NationStates Jolt Archive

The truth is that the Earth is becoming warmer the lie is humans are the only reason behind the warming. The fact is that every 1500 hundred years the Earth goes through a warming cycle just like clock work. The proof is in tree rings and history for example during the dark ages the earth was 5-7 degress warmer w/o industry. The fact is follow the money, the money is being sent in huge amounts of grants givin to scientist evey time they warn about our impending doom. The european nations have been manipulated to believe that humans are causing global warming. Yet I say follow the money; Even the great Dr Gray from the U of Colorado dismisses the idea of humans causing warming. The facts are in front of you open your eyes so that you want be manipulated by the left wing media. Even the green man Al Gore is an oximoran since his private jet causes more pollutants on one trip than a factory in one month.:upyours:

The truth is that the Earth is becoming warmer the lie is humans are the only reason behind the warming. The fact is that every 1500 hundred years the Earth goes through a warming cycle just like clock work. The proof is in tree rings and history for example during the dark ages the earth was 5-7 degress warmer w/o industry. The fact is follow the money, the money is being sent in huge amounts of grants givin to scientist evey time they warn about our impending doom. The european nations have been manipulated to believe that humans are causing global warming. Yet I say follow the money; Even the great Dr Gray from the U of Colorado dismisses the idea of humans causing warming. The facts are in front of you open your eyes so that you want be manipulated by the left wing media. Even the green man Al Gore is an oximoran since his private jet causes more pollutants on one trip than a factory in one month.:upyours:

Really? What sort of factory? How long of trip?

Or are you just talking out your ass about his private jet?

The truth is that the Earth is becoming warmer the lie is humans are the only reason behind the warming. The fact is that every 1500 hundred years the Earth goes through a warming cycle just like clock work. The proof is in tree rings and history for example during the dark ages the earth was 5-7 degress warmer w/o industry. The fact is follow the money, the money is being sent in huge amounts of grants givin to scientist evey time they warn about our impending doom. The european nations have been manipulated to believe that humans are causing global warming. Yet I say follow the money; Even the great Dr Gray from the U of Colorado dismisses the idea of humans causing warming. The facts are in front of you open your eyes so that you want be manipulated by the left wing media. Even the green man Al Gore is an oximoran since his private jet causes more pollutants on one trip than a factory in one month.:upyours:

Yes, the earth does periodically go through a warming cycle, but never before in the earth's history has the warming occurred as quickly as it is now. The earth is warming at far too quickly a rate to be entirely natural.

The truth is that the Earth is becoming warmer the lie is humans are the only reason behind the warming. The fact is that every 1500 hundred years the Earth goes through a warming cycle just like clock work. The proof is in tree rings and history for example during the dark ages the earth was 5-7 degress warmer w/o industry. The fact is follow the money, the money is being sent in huge amounts of grants givin to scientist evey time they warn about our impending doom. The european nations have been manipulated to believe that humans are causing global warming. Yet I say follow the money; Even the great Dr Gray from the U of Colorado dismisses the idea of humans causing warming. The facts are in front of you open your eyes so that you want be manipulated by the left wing media. Even the green man Al Gore is an oximoran since his private jet causes more pollutants on one trip than a factory in one month.:upyours:

Following the money would probably lead you to fossil fuel and heavy industry lobby groups that sponsor scientists who claimed that global warming isn't happening. No group that I can think of would have an interest in slowing down economic growth through enforcing cuts on CO2 emissions.

Anyone would think no-one had tried to deny glabal warming on NSG before :rolleyes:

Anyone would think no-one had tried to deny global warming on NSG before :rolleyes:

True, but the OP does it with such a stream of consciousness panache, it's irresistible. I especially like his calling Al Gore and "oximoran."

I imagine the money trail leads both ways, and Im inclined to think that global warming is indeed a natural process which humans have 'made worse', but I doubt it will destroy humanity. I would be more worried about global cooling and the resulting Space Mongol invasion ;)

I imagine the money trail leads both ways, and Im inclined to think that global warming is indeed a natural process which humans have 'made worse', but I doubt it will destroy humanity. I would be more worried about global cooling and the resulting Space Mongol invasion ;)

Space Mongols? That's pseudoscientific rubbish. The real threat we should be worried about are the mole people. I've heard they've almost perfected their electro-ray.

The truth is that the Earth is becoming warmer the lie is humans are the only reason behind the warming. The fact is that every 1500 hundred years the Earth goes through a warming cycle just like clock work. The proof is in tree rings and history for example during the dark ages the earth was 5-7 degress warmer w/o industry. The fact is follow the money, the money is being sent in huge amounts of grants givin to scientist evey time they warn about our impending doom.

Hmmmm. A few thousand bucks in grants, here and there vs. the billions of dollars of profit made by industries and oil companies.

You arguement it totaly unfounded!

Spending money on curbing global warming is like spending money for building a defense system to protect against an alien invasion; it's completely irrational and unrealistic.

True, but the OP does it with such a stream of consciousness panache, it's irresistible. I especially like his calling Al Gore and "oximoran."

It does have a certain...car wreck esq attraction

It does have a certain...car wreck esq attraction

The most major error you could find in his post was an extremely minor spelling error, involving only one incorrect letter. That's no surprise; that's the only evidence many liberals can cite of a alleged FOX News bias, too.

Spending money on curbing global warming is like spending money for building a defense system to protect against an alien invasion; it's completely irrational and unrealistic.

I see you're busy trolling today. Got tired of being a real person for a handful of posts?

I see you're busy trolling today. Got tired of being a real person for a handful of posts?

Thankfully, a person can be "real" without conforming exactly with your views. I wrote a rational post, yet you are engaging in flaming. The irony of your comment is not lost on me; you are the troll.

how about, communists muslims?

My god, I'd never thought of any of those things before! I was such a fool, believing all these doctors and scientists and respected public leaders! I should have known that the truth--inconvenient as it may be-- would come from a random idiot online who wouldn't know a comma if it bit him in the ass!

Thank you for enlightening me. I'm off to go buy a Hummer, and breathe in some nice, clean, in-no-way-carbon-dioxide-fortified air.

(I mostly lurk on this forum, but poorly spelled insults to Al Gore make me bitchy. I love him so.)

OP: Even if you're being sarcastic--which I somehow doubt-- I hate you.

My god, I'd never thought of any of those things before! I was such a fool, believing all these doctors and scientists and respected public leaders! I should have known that the truth--inconvenient as it may be-- would come from a random idiot online who wouldn't know a comma if it bit him in the ass!

Thank you for enlightening me. I'm off to go buy a Hummer, and breathe in some nice, clean, in-no-way-carbon-dioxide-fortified air.

(I mostly lurk on this forum, but poorly spelled insults to Al Gore make me bitchy. I love him so.)

OP: Even if you're being sarcastic--which I somehow doubt-- I hate you.
What's so great about Al Gore?

Space Mongols? That's pseudoscientific rubbish. The real threat we should be worried about are the mole people. I've heard they've almost perfected their electro-ray.

Ive heard that they plan to ally and take on the people of Earth together. Were going to be in serious trouble when the Mole People undermine all of our military installations while the Space Mongols use their power bows to knock out the ground forces.

EDIT:
And has anybody ever wondered if Greater Trostia and MeanstoanEnd are the same person?

The most major error you could find in his post was an extremely minor spelling error, involving only one incorrect letter. That's no surprise; that's the only evidence many liberals can cite of a alleged FOX News bias, too.

I heart irony.

Thankfully, a person can be "real" without conforming exactly with your views. I wrote a rational post, yet you are engaging in flaming. The irony of your comment is not lost on me; you are the troll.

I'm not engaging in flaming.

And as usual you're dragging out the "oh i just dont conform exactly to your views lol liberal bias!" defense. Sorry, no worky. Plenty of people - actually, everyone I know - don't conform to my views, but I don't call them trolls. Then again, they don't post a bunch of bullshit on an internet forum about how good slavery is.

Why don't you make a support for your statement about how global warming is a bunch of alien-invasion malarky? I'm sure I'm so interested in whatever you can pull out of your ass.

The most major error you could find in his post was an extremely minor spelling error, involving only one incorrect letter. That's no surprise; that's the only evidence many liberals can cite of a alleged FOX News bias, too.

Oh, hush. I did find the spelling error amusing but I don't think you can use "oxymoron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron)" in the way the OP seems to mean it. It's a stretch to call an ecologically-conscious Al Gore an "oxymoron" because his jet pollutes. I think "hypocrite" would be more appropriate. I think the OP was attracted by the "moron" part of the word because it's always fun to call people names.

I would agree, by the way, that human activity is not the sole cause of global warming. We are certainly contributing to it far out of proportion than other causes. And anyway, what's wrong with cleaning up the Earth?

Hey lookit, MTAE has a new puppet!

Ive heard that they plan to ally and take on the people of Earth together. Were going to be in serious trouble when the Mole People undermine all of our military installations while the Space Mongols use their power bows to knock out the ground forces.

EDIT:
And has anybody ever wondered if Greater Trostia and MeanstoanEnd are the same person?
I can hardly sleep, these days. When are they coming? When????


Oh, and LOL!

Oh, hush. I did find the spelling error amusing but I don't think you can use "oxymoron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron)" in the way the OP seems to mean it.

It's a pun on words. Al Gore is a hypocritical moron, and calling him an "oxymoron," although inaccurate if you accept it literally, is a genial insult if you broaden your perspective. Great writers are not constrained by the rigid rules of the English language, and they utilize it as a more fluid tool (I'm certainly not suggesting that the author of this thread is a modern-day Shakespeare, though).

Hey lookit, MTAE has a new puppet!

I disagree, if this was an MTAE thread, it would be better thought out and would propose a course of action, rather than just ranting about evil, money-hungry liberal scientists. I obviously went into the wrong field after college, who knew there was so much money to be made in climatology?

EDIT:
And has anybody ever wondered if Greater Trostia and MeanstoanEnd are the same person?

I think that's more or less the most insulting thing you could have posted.

About either of us. ;)

What's so great about Al Gore?

He was there at the start of the global warming debate back in the 70s. He is most likely the world's top expert on the subject. Surf this link then see the film. (http://www.climatecrisis.org/)

It's a pun on words. Al Gore is a hypocritical moron, and calling him an "oxymoron," although inaccurate if you accept it literally, is a genial insult if you broaden your perspective. Great writers are not constrained by the rigid rules of the English language, and they utilize it as a more fluid tool (I'm certainly not suggesting that the author of this thread is a modern-day Shakespeare, though).

My perspective is quite a bit broader than you might imagine and I did say I thought "oxymoron" was chosen because of the felicitous "moron" part. We can debate another day whether Al Gore is more hypocritical or more of a moron than, say, Bill O'Reilly. And thank you for not suggesting that the OP was not anything but badly written.

It's a pun on words. Al Gore is a hypocritical moron, and calling him an "oxymoron," although inaccurate if you accept it literally, is a genial insult if you broaden your perspective. Great writers are not constrained by the rigid rules of the English language, and they utilize it as a more fluid tool (I'm certainly not suggesting that the author of this thread is a modern-day Shakespeare, though).

Which would have been great if he had actually not acted like a moron in calling someone a moron. thats ironic,When you are commenting on someones intelligence you may want to make sure that you know how to type.

What's so great about Al Gore?

Well, I find him to be a very intelligent and forward-thinking man who seems to be in public service for the right reasons. I don't think he's perfect, and I don't agree with him on everything, but I really admire his committment to environmental issues in the face of a lot of unfounded ridicule and mockery. And though it doesn't matter on any important level, I think he's witty as hell, and I like how he'll take the piss out of himself on occasion. I think he would have been a kick-ass president, even though I wouldn't have wanted Lieberman as VP.

I'm not trying to start any great Al Gore debate here. I like the guy, that's all.

He was there at the start of the global warming debate back in the 70s. He is most likely the world's top expert on the subject. Surf this link then see the film. (http://www.climatecrisis.org/)

Let me guess: he's also the world's top expert on the internet, too, right? In actuality, Gore knows next to nothing about climate change but rather parrots what his liberal henchmen fabricate and distort.

2 Things:

People blow things out of proportion. Remember bird flu? The thing that would wipe humanity of earth? We hit panic buttons over nothing. Not unlike global warming. There are far too many sensationalistic scientists.

But there IS evidence for global warming. There is evidence against. Looking at the cycle thing the earth is getting warmer faster than usual. Also there is no such thing as "going like clockwork" when it comes to this planet. Do not be fooled.

So lets take the safe option ok? Its not difficult as many think to cut carbon emmisions. Ignore this problem and we risk the existence of humanity itself.

What's so great about Al Gore?

He invented the internet! :p

I think that's more or less the most insulting thing you could have posted.

About either of us. ;)

Oh, brother and sister? Scott Card fans? ;)

Just throwing this out there:

If, for sake of argument, it turns out that global warming doesn't have any effect on the planet, what will we have lost by trying to reduce carbon emissions? We'll have cleaner, more efficient vehicles and factories, and maybe a RENEWABLE alternative energy source to free us from fossil fuels and the political turmoil that they bring with them. We'll be breathing cleaner air, and not getting in random Middle Eastern wars, and not paying every last cent we have to multi-billionaire oil executives.

Yeah. Those things would be terrible. Why do these evil liberals hate America?

b*tch please, Global Warming? Don't get me started.

You think that because Oil companies et. al. earn billions in profits while 'causing global warming' that scientists magically don't need money too? Every time Timmy Thermologist spouts a new 'global warming kills babies and kittens and puppies' theory he gets more money, you think that doesn't influence things a little?

The facts are, Earth is *NOT* warming any more than it has in the past, Guess what, We're coming out of a Little Ice Age barely 500 years ago, if the global temperature wasn't rising I'd be worried.
Right now however, it's in vogue to chastise Mega-Corps and Oil companies and whatnot, that's just where problems are being laid right now, a few years back it was ZOMG El-Nino is teh eval, you ever hear about El-Nino anymore? back in 05 we were predicting that every year after Katrina hurricane season would be just as bad because ZOMG Global Warming is Teh Eval!!oneoneone111. Hear about many hurricanes this year?

But that doesn't excuse the fact that KKK-Blacks is a fool, he just happens to be a fool on the right side of an argument rather than the 'politically correct' side.

Oh, brother and sister? Scott Card fans? ;)

I liked the Ender series, sure.

But if MTAE is the same person as anyone who vehemently disagrees with him on this forum, then MTAE must have one hell of a multiple personality syndrome is all I can say...

I disagree, if this was an MTAE thread, it would be better thought out and would propose a course of action, rather than just ranting about evil, money-hungry liberal scientists. I obviously went into the wrong field after college, who knew there was so much money to be made in climatology?

Good point, he'd advocate gang raping scientists or something until they confessed that they're lying for all those fat checks you get from being a climatologist!

Let me guess: he's also the world's top expert on the internet, too, right? In actuality, Gore knows next to nothing about climate change but rather parrots what his liberal henchmen fabricate and distort.

So instead of slandering a great man that has dedicated most of his life to trying to save us from disaster, how about a scientific link that explains the New England floods, all the record breaking heat waves, more and more forrest fires every year, Katrina, Wilma and all the massave storms that have recently struck Australia, China, India and Japan, loss of ice from our glaciers that have been frozen for hundredes of thousands (if not millions) of years.

Pardon me but: Talk to da hand dude!

b*tch please, Global Warming? Don't get me started.

You think that because Oil companies et. al. earn billions in profits while 'causing global warming' that scientists magically don't need money too? Every time Timmy Thermologist spouts a new 'global warming kills babies and kittens and puppies' theory he gets more money, you think that doesn't influence things a little?

The facts are, Earth is *NOT* warming any more than it has in the past, Guess what, We're coming out of a Little Ice Age barely 500 years ago, if the global temperature wasn't rising I'd be worried.
Right now however, it's in vogue to chastise Mega-Corps and Oil companies and whatnot, that's just where problems are being laid right now, a few years back it was ZOMG El-Nino is teh eval, you ever hear about El-Nino anymore? back in 05 we were predicting that every year after Katrina hurricane season would be just as bad because ZOMG Global Warming is Teh Eval!!oneoneone111. Hear about many hurricanes this year?

But that doesn't excuse the fact that KKK-Blacks is a fool, he just happens to be a fool on the right side of an argument rather than the 'politically correct' side.

But you make it sound as if there are all these rich scientists out there. Grant money doesn't go into the guy's pocket, you know. (I do like "Timmy Thermologist," I have to admit.)

And again, simple question, whether or not human activity is causing the Earth to heat up, what's wrong with limiting carbon emissions? What would it hurt?

Rarely do lambs wander up to coyotes and demand they be torn apart.

This should be amusing.

But you make it sound as if there are all these rich scientists out there. Grant money doesn't go into the guy's pocket, you know. (I do like "Timmy Thermologist," I have to admit.)

And again, simple question, whether or not human activity is causing the Earth to heat up, what's wrong with limiting carbon emissions? What would it hurt?
It would cost money, particularly for poor countries.

The facts are, Earth is *NOT* warming any more than it has in the past,

ORLY.

So I guess you have a credible scientific source or ten that supports this contention, yes?

I assume you meant "warming at a faster rate than it has," because very obviously the temperature has been higher in the past. Global warming is not about being hotter than earth has ever been, however.


Right now however, it's in vogue to chastise Mega-Corps and Oil companies and whatnot, that's just where problems are being laid right now, a few years back it was ZOMG El-Nino is teh eval, you ever hear about El-Nino anymore?

This isn't about chastising corporations. I support economic liberty just as much, if not more, than you do. So don't try to turn this into a partisan, pro- versus anti-business BS. This is about the scientific evidence and conclusions from that.

And yeah, El Nino received a lot more press earlier. Hey, so did Afghanistan. What of it? That's a strawman. But OK, here's (http://www.pia.gov.ph/?m=12&fi=p061122.htm&no=20) some recent news about El Nino.

back in 05 we were predicting that every year after Katrina hurricane season would be just as bad because ZOMG Global Warming is Teh Eval!!oneoneone111. Hear about many hurricanes this year?


There were nine (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061122/NATION/611220379/1020) of them. But again, it seems like you're just comparing global warming with random other 'news scares' in order to make light of it based on the erroneous association. You may as well dismiss any and all news about anything, ever, since the War Of The Worlds radio broadcast damaged news credibility and hey, maybe the news you read now is just some Orson Welles nonsense eh?

It would cost money, particularly for poor countries.

The more developed countries could help. It's not an insoluble problem, if people really want to do it. Tell you what, how about the US lays off funding the Iraq war for eight days (I'm sure it'll be there when we come back) and we contribute the $2,000,000,000 to a fund to limit carbon emissions in developing nations? That's a start.

Anyway, according to the Liberal-Communist United States Government (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html):

What's Known

Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

* Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
* The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
* A warming trend of about 0.7 to 1.5°F occurred during the 20th century. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (NRC, 2001).
* The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
* Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.


I'm sure they're just a bunch of Gaia-spouting pro-terrorists or something though. ;)

Fly over CHina and watch the toxic clouds...then we speak again.

Anyway, according to the Liberal-Communist United States Government (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html):



I'm sure they're just a bunch of Gaia-spouting pro-terrorists or something though. ;)

Well, the EPA, you know, a bunch of tree-huggers. Why does that agency still exist, anyway?

Witness this, MTAE.

The truth is that the Earth is becoming warmer the lie is humans are the only reason behind the warming. The fact is that every 1500 hundred years the Earth goes through a warming cycle just like clock work. The proof is in tree rings and history for example during the dark ages the earth was 5-7 degress warmer w/o industry. The fact is follow the money, the money is being sent in huge amounts of grants givin to scientist evey time they warn about our impending doom. The european nations have been manipulated to believe that humans are causing global warming. Yet I say follow the money; Even the great Dr Gray from the U of Colorado dismisses the idea of humans causing warming. The facts are in front of you open your eyes so that you want be manipulated by the left wing media. Even the green man Al Gore is an oximoran since his private jet causes more pollutants on one trip than a factory in one month.:upyours:

versus

The truth is that the Earth is becoming warmer. The lie is that humans are the only reason behind the warming. The fact is that every 15,000 years the Earth goes through a warming cycle, just like clock work. The proof is in tree rings and history. For example, during the Dark Ages, the earth was five to seven degress warmer without industry. Follow the money. The money is being sent to scientists in huge grants every time they warn about our impending doom. The European nations have been manipulated to believe that humans are causing global warming. Yet, I say "follow the money." Even the great Dr. Gray from the University of Colorado dismisses the idea that humans cause global warming. The facts are in front of you. Open your eyes so that you are not manipulated by the left-wing media. Even the "green man" Al Gore is an hypocrite, since his private jet causes pollutes more on one trip than a factory does in one month.

Now, ignoring the ridiculous content, which paragraph looks more respectable? Be honest, for once in your damn life.

you ever hear about El-Nino anymore? back in 05 we were predicting that every year after Katrina hurricane season would be just as bad because ZOMG Global Warming is Teh Eval!!oneoneone111. Hear about many hurricanes this year?



The reason we had fewer hurricanes this year is due to an unscheduled el-nino that is currently underway. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2699.htm Other parts of the globe sure got the smackdown though.

yes! a thread about global warming! that means I get to post this picture:

http://www.tfheaven.free-online.co.uk/modernparents.jpg




or not. piece of shit forum.

ORLY.

So I guess you have a credible scientific source or ten that supports this contention, yes?

I assume you meant "warming at a faster rate than it has," because very obviously the temperature has been higher in the past. Global warming is not about being hotter than earth has ever been, however.



This isn't about chastising corporations. I support economic liberty just as much, if not more, than you do. So don't try to turn this into a partisan, pro- versus anti-business BS. This is about the scientific evidence and conclusions from that.

And yeah, El Nino received a lot more press earlier. Hey, so did Afghanistan. What of it? That's a strawman. But OK, here's (http://www.pia.gov.ph/?m=12&fi=p061122.htm&no=20) some recent news about El Nino.



There were nine (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061122/NATION/611220379/1020) of them. But again, it seems like you're just comparing global warming with random other 'news scares' in order to make light of it based on the erroneous association. You may as well dismiss any and all news about anything, ever, since the War Of The Worlds radio broadcast damaged news credibility and hey, maybe the news you read now is just some Orson Welles nonsense eh?

Oh noes, there were NINE Hurricanes this hurricane season!!! ZOMG global warming must be teh true! How many Hurricanes were there last year? How many Force 3-4 hurricanes came ashore this year? Not nearly as many as '05.
This isn't some erroneous comparison to past news scares, this is the Media and climatologists making predictions based on global warming that did not materialize.

I have yet to see credible evidence that right now the earth is warming faster than it ever has, and I have yet to see credible evidence that if it was doing any such thing that that would mean anything. I won't say that perhaps, in the case that things may be going slightly sour, that 'emissions' wouldn't be at least partially to blame, but we're going to run out of fossil fuel before we produce enough CFCs et. al. to do significant damage to the environment above and beyond what would naturally occur.

But you make it sound as if there are all these rich scientists out there. Grant money doesn't go into the guy's pocket, you know. (I do like "Timmy Thermologist," I have to admit.)

And again, simple question, whether or not human activity is causing the Earth to heat up, what's wrong with limiting carbon emissions? What would it hurt?

Grant money doesn't go directly into our Timmy's pockets, but he has to make money from somewhere and at the end of the year there will be a direct relationship between the amount of grant money accrued and what income he reports on his tax forms.
There's also a much more direct relationship between how much grant money he gets and how many newfangled toys and instruments he gets to buy for his lab.
And really, there's nothing wrong with limiting carbon emissions nothing at all, infact I support efforts to limit carbon emissions, but its not because of global warming, pollution causes plenty of problems for the environment without having to drag out the 'global warming' scare tactic, thats the kind of uninformed scare-mongering that brought us enviro-nuts that won't let us build new, cleaner, safer nuclear reactors because ZOMG nukes are teh big bad, but won't let us tear down the aging, could go critical any day now reactors that really are just as bad as they claim the latest generation of reactors would be.

Mondoth: For cutting Carbon Emissions, Against Media Scare Tactics.

Oh noes, there were NINE Hurricanes this hurricane season!!! ZOMG global warming must be teh true! How many Hurricanes were there last year? How many Force 3-4 hurricanes came ashore this year? Not nearly as many as '05.

Oh how interesting a strawman you're still harping on!


This isn't some erroneous comparison to past news scares, this is the Media and climatologists making predictions based on global warming that did not materialize.

Yeah, the media. like the Environmental Protection Agency of the US Government. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html Wake up.

Anyway, according to the Liberal-Communist United States Government (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html):



I'm sure they're just a bunch of Gaia-spouting pro-terrorists or something though. ;)

I like the last one * Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet. How do they know this? Have the gone to other planets and looked at what happens when you add greenhouse gasses to a planet undergoing a natural heating cycle, and one that is undergoing a natural cooling cycle, an then examined control planets for both conditions that haven't had greenhouse gasses added?

This isn't the scientific method, this is a bunch of people who should no better making claims they can't back up with sufficient evidence. You can't conclusively prove that green-house gasses have any effect on warming trends without doing extensive studies with control groups etc. Sure, greenhouses gasses are bad, they kill the ozone and whatnot, thats a fact we can prove it because you can put greenhouse gasses and ozone into a little box and greenhouse gasses come out but ozone doesn't (simplified of course). We don't need you to tack on little theories and stuff to make this thing any worse than it already is.

Global Warming: Global Disaster is nothing more than the scientific community (a usually relatively un-noticed part of it anyway) taking advantage of a media blitz and the current accepted standard of heaping problems on Corporations. Its a vicious cycle.

EDIT: Anyway, why are we talking about global warming, I thought it was creationist season on NSG, I have to get a new NSG argument trends calendar.

Oh how interesting a strawman you're still harping on!
If the big storms of 2005 were evidence, then the dearth of storms in 2006 is evidence. Pick one.

I have yet to see credible evidence that right now the earth is warming faster than it ever has, and I have yet to see credible evidence that if it was doing any such thing that that would mean anything.

Then Google the words "Global Warming" you will get nearly 25 million links. Plenty of eveidence there. (notice that the links that prove global warming are based on research and expiditions while the ones that say there is no problem use such terms as "left wingers" and offer shit for evidence. Maybe I'm wrong. I didn't click all 25 million of them. Good luck and good hunting! ;)

Then Google the words "Global Warming" you will get nearly 25 million links. Plenty of eveidence there. (notice that the links that prove global warming are based on research and expiditions while the ones that say there is no problem use such terms as "left wingers" and offer shit for evidence. Maybe I'm wrong. I didn't click all 25 million of them. Good luck and good hunting! ;)

Oh I see plenty of evidence that the Earth is warming, I see little evidence that it is doing so any 'faster' than normal.

I like the last one How do they know this? Have the gone to other planets and looked at what happens when you add greenhouse gasses to a planet undergoing a natural heating cycle, and one that is undergoing a natural cooling cycle, an then examined control planets for both conditions that haven't had greenhouse gasses added?

Venus is an excellent example of the Greenhouse gas effect.

I have yet to see credible evidence that right now the earth is warming faster than it ever has, and I have yet to see credible evidence that if it was doing any such thing that that would mean anything. I won't say that perhaps, in the case that things may be going slightly sour, that 'emissions' wouldn't be at least partially to blame, but we're going to run out of fossil fuel before we produce enough CFCs et. al. to do significant damage to the environment above and beyond what would naturally occur.

... thats the kind of uninformed scare-mongering that brought us enviro-nuts that won't let us build new, cleaner, safer nuclear reactors because ZOMG nukes are teh big bad, but won't let us tear down the aging, could go critical any day now reactors that really are just as bad as they claim the latest generation of reactors would be.



We shouldn't build ANY more nuclear reactors until we find a safe, practical solution to disposing of the waste. And even without the radiation, nuclear plants aren't a practical solution to the energy problem. Uranium is still a limited natural resource, particularly the 'hot' stuff. And then what do we do with all the depleted uranium besides using it to make bullets to shoot civilians?

In general, I'd agree with you about the media being ridiculous. In my opinion, they give WAY too attention to the "ooh! controversy!" aspect of global warming, and NOT ENOUGH to the "We need to fix this stuff, and here's how we can do it" bits.

*snip*

Grant money doesn't go directly into our Timmy's pockets, but he has to make money from somewhere and at the end of the year there will be a direct relationship between the amount of grant money accrued and what income he reports on his tax forms.
There's also a much more direct relationship between how much grant money he gets and how many newfangled toys and instruments he gets to buy for his lab.
And really, there's nothing wrong with limiting carbon emissions nothing at all, infact I support efforts to limit carbon emissions, but its not because of global warming, pollution causes plenty of problems for the environment without having to drag out the 'global warming' scare tactic, thats the kind of uninformed scare-mongering that brought us enviro-nuts that won't let us build new, cleaner, safer nuclear reactors because ZOMG nukes are teh big bad, but won't let us tear down the aging, could go critical any day now reactors that really are just as bad as they claim the latest generation of reactors would be.

Mondoth: For cutting Carbon Emissions, Against Media Scare Tactics.

Timmy gets paid by his University, not from the grant money. He might get a raise if he's particularly good at bringing in the grants, but that money goes for the fancy equipment and toys and cute graduate students, not to Timmy's pay.

I think we agree on the need to curb pollution but not on whether Global Warming is a media scare tactic. You think it is, I don't. But would you agree that sometimes people need to be scared just a little to make them do something that needs doing? I know that a visit from my parents always scared me into cleaning my apartment when I was younger.

It would cost money, particularly for poor countries.

In the short run, yes. However in the longrun, new tech= lower costs. Basic micro econ.

The good news is with Pelosi in, it looks like we at least will start to talk about fighting Climate Change. So, deniers will have to deal with it.

Oh I see plenty of evidence that the Earth is warming, I see little evidence that it is doing so any 'faster' than normal.

So in a sense, you are suggesting that the world temperature has been this hot before? If it has then how come the polar bears didn't become extinct long ago from starvation and drowning (like they are now) Why is ice that has been frozen for hundreds of thousands of years, just now melting? Why the record breaking heat waves and the other signs I mentioned a few posts up? The world IS getting hotter than normal and we did it: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20060925/

Another interesting fact: Back in the bad old days of the PETM (paleocene-eocene thermal maximum, the point of the highest known temperatures on earth within the last 70 million years) the oceans got so acidic that many ocean animals that rely upon calcium carbonate et al to build shells went extinct. Want to guess what's happening now? The oceans are getting so acidic many coral animals are becoming endangered.


Not good.

Another interesting fact: Back in the bad old days of the PETM (paleocene-eocene thermal maximum, the point of the highest known temperatures on earth within the last 70 million years) the oceans got so acidic that many ocean animals that rely upon calcium carbonate et al to build shells went extinct. Want to guess what's happening now? The oceans are getting so acidic many coral animals are becoming endangered.


Not good.

Plankton-hugger. :p

Oh noes, there were NINE Hurricanes this hurricane season!!! ZOMG global warming must be teh true! How many Hurricanes were there last year? How many Force 3-4 hurricanes came ashore this year? Not nearly as many as '05.

Because 2006 was an El Nino/Souther Oscillation (ENSO) year. One of the joys of the changing climate over the last 150 years has been the increasingly erratic nature (in terms of both size and timing) of ENSO events.


And really, there's nothing wrong with limiting carbon emissions nothing at all, infact I support efforts to limit carbon emissions, but its not because of global warming, pollution causes plenty of problems for the environment without having to drag out the 'global warming' scare tactic,

Except that carbon dioxide is not pollution per se, but is a cause of anthropogenic climate change.


thats the kind of uninformed scare-mongering that brought us enviro-nuts that won't let us build new, cleaner, safer nuclear reactors because ZOMG nukes are teh big bad, but won't let us tear down the aging, could go critical any day now reactors that really are just as bad as they claim the latest generation of reactors would be.

The main reason for not building new nuclear reactors is it is uneconomical unless the government assumes some of the costs and all of the risks. It's not scaremongering by the environmental movement ... if it weren't for the nuclear liability act, the nuclear industry would be unable to get insurance, or would only be able to get it at such a cost that it would put them out of business.

The truth is that the Earth is becoming warmer the lie is humans are the only reason behind the warming.

I don't know anyone arguing that humans are the only cause of warming. But they are the main cause.


The fact is that every 1500 hundred years the Earth goes through a warming cycle just like clock work.

Really? Even during the ice ages? Citation?


The proof is in tree rings and history for example during the dark ages the earth was 5-7 degress warmer w/o industry.

The medieval warm period was only 3-5 degrees warmer, and only in certain parts of Europe. It was a regional, not global phenomenon and barely affected the global average temperature.

So in a sense, you are suggesting that the world temperature has been this hot before? If it has then how come the polar bears didn't become extinct long ago from starvation and drowning (like they are now) Why is ice that has been frozen for hundreds of thousands of years, just now melting? Why the record breaking heat waves and the other signs I mentioned a few posts up? The world IS getting hotter than normal and we did it: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20060925/
So... What your saying is, that the earth is going to be hotter than it ever has in the history of the planet? Ice that has been frozen for hundreds of thousands of years hasn't been frozen for 4.5 billion years, Polar Bears weren't around back then either. Show me a chart of the record high average temperatures since the creation of the earth and We won't even be close yet.
Did you even read that link?
A new study by NASA scientists finds that the world's temperature is reaching a level that has not been seen in thousands of years.
They aren't saying we're warmer now than ever, we're saying we're warmer now than ever before during the current interglacial period, there's no data there on temperatures during other interglacial periods, ALl the evidence points to is that its hotter now than it has been in a really long time, not that we're hotter now than ever before int he natural history of the planet.


Except that carbon dioxide is not pollution per se, but is a cause of anthropogenic climate change.


The main reason for not building new nuclear reactors is it is uneconomical unless the government assumes some of the costs and all of the risks. It's not scaremongering by the environmental movement ... if it weren't for the nuclear liability act, the nuclear industry would be unable to get insurance, or would only be able to get it at such a cost that it would put them out of business.

I get why not to build new nuclear reactors, but why do the same people who show up in droves to protest the possibility of a nuclear reactor being built, also show up in droves at the possibility of a nuclear reactor being decommissioned, I'm not talking about the facts this is fraking scaremongering.

And carbon emissions are pollution, they kill the ozone, they increase incidents of asthma and some lung cancers, these are things we can prove, global warming ... not so much.

I don't know anyone arguing that humans are the only cause of warming. But they are the main cause.

I don't think so. The eruption of Mount Pinatubo put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than mankind has since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. To say that mankind is a major cause of global warming is total bunk. There is no scientific evidence. And remember that the computer models being used to predict global warming are the same models that predicted catastrophic global cooling in the 1970's.

So... What your saying is, that the earth is going to be hotter than it ever has in the history of the planet? Ice that has been frozen for hundreds of thousands of years hasn't been frozen for 4.5 billion years, Polar Bears weren't around back then either. Show me a chart of the record high average temperatures since the creation of the earth and We won't even be close yet.
Did you even read that link?

They aren't saying we're warmer now than ever, we're saying we're warmer now than ever before during the current interglacial period, there's no data there on temperatures during other interglacial periods, ALl the evidence points to is that its hotter now than it has been in a really long time, not that we're hotter now than ever before int he natural history of the planet.


But people were not driving cars and smokestacks were not smoking 12,000 years ago.

You said the world is not warming faster than normal. My link proved you to be in error.

Grant money doesn't go directly into our Timmy's pockets, but he has to make money from somewhere and at the end of the year there will be a direct relationship between the amount of grant money accrued and what income he reports on his tax forms.
There's also a much more direct relationship between how much grant money he gets and how many newfangled toys and instruments he gets to buy for his lab.

Grant money doesn't go anywhere near Timmy's pockets, unless Timmy would like to be prosecuted for embezzlement. Grants are not given to Timmy. Grants are given to Timmy's university or research facility, to be used in funding Timmy's research. As for the "newfangled toys," you must realize that the purpose of gaining further scientific equipment is very specifically to enhance one's ability to engage in scientific research. Why the hell would Timmy want new equipment if all Timmy intended to do was lounge around the lab making up pernicious liberal lies?

Honestly, given the near-absolute unity of the scientific community on the issue of global warming, wouldn't it be a wee bit more sane to figure that maybe the experts know what they're talking about than to assume the existence of a vast global conspiracy of insane, unsuccessfully-money-grubbing scientists out to take over the world by means of such vicious tricks as suggesting alternate energy sources?

I don't think so. The eruption of Mount Pinatubo put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than mankind has since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. To say that mankind is a major cause of global warming is total bunk. There is no scientific evidence. And remember that the computer models being used to predict global warming are the same models that predicted catastrophic global cooling in the 1970's.

So often said, so very wrong:

http://zfacts.com/p/194.html
http://volcanology.geol.ucsb.edu/gas.htm

Grant money doesn't go anywhere near Timmy's pockets, unless Timmy would like to be prosecuted for embezzlement. Grants are not given to Timmy. Grants are given to Timmy's university or research facility, to be used in funding Timmy's research. As for the "newfangled toys," you must realize that the purpose of gaining further scientific equipment is very specifically to enhance one's ability to engage in scientific research. Why the hell would Timmy want new equipment if all Timmy intended to do was lounge around the lab making up pernicious liberal lies?

Honestly, given the near-absolute unity of the scientific community on the issue of global warming, wouldn't it be a wee bit more sane to figure that maybe the experts know what they're talking about than to assume the existence of a vast global conspiracy of insane, unsuccessfully-money-grubbing scientists out to take over the world by means of such vicious tricks as suggesting alternate energy sources?
Of course Timmy doesn't directly recieve any money from grants, but he has a salary dependent on how much interest he generates for work he is doing, measured in grant money. The More scientific toys Timmy has, the More research he can do,t he more research he does, the more information he finds out, the more information he finds out, the more papers he writes, If people think that the papers he writes are something that need to be followed up on, they give his university more money so they can keep him employed and by him new toys. Scientists are not salary workers whose pay is dependent soley on the quality of their work/length of employment etc. their pay is dependent on how interesting to the public the research they are doing is in terms of how much money they can make for their university.

If history has taught us anything, it is that when scientists universally agree on something they are wrong.
To Quote a good sci-fi movie Everything they've ever "known" has been proven to be wrong. A thousand years ago everybody knew as a fact, that the earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, they knew it was flat. Fifteen minutes ago, you knew we humans were alone on it. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

But people were not driving cars and smokestacks were not smoking 12,000 years ago.

You said the world is not warming faster than normal. My link proved you to be in error.

Your link does no such thing, all it says is that earth is hotter now than it has been in 12000 years, not that it is getting there any faster than it did the last time.

If history has taught us anything, it is that when scientists universally agree on something they are wrong.


Um...that's an asinine statement. But I guess that's what happens in a culture where intelligent discussion of science and politics takes place mainly on bumper stickers.

Of course Timmy doesn't directly recieve any money from grants, but he has a salary dependent on how much interest he generates for work he is doing, measured in grant money. The More scientific toys Timmy has, the More research he can do,t he more research he does, the more information he finds out, the more information he finds out, the more papers he writes, If people think that the papers he writes are something that need to be followed up on, they give his university more money so they can keep him employed and by him new toys. Scientists are not salary workers whose pay is dependent soley on the quality of their work/length of employment etc. their pay is dependent on how interesting to the public the research they are doing is in terms of how much money they can make for their university."Interesting to the public"? That's not how the game works. :rolleyes:

Your link does no such thing, all it says is that earth is hotter now than it has been in 12000 years, not that it is getting there any faster than it did the last time.

Quotes from link:

"The Earth has been warming at at the remarkably rapid rate of 0.36 degrees F. per decade for the last 30 years."

"This evedence implies that we are getting close to dangerous levels of human made polution"

What part(s) of that do you not understand?

It is interesting though that those who say they want alternative energy sources (esp. environmentalists) oppose a solution everytime one is offered. Just look up the Sunrise Powerlink, which is going to be bringing energy created by solar power to San Diego. But because it crosses the Anza-Borrego ( a frggin dessert!) the greenies are upset. And rather than propose an alternative they adopt the politicians tactic of "it's bad". Same thing with global warming, propose workable alternatives (don't even get me started on the idiocy of Kyoto).

As far as a majority of scientists, NOT! The scientific community is just as divided as everyone else over this issue. An as for the environmentalist movement, it was hijacked in the late 70's by those with a highly political agenda, a reason the co-founder of Greenpeace left.

It is interesting though that those who say they want alternative energy sources (esp. environmentalists) oppose a solution everytime one is offered. Just look up the Sunrise Powerlink, which is going to be bringing energy created by solar power to San Diego. But because it crosses the Anza-Borrego ( a frggin dessert!) the greenies are upset. And rather than propose an alternative they adopt the politicians tactic of "it's bad". Same thing with global warming, propose workable alternatives (don't even get me started on the idiocy of Kyoto).

As far as a majority of scientists, NOT! The scientific community is just as divided as everyone else over this issue. An as for the environmentalist movement, it was hijacked in the late 70's by those with a highly political agenda, a reason the co-founder of Greenpeace left.

Find me ten scientists with no connection to an oil company that disagrees with human induced climate change. An old request but a goodie.

Of course Timmy doesn't directly recieve any money from grants, but he has a salary dependent on how much interest he generates for work he is doing, measured in grant money. The More scientific toys Timmy has, the More research he can do,t he more research he does, the more information he finds out, the more information he finds out, the more papers he writes, If people think that the papers he writes are something that need to be followed up on, they give his university more money so they can keep him employed and by him new toys. Scientists are not salary workers whose pay is dependent soley on the quality of their work/length of employment etc. their pay is dependent on how interesting to the public the research they are doing is in terms of how much money they can make for their university.


First of all, you credit universities with far too much generosity and not quite enough common sense. Very few employers give raises solely based on something as silly and variable as one's interest to the public. Getting a grant in no way guarantees getting a raise. (And, of course, being "interesting" has little to do with getting a grant, and thank goodness for it.)

Second of all, you still have not explained why any scientist would want new research equipment if not to use said equipment to do research. If Timmy is just sitting around inventing results he thinks people want to hear, what does he care what equipment he's not using?

Third, why, if the only reason to espouse a theory is to get grant money, would retired scientists, scientists in related fields, scientists not currently engaged in direct research, scientists who have gone into administrative/teaching work, and so on and so forth all support the same theories as those scientists engaged in current research? They get no monetary benefit from doing so. They get no fame from doing so. Heck, they'd get a lot more money and fame from publishing silly books about how global warming is all a big fat lie, but for some odd reason, they keep maintaining that it's not. Why do they do that, do you think?

And, fourth, do any of you conspiracy theorists have any idea how science works? When you publish a paper, it's not a freaking essay in which you state your opinion. You provide hard facts. Many people specifically check your hard facts. Many people replicate your hard facts. Peer review does not entail just rubber-stamping someone's thoughts on a subject; it involves an awful lot of strangers with no conceivable reason to lie for each other agreeing that, yes, the facts contained herein are demonstrably true. If you'd like to explain how, exactly, every paper ever published on mankind's contributions to global warming has been part of a vast conspiracy, and precisely what benefits all the members of this conspiracy are gaining by perpetuating it, you're welcome to do so. I suspect it'll be just a wee bit difficult, though...

Quotes from link:

"The Earth has been warming at at the remarkably rapid rate of 0.36 degrees F. per decade for the last 30 years."

"This evedence implies that we are getting close to dangerous levels of human made polution"

What part of that do you not understand?

Dragontide, it's a semantic argument. What he (or she, sorry) is saying is that your link does not EXPLICITLY say that the Earth is getting warmer at the ABSOLUTE fastest rate EVER. And Mondoth is correct in saying that there is no sentence on that page that, again, EXPLICITLY says that the Earth has never gotten warmer THIS quickly.

The fact that it emphasizes the "rapid" nature of this warming trend about, oh, eight million times is hardly relevant, I suppose.

It is interesting though that those who say they want alternative energy sources (esp. environmentalists) oppose a solution everytime one is offered. Just look up the Sunrise Powerlink, which is going to be bringing energy created by solar power to San Diego. But because it crosses the Anza-Borrego ( a frggin dessert!) the greenies are upset. And rather than propose an alternative they adopt the politicians tactic of "it's bad". Same thing with global warming, propose workable alternatives (don't even get me started on the idiocy of Kyoto). Kyoto unworkable? It's being implemented right now, that proves you wrong.
As far as a majority of scientists, NOT! The scientific community is just as divided as everyone else over this issue. There wasn't a single article in a peer reviewed journal that denied that humans were a major cause of global warming in a sampling study done at the university of San Diego covering about 10% of all articles on the issue of global warming. The scientific community may be divided on the issue, but not like "everyone else".
An as for the environmentalist movement, it was hijacked in the late 70's by those with a highly political agenda, a reason the co-founder of Greenpeace left.Greenpeace is hardly representative for the environmentalist movement.

Find me ten scientists with no connection to an oil company that disagrees with human induced climate change. An old request but a goodie.I'm sure there's plenty that work for coal-fired utilities.

I'm sure there's plenty that work for coal-fired utilities.

...alright... alright...

but my point stands

It is interesting though that those who say they want alternative energy sources (esp. environmentalists) oppose a solution everytime one is offered. Just look up the Sunrise Powerlink, which is going to be bringing energy created by solar power to San Diego. But because it crosses the Anza-Borrego ( a frggin dessert!) the greenies are upset. And rather than propose an alternative they adopt the politicians tactic of "it's bad". Same thing with global warming, propose workable alternatives (don't even get me started on the idiocy of Kyoto).

Whenever man places another powerline, freeway, or railroad track into the middle of a natural environment, it fragments the environment. Some creatures are not going to be able to get past said obstacle, and are then confined to smaller and smaller areas as people put in more and more obstacles. Habitat fragmentation limits the reproductive possibilities of a species, forcing an animal to find a mate within a smaller group. This ultimately weakens the species for obvious biological reasons. Weaken a species too much, and they go the way of the passenger pigeon.

This reduces biodiversity.

Reducing biodiversity is a Bad Thing.

This is Intro to Environmental Science level stuff. It's not terribly complicated to understand the "greenies."

First of all, you credit universities with far too much generosity and not quite enough common sense. Very few employers give raises solely based on something as silly and variable as one's interest to the public. Getting a grant in no way guarantees getting a raise. (And, of course, being "interesting" has little to do with getting a grant, and thank goodness for it.)

Second of all, you still have not explained why any scientist would want new research equipment if not to use said equipment to do research. If Timmy is just sitting around inventing results he thinks people want to hear, what does he care what equipment he's not using?

Third, why, if the only reason to espouse a theory is to get grant money, would retired scientists, scientists in related fields, scientists not currently engaged in direct research, scientists who have gone into administrative/teaching work, and so on and so forth all support the same theories as those scientists engaged in current research? They get no monetary benefit from doing so. They get no fame from doing so. Heck, they'd get a lot more money and fame from publishing silly books about how global warming is all a big fat lie, but for some odd reason, they keep maintaining that it's not. Why do they do that, do you think?

And, fourth, do any of you conspiracy theorists have any idea how science works? When you publish a paper, it's not a freaking essay in which you state your opinion. You provide hard facts. Many people specifically check your hard facts. Many people replicate your hard facts. Peer review does not entail just rubber-stamping someone's thoughts on a subject; it involves an awful lot of strangers with no conceivable reason to lie for each other agreeing that, yes, the facts contained herein are demonstrably true. If you'd like to explain how, exactly, every paper ever published on mankind's contributions to global warming has been part of a vast conspiracy, and precisely what benefits all the members of this conspiracy are gaining by perpetuating it, you're welcome to do so. I suspect it'll be just a wee bit difficult, though...

Okay then, how do Scientists make money? They are people, they need money, sure they might not 'see a dime of the grant money their research generate (and they are researching) except as 'toys' but a university A) is going to pay scientists more that are more productive and B) and more likely not to fire scientists that produce much grant money.

Scientists research and then they present the evidence found in their research in a way that will gain them grant money, because for whatever reason they do like their grants. If that data happens to be able to support 'global warming' with just a little bit of inflammatory wording to get more grant money, so much the better.

Dragontide, it's a semantic argument. What he (or she, sorry) is saying is that your link does not EXPLICITLY say that the Earth is getting warmer at the ABSOLUTE fastest rate EVER. And Mondoth is correct in saying that there is no sentence on that page that, again, EXPLICITLY says that the Earth has never gotten warmer THIS quickly.

The fact that it emphasizes the "rapid" nature of this warming trend about, oh, eight million times is hardly relevant, I suppose.

Rapid compared to what? I walk rapidly, a snail is rapid compared to a tree, the fact that they say rapidly means nothing, but they do emphasize the fact that the temperature is hotter than it has been in a while, but while they say rapid a lot and they never say more rapid than before.

Okay then, how do Scientists make money? They are people, they need money, sure they might not 'see a dime of the grant money their research generate (and they are researching) except as 'toys' but a university A) is going to pay scientists more that are more productive and B) and more likely not to fire scientists that produce much grant money.

Scientists research and then they present the evidence found in their research in a way that will gain them grant money, because for whatever reason they do like their grants. If that data happens to be able to support 'global warming' with just a little bit of inflammatory wording to get more grant money, so much the better.So who are these "granters" that are trying to push the global warming agenda?

Rapid compared to what? I walk rapidly, a snail is rapid compared to a tree, the fact that they say rapidly means nothing, but they do emphasize the fact that the temperature is hotter than it has been in a while, but while they say rapid a lot and they never say more rapid than before.Semantics bullshit.

Find me ten scientists with no connection to an oil company that disagrees with human induced climate change. An old request but a goodie.

You got it, slick. Here's 11.

Mike Hulme: Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Director, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
Dr. William Grey, Colorado State University
Dr Robert C. Bailing, Jr., Arizona State University
Dr. Roy Spencer, Unversity of Alabama, Huntsville, NASA
Dr. Patrick Michael, University of Virginia, Virginia State Climatologist
Claude Allègre, Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, Pulkovo Astronomic Observatory
Bob Carter, James Cook University, Australia
Roger A. Pielke, Sr., The Pielke Research Group, Senior Research Scientist, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), Colorado State University
Konstantinos M. Andreadis, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington
Dennis P. Lettenmaier, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington


Among them some of the leading climatologists in the world.

Next!

Dr. Patrick Michael, University of Virginia, Virginia State ClimatologistYour list is outdated. Not only is his name wrong, he's not the State Climatologist anymore and happens to be a liar (http://users.adelphia.net/~studenthonor/).

Okay then, how do Scientists make money? They are people, they need money, sure they might not 'see a dime of the grant money their research generate (and they are researching) except as 'toys' but a university A) is going to pay scientists more that are more productive and B) and more likely not to fire scientists that produce much grant money.

Scientists research and then they present the evidence found in their research in a way that will gain them grant money, because for whatever reason they do like their grants. If that data happens to be able to support 'global warming' with just a little bit of inflammatory wording to get more grant money, so much the better.



Hey, thanks for ignoring most of my points! :p

So let's add a point five: federal grants come from the federal government. Given that, for the past several years, the power in the federal government has rested with people who would dearly like to believe that global warming is a load of hokey, wouldn't it seem that a more effective way of getting cash out of them would be to espouse that position? Funny how all these scientists keep sticking to the "wrong" position when the "right" one would be both more "interesting to the public" and more likely to win favors from the people in charge of where your tax dollars go. You'd almost think those scientists actually believed their position to be correct, wouldn't you?

And how about a nice alternative reason why scientists like getting grants, and one rather more plausible than "they really want equipment they don't actually want to use" or "they're secretly planning to embezzle grant money away from the people actually receiving it": scientists actually want to engage in scientific research! I know it sounds crazy, to think that people might actually want to learn things and inform themselves and others about the world around them, but I assure you that some of us actually enjoy the pursuit of knowledge. ;)

I heart irony.


Blast. You beat me to it. And it already had the words in my head.

Laerod, your link proves nothing. It's a petition signed by a bunch of students with unfounded allegations. It proves nothing.

As for a consensus among scientists, there is none. Case in point the Oregon Petition.

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

The Leipzig Declaration:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipzig_Declaration

And I'm sure there are more. Scientists have not agreed or come to consensus on this issue, and probably never will. So for the mainstream media and politicians like Al Gore to say such things is false and misleading.

Don't believe what the media tells you, do your own research, and look at both sides.

You got it, slick. Here's 11.

Mike Hulme: Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Director, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
Dr. William Grey, Colorado State University
Dr Robert C. Bailing, Jr., Arizona State University
Dr. Roy Spencer, Unversity of Alabama, Huntsville, NASA
Dr. Patrick Michael, University of Virginia, Virginia State Climatologist
Claude Allègre, Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, Pulkovo Astronomic Observatory
Bob Carter, James Cook University, Australia
Roger A. Pielke, Sr., The Pielke Research Group, Senior Research Scientist, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), Colorado State University
Konstantinos M. Andreadis, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington
Dennis P. Lettenmaier, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington


Among them some of the leading climatologists in the world.

Next!

Hmmm...I just looked up Mike Hulme at the Tyndall Centre-- haven't gotten to the others yet-- but from what the intro to one of his reports says, I don't see where he is denying that human activity (increased carbon emissions) lead to global warming.

Can you give more than just a list of names? Or read through this and explain it to me?

http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/briefing_notes/note01.shtml

Blast. You beat me to it. And it already had the words in my head.

Well, I'm glad someone else noticed it.

Laerod, your link proves nothing. It's a petition signed by a bunch of students with unfounded allegations. It proves nothing.If they were unfounded, we wouldn't be going to President Casteen to review him.

As for a consensus among scientists, there is none. Case in point the Oregon Petition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
Because of various criticisms made of the two Leipzig Declarations, the Oregon Petition Project claimed to adopt a number of measures, though none of these claims have been independently verified:

* The petitioners could submit responses only by physical mail, not electronic mail. But older signatures submitted via the web were not removed.
* Signatories to the petition were requested to list an academic degree; 86% did list a degree; petitioners claimed that approximately two thirds held higher degrees, but never provided evidence confirming this claim.
* Petitioners were also requested to list their academic discipline; the petition sponsors claimed that 13% were trained in physical or environmental sciences (physics, geophysics, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, or environmental science) while 25% were trained in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, or other life sciences, but never provided evidence to support this claim.
* The Petition Project claimed that it avoided any funding or association with the energy industries, but many of the scientists who signed the petition are closely affiliated with organizations funded by Exxon and others to discredit legitimate climate science, such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Myron Ebell and the Cooler Heads Coalition's Patrick Michaels.

The term "scientists" is often used in describing signatories, but the petition [7] did not require signatories to have a degree, or a degree in a scientific field, or to be working in the field in which the signatory had received a degree. The signatory was not asked to provide the name of his/her current or last employer or job. The distribution of petitions was relatively uncontrolled: those receiving the petition could check a line that said "send more petition cards for me to distribute".

In 2005, Scientific American reported: [8]

Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.

One newspaper reporter said, in 2005:[9]

In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?

The Leipzig Declaration:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipzig_Declaration
Signatures

According to the SEPP website, there were 79 signatures to the 1995 declaration, including Frederick Seitz: the current SEPP chair. The signature list was last updated on July 16, 1996. Of these 79, 33 failed to respond when the SEPP asked them to sign the 1997 declaration. The SEPP calls the signatories "nearly 100 climate experts".

The signatures to the 1995 declaration were disputed by David Olinger of the St. Petersburg Times. In an article on July 29, 1996, he revealed that many signers, including Chauncey Starr, Robert Balling, and Patrick Michaels, have received funding from the oil industry, while others had no scientific training or could not be identified.

The 1995 declarations begins: "As scientists, we are intensely interested in the possibility that human activities may affect the global climate". However, those identified as scientists and climate experts include at least ten weather presenters, including Dick Groeber of Dick's Weather Service in Springfield, Ohio. Groeber, who had not completed a university degree, labelled himself a scientist by virtue of his thirty to forty years of self-study.

In any case, it is difficult to accurately evaluate the list of signatures of the 1995 declaration, as the SEPP website provides no additional details about them except for their university, if they are professors.
Signatures

The declaration begins: "As independent scientists concerned with atmospheric and climate problems, we...". As with the 1995 declaration, questions have been raised about the scientific background of the signers, and others have questioned the degree to which they can be deemed to be independent. Because many of those who signed the 1997 declaration also signed the 1995 declaration, the concerns raised by David Olinger and others after the 1995 declaration are still relevant.

The signers are generally described by Fred Singer and his supporters as climate scientists, although the current signers also include 25 weather presenters. One key report opposing the scientific credentials of the signers was a Danish Broadcasting Company TV special by Øjvind Hesselager. Hesselager attempted to contact the declaration's 33 European signers and found that four of them could not be located, twelve denied ever having signed, and some had not even heard of the Leipzig Declaration. Those who verified signing included a medical doctor, a nuclear scientist, and an entomologist. After discounting the signers whose credentials were inflated, irrelevant, false, or unverifiable, Hesselager claimed that only 20 of the names on the list had any scientific connection with the study of climate change, and some of those names were known to have obtained grants from the oil and fuel industry, including the German coal industry and the government of Kuwait (a major oil exporter). As a result of Hesselager's report, Singer removed some, but not all, of the discredited signatures. The number of signatures on the document, according to the SEPP's own press releases, has declined from 140 (according to a December 1997 press release) to 105 (as of February 2003).

The SEPP's position is that "a few of the original signers did not have the 'proper' academic credentials - even though they understand the scientific climate issues quite well. To avoid this kind of smear, we want to restrict the Leipzig Declaration to signers with impeccable qualifications." To address the signer credibility issue, the SEPP has provided considerably more information about each signer on their website and lists the weather presenters separately from the other signers.

And I'm sure there are more. Scientists have not agreed or come to consensus on this issue, and probably never will. So for the mainstream media and politicians like Al Gore to say such things is false and misleading.Yes, I'm sure there's a geologist or two with an opinion on climate change.
Don't believe what the media tells you, do your own research, and look at both sides.It would be nice if you stuck to that and didn't just give it lip service.

Don't believe what the media tells you, do your own research, and look at both sides.

Yep, I'm doing my own research, 'cause yours is crap. I checked out more on Mike Hulme-- he takes carbon emissions and greenhouse gasses causing global warming as a given--which it IS.

In fact, here's a direct quote from a report he edited:

The pattern of temperature changes associated with this global warming now suggest, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, " ... a discernible human influence on global climate".

You lied.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~mikeh/research/cc_safr.htm

You got it, slick. Here's 11.

Mike Hulme: Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Director, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
Dr. William Grey, Colorado State University
Dr Robert C. Bailing, Jr., Arizona State University
Dr. Roy Spencer, Unversity of Alabama, Huntsville, NASA
Dr. Patrick Michael, University of Virginia, Virginia State Climatologist
Claude Allègre, Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, Pulkovo Astronomic Observatory
Bob Carter, James Cook University, Australia
Roger A. Pielke, Sr., The Pielke Research Group, Senior Research Scientist, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), Colorado State University
Konstantinos M. Andreadis, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington
Dennis P. Lettenmaier, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington


Among them some of the leading climatologists in the world.

Next!
Picked one at random:

"Dr. Patrick Michaels is possibly the most prolific and widely-quoted climate change skeptic scientist. He has admitted receiving funding from various fossil fuel industry sources. His latest book, published in September 2004 by the Cato Institute, is titled: Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.

Michaels is the Chief Editor for the "World Climate Review," a newsletter on global warming funded by the Western Fuels Association. Dr. Michaels has acknowledged that 20% of his funding comes from fossil fuel sources: (http://www.mtn.org/~nescncl/complaints/determinations/det_118.html) Known funding includes $49,000 from German Coal Mining Association, $15,000 from Edison Electric Institute and $40,000 from Cyprus Minerals Company, an early supporter of People for the West, a "wise use" group. He recieved $63,000 for research on global climate change from Western Fuels Association, above and beyond the undisclosed amount he is paid for the World Climate Report/Review. According to Harper's magazine, Michaels has recieved over $115,000 over the past four years from coal and oil interests. Michaels wrote "Sound and Fury" and "The Satanic Gases" which were published by Cato Institute. Dr. Michaels signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration. In July of 2006, it was revealed that the Intermountain Rural Electric Association "contributed $100,000 to Dr. Michaels." (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=2242565&page=1)"
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=4


I wouldn't say next so quickly...

Hmmm...I just looked up Mike Hulme at the Tyndall Centre-- haven't gotten to the others yet-- but from what the intro to one of his reports says, I don't see where he is denying that human activity (increased carbon emissions) lead to global warming.

Can you give more than just a list of names? Or read through this and explain it to me?

http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/briefing_notes/note01.shtml

I think he's putting across the point that human activity is affecting global climate change, I agree it probably is. However I don't think mankind caused global warming all by themselves, which is what many pundits seem to try and imply. Dr. Hulme is also warning though that we don't have enough of an understanding of how the various systems interact to go off alarmingly.

An interesting report from the US Senate:
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777

It has been proven that the Earth goes in cycles. Remember all the big forest fires that started back in the late 80's and have been occurring until now? That is cyclical, it's a bout 400 years roughly. Man has however contributed to those without doubt. And both the environmentalists and the logging are to blame. A lot of the recent fires wouldn't have been as big as they were if proper forest management was followed. But the greens don't want anybody to interfere with "Mother Nature"

Yep, I'm doing my own research, 'cause yours is crap. I checked out more on Mike Hulme-- he takes carbon emissions and greenhouse gasses causing global warming as a given--which it IS.

In fact, here's a direct quote from a report he edited:
You lied.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~mikeh/research/cc_safr.htm

One out of a list of many. I was merely refuting the point that has been made, falsely I might add, that scientists are in consensus on this issue. They are plainly not. You get 15 scientists in a room and you'll get 20 opinions. As far as my research, don't even go there. I'm trying to keep this conversation civil.

Hmmm...I just looked up Mike Hulme at the Tyndall Centre-- haven't gotten to the others yet-- but from what the intro to one of his reports says, I don't see where he is denying that human activity (increased carbon emissions) lead to global warming.

Can you give more than just a list of names? Or read through this and explain it to me?

http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/briefing_notes/note01.shtml

The last one on the list is part of Climate.org!?

One out of a list of many. I was merely refuting the point that has been made, falsely I might add, that scientists are in consensus on this issue. They are plainly not. You get 15 scientists in a room and you'll get 20 opinions. As far as my research, don't even go there. I'm trying to keep this conversation civil.

I asked for scientists that were not somehow involved with oil companies that deny human induced climate change. This is not the same thing as saying that humans are the only factor in climate change but I am saying they are a major factor. So far two of the people are saying what I am saying and one person takes money from an oil company. Even with the benefit of the doubt, you're two short of my request.

It has been proven that the Earth goes in cycles. Remember all the big forest fires that started back in the late 80's and have been occurring until now? That is cyclical, it's a bout 400 years roughly. Man has however contributed to those without doubt. And both the environmentalists and the logging are to blame. A lot of the recent fires wouldn't have been as big as they were if proper forest management was followed. But the greens don't want anybody to interfere with "Mother Nature"

You're contradicting yourself a bit, if I understand you correctly. If the Earth goes in cycles, both of forest fires and warming patterns, then we shouldn't do anything about it, and there's nothing to worry about. But then you also say that if we "managed" the forests properly, the fires would have been better. So, then, we should do something about global warming, right? Like make sure proper carbon emission management is followed, as you phrased it.

Anyway...if you admit that human activities DO contribute to global warming, even if you don't think they are the main cause...why shouldn't we try to limit our output of greenhouse gasses? Like the fires. It may be part of a natural cycle, but we ARE contributing, so if we can do things to make it less destructive, why shouldn't we?

I think he's putting across the point that human activity is affecting global climate change, I agree it probably is. However I don't think mankind caused global warming all by themselves, which is what many pundits seem to try and imply. Dr. Hulme is also warning though that we don't have enough of an understanding of how the various systems interact to go off alarmingly.How much do you know about the issue? No one that knows their stuff about the atmosphere and its composition would ever say that human beings created it.

An interesting report from the US Senate:
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777

It has been proven that the Earth goes in cycles. Remember all the big forest fires that started back in the late 80's and have been occurring until now? That is cyclical, it's a bout 400 years roughly. Man has however contributed to those without doubt. And both the environmentalists and the logging are to blame. A lot of the recent fires wouldn't have been as big as they were if proper forest management was followed. But the greens don't want anybody to interfere with "Mother Nature"Oh golly, the one institution more likely to be taking money from big businesses than a dissenting scientist. And they tout that there is only one green group out there. And attempt to prove that its all just a cycle by using an allegory. Deserves a :rolleyes:

I see your US legislative body statement and raise you a US executive body statement:
All of us agreed that climate change is happening now, that human activity is contributing to it, and that it could affect every part of the globe.

We know that, globally, emissions must slow, peak and then decline, moving us towards a low-carbon economy. This will require leadership from the developed world.Joint statement from the Gleneagles G-8 summit 2005 (http://www.g8.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1119518698846)

Not that it matters. The senate and the president aren't exactly experts.

As far as my research, don't even go there. I'm trying to keep this conversation civil.

I'm sorry I called your research crap.

One out of a list of many. I was merely refuting the point that has been made, falsely I might add, that scientists are in consensus on this issue. They are plainly not. You get 15 scientists in a room and you'll get 20 opinions. As far as my research, don't even go there. I'm trying to keep this conversation civil.Considering that you had to pick one guy that needs to manipulate other peoples' data to prove his point from your list, you seem to have pretty low standards. You also listed the Leipzig Declarations and the Oregon petition. The Wiki articles you used as sources showed their lack of credibility.

If we are going to talk about manipulation of data, how about the UN's proven manipulation of the report that led to the Kyoto protocol?

There is not enough definitive evidence on either side of this issue, I can come up with arguments both for and against. I do research for a living, I admit I didn't properly vett the list as I would normally do, as I was rushing to prove a point. I apologize for that. The point being arguments can be made for many different aspects of this issue. As far as it being a conspiracy by scientists to get grants I don't think so. And I also think it would be very hard to find many geophysicists who haven't worked for the oil industry.

I agree that Congress has no clue, neither does the president, they just care about what will get them re-elected. I just find it interesting that both sides in this debate should choose to manipulate data instead of letting people decide for themselves. Unfortunately science has become so politicized that the majority feel they have to manipulate data in order to get their viewpoint heard, and funded. It wasn't all that long ago that scientific research was allowed to stand or fail on its own merits.

As far as my own viewpoint, global warming, maybe. Human caused, no. Helped, possibly. Though the trends are now showing cooling off. I don't think we'll ever be able to say one way or the other. Not enough historical evidence to fully establish trends. And what data there is conflicts.:confused:

You're contradicting yourself a bit, if I understand you correctly. If the Earth goes in cycles, both of forest fires and warming patterns, then we shouldn't do anything about it, and there's nothing to worry about. But then you also say that if we "managed" the forests properly, the fires would have been better. So, then, we should do something about global warming, right? Like make sure proper carbon emission management is followed, as you phrased it.

Anyway...if you admit that human activities DO contribute to global warming, even if you don't think they are the main cause...why shouldn't we try to limit our output of greenhouse gasses? Like the fires. It may be part of a natural cycle, but we ARE contributing, so if we can do things to make it less destructive, why shouldn't we?

We should, I agree, but we have to do it in such way that won't wreck our economy in the process. I agree that more can be done that isn't. Better emission controls on cars would be a good start, and the technology exists for it. Alternative resources of energy should be researched, but it won't happen overnight. If more of us on all sides of this got together and reached a real consensus maybe something could be done. But the shrill voices on both sides of the issue drown out those of with a reasonable voice.

If we are going to talk about manipulation of data, how about the UN's proven manipulation of the report that led to the Kyoto protocol?Why not?

There is not enough definitive evidence on either side of this issue, I can come up with arguments both for and against. I do research for a living, I admit I didn't properly vett the list as I would normally do, as I was rushing to prove a point. I apologize for that. The point being arguments can be made for many different aspects of this issue. As far as it being a conspiracy by scientists to get grants I don't think so. And I also think it would be very hard to find many geophysicists who haven't worked for the oil industry.

I agree that Congress has no clue, neither does the president, they just care about what will get them re-elected. I just find it interesting that both sides in this debate should choose to manipulate data instead of letting people decide for themselves. Agreed. What I think the problem is is that it's too easy to buy scientists these days and some people feel the need to counter such lies with lies.
Unfortunately science has become so politicized that the majority feel they have to manipulate data in order to get their viewpoint heard, and funded. It wasn't all that long ago that scientific research was allowed to stand or fail on its own merits.When, pray tell was that? Certainly not in my life time and not for decades.

As far as my own viewpoint, global warming, maybe. Human caused, no. Helped, possibly. Though the trends are now showing cooling off. I don't think we'll ever be able to say one way or the other. Not enough historical evidence to fully establish trends. And what data there is conflicts.:confused:What trends exactly show a cooling off?

We should, I agree, but we have to do it in such way that won't wreck our economy in the process. I agree that more can be done that isn't. Better emission controls on cars would be a good start, and the technology exists for it. Alternative resources of energy should be researched, but it won't happen overnight. If more of us on all sides of this got together and reached a real consensus maybe something could be done. But the shrill voices on both sides of the issue drown out those of with a reasonable voice.Now get this, the US is now behind. Germany is one of the leading developers of photovoltaic technology, and it's one of the few industries that's creating jobs in areas marked by high unemployment. The Danes are quite pleased that the US aren't in on Kyoto, because they're also investing in carbon reductions in the developing world to meet their quota, which is cheaper than doing it in their own country. These opportunities will be rarer in the future. Also, if researching alternative energies won't happen overnight, there's no reason to start researching tomorrow. Kyoto isn't as anti-business as business claims it is. Remember, unleaded gas and publishing mileage figures was acclaimed to bankrupt companies that are still around today.

The more developed countries could help. It's not an insoluble problem, if people really want to do it. Tell you what, how about the US lays off funding the Iraq war for eight days (I'm sure it'll be there when we come back) and we contribute the $2,000,000,000 to a fund to limit carbon emissions in developing nations? That's a start.
And if emissions reductions are a good solution to a real problem, that might be a good idea.

There are less expensive alternatives, but they're not anti-industry so Greenpeace doesn't like them.
Well, the EPA, you know, a bunch of tree-huggers. Why does that agency still exist, anyway?
The best thing about Canada: No EPA.

Now get this, the US is now behind. Germany is one of the leading developers of photovoltaic technology, and it's one of the few industries that's creating jobs in areas marked by high unemployment. The Danes are quite pleased that the US aren't in on Kyoto, because they're also investing in carbon reductions in the developing world to meet their quota, which is cheaper than doing it in their own country. These opportunities will be rarer in the future. Also, if researching alternative energies won't happen overnight, there's no reason to start researching tomorrow. Kyoto isn't as anti-business as business claims it is. Remember, unleaded gas and publishing mileage figures was acclaimed to bankrupt companies that are still around today.
If consumers cared about reducing emissions they'd burn diesel instead of octane. Plus, that's an illusory downside for the US, because there's no incentive for them to sign up.

Has anyone bothered to investigate the warming caused by photovoltaic cells? Every solution being proposed has a downside, except going directly to the source of the heat and blocking the sunlight.

I just found these which are so appropriate.

http://junkscience.com/images/nq050606.gif

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=761

If the big storms of 2005 were evidence, then the dearth of storms in 2006 is evidence. Pick one.

I never said either one is 'evidence.'

I like the last one
Quote:
* Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.
How do they know this?

Why don't you do more research and find out yourself?

This isn't the scientific method, this is a bunch of people who should no better making claims they can't back up with sufficient evidence.

Well, the same is said for evolution and Big Bang theory. You going to tell me those are just media-concocted malarky too?

I like the last one
Quote:
* Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.
How do they know this?

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

The truth is that the Earth is becoming warmer the lie is humans are the only reason behind the warming. The fact is that every 1500 hundred years the Earth goes through a warming cycle just like clock work. The proof is in tree rings and history for example during the dark ages the earth was 5-7 degress warmer w/o industry. The fact is follow the money,

"Follow the money" is not a fact-- it's a proposition, a request, an order, a directive, but it isn't a fact.

the money is being sent in huge amounts of grants givin to scientist evey time they warn about our impending doom.

So let me get this straight... are you saying that because a lot of money is spent to do research, the results are coming in as "doom?" How many things are wrong with that-- let me count the ways.

One-- if the diabolical scientists wanted their funding to continue, they wouldn't say "it's doom! we're all gonna die next week!" because then they would receive no budget for next week. If they were really that sly, they would consistently return with "uh, well, it's pretty complex, we don't have a solid answer yet, we need more money."

Two-- the fact that a lot of money is spent on it should, if anything, vouch for the quality of the work, rather than against it, because it isn't like they're spending millions of dollars to pick their noses and hand in some bullshit that they googled the night before the assignment was due. You devote more resources to science, you get better, more qualitative, more authoritative science (barring the kind of gross incompetence and corruption that we more often find among those who are handing the money out to the scientists).

Three-- those who would like us to believe that nothing is wrong and that we can continue burning dirty fossil fuels with impunity have a fair bit more money-- or freedom over spending their money, anyway-- than the scientists who are telling us "um, please stop because you're going to kill us all." But even so, despite all of the corporate-interested money spent to debunk global warming, increasingly the science community is saying "yeah, they're killing us all" because that is what the data-- which is itself objective, and the interpretation of which is informed by concern for the planet that you and I have to live on rather than by concern for some oil tycoon's bottom line-- supports.

There, there's three. I'm sure there's more, ad infinitum, but I have a class to get to shortly.

The facts are in front of you open your eyes so that you want be manipulated by the left wing media.

I don't even know for certain what the hell you're trying to say in this sentence... but I'm assuming it should actually read "The facts are in front of you; open your eyes so that you wont be manipulated by the left wing media. That said... what the hell makes the scientific assessment that our careless and ignorant pollution of the planet in the past (and our stubborn/stupid continuation of said behaviour in the present) is threatening our prosperity and survival "left wing media" propaganda? I mean what is the biased 'agenda' of environmentalists that you find so sinister? That they want us to find more renewable sources of energy? That they want no more smog warnings? That they're plotting for us to have-- *gasp*-- drinkable water? Wow, that's some pretty diabolical propaganda, they're so sneaky and self-interested. Wake the fuck up. Unless you personally owe your financial prosperity (or the significant other that you mooch off of) to the continuation of dirty industry or the oil business-- or, of course, you're blinded by some naively absolute political loyalty--, what possible reason can you have to utterly discount a matter of human survival? Even if the scientific community's exaggerating about the threat, their GOAL is still the betterment of the environment that we all depend on and thrive in, which is ultimately in the best long-term interests of every human being that's adapted to life on this planet. Now if you have some alternative arrangement-- if you're actually an alien who'd be more comfortable on Venus, or you have shares in a space station company-- then I think you should confess to that bias up-front for the sake of honesty in discourse.

Even the green man Al Gore is an oximoran since his private jet causes more pollutants on one trip than a factory in one month.:upyours:

That isn't an oxymoron... it's inconsistent, but that alone does not constitute a literal oxymoron. And if they had electric jets that he could use to get around and try to educate people, I imagine he'd use one. But when the message is urgent and the only way to spread it with due haste is to burn jet fuel while advocating for alternative energy sources, well I'm sure the inconsistency isn't lost on him. That's where cost-benefit analysis and conscience comes in. But to discount his entire argument because he-- like every single last other human being on Earth is not 100% absolutely perfectly consistent in all things-- is simplistic and it's stupid.

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

I never said either one is 'evidence.'



Why don't you do more research and find out yourself?



Well, the same is said for evolution and Big Bang theory. You going to tell me those are just media-concocted malarky too?
Oh let me count the ways your wrong:
New Genoa
1. Wikipedia is not a reputable source, there are plenty of 'external links' on a wikipedia page that can provide more reputable information
2. That Wiki page was, on top of being wikipedia in general, on 'notice' for vandalism
3. on top of being a recently vandalized wikipedia article, it didn't actually describe the 'proof' of human contribution to the greenhouse effect, it described the natural effects of the naturally occuring greenhouse effect.



Greater Trostia:
1. if neither one is evidence then don't bring up either one.
2. Burden of proof fallacy, you provided information, I asked how you knew that was valid, its not my job to prove your argument for you.
3. How are the Big Bang and Evolution scaremongering at all? More importantly, how is this not a Red Herring?

Part of the problem is that climatology is very limited in the way it can go about doing science.

Conventional science is very difficult to perform. There are no controls. You can't simply run another experiment. It is a single case study situation. Scientists often have to wait for odd occurances in order to be able to collect interesting data.

When the US government stopped all flights over US airspace after 911 while everyone else was glued to the TV climitologists were out collecting data on the effects of jetstreams (or the lack thereof) for the 3days.

Consequently you can never expect to have definitive proof. You won't know exactly what is going to happen till it happens.

Having said that it doesn't mean that fairly accurate predictions can't be made... and that we can take precautionary action. If the weather channel predicted extreme storm warnings and gale force winds you would be a fool to go out in your boat without at least being prepared for those conditions.. even if the weather looked fine right now. Sure it might take you a little longer to prepare and you might lose some great sail time, but its a cost benifit analysis.

People are trying to do cost benifit analysis with climate change. The Stern report was a good first step. You can't expect it to be exactly accurate... but sticking your head in the sand isn't going to help.

The evidence that humans are having an effect on the climate is pretty much a definate. The extent of that effect and the ramifications of the changes are still under debate. That makes an accurate cost benifit analysis tough to make.

Even so its just not acceptable to just wait and see... judgments have to be made on the available evidence now. Same as you would make with a standard weather report.

The available evidence now overwhelmingly says bad stuff is gonna happen. Change is necessary. Even if we are making only small changes.. every little bit counts. The big stuff can come later.

Oh let me count the ways your wrong:
New Genoa
1. Wikipedia is not a reputable source, there are plenty of 'external links' on a wikipedia page that can provide more reputable information
2. That Wiki page was, on top of being wikipedia in general, on 'notice' for vandalism
3. on top of being a recently vandalized wikipedia article, it didn't actually describe the 'proof' of human contribution to the greenhouse effect, it described the natural effects of the naturally occuring greenhouse effect.


You asked * Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.
How do they know this?

I provided a source that explained the greenhouse effect.

I see no notices, but wikipedia is no less reputable than Encyclopedia Britannica, I'm tired of anti-wiki people tossing out arguments because it came from wikipedia.

On the last point, you didn't ask for proof of human contribution. you asked "how do we know that increased concentration of greenhouse gases make the earth warmer"? so...if you want to know WHY they do that wouldn't it be logical to understand the greenhouse effect to begin with...?

Al Gore: Manbearpig is real, I'm cereal people!

http://groovy.movingtonz.com/images/algore.jpg

I think he's putting across the point that human activity is affecting global climate change, I agree it probably is. However I don't think mankind caused global warming all by themselves, which is what many pundits seem to try and imply. Dr. Hulme is also warning though that we don't have enough of an understanding of how the various systems interact to go off alarmingly.


You're right, we don't. Case in point, CFCs. That caught scientists off guard. The preliminary data showed that there would be some ozone degradation, enough to get the ball rolling for a ban some time off in the near future. Unfortunately, they missed one rather big section of how CFCs degrade ozone, and if it wasn't for real-time testing we wouldn't have an ozone layer right now. Thankfully because the political climate of the time was trusting of scientists (ie, no science hating GW) action was quickly taken and the degradation of the ozone layer was halted.

If it wasn't...well, kiss the planet goodbye.

Could the models be fantastically wrong? Sure, but it’s just as likely to be fantastically wrong in one direction as it would be in another. Do you really want to bet the human species on a hunch that global warming isn’t manmade? Do you really that the possibility of continued global warming is so small that it doesn’t warrant some corrective action? Do you think that the oceans are getting more acidified, faster, then any other point in the World’s history because of a long term, slow, climate shift?

Are hummers worth the human race itself?

Greater Trostia:
1. if neither one is evidence then don't bring up either one.

I didn't. You did.


2. Burden of proof fallacy, you provided information, I asked how you knew that was valid, its not my job to prove your argument for you.

You asked how they knew it was valid. You said you didn't know. You've also said how you've seen no evidence for global warming. Well? I'm not here to educate you - you can educate yourself. This isn't about the argument - the argument here is that global warming is a scaremongering media bullshit, and that's one you need to prove.


3. How are the Big Bang and Evolution scaremongering at all? More importantly, how is this not a Red Herring?

Why, Big Bang is scaremongering since it puts into doubt the Holy Word. Evolution is scaremongering since it says we're all just a bunch of apes and not, after all, God's cherished creations. ;)

And I think you mean "strawman" not "red herring." You should know, you've come up with a bunch of them this whole time. Like that bit about hurricanes.