NationStates Jolt Archive

Commentary: Frankly, this leaves me confused again as to global climate change. Suddenly one of the most educated men on the face of the planet in regards to climate and weather says it's a hoax? Has he been bought out? Is he right? Or is he just being a stubborn old man? I don't know, honestly.

THE TEMPEST (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305.html)

As evidence mounts that humans are causing dangerous changes in Earth's climate, a handful of skeptics are providing some serious blowback

IT SHOULD BE GLORIOUS TO BE BILL GRAY, professor emeritus. He is often called the World's Most Famous Hurricane Expert. He's the guy who, every year, predicts the number of hurricanes that will form during the coming tropical storm season. He works on a country road leading into the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains, in the atmospheric science department of Colorado State University. He's mentored dozens of scientists. By rights, Bill Gray should be in deep clover, enjoying retirement, pausing only to collect the occasional lifetime achievement award.
The global warming issue is hot in scientific and political circles, but some skeptics aren't convinced.

He's a towering figure in his profession and in person. He's 6 feet 5 inches tall, handsome, with blue eyes and white hair combed straight back. He's still lanky, like the baseball player he used to be back at Woodrow Wilson High School in Washington in the 1940s. When he wears a suit, a dark shirt and tinted sunglasses, you can imagine him as a casino owner or a Hollywood mogul. In a room jammed with scientists, you'd probably notice him first.

He's loud. His laugh is gale force. His personality threatens to spill into the hallway and onto the chaparral. He can be very charming.

But he's also angry. He's outraged.

He recently had a public shouting match with one of his former students. It went on for 45 minutes.

He was supposed to debate another scientist at a weather conference, but the organizer found him to be too obstreperous, and disinvited him.

Much of his government funding has dried up. He has had to put his own money, more than $100,000, into keeping his research going. He feels intellectually abandoned. If none of his colleagues comes to his funeral, he says, that'll be evidence that he had the courage to say what they were afraid to admit.

Which is this: Global warming is a hoax.

"I am of the opinion that this is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people," he says when I visit him in his office on a sunny spring afternoon.

He has testified about this to the United States Senate. He has written magazine articles, given speeches, done everything he could to get the message out. His scientific position relies heavily on what is known as the Argument From Authority. He's the authority.

"I've been in meteorology over 50 years. I've worked damn hard, and I've been around. My feeling is some of us older guys who've been around have not been asked about this. It's sort of a baby boomer, yuppie thing."

This article is five pages long. Read the rest here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305.html)

Even if there are some inconsistencies in the theory, isn't it better just to play it safe? If there's a chance that we're wrecking the planet, we should probably try to stop the possible problem. To me, it seems the less dangerous gamble.

Even if there are some inconsistencies in the theory, isn't it better just to play it safe? If there's a chance that we're wrecking the planet, we should probably try to stop the possible problem. To me, it seems the less dangerous gamble.
I'll agree with that. There are many cases where a better safe than sorry route is a good idea to take, and this is one of them. But, question is, how do we do it?

If he's theory is correct then I'll go buy a huge, thirsty car and cruise around like there's no tomorrow... which the won't be if he's correct of course.

I wonder what data he has the back this up, I would be intrested to see them.

Eventually one the third page I found the first skeptical agurment:

In the world of the skeptics you'll come across Richard Lindzen, an MIT climate scientist who has steadfastly maintained for years that clouds and water vapor will counteract the greenhouse emissions of human beings.
Water vapour is a potent greenhouse gas - more so than carbon dioxide or methane.

Then there's this frankly baffling statement:
Sea level rise? It's actually dropping around certain islands in the Pacific and Indian oceans.
Sea level is one of the few things that is truly global. Other than the daily passage of the tides, if the sea level rises, it rises everywhere. If a few places seem to be showing falling sea levels, it's because the land they are on it rising.

Several years ago, just before Thanksgiving in fact, the scientists came out with "scientific proof" that cranberries cause cancer. Years ago scientist also came out with "proof" that saccharin caused cancer in rats and could cause cancer in humans. More recently was the "proof" that eating eggs was not good for you because it raised your bad cholesterol level. Butter was also supposed to be "very bad" for you.

All of these scientific "facts" that these items are bad for you have been shown to be a bunch of crap. Now all of those things that were "scientifically proven" to be bad for you have been proven to be ok and in some cases even good for you.

Now, you want me to believe in "Global Warming." Ok, if it does exist, it is a natural cycle of the earth called glacial pluvial periods. If it exists, it is perfectly natural and not caused by man.

Several years ago, just before Thanksgiving in fact, the scientists came out with "scientific proof" that cranberries cause cancer. Years ago scientist also came out with "proof" that saccharin caused cancer in rats and could cause cancer in humans. More recently was the "proof" that eating eggs was not good for you because it raised your bad cholesterol level. Butter was also supposed to be "very bad" for you.

All of these scientific "facts" that these items are bad for you have been shown to be a bunch of crap. Now all of those things that were "scientifically proven" to be bad for you have been proven to be ok and in some cases even good for you.

Now, you want me to believe in "Global Warming." Ok, if it does exist, it is a natural cycle of the earth called glacial pluvial periods. If it exists, it is perfectly natural and not caused by man.

Science has been wrong before. Therefore, it is wrong about this, or its causes.

Nice argument.

Then there's this frankly baffling statement:

Sea level is one of the few things that is truly global. Other than the daily passage of the tides, if the sea level rises, it rises everywhere. If a few places seem to be showing falling sea levels, it's because the land they are on it rising.

Conversly, if the sea level is rising the land could be sinking. :eek:

Several years ago, just before Thanksgiving in fact, the scientists came out with "scientific proof" that cranberries cause cancer. Years ago scientist also came out with "proof" that saccharin caused cancer in rats and could cause cancer in humans. More recently was the "proof" that eating eggs was not good for you because it raised your bad cholesterol level. Butter was also supposed to be "very bad" for you.

All of these scientific "facts" that these items are bad for you have been shown to be a bunch of crap. Now all of those things that were "scientifically proven" to be bad for you have been proven to be ok and in some cases even good for you.

Now, you want me to believe in "Global Warming." Ok, if it does exist, it is a natural cycle of the earth called glacial pluvial periods. If it exists, it is perfectly natural and not caused by man.
And there went some of the respect I had for you.

But, as I am once again left with a lack of proper evidence and arguments to support my claim, I shall bow out to others, such as Straughn. (I've been doing this a lot lately and it is downright irritating. But I can't argue without evidence to support what I am saying. That's idiotic, not to mention the pervue of creationists and IDers.)

Carrying on my post above:

The skeptics point to the global temperature graph for the past century. Notice how, after rising steadily in the early 20th century, in 1940 the temperature suddenly levels off. No -- it goes down! For the next 35 years! If the planet is getting steadily warmer due to Industrial Age greenhouse gases, why did it get cooler when industries began belching out carbon dioxide at full tilt at the start of World War II?
Natural effects - predictions for temperature without the effects of humans suggest a drop then (things like volcanic eruptions, for instance, had an effect). The predictions for the temperature without the effects of humans go dramatically out of sync within the last few decades, though.

The models can't even predict the weather in two weeks, much less 100 years, he says.
A supposed climatologist who can't tell the difference between weather and climate loses all credibility.

Science has been wrong before. Therefore, it is wrong about this, or its causes.

Nice argument.

No, my point is science has been wrong about a lot of things in the past and could also be wrong about the "cause of global warming." There is another scientific explination for global warming if it truly exists.

Conversly, if the sea level is rising the land could be sinking. :eek:
Sinking and rising has to balance out - the earth's innards aren't going anyway. If more places experince rising sea levels than falling, the sea levels must be rising overall.

Several years ago, just before Thanksgiving in fact, the scientists came out with "scientific proof" that cranberries cause cancer. Years ago scientist also came out with "proof" that saccharin caused cancer in rats and could cause cancer in humans. More recently was the "proof" that eating eggs was not good for you because it raised your bad cholesterol level. Butter was also supposed to be "very bad" for you.
Where there thousand of papers publishes in peer reviewed journals making these claims? The evidence for global warming is on a wholly greater scale than these 'proofs' you site.

No, my point is science has been wrong about a lot of things in the past and could also be wrong about the "cause of global warming." There is another scientific explination for global warming if it truly exists.
What if this argument is correct, however? Are you considering that possibility at all? If you are not, then you are not being scientific and unbiased about it. Of course it's possible it is natural. Evidence is leaning otherwise, however. The Earth, for instance, has a system to deal with all of the carbon dioxide it puts out naturally. Our extra amount over that is what is causing the problem. It doesn't matter how much of an extra amount; so long as it is extra, it will happen. That Medieval warming period? Didn't that occur around the same time as the bubonic plague? I seem to recall that the way they thought would help prevent the spread of the disease would be to burn all of the bodies...and it did kill a full third of Europe's population...

No, my point is science has been wrong about a lot of things in the past and could also be wrong about the "cause of global warming." There is another scientific explination for global warming if it truly exists.
So, you support polluting?

What if this argument is correct, however? Are you considering that possibility at all? If you are not, then you are not being scientific and unbiased about it. Of course it's possible it is natural. Evidence is leaning otherwise, however. The Earth, for instance, has a system to deal with all of the carbon dioxide it puts out naturally. Our extra amount over that is what is causing the problem. It doesn't matter how much of an extra amount; so long as it is extra, it will happen. That Medieval warming period? Didn't that occur around the same time as the bubonic plague? I seem to recall that the way they thought would help prevent the spread of the disease would be to burn all of the bodies...and it did kill a full third of Europe's population...
Burning of the bodies would have had a minor effect. There are however recent theories that the medieval warm peroid was an effect of the changes in land use brought about by the dramatic drop in population.

What if this argument is correct, however? Are you considering that possibility at all? If you are not, then you are not being scientific and unbiased about it. Of course it's possible it is natural. Evidence is leaning otherwise, however. The Earth, for instance, has a system to deal with all of the carbon dioxide it puts out naturally. Our extra amount over that is what is causing the problem. It doesn't matter how much of an extra amount; so long as it is extra, it will happen. That Medieval warming period? Didn't that occur around the same time as the bubonic plague? I seem to recall that the way they thought would help prevent the spread of the disease would be to burn all of the bodies...and it did kill a full third of Europe's population...
The medieval warming period was also regional. Not Global.

The medieval warming period was also regional. Not Global.
That only helps my point.

Safalra: That does make a lot more sense than what I just said, looking back over it.

That only helps my point.

Safalra: That does make a lot more sense than what I just said, looking back over it.
Yes, I know. I was helping you.

That Medieval warming period? Didn't that occur around the same time as the bubonic plague? I seem to recall that the way they thought would help prevent the spread of the disease would be to burn all of the bodies...and it did kill a full third of Europe's population...

The way I remember it is the whole 14th century plague happened at the end of the Medieval warm period so the figures show that burning bodies and fighting a 100 years war against the French are good things and Viking Expansion is a big no no

its good to be skeptical.

but

its silly to believe one guy without thoroughly checking his arguments and reading the rebuttals to his claims.

global warming seems kinda real to me. one huge volcanoe could outdo 100 years of human tampering though. so who knows what will happen. it does seem to me that IF the majority of experts are right, we have no chance to fix it. it would require cooperation and sacrifice on a level that humans have never shown before.

Even if there are some inconsistencies in the theory, isn't it better just to play it safe? If there's a chance that we're wrecking the planet, we should probably try to stop the possible problem. To me, it seems the less dangerous gamble.

That assumes we'd even know how to fix the problem. If the science is broken, why would we think we know what to do?

its good to be skeptical.

but

its silly to believe one guy without thoroughly checking his arguments and reading the rebuttals to his claims.

global warming seems kinda real to me. one huge volcanoe could outdo 100 years of human tampering though. so who knows what will happen. it does seem to me that IF the majority of experts are right, we have no chance to fix it. it would require cooperation and sacrifice on a level that humans have never shown before.
Once again: that's natural. Human produced carbon dioxide, over human life spans, with a human's regard for the passage of time is not. The Earth's system of coping is designed to cope with natural CO2 over a long period of time. It is not designed for the constant amount we have pumped into the atmosphere.

As for that period around WWII, is it not possible that was when the Earth had finally finished compensating for Krakatoa?

No. He is right. After all, the CO2 theory that most of us believe was not made by scientists, but by tree-hugging hippies.

My theory for global warming is the the earth is being pulled closer to the sun.

The medieval warming period was also regional. Not Global.

The arctic melt is regional (check out ice thickness north of Russia), and yet global warming alarmists draw conclusions from that.

So, you support polluting?

Pollution has nothing to do with global warming. Greenhouse gasses are not pollutants.

Once again: that's natural. Human produced carbon dioxide, over human life spans, with a human's regard for the passage of time is not. The Earth's system of coping is designed to cope with natural CO2 over a long period of time. It is not designed for the constant amount we have pumped into the atmosphere.
You're using 'designed' as a figure of speech, right?

Earth will survive what we do to it - the question is whether we will.

That assumes we'd even know how to fix the problem. If the science is broken, why would we think we know what to do?
It's not hard to figure out what to do. Take the things that kill you and stop pumping them into the atmosphere. That seems like a good road to start walking down.

No. He is right. After all, the CO2 theory that most of us believe was not made by scientists, but by tree-hugging hippies.

My theory for global warming is the the earth is being pulled closer to the sun.

Nice joke.

Pollution has nothing to do with global warming. Greenhouse gasses are not pollutants.
Greener options are related to less pollution. Is that really arguable?

Pollution has nothing to do with global warming. Greenhouse gasses are not pollutants.
Check a dictionary for the definition of 'pollutant' - it's any waste product that causes harm to living things.

You're using 'designed' as a figure of speech, right?

Earth will survive what we do to it - the question is whether we will.
Oh yes, absolutely. I'm referring to the natural process the climate system has concieved over the eons it has existed. And that is most obvious, but an irrelavant fact. Few people on the side of global climate change are arguing that it would destroy the planet itself. They are arguing that it would destroy the current climate and make it unliveable for human life, which it very well might. Saying otherwise is a strawman argument and a deplorable tactic.

Earth will survive what we do to it - the question is whether we will.

if Neanderthals can survive an ice age so can we actually I doubt it will even knock us back very far

that being said there really is little we can do about global warming so we had better have some plan ready when the icicle hit’s the fan

if Neanderthals can survive an ice age so can we actually I doubt it will even knock us back very far

that being said there really is little we can do about global warming so we had better have some plan ready when the icicle hit’s the fan

We could, you know, stop throwing all that shit into the atmosphere. That might help just a tad...

It's like a man who has been smoking for 20 years. One day he wakes up and decides he's going to quit. Then some jerk comes up and says, "Why bother? The harms probably already done."

Or, even better, bulldoze every useless piece of land and plant trees there.

if Neanderthals can survive an ice age so can we actually I doubt it will even knock us back very far
Neanderthals didn't have huge weapons stockpiles. Climate change will cause major tensions between nations for scarce resources (fresh water for example), and a few wars are inevitable. How far things could escalate is an open question.

Or, even better, bulldoze every useless piece of land and plant trees there.
I think the problem is that young forests create more CO2, somehow. I don't know... I read that somewhere but can't remember the details.

When people burn them?

Plants respirate just like humans, except that they use carbon dioxide and give out oxygen.

I think the problem is that young forests create more CO2, somehow. I don't know... I read that somewhere but can't remember the details.
...the hell? By their very nature plants ABSORB carbon dioxide. How would a young forest produce more than it consumes?

Check a dictionary for the definition of 'pollutant' - it's any waste product that causes harm to living things.

Carbon dioxide and water vapour are necessary for life. Methane is a natural product of living things. They're not pollutants.

Pollutants are things like PCBs and CFCs and dioxins. Sulfur dioxide. Carbon monoxide. Pollutants harm you directly. Those greenouse gases don't do that.

...the hell? By their very nature plants ABSORB carbon dioxide. How would a young forest produce more than it consumes?

That's right. Young forests consume carbon dioxide. But, mature forests are carbon neutral. The only way to trap the carbon is to log the forest and create lumber.

Now, you want me to believe in "Global Warming." Ok, if it does exist, it is a natural cycle of the earth called glacial pluvial periods. If it exists, it is perfectly natural and not caused by man.

...which does not mean that it is harmless.

You could kill all these murderers wasting our precious air

When people burn them?

Plants respirate just like humans, except that they use carbon dioxide and give out oxygen.
Yeah. Except for when plants produce energy. Then they "breathe" oxygen and produce carbon dioxide just like us.

That's right. Young forests consume carbon dioxide. But, mature forests are carbon neutral. The only way to trap the carbon is to log the forest and create lumber.
...really. I don't know why, but that doesn't seem to sound right. This is most likely due to my ignorance on the subject: please go into more detail.

Lasqara: Aye. Volcanos are natural. Earthquakes are natural. Tsunamis are natural. But are they harmless? Nope! And anyone who argues as such would be looked upon as an idiot. So why do people who think global warming is natural argue that way?

Neanderthals didn't have huge weapons stockpiles. Climate change will cause major tensions between nations for scarce resources (fresh water for example), and a few wars are inevitable. How far things could escalate is an open question.

I doubt in the event of modern global hardship that wars will erupt it is more likly the world will be in a temporary peace as we become busy helping each other or at least are allies

SNIP

we can't just quit polluting or even cut down enough for any real effect to appear it takes too long, there is no real plan on how to do this and its just too expensive not to mention the fact that all are work can and will become pointless if a global event such as large volcanic eruption happens

How long ago was fire discovered? So it's taken this long to destroy the earth's atmosphere? Something is a bit weird here.

How long ago was fire discovered? So it's taken this long to destroy the earth's atmosphere? Something is a bit weird here.

Fire doesn't do much. All our chemicals and whatnots, however, do.

This is all I can find on it right now, but there was a flurry of article a few months ago about it. This is from 2000:

鄭ll we can say ... is that if you want to plant trees to absorb CO2 in order to offset additional future emissions there are a huge amount of uncertainties,・Geoff Jenkins, head of the Hadley climate change program, said in a telephone interview.

徹n the other hand if you refrain from emitting carbon into the atmosphere you know where you are in terms of its effect on CO2. So there is a big difference in the uncertainty levels between those two courses of action,・he added.
http://www.climateark.org/articles/2000/4th/coforboo.htm

...really. I don't know why, but that doesn't seem to sound right. This is most likely due to my ignorance on the subject: please go into more detail.

Lasqara: Aye. Volcanos are natural. Earthquakes are natural. Tsunamis are natural. But are they harmless? Nope! And anyone who argues as such would be looked upon as an idiot. So why do people who think global warming is natural argue that way?

Animals create energy though combustion. We consume food, react it with oxygen, and produce carbon dioxide as waste.

Plants do the reverse. They actualy convert carbon dioxide to oxygen (which requires energy input, but their source of energy is solar) and use the carbon to built plant material.

But, as plants die and rot, their carbon is released into the environment as they are consumbed by microbes. As such, the only way for trees to remove carbon from the atmosphere permanently is to prevent them ever decaying. By using them as lumber.

Carbon dioxide and water vapour are necessary for life. Methane is a natural product of living things. They're not pollutants.

Pollutants are things like PCBs and CFCs and dioxins. Sulfur dioxide. Carbon monoxide. Pollutants harm you directly. Those greenouse gases don't do that.
Too much is harmful and, therefore, becomes a pollutant.

You could kill all these murderers wasting our precious air
Or let them free to kill people who consume more of the precious air.

After all, when you kill a murderer you're only killing one person, but the murderer can kill 6, 7, or even more. Clearly much more efficient.

Animals create energy though combustion. We consume food, react it with oxygen, and produce carbon dioxide as waste.

Plants do the reverse. They actualy convert carbon dioxide to oxygen (which requires energy input, but their source of energy is solar) and use the carbon to built plant material.

But, as plants die and rot, their carbon is released into the environment as they are consumbed by microbes. As such, the only way for trees to remove carbon from the atmosphere permanently is to prevent them ever decaying. By using them as lumber.
Ah, I see. Makes sense, certainly. Thank you.

This was inevitable. Everything is finite. Something has to give. We cannot go on forever guzzling up fossil fuels.

So what, we're dead in 100 years, who cares? All we have done is sped up an inevitable process that has had to happen.

Attenborough was a critic of global warming....he's changed his mind...

http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=56719

Attenborough: Climate change is the major challenge facing the world

Source: Copyright 2006, Independent
Date: May 24, 2006
Byline: David Attenborough

I was sceptical about climate change. I was cautious about crying wolf. I am always cautious about crying wolf. I think conservationists have to be careful in saying things are catastrophic when, in fact, they are less than catastrophic.

I have seen my job at the BBC as a presenter to produce programmes about natural history, just as the Natural History Museum would be interested in showing a range of birds of paradise - that's the sort of thing I've been doing. And in almost every big series I've made, the most recent one being Planet Earth, I've ended up by talking about the future, and possible dangers. But, with climate change, I was sceptical. That is true.

Also, I'm not a chemist or a climatologist or a meteorologist; it isn't for me to suddenly stand up and say I have decided the climate is changing. That's not my expertise. The television gives you an unfair and unjustified prominence but just because your face is on the telly doesn't mean you're an expert on meteorology.

But I'm no longer sceptical. Now I do not have any doubt at all. I think climate change is the major challenge facing the world. I have waited until the proof was conclusive that it was humanity changing the climate. The thing that really convinced me was the graphs connecting the increase of carbon dioxide in the environment and the rise in temperature, with the growth of human population and industrialisation. The coincidence of the curves made it perfectly clear we have left the period of natural climatic oscillation behind and have begun on a steep curve, in terms of temperature rise, beyond anything in terms of increases that we have seen over many thousands of years.

People say, everything will be all right in the end. But it's not the case. We may be facing major disasters on a global scale.

I have seen the ice melting. I have been to parts of Patagonia and heard people say: "That's where the glacier was 10 years ago - and that's where it is today." The most dramatic evidence I have seen was New Orleans, after Hurricane Katrina. Was that climate-change induced, out of the ordinary? Certainly so. Everyone who does any cooking knows that if you want to increase a chemical reaction, you put it on the stove and heat it up. If you increase the temperature of the oceans, above which there are swirling currents of air, you will increase the energy in the air currents. It's not a mystery.
So it's true to say these programmes about climate change are different, in that previously I have made programmes about natural history, and now you could say I have an engaged stance. The first is about the fact that there is climate change and that it is human-induced. I'm well aware that people say it's all a fuss about nothing, and even if it is getting warmer, it's nothing to do with us. So I'm glad that the BBC wanted some clear statement of the evidence as to why these two things are the case.

The second programme says, these are some of the changes that are now almost inevitable, these are the sorts of things that the nations of the world have to do, to forestall the worst. Will they do it? Who knows? And many people feel helpless.

Yet the fact of the matter is, I was brought up as boy during the war and, during the war, we actually regarded it as immoral, wrong, to leave food on your plate, you needed to eat what was on your plate because we didn't have enough. I feel in the same way that it is wrong to waste energy now, and if that sort of sea change in moral attitude were to spread amongst the world's population, it would make a difference.

During the past 50 years, I have been lucky enough to spend my time travelling around the world looking at its wonders and its splendours. I have seen many changes, some good many bad.

But it's only in the past decade that I have come to think about the question of whether or not what I, or anybody else, has been doing, could have contributed to the change in the climate of the planet that is undoubtedly taking place. When I was a boy in the 1930s, the carbon dioxide level was still below 300 parts per million. This year, it reached 382, the highest figure for hundreds of thousands of years.

I'm 80 now. It's not that I think, like any old man, that change is wrong. I recognise that the world has always changed. I know that. But the point is, it's changing more extremely and swiftly than at any time in the past several million years. And one of the things I don't want to do is to look at my grandchildren and hear them say: "Grandfather, you knew it was happening - and you did nothing."

But, as plants die and rot, their carbon is released into the environment as they are consumbed by microbes. As such, the only way for trees to remove carbon from the atmosphere permanently is to prevent them ever decaying. By using them as lumber.

He is right, come on people, grab your chain saws! Head down to the rainforest and start cutting. Its the only way to save the environment!

Animals create energy though combustion. We consume food, react it with oxygen, and produce carbon dioxide as waste.

Plants do the reverse. They actualy convert carbon dioxide to oxygen (which requires energy input, but their source of energy is solar) and use the carbon to built plant material.

But, as plants die and rot, their carbon is released into the environment as they are consumbed by microbes. As such, the only way for trees to remove carbon from the atmosphere permanently is to prevent them ever decaying. By using them as lumber.
It really depends though on which trees are being used for lumber.

How long ago was fire discovered? So it's taken this long to destroy the earth's atmosphere? Something is a bit weird here.
Fire is not the problem itself. When fire was produced from burning wood the CO2 released by it would go into the atmosphere and then absorbed by another plant to make more wood, essentially just closing the cycle.

Nowadays we produce energy by burning fossil fuels (CO2 sequestered during millions of years) and releasing greenhouse gasses at a much greater rate than nature is able to absorb.

Nice joke.
I'm serious.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/GlobalWarming.gif

By the way - check out this site of the German Max-Planck-Institute (yes, it's in English):

http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2005/pressRelease200509301/

http://www.dkrz.de/dkrz/about/pub/dkrz_videos/climat-sim.html?setlang=en_US&printview

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/GlobalWarming.gif
Perfect.

He is right, come on people, grab your chain saws! Head down to the rainforest and start cutting. Its the only way to save the environment!

Tree farms are even better. You harvest the trees as soon as they're mature, and replace them with saplings.

Is it possible that this process will just repeat itself? Some other type of creature that will evolve with human-like knowledge, try to stop the earth wiping them out and failing miserably? Just leave the Earth to do it's work

We are VIRAL. We breed, live and destroy our hosts, just like bacteria. Which ends up killing us. This is all natural and this is what will always happen.

is it possible that this porcess will just repeat itself. Some other type of creature that will evolve with human-like knowledge, try to stop the earth wiping them out and failing miserably? Just leave the Earth to do it's work

We are VIRAL. We breed, live and destroy our hosts, just like bacteria. Which ends up killing us. This is all natural and this is what will always happen.
Did you get that from the Matrix?

No.

Too much is harmful and, therefore, becomes a pollutant.

That's patently false. Either it's a pollutant or it's not. You're misusing the words to suit your own conclusions.

Not an uncommon tactic for global warming alarmists.

Yay! The "humans need to go away because we're killing the Earth" argument! I always get a good laugh when I hear that.

So, let's see -- all of your solutions involve not pumping greenhouse gasses into the environment.

So, to do this, you have three options:

1) Redefine the entire Western culture to revert back to a Third World economic level so as to cut down on production/consumption;

2) Figure out a way to replace every single fossil fuel we use with something that would not pollute and still produce as much energy. Oh, and you have to do it right now, too;

3) Kill off 1/4 of the human population. Or more.


None of which are feasible/logical, depending. Unless I'm mistaken. We all seem to be gung-ho about this, so come up with your feasible solutions! Come on, let's hear them! Explain in detail, don't just say "cut back on greenhouse gasses." Explain in detail how to do that.

Is it possible that this process will just repeat itself? Some other type of creature that will evolve with human-like knowledge, try to stop the earth wiping them out and failing miserably? Just leave the Earth to do it's work

We are VIRAL. We breed, live and destroy our hosts, just like bacteria. Which ends up killing us. This is all natural and this is what will always happen.
It is most definitely possible another sentient race will evolve on this planet. Others might have evolved before on the planet and no evidence remains because what evidence there might have been was destroyed. All evidence of a society--despite what Star Trek might tell you--is easily destructable after 10,000 years, and considering the millions of years between the evolution of sentient species...well, I think you can draw your own conclusions.

Perfect.
If it weren't so serious a matter, yes.

http://healthandenergy.com/global_warming_cartoons.htm

That's patently false. Either it's a pollutant or it's not. You're misusing the words to suit your own conclusions.

Not an uncommon tactic for global warming alarmists.
Pollutant in the sense that too much is harmful. You're of the opinion that too much is not harmful?

http://www.defineplease.com/define.php?term=pollutant
Any undesirable solid, liquid or gaseous matter in an environmental medium: "undesirability" is often concentration-dependent, low concentrations of most substances being tolerable or even essential in many cases. (In the context of air pollution, an undesirable modification is one that has injurious or deleterious effects.) A primary pollutant is one emitted into the atmosphere, water, sediments or soil from an identifiable source. ...

Is anything introduced into the environment that causes problems for people or animals. Air pollutants are unwanted chemicals or other materials found in the air, such as grasses, vapors, dust, smoke, or soot. Most pollutants are created as by-products of processes found to be useful.

If he's theory is correct then I'll go buy a huge, thirsty car and cruise around like there's no tomorrow... which the won't be if he's correct of course.

even if global warming isnt true and is a complete hoax, gas prices are still on the rise and we are running out of useable fuel sources.
what we need to do is develop new sources of energy that pollute less. the pollution may not be causing global warming but it is still eating away at the ozone layer.
Not just to stop global warming but to help the environment along and disturb it as little as possible.

so come up with your feasible solutions!

Solar shield.

Hang it at LaGrange point 1 and block 1% of the solar radiation we currently receive.

The source of heat on earth is the sun. If we reduce the energy coming from the sun, we cool the planet.

That's patently false. Either it's a pollutant or it's not. You're misusing the words to suit your own conclusions.

Not an uncommon tactic for global warming alarmists.
A pollutant is any substance released into the enviroment by humans that damages the enviroment. If something only damages the enviroment in large amounts then it is only a pollutant in large amounts.

That's patently false. Either it's a pollutant or it's not. You're misusing the words to suit your own conclusions.

Not an uncommon tactic for global warming alarmists.
Call me an alarmist - I'm the one laughing at you guys when it comes down to this:

http://www.alliancelink.com/endtoglobalwarming/images/eastcoastnorthamerica4.jpg

Solar shield.

Hang it at LaGrange point 1 and block 1% of the solar radiation we currently receive.

The source of heat on earth is the sun. If we reduce the energy coming from the sun, we cool the planet.
Hang it from what?

even if global warming isnt true and is a complete hoax, gas prices are still on the rise and we are running out of useable fuel sources.
what we need to do is develop new sources of energy that pollute less. the pollution may not be causing global warming but it is still eating away at the ozone layer.
Not just to stop global warming but to help the environment along and disturb it as little as possible.

By the gods, do some research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

The ozone scare is mostly over. We've stopped producing the chemicals that destroyed it, and it's recovering.

I'm serious.

...

Okay then...

Humans are VIRAL, but they evolved, gained too much knowledge and emotion, and wanted to stop what is meant to happen. We live longer, but we have drifted away from our original purpose. Breeding. And this is what is causing all the problems.

Hang it from what?

It will just sit there, gravitationally balanced between the earth and the sun.

We already know how to do this. The Solar Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) has been sitting there for years.

Yay! The "humans need to go away because we're killing the Earth" argument! I always get a good laugh when I hear that.

So, let's see -- all of your solutions involve not pumping greenhouse gasses into the environment.

So, to do this, you have three options:

1) Redefine the entire Western culture to revert back to a Third World economic level so as to cut down on production/consumption;

2) Figure out a way to replace every single fossil fuel we use with something that would not pollute and still produce as much energy. Oh, and you have to do it right now, too;

3) Kill off 1/4 of the human population. Or more.


None of which are feasible/logical, depending. Unless I'm mistaken. We all seem to be gung-ho about this, so come up with your feasible solutions! Come on, let's hear them! Explain in detail, don't just say "cut back on greenhouse gasses." Explain in detail how to do that.
Reasonable. Invest in non-fossil energies, be it solar/tidal/etc, or fusion, etc, implement gradual replacement of fossil fuels as soon as reasonably possible.Then plant more trees etc which gets us more or less aiming towards carbon neutral, or if we're desperate start converting to nuclear and hide the waste or store it on other planets (how much effect could nuclear waste have if you left it on Mars? or just aimed it into the Sun?)

At the very least slow down human-caused global warming so that in the long term we can find ways to artificially change greenhouse gasses back into oxygen, or in the extreme long term colonise other planets.

Humans are VIRAL, but they evolved, gained too much knowledge and emotion, and wanted to stop what is meant to happen. We live longer, but we have drifted away from our original purpose. Breeding. And this is what is causing all the problems.
You speak as though you aren't human. That alone makes you look foolish. So how are we viral? What life forms do we infect in order to reproduce?

Oh so we were just meant to have sex. Now I see the basis of your arguement, you aren't gettin any ;)

Humans are VIRAL, but they evolved, gained too much knowledge and emotion, and wanted to stop what is meant to happen. We live longer, but we have drifted away from our original purpose. Breeding. And this is what is causing all the problems.
Oh shut up, will you?
*sprays Bilky with anti-viral remedy* (yes, it's a pump-spray.)

Call me an alarmist - I'm the one laughing at you guys when it comes down to this:

http://www.alliancelink.com/endtoglobalwarming/images/eastcoastnorthamerica4.jpg
Have more pictures where that came from? I'd like to examine them all, if you don't mind. They intrigue me.

It will just sit there, gravitationally balanced between the earth and the sun.

We already know how to do this. The Solar Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) has been sitting there for years.
Ah, LaGrange point 1 is in space. When you said hang it I thought it would have to be hung from some structure. Thanks.

Think about skin cells. Are they worried about global warming? No. They haven't developed any emotion. They just breed. End of story.

But, humans are complicated. They developed emotion. And we are worried about something skin cells are too dumb to know about. So in this world, it is better to be dumb.

Have more pictures where that came from? I'd like to examine them all, if you don't mind. They intrigue me.
Yup:

http://resumbrae.com/archive/warming/index.html

Have fun. :(

Think about skin cells. Are they worried about global warming? No. They haven't developed any emotion. They just breed. End of story.

But, humans are complicated. They developed emotion. And we are worried about something skin cells are too dumb to know about. So in this world, it is better to be dumb.
Which you prove with every post you make.

Yes, and? What do I prove?

Think about skin cells. Are they worried about global warming? No. They haven't developed any emotion. They just breed. End of story.

But, humans are complicated. They developed emotion. And we are worried about something skin cells are too dumb to know about. So in this world, it is better to be dumb.
Skin cells are not independant organisms. They don't breed. Breed implies sexual reproduction. Cells in a multicellular organism 'reproduce' by mitosis and meiosis.

Skin cells are not dumb either, or can the know things, again because they are not independant organisms they cannot be said to have intelligence, low or high.

Yes, and? What do I prove?
That the idea of 'humans being viral' is a terrible one.

Yup:

http://resumbrae.com/archive/warming/index.html

Have fun. :(
...woah. That's crazy. :(

...*goes searching for more online*

One problem about global warming, whether true or not, is the way it can be used as a scare tactic and a distraction.

OMG GLOBAL WARMING oh and abortion's banned by the way.

OMG GLOBAL WARMING oh and not going to church on sundays is now punishable by fine or, in repeated cases, prison.

OMG GLOBAL WARMING oh and slavery has just been legalised for Fortune 500 companies.

Of course, you can do the same with SARS, avian flu, cancer, hurricanes, increasing crime rates, rampaging youth gangs and much, much more. But this is a thread about global warming.
But if global warming is a hoax, then there is a very important question that presents itself: Who is interested in perpetrating it? Is anybody making money off global warming? Or maybe they're just keeping it around as an enduring scare tactic? Remember, we're always promised "oh, it'll be really bad in fifty years, just you wait and see!" SARS blew over, the avian flu is just about forgotten. Global warming isn't pushed into the back of the mind so easily.

Skin cells are not independant organisms. They don't breed. Breed implies sexual reproduction. Cells in a multicellular organism 'reproduce' by mitosis and meiosis.

Skin cells are not dumb either, or can the know things, again because they are not independant organisms they cannot be said to have intelligence, low or high.

Breed: To reproduce.

A cell can indepenently function, but yet, the nucleus cannot store anything. That is why they do not have intelligence.
Dumb=Stupid=Lacking intelligence.

So, is my point proved?

A pollutant is any substance released into the enviroment by humans that damages the enviroment. If something only damages the enviroment in large amounts then it is only a pollutant in large amounts.

You can't harm the environment, you can just change the environment. Perhaps making it harmful to organisms.

Humans can adapt.

The sun is getting more intense and will heat up the Earth. In 1 billion years the Earth will be uninhabitable for anything but bacteria. This is to slow a process to explain global temperature increases though.

Here is some interesting commentary aginst the science behind the global global warming theory, while not claiming the theory is right or wrong.

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

The sheer number of people who appeared to trash the argument put forth by Mr. Gray alarms me. We are all so terribly certain of our opinions, and of their validity. We believe that all 'right thinking' scientists must agree with us, because the media says that it is so.

The media reports that which is sensational, this cannot be disclaimed. To say: "we are all about to die because of factories" is sensational, to say "no, we're going to be okay" isn't. I do not claim that the media is creating some kind of conspiracy theory to make money off of our fears, but I do think that they choose to report on global warming because it's a big seller.

I would reccomend that you all read Michael Chrichton's book State of Fear, whether you are for the global warming theory or against. Chrichton's storyline itself is pretty bad, but he intermixes a number of graphs, scientific papers and credible evidence in the text to make it worthwhile. The appenices are also informative, although they can't stand alone since the evidence that supports them is intermixed throughout the book.

No doubt there is evidence for both sides, as there is in most debates of this magnitude. But one side has been marginalized because its marketing has been poorer, and to determine policy on that basis; especially policy that will require major changes in our lives and billions of dollars, is criminal. No matter how distasteful the 'other side' appears to be, we ought to remember that they honestly believe what they say, and we ought to give them some merit in our own eyes.

I hate preaching, but I sometimes slip into it. Sorry.

Reasonable. Invest in non-fossil energies, be it solar/tidal/etc, or fusion, etc, implement gradual replacement of fossil fuels as soon as reasonably possible.Then plant more trees etc which gets us more or less aiming towards carbon neutral, or if we're desperate start converting to nuclear and hide the waste or store it on other planets (how much effect could nuclear waste have if you left it on Mars? or just aimed it into the Sun?)

Ignoring your "shoot the waste into space" comments, as that would be, financially, very, very inefficient (remember, this has to be affordable), thank you for addressing my post. I've thought about the same way you have in this, only my main train of thought is being able to find such sources of energy that are economical. And thanks for not saying wind -- I would have to slap you. Solar power isn't very economical, really. Nuclear is. Fusion? Even better. Now, good luck figuring it out.

At the very least slow down human-caused global warming so that in the long term we can find ways to artificially change greenhouse gasses back into oxygen, or in the extreme long term colonise other planets.

I like the conversion process thing -- we can already do that. Again, it comes down to "is it economical."

...woah. That's crazy. :(

...*goes searching for more online*
I just did a complete google picture search on global warming (yes, I've looked at more than 35 pages...) - and there are some nice graphs there as well.

-rising CO2 levels
-decreasing polar ice caps
-increase in distribution of tropical and subtropical diseases
-rising sea levels
-extreme weather phenomena

It's all there. One just has to see the connection.

Breed: To reproduce.

A cell can indepenently function, but yet, the nucleus cannot store anything. That is why they do not have intelligence.
Dumb=Stupid=Lacking intelligence.

So, is my point proved?
No, breeding imples sexual reproduction. Actually breeding tends to be taken as selective breeding(a dog breeder, for example)

A cell can, there are single selled organsims. A skin cell from a human or any other multicellular organism with skin cannot.
Dumb and stupid do not mean totally without intelligence, which is what skin cells are. In fact, even trying to fit adjectives to the intelligence of something which cannot have intelligence is rather pointless, something like how bored doors get.

What is your point?

Again, it comes down to "is it economical."
Shouldn't the question be: Is it economical to ignore the possibility that global warming is real?

No, breeding imples sexual reproduction. Actually breeding tends to be taken as selective breeding(a dog breeder, for example)

A cell can, there are single selled organsims. A skin cell from a human or any other multicellular organism with skin cannot.
Dumb and stupid do not mean totally without intelligence, which is what skin cells are. In fact, even trying to fit adjectives to the intelligence of something which cannot have intelligence is rather pointless, something like how bored doors get.

What is your point?

Breeding does mean reproduction, but implies sexual, but in the context, most people *should* get it.
Lacking can mean without. I am simplifying terms here. (e.g .a computer is a dumb machine. It has no intelligence and only performs certain actions, like a nucleus.)

oh and abortion's banned by the way.

You say that as if it's a bad thing. :D :p

Breeding does mean reproduction, but implies sexual, but in the context, most people *should* get it.
Lacking can mean without. I am simplifying terms here. (e.g .a computer is a dumb machine. It has no intelligence and only performs certain actions, like a nucleus.)
And this is an argument on global warming how?

Shouldn't the question be: Is it economical to ignore the possibility that global warming is real?

So you're saying that, should Global Warming be real (And I'm not saying it is or isn't), we should bankrupt the nations of the world?

Kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

We need an economical solution to this problem, not a government-inspired NASA-esque budgeting SNAFU. A practical, economical solution is needed, regardless.

I mean, lets face it, the fossil fuels need to be replaced (at least in America) regardless -- be it to help in Global Warming or to stop dependence on foreign oil -- so we want a logical solution that will be helpful in all respects.

And this is an argument on global warming how?

We shouldn't be worrying about a process that is meant to happen.

I just did a complete google picture search on global warming (yes, I've looked at more than 35 pages...) - and there are some nice graphs there as well.

-rising CO2 levels
-decreasing polar ice caps
-increase in distribution of tropical and subtropical diseases
-rising sea levels
-extreme weather phenomena

It's all there. One just has to see the connection.

The internet is not a reputable source for anything. Anyone can make a graph in Excel saying anything they want it to say, and post it on the internet somewhere. There is no check for accuracy, no attempt to have any kind of verification.

Google, of course, ranks sites by hits. Any picture you see is just the most popular, not the most accurate or the one supported by experts. If you want a real piece of information from the internet, you have to do exhaustive, time consuming research on the author of the webpage, his sources, his affilitation (what group does he work for) and his qualifications.

The internet is full of data, perhaps 1%* of it is true. The other 99% is either falsification, misinterpreted data or a bored sixteen year old with a computer. If you mean to convince anyone, you'll have to cite scientific journals, reputable climatology groups etc.

*Statistic made up, obviously. But there's certainly a lot of trash out there.

So you're saying that, should Global Warming be real (And I'm not saying it is or isn't), we should bankrupt the nations of the world?

Kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it?
No.
My point would be that what the nations of the world would have to invest today to halt or reverse the effects their industry has on our planet is far less than what the effects of global warming will cost those same nations in the long run.

This might not be the best example but it shows my point:

If the roof of your house is leaking, it's cheaper to get it fixed sooner than to wait and postpone the necessary adjustments and wait for the mildew to get to the basement. Then you'd have to level the house and build a new one - which, in the case of our homeplanet - is a little hard to achieve.

Just take a look at the recent figures insurance companies and those insureance companies that insure insurance companies put out - interesting reading material.

Just to throw a spanner into the works of the skeptics...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

""The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "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" [p. 21 in (4)]"

"IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "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" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6)... have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8)." "



I also see someone mentioned Michael Crichton, how embarassing for them...

http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/2004/story12-13-04b.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v433/n7023/full/433198a.html

Still, what should we expect from someone with no background in climatology...

The internet is not a reputable source for anything. Anyone can make a graph in Excel saying anything they want it to say, and post it on the internet somewhere. There is no check for accuracy, no attempt to have any kind of verification.
That's why one must attempt to get information from reputable sources.

*snip*

And thus the truth is back out in the open.

snip
That is why I don't just go ahead and follow any link blindly.

But scientific researchers like the MPG (link somewhere above) are trustworthy. Just go and check them out - they even publish their results in English. (Post #62)

Breeding does mean reproduction, but implies sexual, but in the context, most people *should* get it.
Lacking can mean without. I am simplifying terms here. (e.g .a computer is a dumb machine. It has no intelligence and only performs certain actions, like a nucleus.)
Maybe you should have said reproduction then?

We shouldn't be worrying about a process that is meant to happen.
We should just sit back and let the planet dissolve around us?





So long, so long and thanks for all the fish.....

Sure, they are. I was talking about the 35 pages of graphs that someone (don't know who) mentioned as being 'evidence for global warming'. In addition, the Max Planck Institute, while reputable, is just one source. To prove a point, it's fine. But if we want to be responsible about this, it has to go beyond proving a point. We need to educate ourselves. Seeking out a variety of viewpoints is important in that respect, but unfortunately most of the publicised stuff is pro-global warming. Marketing, once again.

That's why I thought State of Fear was interesting. It was a bad book, but Chrichton dug through reams of scientific material in order to come up with several pages of graphs, which he cited from a variety of sources. It was an excellent research job, and he provides journal references throughout. Even if you think he's an idot conservative douchebag, go read the book. I know I'm plugging ceaselessly for a man who doesn't need more publicity, so I'll stop.

Been fun, but I need to go. Bye, y'all.

It has been said that Global Warming is a Hoax. Its about time that a world renown scientist says the same thing.

Global warming is something that human activity has sped up? Through history the Earth has cooled resulting in Ice Ages and it has warmed up causing a rise in global sea level ( also known as eustatic change). At the moment the earth is in between these two extremes after just recovering from the last Ice Age a mere 10000 years ago (not very long in geological time). The earth is warming up and without human interferece it would be going towards another eustatic change. However has we humans have been pumping Greenhouse gases into the atmosphere this process is going faster than it usually should.

It has been said that Global Warming is a Hoax. Its about time that a world renown scientist says the same thing.
It's a hard thing to prove using Hurricanes as evidence of Global Warming. It's not how one should go about it, in the first place. I've tried but realized that there is a lot more that goes into hurricanes than a warming ocean. A warming ocean will make a hurricane more violent but certainly doesn't create hurricanes on its own. It's easy to see why a person focused on hurricanes is skeptical of global warming having an effect. It doesn't, in no way, provide proof that humans are not adding to Climate Change.

Sure, they are. I was talking about the 35 pages of graphs that someone (don't know who) mentioned as being 'evidence for global warming'. In addition, the Max Planck Institute, while reputable, is just one source. To prove a point, it's fine. But if we want to be responsible about this, it has to go beyond proving a point. We need to educate ourselves. Seeking out a variety of viewpoints is important in that respect, but unfortunately most of the publicised stuff is pro-global warming. Marketing, once again.
(...)
Dude, chill. I never said such a thing and I definitely didn't state it as "evidence".
I said that I found those new coastline pics when I just punched in global warming and did a google picture search and then I looked through the 35+ odd pages to find some stuff.
It's not the first time I did an internet research, ya know?

And while it's true that the MPG is only one source of information, it's a reliable source from which one can go on and find more.

Luckily, the MPG is working together with other reliable institutes on a global scale - and there definitely is a picture forming that shows more support for global warming than it shows evidence against it.

It has been said that Global Warming is a Hoax. Its about time that a world renown scientist says the same thing.If he's so world-renown, why is it that he claims that global warming is the biggest hoax pulled off on Americans?

If he's so world-renown, why is it that he claims that global warming is the biggest hoax pulled off on Americans?

Because he can speak about Americans.

No.
My point would be that what the nations of the world would have to invest today to halt or reverse the effects their industry has on our planet is far less than what the effects of global warming will cost those same nations in the long run.

This might not be the best example but it shows my point:

If the roof of your house is leaking, it's cheaper to get it fixed sooner than to wait and postpone the necessary adjustments and wait for the mildew to get to the basement. Then you'd have to level the house and build a new one - which, in the case of our homeplanet - is a little hard to achieve.

Just take a look at the recent figures insurance companies and those insureance companies that insure insurance companies put out - interesting reading material.

Ah, okay.

I agree with you that we must research and invest in stuff today, but we have to make sure what we have is economical and not a SNAFU.

As evidence mounts that humans are causing dangerous changes in Earth's climate, a handful of skeptics are providing some serious blowback
This handful of skeptics has been brought to you by Shell Oil.

No, my point is science has been wrong about a lot of things in the past and could also be wrong about the "cause of global warming." There is another scientific explination for global warming if it truly exists.
Funny how some bury their heads in the sand on this issue. They think that if they admit that global warming is probably caused by industrial activity, the communists will take over.

Ah, okay.

I agree with you that we must research and invest in stuff today, but we have to make sure what we have is economical and not a SNAFU.The idea of sustainable development is more than a decade old.

The idea of sustainable development is more than a decade old.
Ah, but they are just catching on... Wait till the US realize that there is indeed a world heating up, that they have been purposfully misled about it, and that there are solutions to counter global warming - maybe then we'll see a change for a start ;)

Ah, but they are just catching on... Wait till the US realize that there is indeed a world heating up, that they have been purposfully misled about it, and that there are solutions to counter global warming - maybe then we'll see a change for a start ;)Sadly, too many people assume "global warming" means that it gets hotter everywhere and claim that colder winters are proof against it.

Sadly, too many people assume "global warming" means that it gets hotter everywhere and claim that colder winters are proof against it.
Yeah. But that simply shows that they have not understood a damn thing and are to be ridiculed without mercy until they change their ways. http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/G-tongue.gif

Sadly, too many people assume "global warming" means that it gets hotter everywhere and claim that colder winters are proof against it.
A reason why Climate Change is a better phrase than Global Warming.

A recent report shows Antarctica losing as much as 36 cubic miles of ice a year.
That's funny because last time I checked only a peninsula is melting, the rest of the continent is getting colder and the ice is getting thicker. Something like 95% of the continent if memory serves. It's gotten so bad on the eastern side that some penguin flocks now have to walk as much as an extra mile or more to get to water and feed. They don't move very fast either unless sliding or swimming and the increase in cold doesn't help matters much. Still I admit there is a small portion of Antarctica that juts pretty far west and, since there's nowhere to go but up when you're on the bottom of the world, north that is melting.

Oh, did you know that it also has 2 active volcanoes? Mt. Erebus and Deception Island. Erebus erreupts pretty frequently, though they are usually minor. This time-wasting tidbit was brought to you by the letters W, T, and F.
---
Since the dawn of the industrial era, atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen steadily from about 280 to about 380 parts per million.
Actuall its only gone up to 350 ppm. But who's counting? Oh, right, NASA. Those darn evil republicans must have gotten to them! :p

Once again I feel I need to show everyone just how much of what there is.

Nitrogen (N2) 780,840 ppmv (78.084%)
Oxygen (O2) 209,460 ppmv (20.946%)
Argon (Ar) 9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 350 ppmv
Neon (Ne) 18.18 ppmv
Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv
Methane (CH4) 1.745 ppmv
Krypton (Kr) 1.14 ppmv
Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv
Not included in above dry atmosphere:
Water vapor (highly variable) typically 1%
Mean Atmospheric Water Vapor.
Enlarge
Mean Atmospheric Water Vapor.

Source for figures above: NASA. Carbon dioxide and methane updated (to 1998) by IPCC TAR table 6.1 [1]. The NASA total was 17 ppmv over 100%, and CO2 was increased here by 15 ppmv. To normalize, N2 should be reduced by about 25 ppmv and O2 by about 7 ppmv.

And before someone makes that stupid argument about a little radiation not hurting you but adding a second source will: The amount of radiation absorbed by a someone is measured in Grays, which are Joules per Kilogram (1 Gray = 100 rads).

1.0< gray gives you:
Immediate symptoms: Mild nausea
The latent phase: days to weeks
Post latent symptoms: In this dose range no obvious sickness occurs. Detectable changes in blood cells begin to occur at 0.25 Sv, but occur consistently only above 0.50 Sv. These changes involve fluctuations in the overall white blood cell count (with drops in lymphocytes), drops in platelet counts, and less severe drops in red blood cell counts. These changes set in over a period of days and may require months to disappear. They are detectable only by lab tests. At 0.50 Sv atrophy of lymph glands becomes noticeable. Impairment to the immune system could increase the susceptibility to disease. Depression of sperm production becomes noticeable at 0.20 Sv, an exposure of 0.80 Sv has a 50% chance of causing temporary sterility in males. At 0.75 Sv there is a 10% chance of nausea.
The prognosis is grim (just kidding, almost certain survival)

(because I don't want to bore you all to death with what each dose will do I'll give the prognosis for the rest)

1.0 - 2.0
Fatality rate is about 10%
2.0 - 3.5
Fatality rate 35% to 40%
3.5 - 5.5
Fatality rate 50% within 6 weeks
5.5 - 7.5
Death probable within 3 weeks
7.5 - 10
Death almost certain within 3 weeks. Complete recovery impossible.
10 - 20 (the walking ghost)
Certain death
20 - 80 (CNS syndrome)
Certain death
> 80 (immediate coma)
Certain death
---
Coral reefs are bleaching, scalded by overheated tropical waters.
That or it could be:
*Direct poisoning from improper disposal or hazardous materials
*Nothing lives forever, not even coral (sorry but it's true)
*It's being damaged by careless boaters and dies shortly after
*Animals are trying to eat it
*Non-native species are killing it (invasive species are a huge problem in MN)
---
One big problem I have with global warming are the people behind it. ELF, Earth First, ALF, PETA, and other extremist groups. It's as much political activism as it is science. And the solutions proposed often would make things much worse:
*Condense population into cities where walking and public transit are the only way to get anywhere to use less land.

The problems are the urban heat island effect, higher crime rates, disease, poverty, hunger, pollution, and everything else that's wrong with the cities we've got now. But don't take my word for it, look at Mexico city and Sao Paulo. You think cramming more people into big cities will fix anything?

*Stop helping industrial agriculture and switch to small organic farms and backyard (or rooftop since we're suposed to live in big icites) gardens.

The problem is organic farming is inefficient, the majority of the produce is generally of poor quality because pests get to it, and it's very expensive. People aren't trying to hold back organic farming, it just doesn't work well on a large scale. It'd be nice if it did but it just doesn't.

*Scrap electricity-market regulations that virtually mandate centralized power production at large, inefficient plants (by some estimates, up to two-thirds of energy is wasted en route to end users); instead, encourage decentralized production from small-scale, site-appropriate sources.

Well Wind is only supplimental at best and at worst is unreliable. Solar panels are expensive (a 30% for lab use can be as much as 100x as expensive as an 8-12%) and their production does pollute because of the materials involved. Give solar a decade or two and then we can start covering deserts for power. I like hydroelectric (dams) but they're expensive and some groups that want to save the fish or want the river to run--er flow free oppose them. Tokamaks are the only fusion reactors getting attention and funding right now and they're likely going to end up as a big flop (not one has reached break even), which will likely kill all funding for fusion research. Fission is good, clean, and reliable. Of all the plants built ther has been only 1 meltdown and (in the US) 1 close call. But people hear the word radiation or nuclear and immediately think of a 50' mutant grasshopper destroying NY and so environmental lobby groups have blocked the construction of any new plants.
---
This guy is experienced and knows his stuff and wouldn't be saying these things unless he had a damned good reason to do it. I doubt he's been bought off because he's not the first respected, well informed guy to say this. The response is also nothing new.

I am in two minds about global warming, and I have two huge points.

1. Yes, we have many, many scientists working on this, but the burden of proof is complicated and huge. Any one of the following questions isn't answered the right way, and we might as well forget it.

Are there such a thing as greenhouse gasses?
Are these gasses being emitted into the atmosphere by man?
Are there other gasses that man is emitting that offset the greenhouse gasses?
Are there natural outlets (plant growth, for instance) that could offset greenhouse gasses?
Is the earth getting warmer?
Are there factors in global warming that could slow, offset, or reverse warming temperatures?
Will the warming of the planet lead to the melting of glaciers?
How much of the glaciers will actually melt?
By how much will the melting of the ice lead to rising sea levels? (after all, your drink doesn't overflow when ice melts in it)
Is the damage already done irreversible (I.E. will all the glaciers melt anyway if we were to stop all emmissions now?)
How much will the emissions have to be lowered to make a difference?


Some or most of these may have answers. But beyond that, there are questions related to economics. What amount of lowering is economically feasible? Won't the efforts of the developed world be more than offset by the explosion of development in developing countries, desparate to grow their economies?

That leads me to point Number two:

2. The burden of regulation related to the environment WILL fall on the poor and middle class of the world's nations.

There is no pill to prevent this from happening; this will be a big hit in the form of unemployment and high prices for food and other necessities. I see an intense amount of buck-passing by the richest nations: passing off the most polluting industries to developing countries. Abjectly impoverished countries will suffer little beyond losing what little hope they had to grow their economies. Countries on whom this situation is really set to fall on will be countries like India and China, which will see their economic growth short-circuited by imposed regulations.

All in all, I would say that I hope the scientists are wrong, because I don't see how this problem is going to be fixed otherwise without hurting an awful lot of people.

One big problem I have with global warming are the people behind it. ELF, Earth First, ALF, PETA, and other extremist groups. It's as much political activism as it is science.
The people like Celtlund who deny it just because they fear that someone will use environmental protection to justify the implementation of socialism are just as bad.

And the evidence keeps coming in.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000EFF32-205B-1476-A05B83414B7F0000

Now, new satellite data reveals that the atmosphere is warming most strongly in such boundary regions and potentially shifting regions of wet and dry.

See, it's not really the temperature change that is most worrisome. It the fact that populations that are used to one thing will have to modify a great deal (dry places having to deal with floods, wet areas dealing with drought,) about how they do simple things like irrigate crops or build their infrastructure to withstand weather.

Again, prevention is ALWAYS cheaper than cure.

Meh.

Whether its global warming or not (I don't know what to think of it. It most likely exists, but I don't know about to the extent people say about it), Weather here is ticking me off. Nature has been PMSing all freaking year. It was seventy degrees in December, and come May, it nearly snowed. WTF? :confused:

Again, prevention is ALWAYS cheaper than cure.
The problem with 'prevention' in this case is that we don't fully understand the system(s) we'd be tinkering with. Humanity has a history of screwing this up when we try to fix them. Example: Botany Bay. You all remember what happened there don't you? The parade of invasive species! And then there's Yellowstone. The park sevrice ended up nearly destorying it by the 1930's when they tried to 'preserve' it. We now know the mistakes made then but the damage was so severe that it even today it is not what it once was. What we need to do is learn how these things work, not just as isolated systems but also how they intermingle.

And it's not like big business doesn't like efficient cars or other things. Efficient and environmentally friendly are two very different things. Efficient means you're doing the job required with the least amount of waste. Environmentally friendly is doing the job required with 50 people on their knees, in the dirt, constantly slaving away just to barely get by rather than 1 guy running a machine to plant a feild, another to water it, and another to harvest it and give what he doesn't use to others. Environmentally friendly all too often places the needs of others above our own. You can't help anyone if you're dead nor can you when you're occupied unless you drop what you're doing. Keep in mind that we got where we are today, being the dominant species on this planet, by being aggressive and placing our needs above all else. Species do not become dominant or strong by being nice. Even plants follow this martial philosophy; pine trees are an excellent example.

The problem with 'prevention' in this case is that we don't fully understand the system(s) we'd be tinkering with. Humanity has a history of screwing this up when we try to fix them. Example: Botany Bay. You all remember what happened there don't you? The parade of invasive species! And then there's Yellowstone. The park sevrice ended up nearly destorying it by the 1930's when they tried to 'preserve' it. We now know the mistakes made then but the damage was so severe that it even today it is not what it once was. What we need to do is learn how these things work, not just as isolated systems but also how they intermingle.

The thing is, what most environmentalists propose is LESS tinkering. I mean, what we're doing right now is "tinkering," with everything we do to the land and everything we expell into the atmosphere. Exactly because we don't understand what we're messing with, we should try to limit our influence. Thanks for arguing for environmentalism.

And it's not like big business doesn't like efficient cars or other things. Efficient and environmentally friendly are two very different things. Efficient means you're doing the job required with the least amount of waste. Environmentally friendly is doing the job required with 50 people on their knees, in the dirt, constantly slaving away just to barely get by rather than 1 guy running a machine to plant a feild, another to water it, and another to harvest it and give what he doesn't use to others. Environmentally friendly all too often places the needs of others above our own. You can't help anyone if you're dead nor can you when you're occupied unless you drop what you're doing. Keep in mind that we got where we are today, being the dominant species on this planet, by being aggressive and placing our needs above all else. Species do not become dominant or strong by being nice. Even plants follow this martial philosophy; pine trees are an excellent example.

Big business loves what makes them the most money. They love planned obsolescence. They love it when we use disposable items that we have to buy over and over again.

Species also do not become dominant by shitting where they eat or over-grazing/using up their resources. "Nice" and "Mean" are human inventions. You argue in circles. If we are agressive and assert our dominance everywhere, then we most certainly are "tinkering" to a great degree.

You seem entirely focused on short-term money, and you base your definition of "efficient" on that.

Environmentalism means doing what's best for everyone, including oneself, in the long term. It means being both aware and concerned about our collective impact on the place we all call home. It's really as simple as that.

What it boils down to is that you seem to hate "hippy tree-huggers" and you'll ague against what you percieve to be their point of view even if that has nothing at all to do with reality.

The thing is, what most environmentalists propose is LESS tinkering. I mean, what we're doing right now is "tinkering," with everything we do to the land and everything we expell into the atmosphere. Exactly because we don't understand what we're messing with, we should try to limit our influence. Thanks for arguing for environmentalism.



Big business loves what makes them the most money. They love planned obsolescence. They love it when we use disposable items that we have to buy over and over again.

Species also do not become dominant by shitting where they eat or over-grazing/using up their resources. "Nice" and "Mean" are human inventions. You argue in circles. If we are agressive and assert our dominance everywhere, then we most certainly are "tinkering" to a great degree.

You seem entirely focused on short-term money, and you base your definition of "efficient" on that.

Environmentalism means doing what's best for everyone, including oneself, in the long term. It means being both aware and concerned about our collective impact on the place we all call home. It's really as simple as that.

What it boils down to is that you seem to hate "hippy tree-huggers" and you'll ague against what you percieve to be their point of view even if that has nothing at all to do with reality.

For the most part, I agee with both of you. In fact, I don't think you realize it, but you are both saying more or less the same thing.

Environmental awareness is important because our future survival and quality of life(and that of our children) cuold depend on decisions we make now. That's something we should keep in mind. It's something businesses should keep in mind whether they want to or not. However, I think that distraction ourselves and our scientific community on wild goose chases like 'Global Warming' is a dangerous way of preventing resources from being spent on environmental issues we actually CAN learn about and control with relative safety. Issues like energy conservation, land conservation, recycling and alternative energy are all vitally more pressing concerns that we should be directing our focus at and will increase our quality of life and survivability as a species and possibly even improve our environment.

even if there are no real dangers to the enviroment. no harm can come from finding cleaner burning fuels, ending smog, planting trees, etc. etc. etc.

I say this not JUST because im a hippie but i just don't see a down side to not fucking up the earth. it doesnt make since that we can keep dumping toxic sluge into a finite ball with no vent system and expect it to be an infinite bag of holding.

no disrespect to the man but from what i have seen older people tend to cling onto what they know and therefore he may just be looking at the data from a perspective of the 60's "the solution to polution is dilution" kinda way and not seeing a problem we are causing. tempatures fluxuate from year to year as it is so on any given day +10 yrs from a date it may not be hotter than it was but it still could be in the big picture.

:headbang:

The thing is, what most environmentalists propose is LESS tinkering. I mean, what we're doing right now is "tinkering," with everything we do to the land and everything we expell into the atmosphere. Exactly because we don't understand what we're messing with, we should try to limit our influence. Thanks for arguing for environmentalism.
What most envirnomentalists propose is either the eradication of or immediate halt of widespread use of high technology. What most envirnomentalists propose is that humans are a disruptive force in the world, that big business is evil, and that we should all live on densly packed communal farms and toil away in the dirt for the rest of our lives so that the only CO2 we emit is what we breath out and the only methane we expel comes from our rear ends. What most environmentalists propose is we do away with choice and personal freedoms and those willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

I'm not arguing for environmental extremism. What I'm arguing for is study first, draw conclusions later. The study is ongoing yet many have already drawn the conclusion that we are soley to blame. And by we I mean the United States. This is typical of human behavior; we thrive on conflict and when we can't find enough real struggle we create false strife and then offer false hope in the form of buzzwords cooked up by the PR department of some law firm whose only objective is to exploit all this for their personal gain. We are too often more concerned with assigning blame and punishing something or someone than finding real solutions. Wind doesn't work. Solar is decades away from being an affordable primary power source so long as your close enough to the equator and we still have no way of producing efficient cells without ending up with toxic, hazardous waste products. Dams are expensive and take a long time to build. The funding is going to the wrong projects right now in the world of fusion research. Fission could be the panacea you've been looking for but organizations like Greenpeace stand in the way of any new plants getting built. And it's not like we can make the uranium stop radiating, so we might as well use it.

Big business loves what makes them the most money. They love planned obsolescence. They love it when we use disposable items that we have to buy over and over again.
There you go proving me right. Environmentalists trying to turn the free market into the bad guy. People will always want to spend the least amount of money they need to to get something done right so they can keep the rest for themselves. I know all about planned obsolescence. It's probably the reason you have a job. But you have to realize that it's not as simple as adding a really big battery to every car and bus. There is no magic carburetor that'll give you 3,000 mpg or whatever the ridiculous claim is. And it's not like I hate recycling, but when soilent green is what's for dinner I draw the line.

Species also do not become dominant by shitting where they eat or over-grazing/using up their resources. "Nice" and "Mean" are human inventions. You argue in circles. If we are agressive and assert our dominance everywhere, then we most certainly are "tinkering" to a great degree.
Tell me, where does a bear sh**? In the woods where it lives and eats. We caused the over-grazing in Yellowstone when we killed all the predators in an effort to 'preserve' the park. We introduced invasive species to Austrailia when trying to fix a mistake and ended up turning most of what was green to desert. We didn't know what the f*** we were doing then and I seriously doubt we've achieved omniscience since then.

You seem entirely focused on short-term money, and you base your definition of "efficient" on that
I base my definition of efficient on cost and return. How much does something cost in the way of material and energy vs how much you'll get out of it. And if that's not good enough for you the dictionary definition is: "Exhibiting a high ratio of output to input." Gee, they look very similar. Who'da thunk it?

Environmentalism means doing what's best for everyone, including oneself, in the long term. It means being both aware and concerned about our collective impact on the place we all call home. It's really as simple as that.
Nothing is as simple as that. I am no serf nor slave and I would rather die than live in a communal labor camp for the rest of my life. Organic is not better. We worked hard to get out of a life in the dirt, to live longer lives, to better ourselves and further our understanding of all we can see and you want us to throw that all away and go back to what we were? If you want to submit to a life of moil and drudgery, then go right ahead. But I will not have you force me to join your cause because that'd be fascism on your part.

What it boils down to is that you seem to hate "hippy tree-huggers" and you'll ague against what you percieve to be their point of view even if that has nothing at all to do with reality.
What it boils down to is that you love the nanny state and dispise the people who pay for welfare and your precious entitlements and you'll argue against what you percieve to be their point of view even if that has nothing at all to do with anything, real or not.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to find an alternate source of energy that doesn't pollute but we already have that source. Fission doesn't pollute because most of what we call waste can be recycled. And what can't be recycled is just a heavy, inert metal. Greenpeace and its ilk are holding back the rest of humanity by denying us a clean source of energy so they can sell their own ideas. Environmentalism is a business where the elites that lead the cause profit greatly while using underlings like rungs on a ladder. And the worst part is you either don't see how your being exploited or you just don't care.

I'm not saying that we should call it one way or the other right now. What bothers me is that procedure has been flung out the nearest window without a second thought.

Do what you want, what you think is right, but don't drag everyone around you along for your slow spiral south.

this is great, we're all doomed no matter what we do.
believe the tree hugging hippies, and civilization will fall to naked people in caves.
believe the oil company executives and we'll all live ten feet underwater in 120 degree (F) oceans with a huricane every week.
try to take a middle course and get flamed by both sides.
how did humanity even survive this long?

how did humanity even survive this long?

Aztec human sacrifices. But with those gone now...

:(

Commentary: Frankly, this leaves me confused again as to global climate change. Suddenly one of the most educated men on the face of the planet in regards to climate and weather says it's a hoax? Has he been bought out? Is he right? Or is he just being a stubborn old man? I don't know, honestly.

THE TEMPEST (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305.html)

As evidence mounts that humans are causing dangerous changes in Earth's climate, a handful of skeptics are providing some serious blowback

IT SHOULD BE GLORIOUS TO BE BILL GRAY, professor emeritus. He is often called the World's Most Famous Hurricane Expert. He's the guy who, every year, predicts the number of hurricanes that will form during the coming tropical storm season. He works on a country road leading into the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains, in the atmospheric science department of Colorado State University. He's mentored dozens of scientists. By rights, Bill Gray should be in deep clover, enjoying retirement, pausing only to collect the occasional lifetime achievement award.
The global warming issue is hot in scientific and political circles, but some skeptics aren't convinced.

He's a towering figure in his profession and in person. He's 6 feet 5 inches tall, handsome, with blue eyes and white hair combed straight back. He's still lanky, like the baseball player he used to be back at Woodrow Wilson High School in Washington in the 1940s. When he wears a suit, a dark shirt and tinted sunglasses, you can imagine him as a casino owner or a Hollywood mogul. In a room jammed with scientists, you'd probably notice him first.

He's loud. His laugh is gale force. His personality threatens to spill into the hallway and onto the chaparral. He can be very charming.

But he's also angry. He's outraged.

He recently had a public shouting match with one of his former students. It went on for 45 minutes.

He was supposed to debate another scientist at a weather conference, but the organizer found him to be too obstreperous, and disinvited him.

Much of his government funding has dried up. He has had to put his own money, more than $100,000, into keeping his research going. He feels intellectually abandoned. If none of his colleagues comes to his funeral, he says, that'll be evidence that he had the courage to say what they were afraid to admit.

Which is this: Global warming is a hoax.

"I am of the opinion that this is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people," he says when I visit him in his office on a sunny spring afternoon.

He has testified about this to the United States Senate. He has written magazine articles, given speeches, done everything he could to get the message out. His scientific position relies heavily on what is known as the Argument From Authority. He's the authority.

"I've been in meteorology over 50 years. I've worked damn hard, and I've been around. My feeling is some of us older guys who've been around have not been asked about this. It's sort of a baby boomer, yuppie thing."

This article is five pages long. Read the rest here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305.html)
F
I
E
N
D

;)

:headbang:


What most envirnomentalists propose is either the eradication of or immediate halt of widespread use of high technology.

Not true. High technology can be used for environmental purposes as well. We just favor the development of environmentally friendlier technologies and for industrialists to stop pumping so much crap into the ground, water and air.


What most envirnomentalists propose is that humans are a disruptive force in the world...

Of course we are. Just like beavers are and meteors are.

...that big business is evil...

Never said that, all I said was that business' main goal is making money. That's indisputable.

...and that we should all live on densly packed communal farms and toil away in the dirt for the rest of our lives so that the only CO2 we emit is what we breath out and the only methane we expel comes from our rear ends...

Never said that either. Your charactature of Environmentalists is way off. It's almosts like you're intentionally demonizing environmentalists and playing strawman games with their arguments.

What most environmentalists propose is we do away with choice and personal freedoms and those willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.


Wow, do environmentalists live under your bed and in your closet as well?


I'm not arguing for environmental extremism.

Neither am I, I'm arguing an evidence-based approach.

What I'm arguing for is study first, draw conclusions later.

Of course. But when do you draw conclusions? When every serious study in the last 15 years indicates that man is having an effect on the environment and that, in case the worst-case scenario happens, we should try to mitigate the consequences and prepare for the results.

The study is ongoing yet many have already drawn the conclusion that we are soley to blame.

No one says that we are solely to blame. No onethe least bit informed is, at least. Again, I point you to the fable of the straw that broke the camel's back.
And by we I mean the United States.

This shouldn't be a flag-waving issue. Intelligent planning that involves the world working together is required. Sometimes consessions will have to be made. That's a fact of life. No one can have it their way all the time.

This is typical of human behavior; we thrive on conflict and when we can't find enough real struggle we create false strife and then offer false hope in the form of buzzwords cooked up by the PR department of some law firm whose only objective is to exploit all this for their personal gain.

As I said, big business' main goal is to make money...personal gain. You argued this and tried to make it seem as if I singled out big business as being more evil than the average man. Can't you see you're arguing in circles? And what do we do when peoples selfish behavior becomes a risk to society? We make laws.
We are too often more concerned with assigning blame and punishing something or someone than finding real solutions.

Kinda like what you do when you blame environmentalists for the actions of a fringe few?

Wind doesn't work.

Sure it does. It's not the total solution, but every little bit helps.

Solar is decades away from being an affordable primary power source so long as your close enough to the equator and we still have no way of producing efficient cells without ending up with toxic, hazardous waste products.

There's lots of passive solar energy collecter that make a small difference. But every little bit helps.

Dams are expensive and take a long time to build.

What, like finding and extracting oil and then building refineries and refining the oil isn't?

The funding is going to the wrong projects right now in the world of fusion research. Fission could be the panacea you've been looking for but organizations like Greenpeace stand in the way of any new plants getting built. And it's not like we can make the uranium stop radiating, so we might as well use it.

Fusion, when it's developed (and it's only a matter of time,) will be a huge sourse of energy and be relatively clean. I agree that there's been too made against fission plants, but everyone, not just environmentalists, doesn't want it in their back yard.

There you go proving me right. Environmentalists trying to turn the free market into the bad guy.

The free market is no more nor no less noble than the average man that you yourself say is only in it for himself. All institutions are subject to human behavior, not just liberal ones as you seem to assume.

People will always want to spend the least amount of money they need to to get something done right...

Right being the operative word. People don't buy lead paint anymore because of a combination of education about the dangers of lead and legislation controlling it. The same for asbestos. Though, I guess if it were up to you, we'd still be using such items.

... so they can keep the rest for themselves. I know all about planned obsolescence. It's probably the reason you have a job. But you have to realize that it's not as simple as adding a really big battery to every car and bus. There is no magic carburetor that'll give you 3,000 mpg or whatever the ridiculous claim is. And it's not like I hate recycling, but when soilent green is what's for dinner I draw the line.

There you go, wandering off into unreality again. Man, environmentalists really are a boogie man to you, aren't they?


Tell me, where does a bear sh**? In the woods where it lives and eats. We caused the over-grazing in Yellowstone when we killed all the predators in an effort to 'preserve' the park. We introduced invasive species to Austrailia when trying to fix a mistake and ended up turning most of what was green to desert. We didn't know what the f*** we were doing then and I seriously doubt we've achieved omniscience since then.

Sure, and there are microbes and insiects in the woods to ensure that the bear poo is quickly disposed of. Also, each bear has many many square miles to spread out the poo deposits. Several million people living squeezed together have no such automatic and natural mechanism. If man had existed as he has for a million years or more, I'm sure various things would evolve to fill the available niches so that a kind of equilibrium is reached. We change course too quickly for such natural housecleaning so if we want to reamin in comfort, we'll have to figure out how to do it ourselves


I base my definition of efficient on cost and return. How much does something cost in the way of material and energy vs how much you'll get out of it. And if that's not good enough for you the dictionary definition is: "Exhibiting a high ratio of output to input." Gee, they look very similar. Who'da thunk it?


Cost and return. But cost is not the total input. You artificially narrow the definition.

Nothing is as simple as that. I am no serf nor slave and I would rather die than live in a communal labor camp for the rest of my life.

Don't be too sure you aren't a serf.

Organic is not better.

Prize-winning giant vegetables are usually grown utilizing (not solely,) organic techniques. Organic produce has a higher nutrient content. There's less waste. There's less large-scale carting stuff to-and fro. Research some about microbial action in dirt, micorrhiza, compost tea, and other organic topics. Industrial fertilizers kill microbes and many earthworms, the very things that make dirt fertile. A visciou cycle develops. Organic techniques have produced things that save money even for large-scale farms, such as green mulches, inoculation, and no-till methods.

We worked hard to get out of a life in the dirt,

We'll live on Earth. We are dirt and sun. And to dirt we'll return.

to live longer lives,

Then why let pollution and Climate Change shorten them?

...to better ourselves and further our understanding of all we can see...

What's the point when you won't listen to the overwhelming consensus from those hat have bettered themselves on that specific topic for most of their lives?

and you want us to throw that all away and go back to what we were?

Where do you get this crap?

If you want to submit to a life of moil and drudgery, then go right ahead. But I will not have you force me to join your cause because that'd be fascism on your part.

Have you ever worked in a cubicle? Now THAT's drudgery, and often you look up and wonder, other than shuffling some papers, what REAL thing you've accomplished.


What it boils down to is that you love the nanny state and dispise the people who pay for welfare and your precious entitlements and you'll argue against what you percieve to be their point of view even if that has nothing at all to do with anything, real or not.

Again, I guess if you can't argue with what I actually say, then I guess just making up words to put in my mouth is your only other alternative.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to find an alternate source of energy that doesn't pollute but we already have that source. Fission doesn't pollute because most of what we call waste can be recycled.

Yes, modern reactors do recycle some of their waste, and I definitely approve. I think nuclear has gotten a bad rap. The EXPERTS...the people who study the specific topic, are rather less worried about the radiation that the average layman. But I just say this because, totally man, the ancient Americans had fission plants of their own. Groovy man.

And what can't be recycled is just a heavy, inert metal. Greenpeace and its ilk are holding back the rest of humanity by denying us a clean source of energy so they can sell their own ideas.

Just like the entire world is out to sell their own ideas. Even the people who feed these arguments to you.

Environmentalism is a business

For some. Some do it out of a real sense of concern. Some do it out of guilt. It's just like any other humand endevour.

where the elites that lead the cause profit greatly while using underlings like rungs on a ladder. And the worst part is you either don't see how your being exploited or you just don't care.

And corporate life differs from this how?

I'm not saying that we should call it one way or the other right now. What bothers me is that procedure has been flung out the nearest window without a second thought.

With regards to the scientific material...the REPUTABLE, SOURCED, and OPEN-DATA sort, procedure has been upheld by the process of peer review, where the greates joy a scientist can feel is destroying the reasoning of another, by exposing methodology mistakes. For many, showing conclusively that one of their cohorts is an ass is the highlight of their careers. That's why perr-review works. And that's why you should be VERY leery of articles that have not passed peer-review and do not contain unabridged sourcing.

Do what you want, what you think is right, but don't drag everyone around you along for your slow spiral south.

Likewise.

Aztec human sacrifices. But with those gone now...

:(

The gods can only hold their anger in for so long. Why else could the Mayans predict the end of civilization? They knew the menstural cylce of Gaia.

The gods can only hold their anger in for so long. Why else could the Mayans predict the end of civilization? They knew the menstural cylce of Gaia.
If you're saying we should cram all the volcanoes with Kotex, I'm with you 100%.

Some other viewpoints.

http://www.cs.usask.ca/undergrads/jlh425/assignment2/opinionA.html

and it did kill a full third of Europe's population...

Totally off topic, but the third figure came from the Bible.

In fact, more modern analyses suggest closer to 1/2 maybe even 60% in some places.

If you're saying we should cram all the volcanoes with Kotex, I'm with you 100%.

More places than volcanoes, and too many. There is only one way to stop the menstural cycle.


We need to impregnate the earth.

Several years ago, just before Thanksgiving in fact, the scientists came out with "scientific proof" that cranberries cause cancer.No, "scientists" said no such thing. Rather, in November 1959, just days before Thanksgiving, the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare set off a national food panic when he announced that domestic cranberry products were "contaminated" with a weed-killer called aminotriazole. Aminotriazole is a chemical that in huge doses--equivalent to eating 15,000 pounds of cranberries every day for several years--was found to cause cancer in laboratory rodents.

The panic was caused by a politician who misread, misunderstood, or misapplied scientific findings... respectable scientists, meanwhile, consistently downplayed the results of the study for humans, the same being true of most other "food panics" since then.

With global warming, we see the opposite trend: the great majority of scientists, citing almost a century of scientific research and using the most advanced climate models available, insist that human activities are unnaturally and dangerously affecting global temperatures.

Here, politicians cling desperately to the handful of scientists who still say what they want them to say.

Years ago scientist also came out with "proof" that saccharin caused cancer in rats and could cause cancer in humans.Saccharin was a classic case of scientists doing their job, and driving the scientific consensus according to the best available evidence at the time. First, studies on rats showed a link between saccharin and bladder cancer. Lacking better evidence, it seemed like a good idea to put warning labels on food containing saccharin--notice it wasn't much of a "panic," in that the food additive was never pulled from the market. Since then, studies on humans have demonstrated that saccharin poses a threat to rats, but not to us: better evidence, changed consensus.

Again, global warming is different. The more evidence the scientific community gathers, and the better that evidence becomes, the more scientists drift into the gathering consensus that global warming is real.

More recently was the "proof" that eating eggs was not good for you because it raised your bad cholesterol level.This is similar to saccharin: when scientists began to understand the effects of high cholesterol, they warned against foods such as eggs that raise overall cholesterol levels. More recently, with a better understanding of the various kinds of cholesterol, the opinion has changed. Again, this is not the pattern we see with global warming: the more we know, the more obvious it becomes. This is not a "new" discovery, it is one that has been modeled and tested repeatedly over the course of the last several decades. Given that this battery of tests has managed to convince the large majority of scientists, the burden of proof seems to be with the skeptics.

Butter was also supposed to be "very bad" for you.From what I understand, no one thinks that butter is NOT "bad" for you... the consensus is just that it's a hell of a lot better than the most common alternatives, such as margarine.

Now, you want me to believe in "Global Warming." Ok, if it does exist, it is a natural cycle of the earth called glacial pluvial periods. If it exists, it is perfectly natural and not caused by man.Given the evidence, this is not a very scientific attitude. Again, the burden of proof must certainly be on yourself and other skeptics. If you think the consensus has this one "wrong," as they did about eggs, then you have to tell us where to find the "good cholesterol" in global warming.

No, my point is science has been wrong about a lot of things in the past and could also be wrong about the "cause of global warming." There is another scientific explination for global warming if it truly exists.

Yes, it could be wrong. That's true.

However, given the extent of the scientific consensus, I would say that we have reached a point at which the burden of proof lies with the skeptics. If they have an alternative explanation, then it is up to them to prove that it is also the more likely explanation. So far, they seem to be failing.

My theory for global warming is the the earth is being pulled closer to the sun.

Observation: The Earth is getting warmer.
Theory: The Earth is being pulled closer to the Sun.
Testable Hypothesis: If the Earth is being pulled closer to the Sun, the year should be getting shorter.
Test data: The length of the year does not seem to have shortened.

Theory disproved.

Don't you just love the scientific method?

Observation: The Earth is getting warmer.
Theory: The Earth is being pulled closer to the Sun.
Testable Hypothesis: If the Earth is being pulled closer to the Sun, the year should be getting shorter.
Test data: The length of the year does not seem to have shortened.

Theory disproved.

Don't you just love the scientific method?

Well done.

Rock on, AnarchyeL, rock on.

Even if there are some inconsistencies in the theory, isn't it better just to play it safe? If there's a chance that we're wrecking the planet, we should probably try to stop the possible problem. To me, it seems the less dangerous gamble.
I absolutely agree with you. This reminds me of how some people argue that, due to some inconsistencies in the bible, the whole God issue is a hoax. Anyway, not trying to change the subject or even compare these two issues, just thought it was funny to point out the similarities in how we tackle Science and Religion, when usually we are led to believe they are so fundamentally different. What's the point of doing research and gathering data, if afterwards we chuck it because there are inconsistencies here and there?

It's just saddening to see mankind possibly doing the same "mistakes" over and over again. And this time, it's all supported by Science and Logic. Well, looks like Logic is not as good at cleaning up Science's own yard... Until when the theological debate about Global Warming?

You know I'm not even going to bother anymore with this.

Gymoor,
That whole straw that broke the camels back argument is horribly flawed at best. 1 rad will not make the difference between life and death for someone suffering from radiation sickness. 1 degree will not mean a new ice age or a cooked planet. 1 straw will not break a camels back. if you want to break a camels back you do it with a lead pipe. I'm tired of your assumptions about me and anyone who doesn't fall in lock step with you and your views. You didn't beat me, I just have a life to get back to and I see there is no changing your mind. I pity you.

Live long (boy scout sign), and be happy.

You know I'm not even going to bother anymore with this.

Gymoor,
That whole straw that broke the camels back argument is horribly flawed at best. 1 rad will not make the difference between life and death for someone suffering from radiation sickness. 1 degree will not mean a new ice age or a cooked planet. 1 straw will not break a camels back. if you want to break a camels back you do it with a lead pipe. I'm tired of your assumptions about me and anyone who doesn't fall in lock step with you and your views. You didn't beat me, I just have a life to get back to and I see there is no changing your mind. I pity you.

Live long (boy scout sign), and be happy.

What, beside ranting about the evils of Environmentalists, have you brought to this discussion that would change anyone's mind? I address your specifics, you rant.

Yes, a straw cannot LITERALLY break a camel's back. That's why it's a fable. It's a literary mechanism that teaches a basic truth through metaphore...something you can't seem to grasp. A small change can nudge a complex system out of equilibrium. That's chaos for you. Get off the radiation thing. It was merely an example of something that can be harmless until it reaches a certain level. That's all it was, and yet you're gripping onto it like a pit bull with seperation anxiety.

Let's make my example even more simplistic. Imagine that you can bench press 200 lbs. Then imagine someone adds 20 pounds. Even though that 20 pounds is only 1/11th of the total weight, that 20 pounds is the difference between you lifting the weight and you failing to lift it.

That 20 pounds in and of itself is not problem, it when you add it to what was already there that the problem arises.

I think it's clear to everyone that I'm not the one with the problem processing new information.

Live long (boy scout sign), and be happy.

Oh, and Boy Scouts are usually taught about environmentalism.

I'm wondering if anyone caught the news about the jet stream shifting last week ... anyone?
I'll post when i get time.

Don't get me wrong, I think the volume and type of emissions being produced by humanity are a bad thing and something should be done about it, but in truth there is little hard evidence of unnatural climite change on a global scale.

For example, climate change advocates often point to the Ross Ice Shelf, this is the largest ice shelf in Antarctica (and I believe the world) and is melting away at an alarming rate. This is commonly used as an arguing point and used in press, but its case of the truth, but not the whole truth. Infact the Ross Ice Shelf is the only ice mass of significant size that is melting, the majority are actually remaining the same size and many are growing!

Equally you often hear of rising sea levels, but there are a group of cliff baths in Italy (in Tuscany, but I'm not 100% on that) that were used for general bathing by the Romans and were filled by the sea. The sea level is now 6m below the inlet for these baths and over the last 20 years has fallen.

The truth is that climate is one of the most chaotic systems known to man, we have little idea what causes most effects, especially on the global scale and in the longer term.

The global climate is constantly shifting and always has been, you may get increases in ice coverage in some areas and retreats in others, water does not flow evenly around the world, freak weather patterns have ALWAYS happened and we do not have enough accurate historical data to say with ANY reliability whether many of the patterns seen are down to man or not.

As I said at the beginning, I'm all for environmental controls. Renewable energy sources are more economically viable and generally not to reliant on long supply chains, so are more secure. Restricting emissions may or may not improve the climate, but it has been shown to have a local environmental effect and in some cases health impacts.

Bearing this in mind though, that doesn't mean that "global warming"/"extreme climate change" and other media friendly, panic inducing stories hold any real water whatsoever.

This was inevitable. Everything is finite. Something has to give. We cannot go on forever guzzling up fossil fuels.

So what, we're dead in 100 years, who cares? All we have done is sped up an inevitable process that has had to happen.

The whole point is to delay the inevitable. Everyone is going to die someday but most people will try to live as long as they can, delaying the inevitable.

Don't get me wrong, I think the volume and type of emissions being produced by humanity are a bad thing and something should be done about it, but in truth there is little hard evidence of unnatural climite change on a global scale.

Incorrect. A review of the literature provide instance after instance of hard evidence from multiple sources that the global climate, on average, is warming up.

For example, climate change advocates often point to the Ross Ice Shelf, this is the largest ice shelf in Antarctica (and I believe the world) and is melting away at an alarming rate. This is commonly used as an arguing point and used in press, but its case of the truth, but not the whole truth. Infact the Ross Ice Shelf is the only ice mass of significant size that is melting, the majority are actually remaining the same size and many are growing!

While it's true that much of Antarctica is going through a cooling phase many other places in the world are warming, such as the Antarctic peninsula and most of the Arctic circle. Glaciers aroud the world are shrinking, and the size of the individual expanses of ice is immaterial, as the melting of many many small ice deposits add up to a large change. Global warming does not apply equally to all location, but it should be a cause for concern that while much of Antarctica is cooling, the global average is still rising, which means places which are not Antarctica are warming at a greater rate than the overall average including Antarctica indicate.

Equally you often hear of rising sea levels, but there are a group of cliff baths in Italy (in Tuscany, but I'm not 100% on that) that were used for general bathing by the Romans and were filled by the sea. The sea level is now 6m below the inlet for these baths and over the last 20 years has fallen.

Rising sea levels are an established fact, as observed by extremely accurate satellite measurements. The local phenomena you mention is likely caused either by a localized lifting of the land or by silting action. I would have to look at your source for this. I bet you it mentions one of the two causes I proposed here. Again, false controversy is caused by incomplete data.

The truth is that climate is one of the most chaotic systems known to man, we have little idea what causes most effects, especially on the global scale and in the longer term.

Again, denying evidence is not a refutation of evidence. The amound of proof of Climate Change is staggering, and one only needs to look for it, rather than listening to those who don't refute the evidence, but merely deny that it exists.

The global climate is constantly shifting and always has been, you may get increases in ice coverage in some areas and retreats in others, water does not flow evenly around the world, freak weather patterns have ALWAYS happened and we do not have enough accurate historical data to say with ANY reliability whether many of the patterns seen are down to man or not.

Again, untrue. While shift in the climate occur naturally, they have natural causes, such as volcanic activity, cycles in the Sun, yearly or longer-term weather cycles, etc.. Ice cores going back 600,000 years and evidence in the Earth's crust itself give us a longer view that you are willing to accept. Model after model, using independent and peer-reviewed data in dicate that the input of man is indeed having an effect on global climate.

As I said at the beginning, I'm all for environmental controls. Renewable energy sources are more economically viable and generally not to reliant on long supply chains, so are more secure. Restricting emissions may or may not improve the climate, but it has been shown to have a local environmental effect and in some cases health impacts.


If local climate after local climate is effected, then the global climate is effected, inevitably. As you mentione, climate is a chaotic system, and it is a function of chaotic systems that small changes can have large and unforeseen effects.

Bearing this in mind though, that doesn't mean that "global warming"/"extreme climate change" and other media friendly, panic inducing stories hold any real water whatsoever.

Don't look to the media to give you the whole story. Look to serious and peer-reviewed articles which, time and time and time again, paint the same picture that the very same media you call out as inducing panic creates false controversy about. The scientific community is nearly unified in it's opinion that man is, indeed, altering the climate. The holdouts, which almost never pass peer-review, are fully in the pocket of Big Oil and allied interests, whereas the experts that point to anthropogenic climate change are diverse and work independently.

But, as I am once again left with a lack of proper evidence and arguments to support my claim, I shall bow out to others, such as Straughn.
Whoa! :eek:
Thank you! *bows*

I apologize that this is one of the only times i've skipped out on an environmental thread since i've been here - i've been distracted by a few wastes of time and fewer important things, but incessant ones nonetheless, and when i saw Gymoor Prime and Desperate Measures come up on the last posted notifier, i figured the thread was in good hands. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/1356.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/ff/Kool-AidMan.jpg

Don't get me wrong, I think the volume and type of emissions being produced by humanity are a bad thing and something should be done about it, but in truth there is little hard evidence of unnatural climite change on a global scale.

For example, climate change advocates often point to the Ross Ice Shelf, this is the largest ice shelf in Antarctica (and I believe the world) and is melting away at an alarming rate. This is commonly used as an arguing point and used in press, but its case of the truth, but not the whole truth. Infact the Ross Ice Shelf is the only ice mass of significant size that is melting, the majority are actually remaining the same size and many are growing!

Equally you often hear of rising sea levels, but there are a group of cliff baths in Italy (in Tuscany, but I'm not 100% on that) that were used for general bathing by the Romans and were filled by the sea. The sea level is now 6m below the inlet for these baths and over the last 20 years has fallen.

The truth is that climate is one of the most chaotic systems known to man, we have little idea what causes most effects, especially on the global scale and in the longer term.

The global climate is constantly shifting and always has been, you may get increases in ice coverage in some areas and retreats in others, water does not flow evenly around the world, freak weather patterns have ALWAYS happened and we do not have enough accurate historical data to say with ANY reliability whether many of the patterns seen are down to man or not.

As I said at the beginning, I'm all for environmental controls. Renewable energy sources are more economically viable and generally not to reliant on long supply chains, so are more secure. Restricting emissions may or may not improve the climate, but it has been shown to have a local environmental effect and in some cases health impacts.

Bearing this in mind though, that doesn't mean that "global warming"/"extreme climate change" and other media friendly, panic inducing stories hold any real water whatsoever.


I find it very strange and hard to figure out why some people insist on saying that we are not speeding up global warming with our carbon dioxide emissions. It truely is frighting and the thing I can't understand is why?

Why is it that you say this when all of the proof points the other way?

Volcanic islands rise a little each year, some of them faster than others, so an island riseing faster than the rate of sea level rise does not show that the sea leavel is not riseing.

Worldwide glaziers are receading, sea levels are rising, global tempreture has increased, iceflows are melting earlyer each year, wind forces are getting stronger and the weather system is changing. We have proof for all of this.

It may well be that the sun is throwing off extra heat at the moment, there may well be lots of other reasons for all of this happening, but what is certian, and I mean absolutly certian is that the amount of carbon we pump into our atmosphere is not helping matters.

To ignore this is foolish in the extream, it is like insiting that green is blue, it is green folx we all know it.

I find it very strange and hard to figure out why some people insist on saying that we are not speeding up global warming with our carbon dioxide emissions. It truely is frighting and the thing I can't understand is why?

Maybe because we *gasp* aren't? Ever stop to think about that?

Why is it that you say this when all of the proof points the other way?

Ever stop to consider the fact that the reports could be *gasp* baised?

Volcanic islands rise a little each year, some of them faster than others, so an island riseing faster than the rate of sea level rise does not show that the sea leavel is not riseing.

I could say something to this but I'm not going to.

Worldwide glaziers are receading, sea levels are rising, global tempreture has increased, iceflows are melting earlyer each year, wind forces are getting stronger and the weather system is changing. We have proof for all of this.

And yet when Ice melts, water level drops. Hmmmm.

It may well be that the sun is throwing off extra heat at the moment, there may well be lots of other reasons for all of this happening, but what is certian, and I mean absolutly certian is that the amount of carbon we pump into our atmosphere is not helping matters.

Our cutting down trees is not helping the matter. Plant more trees to soak up the CO2

To ignore this is foolish in the extream, it is like insiting that green is blue, it is green folx we all know it.

I'm not buying it.

I'm not buying it.Question is, what could possibly change your mind?

Question is, what could possibly change your mind?

Nothing for it is a natural phenomena that has been going on since the beginning of time.

http://www.forbes.com/business/energy/feeds/ap/2006/05/25/ap2773945.html
Update 1: Deserts Expanding With Jet Stream Shift
By ANDREW BRIDGES , 05.25.2006, 02:50 PM
Deserts in the American Southwest and around the globe are creeping toward heavily populated areas as the jet streams shift, researchers reported Thursday.

The result: Areas already stressed by drought may get even drier.

Satellite measurements made from 1979 to 2005 show that the atmosphere in the subtropical regions both north and south of the equator is heating up. As the atmosphere warms, it bulges out at the altitudes where the northern and southern jet streams slip past like swift and massive rivers of air. That bulging has pushed both jet streams about 70 miles closer to the Earth's poles.

Since the jet streams mark the edge of the tropics, in essence framing the hot zone that hugs the equator, their outward movement has allowed the tropics to grow wider by about 140 miles. That means the relatively drier subtropics move as well, pushing closer to places like Salt Lake City, where Thomas Reichler, co-author of the new study, teaches meteorology.

"One of the immediate consequences one can think of is those deserts and dry areas are moving poleward," said Reichler, of the University of Utah. Details appear in Thursday's Science Express, the online edition of the journal Science.

The movement has allowed the subtropics to edge toward populated areas, including the American Southwest, southern Australia and the Mediterranean basin. In those places, the lack of precipitation already is a worry.

"The Mediterranean is one region that models consistently show drying in the future. That could be very much related to this pattern that we are seeing in the atmosphere," said Isaac Held, a senior research scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. He was not connected with the research.

A shift in where subtropical dry zones lie could make climate change locally noticeable for more people, said Karen Rosenlof, a NOAA research meteorologist also unconnected to the study.

"It is a plausible thing that could be happening, and the people who are going to see its effects earliest are the ones who live closer to the tropics, like southern Australia," said Rosenlof. Her own work suggests the tropics have actually compressed since 2000, after growing wider over the previous 20 years.

Reichler suspects global warming is the root cause of the shift, but said he can't be certain. Other possibilities include variability and destruction of the ozone layer. However, he and his colleagues have noted similar behavior in climate models that suggest global warming plays a role.

Moving the jet streams farther from the equator could disrupt storm patterns, as well as intensify individual storms on the poleward side of the jet streams, said lead author Qiang Fu, a University of Washington atmospheric scientist.

In Europe, for example, that shift could mean less snow falling on the Alps in winter. That would be bad news for skiers, as well as for farmers and others who rely on rivers fed by snowmelt.

"This definitely favors or enhances the frequency of droughts," Fu said of such a shift.
--

Here is some interesting commentary aginst the science behind the global global warming theory, while not claiming the theory is right or wrong.

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html
There's a reason why Crichton writes science fiction. Because when it comes to science fact, he's a fucking moron. He accepts ID, for Eris's sake. He's a fricking Luddite.

There's a reason why Crichton writes science fiction. Because when it comes to science fact, he's a fucking moron. He accepts ID, for Eris's sake. He's a fricking Luddite.
I don't remember if i posted this here, but it's probably a good place for it:

The Journalistic Triumph of Michael Crichton

In these days of James Frey's phony memoirs becoming best-selling nonfiction, why shouldn't a novel full of half-truths and misleading nonsense win a journalism award? And so in that spirit of "reality sucker-punching irony into submission," let's have a round of applause for Michael Crichton, whom the American Association of Petroleum Geologists has honored with its Journalism Award for those hard-hitting journalistic classics State of Fear and Jurassic Park. (See Editor & Publisher for its note on this .)

We all know Jurassic Park, which blew the lid off the secret dinosaur cloning activities of that billionaire industrialist operating an unlicensed theme park. Thanks to Crichton's enterprising reporting on that scandal, the incidence of velociraptor attacks has plummeted to an historic low. State of Fear didn't sell quite as well, but it is a best-seller, and I wrote about it back in December 2004. Or as the New York Times put it recently :

"State of Fear," dismisses global warming as a largely imaginary threat embraced by malignant scientists for their own ends.

"It is fiction," conceded Larry Nation, communications director for the association. "But it has the absolute ring of truth."

"Absolute" except for the made-up and wrong parts, that is.

[More:]

That is not the way leading climate scientists see it. When the book was published in 2004, climate experts condemned it as dangerously divorced from reality. Most of these scientists believe human activity, chiefly the burning of fossil fuels, is changing the atmosphere's chemistry in ways that threaten unpredictable, potentially damaging effects.

See substantial debunkings of the book by the RealClimate.org gang here and here.

A cynic might assume that this award is something that the AAPG hands out regularly to global warming deniers, but a look at the past winners suggests that's not the case. Yet it's hard to reconcile the specious science of State of Fear with the association's stated purpose for the award , which is "in recognition of notable journalistic achievement in any medium which contributes to public understanding of geology, energy resources, or the technology of oil and gas exploration." It's further doubtful that the book met this listed guideline ("Therefore, if at all possible, documentation as to the degree of improvement in public understanding would be quite important and useful") given the number of reviews and comments on the book demonstrating that it's hokum.

No, it seems likely that State of Fear won just for presenting a plot that involved geology and the environment to millions of readers, irrespective of its misinforming them about geology and the environment in the process. By those criteria, Immanuel Velikovsky should have won a prize from the American Astronomical Society, Erich von Daniken ought to have been feted by the Archaeological Institute of America and the Weekly World News should be eligible for a Pulitzer. In the words of Stephen Colbert, they are all chock full of " truthiness."

And it's unfortunate for the AAPG that this award will probably make a number of people assume that it is in fact just shilling for industry:

Daniel P. Schrag, a geochemist who directs the Harvard University Center for the Environment, called the award "a total embarrassment" that he said "reflects the politics of the oil industry and a lack of professionalism" on the association's part. ( NY Times)

Kudos, AAPG! And for next year's award, may I bring this book to your attention?

Update (2/13): It looks like I've given the AAPG too much credit. Reader Larry Mewhort points out to me:

I beg to differ with your assumption that the AAPG gave
Crichton his award because "it seems likely that State of Fear won just for presenting a plot that involved geology and the environment to millions of readers, irrespective of its misinforming them about geology and the environment in the process."

I believe that the AAPG executive thinks that Crichton is right. Have a look at their statement on climate change. There is also a very favorable review of "State of Fear" in the February AAPG Explorer.

It makes me want to agree with what Luis Alvarez is reputed to have said about some geologists: "they are not really scientists--more like stamp collectors."

That quote made me wince, but not as much as this twaddle from the AAPG's climate change position statement:

Human-induced global temperature influence is a supposition that can be neither proved nor disproved. It is unwise policy to base stringent controls on energy consumption through taxation to support a supposition that cannot be substantiated.

And then there's this from the review:

First, much of what passes for science is actually fiction.

...[The character] Kenner's repeated exposition of scientific studies shows that there is a substantial amount of evidence that the planet is not warming at all. In spite of the dire pronouncements we hear from the mouths of reporters, musicians, actors and fellow scientists, the science of climate change is not nearly as clear as could be wished. In fact, a case might be made that the earth is actually cooling.

As judges of journalistic merit, these petroleum geologists are just bubbling black crude.

-

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74#more-74

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=76

Then, for Crichton ....

http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/papers/climate_change.cfm

---

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=188
28 Sep 2005
Inhofe and Crichton: Together at Last!
Filed under: Climate Science Climate modelling— group @ 10:33 pm
Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann

Today we witnessed a rather curious event in the US Senate. Possibly for the
first time ever, a chair of a Senate committee, one Senator James Inhofe
(R-Oklahoma), invited a science fiction writer to advise the committee
(Environment and Public Works), on science facts--in this case, the facts
behind climate change. The author in question? None other than our old
friend, Michael Crichton whom we've had reason to mention before (see here
and here). The committee's ranking member, Senator James Jeffords (I) of
Vermont, was clearly not impressed. Joining Crichton on climate change
issues was William Gray of hurricane forecasting fame, Richard Benedick (a
negotiator on the Montreal Protocol on ozone-depleting chemicals), and David
Sandalow (Brookings Institution). As might be expected, we paid a fair bit
of attention to the scientific (and not-so-scientific) points made.

Many of the 'usual suspects' of half-truths and red herrings were put forth
variously by Crichton, Gray, and Inhofe over the course of the hearing:

the claim that scientists were proclaiming an imminent ice age in the 1970s
(no, they weren't),
the claim that the 1940s to 1970s cooling in the northern hemisphere
disproves global warming (no, it doesn't),
the claim that important pieces of the science have not been independently
reproduced (yes, they have),
the claim that global climate models can't reproduce past climate change
(yes, they can)
the claim that climate can't be predicted because weather is chaotic
(wrong...)
and so on.

We won't dwell on the testimony that involved us personally since the
underlying issues have been discussed and dealt with here before, though we
will note that comments from both of us pointing out errors in the testimony
were entered into the Senate record by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California).
Instead, we will focus on the bigger picture.

First, let's be clear where there is agreement. Climate science doesn't deal
in certainties - it deals in probablities and the balance of evidence. We
agree with Crichton's statement that 'Prediction is not fact'. That
certainly doesn't mean, however, that projections of possible future climate
changes are not meaningful or useful, as Crichton claims.

Crichton seemed to imply that "prediction" (such as that provided by weather
or climate models) is useless in the decision making process. (As an aside,
we wonder how Gray, who is largely known for prediction of hurricane
behavior based on (statistical) modeling, felt about this?). We
fundamentally disagree. All science is about observation, understanding and
prediction. When those predictions work, you make new predictions. When they
don't, you revisit the observations, attempt to improve your understanding
of the underlying processes, and make a new prediction. And so on. In the
case of climate models, this is complicated by the fact that the time scales
involved need to be long enough to average out the short-term noise, i.e.
the chaotic sequences of 'weather' events. Luckily, we have past climate
changes to test the models against. Even more to the point, successful
climate predictions have actually been made in past Senate hearings. The
figure at the end of this comment by Jim Hansen demonstrates that
projections of global mean climate presented in a 1988 senate hearing (17
years ago) have actually been right on the money

Others panelists attempted to combat the onslaught of disinformation.
Sandalow sensibly suggested that the National Academy of Sciences be used to
inform the Senate on where the consensus of the science is, and Benedick
made some excellent points about how legislation can be successful in the
face of scientific controversy and uncertain predictions. However, none of
that provided as good theater as the other witnesses.

A highlight of the session was Gray making one particular statement that he
may be asked to defend (at least financially): "I'll take on any scientist
in this field .... I predict that in 5 to 8 years the globe will begin to
cool" (1:10:00 on the video). This would appear to be a direct call to those
"global warmers" (see also here, here and here) who are trying to get
contrarians to put their money where their mouths are (with very limited
success). We eagerly await developments!

Inhofe ended the hearing by declaring his desire to 'sit back and look at
[this] in a non-scientific way'. We think he already has.
-From SciAm blog.

If y'all want the word-linkies i gots em. Most o'em anyway.
N'joy

Nothing for it is a natural phenomena that has been going on since the beginning of time.
What a silly thing to say. You won't change your mind? Nobody involved in Global Warming negates that there is natural warming and cooling cycles. What is being brought to attention is mans contribution to Climate Change. There are few people I've ever heard mentioned involved in studying Climate Change that will say man does not contribute to it and to a significant degree. Note I said involved in studying Climate Change. Note also that people who profit from negating facts, such as those whose funding are provided from Exxon/Mobil, shouldn't be relied on.

Not allowing yourself to change your mind is a foolish way to be.

I have been known to change my mind but not when it comes to Global Warming.

I have been known to change my mind but not when it comes to Global Warming.

Does you knee ever ache when it rains? You know. From all the jerking.

Does you knee ever ache when it rains? You know. From all the jerking.

Nope. But my collar bone hurts when the pressure changes :D

Nope. But my collar bone hurts when the pressure changes :D

The thing I like about you, disagreements about reality and evidence aside, is that you take a poke with good cheer.

The thing I like about you, disagreements about reality and evidence aside, is that you take a poke with good cheer.

I do try :)