PDA

View Full Version : Environment Climate-Change Debate Is Heating Up in Deep Freeze


petegz28
02-11-2010, 03:04 PM
WASHINGTON — As millions of people along the East Coast hole up in their snowbound homes, the two sides in the climate-change debate are seizing on the mounting drifts to bolster their arguments.


Back Story With John M. Broder Global Warming and Weather Psychology
The cognitive effect of weather on the climate debate.

Most climate scientists respond that the ferocious storms are consistent with forecasts that a heating planet will produce more frequent and more intense weather events.

Skeptics of global warming are using the record-setting snows to mock those who warn of dangerous human-driven climate change — this looks more like global cooling, they taunt

But some independent climate experts say the blizzards in the Northeast no more prove that the planet is cooling than the lack of snow in Vancouver or the downpours in Southern California prove that it is warming.

As an illustration of their point of view, the family of Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, a leading climate skeptic in Congress, built a six-foot-tall igloo on Capitol Hill and put a cardboard sign on top that read “Al Gore’s New Home.”

The extreme weather, Mr. Inhofe said by e-mail, reinforced doubts about scientists’ conclusion that global warming was “unequivocal” and most likely caused by human activity.

Nonsense, responded Joseph Romm, a climate-change expert and former Energy Department official who writes about climate issues at the liberal Center for American Progress.

“Ideologues in the Senate keep pushing the anti-scientific disinformation that big snowstorms are evidence against human-caused global warming,” Mr. Romm wrote on Wednesday.

It is perhaps not coincidental that the snowstorm scuffle is playing out against a background of recent climate controversies: In recent months, global-warming critics have assailed a 2007 report by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and have claimed that e-mail messages and documents plucked from a server at a climate research center in Britain raise doubts about the academic integrity of some climate scientists. Earlier this week, Rush Limbaugh and other conservative commentators made light of the fact that the announcement of the creation of a new federal climate service on Monday had to be conducted by conference call, rather than news conference, because the federal government was shuttered by the storm.

Matt Drudge, who delights in tweaking climate-change enthusiasts, noted on his Web sitethat a Senate hearing on global warming this week was canceled because of the weather.

As the first blizzard howled last weekend, the Virginia Republican Party put up an advertisement on the Web — titled “12 Inches of Global Warming” — criticizing two Virginia Democrats, Representatives Rick Boucher and Tom Perriello, who voted for the federal cap-and-trade legislation last year. The advertisement urges voters to call Mr. Boucher and Mr. Perriello to ask if they will help with the shoveling.

Speculating on the meaning of severe weather events is not new. Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and a deadly heat wave in Europe in the summer of 2003 incited similar arguments about what such extremes might — or might not — say about the planet’s climate.

Climate scientists say that no individual episode of severe weather can be attributed to global climate trends, though there is evidence that such events will probably become more frequent as global temperatures rise.

Jeff Masters, a meteorologist who writes on the Weather Underground blog, said that the recent snows do not, by themselves, demonstrate anything about the long-term trajectory of the planet. Climate is, by definition, a measure of decades and centuries, not months or years.

But Dr. Masters also said that government and academic studies had consistently predicted an increasing frequency of just these kinds of record-setting storms, because warmer air carries more moisture.

“Of course,” he wrote on his blog Wednesday as new snows produced white-out conditions in much of the Eastern half of the country, “both climate-change contrarians and climate-change scientists agree that no single weather event can be blamed on climate change.

“However,” he continued, “one can ‘load the dice’ in favor of events that used to be rare — or unheard of — if the climate is changing to a new state.”

A federal government report issued last year, intended to be the authoritative statement of known climate trends in the United States, pointed to the likelihood of more frequent snowstorms in the Northeast and less frequent snow in the South and Southeast as a result of long-term temperature and precipitation patterns. The Climate Impacts report, from the multiagency United States Global Change Research Program, also projected more intense drought in the Southwest and more powerful Gulf Coast hurricanes because of warming.

In other words, if the government scientists are correct, look for more snow.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/science/earth/11climate.html

petegz28
02-11-2010, 03:05 PM
As an illustration of their point of view, the family of Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, a leading climate skeptic in Congress, built a six-foot-tall igloo on Capitol Hill and put a cardboard sign on top that read “Al Gore’s New Home.”

ROFLROFLROFLROFL

petegz28
02-11-2010, 03:09 PM
A federal government report issued last year, intended to be the authoritative statement of known climate trends in the United States, pointed to the likelihood of more frequent snowstorms in the Northeast and less frequent snow in the South and Southeast as a result of long-term temperature and precipitation patterns. The Climate Impacts report, from the multiagency United States Global Change Research Program, also projected more intense drought in the Southwest and more powerful Gulf Coast hurricanes because of warming.


Dallas Wakes Up To Snow...
http://weather.cbs11tv.com/US/TX/119.html

irishjayhawk
02-11-2010, 06:39 PM
Can someone explain to me what a climate skeptic is? How can one be skeptical of climate?

Seems to me it's like being a gravity skeptic.

jjjayb
02-11-2010, 11:11 PM
Can someone explain to me what a climate skeptic is? How can one be skeptical of climate?

Seems to me it's like being a gravity skeptic.

I guess if you don't believe gravity is caused by man then you are a gravity skeptic. But of course everyone knows gravity is caused by man. The science is settled. :thumb:

Taco John
02-11-2010, 11:41 PM
I guess if you don't believe gravity is caused by man then you are a gravity skeptic. But of course everyone knows gravity is caused by man. The science is settled. :thumb:

I've heard that man's greed is causing a hole in gravity that needs to be filled with tax payer dollars.

wild1
02-12-2010, 08:44 AM
Can someone explain to me what a climate skeptic is? How can one be skeptical of climate?


Someone who is skeptical that the climate is changing, and/or who is skeptical that man's actions are causing it.

BigRedChief
02-12-2010, 08:53 AM
I'm no tree hugger but didn't the Al Gore's of the world say that the storms would get worse as climate change moves along. Wouldn't 3 ft. of snow bolster their arguments? Not lessen them?

petegz28
02-12-2010, 08:54 AM
I'm no tree hugger but didn't the Al Gore's of the world say that the storms would get worse as climate change moves along. Wouldn't 3 ft. of snow bolster their arguments? Not lessen them?

What was the excuse back in 1899 when the last storm like this hit the NE?

BigRedChief
02-12-2010, 08:56 AM
What was the excuse back in 1899 when the last storm like this hit the NE?I have no idea. Like I said I'm not into the we have to save the earth crap. I think we have a right to rule our domain as the holder of the top rung in evolution. If a snail darter has to die every once in a while to make out lifes better, so be it. As long as we don't use that excuse to wipe out everything that stands in out way of progress.

petegz28
02-12-2010, 08:59 AM
I have no idea. Like I said I'm not into the we have to save the earth crap. I think we have a right to rule our domain as the holder of the top rung in evolution. If a snail darter has to die every once in a while to make out lifes better, so be it. As long as we don't use that excuse to wipe out everything that stands in out way of progress.

Well, let me clue you in a little. The planet has gone through periods of warming and cooling since day 1. And guess what? It will continue.

And I am wagering a guess that storms and such were similar at the peaks and troughs of past cycles. Just a guess.

wild1
02-12-2010, 09:06 AM
I'm no tree hugger but didn't the Al Gore's of the world say that the storms would get worse as climate change moves along. Wouldn't 3 ft. of snow bolster their arguments? Not lessen them?

Everything "bolsters their arguments". Record snowstorms = global warming. No snowstorms = global warming. Hurricanes = global warming. No hurricanes = global warming. Record heat = global warming. Record cold = global warming. etc etc

HonestChieffan
02-12-2010, 09:10 AM
bush=global warming

BigRedChief
02-12-2010, 09:19 AM
bush=global warmingI knew it!
http://www.journalismproject.ca/en/content_images/winner.jpg

cdcox
02-12-2010, 10:56 AM
Bill Nye says --

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sm05Mcah0i8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sm05Mcah0i8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

petegz28
02-12-2010, 11:04 AM
I heard Rush at lunch and he played soundbites from Dems on the floor of the Senate from 2002-2007 saying how the lack of snow was proof of global warming.

Now suddenly, the heavy snows prove global warming. LMAO

petegz28
02-12-2010, 11:11 AM
Earlier today, MS-NBC and Time Magazine tried to argue that the massive amounts of snow hitting the mid-Atlantic region somehow proves anthropogenic global-warming (AGW) theory, but it wasn’t that long ago that Democrats in Congress blamed AGW for the relative lack of snowfall in the same region, as well as in Minnesota. Breitbart TV and Naked Emperor News plays a Greatest Hits compendium of quotes from 2005 through 2008 from Senate Democrats Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, Amy Klobuchar, and Jay Inslee explaining that the lack of snow was predicted by the AGW climate models and represented an emergency requiring immediate action by the federal government:

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/10/breitbart-tv-looks-back-on-byrd-boxer-klobuchar-blaming-lack-of-snow-on-agw/

I suspect that seeing the sun rise in the east somehow would convince these people of global warming, or at least of the need to seize the means of energy production, which is really the point. Too much snow, too little snow, snow that doesn’t form pretty crystals, and bent snow shovels all would meet the climate models — mainly because the climate models are so unreliable that pretty much any kind of weather can be claimed as evidence.

click link for video

<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/hJNRgcS7EQI%2Em4v" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="364" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>

irishjayhawk
02-12-2010, 11:59 AM
It's almost like pete didn't watch Bill Nye, whose testimony lends credibility to the part he bolded above and is mocking.

KC Dan
02-12-2010, 12:07 PM
It's almost like pete didn't watch Bill Nye, whose testimony lends credibility to the part he bolded above and is mocking.How did Bill Nye become a climate expert. I am fairly confident that they do not teach that in Mechanical Engineering school. Maybe Al Gore taught him?

Nye started in Washington, D.C. as a fourth-generation Washingtonian on his father's side. After attending Lafayette Elementary and Alice Deal Junior High in the city, he was accepted to the private Sidwell Friends School (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/Sidwell_Friends_School) on a partial scholarship, graduating in 1973.<SUP id=cite_ref-School_1-0 class=reference>[2] (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/#cite_note-School-1)</SUP><SUP id=cite_ref-2 class=reference>[3] (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/#cite_note-2)</SUP>

He studied mechanical engineering (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/Mechanical_engineering) at Cornell University (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/Cornell_University)'s Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, where one of his professors was Carl Sagan (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/Carl_Sagan),<SUP id=cite_ref-NyeBio_3-0 class=reference>[4] (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/#cite_note-NyeBio-3)</SUP> and graduated with a bachelor's degree in 1977.<SUP id=cite_ref-Cornell01_4-0 class=reference>[5] (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/#cite_note-Cornell01-4)</SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
Nye began his career in Seattle (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/Seattle) at Boeing (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/Boeing) at which point, among other things, he starred in training films and developed a hydraulic pressure (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/Hydraulic_pressure) resonance suppressor still used in the 747 (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/Boeing_747).

Later, he worked as a consultant (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/Consultant) and in the aeronautics (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/Aeronautics) industry. Nye told the St. Petersburg Times (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/St._Petersburg_Times) in 1999 that he applied to be a NASA (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/NASA)astronaut (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/Astronaut) every few years but was always rejected.

Brock
02-12-2010, 12:14 PM
Bill Nye is too a climate expert, I saw him make a tornado with 2 coke bottles one time.

petegz28
02-12-2010, 12:17 PM
Bill Nye is too a climate expert, I saw him make a tornado with 2 coke bottles one time.

:LOL:

cdcox
02-12-2010, 12:18 PM
How did Bill Nye become a climate expert. I am fairly confident that they do not teach that in Mechanical Engineering school. Maybe Al Gore taught him?

Nye started in Washington, D.C. as a fourth-generation Washingtonian on his father's side. After attending Lafayette Elementary and Alice Deal Junior High in the city, he was accepted to the private Sidwell Friends School (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/Sidwell_Friends_School) on a partial scholarship, graduating in 1973.<SUP id=cite_ref-School_1-0 class=reference>[2] (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/#cite_note-School-1)</SUP><SUP id=cite_ref-2 class=reference>[3] (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/#cite_note-2)</SUP>

He studied mechanical engineering (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/Mechanical_engineering) at Cornell University (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/Cornell_University)'s Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, where one of his professors was Carl Sagan (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/Carl_Sagan),<SUP id=cite_ref-NyeBio_3-0 class=reference>[4] (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/#cite_note-NyeBio-3)</SUP> and graduated with a bachelor's degree in 1977.<SUP id=cite_ref-Cornell01_4-0 class=reference>[5] (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/#cite_note-Cornell01-4)</SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
Nye began his career in Seattle (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/Seattle) at Boeing (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/Boeing) at which point, among other things, he starred in training films and developed a hydraulic pressure (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/Hydraulic_pressure) resonance suppressor still used in the 747 (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/Boeing_747).

Later, he worked as a consultant (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/Consultant) and in the aeronautics (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/Aeronautics) industry. Nye told the St. Petersburg Times (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/St._Petersburg_Times) in 1999 that he applied to be a NASA (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/NASA)astronaut (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/Astronaut) every few years but was always rejected.

I would love to defer only to those who are doing first-hand climate research in peer-reviewed journals to offer valid opinions. Can we all agree to this? Pretty please?

If not I'll put up Bill Nye's pseudo-credentials against those of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Senator Inhofe, any day of the week.

Geez.

irishjayhawk
02-13-2010, 12:43 PM
I would love to defer only to those who are doing first-hand climate research in peer-reviewed journals to offer valid opinions. Can we all agree to this? Pretty please?

If not I'll put up Bill Nye's pseudo-credentials against those of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Senator Inhofe, any day of the week.

Geez.

It's easier to declare/join a war on science than educating oneself.

Saul Good
02-13-2010, 01:04 PM
I would love to defer only to those who are doing first-hand climate research in peer-reviewed journals to offer valid opinions. Can we all agree to this? Pretty please?

If not I'll put up Bill Nye's pseudo-credentials against those of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Senator Inhofe, any day of the week.

Geez.

Rush isn't making a scientific assertion here. He's just pointing out the fact that the Democrats say the exact opposite thing depending on which way the proverbial wind is blowing.

Saul Good
02-13-2010, 01:06 PM
It's almost like pete didn't watch Bill Nye, whose testimony lends credibility to the part he bolded above and is mocking.

So the Democrats can claim that lack of snow is evidence of global warming and then claim that abundance of snow is evidence of global warming, and that sits well with you?

cdcox
02-13-2010, 01:27 PM
So the Democrats can claim that lack of snow is evidence of global warming and then claim that abundance of snow is evidence of global warming, and that sits well with you?

I think politicians in general should not be making scientific assertions.

Again, can we pretty please let those who are publishing in the peer-reviewed literature be the ones who we turn to for the current scientific understanding?

KC Dan
02-13-2010, 01:53 PM
Again, can we pretty please let those who are publishing in the peer-reviewed literature be the ones who we turn to for the current scientific understanding?Do you mean the peer-reviewed literature that is hand chosen to be included only because that peer-reviewed literature confirms global warming and doesn't contradict their claims that it's settled science? sure...

Baby Lee
02-13-2010, 02:01 PM
I think politicians in general should not be making scientific assertions.

Again, can we pretty please let those who are publishing in the peer-reviewed literature be the ones who we turn to for the current scientific understanding?

And the evidence you possess that these individuals are immune to the same political proclivities?

cdcox
02-13-2010, 02:03 PM
Do you mean the peer-reviewed literature that is hand chosen to be included only because that peer-reviewed literature confirms global warming and doesn't contradict their claims that it's settled science? sure...

So when some one posts a peer reviewed paper that purportedly casts doubt on global warming, how in the hell did that happen since all of those papers are filtered out (supposedly).

Baby Lee
02-13-2010, 02:07 PM
So when some one posts a peer reviewed paper that purportedly casts doubt on global warming, how in the hell did that happen since all of those papers are filtered out (supposedly).

Perhaps you could tell me the last time ANYTHING critical of global warming was met with anything but; Big Oil Deep Pockets, BIG OIL DEEP POCKETS!!!

cdcox
02-13-2010, 02:11 PM
And the evidence you possess that these individuals are immune to the same political proclivities?

If a scientist were to convincingly demonstrate that anthropogenic climate change was false, that would be a career maker. They'd win a Nobel prize easy. You can't hide false science long term because there are too many other scientists (a skeptical lot) that would love to prove you wrong. These are a bunch of people who deep down inside only care about being thought to be smarter than every one else. If someone senses weakness in a theory, they are going to go after it relentlessly. It's just the way they are wired.

cdcox
02-13-2010, 02:15 PM
Perhaps you could tell me the last time ANYTHING critical of global warming was met with anything but; Big Oil Deep Pockets, BIG OIL DEEP POCKETS!!!

On here, being critical of GW is the dominant opinion by far.

The only time that kind of statement would even make the least bit of sense would be if a scientist were being funded by an oil company to investigate climate.

Most oil companies have very large green energy research operations going on. They are at least hedging their bets that 1) climate change or 2) peak oil are worth considering.

irishjayhawk
02-13-2010, 03:12 PM
So the Democrats can claim that lack of snow is evidence of global warming and then claim that abundance of snow is evidence of global warming, and that sits well with you?

I agree with cdcox that they shouldn't be saying anything. However, on the whole, Democrats are far more "for science" than "against it" for the lack of better terms. And what they said makes perfect scientific sense.

If there is more heat on the surface or in the atmosphere two things can certainly happen depending on the conditions: massive droughts or very heavy precipitation. The former explains itself, the latter requires a basic knowledge of how the weather works for one to see it too can happen given global warming. That is, more heat is going to produce more evaporation which in turn and under the right front conditions can lead to massive precipitation. Hence, DC.

It's a major reason why weather doesn't say anything about global warming. And that's the fucking reason it was changed to climate change.

irishjayhawk
02-13-2010, 03:14 PM
On here, being critical of GW is the dominant opinion by far.

The only time that kind of statement would even make the least bit of sense would be if a scientist were being funded by an oil company to investigate climate.

Most oil companies have very large green energy research operations going on. They are at least hedging their bets that 1) climate change or 2) peak oil are worth considering.

I think we've reached a point in society that currently is critical of any funding by anybody. I've said it a couple times before. Both sides are going to have different corporations pouring money into them. So, how does one know which side is merely being influenced. It's just another facet of the current science war.

morphius
02-13-2010, 10:53 PM
Saying the Southwest will be more dry because of global warming is BS, it WILL be dryer because we are in about year 6,000 of 20,000 when that area across the globe becomes dryer. Tis part of the natural cycle of the tilt and wobble of the Earth...

cdcox
02-13-2010, 11:08 PM
Saying the Southwest will be more dry because of global warming is BS, it WILL be dryer because we are in about year 6,000 of 20,000 when that area across the globe becomes dryer. Tis part of the natural cycle of the tilt and wobble of the Earth...

Yes. But significant anthropogenic climate change is on a 50-100 year horizon.

The time scales of the natural earth cycles are hundreds of times longer than the projected impact of climate change. It's like me making an unbreakable appointment to play Russian roulette in 3 months because, what the hell, I'll be dead in the next 50 years any way.

morphius
02-13-2010, 11:17 PM
Yes. But significant anthropogenic climate change is on a 50-100 year horizon.

The time scales of the natural earth cycles are hundreds of times longer than the projected impact of climate change. It's like me making an unbreakable appointment to play Russian roulette in 3 months because, what the hell, I'll be dead in the next 50 years any way.
Except they know that the changes happen fairly quickly in the region, where it goes from dry to wet and wet to dry fairly quickly.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 04:51 AM
Also, to the people who claim Bill Nye isn't a credible source, I hope you're not the same people who put forth theologians or creation science people to counter evolution.

Just because someone is in one sector of science doesn't mean they aren't knowledgeable in others. (Theology and creation science aside, since they're not science.)

stevieray
02-14-2010, 08:48 AM
Just because someone is in one sector of science doesn't mean they aren't knowledgeable in others. (Theology and creation science aside, since they're not science.)

Time, Space and Matter are proclaimed in the first verse of the Bible.

Science doesn't disprove God, it eventually catches up to Him.

mlyonsd
02-14-2010, 08:59 AM
Sitting here drinking coffee watching snow drifts that I pushed out last night fill back in with 30mph winds.

This winter has me totally convinced we're at the beginning stages of the next ice age.

petegz28
02-14-2010, 10:50 AM
Sitting here drinking coffee watching snow drifts that I pushed out last night fill back in with 30mph winds.

This winter has me totally convinced we're at the beginning stages of the next ice age.

Bet it stuns you to know that there were never any bad winter storms before global warming!

petegz28
02-14-2010, 10:52 AM
I agree with cdcox that they shouldn't be saying anything. However, on the whole, Democrats are far more "for science" than "against it" for the lack of better terms. And what they said makes perfect scientific sense.

If there is more heat on the surface or in the atmosphere two things can certainly happen depending on the conditions: massive droughts or very heavy precipitation. The former explains itself, the latter requires a basic knowledge of how the weather works for one to see it too can happen given global warming. That is, more heat is going to produce more evaporation which in turn and under the right front conditions can lead to massive precipitation. Hence, DC.

It's a major reason why weather doesn't say anything about global warming. And that's the ****ing reason it was changed to climate change.

First of all, the planet has been warmer than it is now. Way before man evented the SUV, even. Secondly, the Dems are not "for science". They are for "their science" which is turning out to be "junk science". And they are so hellbent on it that they cut NASA's funding for the Moon trip and have NASA focusing on climate change instead. Like I said, they are for "their science".

RedNeckRaider
02-14-2010, 11:05 AM
First of all, the planet has been warmer than it is now. Way before man evented the SUV, even. Secondly, the Dems are not "for science". They are for "their science" which is turning out to be "junk science". And they are so hellbent on it that they cut NASA's funding for the Moon trip and have NASA focusing on climate change instead. Like I said, they are for "their science".

There is so much research pro and con on this subject it is very irritating that the looney left continues with the this it is an undisputed fact crap. Why is it snowing so much? Looney left: global warming! Why is it not snowing more? Looney left: global warming! :rolleyes:

petegz28
02-14-2010, 11:07 AM
There is so much research pro and con on this subject it is very irritating that the looney left continues with the this it is an undisputed fact crap. Why is it snowing so much? Looney left: global warming! Why is it not snowing more? Looney left: global warming! :rolleyes:

These dolts can't get health care passed with an unprecendented, Super Majority, yet they know what is wrong with the planet and how to fix it. LMAO

Dr. Van Halen
02-14-2010, 01:00 PM
First of all, the planet has been warmer than it is now. Way before man evented the SUV, even. Secondly, the Dems are not "for science". They are for "their science" which is turning out to be "junk science". And they are so hellbent on it that they cut NASA's funding for the Moon trip and have NASA focusing on climate change instead. Like I said, they are for "their science".

Hi, Pete. I was pretty disappointed about the Moon trip being cut as well, and less pleased that they would be focusing on Earth issues instead.

That said, it is very difficult to say that the Democrats aren't more "pro science" than the Republicans. Bear in mind that the previous administration supported some very "anti-science" issues, including the teaching that the Grand Canyon was created by the Biblical Flood and that abstinence only education is a viable means of promoting birth control. President Bush made the comment that he had not made up his mind about evolution, etc. Comparatively, it's hard to make the case that the Dems (useless as they are) are against science.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 01:11 PM
All those Obama voters lined up in the welfare line are VERY scientifically oriented.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 01:37 PM
Time, Space and Matter are proclaimed in the first verse of the Bible.

Science doesn't disprove God, it eventually catches up to Him.

That's another topic for another thread. Needless to say, you're delusional - on more than one front.

First of all, the planet has been warmer than it is now. Way before man evented the SUV, even.

Of course the planet has been warmer than it is now, no one has said to the contrary. If you paid attention, you'd know this. The big issue is that with the current cycle and the way it has accelerated towards the next. That is, something has caused an acceleration in the amount of heat on Earth. It isn't fitting the cyclical pattern and therefore this acceleration has prompted questions. That's why the graphs tend to show a progression upwards in temperatures.

On top of that, you have the common sensical idea of the green house effect - to my knowledge no one debates the GH effect. Combine this simple idea with the technological advances, ozone ruining chemicals, and carbon monoxide (Your SUVs) and it makes sense that heat could get trapped thereby making the globe warm.


Secondly, the Dems are not "for science". They are for "their science" which is turning out to be "junk science". And they are so hellbent on it that they cut NASA's funding for the Moon trip and have NASA focusing on climate change instead. Like I said, they are for "their science".

On the whole, Democrats are more pro-science than Republicans. See evolution and the breakdown of global warming topic. The former is simple: religious views. The latter is a distrust in science due to an infringement upon the religious views in other sectors. At least that's MY current theory.

Global warming for the last goddamn time pete is not junk science. Just because you refuse the facts doesn't make it junk science. People say evolution is junk science. Would you say it is?

What does NASA's budget have to do with anything pro/anti science? Shifting budget from one science arena to another doesn't strike me as pro or anti science...

And what the fuck is "their science"? Seriously, you have no idea what you're talking about do you?


There is so much research pro and con on this subject it is very irritating that the looney left continues with the this it is an undisputed fact crap. Why is it snowing so much? Looney left: global warming! Why is it not snowing more? Looney left: global warming! :rolleyes:

Jesus fucking christ. I explained it in rudimentary terms. Bill Nye has explained it. Who else do you want to explain it?

And that's the other front of the war on science: discrediting experts. It doesn't matter who, experts are written off as having an agenda by much of the right - but definitely not limited to the right. Only climatologists who are "skeptical" seem to be the only ones worth a damn to many around here. The hundreds upon hundreds that outnumber those skeptics don't matter because they're being paid, have an agenda, are promoting junk science, etc etc.

Further, if the skeptics could provide any data whatsoever, the scientific community would be all ears. As cdcox points out, people who disprove theories like evolution or global warming would be making their careers. It would literally be so prestigious and potentially lucrative that a lot of scientists have tried. No go on either front.

All those Obama voters lined up in the welfare line are VERY scientifically oriented.

You know damn well what I was getting at.

RedNeckRaider
02-14-2010, 01:40 PM
LMAO on cue here come irishchickenhawk THE EARTH IS MELTING THE EARTH IS MELTING!!!

KC Dan
02-14-2010, 01:41 PM
Jesus ****ing christ. I explained it in rudimentary terms. Bill Nye has explained it.
There it is!

THREAD OVAH!!!

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 01:41 PM
LMAO on cue here come irishchickenhawk THE EARTH IS MELTING THE EARTH IS MELTING!!!

FTR, I never said that.

petegz28
02-14-2010, 04:37 PM
And what the **** is "their science"? Seriously, you have no idea what you're talking about do you?



You're right, I don't. I should stick with the Dems and their backing of manipulated temperature data, false threats of the Himalayans melting and the baseless claim of the Netherlands being 55% under sea level.

donkhater
02-14-2010, 05:11 PM
If a scientist were to convincingly demonstrate that anthropogenic climate change was false, that would be a career maker. They'd win a Nobel prize easy. You can't hide false science long term because there are too many other scientists (a skeptical lot) that would love to prove you wrong. These are a bunch of people who deep down inside only care about being thought to be smarter than every one else. If someone senses weakness in a theory, they are going to go after it relentlessly. It's just the way they are wired.

That's the problem, cd, non one has proven that ACC is true, yet world leaders expect everyone to jump aboard as if the science is settled. One set of standards for one group, a whole different set for another I guess.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 05:32 PM
That's the problem, cd, non one has proven that ACC is true, yet world leaders expect everyone to jump aboard as if the science is settled. One set of standards for one group, a whole different set for another I guess.

I guess it depends on the definition of true.

If you mean 100% certainty, it might not be there. If you're talking a good 85-90%, it definitely is there.

donkhater
02-14-2010, 05:43 PM
I guess it depends on the definition of true.

If you mean 100% certainty, it might not be there. If you're talking a good 85-90%, it definitely is there.

That's an opinion. The challenge of which has been supressed.

The 'facts' that you cite only serve as evidence to a conclusion. In the absence of other facts that may yet be unknown (which is entirely possible given the complexity of our ecosystem), a far different conclusion could be attained.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 05:45 PM
That's an opinion. The challenge of which has been supressed.

The 'facts' that you cite only serve as evidence to a conclusion. In the absence of other facts that may yet be unknown (which is entirely possible given the complexity of our ecosystem), a far different conclusion could be attained.

Yet another facet in the war on science. Any time a paper produces a result it is automatically the conclusion making the evidence.

*sigh*

donkhater
02-14-2010, 05:48 PM
Yet another facet in the war on science. Any time a paper produces a result it is automatically the conclusion making the evidence.

*sigh*

Not sure what you mean by this. I'm at war with science? Being a scientist myself I was unaware of this.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 05:54 PM
Not sure what you mean by this. I'm at war with science? Being a scientist myself I was unaware of this.

I thought I was pretty clear, but I'll attempt to clarify.

You said that GW advocates have made a conclusion and then make the evidence fit such conclusion.

My point was simple; this is another tactic by people (which is becoming absurdly widespread) in the war on science. That is: Any time a paper reaches a conclusion it is automatically the conclusion making the evidence; and the author has an agenda.

headsnap
02-14-2010, 05:58 PM
war on science.

LMAO

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 05:58 PM
LMAO

If you'd rather, denialism.

headsnap
02-14-2010, 06:01 PM
If you'd rather, denialism.


I find it funny that GW supporters have to resort to the Straw Man and hyperbole to bolster their arguments...

BucEyedPea
02-14-2010, 06:02 PM
I find it funny that GW supporters have to resort to the Straw Man and hyperbole to bolster their arguments...

Yup! Despite the lack of evidence...but that is probably why they do it.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 06:06 PM
I find it funny that GW supporters have to resort to the Straw Man and hyperbole to bolster their arguments...

This isn't a straw man or hyperbole. It's what's going on. Evolution is facing the same sentiment.

Yup! Despite the lack of evidence...but that is probably why they do it.

Lack of evidence, please. If Lew Rockwell put forth his stance on pro-AGW, you'd surely take it too.

But since you want evidence:

NASA http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarmingQandA/ http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif (The graph)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Climatic Data Center http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

World Meteorological Organization (WMO) http://www.wmo.ch/pages/about/wmo50/e/world/climate_pages/global_warming_e.html

American Meteorological Society http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html

National Center for Atmospheric Research “How do we know Earth is warming now?” http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/research/climate/now.php

Earth System Research Laboratory - Global Monitoring Division “Climate Forcing” http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/about/climate.html

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research http://www.ucar.edu/research/climate/warming.jsp

Jet Propulsion Laboratory - California Institute of Technology “Global Climate Change” “How do we know?” http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/

American Geophysical Union (world's largest scientific society of Earth and space scientists) “Human Impacts on Climate” http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html

American Association for the Advancement of Science “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now” http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/

The United States Energy Information Administration “Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy” http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/greenhouse/Chapter1.htm

Massachusetts Institute of Technology “Report: Human activity fuels global warming” http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/climate.html

California Institute of Technology “How We Know Global Warming is Real” “The science behind human-induced climate change” http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~tapio/papers/skeptic_2008.pdf

Atmospheric Sciences - University of Illinois - Champaign “Evidence continues to mount that human activities are altering the Earth’s climate on a global scale.” http://www.atmos.uiuc.edu/research/01climate.html

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution “Global Warming” http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12457

The UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre “Climate change - the big picture” http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/

The UK’s Royal Society “Climate change controversies: a simple guide” http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Based in Switzerland) “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report” http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

Japan Meteorological Agency “Global Warming Projection Vol.7” http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/gwp7/index-e.html

The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society “Our climate has changed substantially.” “Global climate change and global warming are real and observable.” http://www.amos.org.au/publications/cid/3/t/publications

Royal Society of New Zealand “The globe is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.” http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/Site/news/media_releases/2008/clim0708.aspx

National Geographic Magazine http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/

Scientific American Magazine http://www.sciam.com/topic.cfm?id=global-warming-and-climate-change

http://s3.amazonaws.com/infobeautiful/climate_skeptics_960.gif

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 06:12 PM
Yet another facet in the war on science. Any time a paper produces a result it is automatically the conclusion making the evidence.

*sigh*

Did you learn to debate by watching Al Gore debate George Bush in 2000? I suppose that would explain both the juvenile sighing and your fascination with this junk science being peddled by Big Climate.

headsnap
02-14-2010, 06:12 PM
This isn't a straw man or hyperbole. It's what's going on. Evolution is facing the same sentiment.

it is the DEFINITION of hyperbole...


the straw man is running around in the other thread...

orange
02-14-2010, 06:36 PM
This isn't a straw man or hyperbole.

Not "a straw man."

"Straw Man"

The up-and-coming right-wing anti-Obama meme.

"TOTUS" just doesn't have the same ooomph since Crib-Gate.

cdcox
02-14-2010, 06:58 PM
That's an opinion. The challenge of which has been supressed.

The 'facts' that you cite only serve as evidence to a conclusion. In the absence of other facts that may yet be unknown (which is entirely possible given the complexity of our ecosystem), a far different conclusion could be attained.

Well, sure, this is aways true about every theory. If you want to hold to the "absence of other facts that may yet be unknow" you can have doubts about anything and everything.

And if you think the challenge to global warming is being suppressed, it would be worthwhile to look at "polywater" and "cold fusion" to see how ruthlessly junk science gets torn apart.

From a historical point of view, anthropogenic climate change looks a lot more like the theory of evolution, where many were very resistant to accept it for years, but as the evidence came in, it became more and more certain. Yet still to this day some refused to be convinced.

headsnap
02-14-2010, 07:38 PM
Not "a straw man."

"Straw Man"

The up-and-coming right-wing anti-Obama meme.


It's been building for a while BECAUSE IT IS TRUE!!!


"there are those that say..."

donkhater
02-14-2010, 07:39 PM
Well, sure, this is aways true about every theory. If you want to hold to the "absence of other facts that may yet be unknow" you can have doubts about anything and everything.

And if you think the challenge to global warming is being suppressed, it would be worthwhile to look at "polywater" and "cold fusion" to see how ruthlessly junk science gets torn apart.

From a historical point of view, anthropogenic climate change looks a lot more like the theory of evolution, where many were very resistant to accept it for years, but as the evidence came in, it became more and more certain. Yet still to this day some refused to be convinced.

Global warming isn't as straightforward as polywater or cold fusion. Too many variables are involved. To say that it isn't junk science (or false) just because it hasn't been easily refuted is ridiculous.

Skeptics, such as myself, have read many alternate thoeries IF in fact the warming data is accurate or significant (on which point there is even THAT doubt).

Your historical take on the subject is grossly premature given the relatively recent advances in technology which allows for the precise measurements taken in recent years.

On top of all this (as if it existed in a bottle sheltered from unbiased views) you clearly have the political undertones and massive world government backing that influence the interpretation of the data. Woe to anyone who dares question "the data". Is this the way to conduct research? It's criminal.

petegz28
02-14-2010, 07:55 PM
well as Wild1 said earlier...

Little or no snow=global warming
Tons of record snow=global warming

cdcox
02-14-2010, 07:58 PM
Global warming isn't as straightforward as polywater or cold fusion. Too many variables are involved. To say that it isn't junk science (or false) just because it hasn't been easily refuted is ridiculous.

Skeptics, such as myself, have read many alternate thoeries IF in fact the warming data is accurate or significant (on which point there is even THAT doubt).

Just about every "alternate theory" proposed has been convincingly addressed on RealClimate.com.


Your historical take on the subject is grossly premature given the relatively recent advances in technology which allows for the precise measurements taken in recent years.

Where is the data that throws doubt on it? If it's junk science, and we now have the best data ever, should there not be a ground swell of scientists turning the theory over?

On top of all this (as if it existed in a bottle sheltered from unbiased views) you clearly have the political undertones and massive world government backing that influence the interpretation of the data. Woe to anyone who dares question "the data". Is this the way to conduct research? It's criminal.

"Woe to anyone who dares to question 'the data'"? Ooo, that sounds pretty ominous. What happens to them? "Criminal"? Based on what evidence?

The climate scientists base their conclusions on data and evidence published in the peer review journals. That is the gold standard of science. Where is the contradictory data? Where is the journal paper that puts AGW to death once and for all? It would probably only take one seminal paper to kill it.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 08:38 PM
well as Wild1 said earlier...

Little or no snow=global warming
Tons of record snow=global warming

Jebus, you don't read. I'm convinced of it. This has been addressed multiple times over. Both are correct, actually. Why? Simple weather knowledge.

Go look it up, you, intellectually lazy nut. /BEP

Just about every "alternate theory" proposed has been convincingly addressed on RealClimate.com.

Pssh, an agenda pushing site. All rubbish.


Where is the data that throws doubt on it? If it's junk science, and we now have the best data ever, should there not be a ground swell of scientists turning the theory over?

You don't bring smarts to a stupid fight.


"Woe to anyone who dares to question 'the data'"? Ooo, that sounds pretty ominous. What happens to them? "Criminal"? Based on what evidence?

The climate scientists base their conclusions on data and evidence published in the peer review journals. That is the gold standard of science. Where is the contradictory data? Where is the journal paper that puts AGW to death once and for all? It would probably only take one seminal paper to kill it.

He already covered this. The conclusion is dictating the evidence.

Apparently, no scientific development has happened because all conclusions are dictating the evidence to reinforce the conclusions. That's a hyperbole.

petegz28
02-14-2010, 08:51 PM
Yes, global warming is the cause of all weather now.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 08:51 PM
Yes, global warming is the cause of all weather now.

ROFL

petegz28
02-14-2010, 08:55 PM
This is just a repeat of the 70's. Then it was Global Cooling. And once they reported that we more or less went into a warming period. Now that we have run the course on a warming period and are heading into a cooling period we are getting the opposite. Then it was "the world is freezing"...now it is "the world is melting".

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 08:57 PM
This is just a repeat of the 70's. Then it was Global Cooling. And once they reported that we more or less went into a warming period. Now that we have run the course on a warming period and are heading into a cooling period we are getting the opposite. Then it was "the world is freezing"...now it is "the world is melting".

Actually it wasn't global cooling. That was a massive PR failure by the scientific community and propagated by the media.

It's much like when New Scientist ran a cover that said "DARWIN WAS WRONG" and then ran an article detailing that he really wasn't. This let the creationists have a huge field day quote mining DARWIN WAS WRONG from NEW SCIENTIST!!!!!111

petegz28
02-14-2010, 09:07 PM
Actually it wasn't global cooling. That was a massive PR failure by the scientific community and propagated by the media.



Oh th irony.....the irony I say!!!

LMAOLMAOLMAO

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 09:10 PM
Oh th irony.....the irony I say!!!

LMAOLMAOLMAO

Weird, it bears almost no similarity. Unless, of course, you mean to the deniers reports...

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. In contrast to the global cooling conjecture, the mainstream scientific opinion is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the 20th century.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#cite_note-grida7-0

Feel free to check the PDF that summary comes from.

petegz28
02-14-2010, 09:14 PM
If you don't like what's going on in your life, blame Bush.
If you don't like the weather, whatever it may be, blame AGW

cdcox
02-14-2010, 09:16 PM
Weird, it bears almost no similarity. Unless, of course, you mean to the deniers reports...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#cite_note-grida7-0

Feel free to check the PDF that summary comes from.

Yeah, I've posted the pdf article that shows the 1970's scientific community did not consider cooling to be a serious immediate threat at least twice on here in the last couple of months, but the anti-AGW crowd keeps trotting out this chestnut.

They show no capacity to be swayed by any evidence.

petegz28
02-14-2010, 09:18 PM
Yeah, I've posted the pdf article that shows the 1970's scientific community did not consider cooling to be a serious immediate threat at least twice on here in the last couple of months, but the anti-AGW crowd keeps trotting out this chestnut.

They show no capacity to be swayed by any evidence.


What evidence? That the planet goes through warming and cooling periods and has even before man was around?

cdcox
02-14-2010, 10:54 PM
What evidence? That the planet goes through warming and cooling periods and has even before man was around?

Evidence that most climate scientists didn't think that we were on the brink of an ice age in 1970.

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/89/9/pdf/i1520-0477-89-9-1325.pdf

petegz28
02-14-2010, 11:10 PM
http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/images/VostokTempC02.jpg

Here is another graph I am sure many will try to say is bunk as well.

Q. How did the C02 levels get so high before man and his evil SUV's?

A. Well, just a guess, but it was natural and not man made.

cdcox
02-15-2010, 01:53 AM
http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/images/VostokTempC02.jpg

Here is another graph I am sure many will try to say is bunk as well.

Q. How did the C02 levels get so high before man and his evil SUV's?

A. Well, just a guess, but it was natural and not man made.

You do realize that the current level is 385 ppm? Much higher than any of the levels measured in the ice cores? The fact that CO2 levels are increasing in the atmosphere due to human fossil fuel isn't disputed by anyone.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-15-2010, 02:43 AM
I remember when the Chiefs scored 44 on January 3, 2010. This is more than the best offenses of all time ever averaged. Therefore, the 2010 Chiefs offense is the greatest of all time.

petegz28
02-15-2010, 07:45 AM
You do realize that the current level is 385 ppm? Much higher than any of the levels measured in the ice cores? The fact that CO2 levels are increasing in the atmosphere due to human fossil fuel isn't disputed by anyone.

Except the temperature has been going down. So keep barking.

CO2 still going up, but temperature not following the same trend
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/co2-still-going-up-but-temperature-not-following-the-same-trend/