It is a political issue. Global warming - or at least man’s role, particularly the U.S.'s role - is nothing but a political issue.
When there is real proof that the U.S. is at fault for the risong global mean temps - then maybe I will change my tune. But I doub’t I will have to learn any new songs in the near future.
As for fear mongering - Algore said 22 years ago that we only had 20 years to change our ways and end evil man’s destruction of the ozone, and rising temps. He now says we have only 10 years left to turn around.
But that’s not fear mongering. Nope - not even a little bit, because Algore is a real scientist.
[/quote]
I thought fearmongering was more like, “Iraq has the potential to nuke us”.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Hell, I’d like it better it if it was simply a myth…
Dude, let’s drink a beer then. This past winter is the coldest one I’ve ever been through in Tallahassee. I froze my damn ass off… I was begging for some global warming!
[/quote]
You just don’t get it! The fact that it’s colder PROVES there’s global warming going on! Didn’t you see the movie?!?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
adamhum wrote:
Regardless if global warming is real or not, it’s just stupid to pollute the environment. If it takes a global warming scare for us to pay attention then so be it.
It doesn’t take a global warming scare to cut pollution and clean up our mess.
In fact it takes away from the real effort.
I disagree with that. Apathy is growing at alarming rates when it comes to any aspect of our reality outside of the average person’s own immediate vision. Most people don’t know a damn thing unless they are made to fear it and thus pay attention to it. The average person is content being overweight, gulping Starbucks cappucinos by the gallon and ignoring the real issues around them. We grew up on Captain Planet cartoons. What the hell does this generation have? Smokey the Bear is even long gone.[/quote]
I agree apathy is a problem but that is exactly why we need to discuss the real issues and not false ones.
You do a good job of it regarding nutrition on this site.
Cut out the bullcrap, discuss the real issues and do the right thing.
[quote]It is a political issue. Global warming - or at least man’s role, particularly the U.S.'s role - is nothing but a political issue.
When there is real proof that the U.S. is at fault for the risong global mean temps - then maybe I will change my tune. But I doub’t I will have to learn any new songs in the near future. [/quote]
Rainjack,
I’ll happily admit that there are political issues surrounding the issue of global warming! However, that doesn’t rule out the need to look underneath the politics to determine the reality of the issue.
Strangely, and I’m not pointing my finger at you, people tend to believe their own political faction regardless of the underlying issue, simply because a lot of people believe whatever their spinners tell them.
I don’t believe in these issues because of any US politicians. I believe in them because of issues like the Love Canal (I linked earlier) or the lakes in nothern NY or parts of Canada that no longer have fish in them. These things happened during my childhood and they are real, and clear, examples of humans influencing the environment in a negative way.
These things didn’t happen by natural causes, and I don’t recall Al Gore trumpeting about them, though of course he may have. He hasn’t been on my radar screen my entire life… as hard as that might be to believe.
Instead of asking for real proof that the US is at fault, which nobody in this thread has tried to say, why not ask instead for proof that human activities are having a definable influence on global weather patterns?
Seriously, this is interesting. I would like to see more threads NOT getting hijacked and led off topic.
Back to the original topic.
None of the posts here (except the sarcastic ones) condone pollution. Pollution is a consequence of our existence. If you don’t believe me, try to imagine where that last turd you flushed wound up. Invariably, it produced some degree of pollution. It also seems reasonable that all persons in this thread agree that pollution should be minimized to conserve our habitat.
There is a theory in academia and the mainstream media that CO2 emissions from human activity are causing the planet’s surface temperature to rise. We all agree that this theory exists, but the debate here is whether this theory is based on scientific fact or manipulated by parties with political or economic purposes; possibly, even for the purpose of simply gaining status in academia itself.
The issue on this thread (before it was hijacked into nuking the planet) was the legitimacy of both sides of the CO2/Global Warming connection.
I have seen several links to scientific data suggesting the association is not there. I would like to see intelligent responses from the other side. So far, all I see are red-herrings, slippery slopes, generalizations, and extreme examples. Those are adolescent-drama cop-outs used by those unwilling or unable to make a lucid, researched counterpoint.
My last remark is about something that really concerned me with this topic.
Prof X wrote “I could honestly care less about the junk science if it helps the general public become more conscious of their environment.”
If this accurately represents a willingness in Western Academia in general to tolerate “junk-science” in order to further a social or political agenda, then our collegiate system is already lost.
Prof X wrote “I could honestly care less about the junk science if it helps the general public become more conscious of their environment.”
If this accurately represents a willingness in Western Academia in general to tolerate “junk-science” in order to further a social or political agenda, then our system is already lost.
Let the flaming begin.
[/quote]
The system IS already lost. You didn’t know? It has nothing to do with getting people to care about their environment using biased data. I haven’t personally gone over exactly what Gore is speaking on about all of these topics. If I have time, perhaps I will watch more MSNBC.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…just one thing lothario: i’m sure the earth will bounce back from anything, i’m just not sure we’ll be here to enjoy it. Isn’t that the issue?
[/quote]
I was hoping somebody would go there with this debate. Yes, the issue is whether or not we are here to enjoy this wonderful bit of rock we live on.
Remember what the principle argument the climate alarmists have:
We won’t be here because we will destroy the atmosphere.
If it is shown that the atmosphere is in no danger, what happens to the alarmists’ argument?
This is all very simple, ephrem:
There is no Global warming, as the present data shows, and the “hockey stick” graph which supposedly “proved” it has been thoroughly debunked as mathematical error and worse.
CO2 production, while the highest it has ever been, is not contributing to the “greenhouse effect” in the way the alarmists thought it should. Evidently, their ideas of what happens in atmospheric chemistry has been flawed for some time. It’s so easy to say “we increased CO2, therefore, we will raise the earth’s temperature”, but this does not take into account the negative feedback mechanisms which will work against the change in equilibriums and behaviors of the greenhouse gases and solar radiation. Here, if you are interested, is a semi-basic primer on the subject (LOL don’t worry, there’s pictures):
The ozone layer is not reacting to pollution in the way we thought it was going to. In fact, the “hole” is closing up now, quite a bit faaster than we thought it would.
So what do you think now? Are we in danger of fucking ourselves up because of non-existent climate change? All the data we have is showing that, despite human-caused changes in the environment, the earth is adapting to it just fine. Should we be freaking out and spending trillions of dollars on something that doesn’t exist?
[quote]adamhum wrote:
Regardless if global warming is real or not, it’s just stupid to pollute the environment. If it takes a global warming scare for us to pay attention then so be it.[/quote]
I agree that it is a bad idea to pollute excessively, but lying to manipulate people is no way to go about changing minds.
http://www.pewclimate.org/press_room/speech_transcripts/transcript_swiss_re.cfm
[i]
So allow me to begin unpacking them. Our first myth: We don’t really know if the climate is changing or, if so, why. Here’s the reality: there is overwhelming scientific consensus that the earth is warming, that this warming trend will worsen, and that human activity is largely to blame. Certainly you can find scientists who will argue otherwise. But these are the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N. body that draws on the expertise of hundreds of climate scientists around the world. President Bush was among those who doubted the science, so he asked the National Academy of Sciences to undertake a special review. The NAS established a very well balanced panel, including some well-known skeptical scientists, and then came back with the very same conclusions: the planet is warming and we are largely responsible.
How significant is this warming? The earth’s temperature has always fluctuated, but ordinarily these shifts occur over the course of centuries or millennia, not decades. The 1990s were the hottest decade of the entire millennium. The last five years were among the seven hottest on record. Scientists project that over the next century average global temperature will rise two to ten degrees Fahrenheit. A ten-degree increase would be the largest swing in global temperature since the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago. In some communities, this is no longer a theoretical matter. The impacts are being felt right now. Just ask the people of Alaska, where roads are crumbling and homes are sagging as the permafrost begins to melt.
Which leads me to the second myth: Even if the earth is warming, that may actually help us more than hurt us. Here’s the reality: In the short-term there will be winners and there will be losers. For instance, farms and forests will be more productive at some latitudes, but less productive at others. In the long term, though, any possible benefits from global warming will be far outweighed by the costs.
You may have heard about a new climate report that the United States submitted recently to the United Nations. The President tried to distance himself from the report, even though the White House had approved it, because some of his supporters didn’t like its implications. But the “bureaucracy,” as the President put it, actually did a very credible job of presenting what we know about the likely impacts of global warming here in the United States.
[/i]
I’m sure these people are all political hacks or something though.
The IPCC is full of shit. They are the ones who came up with the hockey stick graph. They are liars and worse, and have been called out by the scientific community:
I don’t know how many more of these links it’s going to take, but you’re no fool, vroom. Don’t take my word for it, vroom, see it for yourself. They’re lying, self-serving assholes.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
I was hoping somebody would go there with this debate. Yes, the issue is whether or not we are here to enjoy this wonderful bit of rock we live on.
Remember what the principle argument the climate alarmists have:
We won’t be here because we will destroy the atmosphere.[/quote]
Where the hell does this come from?
[quote]If it is shown that the atmosphere is in no danger, what happens to the alarmists’ argument?
This is all very simple, ephrem:
There is no Global warming, as the present data shows, and the “hockey stick” graph which supposedly “proved” it has been thoroughly debunked as mathematical error and worse.
[/quote]
Look, as important as the hockey stick was to worrying about imminent disaster, it doesn’t change whether or not temperatures have been changing at a slow pace. This isn’t a disproof, just a disproof of suggested urgency.
[quote]2) CO2 production, while the highest it has ever been, is not contributing to the “greenhouse effect” in the way the alarmists thought it should. Evidently, their ideas of what happens in atmospheric chemistry has been flawed for some time. It’s so easy to say “we increased CO2, therefore, we will raise the earth’s temperature”, but this does not take into account the negative feedback mechanisms which will work against the change in equilibriums and behaviors of the greenhouse gases and solar radiation. Here, if you are interested, is a semi-basic primer on the subject (LOL don’t worry, there’s pictures):
Funny, the site you quote has this to say in amongst the rest…
The amount of heat energy added to the atmosphere by the greenhouse effect is controlled by the concentration of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere. All of the major greenhouse gases have increased in concentration since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (about 1700 AD). As a result of these higher concentrations, scientists predict that the greenhouse effect will be enhanced and the Earth’s climate will become warmer. Predicting the amount of warming is accomplished by computer modeling. Computer models suggest that a doubling of the concentration of the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, may raise the average global temperature between 1 and 3? Celsius. However, the numeric equations of computer models do not accurately simulate the effects of a number of possible negative feedbacks. For example, many of the models cannot properly simulate the negative effects that increased cloud cover would have on the radiation balance of a warmer Earth. Increasing the Earth’s temperature would cause the oceans to evaporate greater amounts of water, causing the atmosphere to become cloudier. These extra clouds would then reflect a greater proportion of the sun’s energy back to space reducing the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface. With less solar energy being absorbed at the surface, the effects of an enhanced greenhouse effect may be counteracted.
The fact that it is difficult to predict and that there may be offsetting adaptations doesn’t mean we are free to ignore the danger. The safeties referred to are not proven at this point either.
[quote]3) The ozone layer is not reacting to pollution in the way we thought it was going to. In fact, the “hole” is closing up now, quite a bit faaster than we thought it would.
Funny, it agrees that we caused it…
It concludes that about half of the recent trend is due to CFC reductions.
Which implies we did originally fuck up the ozone layer, but that so called Montreal protocol is responsible for about half of it’s recovery. Interesting.
None of your disproofs so far have actually proven anything, except to suggest that alarmists are likely to be incorrect in their particular assertions. None of your “proofs” in any way suggest that we haven’t had a role in changes or that these changes aren’t dangerous, problematic or costly in the long term.
I think you are believing what you want to believe and that you aren’t looking deep enough into the issues to see that the underlying issues are there, and they are real, even though alarmist interpretations may not be.
The IPCC is full of shit. They are the ones who came up with the hockey stick graph. They are liars and worse, and have been called out by the scientific community:
I don’t know how many more of these links it’s going to take, but you’re no fool, vroom. Don’t take my word for it, vroom, see it for yourself. They’re lying, self-serving assholes.[/quote]
Who funds the national center for policy analysis?
Calling the original scientists cheats and liars for making errors seems a bit extreme to me.
I’d very much like to take a much closer look than the sources you’ve shown so far. All they really do is call into question the extreme alarmist viewpoint, not the general underlying science it is all based on.
[quote]vroom wrote:
None of your disproofs so far have actually proven anything, except to suggest that alarmists are likely to be incorrect in their particular assertions. None of your “proofs” in any way suggest that we haven’t had a role in changes or that these changes aren’t dangerous, problematic or costly in the long term.[/quote]
Yes they do! Every single one of those links supports the idea that everything is going to be okay. Here, once again, is my entire point:
We have an effect on the environment, but it’s not a disastrous one.
Shall I say it again, maybe in spanish or something? How can you not see this?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Calling the original scientists cheats and liars for making errors seems a bit extreme to me.[/quote]
Here is why he is a liar and a cheat:
And when it was discovered that Mann would not release his data, or the algorithms associated with his famous “hockey stick”, this happened:
Mann is scum. His hockey stick got him famous/paid, but it is my wish that he learn that lying is bad. He shamelessly fabricated his data, as this analysis shows:
Of particular interest is this passage:
[i]At that point, Mann completed the coup and crudely grafted the surface temperature record of the 20th century (shown in red and itself largely the product of urban heat islands) onto the pre-1900 tree ring record. The effect was visually dramatic as the 20th century was portrayed as a climate rocketing out of control. The red line extends all the way to 1998 (Mann’s `warmest year of the millennium’), a year warmed by the big El Ni?o of that year. It should be noted that the surface record is completely at variance with the satellite temperature record [20]. Had the latter been used to represent the last 20 years, the effect would have been to make the 20th century much less significant when compared with earlier centuries.
As a piece of science and statistics it was seriously flawed as two data series representing such different variables as temperature and tree rings simply cannot be credibly grafted together into a single series.[/i]
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Yes they do! Every single one of those links supports the idea that everything is going to be okay. Here, once again, is my entire point:
We have an effect on the environment, but it’s not a disastrous one.
Shall I say it again, maybe in spanish or something? How can you not see this?[/quote]
LOL.
Look, the ozone layer was a catastrophe in the making, but we took action and now the Earth is recovering.
You simply don’t know whether or not the effect is disastrous or not, but you do have points that support your viewpoint that it will not be so.
They could as easily be wrong as those that are predicting disaster could be wrong.
I’m not trying to predict disaster, but I will say that the fact we are having an effect and that it is cumulative leads me to think that we should try to find ways to lesson our effect, in case we do discover yet another way to unleash our own idiocy and hubris on ourselves.
Anyway, maybe you should define disaster. I’m not talking about extinction on the planet or anything like that.
Again, seriously, raising water temperatures only a few degrees would have a large impact on the strength of hurricanes. That isn’t fear mongering, it is fact, as they draw energy from the warmth of the water below them. Hurricanes generally are not disastrous either, being inconvenient more than anything except for the odd occasion, but they are very costly.
So, short of disaster, some parts of the world could face rising costs for dealing with hurricanes. This isn’t alarmist, or disastrous, but it is very plausible, even if we have a measely non-disastrous increase in ocean temperature of a degree or two, in the more tropical regions.
Costly, yes. Disastrous, no.
The thing that does scare me is the foaming at the mouth about environmental issues in general – as if they are all complete bullshit. They are not. The ozone layer was not. Acid rain was not.
When we start thinking we can do no wrong is generally the time that we blindly create some big screwup. Let’s realize we can have negative impacts on the biology of the planet, including ourselves, and strive not to do so.
That isn’t a politically motivated message or an alarmist message.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Look, the ozone layer was a catastrophe in the making, but we took action and now the Earth is recovering.
[/quote]
LOL I’m going to cherry-pick the fact that we salvaged the ozone layer and proclaim that humans and human activity is good for the environment.
See how easy that was? We are the saviors of the atmosphere and this is easily shown by the ozone hole going away!
Hurray humans! Aren’t we neat?
But seriously, I like your point about the hurricanes… this is valid science, finally. The thing is, hurricanes are influenced much more by current heating patterns like El Nino and La Nina – so it will be fun to see what happens. I’m thinking that hurricanes are going to calm down some over the next few years, and are going to be linked more by the current patterns and not by surface temperature rise.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Calling the original scientists cheats and liars for making errors seems a bit extreme to me.
Here is why he is a liar and a cheat:
[/quote]
Okay, the first link is a blog that some guy runs, bitching about this. That’s hardly conclusive of anything. You are placing too much importance on this hockey stick issue.
[quote]And when it was discovered that Mann would not release his data, or the algorithms associated with his famous “hockey stick”, this happened:
[/quote]
What, you had a Republican claim that the scientists were frauds, and you blame the scientists for being politicians? I really hope you have more than this. I mean, if there is something there, let’s get to it. This is junk.
Well, more accurately, it’s wanting severely to believe that global warming is a myth so that you’ll believe anyone that says anything that supports the viewpoint.
There is no real information in these two links. Holy crap!
[quote]Mann is scum. His hockey stick got him famous/paid, but it is my wish that he learn that lying is bad. He shamelessly fabricated his data, as this analysis shows:
[/quote]
Holy shit. You have some hate on for this stuff. Your link does nothing of the sort. There is no suggestion of fabrication by Mann. What it does discuss is that the caveats and assumptions Mann used and how or why they should not have been. Also, it discusses how what he pointed out was supposedly misapplied and mistated into a wider context.
You need to realize what you are reading, what it says, and what it doesn’t say. I’m not saying that the hockey stick is right, but I certainly don’t see any of these debunkers actually looking at the current data – preferring instead to look at what is apparently a flawed analysis of it.
[quote]Of particular interest is this passage:
[i]At that point, Mann completed the coup and crudely grafted the surface temperature record of the 20th century (shown in red and itself largely the product of urban heat islands) onto the pre-1900 tree ring record. The effect was visually dramatic as the 20th century was portrayed as a climate rocketing out of control. The red line extends all the way to 1998 (Mann’s `warmest year of the millennium’), a year warmed by the big El Ni?o of that year. It should be noted that the surface record is completely at variance with the satellite temperature record [20]. Had the latter been used to represent the last 20 years, the effect would have been to make the 20th century much less significant when compared with earlier centuries.
As a piece of science and statistics it was seriously flawed as two data series representing such different variables as temperature and tree rings simply cannot be credibly grafted together into a single series.[/i]
Any questions, vroom?[/quote]
Yeah, why the hell are you so anxious to “prove” that there is no global warming? You have some online theories on some marginal looking sites that blow a lot of wind, which might actually disprove the so-called hockey stick theory.
However, you have to realize that the author himself is suggesting his own theory, without any type of real proof either, which is a counter to the hockey stick theory. Why is this theory somehow more accurate than the other theory? Why is it so important to you?
I mean, I’m not trying to hang onto any particular theory, but I do think you can look at the current recent temperature trends and see an upward rise… regardless of whether or not you attach a hockey stick to it or not.
From the EPA… http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climateuncertainties.html
[i]
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.
[/i]
There’s more, and it doesn’t need a damned hockey stick or alarmist cries of disaster to be important and serious. Maybe you should stop worrying so much about disproving global warming in it’s entirety and more so try to focus on what is known vs what is not known.
That might let you assess the issue and sound a bit less strident on the issue.
Maybe you should look a little deeper and use something approaching more authentic information before throwing out the “any questions” taunt?
Vroom, I admire your passion for the environment. In my own defense, the only thing I stated earlier relating to “crap” was to acknowledge that even flushing a turd is pollution. If you are going to quote me, please, quote me correctly. Show some respect.
There are a couple of problems with interpretations of the temperature data sets of the 20th century, which is the data set that most CO2/Global Warming advocates reference, since that’s the century when our fossil fuel use had the greatest increase.
There is a phenomemon called the “urban heat bubble” or “island”. This is well established. Basically, it means that as a city gets bigger, it gets warmer. So, of course, if you track the temps of cities throughout the 20th century, they get warmer. This prevents city measurements from being used effectively to support CO2/Global Warming. This effect is not often discussed in the media, because this phenomenon detracts from the Global Warming Advocates’ argument.
Another problem is that many CO2/Global Warming theory advocates are reluctant to accept data from rural areas, since those measurements were supposedly taken by amateurs or the uneducated (who else lives in rural Russia, or rural anywhere else?) that those readings are regarded as unreliable and disregarded or downplayed.
Both of these suggest very selective cherry-picking of data, which is simply bad science.
Don’t get me wrong. I hate pollution. Been all over the world, and have seen things done in the US and abroad that make me feel most people don’t even deserve to reside on this planet. That includes big corporations responsible for the Superfund Sites we have now, to those who simply throw trash on the ground. I choose to live in Alaska mainly because of the clean outdoors environment and lack of urban sprawl (except in Anchorage, where I don’t live anyway.)
I am not trying to sidetrack the discussion back into pollution in general. If you start another political thread debating whether pollution is good or bad, I am on your side of “It’s bad”. I just want to ensure that Vroom, et al. understand I am a conservationist with a deep respect and appreciation for the environment, before I get personally attacked for wanting to see objective data from the Vroom’s side of this debate.
