Global Warming

[TheNiche]

I agreed in the purist of abstract environments, but falls apart when applied to the real world. Or in Niche terms, you fail to account for all the variables in your equation.

How's that? Do explain.

If this was the 60's you would be defending the tobacco industries "scientific research" that showed that smoking was harmless and that the surgeon general was in cahoots with the nicotine gum industry.

No. I wasn't yet even conceived, much less talking (or typing) back then, and nicotine gum hadn't been made commercially available, so that's just doubly absurd. ...see, that's how you discredit a theory. You don't try to start a petty flame war with the originator.

Remember, if someone is calling you out for not backing up your assertions, don't take the law into your own hands. You take them to court.

False premise. This is an unrelated matter prompted by your choice to slander me.

[Subdude]

The topic has been reported for the repeated flame war. Keep it civil, please, and on topic.

[tommyboy444]

How's that? Do explain.

already have. you refuse to reply.

No. I wasn't yet even conceived, much less talking (or typing) back then, and nicotine gum hadn't been made commercially available, so that's just doubly absurd. ...see, that's how you discredit a theory. You don't try to start a petty flame war with the originator.

im just going to take a big on this one.

Niche, this is the last response i am going to make.

I asked you repeatedly to please find an example of a green industry paying for research. you declined.

this is all of have been asking of you. surely with junkscience.com, foxnews.com, glenbeck.com, etc you could find something without much effort. instead, you decline. why do you do this? my opinion is that even you know this was a half-baked criticism in the first place, but rather than just admit it, you had to get in a flame war, talking in the same condecending attitude over and over.

so please, with complete sincerity and respect,

Put Up or *take back your unsupported theory*

(this post is certified 100% flame proof).

[Guest Marty]

"Don't nuke the whales", nuke this thread.

[TheNiche]

already have. you refuse to reply.

Please reference the post in which you discredited the theory by explaining how it "falls apart in the real world".

I asked you repeatedly to please find an example of a green industry paying for research. you declined.

this is all of have been asking of you. surely with junkscience.com, foxnews.com, glenbeck.com, etc you could find something without much effort. instead, you decline. why do you do this? my opinion is that even you know this was a half-baked criticism in the first place, but rather than just admit it, you had to get in a flame war, talking in the same condecending attitude over and over.

so please, with complete sincerity and respect,

Put Up or *take back your unsupported theory*

As I have repeatedly explained, the theory is valid. My ongoing discussion with you has fleshed out the mechanisms and the forms in which it is very likely taking effect. I cannot prove it, but that does not make it a less valid theory (ex. Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs is armchair psychology, with precious little research done on it, yet it is widely regarded as valid theory and discussed in every introductory psychology text ever published...not merely as historical trivia, either). If my reasoning is incorrect, I would ask once again that you please assert yourself and explain how it is so. Otherwise it stands, and I refuse to withdraw it.

Btw, I don't use foxnews.com or glenbeck.com as sources. And I'm not familiar with junkscience.com. I also don't source CNN or other mainstream media if I can help it. They are all in the business of providing hearsay, and exceedingly few are any good at it. I much prefer to dig through long dry scientific studies, develop my own analyses, or conduct original research when it is reasonable.

[tommyboy444]

Please reference the post in which you discredited the theory by explaining how it "falls apart in the real world".

As I have repeatedly explained, the theory is valid. My ongoing discussion with you has fleshed out the mechanisms and the forms in which it is very likely taking effect. I cannot prove it, but that does not make it a less valid theory (ex. Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs is armchair psychology, with precious little research done on it, yet it is widely regarded as valid theory and discussed in every introductory psychology text ever published...not merely as historical trivia, either). If my reasoning is incorrect, I would ask once again that you please assert yourself and explain how it is so. Otherwise it stands, and I refuse to withdraw it.

Btw, I don't use foxnews.com or glenbeck.com as sources. And I'm not familiar with junkscience.com. I also don't source CNN or other mainstream media if I can help it. They are all in the business of providing hearsay, and exceedingly few are any good at it. I much prefer to dig through long dry scientific studies, develop my own analyses, or conduct original research when it is reasonable.

fine. if you truly believe that environmental companies have invented global warming and fund thousands of false scientific reports in order to benefit financially, more power to you.

[TheNiche]

fine. if you truly believe that environmental companies have invented global warming and fund thousands of false scientific reports in order to benefit financially, more power to you.

Straw men.

[Vertigo58]

"Don't nuke the whales", nuke this thread.

Flame-out was a good one!

and why are there two identical (or near identical) topics swirling around on this same topic/title/subject?

Flame-out!

[Native Montrosian]

Both my husband and I drive fuel-efficient cars, do our best to conserve water and electricity, recycle and make an effort to purchase plastic-clad items in #1 & #2 containers, and it has nothing to do with Al Gore. We do so because of our parents' and church's teachings regarding stewardship of the earth. They were all Depression-era children, staunch Presbyterian (his) and Lutheran (mine) conservatives, and our fathers were WWI veterans. They certainly weren't hippies or products of a cult or commune. It they and we are to be called tree-huggers, fine.

[TheNiche]

Both my husband and I drive fuel-efficient cars, do our best to conserve water and electricity, recycle and make an effort to purchase plastic-clad items in #1 & #2 containers, and it has nothing to do with Al Gore. We do so because of our parents' and church's teachings regarding stewardship of the earth. They were all Depression-era children, staunch Presbyterian (his) and Lutheran (mine) conservatives, and our fathers were WWI veterans. They certainly weren't hippies or products of a cult or commune. It they and we are to be called tree-huggers, fine.

That's A-OK by me. ...I just don't like it when people force their opinions upon others.

[Native Montrosian]

'scuse me - WWII veterans. My keyboard must have been conserving strokes.

[nmainguy]

It's best to put him on ignore. I did that about a week ago and reading this board has become a lot more fun again.

I just took him off ignore last Friday because I'm layed up in the hospital and because at some point the diversion that hospital TV provides just doesen't live up to nicheTV. Besides, you can't avoid him in the response mode so what's the point?

More obfuscation from the Niche. Still waiting dude. Show me one example of green industries paying for research. That is what I have been asking from you from the BEGINING. Instead, you try and bore me to death with post after post of nonsense. I guess that is how you win debates on this board. People just get tired of replying to you.

That's not winning. That's just the grown-ups turning their attention to issues more important.

[houstonmacbro]

Both my husband and I drive fuel-efficient cars, do our best to conserve water and electricity, recycle and make an effort to purchase plastic-clad items in #1 & #2 containers, and it has nothing to do with Al Gore. We do so because of our parents' and church's teachings regarding stewardship of the earth. They were all Depression-era children, staunch Presbyterian (his) and Lutheran (mine) conservatives, and our fathers were WWI veterans. They certainly weren't hippies or products of a cult or commune. It they and we are to be called tree-huggers, fine.

Conservation where possible just makes good sense --regardless of your religious background or teaching. I mean ... why waste stuff when it is not necessary?

[Native Montrosian]

Exactly. I was just chiming in because our doing such has nothing whatsoever to do with any political agenda. It hasn't happened here as far as I've seen, but I've been at other boards where breathing a hint of anything having to do with conservation of resources is enough to get one's patriotism questioned. I don't follow that logic leap, but whatever.

Now on the subject of climate changes, I definitely believe that we should make every effort to prevent further damage, but regardless of whether causes are man-made, natural or both, might it be an idea for wiser minds than mine to quit pointing fingers and start working on ways for affected regions to adapt? Just sayin'....

[Toggle3]

Why should anyone even care about global warming?

What arrogance to think that a bunch of little humans could affect the outcome of planetary climate change either way. Oy vey.

Whether "global warming" is actually real or not doesn't matter at all. You might as well start arguing whether the universe will implode. Who cares?

[TheNiche]

What arrogance to think that a bunch of little humans could affect the outcome of planetary climate change either way. Oy vey.

Going way back, the only reason that an atmosphere formed in which plant life could be sustained was that microbes created it. Does it not humble you to think that without those, you wouldn't exist?

Whether "global warming" is actually real or not doesn't matter at all.

Please substantiate your claim.

[Highway6]

One day, people will look back at all this and laugh.

Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/ne...se,176495.shtml

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery. Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.

Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see."

[Jax]

The thing I don't like about that article is it mentions that articles have been published proposing that "2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance", and that is supposed to be a statement against anthropogenic global warming. That isn't really the case. People always use that fact to refute global warming, but if you look at the articles in question, you will realize that the amount of temperature rise due to the increased irradiance so small it's irrelevant when it comes to global temperature. So if they are counting all of these solar irradiance articles, the resulting numbers are meaningless.

Here are some articles if you are interested.

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proce...spa20071880.pdf

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/...ature05072.html

The second article was published in Nature, and is titled "Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate". So that is evidence "refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares", right? Sure seems like it, until you read the article. In the abstract, it says the following:

"Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present."

I bet they mistakenly counted this article as one of the "500 scientists that have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares".

The other interesting fact is that 500 scientists is not a huge number. Each article is usually published by 3-4 people (Sometimes more), so let's say 140 articles have refuted global warming (maybe less since they miscounted those solar irradiance articles). That's actually not a really big number, considering the number of articles being published.

P.S. Why does every single comment at the end of that article mention Al Gore and/or a left wing conspiracy? It makes me feel like the readers are basing their opinions on sort of bias against Al Gore and aren't even thinking about the science at all.

[Highway6]

Article

Full Senate Report

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

Even some in the establishment media now appears to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking."

This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new

[cottonmather0]

GW believers don't support it necessarily as a vehicle to enrich themselves, they support because they see it as a handy moral excuse to impose the same sort of government control and economic curbs that they've been trying to get by other means for the past 100 years.

Capitalism is evil, consumerism is immoral, more government is the answer, the United States should be more "respectful" of the rest of the world, blah blah blah.

GW is just another way of couching the same old arguments but is one that has happened to catch some traction lately with the general public precisely because it hides behind a veneer of "science" and morality, which in turn provides high ground to denounce opponents as being opposed to both.

[CDeb]

they will name anything these days.

Remember that when people argue the "increase in the number of named storms" as evidence of global warming.

[HtownWxBoy]

Remember that when people argue the "increase in the number of named storms" as evidence of global warming.

I don't listen to either sides of that argument. Like I said I am actually a Meteorologist, and back in college I took a Meteorological Statistics class (loved it!) and we basically proved that it's IMPOSSIBLE... i'll repeat myself... IMPOSSIBLE... to prove or disprove global warming. In order to prove something like that you need to certain amount of data and scientists just don't have, so they can't say for sure what's going on. The earth warms and cools naturally... that's why we have ice ages (we also have the opposite of ice ages when the earth is much warmer... right now we are basically in the middle). Is the earth warming a bit?... probably... but is it due to man... can't say.

The side that argues the earth is warming b/c of Man can't prove that, and the side that says Man is not responsible can't prove that either!

[TJones]

You don't have to disprove Global Warming, you just sit back and enjoy the climate with a few beers on hand. 94* where I am today, with a 20 mph wind. Keeps me from melting.

[TheNiche]

I don't listen to either sides of that argument. Like I said I am actually a Meteorologist, and back in college I took a Meteorological Statistics class (loved it!) and we basically proved that it's IMPOSSIBLE... i'll repeat myself... IMPOSSIBLE... to prove or disprove global warming. In order to prove something like that you need to certain amount of data and scientists just don't have, so they can't say for sure what's going on. The earth warms and cools naturally... that's why we have ice ages (we also have the opposite of ice ages when the earth is much warmer... right now we are basically in the middle). Is the earth warming a bit?... probably... but is it due to man... can't say.

The side that argues the earth is warming b/c of Man can't prove that, and the side that says Man is not responsible can't prove that either!

THANK YOU! Please participate more in GW threads!

The HAIF needs you.

[20thStDad]

I totally agree with that perspective on global warming. I don't think we can possibly prove what affect we have versus the vastness of forces that work naturally on the planet.

BUT...I am happy to see that man is paying a lot closer attention to what we pump into the atmosphere (and water and solid waste as well), because whether it's a definite or not that it causes global warming, I believe it's certainly responsible to minimize our "unnatural" contributions to the equation. I think more focus should be turned away from CO2 and toward toxics, but keeping an eye on all of it is necessary I believe.

(insert memebag comment that everything we do is natural)

[ricco67]

I totally agree with that perspective on global warming. I don't think we can possibly prove what affect we have versus the vastness of forces that work naturally on the planet.

BUT...I am happy to see that man is paying a lot closer attention to what we pump into the atmosphere (and water and solid waste as well), because whether it's a definite or not that it causes global warming, I believe it's certainly responsible to minimize our "unnatural" contributions to the equation. I think more focus should be turned away from CO2 and toward toxics, but keeping an eye on all of it is necessary I believe.

(insert memebag comment that everything we do is natural)

I agree overall.It is very hard to prove that anything that is occuring is something WE have done. There is evidence here and there that change IS occuring. Link

[memebag]

(insert memebag comment that everything we do is natural)

Everything you do is natural. I've discoverd something truly unnatural.

[CDeb]

The side that argues the earth is warming b/c of Man can't prove that, and the side that says Man is not responsible can't prove that either!

That is EXACTLY my position on the topic.

[BryanS]

Global warming is real. Humans are a cause.

http://www.ipcc.ch/.

Oslo, 10 December 07 - The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. were awarded of the Nobel Peace Prize "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"

The argument that "Side A can't prove it, neither can Side B" - is an easy out. If such were the case, then the respected, Nobel Prize winning UN IPCC would have rendered such a conclusion, as is required by true scientific analysis. They didn't.

...but just for the sake of argument, let's assume that is the case (can't be proven, either way). Let's say you're right, and humans are not a cause... Then the worst possible outcome is that we will live a world with less green house gas emissions (we'll have cleaner cars, airplanes, power plants, etc.) If we're wrong... then it would be too late to act... In fact, there is some consensus out there now that it is already too late.

Conservatives would argue that since it can't be proven either way - let's do nothing. Responsible people, however, would argue that, even if there is some doubt, better be safe than sorry.

[CDeb]

Every single word in the IPCC report may, in fact, be correct. But their winning what is largely a political prize is absolutely zero evidence of that.

Responsible people, however, would argue that, even if there is some doubt, better be safe than sorry.

Yeah, it's pretty responsible to cripple the world economy just so we're "better safe than sorry."

I submit that it's much more responsible to be sure that the "scientific debate" isn't merely a political statement in drag before we spend untold billions on "solutions" that won't stop the warming* anyway.

* Warming which appears to have been on hiatus for the last decade or so.