Global Warming

[Keni]

Quote by: Century 25 I think Obama is trying to correct our course.. but.... I think it is like trying to stop a train wreck by putting out a foot & dragging it. Btw, where I am we have those 45 and 50 degree days too.

At least Obama is having a go!

Yep, at 50 degrees you tend to agree things are warming up a tad!

[Orangutan]

50 degrees is certainly hot.

I live right next to the equator, besides a rainforest. Since I got here about 6 years ago the temp hasn't changed, 32 to 35C, though the humidity is high.

I hear "highest temperatures ever" but that's not what that graph shows. High temps in certain areas do not amount to world temperatures rising.

Every time I hear something convincing from the warmies, I hear something more convincing from the sceptics.

Then I look at the massive industry and gearing up for tax revenues based on warming hysteria and sorry, but my bullshit meter goes off the scale.

Talk about some of the scientists on the petition project not being real people but silly names like Micky Mouse merely shows the extent to which people actually try to sabotage dissenting views.

That's not scientific debate, that's hysteria.

Consider also that many of the "2500 scientists" of the IPPC are either not scientists or disagree with the overall findings. There are at least some, maybe a lot, of scientists who directly asked to be removed from that list - and were refused. One had to threaten legal charges before they would remove his name, so there's some "humanity elements" on both sides.

As a previous poster mentioned, FOUR (4) times over the last century or so we have had this faux scientific media 'consensus' that the world was under threat of an ice age, then over-heating, then an ice age, now over-heating again.

Sorry, now you've changed it to what was it, oh yeah, "climate change". Like the climate never changed before?

"The weather's changing, we're right!"

Please.


Now, this idea that CO2 creates a feedback loop, making things worse. OK, so explain why things didn't get worse, instead cooled, each and every time before when the planet has heated up, releasing huge volumes of CO2 from the sea etc?

Evidently there is some kind of feedback mechanism at work, but it seems to be one that pushes back, not feeding upon itself. More CO2, more trees, more CO2 gets absorbed, kinnda thing, rather than more CO2, temps rise, more CO2, temps rise higher, world fries. That hasn't happened, temperatures have risen, then dropped again.

If anything dropping temps are far more dangerous to mankind and our current infrastructure, than warming.

There is a very important point I'd like to make, which perhaps deserves it's own thread...

As for the rate of rise, the temp was rising before the industrial revolution and I don't see any evidence of it rising any faster since?


O.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Orangutan That's not scientific debate, that's hysteria.

The only hysteria is from conservative free-marketeers more terrified of possible government regulation or -GASP- taxes than global environmental catastrophe.

As I asked someone else, if you had cancer, would you simply deny it because dealing with it would mean you'd have to spend money and/or change your lifestyle? Would you deny the accumulated expertise of medical science in favor or a handful of quacks because they tell you what you want to hear? Would you ignore those who say that, with a little Yankee ingenuity and American Know how, the unfolding crisis could be an opportunity to regain economic leadership and make fortunes in new, efficient technologies?

You think it's impossible that we've changed the very climate around us? So what else is simply trumped up hysteria?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The fact that we're emptying the seas of fish?

3 Major Reports Paint Same Picture: Ocean Fish Are Rapidly In Decline, Mar. 2009 - Fish, both big and small, suffering from overfishing, climate change, acidification, agricultural runoff — and U.S. taxpayer subsidies.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Or the fact that tropical coral reefs are disappearing?

Coral Reefs Disappearing Fast, CBS News, Apr. 2009 - "...coral reefs have started dying around the world, and a new study suggests that they could be completely wiped out in a just a few decades."


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Or that we're eliminating forests worldwide at record rates?

Global Deforestation - "About one half of the forests that covered the Earth are gone. Each year, another 16 million hectares (the state of Georgia) disappear. The World Resources Institute estimates that only about 22% of the world's (old growth) original forest cover remains "intact" - most of this is in three large areas: the Canadian and Alaskan boreal forest, the boreal forest of Russia, and the tropical forest of the northwestern Amazon Basin and the Guyana Shield (Guyana, Suriname, Venezuela, Columbia, etc.)

For millennia, humankind has influenced the forests, although much of the impact has been relatively minor. Today, the impact is enormous. Deforestation is expanding and accelerating into the remaining areas of undisturbed forest, and the quality of the remaining forests is declining."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Or that the resulting desertification is swallowing up vast, irreplaceable swaths of arable land?

Desertification statistics - "Total land degradation affects some (7 million square miles) of land worldwide. Arable land is being lost is increasing and has been estimated at 30 to 35 times the historical rate. Nearly one third of the world’s cropland has been abandoned in the past 40 years because erosion has made it unproductive."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Or that modern, high-intensity agriculture is rapidly depleting the very water tables under us?

Ground-water depletion has been a concern in the Southwest and High Plains for many years, but increased demands on our ground-water resources have overstressed aquifers in many areas of the Nation, not just in arid regions. In addition, ground-water depletion occurs at scales ranging from a single well to aquifer systems underlying several states. The extents of the resulting effects depend on several factors including pumpage and natural discharge rates, physical properties of the aquifer, and natural and human-induced recharge rates. Some examples are given below."

Aquifer depletion - Scores of countries are overpumping aquifers as they struggle to satisfy their growing water needs, including each of the big three grain producers—China, India, and the United States. These three, along with a number of other countries where water tables are falling, are home to more than half the world’s people.

Water Deficits Growing in Many Countries - The world is incurring a vast water deficit. It is largely invisible, historically recent, and growing fast. Because this impending crisis typically takes the form of aquifer overpumping and falling water tables, it is not visible. Unlike burning forests or invading sand dunes, falling water tables cannot be readily photographed. They are often discovered only when wells go dry.

The world water deficit is recent--a product of the tripling of water demand over the last half-century and the rapid worldwide spread of powerful diesel and electrically driven pumps. The drilling of millions of wells has pushed water withdrawals beyond the recharge of many aquifers. The failure of governments to limit pumping to the sustainable yield of aquifers means that water tables are now falling in scores of countries.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Or that human beings, through all our combined affects, are - right now - creating the 6th great extinction event of life on earth?

The Sixth Extinction - "There is little doubt left in the minds of professional biologists that Earth is currently faced with a mounting loss of species that threatens to rival the five great mass extinctions of the geological past."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Or a dozen other ways besides global warming in which human beings are altering the very earth, wind and seas that surround us. But nooOOOooooo, if we're killing the planet, than dang, we just might have to pay to fix it, and gawd forbid you have to dip into your precious pockets to save the world, or be told what to do by --GAG-CHOKE-- the government.

Nope, can't have that, so it's much better to go deep into denial and delude yourself that it simply isn't happening. Yeah, good luck with that.

[Orangutan]

The first thing that jumps out that list to me is the reduction in rainforests, seeing as I live next to one and see that destruction.

You know why it's being destroyed?

To plant palms, for palm oil, because somehow, wrecking the forest for fecking palm oil is better than drilling under the sea or in deserts for existing oil, because that nasty existing oil creates "global warming"!!

You know why fishieries are over-fished? Me neither but I know that changing food crops for poxy ethanol, again to please 'global warming' types and racking up the cost of food, aint helping, is it?

Anyway, a point not addressed is now in a new thread I jus' started - what happens if you're right?


O.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Orangutan To plant palms, for palm oil, because somehow, wrecking the forest for fecking palm oil is better than drilling under the sea or in deserts for existing oil, because that nasty existing oil creates "global warming"!!

LOLOLOL!!!! My gawd, you'll say just about anything, won't you.

1. When I said deforestation, I didn't specify rain forests. But that's okay... the vast equatorial rainforests - often called "the Lungs of the Earth" because, as the single most powerful absorber of CO2 and producer of O2 on the planet, they are incredibly important to the global environment, and it's these rain forests that are most threatened by deforestation.

2. You live in Indonesia or Columbia? Because palm oil is just one small byproduct of deforestation. Ranching, grain production and development consume much larger areas.

3. Palm oil and petroleum are entirely different things. Palm oil is used for cooking, margarine, soaps, etc. not for burning as fuel.

If your goal is to advertise your ignorance... well done!

Quote by: Orangutan You know why fishieries are over-fished? Me neither but I know that changing food crops for poxy ethanol, again to please 'global warming' types and racking up the cost of food, aint helping, is it?

There you go again... saying anything just to argue.

1. The fisheries are over-fished because there's too many people consuming fish products and our technological capacity to catch fish -- like our technological capacity to plunder and pollute the rest of the planet -- has outpaced the capacity of sea life to replenish itself.

2. What does "poxy ethanol" have to do with the reality of anthropogenic global warming? Americans were focused on ethanol not so much for environmental reasons but because the cost of gasoline went through the roof last year. Americans wanted cheap fuel.

Remember?

Of course you're right, we'd do much better making ethanol from none food-competing sources such as Switchgrass, but hey, your free-market loving corn farmers saw a way to make gobs of money selling corn as bio-fuel rather than food, and your free-market loving politicians love getting political donations from the free-market loving agro lobby.

Hardly the fault of 'Global Warming' types, who were actually the ones who pointed out that...

3. ... the use of corn-based ethanol has been found to have unintended negative consequences. The process of producing it doesn't really reduce the carbon footprint, it drives up the cost of corn, etc. etc. All unfortunate but WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE REALITY OF AGW???

Quote by: Orangutan Anyway, a point not addressed is now in a new thread I jus' started - what happens if you're right?

To me? Nothing. I'll probably be long dead. To you and your children and their children?

** The Oceans will continue to rise over the next centuries...

** The Oceans will continue to become more and more acidic as it absorbs more CO2, killing off all coral and the sea life that surrounds them, along with a decrease in the amounts of O2 absorbed, thus threatening all sealife.

Ocean Dead Zones - "The world's hypoxic zones—swaths of ocean too oxygen-deprived to support fish and other marine organisms—are rapidly expanding as sea temperatures rise, a new study suggests."

** Agricultural Collapse -- "Rising atmospheric temperatures, longer droughts and side-effects of both, such as higher levels of ground-level ozone gas, are likely to bring about a substantial reduction in crop yields in the coming decades"

** Economic Collapse -- "In 2006, Nicholas Stern, the former Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President of the World Bank, presented the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change[104]. Stern recommended that one percent of global GDP be invested to mitigate the effects of climate change, and that failure to do so could risk a recession worth up to twenty percent of global GDP[105]. Stern’s report[106] suggests that climate change threatens to be the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen."

** Water scarcity - "Sea level rise is projected to increase salt-water intrusion into groundwater in some regions, affecting drinking water and agriculture in coastal zones.[167] Increased evaporation will reduce the effectiveness of reservoirs. Increased extreme weather means more water falls on hardened ground unable to absorb it, leading to flash floods instead of a replenishment of soil moisture or groundwater levels. In some areas, shrinking glaciers threaten the water supply.[168] The continued retreat of glaciers will have a number of different effects. In areas that are heavily dependent on water runoff from glaciers that melt during the warmer summer months, a continuation of the current retreat will eventually deplete the glacial ice and substantially reduce or eliminate runoff. A reduction in runoff will affect the ability to irrigate crops and will reduce summer stream flows necessary to keep dams and reservoirs replenished. "

** Spread of Disease as insects and microbes migrate to new environments.

** Unchecked, global warming will accelerate the mass extinction of species already under way, until...

... who knows... if AGW remains unchecked beyond the year 2100, no one wants to speculate. Certainly, like flies in a bell jar, the catastrophic collapse of human populations, who may or may not survive the process of returning the planet to a natural equilibrium. Some scientists are now saying that it's already too late, that we've passed that point at which anything we do can change what's already slowly underway.

So what do you suggest? Do something now to solve the problem, or cheerfully party on and let our children and grandchildren suffer the consequences?

.

[soothsayer]

How can wind turbines generate so much lunacy? - Telegraph

Global Tropical Cyclone Energy nearing 50-year lows
coaps.fsu.edu | Ryan Maue's Seasonal Tropical Cyclone Activity Update

[Sonart]

.

If there's any true poetic justice in the world, Texas is getting their taste of it. The home state of George W. Bush is currently suffering the worst drought conditions in the U.S.

San Diego Union/Tribune, July 25, 09 - "The nation's most drought-stricken state is deep-frying under relentless 100-degree days and waterways are drying up, especially in the hardest-hit area covering about 350 miles across south-central Texas. That's making folks worried about the water supply – and how long it might last."

"The water table's fallin' and fallin' and fallin,' like a whole lot of other people around here," said Wendell McLeod, general manager of Liberty Hill Water Supply Corp. and a 60-year resident of the town northwest of Austin. "This is the worst I can recall seeing it. I tell you, it's just pretty bleak."

USA Today, July 21, 09 - "Agriculture officials in the state, which leads the nation in cotton and cattle production, estimated Monday that total crop losses attributed to the drought that started in November have reached $2.6 billion. Livestock losses have reached an additional $974 million. And officials have not yet tallied how much ranchers will lose from having fewer cattle to breed or from selling calves earlier than usual because they don't have pasture on which their animals can graze."

Drought aid for Texas tough to come by, July 18, 09 - "In the past week, Bastrop County has lost 12,000 cattle, an "astonishing" loss that Fisher said could devastate the county's market for cattle production for several years. Some farmers had government-backed insurance through the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fisher said, but "the federal program has not released any compensation for that insurance, and we're wondering" why."

Because there is no global warming! Remember?

.

[soothsayer]

The whole "global warming" debacle reminds me of the Mayan theocratic oligarchs who held sway over their people by threatening to make solar eclipses permanent.

Watch the movie "Apocalypto". Might as well be Al Gore demanding the blood sacrifice!

[Thanatos]

Quote by: soothsayer The whole "global warming" debacle reminds me of the Mayan theocratic oligarchs who held sway over their people by threatening to make solar eclipses permanent. Watch the movie "Apocalypto". Might as well be Al Gore demanding the blood sacrifice!

This thread has not improved in eight months.

Politicians scare people when they want more power. Otherwise they just tell their people exactly what they want to hear. If Obama was asking for more power I would take your proposition much more seriously.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: soothsayer Watch the movie "Apocalypto". Might as well be Al Gore demanding the blood sacrifice!

Oh I did watch it, and you apparently missed the entire gist of the movie... and the actual history of the Maya.

The Maya had gotten too successful for their own good. They had deforested their local countryside (you remember the scenes of clear cut land as the prisoners were being led closer to the capital) and over-cultivated the land. That's why they were frantically sacrificing captives... desperately trying to 'Appease the Gods' for disastrous environment problems that they themselves had caused through over population and plundering of resources.

Watch it again if you don't believe me, and read up on the Maya.

Apocalypto -- "Maya civilization in the Central Area reached its full glory in the early eighth century, but it must have contained the seeds of its own destruction, for in the century and a half that followed, all its magnificent cities had fallen into decline and ultimately suffered abandonment. This was surely one of the most profound social and demographic catastrophes of all human history."[24] Coe lists "environmental collapse" as one of the leading causes of the fall of the great empire, alongside "endemic warfare", "overpopulation", and "drought". "There is mounting evidence for massive deforestation and erosion throughout the Central Area. The Maya apocalypse, for such it was, surely had ecological roots," explains Coe.

Nah, as always, soothsayer, you have it exactly ass-backwards. The "Mayan Theocratic Oligarchs" would be the entrenched U.S. specially interests and their conservative political water carriers... like the Bush League. Gore is the poor schmuck vainly trying to warn them of their impending doom.

Quote by: Thanatos Politicians scare people when they want more power. Otherwise they just tell their people exactly what they want to hear.

What proposition?

How is it that when presented with the choice between the possible end of life on Earth as we know it, or government asserting itself to solve the problem by regulating the free market, conservatives are more worried about regulation. How myopically pathetic can one get?

.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Sonart . What proposition? How is it that when presented with the choice between the possible end of life on Earth as we know it, or government asserting itself to solve the problem by regulating the free market, conservatives are more worried about regulation. How myopically pathetic can one get? .

Ouch. Pascal's wager applied to the environment? His triangle was cool, but beyond that I never liked him.

The right thing to do would go back to the science. Are glaciers melting? Well, yeah. I've seen some of them up close and personal. Et cetera, until you've convinced yourself the world is actually in trouble and that doing x will fix it.

Likewise if someone says he wants power because otherwise Iraq is going to nuke us in a matter of days you'd want to be sure this is real.

Remember that just because they're global warming deniers doesn't mean they can't occasionally have a halfway valid argument. It's like a bunch of monkeys with typewriters. Actually it's exactly like that. Anyways, g'night.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Thanatos Ouch. Pascal's wager applied to the environment? His triangle was cool, but beyond that I never liked him.

Except Pascal's wager is about believing in something that can't scientifically be proven to exist. Anthropogenic Global Warming, on the other hand, is a proven fact... as clearly stated by the most authoritative public and private scientific institutions currently studying and/or publishing research on the subject, including...

the U.S. National Academy of Sciences
the American Geophysical Union
the American Meteorological Society
the National Weather Association
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NASA
Stanford, Oxford, MIT and gawd knows how many other univeristies,
Scripps and Woodshole Oceanographic Research Institutes,
Scientific American, the Journal Science and the Journal Nature

Quote by: Thanatos The right thing to do would go back to the science.

Been there, done that. After 40 years of study, the science is in. More research is still being done, but it's simply dotting the i's and filling in the details, just like... say... evolution. Sure, more fossil research will always reveal more details and clarifications, but it also just keeps verifying the FACT that evolution was proven a long time ago. And AGW is a proven fact -- it's a proven fact that it's happening, it's a proven fact that it's happening faster than predicted, and it's a proven fact that we're causing it. Further research simply fills in the finer details.

Claiming the need for further research before acting on it is nothing but a stalling tactic on the part of those who are more concerned with profits than their own children's futures, which leads to the even bigger question: Why isn't the free market leading the way in solving this problem, instead of simply dragging their feet and waiting to be dragged kicking and screaming by the government?

And your knee-jerk pokes at Al Gore ignore the fact that not only is he out of government and the regulation business, he is INTO the business of recruiting captains of industry, entrepreneurs and high-tech industries to make fortunes and U.S. leadership in innovating our way out of the problem.

The Resurrection of Al Gore - WIRED Magazine, 2006 - "The goal: to enlist the assembled leaders in finding market-driven, technological solutions to global warming and then, in quintessential Silicon Valley style, to rapidly disseminate their ideas and change the world."

Quote by: Thanatos Likewise if someone says he wants power because otherwise Iraq is going to nuke us in a matter of days you'd want to be sure this is real.

FACT: global warming is real, it's happening faster than we predicted, and we're causing it. You can make all the silly-ass apples and bullfrogs analogies you want, that fact won't change.

Quote by: Thanatos Remember that just because they're global warming deniers doesn't mean they can't occasionally have a halfway valid argument.

No, YOU remember -- just because the libertarian free-market special interest desperately wants to prevent government regulation doesn't make the half-dozen remaining deniers right in the face of overwhelming evidence, any more than the Tobacco industries desperate desire to continue making profits made their "scientists" right in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Here's just a few former "deniers" with the intellectual honesty and moral integrity to concede the truth when presented with it. When can we expect a little intellectual honesty from you, Thanatos?

Rupert Murdoch, publisher -- "Given his history, Murdoch's U-turn on this issue is enough to provoke whiplash."

Ronald Bailey, Science Correspondent, Reasononline -- ReasonOnline's science correspondent, adjunct scholar at CATO and CEI, and editor of the 2002 book Global Warming and Other Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death - "Since I work for a self-described libertarian magazine that should indicate to even the dimmest reader that I tend to have a healthy skepticism of government "solutions" to problems, including government solutions to environmental problems.

So then not a whore, just virtuously wrong."

Sir David Attenborough, naturalist & filmmaker

Newt Gingrich -- "that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere."

Sen. Joe Lieberman - “When former skeptics cite melting habitat as the reason polar bears are now threatened, you know the global warming debate is over.”

Ron Paul, Congressman/Presidential Candidate - "Global temperatures have been warming since the Little Ice Age. Studies within the respectable scientific community have shown that human beings are most likely a part of this process."

Frank Luntz, Bush policy adviser -- "Many high-profile global warming skeptics have recently changed their position. We've mentioned Sir David Attenborough and Michael Shermer with his "data trumps politics" epiphany, but there are many more that we haven't written about like Gregg Easterbrook and John Tierney. The most remarkable cognitive flip to date must certainly come from Frank Luntz:"

the United States Navy -- "Yes - the United States Commander-and-Chief may be uncertain about global warming, but his Admirals and seamen are confident that it is real and that it will/should shape their maritime strategy."

Richard Branson, entrepreneur

Willliam Briggs, statistician - "And if I was wrong, that meant I wasn’t right. If I wasn’t right, then I could be wrong—about a lot of things."

Prof. Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming." - “Make no mistake: global warming is real" he said. It is caused by manmade carbon-dioxide emissions, he added."

James Overland, Oceanographer NOAA -- "Over­land said he used to be among those skep­ti­cal about the effects of global cli­mate change. The new find­ings, which he termed “star­tling,” were devel­oped at a recent work­shop, he said."

BP and Royal Dutch/Shell Group - "They accept a growing scientific consensus that fossil fuels are a main contributor to the problem and endorse the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which caps emissions from developed nations that have ratified it. BP and Shell also have begun to invest in alternatives to fossil fuels."

Rev. Pat Robertson -- "Robertson joins the chorus of evangelical leaders who have raised the issues of global warming and the environment to a place once reserved for abortion and school prayer by Christian activists."

the Christian Right -- "The question is, do we want to destroy the Creation -- with a capital C [as in the Bible's Creation story] -- because that's what we're doing, and at an accelerating rate."

.

[dan4reason]

Quote by: Sonart . Except Pascal's wager is about believing in something that can't scientifically be proven to exist. Anthropogenic Global Warming, on the other hand, is a proven fact... as clearly stated by the most authoritative public and private scientific institutions currently studying and/or publishing research on the subject, including... the U.S. National Academy of Sciences the American Geophysical Union the American Meteorological Society the National Weather Association the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NASA Stanford, Oxford, MIT and gawd knows how many other univeristies, Scripps and Woodshole Oceanographic Research Institutes, Scientific American, the Journal Science and the Journal Nature Been there, done that. After 40 years of study, the science is in. More research is still being done, but it's simply dotting the i's and filling in the details, just like... say... evolution. Sure, more fossil research will always reveal more details and clarifications, but it also just keeps verifying the FACT that evolution was proven a long time ago. And AGW is a proven fact -- it's a proven fact that it's happening, it's a proven fact that it's happening faster than predicted, and it's a proven fact that we're causing it. Further research simply fills in the finer details. Claiming the need for further research before acting on it is nothing but a stalling tactic on the part of those who are more concerned with profits than their own children's futures, which leads to the even bigger question: Why isn't the free market leading the way in solving this problem, instead of simply dragging their feet and waiting to be dragged kicking and screaming by the government? And your knee-jerk pokes at Al Gore ignore the fact that not only is he out of government and the regulation business, he is INTO the business of recruiting captains of industry, entrepreneurs and high-tech industries to make fortunes and U.S. leadership in innovating our way out of the problem. The Resurrection of Al Gore - WIRED Magazine, 2006 - "The goal: to enlist the assembled leaders in finding market-driven, technological solutions to global warming and then, in quintessential Silicon Valley style, to rapidly disseminate their ideas and change the world." FACT: global warming is real, it's happening faster than we predicted, and we're causing it. You can make all the silly-ass apples and bullfrogs analogies you want, that fact won't change. No, YOU remember -- just because the libertarian free-market special interest desperately wants to prevent government regulation doesn't make the half-dozen remaining deniers right in the face of overwhelming evidence, any more than the Tobacco industries desperate desire to continue making profits made their "scientists" right in the face of overwhelming evidence. Here's just a few former "deniers" with the intellectual honesty and moral integrity to concede the truth when presented with it. When can we expect a little intellectual honesty from you, Thanatos? Rupert Murdoch, publisher -- "Given his history, Murdoch's U-turn on this issue is enough to provoke whiplash." Ronald Bailey, Science Correspondent, Reasononline -- ReasonOnline's science correspondent, adjunct scholar at CATO and CEI, and editor of the 2002 book Global Warming and Other Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death - "Since I work for a self-described libertarian magazine that should indicate to even the dimmest reader that I tend to have a healthy skepticism of government "solutions" to problems, including government solutions to environmental problems. So then not a whore, just virtuously wrong." Sir David Attenborough, naturalist & filmmaker Newt Gingrich -- "that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere." Sen. Joe Lieberman - “When former skeptics cite melting habitat as the reason polar bears are now threatened, you know the global warming debate is over.” Ron Paul, Congressman/Presidential Candidate - "Global temperatures have been warming since the Little Ice Age. Studies within the respectable scientific community have shown that human beings are most likely a part of this process." Frank Luntz, Bush policy adviser -- "Many high-profile global warming skeptics have recently changed their position. We've mentioned Sir David Attenborough and Michael Shermer with his "data trumps politics" epiphany, but there are many more that we haven't written about like Gregg Easterbrook and John Tierney. The most remarkable cognitive flip to date must certainly come from Frank Luntz:" the United States Navy -- "Yes - the United States Commander-and-Chief may be uncertain about global warming, but his Admirals and seamen are confident that it is real and that it will/should shape their maritime strategy." Richard Branson, entrepreneur Willliam Briggs, statistician - "And if I was wrong, that meant I wasn’t right. If I wasn’t right, then I could be wrong—about a lot of things." Prof. Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming." - “Make no mistake: global warming is real" he said. It is caused by manmade carbon-dioxide emissions, he added." James Overland, Oceanographer NOAA -- "Over­land said he used to be among those skep­ti­cal about the effects of global cli­mate change. The new find­ings, which he termed “star­tling,” were devel­oped at a recent work­shop, he said." BP and Royal Dutch/Shell Group - "They accept a growing scientific consensus that fossil fuels are a main contributor to the problem and endorse the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which caps emissions from developed nations that have ratified it. BP and Shell also have begun to invest in alternatives to fossil fuels." Rev. Pat Robertson -- "Robertson joins the chorus of evangelical leaders who have raised the issues of global warming and the environment to a place once reserved for abortion and school prayer by Christian activists." the Christian Right -- "The question is, do we want to destroy the Creation -- with a capital C [as in the Bible's Creation story] -- because that's what we're doing, and at an accelerating rate." .

Hello Sonart. I have decided to give the idea of global warming a chance. I will ask you some questions about the idea if you do not mind. The temperature is going up and so is carbon. But this is no proof that carbon is the cause. In order to prove this experiments should be made it prove that it is the cause. That is my opinion.

One argument says that carbon is a greenhouse gas. When heat enters the atmosphere, carbon blocks some of it from returning from space. If the heat from the sun gets partially blocked from leaving our atmosphere, then why shouldn't it get partially blocked from entering it in the first place, offsetting the warming effect.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: dan4reason Hello Sonart. I have decided to give the idea of global warming a chance. I will ask you some questions about the idea if you do not mind. The temperature is going up and so is carbon. But this is no proof that carbon is the cause. In order to prove this experiments should be made it prove that it is the cause. That is my opinion. One argument says that carbon is a greenhouse gas. When heat enters the atmosphere, carbon blocks some of it from returning from space. If the heat from the sun gets partially blocked from leaving our atmosphere, then why shouldn't it get partially blocked from entering it in the first place, offsetting the warming effect.

I will try to give you a useful simple explanation.



Light enters the atmosphere mostly as visible light and near infrared. Carbon dioxide's absorption spectrum peaks far out to the right. It's in the micrometer range.



When infrared light is reradiated it does so at longer wavelengths than when it entered. Objects at Earthly temperatures peak in the micrometer range.

How many times has this been explained? Will it matter?

EDITED for 100% less flaming.

EDITED because I still feel there should be justice in the universe.

Urban Dictionary: GOOGLE HARDER

[dan4reason]

Quote by: Thanatos I will try to give you a useful simple explanation. Light enters the atmosphere mostly as visible light and near infrared. Carbon dioxide's absorption spectrum peaks far out to the right. It's in the micrometer range. When infrared light is reradiated it does so at longer wavelengths than when it entered. Objects at Earthly temperatures peak in the micrometer range. How many times has this been explained? Will it matter? EDITED for 100% less flaming. EDITED because I still feel there should be justice in the universe. Urban Dictionary: GOOGLE HARDER

Ok. Carbon is a greenhouse gas. But the question is, is the carbon we are emitting enough to cause all this global warming? I have a source which claims that our temperature readings are flawed. Weather stations give flawed temperature data, meteorologist claims | Washington Examiner
This is very disturbing. What do you say? This discussion can turn out to be very interesting.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: dan4reason I have a source which claims that our temperature readings are flawed. Weather stations give flawed temperature data, meteorologist claims | Washington Examiner This is very disturbing. What do you say? This discussion can turn out to be very interesting.

You have linked to a blog called "Beltway Confidential". I haven't clicked on it yet but this looks bad.

Before clicking on it I predict the weatherman won't be much of a scientist and that it will be rehashing of a very basic fallacy involving the difference between accuracy and precision.

First glance doesn't show he's taking money from anyone. The fossil fuel companies (mostly) stopped funding the information war a few years ago anyway. He did work for Fox briefly but I suspect he's a garden variety fruit of the self-important variety.

Ooh! Here we go. No science degree in any of his biographies, no. However that by itself doesn't prove anything. Lets see if I can get a real crusher in...

Here we go. Cut to 2:30 or so.

YouTube - Climate Denial Crock of the Week - The "Urban Heat Island" Crock

Apparently NOAA not only knew about the difference between accuracy and precision, but also how to compensate for predictable errors. Imagine that.

I found a graph on an opposing blog. Normally I don't like blogs, but the source is this crackpot's own data.



I could lecture you for quite some time on mimetic evolution. Do you know what this is?

But the question is, is the carbon we are emitting enough to cause all this global warming?

Can we overwhelm nature? Mature forests are naturally almost carbon neutral. Living trees store carbon for a time but unless they are permanently buried when they die their carbon will return to the atmosphere.

We act outside this balance. We have released hundreds of millions of years worth of stored carbon and we wonder why it's getting warmer. Nature has no hope of putting it all back where it came from; the process cannot even reach full speed until our planet is very damaged.

Does what we release matter? It's a valid question. What's ironic is that most of the carbon we dig up comes from really warm periods in Earth's history, but you want a more concrete answer.

Anything I link to will boil down to this: people did a lot of tedious math and 40% more CO2 in the air is not good. Furthermore it's coming from us at a rate of a really, really huge number of metric tons per year that happens to have ten zeroes behind it.

[dan4reason]

Quote by: Thanatos You have linked to a blog called "Beltway Confidential". I haven't clicked on it yet but this looks bad. Before clicking on it I predict the weatherman won't be much of a scientist and that it will be rehashing of a very basic fallacy involving the difference between accuracy and precision. First glance doesn't show he's taking money from anyone. The fossil fuel companies (mostly) stopped funding the information war a few years ago anyway. He did work for Fox briefly but I suspect he's a garden variety fruit of the self-important variety. Ooh! Here we go. No science degree in any of his biographies, no. However that by itself doesn't prove anything. Lets see if I can get a real crusher in...

This does look bad for this argument. No degree. I have to say one thing. The fact that this person worked for fox does not mean he is bad or stupid. It just means he has a different opinion.

Here we go. Cut to 2:30 or so. [COLOR=#810081]YouTube - Climate Denial Crock of the Week - The "Urban Heat Island" Crock[/COLOR]

This video is pretty convincing. But there is a little flaw. This video says that because the heating in the globe is not necessarily is urban areas, cities do not have a heating effect. However, non-urban heating may be due to natural causes, and the heating in urban areas can be due to a city environment. The best way to say yes or no to this idea is to actually make some real tests. People should look at the city environment and see if it actually raises the temperature.
There is a video which addresses the flawed temperature readings argument more directly. It is made by the same program which made the last video. Enjoy. YouTube - The Video Climate Deniers Tried to Ban - Climate Denial Crock of the Week

Apparently NOAA not only knew about the difference between accuracy and precision, but also how to compensate for predictable errors. Imagine that. I found a graph on an opposing blog. Normally I don't like blogs, but the source is this crackpot's own data. I could lecture you for quite some time on mimetic evolution. Do you know what this is?

It seems that the flawed temperature readings argument is actually flawed. Thanks for the info. But could you help me better understand this graph? What is your understanding of mimetic evolution?

Can we overwhelm nature? Mature forests are naturally almost carbon neutral. Living trees store carbon for a time but unless they are permanently buried when they die their carbon will return to the atmosphere. We act outside this balance. We have released hundreds of millions of years worth of stored carbon and we wonder why it's getting warmer. Nature has no hope of putting it all back where it came from; the process cannot even reach full speed until our planet is very damaged. Does what we release matter? It's a valid question. What's ironic is that most of the carbon we dig up comes from really warm periods in Earth's history, but you want a more concrete answer. Anything I link to will boil down to this: people did a lot of tedious math and 40% more CO2 in the air is not good. Furthermore it's coming from us at a rate of a really, really huge number of metric tons per year that happens to have ten zeroes behind it.

This generally proves that more carbon is bad, however is there actually some solid evidence that we are changing the temperature significantly? I have heard that we generate a relatively small amount of carbon compared to natural carbon producers. Volcanoes spew out quite a bit of carbon for example. How would this argument be addressed? It seems like the global warming argument is actually more valid than I thought. I want to go through every detail of it to make sure it is the truth.

[tengers]

Quote by: dan4reason This does look bad for this argument. No degree. I have to say one thing. The fact that this person worked for fox does not mean he is bad or stupid. It just means he has a different opinion. This video is pretty convincing. But there is a little flaw. This video says that because the heating in the globe is not necessarily is urban areas, cities do not have a heating effect. However, non-urban heating may be due to natural causes, and the heating in urban areas can be due to a city environment. The best way to say yes or no to this idea is to actually make some real tests. People should look at the city environment and see if it actually raises the temperature. There is a video which addresses the flawed temperature readings argument more directly. It is made by the same program which made the last video. Enjoy. YouTube - The Video Climate Deniers Tried to Ban - Climate Denial Crock of the Week It seems that the flawed temperature readings argument is actually flawed. Thanks for the info. But could you help me better understand this graph? What is your understanding of mimetic evolution? This generally proves that more carbon is bad, however is there actually some solid evidence that we are changing the temperature significantly? I have heard that we generate a relatively small amount of carbon compared to natural carbon producers. Volcanoes spew out quite a bit of carbon for example. How would this argument be addressed? It seems like the global warming argument is actually more valid than I thought. I want to go through every detail of it to make sure it is the truth.

Weather and similar type of phenomena are non-linear and may change as a result of relatively small pertubations in the system. These tipping points are similar to what happens when a smooth laminar flow becomes turbulent. The fellow who first unraveled this was a Professor named York at the University of Maryland. That was the source of the flapping butterfly wings causing weather chaos. In that episode, he had rounded something off at what he thought was an irrelevant decimal place and found out that after several iterations of the computer, he had a completely different result. Weather is a feedback phenomena, as is carbon cycling in the geosphere. There are feedback processes that might result in none, one, two, four, and eight etc... stable conditions and the earth could simply be cycling between carbon or temperature points, or for that matter, so could the radiation emissions coming from the sun. Iterative processes are not well understood and research is on-going. All this aside, it is worth reducing carbon emissions from the acid rain and pollution point of view.

[dan4reason]

Quote by: tengers Weather and similar type of phenomena are non-linear and may change as a result of relatively small pertubations in the system. These tipping points are similar to what happens when a smooth laminar flow becomes turbulent. The fellow who first unraveled this was a Professor named York at the University of Maryland. That was the source of the flapping butterfly wings causing weather chaos. In that episode, he had rounded something off at what he thought was an irrelevant decimal place and found out that after several iterations of the computer, he had a completely different result. Weather is a feedback phenomena, as is carbon cycling in the geosphere. There are feedback processes that might result in none, one, two, four, and eight etc... stable conditions and the earth could simply be cycling between carbon or temperature points, or for that matter, so could the radiation emissions coming from the sun. Iterative processes are not well understood and research is on-going. All this aside, it is worth reducing carbon emissions from the acid rain and pollution point of view.

We do emit about 18 billion tons of CO2 every year. This is huge. But is there real proof that our CO2 is causing the global warming?

[Apeman81]

Some relevant numbers

5,270,000,000,000,000,000 Total mass of Earth’s atmosphere
18,000,000,000 CO2 emissions
.000000033962 Percentage of total atmosphere of CO2 emissions