusions. Meanwhile, policy makers all over the planet are focusing their attention on how best to assure the best possible quality of life for future generations.

Now there's a pertinent discussion to have.

Dave
 MedicineRifle
Joined: 1/25/2008
Msg: 55
Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/3/2008 9:13:08 PM
NASA has documented recently that the hottest years in the last century were not recent but during the dust bowl - Surprise no SUV's back then - Since the Republican party is no more, I'm gonna become an Anarchist and just document how wrong all those wacko liberals with their $100,000 educations can be

Notice how the wacko ecos have stopped calling it Global Warming and now just call it Climate Change - make no mistake - they including B Hussein Obama want the UN to start taxing us based on our GNP - I intend to fight it all the way - let's take back this country
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 59
Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/4/2008 1:50:31 PM
What the science says...
The correlation between sun and climate ended in the 70's when the modern global warming trend began.


As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth's climate, the sun certainly has a strong influence on climate change. Consequently there have been many studies examining the link between solar variations and global temperatures.

The correlation between solar activity and temperature
The most commonly cited study by skeptics is a study by scientists from Finland and Germany that finds the sun has been more active in the last 60 years than anytime in the past 1150 years (Usoskin 2005). They also found temperatures closely correlate to solar activity.

However, a crucial finding of the study was the correlation between solar activity and temperature ended around 1975. At that point, temperatures rose while solar activity stayed level. This led them to conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

You read that right. The study most quoted by skeptics actually concluded the sun can't be causing global warming. Ironically, the evidence that establishes the sun's close correlation with the Earth's temperature in the past also establishes it's blamelessness for global warming today.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 62
Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/4/2008 5:03:16 PM
Yes, nefarious, you are correct. It's sooo hard to find pro-GW websites that are totally unbiased like the anti-GW ones!
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 68
Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/4/2008 9:48:11 PM
Fortunately, the ones who make policy in US government are finally getting on board with the very real problems climate change poses. Same goes for either incoming administration as well. This internet debate with the "ignorance is bliss" crowd makes for an engaging pasttime, though.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 74
Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/5/2008 12:07:33 AM
Well, I guess distortions and faulty science comes cheap, while education costs a fortune. And big oil doesn't influence science per se-- it just likes to give "incentive" to certain easily influenced scientists like S. Fred Singer and political groups with similar interests like the American Enterprise Institute. Check out Singer-- his "research" showed that CFC's didn't erode the ozone layer, secondhand smoke doesn't do damage, and GW is natural and even beneficial! I don't think all the money went solely to all that research, either.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 78
view profile
History
Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/10/2008 12:29:17 AM

Good to see you back wvwaterfall are you in the business of global warming activism yet? It's going to be very profitable.


Profit is not very high on my priority list. I had an environmental policy job that included, I thought, keeping the political leaders here up to speed on the latest developments in climate change science. But doing that in a state heavily dependent on coal and coal-fired electricity production proved hazardous to my job security. So it goes.

I'm content for now to make my income in ways more appreciated by the people I work for. We'll be a better state when we finally wean ourselves from our dependence on the fossil fuel industry. Until then I'll do what good I can however I can, whether a paycheck is associated or not.


It's really heartwarming to read that people are willing to stop Ad Hominem attacks and stop insulting those who disagree with them. Can't we respect each others intelligence?


I've never had success influencing anyone by insults or disrespect. If you dig deep enough we all have core values in common. Building on what we have in common makes far more sense to me than an eternal struggle to beat down the 'bad guys' we may disagree with on a particular issue.


I have a scientific background and I look at the data and can come up with conclusions based on facts. I don't need someone to tell me what to think because I can think for myself.


See, there's something we both have in common. We don't like someone telling us what to think. Having a scientific background helps a great deal when it comes to understanding the scientific process. You know then how the peer review process works. Like democracy, it isn't perfect, but it's the best system we've come up with so far.

You've applied your scientific background to look at enough climate change data to reach a conclusion that diverges from that of the climate science community. That's certainly your right. As one who also thinks for myself it's my right to decide whether to put faith in your conclusions or those of dedicated climate professionals who have spent years doing research and defending their conclusions through the vigorous review the peer-review process entails.

I'm not a scientist. I'm also not a lawyer, doctor, or auto mechanic. But in each case I've had to make choices as to who among those professionals to put my trust in, and in general I trust the specialists to know the most about their specialties compared to those in the same general profession with different specialties. All get weighed against my logical and intuitive sense of who is sincerely trying to do good work vs. those with other motives. I assume you do the same thing. We just have reached different conclusions.



Trying to keep the Earth changeless is ridiculous.


Agreed. But at least in my view, trying to minimize any negative impacts humans have on the planet is essential to our continued quality of life, not to mention the quality of life all the other species now depend on us to provide since our recent emergence as the dominant species on the planet. Change has always happened and will continue to do so. Environmental change caused by human activity has time and again proven to have unintended negative consequences. No matter what we do we'll have an impact. I just think it's well worth the effort to understand and manage those impacts as completely and beneficially as we can.


I realize that some people can't think independently and need to rely on 'experts'.


I certainly agree that many people prefer to avoid independent thought in many aspects of their lives. I would assert, however, that in today's increasingly complex and interdependent society we all need to rely on experts to help us in our decision making. It just isn't physically possible for one person to make everything they own, do all their own research to support every choice they make.

I'm assuming you didn't produce all the data yourself that you analyzed on climate change to reach your conclusions. Or build and program the instruments to collect it. I'm pretty confident you haven't produced peer reviewed papers supporting your conclusions. Nor have I. But we've both looked closely enough at the information we can find to reach conclusions we feel confident in.


What I think is the Global Warming is over-hyped and is seriously going to hurt those who are living in poverty. A new tax just for living is going to be built in to everything we buy, but not the developing countries. Just the foolish guilt ridden western democracies.


I'm unfamiliar with the 'tax just for living' you refer to. There has been some talk of a carbon tax, but the momentum right now favors a cap and trade system that will incentivize businesses who produce less greenhouse gasses than their peers. That means buying an energy efficient appliance will cost LESS than it might otherwise, AND we'll spend less on the energy needed to use it. This hurts us how?

Certainly those living in poverty will suffer. They are always the first affected by any change. Including strategies for developing countries is a major discussion point in current climate change policy discussions, and certainly a weakness in the soon-to-be-replaced Kyoto protocol, an agreement always intended to start us down the climate policy path, not provide the ultimate solution.

I'm not going to argue with you point for point on the relationship between CO2 and global warming, or any other specific details of the climate change argument. If you really want to find the data and arguments to support the conclusions of the climate change community over your own theories it doesn't take much google time to do so.

Like you, I've done enough research on the topic to make up my own mind. In my case that's about fifteen years of tracking the latest conclusions of thousands of climate scientists. I've seen confidence in the role humans play in climate change steadily grow, skeptic arguments consistently refuted. I've seen long term projections consistently nudged toward the more dire as observed outcomes continue to outpace predictions.

I respect your right to disagree, but we do certainly disagree.

Dave
 get_mad_baby
Joined: 4/9/2005
Msg: 85
view profile
History
Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 7/18/2008 10:17:47 PM
Coming apart by those who keep repeating that it's a myth, and ignoring peer reviewed science. But, these same people can look at fossils and convince themselves that they're 6,000 years old.

Look, we're taking millions of barrels of oil from under the ground, burning it, and making carbon dioxide. And millions of cattle on factory farms are producing methane. Now, to think that human's can't impact the globe in a short amount of time is naive. Remember all the CFC's that put a hole in the ozone? That was us. We humans did that.
 get_mad_baby
Joined: 4/9/2005
Msg: 88
view profile
History
Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 7/18/2008 11:06:47 PM

IMO .....bunk

That's just your opinion. But, you're not educated enough, or not able to grasp the concept the mechanics, so the knowledge is lost on you, then all you have left is your opinion. Or what you're told to think by corporate owned mouthpieces.

Look at this, in one hand, you have mountians of evidence, collected all over the world, reviewed and studied by people who are much smarter than you and I are. And in the other hand you have heads of polluting corporations, such as oil companies, car companies, and the oil man president, who is in the back pocket of big oil, saying that all this peer reviewed science, which is not refuted in the scientific community, but only by businesses, and you're siding with the business.
 MaxBialystock
Joined: 7/18/2006
Msg: 92
view profile
History
Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 7/19/2008 8:39:41 AM
Looks like someone at Physics & Society will get fired, probably Jeff Marque. The "scientific paper" by Monckton, basically repeating a lot of junk science debunked ages ago, had not undergone peer review at all! If you download the July 2008 issue, you will find a comment before the "paper" by Monckton, in which it is stated:


This article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions.


Of course the right wing bloggers have been parotting this paper loudly since it came out, and I'm pretty sure it will keep getting referenced as all the rest of the junk science. After all, the right wingers on this site keep referencing debunked junk science.

This is very embarrassing for APS. From what I've read, it's probably the editor (Jeff Marque) who for some reason thought it was a great idea to let Monckton publish without peer-review (Monckton's junk science would never have passed peer-review). You can also almost smell Inhofe's presence in the whole thing through the statement that:


The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming “incontrovertible.”


Which is kind of odd considering that the editor represents one of 39 groups in APS, and that the APS actually has stated as an entity that:


National Policy
07.1 CLIMATE CHANGE
Email | Print

(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
 DAVE632
Joined: 6/17/2006
Msg: 93
view profile
History
Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 7/20/2008 11:36:54 AM
W/O reading each and every post .... the Earth has had at least SEVEN Ice Ages. Between ice ages, ferns grew in the Arctic & Antarctic and water covered most of the Great Plains - the Gulf of Mexico stretched north into Saskatchewan. Stating (as GORE does) that the last 8 years are the warmest in Earth's history is complete and utter BULL. If in the past there were NO ICE CAPS my uneducated GUESS is it was warmer than the last 8 years here, OK? Make sense? Ya. NO SUV's to blame. On the other side of gloBULL cooloing & warming during the Ice Ages places like Toronto and Berlin were under 15, 000 FEET of ICE. Those years were probably colder than when, 20 years ago, other idiots like Gore were predicting another ICE AGE!!

They came. They went. Weather cycles, I mean. NOT idiots. They're ALWAYS around. Cycles caused by what? Mostly solar activity. Possibly some by volcanic activity or even algeal blooms - who knows? The geological records are a bit murky going back that far.

Do we clean up our act on this planet. Absolutely. Do we blame the industrialized nations for something the sun is doing? Sure you do. And you set up a company that "sells" carbon credits from rich industrialized nations to poor nations. It does sweet diddly as far as emission go but hey AL's (GORE) worth $100 million today and he was worth $2M when he left politics. YOU decide which one of us is the cleverer of the two.

The KYOTO Accord is a way to divest huge sums of money away from the developed world to the 3rd world. It is a communist idea dreamed up by one of Chretien's (EX PM of Canuckistan) henchmen now living in Beijing. BTW Chretien signed the Kyoto Accord because he is part of POWER CORP (his daughter is married to the owner's son) and POWER CORP knew that North American power production would be severely curtailed by Kyoto so they invested in NON-Kyoto limited companies in China. For 14 YEARS the Liberals ignored their Kyoto "commitments". As soon as the Conservatives got in they and the media started HOWLING at the lack of commitment the Harper gov't was showing in regard to meeting CO2 cutbacks etc etc. Idiots!
 DAVE632
Joined: 6/17/2006
Msg: 95
view profile
History
Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 7/20/2008 12:30:04 PM
""look at were this world dusting comes from . us . ""

Again, sadly typical of the "Warmers". DUST comes from plowed fields, from roads and mostly from hundreds of MILLIONS of SQ kilometers of desert all over the planet. Whenever the wind blows across a desert - DUST. TONS of it gets picked up, carried and some ends up high in the atmosphere. Dust / ASH from volcanoes produce more paticulants in one eruption than most of the industrialized nations do in a year. Haven't you seen photos of approaching dust storms? Did WE do that? How many cars driving fast up a dirt road outside Witchita does it take to duplicate a Sahara dust storm that lasts days or weeks and can lay down enough dust and sand to bury cities???

Don't get me wrong. I do think the human race is THE most destructive infestation this planet has ever had the misfortune of evolving on but making dumb statements like that simply blows credibility when something more serious needs to be dealt with. For many the whole issue of gloBULL warming has been reduced to nonsense because only a little actual research shows much of what he's claiming as science is complete fabrication. Not ALL of it but enough to blow his credibility and that doesn't help the cause of cleaning up our act at all.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 101
view profile
History
More fuel to the fire, as it were
Posted: 7/25/2008 3:55:10 PM
Once again, logical arguments backed by scientific facts and widely held opinions of many climatologists and scientists, as opposed to the fear-mongers and those motivated by the potential profits available from the creation of a crisis.


OK, let's check out the logic behind your source. Phil Brennan, author of your cited piece, is a veteran journalist who has published previous pieces claiming, among other things, that smoking is not addictive and that high gas prices are entirely the fault of environmentalists with a secret communist agenda.

He recently wrote:


The next time you stand at the pump and watch your hard-earned dollars go gushing into your car’s fuel tank, remember who did this to you. And this is hardly the least of the crimes committed by the environmental fifth column. In the name of the socialist doctrine they conceal within their breasts, they have imprisoned you and our fellow Americans in a web of destructive regulations that are slowly strangling out economy.

And that’s what they want. When the economy hits bottom, they have Karl Marx waiting in the wings to take charge.


While I'm sure there are those here who agree with his assessment, offering his writing as the epitome of logic and science has to be considered a major stretch.

There was indeed a letter sent to the UN by some scientists refuting the prevalent perspective on global warming, essentially asserting that we're better served adapting to a warming globe than trying to minimize emissions. Interestingly, that letter was put together shortly after Exxon offered $10,000 to any scientist willing to write a letter contesting the latest IPCC report from the UN. You can read about that here:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/index.htm

The Space and Science Research Center, despite it's impressive sounding name, is an upstart organization that has been in existence for less than a year and according to their own website consists of exactly three scientists, all of whom are convinced solar activity is the ONLY influence on global climate, a view not shared by the rest of the climate science community.

As for the earth cooling since 1998? That's a classic cherry pick, since depending on whose numbers you trust, 1998 was either the hottest year in the past century or very close to it. If we were to compare the last ten years to 1997, on the other hand, almost all of them have been hotter. A great graph to put it all in perspective can be found here:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

That graph does indeed show every year since 1998 to be cooler, but it also shows that the year 2007 was eighth warmest on record since 1850, exceeded by 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2001. That hardly indicates a cooling trend to my logical analysis. The graph shows a clear warming trend with no signs of a reversal.

You do make one valid point - that there are profits to be made from reducing our carbon footprint. A number of economic studies have indicated that the savings from increased energy efficiency combined with new jobs created by an emerging sustainable business model will more than offset any economic losses created by aggressively addressing climate change.

As for fear-mongering, I'm sure Paul Revere was thought to be a fear monger by some when he woke up the countryside that fateful night. In his case vindication was swift. We're operating on a little longer timeframe with this issue, but the fact remains that every national science organization with any connection to the climate has confirmed existence of anthropogenic climate change based on peer-reviewed studies consistent with the time proven scientific method.

We can listen to the established scientific community or a radical journalist.

I know which source logic steers me toward.

Dave
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  >