Imawhosure Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 The thing to remember is-------->seperation of the debate over clean air, clean water, toxic chemicals, and GLOBAL WARMING. To let them fall back to the debate point of clean water when discussing global climate change is stupid. 1 does not mutually cause the other, and that is why enviros try and link it so hard. Nobody in their right mind can be against clean water or air, and if we just give them a pass of linkage to climate change in the same sentence, we have lost the emotional battle instantly. Our countries life expectancy continues to rise, and yet we use more fossil fuels than anyone else. Now the question is------->would you rather have lived 200yrs ago when we were more PRISTINE and probably die at age 40 or 45, or possibly 35? Oooooooor, would you rather live now when your life expectancy is pushing 70 and rising? Enviros try and get you to ignore this fact, because their whole mantra is that it is getting worse, instead of better. It is called spin, spin, and nothing more than spin! The more they can convince you something HAS to be fixed, the more you will accept their draconian solutions. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goinbroke2 Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I think there should be a $5.00 claim fee on environazi's. :happy feet: I'd bag a bakers dozen and only claim 12! LOL! Scalping them would be messy but, well ya do what ya gotta do eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang_sallad Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 The thing to remember is-------->seperation of the debate over clean air, clean water, toxic chemicals, and GLOBAL WARMING. To let them fall back to the debate point of clean water when discussing global climate change is stupid. 1 does not mutually cause the other, and that is why enviros try and link it so hard. Nobody in their right mind can be against clean water or air, and if we just give them a pass of linkage to climate change in the same sentence, we have lost the emotional battle instantly. Our countries life expectancy continues to rise, and yet we use more fossil fuels than anyone else. Now the question is------->would you rather have lived 200yrs ago when we were more PRISTINE and probably die at age 40 or 45, or possibly 35? Oooooooor, would you rather live now when your life expectancy is pushing 70 and rising? Enviros try and get you to ignore this fact, because their whole mantra is that it is getting worse, instead of better. It is called spin, spin, and nothing more than spin! The more they can convince you something HAS to be fixed, the more you will accept their draconian solutions. So, your argument is that because we live longer now than we did 200 years ago, we're doing everything right? Seems just a tad over simplified to me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 So, your argument is that because we live longer now than we did 200 years ago, we're doing everything right? Seems just a tad over simplified to me... So.... If the life expectancy was decreasing, then your people would not be all over that as evidence that things were getting worse? Spinnnnnn...... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang_sallad Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 So.... If the life expectancy was decreasing, then your people would not be all over that as evidence that things were getting worse? Spinnnnnn...... How about maybe using science? Or is that a bad word now... Science goes a little bit further than "measure one number -> draw conclusion". How about taking historical data on causes of death throughout available records and looking into why we see upward or downward trends in each of those causes. I'm sure you'd find that improvements in medicine and health care have had a huge contribution in increasing our life span over the past 200 years. Is it logical to then ignore any potential negative drivers and assume that everything is either working in our favour or not having an effect, including increased air pollution? Not at all. Would I support anyone who concludes that a 10 year drop in life span by 2030 is due to CO2 emissions without actually exploring the mechanisms that are actually resulting in earlier deaths and explaining their reasoning? Not at all. If you even bothered to show me an example of somebody making this kind of unsupported conclusion in favour of reducing CO2 emissions, would that suddenly delegitimize the entire scientific community? Not to anybody who actually cares about the scientific discussion at hand, rather than having already made up your mind and just looking for anything to grasp onto to support that mind set. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goinbroke2 Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Sallad I agree 100% on the science use and that is a point against the global warming freaks! To use your own reasoning/logic; How about taking historical data on causes of temperature throughout available records and looking into why we see upward or downward trends in each of those causes. I'm sure you'd find that many influences have had a huge contribution in varying the temp over the past 2000 years. Is it logical to then ignore any potential drivers and assume that CO2 is the sole reason for temp fluctuation? Looks a little different now, huh? Water vapour effects heating/cooling Sun activity effects heating/cooling The amount of plants/animals on earth (and the resultant CO2/air) effects heating/cooling The size of polar caps effects heating/cooling The amount of...well you get the idea. There are so many things that effect the earth in a natural way and have been doing so, long before man ever had I/C engines. If there was one specific thing in nature that could be limited to man, then THAT would be what we have to limit/remove! That is also why I underlined 2000 years not 200 as that too is a "trick" the left use sway the stats. We are coming out of a mini ice age. The lower part was....1830 or so....so the temps have naturally been increasing ever since. The same as from 1750-1800 was gradually (and naturally) getting colder, it was on the cooling side of the mini ice age. Science is awesome. In science, nothing is final or without question. You say it is raining, I have the right to say I disagree and to look for myself. If I concur, then you are right. If I find something different then I publish that and doublecheck that our methodology is the same. (you might of checked in florida and I checked in arizona) If all methods are the same then you should be concerned that you made a mistake and double check your results. We both can't be right if we are doing the same tests. But if you say it's raining and I cannot question that, i cannot see your results or even your methodology, I am ridiculed and called names...does THAT sound like science to you? And if a bunch of your friends that meet at your place every thursday to play cards all conclude that you are right and nobody better question you...does THAT make your argument any stronger? Science is now proven by the largest voting block? The biggest thing to remember is that true science doesn't have feelings and nothing is personal. If you are rechecking something I did, it's not personal, it's for whatever reason you are doing it. (different idea, aha moment, found new evidence/data, etc) When a scientist resorts to personal attacks, it really makes you wonder what their mindset is. Like I said, science is awesome as it dispells many of the climate change scare mongering tactics and shows them for what they really are, left wing, anti capitalist, anti western freaks. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang_sallad Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Is it logical to then ignore any potential drivers and assume that CO2 is the sole reason for temp fluctuation? Is it logical to think that I would assume CO2 is the sole reason for temp fluctuation? Is it logical to think that the entire climate science community would have ignored historical trends dating back hundreds of thousands of years in reaching their vast consensus that human activity is a major contributor to the warming we are now seeing? GIve me a break! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goinbroke2 Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Is it logical to think that I would assume CO2 is the sole reason for temp fluctuation? It would be logical to assume the person who agree's with a group or party's mantra, also agree's with what that group or party says or espouses as logic. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goinbroke2 Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Is it logical to think that the [b]entire climate science community [/b]would have ignored historical trends dating back hundreds of thousands of years in reaching their vast consensus that human activity is a major contributor to the warming we are now seeing? It's been clearly show again and again that it WASN'T the entire science community. AND, it was shown that the few who had an agenda DID skew the results. That's a typical tactic by the left. Say something like it's fact enough times so that the uniformed start believing. *cough, cough, climategate, cough, cough* 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Mustang, you are intentionally dense. The point is that you people are hypocrites. Any time anecdotal evidence supports your position you are quick to use it, and any time anecdotal evidence disagrees with your position, then it must be unrelated. IE a heat wave in Europe is evidence of global warming, but a cold wave in North America is just "weather" not climate. And you do not understand the scientific method at all if you believe that ANY theory is still valid when there is an experiment that repeated produces results that are not consistent with the theory. This is the meaning of one good observation trumping 100 years of theory. When the data contradicts the theory, you scrap the theory not the data. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 It's been clearly show again and again that it WASN'T the entire science community. AND, it was shown that the few who had an agenda DID skew the results. That's a typical tactic by the left. Say something like it's fact enough times so that the uniformed start believing. *cough, cough, climategate, cough, cough* *cough, cough, death panels, cough, cough* 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goinbroke2 Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 *cough, cough, death panels, cough, cough* LOL, you remind me of a joke Mark; What goes "clip clop, clip clop, clip clop, bang bang bang clip clop, clip clop, clip clop"? An Amish driveby! Nice driveby in an attempt to help a fellow lefty by diverting attention and/or changing the topic! :shades: 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang_sallad Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Mustang, you are intentionally dense. The point is that you people are hypocrites. Any time anecdotal evidence supports your position you are quick to use it, and any time anecdotal evidence disagrees with your position, then it must be unrelated. IE a heat wave in Europe is evidence of global warming, but a cold wave in North America is just "weather" not climate. See that's the thing, i NEVER say a heat wave is a sign of global warming, for exactly this reason. You make a lot of assumptions about me. And just because some people in the media go and sensationalize something like a heat wave and call it global warming, that doesn't mean that any of the many respected climate scientists working with the IPCC wouldn't also make the distinction between climate and weather, something I've heard explained countless times. National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1] No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3] Some other organisations also hold non-committal positions. A question which frequently arises in popular discussion of climate change is whether there is a scientific consensus.[123] Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[32] US National Academy of Sciences: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."[124] Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[125] Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."[13] American Meteorological Society, 2003: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus.... IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research.... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."[126] Network of African Science Academies: “A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.”[24] International Union for Quaternary Research, 2008: "INQUA recognizes the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[127] Australian Coral Reef Society,[128] 2006: "There is almost total consensus among experts that the earth’s climate is changing as a result of the build-up of greenhouse gases.... There is broad scientific consensus that coral reefs are heavily affected by the activities of man and there are significant global influences that can make reefs more vulnerable such as global warming...."[129] The controversy is significantly more pronounced in the popular media than in the scientific literature,[1][2] where there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,[3][4] though a few organisations hold non-committal positions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 (edited) LOL, you remind me of a joke Mark; What goes "clip clop, clip clop, clip clop, bang bang bang clip clop, clip clop, clip clop"? An Amish driveby! Nice driveby in an attempt to help a fellow lefty by diverting attention and/or changing the topic! :shades: You misquoted the joke. There's only one bang. The tactic works on the right too. Edited March 24, 2011 by Mark B. Morrow 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 See that's the thing, i NEVER say a heat wave is a sign of global warming, for exactly this reason. You make a lot of assumptions about me. And just because some people in the media go and sensationalize something like a heat wave and call it global warming, that doesn't mean that any of the many respected climate scientists working with the IPCC wouldn't also make the distinction between climate and weather, something I've heard explained countless times. So you have never seen An Inconvenient Truth? It depends heavily on anecdotal evidence, primarily observations of weather as a proxy for climate. The IPCC Science and the IPCC advisories do not agree with each other. Read it. Scientists that don't believe in the Global Warming Scare Position: Accuracy of IPCC climate projections is questionable Individuals in this section conclude that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They do not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling. * Richard Lindzen,Pubs Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."[4] "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."[5][6] * Garth Paltridge,Pubs Visiting Fellow ANU and retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre."There are good and straightforward scientific reasons to believe that the burning of fossil fuel and consequent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to an increase in the average temperature of the world above that which would otherwise be the case. Whether the increase will be large enough to be noticeable is still an unanswered question."[7] * Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."[8] * Antonino Zichichi,Pubs emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : "models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view".[9] He has also said, "It is not possible to exclude that the observed phenomena may have natural causes. It may be that man has little or nothing to do with it"[10] Position: Global warming is primarily caused by natural processes Attribution of climate change, based on Meehl et al. (2004), which represents the consensus view Individuals in this section conclude that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. * Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "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...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."[11][12][13] * Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."[14] * George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible."[15] * Ian Clark,Pubs 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."[16] * Chris de Freitas,Pubs Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."[17] * David Douglass, Pubssolid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."[18] * Don Easterbrook,Pubs emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: "global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035"[19] * William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential."[20] "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."[21] "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."[22] * William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University: "all the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it's not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide"[23] * William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."[24] * David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."[25] * Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"[26] * Tim Patterson, Pubs 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?"[27][28] * Ian Plimer,Pubs Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: "We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it".[29] * Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo: "The IPCC's temperature curve (the so-called 'hockey stick' curve) must be in error...human influence on the 'Greenhouse Effect' is minimal (maximum 4%). Anthropogenic CO2 amounts to 4% of the ~2% of the "Greenhouse Effect", hence an influence of less than 1 permil of the Earth's total natural 'Greenhouse Effect' (some 0.03 °C of the total ~33 °C)."[30] * Nicola Scafetta, Pubs research scientist in the physics department at Duke University, wrote a booklet proposing a phenomenological theory of climate change based on the physical properties of the data. Scafetta describes his conclusions writing "At least 60% of the warming of the Earth observed since 1970 appears to be induced by natural cycles which are present in the solar system. A climatic stabilization or cooling until 2030–2040 is forecast by the phenomenological model."[31][32] * Nir Shaviv, Pubs 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.[33] * Fred Singer, Pubs Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect."[34][35] “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”[36] * Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."[37] * Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind’s role is relatively minor".[38] * Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Society has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..."[39] * Henrik Svensmark, Pubs Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover."[40] * Jan Veizer, Pubs 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."[41] Position: Cause of global warming is unknown Scientists in this section conclude that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. * Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Pubs retired professor of geophysics and Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks: "[T]he method of study adopted by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless conclusion: Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Contrary to this statement ..., there is so far no definitive evidence that 'most' of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. ... [The IPCC] should have recognized that the range of observed natural changes should not be ignored, and thus their conclusion should be very tentative. The term 'most' in their conclusion is baseless."[42] * Claude Allègre, geochemist, 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."[43] * Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University: "t is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 °C. ... At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models."[44] * John Christy, Pubs professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time."[45] * Petr Chylek, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory: "carbon dioxide should not be considered as a dominant force behind the current warming...how much of the [temperature] increase can be ascribed to CO2, to changes in solar activity, or to the natural variability of climate is uncertain"[46] * David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: "The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause – human or natural – is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria."[47] Position: Global warming will have few negative consequences Scientists in this section conclude that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. * Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: "the rising CO2 content of the air should boost global plant productivity dramatically, enabling humanity to increase food, fiber and timber production and thereby continue to feed, clothe, and provide shelter for their still-increasing numbers ... this atmospheric CO2-derived blessing is as sure as death and taxes." (May 2007)[48] * Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University: "[W]arming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. ... [W]e have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming." (2003)[49] * Patrick Michaels, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia: "scientists know quite precisely how much the planet will warm in the foreseeable future, a modest three-quarters of a degree (Celsius), plus or minus a mere quarter-degree ... a modest warming is a likely benefit... human warming will be strongest and most obvious in very cold and dry air, such as in Siberia and northwestern North America in the dead of winter." (October 16, 2003)[50] 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler Durden Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 The tactic works on the right too. Not surprised. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang_sallad Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 snip About half of the people you quoted there are astrophysicists and astronomers. Many of the people you quoted are simply saying that yes there is some uncertainty as to the extent to which global warming is occurring. Very few of the people you quoted say that human-caused climate change is a "hoax", and if you look those people up, you'll find that they are not necessarily experts in this field (Tad Murty is a tsunami expert, for example), or have been going on rants and personal attacks like William Gray - clearly not a sign of a purely objective mind. Gray also claims that climate models can't possible make accurate predictions, and then in 2006 went ahead and predicted a cooling trend for 2009-2010. And of course this little tidbit: For the purposes of this list, qualification as a scientist is reached by publication of at least one peer-reviewed article in their lifetime in a broadly construed area of "natural sciences". The article need not have been written in recent years nor be in a field relevant to climate.Attributable statements of disagreement in any venue in the individual's own words (not merely inclusion on petitions, surveys, or lists). So basically you pulled a list of 32 "skeptics" off of wikipedia. Four of them are simply saying that the accuracy of predictions is questionable, which I agree with - a planet is a pretty damned complicated thing to model. Six are saying that we simply don't know what's causing the warming. Three of them are saying global warming is a good thing. Of the others, 5 of them are astronomers, and one is a professor of Petroleum Engineering. So mostly, the credible people you quoted are saying "we're not sure". Frankly, if I'm not sure if something I'm doing might make me sick, I play it on the safe side. I think there's a good chance that burning as much shit as we do could very well be messing with the climate, but even if we're not sure, I'd prefer it if we didn't assume it's okay until we are sure. By the way, would you like to see the list of 620 authors and editors who contributed to the WG1 IPCC report? Not to mention the several hundred reviewers? Your list might swamp an online forum thread page, but there's not a lot of substance, to be honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 (edited) Frankly, if I'm not sure if something I'm doing might make me sick, I play it on the safe side. I think there's a good chance that burning as much shit as we do could very well be messing with the climate, but even if we're not sure, I'd prefer it if we didn't assume it's okay until we are sure. So, I guess you will be giving up your car(s) and walking or biking everywhere, only eating what you can grow yourself or scavenge from the countryside, heat and electrify your home with solar energy and wind (and simply do without heat and electricity if there isn't sufficient sunshine or wind), give up air conditioning during the summer months, and never, ever fly in an airplane for any reason? Will you do without any products transported via plane or any other medium (truck or railroad) that uses fossil fuels? I guess you also won't be posting here anymore. You can save electricity by not using your computer. Or will you be like the celebrities and activists who jet to luxury resorts for global warming conferences and make proclamations from their mansions as to how the rest of us need to sacrifice and give up those evil fossil fuels and the standard of living that they make possible? Here's some advice: If you are preaching that the world is going to end, then you have to act like it really is, or else you have no credibility. Otherwise, you are pretty much confirming the views of those who either say that there is no manmade global warming, or that it is happening, but is nothing to worry about. Actions always speak louder than words. Edited March 25, 2011 by grbeck 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang_sallad Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 So, I guess you will be giving up your car(s) and walking or biking everywhere, only eating what you can grow yourself or scavenge from the countryside, heat and electrify your home with solar energy and wind (and simply do without heat and electricity if there isn't sufficient sunshine or wind), give up air conditioning during the summer months, and never, ever fly in an airplane for any reason? Will you do without any products transported via plane or any other medium (truck or railroad) that uses fossil fuels? I guess you also won't be posting here anymore. You can save electricity by not using your computer. Or will you be like the celebrities and activists who jet to luxury resorts for global warming conferences and make proclamations from their mansions as to how the rest of us need to sacrifice and give up those evil fossil fuels and the standard of living that they make possible? Here's some advice: If you are preaching that the world is going to end, then you have to act like it really is, or else you have no credibility. Otherwise, you are pretty much confirming the views of those who either say that there is no manmade global warming, or that it is happening, but is nothing to worry about. Actions always speak louder than words. This is a ridiculous rant. no i don't think everybody should go back to living in caves. Yes I do believe that we've come pretty far as a society and we can do some pretty amazing things and really enjoy our lives, and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm simply arguing that we should make efforts to reduce our impact on the environment so that future generations can enjoy it as much as we do, and there are some pretty low-hanging fruit out there. My computer consumes about 50 watts when it's running. Meanwhile a car consumes on the order of 100,000 watts of fuel energy while you're cruising on the highway (that's in terms of the energy content in the fuel, not the engine's mechanical power output). Am I gonna live in darkness and waste my time turning off 13 watt light bulbs? Am I gonna shut myself off from modern society and shut down my laptop permanently to save a pittance of my overall energy consumption? Not at all, but I am gonna start thinking of some of the low-hanging fruit on my day to day basis, and I am gonna devote my career to designing cars that can cruise at more like 30,000 watts. Meanwhile, there are opportunities to generate and harness energy that have a much lower impact on the environment and are a lot more agreeable to be around, and I think we should make efforts in those directions as well. There's a bit of a middle ground between the nut jobs who say we should live in caves, and the nut jobs who say we shouldn't do shit all for the sake of maintaining a healthy environment to live in. I'd hope that all of us on these forums are somewhere between those extremes, and I don't see why you'd assume that anybody saying reducing CO2 output is a good idea must automatically be saying that all CO2 output should be stopped immediately with no excuses. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 There's a bit of a middle ground between the nut jobs who say we should live in caves, and the nut jobs who say we shouldn't do shit all for the sake of maintaining a healthy environment to live in. I'd hope that all of us on these forums are somewhere between those extremes, and I don't see why you'd assume that anybody saying reducing CO2 output is a good idea must automatically be saying that all CO2 output should be stopped immediately with no excuses. Government passing laws forcing people to purchase certain products, or act certain ways with the express goal of reducing CO2 output is not middle ground. I'm not saying reducing my energy consumption is necessarily a bad idea but how, why, when I do this should not be imposed on me by force. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Oil is a natural product produced by nature. What little oil we use compared to the vast area of the earth; and volume of the atmosphere and ocean, is not going to have any impact on the climate. I don't have to prove that. It is obvious to anybody who will take the time to look at the scales involved. It is up to the ones who come up with these hare-brained notions of man-induced climate change to furnish the scientific proof. So far, a case has not been made. There has been a lot of brainwashing and cult indoctrination; but nothing that will stand up to the scrutiny of legitimate science. The problem is that government will act on any false crisis if they can get enough dimwits to believe in it. That leaves the really intelligent people gritting their teeth; knowing that they are paying for other peoples' stupidity. The more they shout out the truth, the closer they come to being imprisoned or exterminated to shut them up, as has been repeated over and over again throughout history. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imawhosure Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 LIBERAL THINKING---------->anyone who can count, use a calculator, or run a financial program KNOWS that Obamas spending, the federal deficits, and the national debt will ruin us. Obama says, "this is an investment." The left says, "yes Mr O, hope and change baby, lets re-elect cause those who want to defeat him are right wing nut jobs." ON THE OTHER HAND------>we have the left with all of their computer models when run backwards, forwards, or sideways on global warming can't give the correct answers. We should listen to that though, because Mr O and his lobby want it so. I was raised Catholic. I was an altar boy in my youth. When any of us asked a priest a hard question and was not satisfied that the facts did NOT support his version of the outcome, he told us we had to have FAITH. Therefore........being Catholic, Muslim, Protestant, Baptist, etc means you are in a religion. The facts don't absolutely have to create the outcome when worked backwards, because you HAVE FAITH. Just in case, you better go along with the fantasy; for what if it is accurate! Everyone believes that THEIR religion, is the only TRUE religion of course. To this group, we should also add the enviro fanatics, for their evidence is almost as spotty as many religions, and you must have a leap of faith when the facts prove you are misguided. Let us all pray to Gaia today to show our love; just in case-) And also------->isn't there supposed to be a seperation of Church and state? I am gonna have to write Mr O about this, and see what he has to say, lolol. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang_sallad Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Government passing laws forcing people to purchase certain products, or act certain ways with the express goal of reducing CO2 output is not middle ground. I'm not saying reducing my energy consumption is necessarily a bad idea but how, why, when I do this should not be imposed on me by force. So, by your logic, there shouldn't be any environmental protection regulations whatsoever because people should all be allowed to make their own decisions? In other words, the government shouldn't be able to force an energy company not to dump nuclear waste on their property? This would be extreme? If you think that the government imposing laws like "build more fuel efficient vehicles" and "use more efficient lightbulbs" is extreme... you need to grow up and suck it up. Are you gonna cry because you can't buy the classic light bulb? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang_sallad Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Oil is a natural product produced by nature. What little oil we use compared to the vast area of the earth; and volume of the atmosphere and ocean, is not going to have any impact on the climate. I don't have to prove that. Gold. Pure gold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goinbroke2 Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 There's a bit of a middle ground between the nut jobs who say we should live in caves, and the nut jobs who say we shouldn't do shit all for the sake of maintaining a healthy environment to live in. I'd hope that all of us on these forums are somewhere between those extremes, and I don't see why you'd assume that anybody saying reducing CO2 output is a good idea must automatically be saying that all CO2 output should be stopped immediately with no excuses. While I agree with this, (there are extremist on both sides) what I still don't agree with is CO2 being the end-all and be-all of all earths troubles. My main issue with the whole enviro side of it, is it's based on what I consider a falicy in the first place. Of all the things to pick out of thin air as the "culprit to all the planets ail's" why CO2? The earth REQUIRES CO2. Even though it is a greenhouse gas, it is only responsible for approx 9% overall. I could go on... Cut CO2 and there are less crop output, plants and trees decline, like, WTF??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.