Heartland Institute: If we want to deny Global Warming, stop schools from teaching the science.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

JRslinger:
And also remember that the whole global warming movement took off in the 1990's just two decades after the global cooling scare. So yes there is plenty of reason for being skeptical of the global warming hysteria.

Sigh.

Yeah, I'm sure the north polar ice cap retreating like Napoleon from Russia is TOTALLY NORMAL.

Gorfias:
I'll check your video as I am sure it is interesting or you wouldn't be standing behind it like that, but, I hear accusations from BOTH sides regarding cherry picking data and coming up with graphs that support their argument. I buy that BOTH sides would do that.

Accusations. Now let's be clear on something... When you cut off a tiny portion of a graph, and I take the whole graph, who is cherry-picking?

There is cherry-picking. From one side. The side which isn't made up of the fucking scientists! Again: PEER REVIEW. It's not rocket science.

EDIT: how did I miss this.

Gorfias:
A simple web search will show that Newsweek also reported on global cooling.

Please link me to the scientific peer review staff on Newsweek, as well as where it describes itself as a scientific, peer-reviewed journal. Can't do that? Huh. Interesting that you're holding them up as the "scientific community".

Newsweek, Time, Discovery, Spiegel, and the rest are usually better than the rest of the tabloid media, but they still are the tabloid media. They're slightly more reliable when reporting on science than, say, Fox News or The Daily Mail, but they're still pretty fucking awful. The story about global cooling was a popular one, not a scientific one. Again: look at the actual peer-reviewed literature, and you'll see that while there were papers published about global cooling, there were over six times as many talking about global warming, and the actual content of those papers were overstated beyond belief.

Bymidew:

Gorfias:

It really doesn't matter what the issue, I've seen left and right take quotes out of context to prove a point, cherry pick data and outright misrepresent the other side's position. Unfortunately, all part of the game.

So, you're going with "every climatologist on earth is either a crook or a moron", then?

Bullshit.

And why IS the Northwest Passage clearing, if global warming doesn't exist?

I'm saying that there is a panic industry out there and you need to show the right results in your testing to be part of it.

I thought there had been no warming since 1995, and in fact it has gotten cooler. If that is the case, I do not know the answer to your Northwest Passage question. If the clearing was related to global warming, you'd think it would have stopped. If it has not, then the answer lies elsewhwere.

Gorfias:

Bymidew:

Gorfias:

It really doesn't matter what the issue, I've seen left and right take quotes out of context to prove a point, cherry pick data and outright misrepresent the other side's position. Unfortunately, all part of the game.

So, you're going with "every climatologist on earth is either a crook or a moron", then?

Bullshit.

And why IS the Northwest Passage clearing, if global warming doesn't exist?

I'm saying that there is a panic industry out there and you need to show the right results in your testing to be part of it.

I thought there had been no warming since 1995, and in fact it has gotten cooler. If that is the case, I do not know the answer to your Northwest Passage question. If the clearing was related to global warming, you'd think it would have stopped. If it has not, then the answer lies elsewhwere.

Or it perhaps suggests that global warming is happening after fucking all.

Christ, how wilfully blind do you have to be? If the North West passage is clearing, which it undeniably is by the fact shipping routes couldn't get through until 2009, then that suggests something is responsible. Ice does not melt if the planet is getting cooler. If the North West passage is melting, then that suggests that the environment is getting warmer.

I honestly cannot believe you don't understand this. You wilfully argue that the plane is cooling, not warming up, then when presented with solid evidence that the planet is warming up, not cooing, you just shrug and say the answer must lie somewhere else. How much more evidence do you fucking need before you realise that ice caps melting and sea levels rising are all major indications of a global shift upwards in temperature?

Seriously, why is this so hard for you to understand? Do you think the North West passage is in on the librul conspiracy too, and only melting to spite skeptics like you?

Sir David Attenborough, eloquent and informative as always.

Gorfias:
I'm saying that there is a panic industry out there and you need to show the right results in your testing to be part of it.

Right, where's the evidence?

I thought there had been no warming since 1995, and in fact it has gotten cooler. If that is the case, I do not know the answer to your Northwest Passage question. If the clearing was related to global warming, you'd think it would have stopped. If it has not, then the answer lies elsewhwere.

I've explained that this is untrue to you before. Here's a very clear video refutation of it sourced in the actual peer-reviewed research.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvMmPtEt8dc&feature=related

Now kindly stop spewing that crap. Thanks. ^_^

Stagnant:

Gorfias:
I'm saying that there is a panic industry out there and you need to show the right results in your testing to be part of it.

Right, where's the evidence?

I thought there had been no warming since 1995, and in fact it has gotten cooler. If that is the case, I do not know the answer to your Northwest Passage question. If the clearing was related to global warming, you'd think it would have stopped. If it has not, then the answer lies elsewhwere.

I've explained that this is untrue to you before. Here's a very clear video refutation of it sourced in the actual peer-reviewed research.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvMmPtEt8dc&feature=related

Now kindly stop spewing that crap. Thanks. ^_^

Watched your video, and in fact, it kind of proves my point: you get to select where you measure your trends to make any case you want. I understand most alarmist start their trend at the end of what is often referred to as "a little ice age".

As for the question of

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Gorfias:

Bymidew:

So, you're going with "every climatologist on earth is either a crook or a moron", then?

Bullshit.

And why IS the Northwest Passage clearing, if global warming doesn't exist?

I'm saying that there is a panic industry out there and you need to show the right results in your testing to be part of it.

I thought there had been no warming since 1995, and in fact it has gotten cooler. If that is the case, I do not know the answer to your Northwest Passage question. If the clearing was related to global warming, you'd think it would have stopped. If it has not, then the answer lies elsewhwere.

Or it perhaps suggests that global warming is happening after fucking all.

Christ, how wilfully blind do you have to be? If the North West passage is clearing, which it undeniably is by the fact shipping routes couldn't get through until 2009, then that suggests something is responsible. Ice does not melt if the planet is getting cooler. If the North West passage is melting, then that suggests that the environment is getting warmer.

I honestly cannot believe you don't understand this. You wilfully argue that the plane is cooling, not warming up, then when presented with solid evidence that the planet is warming up, not cooing, you just shrug and say the answer must lie somewhere else. How much more evidence do you fucking need before you realise that ice caps melting and sea levels rising are all major indications of a global shift upwards in temperature?

Seriously, why is this so hard for you to understand? Do you think the North West passage is in on the librul conspiracy too, and only melting to spite skeptics like you?

Please watch the video posted by Stagnant. He reviews why huge snow fall in some regions doesn't mean an end to global warming. Conversly, lack of snow and ice in an area doesn't mean an end to the threat of a new ice age either.

Gorfias:
Watched your video, and in fact, it kind of proves my point: you get to select where you measure your trends to make any case you want. I understand most alarmist start their trend at the end of what is often referred to as "a little ice age".

No, it doesn't, and I'd appreciate if you stopped referring to the vast majority of climate researchers, men far more educated and intelligent than you ever will be, as "alarmists". The video explicitly pointed out that the point it is set is not arbitrary, and that the overall trend is still positive, albeit only mildly. Then, it goes on to explain why it's so much colder than it should be, or rather was in '07/'08: - it's not only on the cold end of the El Nino/La Nina heat cycle, but at the bottom of the sun's solar cycle. The current models predicted this and explain it perfectly. You know, the same models you're trying very hard to shit all over.

Look, maybe this will help me explain this. Open up a graphing program and enter in this function:

f(x) = sin(x) + 0.1x

Notice how, despite the waves and irregularities present, there's still a clear underlying trend which is immediately visible. Sure, zoom in on a certain point and you may see that the graph is tending downwards, but if you look at the big picture, the trend remains clear.

The planet's atmosphere cannot be defined so simply. There are many, MANY factors which play a role. However, the underlying trend is clear, and has been clear for the last 20+ years. Occasionally, we'll get an anomaly (La Nina, lowered solar activity, volcanic activities, etc). However, the trend remains clear once those anomalies are accounted for, and even with the combined efforts of La Nina and the lower solar activity, this last decade has been the hottest since we started recording, globally.

And, for the record, if you can't tell the difference between an area which has been frozen for ages thawing out and there being more snow than usual in one year, then I don't think I can really help you.

I am still waiting for someone to show me the evidence that it is man made

You can link all kinds of graphs showing rising ocean temperatures, that does not mean we are causing it. Heck, millions of years ago the planet was much MUCH warmer than it is now. Climate change is a natural occurrence.

In addition, everyone seems to think that "big oil" is behind scepticism, but I suspect there is equally large amounts of money pushing a climate change agenda. It gives corporations and governments a justification to charge "eco-fees" in the name of protecting the environment. Really though, most of them change nothing and pocket the difference.

I remember when plastic bags were free at the grocery store. Not anyone, now the store is trying to be environmentally conscious. BS, they are jumping on the bandwagon to make an easy profit.

Champthrax:
I am still waiting for someone to show me the evidence that it is man made

You can link all kinds of graphs showing rising ocean temperatures, that does not mean we are causing it. Heck, millions of years ago the planet was much MUCH warmer than it is now. Climate change is a natural occurrence.

In addition, everyone seems to think that "big oil" is behind scepticism, but I suspect there is equally large amounts of money pushing a climate change agenda. It gives corporations and governments a justification to charge "eco-fees" in the name of protecting the environment. Really though, most of them change nothing and pocket the difference.

I remember when plastic bags were free at the grocery store. Not anyone, now the store is trying to be environmentally conscious. BS, they are jumping on the bandwagon to make an easy profit.

So, you think you understand this better than all the world's climatologists? You think you've figured out something that thousands of people who specialize in this exact area of science haven't? Of course not, you're just repeating what you've been told. This is not something you've concluded after years of studying the facts, it's simply something you believe anyway.

Tell me, do you never trust any research whatsoever? Because, you know, the people researching physics or mathematics are exactly as corrupted by the government as the people researching global climate change. Do you think those people are full of shit as well?

Gorfias:

I thought there had been no warming since 1995, and in fact it has gotten cooler. If that is the case, I do not know the answer to your Northwest Passage question. If the clearing was related to global warming, you'd think it would have stopped. If it has not, then the answer lies elsewhwere.

I thought I had already responded to this claim about the whole "no warming since 1995" thing. It's not true.

The list of warmest years on record is dominated by years with "2" as the first digit. According to Environment Canada, 2010 was the hottest year for Canada and almost the hottest globally. According to wikipedia (who got their numbers from the National Climate Data Center), 1995 was the 15th hottest year on record. Places 1 to 14 are all years that occurred AFTER 1995, and only 3 of that 14 only didn't start with the number "2". Given that there are only 11 years that started with "2", it means that every year this century has been warmer than 1995.

If 1995 was in the top 10, and only 2 or 3 later years are hotter than it, I'd have no argument against you. However, when every year of this century is hotter, I think the data has some pretty good potential of blowing your theory out of the water.

Champthrax:
I am still waiting for someone to show me the evidence that it is man made

There is quite a bit wrong in this statement, and it demonstrates a staggering amount of scientific illiteracy along with missing most of the point.

Firstly, science cannot show you any conclusive evidence that it is man made. That's because it isn't totally man made, and even if it was there would be no way to conclusively prove it. What science has shown is that natural (as in, not man made) forces cannot account for observations. If we remove human activity from the picture then our measurements make no sense. Therefore, the conclusion is that it's almost certain that humans are involved in the change. This might be unsatisfactory for you. If that's the case, then you might as well skip over science and go straight to religion because science doesn't deal with anything as clear cut as you would like.

Secondly, whether climate change is man made or not isn't even the point. The point is that climate change is going to wreck our current civilization. Unless you feel like dealing with massive changes that will cause a lot of pain and suffering to a shitload of people, I think the smart thing to do is to start dealing with it now.

And perhaps fittingly, one of the captcha words for this post was "observations".

Okay, I'll admit, I think Global Warming is difficult to prove, even though I do believe it's feasible.
But I say this 'better safe than sorry.'
Some of these idiots prefer, 'better sorry than safe.'

Champthrax:
I am still waiting for someone to show me the evidence that it is man made

You can link all kinds of graphs showing rising ocean temperatures, that does not mean we are causing it. Heck, millions of years ago the planet was much MUCH warmer than it is now. Climate change is a natural occurrence.

This has been addressed several times in the past by climatologists and amateurs alike. If you spent a moment looking for the peer-reviewed literature, you would know this.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17678412

I found this on PubMed, which usually deals with medicine. By the way, if anyone knows of similar databases for other fields, PLEASE let me know, as I really need a good way to find peer-reviewed papers. I'd hunt for more and more conclusive papers, or better yet a metareview (that is, an overview of all the peer reviewed papers of the last years and their observations and claims), but I don't have time - I have to go to school. So I'm going to leave you with this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU&feature=relmfu

I try not to do this very often, but Potholer54 really knows his stuff, and does very well to cite the peer-reviewed literature directly. I recommend taking a look at it.

In addition, everyone seems to think that "big oil" is behind scepticism, but I suspect there is equally large amounts of money pushing a climate change agenda. It gives corporations and governments a justification to charge "eco-fees" in the name of protecting the environment. Really though, most of them change nothing and pocket the difference.

I remember when plastic bags were free at the grocery store. Not anyone, now the store is trying to be environmentally conscious. BS, they are jumping on the bandwagon to make an easy profit.

K, prove it. We know that the Koch Brothers and similar large oil concerns are backing institutions like the Heartland Institute that push unfounded skepticism. Where's your proof that this "climate change agenda", which apparently contains almost all of the climatologists in the world, is being pushed? Maybe you can succeed where Gorfias failed[1].

[1] Miserably.

Gorfias:

I thought there had been no warming since 1995, and in fact it has gotten cooler.

If you think that, you are wrong.

Those Lying Hippies at NASA:
The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.

So if you ever feel the urge to regurgitate that factoid again, please restrain yourself.

Gorfias:

If that is the case, I do not know the answer to your Northwest Passage question. If the clearing was related to global warming, you'd think it would have stopped. If it has not, then the answer lies elsewhwere.

At some point, I think you mentioned you lived in Texas.

How's the ongoing drought and record-high temperatures treating ya? Because you know, it's only going to get worse as long as the world is run by denialist fools who'd rather see the planet burn than lose a penny.

But I guess the weather is part of the Alarmist Conspiracy, too.

Bymidew:

1) At some point, I think you mentioned you lived in Texas.

2) How's the ongoing drought and record-high temperatures treating ya? Because you know, it's only going to get worse as long as the world is run by denialist fools who'd rather see the planet burn than lose a penny.

3) But I guess the weather is part of the Alarmist Conspiracy, too.

1) Nope, not me.
2) Earlier in this thread we discssed the differences between weather and climate change. They are not equal.
3) I prefer the word industry to conspiracy. Conspiracys are small or they are impossible to keep secret. An industry is out in the open and huge, and this is literally gigantic. There are literally tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars at stake. People's lives and freedom are in jeopardy because people write silly alarmist things like "rather see the planet burn than lose a penny."

Pingieking:

I thought I had already responded to this claim about the whole "no warming since 1995" thing. It's not true.

Dunno if you were ninjad or I skipped to reviewing with Stagnant who also showed a number of charts showing 1998 hotter than 1995. I'm thinking where I first heard this (George Will) was likely refering to the work done by a guy that drew a straight line from 1995 to, I think, 2007 and found in 2007 slightly cooler than 1995, which is not how a climatologist is supposed to do these things.

Stagnant:

And, for the record, if you can't tell the difference between an area which has been frozen for ages thawing out and there being more snow than usual in one year, then I don't think I can really help you.

It feels like every time there was a storm, someone in the press stating it was because of global warming. We've seen ads with polar bears falling into the water as if to show they are running out of room on which to stand. When one reads posts like (edit) Bymidews's above, can you blame people for calling this an alarmist industry? You write yourself of how complex a matter global temp and environment is so my answer to any question about why one place or other is different than it used to be is stock: I don't know and I am skeptical of anyone that says it is global warming. There is simply way too much money involved here (a heck of a lot more than $8 million.)

I am curious: I've read Mount Kilimanjaro is losing it's snow. Skeptics claim that is caused not by global warming (it is still plenty cold up there) but by deforistation and less humidity. Has anyone tried to debunk that charge? Thanks.

Gorfias:

My recollection is they were suggesting we cover the ice caps in black soot, which would absorb solar heat to stave off a new ice age. And you can't understate the influence of Time and Newsweek back in the 1970s. No Internet. 3 TV networks in the US. For both of them to be selling this story was huge.

If prominent scientists were warning of global warming in the 1970s, why wasn't that the story rather than cooling?

What scientists and popular media think and say on matters of science can often be at variance. In the 1970s, knowledge was far more rudimentary, and scientists were much less clear on what was going on and going to occur. However, the media jumped on what was even then a minority position, and grossly distorted it.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-climate-myths-they-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s.html

Gorfias:
There are literally tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars at stake. People's lives and freedom are in jeopardy because people write silly alarmist things like "rather see the planet burn than lose a penny."

It's funny you should accuse climate change people of alarmism, and then argue that if we do anything about global warming, the world economy is going to collapse and we'll be enslaved by totalitarian government.

When anti-global warming activists have constructed their own hysterical catastrophising, they're not in a good position to make accusations of alarmism.

Agema:

Gorfias:
There are literally tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars at stake. People's lives and freedom are in jeopardy because people write silly alarmist things like "rather see the planet burn than lose a penny."

It's funny you should accuse climate change people of alarmism, and then argue that if we do anything about global warming, the world economy is going to collapse and we'll be enslaved by totalitarian government.

When anti-global warming activists have constructed their own hysterical
catastrophising, they're not in a good position to make accusations of alarmism.

If anything, I'm underselling the harms that could be done responding to climate change alarmism. Presidential candidates speak candidly about bankrupting industries. Billions of tax dollars spent subisidizing industries that are not economically viable yet, onerous burdens placed on existing industries, inflated fuel prices due to restrictions placed on the creation of more fossil fuel and the inflation of all other prices of goods that must be transported.

I know I'm not supposed to mention him, but Al Gore didn't make his $100 million out of thin air. The bulk of it, one way or another, was filtered to him from industry through tax payer money.

With all this money and power shifting from the market to government, you really think there is no danger of loss of liberty? We're already in trouble as it is. Look at the hot button issues where the public and the ruling elite differ:
1) The people are pro death penalty for murderers. It is virtually abolished.
2) the people want tight immigration control. There may be as many as 30 million "undocumented workers" in the US, and even among Republican Presidential Candidates, Amnesty, by a number of other names, is supported.
3) We want fiscal sanity. We're trillions in debt, with projections from the CBO showin we're gonna go broke :-(
4) We want our privacy. Joe the Plumber crosses the left, and every private record about him is leaked to the press from every corner of the government. Not a single person prosecuted.
5) We want to stay out of foriegn entanglements. The President bombs Libya without seeking Congressional approval.

I think this sort of thing is my next thread!

On the other hand, the guy accuses me of not wanting to spend a penny on environmentalism, which is silly. He writes the planet is going to burn up. My understanding is, at this rate, even if the alarmists are right, by the time the world is largly out of fossil fuels, in about two to three hundred years, the globe might be about 3-5 degrees warmer, which will make larger portions of Siberia more habitable. Big whoop.

Bymidew:

JRslinger:
And also remember that the whole global warming movement took off in the 1990's just two decades after the global cooling scare. So yes there is plenty of reason for being skeptical of the global warming hysteria.

Sigh.

Yeah, I'm sure the north polar ice cap retreating like Napoleon from Russia is TOTALLY NORMAL.

technically... Yeah, it is.

climate change is a naturally occuring event and has naturally occured several times in the past.

Sure global climate change is occuring.
but this hysteria saying its our fault and that we need to 'fix it' is kinda stupid.

It is the same kinda hysteria that caused humans to throw virgins into volcanos to prevent it from errupting.

It is human nature to blame ourselves for things which are largely out of our control. the black death, earth quakes, tidal waves, the plagues of egypt, the great flood of noah...

Pyro Paul:
snip

So what is causing the warming? You are aware that there must be soemthing causing it, and so far the only thing that fits is us. So what do you think is the real cause?
A planet doesn't just warm and cool by magic, some force dirves the change. What is that force?

Do us all a favor, do not say the sun.

Gorfias:

On the other hand, the guy accuses me of not wanting to spend a penny on environmentalism, which is silly. He writes the planet is going to burn up. My understanding is, at this rate, even if the alarmists are right, by the time the world is largly out of fossil fuels, in about two to three hundred years, the globe might be about 3-5 degrees warmer, which will make larger portions of Siberia more habitable. Big whoop.

+3-5 degrees makes more inhabitable parts of the world considerably less habitable than it makes inhabitable parts of the world habitable.

Think of popular views of how weather in London and Rome. An increase of 3-5 degrees would actually make London about as hot as Rome. It's not just temperature, though. It also inevitably involves changing ocean currents, rainfall, wind and so on. So droughts and desertification, forest fires, floods, storms, and so on. This is likely to disrupt local ecosystems and reduce productivity.

...no danger of loss of liberty...

None of those are important or even useful measures of liberty.

onerous burdens

Have you heard of cost externalisation? It's the process by which entities minimise expenditure by passing costs or negative onto someone else. Like for instance a chemical plant dumping its waste in a river and poisoning a farmer's fields downstream.

Now, we could either put in regulations that force proper disposal, or we let the farmer sue, or both. Whatever, the price of the chemicals the plant makes will have to reflect those costs. Why not apply the same principle to fossil fuel use and try to make the price of fossil fuels reflect similar real costs?

Gorfias:

Stagnant:

And, for the record, if you can't tell the difference between an area which has been frozen for ages thawing out and there being more snow than usual in one year, then I don't think I can really help you.

It feels like every time there was a storm, someone in the press stating it was because of global warming. We've seen ads with polar bears falling into the water as if to show they are running out of room on which to stand. When one reads posts like (edit) Bymidews's above, can you blame people for calling this an alarmist industry? You write yourself of how complex a matter global temp and environment is so my answer to any question about why one place or other is different than it used to be is stock: I don't know and I am skeptical of anyone that says it is global warming. There is simply way too much money involved here (a heck of a lot more than $8 million.)

I am curious: I've read Mount Kilimanjaro is losing it's snow. Skeptics claim that is caused not by global warming (it is still plenty cold up there) but by deforistation and less humidity. Has anyone tried to debunk that charge? Thanks.

Can I assume that you concede the rest of my argument, then, and admit that you were wrong about the trend being arbitrary depending on where you decide to draw the line? And stop using this "no cooling since 1995" factoid as though it was an argument? Because if not, go back and fucking address it.

With that in mind, to your point about the reactionary nature of the media... No shit. Again, swine flu. Any horror story that is likely to raise ratings is a gold mine to be abused, and if the actual facts get lost, oh well. But you really need to differentiate between the reactionaries (media, actors, politicians at times) and the actual science. Pointing to reactionary media getting it wrong, be it by accident or on purpose, and then using that to discredit the entire scientific field is ridiculous. If we used your standards, then the overblown reporting on fox over the Swine Flu virus would discredit the entire field of Virology. If that sounds ridiculous... Well, that's exactly what you're doing with global warming.

I'll be the first to admit that a lot of the supporters of climate change equally don't know what they're talking about. Before I really started to delve into the science, I myself was possessed by many of the ludicrous myths in "An Inconvenient Truth" - Bangladesh would flood within the next 20 years or so, displacing millions of people, for example. This isn't supported by the science, of course, but you'll still find people buying into it. You'll find a lot of supporters who believe that if we don't do something, the world is going to end. And they aren't helping. Yes, AGW is real, and yes, it is a problem, and will continue to be a problem as time goes on[1], but those who exaggerate the problem are not helping. At all. In fact, they're just making skeptics more hell-bent, because when their exaggerations inevitably get shown to be just that, the skeptics decide to ignore the actual science and go after these straw men.

...Now, everybody, watch as the only message Gorfias takes from this is "fears about global warming are almost always exaggerated".

[1] In fact, from what I have heard, there is reason to speculate that if we don't curb this soon, we'll end up with a chain reaction of C02 and Methane melting from the sea floor, the arctic tundra, and similar places. Yes, I'm aware that that's just the abstract, but the point holds - even if this would not have the catastrophic results predicted, it would still be pretty bad.

Pyro Paul:

Bymidew:

JRslinger:
And also remember that the whole global warming movement took off in the 1990's just two decades after the global cooling scare. So yes there is plenty of reason for being skeptical of the global warming hysteria.

Sigh.

Yeah, I'm sure the north polar ice cap retreating like Napoleon from Russia is TOTALLY NORMAL.

technically... Yeah, it is.

climate change is a naturally occuring event and has naturally occured several times in the past.

Sure global climate change is occuring.
but this hysteria saying its our fault and that we need to 'fix it' is kinda stupid.

It is the same kinda hysteria that caused humans to throw virgins into volcanos to prevent it from errupting.

It is human nature to blame ourselves for things which are largely out of our control. the black death, earth quakes, tidal waves, the plagues of egypt, the great flood of noah...

That's nice, but guess what: the actual science disagrees. Look, I get it, you're skeptical. But guess what: Climatologists know more about the climate than you do. I've been over this so many times in the thread that it's not even funny, and I really don't want to go over it again, but this idea of "it's all natural" is bullshit. Remove the human influence, that is, our amounts of produced carbon and methane, from the climate models, and nothing makes any sense. It's not for no reason that there is essentially a scientific consensus that the current warming is man-made.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU&feature=relmfu

Knight Templar:

Pyro Paul:
snip

So what is causing the warming? You are aware that there must be soemthing causing it, and so far the only thing that fits is us. So what do you think is the real cause?
A planet doesn't just warm and cool by magic, some force dirves the change. What is that force?

Do us all a favor, do not say the sun.

The Sun.
why not?

The ozone holes that have grown around the poles have increased the mean tempature around the troposphere in those aflicted areas from increased UV radiation.

The increase mean tempature in the poles means incresed melting of the polar ice. This can lead to a decrease in the saline levels in the trans-atlantic heat exchange as a result of the melted fresh water ice being mixed in to the falling salt water slurry.

A broken heat exchange can lead to increased mean tempatures around the world.

The honost answer is no one rightly knows or completely understands.

It could be increased solar radiation, weakening magnetosphere, rising hot magma plumes, depletion of the Ozone, it could be carbon build up or excessive Methane release...

It could be caused by Humans... or caused by some celestial event we do not even know about... or a mixture of every thing previously mentioned.

We don't know what is causing it, just like how we don't know whats causing the ozone to be depleted, or the magnetosphere going wonky in some places. and we might never know... we're talking about events which have been on going for millions of years.

Bymidew:
Remember "Climategate"? Here's its counterpart: Some leaked documents from the rightwing 'think'tank The Heartland Institute.

Fun facts:
* One anonymous donor gave the Heartland guys over 8 MILLION dollars to fight environmentalism. That's a whoooole lotta concern.
* Antony Watts is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Heartland.
* "His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain - two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science."

Oh, the Heartland guys are saying ONE of the documents is fake. They didn't say anything about the others...

.....and here is one more reason to vote Democrat

Pyro Paul:

The Sun.
why not?

Because scientists with PhDs probably aren't entirely stupid, so might have already looked long and hard at such an obvious possibility and subsequently discounted it?

We don't know what is causing it, just like how we don't know whats causing the ozone to be depleted

Seriously? It's pretty well understood what depletes atmospheric ozone.

It's fair to say we don't know, in the sense there's no cast-iron proof, what is causing climate change. However, there is not one credible source of climate change that is not either investigated to destruction or in the process of investigation. If you want to know opinion on various possibilities, you need merely read something about it. The reason they're mostly on greenhouse gases is because everything else anyone has thought of and/or data exists on looks so much less plausible.

Stagnant:

1) Can I assume that you concede the rest of my argument, then, and admit that you were wrong about the trend being arbitrary depending on where you decide to draw the line?
2) You'll find a lot of supporters who believe that if we don't do something, the world is going to end. And they aren't helping.

1) I concede I think George Will's factoid is problematic. Temps rose from 1995 to 1998 and if you draw a straight line from 1995 to 2007 temps may have been down a bit, but that isn't how one should measure these things.
I am still under the impression that global warmers tend to start their analysis from what might be marked as the end of a "little ice age" some 200 years ago.
2) Agreed. (and they are the ones more likely to be starting their analysis at 200 years ago. I want a safe, habitable world too. But wnen someone tells you that if you don't go through life with cork up your butt, the world will be aflame in 5 years, one tends to get pretty aggrevated and suspect anything that comes from that direction of an issue. I don't know, at this time, what the pro-warmers can do to make me care about this issue largely because of this.

Agema:

+3-5 degrees makes more inhabitable parts of the world considerably less habitable than it makes inhabitable parts of the world habitable.

Dunno about that. I could be wrong, but Siberia is a pretty big place, lot bigger than those islands that might get submerged.

Stagnant:
That's nice, but guess what: the actual science disagrees. Look, I get it, you're skeptical. But guess what: Climatologists know more about the climate than you do. I've been over this so many times in the thread that it's not even funny, and I really don't want to go over it again, but this idea of "it's all natural" is bullshit. Remove the human influence, that is, our amounts of produced carbon and methane, from the climate models, and nothing makes any sense. It's not for no reason that there is essentially a scientific consensus that the current warming is man-made.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU&feature=relmfu

2 points to this.

If climatologists truely knew everything there is to know about climate... then they wouldn't be climatologists... The study of climate is an on going process and even they don't completely understand the cause and effect behind whats going on with the current global climate change trend.

While the study of climate has yeilded many things that help us better understand whats going on and our possible influence on it, it by no means has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that this is purely our fault.

secondly.

your 'scientific consensus' isn't right.

the scientific community as a whole has not given 'consensus that the current warming is man-made'.

While a majority of the scientific community agrees that Man has an effect on the current climate changing trend, there hasn't been enough proof to specifically say with out a doubt that the current global climate change trend is man-made. And as scientists they won't go making such statements with out sufficent proof to back them up.

Fuck it guys, I'm too lazy to go over this again with yet another scientific illiterate[1]. Anyone who has a handy link to a metareview on climate change, or is willing to jump into the breach, be my guest.

[1] It's not an insult, it's a descriptive which applies to quite a large number of people here.

Pyro Paul:

Bymidew:
Yeah, I'm sure the north polar ice cap retreating like Napoleon from Russia is TOTALLY NORMAL.

technically... Yeah, it is.

climate change is a naturally occuring event and has naturally occured several times in the past.

Sure global climate change is occuring.
but this hysteria saying its our fault and that we need to 'fix it' is kinda stupid.

Because we don't actually NEED cheap food, and you'll be perfectly OK paying 5$ for a loaf of bread once the midwest turns into New Dust Bowl, right?

Our current civilization is predicatd on a specific climate and certain crops. This is about to change, and NOT for the better.

Pyro Paul:

It is human nature to blame ourselves for things which are largely out of our control. the black death, earth quakes, tidal waves, the plagues of egypt, the great flood of noah...

The Black Death could've been stopped in its tracks with modern antibiotics and germ theory, if our ancestors had had them. Earthquake deaths can be minimized by requiring the right architectural designs.

PLEASE tell me you were just being metaphorical in mentioning the Great Flood in there. I'm too tired to savage a Creationist right now.

Pyro Paul:

The honost answer is no one rightly knows or completely understands.

Bullshit. Quick question: Do you think the laws of physics are a thing that exists?
Do you understand why the inside of a car on a sunny day heats up more than the outside?
If so, then we DO know what's causing the current climate change: The fact that there is more carbon dioxide and similar chemicals in the atmosphere now than any time since the start of the Carboniferous Period.

You know what I hear you saying? "Hmmm... well, we can't be sure what started this fire, so we can't possibly take any action that might put it out!"

Okay, I don't want to do this. I don't like to have to call people on their crap when I agree with the side they're on. But this is getting stupid, and you keep doing it again and again and again!

Bymidew:
Because we don't actually NEED cheap food, and you'll be perfectly OK paying 5$ for a loaf of bread once the midwest turns into New Dust Bowl, right?

Our current civilization is predicatd on a specific climate and certain crops. This is about to change, and NOT for the better.

When is this going to happen, Bym? Please give me a decent estimate based on the peer-reviewedliterature, or better yet, a citation from the peer-reviewed literature on this. Your implication that global warming is going to inexorably lead to extreme weather patterns within the very near future is simply wrong. Eventually? Yeah, eventually we're going to have problems. But we need to be honest with ourselves about this, and admit that the midwest turning into a massive desert is probably pretty far off, and stop BEING the alarmist industry!

There's a right and a wrong way to do this. The right way is hard work, and involves actually citing scientific research. The wrong way is easy, lazy, and often ends up just as wrong as what we were trying to correct in the first place.

...Although, to be fair, I'm often left wondering if the right way is worthwhile with some of these people to begin with.

Pyro Paul:

Snip

I was going to leave your post alone because I am so tired of explaining that we know what the sun is doing and why it can't be whats at work here. That these things have been looked into and found wanting.

But this statement caught my eye.

just like how we don't know whats causing the ozone to be depleted,

Really? You sure about that?

Bymidew:

Pyro Paul:

Bymidew:
Yeah, I'm sure the north polar ice cap retreating like Napoleon from Russia is TOTALLY NORMAL.

technically... Yeah, it is.

climate change is a naturally occuring event and has naturally occured several times in the past.

Sure global climate change is occuring.
but this hysteria saying its our fault and that we need to 'fix it' is kinda stupid.

Because we don't actually NEED cheap food, and you'll be perfectly OK paying 5$ for a loaf of bread once the midwest turns into New Dust Bowl, right?

Our current civilization is predicatd on a specific climate and certain crops. This is about to change, and NOT for the better.

Thats just fear mongering.
you don't know what will occur or how it will change the world.

Some project that the culmination of global warming is another ice age, not a super heated dry spell.

further more...
Do we all just go stupid when Global warming occurs?
Humans are quite adept at molding our enviornment to suit OUR needs... I mean we litterally have trees and plants from Rain-forests growing in greenhouse in North America, well outside their natural climate tolerance.

With a need, we will create a way.
we always have.

Pyro Paul:

It is human nature to blame ourselves for things which are largely out of our control. the black death, earth quakes, tidal waves, the plagues of egypt, the great flood of noah...

The Black Death could've been stopped in its tracks with modern antibiotics and germ theory, if our ancestors had had them. Earthquake deaths can be minimized by requiring the right architectural designs.

PLEASE tell me you were just being metaphorical in mentioning the Great Flood in there. I'm too tired to savage a Creationist right now.

missed the point.

All of these events where, at a time, truely believed to be punishment for things we've done wrong. from washing away our sins with a flood, to punishing a wicked tyrant for enslaving Gods chosen, to a slow punishment and death to all those wicked and unfaithful of heart.

It wasn't until well after each event that we discovered the real causes behind each.
Just like with global warming.

we won't completely understand it or what has truely caused it until well after it has occured. Right now you're just like the Flaggrents flogging yourself as pentence for the black plague.

Pyro Paul:

The honost answer is no one rightly knows or completely understands.

Bullshit. Quick question: Do you think the laws of physics are a thing that exists?

yes, although not complete and always subject to change as we learn more of our universe.

Do you understand why the inside of a car on a sunny day heats up more than the outside?

I'm gunna be diffrent and say thermal conductivity.

Metal of car absorbs heat
heat exchange occurs between metal and interior air.
interior air reaches a hotter mean tempature.

I know you want me to say greenhouse effect, but that isn't the only reason a car gets hotter on the inside then the outside.

If so, then we DO know what's causing the current climate change: The fact that there is more carbon dioxide and similar chemicals in the atmosphere now than any time since the start of the Carboniferous Period.

You mean except for every other time in earths history?

The Carboniferous Period and the Quaternary Period (2.6 million years to present) are the only times earths Co2 Concentration has been less then 400 ppm.

All of the Mesozoic Era, the near 300 million years between the Carboniferous period and the Quaternary Period, had a Co2 concentration well above 1000 ppm...

Agema:
Seriously? It's pretty well understood what depletes atmospheric ozone.

It's fair to say we don't know, in the sense there's no cast-iron proof..

Knight Templar:
Really? You sure about that?

photodissociation of Halocarbons is one of the primary causes believed for the destruction of Ozone. Primarly those used in man made products such as arosol sprays and the like.

But there is also some belief that anomalies in the magnetic field could also result in Ozone decay as solar winds litterally blast away the outer edge of the atmosphere in these low magnetic areas.

An effect that we have seen from our rover missions to Mars and studies of its atmosphere.

a couple other contributing factors (green house effect cooling upper stratosphere) could also be taken into consideration as well

But yeah, that was a bit of a stretch on that idea...
the 'It most likely is this... but no cast-iron that it is'.

such is science.
there is no truth, only theories and evidence.

Stagnant:

When is this going to happen, Bym? Please give me a decent estimate based on the peer-reviewedliterature, or better yet, a citation from the peer-reviewed literature on this. Your implication that global warming is going to inexorably lead to extreme weather patterns within the very near future is simply wrong.

Ain't got none, don't give enough of a shit to bother. Sorry if I've been overstating it. I was extrapolating from the ongoing drought Texas has been having. (Remember Governor Perry trying to pray it away?)

But if GW is correct, a whooolle lot of crops are going to find themselves outside their previous optimum climates. Even the seed companies are going along with this 'alarmism'.

Gorfias: How come we didn't hear you pooh-poohing the 'alarmist industry' back when this country was collectively losing its shit over "TEH TERRORIST MENACE!!!"? Because a few companies (like Halliburton) DEFINITELY made fat stacks of cash over that one.

Pyro Paul:

you don't know what will occur or how it will change the world.

Whereas you seem to be sunnily certain that nothing will happen.

Pyro Paul:

further more...
Do we all just go stupid when Global warming occurs?
Humans are quite adept at molding our enviornment to suit OUR needs... I mean we litterally have trees and plants from Rain-forests growing in greenhouse in North America, well outside their natural climate tolerance.

With a need, we will create a way.
we always have.

"We don't need to worry because MAGIC!" Maybe it's escaped your notice, but we can't exactly enclose the entire Pacific Northwest (for example) in a dome.

Pyro Paul:

All of these events where, at a time, truely believed to be punishment for things we've done wrong. from washing away our sins with a flood, to punishing a wicked tyrant for enslaving Gods chosen, to a slow punishment and death to all those wicked and unfaithful of heart.

It wasn't until well after each event that we discovered the real causes behind each.
Just like with global warming.

we won't completely understand it or what has truely caused it until well after it has occured. Right now you're just like the Flaggrents flogging yourself as pentence for the black plague.

No, no I am not. I don't regard our culture's addiction to fossil fuels as a SIN THAT HAS INCURRED THE WRATH OF GAIA, I regard it as a BAD HABIT we need to change BEFORE disasters occur.

Whereas you, OTOH, sound like someone saying "Oh, I can't understand why I'm gaining weight! But it can't possibly have anything to do with eating at McDonalds for three of my five meals every day!"

And as various people have pointed out at some length, we already HAVE a pretty good idea what's causing global warming. Your apparent insistence that nobody knows is getting a bit wearying.

Pyro Paul:

The Carboniferous Period and the Quaternary Period (2.6 million years to present) are the only times earths Co2 Concentration has been less then 400 ppm.

All of the Mesozoic Era, the near 300 million years between the Carboniferous period and the Quaternary Period, had a Co2 concentration well above 1000 ppm...

[citation needed].

nikki191:
i dont like glen beck but one thing hes always said thats true is "follow the money" and its amazing what you can find when you do

Hey, a broken clock's right twice a day if nothing else.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked