News Article: Interesting article on global warming causes and effecte

[CrimsonCT]

I figured you would turn off at that point. But look past that and consider the logic. You don't need perfect information to make decisions--which is good, because we never have perfect information. What you do is look at the different possibilities and their costs and consequences.

So, we have some probability of anthropogenic climate change, and we have a range of options from "do nothing" to "do a lot." What kind of policy should be implemented? For each option you'd want to consider the impact if global warming were true, and the impact if it were false. The option that has the best average outcome (weighted by the probabilities you assign to the two outcomes) is the one we should select. Basic decision theory under imperfect information.

So even if you believe that we probably are not causing global warming, just how certain are you? Because the consequences of not reducing emissions under many projections are catastrophic, and investing in alternative energies, taxing gasoline so that you can't drive your SUV, eating more vegetables--none of these are very bad options at all, compared to the possibility of global collapse.

 

[NYBamaFan]

I figured you would turn off at that point. ...

You don't understand my point. When he clearly has an agenda, you cannot trust any of his findings. It is like the OJ trial. Once you found out that the police had tampered with even a single piece of evidence, everything that they touched was cast into doubt. The result - OJ walks. The result here - I stop reading...

 

[CrimsonCT]

You don't understand my point. When he clearly has an agenda, you cannot trust any of his findings. It is like the OJ trial. Once you found out that the police had tampered with even a single piece of evidence, everything that they touched was cast into doubt. The result - OJ walks. The result here - I stop reading...

You can fabricate an agenda for anyone and use that fiction to discredit him. You can do it with pro-GW scientists, anti-GW scientists, and apparently economists too. So I suppose you don't read anything about the issue then? Just wet your finger and hold it up to the wind?

 

[NYBamaFan]

You can fabricate an agenda for anyone and use that fiction to discredit him. You can do it with pro-GW scientists, anti-GW scientists, and apparently economists too. So I suppose you don't read anything about the issue then? Just wet your finger and hold it up to the wind?

I didn't fabricate it. He states it very clearly, himself. You can choose to ignore agendas if you wish, and you do - but only when it suits your argument...

 

[CrimsonCT]

You can choose to ignore agendas if you wish, and you do - but only when it suits your argument...

The same critique applies to you.

 

[NYBamaFan]

The same critique applies to you.

That is fair. We all try to fight it, but we can't help but prefer to read a view point that reenforces our own. But we are not likely to read that of someone with ideas that clearly opposes our ideals - especially when they lay out their agenda clearly.

We see what we want to see. If he wanted to see man made global warming, I am sure that he kept looking until he did, and that he ignored all things that indicated otherwise...

 

[Bama4Ever831]

That is fair. We all try to fight it, but we can't help but prefer to read a view point that reenforces our own. But we are not likely to read that of someone with ideas that clearly opposes our ideals - especially when they lay out their agenda clearly.

We see what we want to see. If he wanted to see man made global warming, I am sure that he kept looking until he did, and that he ignored all things that indicated otherwise...

This is why ONE single scientific report proves nothing. It all comes down to the sum of all the published papers.

 

[rolltidescott]

Global warming strikes again! Coldest weather in dacades in the midwest and pretty cold here in North Alabama!

 

[92tide]

Global warming strikes again! Coldest weather in dacades in the midwest and pretty cold here in North Alabama!

you should become a scientist

 

[CrimsonNan]

:eek2:

-14 here monday.. Thats hardly global warming.:eek2:

Hahahaha...Oh but remember it's not "global warming" anymore, now "they" call it "climate change" so that it doesn't matter if the weather is cold, hot, wet, or dry, it's global warming under the new name of "climate change".

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhh........doesn't the climate actually change from time to time? Doesn't the climate go through cycles? Yes, but you won't convince any of the global warming nuts!!!!!

BTW, it's supposed to go down to 10 or 12 tonight or tomorrow here in B'ham.:conf2::biggrin:

 

[CrimsonCT]

you should become a scientist

Hell, this whole board is clearly qualified.

 

[Bamaro]

you should become a scientist

Yup, imagine that. A cold spell in the middle of winter. Who would have thunk it.

 

[92tide]

Yup, imagine that. A cold spell in the middle of winter. Who would have thunk it.

i am getting very close to concluding my research to determine if in fact water is wet

 

[gmart74]

im still trying to discover the wet quark. without it, all forms of wetness, moistness, drool and slobber cannot be scientifically explained on the quantum level.

 

[92tide]

im still trying to discover the wet quark. without it, all forms of wetness, moistness, drool and slobber cannot be scientifically explained on the quantum level.

i fear an imminent collapse of the space-time continuum if drool is not adequately explained soon

 

[Tider@GW_Law]

Yup, imagine that. A cold spell in the middle of winter. Who would have thunk it.

It's a common phenomenon referred to as an "Alberta Clipper."

AGAIN, though I've already stated it once in this thread, there is no debate as to whether manmade activity is contributing to climate/atmospheric change.
The question is one of BACKGROUND RATE, i.e. what is the underlying natural increase in temperatures? Man is contributing, but we do not know to what degree, which means we can't make a causality inference at this point in time.

 

[TRUTIDE]

QUOTE=Tider@GW_Law;1006506]It's a common phenomenon referred to as an "Alberta Clipper."

AGAIN, though I've already stated it once in this thread, there is no debate as to whether manmade activity is contributing to climate/atmospheric change.The question is one of BACKGROUND RATE, i.e. what is the underlying natural increase in temperatures? Man is contributing, but we do not know to what degree, which means we can't make a causality inference at this point in time.[/QUOTE]

I'm glad this is cleared up.

More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying that man is responsible for global warming. [

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

Climate Extremism: the Real Threat to Civilization

Scientist fired by Al Gore was told, "science will not intrude on public policy".

When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works.

 

[Bama4Ever831]

It's a common phenomenon referred to as an "Alberta Clipper."

AGAIN, though I've already stated it once in this thread, there is no debate as to whether manmade activity is contributing to climate/atmospheric change.The question is one of BACKGROUND RATE, i.e. what is the underlying natural increase in temperatures? Man is contributing, but we do not know to what degree, which means we can't make a causality inference at this point in time.

I'm glad this is cleared up.

More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying that man is responsible for global warming. [

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

Climate Extremism: the Real Threat to Civilization

Scientist fired by Al Gore was told, "science will not intrude on public policy".

When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works.

First off, the first article is clearly shock and awe. Only 9,000 of those that signed had a phD. Using their logic I could be considered a scientist as I currently take a science class and am involved in a science project using the scientific method. Second, they arent all Ecologists. That is like asking my chemistry teacher if he can comment on a medical issue. In the first day of my ecology class we talked about global warming. If you look at the facts it is absolutely insane how strong the correlation is betwen things like increase of the Suess effect (C14 will radioactively decay, so in fossil fuels there is a relatively small amount of C14 compared to C12. There is a decrease in C14 in the atmosphere compared to the amount of C12 being added to the air. With the percent C14 dropping this means most of the increase of C02 is not from plants or humans breath, but from FOSSIL FUELS.) and the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is extremely more complicated than that. To say that because it is cold, global warming doesn't exist is absolutely ridiculous. We know that an increase of CO2 can increase temperatures, but it is definetely not the only thing happening. I have many theories but not the time to find sources. It is definetely a patchwork of things, but mostly all things caused by humans. The Earth is definetely close to its carrying capacity for humans.

If any of yall want to debate that humans can impact Earth in a global way look at the use of CFCs that dropped the rates of Ozone in the atmosphere. Today, as we don't use CFCs anymore Ozone is slowly starting to bounce back. Humans CAN and DO effect the globe as a whole.

For the second article, 400 scientists is alot less than:

A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK) said:
The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified

So which would you rather have? 400 scientists or the collective groups of 15+ groups of thousands of scientists? The last article I totally agree with you on. No need to comment on Al Gore he is nut job anyway.

 

[Bama4Ever831]

In your own article by the way...

A spokesman for the Royal Society, Britain’s national academy of science, said: “The world’s leading climate experts at the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believe that it is greater than 90 per cent likely that human activity is responsible for most of the observed warming in recent decades. That is a pretty strong consensus.

I'll go with the Nobel Prize-winning IPCC rather than a few scientists (relatively). Still want to argue? No you go with your group of medical doctors and physicists. I'll go with the guys that actually studied it.

Scientists sign petition denying man-made global warming - Telegraph

(your link)

 

[TRUTIDE]

First off, the first article is clearly shock and awe. Only 9,000 of those that signed had a phD. Using their logic I could be considered a scientist as I currently take a science class and am involved in a science project using the scientific method. Second, they arent all Ecologists. That is like asking my chemistry teacher if he can comment on a medical issue. In the first day of my ecology class we talked about global warming. If you look at the facts it is absolutely insane how strong the correlation is betwen things like increase of the Suess effect (C14 will radioactively decay, so in fossil fuels there is a relatively small amount of C14 compared to C12. There is a decrease in C14 in the atmosphere compared to the amount of C12 being added to the air. With the percent C14 dropping this means most of the increase of C02 is not from plants or humans breath, but from FOSSIL FUELS.) and the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is extremely more complicated than that. To say that because it is cold, global warming doesn't exist is absolutely ridiculous. We know that an increase of CO2 can increase temperatures, but it is definetely not the only thing happening. I have many theories but not the time to find sources. It is definetely a patchwork of things, but mostly all things caused by humans. The Earth is definetely close to its carrying capacity for humans.

If any of yall want to debate that humans can impact Earth in a global way look at the use of CFCs that dropped the rates of Ozone in the atmosphere. Today, as we don't use CFCs anymore Ozone is slowly starting to bounce back. Humans CAN and DO effect the globe as a whole.

For the second article, 400 scientists is alot less than:


So which would you rather have? 400 scientists or the collective groups of 15+ groups of thousands of scientists? The last article I totally agree with you on. No need to comment on Al Gore he is nut job anyway.

This article on wikipedia, yes wikipedia, will give some stats.

[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy[/URL]


This is PUBLIC perception.

What drives public perception? 30 years ago everyone was convinced that we were having global cooling. The pro and against is scattered throughout this thread. You have thousands of scientist and I cab cite thousands of scientist. All I am pointing out is that this issue is still very much debateable. There is a big political movement out there pushing the "man made" agenda. There are countless accusations of Scientist being threatened for speaking out against "man made" global warming. Many suggest that world leaders are using the "man made" global warming angle to get us off fossil fuels and push us more toward nuclear energy. I personally would'nt care. I do not like paying higher prices at the pumps anymore than anyone else but I still do not like political activitist screwing with our lives.

Neither side of this argument have the cold hard facts and it is still very much debateable.