Global Warming

[tommyboy444]

Your criticism was, "seriously, niche offered no proof that enviromental companies pay for science. why? bc its not true." Argumentum ad ignorantium. I strongly suggest that you look it up, lest you be ignorant of a pretty fundamental concept underlying the philosophy of science.

Niche stop hiding behind your latin phrases and rhetorical flourishes. I asked you to prove your point, that environmental companies pay to have research to promote their business. You declined. Why? Because you cant. It is up to you to prove your assertions, not I. Or as you would say, "the niche committed a argumentum ad ignorantium." thanks for the tip!

Are you familiar with how our financial systems work? You do realize that venture capital will be forthcoming to any business idea that can hold water. It really doesn't matter who you are or even whether you're profitable today. If there is even the slightest chance that an investor could get in on the ground floor of an industry that would be responsible by act of congress for replacing the capital stock of electricity generation plants, or even a fraction of it, then not only will they buy into it, but they'll infuse it with capital and do everything within reason to see that such a fate is brought about.

And your point? Are you ignoring the risk that such an investment would entail? Yes i am very versed in the way our capital system works. It enables me to see past the BS that you fling in a desperate attempt to sound competent.

[TJones]

Well here is some light reading for you tommyboy.

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/01/...&frame=true

Oh, and tommy, you wanted to know where the money comes from for GW theorists to make their assertions ?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251458,00.html

and HOW could I forget, the ACTUAL Godfather of the enviromental movement ! ! !

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250789,00.html

that last story link should give you nightmares.

[DJ V Lawrence]

Whether people think global warming is controlable or not is debatable, but I've never understood how anyone could believe that air pollution from transportation, factories, or construction actually helps the earth's air or global warming issues. That's just wierd. Making money for a few guys seems more important than making earth livable for a few billion in a few years.

Case in point: The North Pole. Word on the street has it that the Pole may be totally water in the next 100 years; in other words, no ice. You would imagine that would be a concern. However, Russia recently did a submarine ride on the North Pole sea bottom, and they just so happened to find a crazy amount of oil and other energy resources. What do you think the governments are talking about more now; looking into preserving the North somehow by looking at alternate sources of fuel, or looking into drilling the melting North Pole sea bottom for the same energy sources that are polluting the air?

It's turned from a green world to a greed world, and I don't think there's any debate about that.

[Vertigo58]

Its great when you start a simple question. However when you get these manifestos of feedback.

I would imagine you want a simple answer. yeah or nay.

If you have time to see topic Historical Galveston photos, there are pics of seawall 1956. Fifty years have passed and you can see how much has eroded. Thats all the proof I need.

Peace on Earth all!

[Jax]

I merely meant to provide a comparison to illustrate that there is an incentive in each case so as to further my counterpoint to the authors of the article, who were perpetrating a circumstantial ad hominem that could be turned right back around on them. My intent was to neutralize the whole line of thought on account of that no amount of money contributed to political causes from either side of the debate or from any source has bearing on either the truth or the optimal policy position.

Can we please move on to something that matters...like debate over the science of GW and its economic impacts?

My point was just that the oil and gas industry has a lot more money to throw at this issue than the environmentalists. I think that's a valid point. It's not like each side is equally trying to influence the science.

I don't see many scientists criticizing global warming, except the ones on the oil and gas payroll, and they aren't even publishing new science, they're just criticizing science that has already been published. There's a big difference.

In the scientific community (at Rice), I have yet to meet anybody that doubts global warming. And I think saying that all of the scientists at Rice are funded by "green" companies would be far fetched. Those "green" companies don't have enough money to fund science, at least not compared to other funding sources.

[Jax]

i remember my geology professor say that the volcanic eruption of mount pinatubo released more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire industrial revolution. the result was a cooler planet and an intact ozone layer. imho, even if human activity affects the ozone layer, there are natural cycles that correct it. i cannot cite any proof. it's just a hunch.

that being said, i still think we should be responsible consumers.

Mt. Pinatubo released a lot of aerosols and particulate matter (dust and ash) into the atmosphere, which blocked the sun and effected global climate (global temperatures dropped). That doesn't have anything to do with greenhouse gasses or global warming. How do you attribute the fact that it "released more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire industrial revolution" to cooling?

Also, the effects of this eruption damaged the ozone layer, they did not repair it.

Here's an article (note this is written by climate scientists, not jounrnalists).

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/295/5558/1242

EDIT: Damn, I guess you have to be a subscriber to view it. I guess you could go check out Wikipedia or something as an alternative.

[cottonmather0]

Its great when you start a simple question. However when you get these manifestos of feedback.

I would imagine you want a simple answer. yeah or nay.

If you have time to see topic Historical Galveston photos, there are pics of seawall 1956. Fifty years have passed and you can see how much has eroded. Thats all the proof I need.

Peace on Earth all!

Good thing you're not a scientist, then. The beach is smaller because it has eroded away, not because the sea level is higher. Barrier islands naturally shift and move and change their shapes because of ocean currents and weather. Sand is unstable as it is, yet we have built cities on barrier islands and expect them to be there for all time (much like the statist view that the climate must never change from now on).

Whether that beach erosion is exacerbated by manmade factors like building jetties, dredging of artificial channels in the bay (ie the Ship Channel and the Intracoastal), wetland mismanagement, or land subsidence due to groundwater pumping is a perfectly legtimate question, but it has absolutely nothing to due with global warming.

Please tell me this post was a joke.

Mt. Pinatubo released a lot of aerosols and particulate matter (dust and ash) into the atmosphere, which blocked the sun and effected global climate (global temperatures dropped). That doesn't have anything to do with greenhouse gasses or global warming. How do you attribute the fact that it "released more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire industrial revolution" to cooling?

Also, the effects of this eruption damaged the ozone layer, they did not repair it.

Here's an article (note this is written by climate scientists, not jounrnalists).

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/295/5558/1242

EDIT: Damn, I guess you have to be a subscriber to view it. I guess you could go check out Wikipedia or something as an alternative.

Whether or not it's caused cooling or warming, the point is that volcanic eruptions like this regularly release more crap into the air in one eruption than mankind ever can. And if that's the case, then it's hubris to think that climate change is something we can control, relatively speaking, by spending a lot of money and driving hybrid cars.

[Jax]

Who ever said that volcanos release significant greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere? If I could prove to you that emissions from volcanoes are insignificant compared to what humans are putting into the atmosphere, would that make you believe that climate change may be something we could control/reduce?

[gwilson]

Just read this article about the propeganda machine designed to deny global warming.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/

Not trying to start a flame war. Would like reasonable discussion about your views.

Both sides are well funded. It is a business, whether we want to believe it or not.

The fact that Al Gore is making millions off of it is testament to this fact.

Climatic change exists. But no matter how many times Al Gore says the jury isn't out, it still is. There are LOADS of scientists who, while accepting climatic change as a fact, dispute the argument that man is the primary or even a major cause. These scientists aren't all on the payroll of Exxon.

Seeing a subject like this so politicized ruins it. It divides people on it and destroys the possibility of rational and reasonable changes. There are plenty of reasons to live "green" that have nothing to do with global warming, but these reasons are buried by the hype of global warming.

Glenn Beck did an interesting piece on Global Warming a few months back. You might want to try to YouTube it.

[Jax]

If you believe the US geological survey, volcanoes release 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

And what about Humans? Well from what I've read, humans produce approximately 6 billion tonnes (if you believe the department of energy http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html). Do some simple math and you can see that the amount of greenhouse gas produced by volcanoes is only a few percent of what humans produce.

[gwilson]

Who ever said that volcanos release significant greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere? If I could prove to you that emissions from volcanoes are insignificant compared to what humans are putting into the atmosphere, would that make you believe that climate change may be something we could control/reduce?

You can PROVE this, eh?

Can you also disprove the volumes of gases put in the air by livestock?

[Jax]

There are LOADS of scientists who, while accepting climatic change as a fact, dispute the argument that man is the primary or even a major cause

Rather than just stating that as a fact, why not list a few for us to read about? I know the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" listed a bunch of scientists who it claimed did not believe global warming was caused by humans, but when I looked up those scientists, most of them had released personal statements to the contrary, stating that the filmmakers had deceived them. There might be a few scientists out there who doubt that man is the primary cause of global warming, but they are an extreme minority. Like maybe a few percent of the scientific community.

[KatieDidIt]

Seems to me we have had a nice little 150 year reprieve from the Little Ice Age ( which spanned from the 1300's-1850). So in theory, the planet is returning to modern history's global norm.

[gwilson]

Rather than just stating that as a fact, why not list a few for us to read about? I know the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" listed a bunch of scientists who it claimed did not believe global warming was caused by humans, but when I looked up those scientists, most of them had released personal statements to the contrary, stating that the filmmakers had deceived them. There might be a few scientists out there who doubt that man is the primary cause of global warming, but they are an extreme minority. Like maybe a few percent of the scientific community.

That isn't the piece I am talking about at all. It was an episode of the Glenn Beck program on CNN's Headline News channel. http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/beck.climateoffear/

Most of the people involved have been written off as in the pocket of big oil and other industries rather conveniently though. This is the problem, if you speak out about Global Warming, you're slandered. It is a dirty game, and it shouldn't be.

The fact is, they aren't a "SMALL MINORITY", they just aren't nearly as vocal nor are they getting the media coverage. This is how things like this work.

[Jax]

Wait.. I want some names of scientists. And don't give me an article by CNN or Fox News.

It seems to me that if you ask non-scientists (journalists, political commentators, etc) there is a lot of doubt about global warming. But this is not the case in the scientific community. It's not true that if you speak out about global warming you are slandered, unless you speak out without data to back yourself up (in that case you deserve to be slandered). Most of these global warming doubters are non scientists and are writing commentaries or editorials, not scientific research.

If you are so sure that they are not a small minority, then name some scientists, list some journal articles, and let's discuss it. But simply stating that CNN says they are not a small minority doesn't cut it.

It's funny that you say that the doubters don't get media coverage, and then you send me a link about a CNN program about the doubters. It seems like they get a lot of media coverage.

When I was disputing the volcano issue, I stated some numbers and cited some articles to back them up. That's what you need to do.

[KinkaidAlum]

What scares me is that this thread doesn't surprise me.

People linking to Fox News to demonstrate that global warming isn't real?

People claiming Green Mountain Energy can control (i.e. buy) public opinion and Congress in much the same way as the Petroleum or Auto Industries?

Folks claiming that volcano eruptions cause more damage than anything mankind can EVER do?

The funny thing is, there really isn't a debate anymore in the scientific community about global warming. MASSIVE MAJORITIES who actually study climate change are in agreement.

The only thing this thread proves is that money can buy public opinion just as well as it can buy votes.

[gwilson]

Wait.. I want some names of scientists. And don't give me an article by CNN or Fox News.

It seems to me that if you ask non-scientists (journalists, political commentators, etc) there is a lot of doubt about global warming. But this is not the case in the scientific community. It's not true that if you speak out about global warming you are slandered, unless you speak out without data to back yourself up (in that case you deserve to be slandered). Most of these global warming doubters are non scientists and are writing commentaries or editorials, not scientific research.

If you are so sure that they are not a small minority, then name some scientists, list some journal articles, and let's discuss it. But simply stating that CNN says they are not a small minority doesn't cut it.

It's funny that you say that the doubters don't get media coverage, and then you send me a link about a CNN program about the doubters. It seems like they get a lot of media coverage.

When I was disputing the volcano issue, I stated some numbers and cited some articles to back them up. That's what you need to do.

If you're not capable of reading, I'm not interested in the discussion with you. That isn't meant as an insult.

I've watched an Inconvenient Truth and done plenty of research on the Global Warming topic. You could take it upon yourself to do five minutes of Google searches and maybe even watch 35 minutes of a program to be educated on the opposing side of your argument.

It is what someone who chooses to make informed decisions does.

[Jax]

I did a 5 minute google search and a found a few scientists, bunch of journalists, a bunch of conservative political commentators, and a bunch of conservative politicians. I can't find any evidence to confirm your statement that global warming skeptics in the scientific community are actually not a minority.

You are the one who made the assertion that global warming skeptics are not a minority, so the burden of proof is on you. Although I admit this is not easy to prove.

By the way I have not watched An Inconvenient Truth, or that CNN special, but I have read a number of articles in Science and Nature on this issue.

[Highway6]

Rather than just stating that as a fact, why not list a few for us to read about?

Reid Bryson is an American atmospheric scientist, geologist and meteorologist. He was born in Michigan in 1920. In 1948, he became chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin. He became the first director of the Institute for Environmental Studies in 1970. He has written more than 230 articles and five books, including Climates of Hunger, which won the Banta Medal for Literary Achievement. He is a skeptic of the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

Flaggman's Canada

Editorial Times

On Media Bias:

Newsweek biased quiz

Business and Media Institute

The following links have nothing to do with finding a skeptical climate scientist.

We've had this whole Global Warming fight on here a few years back.. nobody will change their minds or split off from whichever camp they have stuck to. Many will instantly dismiss these following links since he's *just* an author and go ahead i guess, nobody is going to persuade anyone else to change views here.. i've always thought they were fun reads myself.

Crighton 1

Crighton 2

Crighton 3

[Jax]

Reid Bryson is interesting (still doesn't prove he's not a minority), and I will look and see what article he has written on the issue... but I have no interest in what Michael Chriton has to say. He's a fiction writer, not an atmospheric scientist.

[lockmat]

Seeing a subject like this so politicized ruins it. It divides people on it and destroys the possibility of rational and reasonable changes. There are plenty of reasons to live "green" that have nothing to do with global warming, but these reasons are buried by the hype of global warming.

I think that's an excellent point.

And sorry tommyboy for using the word treehugger. I wasn't using it to describe you personally.

[Jax]

Here's a link to some publications by a global warming skeptic (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=G&oi=qs&q=reid+bryson+author:r-bryson). This is stuff I may actually read, unlike the Fox News / CNN/ Michael Chriton links. See if you can find some articles that show how global warming is not caused by humans (has he actually published any?)

Here is a quote of his (as summary of his stance on climate change), which sounds reasonable. He may doubt, but not to the extent that some of you do.

We can say that the Earth has most probably warmed in the past century. We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind's addition of "greenhouse gases" until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used.

We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question --- too important to ignore. However it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem.

What a change from 1968 when I gave a paper at a national scientific meeting2 and was laughed at for suggesting that people could possibly change the climate!

[Highway6]

Reid Bryson is interesting (still doesn't prove he's not a minority), and I will look and see what article he has written on the issue... but I have no interest in what Michael Chriton has to say. He's a fiction writer, not an atmospheric scientist.

Crighton has spoke on Science Policy to such groups as

Washington Center for Complexity and Public Policy

National Press Club

Joint Session AEI-Brookings Institution

Commonwealth Club of SF

California Institute of Technology

American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science

and he has testified before Congress before.

Yes he's a fiction writer.. but not everything he has to say involves velociraptors, strains of virus, or killer gorillas.

He graduated summa cum laude from Harvard where he was also in the honors organization Phi Beta Kappa.

He was a visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at Cambridge University, England.

He graduated from Harvard Medical School and did post-doctoral fellowship study at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies.

Does any of that have to do specifically with climatology.. no... but it does show he's a educated man and shouldnt be dismissed just because among other things he's written a few works of fiction.

And I didnt post them as links to dismiss volcanic ash or solar rays.. Since, this thread originated, claiming only one side of the argument runs a propaganda machine and that the "debate is settled"..... i posted them to counter that assertion.... that science is settled because the majority has spoken.

Regardless.. i put those links up there for everyone.. to read or ignore as they wish.

[gwilson]

I did a 5 minute google search and a found a few scientists, bunch of journalists, a bunch of conservative political commentators, and a bunch of conservative politicians. I can't find any evidence to confirm your statement that global warming skeptics in the scientific community are actually not a minority.

You are the one who made the assertion that global warming skeptics are not a minority, so the burden of proof is on you. Although I admit this is not easy to prove.

By the way I have not watched An Inconvenient Truth, or that CNN special, but I have read a number of articles in Science and Nature on this issue.

To be fair, you asserted they were in the minority, so technically, the burden is on you.

The rational thing to do is focus on the NON divisive reasons why living in a manner that wouldn't be considered detrimental to the environment is a good thing.

[TheNiche]

Niche stop hiding behind your latin phrases and rhetorical flourishes. I asked you to prove your point, that environmental companies pay to have research to promote their business. You declined. Why? Because you cant. It is up to you to prove your assertions, not I. Or as you would say, "the niche committed a argumentum ad ignorantium." thanks for the tip!

You misapplied the argumentum ad ignorantium.

And no, I'm not going to throw away logic and submit to your strain of anti-intellectualism.

And your point? Are you ignoring the risk that such an investment would entail? Yes i am very versed in the way our capital system works. It enables me to see past the BS that you fling in a desperate attempt to sound competent.

Are you ignoring the extraordinary profit that a successful investment in GW politics would produce? It is absolutely not without risk, but if you work in oil and gas, perhaps you're familiar with the frequency with which extraordinarily investments are made in search of oilfields that more likely than not don't exist. Long odds are a top-line factor, not a bottom-line decision.

[TJones]

My point was just that the oil and gas industry has a lot more money to throw at this issue than the environmentalists. I think that's a valid point. It's not like each side is equally trying to influence the science.

I don't see many scientists criticizing global warming, except the ones on the oil and gas payroll, and they aren't even publishing new science, they're just criticizing science that has already been published. There's a big difference.

In the scientific community (at Rice), I have yet to meet anybody that doubts global warming. And I think saying that all of the scientists at Rice are funded by "green" companies would be far fetched. Those "green" companies don't have enough money to fund science, at least not compared to other funding sources.

You are right Jax, the GW scientists already have plenty of money by MOOCHING off the Government teet, the monies they recieve from the hippies is just gravy my man, you gotta love the gravy. The millions upon millions of grant dollars they recieve each year, keep their bellies full just fine.

[Jax]

I agree with you on the last part.

I hate citing wikipedia but at least they cite some of the groups on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change). I know it doesn't prove that this is the majority of scientists, but I can't find any such joint statements on the other side of the issue, just a few specific names.

[gwilson]

I agree with you on the last part.

I hate citing wikipedia but at least they cite some of the groups on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change). I know it doesn't prove that this is the majority of scientists, but I can't find any such joint statements on the other side of the issue, just a few specific names.

Wikipedia is notoriously liberal, so that doesn't surprise me. I've literally watch, real time, posts in Wikipedia that were not ultra critical of the war in Iraq be changed to be detrimental. For example, a wiki post was made about a school in Iraq that was built by US troops. The post was edited within minutes to state that it was a form of repayment for the hundreds of thousands of dead iraqis by the US troops, etc.

[Jax]

You are right Jax, the GW scientists already have plenty of money by MOOCHING off the Government teet, the monies they recieve from the hippies is just gravy my man, you gotta love the gravy. The millions upon millions of grant dollars they recieve each year, keep their bellies full just fine.

Anybody who has ever worked as a scientist knows that it's not where the money is. Scientists don't get rich off of grants! Scientists get rich off of industry.

My point is that industry has more money than the government + hippies ever could dream of throwing at this issue. Industry has a lot to gain by influencing public opinion (billions of dollars in profit). The government doesn't have so much to gain by trying to influence scientists with grant money, and scientists have a lot less to gain (especially money wise) by pursuing grant money from the government than by pursuing grant money from industry.

I don't think you can say that the only reason scientists support anthropogenic global warming is because of grants. If scientists were only after grant money, they'd all be working for the oil companies and most likely heavily influenced by them.

Obviously there aren't too many scientists in here.

If you don't believe with the wiki list says (I don't expect you to), read the citations that link to articles published by the organizations in question and those you can trust. This isn't an issue of being "liberal" or not. It's must easier posting a link to a page that has links to individual documents than the documents themselves.

One must always check the references when one reason an article on any subject. It should have been obvious that the iraq war article was fake due to lack of references.

The wiki page is not an editorial, it's simply a list of links to various organizations.

If you are afraid to visit the "liberal" wiki list page, here's one link from the american institute of physics (I'm a phsysicist). There are more links from professional societies of chemists, atmospheric scientists, geoscientists, etc. on the wikipedia page.

[gwilson]

http://www.junkscience.com/

This site has EXTENSIVE information on the other side of the argument.

They are even offering $100,000 to anyone who can prove, without a doubt, that GW is human caused.

Another site with info on the opposing side: http://www.globalwarming.org/index.php