News Article: Interesting article on global warming causes and effecte

[CrimsonCT]

You have thousands of scientist and I cab cite thousands of scientist.

Hey guys, I signed the Oregon Petition. So did my mom, my dog, and the Spice Girls.

What a load. That's like linking to a poll on the front page of ESPN and citing it as credible evidence of anything.

If you're going to link outside sources, at least link expert opinions. This is a good blog for such a purpose. And this is a good post in said blog.

 

[Bama4Ever831]

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.

It is definitely up for much debate. MUCH more research is needed. The bad news is that research in this area is very slow as we need to actually live the years rather than just predict. Stupid time. However, I don't know if you understand the need for us to have something to push for. When America is pushing for SOMETHING we do better. There is something in the psychology of pushing to some meaning that allows us to do better in may aspects. Becoming "green" can potentially create millions of jobs giving America a chance to stay ahead of the curve and push technology into the future and while doing this reduce our dependence on foriegn oil, which definitely is a national security fear. I am not going to be able to convert many if any to the "conservationalist" view. But maybe you can see that this "revolution" of sorts can be very valuable in many ways other than simply stopping global warming. America has lost many of its niches as major industries (auto industry, banks, etc) are failing.

Agent Smith: I'd like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species, and I realised that humans are not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment; but you humans do not. Instead you multiply, and multiply, until every resource is consumed. The only way for you to survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern... a virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer on this planet, you are a plague, and we... are the cure.

Many of you may not agree with this Matrix Quote. It is definitely an extreme. No I dont think humans are a disease or a plague, but we are changing the planet drastically. We need to find sustainability regardless if what we are doing is causing Global Warming (which I believe we are). We are going to run out of oil very soon. I am for this "politcal movement" because it will force us to deal with the problem of developing fuels and adopting a better lifestyle before we run out of oil and everything crashes. It is not just cars. Almost everything that makes our life possible is made from some parts of petroleum. This movement of "global warming" may turn out to be scare tactics similar to "we could be attacked at ANY moment." But it gets the masses to unite and realize problems before they happen instead of waiting until things happen to realize the problem. No one can argue that how humans are living are negatively effecting the world. Why not aim to stop that negative effect without compromising quality of life? If we start to solve it now it will save us from that big oil riots, wars, terror, etc that could follow as countries start to position themselves for the last little bit of it.

 

[Bama4Ever831]

Hey guys, I signed the Oregon Petition. So did my mom, my dog, and the Spice Girls.

What a load. That's like linking to a poll on the front page of ESPN and citing it as credible evidence of anything.

If you're going to link outside sources, at least link expert opinions. This is a good blog for such a purpose. And this is a good post in said blog.

Thanks for the article. I may have to start reading this blog more often.

 

[TRUTIDE]

In your own article by the way...



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)

I
No, I see you are clearly with the political activitist group.

"Vaclav Klaus is President of the Czech Republic and warned that environmentalists who claim to advocate policy changes to combat so-called global warming "only pretend" to promote environmental protection. "Environmentalism should belong in the social sciences," said President Klaus, along with other "isms" such as communism, feminism, and liberalism. President Klaus said that "environmentalism is a religion" that seeks to change peoples' habits and economic systems..."Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. The IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment."

"The global warming propaganda is, I agree, similar to the Avian flu propaganda, the Y2K propaganda, the end of resources propaganda, the overpopulation propaganda, etc. Their proposals will not increase the globalisation of human activities, they are in favour of global governance only."

Just a differing viewpoint of the IPCC.

 

[Bama4Ever831]

I
No, I see you are clearly with the political activitist group.

"Vaclav Klaus is President of the Czech Republic and warned that environmentalists who claim to advocate policy changes to combat so-called global warming "only pretend" to promote environmental protection. "Environmentalism should belong in the social sciences," said President Klaus, along with other "isms" such as communism, feminism, and liberalism. President Klaus said that "environmentalism is a religion" that seeks to change peoples' habits and economic systems..."Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. The IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment."

"The global warming propaganda is, I agree, similar to the Avian flu propaganda, the Y2K propaganda, the end of resources propaganda, the overpopulation propaganda, etc. Their proposals will not increase the globalisation of human activities, they are in favour of global governance only."

Just a differing viewpoint of the IPCC.

I wonder if Dr. Klaus studied in Czech Republic or America. What is this you say? He is not related to science in any way besides living? He doesn't even have a PhD in any science? O.
If I am wrong, we just wasted money. If you are wrong, the Earth is uninhabitable and we all die. I'll go with my viewpoint considering we have the consensus of scientists. I'm absolutely okay if I am wrong.

 

[TRUTIDE]

Hey guys, I signed the Oregon Petition. So did my mom, my dog, and the Spice Girls.

Oh, A petition signer. You should check this one out...

Oregon Petition

 

[TRUTIDE]

I wonder if Dr. Klaus studied in Czech Republic or America. What is this you say? He is not related to science in any way besides living? He doesn't even have a PhD in any science? O.
If I am wrong, we just wasted money. If you are wrong, the Earth is uninhabitable and we all die. I'll go with my viewpoint considering we have the consensus of scientists. I'm absolutely okay if I am wrong.

I am sure Klaus's background can give us a good perspective of any political agendas going on at the UN.

Even though, Stephen Schneider wrote a book back in the 1970s warning that the world might be facing and must take steps to prepare for a "Little Ice Age," and the National Academy of Sciences that has lent qualified credence to the global warming theory warned in 1977 that a new ice age "is upon us," citing "evidence as diverse as the duration of arctic snow cover, animal migration, sea surface temperatures and microfossils on the ocean floor, not to mention declining average global temperatures
I am not anti global warming. I am of the opinion that the world is warming to a certain extent. What could we expect coming off an Ice Age (22000 years ago)? I prefer climate change. While I do not subscribe to the popular "man made climate change" beliefs. I do believe that we are part of our climate and as our population increases, our climate must change. I look at it as more of a natural occurence. What I dislike is when truth is confused with propaganda by the activist crowd.

"It should be disconcerting to hear that the author of The Genesis Strategy: Climate and Global Survival, Stephen Schneider who is probably quoted more frequently about global warming than any other authority told Discover magazine in October 1989 that scientists should consider stretching the truth "to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination." Said Schneider: "That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So, we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. . . . Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Joseph Paehlke, in his book Environmentalism and the Future of Aggressive Politics, writes: "Natural and social scientists have tended to view their role as scientists and citizens as separate. Environmentalists, in contrast, have generally seen these roles as irretrievably linked. Not since the nineteenth century, when Marx, Engels, and many others sought (so wrongheadedly at times) to blend science and ideology, has there been so explicit an effort in this regard. Marx and Engels erred in part because they made little attempt to distinguish between the historical outcomes they preferred and those predicted `scientifically' using their methods." Likewise, he says, "environmentalists have tended to use science to extrapolate fearsome futures."

I do not think that real science is a "my guy is more credible than your guy", closed minded sort if thing. I think this is more the form of a propagandist or political activist. I think that real science is comparing data and looking at problems from many different angles. Scientist evidently come down on different sides of this issue. Hopefully they can work together, without the outside influences, and come up with an agreeable conclusion.

It is not as though we are doing nothing, especially in this country. We have realized that polution makes us sick and we are taking steps to control pollution in the air, water supply etc. We are looking into alternative energy, more out of need than anything else. It cost alot of money though and we do need a thorough exploration of the different options out there so that we are not creating more problems. We also need to determine that whatever is chosen is a safe, sustainable resource. You can stick with your guys but I don't really have any guys. I like to see what is out there and go with that.

 

[CrimsonCT]

Thanks for the article. I may have to start reading this blog more often.

Yep, it's a good one. And it stays fairly updated. For instance, it links to a post dispelling that ridiculous Senate report that TRU posted.

 

[Tider@GW_Law]

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, if you'll notice, I said "contributing to" and NOT "wholly responsible for." There is no doubt whatsoever and no logical argument against man's massive production of greenhouse gases contributing to climate change. The real debate seems to be about what climate change would naturally be occurring in man's absence.

 

[AlistarWills]

I got through 5 pages of this. I have one question and one statement.
Question: so what caveman driving an SUV caused an end to the ice age?

Statement: I want all you "global warming" people to put your money where your mouth is. No more cars. No more cooked food (you have to HEAT it to cook it) No more warm water. No more electricity period. Seriously, if some of you REALLY believe it this farce, put your belief in action and stop yourself, instead of trying to find a way to force everyone else.

 

[rolltidescott]

I got through 5 pages of this. I have one question and one statement.
Question: so what caveman driving an SUV caused an end to the ice age?

Statement: I want all you "global warming" people to put your money where your mouth is. No more cars. No more cooked food (you have to HEAT it to cook it) No more warm water. No more electricity period. Seriously, if some of you REALLY believe it this farce, put your belief in action and stop yourself, instead of trying to find a way to force everyone else.

It's liket he 'movie stars' standing up and talking about how horrible global warming is when receivng an award for ACTING. All the while, the limo that brought them to the awards show is outside idling, awaiting their return.

 

[It's On A Slab]

18 below zero yesterday morning during my drive to work.

Coldest temps here since 1996.

Don't know how this fits into the thread either way, but it's definitely colder here this Winter.

 

[CrimsonCT]

I got through 5 pages of this. I have one question and one statement.
Question: so what caveman driving an SUV caused an end to the ice age?

Statement: I want all you "global warming" people to put your money where your mouth is. No more cars. No more cooked food (you have to HEAT it to cook it) No more warm water. No more electricity period. Seriously, if some of you REALLY believe it this farce, put your belief in action and stop yourself, instead of trying to find a way to force everyone else.

There were no previous ice ages, because the earth is only 6000 years old. Science is heresy.

 

[Bamaro]

More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette
We are in the business of selling doubt

 

[CrimsonCT]

There are countless accusations of Scientist being threatened for speaking out against "man made" global warming.

Either back up your BS or stop spewing it. I guess the moon landing happened in an Arizona studio too?

Look, almost everyone in this thread is asking the wrong question, which is likely a result of the politicization of the findings. You'll never make any meaningful contribution to the question of whether climate change is occurring. The issue is, obviously, complicated. As a citizen with other specialties, you shouldn't be sitting here trying to weigh up the evidence. You should be trying to decide what policies to support. And even people who believe anthropogenic global warming to be real seem to get this question wrong.

No lay person should be looking at a graph like the CO2/temperature correlation and think this tells them anything. But equally, nobody should be arguing that the earth has only gotten 0.8 degrees warmer over the last 100 years, and suggesting that this isn't a problem. You just have no meaningful context to be saying something like that. This isn't a matter to eyeball newspaper clippings. If you're talking about the number of polar bears, the size of the glaciers, how many hurricanes there have been, the number of fat chicks in bikinis at the beach--stop. I know you interact with evidence much better if it's tangible to you, but that will never get you anywhere on this issue.

In short, if you read any scientific argument for or against global warming, and you think you spot a flaw in their reasoning, then go publish a paper. Or try to. What you'll find is, if you read the original paper, and not the watered down version you saw in the press, your objection is either based on a misunderstanding, irrelevant, or already accounted for. Career scientists are not amateurs, they're not blatantly incompetent, they're not idiots, and they're not corrupt. There isn't going to be a problem obvious enough for you to notice. If you think you see a problem with published research, assume you didn't understand.

So, what can you base your knowledge on? Broad consensus in the field. And every review body comes down with unambiguous conclusions about how this is definitely a concern. So stop talking about polar bears because you desperately want to believe you can just go on with your life and call it a wash. Based on the risks and rewards, what we should do is drastic, and what you should do as a citizen is demand something drastic.

[/rant]

 

[JagTider]

Either back up your BS or stop spewing it. I guess the moon landing happened in an Arizona studio too?

Look, almost everyone in this thread is asking the wrong question, which is likely a result of the politicization of the findings. You'll never make any meaningful contribution to the question of whether climate change is occurring. The issue is, obviously, complicated. As a citizen with other specialties, you shouldn't be sitting here trying to weigh up the evidence. You should be trying to decide what policies to support. And even people who believe anthropogenic global warming to be real seem to get this question wrong.

No lay person should be looking at a graph like the CO2/temperature correlation and think this tells them anything. But equally, nobody should be arguing that the earth has only gotten 0.8 degrees warmer over the last 100 years, and suggesting that this isn't a problem. You just have no meaningful context to be saying something like that. This isn't a matter to eyeball newspaper clippings. If you're talking about the number of polar bears, the size of the glaciers, how many hurricanes there have been, the number of fat chicks in bikinis at the beach--stop. I know you interact with evidence much better if it's tangible to you, but that will never get you anywhere on this issue.

In short, if you read any scientific argument for or against global warming, and you think you spot a flaw in their reasoning, then go publish a paper. Or try to. What you'll find is, if you read the original paper, and not the watered down version you saw in the press, your objection is either based on a misunderstanding, irrelevant, or already accounted for. Career scientists are not amateurs, they're not blatantly incompetent, they're not idiots, and they're not corrupt. There isn't going to be a problem obvious enough for you to notice. If you think you see a problem with published research, assume you didn't understand.

So, what can you base your knowledge on? Broad consensus in the field. And every review body comes down with unambiguous conclusions about how this is definitely a concern. So stop talking about polar bears because you desperately want to believe you can just go on with your life and call it a wash. Based on the risks and rewards, what we should do is drastic, and what you should do as a citizen is demand something drastic.

[/rant]

Pay no attention to man behind the curtain.

I think your "How dare you disagree with me!" rant is slightly hypocritical given the quote you were responding to.

 

[92tide]

Pay no attention to man behind the curtain.

I think your "How dare you disagree with me!" rant is slightly hypocritical given the quote you were responding to.

and you are mistaking his "rant" as griping about disagreement with him. you may want to re-read it

 

[CrimsonCT]

92 always has my back.

 

[JagTider]

and you are mistaking his "rant" as griping about disagreement with him. you may want to re-read it

You're right. I should have written that his "How dare you disagree with the group of scientists that I have decided to agree with!" rant is hypocritical when responding to a quote about people being threatened for not agreeing.

He calls it BS and then immediately gives a perfect example of it by telling people not to question the results or motivations of scientists whose opinions are used to back up an argument that he agrees with. Then there is a call for drastic action. So, he is actually disagreeing with scientists that do not support the "man made" global warming argument. Just funny how he can disagree with scientists but others are too ignorant to.

 

[CrimsonCT]

I think you've misunderstood everything.