Global Warming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter Rugger
- Start date
DR.D
Well-known member
Omen, my nigga! 
I didn't know you were so hippity-hoppity. lol
Yeah, I read a science article a few days ago that showed the ice sheet growing in Iceland, not receding. I also saw another article that explained why. It stated that sunspot activity is the lowest it's been in about 100 years, so the globe is actually cooling due to poor solar contribution. I found this in a USA Today article about the new 2009 Almanac, check it out:
Old Farmers Almanac: Global cooling may be underway
Posted 9/9/2008 4:56
By David Tirrell-Wysocki, Associated Press Writer
DUBLIN, N.H. — The Old Farmer's Almanac is going further out on a limb than usual this year, not only forecasting a cooler winter, but looking ahead decades to suggest we are in for global cooling, not warming.
Based on the same time-honored, complex calculations it uses to predict weather, the Almanac hits the newsstands on Tuesday saying a study of solar activity and corresponding records on ocean temperatures and climate point to a cooler, not warmer, climate, for perhaps the next half century.
"We at the Almanac are among those who believe that sunspot cycles and their effects on oceans correlate with climate changes," writes meteorologist and climatologist Joseph D'Aleo. "Studying these and other factor suggests that cold, not warm, climate may be our future."
It remains to be seen, said Editor-in-Chief Jud Hale, whether the human impact on global temperatures will cancel out or override any cooling trend.
"We say that if human beings were not contributing to global warming, it would become real cold in the next 50 years," Hale said.
These researchers are saying we better start warming the environment, otherwise the cooling trend will predominate before the century is over.
I didn't know you were so hippity-hoppity. lolYeah, I read a science article a few days ago that showed the ice sheet growing in Iceland, not receding. I also saw another article that explained why. It stated that sunspot activity is the lowest it's been in about 100 years, so the globe is actually cooling due to poor solar contribution. I found this in a USA Today article about the new 2009 Almanac, check it out:
Old Farmers Almanac: Global cooling may be underway
Posted 9/9/2008 4:56
By David Tirrell-Wysocki, Associated Press Writer
DUBLIN, N.H. — The Old Farmer's Almanac is going further out on a limb than usual this year, not only forecasting a cooler winter, but looking ahead decades to suggest we are in for global cooling, not warming.
Based on the same time-honored, complex calculations it uses to predict weather, the Almanac hits the newsstands on Tuesday saying a study of solar activity and corresponding records on ocean temperatures and climate point to a cooler, not warmer, climate, for perhaps the next half century.
"We at the Almanac are among those who believe that sunspot cycles and their effects on oceans correlate with climate changes," writes meteorologist and climatologist Joseph D'Aleo. "Studying these and other factor suggests that cold, not warm, climate may be our future."
It remains to be seen, said Editor-in-Chief Jud Hale, whether the human impact on global temperatures will cancel out or override any cooling trend.
"We say that if human beings were not contributing to global warming, it would become real cold in the next 50 years," Hale said.
These researchers are saying we better start warming the environment, otherwise the cooling trend will predominate before the century is over.
JudoJosh
Pro Virili Parte
wow.. never heard that before.. I take it your a loose change fan?
and as far as global warning I think presidential canidate sarah palin said it best "I'm not going to solely blame all of man's activities on changes in climate because the world's weather patterns are cyclical, and over history we have seen changes there. But it kinda doesn't matter at this point in the debate what caused it. The point is it's real; we need to do something about it."
it doesnt matter what caused it as long as we get rid of it and pray it doesnt come back ...
RobInKuwait
Registered User
Um, are you serious? You're assuming that:
A. Man, at his current state has the ability to significantly affect global temperature.
B. That this climate change has already affected earth's temperatures and is in remission
Both these assumptions have yet to be proven in any scientific manner.
No reputable scientist will deny that the greenhouse effect has driven climate change well before man inhabited the worth. Volcanic activity has long been a catalyst in temperature change in earth. Its the main reason we go from dinosaurs to wooly mammoths.
However, you will be hard pressed to find a scientist that will show correlation and causation between man's activities and a change in earth's temperature.
To show the fundamental flaw in the global warming argument:
The ice caps have melted due to climate change. Man is industrialized and produces poll greenhouse gases, which in large enough quantities cause global warming. Did I mention the ice caps that melted I was referring to were on MARS. Yes, I'm not making this up, Mar's ice caps melted recently. Using the same logic, it was the fault of man.
JudoJosh
Pro Virili Parte
you misunderstood the point... the part in bold I find amusing is the fact she says it doesnt matter what caused global warming we just need to fix it... How can you fix a problem if you dont kno what causing the problem? If you have a water leak in a pipe and the floor is getting wet is it logically to just mop the floor and hope water stops getting there? Or does it make more sense to figure out why water is there and solve whatever is causing the water to get there??
I no way near understand global warming and honestly never even wondered.. so I cant debate that, I was not implying the man caused the problem just pointing out her logic
I no way near understand global warming and honestly never even wondered.. so I cant debate that, I was not implying the man caused the problem just pointing out her logic
RobInKuwait
Registered User
Ah ok. Sorry, misunderstood your point. That drives me crazy when the right wing candidates caters nonstop to left BS propaganda.
RobInKuwait
Registered User
no prob
Yeah. I was the same way. I learned about global warming in elementary school and the teachers taught it like it was gospel. Just like evolution. Just like the New Deal. Just like the Civil War. Its amazing how jaded you can get about grade school when you do some independent research.
papapumpsd
Well-known member
Global warming (human-caused) is such bull$hit. Now, didn't planet Earth have an ice age? Gee...what happened to all that ice and snow? I'd blame it on global warming caused by all the farting eskimos and wooly mammoths...ya....that's why the planet warmed up. So stupid.
This is such a weak topic if you're arguing that HUMANS cause global warming. The planet has its own cycles.
Are people going to blame the reversal of the magnetic N/S poles on us too? They have changed in the past (millions of years ago). When they begin to change again, are we going to say we're mining too much metal from the Earth and most of the ferrous metals are on East and West part of the globe, thereby changing N/S to E/W and fuqqing us all royally?
LAME
This is such a weak topic if you're arguing that HUMANS cause global warming. The planet has its own cycles.
Are people going to blame the reversal of the magnetic N/S poles on us too? They have changed in the past (millions of years ago). When they begin to change again, are we going to say we're mining too much metal from the Earth and most of the ferrous metals are on East and West part of the globe, thereby changing N/S to E/W and fuqqing us all royally?
LAME
raginfcktard
Active member
gobal warming is tree hugging hippie bullshit! earth is on a never ending cycle of ice ages. we are just nearing another one!
HardTrainer
Member
Big energy companies have a lot to gain from arguing that there is no global warming.
What exactly do 'hippies' have to gain from arguing that it does exist?
I'm assuming that by 'hippies' you mean people like The Joint Science Acadamies for the G8+5 countries?
Invalid Link Removed
What exactly do 'hippies' have to gain from arguing that it does exist?
I'm assuming that by 'hippies' you mean people like The Joint Science Acadamies for the G8+5 countries?
Invalid Link Removed
RobInKuwait
Registered User
To relate it to terms liberals use and understand, by creating a panic, similar to post-9/11, Government uses their new found power to strip individual liberties, property rights, and build bigger government. Government as an institution stands to gain the most from "climate change", yet they're the ones funding the vast majority of the studies.
Here's a nice Algore quote:
"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis." -- Al Gore
Let's modify that quote to show you how hypocritical many liberals are:
"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (Iraq) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are (Going to war), and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."
raginfcktard
Active member
go take a elementary geology course...you'll find your answers there!
HardTrainer
Member
Sorry. I'm not from America so I don't really understand, or sympathize with, this need to reduce all political/philosophical/sociological arguments to a battle of conservative vs liberal. I'm not either of those things. I don't see how the Iraq war relates to global warming, and I don't see how my opinion on one necessarily determines my opinion on the other.
The first part of your post however I find very interesting. The argument of goverments using fear to bolster their power is a pretty reasonable one imho. But do you have any factual evidence/examples of it happening in relation to global warming?
The only thing I can think of off hand is increased tax on petrol (gas). But having said that most governments are also decreasing the cost of alternative energy sources, which would tend to imply a genuine desire to cut carbon emissions rather than simply an attempt to tax people more.
If you have something better to add?
WOW powerful argument! Who needs verbal reasoning when you can just arrogantly condescend people!raginfcktard said:
RobInKuwait
Registered User
No, my point was that liberals in America constantly complain about how Bush lied to them as a pretext to go to war. In that quote Algore is advocating lying to the people as a pretext to deal with global warming. The same principle applies to both arguments and that is what I was trying to highlight.
I'll list everything I can think of offhand:
1. Increasing the size and budget of government. (Environmental Protection Agency, Dept of the Interior, "Scientific" Organizations to study it, ect.)
2. Controlling infrastructure growth. Carbon emissions is a catch all that can control land use, industrial developments, military exercises, citizen's travelling, ect.
3. As way to make money, as you already stated. This includes "cap and trade" carbon taxes, driving tolls nationwide as a means to "decrease" automobile usage, and many others I'm sure I missed.
4. As a justification to cater to lobbyists in areas such as ethanol/farming production, wind and solar power companies, and other "green" companies.
These are just a few of the ones I thought of off the top of my head. Essentially, you can accomplish whatever you want by controlling the country's energy and resource production, which is the government whether implicitly or explicitly is seeking to do.
raginfcktard
Active member
oh christ here we go...
graph of CO2 in ice cores over 650,000 years of greenhouse gasses...see the trend
Invalid Link Removed
...another of glacial cycle
Invalid Link Removed (sry wouldn't embed the image)
earth has tendency of repeating itself...humans have little impact on earth as a whole but have caused localized problematic areas. nothing we can to do stop it! we need to focus on living in the future rather than trying to fix the present!
graph of CO2 in ice cores over 650,000 years of greenhouse gasses...see the trend
Invalid Link Removed
...another of glacial cycle
Invalid Link Removed (sry wouldn't embed the image)
earth has tendency of repeating itself...humans have little impact on earth as a whole but have caused localized problematic areas. nothing we can to do stop it! we need to focus on living in the future rather than trying to fix the present!
HardTrainer
Member
I can't deny that it's a reasonable argument. Maybe even one that we should here more of in the media. To sum up my personal feelings:
I live about 200 miles north of the artic circle and climate change is a big issue here. It's not too cold as the area is kept relatively warm by arctic currents (the gulf stream). Alot of climatologists beleive the current could stop if climate trends continue, which would basically make my home virtually uninhabitable. Alternatively, it could all be a hoax and we could end up with a bunch of extra taxes and a more powerful government...
Personally, the first one worries me alot more. Taxes change all the time, and the idea of a government having control of the country doesn't really scare given that, that is essentially what they are elected to do (in that respect I may well be a liberal by american standards). My home disappearing however would be permanent.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
Flames on the Fire:
Non oil-dominant countries, and countries with huge vested investments into alternative energy sources (natural gas, solar, hydrogen, etc.) have quite the economic incentive to claim man-made global warming.
Hippies just want to return man to some illusory "natural state" of existence...that's their motivation.
Non oil-dominant countries, and countries with huge vested investments into alternative energy sources (natural gas, solar, hydrogen, etc.) have quite the economic incentive to claim man-made global warming.
Hippies just want to return man to some illusory "natural state" of existence...that's their motivation.
RobInKuwait
Registered User
Agreed....IF it was true that man causes it, then global warming is a very serious issue. However, nobody can PROVE that is true. It is all speculation and wishful thinking. Its the politics and economics of faith. Would you put your economy in the hands of priests or businessmen?
HardTrainer
Member
Norway (where I live) is the 3rd largest exporter of oil in the world, with a population of less than 5 million. Needless to say: Oil is a large part of the economy. But the state is still investing lots of money to cut carbon emissions. I think carbon emessions have been cut by something like 10% since 1990. Offically the government has stated that the country will be 'carbon free' by 2030.
It may not be as certain a scientific fact as gravity, death or taxes. But when organisations like the American National Academy of Sciences are supporting it, and nobel prizes are being given out for climatology work, you have to admit it's slightly more than speculation and wishful thinking. No?RobInKuwait said:
RobInKuwait
Registered User
I don't build my ideas based upon reputations, but upon facts. Yasir Arafat and Algore got Nobel prizes. That doesn't exactly help the reputation of the Noble prize. Plus the American National Academy of Science is an organization funded by the US government. Obviously their findings may be swayed by focusing on findings that support future funding.
HardTrainer
Member
Fair point.
futurepilot
Well-known member
(Option A)
Lets say that global warming is real, and we do everything we can to stop it, end result: We've gained a more environmentally aware society that has put R&D money towards something useful, creating a more sustainable lifestyle.
Lets says its real, we do nothing to stop it, end result: The world falls into utter chaos, due to mass starvation, floods, governmental collapse.
(Option B)
Fake, do nothing about it: The world continues to pollute itself, making more and more land/water uninhabitable.
Fake, and we do everything we can to stop it, end result: We've gained a more environmentally aware society that has put R&D money towards something usefull, creating a more sustainable lifestyle.
How can we lose by believeing in it?
Lets say that global warming is real, and we do everything we can to stop it, end result: We've gained a more environmentally aware society that has put R&D money towards something useful, creating a more sustainable lifestyle.
Lets says its real, we do nothing to stop it, end result: The world falls into utter chaos, due to mass starvation, floods, governmental collapse.
(Option B)
Fake, do nothing about it: The world continues to pollute itself, making more and more land/water uninhabitable.
Fake, and we do everything we can to stop it, end result: We've gained a more environmentally aware society that has put R&D money towards something usefull, creating a more sustainable lifestyle.
How can we lose by believeing in it?
AJC408
New member
-----------------
Did you find that on youtube? Anyways, your logic can be used for almost anything. What if the killer bee's come and we do nothing? What if it's fake? bahhhh anyways man-made global warming is a fairy tale use by environmentalists to shut down the oil industries
DR.D
Well-known member
-----------------
Did you find that on youtube? Anyways, your logic can be used for almost anything. What if the killer bee's come and we do nothing? What if it's fake? bahhhh anyways man-made global warming is a fairy tale use by environmentalists to shut down the oil industries
Did you say youtube?
What impact do you think this would have on the environment...[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDHT0hBgVOw&feature=related"]YouTube - Water Car Inventor Killed... Full Story[/ame]
If global warming was really that serious, why wasn't this technology exploited decades ago? You can find an endless number of average Joes on youtube making Meyers cells literally in their back yard. It seems a Japanese company is even planning to market one soon. Another guy in Australia offers a 5 hr class that walks you though the process of converting your gas engine to water for less than 1500 bucks! Oil is a limited resource and getting less and less cost effective to extract I'm sure. Do you really think the big energy companies don't already have uranium dealers, or water cartels (or whatever the next big fuel source will be) on the pay role?
The guy who designed this 'carbon free' vehicle signed a contract with the DOD after rejecting an OPEC bribe to shut up. He mysteriously died of food poisoning the very next day, quite tragic. The message seems fairly clear. The government doesn't give a sh!t if people play with this technology, but you dare not commercialize it!
It's safe to say that big money calls the shots, regardless if the globe is warming or cooling. That's my point. Now be a good boy and go put your recycling can out by the street so you can feel like your saving the environment.
RobInKuwait
Registered User
I prefer facts to justify tyrannical policies, not faerie tales. Read Algore's quote above and you see where my skepticism comes from. I remember learning in school 20 years ago that New York would be underwater today. Hmmm.
We can lose in many ways:
-Hindering future technological developments
-Victimizing businesses that create jobs and therefore hindering economic growth
-Government curtailing of civil liberties in the name of "the environment
-Banning flat panel TVs that aren't environmentally friendly (actually in the legislative body of California)
The potential government abuses are endless.
JudoJosh
Pro Virili Parte
I didn't read the entire thread but I dont understand why this is debated.. okay fine I get that the earth goes the climate change and it is inevitable, fine. I get that it isnt man made and infact due to natural climate changes, fine. Those are good points but not points against it.
Where are the articles that show pollution isnt adding on the the problem??? Man might not be directly causing it, but we sure aint helping delay it much.. Why not make companies more fuel efficent? why not make more hybrid cars? where is the downside? Yes climate change is coming and yes ice caps are melting and whatever else is happening as a result of this. We might not be able to stop it from coming but we can delay it instead of helping speed it up... Don't you think?
and rob you state how our it is being exploited, okay so I guess that might be a downside but hey free market, if you can get enough people to believe in the crap you are "selling" and sell it right?
how is this hyped up? cuz of the oil crisis? I didnt think that was govnt funded.. isnt that speculators for the oil companies predicting that one day we might run out of oil so sell high now?? Or most likely a fear of Obama and his speeches of alternative fuel so lets get all the money we can now, it has happened before they raise the prices we start talking hybrid and the prices fall back down and everyone forgets about it, but I am getting off topic I dont see how this relates to global warming
Where are the articles that show pollution isnt adding on the the problem??? Man might not be directly causing it, but we sure aint helping delay it much.. Why not make companies more fuel efficent? why not make more hybrid cars? where is the downside? Yes climate change is coming and yes ice caps are melting and whatever else is happening as a result of this. We might not be able to stop it from coming but we can delay it instead of helping speed it up... Don't you think?
and rob you state how our it is being exploited, okay so I guess that might be a downside but hey free market, if you can get enough people to believe in the crap you are "selling" and sell it right?
how is this hyped up? cuz of the oil crisis? I didnt think that was govnt funded.. isnt that speculators for the oil companies predicting that one day we might run out of oil so sell high now?? Or most likely a fear of Obama and his speeches of alternative fuel so lets get all the money we can now, it has happened before they raise the prices we start talking hybrid and the prices fall back down and everyone forgets about it, but I am getting off topic I dont see how this relates to global warming
RobInKuwait
Registered User
So you want the government to engineer and mastermind the economy, just in case the voodoo *may* be true?
Why not have the government raise my kids for me just in case I *may* be negligent some day?
Why not have the government design my diet and workout for me, just in case I *may* be doing it wrong?
The US was founded on INDIVIDUAL liberties and extremely limited government invention. This is an excuse to undermine the foundation of our free society and create an environment of autocratic government rule.
JudoJosh
Pro Virili Parte
undermine the foundation of society??? Why i think that is a stretch there.. okay let me try and re-explain my view on this..
there is articles and graphs posted above(which I didnt read cuz im lazy ) and they show that global warming is real and is coming and we can stop it, true?
they also show that this has been occuring forever now and isnt man made, true?
okay both those facts are cool with me, I didnt kno that before, but how does that negate the fact that our pollution is contributing to this effect?? Are there studies that carbon pollution has 0 effect on our enviroment? the carbon emmisions has 0 effect on our bodies?
why is it bad to reduce something that is harmful? the examples you say above about the diet and children are way off.. that is our govnt specalating, I dont think it is a guess that carbon gasses are effecting our world and bodies so why not try and reduce it?
*side not* I did learn that we werent actually causing it from this thread as I was always under the belief that this was our fault guess not
there is articles and graphs posted above(which I didnt read cuz im lazy
) and they show that global warming is real and is coming and we can stop it, true?they also show that this has been occuring forever now and isnt man made, true?
okay both those facts are cool with me, I didnt kno that before, but how does that negate the fact that our pollution is contributing to this effect?? Are there studies that carbon pollution has 0 effect on our enviroment? the carbon emmisions has 0 effect on our bodies?
why is it bad to reduce something that is harmful? the examples you say above about the diet and children are way off.. that is our govnt specalating, I dont think it is a guess that carbon gasses are effecting our world and bodies so why not try and reduce it?
*side not* I did learn that we werent actually causing it from this thread as I was always under the belief that this was our fault guess not
AJC408
New member
I agree with you, but, how does a scientists really know the actual climate that was over 650,000 years ago? In my opinion, I dont think the trends we see can really be observed to that extent of time. Furthermore, I think that a "fact" like that is probably based off the same tools global warming alarmists use in their studies... computer models based of speculation of current trends...
I could be wrong, just a thought though =]
DR.D
Well-known member
You're right. It certainly doesn't hurt anything to try and reduce it. Who knows, it might even help. If the government says it's important to reduce carbon emissions, then citizens have no choice but to trust it's somehow for the best.
Nobody listens or cares anyway, and at this point that's probably for the best. Henceforth, I officially giving up on politics Josh.
AJC408
New member
You're right. It certainly doesn't hurt anything to try and reduce it. Who knows, it might even help. If the government says it's important to reduce carbon emissions, then citizens have no choice but to trust it's somehow for the best.
Nobody listens or cares anyway, and at this point that's probably for the best. Henceforth, I officially giving up on politics Josh.
But it does hurt to reduce emissions. Government is trying to enact a cap and trade system. Who do you think is going to regulate how many emissions businesses are going to be able to emit? The Government. Energy fuels the economy, but if government puts regulations on energy, who controls the economy now? Good bye capitalism. Hello Socialism!
It WILL cost the US to reduce emissions, that's not exactly where we need to be spending our money with trillions in IOU's! =[
JudoJosh
Pro Virili Parte
socialism??? wow that is a stretch there.. how did you get it there, im interested in ur reasoning for that?''
You're right. It certainly doesn't hurt anything to try and reduce it. Who knows, it might even help. If the government says it's important to reduce carbon emissions, then citizens have no choice but to trust it's somehow for the best.
Nobody listens or cares anyway, and at this point that's probably for the best. Henceforth, I officially giving up on politics Josh.
and i;m not saying that its bad just cuz the govt says so, its far from that especialy cuz i dont believe nor trust the govt for jack **** especially even more since 9/11 i subscribe to the theories of loose change so I am definetely not saying to trust them that its bad cuz they say so... i am saying it is bad.... because it is bad
RobInKuwait
Registered User
No, its not a stretch at all. Imagine the locomotive never being invented because it caused pollutants and they couldn't afford the taxes on it. Imagine the assembly line and automobile never be made because it caused pollutants and they couldn't afford the taxes on it.
This is central planning by government for the economy. Sounds a little like Soviet Russia to me.
there is articles and graphs posted above(which I didnt read cuz im lazy
No, it shows that we're in the middle of an ice age and its about ready to get a lot colder rather than hotter unless there's a hell of a lot more CO2 emissions.
Yes, hence the dinosaur and woolly mammoths.
If we are in the middle of an ice age, we want as much global warming as possible so Chicago and London aren't under a sheet of ice again.
It isn't *bad* to reduce CO2 emissions, what is bad is government central planning a countries economy. Its been shown to not be as effective as a free market economy. Hence China's rise to prosperity in the last 20 years.
Yeah, that's what I was taught my whole life as well. There's very few legitimate sources of information the average person will ever hear on non-PC viewpoints in general. This is just one example.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
Human flatulence contains Methanol, a known green house gas. Guess you won't mind if the government institutes a "Fart Tax" on you, based on the "maybe" tenuous evidence?
By extension, how much more would you like to have to pay for your essential goods (food, clothing, shelter, etc.) because the increased regulations (again, a tenuous connection) are instituted "just in case". Can you afford another, say $200 a month? $300?
I guarantee you one thing....eventually all cost increases are passed directly to the consumer, one way or another.
DR.D
Well-known member
You always wanna be something noble when you grow up... a doctor or a preacher, or something like that. But now I see, I should have been a lawyer or a tax collector!! :study:
CDB
Registered User
Actually it's big oil and energy companies that have the majority of investments in alternative energy develpment, so they stand the most to gain financially should restrictions raise fossil fuel prices and pour government development money into alternatives.
Millions in research grants, endowed chairs, trips to Brazil and other tropical locations for Earth Summit day and what not, appointed government positions, not to mention an excuse to advance every hair brained moronic leftist economic agenda they want.
No. Because what is not publicized is the rather large and growing portion of scientists who are finally fed up with all the "the debate is over" BS and who are signing off the alarmist sheet and moving to skeptic. Nor can you look to political organizations like the NAS or the IPCC for true science. There are already IPCC reviewers coming out and saying their views were distorted or misrepresented in the released summaries and reports. Many of the 'scientists' involved in climate research, especially those involved in determing past temperatures, are less that open when it comes to their methods and raw data, actively denying to share it with anyone who might be critical. The reasons why are clear; whenever they do or someone finds out and gets the infor public, it's loaded with errors. Michael Mann's hockey stick is one example.
You should also check out Anthony Watt's work on documenting surface temperature sites. The org that maintains the network, the acronym escapes me, refused to do a review of sites, so Watt did it on his own. He's been finding temperature sensors next to AC condensors, in the middle of blacktop parking lots, mere feet away from car engines, and even hanging above BBQ grills for God's sake. You should also check a recent book on the subject, Red Hot Lies by Christopher Horner. The 'environmentalists' in the NAS panel weren't elected, they snuck in through a technicality and proceeded to dominate NAS panels and appoint like minded people to positions, quashing any and all skeptics they could. It shows how skeptical one must be when 'science' and politics are mixed.
Point being, until a world wide audit is done on surface stations to ensure they conform to standards or accurate measurement, and then that data is squared with the satelite record, and until all data and methods are released regarding past temperature records for review and replication, and until all computer code is released so people can examine those methods, this 'science' is worth ****. Perhaps NASA can explain why their 'correction' method for UHI almost always seems to lower past temperature and keep constant or even raise current temperatures? Perhaps the dendro climatology community can explain why it continues to use problematic tree ring chronologies after being advised not to? Perhaps Ken Briffa can explain what this anthropomorphic forcing is that allows him to use tree rings as past temperature proxies while completely ignoring their divergence from satelite and surface readings in the present? It's questions like those, to which there may be reasonable answers but which remain unanswered, that properly lead to skepticism.
Because option A leaves out the several trillion in opportunity costs that go along with believing and 'doing something!' about it. The way you phrase the option entirely begs the question. A more sustainable lifestyle? If it's not true our lifestyle is sustainable as it is. And where does that R&D money come from? Is the government going to just print it or take it directly in taxes? What does that do to the pool of loanable funds backing capital accumulation and increased productivity and wealth for the private sector? You do realize 'doing everything we can to stop it' means ditching your modern lifestyle and wearing a loin cloth and living in a cave, correct? Unless of course the greenies are becoming more friendly with nuclear power and continuing fossil fuel use, because both are necessary to fuel our economy if we are to bring solar, wind, and other alternatives into play. That doesn't just happen over night, and it doesn't happen period if we cripple our current structure of production which is exactly what nitwits like Al Gore are suggesting. Many times its not the global warming hysteria that's the problem. Assume it's true for a moment. That still leaves the plans to 'do something!' about it for review, most of which read like they were pulled directly out of the Communist manifesto, or at the very least as if they are being proposed by people who never got past high school economics class, and didn't do to good in that one to boot.
It's not a stretch, it's reality. It's very much the way the PATRIOT Act passed here in the US. Interest groups like the cops and FBI and what not who were begging for expanded powers for years capitalized on the panic of 9/11 and got an abomination passed. Similarly radical lefties like Paul Ehrlic who have been predicting one disaster after another for the last forty years and, despite being constantly proven wrong, using those dire predictions to try and push through the same tired old socialist policies that they've always wanted in place are now using global warming, the ultimate buggaboo, to try and push their same old agenda.
Bodies I don't know about. Environment yeah. If you parse through the bullshit in the IPCC reports all the dire predictions are based on positive feedback mechanisms existing and dominating the climate, with actual contribution of CO2 being relatively negligible. The problem is assuming a long term stable system like the climate is dominated by positive feedback mechanisms is, in a word, stupid, because such a system does not lend itself to stability. A system dominated by negative feedbacks does. So what they are essentially arguing is that a system dominated by positive feedback mechanisms has just barely managed to stay stable for Christ knows how many millions of years, and it's our miniscule contribution to CO2 and other GHGs which is barely noticable next to the naturally occurring amounts, that's going to finally engage those positive feedbacks to the tipping point and send our climate spiralling out of control. Or, if you would, imagine a cat sleeping in the center of a room filled with set mouse traps. What they are saying is that even though nature has trotted elephants through the place and not woken up the cat, one little human fart is going to send kitty sky high and when he comes down all hell is going to break loose.
Because harm can only be judged in comparrison to gain, and can only be eliminated at a cost which might not be worth it in the end.
Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production. The ultimate means of production is energy. Cap and trade policies are basically government rationing of energy resources. Hence: socialism, more along the Nazi model than outright direct nationalization of the businesses. It's also doomed to fail because of the Prisoner's Dilema. The scheme only works if everyone plays by the rules, but the incentive is to inflate the number of pollution permits and this will happen until, as it has every time it's been tried, the market for permits simply collapses because they have no real value anymore.
RobInKuwait
Registered User
futurepilot
Well-known member
DT5
Member
most of the worlds climatologists agree that we have a detrimental effect on temperature...and even if we didnt, error on the side of caution. i cant think of a single reason to NOT act, even if it isnt a true phenomenon. the only things that would come from changing how we power the world, would all be positive. the only people who would have a problem are christian nut jobs who love oil (for some wierd reason, i still cant figure out)