Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

Global warming rejected
ifihadahif Posted: Tue May 20 07:26:56 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  31,000 Scientists Rejecting Global Warming Theory to be Named Monday
By Noel Sheppard
Created 2008-05-18 17:12

The names of over 31,000 American scientists that reject the theory of anthropogenic global warming are to be revealed on Monday.

Although this will occur at the National Press Club in Washington, DC., it seems a metaphysical certitude media will completely ignore the event.

As announced [2] Thursday by PR Newswire via StreetInsider.com:

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM)

Who: Dr. Arthur Robinson of the OISM

What: release of names in OISM "Petition Project"

When: 10 AM, Monday May 19

Where: Holeman Lounge at the National Press Club, 529 14th St., NW, Washington, DC

Why: the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) will announce that more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming. The purpose of OISM's Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of "settled science" and an overwhelming "consensus" in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science - including 9,021 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not "skeptics."

Folks should recall that this petition [3] was first circulated in 1999 garnering more than 19,000 signatures. The alarmists discounted its significance because there were some duplicate names, and some of the signatories apparently weren't scientists -- or so the story goes.

With over 31,000 now on the list, all with degrees in science -- including 9,000 PhDs! -- what might this do to the nonsensical premise of there being a consensus concerning this issue?

Probably not much, because apart from conservative websites, talk radio hosts, and Fox News, nobody is going to report it.



 
DanSRose Posted: Tue May 20 09:58:17 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The LIST is from Petition Project and was started in 1999, ending in 2007. This is the qualifications for being on the LIST
http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Qualifications_Of_Signers.html

It is an Internets petition that you have to mail in (through the mail with a stamp) your support for.
It doesn't seem.... credible.


 
addi Posted: Tue May 20 10:20:33 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Probably not much, because apart from conservative websites, talk radio hosts, and Fox News, nobody is going to report it.

All I can say is thank God for these websites, conservative talk show hosts, and Fox News! Truely they are voices in the wilderness warning us against the dangers of believing in facts.
: )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDrq0LNrh-A


 
jennemmer Posted: Tue May 20 10:28:50 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I was at a national physics conference in April an one of the invited speakers spoke, not about global warming but about the models used to predict climate change. It was a fascinating talk because it was not alarmist or politically charge it was:

-This is what we know about how our climate works (time cycles for changes, the effects of volcanos, how the earth temperature is regulated [reflection from clouds, % absorption on earth, % reflected by earth, % re-scattered or absorbed in atmosphere {where a lot of the 'green house gasses' come in}])

-here is the carbon and temperature data we have for the past so many thousands of years via air bubbles from ice cores. The carbon in the atmosphere and the temperature are correlated (when one goes up or down so does the other) but cause and effect can only be speculated from this data

-here is the temperature record since 1880 or so when they started measuring these things

Then she proceeded to lay out the different models people use and point out the places where people don't agree with each other. She then showed the predictions based on Earth's temperature-affecting things (volcanos, natural recurring temperature patterns, el ninos, etc.) and then showed what has been measured globally. If the Earth were regulating itself... _all_models_ (remember the ones that didn't really agree with each other in many respects) show that the global temperature should be down by a fraction of a degree. The real data is that the 6 years with the highest recorded global temperature have been 2007, 2006, 2005, 2002, 2001 and 1999.

Those of you who have any background in science or statistics might remember "signal to noise" and the number of 'sigma deviations' (the number times the error bar something is away from another value or a prediction). Well, some people were skeptics because in the mid-nineties we were less than 1-sigma from the expected temperatures (that is like saying we are 68% sure - meaning it could be a statistical fluctuation or anomaly) but we have now reached the 2-sigma level... which is 95% confidence that what we are seeing is not what we would expect from the Earth's natural cycle.

She went on to discuss the predictions of what the future looks like from here... which I don't have time to get into much because I am already almost late for work... but basically, if we stop increasing our oil consumption and current production of greenhouse gasses and only stay at this level the global temperature might go up by 2 degrees C (doesn't sound like a lot but for ice caps etc. that is still a big change, and the more ice we lose the faster and more likely it is temps will rise [back to the reflected solar radiation comment]). If we keep increasing our green house gas emissions the way we are things only get more dicy.

Needless to say, being handed all that data and pretty much told to come to our own conclusions, I was overwhelmed.

For the record... this whole "the scientist are conspiring to make global warming real" theories make me laugh... getting scientists to get on-board with an idea, even based on data, is like trying to heard cats. They like to disagree with each other on principle.

My question is what does it hurt for people to say that it _might_ be real and start to take steps to limit our output of greenhouse gases if the alternative _might_ be a climate change we would start to see in our lifetime. If there was even a 68%, let alone 95% chance of my house burning down I would certainly buy fire insurance, wouldn't you?


 
FN Posted: Tue May 20 10:55:45 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  jennemmer said:
>My question is what does it hurt for people to say that it _might_ be real and start to take steps to limit our output of greenhouse gases if the alternative _might_ be a climate change we would start to see in our lifetime.

My answer is that the economic costs are huge and that basicly you can't control it since China will never limit its growth either and opens up I believe somewhere between 2 and 6 brand new coal power plants a week?

It's also currently the biggest polluter already, above the US and above the EU.

So what are you going to do.


Get al gore to fix it? haha


 
jennemmer Posted: Tue May 20 15:52:04 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:

>My answer is that the economic costs are huge and that basicly you can't control it since China will never limit its growth either and opens up I believe somewhere between 2 and 6 brand new coal power plants a week?
>
>It's also currently the biggest polluter already, above the US and above the EU.
>
>So what are you going to do.
>
>
>Get al gore to fix it? haha

Throwing our hands up and saying "we're screwed, why bother" doesn't improve our chances any. With an economic slump, implementing procedures that cost a lot in an effort to reduce emissions I agree is not an easy task. The trick is coming up with ways to make things easier or cheaper as well as environmentally better. (for example, there are a few farms working on recapturing some of the methane produced by cows and using it to generate electricity... it's a bit costly to set up but not having to pay an electrical bill ever again and selling any extra to the electric company sounds like it could be a useful incentive.)


 
FN Posted: Tue May 20 16:41:06 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  That's the thing though, at the moment there's not a lot of profit to be made by the mass consumers, I've been reading some reports about the cost/benefit of solar power sells for the family-level use, and as it is now it isn't cost-effective, at least not enough to warrant the trouble to get it


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue May 20 19:37:05 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  jennemmer said:
>Christophe said:
>
>>My answer is that the economic costs are huge and that basicly you can't control it since China will never limit its growth either and opens up I believe somewhere between 2 and 6 brand new coal power plants a week?
>>
>>It's also currently the biggest polluter already, above the US and above the EU.
>>
>>So what are you going to do.
>>
That's just it, who says we're screwed ?
There are plenty of qualified people of science that say we're not screwed.
Certainly enough that there is definitely no "consensus" or "settled science".
The computer models have been proven to be wrong, they can't even account for cloud cover.
Also, who says the climate we have now is better than what we'll get if we do experience warming ? Greenland used to be covered with farmland, why would that be a bad thing ?
>>
>>Get al gore to fix it? haha
>
>Throwing our hands up and saying "we're screwed, why bother" doesn't improve our chances any. With an economic slump, implementing procedures that cost a lot in an effort to reduce emissions I agree is not an easy task. The trick is coming up with ways to make things easier or cheaper as well as environmentally better. (for example, there are a few farms working on recapturing some of the methane produced by cows and using it to generate electricity... it's a bit costly to set up but not having to pay an electrical bill ever again and selling any extra to the electric company sounds like it could be a useful incentive.)


 
~Just Imagine~ Posted: Wed May 21 07:17:31 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>That's just it, who says we're screwed ?
>There are plenty of qualified people of science that say we're not screwed.
>Certainly enough that there is definitely no "consensus" or "settled science".
>The computer models have been proven to be wrong, they can't even account for cloud cover.

Yes, but there are a lot more scientists who say that basically we are screwed...

I think you should do some own research, look at the data (like Jennemmer did by going to a conference)
And then make up your own mind, instead of only saying well those guys say this, and what they say has the most positive outcome on my goodfeeling today so I'm just gonna believe this for now...

If you already did, and can prove to me, based on date, not based on some 'scientists', that we aren't responsible, then ok. Atleast then you've got your facts right.


>Also, who says the climate we have now is better than what we'll get if we do experience warming ? Greenland used to be covered with farmland, why would that be a bad thing ?
>>>

Oh boy...Don't make come over and slap you :)

Global warming does mean more then more sunny days at the beach, I hope you at least do realise that.

Anyhoew thats Thats why it would be a bad thing:

Although climate change can’t be blamed for any one particular weather disaster, it is responsible for longer-term trends that intensify weather around the world, spawning more heat waves, droughts, intense downpours, and floods. There are also fewer extreme cold events—bitterly cold days and nights—over most land areas. Even frost has become less frequent. Yet there is more intense precipitation, both rain and snow. So there is a greater likelihood of winter snowstorms but not more cold snaps.

There is a greater than 90% likelihood that such weather events will continue to become more frequent, and it is equally likely that global sea level rise will accelerate and that snow cover will recede during this century. Moreover, there is a 66–90% likelihood that future tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons) will become more intense, with greater peak wind speeds and heavier rains, and that the land area affected by drought will increase. Many semi-arid subtropical regions, already plagued by drought, could have as much as a 20% drop in rainfall by 2100. In other regions, it is already raining less often but harder, causing more extensive floods.

Those are some conclusions of the most recent assessment of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which on 2 February 2007 issued an 18-page summary of The Physical Science Basis, the first volume of the assessment. Hundreds of scientists write and review IPCC major assessments, which are released every six to seven years and represent a consensus of scientific opinion around the world.

(source: Pubmed: Tibbetts J. Driven to Extremes Health Effects of Climate Change, Environ Health Perspect. 2007 Apr;115(4):A196-203)




 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed May 21 07:58:34 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ~Just Imagine~ said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>That's just it, who says we're screwed ?
>>There are plenty of qualified people of science that say we're not screwed.
>>Certainly enough that there is definitely no "consensus" or "settled science".
>>The computer models have been proven to be wrong, they can't even account for cloud cover.
>
>Yes, but there are a lot more scientists who say that basically we are screwed...
>
A majority does not make a consensus.
That was the point being made. There is no consensus and the science is not settled as most global warming alarmist will try to tell you.

>I think you should do some own research, look at the data (like Jennemmer did by going to a conference)
>And then make up your own mind, instead of only saying well those guys say this, and what they say has the most positive outcome on my goodfeeling today so I'm just gonna believe this for now...
>
It has nothing to do with my good feeling and everything to do with common sense.
So if I go to a conference instead of pouring over articles and publications, I would be better informed ? HA !

>If you already did, and can prove to me, based on date, not based on some 'scientists', that we aren't responsible, then ok. Atleast then you've got your facts right.
>
How about these facts . . . The earth has not warmed since 1998, receding glaciers and snow caps have been disappearing since we came out of the Little Ice Age, long before industrialization.

>>Also, who says the climate we have now is better than what we'll get if we do experience warming ? Greenland used to be covered with farmland, why would that be a bad thing ?
>>>>
>
>Oh boy...Don't make come over and slap you :)
>
I could always use a good spanking
:-)

>Global warming does mean more then more sunny days at the beach, I hope you at least do realise that.
>
>Anyhoew thats Thats why it would be a bad thing:
>
>Although climate change can’t be blamed for any one particular weather disaster, it is responsible for longer-term trends that intensify weather around the world, spawning more heat waves, droughts, intense downpours, and floods. There are also fewer extreme cold events—bitterly cold days and nights—over most land areas. Even frost has become less frequent. Yet there is more intense precipitation, both rain and snow. So there is a greater likelihood of winter snowstorms but not more cold snaps.
>
>There is a greater than 90% likelihood that such weather events will continue to become more frequent, and it is equally likely that global sea level rise will accelerate and that snow cover will recede during this century. Moreover, there is a 66–90% likelihood that future tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons) will become more intense, with greater peak wind speeds and heavier rains, and that the land area affected by drought will increase. Many semi-arid subtropical regions, already plagued by drought, could have as much as a 20% drop in rainfall by 2100. In other regions, it is already raining less often but harder, causing more extensive floods.
>
>Those are some conclusions of the most recent assessment of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which on 2 February 2007 issued an 18-page summary of The Physical Science Basis, the first volume of the assessment. Hundreds of scientists write and review IPCC major assessments, which are released every six to seven years and represent a consensus of scientific opinion around the world.
>
There you go with your "consensus" again.
This is not so, there is no "consensus".
Perhaps a majority, but nothing approaching a consensus.

Are you aware that the IPCC is a political body and not a scientific one ?


 
mat_j Posted: Wed May 21 08:20:29 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Dear me,
This world would be a lot better if it wasn't for a bunch of crybaby conservatives bleating their pseudoscience at us.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed May 21 08:44:26 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
Pseudoscience . . . . would that be the "hockey stick" that Algore used as the basis for his global warming theory ?



 
~Just Imagine~ Posted: Wed May 21 08:46:07 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

I did not say going to a conference would get you better informed (but it probably wouldn't hurt also). Articles aslo do the trick , you know that.
But your research into articles, are mostly articles wich are not trust worthy, therefore, I ask you to search for articles published outside the public media and get some real data information.

I get the feeling you use sources that aren trustworthy at all. But I could be wrong about this.

>There you go with your "consensus" again.
>This is not so, there is no "consensus".
>Perhaps a majority, but nothing approaching a consensus.
>

The consensus they talk about in the article is the consensus reached within the journal published by IPCC.

"the first volume of the assessment. Hundreds of scientists write and review IPCC major assessments, which are released every six to seven years and represent a consensus of scientific opinion around the world."

It doesn't state this article per se.
But by publishing it they can also be claiming consensus. But thats not relevant for what I was trying to say.

I did not argumente out of to article to discuss consensus or not. It was my reaction to your question "who says the climate we have now is better than what we'll get if we do experience warming ? "

And I say the article responses very well to that question...

Now get ready for some spanking mister ;)


 
~Just Imagine~ Posted: Wed May 21 09:04:33 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Also, another thing...

The problem is that you want all scientists to agree before you start believing. You should know that is impossible.

One good reason is already discribed in your above mentioned "global warming petition"

The first mistake they make on the site:

"All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement."

Yes they have studied science, does that mean they or suitable to evaluate global warming? NO!
Why not?

1. For example: a bachelor (3 years of study here in Belgium) in chemistry won't give you insight about our planet and what influences it. But you will learn to play with toxics (simplyfying it, I know), and so on. You will know about a part of science, but you are not qualified for evaluating global warming issues.

2.Scientist do more then prevent this earth from falling apart and trying to understand how the earth works.
Alot of them (like for instance scientist who have studied chemistry and chemical engineering, but much others too) are biased because they practically ruïn the world for a living. They are payed to create the waste products partially causing global warming...
It doesn't make them bad people, they just have another job.

One scientist isn't the other, while one tries to save the world, and keep it livable for mankind, the other one just wants to make money for big industrial companies.

You just have to realise that there are a lot of scientists against the idea of global warming because measures against it would partially hurt there job security, etc.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed May 21 10:30:52 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ~Just Imagine~ said:
>Also, another thing...
>
>The problem is that you want all scientists to agree before you start believing. You should know that is impossible.
>
No, I don't want or expect all scientists to agree, that would be a consensus would it not ?

>One good reason is already discribed in your above mentioned "global warming petition"
>
>The first mistake they make on the site:
>
>"All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement."
>
>Yes they have studied science, does that mean they or suitable to evaluate global warming? NO!
>Why not?
>
>1. For example: a bachelor (3 years of study here in Belgium) in chemistry won't give you insight about our planet and what influences it. But you will learn to play with toxics (simplyfying it, I know), and so on. You will know about a part of science, but you are not qualified for evaluating global warming issues.
>
>2.Scientist do more then prevent this earth from falling apart and trying to understand how the earth works.
>Alot of them (like for instance scientist who have studied chemistry and chemical engineering, but much others too) are biased because they practically ruïn the world for a living. They are payed to create the waste products partially causing global warming...
>It doesn't make them bad people, they just have another job.
>
I would argue that a chemical engineer would have some insight as to what effects carbon dioxide might have on the planet and how man might be producing it.
I would also argue that virtually all the disciplines of science would have something to offer in the field of climate change.

>One scientist isn't the other, while one tries to save the world, and keep it livable for mankind, the other one just wants to make money for big industrial companies.
>
True enough and it works both ways. Many scientists are also dependant on government grants and will slant their findings in a way to continue to get those grants.

>You just have to realise that there are a lot of scientists against the idea of global warming because measures against it would partially hurt there job security, etc.
>
Would you not agree that also holds true for many scientists working to advance the theory of global warming ?


 
~Just Imagine~ Posted: Wed May 21 11:23:51 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:


Yes, a chemical engineer might have some insights on it, but he isn't educated to be able to understand the whole concept.
My sister and boyfriend both studied bachelor chemistry, they know alot about chemistry, etc, but that education does'nt give them a holistic view on global warming.
But sure, they do understand more of it then I, because they have a chemical background. But I don't think thats enough for qualifying them as specialists on the matter. I do believe all scientist have something to offer, but I mean qualification level has to be higher then what the petition site mentions. I just don't believe it's hig enough.

>>
>Would you not agree that also holds true for many scientists working to advance the theory of global warming ?

How do you see that?
What advantages do you see for scientist there?

I can see that there is money to make in using global warming for selling all kinds of products. Do you mean it like this?
I can understand that companies would start using names like 'environmental healty product' for selling more of their products.




 
FN Posted: Wed May 21 11:38:42 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  And on a totally unrelated note:

Once upon a midnight dreary while I porn surfed, weak and weary,
Over many a strange and spurious site of 'hot xxx' galore,
While I clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning,
And my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour,
"'t Is not possible!", I muttered. "Give me back my free hardcore!"
Quoth the server: "404."


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed May 21 12:04:55 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ~Just Imagine~ said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>
>Yes, a chemical engineer might have some insights on it, but he isn't educated to be able to understand the whole concept.
>My sister and boyfriend both studied bachelor chemistry, they know alot about chemistry, etc, but that education does'nt give them a holistic view on global warming.
>But sure, they do understand more of it then I, because they have a chemical background. But I don't think thats enough for qualifying them as specialists on the matter. I do believe all scientist have something to offer, but I mean qualification level has to be higher then what the petition site mentions. I just don't believe it's hig enough.
>
Taken directly from the site:

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,697 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 903 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,691 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,796 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,924 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,069 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 9,992 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed May 21 12:21:55 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ~Just Imagine~ said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>I did not say going to a conference would get you better informed (but it probably wouldn't hurt also). Articles aslo do the trick , you know that.
>But your research into articles, are mostly articles wich are not trust worthy, therefore, I ask you to search for articles published outside the public media and get some real data information.
>
>I get the feeling you use sources that aren trustworthy at all. But I could be wrong about this.
>
My information is not trustworthy simply because you disagree with it ?

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm




 
~Just Imagine~ Posted: Wed May 21 12:23:27 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ok, excuse me for not seeing it :)

But still:
"The petition has been circulated only in the United States"




 
~Just Imagine~ Posted: Wed May 21 12:42:06 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I only want to state one more thing and then I rest my case.

Do you really want to live in a polluted world, with growing chance of different diseases, cancers, etc.
Do you want to risk beeing responsible for damaging this world so much that your children/grandchildren will have to suffer the consequences of hurricanes, rising water levels, etc.
Species are getting extinct, and it won't be long before we die out too if we continue like this.

Doing nothing is never the answer.

Just because some american scientist want to reject kyoto because it would mean lowering the use of energy and technologies that depend on coal, oil and natural gas and some other organic compounds. For me their decision is more based on the consequences on economics and such as on anything else.

The site states:

" 31,072 American scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth."

But what if?
It doesn't hurt the earth to take precaucions on what might come. What if we are responsable, and we're just letting it all happen?
What if we are responsable (wich I believe we are)What then? What if it takes scientist 50 years to find consensus and then it's to late to fix things?
I'm not willing to take that risk, because some american scientists don't 'believe'...

Global warming neglected, planet friendly activities are necesary anyway. We can't stay damaging this planet and not suffer the consequences.


I do 'believe' in global warming, because for me the facts can't be ignored.





 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed May 21 13:43:42 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ~Just Imagine~ said:
>ok, excuse me for not seeing it :)
>
>But still:
>"The petition has been circulated only in the United States"
>
That statement only helps to make my point, which is that there is no consensus.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed May 21 13:48:16 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ~Just Imagine~ said:
>I only want to state one more thing and then I rest my case.
>
>Do you really want to live in a polluted world, with growing chance of different diseases, cancers, etc.
>Do you want to risk beeing responsible for damaging this world so much that your children/grandchildren will have to suffer the consequences of hurricanes, rising water levels, etc.
>Species are getting extinct, and it won't be long before we die out too if we continue like this.
>
>Doing nothing is never the answer.
>
>Just because some american scientist want to reject kyoto because it would mean lowering the use of energy and technologies that depend on coal, oil and natural gas and some other organic compounds. For me their decision is more based on the consequences on economics and such as on anything else.
>
>The site states:
>
>" 31,072 American scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth."
>
>But what if?
>It doesn't hurt the earth to take precaucions on what might come. What if we are responsable, and we're just letting it all happen?
>What if we are responsable (wich I believe we are)What then? What if it takes scientist 50 years to find consensus and then it's to late to fix things?
>I'm not willing to take that risk, because some american scientists don't 'believe'...
>
>Global warming neglected, planet friendly activities are necesary anyway. We can't stay damaging this planet and not suffer the consequences.
>
None of your statement above has anything to do with climate change and whether or not it is caused by man. It's a statement for general housekeeping for our planet, which I support.
>
>I do 'believe' in global warming, because for me the facts can't be ignored.
>
I also believe the facts cannot be ignored. I posted this link a couple of posts ago, but I don't think you saw it.
Try again:

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm


 
~Just Imagine~ Posted: Thu May 22 04:22:57 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I read it half already, I don't have much time at the moment because I have to finish the preperation for my thesis.

The first part of solar activity is widly know and logically accepted (overhere in Belgium, don't know in America, but this is what we get teached at school).
The sun has an influence, it always has had, but temperature now is higher then what can be caused by solar activity only. Thats where the greenhouse gasses come in.

For the rest of the article, they are discussing against the 'hockey stick' theory of Mann I believe. Where the argument is based on the existance or not existance of the medieval warm period and the little ice age.

They also attack the tree ring system, and call it flaud and say it's a wrong way to measure temperature and then they state:

"While greenhouse science may regard proxies as being more objective than historical `anecdotes', that viewpoint is only shared among that peer group. The wider academic community, governments, and public opinion (the most important peer group of all) will give much more credibility to well-researched historical evidence."

But what they seem to ignore is that temperature measurements of "greenhouse sciences" is based on alot more then just tree rings.Why are they ignoring this? Maybe because that isn't as flaud as the tree rings?

I never heard in my life about a theory that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age haven't existed like stated there and found it weird and suprising to read.





 
mat_j Posted: Thu May 22 07:28:55 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>
>Pseudoscience . . . . would that be the "hockey stick" that Algore used as the basis for his global warming theory ?
>

Al gore is a jackass too.

When are the aliens gonna come and lay waste to this planet so we can eventually be reborn into a post scarcity minarchy where we live in peaceful symbiosis with our machines?

Or alternatively

I get transported to a nicely terraformed planet by well meaning Aliens who provide me with several cities, advanced offensive and defensive capabilities and enough material to clone myself a mighty army and a hareem of whores so i can lay waste to this planet so we can be reborn into a post scarcity minarchy where we live in peaceful symbiosis with our machines.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 22 07:35:58 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  mat_j said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>
>>Pseudoscience . . . . would that be the "hockey stick" that Algore used as the basis for his global warming theory ?
>
Last time I checked they were on the way, but they had to stop for some beer, cigarettes, tampons, and a can of Silly String.
>
>Al gore is a jackass too.
>
That may be true, but saying so does a great disservice to jackasses everywhere.



 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 22 07:49:34 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ~Just Imagine~ said:
>I read it half already, I don't have much time at the moment because I have to finish the preperation for my thesis.
>
>The first part of solar activity is widly know and logically accepted (overhere in Belgium, don't know in America, but this is what we get teached at school).
>The sun has an influence, it always has had, but temperature now is higher then what can be caused by solar activity only. Thats where the greenhouse gasses come in.
>
How can that be since the medieval warm period was warmer than now and the 1930's were warmer than now, both of which happened before a great deal of industry.

>For the rest of the article, they are discussing against the 'hockey stick' theory of Mann I believe. Where the argument is based on the existance or not existance of the medieval warm period and the little ice age.
>
>They also attack the tree ring system, and call it flaud and say it's a wrong way to measure temperature and then they state:
>
>"While greenhouse science may regard proxies as being more objective than historical `anecdotes', that viewpoint is only shared among that peer group. The wider academic community, governments, and public opinion (the most important peer group of all) will give much more credibility to well-researched historical evidence."
>
>But what they seem to ignore is that temperature measurements of "greenhouse sciences" is based on alot more then just tree rings.Why are they ignoring this?

They aren't ignoring anything, they are debunking Dr. Mann's "hockey stick" which used tree rings as a basis for determining past temperatures. This has nothing to do with greenhouse gas.

Maybe because that isn't as flaud as the tree rings?
>
>I never heard in my life about a theory that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age haven't existed like stated there and found it weird and suprising to read.
>
Dr. Mann's hockey stick was the holy grail for global warming alarmists. The IPCC used it extensively and Al Gore relied heavily on it in his science fiction documovie Inconvenient Truth.


 
~Just Imagine~ Posted: Thu May 22 08:19:30 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/images/historical03.gif

http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/greenhouse01.jsp

http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/causes01.jsp


"Climate Is Changed by Many Processes

Climate change may result from both natural and human causes. The importance of human causes has been increasing during the past few decades.

Causes
The major causes of climate change are described in the following sections.

*CO2 and Other Greenhouse Gas *Variations
*Human Activity and Greenhouse Gas
*Reducing Other Greenhouse Gases
*Ocean Circulation
*Volcanic Eruptions
*Solar Variations
*Orbital Variations
*Land Use Changes

Amplifiers
Factors that can amplify or reduce the effect of the causes of change are known as "feedbacks." Some of the key feedbacks are described in the following sections. These feedbacks consist of interconnected processes in which a change in one leads to a change in another, which ultimately leads to further changes in the first.

*Aerosols
*Clouds
*Water Vapor
*Ice-Reflectivity"


"Are Human Activities the Major Cause of Recent Warming?

Probably yes, but comparing climate model projections to actual temperatures shows that both humans and nature have contributed to warming in the 20th century."

http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical06.jsp


And then the following graph:
http://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/greenhouse/anthropic_graph5.gif

And tell me this doesn't have influence




 
~Just Imagine~ Posted: Thu May 22 08:21:51 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Dr. Mann's hockey stick was the holy grail for global warming alarmists. The IPCC used it extensively and Al Gore relied heavily on it in his science fiction documovie Inconvenient Truth.

Ok, thanks for explaining. :)


 
jennemmer Posted: Thu May 22 10:57:37 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>A majority does not make a consensus.
>That was the point being made. There is no consensus and the science is not settled as most global warming alarmist will try to tell you.

So don't trust the majority opinion or the minority opinion or anything you hear about it on the news. Go to the research. "Nature" and "Science" are the most journal like magazines that are still written for a general audience (though they are made a bit more 'glossy' because of their status). I haven't been around here much so maybe people have forgotten, but I don't tend to be alarmist about much.

Yes, predicting cloud cover into the future is the hardest part of the models. More heat means more evaporation - which actually being a naturally greenhouse gas increases the absorption/ decreased the reflected sunlight and heats the earth. It also will create more clouds. They don't know which will win out. By the same token though if cloud cover is going to be what saves us we will be a very cloudy planet, which isn't good for agriculture. There have been several documented instances of agricultural shortfalls after major volcanic activity due to the lack of sun.

>>I think you should do some own research, look at the data (like Jennemmer did by going to a conference)
>>And then make up your own mind, instead of only saying well those guys say this, and what they say has the most positive outcome on my goodfeeling today so I'm just gonna believe this for now...
>>
>It has nothing to do with my good feeling and everything to do with common sense.
>So if I go to a conference instead of pouring over articles and publications, I would be better informed ? HA !

To be fair I didn't go to a 'climate change conference' I went to a National Physics Conference, because I am a physicist, and there happened to be an invited speaker speaking on climate change modeling because it is a branch of physics.

She (http://www.atmos.berkeley.edu/~inez/ ) is one voice on the issue, I will grant that, but she was the voice on the issue chosen by whichever division of the American Physical Society she works under. Speaking for the areas of physics I know, they chose very established, well respected and often decorated people to address the general physics audience.

>>If you already did, and can prove to me, based on date, not based on some 'scientists', that we aren't responsible, then ok. Atleast then you've got your facts right.
>>
>How about these facts . . . The earth has not warmed since 1998, receding glaciers and snow caps have been disappearing since we came out of the Little Ice Age, long before industrialization.

Where did you get that information?
"The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990."
Global temperature trends to 2007: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

(the snow caps I will concede, however the concern is not their recession but it's increasing speed)

(I realize I haven't been properly citing sources either... but I'll try and do better next time)

John McCain "believes in global warming" doesn't that start to make it okay for conservative sorts to get on board with the idea ;)


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 22 12:57:52 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  jennemmer said:
>>How about these facts . . . The earth has not warmed since 1998, receding glaciers and snow caps have been disappearing since we came out of the Little Ice Age, long before industrialization.
>
>Where did you get that information?
>
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml


>"The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990."
>Global temperature trends to 2007: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
>
According to NASA, 1934, not 1998, was the warmest year in the United States since records began, and five of the ten warmest US years on record occurred before 1939, and that only one was in the 21st Century.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt


>(the snow caps I will concede, however the concern is not their recession but it's increasing speed)
>
>(I realize I haven't been properly citing sources either... but I'll try and do better next time)
>
>John McCain "believes in global warming" doesn't that start to make it okay for conservative sorts to get on board with the idea ;)
>
John McCain is not a conservative but he is my choice in November.
I view him as more of a libertarian, but I trust him and will be voting for him.
But no, I will continue to be a skeptic until someone can show me that the recent warming trend is man-made.
Why was it so warm in the 1930's ?
Why so warm in medieval times ?
Why do we suppose the current climate is the best one possible ?
Why believe anything Al Gore says ?



 
~Just Imagine~ Posted: Thu May 22 13:35:18 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>But no, I will continue to be a skeptic until someone can show me that the recent warming trend is man-made.
>Why was it so warm in the 1930's ?
>Why so warm in medieval times ?
>Why do we suppose the current climate is the best one possible ?
>Why believe anything Al Gore says ?
>

Sigh you're hopeless, really
I already answered 3 of those questions with believable data.

I have given you links to a site that will answer your first question. Why are we responsible, well read it. You'll soon find out. They explain it better then I can.

Why so warm in the 1930? Midieval time?
Because not only man is responsible for warming the earth. Temporarely stuff like solar activity, vulcano outbursts, etc can have caused growing warmth in the 1930's and midieval times but these factors alone aren't good enough to explain why temperature is rising today. Again. See my previous post.

Why is the current climate the best one possible?
Because of the consequences for this earth when the climate changes. BAD consequences hif. See above statements.

Why believe some of what Al Gore says, he makes some good valid points. Yet he is a media/polictical figure. He will never get all data right and will eager to let people hear what they want sometimes.

You don't have to agree with Al gore to agree with the fact that we are for a big part responsible for climate change and global warming.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 22 13:57:59 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ~Just Imagine~ said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>Sigh you're hopeless, really
>I already answered 3 of those questions with believable data.
>
>I have given you links to a site that will answer your first question. Why are we responsible, well read it. You'll soon find out. They explain it better then I can.
>
>Why so warm in the 1930? Midieval time?
>Because not only man is responsible for warming the earth. Temporarely stuff like solar activity, vulcano outbursts, etc can have caused growing warmth in the 1930's and midieval times but these factors alone aren't good enough to explain why temperature is rising today. Again. See my previous post.
>
Sorry but it doesn't answer my question at all.
It was warmer than today in the 1930's.
If that was caused by solar activity, then why not now ? To my knowledge, volcano outbursts cause cooling not warming.

>Why is the current climate the best one possible?
>Because of the consequences for this earth when the climate changes. BAD consequences hif. See above statements.
>
If it ever gets as warm as it was during medieval time, why would that be a bad thing ? Longer growing seasons, more land available for food, etc.




 
~Just Imagine~ Posted: Thu May 22 15:03:39 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>If it ever gets as warm as it was during medieval time, why would that be a bad thing ? Longer growing seasons, more land available for food, etc.
>
>

Hif helleeeuwww :p
Read my post about the consequences of global warming...
It has a link and everything...
If you can't even realise that then I don't think keep discussing this topic is relevant anymore.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 22 16:28:02 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ~Just Imagine~ said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>If it ever gets as warm as it was during medieval time, why would that be a bad thing ? Longer growing seasons, more land available for food, etc.
>>
>>
>
>Hif helleeeuwww :p
>Read my post about the consequences of global warming...
>It has a link and everything...
>If you can't even realise that then I don't think keep discussing this topic is relevant anymore.
>
Helleeeuwwww Darlin' !
I read your post but I didn't see any link.
Here's my position on it.
Yes the earth warmed slightly in the 20th century. So what ? It is a natural occurence that has happened many times before. I see no proof that it is caused by man, so the argument is moot.
As for your predictions of super cyclones, floods, and deserts, we were warmer than now way back in the 30's and this didn't happen then, though we did have really bad drought in the American midwest and plains states, nothing like you are predicting.
Also, if our co2 emissions were causing the warming, then why is it that in the past, co2 levels went up long after the temperatures rose ?
Then again, the current strides in alternative fuels will make this argument moot in the coming decades.

Do you think maybe our little robot landers are causing the warming on Mars ?


 
FN Posted: Fri May 23 10:18:35 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Helleu my baby helleu my honey, helleu my ragtime gal!


 
FN Posted: Fri May 23 10:25:18 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  And on a totally unrelated note, check out this black guy on google earth:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=6436+S+Oakley,+Chicago+Il&sll=41.96446,-88.300102&sspn=0.022624,0.057163&ie=UTF8&ei=66ssSOPEBJmgigHZ-p2kDg&sig2=6BI9w6uwq01SOXeAkxNARA&ll=41.776701,-87.681008&spn=0.001498,0.002744&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=41.776747,-87.681011&panoid=R4fqWJEJkVCRco2uu3GK9Q

if it doesn't open immediately press on the yellow guy icon and take a look around there (look to the west), you'll see.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri May 23 11:58:13 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>And on a totally unrelated note, check out this black guy on google earth:
>
>http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=6436+S+Oakley,+Chicago+Il&sll=41.96446,-88.300102&sspn=0.022624,0.057163&ie=UTF8&ei=66ssSOPEBJmgigHZ-p2kDg&sig2=6BI9w6uwq01SOXeAkxNARA&ll=41.776701,-87.681008&spn=0.001498,0.002744&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=41.776747,-87.681011&panoid=R4fqWJEJkVCRco2uu3GK9Q
>
>if it doesn't open immediately press on the yellow guy icon and take a look around there (look to the west), you'll see.
>
You think that's a super soaker in his hand ?


 
~Just Imagine~ Posted: Fri May 23 12:04:58 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Helleeeuwwww Darlin' !

Hi pumpkin pie!

>I read your post but I didn't see any link.

Sorry you're right, I just named the source and didn't give a link, my apologies, i'll try to relocate it :)

>Here's my position on it.
>Yes the earth warmed slightly in the 20th century. So what ? It is a natural occurence that has happened many times before. I see no proof that it is caused by man, so the argument is moot.

Ok, because we'll never agree on this one :). I can't keep posting the same facts over and over again, and neither can you.

>As for your predictions of super cyclones, floods, and deserts, we were warmer than now way back in the 30's and this didn't happen then, though we did have really bad drought in the American midwest and plains states, nothing like you are predicting.

Hif even if you are right and global warming isn't caused by man, the same consequences of the global warming will appear. You can not deny this, and not even science does this.

Sigh, yes it was warm back then in the 30's, it did influence the icecaps already then, starting it to melt, it is a continium my dear. Causing sealevel to rise and disaster scenerarios to form 100 years later isn't unrealistic. (to express radically).

Yess the US, let's care about the rest of the world for once shall we :), let's see about Europe...

For example :The netherlands, for as much as we do tend to keep a comical war between Belgium and The Netherlands, we still do care about are neighbours, because what effects them, tends to effect Belgium too.

Well, in about a not so long period of time half of it will be under water because icecaps are melting, and sealever is rising due global warming (in my believing caused by man and nature, with man beeing the bigger cause).

Now you'd say who cares about that? Well immigration will start from all parts of land that is located near sea, causing in itself alot of trouble.
And Sad to say for you, The US has alot of sea also, what about it? Would you like to see it raise 1 meter? I guess not, research the consequences. If sea level goes up 1 meter (it doesn't even need one meter, 10 cm will do just fine too) , then all land at sea level is flushed away. Bye bye land to live on and helleuw to trouble...

I'm only discussing one consequence of global warming. It does, and I want too keep stressing this, mean more then just more sunny days!


>Also, if our co2 emissions were causing the warming, then why is it that in the past, co2 levels went up long after the temperatures rose ?
>Then again, the current strides in alternative fuels will make this argument moot in the coming decades.
>

BECAUSE IT ISN'T CAUSED BY MAN ONLY !
BUT AT THIS MOMENT OF TIME MAN and CO2 EMISSIONS ARE IS THE BIGGEST CAUSE.
IT IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE. Think grey.

Look at my 3 previous links please. They explain it so understandebly, that even you americans should be grasping some of the point its making...

>Do you think maybe our little robot landers are causing the warming on Mars ?

I think you are believing this,
for I say we are causing it...



 
~Just Imagine~ Posted: Fri May 23 12:05:36 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Aghr! Why can you frustrate me this much! :)


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat May 24 06:41:54 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ~Just Imagine~ said:
>Aghr! Why can you frustrate me this much! :)
>
I seem to have that effect on a lot of people.

I guess I should come with a disclaimer that says I can be a major irritant.


 
DanSRose Posted: Thu May 29 11:43:57 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE HERE
DO NOT PAY ATTENTION TO THE WEATHER
EVERYTHING IS FINE LALALA
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStory.aspx?cpath=20080527%5CACQDJON200805270929DOWJONESDJONLINE000301.htm&selected=9999&selecteddisplaysymbol=9999&mypage=newsheadlines&title=UPDATE:%20Exxon%20Mobil%20Redirects%20Climate%20Change%20Research%20Money

I apologize for yelling


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri May 30 06:25:24 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  D'oh!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353844,00.html


 
FN Posted: Fri May 30 10:43:19 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  And on a somewhat related note:

http://blogs.tampabay.com/breakingnews/2008/05/fox-13-news-gen.html


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]