Global Warming

[vz71]

Actually, they can. However climate change is the more accurate term. And this has nothing to do with the two news items I linked.

I’ll assume you mean to deceive then.

 

[Oscarthecat]

I am copying and pasting this from else where The phrase “climate change” is growing in preferred use to “global warming”
because it helps convey that there are changes in addition to rising temperatures.

Basically global warming isn;t an inaccurate term it;s just too simplistic.

and therein lies the fundamental lie of environmentalist propaganda.

It is the nature of the climate to change. Attaching any political agenda to a catch-all phrase like “climate change” is manipulative and dishonest.

The climate changes- that’s what it does- it will get hotter, it will get cooler. The climate will never stop changing.

Yet, throughout human history people have constantly flittered about worrying that they’ve somehow screwed up the weather.

This all started way back when cavemen thought they “broke” the weather because they angered some pagan deity, and so they tried to figure out ways to get back on the good side of that deity, usually by sacrificing something or someone, or shooting arrows at clouds.

It seems to me that all of your worrying about “climate change” is no different- you think we “broke” the weather because we angered mother earth, and just like the cave men, your solution is to sacrifice someone or something. But instead of cattle or virgins, the “green” movement has decided that they need to sacrifice the United States- our economy, our way of life, our prosperity- whatever you can get your hands on.

I’ve had enough of the environmentalists- you are nothing more than modern day pharisees, condemning me for my “sins” against the planet because of the car I drive, or the food I eat, or the lightbulbs that I use- while your high priests, like Al Gore, go skipping around the planet on private planes burning up tons of jet fuel to give speeches for millions of dollars, and living in mansions 10 times the size of my house.

 

[mapleoak]

and therein lies the fundamental lie of environmentalist propaganda.

It is the nature of the climate to change. Attaching any political agenda to a catch-all phrase like “climate change” is manipulative and dishonest.

The climate changes- that’s what it does- it will get hotter, it will get cooler. The climate will never stop changing.

What is even worse is when the proof of “global warming” is touted as being evidenced by extremes in “climate change”. For example when someone complains about how unusually cold the winter is this year. Ah hah, there you go, global warming is causing that. We have compromised the cold barrier allowing the endless stream of artic bitterness to funnel down with unrelentness. It is nothing more than a means of disarmament of unsuspecting haplings in order to brain wash them to a political agenda.

I’ve had enough of the environmentalists- you are nothing more than modern day pharisees, condemning me for my “sins” against the planet because of the car I drive, or the food I eat, or the lightbulbs that I use- while your high priests, like Al Gore, go skipping around the planet on private planes burning up tons of jet fuel to give speeches for millions of dollars, and living in mansions 10 times the size of my house.

Don’t bash Al Gore too bad though, I think he successfully stopped global warming altogether. My well water pipes froze twice so far on me this winter and they are buried 5 feet down. Maybe he can add that to his internet invention on his resume.

 

[Valke2]

In denying man’s contribution to climate change, I often see data posted coming from this link: climatechangefacts.info/index.html

It should be noted that the author of that link, while disputing the severity and causes of climate change/global warming, also advocates many actions that climate change believers advocate. So that while he falls on the opposite of the debate, there’s no dispute on what needs to be done.

He sets forth these actions here: climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/ImproveEnergyUse.htm

 

[Ender]

The new head of U.S. intelligence and top adviser to President Barack Obama says climate change is a top threat to the national security of the country.

This all reminds me of a joke:

Scientists discover a huge asteroid that will impact earth and destroy all life. When the news is released the NY Times headline is: “Extinction Coming: Women and Minorities To Suffer Most”

That is, no matter what happens, someone will find a way to use it to advance their own agenda. I’m not sure why Leon Panetta should be taken seriously simply because he is now CIA director. In fact, it should be obvious that what Obama made was a political decision not based on expertise, certainly not intelligence … expertise. I think your citation indicates how disconnected from reality this issue has become.

Ender

 

[Oscarthecat]

This all reminds me of a joke:

Scientists discover a huge asteroid that will impact earth and destroy all life. When the news is released the NY Times headline is: “Extinction Coming: Women and Minorities To Suffer Most”

That is, no matter what happens, someone will find a way to use it to advance their own agenda. I’m not sure why Leon Panetta should be taken seriously simply because he is now CIA director. In fact, it should be obvious that what Obama made was a political decision not based on expertise, certainly not intelligence … expertise. I think your citation indicates how disconnected from reality this issue has become.

Ender

I think its more like an Abbot and Costello routine-

Them: “The earth is warming, and its all your fault!!”

Me: “But now the experts say the earth is cooling, so everything is fine, right?”

Them: “No! Cooling means that its worse than ever before!!! The emissions that caused it to get warmer are STILL GOING UP!!!”

Me: “But it is getting cooler! How could the same emissions that were causing global warming cause global cooling?”

Them: “Don’t you understand!! The climate is changing!!!”

Me: “But the climate is always changing.”

Them: “Not like this it isn’t! We need to lower emissions!!!”

Me: “But you just said it that it got warmer and then cooler, but emissions were going up all along! Maybe emissions don’t have as much to do with this as you think.”

Them: “You fool! Don’t you understand?!! This debate has already been settled!! All these emissions are making it get warmer and then cooler!! And we have to stop it!!!”

Me: “Emissions go up, it gets warmer. Emissions go up, and it gets colder- so what do emissions have to do with it? You’re not making any sense!”

Them: “It doesn’t matter if I’m making sense! At least I’m doing something about the problem!!”

Me: “What’s the problem, exactly?”

Them: “The earth is warming, and its all your fault!!” :slapfight:

 

[vz71]

In denying man’s contribution to climate change, I often see data posted coming from this link:

Who exactly is “denying man?”

 

[Calliso]

and therein lies the fundamental lie of environmentalist propaganda.

It is the nature of the climate to change. Attaching any political agenda to a catch-all phrase like “climate change” is manipulative and dishonest.

The climate changes- that’s what it does- it will get hotter, it will get cooler. The climate will never stop changing.

Yet, throughout human history people have constantly flittered about worrying that they’ve somehow screwed up the weather.

This all started way back when cavemen thought they “broke” the weather because they angered some pagan deity, and so they tried to figure out ways to get back on the good side of that deity, usually by sacrificing something or someone, or shooting arrows at clouds.

It seems to me that all of your worrying about “climate change” is no different- you think we “broke” the weather because we angered mother earth, and just like the cave men, your solution is to sacrifice someone or something. But instead of cattle or virgins, the “green” movement has decided that they need to sacrifice the United States- our economy, our way of life, our prosperity- whatever you can get your hands on.

I’ve had enough of the environmentalists- you are nothing more than modern day pharisees, condemning me for my “sins” against the planet because of the car I drive, or the food I eat, or the lightbulbs that I use- while your high priests, like Al Gore, go skipping around the planet on private planes burning up tons of jet fuel to give speeches for millions of dollars, and living in mansions 10 times the size of my house.

And you came up with all that just from that little line I posted…? I was just trying to answer the question of maybe why you see both the terms climate change and global warming used and why you see climate change being used more and more. There is no propaganda in that… Sheesh we can;t win. It seems to me no matter what term is used we will be excused of propaganda or fear mongering or whatever else we have been called.

Also yeah the climate changes has and always will. But what some here donlt seem to get is the climate doesn;t just magically decide to change on it’s own. IIt just doesn;t say you know I want to be hotter the magically get hotter. Or say I want to be colder then magically gets colder. There has to be a “forcing” of some sort. Such as changes in the amount of energy reaching us from the sun, volcanos and amount of greenhouse gases such as C02… And there are probably things I am forgetting. But the point is climate changes for a reason not just because. And the evidence so far seems to be pointing at mankind for being responsible for much of the recent warming.

As for Al Gore…why does just about every skeptic think that those of us who believe in AGW think that Al gore is the greatest? I donlt I know many like me who feel the same way. We might agree with him on some things doesn;t mean we think he is perfect though and doesn;t have many flaws of his own. Personally I and many others care far more about what the scientists say then what some particular politician says.

As for destroying the economy and our way of life. Maybe a few extremists want that. But donlt be ridicolous and over exagerate things. We donlt all want to sacrifice our economy or our way of life. Though that being said I have read before that if everyone on the earth lived like the average american does we would need 4 earths or something like that. So yeah we think that people probably need to make some sacrifices. But that is different from saying we want our economy and way of life to go completely down the tubes and that we should all live like they do in poor third world countries. Not to mention the effects of the economy and other things might be a lot worse if we wait to do anything about it.

But gah this and other posts illustrates just why it is so impossible to get through to some skeptics/ denialists.

 

[Calliso]

What is even worse is when the proof of “global warming” is touted as being evidenced by extremes in “climate change”. For example when someone complains about how unusually cold the winter is this year. Ah hah, there you go, global warming is causing that. We have compromised the cold barrier allowing the endless stream of artic bitterness to funnel down with unrelentness. It is nothing more than a means of disarmament of unsuspecting haplings in order to brain wash them to a political agenda.

Don’t bash Al Gore too bad though, I think he successfully stopped global warming altogether. My well water pipes froze twice so far on me this winter and they are buried 5 feet down. Maybe he can add that to his internet invention on his resume.

HUH? are climate scientists actually saying this…or is this just something some random person on the internet said. Just because you heard some guy on the internet say something like that doesn;t mean that most climate scientists would agree.

I swear to God though my IQ has gotten lower reading this thread though.

 

[Valke2]

Who exactly is “denying man?”

“In denying [that] man contributes to…”

 

[mapleoak]

HUH? are climate scientists actually saying this…or is this just something some random person on the internet said.

You mean you haven’t heard that global warming causes extremes of weather, including severe winters? Well I’ll be a munkle

I swear to God though my IQ has gotten lower reading this thread though.

That’s happens from reading the lines instead of between the lines.

 

[Valke2]

human contribution to global warming (a/k/a climate change) does in fact contribute to more extreme weather incidients. That is not the same thing as looking at an extreme weather incident and concluding that it is proof of global warming (a/k/a climate change).

 

[Calliso]

You mean you haven’t heard that global warming causes extremes of weather, including severe winters? Well I’ll be a munkle

That’s happens from reading the lines instead of between the lines.

No I have heard of that but not so much of legitimate climate scientists saying this particularly cold winter is due to global warming. Really though you have to distingoush between what legimate climate scientists say and what some random person on the internet says. People can misinterpret what scientists say. I know I was once one of those people who thought that global warming could cause an ice age. But that was also back when I mainly looked at news sources for my info and believed far too much of what random internet people in forums said rather then looking at the science myself.

 

[Calliso]

human contribution to global warming (a/k/a climate change) does in fact contribute to more extreme weather incidients. That is not the same thing as looking at an extreme weather incident and concluding that it is proof of global warming (a/k/a climate change).

Exactly I think you said this pretty well.

 

[Calliso]

Ok l planned to do this awhile ago but keep getting side tracked. But lets deal with some evidence and answer some questions. First question I will deal with is probably the most basic one.

Is Temperature rising?

Well yes it is according to more the one source too! Here is a good link with links to temperature graphs and what not. scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/05/there-is-no-evidence.php

Some more direct links data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

Also in case it comes up here is a few good links dealing with Urban heat Island effect. realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/the-surface-temperature-record-and-the-urban-heat-island/ realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/no-man-is-an-urban-heat-island/ ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/population/article2abstract.pdf

So once again in conclusion yes temperatures are rising.

 

[vz71]

Is Temperature rising?
…
So once again in conclusion yes temperatures are rising.

So where is it rising?
By how much?
Why there and not everywhere?
Isn’t the temperature cooling anywhere as well?
Why don’t we talk about the cooling as well?

And perhaps most important…How can this trend (real or imagined) be differentiated from normal trends of tempertaure rise and fall throughout history?

As I have said before…there simply is not enough data available to say with any certainty which direction the climate is headed.

On a side note, the weather forecast in my city yesterday called for 100% chance of rain. Not only did the Weather channel state it, but local forecasters as well. It didn’t rain a drop. In fact we had sunshine.

Now of course activists are going to scream that weather prediction is not the same thing as climate prediction. And they would be right. BUT they also would be missing the point.
We know much more about the day to day weather then we do the climate, and we still can’t get the weather right.
We do not have the technology necessary to accurately predict anything.

 

[otjm]

Let me preface my comments by a couple of observations. I was born before television was commercially available (and had a high school physics teacher who held some of the original patents on television). I lived through a time of herd mentality in which it was predicted and widely believed that the were headed within a relatively short ime within or existing population’s life span where world-wide famine would strike, as the population was going to grow geometrically and the food supply only arithmetically. I would suspect that some members on this thread were not even a gleam in their father’s eye when this was occuring.

So in short, I have lived through "enviornmental disaster " predictions - including that the pipeline in Alaska was going to destroy the caribou herds (which now browse underneath said pipeline). If I take a bit of a jaundiced view to what is being said in the political forum, and the scientific forum as it is reported politically, perhaps it is because I have seen so much unadulterated BS in other areas.

I do not question that we have intellectually gifted people reviewing data. But I do question whether or not we have a sufficent data base from which to make legitimate conclusions - see the population explosion myth above. The measurement capablilty has grown exponentially within less than my lifetime; there is so much data of recent origin it is overwhelming. What is not overwhelming is the data base prior to that period; and yet we are getting models which are basing their projections on assumptions which are just that. In other words, there is serious reason to question the models we are operating under.

Coupled with that is the question of what part, what percentage, of the cycle is subject to sun-related cycles, and what percentage is related to overall CO2; and then, given the overall CO2, what part of that is related to human activity. When I see the term “likely” in a science report, that tells me that it appears that there is a relationship, but it is not clear to what extent. The whole question of global warming is aboutas long as the life span of one sun cycle, and during that time, measurement capability has increased exponentially.

Does human activity contribute to golbal warming? Does it contribute to global change (which I take to mean both to warming and cooling)? If there are cycles (and I suspect most scientists who are actually involved with this would admit to), do we have enough evidence other than modeling to do any more than “predict” (see, e.g., food production increases, above) that the next cycle will either result in an overall increase (higher highs and higher lows) or in a widening gap (higher highs and lower lows)? I think not, because the models have way too many suppositions and variables.

And given those questions, to what extent - what percentage - does human activity contribute to the overall patterns? Have there been patterns that weighed more heavily upon the level of sun activity increase or decrease overall in one cycle as opposed to another, all other things being equal? Seems to me that I was told that in any experiement one had to change only one variable in order to get any answer at all. And if anyone is positing that we have only one variable at work currently in this issue, well, I have some fantastic beach-front property for sale in Arizona, and boy can I make you a deal on it.

Frankly, I don’t care how many scientists have an opinion on the issue. And I care even less how many politicians are convinced beyone a reasonable doubt that they have to pass legislation to change the weather. When politicians intersect with science, the first casualty is truth, and I don’t care which part of the political spectrum we are discussing. I have seen the environmental arguments from both perspectives, and “science” only means the selective choice of whatever cudgel is necessary to obtain the goal, which in almost all cases is only distantly related to the professed and stated goal, it at all.

Do I think that it is possible that human activity may be impacting weather? I don’t think that is outrside the realm of possibilities. Do I think scientists can tell us how much human activity - what percentage - is contributing as opposed to natural causes? That, Virginia, is the real question, and given what I have seen before - scientists making “predictions” that are simply disguised political projections - pardon me if I am a bit jaundiced.

I have seen nothing in this thread that convinces me that scientists can make any valid, verifiable predictions of anything as complicated as climate changes given the length (as opposed to the depth) of data assembled. And I think that a whole lot of the issue politically is being driven by a few who have used and are using “science” to drive a political objective under the guise of seeking truth, and that is not a new phenomenon. Why? Because I am firmly convinced that a skunk by any other name still stinks; I an firmly convinced that the art of politics is compromise, not ascertaining truth, and I have lived long enough to have a healthy dose of mistrust for both politicians (of either part of the spectrunm) and the general media.

I have no question there are “true believers” concerning environmental activism - I live in Oregon. I do not dismiss environmentalism - a whole lot of salmon die in theTrinity fiasco, just as predicited. But the global warming crowd telling me that the polar bear population is in immediate danger of annihilation when they are statistically growing, or the environmental crowd telling me that the caribou will be destroyed by the pipeline (my list goes on) - well, pardon me, but we’ve been here before?

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

 

[a_burger]

Let’s talk about global warming.
FACT: When the IPCC (the UN scientists) measured global warming they purposely left out the high amount of sunspots.
FACT: There are now 31,000 scientists who disagree that man caused global warming.
FACT: The year as measured and agreed upon by the four main testing locatons all agree that 2008 was one of the coolest years on record.
FACT: Many scientists are now prediciting we could very well be entering another little ice age which the earth experienced during medieval times.
FACT: Even Russian leader Putin has come out and said there is no way that global warming was caused by man.
FACT: When questioned four of the five leading Japanese scientists did not buy into the man caused global warming panic. One actually said it was the biggest hoax in the history of the world.
FACT: A court in England found that in Al Gore’s film there were nine major exaggerations or outright lies in the film. The court actually ordered that if any children were shown this film then they must be shown another film telling children the truth.
FACT: Take this example by the crazy enviromentalists. Rachel Carlson worked to ban DDT in Africa. The result is millions have died because of malaria because of the many mosquitoes that didn’t die because they banned DDT. She is still a hero.
FACT: Jesus told us not to be deceived in the last days of the age. Then why are you people who call yourself Christians listen to a heathen like Al Gore. Why are you letting yourself be deceived. You know the UN is totally against the Jews and would help drive them into the ocean. What if Jesus was there and he was driven into the ocean. (if that were really possible)

Will you please READ the facts. Will you please RESEARCH. I don’t mean to offend you but you will be more offended at me later when the truth is exposed and you have made fools of yourself.

 

[Valke2]

But I do question whether or not we have a sufficent data base from which to make legitimate conclusions - see the population explosion myth above.

What myth. In 30 years the population has doubled. And there are plenty of people starving to death because of it.

When I see the term “likely” in a science report, that tells me that it appears that there is a relationship, but it is not clear to what extent.

My understanding is that report defined the term “likely” as 90% certainty.

Frankly, I don’t care how many scientists have an opinion on the issue.

ok.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Well, it would be more accurate to say the sky has fallen. It is now a question of limiting the damage to a sufficient extent that we can adapt to the change with less effort and loss of life than if we continue to add to the problem at a constant rate.

 

[Valke2]

Let’s talk about global warming.
FACT: When the IPCC (the UN scientists) measured global warming they purposely left out the high amount of sunspots.

Well, not exactly. Solar activity was addresed in page 30 of part IV of the report.

FACT: There are now 31,000 scientists who disagree that man caused global warming.

Source please. I hope you are not relying on that internet mass mailing petition.

FACT: The year as measured and agreed upon by the four main testing locatons all agree that 2008 was one of the coolest years on record.

Well, that is certainly not a fact. 2008 was one of the warmest years on record. It just happened to be cooler than the last couple of years.

FACT: Many scientists are now prediciting we could very well be entering another little ice age which the earth experienced during medieval times.

So?

FACT: Even Russian leader Putin has come out and said there is no way that global warming was caused by man.

So Putin you’ll believe. Did he also say that the cheaper gas and oil become, the more desperate the Russian economy becomes?