NationStates Jolt Archive

"Starving polar bears are presenting an unprecedented challenge to George Bush's refusal to take action over global warming - and may succeed where environmentalists and other governments have failed in getting him to curb pollution."
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article344931.ece

What is the one thing that can change Bush's mind once he has made a gut decision? Bears.
I can only imagine what Stephen Colbert has to say about this.

"Starving polar bears are presenting an unprecedented challenge to George Bush's refusal to take action over global warming - and may succeed where environmentalists and other governments have failed in getting him to curb pollution."
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article344931.ece

What is the one thing that can change Bush's mind once he has made a gut decision? Bears.
I can only imagine what Stephen Colbert has to say about this.
So he'll listen to bears, eh? Wait I forgot, the bears are all white.... ;)

Fuck the bears and fuck anybody who would sympathize with them.

Fuck the bears and fuck anybody who would sympathize with them.
Bet you wouldn't say that to a bear's face.

Take the bears, put them in a helicopter, and move them onto the White House lawn. Then let Bush do a press conference.

He'll have a very attentive audience.

Fuck the bears and fuck anybody who would sympathize with them.
Oh yes...oh yes...fuck me, fuck me! :p

Take the bears, put them in a helicopter, and move them onto the White House lawn. Then let Bush do a press conference.

He'll have a very attentive audience.
Not a bad idea.

"Made fearless by hunger, the half-ton animals have even broken into houses in search of food. One killed a 15-year-old girl in the far western Russian Arctic, while children in the northern Canadian town of Churchill are being taken to school under guard. There is even evidence from north-east Russia that polar bears have taken to eating their own species."

Bet you wouldn't say that to a bear's face.
Why not? They wouldn't be able to understand me. For the record, though, I wouldn't say anything to a bear's face. It is my desire to stay as far away from potential man-eaters as possible.

"Evangelical Christian leaders last week took out TV ads urging action."

So the truth comes out. It's not the bears. It's his conscience.

So he'll listen to bears, eh? Wait I forgot, the bears are all white.... ;)
Yes, but are they religious and gullible and ready to raise campaign funds?


BTW, this thread's pretty funny so far, in contrast to the actual situation.

"Evangelical Christian leaders last week took out TV ads urging action."

So the truth comes out. It's not the bears. It's his conscience.
Bush's world is falling down around him. First betrayed by the Bears. Then betrayed by the Evangelicals. His only refuge is in Cheney's cold steely heart.

"Starving polar bears are presenting an unprecedented challenge to George Bush's refusal to take action over global warming - and may succeed where environmentalists and other governments have failed in getting him to curb pollution."
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article344931.ece

What is the one thing that can change Bush's mind once he has made a gut decision? Bears.
I can only imagine what Stephen Colbert has to say about this.
Well, of course. If bears are dying, global warming must be caused by human activity and most specifically by George Bush. It's obvious. Who could possibly deny the logic? End of debate. Case closed. don't know what we were ever even thinking... (sort of shuffles off into the shadows having been totally, thoroughly pwned)

Well, of course. If bears are dying, global warming must be caused by human activity and most specifically by George Bush. It's obvious. Who could possibly deny the logic? End of debate. Case closed. don't know what we were ever even thinking... (sort of shuffles off into the shadows having been totally, thoroughly pwned)

Good thing you agree. Here I was thinking that you would write a sarcastic reply insinuating that the bears aren't dying because of human-caused global warming partially caused by George Bush. I sure was wrong. :)

Yes, but are they religious and gullible and ready to raise campaign funds?


BTW, this thread's pretty funny so far, in contrast to the actual situation.
It seems our country has become a Tragic Comedy.

Well, of course. If bears are dying, global warming must be caused by human activity and most specifically by George Bush. It's obvious. Who could possibly deny the logic? End of debate. Case closed. don't know what we were ever even thinking... (sort of shuffles off into the shadows having been totally, thoroughly pwned)
Bears still hold you and George Bush personally responsible. Remember: They are trying to eat you. Also note the thread title. This is Op-Ed by Polar Bears.

It seems our country has become a Tragic Comedy.
You know, i glanced over the lyrics, and funnily enough, i got a different impression ... shows what i know!

Seriously, though, we ought to all have little masks held up for our faces, dressed in togas, with chorus close behind.

Well, of course. If bears are dying, global warming must be caused by human activity and most specifically by George Bush. It's obvious. Who could possibly deny the logic? End of debate. Case closed. don't know what we were ever even thinking... (sort of shuffles off into the shadows having been totally, thoroughly pwned)

if you'll take a minute to read the article rather than put yoru own words in everyone elses mouths who actually give a damn, you might see that it's a matter of what Bush has done to address global warming which is to say... erm... nothing.

Bush has done to address global warming which is to say... erm... nothing.
Or worse.

Bears still hold you and George Bush personally responsible. Remember: They are trying to eat you. Also note the thread title. This is Op-Ed by Polar Bears.Touche! Those @#$ bears! Why can't they just leave us in peace and stop trying to eat us! It's almost inhuman... oh, wait...

Or worse.


well true - perhaps I should have said what Bush has done to work on a resolution to global warming. Not a resolution as in reversing it but a resolution in terms of not contributing to it as much.

Wait wait wait ... we must hear from the Coalition of Animals People Think Are Bears but They Aren't (CAPTABTA). The honorable Panda and Koala have a brief speech and then we should break for lunch.

Oh and also, just in case you missed it:

"The US government's official National Snow and Ice Data Center adds that a "stunning" reduction in sea ice has taken place in the past four years. Last summer an area twice the size of Texas disappeared."

well true - perhaps I should have said what Bush has done to work on a resolution to global warming. Not a resolution as in reversing it but a resolution in terms of not contributing to it as much.
S'aight. You know how it is ...
Got get those fundies who are talking about stewardship to start calling the piety/faith of those other pr*cks into question publicly. That might work!

S'aight. You know how it is ...
Got get those fundies who are talking about stewardship to start calling the piety/faith of those other pr*cks into question publicly. That might work!


One can only hope. I don't even care if Bush listens, starts a war on global warming and takes full credit for any and all positive changes (blasting Democrats and the left as well for doing nothing) as long as something gets done.

"The US government's official National Snow and Ice Data Center adds that a "stunning" reduction in sea ice has taken place in the past four years. Last summer an area twice the size of Texas disappeared."
Brilliant! Now if only there were someway to make the real Texas dissapear . . . .

Brilliant! Now if only there were someway to make the real Texas dissapear . . . .
And to go back in time JUST A SMIDGE to make sure it happened at the right juncture in history ...

if you'll take a minute to read the article rather than put yoru own words in everyone elses mouths who actually give a damn, you might see that it's a matter of what Bush has done to address global warming which is to say... erm... nothing.OK, I'll address global warming. The fact that ice may be melting and bears dying is not evidence, for or against, human activity being a significant cause of that warming. One of the only constants in the entire history of the earth is that it is always changing!* We have gone through countless ice ages and global warmings caused by natural cycles that could care less what humans are up to. The sun is especially active right now, and Mars is also warming... is that our fault too?

*http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/fidget/globaltemp.jpg

Wait wait wait ... we must hear from the Coalition of Animals People Think Are Bears but They Aren't (CAPTABTA). The honorable Panda and Koala have a brief speech and then we should break for lunch.:D
Brilliant! Now if only there were someway to make the real Texas dissapear . . . .If you have a plan, count me in!

Brilliant! Now if only there were someway to make the real Texas dissapear . . . .


Awwww ... you hate me. :(

OK, I'll address global warming. The fact that ice may be melting and bears dying is not evidence, for or against, human activity being a significant cause of that warming. One of the only constants in the entire history of the earth is that it is always changing!* We have gone through countless ice ages and global warmings caused by natural cycles that could care less what humans are up to. The sun is especially active right now, and Mars is also warming... is that our fault too?

*http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/fidget/globaltemp.jpg
While you're invoking NASA you should try this too:

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060210/NEWS/602100316/1039

and this ...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/casey/3649254.html

Punch up James Hansen and George Deutsch and warming and have a tall warm glass of STHU.

OK, I'll address global warming. The fact that ice may be melting and bears dying is not evidence, for or against, human activity being a significant cause of that warming. One of the only constants in the entire history of the earth is that it is always changing!* We have gone through countless ice ages and global warmings caused by natural cycles that could care less what humans are up to. The sun is especially active right now, and Mars is also warming... is that our fault too?

*http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/fidget/globaltemp.jpg
Give it up with Mars. It's a false argument. I'm sure someone else will elaborate.
Humans offer no percentage of what is happening with Global Warming?
Whatever you want to believe, believe what you will.
But you do recognize that there is a thing called pollution, right? And pollution is harmful, right?
Seeing as how most of the things that we would be doing in our however futile you may find it fight against Global Warming would also be reducing pollution, what exactly is there to disagree with? Or are you going to say that Los Angeles just goes through periods when their sunsets look like that?

Awwww ... you hate me. :(
To be fair, he said Texas as in the state, not "the people of Texas" ... ;)
Maybe just a few of them. The idea i think is to get them out of a few ranges of political influence.

Mars is also warming... is that our fault too?


Yes ... yes it is ... you *really* don't want to know why.

Yes ... yes it is ... you *really* don't want to know why.I bet Hoagland knows why! :D

Yes ... yes it is ... you *really* don't want to know why.
Space bears....

Ursus Maritiamus doesn't depend upon ice-caps. Rather the ice-sea interface. Someone should really do some fact checking before they print this crap. Maybe a civics lesson would help too.

While you're invoking NASA you should try this too:

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060210/NEWS/602100316/1039

and this ...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/casey/3649254.html

Punch up James Hansen and George Deutsch and warming and have a tall warm glass of STHU.


Yep - but lets ignore that human activity contributes to it because scientists all around the world coming to the same conclusion is just a conicidence/conspiracy: http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/31155/story.htm

EDIT: also I do wonder what the future holds when reading shit like this:
http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=52270

"The passing of this threshold is of the most enormous significance," said Tom Burke, a former government adviser on the green issues, now visiting professor at Imperial College London. "It means we have actually entered a new era - the era of dangerous climate change. We have passed the point where we can be confident of staying below the 2 degree rise set as the threshold for danger. What this tells us is that we have already reached the point where our children can no longer count on a safe climate."

The scientist who chaired the Exeter conference, Dennis Tirpak, head of the climate change unit of the OECD in Paris, was even more direct. He said: "This means we will hit 2 degrees [as a global mean temperature rise]."

Professor Burke added: "We have very little time to act now. Governments must stop talking and start spending. We already have the technology to allow us to meet our growing need for energy while keeping a stable climate. We must deploy it now. Doing so will cost less than the Iraq war so we know we can afford it."

The 400ppm threshold is based on a paper given at Exeter by Malte Meinhausen of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Dr Meinhausen reviewed a dozen studies of the probability of exceeding the 2 degrees threshold at different CO2 equivalent levels. Taken together they show that only by remaining above 400 is there a very high chance of not doing so.

And knowing Bush and the energy industry is probably not about to do anything at all in their power to help the situation.

While you're invoking NASA you should try this too:

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060210/NEWS/602100316/1039

and this ...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/casey/3649254.html

Punch up James Hansen and George Deutsch and warming and have a tall warm glass of STHU.

There are piles upon steaming piles of articles and evidence on both sides of this issue. Point is, there's no consensus, even (especially) among scientists, so please stop trying to get me to drink your kool-aid. (Not to mention your glass of STHU)

Besides, if I "STHU" it might get all echo-ey in here...

Yep - but lets ignore that human activity contributes to it because scientists all around the world coming to the same conclusion is just a conicidence/conspiracy: http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/31155/story.htm
Besides, Bush and Co. have CONSISTENTLY relied on people's opinion who aren't in the business of knowing the facts for this AND SEVERAL OTHER issues.
If that weren't bad enough, they just keep arguing the falsehoods.

Awwww ... you hate me. :(
Provided that you know how to swim, then the fact that the entire state turns into a southern version of the great lakes (You know that the whole problem with Mexico is caused by their being jealous of Canada sharing the Great Lakes with us) shouldn't cause too much hardship.

There are piles upon steaming piles of articles and evidence on both sides of this issue. Point is, there's no consensus, even (especially) among scientists, so please stop trying to get me to drink your kool-aid. (Not to mention your glass of STHU)

Besides, if I "STHU" it might get all echo-ey in here...

So screw being on the safe side and doing what we can to make sure we aren't contributing to it? Is that your final answer?

Let me just add that if you think about it creatively, if you are worried about the economy if it were to turn "green", the energy industry could make a killing if it were to undertake the challenge while slowly phaing out the more polluting greenhouse gas causing issues and building up environmentally friendly alternative energy sources.

Provided that you know how to swim, then the fact that the entire state turns into a southern version of the great lakes (You know that the whole problem with Mexico is caused by their being jealous of Canada sharing the Great Lakes with us) shouldn't cause too much hardship.

Ooh! I could live on a boat then. Ok ... melt it.

There are piles upon steaming piles of articles and evidence on both sides of this issue. Point is, there's no consensus, even (especially) among scientists, so please stop trying to get me to drink your kool-aid. (Not to mention your glass of STHU)

Besides, if I "STHU" it might get all echo-ey in here...
Give me a scientist that is against human influenced Global Warming and I bet I could connect him to some corporation whose interests are served by such a view.

There are piles upon steaming piles of articles and evidence on both sides of this issue. Point is, there's no consensus, even (especially) among scientists, so please stop trying to get me to drink your kool-aid. (Not to mention your glass of STHU)

Besides, if I "STHU" it might get all echo-ey in here...
The only "steaming" piles of evidence are the piles of what rightwingers like to call "evidence". It's okay, most of what they spew is likewise "steaming", seeing as how they eat it up from Bush & Co., FauX and Limblaugh.
Kool-aid. Maybe this topic is too adult for you to argue.
If you hear an echo, i'm not surprised. That could be the sound of a thought (yours or not) making its rounds in your head.

Give me a scientist that is against human influenced Global Warming and I bet I could connect him to some corporation whose interests are served by such a view.
And i further bet four or five other posters will help you. *bows*

Give me a scientist that is against human influenced Global Warming and I bet I could connect him to some corporation whose interests are served by such a view.

wtf?

This is not some stupid debate team. You say that global warming is occuring, you prove it. Stop dissimulating.

And i further bet four or five other posters will help you. *bows*
ROCK AND ROLL

wtf?

This is not some stupid debate team. You say that global warming is occuring, you prove it. Stop dissimulating.
For someone who knows the Latin name for a Polar Bear, do you read?

Sponsored Links

Global Warming
Read the latest news & explore our
resources. Learn how you can help!
www.earthshare.org

Global Warming
Concerned about Global Warming?
Calculate Your "Carbon Footprint"!
www.GlobalGreen.org

Global Warming
Is it happening?
Youth decide.
NewzCrew.org

Climate Change
Learn about its causes & solutions
from NRDC scientists & experts.
www.nrdc.org

Global Warming
Find data on world population and
health. Free reports available.
www.prb.org

Global Warming
Research, Policy and Education
The Earth Institute at Columbia U.
www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu

Global climate science
See how scientists study
natural phenomena on earth.
www.exploratorium.edu/climate

Download an Essay Now
We have papers on every topic.
We can write an essay just for you!
www.research-assistance.com

More Sponsored Links »
Sponsored LinksGlobal Warming
www.NPR.org Latest Issues, Debates, and Facts on Global Warming. NPR Reports.
Global Warming
www.NationalAcademies.org Learn the origins, understand the impacts. Read online free!
Global Warming
www.worldwildlife.org/climate Learn about the causes and effects from World Wildlife Fund.
News results for global warming - View today's top stories
Flutter of butterfly wings explains global warming - The Statesman - 7 hours ago
Scientist says NOAA stifling global warming researchers - Houston Chronicle - 21 hours ago
Church of global warming - Boston Herald - 22 hours ago





EPA : EPA Global Warming Site
Focuses on the science and impacts of global warming or climate change, and on
actions by governments, corporations, and individuals that help address ...
www.epa.gov/globalwarming/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages

The EPA Global Warming Kids Page
Focuses on science and impacts of global warming or climate change, and on actions
that help address global warming. Features games, events, and links to ...
www.epa.gov/globalwarming/kids/ - 10k - Cached - Similar pages

Global Warming
Home page of the "Cooler Heads Coalition," claims that myths and flawed analyses
are presented by global-warming doomsayers.
www.globalwarming.org/ - 75k - Cached - Similar pages

Global Warming: Early Warning Signs
The Earth is heating up. The early warning signs of global climate change are
in -- heat waves and warmer weather, spreading disease, earlier spring arrival ...
www.climatehotmap.org/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages

Global Warming
Climate scientists have linked the increased levels of heat-trapping gases in
the atmosphere to human activities, in particular the burning of fossil fuels ...
www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/ - 24k - Cached - Similar pages

NRDC: Global Warming
NRDC's global warming site provides information on the causes and effects of
global climate change, and offers solutions to the problem.
www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/default.asp - 24k - Cached - Similar pages

The EnviroLink Network
The world's worst fears about global warming and rapid sea-level rise will be
realised or ... (posted 02/01/2006 from Sydney Australian) ...
www.envirolink.org/ - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

US National Climate Data Center
Answers to frequently asked questions about climate change.
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/climate/globalwarming.html - Similar pages

Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
'Global warming' is a specific case of the more general term 'climate change'
... Calculations of global warming through 2100 from a range of climate models ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming - 98k - Feb 10, 2006 - Cached - Similar pages

LiveScience.com
This site explains the latest research on the planet, from human biology to the
animal world and the forces of nature.
www.livescience.com/ - 50k - Cached - Similar pages

Try your search again on Google Book Search

wtf?

This is not some stupid debate team. You say that global warming is occuring, you prove it. Stop dissimulating.
First and foremost:
If you think you understand what global warming is, post it. Clearly, concisely.
That way you don't waste our & your time.
Why shouldn't it be a debate given the circumstances DM was responding to?

wtf?

This is not some stupid debate team. You say that global warming is occuring, you prove it. Stop dissimulating.

lol - we have already made our case along with the Bush administration and scientists around the world. Everyone knows teh world is warming up, the debate right now is whether human activity is contributing to it (something we have also already made our case for).

You make a case that it's not happening and that Bush has a liberal agenda (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm) by saying humans are contributing to it and we'll do what we can to refute you.

For someone who knows the Latin name for a Polar Bear, do you read?

Sponsored Links

Global Warming
Read the latest news & explore our
resources. Learn how you can help!
www.earthshare.org

Global Warming
Concerned about Global Warming?
Calculate Your "Carbon Footprint"!
www.GlobalGreen.org

Global Warming
Is it happening?
Youth decide.
NewzCrew.org

Climate Change
Learn about its causes & solutions
from NRDC scientists & experts.
www.nrdc.org

Global Warming
Find data on world population and
health. Free reports available.
www.prb.org

Global Warming
Research, Policy and Education
The Earth Institute at Columbia U.
www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu

Global climate science
See how scientists study
natural phenomena on earth.
www.exploratorium.edu/climate

Download an Essay Now
We have papers on every topic.
We can write an essay just for you!
www.research-assistance.com

More Sponsored Links »
Sponsored LinksGlobal Warming
www.NPR.org Latest Issues, Debates, and Facts on Global Warming. NPR Reports.
Global Warming
www.NationalAcademies.org Learn the origins, understand the impacts. Read online free!
Global Warming
www.worldwildlife.org/climate Learn about the causes and effects from World Wildlife Fund.
News results for global warming - View today's top stories
Flutter of butterfly wings explains global warming - The Statesman - 7 hours ago
Scientist says NOAA stifling global warming researchers - Houston Chronicle - 21 hours ago
Church of global warming - Boston Herald - 22 hours ago





EPA : EPA Global Warming Site
Focuses on the science and impacts of global warming or climate change, and on
actions by governments, corporations, and individuals that help address ...
www.epa.gov/globalwarming/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages

The EPA Global Warming Kids Page
Focuses on science and impacts of global warming or climate change, and on actions
that help address global warming. Features games, events, and links to ...
www.epa.gov/globalwarming/kids/ - 10k - Cached - Similar pages

Global Warming
Home page of the "Cooler Heads Coalition," claims that myths and flawed analyses
are presented by global-warming doomsayers.
www.globalwarming.org/ - 75k - Cached - Similar pages

Global Warming: Early Warning Signs
The Earth is heating up. The early warning signs of global climate change are
in -- heat waves and warmer weather, spreading disease, earlier spring arrival ...
www.climatehotmap.org/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages

Global Warming
Climate scientists have linked the increased levels of heat-trapping gases in
the atmosphere to human activities, in particular the burning of fossil fuels ...
www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/ - 24k - Cached - Similar pages

NRDC: Global Warming
NRDC's global warming site provides information on the causes and effects of
global climate change, and offers solutions to the problem.
www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/default.asp - 24k - Cached - Similar pages

The EnviroLink Network
The world's worst fears about global warming and rapid sea-level rise will be
realised or ... (posted 02/01/2006 from Sydney Australian) ...
www.envirolink.org/ - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

US National Climate Data Center
Answers to frequently asked questions about climate change.
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/climate/globalwarming.html - Similar pages

Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
'Global warming' is a specific case of the more general term 'climate change'
... Calculations of global warming through 2100 from a range of climate models ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming - 98k - Feb 10, 2006 - Cached - Similar pages

LiveScience.com
This site explains the latest research on the planet, from human biology to the
animal world and the forces of nature.
www.livescience.com/ - 50k - Cached - Similar pages

Try your search again on Google Book Search
ROCK AND ROLL INDEED!!!!!!!

WooT!!!
*dances his weasel dance*
WTH can i add to that?

So he'll listen to bears, eh? Wait I forgot, the bears are all white.... ;)
Actually, polar bears are black.

Not much time for me here ...

http://www.adn.com/news/environment/story/6815494p-6707211c.html

http://www.alaska.com/inalaska/story/7323961p-7235964c.html

http://www.alaskaoceans.net/news.htm

http://www.topix.net/city/anchorage-ak

http://www.globalwarming.org/news.php

http://nsidc.org/news/frozenground/

http://www.tamug.edu/labb/ecology_issues.htm

http://www.alaska.com/inalaska/story/7312141p-7223885c.html

http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/010306/sta_20060103010.shtml

http://www.fathersforlife.org/REA/warming10.htm

http://seaducks.org/anchorage_daily_news_article.htm

http://www.sitnews.us/0205news/022405/022405_shns_globalwarm.html

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/21716/story.htm

------
That ought to do for now.
I live in AK so i figured i'd post as much ... i do live in a "canary" state, after all.
And i have read almost all of these before today.
N'joy!

Thanks Straughn. Hopefully this thread will still be up tomorrow.

Not much time for me here ...

http://www.adn.com/news/environment/story/6815494p-6707211c.html

http://www.alaska.com/inalaska/story/7323961p-7235964c.html

http://www.alaskaoceans.net/news.htm

http://www.topix.net/city/anchorage-ak

http://www.globalwarming.org/news.php

http://nsidc.org/news/frozenground/

http://www.tamug.edu/labb/ecology_issues.htm

http://www.alaska.com/inalaska/story/7312141p-7223885c.html

http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/010306/sta_20060103010.shtml

http://www.fathersforlife.org/REA/warming10.htm

http://seaducks.org/anchorage_daily_news_article.htm

http://www.sitnews.us/0205news/022405/022405_shns_globalwarm.html

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/21716/story.htm

------
That ought to do for now.
I live in AK so i figured i'd post as much ... i do live in a "canary" state, after all.
And i have read almost all of these before today.
N'joy!


Plus I'm not sure if anyone caught this before (cuz I edited) but perhaps if you are conservative then you probably would listen to baby Bush (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm)

Give it up with Mars. It's a false argument. I'm sure someone else will elaborate.
Humans offer no percentage of what is happening with Global Warming?Never said that.

Whatever you want to believe, believe what you will.
But you do recognize that there is a thing called pollution, right? And pollution is harmful, right?
Seeing as how most of the things that we would be doing in our however futile you may find it fight against Global Warming would also be reducing pollution, what exactly is there to disagree with? Or are you going to say that Los Angeles just goes through periods when their sunsets look like that?This is nonsense. Your arguments are non-sequitors.

The basic logic is: "If A, then B. A therefore B."

But here are your A & B:
A)IF POLLUTION EXISTS AND IT IS HARMFULL
B)MAN CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING

Can you not see that this is flawed logic? The first part of your argument is not true. A does not imply B.

It's obvious to me, and I'm not buying it. The sky is NOT falling!

BTW, Mars is warming, and it appears to be the sun that is the culprit!
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html
http://www.enterprisemission.com/warming.htm
http://www.blog.speculist.com/archives/000145.html
http://www.mos.org/cst/article/80/9.html
Etc., etc., etc...

I doubt he'll listen to the bears. he sure didn't listen to the caribou when they asked him (very politely I'll add) not to destroy their calving grounds in ANWAR.

-snip-

It's not the latin name. The latin name would be Ursus Thule or something I imagine.

In any event, I have not personally observed any 'global warming' and nor have you.

Tell you what, if you can tell me the absolute average global temperature for the past fifty years, then I might believe you. Otherwise, you are just appealing to authority.

Polar bears are black:confused:

It's not the latin name. The latin name would be Ursus Thule or something I imagine.



I think it is actually Ursus Terriblus

Polar bears are black:confused:

Yes but their fur is hollow so it does some bizarre thing with the light that makes them look white.

Never said that.

This is nonsense. Your arguments are non-sequitors.

The basic logic is: "If A, then B. A therefore B."

But here are your A & B:
A)IF POLLUTION EXISTS AND IT IS HARMFULL
B)MAN CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING

Can you not see that this is flawed logic? The first part of your argument is not true. A does not imply B.

It's obvious to me, and I'm not buying it. The sky is NOT falling!

BTW, Mars is warming, and it appears to be the sun that is the culprit!
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html
http://www.enterprisemission.com/warming.htm
http://www.blog.speculist.com/archives/000145.html
http://www.mos.org/cst/article/80/9.html
Etc., etc., etc...
No. You didn't get it. At all.
The measures we would take to fight against global warming are many of the same measures that would fight everyday pollution. I don't know how much more clearly I can say it than that.

It's not the latin name. The latin name would be Ursus Thule or something I imagine.

In any event, I have not personally observed any 'global warming' and nor have you.

Tell you what, if you can tell me the absolute average global temperature for the past fifty years, then I might believe you. Otherwise, you are just appealing to authority.


Where do you live? I personally experienced it this winter (in las Vegas) as have canadian friends, and Souther Californian friends. This is been an unusually warm winter for North America. Lemme find an article if possible.

Tell you what, if you can tell me the absolute average global temperature for the past fifty years, then I might believe you. Otherwise, you are just appealing to authority.

I have plenty of anecdotal evidence if you prefer.

Yes but their fur is hollow so it does some bizarre thing with the light that makes them look white.


get the f--- outta here!

Well, I feel truly ignorant now.

Yes but their fur is hollow so it does some bizarre thing with the light that makes them look white.

Actually its a hollow prism which converts UV to IR, hence the black skin. Further it carries symbiotic algea which discolours it, to a slight shade of brown/green.

get the f--- outta here!

Well, I feel truly ignorant now.

I only learned this the other day. My girlfriend used to live in Nunavut.

Actually its a hollow prism which converts UV to IR, hence the black skin. Further it carries symbiotic algea which discolours it, to a slight shade of brown/green.

Cooo, eh? Anyway, enjoy it while it lasts. They may not be around much longer ... not in significant numbers anyway.

Actually its a hollow prism which converts UV to IR, hence the black skin. Further it carries symbiotic algea which discolours it, to a slight shade of brown/green.

ok so is it the skin or the fur thats black.....or both?

Ursus Maritiamus doesn't depend upon ice-caps. Rather the ice-sea interface. Someone should really do some fact checking before they print this crap. Maybe a civics lesson would help too.Are you seriously claiming that Ursus Maritiamus (Mars to us non-fact checkers) can't be warming because it doesn't have ice caps?
No one said the Martian ice caps were melting, only that the planet was warming.
The sun also goes through hotter and cooler periods and I'm pretty sure that it doesn't have ice caps either.

BTW, Mars actually does have polar ice caps, but that' really beside the point.

...Mars is known to contain significant volumes of water ice at its poles... (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_hummocks_010726.html)

It's not the latin name. The latin name would be Ursus Thule or something I imagine.

In any event, I have not personally observed any 'global warming' and nor have you.

Tell you what, if you can tell me the absolute average global temperature for the past fifty years, then I might believe you. Otherwise, you are just appealing to authority.
Well... I'm not up on my latin.

There is this from the UN:
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/17.htm

But there is also this:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/Temperatures.htm

Where do you live? I personally experienced it this winter (in las Vegas) as have canadian friends, and Souther Californian friends. This is been an unusually warm winter for North America. Lemme find an article if possible.

http://policypete.com/

http://www.indymedia.org/en/2005/09/825076.shtml

I tried to find the link to NPR where I heard that although natural gas pricers were doubled this year, that peoples gas bills were only 17% higher because of the "unusually warm" winter, but i couldn't.

I am a snowboarder so I look for the snow and this year we got zilch in Vegas that have gotten snow every year as long as I can remember... and on the mountains that always get snow in So. Cal. there wasn't any either.

Where do you live? I personally experienced it this winter (in las Vegas) as have canadian friends, and Souther Californian friends. This is been an unusually warm winter for North America. Lemme find an article if possible.

Let's be reasonable here. Is it consistantly unusally warm? Or is this winter just a little better than other ones you remember? Have you seen major climatic change? Are crops in the place where you live no longer viable? Has there been non-man made changes occur in the water economy? Are you seeing a multiplicity of new species in the are you live? (Both flora and fauna). And if so, are these factors attributable to 'global warming'.

I through hike a lot, and I see places all the time where the micro-climate has been effected by land use patterns.

I am not convinced. Especially not by people who spend their lives in classrooms.

Are you seriously claiming that Ursus Maritiamus (Mars to us non-fact checkers) can't be warming because it doesn't have ice caps?
No one said the Martian ice caps were melting, only that the planet was warming.
The sun also goes through hotter and cooler periods and I'm pretty sure that it doesn't have ice caps either.

BTW, Mars actually does have polar ice caps, but that' really beside the point.

...Mars is known to contain significant volumes of water ice at its poles... (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_hummocks_010726.html)

actually that was a typo, I 'meaned' maritimus.

LOL at the funny co-incidence though.

Let's be reasonable here. Is it consistantly unusally warm? Or is this winter just a little better than other ones you remember?

I will cite some of my anecdotal evidence:
- some of my relatives are from Atlantic Canada. They used to always get significant amounts of snow well before christmas every year. Now they rarely have a white christmas.
- I used to live in Whitehorse. The river there used to freeze over every year, and the used to run dogsled races up the river. Now they can't because the river has not frozen over for several years.

These are a couple of a number of anecdotes I can provide from a wide range of places that suggest that in all of these places, the climate is getting warmer.

Let's be reasonable here. Is it consistantly unusally warm? Or is this winter just a little better than other ones you remember? Have you seen major climatic change? Are crops in the place where you live no longer viable? Has there been non-man made changes occur in the water economy? Are you seeing a multiplicity of new species in the are you live? (Both flora and fauna). And if so, are these factors attributable to 'global warming'.

I through hike a lot, and I see places all the time where the micro-climate has been effected by land use patterns.

I am not convinced. Especially not by people who spend their lives in classrooms.
So, you're just purely not convinced? Or are you against the notion that there could be Global Warming? There is a big difference in my opinion.

The only "steaming" piles of evidence are the piles of what rightwingers like to call "evidence". It's okay, most of what they spew is likewise "steaming", seeing as how they eat it up from Bush & Co., FauX and Limblaugh.
Kool-aid. Maybe this topic is too adult for you to argue.
If you hear an echo, i'm not surprised. That could be the sound of a thought (yours or not) making its rounds in your head.You present no evidence here or even arguments, only insults. If that's what passes for "adult" in your world, I'll pass.

Please at least try to consider some concrete scientific evidence:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/fidget/globaltemp.jpg

This means that even if we experience the "2 degree rise set as the threshold for danger" by the un-assailable dispenser of Truth Tom Burke, former government adviser on the green issues (OOOH!), we would still be in lower 1/4 of historic global temperature ranges.

It "bears" repeating: The sky is NOT falling!

I will cite some of my anecdotal evidence:
- some of my relatives are from Atlantic Canada. They used to always get significant amounts of snow well before christmas every year. Now they rarely have a white christmas.
- I used to live in Whitehorse. The river there used to freeze over every year, and the used to run dogsled races up the river. Now they can't because the river has not frozen over for several years.

These are a couple of a number of anecdotes I can provide from a wide range of places that suggest that in all of these places, the climate is getting warmer.

Well I can cite counter anecdotal evidence that seems to say the opposite. My relatives in scotland regularly see rivers freezing in dumfries, that never froze in their memories.

I have relatives in NYC that say they - apart from this winter - have never seen so much ice in the hudson.

My opinion: There is local weather changes driven by human activities. This whole global warming thing is bunk.

No-one even knows how to measure the average global temperature anyway, so it is a moot point.

Let's be reasonable here. Is it consistantly unusally warm? Or is this winter just a little better than other ones you remember? Have you seen major climatic change? Are crops in the place where you live no longer viable? Has there been non-man made changes occur in the water economy? Are you seeing a multiplicity of new species in the are you live? (Both flora and fauna). And if so, are these factors attributable to 'global warming'.

I through hike a lot, and I see places all the time where the micro-climate has been effected by land use patterns.

I am not convinced. Especially not by people who spend their lives in classrooms.

I don't see where I was being unreasonable.

Yes it is consistently unusually warm. You could be very right that land usage coudl contribute to it and I would think that that would be in the realm of human activity contributing to climate change, wouldnt you? The summers here are also breaking records every year as of late and it's hot a'freakin nuff already thank you.

I don't know why you think that I spend my life in the classroom, as I graduated with my Bachelor of Science back in 2000. Before that I spent my life traveling around the US (mostly west coast), spending quite a bit of time in nature as I also enjoy hiking.

Besides the plethora of articles (with plenty of scientific data to back up their positions) many of us have posted that haven't been adressed in the slightest, I haven't seen any evidence posted to the contrary saying the Earth is not warming up.

My opinion: There is local weather changes driven by human activities. This whole global warming thing is bunk.

No-one even knows how to measure the average global temperature anyway, so it is a moot point.

I fail to see how local human acivity in NYC or Scotland would be making the weather colder.

The closest approximations we have to measure global temperature show average temperature increases.

Well I can cite counter anecdotal evidence that seems to say the opposite. My relatives in scotland regularly see rivers freezing in dumfries, that never froze in their memories.

I have relatives in NYC that say they - apart from this winter - have never seen so much ice in the hudson.

My opinion: There is local weather changes driven by human activities. This whole global warming thing is bunk.

No-one even knows how to measure the average global temperature anyway, so it is a moot point.
Global Warming is another name for Chaotic Weather Changes. It might be warmer on a Global Scale but that doesn't mean that every location on the planet gets warmer. It just means things get chaotic... as exampled by your anecdote and the person you responded to.
I only know about these thing from casual reading and express it as I understand it. If your looking for scientific terms of all this, I'm not a good source.

This means that even if we experience the "2 degree rise set as the threshold for danger" by the un-assailable dispenser of Truth Tom Burke, former government adviser on the green issues (OOOH!), we would still be in lower 1/4 of historic global temperature ranges.



Sure, if we count out ice ages and include temperatures from before humans even existed on the planet.

So, you're just purely not convinced? Or are you against the notion that there could be Global Warming? There is a big difference in my opinion.

no-one knows how to come up with a figure for average global temperature. there has not yet to this date been a measurement which describes the energy balance between the amount of energy recieved from the sun annually, and the amount reflected empirically. There are only estimates. Hence the whole theory of greenhouse gasses are still speculative, despite what you claim.

Put a satellite in very high orbit and start taking measurements in respect of the energy balance, and I might start to pay attention. Or perhaps drive deep probes below the 'noise' of weather, and I might start to pay attention. Until then, this is just another war to take the working man's money from him to provide welfare for middle-class wastrels.

What do I know though? I'm just a finish carpenter who likes to read.

What do I know though? I'm just a finish carpenter who likes to read.

I thought you were a french postmodernist.

I doubt he'll listen to the bears. he sure didn't listen to the caribou when they asked him (very politely I'll add) not to destroy their calving grounds in ANWAR.

"A series of scientific papers published since 1992 consistently show that the caribou population has increased dramatically during the period of oil field development..." (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=1123)

"A series of scientific papers published since 1992 consistently show that the caribou population has increased dramatically during the period of oil field development..." (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=1123)

A very credible source. Please note that none of the existing oilfields are in calving grounds.

Global Warming is another name for Chaotic Weather Changes. It might be warmer on a Global Scale but that doesn't mean that every location on the planet gets warmer. It just means things get chaotic... as exampled by your anecdote and the person you responded to.
I only know about these thing from casual reading and express it as I understand it. If your looking for scientific terms of all this, I'm not a good source.

Well shouldn't that ring alarum bells for you too, before you sign onto this theory? In other words, someone tells you that it is warming, but you'll never see it? Just trust us etc.

Yes but their fur is hollow so it does some bizarre thing with the light that makes them look white.Actually, I think their skin is black, and the bizarre thing that the fur does is to hide their black skin beneath furry whiteness!

Well shouldn't that ring alarum bells for you too, before you sign onto this theory? In other words, someone tells you that it is warming, but you'll never see it? Just trust us etc.

I believe it because the science gibes with my own observations, and that of most people I know who have stayed in one place long enough to get to know the weather patterns.

http://policypete.com/images/janfnl.gif
Source: NOAA (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2006/jan/januaryext2006.html)

How warm was it? NOAA says:

* January 2006 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2006/jan/currentmonth.html) ranked as the warmest January in the 1895 to present record. The preliminary nationally averaged temperature was 39.5°F (4.2°C), which was 8.5°F (4.7°C) above the long-term mean.
* For the last 3 months (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2006/jan/3month.html) temperature was much above average and ranked as the 3rd warmest such period in the 1895 to present record. The preliminary nationally averaged temperature for November-January was 39.5°F (4.2°C) which was 3.8°F (2.1°C) above the long-term mean.
* Temperature over the past 6 months (August-January) (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2006/jan/6month.html) was record warm for the nation. The preliminary nationally averaged temperature was 52.8°F (11.6°C) which was 2.8°F (1.6°C) above the long-term mean.

Actually, I think their skin is black, and the bizarre thing that the fur does is to hide their black skin beneath furry whiteness!

Yeah, sorry, to be clearer ... the skin is black, the fur is hollow and translucent.

Why not? They wouldn't be able to understand me. For the record, though, I wouldn't say anything to a bear's face. It is my desire to stay as far away from potential man-eaters as possible.

More people die of canabilism then are killed by bears.

I thought you were a french postmodernist.

Zut alors!

Not really, I just like the fluid approach to text. I don't believe that there is 'any right way' to read something.

Probably because I never went to college.

no-one knows how to come up with a figure for average global temperature. there has not yet to this date been a measurement which describes the energy balance between the amount of energy recieved from the sun annually, and the amount reflected empirically. There are only estimates. Hence the whole theory of greenhouse gasses are still speculative, despite what you claim.

Put a satellite in very high orbit and start taking measurements in respect of the energy balance, and I might start to pay attention. Or perhaps drive deep probes below the 'noise' of weather, and I might start to pay attention. Until then, this is just another war to take the working man's money from him to provide welfare for middle-class wastrels.

What do I know though? I'm just a finish carpenter who likes to read.
I'm not in a class room and I'm not middle class. I work in a bookstore and live in a small apartment with my girlfriend. Just so I'm clear on that.
What I don't understand is what are the harmful effects of reducing pollutants no matter how miniscule the effect globally may be? I'm of the opinion that the word miniscule would be a vast understatement but what evil could come of it?
Eleven Billion Dollars was made by Exxon Mobil in one quarter which is a record. If you're looking for people taking the working man's money....

More people die of canabilism then are killed by bears.
Cannibals on a quickly disappearing ice shelf. Yes. I said it. Cannibals on Ice.

Zut alors!

Not really, I just like the fluid approach to text. I don't believe that there is 'any right way' to read something.

Probably because I never went to college.

No, they love that PoMo crap in colleges. That way they can just critique everything and never have to do anything constructive.

Just a little piece on what happened to seals who were giving birth on beaches because there was insufficient ice this year:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/02/seal-pups060202.html

Cannibals on a quickly disappearing ice shelf. Yes. I said it. Cannibals on Ice.

Sounds like a future show of Ice Capades?

I believe it because the science gibes with my own observations, and that of most people I know who have stayed in one place long enough to get to know the weather patterns.

And I have counter anecdotal evidence, which does not jibe with the science.

The fact remains, no-one knows.

And if, indeed this is such a concern, why has there not been made to accurately ascertain the exact global temperature measurements.


I smell fraud.

No. You didn't get it. At all.
The measures we would take to fight against global warming are many of the same measures that would fight everyday pollution. I don't know how much more clearly I can say it than that.That's great. Pollution is a bad thing. Fighting it is a good thing. (IMHO) But none of that says anything regarding whether humans are a significant cause of global warming.

OK, just to show that I do get what you are trying to say, I'll lay out your argument for you:

POLLUTION CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING. HUMANS ARE THE CAUSE OF POLLUTION. THEREFORE, HUMANS ARE CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING.

In a nutshell, that's the argument. It now falls on those who make this argument to prove that pollution is the cause of global warming, and prove that humans are responsible for that part of the pollution that is causing the warming.

Have at it. If you can't prove it, don't demand that I believe it.

And I have counter anecdotal evidence, which does not jibe with the science.

The fact remains, no-one knows.

And if, indeed this is such a concern, why has there not been made to accurately ascertain the exact global temperature measurements.


I smell fraud.

Tons of effort has been poured into checking the temperatures. Unfrotunately, we cannot go back in time and get temperature readings we did not get in the past, so they can only rely on what has been kept up to the present.

No, they love that PoMo crap in colleges. That way they can just critique everything and never have to do anything constructive.

Well I also feel good when someone asks me to build a table or some shit for them and I do.

I don't think college could give me that.

Things are slow right now though; housing crash I would imagine.

Well shouldn't that ring alarum bells for you too, before you sign onto this theory? In other words, someone tells you that it is warming, but you'll never see it? Just trust us etc.
It would if all I ever read about was the Title and the Conclusion.

Well I also feel good when someone asks me to build a table or some shit for them and I do.

I don't think college could give me that.

Things are slow right now though; housing crash I would imagine.

Sorry ... that was not meant to be a shot at you. That was meant to be a shot at academics who do the postmodern thing and nothing else.

Tons of effort has been poured into checking the temperatures. Unfrotunately, we cannot go back in time and get temperature readings we did not get in the past, so they can only rely on what has been kept up to the present.

Actually, I don't see tons of effort being put into this.

It seems fairly evident to me that the earth recieves X amount of energy per year, and likewise, reflects Y amount of energy.

It would be trivial, I imagine to put a satellite in high orbit above the atmosphere and measure X v Y, and thus examine whether or not there is indeed this 'greenhouse effect'.

For something that, apparently, may or may not kill us all, I am amazed that no-one has even suggested this.

It's clearly a con trick.

That's great. Pollution is a bad thing. Fighting it is a good thing. (IMHO) But none of that says anything regarding whether humans are a significant cause of global warming.

What he said. I don't know of ANYONE that says pollution is good, and we should do more of it. But to jump from there to saying that we're making polar bears starve? Um, no.

I will cite some of my anecdotal evidence:
- some of my relatives are from Atlantic Canada. They used to always get significant amounts of snow well before christmas every year. Now they rarely have a white christmas.
- I used to live in Whitehorse. The river there used to freeze over every year, and the used to run dogsled races up the river. Now they can't because the river has not frozen over for several years.

These are a couple of a number of anecdotes I can provide from a wide range of places that suggest that in all of these places, the climate is getting warmer.
Well! If your relatives remember having more snow before Christmas when they were young, then there are obviously geologically significant global temperature shifts undway which have been caused by human activity. Can't argue with that!

Sorry ... that was not meant to be a shot at you. That was meant to be a shot at academics who do the postmodern thing and nothing else.

Nah, I'm not pissed, I thought it was funny when you said it.

The name is in part of that. I don't like monopolies of intellectualism. I think that people should be judged on their arguments, not their degrees. (or spelling).

Actually, I don't see tons of effort being put into this.

It seems fairly evident to me that the earth recieves X amount of energy per year, and likewise, reflects Y amount of energy.

It would be trivial, I imagine to put a satellite in high orbit above the atmosphere and measure X v Y, and thus examine whether or not there is indeed this 'greenhouse effect'.

For something that, apparently, may or may not kill us all, I am amazed that no-one has even suggested this.

It's clearly a con trick.

But there would be no historical data to compare it against.

Well! If your relatives remember having more snow before Christmas when they were young, then there are obviously globally significant geologic temperature shifts undway which have been caused by human activity. Can't argue with that!

Try reading the thread and lighten up. The scientific evidence was poo-pooed on the basis that we were just "appealing to authority". I offered some non-scientific evidence instead!

But there would be no historical data to compare it against.

I understand that, but it would give us a yearly base. We could see if it was increasing or decreasing, no?

I understand that, but it would give us a yearly base. We could see if it was increasing or decreasing, no?

By the time we figured it out, it would probably be too late to act anyway.

Actually, I don't see tons of effort being put into this.

It seems fairly evident to me that the earth recieves X amount of energy per year, and likewise, reflects Y amount of energy.

It would be trivial, I imagine to put a satellite in high orbit above the atmosphere and measure X v Y, and thus examine whether or not there is indeed this 'greenhouse effect'.

For something that, apparently, may or may not kill us all, I am amazed that no-one has even suggested this.

It's clearly a con trick.

Besides, the satellit would only be able to track this for points along its orbit. It would not be able to give us the whole picture, just a very small slice of it.

...I haven't seen any evidence posted to the contrary saying the Earth is not warming up.Look closely. No one on this thread has claimed that the Earth is not warming. It has been warming recently, and is maybe even entering a longer-term warming phase. What is being debated here is the cause of the warming. Some are convinced that it is human caused. The challenge is for those who are making this claim to prove it.

By the time we figured it out, it would probably be too late to act anyway.

We could do it within the next twelve months. Or at least get base line readings from spectral emissions.

Hell, we measured the average temperature of venus this way; why not earth?

It's like professors who still defend transformational grammar and deep structure, even though Chomsky has moved on. They are desperate not to be proved wrong.

Nah, I'm not pissed, I thought it was funny when you said it.

The name is in part of that. I don't like monopolies of intellectualism. I think that people should be judged on their arguments, not their degrees. (or spelling).

I agree to a point ... some people are really good at the tactics of arguing even when they don't have much substance to back it up. Some people have it all figured out but can't manage to get it accross in an argument. But I agree that people should not be judged by their degrees. I've met plenty of educated people with very little sense.

Besides, the satellit would only be able to track this for points along its orbit. It would not be able to give us the whole picture, just a very small slice of it.

High enough, it could observe the entire albedo of the earth. Prolly in one of the lagrange points, but I am not an astronomer. Perhaps it would have to go to one of the earth's trojan points. Still, it's not an insurmoutnable problem. Apollo 11 took an entire picture of the globe, and assuming that the atmosphere is homogenous - which you have to for the purpose of the greenhouse effect (sagan - 1969) - an X v Y balance can still be plotted.

I can't see why people are against this if it is such a concern.

Maybe it isn't.

This means that even if we experience the "2 degree rise set as the threshold for danger" by the un-assailable dispenser of Truth Tom Burke, former government adviser on the green issues (OOOH!), we would still be in lower 1/4 of historic global temperature ranges.
Sure, if we count out ice ages and include temperatures from before humans even existed on the planet.
Not true. You can limit the scope of the temperatures to those since the appearance of humans, including ice ages, and we are still on the lower end of that scale.

Look closely. No one on this thread has claimed that the Earth is not warming. It has been warming recently, and is maybe even entering a longer-term warming phase. What is being debated here is the cause of the warming. Some are convinced that it is human caused. The challenge is for those who are making this claim to prove it.


I have looked closely and Jacques Derrida is most definitely saying the Earth is not warming up. You want to look fo the posts where he is making this claim or are you going to make me do it?

I (and others) have already provided many sources where scietists from around the world as well as the Bush administration and the EPA have shown that it is indeed at least partially due to human activity (although the majority of scientists *and the EPA* believe that human activity is mostly responsible).

There have been no credible rebuttals to those sources and that is where the current challenge lies. We have give scientific as well as anecdotal evidence and Jacques Derrida completely denies it's happening at all and you just give sarcastic remarks to anyone who disagrees with you.

I thought you were a french postmodernist.I thought that he was an anarcho-syndicalist communist...

I agree to a point ... some people are really good at the tactics of arguing even when they don't have much substance to back it up. Some people have it all figured out but can't manage to get it accross in an argument. But I agree that people should not be judged by their degrees. I've met plenty of educated people with very little sense.

Nah, I agree.

I just like working with my hands. I enjoy making things. Probably if I was a musician this wouldn't be an issue. I just get dismissed a lot because I never went to college. So it makes me pissy.

I see it from both sides too. College people who feel that they have a monopoly of knowledge - which is untrue. And tradesmen who have an anti-intellectual bias.

Neither is healthy, in my opinion.

A very credible source. Please note that none of the existing oilfields are in calving grounds.Not true. "Although there was some displacement of caribou calving in the Prudhoe Bay oilfield, in general, caribou have not been adversely affected by human activities in Alaska."
(http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/biggame/caribou.php)

I have looked closely and Jacques Derrida is most definitely saying the Earth is not warming up. You want to look fo the posts where he is making this claim or are you going to make me do it?

I (and others) have already provided many sources where scietists from around the world as well as the Bush administration and the EPA have shown that it is indeed at least partially due to human activity (although the majority of scientists *and the EPA* believe that human activity is mostly responsible).

There have been no credible rebuttals to those sources and that is where the current challenge lies. We have give scientific as well as anecdotal evidence and Jacques Derrida completely denies it's happening at all and you just give sarcastic remarks to anyone who disagrees with you.

Yes I said that it isn't.

And no-one has yet given evidence that it is. They have just instead appealed to ambigous authority, or offered anectdotal evidence.

Further, I have proffered methods which could solve this once and for all and questioned why they have not been underataken; given its alleged importance.

So, whatever. It can't really be that important.

I thought that he was an anarcho-syndicalist communist...

I'm actually a socialist. But you wouldn't like it.

Not true. You can limit the scope of the temperatures to those since the appearance of humans, including ice ages, and we are still on the lower end of that scale.

Really? In spite of the fact that ice ages have been the rule rather than the exception during the last several hundred thousand years?

Not true. "Although there was some displacement of caribou calving in the Prudhoe Bay oilfield, in general, caribou have not been adversely affected by human activities in Alaska."
(http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/biggame/caribou.php)

Again ... consider the source.

High enough, it could observe the entire albedo of the earth. Prolly in one of the lagrange points, but I am not an astronomer. Perhaps it would have to go to one of the earth's trojan points. Still, it's not an insurmoutnable problem. Apollo 11 took an entire picture of the globe, and assuming that the atmosphere is homogenous - which you have to for the purpose of the greenhouse effect (sagan - 1969) - an X v Y balance can still be plotted.

I can't see why people are against this if it is such a concern.

Maybe it isn't.

I say lets do it. But I don't think we can put efforts to halt the effect on hold in the meantime.

Gotta sign off now. Cheers.

Yes I said that it isn't.

And no-one has yet given evidence that it is. They have just instead appealed to ambigous authority, or offered anectdotal evidence.

Further, I have proffered methods which could solve this once and for all and questioned why they have not been underataken; given its alleged importance.

So, whatever. It can't really be that important.

And why do you consider these authorities (who spent their lives studying this stuff) ambiguous? They are comparing a hundred years of data (temp data that is just as credible as any data a satellite could gather so I don't see how satellites would prove whatever once and for all) and showing that there is indeed a distinct rise in temp on the Earths surface as well as in the earths oceans. Are their thermometers broken? Studying the amount of greenhouse gasses they also see a consistent rise. Greenhouse gasses that are indeed being created by polluting sources, you say you like to read so please read the links provided earlier in the thread.

You say you are not interested in scientific evidence and you want to see anectodal evidence (because our individual perceptions are much mroe credible than decades of data?) so we offer some and you discount that as well.

I'm not in a class room and I'm not middle class. I work in a bookstore and live in a small apartment with my girlfriend. Just so I'm clear on that.
What I don't understand is what are the harmful effects of reducing pollutants no matter how miniscule the effect globally may be? I'm of the opinion that the word miniscule would be a vast understatement but what evil could come of it?
Eleven Billion Dollars was made by Exxon Mobil in one quarter which is a record. If you're looking for people taking the working man's money....
The evil that would come of it would be the vast amount of human resources and effort that would be required to make this "miniscule" change, which would only have an effect if the human caused global warming theories end up all being correct. (I won't even go into the potential loss of life and increase in human suffering that could result) Also, it would require a change of behavior forced upon one part of humanity by another, again based on a theory.

BTW, Looked at another way, Exxons record profits amounted to $1.30 per share. Not bad, but not much when compared to any number of other businesses and industries that earned a much greater percentage of profit. Allstate expects 2006 profit of at least $5.60 per share. (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?post_date=2006-02-01&id=19368) There are lots of examples. Beside, $11 billion only looks huge until you consider that it is a huge company with literally millions of shares of stock that happen to be owned by thousands upon thousands of "working" men and women.

And why do you consider these authorities (who spent their lives studying this stuff) ambiguous? They are comparing a hundred years of data (temp data that is just as credible as any data a satellite could gather so I don't see how satellites would prove whatever once and for all) and showing that there is indeed a distinct rise in temp on the Earths surface as well as in the earths oceans. Are their thermometers broken? Studying the amount of greenhouse gasses they also see a consistent rise. Greenhouse gasses that are indeed being created by polluting sources, you say you like to read so please read the links provided earlier in the thread.

You say you are not interested in scientific evidence and you want to see anectodal evidence (because our individual perceptions are much mroe credible than decades of data?) so we offer some and you discount that as well.

Well it is quite clear that these 'scientists' who have spent years studying this stuff, have not indeed studied it. It's broken data. I have yet to see a weather station that uses a calibrated beckman thermometer, nevermind an accurately calibrated thermocouple. All the reports are is the average temp. to the nearest degree F, thus giving an uncertainty of +- 0.5F. (or C depending upon locality). Given that average global temp, would be derived from local weather conditions, which are addmittedly chaotic - i.e. based upon numerical soloution approximations to non-linear, non-homogenous differential equations - it's really just all meaningless.

Which is why I suppose they don't provide the uncertainty measurement with their estimates. (If they can). And if they did, I suspect their models would be less than impressive.

There has yet to be shown, for much the same reason, empirically that a rise in so-calles 'greenhouse gasses' causes a rise in global temperature. Further there are considerable polemics as to what actually constitutes a greenhouse gas, and what phase it has to exist in to constitute such.

And like I said, I proffered I perfectly reasonable method to establish this once and for all. There are no serious objections to it scientifically. If I can think of it, why has it not been undertaken?

Its all rubbish, that's why. Stop being led around by the nose.

Well it is quite clear that these 'scientists' who have spent years studying this stuff, have not indeed studied it. It's broken data. I have yet to see a weather station that uses a calibrated beckman thermometer, nevermind an accurately calibrated thermocouple. All the reports are is the average temp. to the nearest degree F, thus giving an uncertainty of +- 0.5F. (or C depending upon locality). Given that average global temp, would be derived from local weather conditions, which are addmittedly chaotic - i.e. based upon numerical soloution approximations to non-linear, non-homogenous differential equations - it's really just all meaningless.


Weather reports are given to the nearest degree (the kind in the newspaper or on TV). The actual scientific work is done as precisely as possible. Plus, since you're doing a long-term average in this kind of work, minor uncertainties have a tendency to cancel out. Unless there's a significant equipment bias that's consistently in one direction, which I have to assume would have been caught by someone very very quickly.

Point being that there's enormous consensus in the scientific community that global climate change is occuring, that it's significant, and that a significant amount of it is anthropogenic. So I'm going to go ahead and trust the people with degrees and years of study in the field. I know you'll all call "appeal to authority," but their authority is based on years of education and study, plus demonstrated proficiency, so I'll go ahead and give them the benefit of the doubt.

Try reading the thread and lighten up. The scientific evidence was poo-pooed on the basis that we were just "appealing to authority". I offered some non-scientific evidence instead!It's called sarcasm. If one of us need to "lighten up", it might not be me.:p

Perhaps this global warming won't be so bad at all? Canada's winter will disappear and we will be able to swim in our numerous lakes year round.

Also, the Southern States will end up parched and many Americans will have to move north to Canada. Of course we will have to tighten up immigration policies, such as no right wing extremists allowed and certainly no "centrists" from North Carolina would be allowed.

Hell ya, that just might work out real well!! :)

Perhaps this global warming won't be so bad at all? Canada's winter will disappear and we will be able to swim in our numerous lakes year round.

Also, the Southern States will end up parched and many Americans will have to move north to Canada. Of course we will have to tighten up immigration policies, such as no right wing extremists allowed and certainly no "centrists" from North Carolina would be allowed.

Hell ya, that just might work out real well!! :)


After reading this post, I have committed to buying a Hummer.

Weather reports are given to the nearest degree (the kind in the newspaper or on TV). The actual scientific work is done as precisely as possible. Plus, since you're doing a long-term average in this kind of work, minor uncertainties have a tendency to cancel out. Unless there's a significant equipment bias that's consistently in one direction, which I have to assume would have been caught by someone very very quickly.

Rubbish. Utter Rubbish. I happen to hike by many weather stations - and know many of the people who watch them up and down the east coast - and they report to the nearest degree F. Arguably some don't these days, but at the most they report to 0.1 F, and for the purposes of my argument that changes nothing.

Point being that there's enormous consensus in the scientific community that global climate change is occuring, that it's significant, and that a significant amount of it is anthropogenic. So I'm going to go ahead and trust the people with degrees and years of study in the field. I know you'll all call "appeal to authority," but their authority is based on years of education and study, plus demonstrated proficiency, so I'll go ahead and give them the benefit of the doubt.

And there was enourmous consensus that an ice-age begining when I was a child from the same bulk of historical data. Where is the demonstrated 'proficiency' now?

Get some actual data, then argue about it. Don't just parrot the party line.

Rubbish. Utter Rubbish. I happen to hike by many weather stations - and know many of the people who watch them up and down the east coast - and they report to the nearest degree F. Arguably some don't these days, but at the most they report to 0.1 F, and for the purposes of my argument that changes nothing.



And there was enourmous consensus that an ice-age begining when I was a child from the same bulk of historical data. Where is the demonstrated 'proficiency' now?

Get some actual data, then argue about it. Don't just parrot the party line.

Actually, .1F instead of 1F is a significant difference. Your margin of error just shrank by a factor of 10.

About that whole thing with climatologists predicting an ice age in the 70's...I wasn't around, I don't know a ton about it. Yes, scientists sometimes make mistakes. Yes, they've made mistakes in the past. Yes, they will continue to make mistakes in the future. However, when the evidence is as monolithic as it is now, I think we can safely say that the basic idea (human activities are fucking up the climate) has some serious validity. The consequences of climate change are severe enough (at least for my generation and those coming afterward) to warrant action. Now.

Even in the worst-case scenario (the exceedingly unlikely one where all the climate science was fallacious and the change is either nonexistent or nonanthropogenic), by taking action we end up with a more efficient economy that doesn't depend on dirty and nonrenewable fuels provided by volatile governments propped up by oil money.

And there was enourmous consensus that an ice-age begining when I was a child from the same bulk of historical data.

no there wasn't

no there wasn't

And there is the converse now? Really Mr. Soviet, are you arguing that the weltanschauung during the late seventies and early eighties was not one of the impending ice-age? Or are you arguing, that in retrospect, it never was inevitable.

Let me ask you this, as you are clearly such and expert on the subject of global warming, have you actually performed calculations base upon the paper in which the greenhouse effect was first examined? Or are you just another so-called leftist mouthpiece aiding the capitalists?

Actually, .1F instead of 1F is a significant difference. Your margin of error just shrank by a factor of 10.


I suggest you study non-linear, non-homogenous differential equations. As you can clearly see, if you bother to plot a direction field, the margin of error does not shrink by a factor of ten. (laymen refer to this as the butterfly effect).

I suggest you study non-linear, non-homogenous differential equations. As you can clearly see, if you bother to plot a direction field, the margin of error does not shrink by a factor of ten. (laymen refer to this as the butterfly effect).

I will study those next year, most likely, but cut me a bit of slack as I am only 17, and somewhat limited by what my high school is capable of teaching me.


Oh, and as for your complaints about the "imminent ice age" in the 70s, RealClimate does a pretty good job of refuting it here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94).

But it's pushing midnight here in the desert, and I've had a rather long day. So I shall return tomorrow night, perhaps when I get off work.

I have looked closely and Jacques Derrida is most definitely saying the Earth is not warming up. You want to look fo the posts where he is making this claim or are you going to make me do it?I'll take your word for it and stand corrected on that point. I missed it if he claimed the Earth is not warming. I think most of us agree that some amount of warming is probably occuring. Even so, that's not really what we are debating here.

I (and others) have already provided many sources where scietists from around the world as well as the Bush administration and the EPA have shown that it is indeed at least partially due to human activity (although the majority of scientists *and the EPA* believe that human activity is mostly responsible).Here are the names of more than 17,000 scientists (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p333.htm) (2/3 with advanced degrees) from the US alone who will tell you that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm)

I trust them a good deal more than any governmental agency or administration (though I could provide you with some of those too), including the Bush administration and the EPA, who have only said it, not "shown" it.

There have been no credible rebuttals to those sources and that is where the current challenge lies.The currrent challege is for one side to prove it's case. Since those supporting human caused global warming are the ones making the assertion, it is encumbent on them to prove their own assertions. (As for rebuttals, see above.)

We have give scientific as well as anecdotal evidence and Jacques Derrida completely denies it's happening at all and you just give sarcastic remarks to anyone who disagrees with you.Not true. We also have provided deep piles of steaming scientific evidence, and any Jr. Science Club intern nominee can tell you that anecdotal evidence is worthless, nay laughable, in any credible debate. Also, I have only been sarcastic 2 times on this post (OK, maybe 3), and that's pretty good for me!

I will study those next year, most likely, but cut me a bit of slack as I am only 17, and somewhat limited by what my high school is capable of teaching me.


Oh, and as for your complaints about the "imminent ice age" in the 70s, RealClimate does a pretty good job of refuting it here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94).

But it's pushing midnight here in the desert, and I've had a rather long day. So I shall return tomorrow night, perhaps when I get off work.

I only finished high-school also, it won't be covered. You'll have to read up on numerical methods yourself.

Realclimate is a retrospective. The ice-age was an 'inevitablity' in the seventies.

And in any case, it is not central to my argument that I have figured out a way to solve the question once and for all, and everyone avoids it.

Its a scam.

Really? In spite of the fact that ice ages have been the rule rather than the exception during the last several hundred thousand years?Really.

Again ... consider the source.I have been there. I have seen it. I realize that it's anecdotal, but it's an anecdote that I trust.

And there is the converse now? Really Mr. Soviet, are you arguing that the weltanschauung during the late seventies and early eighties was not one of the impending ice-age? Or are you arguing, that in retrospect, it never was inevitable.

i am stating the fact that
1) there was no scientific consensus at all about an impending ice age,
and
2)they did not have the same set of historical data as we do now

...They are comparing a hundred years of data (temp data that is just as credible as any data a satellite could gather so I don't see how satellites would prove whatever once and for all) and showing that there is indeed a distinct rise in temp on the Earths surface as well as in the earths oceans. Are their thermometers broken?...Assuming their thermometers are not broken, 100 years is not even a blip on the geologic timeline. We are talking about billions of years of warming and cooling here. I don't see how you can draw any definitive conclusions about geologic global warming trends being affected by humans by looking a hundred year's of data (or several hundred for that matter).

Here are the names of more than 17,000 scientists (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p333.htm) (2/3 with advanced degrees) from the US alone who will tell you that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm)

that's nice. now we just have to figure out why none of them ever publish articles in peer reviewed journals to argue their case.

science is not done by petition.

The ice-age was an 'inevitablity' in the seventies.

relevant citations from peer reviewed journals of the time?

i am stating the fact that
1) there was no scientific consensus at all about an impending ice age,
and
2)they did not have the same set of historical data as we do now

They altered the historical data? Are you scientifically unlettered or something?

(Don't give me that ice core crap either, because that is atmos. composition, not climatoligical - we could argue about algea concreations, but it is really not dispositive at this point).

Broad fact is, no-one knows. This is nothing more than yet another attempt to hold the working man down with pseudo-intellectulism. In other words, we have ours, and you can't have yours because the world will fry, so have a cup of STFU.

Join the working man Mr Soviets, demand proof, the method of which I already posited - which works for every other planet apparently - or not. Frankly, we want our ice-cream too.

relevant citations from peer reviewed journals of the time?

Eh? ABC news I suppose, I was a kid.

Or do only people with phd's have a voice in your world?

I'm actually a socialist. But you wouldn't like it.You're right, I probably wouldn't, but for some reason I do like you. There must be something wrong. I'd better go lie down...

Eh? ABC news I suppose, I was a kid.

Or do only people with phd's have a voice in your world?

so it wasn't so much a scientific consensus as a couple of things you saw once on the tv?

what exactly do you think scientists are using to ground climate change theory these days?

They altered the historical data?

no. i'm saying that there is more of it now than there was then. lots and lots more. from a wider range of sources covering a larger area of the world. this isn't exactly something that's been kept secret.

You're right, I probably wouldn't, but for some reason I do like you. There must be something wrong. I'd better go lie down...

I like you too. :) But I like everyone.

From my perspective however, this global warming thing is nothing more that a capitalist plot to slow the growth of efficient industry, and thus deny the working man/woman basic human comforts, while cementing a monopoly of production with the people whom already hold it.

Socialism should not = misery for all.

Socialism should = happiness for all.

A great number of 'leftists' are actually apologists for the status quo.

From my perspective however, this global warming thing is nothing more that a capitalist plot to slow the growth of efficient industry, and thus deny the working man/woman basic human comforts, while cementing a monopoly of production with the people whom already hold it.

that's just ridiculous. which capitalists are these that are pushing to do something to slow down global warming? and why aren't they being at all effective at actually catalyzing any action?

Here are the names of more than 17,000 scientists (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p333.htm) (2/3 with advanced degrees) from the US alone who will tell you that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm)




Thanks that gives me a lot of reading and research to do and I will respond in several days lol

One point that I have seen so far that makes me question these honorable peoples points is the statement about how those who want to curb greenhouse emmisions to stop the human caused rise in the gobal temperature are doing so in hopes of harming society and industry (paraphrasing). LMFAO!

But I will look at their points and see if I can understand what the hell they are talking about (it wont be tonight as I am dead tired).

Assuming their thermometers are not broken, 100 years is not even a blip on the geologic timeline. We are talking about billions of years of warming and cooling here. I don't see how you can draw any definitive conclusions about geologic global warming trends being affected by humans by looking a hundred year's of data (or several hundred for that matter).

You might want to take into account the industrial revolution and the human population explosion.

that's nice. now we just have to figure out why none of them ever publish articles in peer reviewed journals to argue their case.

science is not done by petition.

An interesting and I dare say very valid point.

no. i'm saying that there is more of it now than there was then. lots and lots more. from a wider range of sources covering a larger area of the world. this isn't exactly something that's been kept secret.

Nice way to clip.

The point is that there is clearly no evidence that this is indeed happening, it ambigous at best. Further, you are saying that all this climate data has changed without addressing which streams of data have effected what. Are you now contending that earlier trends have been disregarded? If so why? And as I said, there is no real evidence that this is even happening.

It's a masterful plot. Keep the rest of us poor becuase the world will burn up of we don't.

I have given an explicit method by which this question could be answered once and for all: it works for other planets - indeed we can plot the global temp on mars or something - yet not give the same scrutiny here.

Capitalism in action; I love it.

Socialism should not = misery for all.

Socialism should = happiness for all.

right, and since the facts say that certain actions will lead to increased misery, we should stop doing them. socialism must be based on reality first and foremost. wishing is no way to do anything.

that's just ridiculous. which capitalists are these that are pushing to do something to slow down global warming? and why aren't they being at all effective at actually catalyzing any action?

Capitalists support the universities.

Obviously as global warming = economic output, it gives credence to supporting their economic hegemony.

Duh.

right, and since the facts say that certain actions will lead to increased misery, we should stop doing them. socialism must be based on reality first and foremost. wishing is no way to do anything.

Your basic premise is untested however. And from the socialistic perspective you are no more than an apologist for the capitalists.

I ask you now; Whom does this benefit?

The point is that there is clearly no evidence that this is indeed happening, it ambigous at best. Further, you are saying that all this climate data has changed without addressing which streams of data have effected what. Are you now contending that earlier trends have been disregarded? If so why? And as I said, there is no real evidence that this is even happening.

you seem to be rather confused about the data we have and the history of climatology as a science. which seems to me to be an odd place to be when one has taken up claiming that the scientific consensus is wrong despite the fact that literally nobody is publishing science papers in peer reviewed journals to support your claim.

I have given an explicit method by which this question could be answered once and for all: it works for other planets - indeed we can plot the global temp on mars or something - yet not give the same scrutiny here.

sorry, i haven't read from the beginning - what is it you think we could do (and have done elsewhere) that isn't being done here? and where did you get that idea?

Capitalists support the universities.

ok, and?

Obviously as global warming = economic output, it gives credence to supporting their economic hegemony.

Duh.

what are you talking about?

From my perspective however, this global warming thing is nothing more that a capitalist plot to slow the growth of efficient industry, and thus deny the working man/woman basic human comforts, while cementing a monopoly of production with the people whom already hold it.Wow. I agree with your conclusion, but with a very different premise. I agree that it is designed to slow the growth of efficient industry, but I think it is a plot against capitalism, not by capitalists. Either way, I agree that it's not what it is being marketed as.

Socialism should not = misery for all.

Socialism should = happiness for all.

A great number of 'leftists' are actually apologists for the status quo.This is just too big for here. Deserves a thread of it's own! Wait a minute, what am I talking about? You could already fill librarys with books written on this subject! It's way too big for a thread!

Here are the names of more than 17,000 scientists (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p333.htm) (2/3 with advanced degrees) from the US alone who will tell you that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm)

I trust them a good deal more than any governmental agency or administration (though I could provide you with some of those too), including the Bush administration and the EPA, who have only said it, not "shown" it.

The currrent challege is for one side to prove it's case. Since those supporting human caused global warming are the ones making the assertion, it is encumbent on them to prove their own assertions. (As for rebuttals, see above.)
Well, it took me awhile but I found it!! :)

World Scientists' Warning to Humanity (1992) (http://www.ucsusa.org/ucs/about/1992-world-scientists-warning-to-humanity.html)

Some 1,700 of the world's leading scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences, issued this appeal in November 1992. The World Scientists' Warning to Humanity was written and spearheaded by the late Henry Kendall, former chair of UCS's board of directors.

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html)

The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.

Spin: There is no scientific basis for claims about global warming. IPCC is a hoax. Kyoto is flawed.

Funding: Petition was funded by private sources.

Then read some of the other skeptics and where their funding comes from.

In any event, I have not personally observed any 'global warming' and nor have you.
I have PERSONALLY SEEN MYSELF a situation occur that had been predicted as a consequence of the phenomenon of global warming. More than one, to be precise. And if i have, there's a possibility that other posters have as well.

Let's be reasonable here. 1 Is it consistantly unusally warm? Or is this winter just a little better than other ones you remember?2 Have you seen major climatic change? 3 Are crops in the place where you live no longer viable? 4 Has there been non-man made changes occur in the water economy? 5 Are you seeing a multiplicity of new species in the are you live? (Both flora and fauna). And if so, are these factors attributable to 'global warming'.
One, check.
Two, check.
Three, not much in the way of crops in the first place. That is now shifting.
Four, as water economy, you better f*cking believe that opening up past the Bering Strait is a big deal.
Five, yes.
Six, why in the duh do you think people that know about this react this way?


I am not convinced. Especially not by people who spend their lives in classrooms.
:rolleyes:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2006/02/01/january_goes_down_as_second_warmest_january_on_record/
January goes down as second-warmest January on record
By Clarke Canfield, Associated Press Writer | February 1, 2006

PORTLAND, Maine --Last month went down as the second-warmest January on record across Maine, but forecasters said that February is looking like it will be colder than normal.
The warm January comes on the heels of the record-warm fall and one of the warmest years on record. The high temperatures may have been bad for ski areas and others dependent on the cold, but brought relief to homeowners with smaller-than-expected heating bills.

In Portland, the average temperature was 8.6 degrees above normal, falling just 0.2 degrees shy of the 30.4-degree record in 2002. In Caribou, the average of 18.4 degrees was 8.9 degrees above normal and the second-warmest on record, as well.

In Vermont, Burlington had the fifth-warmest January on record with an average temperature of 28.2 degrees, or 10.2 degrees above normal. In New Hampshire, Concord experienced its ninth-warmest January with an average temperature of 28.7 degrees, or 8.6 degrees above normal.

"The jet stream stayed mostly to our north and allowed warm air to come up," said Tom Hawley, meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Gray. "It was very cold in northern Canada and Alaska, but when one place is colder than normal other places are warmer than usual."

The January warmth drew joggers and bicyclists out in large numbers, and saw loggers working the woods in short sleeves.

The temperature in Portland exceeded 50 degrees on six separate days, with a high of 57 degrees on Jan. 21. That was warm enough for golfers to hit the links at the Nonesuch Golf Club in Scarborough, something that's unheard of in January.

At Sunday River ski resort in Newry, it got too warm at times to run the snowmaking machines. And when the cold returned, the snow guns had to be put into overdrive, said Sunday River spokesman Alex Kaufman.

"It's challenge, but running a ski resort in the East is always a challenge," he said.

January's mild temperatures also weakened the demand for heating oil, allowing a buildup in inventories at a time when they normally would be decreasing. That kept heating oil prices from creeping even higher as had been feared.

"It has been a blessing. It has helped us get through what otherwise could have been a more difficult month," said Beth Nagusky, director of Maine Gov. John Baldacci's Office of Energy Independence and Security.

For the month, Portland had a total of 1,068 degree days -- a measurement of how much heating fuel it takes to heat a building. That was 20 percent below the average number of January degree days and 24 percent last year's total. Caribou's degree days were also 20 percent below average for January.

But don't expect the warmth to stick around too much longer.

The jet stream pattern appears to be changing, are forecasters expect February to be colder and drier than normal, Hawley said.

The return of seasonal temperatures should come as a relief for skiers and snowmobilers and the businesses that cater to them.

"That puts a smile on my face," said Sunday River's Kaufman, who noted that this week's snow brought the number of open ski trails from 80 to 109
---
It's currently 44 degrees F outside here.

You present no evidence here or even arguments, only insults. If that's what passes for "adult" in your world, I'll pass.
You don't look hard enough. You want evidence, READ ALL MY POSTS.
As for your last quote, the idea of you passing anything is like the integrity of your posts .... after a sumptuous meal of beans.

Please at least try to consider some concrete scientific evidence:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/fidget/globaltemp.jpg

This means that even if we experience the "2 degree rise set as the threshold for danger" by the un-assailable dispenser of Truth Tom Burke, former government adviser on the green issues (OOOH!), we would still be in lower 1/4 of historic global temperature ranges.
Actually i've already read that. Perhaps you should bother punching my name up and reading my posts in the Forum Archives. Also, perhaps the one on this thread in particular that pertains to NASA.


It "bears" repeating: The sky is NOT falling!
I didn't say it was, but you can go hide elsewhere if you want, and leave the issues to the people who are qualified to discuss them. Nice that you don't want fear to be part of our lives, however ignoble your sentiment truly is.

My opinion: There is local weather changes driven by human activities. This whole global warming thing is bunk.

*ahem*

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm

The US Government has acknowledged for the first time that man-made pollution is largely to blame for global warming.
But it has again refused to shift its position on the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty designed to mitigate global warming which the Bush administration rejected last year.
In a 268-page report submitted to the United Nations, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) endorsed what many scientists have long argued - that human activities such as oil refining, power generation and car emissions are significant causes of global warming.

The White House had previously said there was not enough scientific evidence to blame industrial emissions for global warming.

The submission of the EPA report came on the same day that all 15 European Union nations ratified the Kyoto pact.

At odds with industry

"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing global mean surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise," the report concluded.

"The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities."

That position is at odds with the president's supporters in the motor, oil and electricity industries - who maintain that more research is needed to be certain of the link between global warming and the by-products of manufacturing.

The United States is the world's largest emitter of so-called greenhouse gases.

Last year, the Bush administration triggered international outrage when it walked away from the Kyoto treaty.

President Bush said the treaty's goal of reduction in emissions would be too costly to the American economy.

Despite the admission of a link between human activities and global warming, the US Government has still refused to ratify the treaty, instead emphasising a voluntary approach to greenhouse gas emissions.

Such an approach is "expected to achieve emission reductions comparable to the average reductions prescribed by the Kyoto agreement, but without the threats to economic growth that rigid national emission limits would bring," the report said.

Areas 'wiped out'

The EPA report also acknowledged that global warming was set to continue - forecasting that total US greenhouse gas emissions will increase by 43% from 2000 and 2020.

The report recommended various adaptation strategies, such as "changing planting dates and varieties to significantly offset economic losses and increase relative yields".

It also concluded that global warming would probably wipe out certain fragile areas altogether.

"A few ecosystems, such as alpine meadows in the Rocky Mountains and some barrier islands, are likely to disappear entirely," the report said.

Environmental groups claim the new report is a major U-turn by the Bush administration.

"[The report] undercuts everything the president has said about global warming since he took office," said Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust.

Climate change is on the agenda of a global summit on sustainable development taking place in Johannesburg in August.

The US is expected to face heavy criticism at the meeting, especially from the EU, for not doing more to fight global warming.

They altered the historical data? Are you scientifically unlettered or something?

(Don't give me that ice core crap either, because that is atmos. composition, not climatoligical - we could argue about algea concreations, but it is really not dispositive at this point).

Broad fact is, no-one knows. This is nothing more than yet another attempt to hold the working man down with pseudo-intellectulism. In other words, we have ours, and you can't have yours because the world will fry, so have a cup of STFU.

Join the working man Mr Soviets, demand proof, the method of which I already posited - which works for every other planet apparently - or not. Frankly, we want our ice-cream too.
You've made it quite apparent with your lack of corroborative evidence that you, yourself, are a Freudian caricature. You have no standing whatsoever to attack anyone else's position here until you do some footwork and stop whining about how intellectually bereft you are and how unfair it is. As stated to you before, it isn't an issue of petition.
I'll further qualify that with these posts as references:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10409030&postcount=162
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10408291&postcount=83
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10408369&postcount=93
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10408434&postcount=102
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10408488&postcount=108
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10408516&postcount=115
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10408576&postcount=121
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10408868&postcount=143
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10408937&postcount=150
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10408943&postcount=151

Every single one of these posts deals with either a misunderstanding of the material or a blatant disposition of ignorance and willfull excusing of said behaviour.

Every single one of the posts to follow, as well, exemplifies a woeful ignorance of the issues/facts in the case of global warming, to the extent that the posters are either HORRIBLY misinformed AND belligerent about it, or they are blatantly disingenuous and serving the purpose of deliberate misinformation dissemination:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10409019&postcount=160
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10408215&postcount=77
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10408336&postcount=87
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10408426&postcount=100
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10408470&postcount=105
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10408514&postcount=114
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10408604&postcount=123
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10408762&postcount=136
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10408864&postcount=142
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10408899&postcount=147

---
To be fair, they hadn't gotten this far in the thread.
To be just as fair, they hadn't even BOTHERED TO TRY to find out on their own.
Also, there were no replies WHATSOEVER for Desperate Measures' and my series of links to pursue credible source information regarding the topic.
..
Nighty-nite, y'all. IRL's barkin'.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

the CRU (climatic research unit) is one of the most respected groups doing research into climate change. they are based at the university of east anglia, where im from in norwich, norfolk, uk. as climate change increases, and sea levels rise, norfolk (being low lying and flat) is very likely to be reclaimed by the sea. i dont want to see that happen.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

the CRU (climatic research unit) is one of the most respected groups doing research into climate change. they are based at the university of east anglia, where im from in norwich, norfolk, uk. as climate change increases, and sea levels rise, norfolk (being low lying and flat) is very likely to be reclaimed by the sea. i dont want to see that happen.Your opinion doesn't matter. You, and Norfolk, do not present any major interests in the US energy sector. Should Norfolk & yourself be claimed by the sea, it'll just be an added bonus for said energy sector, as there'll be a few thousand less people bitching about them raping the biosphere.

Facts, scientific theories, the biosphere and whatever else you care to bring to the table, doesn't matter. It isn't about being right, showing a bit of foresight, mutual respect, continued survival of a couple of million animal species, or anything else of the sort.

It's about money. And you don't have enough to matter.

Here are the names of more than 17,000 scientists (2/3 with advanced degrees) from the US alone who will tell you that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

science is not done by petition.Right. Science is not done by petition. Good. So...? And...? Construction is not done by blueprints.

I agree. This petition is not "doing" science, it is attempting to influence a political decision which these scientists see "no convincing scientific evidence" to support. See the difference?

This petition is not itself science, but it does represents the concensus reached by thousands of scientific minds concerning the invalidity of global warming. I only present them as a counter to the opinions of the scientists that are put up by the other side of the debate. If the opinions of scientists is support for one side of the issue, it can just as well be presented as support for the other side.

"But don't expect the warmth to stick around too much longer.

The jet stream pattern appears to be changing, and forecasters expect February to be colder and drier than normal"I rest your case.

You present no evidence here or even arguments, only insults. If that's what passes for "adult" in your world, I'll pass.
You don't look hard enough. You want evidence, READ ALL MY POSTS.You don't look hard enough. I said, "you present no evidence here" (this post). For all I know, you might present evidence somewhere under your bed too, but I'm not going to look there either. Read your old posts yourself. I've got better things to do.

As for your last quote, the idea of you passing anything is like the integrity of your posts .... after a sumptuous meal of beans. Again with the oh-so-adult insults. Makes it real easy to take you, and your "arguments," seriously.

... you can go hide elsewhere if you want, and leave the issues to the people who are qualified to discuss them. And just what, in your opinion, qualifies one to dicuss this, or any issue? Can I see your credentials? Frankly, I don't give a s**t what your credentials are. All that matters is your evidence and the validity of your arguments (or lack thereof).

Nice that you don't want fear to be part of our lives, however ignoble your sentiment truly is.Again with the insults... Hopeless.

Right. Science is not done by petition. Good. So...? And...? Construction is not done by blueprints.

I agree. This petition is not "doing" science, it is attempting to influence a political decision which these scientists see "no convincing scientific evidence" to support. See the difference?

This petition is not itself science, but it does represents the concensus reached by thousands of scientific minds concerning the invalidity of global warming. I only present them as a counter to the opinions of the scientists that are put up by the other side of the debate. If the opinions of scientists is support for one side of the issue, it can just as well be presented as support for the other side.

if they have scientific reasons for that belief, they should publish their research in peer reviewed science journals. cause here's the thing - a lit search through 928 articles on 'global climate change' found absolutely no articles that went against the consensus view.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

if they have scientific reasons for that belief, they should publish their research in peer reviewed science journals. cause here's the thing - a lit search through 928 articles on 'global climate change' found absolutely no articles that went against the consensus view.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686OK! Finally. This is actually pretty good stuff:

"Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"(my emphasis)

"The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue"(my emphasis)

It's persuasive, but still not totally conclusive. One glaring thing that appears to be missing here is the actual percentage difference in greenhouse gases that can be attributable to human activity, and the correlation of that percentage difference to its actual impact on total global temperature change. In other words, if we are causing a change in global temperatures ("likely"), how much of that change can be attributed to human activities? Still not fully answered to my satisfaction.

Their conlusion, when read carefully, is actually quite reasonable:
"Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change."

(One other side point about the creators of the IPCC: I don't know about the World Meteorological Organization, but the United Nations Environmental Programme is definitely driven by a political agenda, so should be approached with an awareness of that.)

That's great. Pollution is a bad thing. Fighting it is a good thing. (IMHO) But none of that says anything regarding whether humans are a significant cause of global warming.

OK, just to show that I do get what you are trying to say, I'll lay out your argument for you:

POLLUTION CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING. HUMANS ARE THE CAUSE OF POLLUTION. THEREFORE, HUMANS ARE CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING.

In a nutshell, that's the argument. It now falls on those who make this argument to prove that pollution is the cause of global warming, and prove that humans are responsible for that part of the pollution that is causing the warming.

Have at it. If you can't prove it, don't demand that I believe it.
No. You still don't get it. I was stopping at pollution for you. I can't prove that pollution is causing Global Warming. Scientists that you don't believe can prove that but whatever. What I am saying is that pollution is bad no matter if causes Global Warming or not. The measures used to solve Global Warming (which you believe is not human related) would be measures to curb pollution. I assume that you would at least believe that pollution, no matter what it's effects, is by definition bad. Pollution equals bad. Right? So, what is wrong if all the work that went into solving a problem that you believe doesn't exist or can't be corrected, at least lessened the pollution that humans cause.

Earth's average surface temperature have increased by approx. 0.6C since 1850, and about 0.4C in the last 50 years. [source: CRU]

How much of this increase can be attributed to human activities, is still debatable, but there is currently consensus that human activities will have a staggering impact in the future, if something isn't done immediately to limit greenhouse gas emisions.

The most important greenhouse gas is carbondioxide (CO2). This gas occours naturally in the atmosphere, but has been increased by approximately 30% since 1850, coinciding with the industrial revolution & our increasing output of the gas. [source: IPCC]

The following is a graphical representation of equivalent-CO2 (meaning all greenhouse gasses, converted into the equivalent amount of CO2) concentration, as projected by currently accepted climate models (SRES) [source: IPCC]http://upload2share.com/out.php/i1280_Greenhouseeffectco2concentration2.png

Here are the names of more than 17,000 scientists (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p333.htm) (2/3 with advanced degrees) from the US alone who will tell you that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm)




"What about the 19,000 scientists who claim we should not worry about global warming?

Fiction: There is no scientific consensus on climate change. Just look at the 19,000 scientists who signed on to the Global Warming Petition Project.


Fact: In the spring of 1998, mailboxes of US scientists flooded with packet from the "Global Warming Petition Project," including a reprint of a Wall Street Journal op-ed "Science has spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth," a copy of a faux scientific article claiming that "increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon global climate," a short letter signed by past-president National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, and a short petition calling for the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that a reduction in carbon dioxide "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

The sponsor, little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, tried to beguile unsuspecting scientists into believing that this packet had originated from the National Academy of the Sciences, both by referencing Seitz's past involvement with the NAS and with an article formatted to look as if it was a published article in the Academy's Proceedings, which it was not. The NAS quickly distanced itself from the petition project, issuing a statement saying, "the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science. In fact, the only criterion for signing the petition was a bachelor's degree in science. The petition resurfaced in early 2001 in an renewed attempt to undermine international climate treaty negotiations."
http://go.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=498

Speaks for itself.

Well, it took me awhile but I found it!! :)

World Scientists' Warning to Humanity (1992) (http://www.ucsusa.org/ucs/about/1992-world-scientists-warning-to-humanity.html)

Some 1,700 of the world's leading scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences, issued this appeal in November 1992. The World Scientists' Warning to Humanity was written and spearheaded by the late Henry Kendall, former chair of UCS's board of directors.

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html)

The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.

Spin: There is no scientific basis for claims about global warming. IPCC is a hoax. Kyoto is flawed.

Funding: Petition was funded by private sources.

Then read some of the other skeptics and where their funding comes from.

ahhhh nice!

kudos mr Canuck!

ahhhh nice!

kudos mr Canuck!
Oh, just because he finds it first I don't even get a kudo?

Oh, just because he finds it first I don't even get a kudo?


my apologies I was about to kudos you too (as well as Straughn) I was just reading the links posted and hadn't gotten to it yet. it's nice to be on the side of the good guys :D

very interesting stuff and something Jacques Derrida may be interested in since it mentions sattelites that monitor Earth temperatures.

so kudos mr Measures and :fluffle:'s for everybody.

No. You still don't get it. I was stopping at pollution for you. I can't prove that pollution is causing Global Warming. Scientists that you don't believe can prove that but whatever. What I am saying is that pollution is bad no matter if causes Global Warming or not. The measures used to solve Global Warming (which you believe is not human related) would be measures to curb pollution. I assume that you would at least believe that pollution, no matter what it's effects, is by definition bad. Pollution equals bad. Right? So, what is wrong if all the work that went into solving a problem that you believe doesn't exist or can't be corrected, at least lessened the pollution that humans cause.With this I agree! The problem is, how much can we reduce it, and what is a reasonable price to pay for the benefits of a given amount of pollution reduction? Who decides? How do we enforce it? I don't think we humans can really exist with creating some level of pollution, but I agree that less is better.

http://upload2share.com/out.php/i1280_Greenhouseeffectco2concentration2.pngThis chart is basically useless. It only goes back to 1995, and doesn't plot temperature change against C02 change, or against the changes of any other gases. Doesn't show historical levels or fluctuations. Doesn't show the margin of error. All this chart really shows is someone's projection of C02 changes from 1995 to 2100.

Well, it took me awhile but I found it!! :)

World Scientists' Warning to Humanity (1992) (http://www.ucsusa.org/ucs/about/1992-world-scientists-warning-to-humanity.html)

Some 1,700 of the world's leading scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences, issued this appeal in November 1992. The World Scientists' Warning to Humanity was written and spearheaded by the late Henry Kendall, former chair of UCS's board of directors.

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html)

The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.

Spin: There is no scientific basis for claims about global warming. IPCC is a hoax. Kyoto is flawed.

Funding: Petition was funded by private sources.

Then read some of the other skeptics and where their funding comes from.Conclusion: Even scientists can be duped and can be wrong.

With this I agree! The problem is, how much can we reduce it, and what is a reasonable price to pay for the benefits of a given amount of pollution reduction? Who decides? How do we enforce it? I don't think we humans can really exist with creating some level of pollution, but I agree that less is better.
I believe that, as an American at least, the standard I am living is pretty high. I could deal with a minor impact on it if it is for the greater good. Much can be done to lessen our dependence on oil, much more than the oil companies themselves would have us believe. There is not much to wonder about here. Basically we should have our priorities based on our health and not the amount of money that can be poured in to cover up research with false science or misleading analysis.

This chart is basically useless. It only goes back to 1995, and doesn't plot temperature change against C02 change, or against the changes of any other gases. Doesn't show historical levels or fluctuations. Doesn't show the margin of error. All this chart really shows is someone's projection of C02 changes from 1995 to 2100.
It was a short reply to your questions:One glaring thing that appears to be missing here is the actual percentage difference in greenhouse gases that can be attributable to human activity, and the correlation of that percentage difference to its actual impact on total global temperature change. In other words, if we are causing a change in global temperatures ("likely"), how much of that change can be attributed to human activities? Still not fully answered to my satisfaction.
The graph in itself simply hints at the sort of (equivalent) CO2 content we can expect in the future, which I assumed were part of what you wanted to know. The reason for the rise under all SRES scenario's is human activity. Natural CO2 emissions are fairly static.

But like I said, the graph illustrates expected development. The text above the graph gave you the numbers you asked for. You could also have found them by looking over any one of a number of the sources listed previously in this thread.

I can't remember the exact relation of man-made CO2 increase & rise in global surface temperature, but even the numbers I listed are enough to illustrate beyond any reasonable doubt, that there is a direct relation between increasing CO2 content in our atmosphere & increasing surface temperature.

And as already stated, we are causing the increased equivalent CO2 content in the atmosphere. It cannot otherwise be accounted for, and it matches our growing emissions, when taking into account how much & how fast the biosphere can break down the gasses.

Oh and, the graph isn't "someone's". I thought I made it perfectly clear that it is a (extremely simplified) graph of IPCCs SRES models.

ahhhh nice!

kudos mr Canuck!
In the immortal words of Elvis Presley:

Thank you. Thank you verrrrry much!!

Conclusion: Even scientists can be duped and can be wrong.
As would appear to be the case with your 17,000 name petition. All in the name of preserving the buck over the environment. :(

I rest your case.
The only rest you have is a sabbatical from intellect.
Go back and read ALL i've posted and refute that, and then maybe you won't sound like a yelping whelp.

You don't look hard enough. I said, "you present no evidence here" (this post). For all I know, you might present evidence somewhere under your bed too, but I'm not going to look there either. Read your old posts yourself. I've got better things to do.No you obviously don't. The difference here is you don't know what you're talking about, and you provide ALMOST NOTHING to help support your position.

And just what, in your opinion, qualifies one to dicuss this, or any issue? Can I see your credentials? Frankly, I don't give a s**t what your credentials are. All that matters is your evidence and the validity of your arguments (or lack thereof).That's exactly why
in this thread, your name and ignorance are in synonomy. Go do some research. That's what this topic requires. That is also a discernment of credential you don't possess.

Conclusion: Even scientists can be duped and can be wrong.
...notably proportionate to political affiliation it would seem.
The difference is, THEY GREW UP about it.

Scientists are people. They too can be intellectually dishonest or victims of disinformation & manipulation.

Distributing a petition to parts of the scientific community that doesn't have anything to do with the field in question, is at best subterfuge. Many, perhaps most, of the people in question would have no more knowledge of the field than yourself, Religion of Peace. Further disguising the pertition as something from a reputable source, means it can only be seen as a desperate dishonest attempt at derailing & defaiming legitimite peer-reveiwed scientific theory.

If the same petition had been signed by 1700 working class housewifes, it would have had a much greater credibility. Not to speak ill of those women, but I seriously doubt those are who you'd want to formulate your nation's environment policies. After all, only a handful of them will have even a basic understanding of the subject.

Two additional things worth keeping in mind, are that scientific research, the basis for aquiring knowledge on which responsible policy can be based, isn't done by pertition. Even if I somehow managed to get my nation's entire population to sign a pertition claiming the Earth is flat, my government wouldn't revise it's policy on trade, air-routes & shipping-lanes to reflect the nonsense.
And the pertition itself is horribly outdated. We've analyzed more material in the last 5 years regarding global warming, than we have in the past 150 years. You'll do yourself a favour by keeping that in mind when you go over source material.

I said, "you present no evidence here" (this post). For all I know, you might present evidence somewhere under your bed tooThat's no way to participate in a debate. Both Straughn & others have supplied all of us with a slew of source material. Asking him to copy & paste random bits of what he's already supplied you with, over and over at random intervals, only implies that you're incapable of debating this topic.

Which brings me to the last thing I want to say; some degree of understanding of the subject, the facts, current research & theories, is needed to participate critically in this debate. You simply can't argue for or against a point of veiw, when you don't know what you're looking at.
I hate to tell you this, but you don't seem to have even the most basic knowledge of this topic - which I believe is why people have such a hard time taking you seriously. At least, it's the reason I can't take your rants seriously.
Unless it's pure bloodymindedness on your part, it also explains why you need to be told the most basic facts about our environment, as it is right now.

If you truely wish to know something about this topic, here's a few good places to start learning:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch/)
World Meteorological Organization (http://www.wmo.ch/index-en.html)
United Nations Environment Programme (http://www.unep.org/)
Your national Meteorology society/service is peobably also worth a look.

Scientists are people. They too can be intellectually dishonest or victims of disinformation & manipulation.

Distributing a petition to parts of the scientific community that doesn't have anything to do with the field in question, is at best subterfuge. Many, perhaps most, of the people in question would have no more knowledge of the field than yourself, Religion of Peace. Further disguising the pertition as something from a reputable source, means it can only be seen as a desperate dishonest attempt at derailing & defaiming legitimite peer-reveiwed scientific theory.

If the same petition had been signed by 1700 working class housewifes, it would have had a much greater credibility. Not to speak ill of those women, but I seriously doubt those are who you'd want to formulate your nation's environment policies. After all, only a handful of them will have even a basic understanding of the subject.

Two additional things worth keeping in mind, are that scientific research, the basis for aquiring knowledge on which responsible policy can be based, isn't done by pertition. Even if I somehow managed to get my nation's entire population to sign a pertition claiming the Earth is flat, my government wouldn't revise it's policy on trade, air-routes & shipping-lanes to reflect the nonsense.
And the pertition itself is horribly outdated. We've analyzed more material in the last 5 years regarding global warming, than we have in the past 150 years. You'll do yourself a favour by keeping that in mind when you go over source material.

That's no way to participate in a debate. Both Straughn & others have supplied all of us with a slew of source material. Asking him to copy & paste random bits of what he's already supplied you with, over and over at random intervals, only implies that you're incapable of debating this topic.

Which brings me to the last thing I want to say; some degree of understanding of the subject, the facts, current research & theories, is needed to participate critically in this debate. You simply can't argue for or against a point of veiw, when you don't know what you're looking at.
I hate to tell you this, but you don't seem to have even the most basic knowledge of this topic - which I believe is why people have such a hard time taking you seriously. At least, it's the reason I can't take your rants seriously.
Unless it's pure bloodymindedness on your part, it also explains why you need to be told the most basic facts about our environment, as it is right now.

If you truely wish to know something about this topic, here's a few good places to start learning:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch/)
World Meteorological Organization (http://www.wmo.ch/index-en.html)
United Nations Environment Programme (http://www.unep.org/)
Your national Meteorology society/service is peobably also worth a look.
Wow, that was quite elegant. An excellent post. *bows*

You're obviously considerably more patient than myself (admittedly, that isn't saying much).

A little more on the less than honest Oregon Petition:

Case Study: The Oregon Petition (http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Sallie_Baliunas.html):

Interesting read with many links.

In support of the global warming situation:

World Scientists' Warning To Humanity (http://deoxy.org/sciwarn.htm)

Check out the number of Nobel laureates who signed this document at the bottom of the article.

I'm not going to read 14 pages of posts. I just want to know if someone's made a Bad News Bears joke yet.???

I'm not going to read 14 pages of posts. I just want to know if someone's made a Bad News Bears joke yet.???
Do you mean the innocuous 70's/80's version or the vulgar 00's version?
So far, Colbert's been covered. *nods*

booyah!

I agree that it is designed to slow the growth of efficient industry, but I think it is a plot against capitalism, not by capitalists.


I think it is actually a plot by Nature to slow capitalist growth so that the overall scale of human activity actually has to stay within the bounds of the ecosystem. Crazy Nature!

I think it is actually a plot by Nature to slow capitalist growth so that the overall scale of human activity actually has to stay within the bounds of the ecosystem. Crazy Nature!
Prove that there is an ecosystem. And none of this scientific mumbo jumbo while you go about it.