global warming...

[temp]

Or for that matter, all of those bad things happening to our environment that may or may not be related to the global warming theory...what's the solution?

Personally, I am counting on technological breakthrough to save us. I'm waiting for the car that's powered by my own piss. Just had an amusing mental image of what such a gas station might look like.

People will never be willing to put in the effort to "go green". Here's one thing that bugs me...bottled water. Correct me if I'm wrong, but those plastic bottles are based on petro-chemicals...all plastic is isn't it? People, it's water, a perfectly good version of the substance comes out of your tap. If you see a case of 24 on sale at your grocery store for only $2...that's not a "deal". Save yourself the $2.

ok, rant over.

[Brightonian]

I was at a class a few years ago where people were earnestly congratulating each other on how much more ecologically minded we are nowadays compared with say 20 years ago. Around half of those people actually had either plastic water bottles or disposable coffee cups in their hands while making these asinine statements.

[slaven41]

I'm not sure the situation is as dire as you make it out to be. (Hmm. It appears that my natural contrariness has trumped my natural cynicism this time. :-) After all, we have been faced with big environmental issues before and confronted them. The most notable example of this is ozone depletion. The chemicals causing this have mostly been phased out, and ozone should start to recover (albeit slowly).

I think a problem is that we're living in a period where we're learning about the harm we're doing to the environment faster than we can (or have the will to) rectify it. So we address one problem, and we discover two more. There's a lot of environmental fatigue out there.

--Dave

[admin]

Environmental awareness seems to have caught on, dispite efforts by "conservatives" to portray scientists as silly people who shout that the sky is falling every time we have a warm Summer. On my own campus (East Tennessee State University) the students recently voted to all pay a $5 fee to make the campus more eco-friendly. Since the recently voted down a $5 fee for more parking spaces, this is a big move for this part of the country, and the motion passed by more than a thousand students for to less than 300 against.

[Jim66]

Read http://icecap.us/index.php for some non-agenda reporting. As to the great masses of unwashed, ask the students if the additional $5 per parking spot will be used for snow removal.
Remember, CO2 is an ingredient in plant growth.
Jim

[admin]

Here is how I decide questions like this.

Knowledge is very hard to come by. Throughout most of history, almost nothing was known about science, about the earth, about human nature.

In the 20th century, that changed. The electron was discovered, along with reletivity and quantum mechanics. DNA was discovered. The first airplane was invented. Man landed on the moon. People in developed countries are many times richer, and live much longer and healthier lives.

Every one of these discoveries has had its detractors, people who said that man would never fly. Over and over again, the scientists have been proven right, and their detractors (including some older scientists unwilling to change) have been proven wrong.

Now, we have people who don't believe man landed on the moon, people who don't believe smoking causes cancer, people who don't believe in evolution, and people who don't believe in global warming.

My bet goes with the scientists -- especially since virtually all of the people who doubt global warming are Republicans, who thought the war in Iraq was a great idea.

[Jim66]

Based on your reply, I see that you attended the 'P. T' Barnum School of Science and Politics'.
Another nail in Algore's (yes, it is one word) coffin -
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... ient-truth
Jim

[slaven41]

Based on your reply, I see that you attended the 'P. T' Barnum School of Science and Politics'.
Another nail in Algore's (yes, it is one word) coffin -
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... ient-truth
Jim

Well, the fact that a non-scientist chose to fudge a video clip for a presentation really doesn't constitute a refutation for the idea that human activity is causing global warming. (Nor does the fact that CO2 is necessary for plant life, a fact that I'm sure atmospheric scientists haven't forgotten.)

It seems a bit odd to me that with a large majority of atmospheric scientists asserting that human activity is leading to global warming, people think that discrediting Al Gore is the way to win the argument.

--Dave

[Jim66]

Well, the fact that a non-scientist chose to fudge a video clip for a presentation really doesn't constitute a refutation for the idea that human activity is causing global warming. (Nor does the fact that CO2 is necessary for plant life, a fact that I'm sure atmospheric scientists haven't forgotten.)

It seems a bit odd to me that with a large majority of atmospheric scientists asserting that human activity is leading to global warming, people think that discrediting Al Gore is the way to win the argument.

--Dave

The point is that Algore lied, and it's not the first time. It doesn't take a reader or viewer with a PHD to point out a phony, even if it's Algore (and yes it is one word). The cutsie polar bears on the itty-bity ice berg was another lie. That tiny ice berg was in fact considerably larger than depicted. The original photographer attested to that. The photo was cropped. And the rest of the diatribe that was part of that phony movie was also full of lies. The facts prove it out. Of the 2500 so-called 'scientists' refered to by Algore as his colaborators, about two thirds have no meteorlogical background. The are political hacks, with a political agenda. Many of the others have recanted their association with Algore and have realized that 'Global Warming' is not caused by human activity. If you want some contrasting facts and data, I suggest "Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1,500 Years" by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery. That's Doctor S. Fred Singer, a climate physicist.
Remember - we live on a planet with a variable orbit and tilt that orbits a variable star. Put some science in your fiction.
One more item - follow the money. Just like the Ponzi pyramid scheme, this one draws you in like a moth to the flame with a mantra of 'We're ALL Doomed'. Ha.
This just in - http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 83,00.html
Have you read 'Icerigger' by Alan Dean Foster?
And the hits keep on rolling - http://www.itnews.it/news/2008/04220702 ... risis.html
Jim

[admin]

Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist. (And giving him a "funny" name is a very weak way to attack him, since it could be used equally well to attack anyone, and any point of view.) But, global warming deniers are reduced to weak attacks, lacking any strong ones.

Whether or not greenhouse gases are causing global warming is a question that can only be answered by climate scientists -- not by politicians, not by "scientists" who turn out to be dentists, not even by mathematicians. If you claimed that the fundamental theorem of calculus was a hoax, I could rely on my own expertise to prove you wrong. But when it comes to global warming, while I understand the greenhouse effect, and I understand that the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, but whether or not there are other confounding factors is something I leave to the climate scientists. (The same is true of evolution, the age of the earth, and other scientific topics that Republicans feel passionately about.)

But I recognize a weak attack when I hear it.

My understanding is that your specialty is not climate science, but you do know enough science to know the difference between a climate scientist and a politician. The fact that you choose to attack the politician, not the scientist, is one sign that your agrument is not substantive.

If, in fact, the vast majority of scientists are wrong -- and that could happen, it happened in the case of continental drift -- that does not prove that the other side is right. It just proves that we don't know what's going on.

But consider the two alternatives. Conservation has many benefits. Burning all of our fossil fuel just as fast as we possibly can has no benefits, except to the short term profits of the oil companies. If the majority of climate scientists are wrong, then all we've lost is a little work trying to clean up the environment -- which has many benefits other than reducing greenhouse gases. On the other hand, if the majority of climate scientists are right, and we do nothing, millions die.

Why, then, are some people so passionate to deny that human activity is causing climate change?

[temp]

It just proves that we don't know what's going on.

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...' - Isaac Asimov

[Jim66]

Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist. (And giving him a "funny" name is a very weak way to attack him, since it could be used equally well to attack anyone, and any point of view.) But, global warming deniers are reduced to weak attacks, lacking any strong ones.

Whether or not greenhouse gases are causing global warming is a question that can only be answered by climate scientists -- not by politicians, not by "scientists" who turn out to be dentists, not even by mathematicians. If you claimed that the fundamental theorem of calculus was a hoax, I could rely on my own expertise to prove you wrong. But when it comes to global warming, while I understand the greenhouse effect, and I understand that the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, but whether or not there are other confounding factors is something I leave to the climate scientists. (The same is true of evolution, the age of the earth, and other scientific topics that Republicans feel passionately about.)

But I recognize a weak attack when I hear it.

My understanding is that your specialty is not climate science, but you do know enough science to know the difference between a climate scientist and a politician. The fact that you choose to attack the politician, not the scientist, is one sign that your agrument is not substantive.

If, in fact, the vast majority of scientists are wrong -- and that could happen, it happened in the case of continental drift -- that does not prove that the other side is right. It just proves that we don't know what's going on.

But consider the two alternatives. Conservation has many benefits. Burning all of our fossil fuel just as fast as we possibly can has no benefits, except to the short term profits of the oil companies. If the majority of climate scientists are wrong, then all we've lost is a little work trying to clean up the environment -- which has many benefits other than reducing greenhouse gases. On the other hand, if the majority of climate scientists are right, and we do nothing, millions die.

Why, then, are some people so passionate to deny that human activity is causing climate change?

So I'm a denier. Fortunately, I'm not politically correct. And the bottom line is - Algore (yup, one word) is a lier, a pathological lier. Just to set the record straight, did he invent the internet before or after he was the basis for 'Love Story'? Proving what he claims as facts to be lies requires the truth to be revealed. Each day brings new truths to his lies. (I wonder if he came under sniper fire too.) Apparently, due to his reluctance to comment, he has gone into seclusion - read hiding - cause he can't take the heat (pun intended).

The latest - http://www.crosstabs.org/blogs/joliphan ... _on_record
Now to be truthful, I've never heard of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, but they certainly have as much if not more credibility as Algore (oops, there I go again). For some reason, I think that the Alfred Wegner Institute for Polar and Marine Research consists of more than a bunch of kooks afflicted with Munchausen Syndrome and a fax machine. An ecological fanatic is still a fanatic - unyielding, stygian and self-absorbed. When is the last time a denier burned down a car dealership or destroyed an animal farm? Kooks and terrorists?

Green house gases. Define them. Uh, let's see, the gas that comprises the largest percentage is water vapor - do we need water vapor? Except for rain and snow, we can survive on the liquid form, Avion anyone?

Carbon dioxide - it's a fertilizer; plants need it (they produce oxygen as a waste product - take a deep breath); a whole bunch of carbon dioxide is stored in water - you know, like the oceans. When the temperature goes up, carbon dioxide is released (there is a time lag of many months to many years for the effect to be detected). That's basic college chemestry (oh, I remember back so many years ago). Organic hot house farmers inject carbon dioxide into their structures to assist in growth. You want to be an anti-denier? Don't eat organic foods.

A blast from the past - this is a link a site that has a copy of the 1975 Newsweek article warning the world about - global cooling. http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

I guess if you can't cause panic by cooling you can do it with hot air.
Jim

[admin]

Whether it is people who deny global warming, or people who deny that man ever landed on the moon, there are certain common characteristics of the arguments of "true believers" that set off alarm bells.

1) They are 100% absolutely certain that they are totally right and the other side is totally wrong.

2) They mention one or more of the following: political correctness, liberal liars, or Adolph Hitler.

3) They indulge in sarcasm and name calling instead of sticking to the facts. They use ad hominem arguments.

4) They demonize the oposition.

5) They only attack. They offer no substancial facts to support their own side, but only argue in the negative. Look, they say, the other side made a mistake! That proves that they are totally wrong, and if they are totally wrong, then our side must be totally right.

Now, let's read what you've written.

So I'm a denier. Fortunately, I'm not politically correct. (2) And the bottom line is - Algore (yup, one word) (3) is a lier, a pathological lier. (4) Just to set the record straight, did he invent the internet before or after he was the basis for 'Love Story'? (3) Proving what he claims as facts to be lies requires the truth to be revealed. Each day brings new truths to his lies. (I wonder if he came under sniper fire too.) (3) Apparently, due to his reluctance to comment, he has gone into seclusion - read hiding - cause he can't take the heat (pun intended). (4)

The latest - http://www.crosstabs.org/blogs/joliphan ... _on_record
Now to be truthful, I've never heard of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, but they certainly have as much if not more credibility as Algore (oops, there I go again). For some reason, I think that the Alfred Wegner Institute for Polar and Marine Research consists of more than a bunch of kooks afflicted with Munchausen Syndrome and a fax machine. An ecological fanatic is still a fanatic - unyielding, stygian and self-absorbed. When is the last time a denier burned down a car dealership or destroyed an animal farm? Kooks and terrorists?

*The Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research if a legitimate research organization, but instead of actually reading what they say, you jump on the fact that some parts of the seas are getting colder. This is climate change, too. Ironically, global warming may make England much colder, by diverting the gulf stream. The point is that our infrastructure was built for the climate we've got, and sudden climate change will but strains on our infrastructure. But, instead of seeing that point, you instantly fall back on name calling and sarcasm.

Green house gases. Define them. Uh, let's see, the gas that comprises the largest percentage is water vapor - do we need water vapor? Except for rain and snow, we can survive on the liquid form, Avion anyone?

*You know better! Are you trolling? You know perfectly well that too much of a good thing can be a bad thing.

Carbon dioxide - it's a fertilizer; plants need it (they produce oxygen as a waste product - take a deep breath); a whole bunch of carbon dioxide is stored in water - you know, like the oceans. When the temperature goes up, carbon dioxide is released (there is a time lag of many months to many years for the effect to be detected). That's basic college chemestry (oh, I remember back so many years ago). Organic hot house farmers inject carbon dioxide into their structures to assist in growth. You want to be an anti-denier? Don't eat organic foods.

*Again, you ignore questions of scale, and apparently do not notice that your own statement, "When the temperature goes up, carbon dioxide is released" is an argument against your views.

A blast from the past - this is a link a site that has a copy of the 1975 Newsweek article warning the world about - global cooling. http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

*And, apparently, you think that if there were risks of global cooling in 1975, there cannot be risks of global warming thirty years later.

*I am continually baffled why intelligent people do not notice the weakness of their own arguments once their position has hardened -- but there is some interesting brain research on the subject. Apparently humans only use their critical thinking skills before they make up their minds. Once their minds are made up, their critical thinking tends to shut down, and from then on it is all emotion. We're all subject to confirmation bias. Some of us fight it, others embrace it. I try to fight it, and am proud of the fact that, when I'm wrong, I admit that I'm wrong and move on. After all, I can only learn by being critical of my own thinking.

*That is why I've taken the time and trouble to investigate the things you've said in this forum. But, so far, all I've found fits into one or more of the five categories with which I began this post.

[slaven41]

A quick look at the AWI article shows this:

"... the data achieved during the Polarstern expeditions are not sufficient to discern long-term developments."

Also, this:

"While the last Arctic summer was the warmest on record, we had a cold summer with a sea-ice maximum in the Antarctic." (Note the word "a" preceding "cold summer.")

As for your reminder that the amount of solar radiation striking the earth varies, this is not news to climate scientists, who have been taking solar variation into account in their modeling.

--Dave

[Jim66]

Sorry to tell you this, but almost every weather model used to date has been wrong. Oh, they last for a month or two in the proof phase, but then go totally askew. I ask you this - if short term forecasts, prognostications and WAGs (wild ass gusses) can't be accurate, how can long term forecasts be construed as accurate?

To the subject - flash, Anchorage Alaska - a lot of snow, like big time.
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/387743.html
Gee, I bet they could use some of Algore's 'Global Warming'. Yup, it's still one word.

And pah-lease - a Nazi by implication. Surley, you jest (fill in punch line). The irony is, I prepared a paper comparing Nazi Germany to the Communists after WWII. Portions of the my research for the paper were used in a sucessiful senatorial campaign by an East Coast politician.

To the subject of global warming - again. I seem to find little references to current studys and reports, you know - facts, and most of what I've seen here is low level emotionalism.

So here are some facts.

Satellite measurements available since 1979 show no warming in the Southern hemisphere and the trend in the northern hemisphere appears to have waned since 2001.

--In August 2007, the UK Met Office acknowledged that obvious global warming had stopped.

--Paleo-climate scientist Bob Carter testifying before the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has noted that the accepted global average temperature statistics used by IPCC show no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998.

--A research led by David Bromwich, Professor of Atmospheric Science in the Department of Geography at Ohio State University and researchers with the Byrd Polar Research Centre at Ohio State University shows that during the late 20th century, the temperature in Antarctica did not rise to the level predicted by many global warming models.

--According to UN scientist Madhav L. Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist and an expert IPCC reviewer in 2007, the recent worldwide analysis of ocean surface temperatures shows that sea surface temperatures over world oceans are slowly declining since mid-1998.

--While the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is steadily rising from 280 ppm and might reach 560 ppm by 2100 as predicted by IPCC, the world’s average temperature, instead of following a steep upward gradient, is actually plunging after a period of upward trend. However, the IPCC is not coming out publicly with the truth surrounding the correlation between rise in carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere and its possible consequence on global warming, if any.

--A study by researchers of the Atmospheric Science Group, Department of Mathematical Science, at the University of Wisconsin, found that global warming in the last century was linked to natural causes.

--The Royal Meteorological Institute at Brussels in its report last year said that not carbon dioxide but the most important greenhouse gas was water vapour; it was responsible for 75 per cent of the greenhouse effect. According to Belgian climate scientist Lu Debontridder, the warm winters of the last few years in Belgium are simply due to the North-Atlantic oscillation that has absolutely nothing to do with carbon dioxide.

--A study published in Science last September found that contrary to past inferences from ice core records, carbon dioxide did not cause the end of the last ice age. According to the same study, deep-sea temperatures warmed about 1,300 years before the tropical surface ocean and well before the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

--USC geologist Lowell Scot, the lead author of the study, said that the climate dynamics are much more complex than simply saying that carbon dioxide rises and the temperature warms.

--The IPCC climate model is based on the assumption that increased warming would cause more rainfall that would produce more clouds on the higher reaches of the atmosphere. Since high clouds have a net warming effect this would cause more warming, more rainfall and the cycle will continue. It is this positive feedback that causes the UN climate models to predict a temperature rise in the range of 2.5 degree Celsius to 4.7 degree Celsius due to rise in the level of carbon dioxide to 560 ppm. Dr Roy Spencer along with researchers at the University of Alabama Huntsville and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California, after observing the temperatures, clouds and rainfall reported that warming is actually associated with fewer high clouds. There is no data to support the theory that more rainfall will produce more high-altitude clouds.

--The mainstream media seems to be purposely ignoring the bulk of the findings by renowned researchers throughout the globe that the current global warming fear attributed solely to carbon dioxide rise is utterly unfounded.

A Nazi by implication? I would like to report this affront to the admin - damn, that's the source - thus lending credence to 'absolute power corrupts absolutely'. Kind of a catchy saying, don't you think. Here's another one - 'be careful of what you wish for, you may get it'.

Jim