Is global warming true?

mrcoolboy15

New member
Awards
0
I am curious to see how many people believe that global warming is actually our faul or is it just something that is ment to happend? Or is it a myth?
 

Irish_Rogue

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
Global warming is happening, it is a cycle of Mother Nature that has happen throughout Earth's life. Are we causing it to accelerate, Yes! Humans have caused the cycle to happen much faster than expected. To say it is not real always makes me laugh.
 

meowmeow

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
Is global warming true?...is it a myth?
Those that are in a position to know because they are scientists and have studied it for decades say it is true.

Those that stand to profit from the status quo assert that it is a myth.
 
DAdams91982

DAdams91982

Board Sponsor
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
INHOFE SAYS GLOBAL WARMING MEDIA HEARING EXPOSED ALARMIST MEDIA
December 6, 2006

WASHINGTON, DC – Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Chairman of the Environment & Public Works Committee, said today’s hearing about the media and climate change revealed that “Scare tactics should not drive public policy.” The hearing’s purpose was to examine the media’s presentation of climate science and featured scientists and media experts.

“As the Democrats rush to pass costly carbon cap legislation in the next Congress, today’s hearing showed that the so-called ‘scientific consensus’ does not exist. Leading scientists from the U.S. and Australia denounced much of the media for becoming advocates for alarmism rather than objectivity,” Senator James Inhofe said.

“I was particularly interested in testimony by Dr. Daniel Schrag of Harvard University, who believes that manmade emissions are driving global warming. Dr. Schrag said the Kyoto Protocol is not the right approach to take and agreed it would have almost no impact on the climate even if all the nations fully complied,” Inhofe added. Currently 13 of the 15 EU nations are failing to meet the requirements of Kyoto.

During his opening remarks, Senator Inhofe stated, “Rather than focus on the hard science of global warming, the media has instead become advocates for hyping scientifically unfounded climate alarmism.” Senator Inhofe cited criticism from believers in manmade global warming who have slammed the media for presenting “a quasi-religious register of doom, death [and] judgment” and compared the media’s coverage to the “unreality of Hollywood films.”

Scientists testifying at the hearing described how much of the media has over-hyped the coverage of global warming and used scare tactics to garner public attention. Paleoclimate researcher Bob Carter of Australia’s James Cook University, who has had over 100 papers published refereed scientific journals, noted that “there is huge uncertainly in every aspect of climate change.”

“If you look at the ice core records, you will discover that yes, changes in carbon dioxide are accompanied by changes in temperature, but you will also discover that the change in temperature precedes the change in carbon dioxide by several hundred years to a thousand or so years. Reflect on that. And reflect on when you last heard somebody say that they thought lung cancer caused smoking. Because that is what you are arguing if you argue on the glacial time scale that changes in carbon dioxide cause temperature changes. It is the other way around,” Carter testified.

Carter also noted that the media promotes “Couldism, mightism and perhapsism, fueled by computer modeling.”

Carter explained, “If, could, may, might, probably, perhaps, likely, expected, projected ...Wonderful words. So wonderful, in fact, that environmental writers scatter them through their articles on climate change like confetti. The reason is that – in the absence of empirical evidence for damaging human-caused climate change – public attention is best captured by making assertions about 'possible' change. And, of course, using the output of computer models in support, virtually any type of climatic hazard can be asserted as a possible future change.” (To read Dr. Carter's full testimony go to: (http://www.epw.senate.gov/109th/Carter_Testimony.pdf ))

David Deming, a geophysicist from the University of Oklahoma, testified that “Every natural disaster that occurs is now linked [by the media] with global warming, no matter how tenuous or impossible the connection. As a result, the public has become vastly misinformed on this and other environmental issues.” (To read Dr. Deming's full testimony go to: (http://Environment & Public Works (R).senate.gov - Technical difficulties.)

Dan Gainor of the Business & Media Institute noted that reporters are violating their own code of ethics with their one-sided climate coverage. “It also violates the ethical code of the Society of Professional Journalists which urges the media to ‘Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.’ That code calls for reporters to “distinguish between advocacy and news reporting.’” Gainor added. (To read Gainor's full testimony go to: (http://Environment & Public Works (R).senate.gov - Technical difficulties.)

(For full text of remarks for all witnesses go to: (http://Environment & Public Works (R).senate.gov - Technical difficulties.)

OPENING STATEMENT BY CHAIRMAN INHOFE

Full Committee Hearing to Examine Climate Change and the Media Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Today’s hearing is the fourth global warming hearing I have held as Committee chairman. We will examine the media’s role in presenting the science of climate change. Poorly conceived policy decisions may result from the media’s over-hyped reporting. Much of the mainstream media has subverted its role as an objective source of information on climate change into the role of an advocate. We have seen examples of this overwhelmingly one sided reporting by “60 Minutes” reporter Scott Pelley, ABC News’s Bill Blakemore, CNN’s Miles O’Brien, Time Magazine, the Associated Press and Reuters, to name just a very few outlets. See: (U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works )

There are three types of climate research: first, the hard science of global warming by climate scientists, second, the computer modelers, and finally the researchers who study the impacts.

Rather than focus on the hard science of global warming, the media has instead become advocates for hyping scientifically unfounded climate alarmism – and I’m not the only one who believes this. Here are just two examples of believers in man-made global warming who have been critical of the media.

First, Mike Hulme, the Director of the UK based Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research -- a group that believes humans are the driving force of global warming – chastised the media and environmentalists last month for choosing to use the “language of fear and terror” to scare the public. Hulme noted that he has found himself “increasingly chastised” by global warming activists because his pubic statements “have not satisfied [the activist] thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric.” See: (BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Chaotic world of climate truth )

Second, a report in August 2006 from the UK’s Labour-leaning Institute for Public Policy Research also slammed the media presentation of climate science as – and I am quoting again here -- “a quasi-religious register of doom, death, judgment, heaven and hell, using words such as ‘catastrophe’, ‘chaos’ and ‘havoc.’” The report also compared the media’s coverage of global warming to “the unreality of Hollywood films.” (U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works )

In addition, former NBC Newsman Tom Brokaw’s one sided 2006 Discovery Channel global warming documentary was criticized by a Bloomberg News TV review noted “You'll find more dissent at a North Korean political rally than in this program” because of its lack of scientific objectivity. See: (U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works)

The media often fails to distinguish between predictions and what is actually being observed on the Earth today. We know from an April 23, 2006 article in the New York Times by Andrew Revkin, that “few scientists agree with the idea that the recent spate of potent hurricanes, European heat waves, African drought and other weather extremes are, in essence, our fault (a result of manmade emissions.) There is more than enough natural variability in nature to mask a direct connection, [scientists] say.” See: (Yelling 'Fire' on a Hot Planet - New York Times )

The New York Times is essentially saying, no recent weather events – including Hurricane Katrina – is because of man-made global warming. Yet most of the media fails to understand this fundamental point and instead focus on global warming computer model projections of the future as if they were proven fact. This is perhaps the easiest scientific area for the media to exaggerate and serve as advocates for alarmism. Climate modelers project all kinds of scary scenarios of the future and the media then erroneously presents these scenarios as a scientifically based. But these computer models are not hard science.

Clearly, we cannot today somehow disprove catastrophic predictions of our climate in the year 2100. But if the observations of what is happening today are not consistent with what global warming models predict should occur, than what we do know is that our understanding of the globe is incomplete. The fact is, the biosphere is extremely complex and startling discoveries happen every year. This point was driven home earlier this year when the Journal Nature reported that trees emit methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Trees are everywhere, yet we didn’t even know this most basic fact about our planet. It is unfortunate that so many are focused on alarmism rather than a responsible path forward on this issue. If your goal is to limit emissions, whether of traditional pollution or CO2, the only effective way to go about it is the use of cleaner, more efficient technologies that will meet the energy demands of this century and beyond. The Bush administration’s Asia-Pacific Partnership is the right type of approach – it stresses the sharing of new technology among member nations including three of the world’s top 10 emitters who are exempt from Kyoto – India, South Korea, and China, which in 2009 will become the world’s largest CO2 emitter. What is disappointing is that the President’s program gets more positive press in other countries than it does here. So the alarmism not just continuing in the media, it’s advancing. They are becoming more desperate because former supporters of their views are now changing their position. Former advocates such as David Bellamy, Britain’s famed environmental campaigner, (U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works ) and Claude Allegre, a French geophysicist and former Socialist Party Leader who is a member of both the French and U.S. Academies of Science. Allegre now says the cause of warming remains unknown and the alarmism “has become a very lucrative business for some people.” (U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works ) In short, their motivation is money. And he’s right… its about money.

Related Links:

10/17/2006 - Renowned Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming – Caps Year of Vindication for Skeptics (U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works )

10/03/2006 - SENATOR INHOFE & CNN ANCHOR IN HEATED EXCHANGE OVER GLOBAL WARMING COVERAGE (U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works )

09/25/2006 - “Hot & Cold Media Spin: A Challenge To Journalists Who Cover Global Warming” (U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works )

10/30/2006 - “I don’t like the word ‘Balance’’- Says ABC News Global Warming Reporter (U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works)

(U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works)

10/04/2006 - Worldwide Support For Senator Inhofe’s Global Warming & Media Critiques

(U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works )

07/14/2006 - Brokaw's Global Warming Show = Less Dissent Than "North Korean Political Rally" -- Bloomberg TV Review Says

(Bloomberg.com: Muse )
 

DazzlinJack

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
I don't know if it that crazy warming stuff is real but SOMETHING'S keeping my heating bill low this winter. Probably the thermogenics I get from a certain planet
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
I don't know if it that crazy warming stuff is real but SOMETHING'S keeping my heating bill low this winter. Probably the thermogenics I get from a certain planet
If you're in the US then El Nino likely played a role in that. Someone in another forum posted an article about this years warm US winter (for some) as proof positive of global warming. Meanwhile in the article itself it said climate scientists don't know how much man made global warming can be blamed for this winter as opposed to cyclic weather a la El Nino, which is known to affect US winters and make them much milder.

Global warming is real. Man made global warming is likely real, though the extent of it isn't really known most scientists do agree the average temperature increase over the last century is due to man made green house emissions. The models in my mind prove very little. They are designed with the assumption that man made green house emissions are the main driver in forcing temps up, then they run scenarios through them and find man made green house gasses will raise global temperature. Hardly surprising since that's what the models are designed to show.

I personally think the proponents have just as much to gain from hyping global warming as ExxonMobile does in downplaying it. You don't get grants to study the climate if you come to the conclusion nothing big is going on. You don't get endowed chairs to this or that university or appointed to this or that government committee on climate change by persuing a line of study likely to be contrarian in such a politicized issue. Government grant money is just as dirty as oil money in my mind. And I think the debate over possible solutions has been hijacked by extremists on the left.
 
Iron Warrior

Iron Warrior

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Man I don't know what the hell you're all talking about mild winters but it's freaking cold in the Bay Area this winter and my heating bill is higher than last year. Had a streak of days in that dipped to the mid 20's. However, the rain has been unusually low this year.
 

Irish_Rogue

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
If you're in the US then El Nino likely played a role in that. Someone in another forum posted an article about this years warm US winter (for some) as proof positive of global warming. Meanwhile in the article itself it said climate scientists don't know how much man made global warming can be blamed for this winter as opposed to cyclic weather a la El Nino, which is known to affect US winters and make them much milder.

Global warming is real. Man made global warming is likely real, though the extent of it isn't really known most scientists do agree the average temperature increase over the last century is due to man made green house emissions. The models in my mind prove very little. They are designed with the assumption that man made green house emissions are the main driver in forcing temps up, then they run scenarios through them and find man made green house gasses will raise global temperature. Hardly surprising since that's what the models are designed to show.

I personally think the proponents have just as much to gain from hyping global warming as ExxonMobile does in downplaying it. You don't get grants to study the climate if you come to the conclusion nothing big is going on. You don't get endowed chairs to this or that university or appointed to this or that government committee on climate change by persuing a line of study likely to be contrarian in such a politicized issue. Government grant money is just as dirty as oil money in my mind. And I think the debate over possible solutions has been hijacked by extremists on the left.

I hear you mate I really do, but unless you live close to one of the poles most do not think about it or see it. Antartica has had record ice breakage in recent months, the Artic is melting at an alarming rate. Is this normal to have a melt, it sure is, it is a cycle of the Earth, to say the Humans are not acceleratiing is an understatment to say the least. The hotest recorded years are what like 11 in the last 15.

I am currently in Iraq and for the last two years rain fall has barely happened even during the three months of rainy season when it used to pour here. This is the warmest winter out here that I have seen.

I think the world will kill itself before global warming does, populations are out of controll, resources are being depleted and our pollution is wild. War may just be the end of us all.
 
jmh80

jmh80

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I personally think the proponents have just as much to gain from hyping global warming as ExxonMobile does in downplaying it. You don't get grants to study the climate if you come to the conclusion nothing big is going on. You don't get endowed chairs to this or that university or appointed to this or that government committee on climate change by persuing a line of study likely to be contrarian in such a politicized issue. Government grant money is just as dirty as oil money in my mind. And I think the debate over possible solutions has been hijacked by extremists on the left.
CDB,
ExxonMobil (not the city in Alabama....) has apparently decided to stop funding the anti-global warming think tanks (or whatever you call it). The stance has softened on the issue from the company since the new CEO stepped on board. It doesn't seem to be much different in message - but the tone is definately different.
There's an article somewhere that I saw a few weeks ago on this.

So - it's likely that the anti-global warming orgs. dry up here soon as I can't imagine many companies that would stick with funding after a big dog like XOM pulls out.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Man I don't know what the hell you're all talking about mild winters but it's freaking cold in the Bay Area this winter and my heating bill is higher than last year. Had a streak of days in that dipped to the mid 20's. However, the rain has been unusually low this year.
NY weather has been great. We had one day almost hit 70 I believe. Got a lot colder since then of course, but overall I'm loving it.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
the problem with that though is every climatologist except the extremists say they can' predict weather conditions. They can predict more energy in the system overall, but how that will manifest in terms of climate is not predictable, nor will they say that any current short term warming can be reliably or even unreliably attributed to man made GHG emissions. The climate is a complex system and so for any given energy level can have many different equillibrium states depending on initial conditions.

I hear you mate I really do, but unless you live close to one of the poles most do not think about it or see it. Antartica has had record ice breakage in recent months, the Artic is melting at an alarming rate. Is this normal to have a melt, it sure is, it is a cycle of the Earth, to say the Humans are not acceleratiing is an understatment to say the least. The hotest recorded years are what like 11 in the last 15.

I am currently in Iraq and for the last two years rain fall has barely happened even during the three months of rainy season when it used to pour here. This is the warmest winter out here that I have seen.

I think the world will kill itself before global warming does, populations are out of controll, resources are being depleted and our pollution is wild. War may just be the end of us all.
 

Irish_Rogue

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
the problem with that though is every climatologist except the extremists say they can' predict weather conditions. They can predict more energy in the system overall, but how that will manifest in terms of climate is not predictable, nor will they say that any current short term warming can be reliably or even unreliably attributed to man made GHG emissions. The climate is a complex system and so for any given energy level can have many different equillibrium states depending on initial conditions.
Actually they can tell weather patterns for about a million years or more back. Air trapped in ice (the one that is currently melting) will give an exact temp, they can also tell the century based on the different ice ages that the world has had. Yes warming up and then an ice age has been going on forever, it is a proven fact the GHG trap in a lot for of the suns heat, which in turn is melting the ice more quickly, which in turn cause mositure in the ground to evaporate too. We cut down the trees that will help with GHG, we need more planted. When the time comes and our population takes over all of the suface, we shall be doomed for certain.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Actually they can tell weather patterns for about a million years or more back. Air trapped in ice (the one that is currently melting) will give an exact temp, they can also tell the century based on the different ice ages that the world has had. Yes warming up and then an ice age has been going on forever, it is a proven fact the GHG trap in a lot for of the suns heat, which in turn is melting the ice more quickly, which in turn cause mositure in the ground to evaporate too. We cut down the trees that will help with GHG, we need more planted. When the time comes and our population takes over all of the suface, we shall be doomed for certain.
Unfortunately that's not going to happen. Most people who study population growth think we'll hit a maintenance level of population at which point growth or shrinkage will be insignificant. Alarmist like Paul Ehrlich have never been right. Ever.

Ice cores and tree rings are climate proxies and can be affected by other factors. They can give us a reasonable picture of past climate change. It is still impossible to predict future climate change in the long term.
 
dlew308

dlew308

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I don't think global warming is real. I am for cleaning up the air etc. Countries like china are polluting up their country so bad, the effect on it's people and other countries won't be good unless they make some major changes. I read somewhere that some of their air pollution is carried over to the US, scary...
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
I don't think global warming is real. I am for cleaning up the air etc. Countries like china are polluting up their country so bad, the effect on it's people and other countries won't be good unless they make some major changes. I read somewhere that some of their air pollution is carried over to the US, scary...
It's definitely real, it's happened before. Just how much we're contributing to it though is debatable.
 
jmh80

jmh80

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I think the Chinese government is finally realizing they went too far with lax regulations on pollution/emissions.

It'll take a while to get the local governments to enforce the rules - but Beijing is forcing a change I think.
 
Aeternitatis

Aeternitatis

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Global warming is happening, it is a cycle of Mother Nature that has happen throughout Earth's life. Are we causing it to accelerate, Yes! Humans have caused the cycle to happen much faster than expected. To say it is not real always makes me laugh.
Good post. Yes, it's a natural cycle but there is much evidence to show the it is happening WAY faster than it should right now.

BTW, I was just readin gin Discover magazine, the ozone hole over Anarctica is worse than ever possibly as a result of global warming. Maybe someone can scan in the article?
 

Irish_Rogue

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
Good post. Yes, it's a natural cycle but there is much evidence to show the it is happening WAY faster than it should right now.

BTW, I was just readin gin Discover magazine, the ozone hole over Anarctica is worse than ever possibly as a result of global warming. Maybe someone can scan in the article?
The ice shelf that collapsed there recently was not supposed to happen for another 25 yrs according to scientist.
 
DAdams91982

DAdams91982

Board Sponsor
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
The ice shelf that collapsed there recently was not supposed to happen for another 25 yrs according to scientist.
See I dont understand this whole statement. If the one thing you CANNOT predict is the weather... how can you predict a result of the weather?

Adams
 

Irish_Rogue

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
See I dont understand this whole statement. If the one thing you CANNOT predict is the weather... how can you predict a result of the weather?

Adams
Why do we rely on weatherman to give us our weekly weather if it cannot be predicted? Most the shelf was thought to be going to give out in 25 years due to the photos of the giant pools of water that were all over the shelf, those pools acted as a drill and went straight down to the sea which in turn split the ice. All of which happened because of the missing ozone over the Antartic.
 
DAdams91982

DAdams91982

Board Sponsor
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Why do we rely on weatherman to give us our weekly weather if it cannot be predicted? Most the shelf was thought to be going to give out in 25 years due to the photos of the giant pools of water that were all over the shelf, those pools acted as a drill and went straight down to the sea which in turn split the ice. All of which happened because of the missing ozone over the Antartic.
I think the "Weatherman" proved me right. How many people here has been upset cause the "Weatherman" was wrong?

And you also confirm my sentiment on not being able to predict the result of weather. The Ice shelf collapsed "Early", when it just could have easily refroze if the weather cycled as such. There is to much "Couldism" with this topic, way to much use of the "Slippery Slope Argument."

Adams
 

Irish_Rogue

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
I think the "Weatherman" proved me right. How many people here has been upset cause the "Weatherman" was wrong?

And you also confirm my sentiment on not being able to predict the result of weather. The Ice shelf collapsed "Early", when it just could have easily refroze if the weather cycled as such. There is to much "Couldism" with this topic, way to much use of the "Slippery Slope Argument."

Adams
the ice pools do freeze and remelt over and over, that is what acts as the drill. To be mad at a weatherman because it was 92 instead of 88 is trival mate. You can try and pick it apart, only every scientist agrees that the GHG are causing a gloabl warming much faster then the normal rate as it happens. To what extent no one is certain nor can we be about most things that we as humans are causing to change daily. We pollute the air with our cars more everyday ( I am guilty of that), we cut down the trees that help filter the carbon dioxide. Funny how most of the worlds vegitation is in the Northern hemisphere and there is a gaping hole over the Southern side. Make me wonder if more of the Amazon were around how the south would look.

Either way we are all entitled to our way of thinking and contribution to our planet. Cheers
 
DAdams91982

DAdams91982

Board Sponsor
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
the ice pools do freeze and remelt over and over, that is what acts as the drill. To be mad at a weatherman because it was 92 instead of 88 is trival mate. You can try and pick it apart, only every scientist agrees that the GHG are causing a gloabl warming much faster then the normal rate as it happens. To what extent no one is certain nor can we be about most things that we as humans are causing to change daily. We pollute the air with our cars more everyday ( I am guilty of that), we cut down the trees that help filter the carbon dioxide. Funny how most of the worlds vegitation is in the Northern hemisphere and there is a gaping hole over the Southern side. Make me wonder if more of the Amazon were around how the south would look.

Either way we are all entitled to our way of thinking and contribution to our planet. Cheers
You say trivial, but you are way off... Im not talking about 92 vs. 88. My home town was put into a state of Emergency for a ice storm this year, when the weather man said a slight chance of snow that day.


Yes we are entitled to our own opinions, no doubt, there was no hostility here. I believe Global Warming, has been happening since the Ice Age (Thank God), just that our part in the whole process has nothing to do with it. Weather is Cyclical. Just all the the argument and said scientific data is all really aimed at one end game... Fear.

Adams
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Yes we are entitled to our own opinions, no doubt, there was no hostility here. I believe Global Warming, has been happening since the Ice Age (Thank God), just that our part in the whole process has nothing to do with it. Weather is Cyclical. Just all the the argument and said scientific data is all really aimed at one end game... Fear.

Adams
You'll actually find most of the scientists are reasonable. It's the media and left wing environuts who are the hysterics for the most part. You're right on the weather though. Weather can be predicted a few days out, but once you go beyond a certain point the variances in the system make prediction impossible. Weathermen can tell the weather for the next few days, not what the weather will be 489 or 10265 days from now. The climate system is too complex to allow for such a prediction.

Most of my problems with global warming are with the hysterics and the paleoclimatologists, and the way people exonerate government funding of these scientists from any bias but yet when critics arise the first thing they do is look at who is funding them.
 
DAdams91982

DAdams91982

Board Sponsor
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
You'll actually find most of the scientists are reasonable. It's the media and left wing environuts who are the hysterics for the most part. You're right on the weather though. Weather can be predicted a few days out, but once you go beyond a certain point the variances in the system make prediction impossible. Weathermen can tell the weather for the next few days, not what the weather will be 489 or 10265 days from now. The climate system is too complex to allow for such a prediction.

Most of my problems with global warming are with the hysterics and the paleoclimatologists, and the way people exonerate government funding of these scientists from any bias but yet when critics arise the first thing they do is look at who is funding them.

I think this is the first time we agree on something!!! :D

Adams
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
I think this is the first time we agree on something!!! :D

Adams
It happens. Oddly enough you know why I am skeptical of Global Warming? Economics. That is a field I am familiar with, and it too is a complex system that people have tried to model and predict, with nothing but failure of varying degrees. While it's somewhat easier, relatively speaking, to model systems based on more quantifiable physical variables than one based on subjective values, the problems that arise from the complexity of the system are still there. I'm skeptical of anyone who says they can predict the future, no matter the computing power at their disposal.
 
DAdams91982

DAdams91982

Board Sponsor
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
It happens. Oddly enough you know why I am skeptical of Global Warming? Economics. That is a field I am familiar with, and it too is a complex system that people have tried to model and predict, with nothing but failure of varying degrees. While it's somewhat easier, relatively speaking, to model systems based on more quantifiable physical variables than one based on subjective values, the problems that arise from the complexity of the system are still there. I'm skeptical of anyone who says they can predict the future, no matter the computing power at their disposal.
Highly Agree.... that is why I brought up the Slippery Slope Argument you find in philosophy. Its what people fall back on when there isnt anything to quantifiable on their side to debate with. The "What Ifs"

Adams
 
somewhatgifted

somewhatgifted

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Those that are in a position to know because they are scientists and have studied it for decades say it is true.

Those that stand to profit from the status quo assert that it is a myth.
I was going into a long winded explanation..... no need its all summed up here. The problem about opinions is were all entitled to them, educated, ignorant the truth is in your ability to make your own decisions.
 
DAdams91982

DAdams91982

Board Sponsor
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
I was going into a long winded explanation..... no need its all summed up here. The problem about opinions is were all entitled to them, educated, ignorant the truth is in your ability to make your own decisions.
I dont think the argument is in Global Warming itself.... Its been happening since the last Ice Age.... The argument is Mans impact on global warming.

But yes... Opinions are like *** holes... everybody has one!!! :D

Adams
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Those that are in a position to know because they are scientists and have studied it for decades say it is true. Those that stand to profit from the status quo assert that it is a myth.
I was going into a long winded explanation..... no need its all summed up here. The problem about opinions is were all entitled to them, educated, ignorant the truth is in your ability to make your own decisions.
The problem with the above is that it ignores any potential agenda on the proponent's side of the argument. No one bites the hand that feeds them, and any study or line of study that suggests man's contribution to global warming isn't that significant isn't going to be well received by most government grant orgs, universities, etc. The idea that 'Big Oil' is the only group capable of having an agenda that affects research funding choices etc. is kind of naive. And this is demonstrable in our world of 'supplementation.' Don't see many studies using real world dosages/cycles of steroids do we? And the few that do are played down while uncontrolled case studies and studies with rats taking a trillion times the recommended dose for their entire lives are passed off as a relevant base of evidence for human use.

The government is by nature political. It's an inherrent part of the system, and it does affect the choices of who gets research grants, what lines of research get funded and pursued, etc. In 1999 the IOM commissioned a report on marijuana as medicine. They came to the reasonable conclusion that it was moderately effective, should be researched further and possibly offerred to patients for whom other options weren't effective. Not too long after its release the researchers had to give a press conference and essentially say the report didn't say what it said and apologized for sending the wrong message to kids and what not. Perfect example of how government 'science' operates.

Now this doesn't mean all government science is tainted, just that it is quite obviously not agenda free anymore than research promoted by ExxonMobile or Shell etc. Research should be taken for what it is and reviewed on its own merits, not those of its funding source. Plus the behavior of some of the paleoclimatology field strikes me as more than a bit odd. They seem to conveniently lose data, or simply don't make it available until finger nails are pulled, anytime anyone outside their little circle wants to review/replicate their results.
 
Last edited:

size

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Climate change is a part of the planet's life cycle. The point is whether or not human actions are having significant impacts on the changes.

Oddly, in the 70's and early 80's, the concern was not global warming but rather global cooling due to man's actions.
 
somewhatgifted

somewhatgifted

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Just seeing what others views are, as i have armed myself with enough knowledge to make my own decisions but like many, lack the ability to change others opinions.
Scientist know about collecting data, bodybuilders know about themselves. Not to be taken as is.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Just seeing what others views are, as i have armed myself with enough knowledge to make my own decisions but like many, lack the ability to change others opinions.
Scientist know about collecting data, bodybuilders know about themselves. Not to be taken as is.
Like those scientists who routinely expose rats to several lifetime's worth of human use of certain unapproved drugs to support prohibition? Interestingly enough scientists might be good at collecting data, the climatology crowd isn't too good at sharing it though.
 

mrcoolboy15

New member
Awards
0
well maybe some people are having winters that are not so bad...but i am from texas and we never have winters as bad as we are having this year...so i dont understand, since it is only warming in some areas.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
well maybe some people are having winters that are not so bad...but i am from texas and we never have winters as bad as we are having this year...so i dont understand, since it is only warming in some areas.
No one knows. Global warming can be affected by anything from pollutants to solar output to land usage over time.
 

mrcoolboy15

New member
Awards
0
Yeah, well i know that volcanos put out a huge amount of polution, and if you read in the bible all the things that global warming supposable causes...doesnt it say that these things like many natural disasters, volcanos, and famine are going to happend in the end days???
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Yeah, well i know that volcanos put out a huge amount of polution, and if you read in the bible all the things that global warming supposable causes...doesnt it say that these things like many natural disasters, volcanos, and famine are going to happend in the end days???
Yeah, but then again "the end times" predicted by any religion aren't likely to be goose feathers and easy, risk free sex, you know?
 
DAdams91982

DAdams91982

Board Sponsor
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Yeah, but then again "the end times" predicted by any religion aren't likely to be goose feathers and easy, risk free sex, you know?
Exactly... Me.... I'm praying for rain... Im praying for tidal waves.... I want to see the ground give way.... I want to watch it all go running down!!!!

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Adams
 

meowmeow

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
The problem with the above is that it ignores any potential agenda on the proponent's side of the argument. No one bites the hand that feeds them, and any study or line of study that suggests man's contribution to global warming isn't that significant isn't going to be well received by most government grant orgs, universities, etc. The idea that 'Big Oil' is the only group capable of having an agenda that affects research funding choices etc. is kind of naive. And this is demonstrable in our world of 'supplementation.' Don't see many studies using real world dosages/cycles of steroids do we? And the few that do are played down while uncontrolled case studies and studies with rats taking a trillion times the recommended dose for their entire lives are passed off as a relevant base of evidence for human use.

The government is by nature political. It's an inherrent part of the system, and it does affect the choices of who gets research grants, what lines of research get funded and pursued, etc. In 1999 the IOM commissioned a report on marijuana as medicine. They came to the reasonable conclusion that it was moderately effective, should be researched further and possibly offerred to patients for whom other options weren't effective. Not too long after its release the researchers had to give a press conference and essentially say the report didn't say what it said and apologized for sending the wrong message to kids and what not. Perfect example of how government 'science' operates.

Now this doesn't mean all government science is tainted, just that it is quite obviously not agenda free anymore than research promoted by ExxonMobile or Shell etc. Research should be taken for what it is and reviewed on its own merits, not those of its funding source. Plus the behavior of some of the paleoclimatology field strikes me as more than a bit odd. They seem to conveniently lose data, or simply don't make it available until finger nails are pulled, anytime anyone outside their little circle wants to review/replicate their results.
I smile when I read your post because I see that you have an intelligent mind and that you appear not to swallow pre-digested opinions/conclusions and adopt them as your own. Your points are well made.

Your post makes me think of two things.

The first is William Whyte's book from the 1950’s The Organization Man. He interviewed many in the academic community who pursued money for research. What he found was that the grant-givers, private foundations, trusts and governmental organizations funded no “maverick thinking”. Instead research ideas presented for funding where often dumbed -down by the grant-givers. The smaller amounts originally applied for were at the grant-givers behest doubled, tripled and quadrupled and the studies enlarged or changed in such a way as to become over broad. Many “like-minded” researchers were brought into the process with the end result being $50000 grants for $100 ideas.

The second is the process of polarization (the essence of which may be found in the Hegelian Dialect). Simply put ideas, concepts and movements in a particular genre are “pushed” to either one extreme or the other. Topical views are polarized where their potential force is blunted and easily controlled. The middle ground is often left with no voice or vitality due to many of its original members migrating to a more extreme position. Those that adopt those positions than vest an interest in them and as you point out become lobbyists for those positions rather than critical thinkers.

As far as global warming is concerned…the oceans won’t rise up and swallow me and I will probably always be able to buy my multi-pack cans of tuna at Costco. My grandchildren’s children may not be so fortunate…but who knows…

I do know that changing my personal behavior will not reduce China’s total emissions nor will my taking a position and voicing it vociferously persuade the U.S. to sign an international accord. But even if it could I can’t be for certain that global climate change for the better would be the result. Neither can anyone else.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
I do know that changing my personal behavior will not reduce China’s total emissions nor will my taking a position and voicing it vociferously persuade the U.S. to sign an international accord. But even if it could I can’t be for certain that global climate change for the better would be the result. Neither can anyone else.
An honest price for oil is all we need really. It's impossible to know what it should cost, but massive amounts of resources are used to subsidize its deliver in the form of military expenditures, tax breaks and incentives given to companies, distortions in production due to property rights violations etc. But basically it would cost a lot more than it does now or a little less. Likely the former. That being the case alternative energy sources become much more viable and R&D money gets a lot easier to get hold of. Pretty soon no more oil.

Was discussing this on another board and if I remember right hemp seed oil makes decent bioldiesel fuel, and that **** grows like a weed, because it is one. Try getting that going in this country though. The Partnership for a Drug Free America would claim driving a hemp powered car sends the wrong message to children.
 

size

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I thought some of you may find this interesting.

"The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe.
If you don’t like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue
"
Link to Article
 
Aeternitatis

Aeternitatis

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
^^^
It's a little bit worrisome in that it starts out with "when God put it here". I have a problem trusting anyone's opinion who thinks we're in the "end days" right now. Now I'm not against religion so much as I am against idiots... like those who claim we shouldn't try to make things better because Christ is coming back soon and all the righteous will be saved. Well, they've been saying that for centuries as well.

But the thing that's different this time around with the warming is the melting of glaciers that had stodd where the were for hundreds if not thousands of years (second link has good before and afters):

Link: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Himalayan glaciers 'melting fast'
Link: Glaciers and Glacial Warming Globally

Not to mention that's a government site. Looks like the guy is telling you straight away not to trust it: "I would not listen to anyone that is a politician..." Funny.
 
somewhatgifted

somewhatgifted

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
So when we over fish an ocean, dump oil, chemicals, sewer spill, drop bombs were not impacting our environment? When we harvest billions of trees, introduce "foreign" plant species, introduce foreign animals, cause forest fires were not impacting our environment? When we pump billions of tonnes of waste, garbage, chemicals that are not the product of nature, were not making an impact? When we drop bombs, nukes, chemical bombs, crop dust, hormone feed livestock, clone animals and humans, develop drugs, make plastic, launch shuttles into space were not impacting our enironment?
When our population skyrockets increasing all the waste product of man, increase our need for food, oxygen, space were not impacting our environment? Weve done EVERYTHING to impact out environment and the fallout is all around us. Whats it goona take to get through to peoples heads use common sense how could we NOT impact earth negatively. the issue has never been about "normal" weather patterns, and if at some point this place we call home can nolonger support life then sobeit. But the issue is were either accelerating the process exponentially or were causing the problem. PERIOD. How can so many people desire so badly to believe "its goona be ok" The world is changing and to say we have no impact is to say weve never existed. As far as i can tell we've been here, were still here and every breath you take you should be greatfull for and atleast consider making a PoSITIVE change on the simple basis that it MAY lead to the survival of mankind. It may not be today, it may not be tommorow, but soon enough its all goona be painfully clear that nothing is "ok" and theres people goona be there right to the end taking no accountability for destroying the only life sustaining planet we know of. Why defend slobbish, excessive, wastefull behaviour ever. Some of the largest companies on the planet now recognise the need for change, but others are still willing to roll the dice. Maybe we will die, maybe its unstoppable, but maybe it isnt and what it really goona hurt to try. Animals go extinct as we dine on their flesh, but its not our fault, animals die because of our pollution and destroying their habitat. The ice melts where it hasnt melted, the snow falls where it doesnt fall, the garbage piles up, the air gets hard to breathe........ Whats it goona take?
 
somewhatgifted

somewhatgifted

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
CEOs lobby Bush to curb warming - Environment - MSNBC.com

In a statement, the 10 U.S.-based companies and four environmental groups called for mandatory reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, including those from power plants, transportation and buildings.

Called the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, the group includes aluminum giant Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar, DuPont, General Electric, Lehman Brothers and four utilities with a big stake in climate policy: Duke Energy, FPL Group, PG&E and PNM Resources. (MSNBC.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and GE's NBC Universal unit.)
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
So when we over fish an ocean, dump oil, chemicals, sewer spill, drop bombs were not impacting our environment?
Anything we do impacts the environment. All species of animal manipulate and transform their environments. That's not the point. The point is whether or not what we are doing is appreciably adding to any changes in the environment that will be negative for us in the long term, and then more importantly why are these things happening and how can they be stopped? The why is not as simple as CO2 release, it also involves the social and political context in which such pollution is made possible.

When we harvest billions of trees, introduce "foreign" plant species, introduce foreign animals, cause forest fires were not impacting our environment? When we pump billions of tonnes of ... about "normal" weather patterns, and if at some point this place we call home can nolonger support life then sobeit. But the issue is were either accelerating the process exponentially or were causing the problem. PERIOD. How can so many people desire so badly to believe "its goona be ok" The world is changing and to say we have no impact is to say weve never existed.
Exactly. However, since the climate is a dynamic complex system answers are not always simple.

As far as i can tell we've been here, were still here and every breath you take you should be greatfull for and atleast consider making a PoSITIVE change on the simple basis that it ... its not our fault, animals die because of our pollution and destroying their habitat. The ice melts where it hasnt melted, the snow falls where it doesnt fall, the garbage piles up, the air gets hard to breathe........ Whats it goona take?
For me? It'd be nice if liberals would acknowledge the government's hand in screwing the environment up and stop promoting solutions that will also have us back living in caves. I proposed a deal to a few liberals on another board in a similar debate. Sarcastically, I said I'd acknowledge global warming as legitimate and true when they acknowledged marginal utility as legitimate and true. My problem is not with the science of global warming for the most part, though some of it seems a bit fishy and people might want to look into past scientific 'consensuses' that didn't turn out so well. My problem is its inevitable that the 'solutions' people propose involve destroying the economy. Nordo they acknowledge the government's hand in making our current situation what it is. For example:

Why can people pollute with such abandon? They didn't used to be able to do so, until the government courts stepped in and said they could because they decided industry trumped our property rights. Before that nuisance suits were successfuly brought against polluting factories. Admittedly they didn't know what we know now, they were concerned with smoke. Still, it worked until the government decided it knew better than we did how things should be.

Another...

Those forrests you're so worried about, all those greedy corps cutting down trees, and the poor fishies. Presumably the same greed is operative in copper, nickle, iron, lead, etc., yet for some reason people aren't depleting mines like crazy. That just might be because people are allowed to own the mines. When it comes to the forrests most are owned by the government and leased out for logging. If you tell someone they can own what they take from a mine or forrest or river but not own the mine or forrest or river itself, they will take as much as possible without regard to the future. This is what happens when the government steps in and allows property rights in the use of a resource but not the resource itself: it is over used and destroyed because no one has a long term interest in it. Check out privatization of fish stock and quotas. Fish stocks increase, quality increases, all the bad parts of over fishing disappear simply because people are allowed to own the resource and they have a long term interest in its value. It's not magic, it's what happens when property rights are allowed to function.

Bottom line, I think a lot of people realize we have a problem but are clueless as to why, and the 'solutions' they propose are nothing of the sort and will likely lead to more problems. Usually because they all involve trusting the government to not sell out the environment and act as a responsbible steward of it. Something it hasn't done once in its entire history with any resource.
 
somewhatgifted

somewhatgifted

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
You have very valid points, now how does one go about handing out accountability and finger pointing. My point was in the short term to acknowledge the potential to make small individual changes. Big industry, big money, big political influence, big problems....
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
You have very valid points, now how does one go about handing out accountability and finger pointing. My point was in the short term to acknowledge the potential to make small individual changes. Big industry, big money, big political influence, big problems....
One idea: let people own things. Air, for example. Simple form plan. On a state basis, all registered voters receive equal, nontransferable shares in the atmosphere. This is the begining and end of the government's involvement in this plan. They, as any stock holders who own somthing, hire a board of directors, which they can fire any damn time they feel like it. They set their own standards and prices for the use of the air. Companies have to then pay the share holders, in other words us, to pollute, and they can only pollute to the level people in the areas they affect will accept. The money raised goes to the share holders, in other words, us. This will at least allow some kind of pricing system to develop so the air is treated as what it is, a valuable resource that people have to pay to use. Same with bodies of water. Now obviously not all pollution will stay in one state, but that is natural and to be expected. All property has limits, and as people work out how to deal with the issue of pollution cross over you start getting a legally defined technical unit of property. As the system developed we could even make the shares transferable and then you have a true property based system.

If a company pulled up to your yard and dumped tons of their garbage there it would obviously be wrong and they would owe you reparations. Unless of course you owned a dump in which case they pay you to take their garbage. We need a system that allows the air and water to be treated the same way, as property. Not as some collective thing we all have some ephemeral interest in but can't profit from. The only way to make people value something, conserve it and even increase its supply, is to allow a price on its use to develop, plain and simple.

Edit: If there was any bite or a bad tone to my previous post it wasn't directed at you. I just get so ****ing pissed off at holier than thou liberals who label anyone who asks even the most reasonable questions about global warming as mental midgets, meanwhile a massive portion of their ideology is based on an astounding ignorance of the most basic and universally agreed upon principles of economics.
 
somewhatgifted

somewhatgifted

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
This would have to occur over a global scale would it not? as the air we breathe here is effected by the entire worlds actions. It seems where land ,tress and ground is owned, is where most of the irreprable damage is done, ie. mines, clear cutting.. etc. I like the fact that everyone has a say and is finacially restituted when unwittingly wronged. I like that your actually thinking of a solution instead of just complaining or denying. I dont have these discussions to change the world, but to stimulate my mind, learn, and open my and others eyes to potential threats/ problems. I have a feeling corruption could validate harmful behaviour and the temptation of dollar signs would impair most peoples ability to make an "earth friendly" decision/s. The other major issue is getting the entire world on the same page, everyone wants a piece of pie but noone wants to cook. In the end i think is brave to attempt to change perspective, who will change if not for personal benefit? In the meantime its hypocritical to talk about global warming but take no global accountability at home. I plan to make minute changes that allow me the credibility to hope others will do the same. I would be very intimidated to formally and legally put the fate of mankinds resources into any organized system, as system can be corrupted and money can filthy up any good poor persons share. Like i said atleast your thinking of a solution, instead of perpetual finger pointing which isolates a problem in a negative manner and provides no solution.
 

ItsHectic

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Do you guys feel yourselves getting burnt from the sun on your arms when driving on a hot day?
 

size

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
^^^
It's a little bit worrisome in that it starts out with "when God put it here". I have a problem trusting anyone's opinion who thinks we're in the "end days" right now...Not to mention that's a government site. Looks like the guy is telling you straight away not to trust it: "I would not listen to anyone that is a politician..." Funny.
Not sure where you gathered the "end of days" connection.
Anyway, if you gained nothing from reading that then I am sorry and I also believe you missed the point.
 

Similar threads


Top