Global warming crowd

[k1pp3r]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: k1pp3r

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: k1pp3r

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: k1pp3r

Originally posted by: Todd33
WTF is a "Global warming crowd"? Do you work for Exxon or are you a flat Earth type?

No, its the "Hey the same thing happened from 1050 - 1300 AD, and look its happening again. But lets strike that from the record so we can make some money" crowd.

And you wonder why people call you flat Earth types. If you want to stick your head in the sand, fine, but don't pretend you have some reasonable scientific support for your position, because you really don't.

I never said the earth was not warming, but wait, so is mars (smacks forehead) and yes their is scientific evidence to prove that. The reason this crowd is so on the ball is because that may a ton of money off of it. Yes the earth is warmer, but it isn't as serious as they say.

Show me 1 UN report on climate that has the warming period of 1050 - 1300 AD in it. It will be titled "Global Cooling"

Jubus christ, please educate yourself. These threads are really stupid and wouldnt even be here if people educated themselves on the scientific evidence. The argument is political not scientific. The only reason you have an opinion is because your pundits on the radio tell you that you do. Now, go and read the real scientific evidence and if you understand it get back to this thread.

BTW, since you dont know, the folks that published that paper on mars said it would be stupid to make correlations with earth's climate.

So your taking my God given right to have an opinion away from me, thanks ya wackjob. Its my opinion take it or leave it. But don't ****** insult me over it.

I have a problem with blatant, in-your-face ignorance. This makes you my problem. Now if youre just stupid (or mildly retarded) then i apologize.

Now, do you care to address ANY of my points? You are NOT qualified to chime in with your opinion. Your opinion is holistically invalid scientifically. If you want to talk science then talk. You spouting your pundits opinion is not science. Thank you, drive through.

edit: Not to be pedantic, but its you're not your. You're is a contraction of YOU and ARE. YOUR is possessive for you.

Oh yay, grammer school again.

I'm not a climate specialist, i may not be qualified to testify to the UN, there is simply no solid proof that i have seen which puts global warming squarely on the fault of man.

 

[k1pp3r]

So, how would one go about getting themselves a perma ban around here because you all are a bunch of ****** up nutjobs?

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: k1pp3r
So, how would one go about getting themselves a perma ban around here because you all are a bunch of ****** up nutjobs?

I would say your post is a good start

 

[BrownTown]

'cept you shouldn't have censored it.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Obviously it's a lot more complicated than I made it sound, but until we can get past these basic arguments you guys are making, I don't see how we can have an even halfway reasonable discussion on the topic. As long as "well the globe has warmed up before, therefore human beings aren't going it now" is a reasonable argument for you guys, don't be surprised if your views don't get a lot of respect.

Rain, would admit that the GW crowd has their own ?basic argument? at which all discussions must start? That argument of course is that global warming IS man made and any other view must be destroyed.

One thing that shows how bad the current discussion is the fact that any one trying to claim GW is not man made is driven out of the argument. Go read the thread I posted from the WSJ editorial by the MIT professor. Look at the number of posts that attack him for who he is, but totally ignore the merits of his arguments.

We can?t have a reasonable and honest debate as long as the GW crowd tries to tar and feather anyone who disagrees with them.
I think if we put GW on trial with the best scientific minds on both sides presenting their cases we?d end up with a hung jury. There is just not enough conclusive proof to show that GW is 100% man made, or that we are such a huge factor in it that all the fear and predictions of catastrophe are warranted.

And how are the anti's any different whatsoever? You guys post thread after thread after thread bashing GW, albeit without any peer-reviewed evidence that GW is simply a natural cycle. The behavior of the anti's is precisely what you claim to despise.

 

[DealMonkey]

The basic problem here is that climatology is a serious science and the average AM-hate-radio listening blowhard simply doesn't have the hard scientific knowledge to make any sort of intelligent commentary one way or another. And yet those same blowhards are all over this forum starting one ignorant thread after another. It's pure f**king comedy is what it is.

 

[k1pp3r]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: k1pp3r
So, how would one go about getting themselves a perma ban around here because you all are a bunch of ****** up nutjobs?

I would say your post is a good start

Well, gotta state somewhere, i can only hope it works

oh browntown, is there a filter, cause i typed that word out, i know i did.

 

[WHAMPOM]

All I see here is people saying that if 99% of scientific opinions agree that humans contribute to Global Warming and 1% refute it, the 1% opinion out weights the 99%'s. That they keep doing this despite contrary evidence, shows considerable bias on their part. In plain terms, they are mule brained idiots who don't know their elbow from their A-hole.

In my opinion Mankind is in the same position to Global Warming as a man throwing pails of gasoline on his burning house. He can stop and hope something can be saved or keep feeding the fire so nothing can be saved.

 

[Brovane]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Obviously it's a lot more complicated than I made it sound, but until we can get past these basic arguments you guys are making, I don't see how we can have an even halfway reasonable discussion on the topic. As long as "well the globe has warmed up before, therefore human beings aren't going it now" is a reasonable argument for you guys, don't be surprised if your views don't get a lot of respect.

Rain, would admit that the GW crowd has their own ?basic argument? at which all discussions must start? That argument of course is that global warming IS man made and any other view must be destroyed.

One thing that shows how bad the current discussion is the fact that any one trying to claim GW is not man made is driven out of the argument. Go read the thread I posted from the WSJ editorial by the MIT professor. Look at the number of posts that attack him for who he is, but totally ignore the merits of his arguments.

We can?t have a reasonable and honest debate as long as the GW crowd tries to tar and feather anyone who disagrees with them.
I think if we put GW on trial with the best scientific minds on both sides presenting their cases we?d end up with a hung jury. There is just not enough conclusive proof to show that GW is 100% man made, or that we are such a huge factor in it that all the fear and predictions of catastrophe are warranted.

And how are the anti's any different whatsoever? You guys post thread after thread after thread bashing GW, albeit without any peer-reviewed evidence that GW is simply a natural cycle. The behavior of the anti's is precisely what you claim to despise.

Reasonable Scientific support in a peer reviewed journal to be very skeptical of the Alarmist Global Warming arguments. -Peer Reviewed Evidence

Brovane

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Brovane

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Obviously it's a lot more complicated than I made it sound, but until we can get past these basic arguments you guys are making, I don't see how we can have an even halfway reasonable discussion on the topic. As long as "well the globe has warmed up before, therefore human beings aren't going it now" is a reasonable argument for you guys, don't be surprised if your views don't get a lot of respect.

Rain, would admit that the GW crowd has their own ?basic argument? at which all discussions must start? That argument of course is that global warming IS man made and any other view must be destroyed.

One thing that shows how bad the current discussion is the fact that any one trying to claim GW is not man made is driven out of the argument. Go read the thread I posted from the WSJ editorial by the MIT professor. Look at the number of posts that attack him for who he is, but totally ignore the merits of his arguments.

We can?t have a reasonable and honest debate as long as the GW crowd tries to tar and feather anyone who disagrees with them.
I think if we put GW on trial with the best scientific minds on both sides presenting their cases we?d end up with a hung jury. There is just not enough conclusive proof to show that GW is 100% man made, or that we are such a huge factor in it that all the fear and predictions of catastrophe are warranted.

And how are the anti's any different whatsoever? You guys post thread after thread after thread bashing GW, albeit without any peer-reviewed evidence that GW is simply a natural cycle. The behavior of the anti's is precisely what you claim to despise.

Reasonable Scientific support in a peer reviewed journal to be very skeptical of the Alarmist Global Warming arguments. -Peer Reviewed Evidence

Brovane

Are you serious? That paper was a total flop. The publisher of the journal even admitted that that it should not have been published.

Link

When the paper in Climate Research began attracting criticism, Mr. Kinne, the publisher, created the editor in chief position and gave it to Mr. von Storch, who had served as an editor of the journal for nearly a decade and had done more to improve its standing than most other editors, Mr. Kinne says.

At first, Mr. von Storch said, he was not particularly interested in the widespread criticism of the Harvard-Smithsonian paper. He thought that those with objections should take the normal route of writing a comment that the journal would then consider for publication. But when he saw a preprint of the Eos rebuttal, he decided that the paper was seriously flawed and that the journal must take action. "We should say that we have a problem here, that the manuscript was flawed, that the manuscript should not have been published in this way," he says. "The problem is that the conclusions are not supported by the evidence presented in the paper."

The paper not only skews the data it uses but contains many fallacies as well. For example, the entire section titled "fallacy three: there is a close relationship between changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature" is bogus. It attempts to disprove the correlation between temperature and CO2 by showing that it doesn't hold up on an extremely small scale (ie: a few years). This is a meaningless point for the simple reason that short term discrepancies are irrelevant in the broader picture. It also presents a few examples of very short term global cooling and points out that the cooling could not have been caused by a decrease in CO2 levels. An irrelevant point because CO2 is obviously not the only factor that affects global temperature.

 

[Brovane]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Brovane

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Obviously it's a lot more complicated than I made it sound, but until we can get past these basic arguments you guys are making, I don't see how we can have an even halfway reasonable discussion on the topic. As long as "well the globe has warmed up before, therefore human beings aren't going it now" is a reasonable argument for you guys, don't be surprised if your views don't get a lot of respect.

Rain, would admit that the GW crowd has their own ?basic argument? at which all discussions must start? That argument of course is that global warming IS man made and any other view must be destroyed.

One thing that shows how bad the current discussion is the fact that any one trying to claim GW is not man made is driven out of the argument. Go read the thread I posted from the WSJ editorial by the MIT professor. Look at the number of posts that attack him for who he is, but totally ignore the merits of his arguments.

We can?t have a reasonable and honest debate as long as the GW crowd tries to tar and feather anyone who disagrees with them.
I think if we put GW on trial with the best scientific minds on both sides presenting their cases we?d end up with a hung jury. There is just not enough conclusive proof to show that GW is 100% man made, or that we are such a huge factor in it that all the fear and predictions of catastrophe are warranted.

And how are the anti's any different whatsoever? You guys post thread after thread after thread bashing GW, albeit without any peer-reviewed evidence that GW is simply a natural cycle. The behavior of the anti's is precisely what you claim to despise.

Reasonable Scientific support in a peer reviewed journal to be very skeptical of the Alarmist Global Warming arguments. -Peer Reviewed Evidence

Brovane

Are you serious? That paper was a total flop. The publisher of the journal even admitted that that it should not have been published.

Link

When the paper in Climate Research began attracting criticism, Mr. Kinne, the publisher, created the editor in chief position and gave it to Mr. von Storch, who had served as an editor of the journal for nearly a decade and had done more to improve its standing than most other editors, Mr. Kinne says.

At first, Mr. von Storch said, he was not particularly interested in the widespread criticism of the Harvard-Smithsonian paper. He thought that those with objections should take the normal route of writing a comment that the journal would then consider for publication. But when he saw a preprint of the Eos rebuttal, he decided that the paper was seriously flawed and that the journal must take action. "We should say that we have a problem here, that the manuscript was flawed, that the manuscript should not have been published in this way," he says. "The problem is that the conclusions are not supported by the evidence presented in the paper."

The paper not only skews the data it uses but contains many fallacies as well. For example, the entire section titled "fallacy three: there is a close relationship between changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature" is bogus. It attempts to disprove the correlation between temperature and CO2 by showing that it doesn't hold up on an extremely small scale (ie: a few years). This is a meaningless point for the simple reason that short term discrepancies are irrelevant in the broader picture. It also presents a few examples of very short term global cooling and points out that the cooling could not have been caused by a decrease in CO2 levels. An irrelevant point because CO2 is obviously not the only factor that affects global temperature.

There was a request for a peer-reviewed evidence, I gave you peer reviewed evidence. I would be more than happy to look at a peer reviewed article rebutal to the article that I linked. Your rebutal article that you linked didn't even include references. The article seems to be more about the politics of somebody going against the already established belief that Global Warming is occuring and is man-made.

Brovane

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: k1pp3r

Originally posted by: Todd33
WTF is a "Global warming crowd"? Do you work for Exxon or are you a flat Earth type?

No, its the "Hey the same thing happened from 1050 - 1300 AD, and look its happening again. But lets strike that from the record so we can make some money" crowd.

And you wonder why people call you flat Earth types. If you want to stick your head in the sand, fine, but don't pretend you have some reasonable scientific support for your position, because you really don't.

Rain, could you use some reasonable scientific evidence to explain to us what caused that 250 year warming trend.

You're missing the point, and if I seem to have a lack of respect for your position, it's only because this is a pretty basic point that has been stated over and over again, yet you people persist on ignoring it.

Basis environmental science 101 says that the earth goes through natural warming and cooling trends over time. Since people lacked the ability to influence the environment in 1050 AD, that was obviously a natural trend brought on by any number of things. That does not prove anything at all about what's happening NOW. Just because warming and cooling trends naturally happen does not mean that they are ALWAYS natural, and scientists make a pretty good argument that not only is the planet currently warming, but human beings are at least partially at fault for it.

Obviously it's a lot more complicated than I made it sound, but until we can get past these basic arguments you guys are making, I don't see how we can have an even halfway reasonable discussion on the topic. As long as "well the globe has warmed up before, therefore human beings aren't going it now" is a reasonable argument for you guys, don't be surprised if your views don't get a lot of respect.

i do find it amusing every warming and cooling cycle for the past 4 billions years is natural. Suddenly one out of the thousands of cycles that is occuring today is unatural

Quite a leap o faith if you ask me.

 

[Mardeth]

Originally posted by: k1pp3r

Originally posted by: Mardeth

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I made this comment over in OT...

It's a silly bet. All the oddsmakers had to do was realize that the oceans have been rising for the last 10-20 thousand years at a fairly consistant rate. It's a suckers bet.

Hell, 20,000 years ago I could have walked from Maui to Molokai. Maui, Lana'i, Moloka'i and Kaho'olawe used to be one one big island. O NOES TEH GLOBUL WARMIN!!! HAX!

Why is it that a mechinism that has been in play for tens of thousands of years is sudenly a problem? And how did we just now become responsible for it?

Eh, ice age?

Yeah, good movie wasn't it. What exactly are you saying though?

I thought it would be quite self explanatory. Ice melts and the water level rises. Other thing is that at least where I live, the ground is still rising because its recovering from the pressure it was under and so its displacing water. If this effect other areas it might have an effect.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: k1pp3r

Originally posted by: Todd33
WTF is a "Global warming crowd"? Do you work for Exxon or are you a flat Earth type?

No, its the "Hey the same thing happened from 1050 - 1300 AD, and look its happening again. But lets strike that from the record so we can make some money" crowd.

And you wonder why people call you flat Earth types. If you want to stick your head in the sand, fine, but don't pretend you have some reasonable scientific support for your position, because you really don't.

Rain, could you use some reasonable scientific evidence to explain to us what caused that 250 year warming trend.

You're missing the point, and if I seem to have a lack of respect for your position, it's only because this is a pretty basic point that has been stated over and over again, yet you people persist on ignoring it.

Basis environmental science 101 says that the earth goes through natural warming and cooling trends over time. Since people lacked the ability to influence the environment in 1050 AD, that was obviously a natural trend brought on by any number of things. That does not prove anything at all about what's happening NOW. Just because warming and cooling trends naturally happen does not mean that they are ALWAYS natural, and scientists make a pretty good argument that not only is the planet currently warming, but human beings are at least partially at fault for it.

Obviously it's a lot more complicated than I made it sound, but until we can get past these basic arguments you guys are making, I don't see how we can have an even halfway reasonable discussion on the topic. As long as "well the globe has warmed up before, therefore human beings aren't going it now" is a reasonable argument for you guys, don't be surprised if your views don't get a lot of respect.

i do find it amusing every warming and cooling cycle for the past 4 billions years is natural. Suddenly one out of the thousands of cycles that is occuring today is unatural

Quite a leap o faith if you ask me.

There is an unnatural input of contributors to Climate Change that has never existed before. Why be sceptical?

 

[BMW540I6speed]

I make sure I always listen when some people complain about the cold and then make some joke about how climate change must not be real. I also make sure I toss in some info such as "climate change doesn't mean it is simply hotter all the time.

As someone who can think beyond a simple black/white world view, I can say that.

One of the worst things about the devolution of education in the US is the basic lack of understanding of the scientific process, or of how just looking for data to fit your predetermined conclusion is not science, it is whoredom for whoever is paying the bills.

The world isn't composed of just what you can see if front of nose or just in your backyard. Just because it seems cold today as you head out to work does not mean that climate change is a sham.

I think the single dumbest and most intellectually dishonest rhetorical tactic - wielded most prominently by Drudge but with plenty of followers doing the same - is from those who cite cold weather conditions on a given day in order to impliedly discredit the worldwide consensus of climatologists and other scientists on climate change.

Climate change may well bring cooler weather to our friends in the UK due to possible disruption of thermohaline circulation. But then this is a tactic often used by these people.

Argument by selective anecdote.

Climate change is Bogus because we had a cold day in Buffalo!

Of course, the counter-anecdotes are ignored.

Our chilly spring weather means that climate chanfe isn't happening eh? Well, I have friends & family with oceanfront property on the Gulf Coast to sell... if only these people would apply their reasoning skills to sales pitches - they'd own prime fishing grounds in just a few decades!

Climate change isn't (or shouldn't be) a partisan issue. There's not a "left" set of facts and a "right" set of facts.

You can't take anyone who seriously argues that an unseasonably warm weekend in January or an unseasonable cold day in July is evidence of climate change.

That the fact of climate change is perceived as a partisan issue by the right amazes me. although their consistent hostility to science certainly plays a part.

Maybe because Gore's involved? Also, perhaps they have some sort of ingrained inability to comprehend that we really are not the center of the universe. They don't get that they will not be able to vote, buy, threaten or shoot their way out of the ultimate consequences.

Mother Nature doesn't give a sh!t about human beings, frankly - and if we succeed in making it unbearable for ourselves here, the planet will still survive. Then, in 10,000 years or so some other creatures will be top dog, probably cockroaches; they can live through anything.

Maybe cockroaches will then divide themselves up by political party.

Where are the Milton Friedmans? The Barry Goldwaters? The William F Buckleys? The intellectual leadership of the current conservative movement does indeed make stupid, shallow arguments like "see, see, it's seasonable this weekend. So this climate change thing is a crock.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Brovane
There was a request for a peer-reviewed evidence, I gave you peer reviewed evidence. I would be more than happy to look at a peer reviewed article rebutal to the article that I linked. Your rebutal article that you linked didn't even include references. The article seems to be more about the politics of somebody going against the already established belief that Global Warming is occuring and is man-made.

Brovane

Yeah, well maybe next time you could try a little harder. :thumbsdown:

 

[DealMonkey]

On Past Temperatures and Anomalous late-20th Century Warmth

Dr. Mann, along with 13 other scientists, published a rebuttal to the Soon & Baliunas article in the American Geophysical Union that July [6]. The rebuttal claimed that not only was the methodology of the two Harvard astronomers flawed, but that their results were "inconsistent with the preponderance of scientific evidence."

Further skepticism of the article arose after it was revealed that both Soon & Baliunas were paid consultant fees from the George C. Marshall Institute, known for its skeptical position on global warming, as well as having received $53,000 in underwriting (5% of costs) from the American Petroleum Institute.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I made this comment over in OT...

It's a silly bet. All the oddsmakers had to do was realize that the oceans have been rising for the last 10-20 thousand years at a fairly consistant rate. It's a suckers bet.

Hell, 20,000 years ago I could have walked from Maui to Molokai. Maui, Lana'i, Moloka'i and Kaho'olawe used to be one one big island. O NOES TEH GLOBUL WARMIN!!! HAX!

Why is it that a mechinism that has been in play for tens of thousands of years is sudenly a problem? And how did we just now become responsible for it?

Maybe you should look up what an ice age does to sea levels...

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: k1pp3r

Originally posted by: Todd33
WTF is a "Global warming crowd"? Do you work for Exxon or are you a flat Earth type?

No, its the "Hey the same thing happened from 1050 - 1300 AD, and look its happening again. But lets strike that from the record so we can make some money" crowd.

And you wonder why people call you flat Earth types. If you want to stick your head in the sand, fine, but don't pretend you have some reasonable scientific support for your position, because you really don't.

I assume that when some people looks at public, scientific charts such as..

CO2 & Temperature

..it's very easy to listen to the "OMG! The temperature is rising, it *must* be our faults!" and dismiss it outright. The truth is that we are in the upswing of a predictable climate cycle, and have been to the past 20,000 years. Yes, we are seeing greatly elevated levels of CO2, but not everyone agrees that this directly correlates, necessitates, or precedes/accompanies a change in temp. They are related, obviously, but the degree to which is unclear. Something to monitor and study, to be sure.

So by dismissing those that dismiss the "global warming crowd," that's just another form of "sticking your head in the sand," IMO. Neither extreme is the answer, but only by having both vehement proponents, and rational skeptics can you ever hope to further research and dialog.

The whole "ZOMG! we're all gonna die" vs "You guys are nuts, everything is fine!" is pretty counterproductive.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Brovane

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Brovane

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Obviously it's a lot more complicated than I made it sound, but until we can get past these basic arguments you guys are making, I don't see how we can have an even halfway reasonable discussion on the topic. As long as "well the globe has warmed up before, therefore human beings aren't going it now" is a reasonable argument for you guys, don't be surprised if your views don't get a lot of respect.

Rain, would admit that the GW crowd has their own ?basic argument? at which all discussions must start? That argument of course is that global warming IS man made and any other view must be destroyed.

One thing that shows how bad the current discussion is the fact that any one trying to claim GW is not man made is driven out of the argument. Go read the thread I posted from the WSJ editorial by the MIT professor. Look at the number of posts that attack him for who he is, but totally ignore the merits of his arguments.

We can?t have a reasonable and honest debate as long as the GW crowd tries to tar and feather anyone who disagrees with them.
I think if we put GW on trial with the best scientific minds on both sides presenting their cases we?d end up with a hung jury. There is just not enough conclusive proof to show that GW is 100% man made, or that we are such a huge factor in it that all the fear and predictions of catastrophe are warranted.

And how are the anti's any different whatsoever? You guys post thread after thread after thread bashing GW, albeit without any peer-reviewed evidence that GW is simply a natural cycle. The behavior of the anti's is precisely what you claim to despise.

Reasonable Scientific support in a peer reviewed journal to be very skeptical of the Alarmist Global Warming arguments. -Peer Reviewed Evidence

Brovane

Are you serious? That paper was a total flop. The publisher of the journal even admitted that that it should not have been published.

Link

When the paper in Climate Research began attracting criticism, Mr. Kinne, the publisher, created the editor in chief position and gave it to Mr. von Storch, who had served as an editor of the journal for nearly a decade and had done more to improve its standing than most other editors, Mr. Kinne says.

At first, Mr. von Storch said, he was not particularly interested in the widespread criticism of the Harvard-Smithsonian paper. He thought that those with objections should take the normal route of writing a comment that the journal would then consider for publication. But when he saw a preprint of the Eos rebuttal, he decided that the paper was seriously flawed and that the journal must take action. "We should say that we have a problem here, that the manuscript was flawed, that the manuscript should not have been published in this way," he says. "The problem is that the conclusions are not supported by the evidence presented in the paper."

The paper not only skews the data it uses but contains many fallacies as well. For example, the entire section titled "fallacy three: there is a close relationship between changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature" is bogus. It attempts to disprove the correlation between temperature and CO2 by showing that it doesn't hold up on an extremely small scale (ie: a few years). This is a meaningless point for the simple reason that short term discrepancies are irrelevant in the broader picture. It also presents a few examples of very short term global cooling and points out that the cooling could not have been caused by a decrease in CO2 levels. An irrelevant point because CO2 is obviously not the only factor that affects global temperature.

There was a request for a peer-reviewed evidence, I gave you peer reviewed evidence. I would be more than happy to look at a peer reviewed article rebutal to the article that I linked. Your rebutal article that you linked didn't even include references. The article seems to be more about the politics of somebody going against the already established belief that Global Warming is occuring and is man-made.

Brovane

You totally missed the point. The paper you posted was not published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, was later rejected by the publicsher and editor in chief, and received a lot of criticism from other experts in the field. The paper contains no new data and merely presents a flawed interpretation that disagrees with nearly every other expert in the field. Its a sham that only managed to get published because the author also happened to be an editor of the paper.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I made this comment over in OT...

It's a silly bet. All the oddsmakers had to do was realize that the oceans have been rising for the last 10-20 thousand years at a fairly consistant rate. It's a suckers bet.

Hell, 20,000 years ago I could have walked from Maui to Molokai. Maui, Lana'i, Moloka'i and Kaho'olawe used to be one one big island. O NOES TEH GLOBUL WARMIN!!! HAX!

Why is it that a mechinism that has been in play for tens of thousands of years is sudenly a problem? And how did we just now become responsible for it?

Maybe you should look up what an ice age does to sea levels...

Duhrrrrrr... Ya think? But thanks for inadvertantly pointing out that the Earth's climate varies wildly with or without man's influence.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled "It's all our fault" post.

 

[IGBT]

Eight Reasons Why ?Global Warming? Is a Scam
January 23rd, 2007 ? budsimmons
Eight Reasons Why ?Global Warming? Is a Scam

Written By: Joseph L. Bast
Published In: Heartlander
Publication Date: February 1, 2003
Publisher: The Heartland Institute




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When Al Gore lost his bid to become the country?s first ?Environment President,? many of us thought the ?global warming? scare would finally come to a well-deserved end. That hasn?t happened, despite eight good reasons this scam should finally be put to rest.
It?s B-a-a-ck!

Similar scares orchestrated by radical environmentalists in the past?such as Alar, global cooling, the ?population bomb,? and electromagnetic fields?were eventually debunked by scientists and no longer appear in the speeches or platforms of public officials. The New York Times recently endorsed more widespread use of DDT to combat malaria, proving Rachel Carson?s anti-pesticide gospel is no longer sacrosanct even with the liberal elite.

The scientific case against catastrophic global warming is at least as strong as the case for DDT, but the global warming scare hasn?t gone away. President Bush is waffling on the issue, rightly opposing the Kyoto Protocol and focusing on research and voluntary projects, but wrongly allowing his administration to support calls for creating ?transferrable emission credits? for greenhouse gas reductions. Such credits would build political and economic support for a Kyoto-like cap on greenhouse gas emissions.

At the state level, some 23 states have already adopted caps on greenhouse gas emissions or goals for replacing fossil fuels with alternative energy sources. These efforts are doomed to be costly failures, as a new Heartland Policy Study by Dr. Jay Lehr and James Taylor documents. Instead of concentrating on balancing state budgets, some legislators will be working to pass their own ?mini-Kyotos.?
Eight Reasons to End the Scam

Concern over ?global warming? is overblown and misdirected. What follows are eight reasons why we should pull the plug on this scam before it destroys billions of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs.

1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth?s climate. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, ?there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth?s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth?s climate.? (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.

2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.

3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers? expectations, modelers resort to ?flux adjustments? that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says ?climate modelers have been ?cheating? for so long it?s almost become respectable.?

4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC?s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: ?The Earth?s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.?

5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the ?climatic optimum,? was even warmer and marked ?a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations,? observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. ?There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.?

6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth?s climate from changing. Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990?s levels by the year 2012?the target set by the Kyoto Protocol?would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.

7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets. After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money.

8. The best strategy to pursue is ?no regrets.? The alternative to demands for immediate action to ?stop global warming? is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.

This strategy is called ?no regrets,? and it is roughly what the Bush administration has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions.
Time for Common Sense

The global warming scare has enabled environmental advocacy groups to raise billions of dollars in contributions and government grants. It has given politicians (from Al Gore down) opportunities to pose as prophets of doom and slayers of evil corporations. And it has given bureaucrats at all levels of government, from the United Nations to city councils, powers that threaten our jobs and individual liberty.

It is time for common sense to return to the debate over protecting the environment. An excellent first step would be to end the ?global warming? scam.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: IGBT
Eight Reasons Why ?Global Warming? Is a Scam
January 23rd, 2007 ? budsimmons
Eight Reasons Why ?Global Warming? Is a Scam

Written By: Joseph L. Bast
Published In: Heartlander
Publication Date: February 1, 2003
Publisher: The Heartland Institute




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When Al Gore lost his bid

**** Al Gore didn't invents the Global Warmingz****

I stopped reading at that point.

 

[Brovane]

Well here is more links to those peer-reviewed articles that are skeptical of Global Warming that people claim do not exist.

Text

Of course I love this qoute.

In a recent paper ?Will our ride into the greenhouse future be a
smooth one?? GSA Today (2007), Prof. Wallace Broecker, recipient of the
2006 Craaford Prize (Sweden) succinctly summarizes the present state of the
earth?s climate and climate models as follows:
?My lifetime study of Earth?s climate system has humbled me. I am
convinced that we have greatly underestimated the complexity of this system.
Global climate change predictions are mostly mental masturbation in the
final analysis?


Brovane

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Obviously it's a lot more complicated than I made it sound, but until we can get past these basic arguments you guys are making, I don't see how we can have an even halfway reasonable discussion on the topic. As long as "well the globe has warmed up before, therefore human beings aren't going it now" is a reasonable argument for you guys, don't be surprised if your views don't get a lot of respect.

Rain, would admit that the GW crowd has their own ?basic argument? at which all discussions must start? That argument of course is that global warming IS man made and any other view must be destroyed.

One thing that shows how bad the current discussion is the fact that any one trying to claim GW is not man made is driven out of the argument. Go read the thread I posted from the WSJ editorial by the MIT professor. Look at the number of posts that attack him for who he is, but totally ignore the merits of his arguments.

We can?t have a reasonable and honest debate as long as the GW crowd tries to tar and feather anyone who disagrees with them.
I think if we put GW on trial with the best scientific minds on both sides presenting their cases we?d end up with a hung jury. There is just not enough conclusive proof to show that GW is 100% man made, or that we are such a huge factor in it that all the fear and predictions of catastrophe are warranted.

To be fair to both sides, I'm not a big fan of the arguments being made in favor of the man-made global warming hypothesis either. While I think it's a very interesting scientific area of study, and while I think it's certainly possible to intelligently support one side or the other, the fact is that it has become a political football. One side views it as a convenient attack on pollution and waste in general (which they didn't like to begin with), and doesn't seem too concerned about the nuts and bolts of the theory, while the other side sees it as a thinly veiled, namby-pamby attack on their "right" to drive huge pickup trucks that get 4 miles per gallon. The debate about global warming seems less like a debate about global warming and more a debate of eco-nut vs anti-environment types. I certainly have a side in the GW debate, but I'm not sure I like a lot of the people who I'm sharing that side with any more than I like the "other guys".

But if you're curious why claims rejecting man-made global warming seem to be treated with less than total respect, it's because, while ideology seems to infect BOTH sides, your side seems to be a little worse in that regard. The number of actual scientists supporting your position isn't exactly overwhelming. And please don't suggest they are being shouted down, not only does that NOT happen very often in science (a contrary theory gets a TON of publicity in any field), but there are so many podiums for them to use that it would take a conspiracy theory of truly ridiculous proportions to shut them down. Not only that, but the arguments you DO put forward, which have a lot more frequency and volume than your persecution theory would suggest, seem to be almost entirely ideological. It's hard to support your opinion as a scientific one when almost everyone on your side of the issue seems to be a hard-core conservative who seems unlikely to support this theory no matter how valid. From your point of view, imagine how seriously you'd take the global warming theory if it was entirely supported by tree-hugging eco-nuts and extreme liberals.