20/20 lies on climate change

[Art Vandelay]

20/20 had a "special" yesterday on how the world could end, and went through several different scenarios: black holes, artificial intelligence, supervolcanoes, asteroid strikes, nuclear war, disease. But what did they deam the most dangerous? Climate change. Yeah, that's right. Apparently they'd rather be sucked into a black hole than be a few degrees hotter. This was accompanied with a bunch of BS, such as trying to sell the issue as being completely settled, comparing those that disagree with Holocaust deniers, and claiming that the Earth has never experienced temperature or CO2 levels as high as they are now. If the science is so sound, why does the Left feel the need to constantly lie about it?

[HarryKeogh]

20/20 had a "special" yesterday on how the world could end, and went through several different scenarios: black holes, artificial intelligence, supervolcanoes, asteroid strikes, nuclear war, disease. But what did they deam the most dangerous? Climate change. Yeah, that's right. Apparently they'd rather be sucked into a black hole than be a few degrees hotter.

I saw it (missed the first 15 minutes or so) and I gathered they ranked them by what was most likely (as opposed to more deadly or destructive) to cause the demise of civilization and surely climate change is a more likely threat than a black hole sucking Earth out of existence considering the earth is warming (whether by our own actions or part of the natural cycle of things...I'll leave that discussion to a 10 page thread of bickering in the Science forum)

[daredelvis]

20/20 had a "special" yesterday on how the world could end, and went through several different scenarios: black holes, artificial intelligence, supervolcanoes, asteroid strikes, nuclear war, disease. But what did they deam the most dangerous? Climate change. Yeah, that's right. Apparently they'd rather be sucked into a black hole than be a few degrees hotter. This was accompanied with a bunch of BS, such as trying to sell the issue as being completely settled, comparing those that disagree with Holocaust deniers, and claiming that the Earth has never experienced temperature or CO2 levels as high as they are now. If the science is so sound, why does the Left feel the need to constantly lie about it?

I am missing the lies that your thread title promises? Within the scientific community it is about as settled as something like this could get. According to the National Academies of Science CO2 is at the highest levels in 400,000 years. Why do you pose this as something the left is pushing? It is science that is bringing this to light. On the other hand, can you tell me why the Right consistently chooses to ignore science?

Daredelvis

[a_unique_person]

20/20 had a "special" yesterday on how the world could end, and went through several different scenarios: black holes, artificial intelligence, supervolcanoes, asteroid strikes, nuclear war, disease. But what did they deam the most dangerous? Climate change. Yeah, that's right. Apparently they'd rather be sucked into a black hole than be a few degrees hotter. This was accompanied with a bunch of BS, such as trying to sell the issue as being completely settled, comparing those that disagree with Holocaust deniers, and claiming that the Earth has never experienced temperature or CO2 levels as high as they are now. If the science is so sound, why does the Left feel the need to constantly lie about it?

Apparently they are trying to tell you something, but you don't want to believe it.

[robinson]

Even Arnold seems to be able to tell the difference between science and republowoo crapsense.

"California's Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger cleanly broke with the White House yesterday by reaching a broad agreement with state Dems to severely cap greenhouse gas emissions."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060831/cm_thenation/15117439

[DaChew]

I've heard that global warming will be a problem (I'm not saying it will be or won't be or that it exists or doesn't exist or that it is or is not caused by human activity) but I haven't heard that it is a threat to civilization. Even the most dire of predictions I've read about don't suggest that our entire civilization is going to break down. Not in anywhere near the level that an asteroid strike or a supervolcano or a nuclear war. So this is not just a question of likelyhood. It's also a question of scale. Global warming is not even close to the same scale.

[a_unique_person]

I've heard that global warming will be a problem (I'm not saying it will be or won't be or that it exists or doesn't exist or that it is or is not caused by human activity) but I haven't heard that it is a threat to civilization. Even the most dire of predictions I've read about don't suggest that our entire civilization is going to break down. Not in anywhere near the level that an asteroid strike or a supervolcano or a nuclear war. So this is not just a question of likelyhood. It's also a question of scale. Global warming is not even close to the same scale.

The problems are many.

Australia, for example, is suffering nationwide drought. Many areas have to truck water in.

The worlds ports, the centres of economic activity, will have to be completely rebuilt.

Many major cities, located near ports for obvious reasons, will be unviable.

Farming practices will all have to undergo a huge change.

People will have to relocate. With the current worlds population, that won't be a simple or peaceful task.

Currently inhabitable areas will become uninhabitable.

Don't be fooled by the 'just a few degrees' average, that covers the extremes, which are what sets the standard.

Eco systems will all try to move to cooler areas, north and south, but where they once just naturally migrated, now there are whole uninhabitable (for them), humans and their cities block the way.

[DaChew]

The problems are many.

Australia, for example, is suffering nationwide drought. Many areas have to truck water in.

The worlds ports, the centres of economic activity, will have to be completely rebuilt.

Many major cities, located near ports for obvious reasons, will be unviable.

Farming practices will all have to undergo a huge change.

People will have to relocate. With the current worlds population, that won't be a simple or peaceful task.

Currently inhabitable areas will become uninhabitable.

Don't be fooled by the 'just a few degrees' average, that covers the extremes, which are what sets the standard.

Eco systems will all try to move to cooler areas, north and south, but where they once just naturally migrated, now there are whole uninhabitable (for them), humans and their cities block the way.


Yes, these are problems that may (or may not) happen as a result of global warming. If they all did happen, they are still not even nearly on the same scale of problems that would result from an asteroid strike or a nuclear war or a supervolcano. That's my point.

[a_unique_person]

No, but the changes will cause conflict. Darfur is as much a result of global warming as anything else.

[DaChew]

No, but the changes will cause conflict. Darfur is as much a result of global warming as anything else.

Yeah, but 20/20 is saying global warming is a threat to civilization. and on the scale of the other calamities they site. I don't see it. (I'm saying "yeah" to the conflict - not to Darfur being as much a result of global warming as anything else. That I completely disagree with but that's another thread.)

[a_unique_person]

The reason the nomads are on the move south (where it is cooler) is that where they have lived for hundreds of years is now unviable

[steverino]

The reason the nomads are on the move south (where it is cooler) is that where they have lived for hundreds of years is now unviable

I thought your Outback was always a hot, dry desert. How much hotter and dryer is it now than a couple hundred years ago when the white settlers tried exploring the interior with camels? Just curious.

[Tricky]

What amuses me most about this sort of debate is the assumption, made by right and left alike, that the world ends when humans are no longer a (big) part of it. Short of black holes, killer comets or other cosmic calamities, the world, and even life on the world, is not going to end because of global warming, cancer plagues, drought, famine, or any of the other population-stablilizing things that have evolved here on earth.

No, I'm not sanguine about the extinction of the human race, but I will continue to speak out against this narrow, specist view of the world.

How will "the world as we know it" end? Hell, that world ends every day we know something new.

[fuelair]

20/20 had a "special" yesterday on how the world could end, and went through several different scenarios: black holes, artificial intelligence, supervolcanoes, asteroid strikes, nuclear war, disease. But what did they deam the most dangerous? Climate change. Yeah, that's right. Apparently they'd rather be sucked into a black hole than be a few degrees hotter. This was accompanied with a bunch of BS, such as trying to sell the issue as being completely settled, comparing those that disagree with Holocaust deniers, and claiming that the Earth has never experienced temperature or CO2 levels as high as they are now. If the science is so sound, why does the Left feel the need to constantly lie about it?

If you are quoting them correctly - and (not faulting you) that's a big if - they are flat wrong on both CO2 and temperature. That should NOT be taken as agreeing that there are no climate problems.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Why is it that Bush and Co can scare a scant majority to elect him (twice) using fear mongering as his main platform but when something like the very evident environmental changes that have been occuring get "poo pooed"?

Most scientist are in agreement that the environment is going through some changes for the worse and the usual suspect is us. These effects, if continued on the current trend, seem kinda scary to me.

Charlie (Gore in '08) Monoxide

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I am missing the lies that your thread title promises? Within the scientific community it is about as settled as something like this could get. According to the National Academies of Science CO2 is at the highest levels in 400,000 years. Why do you pose this as something the left is pushing? It is science that is bringing this to light. On the other hand, can you tell me why the Right consistently chooses to ignore science?

Daredelvis

Art is a supporter of Michael Badnarik. Draw your own conclusions.

[Cain]

20/20 had a "special" yesterday on how the world could end, and went through several different scenarios: black holes, artificial intelligence, supervolcanoes, asteroid strikes, nuclear war, disease. But what did they deam the most dangerous? Climate change. Yeah, that's right. Apparently they'd rather be sucked into a black hole than be a few degrees hotter. This was accompanied with a bunch of BS, such as trying to sell the issue as being completely settled, comparing those that disagree with Holocaust deniers, and claiming that the Earth has never experienced temperature or CO2 levels as high as they are now. If the science is so sound, why does the Left feel the need to constantly lie about it?

Hilarious stuff, as usual. Thanks.

Charlie (I put things in parentheses) Monoxide:
Why is it that Bush and Co can scare a scant majority to elect him (twice) using fear mongering as his main platform but when something like the very evident environmental changes that have been occuring get "poo pooed"?

What? The terrorist threat against the good people of Idaho, Wyoming, and Indiana is very real indeed. "Global warming" is the far left agenda pushed by radical rogue scientists at places like NAS and the even more radical and rougish break off organization NASA. The truthsayers are people on Internet messageboards, talk radio, and regular columnists on the op-ed page of the WSJ. Too bad too many people are brainwashed by the liberal MSM.

[Art Vandelay]

No, but the changes will cause conflict. Darfur is as much a result of global warming as anything else.No, it's not.

Art is a supporter of Michael Badnarik. Draw your own conclusions.Besides being completely irrelevant, that is a lie.

I am missing the lies that your thread title promises? Within the scientific community it is about as settled as something like this could get.That's an interesting qualifier. Surely "as settled as something like this could get" is nowhere near the level at which something like the Holocaust can be settled?

According to the National Academies of Science CO2 is at the highest levels in 400,000 years.Which makes up .01% of the historyof the Earth.

Why do you pose this as something the left is pushing?Because one of the Left's talking points is that disagreement about climate change is merely political ideology.

It is science that is bringing this to light.It is not science that is politicizing it.

On the other hand, can you tell me why the Right consistently chooses to ignore science?Fallacy: loaded question.

[a_unique_person]

No, it's not.



Oh yes it is. The areas the northern nomads lived in are not viable any more. They have been forced south.

[Art Vandelay]

That hardly establishes your claim.

[slingblade]

Meanwhile, you've produced nothing whatsoever to establish yours.

[a_unique_person]

That hardly establishes your claim.

http://www.itdg.org/?id=s4_too_little



Sudan is categorised as one of the 25 poorest countries in the world, with over 90% of its people living below the poverty line. The lethal combination of droughts in the north and west and flooding in the east and south ensures that most Sudanese will never struggle out of that statistic and make it across to the safe side of the poverty line. http://practicalaction.org/images/appeal-sudan-03-10-hafir.jpgDrought in itself is a crippling, life-threatening force, but it brings with it a series of events and reactions that together create a devastating cycle of environmental collapse, conflict and displacement which comes to Sudan year after year.
Frequent droughts and environmental degradation are the major obstacles to livelihood security and food self-reliance in Sudan. Over 80% of Sudan's population lives in rural areas, depending on agriculture and livestock to make a living. Since the famous famine of 1984/5, Sudan has suffered severe droughts in 1989, 1990, 1997 and 2000. Each drought brought crop failure, loss of livestock and loss of pastureland. The great need - heightened by drought - for food, water and fertile land has eaten into natural resources, reducing forestry, wildlife and precious water supplies that do not have their own resources to compensate for loss through re-growth.







http://www.ifaanet.org/ifaapr/wardar.htm







1. The Environment: A new dimension in the Sudan's political and social landscape
The armed conflicts, which have afflicted the Sudan over the last three decades, have usually been interpreted as typical ethnic-tribal and/or religious-cultural conflicts. While these categorisations may have served as plausible descriptions of earlier conflicts, and may still have some bearing on how the conflicts are conducted and perceived today, the reality is that conflicts are historical processes, not static events, and so their causes do change and diversify over time.
During the last three decades serious ecological transformations have taken place in the Sudan. Prolonged and severe climatic desiccation coupled with intensive exploitation of soil, forest and other natural resources, as well the huge increases in human and livestock populations, have so degraded the fragile environment of northern Sudan that conflicts caused or catalysed by these compounding ecological factors were bound to take place.
In fact, ecological degradation has been so severe that the traditional means for the prevention and management of inter-ethnic disputes have been rendered virtually unworkable. Many of the current disputes are not being fought along traditional political borders, but along ecological borders that divide richer and poorer ecozones. This transformation has highlighted the need for qualitative development of the traditional methods of conflict management enables the parties concerned to deal effectively with this new and unprecedented predicament.
To continue to treat conflicts in the Sudan and many other parts of Africa as purely ethnic, tribal, political or religious, and to ignore the growing impact of ecological degradation and depletion of the resource base, could ultimately lead to a distorted understanding of the real situation, and consequently limit the possibility for genuine conflict resolution.





http://www.ifaanet.org/ifaapr/wardar.htm

[varwoche]

20/20 had a "special" yesterday... I wonder if there is a transcript online somewhere, just to be sure that you have represented the program accurately, realizing of course that the odds you would misrepresent anyone are exceedingly miniscule, and further realizing that surely you wouldn't bandy the word liar about willy nilly.

(I don't see anything at the ABC 2020 page.)

[Beerina]

I've heard that global warming will be a problem (I'm not saying it will be or won't be or that it exists or doesn't exist or that it is or is not caused by human activity) but I haven't heard that it is a threat to civilization. Even the most dire of predictions I've read about don't suggest that our entire civilization is going to break down. Not in anywhere near the level that an asteroid strike or a supervolcano or a nuclear war. So this is not just a question of likelyhood. It's also a question of scale. Global warming is not even close to the same scale.

Now global cooling into a new ice age would be completely devastating, itself much, much worse than global warming would ever dream of being. For all we know, humanity dodged a bullet.

[Beerina]

Hilarious stuff, as usual. Thanks.

Charlie (I put things in parentheses) Monoxide:


What? The terrorist threat against the good people of Idaho, Wyoming, and Indiana is very real indeed. "Global warming" is the far left agenda pushed by radical rogue scientists at places like NAS and the even more radical and rougish break off organization NASA. The truthsayers are people on Internet messageboards, talk radio, and regular columnists on the op-ed page of the WSJ. Too bad too many people are brainwashed by the liberal MSM.

Before sea level rises dozens of feet, shouldn't it have to rise an inch?

[Apollyon]

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/

Amazing how we see the same sort of dissent stifled on internet message boards by the proliferation of GW experts that reside on those same boards.

[varwoche]

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/

Amazing how we see the same sort of dissent stifled on internet message boards by the proliferation of GW experts that reside on those same boards. Amazing how we see op-ed pieces held up on a skeptical forum in lieu of pier reviewed scientific studies.

Example: above

Example of dissent stifling: none specified

[Apollyon]

Amazing how we see op-ed pieces held up on a skeptical forum in lieu of pier reviewed scientific studies.

Example: above

Example of dissent stifling: none specified
You want a peer reviewed study on how dissent against the AGW canard is being stifled?

That seems to be asking a bit much.

Besides that, I don't see anyone poo-pooing op-ed pieces in here unless they disagree with someone's political leanings or social beliefs. In a way, the article speaks to the behavior of people on internet message boards too. And it hits the nail right on the head in regards to GW, as yourself and this thread aptly demonstrates.

[daredelvis]

Amazing how we see op-ed pieces held up on a skeptical forum in lieu of pier reviewed scientific studies.

Example: above

Example of dissent stifling: none specified

varwoche,
You pointing out that whole "peer review" thingy is stifling Apollon. So wrapped up in your own dogma, and that of the scientific community that you can't see it.

Disgusting.

Daredelvis

[daredelvis]

You want a peer reviewed study on how dissent against the AGW canard is being stifled?

That seems to be asking a bit much.

Besides that, I don't see anyone poo-pooing op-ed pieces in here unless they disagree with someone's political leanings or social beliefs. In a way, the article speaks to the behavior of people on internet message boards too. And it hits the nail right on the head in regards to GW, as yourself and this thread aptly demonstrates.

Dang, Apollyon beat me to it. Must post faster.

Daredelvis

[Cain]

Besides that, I don't see anyone poo-pooing op-ed pieces in here unless they disagree with someone's political leanings or social beliefs. In a way, the article speaks to the behavior of people on internet message boards too. And it hits the nail right on the head in regards to GW, as yourself and this thread aptly demonstrates.

I clicked on your link but stopped reading when the author started talking about Nazis. I decided to give it another go a few moments later, thinking "Oh, I might just be looking for a reason not to discover the truth!" But now it's asking me to register.

Besides, the wingnuts (aka "sceintsts) at the NAS and the even more extreme splinter organization NASA are obviously pushing an agenda to brainwash the so-called scientific community. The best science is funded by people who actually generate economic activity and boost living standards (like the oil companies). They fund studies in a free market, in contradistinction to the doomsayers who rely on stolen (i.e., government taxed) dollars.

Moreover, AGW is prima facie absurd because it suggests something is wrong with the free market. But this cannot be the case. Therefore, it's just a bunch of hogwash, regardless of the science.

[Apollyon]

I clicked on your link but stopped reading when the author started talking about Nazis. I decided to give it another go a few moments later, thinking "Oh, I might just be looking for a reason not to discover the truth!" But now it's asking me to register.
Understandable as the link is to that bastion of right-wing fundamentalism, the Boston Globe.

I guess it doesn't matter anyway as the let-wing reflexology to anyone who might dare to suggest that global warming may not be anthropogenic in origin, and anyone who disagrees is a shill - how dare they do that, is vividly clear right here in this thread. No need to click on the link at all.

[varwoche]

You want a peer reviewed study on how dissent against the AGW canard is being stifled? No, pardon my lack of clarity.

However I welcome you to post a serious study -- not an op-ed piece -- that backs your claim that AGW is a canard, contrary to the numerous studies indicating otherwise (see link in my sig). That is, unless you find my request too stifling.

[Darth Rotor]

20/20 had a "special" yesterday on how the world could end, and went through several different scenarios: black holes, artificial intelligence, supervolcanoes, asteroid strikes, nuclear war, disease. But what did they deam the most dangerous? Climate change. Yeah, that's right. Apparently they'd rather be sucked into a black hole than be a few degrees hotter. This was accompanied with a bunch of BS, such as trying to sell the issue as being completely settled, comparing those that disagree with Holocaust deniers, and claiming that the Earth has never experienced temperature or CO2 levels as high as they are now. If the science is so sound, why does the Left feel the need to constantly lie about it?
The rate of global warming, and its causes aside, I believe that there remains a cultural myopia in modern societies that require a shock to the system to overcome. My biggest disappointment with both left and right in America has been the inability to develop alternative energy (to include far more nuclear power plant) since the 1973 oil embargo. President Carter's approach included the nascent forms of US intervention in the Mid East: establishment of the Rapid Reaction Force that evolved into today's CENTCOM. That was an effort to control oil throughput, rather than wean America from oil dependency. His successors have done no better, and the hysteria surrounding nuclear power policy in the 1970's and 1980's have indelibely marred the Green movement in America as fear mongers. Too bad, since theri general theme of good environmental stewardship is based on sound, rational, principles.

Consider how many decades it took to refine and agree on the low sulfur Diesel. The US is just now getting to that. Europe, and particularly Germany, had the evidence of piss poor resource stewardship stare them in the face through the Rhine River turning toxic, and the Black Forest being eaten by acid rain. What does it take to get China (or America for that matter), the fastest growing ecomomy on the planet, and potentially the largest energy user by orders of magnitude in the next generation, to adaopt a similar stewarship policy to that of the EU?

The multinational effort to cut CFC use seems to have helped the Ozone layer heal. Kyoto is a profoundly flawed document, politically, and is as much an attempt to bludgeon certain parties as it is to actually address the core problem. It's intentions are good, but its details are politically ridiculous. It needs more work.

Is the problem energy type, or gross energy usage? I'd say it is both. The Earth's population has tripled in about 50 years. At some point, I suggest there needs to be a counter correction.

Darfur, to answer that red herring, is a symptom of a bad fit between modern policy/medical and technological advance, a population's habits, and the capacity of the land to sustain life without augmentation. It strikes me as a microcosm of many human problelms: the problem is the density of humans, both literally and figuratively.

DR

[Apollyon]

No, pardon my lack of clarity.

However I welcome you to post a serious study -- not an op-ed piece -- that backs your claim that AGW is a canard, contrary to the numerous studies indicating otherwise (see link in my sig). That is, unless you find my request too stifling.
I don't find your request stifling. I find it idiotic.

I base my claims on former experience as a weather obersever and forecaster for the Air Force. We don't have all of the facts in yet and to make the claim that man-made emmissions are the cause of GW before we have all the facts in is jumping the gun as well as poor science.

[varwoche]

I don't find your request stifling. I find it idiotic.

I base my claims on former experience as a weather obersever and forecaster for the Air Force. We don't have all of the facts in yet and to make the claim that man-made emmissions are the cause of GW before we have all the facts in is jumping the gun as well as poor science. Seeing as I assign zero weight to anecdotal musings from anonymous, evidence-challenged personas on the internet, I repeat my idiotic request that you cite a study backing your claim that AGW is a canard.

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1765428#post1765428)you will find an extensive list of recent studies from leading scientific organizations worldwide that strongly indicate you are ignorant of the facts.

Since you made this claim on a skeptical forum, I assume you are prepared to back it up. I await scientific evidence and hopefully not another evasion.

[Darth Rotor]

I don't find your request stifling. I find it idiotic.

I base my claims on former experience as a weather obersever and forecaster for the Air Force. We don't have all of the facts in yet and to make the claim that man-made emmissions are the cause of GW before we have all the facts in is jumping the gun as well as poor science.
Are you willing to concede emissions as a contributing factor?

DR

[Earthborn]

We don't have all of the facts in yet and to make the claim that man-made emmissions are the cause of GW before we have all the facts in is jumping the gun as well as poor science.According to this logic, all science is poor science. There is not a single scientific theory for which "all the facts are in". There are however a lot of scientific theories for which lots of facts are in, allowing scientists to make an educated guess about whether the theory is true or not.

[Apollyon]

Seeing as I assign zero weight to anecdotal musings from anonymous, evidence-challenged personas on the internet, I repeat my idiotic request that you cite a study backing your claim that AGW is a canard.
I'm not asking you to believe me, nor am I about to get into a link battle with someone who seems to think that being right is directly proportional to how many URLs they can copy & paste into an internet forum.

If you don't like my opinion on the global warming issue, tough ****.

[Tricky]

I'm not asking you to believe me, nor am I about to get into a link battle with someone who seems to think that being right is directly proportional to how many URLs they can can & paste into an internet forum.

If you don't like my opinion on the global warming issue, tough ****.
Oh, well as long as you admit it is just an opinion.

Of course, opinions come in many varieties based on how well informed the person with the opinion is.
Some say the moon is made of stone,
I say it's made of cheese.
For I am an American
And I say what I damn please.

[Apollyon]

Are you willing to concede emissions as a contributing factor?

DR
Absolutely. How much they contribute is, imo, the real issue. Unfortunately, the prevailing scientific fashion is to pursue studies that attempt to link manmade emmissions to GW and discount, neglect, or ignore other potential influences. Both political and social biases are weighing heavy on the GW issue right now towards the assumption that mankind is responsible. Personally, I think, as is so often the case with man, that we are overestimating ourselves and our knowledge of this planet and how its climate functions over both the short and long term.

Just look how the bandwagoneers were jumping on the GW train last year with the preponderance of hurricanes, predicting that the rise in frequency and strength were a direct result of GW. They seem to have gone a bit silent this year.

[Apollyon]

Oh, well as long as you admit it is just an opinion.

Of course, opinions come in many varieties based on how well informed the person with the opinion is.
Opinion is quite often built on more than just being informed.

There are very well informed opinions on both sides of the AGW issue. So far neither side has proven their case conclusively.

[Darth Rotor]

Absolutely. How much they contribute is, imo, the real issue. Unfortunately, the prevailing scientific fashion is to pursue studies that attempt to link manmade emmissions to GW and discount, neglect, or ignore other potential influences. Both political and social biases are weighing heavy on the GW issue right now towards the assumption that mankind is responsible. Personally, I think, as is so often the case with man, that we are overestimating ourselves and our knowledge of this planet and how its climate functions over both the short and long term.

Just look how the bandwagoneers were jumping on the GW train last year with the preponderance of hurricanes, predicting that the rise in frequency and strength were a direct result of GW. They seem to have gone a bit silent this year.
The tie in to GWB is an artifact of the Green side being virulently anti-Bush. The Global Warming crowd has been banging away against SUV's and emissions for some time now, a couple of decades to my recollection, just after the "new ice age" group started to see the data swing away from that forecast. The weather models are better now than 20 years ago, but like any models, are bound by assumptions and initial conditions.

Presuming emissions to be something within our power to control, it can't hurt to reduce them, and it may help. Such an action also aid and abets some other issues, like air quality.

DR

[varwoche]

Unfortunately, the prevailing scientific fashion is to pursue studies that attempt to link manmade emmissions to GW and discount, neglect, or ignore other potential influences. Yet more vague* assertions without citing one example.

But at least we're getting somewhere. I'm getting it now that you discount, neglect, and/or ignore the scientific body of knowledge, affirmed by your own words.

And here you are, an anonymous internet persona on a skeptical forum proclaiming to know more than the worldwide scientific community yet not citing one lonely shred of evidence. Funny that.

* I'm not a fan of vagueness, in case you can't tell from our recent discussions.

[Trantor]

Just look how the bandwagoneers were jumping on the GW train last year with the preponderance of hurricanes, predicting that the rise in frequency and strength were a direct result of GW. They seem to have gone a bit silent this year.

Actually the Pacific Region has been very active this year. I guess people here in the US don't really look at the whole picture, just the Atlantic Region. There was a monster storm that hit China a few weeks ago. It had sustained winds of 170 mph and killed hundreds of people. Right now there is another major storm out near Japan with winds of over 150 mph, and let's not forget that hurricane John is also out there in the Pacific near Mexico and it also was a cat 5 storm.

Check this bad boy out.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/shownh.php3?img_id=13822

[Apollyon]

Yet more vague* assertions without citing one example.

But at least we're getting somewhere. I'm getting it now that you discount, neglect, and/or ignore the scientific body of knowledge, affirmed by your own words.

And here you are, an anonymous internet persona on a skeptical forum proclaiming to know more than the worldwide scientific community yet not citing one lonely shred of evidence. Funny that.

* I'm not a fan of vagueness, in case you can't tell from our recent discussions.
I'm sure, simply by virtue of your capability to compile copious links, that you are quite the expert on weather and that capability makes your opinion more valuable or valid than anyone else in here.

CTs can compile large lists of link too and act like experts. In case you haven't noticed, that ability doesn't actually make them an expert or even really very knowldgeable in many cases. It's also precisely why I don't prescribe to the whole 'You show me yours and I'll show you mine.' school of internet banter. Being able to wave URLs around is really proof of nothing at all.

Furthermore you move on to mischaracterize and misrepresent a prior statement of mine, which is something else CTs are famous for. Now I'm not saying you're a CT, but when one walks like a ducks, and quacks like a duck...

[Tricky]

I'm sure, simply by virtue of your capability to compile copious links, that you are quite the expert on weather and that capability makes your opinion more valuable or valid than anyone else in here.

CTs can compile large lists of link too and act like experts. In case you haven't noticed, that ability doesn't actually make them an expert or even really very knowldgeable in many cases. It's also precisely why I don't prescribe to the whole 'You show me yours and I'll show you mine.' school of internet banter. Being able to wave URLs around is really proof of nothing at all.
What do you suggest we use for evidence? We can't scan and reproduce textbooks here. I realize that internet links are not the greatest of evidence, but that's the tools we have to work with. You try to keep a healthy skepticism about the sources and evaluate if the sources are good or not. Don't you do that when you look at internet sites?

Furthermore you move on to mischaracterize and misrepresent a prior statement of mine, which is something else CTs are famous for. Now I'm not saying you're a CT, but when one walks like a ducks, and quacks like a duck...
I see no CT-like behavior on Varwoche's part. He has not proposed that someone is keeping secrets from us. Just the opposite, he says the information is readily available. He does not suggest that there is a cabal of people creating global warming.

It is true that yours is a minority opinion on this subject. As such, you are likely to get more negative responses than positive, especially if you disallow the only sources of evidence that can conveniently be provided. It's not a conspiracy against you though. Just a bunch of people who have independantly reached the same opinion.

[kittynh]

OK< here is real science that is happening right now. Measurable in photographs, not supposition.

Too much fresh water...no gulf stream...gulf stream now slowing (in past 15 years...MUCH slowing FAST slowing). Less gulf stream, greater temp problems (no exchange of hot from equator to cold of the ARctic).

The last time this happened wasn't some obscure past, it was 15,000 years ago, a mere blip. It wasn't good.

It is nature, or us? Doesn't matter, it's bad.

Bye bye glaciers..and hello fresh water.

[kittynh]

oopppsy, sorry 1500 years ago this happend rather badly. Societies fell, famine, and all that other crap. Changed the history of the world in a short YEAR. Just one YEAR of this fresh water problem and you can trace the impact on history.

[slingblade]

What do you suggest we use for evidence? We can't scan and reproduce textbooks here. I realize that internet links are not the greatest of evidence, but that's the tools we have to work with. You try to keep a healthy skepticism about the sources and evaluate if the sources are good or not. Don't you do that when you look at internet sites?

That really bugs me, too. We have limited forms of evidence we can give on this forum, and in light of copyright law. We operate under those limits quite effectively, I think, until we run into someone who refuses to look at our links and insists we haven't provided any, or sufficient, or correct "evidence."

Damn, folks. Shut up and deal with it. Sorry, but it's just so frustrating.

Where's your evidence?

Look at the info at this link.

Ah, I see you can't provide evidence.

Wha? Hey, did you even look? What do you want me to do--go to the library, check out the books and studies, drive or fly to your house, and give you a crash course? Just look at my links!

No. I want evidence.

But it's right there, at that link.

No, it's not. Give me evidence.

Oh, shut up already! Go away! I don't wanna play with you no more!

Ah, I see you can't provide evide--BLAM, BLAM, BLAM!

*blows the smoke away from the gun barrel* Don't thank me, Ma'am; just doing my job.

[Apollyon]

What do you suggest we use for evidence? We can't scan and reproduce textbooks here. I realize that internet links are not the greatest of evidence, but that's the tools we have to work with. You try to keep a healthy skepticism about the sources and evaluate if the sources are good or not. Don't you do that when you look at internet sites?
Of course I evaluate a source. I also evaluate the debate and GW is one that has become highly politicized, biased based on personal feelings concerning the environment, and has a very vociferously vocal crowd that leans to one particular side of the debate. I am not actually saying they are wrong either. They might be right, they might not. What I am saying - and basically said with my first link, which was backed up by statements from an MIT professor of meteorology who is directly involved in this very issue - is that the advocates of AGW are tending to stifle the debate when opposing viewpoints are fielded.

That is not the way to discover the truth.

Now if varwoche wants to disagree that the debate is being stifled, perhaps he can contact the professor Lindzen and hash it out?

[Art Vandelay]

Meanwhile, you've produced nothing whatsoever to establish yours.I don't have the burden of proof. People sometimes kill for water. To explain mutilation and rape, however, one must look elsewhere for explanation.

[MilwaukeeMike]

Why is it that Bush and Co can scare a scant majority to elect him (twice) using fear mongering as his main platform but when something like the very evident environmental changes that have been occuring get "poo pooed"?

Most scientist are in agreement that the environment is going through some changes for the worse and the usual suspect is us. These effects, if continued on the current trend, seem kinda scary to me.

Charlie (Gore in '08) Monoxide

Yah, lets base everything off of 150 years or so of climate readings. This may be part of the natural cycle. We had an ice age once because of non-human reasons. Who's to say we won't have another one... (I read somewhere that Global Warming actually leads to ice ages.. Can anyone back me up on this? I dont have a link to where I read it)

[slingblade]

I don't have the burden of proof. People sometimes kill for water. To explain mutilation and rape, however, one must look elsewhere for explanation.

Yes, you do. You made the opening claim that ABC/20/20 lied. You need to enumerate the lies and show evidence that they are lies. You should have done it in the OP, but we'll wait while you catch up.

No, you can't argue with me. You made the opening claim.

Prove it.

[jimtron]

Art, could you please specify how 20/20 lied?

eta: When I posted this I hadn't yet seen the above post. This post doesn't seem needed at this point. Thanks, and drive through please.

[varwoche]

CTs can compile large lists of link too and act like experts. Or thay can compile no links, present no evidence, declare facts ex nihilo, and explicity disregard the scientific body of knowledge -- as you have.

[Apollyon]

Or thay can compile no links, present no evidence, declare facts ex nihilo, and explicity disregard the scientific body of knowledge -- as you have.
I'm sure you know scads more about this entire process than an MIT professor and, now that you've made it perfectly clear, there's obviously no stifling of dissent when it comes to making contrary claims to AGW. I mean, you've proven that just by your actions in this thread.

My apologies for ever doubting you your kingship.

:rolleyes:

ETA: If you want a link, here: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm

Send an e-mail to Lindzen and call BS on his claim. Then let's see how far your compiled list of studies gets you.

[slingblade]

Wow. this thread got quiet. That tends to happen when BS is called.

[Apollyon]

Wow. this thread got quiet. That tends to happen when BS is called.
It also happens when the BS called is BS.

[slingblade]

Thanks for restating exactly what I said, but adding two more letters. That sure showed me!

[a_unique_person]

Now global cooling into a new ice age would be completely devastating, itself much, much worse than global warming would ever dream of being. For all we know, humanity dodged a bullet.

So what is wrong with keeping it stable? According to Flannery, the reason mankind suddenly shot ahead in the last few thousand years (despite existing for much longer than that) is that we had a chance when the climate became much more stable than normal.

Cities and agriculture, which require stability and predictability, developed quite rapidly. Paleo Climatology indicates that before that, changes in the climate were quite rapid and regular.

[a_unique_person]

Yah, lets base everything off of 150 years or so of climate readings. This may be part of the natural cycle. We had an ice age once because of non-human reasons. Who's to say we won't have another one... (I read somewhere that Global Warming actually leads to ice ages.. Can anyone back me up on this? I dont have a link to where I read it)

Everything is not based off that. Paleoclimatology is an active field of research.

[a_unique_person]

Of course I evaluate a source. I also evaluate the debate and GW is one that has become highly politicized, biased based on personal feelings concerning the environment, and has a very vociferously vocal crowd that leans to one particular side of the debate. I am not actually saying they are wrong either. They might be right, they might not. What I am saying - and basically said with my first link, which was backed up by statements from an MIT professor of meteorology who is directly involved in this very issue - is that the advocates of AGW are tending to stifle the debate when opposing viewpoints are fielded.

That is not the way to discover the truth.

Now if varwoche wants to disagree that the debate is being stifled, perhaps he can contact the professor Lindzen and hash it out?

Using Lindzen as an authority is literally clutching at straws, because he is a very lonely man in that field of research. A survey by Science showed that 100% of papers published confirm global warming is a reality. (That is, there are dissenting views, but these are so few that they don't make it to 1%).

[Art Vandelay]

Yes, you do. You made the opening claim that ABC/20/20 lied. You need to enumerate the lies and show evidence that they are lies. You should have done it in the OP, but we'll wait while you catch up.

No, you can't argue with me. You made the opening claim.

Prove it.Go peddle your BS elsewhere. I'm not interested.

[Tricky]

I'm sure you know scads more about this entire process than an MIT professor and, now that you've made it perfectly clear, there's obviously no stifling of dissent when it comes to making contrary claims to AGW. I mean, you've proven that just by your actions in this thread.
You know, you're becoming remniscent of those guys on fundie websites like Answers in Genesis who dig up a scientist who agrees with them and parade him around as if he was representative of all of science, even though it is abundantly clear that his position is very much out of the mainstream. Sure, people out of the mainstream can be right, but it isn't as common as all the "they laughed at Galileo" crowd would have us believe. Certainly dissent is allowed, but there is a good reason why dissent on this issue is not gaining much headway among scientists, and it has nothing to do with political correctness.

I work with a bunch of scientists and they are among the least "politically correct" folks you will ever meet.

[varwoche]

Apollyon: Again, I'm not talking about the op-ed piece you cited (which is of the K.Bacon School of Evidence in any case). I'm talking about your unexplained dismissal of the scientific evidence preceded by this passing statement: the AGW canard If you don't intend to support this and are letting stand the contrary evidence presented, very well I suppose.

And when you call someone a CTist and post this bleakly amusing gem in the same breath... Unfortunately, the prevailing scientific fashion is to pursue studies that attempt to link manmade emmissions to GW and discount, neglect, or ignore other potential influences. ... it plants us firmly in the surreal realm.

That being said, whenever a person forms strong opinions on a given topic, as I clearly have, it's a potential blind spot. For this reason I try to challenge myself constantly (try being the operative word). If it is your goal to help me or others see flaws in my presentation, spewing vague insults and constructing diffuse strawmen is not an effective approach. Especially when you are explicitly dismissing the body of scientific evidence based on unexplained superior knowledge.

To put it bluntly, your posts form a continuous vague and fallacious stream virtually devoid of informative content. I recommend you add "for instance..." to your vocabulary.

(edit grammar)

[Bjorn]

ETA: If you want a link, here: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm

Send an e-mail to Lindzen and call BS on his claim. Then let's see how far your compiled list of studies gets you.I'm probably totally off the subject here, but Lindzen is, according to your link, "developing a sophisticated, but computationally simple, climate model to test whether the proper treatment of cumulus convection will significantly reduce climate sensitivity to the increase of greenhouse gases.

I'm a bit confused - he knows that the climate is sensitive to the increase of greenhouse gases. What is it that he disagrees on? That greenhouse gases are man-made?

[a_unique_person]

I'm probably totally off the subject here, but Lindzen is, according to your link, "developing a sophisticated, but computationally simple, climate model to test whether the proper treatment of cumulus convection will significantly reduce climate sensitivity to the increase of greenhouse gases.

I'm a bit confused - he knows that the climate is sensitive to the increase of greenhouse gases. What is it that he disagrees on? That greenhouse gases are man-made?

The degree. He was cited in another thread on this matter, and, because he is a scientist versed in this area, makes reasonable claims, despite the evidence that he is still wrong.

Uninformed people, (not Lindzen), are amazed that the very small amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere can have such a powerful effect on the frequency of radiation they absorb. They already absorb, (IIRC), about 98%. Hence an increase in CO2 won't make that much difference to the amount absorbed, it is not a linear relationship. They can only absorb the same range of wavelengths, no matter how much is there. So he is claiming that no matter how much more you put in, it won't really make much of a difference.

That is where much of the debate lies, (if I am correct), at the scientific level. The claim is that this increase in absorption will still make a significant difference, (it only has to average a few degrees C to make massive changes to ecosystems). In absolute temperature terms, the change we are looking at is only a few percent, but it will still mean a significant difference to us, as animals, and the way the climate works.

What he is hoping for is something that may or may not happen, so he certainly seems to be accepting a large part of the science now. But that is wishful thinking, at present, and not science.

[slingblade]

Go peddle your BS elsewhere. I'm not interested.

Of course you're not.

:dl:

[Foolmewunz]

From everything I've been able to locate there is at least one given - that global warming is real. (No caps on global warming, please.)

The current debate in the scientific community is to just what exent humans have caused and continue to cause this versus solar activity. There was much effort in the scientific community from the 90's onwards to try to define the extent that solar flares may have actually impacted the warming. The results were tending towards a conclusion that, at worst, solar flare activity might rate an even footing with GHG. Some figures place the solar impact as low as 1 to 2%. (Please don't ask for copies of the tomes, there are dozens of them available by googling through the web.)

However, a study out of Duke (N. Scafetta and B.J. West http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL025539.shtml) this year indicates that the studies previously cited were chiefly based on theoretical models and that an empirical study actually places the impact at something between 10 to 30% of the cause. This should be mother's milk to skeptics. Empirical vs Theoretical is what we live and breathe for!

Unfortunately, the complete study seems to be available only if you're willing to pay for the paper. If anyone can find a free link to the pdf, I'd appreciate it. But it's cited in numerous journals (google "Scafetta & West").

It's very important, however, to note that they do not throw out GHG. And in most academic journals I've read concerning the issues, GHG are included as a contributing factor. The debate was whether solar activity as equal to or greater than man's impact on the climate.

As to the developing tenor of this string, it would seem to revolve around whether to accept "the ends justify the means". A number of scientists have actually weighed in on that side of the debate, but seemingly an equal number are concerned about staking a claim to an argument that might be made based on bad science. Rather interesting reading in below link:


http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/

The most intelligent (from my own subjective viewpoint) argument I've seen was (IIRC) from a British journal. The writer (a scientist, I believe but I don't want to state that emphatically) basically stated, "Ok, so solar flares are responsible for more warming than we believed. So what? Does that mean that we should throw out all arguments for reduction of GHG? At best, reducing GHG would tackle 2 to 5% of the warming effect over time. At worst? So we get cleaner air? Anything wrong with that."

The scientists discussing the issue at U Colorado(link above) seem to be saying the same thing. They're just concerned that they create doubt in their efficacy if they jump on the bandwagon of poorly constructed theory.

BTW - Darfur? Global warming (if that's the cause of the drought) cannot be blamed for the situation in Darfur any more than the Protestant Reformation can be blamed for the near extinction of the Native American. Sure, the Reformation sparked the migration to North America (one cause...), but it was the will of the new nation that made its choice in its policy towards the indigenous peoples. The Darfur tragedy is due to the choice/will of the current powers-that-be in that country and the inability or unwillingness of the rest of the world to deal with it.

[Art Vandelay]

Art, could you please specify how 20/20 lied?

eta: When I posted this I hadn't yet seen the above post. This post doesn't seem needed at this point. Thanks, and drive through please.As I said in the OP, they claimed that the temperature and CO2 levels are now greater than they have been in the history of the Earth.

[Tricky]

As I said in the OP, they claimed that the temperature and CO2 levels are now greater than they have been in the history of the Earth.
I'd really like an exact quote for that. I have a hard time believing that 20/20 said that the Earth, which pretty much cooled from a blob of molten material, had never experienced higher temperature than now.

Was there no qualification on that claim at all? My BS meter is ringing off the wall.

[peptoabysmal]

I'd really like an exact quote for that. I have a hard time believing that 20/20 said that the Earth, which pretty much cooled from a blob of molten material, had never experienced higher temperature than now.

Was there no qualification on that claim at all? My BS meter is ringing off the wall.

I wouldn't swear to the exact wording, but I was left with the impression that they were saying that the Earth had never experienced as high level of C02 as now and that the heat always follows the C02.

ETA: they (the woman host) drove the point home with a graph going off the rails at the right end as they were talking.

[slingblade]

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Video/videoLogin?id=2377291

There. Watch it again. You have to be a subscriber to view this, however.

I found the link at the very bottom of this page:

http://abcnews.go.com/

And Art? You know you want me. ;)

[Geckko]

Using Lindzen as an authority is literally clutching at straws, because he is a very lonely man in that field of research. A survey by Science showed that 100% of papers published confirm global warming is a reality. (That is, there are dissenting views, but these are so few that they don't make it to 1%).

You shouldn't use such vague claims.

This appears to be a reference to the Naomi Oreskes Science article. That really wasn't robust enought to prove what you suggest.

We need to keep the such obviously spurious hyperbole out of the debate.

ETA

Since I recently started reading up on this I have come across a number of other researchers in the field with good credentials and intersting credible things to say and convincing data and science to back them up. For example, Fred Singer, Roger Pielke Snr, John Christy and others.

One thing you do learn is that there is no single point to debate. Anyone who claims there is a binary choice - "concensus vs heretic", "believer v. skeptic" is talking crap.

[Geckko]

I wouldn't swear to the exact wording, but I was left with the impression that they were saying that the Earth had never experienced as high level of C02 as now and that the heat always follows the C02.

ETA: they (the woman host) drove the point home with a graph going off the rails at the right end as they were talking.

Oh oh, that sounds like the infamous "Hockey Stick" - now completely discredited as a artifact of poor statistics following a number of years of squabbling and two recent Congressional Committees and commissioned reports (one from the National Academy of Sciences and one from an independent team of academic statisticians).

I don't know whether this program was BS or not, but this element appears to be extremely poorly researched.

[a_unique_person]

Oh oh, that sounds like the infamous "Hockey Stick" - now completely discredited as a artifact of poor statistics following a number of years of squabbling and two recent Congressional Committees and commissioned reports (one from the National Academy of Sciences and one from an independent team of academic statisticians).

I don't know whether this program was BS or not, but this element appears to be extremely poorly researched.

That's the meme. Hockey stick completely discredited. Even though it's not. But everyone who's a denier can sleep comfortably in bed at night. In the meantime, empirical evidence is clear that Greenland's glaciers are melting faster than anticipated.

[a_unique_person]

You shouldn't use such vague claims.

This appears to be a reference to the Naomi Oreskes Science article. That really wasn't robust enought to prove what you suggest.

We need to keep the such obviously spurious hyperbole out of the debate.

ETA

Since I recently started reading up on this I have come across a number of other researchers in the field with good credentials and intersting credible things to say and convincing data and science to back them up. For example, Fred Singer, Roger Pielke Snr, John Christy and others.

One thing you do learn is that there is no single point to debate. Anyone who claims there is a binary choice - "concensus vs heretic", "believer v. skeptic" is talking crap.

They are saying essentially the same thing, but they are still very thin on the ground. The science article made one thing perfectly clear, the overwhelming evidence in the form of peer reviewed, scientific papers supports AGW.

[demon]

31 Aug 2006
Followup to the ‘Hockeystick’ Hearings
Filed under: Climate Science RC Forum— group @ 10:53 am
The House Energy and Commerce committee held two hearings on the "Hockey Stick" and associated "Wegman Report" in July. We commented on the first of the two hearings previously. The hearings, while ostensibly concerning the studies of Mann and coworkers, were actually most remarkable for the (near) unanimity of the participating scientists on critical key points, such as the importance of confronting the issue of climate change, and the apparent acceptance of those points by the majority of congresspersons present.

The committee subsequently provided followup opportunities to participants to clarify issues that were discussed at the hearings. Mike Mann (Penn State Professor and RealClimate blogger) participated in the second (July 27 2006) of the two hearings, "Questions Surrounding the ‘Hockey Stick’ Temperature Studies: Implications for Climate Change Assessments". He has posted his responses to five follow-up questions, along with supporting documents. Among the more interesting of these documents are a letter and a series of email requests from emeritus Stanford Physics Professor David Ritson who has identified significant apparent problems with the calculations contained in the Wegman report, but curiously has been unable to obtain any clarification from Dr. Wegman or his co-authors in response to his inquiries. We hope that Dr. Wegman and his co-authors will soon display a willingness to practice the principle of 'openness' that they so recommend in their report....

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/08/followup-to-the-hockeystick-hearings/

[ponderingturtle]

The problems are many.

Australia, for example, is suffering nationwide drought. Many areas have to truck water in.

Many areas where tapping fossil aquafers that do not regenerate at anything like the speed they are being pumped out, the long term problems with that would have nothing to do with global warming and more to do with people living in areas that don't naturaly have water.

[a_unique_person]

Many areas where tapping fossil aquafers that do not regenerate at anything like the speed they are being pumped out, the long term problems with that would have nothing to do with global warming and more to do with people living in areas that don't naturaly have water.

That is happening too, but all states are suffering severe droughts, regardless of the use of underground water.

[Skeptic]

20/20 had a "special" yesterday on how the world could end, and went through several different scenarios: black holes, artificial intelligence, supervolcanoes, asteroid strikes, nuclear war, disease. But what did they deam the most dangerous? Climate change. Yeah, that's right. Apparently they'd rather be sucked into a black hole than be a few degrees hotter.

Well, either that, or that by "most dangerous" they mean that (rightly or wrongly) climate change is much more probable than a runaway black hole or an asteroid strike. After all, when one speaks of how dangerous something is, one takes into account its probability as well as what will occur if it happens. Being stuck by lightning is much more likely to be fatal than being stuck by a car, but car accidents are more dangerous to you than lightning strikes because they are more common.

[Geckko]

31 Aug 2006
Followup to the ‘Hockeystick’ Hearings
Filed under: Climate Science RC Forum— group @ 10:53 am
The House Energy and Commerce committee held two hearings on the "Hockey Stick" and associated "Wegman Report" in July. We commented on the first of the two hearings previously. The hearings, while ostensibly concerning the studies of Mann and coworkers, were actually most remarkable for the (near) unanimity of the participating scientists on critical key points, such as the importance of confronting the issue of climate change, and the apparent acceptance of those points by the majority of congresspersons present.

The committee subsequently provided followup opportunities to participants to clarify issues that were discussed at the hearings. Mike Mann (Penn State Professor and RealClimate blogger) participated in the second (July 27 2006) of the two hearings, "Questions Surrounding the ‘Hockey Stick’ Temperature Studies: Implications for Climate Change Assessments". He has posted his responses to five follow-up questions, along with supporting documents. Among the more interesting of these documents are a letter and a series of email requests from emeritus Stanford Physics Professor David Ritson who has identified significant apparent problems with the calculations contained in the Wegman report, but curiously has been unable to obtain any clarification from Dr. Wegman or his co-authors in response to his inquiries. We hope that Dr. Wegman and his co-authors will soon display a willingness to practice the principle of 'openness' that they so recommend in their report....

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/08/followup-to-the-hockeystick-hearings/


Interesting post. It can be summed up a little more briefly though.

Michael Mann and co-authors (aka Realclimate) are embarassed and worried so much of their reputation and career has been effectively sunk and are sniping.

[Geckko]

They are saying essentially the same thing, but they are still very thin on the ground. The science article made one thing perfectly clear, the overwhelming evidence in the form of peer reviewed, scientific papers supports AGW.

I think you should in fact reas what some of these people are saying. They are very clear that they do not subscribe to some of the things you seem to be suggesting are part of the general concensus. i particular, with regard to magnitude, cause and certainty of wha is and may happen.

And again, Oreskes article does not do what you suggest it does.

[a_unique_person]

Interesting post. It can be summed up a little more briefly though.

Michael Mann and co-authors (aka Realclimate) are embarassed and worried so much of their reputation and career has been effectively sunk and are sniping.

No that is just your opinion.

Meanwhile, the weather patterns back up global warming. Nothing has happened to discredit it.

[Geckko]

No that is just your opinion.

No,

RealClimate is Michael Mann's web site. Do you really insist that it can be used as a source to defend the Hockey Stick?

Meanwhile, the weather patterns back up global warming. Nothing has happened to discredit it.

This was in response to what?

[Apollyon]

Apollyon: Again, I'm not talking about the op-ed piece you cited (which is of the K.Bacon School of Evidence in any case). I'm talking about your unexplained dismissal of the scientific evidence preceded by this passing statement: If you don't intend to support this and are letting stand the contrary evidence presented, very well I suppose.

And when you call someone a CTist and post this bleakly amusing gem in the same breath... ... it plants us firmly in the surreal realm.

That being said, whenever a person forms strong opinions on a given topic, as I clearly have, it's a potential blind spot. For this reason I try to challenge myself constantly (try being the operative word). If it is your goal to help me or others see flaws in my presentation, spewing vague insults and constructing diffuse strawmen is not an effective approach. Especially when you are explicitly dismissing the body of scientific evidence based on unexplained superior knowledge.

To put it bluntly, your posts form a continuous vague and fallacious stream virtually devoid of informative content. I recommend you add "for instance..." to your vocabulary.

(edit grammar)
You are arguing that there's no stifling of dissent to AGW. An MIT professor claims there is. I gave you a link. E-mail the professor and discuss it with him if you don't believe his claim and want to dismiss it as the rant of the tiny disgruntled minority.

Besides that, if you don't want people to get snippy with you, stop being such a pompous twit.

[varwoche]

You are arguing that there's no stifling of dissent to AGW. An MIT professor claims there is. I gave you a link. E-mail the professor and discuss it with him if you don't believe his claim and want to dismiss it as the rant of the tiny disgruntled minority.

Besides that, if you don't want people to get snippy with you, stop being such a pompous twit. [icon of man banging his head on desk goes here] For the third time, I'm NOT talking about the goofy op-ed piece you cited, but rather your "AGW canard" statement and subsequent explcit dismissal of the scientific body of evidence, which you base on unexplained superior knowledge that places you in the know and expert scientists in the dark.

Your ongoing evasion is transparent and braying won't hide that Apollyon, try as you may.

[kittynh]

You are arguing that there's no stifling of dissent to AGW. An MIT professor claims there is. I gave you a link. E-mail the professor and discuss it with him if you don't believe his claim and want to dismiss it as the rant of the tiny disgruntled minority.

Besides that, if you don't want people to get snippy with you, stop being such a pompous twit.



Hmmm, just because someone is an MIT professor it doesn't make them a genius or in the right. I have some darn good MIT connections...as in the ENTIRE Geology, Biology, Earth Sciences Department. My daughter, who is in grad school there, and at Woods Hole is doing the work that might save this darn planet. SHE used to believe that the whole "global warming" was just mother nature and there was nothing we could do. She now thinks that no matter what we need to look at it openly and figure out what we can do. The whole thing is that why doesn't matter so much as ...how fast, how much, and what can we do? (oddly we can do stuff, some of it rather SF sounding, but hey...)

EVERY professor that she has delt with has imressed upon their grad students that they are on the front line of a battle that is far more serious than the war on terror. They are level headed, they are interested in the TRUTH - not a spin, and they are really smart and creative. They aren't crazed tree hugging hippies. They are the smartest most educated scientists on this planet. They are from India, Iran, China, Iraq, Pakistan, Germany, the UK, Australia, Canada and the US. You aren't going to get a more balanced world view than that. They aren't geniuses and they aren't interested in "press". You get your off prof every now and again, but those I have met are so dedicated that I for one feel a lot safer about the future of our planet.

But one thing they hate is people throwing aournd "MIT, MIT"

You know, MOST of them are humble also and base their opinions on their data and hard work. NOT on the fact that they are at MIT.

Now CALTECH, they totally are egomaniacs.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Go peddle your BS elsewhere. I'm not interested.

Evasion noted.

[Art Vandelay]

ETA: they (the woman host) drove the point home with a graph going off the rails at the right end as they were talking.And they flashed the graph on the screen for about a second, so it was impossible to really examine it.

I'd really like an exact quote for that. I have a hard time believing that 20/20 said that the Earth, which pretty much cooled from a blob of molten material, had never experienced higher temperature than now.

Was there no qualification on that claim at all? My BS meter is ringing off the wall.I don't recall the exact wording, but it was something like "When CO2 levels go up, temperature goes up. They are now in uncharted territory". So I guess if no one has actually charted the CO2 and temperature levels for the entire history of the Earth, they could weasel out of it on that basis. Or perhaps they'll say that they meant "for recent history", and just didn't bother saying that.

Evasion noted.Continued dishonesty noted. When I point out that Slingblade's post misrepresented the situation, you call that "evasion". Why do people like you and Slingblade resort to lying whenever you see a position you don't like? I note that you have offered no support for your claim that I support Badnarik. Bit hypocritical to accuse me of evasion, isn't it?

[slingblade]

Oh, is this the part where I'm supposed to get indignant, and dare Mr. Art to show me where I've lied?

Okay, but you'll have to wait until I've worked up some give-a-crap. It may take...well, let's just call it something close to forever.

Is there a yawning smiley?

[Dr Adequate]

Art Vandelay is accusing people of telling lies?

That's like the Atlantic Ocean calling someone "wet".

Art Vandelay is the stupidest and most incompetent liar I have ever met, and that includes fundie apologists. They just have to defend the fairy story about the talking snake and the magic apple.

[a_unique_person]

No,

RealClimate is Michael Mann's web site. Do you really insist that it can be used as a source to defend the Hockey Stick?



This was in response to what?

It is not "Michael Mann's" web site. He may well be a contributer, but that is drawing a very long bow.

[Geckko]

It is not "Michael Mann's" web site. He may well be a contributer, but that is drawing a very long bow.

Well, he is described as a founding "member", not a contributor.

And Demon oquote (remember I addressing Demon, not you) has the by-line:

Filed under: Climate Science RC Forum— group @ 10:53 am

So I presume "group" to mean joint editorial opinion, which includes Michael Mann.

If you think legal ownership matters, I did a whois and found that the site is owned by a "non-profit sbusidiary" of a large PR firm.

So either way you cut it, this is hardly credible and impartial as a repsonse to the conclusions of two independent panels of enquiry and two congressional hearings.

[a_unique_person]

Well, he is described as a founding "member", not a contributor.

And Demon oquote (remember I addressing Demon, not you) has the by-line:



So I presume "group" to mean joint editorial opinion, which includes Michael Mann.

If you think legal ownership matters, I did a whois and found that the site is owned by a "non-profit sbusidiary" of a large PR firm.

So either way you cut it, this is hardly credible and impartial as a repsonse to the conclusions of two independent panels of enquiry and two congressional hearings.

A 'founding member' does not make it his web site.

[The Painter]

I’m on the fence on this topic, but I am leaning toward the whole subject being blown way out of proportion. There seems to be a lot of passion on the side that there is global warming. My question is; what are you doing about it? Do you drive your car less? Do you make a concerted effort to use less energy in your household? Are you using solar heat or power for anything? Are you using wind power?

If it is such an important and dire issue, what have you done? Maybe it’s too expensive or troublesome for you to change your lifestyle. Maybe it’s someone else’s fault. What have you done; besides argue about it on a message board?

[Geckko]

A 'founding member' does not make it his web site.

OK if that is important to you.

But Demon's source from Realclimate can still only be interpreted as the authors of the Hockey Stick trying to defend their own work and nothing else.

You give the impression of a sceptic in sheep's clothing, by trying to defend the most absurd things. Your extreme argumentative approach to this whole issue makes it incredibly difficult to make the more extreme sceptics accept that this is an important issue that requires us to do something.

When nonsense like the Hockey Stick is published, or some failing in climate science is found, we should respond rationally and not try to defend the indefensible. It makes the positon on wider more important issues more questionable.

Best to say, "yes the Hockey Stick is garbage and always was. We can't make certain claims about past climate as have been made using the Hockey Stick". Then we can move on and talk about what we do know.

[a_unique_person]

Who's the one arguing and making absurd claims? A lengthy, detailed and comprehensive paper like Mann's is not 'garbage'. You may argue it is wrong, it is not garbage.

Even if it is wrong, it is not 'the case' for AGW. AGW is proven with the measured trend of temperatures in line with modelled predictions.

[Art Vandelay]

Oh, is this the part where I'm supposed to get indignant, and dare Mr. Art to show me where I've lied?

Okay, but you'll have to wait until I've worked up some give-a-crap. It may take...well, let's just call it something close to forever.

Is there a yawning smiley?Ah, typical slingblade MO: engage in dishonesty, then pretend to be uninterested in order to avoid responding to the dishonesty being pointed out.

[jimtron]

I’m on the fence on this topic, but I am leaning toward the whole subject being blown way out of proportion. There seems to be a lot of passion on the side that there is global warming.

I think the feeling is that we are harming the atmosphere, and we can reduce the harm if we do something about it, but it needs to be done before it's too late. To me this issue seems worthy of passion and concern.

My question is; what are you doing about it? Do you drive your car less? Do you make a concerted effort to use less energy in your household? Are you using solar heat or power for anything? Are you using wind power? Excellent questions, that deserve another thread (if there isn't one already).

[slingblade]

Ah, typical slingblade MO: engage in dishonesty, then pretend to be uninterested in order to avoid responding to the dishonesty being pointed out.

Oh, my mistake. THIS is the one where I'm supposed to ask you to point out where I've been dishonest. I'm supposed to rise to this most excellent bait and not just ask, not just demand, but beg you to point it out.

Mister, you are pathetic. This is the best you can do? Honestly? What are you now--22? 23? You can't be long out of high school, because you still reek of it.

When you grow up and learn how the big boys do it, you give me a call.

[YoPopa]

So what is wrong with keeping it stable? According to Flannery, the reason mankind suddenly shot ahead in the last few thousand years (despite existing for much longer than that) is that we had a chance when the climate became much more stable than normal.

Cities and agriculture, which require stability and predictability, developed quite rapidly. Paleo Climatology indicates that before that, changes in the climate were quite rapid and regular.
The problem with "keeping it stable" is that you can't. No way, no how. The last few thousand years of relatively benign climate have been the exception rather than the rule when viewed in geologic time scales. Is there any logic to thinking that we can control climate and stabilize it?

Over the past 400,000 years there have been 4 major glacial cycles that have happened like clockwork with only brief Interglacial periods of 15,000- 20,000 years. We are around year 18,000 of our current warm spell.
IMHO, the only certainty is that climate will change.
Presuming emissions to be something within our power to control, it can't hurt to reduce them, and it may help. Such an action also aid and abets some other issues, like air quality.

DRThe "can't hurt" argument is too simplistic. There will be costs to controlling emissions and unless those costs are balanced against the benefits in an informed way they certainly can hurt. Friends of mine who are now making the "can't hurt" argument on emissions were the ones 30 years ago spreading the alarm over nuclear power. They honestly believed that it could not hurt to stop the nukes. Now we could really use nuclear power but the political restrictions they imposed have made it an all but impossible dream. The costs of controlling the nukes are just now coming home to roost.

One thing you do learn is that there is no single point to debate. Anyone who claims there is a binary choice - "concensus vs heretic", "believer v. skeptic" is talking crap.
:clap: Unfortunately the majority do see this as a binary choice. I have fallen into that trap myself more often than I'd like to admit. It is in man's nature to relish conflict. How else can he establish dominant rank but by defeating someone else? The odds of humanity surviving the next big climate change would be greatly increased if we could all see the value in other's opinions.

[Art Vandelay]

Mister, you are pathetic. This is the best you can do? Honestly? What are you now--22? 23? You can't be long out of high school, because you still reek of it.
I see. You consistently engage in dishonesty, you substitute personal attacks for logical responses, and I'm the immature one. You're a whiny brat that throws a temper tantrum whenever she doesn't get her way. Would explaining in detail how you've been dishonest do anything? No, because you've shown yourself to be unconcrened with such matters.

[Apollyon]

[icon of man banging his head on desk goes here] For the third time, I'm NOT talking about the goofy op-ed piece you cited, but rather your "AGW canard" statement and subsequent explcit dismissal of the scientific body of evidence, which you base on unexplained superior knowledge that places you in the know and expert scientists in the dark.

Your ongoing evasion is transparent and braying won't hide that Apollyon, try as you may.
I dismissed nothing pertaining to the body of evidence. In fact, if you read what I've written in here already I've acknowledged that there is most likely a partial anthropogenic cause of global warming; the question is how much. My complaint is the acceptance of only AGW as a conventional wisdom now and when anyone who dares to disagree and claim that there may be more to the story they are immediately jumped on and bashed by the knee-jerkers, much like you've done.

I'm not claiming "superior knowledge" either. However, my past experience of actually working in the weather field does give me a bit of insight that many do not have and I probably have a bit more experience in that particular field than you do as well. So consider some of the braying of your own before you make weak and transparent attempts to discredit me.

Besides that, take your arrogant attitude, as well as your pointy head, and stuff it up your @ss. I'm outta here because I'm tired of encountering pricks just like you on online forums.

[a_unique_person]

The problem with "keeping it stable" is that you can't. No way, no how. The last few thousand years of relatively benign climate have been the exception rather than the rule when viewed in geologic time scales. Is there any logic to thinking that we can control climate and stabilize it?


That's like saying that since we will die, we may as well be alcholics and enjoy our lives for as long is it lasts. I can't understand that logic, and it comes up repeatedly. Becase we have no control over the larger forces of nature, it doesn't matter if we screw things up before she does.

[varwoche]

I dismissed nothing pertaining to the body of evidence. If you want to retract your statement...
Unfortunately, the prevailing scientific fashion is to pursue studies that attempt to link manmade emmissions to GW and discount, neglect, or ignore other potential influences. ... that's fine; I won't persist. But you can't wish it away by pretending not to have posted it.

bashed by the knee-jerkers, much like you've done If I were the topic, I'd ask you to point out where I bashed you. But I'm not. And of course anyone can scroll up and see that I have not responded to your infantile insults in kind, so where you get off here is beyond me.

If you don't like being challenged for posting vague, anti-scientific nonsense then I suggest a skeptical forum is not the optimal place to post said nonsense.

[slingblade]

I see. You consistently engage in dishonesty, you substitute personal attacks for logical responses, and I'm the immature one. You're a whiny brat that throws a temper tantrum whenever she doesn't get her way. Would explaining in detail how you've been dishonest do anything? No, because you've shown yourself to be unconcrened with such matters.

Keep trying. Still no luck. :D

[YoPopa]

That's like saying that since we will die, we may as well be alcholics and enjoy our lives for as long is it lasts. I can't understand that logic, and it comes up repeatedly. Becase we have no control over the larger forces of nature, it doesn't matter if we screw things up before she does.Is that really what you think I was saying? :confused:

[a_unique_person]

Is that really what you think I was saying? :confused:

If I have it wrong, please correct me.

[YoPopa]

If I have it wrong, please correct me.
You have it wrong. Go stand in the corner until you figure it out.

[a_unique_person]

The problem with "keeping it stable" is that you can't. No way, no how. The last few thousand years of relatively benign climate have been the exception rather than the rule when viewed in geologic time scales. Is there any logic to thinking that we can control climate and stabilize it?


We are changing the climate. Nature has been kind enough to give us a minute of breathing space, so we go and trash it.

[YoPopa]

We are changing the climate. Nature has been kind enough to give us a minute of breathing space, so we go and trash it.Are you still trying to guess at the meaning of what I said? :confused:

[Lisa Simpson]

Everyone, please. Stick to arguing the topic and not each other.

[Darth Rotor]

They honestly believed that it could not hurt to stop the nukes. Now we could really use nuclear power but the political restrictions they imposed have made it an all but impossible dream. The costs of controlling the nukes are just now coming home to roost.

We don't seem to be talking the same language. A personal choice I make that reduces my energy usage can't hurt the environment, and can't hurt my bank book. I have chosen, for the past 30 years, to drive cars that get 30+ mile per gallon on the highway, and 20+ in the city. I chose to recycle aluminum and newspater, and still do. The list goes on. I take "Navy Showesr" still, at home, since I don't like wasting water. It's amazing how clean one can get in two minutes or less when one chooses to do so. My biggest cost on that score is the tyrrany my children have to put up with, and whinging, when I bust their chops for their waste of water.

None of those decisions hurt me, and they help in small ways to reduce waste.

Not sure why you threw in a Nuke Power red herring, since I am a Nuke Power advocate and have been since high school. My courses in reactor physics and energy conversion only strengthened that position.

Oh, and about the No Nukes dipsticks: they honestly believed (woofully) that nukes would hurt, and that stopping nukes would somehow prevent an injury, which is different from what you wrote. Or, they were all paid shills for the oil and coal industries.

DR

[Diamond]

I am missing the lies that your thread title promises? Within the scientific community it is about as settled as something like this could get. According to the National Academies of Science CO2 is at the highest levels in 400,000 years. Why do you pose this as something the left is pushing? It is science that is bringing this to light. On the other hand, can you tell me why the Right consistently chooses to ignore science?

Daredelvis

So why is the temperature not the highest its been in 400,000 years? Or even the last 1000 years?

Answers are:

a) Because its a delayed reaction.... very, very delayed.
b) Because CO2 does not force temperature
c) Because CO2 in ice cores is depleted and does not reflect the actual amounts of CO2 in ancient atmospheres.

[YoPopa]

We don't seem to be talking the same language. A personal choice I make that reduces my energy usage can't hurt the environment, and can't hurt my bank book. I have absolutely no objection to you pursuing any of your personal choices. I only object when political activists rush to judgment and institute ill informed policy and make it mandatory for everyone.

Recycling aluminum has always made good sense. Paper I'm not so sure of. An argument can be made that for many locations (not all) paper recycling is counter productive to the goal of reducing atmospheric CO2. In other words, paper recycling can hurt the environment.

Not sure why you threw in a Nuke Power red herring, since I am a Nuke Power advocate and have been since high school. My courses in reactor physics and energy conversion only strengthened that position.

Oh, and about the No Nukes dipsticks: they honestly believed (woofully) that nukes would hurt, and that stopping nukes would somehow prevent an injury, which is different from what you wrote. Or, they were all paid shills for the oil and coal industries.

DR I hope you did not think that I was accusing you of being a "No Nukes dipstick". You seem to be upset about this enough to insult my comment as a red herring. I was using the no nukes movement as an example of how wrong headed it can be to rush to judgment and activism in order to save the world. I was speaking of real people that I knew in the 70s (not you personally) who are now just as sure that only massive government regulation can possibly save the earth. They are to this day incapable of reversing their No Nukes stand and in so doing are more part of the problem than the solution.

I realize that the No Nukes movement had nothing to do with climate change (back then) and I'm surprised if you thought that was my point. My point is the lesson of unintended consequences.

I am quite sure that history will prove that at least some of the "solutions" to GW that are being promoted today are in fact counterproductive to the end goal due to unintended consequences.

[realitybites]

20 years ago, the New Ice Age was all the rage. That didn't pan out, so the 90's brought us Global Warming!! But that couldn't account for why some areas of the earth were remaining temperately stable or cooling off a bit, so now it's just Global Climate Change.

Last year at this time GCC was responsible for the above average hurricane season and the likes of monters like Katrina. Scientists predicted that this trend of more frequent, powerful storms would become the norm.

Fast-forward to 2006 where we're already half-way through the season and all Mother Nature has mustered so far is Ernesto.

Could it be that maybe there's just too much scientists still don't know about the complex climate system to go off making doom-and-gloom predictions to scare us all into penciling in Al Gore in 2008?

[Art Vandelay]

So why is the temperature not the highest its been in 400,000 years? Or even the last 1000 years?

Answers are:

a) Because its a delayed reaction.... very, very delayed.
b) Because CO2 does not force temperature
c) Because CO2 in ice cores is depleted and does not reflect the actual amounts of CO2 in ancient atmospheres.Which points to another deception on the program: they said something about CO2 and temperature levels moving together, then they flashed an animated graph on the screen with the two moving in complete lockstep (perfectly correlated, with no error) just long enough for the audience to get their message, but not long enough to actually see anything, like say, what the labels on the graph were. For all we know, they just created the graph out of thin air.

[Rob Lister]

Is this debate settled yet?

Good.

That settles it. Nobody changes their position one iota.

[Badger]

Which points to another deception on the program: they said something about CO2 and temperature levels moving together, then they flashed an animated graph on the screen with the two moving in complete lockstep (perfectly correlated, with no error) just long enough for the audience to get their message, but not long enough to actually see anything, like say, what the labels on the graph were. For all we know, they just created the graph out of thin air.

Were the CO2 levels preceeding or following the changes in temperature?

[/another can of worms being opened]

[BobK]

Were the CO2 levels preceeding or following the changes in temperature?

[/another can of worms being opened]
Following. Like gases coming out of solution on temperature rise.

[Darth Rotor]

"Agrees with DR that the No Nukes are part of the problem, not part of the solution, still, thirty years later."

Yay. We have an accord.

Solutions, on the other hand, can turn into a fool's Holy Graile. Rather than "solve the problem" or wait until a perfect solution is derived, some damage mitigation actions can be undertaken while fuller solutions are in progress. Band Aids can stop wounds from getting infected, though they can't uncut your finger.

One example was the slow but sure rise of "average MPG standards" over the period of two decades. I am aware that such reductions start to knee in cost effectiveness, eventually, but as a policy they haven't hurt. What has hurt is "Detroit's" failure to embrace the fuel efficient car in 1973, and to once again spurn that wench in the 80's and 90's to the detriment of American market share in that class of car.

DR

[YoPopa]

What has hurt is "Detroit's" failure to embrace the fuel efficient car in 1973, and to once again spurn that wench in the 80's and 90's to the detriment of American market share in that class of car.Blame that self righteous, pompous fool, "defender of the environment" Ralph Nader for Detroit's failure to embrace the fuel efficient car.

General Motors was making fuel efficiency history with the Corvair back around 1964 or 65. Nader's unjustified attack on the Corvair with the book Unsafe at Any Speed made him the darling of the do-gooder crowd and made lighter, rear engine, fuel efficient cars anathema to profits for Detroit. They learned their lesson from Nader and stuck to making bigger, heavier, safer cars because Nader had convinced the car buying public that safety was the one and only consideration. Unintended consequences.

[Art Vandelay]

Were the CO2 levels preceeding or following the changes in temperature?

[/another can of worms being opened]

According to the graphic, they both happened at exactly the same time.

[Darth Rotor]

Blame that self righteous, pompous fool, "defender of the environment" Ralph Nader for Detroit's failure to embrace the fuel efficient car.

General Motors was making fuel efficiency history with the Corvair back around 1964 or 65. Nader's unjustified attack on the Corvair with the book Unsafe at Any Speed made him the darling of the do-gooder crowd and made lighter, rear engine, fuel efficient cars anathema to profits for Detroit. They learned their lesson from Nader and stuck to making bigger, heavier, safer cars because Nader had convinced the car buying public that safety was the one and only consideration. Unintended consequences.
Nader seems to have forgotten that it's the Indian, not the arrow, that is the root cause of danger. Wasn't his book printed before seatbelts were mandatory equipment in cars? My dad had to buy after market seat belts for the car we bought in 1963 off the lot.

DR

[The Painter]

I asked a legitimate question; what are you doing about it (global warming) or are you just arguing about it? Well, the answer is clear. You people just enjoy the argument. You’re not doing s*it.

[varwoche]

I asked a legitimate question; what are you doing about it (global warming) or are you just arguing about it? Well, the answer is clear. You people just enjoy the argument. You’re not doing s*it. What a funny assumption!

When our last car bit the dust, we (my wife and I) replaced it with a hybrid (50+ mpg). We consilidate driving trips to town and use public transportation when practical. We recycle like fiends. We use (supposed) energy efficient lightbulbs. We keep the heat turned down, turn off unused lights, and various other small measures.

[robinson]

Is this debate settled yet?

Good.

That settles it. Nobody changes their position one iota.

Good Lard! The voice of reason at last.

[Deus Ex Machina]

The reason the nomads are on the move south (where it is cooler) is that where they have lived for hundreds of years is now unviable


Well of course the genocidal actions of the "government" could have nothing to do with it? Nomads have always moved - it's why they are called "nomads". When they stay in one place they are usually "residents".

[a_unique_person]

Well of course the genocidal actions of the "government" could have nothing to do with it? Nomads have always moved - it's why they are called "nomads". When they stay in one place they are usually "residents".

They have moved from the areas they normally lived in, in the North, to the South. The government is ethnically biased to the northern tribes.

[a_unique_person]

What a funny assumption!

When our last car bit the dust, we (my wife and I) replaced it with a hybrid (50+ mpg). We consilidate driving trips to town and use public transportation when practical. We recycle like fiends. We use (supposed) energy efficient lightbulbs. We keep the heat turned down, turn off unused lights, and various other small measures.

I own two four cylinder cars, and have only ever owned a six once, for a short time. When I buy a house, it has to be near public transport.

[varwoche]

Here's the program on youtube:

part 1 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=60Zk4-JPCdg&mode=related&search=)
part 2 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=XClNHfmFDog&mode=related&search=)

[peptoabysmal]

I’m on the fence on this topic, but I am leaning toward the whole subject being blown way out of proportion. There seems to be a lot of passion on the side that there is global warming. My question is; what are you doing about it? Do you drive your car less? Do you make a concerted effort to use less energy in your household? Are you using solar heat or power for anything? Are you using wind power?

If it is such an important and dire issue, what have you done? Maybe it’s too expensive or troublesome for you to change your lifestyle. Maybe it’s someone else’s fault. What have you done; besides argue about it on a message board?

Damn good point. It will take all of us making an effort to make any difference, if one is to be realized. I'm not sure how much we can do, anyway. We are, after all coming out of an ice age. Maybe nuclear winter from the coming global war will help the situation. :eye-poppi

I never thought highly of the Kyoto protocol nonsense. What it did was give certain (hugely polluting nations) nations a way to weasel out of doing anything because they had more poor people and therefore less "per capita" useage/production of C02 while creating a bogus stock market based on "carbon credits."

I do use less gas these days and less electricity, but that is probably motivated by the price of energy more than anything.

Here's what my dopey state did about it:
California Regulates Global Warming Emissions from Motor Vehicles (http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/vehicles_health/californias-global-warming-vehicle-law.html)

California OKs Global Warming Law Deal (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/30/tech/main1953622.shtml?source=RSS&attr=HOME_1953622)

California thinks it can pay to reduce global warming and fund stem cell research at the same time and not too long ago we were looking at a huge budget deficit in this state.

When I retire, I'm selling my property for a fortune and moving to a state that makes more sense. If the state hasn't gone bankrupt by then and property values plummet, that is...

[peptoabysmal]

Blame that self righteous, pompous fool, "defender of the environment" Ralph Nader for Detroit's failure to embrace the fuel efficient car.

General Motors was making fuel efficiency history with the Corvair back around 1964 or 65. Nader's unjustified attack on the Corvair with the book Unsafe at Any Speed made him the darling of the do-gooder crowd and made lighter, rear engine, fuel efficient cars anathema to profits for Detroit. They learned their lesson from Nader and stuck to making bigger, heavier, safer cars because Nader had convinced the car buying public that safety was the one and only consideration. Unintended consequences.
That and gasoline was about twenty-five cents a gallon at the time. The 6 cylinder Corvair was fun to drive, the 4 cylinder was a death trap.

In '68 you could buy a drag racer off the lot (e.g.; 1968 Cougar GT-E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjPAwIAj1so) with the 427). The Cougar had the coolest tail lights of any car. I had one of the later XR-7's with 351 Cleveland. There was a whole board of relays for each tail light to give it that parade of blinking lights.

I think it was due to the public's desire for larger, more powerful vehicles more so than Nader's doing that created the demand for larger vehicles. Nader mostly paved the way for seat belts and other safety features and testing to become the standard. I think his early work was good and necessary. He has kind of gone off the deep end in his later years in regards to his "anti-corporate/anti-government" stance. Then there is the group who blames him for taking away Al Gore's rightful share of votes in 2000, which is equally wacky.

[a_unique_person]

Blame that self righteous, pompous fool, "defender of the environment" Ralph Nader for Detroit's failure to embrace the fuel efficient car.

General Motors was making fuel efficiency history with the Corvair back around 1964 or 65. Nader's unjustified attack on the Corvair with the book Unsafe at Any Speed made him the darling of the do-gooder crowd and made lighter, rear engine, fuel efficient cars anathema to profits for Detroit. They learned their lesson from Nader and stuck to making bigger, heavier, safer cars because Nader had convinced the car buying public that safety was the one and only consideration. Unintended consequences.

Small cars can be safe, false dichotomy.

[YoPopa]

Small cars can be safe, false dichotomy.In fact, "Corvair models were at least as safe as comparable models of other cars sold in the same period (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment062800a.html)" But that is getting further off topic. The point I wanted to make is that Nader punished GM and in so doing made a major contribution to big car mania. The point is the UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES that arrogant crusaders can have. The fact that Nadar is the darling of the Green Party today and still gets mileage from bragging about beating up the little Corvair is just insane.

IMHO "Saint Ralph" has a lot of atoning to do for his contribution to climate change.

[a_unique_person]

Unintended consequences? People always mention that when ways to reduce global warming are raised, but forget the biggest one of all, Anthropogenic Global Warming itself.

[YoPopa]

Unintended consequences? People always mention that when ways to reduce global warming are raised, but forget the biggest one of all, Anthropogenic Global Warming itself.I'm not forgetting AGW but I doubt that it is the biggest problem we could face. Are you forgetting that the bigger issue is Climate Change? GW is so 90s. It is inevitable that the world will see another ice age sooner or later. The next ice age will be more destructive to civilization than the preceding warming. What is anyone doing about the next ice age?

Many are going to have a knee jerk response to that question by stating that avoiding AGW is the best way to avoid the next ice age. Phooey. Minimizing AGW can only delay the next ice age at best. That delay will probably be a nanodelay in geologic time and some credible scientists are speculating that it's already too late for any meaningful delay to happen on a human time scale.

[a_unique_person]

At least those changes will happen over 1,000 years or so. This one is going to happen much quickly, and hence be more disruptive.

[YoPopa]

At least those changes will happen over 1,000 years or so. This one is going to happen much quickly, and hence be more disruptive.Those changes could be 1,000 years away or they could be a few years off. Ice ages don't come on gradually the way warm periods do. They come like the gales of November to the Edmund Fitzgerald.

Our knowledge of the deep ocean "conveyor belt" is only about 10 years old but early theories say that Gulf Stream Interruptus will be sudden and irreversible.

Do we spend our resources, ingenuity and credibility fighting a near term but relatively benign problem (GW)? Or are we better off focusing on a longer term but much more destructive catastrophe (Ice Age)?

I honestly don't know the answer to those questions but I believe that ignoring them is the worst mistake we could make.

[a_unique_person]

If the AGW was going to be 'benign', then scientists wouldn't have bothered about it. Australia is already experiencing an unprecedented drought, with huge economic impacts. Part of the reason Darfur is at war is because of global warming.

[Renfield]

People who totally deny that global warming is at least in part related to human activity baffle me. We are rapidly changing the composition of the atmosphere, that is certain. Seems very likely that it would have at least some effecton the climate. The only question in my mind is how much.

Categorizing it as a possible end of the world type situation is an overstatement though. It might make life on earth miserable for a while, but I doubt it would be able to kill us all off.

[a_unique_person]

"Runaway" is a possibility, though unlikely. There have been higher CO2 concentrations in the past, during the time of the dinosaurs. Flannery points out that it was the variability that kept humans in the caveman stage for so long. As soon as stability came along, civilisation flourished.

[Art Vandelay]

People who totally deny that global warming is at least in part related to human activity baffle me. We are rapidly changing the composition of the atmosphere, that is certain. Really? I calculated, as a rough estimate, that there's somewhere around 10^5 (give or take an order of magitude) tons of atmosphere per person. So what is "rapidly changing the composition of the atmosphere"?

[Polaris]

The problems are many.

Australia, for example, is suffering nationwide drought. Many areas have to truck water in.

The worlds ports, the centres of economic activity, will have to be completely rebuilt.

Many major cities, located near ports for obvious reasons, will be unviable.

Farming practices will all have to undergo a huge change.

People will have to relocate. With the current worlds population, that won't be a simple or peaceful task.

Currently inhabitable areas will become uninhabitable.

Don't be fooled by the 'just a few degrees' average, that covers the extremes, which are what sets the standard.

Eco systems will all try to move to cooler areas, north and south, but where they once just naturally migrated, now there are whole uninhabitable (for them), humans and their cities block the way.

And Mother Nature will wipe enough of us out to compensate for the damage done. Not the end of the world, just a huge dent to our species.

[a_unique_person]

Some of them will be my children, and their children.

[slingblade]

Really? I calculated, as a rough estimate, that there's somewhere around 10^5 (give or take an order of magitude) tons of atmosphere per person. So what is "rapidly changing the composition of the atmosphere"?

Just per person, eh? Are you also accounting for each train, truck, car, ship, airplane, house, factory, and other emitters operated by those persons, over time, or are all those things conveniently left out of your equation?

[Art Vandelay]

I'm sorry, this thread is for adults. Please take your childish BS somewhere else.

[slingblade]

Childish and unnecessarily rude evasion noted.

[Art Vandelay]

You ask a nonsensical question and accuse me of dishonesty, then you call ME unnecessarily rude and evasive?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Childish and unnecessarily rude evasion noted.

You're not the only one who noticed.

[OMGturt1es]

Really? I calculated, as a rough estimate, that there's somewhere around 10^5 (give or take an order of magitude) tons of atmosphere per person. So what is "rapidly changing the composition of the atmosphere"?

carbon release in the atmosphere is occuring on a human timescale, rather than a geologic timescale. without human interference, the carbon cycle emits carbon into the atmosphere via continent building, mountain forming, etc, which all operate on a timescale that is, um, kinda big, haha, compared to, say, 100 years.

so, the carbon composition of the atmosphere is changing rapidly.

of course, from all that i've gathered, through my own studies (weak, at best, admitidly), and through my own dialogues with a few geologists (my uncle, for instance, whose name i'll not mention), no one really understands exactly what to expect. the carbon cycle is not completely understood, and the carbon cycle's implications on the earth's climate are just amazingly complex, and therefore very difficult to predict. carbon levels have been much higher in the geologic past, and it doesn't seem clear exactly what the relationshape between carbon and temperature is, or what casues it.

as time moves foward, we'll have more evidence at our disposal, and at least we'll likely learn a bit more about the earth's climate, and with any luck we'll use this stark uncertainity as a spring board to move to cleaner, more elegant energy solutions.

in the meantime, it's only obvious that we've a lot to learn yet about the earth's climate, the carbon cycle, etc, and chalking up those who disagree to some extent with the paleoclimatologists as "deniers" is neither constructive, nor in the best interest of scientific inquery.

time will tell. let's hope for the best, and prepare for the worst.

ok, time to bike to class, and not because i'm nobel, and trying to reduce carbon emissions, but because my car is parked behind the parent's barn, essentially dead, 2-3 years behind in registration... completely undrivable.

(course, i'm so low on sleep now that i shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel, haha. if this post makes no sense, i'm blaming it now on the fact that i was in lab till 4:30 AM, because i procrastinated. man i suck...)

[StewartG]

I encourage my fellow Americans to ignore the evidence on global warming.

Meantime, I'm also buying hectare after hectare of tundra in northern Canada while its still REALLY cheap! :D

[DaChew]

I don't know why this is important but I'll answer the question. What am I doing to aleviate global warming? Well, I like to put my money where my mouth is so I'm not accused of being a loud-mouth punk who has all the answers for everyone else to abide by with no real stake in the matter. That's why I own and maintain and conserve as forestland many acres of mid-Michigan property. Essentially, keeping the land undeveloped means that I sink far more carbon dioxide and other pollutants than I produce. Which also means that those who don't buy and maintain and conserve forestland in their respective areas are producing more carbon dioxide and other pollutants than they are sinking and are therefore getting a free ride off of me.

Your welcome.

[Polaris]

I encourage my fellow Americans to ignore the evidence on global warming.

Meantime, I'm also buying hectare after hectare of tundra in northern Canada while its still REALLY cheap! :D

You might want to scout around for diamonds while you're up there, it's a good area for them.

[Art Vandelay]

You're not the only one who noticed.More pointless crap from a shameless liar noted.

so, the carbon composition of the atmosphere is changing rapidly. That's not quite the same thing as saying the composition of the atmosphere is changing rapidly, is it? It seems to me that if one is going to talk assert that changing the composition of the Earth by a few parts per million can have a significant effect, one should be upfront about that.

ok, time to bike to class, and not because i'm nobel, Prize: Nobel
Adjective: noble

[StewartG]

I'm not forgetting AGW but I doubt that it is the biggest problem we could face. Are you forgetting that the bigger issue is Climate Change? GW is so 90s. It is inevitable that the world will see another ice age sooner or later. The next ice age will be more destructive to civilization than the preceding warming. What is anyone doing about the next ice age?


Well hell! After reading this post, I'm going to go out today and buy the biggest Hummer I can get, and drive around town all day today shooting HFC propelled hair spray and good old fashioned freon into the air!

Just trying to do my bit to save the planet!!! :D

[StewartG]

Really? I calculated, as a rough estimate, that there's somewhere around 10^5 (give or take an order of magitude) tons of atmosphere per person. So what is "rapidly changing the composition of the atmosphere"?


http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a133/stewartg/head20in20sand.jpg

[StewartG]

People who totally deny that global warming is at least in part related to human activity baffle me. We are rapidly changing the composition of the atmosphere, that is certain. Seems very likely that it would have at least some effecton the climate. The only question in my mind is how much.


Everyone knows that global warming is caused by the decrease in high seas piracy. Duh!

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a133/stewartg/piratesarecool4-1.jpg

[StewartG]

You ask a nonsensical question and accuse me of dishonesty, then you call ME unnecessarily rude and evasive?



I didn't see a nonsensical question, nor did I see you anywhere accused of "dishonesty."

Rather, I saw a fellow forum member question the logic of your argument and the methodology of your reasoning. Is that what this forum is all about? Being a skeptic?

I might be new around here, but does that REALLY qualify as "childish BS?"

And again, as a newbie I understand I don't have much stock in the credibility department yet, but...

Can I make the general observation that name calling and engaging in ad hominem attacks typically does FAR more damage to the credibility of the name caller than to that of the name callee? By resorting to such methods in debate, you run the risk of leading the the casual observer to conclude that you resort to such tactics because you have no facts or logic to back your argument.

I've enjoyed reading your posts. Although we may disagree, for the most part, I'm impressed by the way your frame your arguments. I would like to look forward to engaging in friendly (if heated) debate with you about global warming and other issues in the future, but only if I can do so with the expectation of NOT being called "childish" or a "shameless liar" or having my posts referred to by you as "crap" if we disagree.

Deal? :D

[YoPopa]

Well hell! After reading this post, I'm going to go out today and buy the biggest Hummer I can get, and drive around town all day today shooting HFC propelled hair spray and good old fashioned freon into the air!

Just trying to do my bit to save the planet!!! :DHave fun but I think you are confusing Ozone depletion with GW. Ozone does not have a direct relationship to GW.

If you want to do something about the next ice age I suggest you work on technologies that will help you and your issue to survive it.

[StewartG]

Have fun but I think you are confusing Ozone depletion with GW. Ozone does not have a direct relationship to GW.

If you want to do something about the next ice age I suggest you work on technologies that will help you and your issue to survive it.


Well...

I actually made that post simply in jest, but...



Ozone does, indeed, have a direct relationship to GW. At least according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (those whacky wingnut liberals!!!)

"Stratospheric ozone depletion and increases in global tropospheric ozone that have occurred in recent decades both contribute to climate change. These contributions to climate change are significant but small compared with the total contribution from all other greenhouse gases. Ozone and climate change are indirectly linked because ozone-depleting gases, such as the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), and halons, also contribute to climate change."

Twenty Questions and Answers About the Ozone Layer, 2002, lead author D.W. Fahey, as reviewed by the 74 scientists who attended the Panel Review Meeting for the 2002 ozone assessment (Les Diablerets, Switzerland, 24-28 June 2002), and as published on the official web site of the United States Environmental Protection Agency:

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/unepSciQandA.pdf















Next...? :p :D

[YoPopa]

I actually made that post simply in jest, but... Was it in jest? My mistake, it looked more facetious to me.

Ozone does, indeed, have a direct relationship to GW.According to the source you quoted Ozone does not have a direct relationship to GW. "Ozone and climate change are indirectly linked"

[StewartG]

Was it in jest? My mistake, it looked more facetious to me.

According to the source you quoted Ozone does not have a direct relationship to GW. "Ozone and climate change are indirectly linked"



Are we reading the same quote??? :confused: :confused: :confused:


And indirect linkage is still a linkage, no?

And what about "Stratospheric ozone depletion and increases in global tropospheric ozone that have occurred in recent decades both contribute to climate change. " (emphasis mine)

I suppose would could waste our time arguing about what the definition of "is" is or how many Angels could dance on the head of a pin, but... Despite a winning record of 76 wins and 67 losses, the Yankees are bound to win the pennant anyway this year - so what's the point? :D

[OMGturt1es]

That's not quite the same thing as saying the composition of the atmosphere is changing rapidly, is it? It seems to me that if one is going to talk assert that changing the composition of the Earth by a few parts per million can have a significant effect, one should be upfront about that.


again, the carbon composition of the atmosphere is changing rapidly. i wasn't trying to argue that the atmosphere itself was changing rapidly; i was just trying to explain what i figured was meant by "rapidly changing atmosphere".


Prize: Nobel
Adjective: noble

for one with such an awesome name, you seemed to have picked some rather trival information on which to respond. frankly, i don't care if i got "nobel" and "noble" confused. do you know why? i'm posting to an internet discussion board five minutes before i'm supposed to be in class. in fact, i should be leaving now, just as i should have been leaving yesterday before i clicked "submit reply".

[Art Vandelay]

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a133/stewartg/head20in20sand.jpgWhat did I say about this thread being for adults?

I didn't see a nonsensical question, nor did I see you anywhere accused of "dishonesty."The use of the word "conveniently" was not meant to suggest dishonesty? Slingblade's question was nonsensical, and motivated out of personal animus rather than any seeking of clarity.

Rather, I saw a fellow forum member question the logic of your argument and the methodology of your reasoning.I presented no argument nor reasoning. I simply stated a fact: I estimated the number of tons of air, divided by the number of people, to be, within an order of magnitude, equal to 100,000. Which make "questioning my logic", as I said, nonsensical.

I might be new around here, but does that REALLY qualify as "childish BS?"I nterpreted the post in the context of her posting history. When someone with a history of childishness posts something like she did, it's unlikely there's some hidden point to it. She made no effort to actually engage me in a discussion. She simply asked a bizarre question and then accused me of dishonesty.

but only if I can do so with the expectation of NOT being called "childish" or a "shameless liar" or having my posts referred to by you as "crap" if we disagree.For everyone that I've called a liar, I have quotes of them stating what are unambiguously, blatantly, unquestionably lies. TCS has contributed nothing of value to this discussion; his only motivation seems to be to express his dislike of me. It is that, not that we disagree, that I refer to as "crap". I haven't referred to anything anyone has had to say about CLIMATE CHANGE, the actual subject of this thread, as "crap".

[StewartG]

AV:

First of all - if my use of visual humor to make a point offended you, or struck you as childish, I apologize. I meant no offense. Rather, I simply wanted to make a point and try for a chuckle at the same time.

As to the other comments, you make a good point. It was premature of me to second guess your characterization of other poster's comments without knowledge of any personal history between the participants.

So let me just say right now, Mr. Vandelay, I don't know you well enough to dislike you. :D For that reason, if and when *I* rebut your arguments with facts, figures, observations, citations, etc., please give me the benefit of the doubt. I have a firm policy when debating online - I attack ideas, not people.

On that note... What do you think of the the findings produced by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory as published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences this week? Apparently the study found an 84% probability that at least 2/3 of the noted increase in ocean temperatures is due to human activities.

I started a thread on it in this subforum, but everyone always ignores newbie threads...! :o



http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63733

[Tricky]

I started a thread on it in this subforum, but everyone always ignores newbie threads...! :o



http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63733
Newbie trolls get a lot of attention. Maybe you should try that tack.

[StewartG]

Newbie trolls get a lot of attention. Maybe you should try that tack.


As much as I try, I just don't have it in me to be a troll...

I've got another thread on the horizon that might work... Let me ponder before I troll...! :)