Global Warming

[Valke2]

Unfortunately, waiting 5,999,999,960 years to accumulate data is not an option.

 

[Calliso]

In many cases, yes. A lot of these scientists have degrees in other fields. And a lot of them have been wrong many times over. As I’ve said earlier, consensus means NOTHING. A lot of countries are in favor of the Kyoto protocol because it will benefit them both economically and politically, while hurting us. No big mystery there.

The last 10 years have been a cooling cycle. And while CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up, the temps haven’t. Interesting.

We’ve been collecting reliable data on this earth for maybe 200 - 400 years. Maybe. Let’s put this in perspective.

Age of earth
6,000,000,000 years
Age of data
400

Looks statistically insignificant to me.

Ok on the first point, A couple links I thought were pretty good. tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/garbage-is-forever/ metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2.html I could be reading those wrong I am tired and my eyes hurt from staring at this screen… but it seems to me it isn;t cooling at all…
As for this year though yes it;s been cold…but I am pretty sure we are just coming out of an la Nina year and if I remember correctly a solar minimum.

As for the C02 thing this is pretty good scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/what-about-mid-century-cooling.php But being that it seems we are actually still on a warming trend that it doesn;t quite apply to the past decade.

 

[Appleby]

“Rising temperatures and greenhouse gas concentrations observed since 1978 are particularly noteworthy because the rates of increase are so high and because, during the same period, the energy reaching the Earth from the Sun has been measured precisely by satellites. These measurements indicate that the Sun’s output has not increased since 1978, so the warming during the past 30 years cannot be attributed to an increase in solar energy reaching the Earth.”

National Academy of Sciences
dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf"

In fact Global Warming is the new communism, which encourages the same herd of lemmings to stampede off the same cliff waving pre-printed signs and chanting things that start with Hey Hey Ho Ho. The temperature flatlined in 1998 and there is no Global Warming occurring (that is why the fanatics now call it Climate Change) and even the lefties are making fun of it.

The true reason (read Michael Chrichtons State of Fear) for this whole fantasy is the destruction of capitalism due the deadliest of all the deadly sins. Envy.

If you wish to commit suicide to save the planet, please feel free to do so; however, telling me that we need to lose 4.4 billion people – of whom you of course are not one – to Save The Earth is foolishness and if you come here planning to lose me you will get a really unpleasant surprise.

Dont Tread On Me.

 

[Atzlan]

This is what I think - Do you really believe God needs help from any human being in changing the temperature of the earth a couple of degrees? Are you kidding me. I know He wouldn’t pick
an imbecile like Al Gore to do the job. Everyone needs to stop
using the term Global because it’s not global and it’s not a moral
issue.

 

[vz71]

I wouild argue that ignoring them is nothing more than ostrich posturing.

You could, of course, do that.
But you should realize that you are arguing the case for taking as fact something that is not shown to be fact.

That is a losing argument if ever there was.

 

[vz71]

Good questions…

So you think you know more then scientists that have studied this stuff?

No, not at all.

Cause that is the impression I am getting.

Apologies that you feel that way.
But believing that I feel that way would also be drawing a conclusion based upon little evidence, and no proof.
Of course, now that the question is asked, you have proof. Does that change your viewpoint? Perhaps some of your questions and comments towards me seem silly knowing that I do not believe myself to know more then the scientists…
Such is the dangers of acting without full understanding of the circumstances.

Why do you believe what one group is telling you but call the other hoax?

For one, the credibility of such alarmists took a big hit in the 80’s when the promised ice age never materialised.
For another, there is plenty of evidence to show that man-made global warming is a myth, in fact any scientist worth their salt will never tell you anything concerning the future climate without some kind of disclaimer that it may not come to be since they simply do not know all of the factors involved.
So the credibility of these proponents takes another hit when they lay claim to man-made global warming as fact…it simply cannot be anything more then theory.
Say it is fact, and I lay the (correct) charge that you are no longer credible.
As to why I believe it is hoax…well I watched Mr. Gore’s little commercial, and was duly impressed with the manner in which the deck was stacked. Sorry, but not only is there no longer credibility, but now I have sufficient reason to believe it nothing more then a scheme to gain money.
The modern day version of the snake oil salesman.

And I find it funny you seem to demand absolutely proof for anything related to global warming or even global warming itself. But do you actually have any real solid evidence that this is a hoax? Or is it just how you feel?

Of course I demand absolute proof.
And if you are really interested in how I feel about the subject…
Consider, if the doctor says you have cancer and need various treatments that not only will wreck your health but also wreck your finances you will want a second opinion.
I ask for the second opinion and find it contrary to the first.
So I go back to the first and tell him that there is no sign of cancer. He answers with papers, photos, all kinds of evidence.
And the only thing I have is the 2nd opinion telling me there is no sign of cancer and not a single symptom of said cancer in over 20 years.
But the first Doctor doesn’t stop. Instead he declares my lack of symptoms evidence of the cancer…he claims that it is insidious, that I won’t see anything difinitive until its too late…He declares that I must wreck my health and finances NOW or I will die. In fact he now lays claim to the concept that wrecking my finances and health is preferable even if there proves to be no cancer…better to have done something then nothing.
And as time goes by, some of the evidence proves to be wrong.
But that doesn’t stop him. That mistake was simply a lack of understanding of the cancer, he now understands it much more…it is fatal, it is there, and I must do something…even though I see and feel no symptoms at all.
I go back to the second doctor as the first is starting to build a compelling case. The second takes tests to look at the same things the first did, and finds no cancer.
The second doctor shows me the results, explains them, and I feel better…there is no cancer. Until the first Doctor now starts becoming hysterical about it. Of course Doctor 2 didn’t see it…he needs to look at these new and as yet unproven tests in order to see what is obvious.
“There is no dispute, there is no debate, you have cancer.”
“But Doctor, I have no symptoms. I haven’t had a single symptom since your initial diagnosis decades ago.”
“You are just hard headed. You will die, the cancer is spreading, it will be too late, in 10 years it will be too late to do anything! Pay us, take the medicine, wreck your finance…at least you will be alive.”

I hold no malice towards Doctor 1, but for all of the talk, there simply is not enough evidence to wreck the finances and health.

 

[vz71]

Unfortunately, waiting 5,999,999,960 years to accumulate data is not an option.

And basing a claim based upon what amounts to 0% of the history of the climate makes sense?

 

[Valke2]

This is what I think - Do you really believe God needs help from any human being in changing the temperature of the earth a couple of degrees? Are you kidding me. I know He wouldn’t pick
an imbecile like Al Gore to do the job. Everyone needs to stop
using the term Global because it’s not global and it’s not a moral
issue.

So the invisible all powerful being option you are ok with. But man taking steps to save the planet, that you find absurd?

 

[Valke2]

And basing a claim based upon what amounts to 0% of the history of the climate makes sense?

I’ll tell you what. You can rely on the science of the first 5 and a half billion years and I’ll rely on the most recent 500,000.000 years.

 

[Valke2]

Experts agreed Tuesday that no one drought, flood or wildfire can be attributed to global warming, but they stressed that the eucalyptus forests and farms of southeastern Australia are becoming warmer, drier and more prone to fire as the planet heats up.

The terrible events of the past couple of weeks are, without doubt, partly the result of global warming and the greenhouse effect," said Neville Nicholls, an expert on climate change and wildfires at Australia’s Monash University
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,490587,00.html

 

[vz71]

So the invisible all powerful being option you are ok with. But man taking steps to save the planet, that you find absurd?

I would take the invisible all powerful being that created everything from nothing over man any day.

 

[Valke2]

I would take the invisible all powerful being that created everything from nothing over man any day.

that’s fine. But don’t go around blowing smoke up my skirt about only 400 years of science when you are relying on theology.

 

[wsbowles]

Belief in man-made global warming is a false religion. It requires faith, a belief in something that can not be proven.

It is tragic that people will place their faith in man-made THEORIES and rigged computer models, but will not even consider believing in a loving God when we have proof that his Son was on this earth and spoke to us directly about how to spread His love.

 

[vz71]

that’s fine. But don’t go around blowing smoke up my skirt about only 400 years of science when you are relying on theology.

Who said anything about reliance on theology?

I think your jumping to conclusions again.:tsktsk:

You should no better having read the entirety of this thread.

 

[vz71]

I’ll tell you what. You can rely on the science of the first 5 and a half billion years and I’ll rely on the most recent 500,000.000 years.

And another conclusion drawn from scant evidence.

No wonder you fell so easily for the Global Warming scam.

you know, this is starting to lend creedence to my own theory that Global Warming advocates have a tendency to jump from one conclusion to the next while neglecting to look at the bigger picture.

 

[Valke2]

Belief in man-made global warming is a false religion. It requires faith, a belief in something that can not be proven.

It is tragic that people will place their faith in man-made THEORIES and rigged computer models, but will not even consider believing in a loving God when we have proof that his Son was on this earth and spoke to us directly about how to spread His love.

I find it tragic that people will refuse to address a problem by “leaving it in the hands of God”.

We need major tax incentives for the existing energy companies as an incentive to bring more clean energy on the grid. And we need to have a agreed upon base price for a gallon of oil and coal so that companies that are going to invest in clean energy don’t have to worry about having their hundred million dollar investments tanked by falling energy prices.

I’d also like to see higher efficiency requirements in air conditioners, refrig., monitors and televisions.
Get rid of the incandesant bulb and give homeonwers a rebate for the cost of purchasing LED lights.

 

[vz71]

Experts agreed Tuesday that no one drought, flood or wildfire can be attributed to global warming, but they stressed that the eucalyptus forests and farms of southeastern Australia are becoming warmer, drier and more prone to fire as the planet heats up.

The terrible events of the past couple of weeks are, without doubt, partly the result of global warming and the greenhouse effect," said Neville Nicholls, an expert on climate change and wildfires at Australia’s Monash University
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,490587,00.html

To which I say (rightfully so) that since it cannot be shown factually their credibility is lost.

Quit trying to pass off opinion as fact.

 

[Valke2]

To which I say (rightfully so) that since it cannot be shown factually their credibility is lost.

Quit trying to pass off opinion as fact.

As I said, I’m not interested in debating the topic until I have 100% certainity on an issue like this. That would be pointless.

 

[Ender]

And just in case some more names in case they are not all listed in the link …

I am familiar with the laundry list of organizations that support AGW. Let me discuss one example I have researched which I suspect reflects what is going on. The NAS (National Academy of Sciences) is one of the scientific organizations Oreskes lists to support her contention. Her paper cites a specific report made by the NAS to substantiate her claim of consensus

This, however, is the opinion of Richard Lindzen, one of the NAS scientists who prepared the report:

*This the full report did {show a span of views}, making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them. *

Given that Lindzen wrote his article in 2001 while Oreskes wrote her study in 2004 she should surely have known that what she was claiming for the report was untrue.

The point was to show that at least one study shows that at least in terms of papers published there isnt many scientists that disagree with the “concensus”.

And my point was to show how deceptive that particular study was and that the claim of scientific consensus is unsubstantiated.

Ender

 

[Ender]

So you think you know more then scientists that have studied this stuff?

The scientists disagree so what is amiss in choosing what appears to be the stronger argument?

But do you actually have any real solid evidence that this is a hoax? Or is it just how you feel?

I don’t know about this being a hoax but there is a lot of misrepresentation being passed off as fact and much of it is from the pro-AGW side.

There is the famous incident of the 1995 IPCC Summary Report written to contain assertions about global warming that were completely unsupported by what the scientists had written in the body of the report. This behavior by the IPCC became standard procedure which led the NAS, when requested by the White House to summarize the IPCC paper, to say (in the words of one of the authors): “Within the confines of professional courtesy, the NAS panel essentially concluded that the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers does not provide suitable guidance for the U.S. government.” That is, they said you can’t believe the summary.

Polar bears are shown resting on iceberg with the ominous words that they are in danger of going extinct when the ice melts … despite the fact that their numbers have rather significantly increased over the last few decades. Aside from the unhelpful facts, even if it were true it says nothing about whether man is responsible for the warming - it simply implies it and moves on.

There are any number of such deceptive comments that receive undue publicity and lack due investigation, of which Al Gore’s movie is only the most egregious example - and most of it comes from the pro-AGW side. If the science is so settled then why is there so much duplicity in support of that position?

Ender