Global Warming

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Pooey..direct quotes from your ref on the hockeystick.. I added the emphasis! I'm suprised you imply centainty to this admittedly flawed study that has been used as a starting point about the cause of climate change?

Please don't quote out of context, you seem to omit the latter part;

Climate scientists, however, are only too aware of the problems (see Climate myths: It was warmer during the Medieval period), and the uncertainties were both highlighted by Mann's original paper and by others at the time it was published.

However, I do apologise, I don't think I quite understood what you meant by

I have also posted references by scientists who say that the 'hockey stick' graph was misaapplied because if ommitted the global warming data of the past, and thus accentuated the recent warming trend? It was statistically flawed!

Which data was been omitted?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio No Pooey, it's a Global Warming fear machine. They thrive off people like you.

Please justify your accusations with evidence.

[Mozart1220]

Republicans hate the thought of human enhanced global warming because it means critisizing the fossil fuel industry.

Global temprature change happens naturally, true. But the crap we've been pumping into the air the last hundred years is acellerating the process. Either way, refusing to prepare for the inevitable is foolish in the extreme, but what do you expect? Look who the President is.

[xyzer]

Mozart opines

Global temprature change happens naturally, true. But the crap we've been pumping into the air the last hundred years is acellerating the process. Either way, refusing to prepare for the inevitable is foolish in the extreme, but what do you expect? Look who the President is

Inevitable what? Check out this latest revelations refuting the alarmism which has run rampant through the press.
http://http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm/Wire_ID/3967

"NASA's top administrator, Michael Griffin, speaking on NPR radio made some refreshingly sensible comments about the present global warming scare," said Robert Ferguson, Director of the Science and Public Policy Institute. "Many rationalist scientists agree with him, clearly demonstrating there is no scientific consensus on man-made, catastrophic global warming," said Ferguson.

What is the optimum global temperature level? Have not past climate changes and fluctuations been experienced? Will not a continued warming trend have advantages to humanity as well as disadvantages?
Is it not prudent to direct our resources to adapting to climate change rather than trying to change it?

Is there absolute proof that human caused emissions have an affect on climate?
Get real! The Kyoto Protocol and agreement was turned down before Bush took office. The Senate has the role of approving or disproving such treaties?

[Mozart1220]

Yes, there is ABSOLUTE PROOF that humans are INFLUENCING teprature change.

Has it always happened? Sure, but we are ACCELLERATING it by pumping greenhouse gasses like methane and CO2 into the air.

[xyzer]

Here is another piece of evidence about the often outrageous claims of scientific consensus about warming and whats influencing it.
Pooey was making similar claims some time back and this bit of research indicates there isn't consensus among leading scientists.
http://http://www.canada.com/nationa...1-5c755457a8af
From the reference...

"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled." S o said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Here is another piece of evidence about the often outrageous claims of scientific consensus about warming and whats influencing it. Pooey was making similar claims some time back and this bit of research indicates there isn't consensus among leading scientists. http://http://www.canada.com/nationa...1-5c755457a8af From the reference...

I'm sorry but did you actually read the article? It refers to a poll in 1992 to which I have no access to. Are you expecting me to take the The Financial post of Canada as a prime source of info for the scientific community?

Now, are you aware of who the National Academy of Sciences are? This is their view in 2005, which is before the 2007 IPCC report and unless they changed their minds recently, I think their view still stands.
Now, note at the bottom, there are multiple signatures from the representatives of each national Academy.
Please find a different Red Herring to dangle around.

[Mr.Vicchio]

"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled." S o said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.

Yep.

View Larger Image View Larger Image Al Gore's views have credible dissenters. David McNew, Getty Images File Photo Email to a friendEmail to a friendPrinter friendlyPrinter friendly Font: * * * * * * * * More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet. I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies.

interesting...

My series set out to profile the dissenters -- those who deny that the science is settled on climate change -- and to have their views heard. To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose high-ranking scientists at the world's premier scientific establishments. I considered stopping after writing six profiles, thinking I had made my point, but continued the series due to feedback from readers. I next planned to stop writing after 10 profiles, then 12, but the feedback increased. Now, after profiling more than 20 deniers, I do not know when I will stop -- the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series. Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists -- the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects -- and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction. Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position.

They call this a consensus?

I bring this for Pooey to read. There is some fascinating insight, unless of course.. this is all "anecdotal" and not worth his time... like anything that does preach what eh wants to hear... but I bring it anyway.

[xyzer]

There you go again Pooey?

I'm sorry but did you actually read the article? It refers to a poll in 1992 to which I have no access to. Are you expecting me to take the The Financial post of Canada as a prime source of info for the scientific community?

Vicchio answered your usual simplistic reaction to the article. Did you read the whole thing? Of course he referred to Gores original 1992 nonsense. That was the reason he researched the issue.

I posted only the reference to the recent article and if you read it you can't help but get the drift. There are plenty of reputable scientists who dispute your, and the IPCC, alarmist predictions.
This directly refutes your several posts assuring us that the majority of the worlds scientists agreed with the IPCC and Gores conclusions. I have repeatedly questioned your believing in the certainty of the IPCC conclusions. This article and the series show there are plenty who didn't assign certainty to the conclusions. From what I get from all this is that anthropogenic CO2 is not conclusively a major cause. Most seem to feel further research is in order.

[Pooeypants]

Mr Vicchio, did you read my article? It has the signatures from 11 different National Academies of science from around the world including the USA, UK, Germany, Russia, China etc. They are all leading researchers in science and are representative of the bulk of the scientific community in their nation. The consensus is there but you want to bury your head in sand.

I will also asked, who are these so called top echelon of scientists which the financial post of that site is talking about?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer There you go again Pooey? Vicchio answered your usual simplistic reaction to the article. Did you read the whole thing? Of course he referred to Gores original 1992 nonsense. That was the reason he researched the issue. I posted only the reference to the recent article and if you read it you can't help but get the drift. There are plenty of reputable scientists who dispute your, and the IPCC, alarmist predictions. This directly refutes your several posts assuring us that the majority of the worlds scientists agreed with the IPCC and Gores conclusions.

I don't care about Al Gore, I don't use his materials in my debate so you're just dangling a red herring. Who are these reputable scientists? Please name them.
Wait, quoting someone from 15 years helps to make your case because of what?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Pooey, you didn't even ready the article, all the people are listed, with articles and links to the interviews with them. So while I read yours, which is why I posted mine, to give a counter, we see who is willing to look at other information, and whose a blind puppet.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Pooey, you didn't even ready the article, all the people are listed, with articles and links to the interviews with them. So while I read yours, which is why I posted mine, to give a counter, we see who is willing to look at other information, and whose a blind puppet.

There are many, many links on that article. I find that linking directly to the pages relevant is more convenient.
Anyway, I presume I am to click on The deniers link, which leads to this page. Basically, this particular "expert" is going on about Mann et al's infamous hockey stick graph, which I have already dealt with.
In fact, all the points that the financial post brings up has been countered by New scientist. So given that the latter is a scientific magazine and all the major National Academies of science in the world are in agreement on the matter of anthropogenic Global warming, I think we can both see how shaky your arguments stand.

[Mr.Vicchio]

See folks! Pooey has all the answers! No need to debate Global Warminging anymore!

Any expert that, scientist or the like that has an alternative view, pooey has "dealt with"

He's a preeminent scientist in the field, has training, papers to prove he is "an expert" little people like me that lived Meteorology for 10 years, well we are just fools.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio See folks! Pooey has all the answers! No need to debate Global Warminging anymore! Any expert that, scientist or the like that has an alternative view, pooey has "dealt with" He's a preeminent scientist in the field, has training, papers to prove he is "an expert" little people like me that lived Meteorology for 10 years, well we are just fools.

I see, so you don't actually have anything of value to add, just the usual sarcastic commentary. It never ceases to amaze me how you can remain sceptical in the face of so much data and support.
I have never claimed to be an expert, I have never used my personal experiences as evidence for my argument. Everything that I have said can be traced to official references, so aside from rhetoric and the same old tired attacks, do you actually have some science to back your side? I look forward to another of your witty retorts.:rolleyes:

[Vivid]

Ideas to stop global warming:

Ive read that Americans can reduce our emissions by 50% simply by doing things to conserve energy. Apparently, we somehow waste half of it. Not clear on the details. But Ive seen stuff like... huge parking lots, where every single one of those giant flood lights is left on alllll niiiiight loooooong. That cannot possibly be necessary, even as a security measure. A few simple motion sensors could allow them to turn all those lights off.

I read that 50% of the CO2 being released into the atmosphere is actually due to forest fires. We could start clearing the dead trees from as many forests as possible. That would significantly reduce the risk of fires. As a bonus, we will have sequestered that carbon and maybe we can simply toss the dead trees into the desert where they will petrify instead of rotting and releasing the co2?.

Wait a minute. Why does the graph go down each time? If we get it to a certain point in warming, will something change, that reverses the process and cools us off?

Hmmm.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Pooey, I just have to ask you (which I did in PM but you didn`t address directly) that since methane gas has been identified as one of the leading gases that leads to global warming, and of all the causes that contribute to methane production, animal agriculture is one of the major ones, why wouldn`t you adopt a vegetarian diet to help impact on methane production? Is it that you feel only government and corporate enttities have the responsibility to address the problems through self regulation and that individuals shouldn't do as much as possible in their daily lives to do so?

If you feel that individuals in their daily lives are not under an onus of responsibility to make as much an effort as possible in contributing to lessening global warming, and lessening methane is quite within their ability to do so through consumer choice, then doesn`t that paint you as a hypocrite for not adopting a lifestyle that would best meet your concerns for global warming at an individual level? Individuals adopting a vegetarian diet could have a large impact on the problem in a positive way.

[Mr.Vicchio]

SHW, like the God of the Global Warming Movement, whose personal energy use and C02 Output far exceeds the average man, Pooey doesn't haven't to change his life. Why? Because this really isn't about "Global Warming" it's about empowering government to have more say in peoples live, more control.

If Global Warming were truly the threat pooey claims it is, an Algore... and all the rest of those zealots, they'd be bike riding vegans that only ate from the local "farmers market" and spent little time inside.

They don't. They like their personal lifestyles, and you can't crimp that, they "believe".

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Pooey, I just have to ask you (which I did in PM but you didn`t address directly) that since methane gas has been identified as one of the leading gases that leads to global warming, and of all the causes that contribute to methane production, animal agriculture is one of the major ones, why wouldn`t you adopt a vegetarian diet to help impact on methane production? Is it that you feel only government and corporate enttities have the responsibility to address the problems through self regulation and that individuals shouldn't do as much as possible in their daily lives to do so? If you feel that individuals in their daily lives are not under an onus of responsibility to make as much an effort as possible in contributing to lessening global warming, and lessening methane is quite within their ability to do so through consumer choice, then doesn`t that paint you as a hypocrite for not adopting a lifestyle that would best meet your concerns for global warming at an individual level? Individuals adopting a vegetarian diet could have a large impact on the problem in a positive way.

Right, let me start off with my personal opinion that, as we are born to be omnivores, we've evolved to rely on eating meat for our protein and iron. However, current modern diet has far too much meat in it so whilst I'd yield to a lower in take of meat, I don't think a complete cessation of its ingestion is acceptable. Same reason why I'd accept that we need to be allowed to produce CO2 during energy production but it needs to be better regulated; a compromise is required.

Although Methane is a big player in the atmosphere, it's still 2nd place compared to Carbon dioxide so in short, reducing our methane emissions will not have significant impact unless we curb that of the CO2.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio SHW, like the God of the Global Warming Movement, whose personal energy use and C02 Output far exceeds the average man, Pooey doesn't haven't to change his life. Why? Because this really isn't about "Global Warming" it's about empowering government to have more say in peoples live, more control. If Global Warming were truly the threat pooey claims it is, an Algore... and all the rest of those zealots, they'd be bike riding vegans that only ate from the local "farmers market" and spent little time inside. They don't. They like their personal lifestyles, and you can't crimp that, they "believe".

There you go again, sprouting your rhetoric. Do you anything of value to add other than your anecdotes and sarcasm? If not then don't post in this thread.

Now, I have never, ever talked about Global warming in a big doom and gloom fashion. You simply assumed (wrongly) that's what I thought and you (along with Xyzer) will always bring Al Gore as an example. Even though I tell you that I have never watched his film or read his books, but yet you persist with this red herring.
Not only that, but you, yourself are a doomsayer who thinks that tackling global warming will bring an end to the world's economy when that is simply not true.

So please, try again and this time, think before you speak.