| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/21/2009 03:06:24 PM · #176 |
| I was looking at the NASA site the other day in reference to the 2012 Mayan end of days silliness and the upcoming planetary polarity shift, and found an interesting little nugget. It seems that earth isn't the only planet in our solar system that is warming, the whole system is. This fact does not mean I think we can forget about carbon reduction, but it may give us a bit more time to deal with the carbon buildup in our atmosphere if the warming we are going through is partly a system wide phenomenon that will wane after 2012. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 04:04:53 PM · #177 |
| ANyone wonder what the planet would have turned out like if we would not have had global warming?.... A giant Snowball... On that note we still need to take care of our environment |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 04:39:27 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by Flash:
The replies to your link doubt the author's position. |
Those "replies" carry little weight, as anyone is allowed to post their opinion. I vaguely recall you posted a link to a news article a few months ago about a "certified climatologist" (i.e., weatherman) who didn't believe that man contributes to climate change. Yet you ignore the majority of scientific opinion: "The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by more than 50 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the International Union for Quaternary Research, and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations explicitly use the word 'consensus' when referring to this conclusion."
Edit: LINK
Message edited by author 2009-04-21 16:42:23. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 04:46:44 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
I was looking at the NASA site the other day in reference to the 2012 Mayan end of days silliness and the upcoming planetary polarity shift, and found an interesting little nugget. It seems that earth isn't the only planet in our solar system that is warming, the whole system is. This fact does not mean I think we can forget about carbon reduction, but it may give us a bit more time to deal with the carbon buildup in our atmosphere if the warming we are going through is partly a system wide phenomenon that will wane after 2012. |
This represents a balanced scientific response to those claims:
//blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/
|
|
|
|
04/21/2009 05:03:45 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
I was looking at the NASA site the other day in reference to the 2012 Mayan end of days silliness and the upcoming planetary polarity shift, and found an interesting little nugget. It seems that earth isn't the only planet in our solar system that is warming, the whole system is. This fact does not mean I think we can forget about carbon reduction, but it may give us a bit more time to deal with the carbon buildup in our atmosphere if the warming we are going through is partly a system wide phenomenon that will wane after 2012. |
This represents a balanced scientific response to those claims:
//blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/ |
That is far from a balanced article, it seems to be a refutation of some ongoing argument that is off stage somewhere. He rails against "cherry pickers" and then exemplifies the act, pulling isolated examples and refuting them with words like "is Mars even warming globally at all? Perhaps not — it might be a local effect." When you have perhaps and might in the same sentence you are doing advocacy, not science.
the author ends with
"With all of these facts lined up, it’s clear that the one thing we need to do is be very, very careful when someone comes in and makes a broad, sweeping statement about global warming’s cause, especially when they have ulterior motives for saying what they do. This may sound like an ad hominem, but we have seen, over and over, how science gets abused these past few years by those in power. A jaundiced eye is critical in science, and a little skepticism — or in this case, a lot — is a good thing."
Too bad he didn't use that sort of logic in the article's body. This article may make sense as part of an ongoing debate, but it does not stand alone very well.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2009 05:15:21 PM · #181 |
"ulterior motives" -- "we have seen, over and over, how science gets abused these past few years by those in power."
I'm, as always, tickled by the accusation that scientists are behind some conspiracy to promote global warming theories for their own financial gain and other mysterious ends, while the poor polluters (e.g., oil companies) are their victims. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 05:20:22 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by citymars:
"ulterior motives" -- "we have seen, over and over, how science gets abused these past few years by those in power."
I'm, as always, tickled by the accusation that scientists are behind some conspiracy to promote global warming theories for their own financial gain and other mysterious ends, while the poor polluters (e.g., oil companies) are their victims. |
I think he was pointing the finger the other way. That is at the 3% of scientists , often in the pay of oil companies, and their shills. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 05:20:44 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
When you have perhaps and might in the same sentence you are doing advocacy, not science. |
Or you're being responsible as a scientist by not claiming certainty even if the evidence is 99% conclusive. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 05:52:00 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
When you have perhaps and might in the same sentence you are doing advocacy, not science. |
Or you're being responsible as a scientist by not claiming certainty even if the evidence is 99% conclusive. |
It can be, but not in that article. Advocacy science is bad science on matter if you are on the side of the 99% or the 1%. The author is arguing against a lousy explanation (global warming is caused by change in solar activity) with overstated arguments that deny the possibility of solar and cosmic influences having some limited effect. The notion that it has some effect does not mean other effects are not primary. |
|
|
|
04/22/2009 06:39:41 AM · #185 |
Originally posted by citymars:
"The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by more than 50 scientific societies and academies of science,... |
If this is true (and I have no doubt that you believe it is), then we need an explanation for the other 599 times the earth has warmed/cooled in its history without the impact of man or industry. To dismiss this evidence from earths past is no different than what those on your side of this debate accuse the other side of doing - ignoring evidence.
The claim that global warming is mainly caused by human activity begs an explaination for earth's past. An explaination that clearly places the onus on mankind for this current warming trend. Not speculation. Not political drivel. But an honest address of all of earths past temperature fluctuations and how this current event is solely man's fault. Coincidence, does not make irrefutable evidence. |
|
|
|
04/22/2009 08:07:26 AM · #186 |
Originally posted by Flash:
we need an explanation for the other 599 times the earth has warmed/cooled in its history without the impact of man or industry. |
Um, no we don't... any more than we need an explanation for all the lung cancers in people who don't smoke. Super volcanoes, meteor impacts, global firestorms, unusual solar activity, etc. could all cause past global warming in the past, but that's completely irrelevant to our responsibility for pumping billions of tons of C02 into the atmosphere. There are instances of past global cooling too, but we might not be around to see the next occurrence. |
|
|
|
04/22/2009 08:11:13 AM · #187 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
It can be, but not in that article. |
Maybe this is a better resource - better provenance, better information. It acknowledges that there is some affect, but that the sun's behaviour does not appear to be the dominant influencing factor.
//solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html
It has a couple of FAQs that Flash should read - the fact that the Earth has a natural cycle does not mean that the current changes are not being influenced or provoked by man. The dominant (not the sole) reason according to our best interpretation of the evidence is man's influence. That is not to say that there are not other interpretations, but the vast weight of evidence supports this interpretation rather than another.
Originally posted by Flash:
If this is true (and I have no doubt that you believe it is), then we need an explanation for the other 599 times the earth has warmed/cooled in its history without the impact of man or industry. To dismiss this evidence from earths past is no different than what those on your side of this debate accuse the other side of doing - ignoring evidence. |
Other causes have provoked the Earth's natural cycle in the past - but those causes don't appear to be dominant reasons today. If you're aware of a catastrophic meteor impact, or multiple major volcanic eruptions, or a significant change in solar output, which are the kinds of reasons associated with other (relatively) fast climactic changes, then let us all know.
Message edited by author 2009-04-22 08:12:59.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2009 01:08:27 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by citymars:
"The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by more than 50 scientific societies and academies of science,... |
If this is true (and I have no doubt that you believe it is), ... |
True that the most reliable sources for information on climate change form a consensus? That is easily verifiable; what is most telling is that you regard even that as a matter of "belief."
The evidence against the "consensus critics" is overwhelming. Here's another link. |
|
|
|
04/22/2009 01:39:07 PM · #189 |
Originally posted by citymars:
True that the most reliable sources for information on climate change form a consensus? That is easily verifiable; what is most telling is that you regard even that as a matter of "belief." |
Also telling is that Exxon is so desperate to find ANY credible rebuttal that they've offered scientists $10,000 each to deny the evidence. |
|
|
|
04/22/2009 03:35:27 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
we need an explanation for the other 599 times the earth has warmed/cooled in its history without the impact of man or industry. |
Um, no we don't... any more than we need an explanation for all the lung cancers in people who don't smoke. |
That is an odd position to me. As a scientist I would think one would be most interetsted in the root cause(s) of cancer regardless of coincidences. I would be especially interested in those cases of smokers who did not develop lung cancer - for if smoking was the root cause then why was it not universally true. In fact I would want to know the percentages of smokers who did and did not develop lung cancer along with all other factors to correctly identify the root cause. Simply because a thing is associated with another thing, does not mean it is the root cause of the result of A's association with B. It could be. And if it is, then it should be predictive with reasonable certainty. Any and all exceptions must be weighed to determine the validity of the conclusion. It is this dismissal of the exception data that baffles me. Those who claim anthropoligical root cause for global warming dismiss easily the "other" data as "non-applicable" - when in fact it most certainly is anything but.
eta; here is an example of root cause analysis - some people who do not wear seatbelts and are in car crashs die. The failure to wear the seat belt is not the root cause of the death, it is the impact and subsequent organ damage. The wearing of a seat belt may improve one's chance of survival from a crash - but wearing one will not prevent you from dying.
Message edited by author 2009-04-22 15:47:18. |
|
|
|
04/22/2009 03:52:17 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by citymars:
"The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by more than 50 scientific societies and academies of science,... |
If this is true (and I have no doubt that you believe it is), ... |
True that the most reliable sources for information on climate change form a consensus? That is easily verifiable; what is most telling is that you regard even that as a matter of "belief." |
I have not had time to read your link. I will. It is accurate to state that I see the GW alarmist's position as a belief - especially in view of the politics surounding it. |
|
|
|
04/22/2009 04:21:24 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by Flash:
here is an example of root cause analysis - some people who do not wear seatbelts and are in car crashs die... |
Poor analogy- maybe your worst one yet. Seatbelts are not a cause of car crashes. Drunk driving *is* a cause of car crashes, and if overwhelming evidence indicated that most car crashes were a result of drunk driving, we wouldn't dispute the urgent need to take action just because some other crashes didn't involve alcohol. Of course, an obstinate few would probably call the so-called evidence bogus and continue to drink themselves and innocent bystanders to death. Perhaps they would point out with a shaky finger that accidents would still occur even if they didn't drink, or that not everyone who drinks is involved in a crash, but then alcohol tends to impair brain function, too... if you believe the evidence.
Message edited by author 2009-04-22 16:22:47. |
|
|
|
04/30/2009 09:57:00 AM · #193 |
Funny thing, many people here do not believe in God, but they have a belief in global warming. I wonder if this is related to anything.
As a total optomist, I am looking forward to citris coming from Canada where folks won't build cities on them, the West Coast of Colorado, and many other so called changes.
Life is good. :)
Message edited by author 2009-04-30 10:05:14. |
|
|
|
04/30/2009 10:02:57 AM · #194 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
Funny think, many people here do not believe in God, but they have a belief in global warming. I wonder if this is related to anything. |
It might have something to do with an overwhelming mountain of direct observations and data on one and not a shred of evidence for the other. Funny think. |
|
|
|
04/30/2009 10:11:16 AM · #195 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by vtruan:
Funny think, many people here do not believe in God, but they have a belief in global warming. I wonder if this is related to anything. |
It might have something to do with an overwhelming mountain of direct observations and data on one and not a shred of evidence for the other. Funny think. |
No evidence is needed. The bible is true because it says its true, and it has all the answers, end of story. I don't know why everyone's gotta make it sooo much more complicated with all these tests and logic and "physical laws".
;) |
|
|
|
04/30/2009 10:25:20 AM · #196 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
No evidence is needed. The bible is true because it says its true, and it has all the answers, end of story. I don't know why everyone's gotta make it sooo much more complicated with all these tests and logic and "physical laws". |
Of course! What was I thinking? It's like this: "The Bible is clear on [the existence of giants]. No other evidence is necessary to the believer than the word of God Himself." There are no examples of 15ft tall humanoid skeletons merely because we haven't found them yet, but the observation that we don't have fossils of every single intermediate stage of animal history must be proof that evolution is false. Makes perfect sense. :-/ |
|
|
|
04/30/2009 02:17:39 PM · #197 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
No evidence is needed. The bible is true because it says its true, and it has all the answers, end of story. I don't know why everyone's gotta make it sooo much more complicated with all these tests and logic and "physical laws". |
Of course! What was I thinking? It's like this: "The Bible is clear on [the existence of giants]. No other evidence is necessary to the believer than the word of God Himself." There are no examples of 15ft tall humanoid skeletons merely because we haven't found them yet, but the observation that we don't have fossils of every single intermediate stage of animal history must be proof that evolution is false. Makes perfect sense. :-/ |
Oh but they are mentioned in the Bible
Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feed on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of Godâ€Â¦"
-Job 40:15-19 (NIV) |
|
|
|
07/14/2009 03:57:30 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by citymars:
"The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by more than 50 scientific societies and academies of science,... |
If this is true (and I have no doubt that you believe it is), ... |
True that the most reliable sources for information on climate change form a consensus? That is easily verifiable; what is most telling is that you regard even that as a matter of "belief."
The evidence against the "consensus critics" is overwhelming. Here's another link. |
Summary - Exactly what have we learned here? Source
1. The "Greenhouse Effect" is a natural and valuable phenomenon, without which, the planet would be uninhabitable.
2. Modest Global Warming, at least up until 1998 when a cooling trend began, has been real.
3. CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas; 95% of the contribution is due to Water Vapor.
4. Man's contribution to Greenhouse Gasses is relatively insignificant. We didn't cause the recent Global Warming and we cannot stop it.
5. Solar Activity appears to be the principal driver for Climate Change, accompanied by complex ocean currents which distribute the heat and control local weather systems.
6. CO2 is a useful trace gas in the atmosphere, and the planet would actually benefit by having more, not less of it, because it is not a driver for Global Warming and would enrich our vegetation, yielding better crops to feed the expanding population.
7. CO2 is not causing global warming, in fact, CO2 is lagging temperature change in all reliable datasets. The cart is not pulling the donkey, and the future cannot influence the past.
8. Nothing happening in the climate today is particularly unusual, and in fact has happened many times in the past and will likely happen again in the future.
9. The UN IPCC has corrupted the "reporting process" so badly, it makes the oil-for-food scandal look like someone stole some kid's lunch money. They do not follow the Scientific Method, and modify the science as needed to fit their predetermined conclusions. In empirical science, one does NOT write the conclusion first, then solicit "opinion" on the report, ignoring any opinion which does not fit their predetermined conclusion while falsifying data to support unrealistic models.
10. Polar Bear populations are not endangered, in fact current populations are healthy and at almost historic highs. The push to list them as endangered is an effort to gain political control of their habitat... particularly the North Slope oil fields.
11. There is no demonstrated causal relationship between hurricanes and/or tornadoes and global warming. This is sheer conjecture totally unsupported by any material science.
12. Observed glacial retreats in certain select areas have been going on for hundreds of years, and show no serious correlation to short-term swings in global temperatures.
13. Greenland is shown to be an island completely surrounded by water, not ice, in maps dating to the 14th century. There is active geothermal activity in the currently "melting" sections of Greenland.
14. The Antarctic Ice cover is currently the largest ever observed by satellite, and periodic ice shelf breakups are normal and correlate well with localized tectonic and geothermal activity along the Antarctic Peninsula.
15. The Global Warming Panic was triggered by an artifact of poor mathematics which has been thoroughly disproved. The panic is being deliberately nurtured by those who stand to gain both financially and politically from perpetuation of the hoax.
16. Scientists who "deny" the hoax are often threatened with loss of funding or even their jobs.
17. The correlation between solar activity and climate is now so strong that solar physicists are now seriously discussing the much greater danger of pending global cooling.
18. Biofuel hysteria is already having a disastrous effect on world food supplies and prices, and current technologies for biofuel production consume more energy than the fuels produce.
19. Global Warming Hysteria is potentially linked to a stress-induced mental disorder.
20. In short, there is no "climate crisis" of any kind at work on our planet.
|
|
|
|
07/14/2009 04:35:23 PM · #199 |
| Hey everybody! Flash is back! |
|
|
|
07/14/2009 09:26:22 PM · #200 |
I like this discussion i get into it frequently with my friends. I want to point out that there's a documentary called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" which makes tons of sense and is a must see if only to understand the political background of the environmentalist movement.
Like many have stated earlier, i too believe that global warming is real and happening but i disagree about the cause. I'm not a scientist, but I'm yet to see clear and conclusive evidence that climate change is CO2 driven. The Earth's temperature was changing long before humans came to inhabit this planet, on this no one disagrees. It's more logical for me to believe that we are experiencing a continuation of this climate change and are only a minute part of a greater cycle.
Also, why do we assume that a mere 70 years of a man made industrial revolution is a long enough period of time for the planet to absorb the change in climate? Theres such a concept as time lag when it comes to climate change. For exmaple, changes in the ocean's temperature are happening due to factors that started centuries ago, not yesterday. MIT Proff. Carl Wunsch supports this argument and calls this lag as the ocean's "memory". He also argues that CO2 is not the cause of climate change but is a result of a warmer planet as the ocean (the largest Co2 culprit on the planet) releases more CO2 in warmer times, and absorbs more CO2 in colder times.
The environmentalist movement is a political tool to keep the underdeveloped world underdeveloped. US/EU leaders regularly cite "environmental concerns" when addressing the topic of 3rd world growth. Latest example? Obama on India's development. The mere fact that a politician (Al Gore) did a whole movie/presentation on climate change adds to the whole sketchiness of it all. Waltzing around as if to say "Hey, 1,500 scientists agree this is true, SO SHOULD YOU!" In the mean time, lets keep the 3rd world underdeveloped while we prosper. Everyone i know who watched "An Inconvenient Truth" had the same reaction, they all said "Its scary!", i guess the fear-mongering worked.
Gimmy a break. I believe actual evidence. Not emotions and sentiments and attempts to make me feel afraid.
To the person who actually went through trouble of pasting the long ass list of the so called 1,500 "scientists" this is a widely refuted list, there are countless scientists who have requested to have their name removed from this list due to the fact that the IPCC changed the report to support its own political agenda, many have even threatened or undergone legal action to have their name removed, why go through all that trouble i wonder? Because it puts their integrity on the line. I prefer to think for myself rather than believe something just because 1,500 "smarty pants" tell me to believe it.
(I know I'm going to hear about those big bad corporations paying scientists - etc, heard it before and again no proof to any of it)
But really, for those who have not seen it, do watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle" its an absolute eye opener.
|
|
