PDA

View Full Version : If the science of global warming is accurate...


jAZ
06-03-2006, 02:52 AM
... so is it accurate?

Discuss.

The thread has been hijacked from post #1 so I'm starting my own thread.

CHIEF4EVER
06-03-2006, 07:00 AM
Global warming is a joke.

penchief
06-03-2006, 07:00 AM
Yes, yes it is. It fits right in with the thread in the lounge "America's war on science."

When our leaders and those who can buy influence are so brazen in misleading the public about issues so vital to the human race, I think we're in big trouble.

Why does corporate America have the power to dictate the conditions under which we all must live?

CHIEF4EVER
06-03-2006, 07:03 AM
You know, the ****tards who claim the Polar ice caps are melting and going to flood the world are some of the biggest dumbasses there are. Here's a neat experiment for those morons that hearkens back to grade school science class: Fill a highball glass with ice cubes and water. Make a mark with a grease pencil on the glass at the original water level. Let the ice melt. Compare water levels.

penchief
06-03-2006, 07:07 AM
You know, the ****tards who claim the Polar ice caps are melting and going to flood the world are some of the biggest dumbasses there are. Here's a neat experiment for those morons that hearkens back to grade school science class: Fill a highball glass with ice cubes and water. Make a mark with a grease pencil on the glass at the original water level. Let the ice melt. Compare water levels.

Doesn't that just take into account the ice that is already in the water? If you were to fill a glass of water to the brim, put a screen on top of the glass and then set a couple of ice cubes on top of the screen, wouldn't the melting cubes cause water run over the side the glass? Not all the earth's ice is already in the water. Some of it is on land, right?

CHIEF4EVER
06-03-2006, 07:10 AM
Doesn't that just take into account the ice that is below the surface?
Not entirely. The ice is floating in the glass like most of it is in the Arctic and Antarctic.

penchief
06-03-2006, 07:12 AM
Not entirely. The ice is floating in the glass like most of it is around the world.

Sorry, but I didn't quite clarify my statement. Between the time you responded and the time I edited, my statement is slightly different. My point was that not all the ice is already affecting water levels because not all the ice is already in the oceans.

CHIEF4EVER
06-03-2006, 07:17 AM
Sorry, but I didn't quite clarify my statement. Between the time you responded and the time I edited, my statement is slightly different. My point was that not all the ice is already affecting water levels because not all the ice is already in the oceans.
No prob. That is true. My point is that most of it is and the scaremongers are spreading misinformation based on bad science.

penchief
06-03-2006, 07:18 AM
No prob. That is true. My point is that most of it is and the scaremongers are spreading misinformation based on bad science.

How much of it is not, I wonder? It seems to me that even a small percentage could have a big impact.

CHIEF4EVER
06-03-2006, 07:25 AM
How much of it is not, I wonder? It seems to me that even a small percentage could have a big impact.

The only real problem I could see is local desalination of sea water in the northern portion of the Gulf stream. But that would cause COLDER temperatures in Northern Europe. Look, Al Gore needs his head checked. The warming we are experiencing is normal and expected. It has happened before. It is caused by increased solar activity. It will subside and it will happen again. Example: During the time of Viking discovery, they most assuredly weren't colorblind. Greenland was somewhat green methinks. During the same period, Northern England grew a lot of wine grapes and had since before the Romans landed. They don't now and Greenland isn't green now. It got colder. It is getting warmer again.

jjjayb
06-03-2006, 07:38 AM
These are the same scientists who were telling us we were gonna go through global cooling 30 years ago.

It's not a matter of if we are going to have global cooling or global warming, rather why. Of course we are going to have temperature changes. The earth's temperature has NEVER been constant. With or without man. Did we cause the ice age? What about the warming trend after the Ice age? Who do we blame for that.

"We didn't listen!" :drool:

penchief
06-03-2006, 07:55 AM
Well, it seems like the critics are more certain than the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. All I can say is that I hope you're right. Because if your not................

Seems like caution would be the prudent path. Especially when considering the things we do know about greenhouse gases. But what do I know.

Why are you not equally suspicious of the energy industry which has been exposed for telling lies and stonewalling science? Seems like there ought to be some balance.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-03-2006, 08:00 AM
Well, it seems like the critics are more certain than the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. All I can say is that I hope you're right. Because if your not................

Seems like caution would be the prudent path. Especially when considering the things we do know about greenhouse gases. But what do I know.

Why are you not equally suspicious of the energy industry which has been exposed for telling lies and stonewalling science? Seems like there ought to be some balance.

Because as we all know corporations never lie about the deleterious effects of their products in order to increase sales [/Phillip Morris]

CHIEF4EVER
06-03-2006, 08:01 AM
Well, it seems like the critics are more certain than the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. All I can say is that I hope you're right. Because if your not................

Seems like caution would be the prudent path. Especially when considering the things we do know about greenhouse gases. But what do I know.

Why are you not equally suspicious of the energy industry which has been exposed for telling lies and stonewalling science. Seems like there ought to be some balance.

Do you remember when all the so called experts were bitching about the "hole in the Ozone" and how it was going to get bigger and bigger and crispy fry the world? It disappeared.

tiptap
06-03-2006, 08:22 AM
These are the same scientists who were telling us we were gonna go through global cooling 30 years ago.

It's not a matter of if we are going to have global cooling or global warming, rather why. Of course we are going to have temperature changes. The earth's temperature has NEVER been constant. With or without man. Did we cause the ice age? What about the warming trend after the Ice age? Who do we blame for that.

"We didn't listen!" :drool:

Yes this is true. Technically we are in a interglacial period within an ice age. The length of this particular interglacial period is longer than about any within the last 5 million years. There was an expectation in the middle of the 20th century that the world was getting colder. WWII temperatures and the trend from the 1800 to the middle of the 20th century was downwards. IT WAS AGAINST THIS BACKGROUND EXPECTATION THAT WE REFINED OUR COLLECTION OF DATA AND FOUND THE TEMPERATURES PRECIPITIOUSLY RISING IN THE LAST PART OF THE 20TH CENTURY. This was in contrast to the trend (temperatures were warmer during the middle ages, warmer still during Greek/Roman times and warmer still in ancient Eqypt) that we found over the last millenium. And on an order and quicker than we could expect.

No one and I mean no one disagrees that greenhouse gases makes the earth habital. If there were no greenhouse gases the temperature on earth would be -40 degrees or colder (-40 is the same temperature in Celsius or Farenheit). The fact that we understand this and then dismiss the notion that COtwo increase would not affect temperatures up is absurd. So the next question is COtwo rising the answer is yes. Is the rise do to human activity? Well the amount of COtwo produced by man by gassing, oil burning and concrete curing, main sources from man, is in the billions of tonnes, 10 TIMES THE AMOUNT PRODUCED IN THE SAME YEAR BY ALL VOLCANOES.

Higher temperatures means glacial melting (that does contribute to higher sea levels), ice cap melting (that doesn't), earlier and longer growing seasons, further north growing range, warmer water temperatures, affects on coral growth, temperature depedent depositions. Well all those things are being seen. The temperature rise is real, it is contrary to the trends we should be seeing at the end of an interglacial period of an ice age and it is being driven by human activity.

I don't think this has to be bad. I think we should try to drive the climate away from a real ice age and that would devestate our bedbaskets around the world. But we are doing this in excess as in GLUTTONY. Have you seen a picture of the retiring CEO of EXXON it is a wonderful expression of GLUTTONY and all the lies they put forth all about profit and profit alone.

penchief
06-03-2006, 08:27 AM
Do you remember when all the so called experts were bitching about the "hole in the Ozone" and how it was going to get bigger and bigger and crispy fry the world? It disappeared.

But didn't we make adjustments? We were doing a lot of things that were harmful to the ozone. Many of which we don't do anymore.

Overall the quality of our air and our water has also improved over two plus decades because we adjusted the way we did stuff and we set down guidelines. Many of which are currently under attack by our own government on behalf of their corporate benefactors.

If we had not set down a few environmental laws and decided to regulate industry conduct those improvements would not have been possible. And we may very well have ended up where some cautioned we were headed.

BucEyedPea
06-03-2006, 08:30 AM
I read that the ozone hole is another phenomenom that appears and disappears naturally.

Unless, we're climatologists/scientists, most of us have to rely on other expert's data. Thus, none of us really know. All we know is that there are contrary facts. For, me, I look, at the solution. The solutions tend to be suppressive.

tiptap
06-03-2006, 08:33 AM
Do you remember when all the so called experts were bitching about the "hole in the Ozone" and how it was going to get bigger and bigger and crispy fry the world? It disappeared.

The reason the hole is ameliated is because of the ban of Flourine/freon products in aeresols. It was well known that natural process should produce Ozone up in the atmosphere. The question was why was the Ozone being depleted then. It was a much faster free radical catalyzed chemical reaction between Flourine and Ozone that was overwhelming the Ozone production. The "holes" collected at the poles along magnetic lines (free radicals are charged and have a magnetic componet). So it was human activity that both led to the depletion and now allows for the return of Ozone levels. BUT THAT IS JUST BEGUN. The ozone level is still down from what it was when we first started measurements. Here is direct proof that human activity influenced climate and energy flow in the atmosphere.

tiptap
06-03-2006, 08:42 AM
I read that the ozone hole is another phenomenom that appears and disappears naturally.

Unless, we're climatologists/scientists, most of us have to rely on other expert's data. Thus, none of us really know. All we know is that there are contrary facts. For, me, I look, at the solution. The solutions tend to be suppressive.

Saying something is natural is CRAP. Even natural occuring rhythms have physical reasons. The seasons are natural but the reasons for the seasons is the more direct exposure to the sun in the summer season and less more angular exposure in the winter. That is the reason. Not goddamm natural. That's like saying it is magic. The science behind the Ozone depletion was diagnosed (to use a medical analogy) the science gave a physical reason (free radical catalyzed reduction of ozone to oxygen overwhelming production from ultraviolet induced oxygen to ozone) and the solution was to remove the agent, the release of freon, into the atmosphere and the result is Ozone is holding its own and maybe building. Good news and goddamm not natural.

CHIEF4EVER
06-03-2006, 08:54 AM
I read that the ozone hole is another phenomenom that appears and disappears naturally.

Unless, we're climatologists/scientists, most of us have to rely on other expert's data. Thus, none of us really know. All we know is that there are contrary facts. For, me, I look, at the solution. The solutions tend to be suppressive.

It IS natural. The sun has increased and decreased activity in cycles. And you are right that the solutions tend to be suppressive. We don't need to go overboard every time the sun has a beer fart (please forgive the euphemism).

CHIEF4EVER
06-03-2006, 08:59 AM
The reason the hole is ameliated is because of the ban of Flourine/freon products in aeresols. It was well known that natural process should produce Ozone up in the atmosphere. The question was why was the Ozone being depleted then. It was a much faster free radical catalyzed chemical reaction between Flourine and Ozone that was overwhelming the Ozone production. The "holes" collected at the poles along magnetic lines (free radicals are charged and have a magnetic componet). So it was human activity that both led to the depletion and now allows for the return of Ozone levels. BUT THAT IS JUST BEGUN. The ozone level is still down from what it was when we first started measurements. Here is direct proof that human activity influenced climate and energy flow in the atmosphere.

Horseshit. The reason the hole closed IS natural. The sun had increased flare activity as it always has from time to time. The increase in UV rays increased the amount of ozone in the atmosphere and closed the hole.

tiptap
06-03-2006, 09:05 AM
The limiting factor in Ozone production in the atmosphere is the availability of Oxygen relative to existing Ozone. We can duplicate this process in the laboratory. Anyone with a good understanding of chemistry would see this. As Ozone levels build it reaches a point where the ultraviolet striking the atmosphere produces just as much oxygen to ozone as ozone to oxygen. And the amount of of UV light from the sun doesn't change enough to effect this balance in materials. But the presence of Flouride, more reactive than Oxygen, as a free radical drives the reaction toward Oxygen only and away from Ozone. This too can be demostrated in the laboratory. It is physical, it is real and cannot be just dismissed by saying it is natural, because Flourine doesn't exist naturally as freon products.

redbrian
06-03-2006, 09:13 AM
“If the science of global warming is accurate...”

I didn’t know that there was a single “science” on global warming.

There are a whole bunch of models out there and not one can predict what the temp will be with any degree of accuracy.

tiptap
06-03-2006, 09:19 AM
I need to correct myself, I mistakenly stating that Flourine is the free radical culprit. It is acturally any Halogen like Chlorine, Bromine as such associated with freon compounds that ends up being the catalyst.

And while the effects of solar flares and solar cycles do take place the depletion was in access and without recovery because of the catalytic free radical.

BucEyedPea
06-03-2006, 09:24 AM
Horseshit. The reason the hole closed IS natural. The sun had increased flare activity as it always has from time to time. The increase in UV rays increased the amount of ozone in the atmosphere and closed the hole.

Well, I agree with 'ya! Even other scientists do. Scientists disagree with the other view, make mistakes and can be wrong. Just because they are scientists doesn't make their theories naturally right. You'd think they were high priests. I mean come on. I'd like to add up over history how many theories they got wrong compared to correct.

Scientists can have agenda's or vested interests too: want to create jobs or procure funding for themselves just as much as any other group. And when their politics are socialism or anti-capitalist...watch for that suppressive solution.

tiptap
06-03-2006, 09:26 AM
“If the science of global warming is accurate...”

I didn’t know that there was a single “science” on global warming.

There are a whole bunch of models out there and not one can predict what the temp will be with any degree of accuracy.

So yes, the model is completely accuarate so lets dismiss the physical evidence that the glaciers are melting, the polar cap is dwindling year to year in it cycle, the growing seasons are earlier and longer, the ocean temperatures are warmer, corals are being heated to the point of dying, the northen reaches of growth have increased. And of course the change in the average reading of all the thermometers has increased over 1 degress Farenheit. Sure ignore the trend it is just natural even while the amount of COtwo produced by man in the last 30 years exceeds all we produced up to that point and 10 times greater than from volcanoes each year. yeah yeah NO GLUTTONY THERE.

Lake
06-03-2006, 09:28 AM
The only thing that we can do is allow our current administration to declare war on or most important enemy right now and that is the sun. They should lob bombs made of ice at it until it cools down somewhat.

redbrian
06-03-2006, 09:33 AM
So yes, the model is completely accuarate so lets dismiss the physical evidence that the glaciers are melting, the polar cap is dwindling year to year in it cycle, the growing seasons are earlier and longer, the ocean temperatures are warmer, corals are being heated to the point of dying, the northen reaches of growth have increased. And of course the change in the average reading of all the thermometers has increased over 1 degress Farenheit. Sure ignore the trend it is just natural even while the amount of COtwo produced by man in the last 30 years exceeds all we produced up to that point and 10 times greater than from volcanoes each year. yeah yeah NO GLUTTONY THERE.

Which data sets are you using, not all data supports your claims.

What is your source on the 1 degree claim?

CHIEF4EVER
06-03-2006, 09:47 AM
Well, I agree with 'ya! Even other scientists do. Scientists disagree with the other view, make mistakes and can be wrong. Just because they are scientists doesn't make their theories naturally right. You'd think they were high priests. I mean come on. I'd like to add up over history how many theories they got wrong compared to correct.

Scientists can have agenda's or vested interests too: want to create jobs or procure funding for themselves just as much as any other group. And when their politics are socialism or anti-capitalist...watch for that suppressive solution.

Oh, heck. Those nutballs come in cycles too. You get some pedigreed know-it-all who just got his/her PhD and suddenly they are smarter than all the scientists who came before them. The aliens kidnap Elvis, the world is gonna freeze/burn up, a giant tsunami is going to engulf the entire world if (insert cause here), etc.....ad nauseum. I tend to question these assertions (especially, as you so adroitly put it, when the person making the assertion in question has an axe to grind or wants money).

Adept Havelock
06-03-2006, 09:58 AM
Some people just aren't going to be happy until the biosphere is reduced to grass, ants, and cockroaches. :p

unlurking
06-03-2006, 10:13 AM
...Example: During the time of Viking discovery, they most assuredly weren't colorblind. Greenland was somewhat green methinks...

Actually, I saw a program on Discovery several months ago about Viking expansion/invasion through Europe and N. America. Apparently the name came from a "PR" campain of one clanleader to try and get more people to move there (his discovered domain) rather than to his feudal enemies Iceland.

Thought it was kind of interesting that Karl Rove was around even back then. ;)

banyon
06-03-2006, 10:29 AM
Well here it is again. Bring up global warming and people clutch onto the extreme minority of scientists who disagree as "evidence' that "well, see? scientists are all split on the issue".

I wonder if people have really been conditioned by the mainstream media where they present one side, present the other and sort of shrug their shoulders and say "both sides must be equally valid", no matter how absurd either position may be.

Problem is, science doesn't operate that way. It's empirical, meaning that it is based on probabilities and indctive reasoning. Sure, there are a couple of kooky scientists who don't believe that cigarettes cause cancer. Does that mean everyone should start smoking because both views are equally valid? No of course not, those scientists are bought and paid for.

The overwhelming majority of scientists believe that the Earth is warming up and that humans have played a role in it. The majority of the minority that does not are probably mostly bought and paid for by the industries that have so much to lose (like this commercial).

unlurking
06-03-2006, 10:34 AM
Regardless of who believes in global warming and who doesn't (FTR I do, but a muted sense of the damage), we should all be supporting alternatice fuel sources if for no other reason to "declare our independence" to the ME.

jAZ
06-03-2006, 10:39 AM
Global warming is a joke.
My question wasn't whether you thought GW was a joke. I qualified this with two "ifs". Apply those properly and then lets talk.

There are several different threads on the subject. No need to hijack this one.

jAZ
06-03-2006, 10:45 AM
My question wasn't whether you thought GW was a joke. I qualified this with two "ifs". Apply those properly and then lets talk.

There are several different threads on the subject. No need to hijack this one.
Never mind...

35 posts in, I'm not going to be able to get this sucker on track when it was hijacked from post #2.

I'll start another thread on this topic...

jAZ
06-03-2006, 10:53 AM
Maybe I missed the post, but can someone here who supports the "global warming is horseshit" arguement post a few peer reviewed articles from the last 5 years showing that scientists dispute that

1) the earth is warming, and
2) man has caused this increase through increased levels of CO2 through burning of fossil fuels, and
3) there is a tipping point beyond which there will be some sort of long term change that will impact this country.

I'd like to see those articles.

jAZ
06-03-2006, 10:55 AM
The majority of the minority that does not are probably mostly bought and paid for by the industries that have so much to lose (like this commercial).
Let's get it on record. Who are the these folks, and what are there opinions based upon. And does the scientific community as a whole (any peer reviewed journal will do) accept those methods?

BucEyedPea
06-03-2006, 11:53 AM
Well here it is again. Bring up global warming and people clutch onto the extreme minority of scientists who disagree as "evidence' that "well, see? scientists are all split on the issue".

Extreme minority?

The Oregon Petition has over 17,000 scientist's signatures who disagree.
There is another petition too.

Peer Review is not a perfect system.
It's just agreed upon reality and it could even be another form of authoritarianism or collective thought agreement.

Fact is this stuff is being generated by the UN and it's socialist allies who want supercontrols over individuals and private property, if not a desire to get rid of it altogether.

If anything it's the media that is on the GW bandwagon.

DaneMcCloud
06-03-2006, 11:59 AM
Example: During the time of Viking discovery, they most assuredly weren't colorblind. Greenland was somewhat green methinks. During the same period, Northern England grew a lot of wine grapes and had since before the Romans landed. They don't now and Greenland isn't green now. It got colder. It is getting warmer again.

I was taught that Greenland and Iceland had there respective names reserved to fool suspecting marauders and enemies. I don't think it has anything to do with Global Warming.

banyon
06-03-2006, 12:03 PM
Extreme minority?

The Oregon Petition has over 17,000 scientist's signatures who disagree.
There is another petition too.

17,000? how many scientists do you think there are total? Link to the article ?


Peer Review is not a perfect system.
It's just agreed upon reality and it could even be another form of authoritarianism or collective thought agreement.

Science is and has always been the product of critique and consensus. Not in the initial hypothesising stages, but after there is enough data to make conclusions.

Fact is this stuff is being generated by the UN and it's socialist allies who want supercontrols over individuals and private property, if not a desire to get rid of it altogether.

These are facts? This sounds like comething off the Al Martin Raw website or Alex jones. The U.N. does not employ that many scientists. Most of these conclusions come from research scentists at universities and foundations.

Mr. Laz
06-03-2006, 12:09 PM
i think there is something to global warming


i think the weather is getting more extreme due to the changes in temp. of the water.

i've seen pictures of up north showing land that has been covered by ice for centuries that is now melted and green.


to what extent? i don't know


removing fossil fuels has our primary source of energy solves too many issues (including global warming) to not be considered a top priority for modern day society imo.

banyon
06-03-2006, 12:09 PM
Also I've never heard a very good response to the benefits and risks involved on both sides. I had previously posted this in another thread:


Here's the bottom line:

If you guys are right and it doesn't exist, then at worst some corporations will have to outfit their point sources of pollution with some unnecessary equipment/ techniques, which may impact their bottom line and current profit margins.

If you guys are wrong, then our inaction could lead to some pretty heinous environmental consequences.

I don't know why we shouldn't play it safe and take the @90% of scientists views under advisement.

CHIEF4EVER
06-03-2006, 12:10 PM
I was taught that Greenland and Iceland had there respective names reserved to fool suspecting marauders and enemies. I don't think it has anything to do with Global Warming.

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309093120/html/87.html



Students of geography have long been amused by the account of the naming of Greenland in the medieval sagas. Centuries after the fact, a chronicler in Iceland maintained that the Viking Erik the Red chose the name as a subterfuge in order to entice more would-be settlers from Iceland. But the oxygen isotope evidence in the polar ice offered another explanation. The discovery of Greenland in 982 came “at the end of a warm period longer than any that has occurred since,” Dansgaard reported. The name Greenland at that time “probably described a reality…. So, the drastic climatic change late in the ninth century may be part of the reason why Iceland and Greenland did not get the opposite names, which would have been more natural had they been discovered simultaneously.” No doubt, the cold fourteenth century marked “the beginning of the tragic end,” he wrote, although the reasons for the abandonment of the Western Settlement around 1350 and the disappearance of the Norse people from the Eastern Settlement a century later were not clear. The oxygen isotope curve “suggests that the climate became so cold in the fourteenth century that years of famine must have occurred frequently, as was the case in Iceland, particularly in the 1370s.

BucEyedPea
06-03-2006, 12:11 PM
banyon, I posted the link in an earlier thread here if you want it ...not too long ago. Go check it out.

My point is that there is no consensus.
(BTW, How may support the dire theories of global warming?)
and
Consensus is not necessarily the truth, can block it ( have own vested interests which can include ego or repute) and often many things unaccepted at first eventually do as examples that it is not always true. It's cultural lag.

Benefits?
There is a very slight warming based on what I've read and it's actually beneficial to the planet not dire. It makes growing seasons longer whicih cna feed more people and less winter fuel needed. But it's a natural phenomenom per the same sources.

jAZ
06-03-2006, 12:13 PM
17,000? how many scientists do you think there are total? Link to the article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

The petition and its covering letter have been criticised [1].

The text of the petition is often misrepresented by its proponents as, for example, "over 17,000 scientists declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis" [2] whereas the petition itself only speaks of catastrophic warming. Further, the covering letter, written in the style of a contribution to PNAS, sent with the petition was strongly criticised as "designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review,” (Raymond Pierrehumbert, atmospheric chemist at the University of Chicago). The National Academy of Sciences issued a statement that the petition had nothing to do with them.

As with the Leipzig declaration, the qualifications of the signatories, and their agreement with the stated contents have been questioned. The Scientific American took a sample of signatories and reported

Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition—one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.

BucEyedPea
06-03-2006, 12:16 PM
I've actually already studied and read the challenges to the two petitions.
Here is a case where I think wikipedia's bias comes in. They are not an authority. Wikipedia compiles from individuals compiling just like you and I. In fact I've seen them remove stuff they refuse to acknowledge. I even saw an arugment about it their site for promoting one view. They banned the person.

It's just someone else's opinion that those signatures are invalid.

banyon
06-03-2006, 12:37 PM
Just out of curiosity I pulled my 1998 Statistical Abstract of the United States off the bookshelf.

It says that , as of 1997, there were approximately 529,000 people who were employed as "Natural Scientists" excluding biochemists and University Professors (many of whom who no doubt also qualify as scientists).

jAZ
06-03-2006, 12:45 PM
I've actually already studied and read the challenges to the two petitions.
Here is a case where I think wikipedia's bias comes in. They are not an authority. Wikipedia compiles from individuals compiling just like you and I. In fact I've seen them remove stuff they refuse to acknowledge. I even saw an arugment about it their site for promoting one view. They banned the person.

It's just someone else's opinion that those signatures are invalid.
You do understand that the quote/survey in question is from Scientific American, right?

DaneMcCloud
06-03-2006, 12:57 PM
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309093120/html/87.html



Students of geography have long been amused by the account of the naming of Greenland in the medieval sagas. Centuries after the fact, a chronicler in Iceland maintained that the Viking Erik the Red chose the name as a subterfuge in order to entice more would-be settlers from Iceland. But the oxygen isotope evidence in the polar ice offered another explanation. The discovery of Greenland in 982 came “at the end of a warm period longer than any that has occurred since,” Dansgaard reported. The name Greenland at that time “probably described a reality…. So, the drastic climatic change late in the ninth century may be part of the reason why Iceland and Greenland did not get the opposite names, which would have been more natural had they been discovered simultaneously.” No doubt, the cold fourteenth century marked “the beginning of the tragic end,” he wrote, although the reasons for the abandonment of the Western Settlement around 1350 and the disappearance of the Norse people from the Eastern Settlement a century later were not clear. The oxygen isotope curve “suggests that the climate became so cold in the fourteenth century that years of famine must have occurred frequently, as was the case in Iceland, particularly in the 1370s.

It doesn't state this as fact. It just says there could be another explanation. The word "probably" is used in there as well, so it's difficult for me to believe that it's anything other than speculation.

patteeu
06-03-2006, 01:00 PM
Well, it seems like the critics are more certain than the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. All I can say is that I hope you're right. Because if your not................

Seems like caution would be the prudent path. Especially when considering the things we do know about greenhouse gases. But what do I know.

Why are you not equally suspicious of the energy industry which has been exposed for telling lies and stonewalling science? Seems like there ought to be some balance.

How much caution is prudent? Should we be cautious at a Ted Kaczynski level where we deindustrialize and revert to the stone age? If not, why not?

banyon
06-03-2006, 01:25 PM
How much caution is prudent? Should we be cautious at a Ted Kaczynski level where we deindustrialize and revert to the stone age? If not, why not?


Obviously some lesser level than the extreme. But more caution than the current "head in the sand' methodology.

patteeu
06-03-2006, 01:28 PM
Also I've never heard a very good response to the benefits and risks involved on both sides. I had previously posted this in another thread:


Looking at this through a cost vs. benefit lens makes a lot of sense. The problem is that the costs and benefits themselves are at least as unclear as the science involved in whether, why, and how much this is happening and probably more so.

Everyone would agree that almost any cost would be worth it to avoid a catastrophic result (e.g. extinction of man), but how likely is it that the problem we are facing is really catastrophic on that level. What if we are only facing a 10% increase in weather related deaths and expenses from current levels? If that were the case, the cost we are willing to suffer to avoid those results will be much smaller.

Let's assume that there are real problems ahead as a result of man made global warming. Let's assume that the severity of those problems is whatever you imagine them to be based on your own personal knowledge of this subject. How much of a reduction in global economic growth are you willing to suffer to avoid those problems (whatever they are)? As a US citizen, how much US economic growth are you willing to suffer to avoid those problems?

jAZ
06-03-2006, 01:31 PM
Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition—one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition...
A few facts:

1) This 17,000 list is filled with lots of people who's opinions on the matter mean nothing. How many "MD"s were there exactly?
2) The petition itself was based upon an article that was NOT peer reviewed
3) The petition itself was circulated nearly a DECADE ago
4) According to SA's sampling

a) only 1400 of the 17000 signers claimed to work in climate science
b) 40% of those sampled still hold their beliefs, only 3 of those had the climate experience that they had claimed in the original petition.
c) They estimate 200 of the 17,000 have meaningful experience and still support the view today (that view being *catastrophic* climate change)

CHIEF4EVER
06-03-2006, 02:00 PM
It doesn't state this as fact. It just says there could be another explanation. The word "probably" is used in there as well, so it's difficult for me to believe that it's anything other than speculation.

Yea, don't let that pesky scientific measurement of o2 isotopes get in the way either......:rolleyes:

tiptap
06-03-2006, 03:13 PM
With all the physical indications that temperatures are rising, the artic ice cap retreat, the melting of glacial ice world wide (excepting one ice field in Argentina), the death of coral colonies due to heat stress, the earlier and longer growing season, the northward migration of artic plant life, the rise in the ocean levels (quite, quite small right now but measureable), the measurement in the change in temperature reading world wide both in the water and on land, IS IT JUST AS RADICAL TO DO NOTHING. One of the classical psychological aspects of Economics is that people tend to stick with a position long after it is viable. Jaz has asked for the indications, the data sets that indicate the temperature is going down. Data sets that are inconclusive are not valid. This is why.

One of the early attacks on the data for Global Warming out of Harvard was the collection of data sets that were inconclusive drawn from the total set that indicated 95% confidence level. Well it turn out that the Harvard Squad cherry picked exactly the 5% of the studies that were inconclusive JUST LIKE THE STATISTICS WOULD INDICATE WOULD BE THERE. If this was just statistical or wrong there has to be just as large a group of data sets indicating the temperature is going down. WHERE ARE THOSE DATA SETS. Where are those findings. I gave you one place, Argentina (I would argue it is due to unique topology) but where is the equal number or least quantity of studies indicating the temperatures are going down

BucEyedPea
06-03-2006, 03:22 PM
Just out of curiosity I pulled my 1998 Statistical Abstract of the United States off the bookshelf.

It says that , as of 1997, there were approximately 529,000 people who were employed as "Natural Scientists" excluding biochemists and University Professors (many of whom who no doubt also qualify as scientists).

How many are climatologists?
How many out of all of those, support the idea that GW is so bad that it's disastrous or that it is caused by man?
How many have read both sides?
How many are socialists?

jaz, It doesn't matter to me if it's Scientic American. That's a call based on authority. I'm not saying authorities are always wrong or not useful, but it's not perfect. People thought the world was flat at one time, except for some. Dr. Semmelweis was ridiculed by his peers during his time. This happens. Time mag is considered credible to many, but had both Mussolini and Hitler on their cover in the 1930's as "Man of the Year." Who is credible to whom comes down to opinion. Once again, I'd like to see a study compiling scientific theories as having turned out to be true or false.

Since none of us are "experts" it comes down to what authorities or experts one believes. I'm a doubter because of the people advancing this theory and their solution. I believe there is some warming, that it is not dire, and that it is largely natural. What I believe is dire are the solutions.

CHIEF4EVER
06-03-2006, 03:41 PM
With all the physical indications that temperatures are rising, the artic ice cap retreat, the melting of glacial ice world wide (excepting one ice field in Argentina), the death of coral colonies due to heat stress, the earlier and longer growing season, the northward migration of artic plant life, the rise in the ocean levels (quite, quite small right now but measureable), the measurement in the change in temperature reading world wide both in the water and on land, IS IT JUST AS RADICAL TO DO NOTHING. One of the classical psychological aspects of Economics is that people tend to stick with a position long after it is viable. Jaz has asked for the indications, the data sets that indicate the temperature is going down. Data sets that are inconclusive are not valid. This is why.

One of the early attacks on the data for Global Warming out of Harvard was the collection of data sets that were inconclusive drawn from the total set that indicated 95% confidence level. Well it turn out that the Harvard Squad cherry picked exactly the 5% of the studies that were inconclusive JUST LIKE THE STATISTICS WOULD INDICATE WOULD BE THERE. If this was just statistical or wrong there has to be just as large a group of data sets indicating the temperature is going down. WHERE ARE THOSE DATA SETS. Where are those findings. I gave you one place, Argentina (I would argue it is due to unique topology) but where is the equal number or least quantity of studies indicating the temperatures are going downSir, it is quite easy to dismiss the Harvard findings (those are pretty stupid people after all) out of hand. Show me where they cherrypicked 5% of the findings (some reputable nonpartisan data please). Also, noone ever said the temps are going down; just that Global warming isn't due to man made causes. These solar fluctuations have been happening for some time and will continue to do so. The worldwide temps have been rising but not because of man made causes. Lastly, ocean levels have been rising since the early 19th century. We didn't burn a heckuva lot of fossil fuel during the 19th century. Care to explain that?

jAZ
06-03-2006, 04:25 PM
I'm a doubter because of the people advancing this theory and their solution. I believe there is some warming, that it is not dire, and that it is largely natural. What I believe is dire are the solutions.
Have you read anything credible to support this anywhere? Or are you simply rejecting global warming because of the politics of the matter?

jAZ
06-03-2006, 04:39 PM
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climateuncertainties.html

Like many fields of scientific study, there are uncertainties associated with the science of global warming. This does not imply that all things are equally uncertain. Some aspects of the science are based on well-known physical laws and documented trends, while other aspects range from 'near certainty' to 'big unknowns.'


What's Known for Certain?
Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented. There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities.

It's well accepted by scientists that greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and tend to warm the planet. By increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, human activities are strengthening Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The key greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries.

A warming trend of about 1°F has been recorded since the late 19th century. Warming has occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and over the oceans. Confirmation of 20th-century global warming is further substantiated by melting glaciers, decreased snow cover in the northern hemisphere and even warming below ground.


What's Likely but not Certain?
Figuring out to what extent the human-induced accumulation of greenhouse gases since pre-industrial times is responsible for the global warming trend is not easy. This is because other factors, both natural and human, affect our planet's temperature. Scientific understanding of these other factors – most notably natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, and the cooling effects of pollutant aerosols – remains incomplete.

Nevertheless, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated there was a "discernible" human influence on climate; and that the observed warming trend is "unlikely to be entirely natural in origin." In the most recent Third Assessment Report (2001), IPCC wrote "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

In short, scientists think rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to global warming, as would be expected; but to what extent is difficult to determine at the present time.

As atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases continue to rise, scientists estimate average global temperatures will continue to rise as a result. By how much and how fast remain uncertain. IPCC projects further global warming of 2.2-10°F (1.4-5.8°C) by the year 2100. This range results from uncertainties in greenhouse gas emissions, the possible cooling effects of atmospheric particles such as sulfates, and the climate's response to changes in the atmosphere.

The IPCC states that even the low end of this warming projection "would probably be greater than any seen in the last 10,000 years, but the actual annual to decadal changes would include considerable natural variability."


What are the Big Unknowns?
Scientists have identified that our health, agriculture, water resources, forests, wildlife and coastal areas are vulnerable to the changes that global warming may bring. But projecting what the exact impacts will be over the 21st century remains very difficult. This is especially true when one asks how a local region will be affected.

Scientists are more confident about their projections for large-scale areas (e.g., global temperature and precipitation change, average sea level rise) and less confident about the ones for small-scale areas (e.g., local temperature and precipitation changes, altered weather patterns, soil moisture changes). This is largely because the computer models used to forecast global climate change are still ill-equipped to simulate how things may change at smaller scales. [See the U.S. Climate section for more detail on climate models.]

Some of the largest uncertainties are associated with events that pose the greatest risk to human societies. IPCC cautions, "Complex systems, such as the climate system, can respond in non-linear ways and produce surprises." There is the possibility that a warmer world could lead to more frequent and intense storms, including hurricanes. Preliminary evidence suggests that, once hurricanes do form, they will be stronger if the oceans are warmer due to global warming. However, the jury is still out whether or not hurricanes and other storms will become more frequent.

More and more attention is being aimed at the possible link between El Niño events – the periodic warming of the equatorial Pacific Ocean – and global warming. Scientists are concerned that the accumulation of greenhouse gases could inject enough heat into Pacific waters such that El Niño events become more frequent and fierce. Here too, research has not advanced far enough to provide conclusive statements about how global warming will affect El Niño.


Living with Uncertainty
Like many pioneer fields of research, the current state of global warming science can't always provide definitive answers to our questions. There is certainty that human activities are rapidly adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and that these gases tend to warm our planet. This is the basis for concern about global warming.

The fundamental scientific uncertainties are these: How much more warming will occur? How fast will this warming occur? And what are the potential adverse and beneficial effects? These uncertainties will be with us for some time, perhaps decades.

Global warming poses real risks. The exact nature of these risks remains uncertain. Ultimately, this is why we have to use our best judgement – guided by the current state of science – to determine what the most appropriate response to global warming should be.

jAZ
06-03-2006, 04:43 PM
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/impacts.html

Impacts
Rising global temperatures are expected to raise sea level, and change precipitation and other local climate conditions. Changing regional climate could alter forests, crop yields, and water supplies. It could also affect human health, animals, and many types of ecosystems. Deserts may expand into existing rangelands, and features of some of our National Parks may be permanently altered.

Most of the United States is expected to warm, although sulfates may limit warming in some areas. Scientists currently are unable to determine which parts of the United States will become wetter or drier, but there is likely to be an overall trend toward increased precipitation and evaporation, more intense rainstorms, and drier soils.

Unfortunately, many of the potentially most important impacts depend upon whether rainfall increases or decreases, which can not be reliably projected for specific areas.

jAZ
06-03-2006, 04:48 PM
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climate.html

Climate

An Introduction
According to the National Academy of Sciences, the Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, with accelerated warming during the past two decades. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Human activities have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases – primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The heat-trapping property of these gases is undisputed although uncertainties exist about exactly how earth’s climate responds to them. Go to the Emissions section for much more on greenhouse gases.

Our Changing Atmosphere
Energy from the sun drives the earth’s weather and climate, and heats the earth’s surface; in turn, the earth radiates energy back into space. Atmospheric greenhouse gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other gases) trap some of the outgoing energy, retaining heat somewhat like the glass panels of a greenhouse.

Without this natural “greenhouse effect,” temperatures would be much lower than they are now, and life as known today would not be possible. Instead, thanks to greenhouse gases, the earth’s average temperature is a more hospitable 60°F. However, problems may arise when the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases increases.

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased nearly 30%, methane concentrations have more than doubled, and nitrous oxide concentrations have risen by about 15%. These increases have enhanced the heat-trapping capability of the earth’s atmosphere. Sulfate aerosols, a common air pollutant, cool the atmosphere by reflecting light back into space; however, sulfates are short-lived in the atmosphere and vary regionally.

Why are greenhouse gas concentrations increasing? Scientists generally believe that the combustion of fossil fuels and other human activities are the primary reason for the increased concentration of carbon dioxide. Plant respiration and the decomposition of organic matter release more than 10 times the CO2 released by human activities; but these releases have generally been in balance during the centuries leading up to the industrial revolution with carbon dioxide absorbed by terrestrial vegetation and the oceans.

What has changed in the last few hundred years is the additional release of carbon dioxide by human activities. Fossil fuels burned to run cars and trucks, heat homes and businesses, and power factories are responsible for about 98% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, 24% of methane emissions, and 18% of nitrous oxide emissions. Increased agriculture, deforestation, landfills, industrial production, and mining also contribute a significant share of emissions. In 1997, the United States emitted about one-fifth of total global greenhouse gases.

Estimating future emissions is difficult, because it depends on demographic, economic, technological, policy, and institutional developments. Several emissions scenarios have been developed based on differing projections of these underlying factors. For example, by 2100, in the absence of emissions control policies, carbon dioxide concentrations are projected to be 30-150% higher than today’s levels.


Changing Climate
Global mean surface temperatures have increased 0.5-1.0°F since the late 19th century. The 20th century's 10 warmest years all occurred in the last 15 years of the century. Of these, 1998 was the warmest year on record. The snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere and floating ice in the Arctic Ocean have decreased. Globally, sea level has risen 4-8 inches over the past century. Worldwide precipitation over land has increased by about one percent. The frequency of extreme rainfall events has increased throughout much of the United States.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/550d4b46b29f68a6852568660081f938/85256d7a00686a5a85256bfe0057a2be/Body/0.154A!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif

Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change. Scientists expect that the average global surface temperature could rise 1-4.5°F (0.6-2.5°C) in the next fifty years, and 2.2-10°F (1.4-5.8°C) in the next century, with significant regional variation. Evaporation will increase as the climate warms, which will increase average global precipitation. Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions, and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. Sea level is likely to rise two feet along most of the U.S. coast.

Calculations of climate change for specific areas are much less reliable than global ones, and it is unclear whether regional climate will become more variable.

banyon
06-03-2006, 05:52 PM
How many are climatologists?

How many in the Oregon Petition are Climatologists? According the the study posted earlier only about 200, and their opinions were split.


How many out of all of those, support the idea that GW is so bad that it's disastrous or that it is caused by man?

Most support the latter question, or at least believe than man is a contributor to the phenomenon. Few support the former question, because it is stated in alarmist fashion and scientists, despite the way they are portrayed in film, are not wont to be alarmists. But that's really the point isn't it? Is it time for action, or should we maintain the status quo? Most scientists and countries, besides this one believe it is time to act.

How many have read both sides?
Probably the vast majority or they would be extremely sloppy. Of course "the other side" is really just people being skeptical of the prevailing view. Scientists should always be seeing the data with a critical eye, so it really should encompass all of them.

How many are socialists?.

Probably very few, unless we are using your definitions. :)

tiptap
06-03-2006, 06:03 PM
Sir, it is quite easy to dismiss the Harvard findings (those are pretty stupid people after all) out of hand. Show me where they cherrypicked 5% of the findings (some reputable nonpartisan data please). Also, noone ever said the temps are going down; just that Global warming isn't due to man made causes. These solar fluctuations have been happening for some time and will continue to do so. The worldwide temps have been rising but not because of man made causes. Lastly, ocean levels have been rising since the early 19th century. We didn't burn a heckuva lot of fossil fuel during the 19th century. Care to explain that?

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=348723
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s1010328.htm

I guess those who think economics, and free markets, at that are most important, that money is everything. Well I guess you'll win. Certainly uncertainity should drive our thinking. There is no connection between COtwo and the temperature on earth. If we got rid of COtwo the temperature on earth would be just the same. Adding COtwo therefore has no positive tendency in driving temperatures. This is what you are saying. No, no scientist thinks that COtwo doesn't affect temperatures positively. They might think that there are other factors which mitigate the positive effect. (I do too, the particulate discharge from power plants helps seed clouds which then reflect sun energy. And contrary to your notion that the solar energy has been increasing hitting the ground, it has actually been dropping. Called Global Dimming it is supported by world wide water recovery studies of 100 years and Solar measurements at surface for 50 years and dramatically verified during the flighless days after 9/11. This means that the positive effect of COtwo has been UNDER represented in modeling systems masked by Global Dimming). So what is the physical reason that it is getting warmer. Saying it is natural is not an answer, saying the sun is increasing its output over the last 100 years is flat out wrong http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html
and the amount of energy reaching the surface has fallen. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3310_sun.html
That only leaves less energy leaving earth in order to increase the temperature. The prime blanket are the greenhouse gases. If not them then what?

Logical
06-03-2006, 06:37 PM
I recommend everyone read State of Fear (not for the fiction which is ok) for the data and factual references spread throughout it. I was impressed with the data collected, it sure puts a plausible amount of doubt in the theory of global warming. It seems the data creating doubt about what we know as significant and points constantly to the conclusion is that the theory is far to reliant on simulations which can have error in the 100s of percentage points based on faulty assumptions.

banyon
06-03-2006, 07:05 PM
Scientists Say Arctic Once Was Tropical
http://img.viacomlocalnetworks.com/images_sizedimage_041130318/lg
(AP) WASHINGTON Scientists have found what might have been the ideal ancient vacation hotspot with a 74-degree Fahrenheit average temperature, alligator ancestors and palm trees. It's smack in the middle of the Arctic.

First-of-its-kind core samples dug up from deep beneath the Arctic Ocean floor show that 55 million years ago an area near the North Pole was practically a subtropical paradise, three new studies show.

The scientists say their findings are a glimpse backward into a much warmer-than-thought polar region heated by run-amok greenhouse gases that came about naturally.

Skeptics of man-made causes of global warming have nothing to rejoice over, however. The researchers say their studies appearing in Thursday's issue of Nature also offer a peak at just how bad conditions can get.

"It probably was (a tropical paradise) but the mosquitoes were probably the size of your head," said Yale geology professor Mark Pagani, a study co-author.

And what a watery, swampy world it must have been.

"Imagine a world where there are dense sequoia trees and cypress trees like in Florida that ring the Arctic Ocean," said Pagani, a member of the multinational Arctic Coring Expedition that conducted the research.

Millions of years ago the Earth experienced an extended period of natural global warming. But around 55 million years ago there was a sudden supercharged spike of carbon dioxide that accelerated the greenhouse effect.

Scientists already knew this "thermal event" happened but are not sure what caused it. Perhaps massive releases of methane from the ocean, the continent-sized burning of trees, lots of volcanic eruptions.

Many experts figured that while the rest of the world got really hot, the polar regions were still comfortably cooler, maybe about 52 degrees Fahrenheit.

But the new research found the polar average was closer to 74 degrees. So instead of Boston-like weather year-round, the Arctic was more like Miami North. Way north.

"It's the first time we've looked at the Arctic, and man, it was a big surprise to us," said study co-author Kathryn Moran, an oceanographer at the University of Rhode Island. "It's a new look to how the Earth can respond to these peaks in carbon dioxide."

It's enough to make Santa Claus break into a sweat.

The 74-degree temperature, based on core samples which act as a climatic time capsule, was probably the year-round average, but because data is so limited it might also be just the summertime average, researchers said.

What's troubling is that this hints that future projections for warming, several degrees over the next century, may be on the low end, said study lead author Appy Sluijs of the Institute of Environmental Biology at Utrecht University in the Netherlands.

Also it shows that what happened 55 million years ago was proof that too much carbon dioxide — more than four times current levels — can cause global warming, said another co-author Henk Brinkhuis at Utrecht University.

Purdue University atmospheric sciences professor Gabriel Bowen, who was not part of the team, praised the work and said it showed that "there are tipping points in our (climate) system that can throw us to these conditions."

And the new research also gave scientists the idea that a simple fern may have helped pull Earth from a hothouse to an icehouse by sucking up massive amounts of carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, this natural solution to global warming was not exactly quick: It took about a million years.

With all that heat and massive freshwater lakes forming in the Arctic, a fern called Azolla started growing and growing. Azolla, still found in warm regions today, grew so deep, so wide that eventually it started sucking up carbon dioxide, Brinkhuis theorized. And that helped put the cool back in the Arctic.

Bowen said he has a hard time accepting that part of the research, but Brinkhuis said the studies show tons upon tons of thick mats of Azolla covered the Arctic and moved south.

"This could actually contribute to push the world to a cooling mode," Brinkhuis said, but only after it got hotter first and then it would take at least 800,000 years to cool back down. It's not something to look forward to, he said.

link (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060531-125343-9844r.htm)

BucEyedPea
06-03-2006, 08:06 PM
Global Warming: The Origin & Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus (http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html)

Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology makes his case here on the science on GW being politically motivated. Let’s face it you don’t get funding if you don’t toe the line. He gives specific examples here. According to this, it mainly environmental activists NOT scientists that are making the most noise about these claims.

He also shows how industry actually benefits, in other words, makes more money by getting on the GW environmental regulation bandwagon. Govt agencies can also exploit the issue for their own benefit, to get funding such as NASA, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy. This is another reason why I have a problem with govt funded science.

Lastly this issue is perfect for those with other agendas such as the desire to create an egalitarian society, dissatisfaction with industrial society, increased govt power etc. etc. The solutions prevent the creation of wealth that could raise the standard of living for many in the world while simultaneously helping us to deal with real environmental threats. The ordinary person loses the most.

This is a great read and gives the real cast of characters in this controversy as well as the truth behind their own petitions which have mainly been signed, not by real climatologists but only a few in the world of meteorology. So it is NOT all scientists. They rely on the rhetorical trick of demogogues—the sweeping generality.


For specifics too long to post, see section under:

Consensus and Current (Popular) Vision

BucEyedPea
06-03-2006, 08:17 PM
banyon,
Now I'm surprised at you:
"Scientists Say Arctic Once Was Tropical
Scientists...
Scientists...
researchers...
many..."

Hardly a name? Hardly any specific who's?
Just a geology professor Mark Pagani? Wtf?

How can you build a case on that? :huh:

banyon
06-03-2006, 08:22 PM
Wow Buc, you had to go back to 1992 to find a paper that looks sufficiently expert-ish?

Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen

banyon
06-03-2006, 08:23 PM
banyon,
Now I'm surprised at you:
"Scientists Say Arctic Once Was Tropical
Scientists...
Scientists...
researchers...
many..."

Hardly a name? Hardly any specific who's?
Just a geology professor Mark Pagani? Wtf?

How can you build a case on that? :huh:

Funny. :) I didn't and I aint. I just thought maybe it would spark discussion. It's sort of on your side anyway.

jAZ
06-03-2006, 08:32 PM
Wow Buc, you had to go back to 1992 to find a paper that looks sufficiently expert-ish?
From a guy who as recently as 2001 admitted that "global mean temperature is about 0.6 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago" (http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Lindzen/canadian_reactions_to_sir_david_king.html).

BucEyedPea
06-03-2006, 08:33 PM
Jaz,
Your chart does needs to go back further in time.
It was round about the end of the last ice age, some 13,000 years ago, that a global warming process began. I know you can say such was not measured at some point but there are some records that indicate this. For instance there were journals by people at the time, noting a warming period at one point in medieval times that created more crops and food whereas there was times when it cooled and there wasn’t enough grown.

I know this is a wee bit early...just a wee bit. I couldn't find the other chart I use to use.

http://www.scotese.com/images/globaltemp.jpg

BucEyedPea
06-03-2006, 08:35 PM
From a guy who as recently as 2001 admitted that "global mean temperature is about 0.6 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago" (http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Lindzen/canadian_reactions_to_sir_david_king.html).

That doesn't prove anything. He dates events pretty well showing the early development of this alleged "consensus" and it began in the 1980's. Historical record matters.

BucEyedPea
06-03-2006, 08:37 PM
From Science Daily:
Has Nat’l Geographic Link
Global Warming Natural, May End Within 20 Years, Says Ohio State University Researcher (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/06/010615071248.htm)

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/11/26/1101219743320.html] ( [url) Global Warming Skeptics [/url]

That better, Daddy? lambs

jAZ
06-03-2006, 08:38 PM
Hardly a name? Hardly any specific who's?
Just a geology professor Mark Pagani? Wtf?
Wouldn't you better serve the discussion to actually look into the guys background rather than just cast implicit dismissals of the person based upon the fact that you don't know who he is?

Google's first link...

http://geology.yale.edu/people/moreinfo.cgi?netid=mp364

My Research : Paleoclimatology, paleoceanography, evolution of atmospheric carbon dioxide, organic geochemistry, biogeochemistry

BucEyedPea
06-03-2006, 08:43 PM
How many in the Oregon Petition are Climatologists? According the the study posted earlier only about 200, and their opinions were split.

Well the petition from your side, per that MIT article, had only a handful.
Checkmate.


Most support the latter question, or at least believe than man is a contributor to the phenomenon. Few support the former question, because it is stated in alarmist fashion and scientists, despite the way they are portrayed in film, are not wont to be alarmists. But that's really the point isn't it? Is it time for action, or should we maintain the status quo? Most scientists and countries, besides this one believe it is time to act.
Who are they?


Probably the vast majority or they would be extremely sloppy. Of course "the other side" is really just people being skeptical of the prevailing view. Scientists should always be seeing the data with a critical eye, so it really should encompass all of them.

Who is "they?"

Come on, you're the lawyer....

jAZ
06-03-2006, 08:45 PM
That doesn't prove anything. He dates events pretty well showing the early development of this alleged "consensus" and it began in the 1980's. Historical record matters.
I thought you had suggested that GW flatly wasn't happening, but I re-read your post, and you suggest it's "slight". So it seems you do not need any correction on that issue from the person you were relying upon (as I had thought).

jAZ
06-03-2006, 08:47 PM
Checkmate.
Word of advice...

Never get so arrogant in a discussion like this that you declare victory like this. You are just begging for someone to make you look stupid, which in your case is avoidable as you are not stupid.

BucEyedPea
06-03-2006, 08:48 PM
Wouldn't you better serve the discussion to actually look into the guys background rather than just cast implicit dismissals of the person based upon the fact that you don't know who he is?

Google's first link...

http://geology.yale.edu/people/moreinfo.cgi?netid=mp364

My Research : Paleoclimatology, paleoceanography, evolution of atmospheric carbon dioxide, organic geochemistry, biogeochemistry

I go by what the poster's article states. Then that person can refute it further as a defense.

But come to think of it...there is no meteorolgy in his background. Wtf? You know how brutal a meteorology degree is. Atmospheric physics is tough. My brother studied it. So this guy studied "paleo" and "evolution." Seems the MIT guy is more qualified.

BucEyedPea
06-03-2006, 08:51 PM
Word of advice...

Never get so arrogant in a discussion like this that you declare victory like this. You are just begging for someone to make you look stupid, which in your case is avoidable as you are not stupid.
jaz,
The reason I had you on ignore for awhile was because you debate the poster.
I don't think that is right. Let each individual decide for themselves who looks stupid. That was to that specific point that he challenged earlier when I asked for specifics.

And I was just having fun with banyon...and got a laugh out of it.
Lighten up a bit...it's just a discussion not a war.

BucEyedPea
06-03-2006, 08:56 PM
I thought you had suggested that GW flatly wasn't happening, but I re-read your post, and you suggest it's "slight". So it seems you do not need any correction on that issue from the person you were relying upon (as I had thought).
That is correct. What I disagree with is that there is a "consensus" on it being a catastrophic dooms-day phenomenom as do the scientists in those petition I cited. I also believe there is evidence it is natural. I also disagree with some of the drastic solutions based on the doomsday scenario.

jAZ
06-03-2006, 08:57 PM
From Science Daily:
Has Nat’l Geographic Link
Global Warming Natural, May End Within 20 Years, Says Ohio State University Researcher (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/06/010615071248.htm)
Do you realize that Essenhigh's article is an op-ed ("viewpoint") article, and not the outcome of peer-reviewed research? Even he asks for crtics to review it "If there are flaws in these propositions, I'm listening... But if there are objections, let's have them with the numbers." He does deserve credit for making an honest effort. That's what's needed.

But we still need even a single example of peer-reviewed published research from the last 5 years that disputes that

1) the earth is warming, and
2) man has caused this increase through increased levels of CO2 through burning of fossil fuels, and
3) there is a tipping point beyond which there will be some sort of long term change that will impact this country.

BucEyedPea
06-03-2006, 09:00 PM
Do you realize that Essenhigh's article is an op-ed ("viewpoint") article, and not the outcome of peer-reviewed research? Even he asks for crtics to review it "If there are flaws in these propositions, I'm listening... But if there are objections, let's have them with the numbers." He does deserve credit for making an honest effort. That's what's needed.

But we still need even a single example of peer-reviewed published research from the last 5 years that disputes that

1) the earth is warming, and
2) man has caused this increase through increased levels of CO2 through burning of fossil fuels, and
3) there is a tipping point beyond which there will be some sort of long term change that will impact this country.


I only put that up to show that some scientist do disagree.
I'm challenging this idea of consensus don't forget.

I also think the MIT article makes the best case, at least as far as it covers that point, about the so called "consensus"....and some of the things that are happeing to "peer reveiw." IOW's these same peers do get subject to political pressures and a collective-thought agreement mentality.

jAZ
06-03-2006, 09:02 PM
That is correct. What I disagree with is that there is a "consensus" on it being a catastrophic dooms-day phenomenom as do the scientists in those petition I cited. I also believe there is evidence it is natural. I also disagree with some of the drastic solutions based on the doomsday scenario.
I hope you aren't disputing that there is a "consensus" ("general agreement") viewpoint on this issue within the science community. The FACT is that there IS a concensus. That's not to say that there isn't a minority viewpoint on any subject that has "consensus". There will always be.

You seem to accept the minority view point, based upon your political agenda (no regulations), rather than persuasive peer-reviewed science from your own side.

BucEyedPea
06-03-2006, 09:06 PM
Where did I say I believed in "no regulations?"

I do, however, disagree that there is a "consensus" among scientists including the ones most qualified and/or with no strings to a political agenda...or even without some of these qualifiers. I think it's hype. I don't see that my view is in the minority amongst this group. I've asked for specifics to see the other view. I haven't got any.

As far as the "popular" view goes...I agree with you. But I feel that is due to major media pumping the same view. Don't forget they are corporate owned.


and that happens to be my opinion on this matter.

jAZ
06-03-2006, 09:08 PM
I go by what the poster's article states. Then that person can refute it further as a defense.

But come to think of it...there is no meteorolgy in his background. Wtf? You know how brutal a meteorology degree is. Atmospheric physics is tough. My brother studied it. So this guy studied "paleo" and "evolution." Seems the MIT guy is more qualified.
Did you miss "Paleoclimatology"... his article is about climates 55 million years ago. You are pitting 2 different people against each other as if it's necessary to pick one over the other. It's a false choice. They are each experts in their fields (which are not the same fields).

BucEyedPea
06-03-2006, 09:11 PM
I did not miss it. Still, even with that...meteorology is more extensive from what I know about it because my daughter was expressing an interest in that area. When I looked into it I was suprised at how tough it is.

BucEyedPea
06-03-2006, 09:15 PM
Okay I looked it up:
"Paleoclimatology is the study of past climate, for times prior to instrumental weather measurements. Paleoclimatologists use clues from natural "proxy" sources such as tree rings, ice cores, corals, and ocean and lake sediments to understand natural climate variability."

That is not anything near atmospheric physics and the math a meteorologist studies. It's a brutal science program. I could do that paleoclimatology.

jAZ
06-03-2006, 09:15 PM
I did not miss it. Still, even with that...meteorology is more extensive from what I know about it because my daughter was expressing an interest in that area. When I looked into it I was suprised at how tough it is.
What does your view of how "extensive" a meteorology degree might be (based upon your daughter having expressed interest in the field) have to do with an article written about studying samples of polar ice caps to study the cliamate 55 million years ago? One is studying the atmosphere and the other is studying the soil/ice samples.

Apples <> Oranges.

jAZ
06-03-2006, 09:17 PM
That is not anything near atmospheric physics and the math a meteorologist studies. It's a brutal science program. I could do that paleoclimatology.
OMG. What does this my-science-field-is-tougher-than-your-science-field have to do with anything?

If you don't want me to point out your posting techniques, then start by staying on track, so that I am not forced to rebut your wild tangets by pointing out that they are wild tangents.

jAZ
06-03-2006, 09:21 PM
I go by what the poster's article states. Then that person can refute it further as a defense.

But come to think of it...there is no meteorolgy in his background. Wtf? You know how brutal a meteorology degree is. Atmospheric physics is tough. My brother studied it. So this guy studied "paleo" and "evolution." Seems the MIT guy is more qualified.
Why force people to discuss wild tangents like this simply because you choose not to look into the facts of said tangent yourself? It throws up a giant roadblock in the center of the conversation, as is illustrated by our 10-20 posts on what has now become "which degree is tougher to get".

BucEyedPea
06-03-2006, 09:22 PM
Why force people to discuss wild tangents like this simply because you choose not to look into the facts of said tangent yourself? It throws up a giant roadblock in the center of the conversation, as is illustrated by our 10-20 posts on what has now become "which degree is tougher to get".
Well, that is your opinion.

I don't think it's a wild tangent at all. You just disagree with it.
Now you're telling me how to discuss something as if you're an authority on what a person is allowed to say. You brought up his credentials. I challenged them. I think that's fair particularly when the other guys says the models being used are faulty.

Are you a moderator of this forum?

BTW...I'm not "forcing" anyone to discuss anything.

jAZ
06-03-2006, 10:14 PM
BTW...I'm not "forcing" anyone to discuss anything.
Ugh... my head now officially hurts. Let's agree to disagree on the nature of the value of your posting techniquies and let this thread return topic at hand.

Are you aware of any peer-reviewed papers published in the last 5 years that dispute GW as I outlined in 3 parts above?

banyon
06-04-2006, 11:46 AM
Well the petition from your side, per that MIT article, had only a handful.
Checkmate....Who are they?...Who is "they?"...Come on, you're the lawyer....

The idea of a scientific consensus is widely accepted. You are the one challenging the consensus, so the onus would be on you to disprove it.

But here are some places I found evidence of consensus.

National Academy of Sciences (http://www4.nas.edu/onpi/webextra.nsf/44bf87db309563a0852566f2006d63bb/e4dcc6e935831fc885256a8400588146?OpenDocument)

The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/)

NASA's Global Hydrology and Climate Center (http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/ghcc_cvcc.html)

US National Assessment of Climate Change (http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/overview.htm)

The National Center for Atmospheric Research (http://www.ucar.edu/research/climate/)

The National Oceanic and Atmospehric Administration Global Monitoring Division (http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/climate.html)

The World Meterological Organization (http://www.wmo.ch/web/etr/pdf_web/926E.pdf)

The Pew Center on Global Climate Change (http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/basic_science/)

You know, just for starters. :)
But I'm sure it's just some big intergovermental conspiracy to steal our property. http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/memphis/phpbb/images/smiles/01-wingedeagle.gif

go bowe
06-04-2006, 11:53 AM
Ugh... my head now officially hurts. Let's agree to disagree on the nature of the value of your posting techniquies and let this thread return topic at hand.

Are you aware of any peer-reviewed papers published in the last 5 years that dispute GW as I outlined in 3 parts above?peer review is worthless...

global warming is a joke...

oswald was not the only assassin...

the d.c. forum is filled with thoughtful, insightful posters who are always reasonable and very well informed...

santa is coming to a theater near you...

go bowe
06-04-2006, 11:54 AM
The idea of a scientific consensus is widely accepted. You are the one challenging the consensus, so the onus would be on you to disprove it.

But here are some places I found evidence of consensus.

National Academy of Sciences (http://www4.nas.edu/onpi/webextra.nsf/44bf87db309563a0852566f2006d63bb/e4dcc6e935831fc885256a8400588146?OpenDocument)

The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/)

NASA's Global Hydrology and Climate Center (http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/ghcc_cvcc.html)

US National Assessment of Climate Change (http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/overview.htm)

The National Center for Atmospheric Research (http://www.ucar.edu/research/climate/)

The National Oceanic and Atmospehric Administration Global Monitoring Division (http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/climate.html)

The World Meterological Organization (http://www.wmo.ch/web/etr/pdf_web/926E.pdf)

The Pew Center on Global Climate Change (http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/basic_science/)

You know, just for starters. :)
But I'm sure it's just some big intergovermental conspiracy to steal our property. http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/memphis/phpbb/images/smiles/01-wingedeagle.gifeh, what do those guys know...

they're all for gay marriage...

banyon
06-04-2006, 12:05 PM
eh, what do those guys know...

they're all for gay marriage...

:LOL:

jjjayb
06-08-2006, 11:27 PM
eh, what do those guys know...

they're all for gay marriage...

Hmmm. You may be on to something. Notice how the climate has gotten warmer and warmer as homosexual activity has increased. Coincidence? I think not! :hmmm:

I propose that increased homosexual activity is the reason behind global warming. Both of my cats and my wife agree with me so that makes it a consensus right?

Alright all of you butt pirates. All of the friction from your anal loving has raised the earths temperature. Knock it off. Do it for the children. Or don't do it for the children. You get the idea. Save the planet. Sleep with Janet. Not John. :hump:

BucEyedPea
06-09-2006, 01:14 AM
Regarding banyon’s links
What you posted for evidence are organizations which have summarized an "official" view, many of them govt based.
That means one person or a few summarized.
Were they all scientists or policymakers and bureaucrats working for that organization? I hear it's more policymakers.

Link (http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5408)
NAS Report fails to live up to its billing (http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA349.html)

Still those prove nothing as they are not a tally of individual scientists which totals over 17,000 names.
In fact last I heard of the total for the Oregon Petition Institute is that it's now over 19,000 scientists names.
Those who signed are not funded by oil interests either.

Let’s take the National AS report for one:

National Academy of Science Report (http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5464&printer_friendly=1) The New York Times coverage described the NAS summary as the conclusion of "eleven leading atmospheric scientists, …”

Eleven? Wow! Some consensus.

“MIT professor Richard Lindzen--a member of the NAS panel--is one of those who does not accept the consensus.
His name is on the report sent to Bush, but, he told me, "NAS reports do not call for the agreement of all participants; rather, they attempt to portray the range of views"--including Lindzen's belief that man-made global warming is unproven. The press, he explains, "chose not to report" that fact. Then he adds: ‘It isn't the first time.’”

The Scientist Trap (http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7363&printer_friendly=1)
Dissenting views of over 17,000 scientists not being reported by major media… (http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5251)

“Just as the Environmental Protection Agency banned DDT despite the conclusion of its own scientific panel that the pesticide was safe--just as Congress, in response to the acid-rain campaign, enacted massive restrictions on industry in defiance of the major scientific study Congress itself had commissioned--so do today's environmentalists pursue a political agenda in militant indifference to the objective evidence.”

Yep! That’s govt for ya…doin’ a terrific job!

I think overall, you can count about 200 scientists for your consensus when you really examine the details.

Dave Lane
06-09-2006, 07:13 AM
You know, the ****tards who claim the Polar ice caps are melting and going to flood the world are some of the biggest dumbasses there are. Here's a neat experiment for those morons that hearkens back to grade school science class: Fill a highball glass with ice cubes and water. Make a mark with a grease pencil on the glass at the original water level. Let the ice melt. Compare water levels.


Yeah its kinda like Noahs ark, Where did all thet extra water come from / go to. Yes science does answersome questions.

Dave

banyon
06-09-2006, 09:05 AM
Regarding banyon’s links
What you posted for evidence are organizations which have summarized an "official" view, many of them govt based.
That means one person or a few summarized.
Were they all scientists or policymakers and bureaucrats working for that organization? I hear it's more policymakers...
Yep! That’s govt for ya…doin’ a terrific job!

I think overall, you can count about 200 scientists for your consensus when you really examine the details.

So, we can't trust any organized or government related scientists because government is teh debbil?

Give me a break. What are we supposed to do, appeal to a random sampling of scientists who live in anarchy? You don't get to be a scientist working somewhere like NASA by being a dumba**. Of course, anybody can sign that Petition, and it appears that anyone did.

These are the most respected organizations in climatology and they virtually agree. What else can be done to prove that there is a consensus? Would you like God to come down and trumpet it into your ear?

WilliamTheIrish
06-10-2006, 08:30 PM
Some people just aren't going to be happy until the biosphere is reduced to grass, ants, and cockroaches. :p

and Keith Richards.

WilliamTheIrish
06-10-2006, 08:51 PM
[Living with Uncertainty
Like many pioneer fields of research, the current state of global warming science can't always provide definitive answers to our questions. There is certainty that human activities are rapidly adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and that these gases tend to warm our planet. This is the basis for concern about global warming.

The fundamental scientific uncertainties are these: How much more warming will occur? How fast will this warming occur? And what are the potential adverse and beneficial effects? These uncertainties will be with us for some time, perhaps decades.

Global warming poses real risks. The exact nature of these risks remains uncertain. Ultimately, this is why we have to use our best judgement – guided by the current state of science – to determine what the most appropriate response to global warming should be.

This in a nutshell is why global warming has hard time making it past "So what?" on my things to worry about list.
What exactly are the risks? Is the ocean going to rise and swallow up the coast?
On a daily basis people are bombarded by news of impending disasters. AIDS would sweep the country and wipe out millions. Mad Cow disease. SARS. Bird flu. Hell the regular flu strains are portrayed as "killer flu."

Right or wrong, people have built up an immunity to these impending disasters. Plus the "data" that folks so easil;y toss around here is immense.

If tiptap didn't participate in these global warming threads I'd still look at GW as a complete hoax. Personally, I still hold a high degree of suspicion. That's just my nature.

BUt I do thank tip tap for at least making some sense of the whole issue.

the Talking Can
06-10-2006, 08:59 PM
people believe there are WMDs in Iraq but don't believe in Global Warming....


um....

BigMeatballDave
06-10-2006, 09:14 PM
Global warming is a joke.Maybe. But, humans causing it certainly is...

Logical
06-10-2006, 09:23 PM
I cannot believe that a work of fiction contained so much factual data that it turned me around. I was starting to believe in man causing Global Warming until I checked all the factual references contained in Michael Crichton's book State of Fear. It is amazing how little we know about the climatology of the earth and that the trends if anything still indicate a trend towards the next Ice Age not global warming. The book is an interesting read and has many annotated factual records on climatological data you can check for yourself. I recommend it highly as it is not nearly as dry as reading a scientific journal to find references.

tiptap
06-11-2006, 07:42 AM
This in a nutshell is why global warming has hard time making it past "So what?" on my things to worry about list.
What exactly are the risks? Is the ocean going to rise and swallow up the coast?
On a daily basis people are bombarded by news of impending disasters. AIDS would sweep the country and wipe out millions. Mad Cow disease. SARS. Bird flu. Hell the regular flu strains are portrayed as "killer flu."

Right or wrong, people have built up an immunity to these impending disasters. Plus the "data" that folks so easil;y toss around here is immense.

If tiptap didn't participate in these global warming threads I'd still look at GW as a complete hoax. Personally, I still hold a high degree of suspicion. That's just my nature.

BUt I do thank tip tap for at least making some sense of the whole issue.


Thank you William. Just for the record, I doubted the evidence 10 years ago when GW was first making news. All the arguments and skepticism WAS warranted at that time. But the atmospheric scientist took that criticism and addressed it. The temperature increase is real. All the worlds data trends upward. If it were not so then we should statistically see just as many trends downward as upward over periods of time.
We know for certainity that the temperatures on earth would be at least -40 degrees if not for the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That gain in heat retention was the result of 280 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We now have 360 ppm. If the greenhouse gases are responsibe for the keeping us from freezing out at 280 level naysayers must answer why increasing carbon dioxide would not also lead to higher temperatures. Simply saying it is natural is not an explanation. That is dodging the science. So what is offered is that the amount of energy from the sun has increased and the COtwo levels follow, not lead, temperature changes. The big problem with this is that we have emperical evidence that the amount of energy from the sun reaching the ground is LESS than 50 years ago. Again from thousand of sources throughout the world. (This is from Global Dimming the same industrial process that produce CO2 also produce particulate matter that forms clouds that reflect sunlight from reaching the ground.)
I don't think some Global Warming is bad. As Logical states from his reading of Crichton, we are in an ICE AGE. The interglacial period we are in is one of the longest periods in the last 5 million years. Climatologist have every reason to HAVE expected we would be returning to colder glacier building trends since temperatures have been going down since the time christ EXCEPT for the latter part of the 20th century and today (the discovery of GW). SOME GW KEEPS THE ICE AGE AT BAY. But too much will lead to big problems. The lead time for these things is in decades or scores of years. Turning economies and energy systems takes a lot of lead time. I am not a luddite, I like modern existence. However I also don't think markets are natural. They are man made. We can drive prices down by mass production. We are capable of driving invention to find new systems to get energy. I am confident of that. But if you are an oil or coal or natural gas industry you are not as an enterprise looking to reduce your presence in the energy market. How biased must be their efforts at dissimilating information.

WilliamTheIrish
06-12-2006, 04:56 PM
tiptap,

I just thought you should know that your contribution on this forum doesn't go unnoticed.

If you don't mind me asking, what is your background in science? By chance are a part of the scientific community? Just well read on the subject?

WilliamTheIrish
06-13-2006, 08:43 PM
tiptap,

I just thought you should know that your contribution on this forum doesn't go unnoticed.

If you don't mind me asking, what is your background in science? By chance are a part of the scientific community? Just well read on the subject?

Bump for tiptap.