You aren't getting the full story from internet articles. Talk to some of the experts in the field. CrimsonCT I don't think this will ever end with some of these guys. If they don't want to believe it due to religous or ideological difference, they will FIND ways to disprove it. TRUTIDE and others just know most of the anti-global warming articles and data is based off the original stuff funded by PHILLIP MORRIS. They funded the projects to take eyes off their other scientific studies disproving that cigarette smoking causes cancer.
When people say it is cold....how about that global warming? Global Warming changes CLIMATE not temperature of a single day. Climate is a yearly or regional average throughout a long period of time. Being cold does not disprove Global warming. If you really believe that you are extremely naive. The most prestigous scientists, universities, and organizations all believe in the IPCC and subsequent findings. If you quote a politician, that is not valid because they are not qualified to comment. Essentially they are commenting on a CNN article or other secondhand source. I don't know if any of you have read ACTUAL scientific publications but it is incredibly difficult for students majoring in science let alone those that didn't. That is why they aren't credible. They are clearly getting their data from places other than scientific journals and articles..
This is why it is so frustrating an difficult to debate this kind of stuff with guys like you. You spend all of the debate trying to tell us how academically challenged we are and trying to confuse the issue by misrepresenting the data we put forth. I do not know how old you are but I have been around for a while now. I was around in the 70's and 80's when global cooling and overpopulation were the major enviromental threats to our nation. We did not even have the high tech computer models you guys place all of your faith in but the threat was every bit as real to us at the time. When global warming hit the scene in the very late eighties and into the ninties, I was working in the oceanography field where we worked directly with and compiled much of the data used by scientist at the time and this was on a daily basis. We had the highest technology available at the time and basically unlimited resources. We worked with real time data, historical data and created projected data on everything from hourly water temperatures to salt and ice density. Projecting this kind of stuff is not as simple as one might believe. While I went on to make my way in technology, I am not as ignorant as you and others try to make anyone who does not fully support your agenda out to be. On the subject of hurricanes. You can read all the books you like and study all of the charts out there but you will not know the
real life experiences the people who have actually lived through these storms have had. Some years we have many hurricanes and some years not as many. Katrina was meek compared to other hurricanes we have had hit our coasts. Have you ever heard of Camille or Frederick? Were you alive during either of these storms. As Gmart pointed out, the devastation of Katrina was directly caused by the inadequate levee system in place. This resulted in the flooding of a city that was already below sea level. The water came in but could not get back out.
As far as your other references of religion, Phillip Morris and my quoting politicians. Actually read what I have posted on this issue. When we are dealing with the political side of the issue, which is what you and the others deal in the most on here, I have quoted two politicians. The IPCC
is a political group with a political agenda and I have used former IPCC scientist as well as scientist and politicians from here and abroad who are familiar with the political dealings of this group to help define it. On the scientific side of the issue, I have quoted and referenced well over a dozen scientist. Some are Award winning scientist and most all of them work in the climate field. If you guys have thirty years of global warming research under your belt and have published papers on the subject, then by all means put them forth
but if you are sitting in a classroom listening to an instructor tell you what to think and what to believe in, then lay off putting people down just because they do not believe in something you believe in. Life experience is much more beneficial when it is actually experienced rather than read about. Truth in science is best achievable with an open mind.
The posting of internet articles is not one sided here. I would dare say that
all quotes and articles posted on here come from a internet site somewhere. It seems to me that most of the data you guys rely on come from these various sites and CNN. We are on the internet and I do not see many people scanning in any reference sources here. I have some current books on the issue and quite a few older ones somewhere in my attic (if they have not made it to a yard sale yet).
Where does religion and Phillip Morris come into any of this? If there is any politicizing coming from the right on this issue then I would think it would be coming from supporters of the oil industry. I am not one of these. I have little respect for Phillip Morris but think this is a stretch if it is what you are hanging your hat on. I see no way that global warming would benefit or harm my religion. I look at this issue from a practical perspective. Whether or not we are rushing into something for political reasons rather than for the good of the country. Your reference to Obama bulling his way through this before the science of the issue is allowed to play itself out is what is so alarming to backward Alabama residents like myself. Even if recent temperature developments were not trending toward disproving many warming theories, If we were to cut our U.S. emissions in half, what is the projected benefit?
Some more stuff for you guys to ignore...
Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus 2004,
a cost-benefit analysis of health issues by leading
economists (including three Nobelists), calculated that spending on
health issues such as micronutrients for children, HIV/AIDS and water
purification has benefits
50 to 200 times those of attempting to
marginally limit "global warming."
Another backward Alabama thinker -John Christy- Author/Lead Author for
IPCC-(Ironic is'nt it? I'll bet he's read a few of those scientific journals and articles.)
Mother Nature is incredibly complex, and to think we mortals are so clever and so perceptive that we can create computer code that accurately reproduces the millions of processes that determine climate is hubris (think of predicting the complexities of clouds).
Christy about the IPCC...
"While most participants are scientists and bring the aura of objectivity, there are two things to note:
-this is a political process to some extent (anytime governments are involved it ends up that way)
-scientists are mere mortals casting their gaze on a system so complex we cannot precisely predict its future state even five days ahead"
"After introducing myself, I sat in silence as their discussion continued, which boiled down to this: "We must write this report so strongly that it will convince the US to sign the Kyoto Protocol."
Politics, at least for a few of the Lead Authors, was very much part and parcel of the process."
"Scepticism, a hallmark of science, is frowned upon. (I suspect the IPCC bureaucracy cringes whenever I'm identified as an IPCC Lead Author.) "
"The signature statement of the 2007 IPCC report may be paraphrased as this: "We are 90% confident that most of the warming in the past 50 years is due to humans."
We are not told here that this assertion is based on computer model output, not direct observation. The simple fact is we don't have thermometers marked with "this much is human-caused" and "this much is natural".
So, I would have written this conclusion as "Our climate models are incapable of reproducing the last 50 years of surface temperatures without a push from how we think greenhouse gases influence the climate. Other processes may also account for much of this change."
