Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

the supreme court rules ...


zmanzzzz
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 346
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And you must also know that if the presence of global warming and its effects on climate are diminished, the federal funding pool for the climatologists will shrink and their research programs will tank. Therefore, they have a vested interest in keeping the golden goose well-fed and healthy.

 

I'm not saying that they're fudging their results, but you need to keep this in mind. Scientists conveniently ignore data that contradicts their publishable results all of the time.

 

 

No doubt. But we're not talking about a single or even a half dozen teams of scientists analyzing this data. We're talking worldwide significant agreement. It amazes me that some can point to this group of scientists and claim some sort of worldwide conspiracy with a straight face. Yes, I'm not claiming that there aren't some legit naysayers. But they are in the minority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The same quote you sited is the same thing I am saying. It DOES NOT MATTER what we (the nation) do.

 

 

Ummm...no; that is your :D intrepretation. The debate should be moving towards what we can and should do in a practicable manner. Your absolute statements based on nothing more than gut feel lack any kind of weight in this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummm...no; that is your :D intrepretation. The debate should be moving towards what we can and should do in a practicable manner. Your absolute statements based on nothing more than gut feel lack any kind of weight in this discussion.

 

 

 

Don't wander off too far into this conversation or I may have to punish you. You get back here and ask me if I want mustard or mayo on my sammich, lil darlin'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McB, money would be a lousy place for you to hang your hat in these discussions. You must know that most industries fund so-called institutes and think tanks with smart, ecological names that are nothing more than front organizations dedicated to putting across the anti-global warming message.

 

Money isn't a reason for the arguments to be driven "underground".

 

 

It would be too naive of you to believe that funding for research is not a factor either. It is but a small part in the equation. I am thinking globally, not nationally.

 

There is plenty of money going into the same think tanks from the other end. All are trying to protect their interests. It happens across the board and not just in environmental issues.

 

You left leaners are NOT hearing me. It would be ignorant to say that we (the species) do not have a contributing factor in what is going on with the planet. I would like to know what we (the nation) can do about it. What are the real ramifications of what is happening and how do we mange the consequences of what is to come? I am sure it is too late to completely reverse it. History shows it will come/cycle again with or without us! Maybe all we have done is accelerate the inevitable? :D

 

We (the species) either kill ourselves off or not (and it might be too late to not). Harsh but true. Sorry.

 

And yes, 8,000,000 years from now it will all be moot. That is the difference between being species arrogant and scientifically realistic. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you must also know that if the presence of global warming and its effects on climate are diminished, the federal funding pool for the climatologists will shrink and their research programs will tank. Therefore, they have a vested interest in keeping the golden goose well-fed and healthy.

 

 

True, but the golden goose resides on both sides. In strict terms of dollars, who has more at stake....scientists or those effected by potential legislation resulting from the global warming issue?

Edited by bushwacked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What should we do?

 

The answer is pretty simple. Build a dome around the entire US and create our own artificial atmosphere, complete with Solar panels for energy and reflectors to regulate the internal temperature. This will also solve many other problems including:

 

No more illegal immigration as no one can come or go due to the physical obstacle of the dome.

 

A jump started economy as we now have to be self sufficient and provide for all of our own needs.

 

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt. But we're not talking about a single or even a half dozen teams of scientists analyzing this data. We're talking worldwide significant agreement. It amazes me that some can point to this group of scientists and claim some sort of worldwide conspiracy with a straight face. Yes, I'm not claiming that there aren't some legit naysayers. But they are in the minority.

 

I think that the evidence for human-induced global warming is very strong. However, when I see plots of CO2 measurements from hundreds of thousands of years ago without error bars, I become suspicious that they're hiding something. I get the feeling that their overall results are valid, but that we're not hearing the complete story. And I belive that there's a lot of "data-massaging" going on.

 

The overall point of my post was that scientists aren't always the noble truth-seekers that they're often portrayed as. Ph.D. scientists work in very highly-competitive and stressful fields. Their lives often revolve around their jobs (typically 60-80 hours a week) and, probably more than the average person who actually has time for a spouse and children, have a strong vested interest in succeeding in their careers. And to make things even worse, federal funding for NSF, NIH, and other organizations that give grants is the lowest (adjusted for inflation) that it's been in over 20 years right now. Therefore, it isn't difficult to fathom a few scientists conveniently ignoring and omitting a few results in their studies so that they can publish a couple high-profile papers that will get them more grants and, ultimately, tenure, professional success, and financial security for the rest of their lives.

Edited by Bill Swerski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but the golden goose resides on both sides. In strict terms of dollars, who has more at stake....scientists or those effected by potential legislation resulting from the global warming issue?

 

That's not a good comparison, given that industries spend and earn a lot more money than purely-scientific institutions.

 

I agree that both sides have a vested interest in protecting their respective golden geese.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummm...no; that is your :D intrepretation. The debate should be moving towards what we can and should do in a practicable manner. Your absolute statements based on nothing more than gut feel lack any kind of weight in this discussion.

 

 

Ummmm... no. You only interpret things in your high brow, elitist manner and expect everyone to fall lockstep into the way you choose to frame the discussion. I don't play your Nazi games goofball. I choose to live in the real world. Why is it that the "open-minded liberals" on these boards are always the first to get personal with me (i.e. :D ) ? I unlike the wimpy conservatives on Capitol Hill do not cower and apologize and fire right back. You start being uncivil with me, back atcha elitist bastage :doh:

 

Back on topic (hard for you I know, less effort required to actually think rather than insult :tup: )

 

1) We (the species/other living organisms) are in environmental trouble.

 

2) Evidence suggests that we (the species) have had something to do with it.

 

3) Evidence suggests that our influence is probably not the ONLY contributing factor (you have gone from hating your country to hating your species. Finally you are starting to get it).

 

4) We (the nation) despite our national awareness and attempts to get better at living with our environment, have little to no influence over them (the other nations) that will have a much more significant impact on the environment than we (the nation) ever had (assuming you believe that human influence has had a significant impact).

 

This discussion has no mention of how overfishing the seas top predators has effected the population distribution of harvest fish. Now there is DIRECT environmental impact... maybe :D

 

The truth is that organisms interact with their environment and naturally have an impact on it. Ecosystems 101. My conservative brethren that don't understand this don't get it either.

 

This is not a discussion of left or right. The earth is changing for probably MANY reasons and we (the species) could be in a lot of trouble. I feel that we (the species) and we (the nation) are better off understanding these changes and figuring out how to deal with them in order to survive and hopefully learn from our mistakes. As of now, this is just a bunch of liberal finger pointing and I have no time for it! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the evidence for human-induced global warming is very strong. However, when I see plots of CO2 measurements from hundreds of thousands of years ago without error bars, I become suspicious that they're hiding something. I get the feeling that their overall results are valid, but that we're not hearing the complete story. And I belive that there's a lot of "data-massaging" going on.

 

The overall point of my post was that scientists aren't always the noble truth-seekers that they're often portrayed as. Ph.D. scientists work in very highly-competitive and stressful fields. Their lives often revolve around their jobs (typically 60-80 hours a week) and, probably more than the average person who actually has time for a spouse and children, have a strong vested interest in succeeding in their careers. And to make things even worse, federal funding for NSF, NIH, and other organizations that give grants is the lowest (adjusted for inflation) that it's been in over 20 years right now. Therefore, it isn't difficult to fathom a few scientists conveniently ignoring and omitting a few results in their studies so that they can publish a couple high-profile papers that will get them more grants and, ultimately, tenure, professional success, and financial security for the rest of their lives.

 

 

Yes, a few, as I said. Which is irrelevant given the overwhelming majority that are on board here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McB, money would be a lousy place for you to hang your hat in these discussions. You must know that most industries fund so-called institutes and think tanks with smart, ecological names that are nothing more than front organizations dedicated to putting across the anti-global warming message.

 

Money isn't a reason for the arguments to be driven "underground".

 

 

No doubt. But we're not talking about a single or even a half dozen teams of scientists analyzing this data. We're talking worldwide significant agreement. It amazes me that some can point to this group of scientists and claim some sort of worldwide conspiracy with a straight face. Yes, I'm not claiming that there aren't some legit naysayers. But they are in the minority.

 

 

 

From guys who know a lot more about this than us:

 

link

 

The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.

 

Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.

 

"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."

 

Another highly respected climatologist, Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.

 

Pielke contends there isn't enough intellectual diversity in the debate. He claims a few vocal individuals are quoted "over and over" again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions.

 

I ask him: How do we fix the public perception that the debate is over?

 

"Quite frankly," says Pielke, who runs the Climate Science Weblog (climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu), "I think the media is in the ideal position to do that. If the media honestly presented the views out there, which they rarely do, things would change. There aren't just two sides here. There are a range of opinions on this issue. A lot of scientists out there that are very capable of presenting other views are not being heard."

 

"Let's just say a crowd of baby boomers and yuppies have hijacked this thing," Gray says. "It's about politics. Very few people have experience with some real data. I think that there is so much general lack of knowledge on this. I've been at this over 50 years down in the trenches working, thinking and teaching."

 

Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I don't question that," he explains. "And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."

 

Both Gray and Pielke say there are many younger scientists who voice their concerns about global warming hysteria privately but would never jeopardize their careers by speaking up.

 

"Plenty of young people tell me they don't believe it," he says. "But they won't touch this at all. If they're smart, they'll say: 'I'm going to let this run its course.' It's a sort of mild McCarthyism. I just believe in telling the truth the best I can. I was brought up that way."

Edited by Bronco Billy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, a few, as I said. Which is irrelevant given the overwhelming majority that are on board here.

 

It's not irrelevant at all when the "overwhelming majority" are basing their opinion on a few key publications that may not be telling the complete truth. The "overwhelming majority" of scientists are not all doing the same experiments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a fun quote related to CO2:

 

Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada:

 

"There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a fun quote related to CO2:

 

Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada:

 

"There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

 

 

:D Ouch!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a fun quote related to CO2:

 

Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada:

 

"There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

 

 

 

how bout them apples!?!?!?!?

 

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assertions by supporters and opponents

Listed here are some of the assertions made by supporters and opponents of the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming not discussed above. Assertions are included solely because they have been made by one side or the other, without comment on their scientific validity or lack thereof.

 

 

[edit] Assertions by supporters

Supporters of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis assert that:

 

The fact that carbon dioxide absorbs and emits IR radiation has been known for over a century.[43]

Gas bubbles trapped in ice cores give us a detailed record of atmospheric chemistry and temperature back more than eight hundred thousand years,[44] with the temperature record confirmed by other geologic evidence. This record shows a correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature.[45]

The recent rise in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is greater than any in hundreds of thousands of years[46] and this is human-caused, as shown by the isotopic signature of CO2 from fossil fuels.

The historical temperature record shows a rise of 0.4–0.8 °C over the last 100 years.[47]

The current warmth is unusual in the past 1000 years (see Temperature record of the past 1000 years).

Climate change attribution studies, using both models and observations, find that the warming of the last 50 years is likely caused by human activity; natural variability (including solar variation) alone cannot explain the recent change.

Climate models can reproduce the observed trend only when greenhouse gas forcing is included.[48]

The IPCC reports correctly summarize the state of climate science.

Humankind is performing a great geophysical experiment, and if it turns out badly—however that is defined—we cannot undo it. We cannot even abruptly turn it off. Too many of the things we are doing now have long-term ramifications for centuries to come.[49]

Climate models predict more warming, sea level rise, more frequent and severe storms, drought and heat waves, spread of tropical diseases, and other climactic effects in the future.

The current warming trend will accelerate when melting ice exposes more dark sea and land that will reflect less sunlight; and when the tundra thaws and releases large quantities of trapped greenhouse gases.[50]

Atlantic hurricane trends have been recently linked to climate change.[citation needed]

The Precautionary principle requires that action should be taken now to prevent or mitigate warming.[citation needed]

Proponents of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis tend to support the IPCC position, and thus represent the scientific consensus (though with considerable differences over details, and especially over what action should be taken).[citation needed]

 

 

[edit] Assertions by opponents

Some of the assertions made in opposition to the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming include:

 

The relationship between historic temperatures and CO2 levels, based on ice-core samples, shows that carbon dioxide levels rise after global temperatures rise. [71]

IPCC draws firm conclusions unjustified by the science, especially given the acknowledged weakness of cloud physics in the climate models.[72][73]

The influential "Hockey Stick" study by Mann has been shown to contain errors .

Using "consensus" as evidence is an appeal to the majority argument rather than scientific discussion. Some have proposed that, because the issue has become so politicized, climatologists who disagree with the consensus may be afraid to speak out for fear of losing their positions or funding. [74]

Climate models will not be able to predict the future climate until they can predict solar and volcanic activity, [75] changes in sea temperature [76], and changes to cosmic ray levels that make the low level clouds that cool the earth [77], and take into account other recently discovered feedback mechanisms.[citation needed]

Water vapor, not CO2, is the primary greenhouse gas. Depending on the referenced source, water vapor and water droplets account for 36-70% of the greenhouse effect, while CO2 accounts for 9-26%.

Global warming is largely a result of reduced low-altitude cloud cover from reduced Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs). It is similar in concept to the Wilson cloud chamber but on a global scale, where earth's atmosphere acts as the cloud chamber.[citation needed]

The concern about global warming is analogous to the concern about global cooling in the 1970s. The concern about global cooling was unnecessarily alarmist. Therefore, the concern about global warming is likely to be equally alarmist.

The Medieval warm period, which lasted from the 10th to the 14th century, had above-average temperatures for at least Western Europe, and possibly the whole Earth. This period was followed by the Little Ice Age, which lasted until the 19th century, when the Earth began to heat up again.

Satellite temperature records show less warming than surface land and sea records.

Climatic changes equal to or even more severe than those on Earth are also happening on other bodies within this solar system, including Mars, Jupiter, Pluto and Triton. [78]

Opponents tend to define themselves in terms of opposition to the IPCC position. They generally believe that climate science is not yet able to provide us with solid answers to all of the major questions about global climate. Opponents often characterize supporters' arguments as alarmist and premature, emphasizing what they perceive as the lack of scientific evidence supporting global-warming scenarios.

 

Many opponents also say that, if global warming is real and man-made, no action need be taken now, because:

 

Future scientific advances or engineering projects will remedy the problem before it becomes serious, and do it for less money.[citation needed]

A small amount of global warming would be benign or even beneficial, as increased carbon dioxide would benefit plant life, thus potentially becoming profitable for agriculture world-wide.

There is a distinct correlation between GDP growth and greenhouse-gas emissions. If this correlation is assumed to be a causation, a cutback in emissions might lead to a decrease in the rate of GDP growth [79].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No matter how many how many articles or quotes that are attributted by the underwhleming majority of scientists, the overwhelming majority of leading climate scientists have concluded that it's almost a certainity that humans have caused global warming.

 

The end. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No matter how many how many articles or quotes that are attributted by the underwhleming majority of scientists, the overwhelming majority of leading climate scientists have concluded that it's almost a certainity that humans have caused global warming.

 

The end. :D

 

 

In other words, "I refuse to allow any information other than that which supports my position to have any impact on the way I think or perceptions I want to maintain so that my world does not come crashing down around my weak, unadaptable mind".

 

Good, open-minded, liberal thinking! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No matter how many how many articles or quotes that are attributted by the underwhleming majority of scientists, the overwhelming majority of leading climate scientists have concluded that it's almost a certainity that humans have caused global warming.

 

The end. :D

 

 

Claude Allègre, geophysicist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris): "The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content."

 

Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov, at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity."

 

Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."

 

Zbigniew Jaworowski, chair of the Scientific Council at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw: "The atmospheric temperature variations do not follow the changes in the concentrations of CO2 ... climate change fluctuations comes ... from cosmic radiation."

 

Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.

 

Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Institute has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..."

 

 

Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No matter how many how many articles or quotes that are attributted by the underwhleming majority of scientists, the overwhelming majority of leading climate scientists have concluded that it's almost a certainity that humans have caused global warming.

 

The end. :D

 

 

So centuries ago, when it was a fact as we now know, that the Earth was an oblate spheroid, the overwhelming number of scientists, having no support of fact but rather relying on what only could have been opinion and bad science, insisted the world was flat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, "I refuse to allow any information other than that which supports my position to have any impact on the way I think or perceptions I want to maintain so that my world does not come crashing down around my weak, unadaptable mind".

 

Good, open-minded, liberal thinking! :D

 

 

 

Negative McBoog, we should all keep our minds open, and yes there is a slim possibility that the consensus could change. I'm just stating a simple fact and not pretending like there is currently some great debate about the anthropengenic effect on global warming. Bronco Billy cherry picking articles from an underwhelming minority doesn't change the facts.

 

If 990,000 out of 1,000,000 of doctors conclude that smoking is bad for your health, BB could post all 10,000 contradictory opinions smoking and health, but it doesn't detract from the reality of the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information