| Author | Message | ||
     Edgydrifter |
Reep is right--there's no reason being conservative and being conservationist shouldn't go hand-in-hand. The Right and Left might view each other's motivations with deep suspicion, but the objective seems sound: treat the world like a campsite, leave it cleaner and better than you found it. | ||
| Bill0351 |
Both sides on this issue claim the other is full of crap. In that respect, I guess there is still debate on the issue. The problem for me is that the believers in global warming have about 99.99 percent of the reputable scientific community on their side, and the other has people like John Coleman, who is essentially a very rich TV weatherman. I still think it's like a panel of doctors telling you that you have treatable but potentially fatal disease, but choosing to ignore it because your massage therapist or chiropractor told you it was nothing to worry about. When you want information, you go to the experts. As far as the causes of global warming go, among the experts,there is no substantive debate despite what you might see in email forwards and blogs. This is a long, multi-chapter article published from a reputable source. It actually outlines the areas that contain any meaningful level of uncertainty (notice the Stanford.edu address). http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Clima teFrameset.html It starts with basic middle school level science for those of you who doubt that carbon dioxide is a significant source of atmospheric warming, and then goes into detail that will make a graduate level student's eyes glaze over. It's longer than the typical viral email forward, and more difficult to understand, but it contains real science from real scientists. You can believe what you want to believe, but the rest of the first world has moved on from debating whether it is an issue, and they are looking for solutions. Someone in another post brought up that we once thought the world was flat. The debate on this page is a lot like the flat Earth crew still debating back and forth almost 1,000 years after Aristotle used science to prove it was round. | ||
| Macbuell |
You see, there is this bright yellow orb in the sky that provides us with our heat, light and energy. This orb sometimes has changes related to it's activity and the amount of energy it radiates. As in sometimes it's hotter than others. It, this orb, might just have something to do with increasing (or decreasing) temperatures. Global Warming aside, I am more concerned with how we pollute the land and sea. Next time you ride down the highway, just take a look to the side of the road to see all the crap that has been tossed about with little care for anyone or anything. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
There is also the 25,000 year "wobble" the earth completes. That cycle ends in 2012. There are simply too many variables to pin the entire change in climate on CO2 and then to tie that CO2 back STRICTLY to human activity. There has been far more carbon released in previous times but that didn't have the impact they they are claiming that we are having currently. | ||
| Ceejay |
We are also currently in the process of switching polarity... http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_poles_ 040407.html now put all this together, tell me what's actually happening and when and maybe I'll believe you. probably not, but it is nice seeing people actually think about something before they throw it away-which they still do, and then buy another which breaks, and then they throw away and then buy another which breaks...get it, just like rabbits back to a hole, we behave in cycles and so does the earth, and while I haven't shot my dog(helps in hunting rabbits) those little bastids often don't follow the same pattern, neither do we, and neither does the planet... | ||
| Buellinachinashop |
If the same scientists who proclaimed that flourocarbons were creating a hole in the ozone are saying we have a CO2 issue, I think we need to listen. They seem smart enough to research and find solutions to that issue. I don't think there's any argument that our climate is changing, and not for the good. Extremes on both ends of the hot and cold spectrums are making me feel "iffy" about the next 100-1000 years here. (Message edited by Buellinachinashop on January 30, 2009) | ||
| Midknyte |
...I think today's science can determine gas content in the atmosphere.  heheheh, the dog did it. | ||
| Buellinachinashop |
Seriously, it's the cows! | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I eat as many cows as I can! Sheez. | ||
| Thumper74 |
The cows you say? We should all become vegetarians. We'd be able to reclaim all the land used for cattle and the additional plant life will help scrub the atmosphere of CO2.  | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Yeah, but do you realize how much methane vegetarians produce? | ||
| Danger_dave |
I've never cooked one - how much? | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
The problem for me is that the believers in global warming have about 99.99 percent of the reputable scientific community on their side a COMPLETE AND UTTER untruth | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
C'mon, Al said that the debate was over. It's over isn't it. I mean, he said it was. | ||
| Madduck |
the latest survey of Climate scientists was completed in summer of 08. 1803 "climatologists" were identified and polled on the significant questions regarding Global Warming, 97% of the respondents were in agreement with the statement that Global Warming exists and the increasing emissions of CO2 were the most likely cause. Sounds pretty damning until you realize that only 140 of the 1803 scientists bothered to respond. For a crisis of this magnitude and a poll of such seeming importance, this is an abysmal response rate. All analysis should start with the raw data so that proper evaluations can commence. I can find no information on how the 1803 climatologists werre identified or why the poll got such a poor response. the 97% number seems to have spread to everywhere. I think at one time the MSU/UNESCO had identified and invited to climate conference better than 75,000 scientists engaged in climate science. Of the climate scientist that I personally know, all related to work at UW in Madison, only a handful believe that eliminating all human CO2 production today would have any effect on climate change. Which I believe should be the only question asked. Most of the argument is around frivolus subjects. Of course we are better off with less pollution but people are dying today all over the undeveloped world as green nazis restrict development in the guise of saving the planet. People count too. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Global warming is the only "science" conducted by opinion poll and survey. | ||
| Aesquire |
Conservation vs. environmentalism. My sister & brother in law are in a conservation group. I suspect it's the most effective group in actually solving environmental problems, with the possible exception of the Clean Air Act from Nixon. a few years back, a swampy piece of worthless land south of Syracuse NY was sold to a developer who was going to make a housing tract, complete with ponds, roads, and profits. The local "greenies" went & picketed. They complained, raised hell, sued. My sister went to a dinner. They raised money, & BOUGHT the land, turning it into a nature area ( I don't remember the exact term ) free from eeevil progress for at least a generation. My sister tells me that the "greenie" picketers were outside the fence, signs in hand, chanting, when the Camo'd Eddie Baur edition SUV pulled up, 2 guys opened the gate, Drove through, locked it behind them, pulled the "new housing tract here" sign down, Put up a "Future nature Park" sign, reversed the process with the gate & drove away as the "Greenies" stood in shock. ( she says she saw the video a 3rd guy took to record the moment ) Sticker in the SUV rear window? Ducks Unlimited. people get the wrong idea when I call the "Global Warming Movement/cult" a con. I believe it is, and have ample documentation. If you look the same guys who called for emergency action in the 1970's when an ice age was predicted, are doing so now with less evidence. Orbital dynamics & Solar variability all point to ice. The National Solar Observatory reported that 1998 was a hot year for the sun. That was the 2nd hottest year in the 20th century. 2008? few sunspots, very cold sun. Look outside. There is a book out with the theory that we HAVE been influencing the climate for 18000 years, since we started making rice paddies out of Jungle. ( methane is a far more powerful greenhouse gas that CO2 ) So I can believe that we affect the weather. I don't know that global warming is not reality. I do know that the people trying to sell me the con, are lying. From Dr. Mann to Ted Danson telling us we'd all be dead in 10 years...12 years ago, the "greenie" has lied to get his way. When confronted with the failure of his dire predictions, Mr. Danson, well known actor & environmentalist, made the mistake of being momentarily truthful, and stated that he had to exaggerate to get anyone to pay attention. That's true, and frightening at the same time. It's true, because few people will care if you tell them "unless we stop making disposable diapers with non degradable plastic, there will be no where to put the wretched things in a thousand years" I haven't checked the #'s but that sounds like a rational argument, but, alas, one few of todays short term thinkers give a damn about. So, the concerned citizen "has" to lie, and say something like "If we don't curb carbon emissions, the seas will rise & in 10 years we all will be eating one another, it'll be just like "Soylent Green"" Which I really doubt. It's frightening, because if a REAL disaster is in the wings, You can't believe these guys anymore. Read the fable of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". Senate testimony. http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-senatetestim ony.html ...To summarize it briefly: in 1998-99 the American climate researcher Michael Mann and his co-workers published an estimate of global temperatures from the year 1000 to 1980. Mann's results appeared to show a spike in recent temperatures that was unprecedented in the last thousand years. His alarming report formed the centerpiece of the U.N.'s Third Assessment Report, in 2001. Mann's work was immediately criticized because it didn't show the well-known Medieval Warm Period, when temperatures were warmer than they are today, or the Little Ice Age that began around 1500, when the climate was colder than today. But real fireworks began when two Canadian researchers, McIntyre and McKitrick, attempted to replicate Mann's study. They found grave errors in the work, which they detailed in 2003: calculation errors, data used twice, data filled in, and a computer program that generated a hockeystick out of any data fed to it—even random data. Mann's work has since been dismissed by scientists around the world who subscribe to global warning. Why did the UN accept Mann's report so uncritically? Why didn't they catch the errors? Because the IPCC doesn't do independent verification. And perhaps because Mann himself was in charge of the section of the report that included his work. The hockeystick controversy drags on. But I would direct the Committee's attention to three aspects of this story. First, six years passed between Mann's publication and the first detailed accounts of errors in his work. This is simply too long for policymakers to wait for validated results. Second, the flaws in Mann's work were not caught by climate scientists, but rather by outsiders-in this case, an economist and a mathematician. They had to go to great lengths to obtain data from Mann's team, which obstructed them at every turn. When the Canadians sought help from the NSF, they were told that Mann was under no obligation to provide his data to other researchers for independent verification. Third, this kind of stonewalling is not unique. The Canadians are now attempting to replicate other climate studies and are getting the same runaround from other researchers. One prominent scientist told them: "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it." .... Environmentalism as religion. http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-environmenta lismaseligion.html | ||
| Aesquire |
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction= Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad -40ed-ecd53cd3d320 | ||
| Bill0351 |
Seiously.... If you have to go to blogs to support your position, you have lost. Find a PEER REVIEWED scientific article BY AN ACTUAL SCIENTIST that refutes the claim that global warming exists and points to other causes other than human generated CO2 as the cause. Or, take the time to actually look at the link I put there and read what actual scientists have to say. Like I said though.... It's completely irrelevant because the 99% of the scientific community that Ferris doesn't believe in have already made up their mind and are looking for solutions. Start your list of peer reviewed scientific articles below. Really, actually search for them. You will find pretty quickly that for the most part, they don't exist. The jury of actual reputable scientists has already reached a verdict on this one. | ||
| Madduck |
Interesting bit about the NSF being uncooperative: Reasons exist: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5 h1LMmSx2xu-GRQI-dfUqwXYP65agD961DFQG0 If they are heating up it might not be "Global Warmiong". I believe all the people involved qualify as "actual scientists", and yes this does affect how I interpret their pronouncements. (Message edited by MadDuck on January 30, 2009) | ||
| Edgydrifter |
Aesquire, your story reminds me of my dad. He's a member of a duck club that owns a pretty large chunk of coastal wetland. The more "hard-core" local environmentalists in the area suffer a very conflicted and uneasy relationship with the club. On one hand, they're preserving a large tract of pristine habitat right along a major migratory path. No housing developments, no industry, just lots and lots of duck-filled estuaries. On the other hand, they're preserving it A) for private use only (not very collectivist), and B) for the sole purpose of killing ducks (the horror!). Still, considering that the duck harvest is sustainable and that the alternative would probably mean the permanent loss of irreplaceable habitat, the activists have decided to suppress their indignation and have forged a bit of an alliance with the club on matters like water quality where both parties have a shared interest. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
So is you are FOR global warming, you need only vote yes in the poll, but if you believe human's are to blame for global warming you must disprove global warming with a peer reviewed experiment? How does that work? | ||
| Madduck |
I personally know of two scientists in the field that have tested the "Global Warming Religion Theory". Two identical grant applications were sent to various funding sources, only difference was in the stated objectives. Warming apps were approved in very short order, non-warming apps were ignored, not denied just ignored as if they were never received. Peer review only works when the peers reviewing are open to scientific inquiry. Challenge the orthodoxy and you will be punished. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Global Warming = The world is flat Don't challenge the "church". | ||
| Bill0351 |
It's the total opposite FB. The flat Earth crew stuck to their outmoded beliefs long after the real scientists and mathematicians had moved on. This whole conversation reminds me of people making fun of the hole in the ozone layer. It was identified as an issue (people made fun of it). It was thoroughly studied (while people mocked scientists doing the studies). Solutions were proposed (fought by industry) and then put in place. The current models have full recovery in about 60 more years. See? The scientific community is looking out for you, even if you lack the understanding to appreciate it. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Bill, care to explain how a gas that only makes up .41 hundredths of 1 percent (0.041 %) of the atmosphere can cause catastrophic global warming? For comparison, argon is (0.9 % ) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Also, please explain how this greenhouse effect due to CO2 is PERMANENT. Or conversely, is there a mechanism for removing CO2 from the atmosphere naturally? | ||
| Bill0351 |
Bill, care to explain how a gas that only makes up .41 hundredths of 1 percent (0.041 %) of the atmosphere can cause catastrophic global warming? For comparison, argon is (0.9 % ) You're kidding right? We are both talking about the gas that provides nearly 25% of the greenhouse effect? The greenhouse effect being the process that makes life on Earth possible? I guess that one question illustrates my point more than anything else in this entire thread. Until a person has a basic understanding of science and the scientific method, they will always be ready to buy into a totally discredited crackpot diatribe like the one that started this thread in the first place. Read the link I provided. It's not from a weatherman. It's from a climatologist. Read the sections on the research and the science behind global warming. Read the section about the contrarian viewpoints. Find someone to allow you access to a full text scientific database. Count the THOUSANDS of peer reviewed articles supporting global warming and the human influence behind it. Then try to find even one that refutes it. 25,000 year global wobble? Global polarity reversals? Go ahead and start citing sources, and be sure they are ones that wouldn't get your research paper laughed out of an intro level college writing class. | ||
| Bill0351 |
"Also, please explain how this greenhouse effect due to CO2 is PERMANENT." What are you even talking about? Of course the greenhouse effect is permanent. It's what makes our planet habitable! If you are referring to global warming being permanent, it isn't. When the percentage of greenhouse gasses is reduced, the global temperature will eventually follow. I'm going to bail out of this conversation because it is just going to turn into a "yes it is" vs "no it isn't" battle. Until you want to start serving up alternative explanations backed by some actual science that was done by actual scientists, you aren't likely to change my mind. As a teacher, this level of meticulously defended ignorance is depressing. (Message edited by bill0351 on January 30, 2009) | ||
| Danny_h__jesternut |
My head hurtz! |
