• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

global warming

Joseph

New member
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
What is everyone's oppinion on global warming? Do you believe in it, etc. I don't really know enought of the facts to believe in it or not, but if it does exist, we really need to take measures to stop it.
 

Loxd4

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2005
Messages
206
Reaction score
0
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
"Mother Earth Is To Big To Be Hurt" said unknow person. If, and only if we did hurt her she would hurt us back.
 

Old and wise

Active member
Joined
Aug 28, 2005
Messages
310
Reaction score
0
Location
New England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Loxd4 said:
"Mother Earth Is To Big To Be Hurt" said unknow person. If, and only if we did hurt her she would hurt us back.
Well, it looks like we did. She is sure as hell hurting us back. And I would say that we deserve it.
 

hiker

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Messages
211
Reaction score
0
Location
at one with nature
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I believe that global warming exists. I believe that humans contribute to global warming. The problem I have is that natural processes on this planet cause, and ever have caused, warming on a much larger scale than we humans have contributed in our short period of industrialization. The environmentalists that want to make a natural cycle of change on this planet into a reason to put controls on industry are missing the point. The Earth changes temperatures without us. It is a static existance, nothing stays the same. Our planet has gone through many periods of both extreme heat and extreme cold, most before we ever evolved. The whole existance of mankind has lived under an incredibly stable period of global temperature.

While we're at it, the whole idea of blaming hurricanes on global warming is quite a fallacy. Cycles of change come and go. Currently, we are under the right jet stream conditions for the formation of more storms than we were 10 years ago.

And as for the power of such storms, our knowledge of such things only goes back a few decades since we have been doing fly-ins while the storms are over open water. The data from these fly-ins is nowhere near enough of a research sample to compare and contrast storms going back hundreds of years to today. We say this or that storm is the whatever # most powerful storm ever, but we really mean the most powerful in the last 30 years. We say that there are more storms now than ever before. It has only been a few decades that we have even tracked such storms. Most hurricanes before, as they do now, stay out at sea and never threaten North America. Those that have struck land over the past centuries hit in uninhabited swamplands. We have had many years like this one over the centuries, we just never knew about it the way we do now.

People have gone into areas like Florida and Louisiana and drained the swamps and put up walls and believe that they have a right to do this. Mother nature has proven otherwise. We may have had hundreds of storms just as powerful as Katrina hit the Mississippi basin area over the last few thousand years. Nobody would ever know, because nobody ever tried to live there. We humans are so damned arrogant, we think we should be able to do whatever we want and pay no consequences for our own actions. Then, a Katrina hits, and we try to blame global warming. Never blame yourself for living in a place you were never meant to settle in the first place, it must be somebody else's fault.
 

Loxd4

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2005
Messages
206
Reaction score
0
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Yes humans contribute to global warming but not like everyone thinks....one volcano eruption does as much damage to the earth as humans can do in a hundred years. And the earth has a cycle of life…..to have life stuff must die……..and soon people will have to die for people to live…..survival of the fittest that is the way of the future not computers....that is if we don't die from a nuclear war but then again that is a cycle of life.
 

ddoyle00

Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
246
Reaction score
0
Location
3000 miles east of you
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The whole hoopla surrounding global warming has been overblown by the media and scientists wanting more grant money. Remember in the 80's it was all the rage. Global warming and after 10 years it went away. Then it was killer bees or West Nile Virues mosquitos and now its a variation of the Spanish Flu that was already beaten back in WW1.

Anyone who has taken an Earth Science class and paid attention to the chapter about paleoclimatology can tell you that we are in an epoch known as the Pleistecine Era. This is an era of glacial retreat and has been going on for about 1,000 years. The Earth has a fairly predictible schedule of Ice Ages and then warming up. Right now we are warming up.The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.

The highest temperatures during this period occurred in about 1940. During the past 20 years, atmospheric temperatures have actually tended to go down based on very reliable satellite data, which have been confirmed by measurements from weather balloons.
What mankind is doing is moving hydrocarbons from below ground and turning them into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with twice as much plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the industrial revolution.

Go to NOAA or any astrophysics webpage and look at their graphs about sunspot activity which again is fairly predictible and you will see weather is a direct reflection of the suns activity. What heats up the Earth then? The Sun heats up the Earth. All the carbon we are releasing into the air only adds to the atmosphere which in turn reflects solar activity. People are really conceited to think that we can directly affect something that has been going on for hundreds of million of years. Volcanoes release more pollutants than man ever will. Its another example of the media using scare tactics on its audience.
__________________
 
F

FireUltra 98

ddoyle00 said:
The whole hoopla surrounding global warming has been overblown by the media and scientists wanting more grant money. Remember in the 80's it was all the rage. Global warming and after 10 years it went away. Then it was killer bees or West Nile Virues mosquitos and now its a variation of the Spanish Flu that was already beaten back in WW1.

Ah the 80's, those were fun days. It started with the end of the 70's and the environmentalists scaring us with global cooling. Global cooling, another ice age due to man's rage against earth!

Then by the late 80's it was global warming. Global warming, we're warmer than we've ever been (except for all those times you see on the weather channel when the high temp for any given day was in 1908).

In the 90's we were too busy with sex, Clinton, sex, high tech stocks, sex, Monica, sex . . .did I mention Clinton? Anyway, it was sort of forgotten until Kyoto. Everyone was for Kyoto until the rational started to see that such a plan would be an economic burden to their respective economies. That China and India didn't have to participate. US never signed (voted on by both GOPers and Dems) and Britain just pulled out months ago.

Ah yes, everything that was old will be new again . . .the "New", new ice age/global cooling scare will be next I'm sure. But look at the bright side, after the next "global cooling" scare we only need to wait for one more "global warming" scare in order to get back to sex, White House sex, inflated stocks and sex.

:mrgreen:
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
141
Reaction score
11
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Loxd4 said:
Yes humans contribute to global warming but not like everyone thinks....one volcano eruption does as much damage to the earth as humans can do in a hundred years.
It isn't about damage, it's about warming. Volcanoes only emit about 1% as much co2 per year as humans do, and erupts tend to cool the earth rather than warm it.

Ah the 80's, those were fun days. It started with the end of the 70's and the environmentalists scaring us with global cooling. Global cooling, another ice age due to man's rage against earth!
Climate Scientists never claimed global cooling during the 70's. Perhaps you are thinking of the media.

Anyone who has taken an Earth Science class and paid attention to the chapter about paleoclimatology can tell you that we are in an epoch known as the Pleistecine Era
The Pleistocene ended 10,000 years ago.

During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today.
Nope, the warmest period of the last 3,000 years is today. The medieval warm period was about 0.4C colder than today.

The highest temperatures during this period occurred in about 1940. During the past 20 years, atmospheric temperatures have actually tended to go down based on very reliable satellite data, which have been confirmed by measurements from weather balloons.
This is not correct either. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Satellite_Temperatures.png for satellite measurement trends. Also I notice you haven't mentioned surface measurements.

What mankind is doing is moving hydrocarbons from below ground and turning them into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with twice as much plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the industrial revolution.
reads like communist propaganda

Go to NOAA or any astrophysics webpage and look at their graphs about sunspot activity which again is fairly predictible and you will see weather is a direct reflection of the suns activity.
Maybe it has in the past, but global warming concerns the recent warming. Solar output in the last 20 years has not increased: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar-cycle-data.png, but global mean temperature has.

What heats up the Earth then? The Sun heats up the Earth. All the carbon we are releasing into the air only adds to the atmosphere which in turn reflects solar activity.
It traps thermal energy on the earth. The more co2, the warmer it gets.

People are really conceited to think that we can directly affect something that has been going on for hundreds of million of years.
People are really ignorant to assume that we can't directly affect something that has been going on for hundreds of million of years. Algae changed the climate dramatically in the past, yet you think humans can't do such a thing?

Volcanoes release more pollutants than man ever will.
It's an easy assumption to make, but it's wrong. Volcanoes only emit about 1% as much co2 per year as humans do. Volcanoes also tend to cool the earth, rather than warm it when they errupt.

Its another example of the media using scare tactics on its audience.
Yes everyone is rightly skeptical of the media aren't they? But why isn't anyone skeptical of the skeptics? If you think the media gets it wrong, the internet (blogs, forums, etc) are far less accurate on any subject matter. Question where you got most of your information from about global warming, because they were lying to you far more than the media has ever done on the subject.
 
F

FireUltra 98

When GLobal Warming comes up in the media, it seems to always reoprt that "studies" or the "recent study" confirms that Global Warming exists. Unfortunately, the "new" study is based on the same old studies -- chief among them the 1996 IPCC ‘s "Summary for Policy Makers" -- whose conclusions rest on three fallacious claims:


1) Based on historical weather data, average global temperatures have risen dramatically in the latter half of the 20th Century.

2) Scientific research indicates that the cause of such rising temperatures is man made.

3) There is a consensus among scientists supporting both claims.


The first claim -- that global temperatures have risen dramatically since 1940 -- finds its source in the approximately 100 year-old temperature record of the National Weather Service. According to the NASA report, Global Climate Monitoring: The Accuracy of Satellite Data, though, the NWS record is based strictly on surface temperature readings. When weather balloon and satellite records are examined one finds temperatures either stayed the same or actually declined by as much as 1 degree F during that period.

What if we step outside the NWS box?

Data extrapolated from tree ring, ice core and lake sediment indicate that in the 18th Century the average world sea and surface temperatures were 71 degrees F. Climatologists refer to this period as "The Little Ice Age." Such data also show that in 1000 BCE the average global temperature was over 25 degrees Celsius or 77 degrees F. By comparison, the average global temperature in 1999 was 73.5 degrees F. The conclusion to reach about the claim of dramatically rising global temperatures in the latter half of the 20th Century is clear. First, it depends on where you stick your thermometer, on the surface, (whose reading will be highly inaccurate due to urban hot spots) or in the atmosphere (the most accurate readings). Second, the significance of the data depend upon the historical climate record of the planet. Here, as with any kind of scientific data, context and perspective is everything.

Of the second claim, that the cause of global warming is man-made, environmental activists point to the correlation between recent global industrialization and the sweltering summers of 1998 and 1999. A correlation, though, is not proof of cause. If global industrialization were the cause of planetary warming, the satellite and balloon temperature record from 1940 to 1980 -- a period of far greater worldwide

industrialization -- would show a marked increase in average global temperatures, which it does not. Indeed, such data show temperatures declining.

A cause and effect relationship, though, has been discovered between solar activity and global temperatures. Danish climatologists Friis-Christensen and K. Lassen (in the 1991 issue of Science) and Douglas V. Hoyt and Dr. Kenneth H. Schatten (in their book, The Role of the Sun in Climate Change) found that "global temperature variations during the past century are virtually all due to the variations in solar activity."

What about carbon dioxide levels? Scientists have found that past carbon dioxide levels, based, again, on historical and pre-historical tree ring, ice core and lake sediment samples, have changed significantly without human influence. Note, too, that between 1940 and 1980, when man-made levels of CO2 swelled rapidly, there was a decline in temperatures.

If scientific temperature records belie global warming; if scientists conclude that global temperatures are minimally affected by man; where, then, is scientific consensus -- the third claim supporting the notion of global warming? The answer is: there isn't any.

In 1996 the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the IPCC -- released a document titled, "Summary for Policy Makers," which supported the notion of global warming. Environmentalists crowed that 15,000 scientists had signed the document.

However, the report was doctored without the knowledge of most of those 15,000 scientists, whose protests became so vocal that the lead authors backed off their conclusions, disavowing the document as "a political tract, not a scientific report."

In 1998, 17,000 scientists, six of whom are Nobel Laureates, signed the Oregon Petition, which declares, in part: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. "

In 1999 over ten thousand of the world's most renowned climatologists, astrophysicists, meteorologists, etc., signed an open letter by Frederick Seitz, NAS Past President, that states, in part: the Kyoto Accord is "based upon flawed ideas."

Finally, in a paper in June of 2001, aptly titled, GLOBAL WARMING: The Press Gets It Wrong -- our report doesn't support the Kyoto treaty, Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: "Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens."

In light of these facts, if the continual resurrection of the issue of global warming in the media is not a consummate example of the Big Lie, I'd be hard pressed to find a better one.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
141
Reaction score
11
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
FireUltra 98 said:
The first claim -- that global temperatures have risen dramatically since 1940 -- finds its source in the approximately 100 year-old temperature record of the National Weather Service.
That's grossly wrong. The National Weather Service is not the source of the claim of global warming, and neither is it the source of data that supports that claim.

When weather balloon and satellite records are examined one finds temperatures either stayed the same or actually declined by as much as 1 degree F during that period.
This is either incorrect or out of date data, because satellite data show a warming.

The conclusion to reach about the claim of dramatically rising global temperatures in the latter half of the 20th Century is clear. First, it depends on where you stick your thermometer, on the surface, (whose reading will be highly inaccurate due to urban hot spots)
Nope. Rural measurements show a similar warming.

Of the second claim, that the cause of global warming is man-made, environmental activists point to the correlation between recent global industrialization and the sweltering summers of 1998 and 1999.
environmental activists aren't scientists. The case for man-made global warming is not based on the "sweltering summers of 1998 and 1999". That's a sidestep to avoid the actual case.

A correlation, though, is not proof of cause. If global industrialization were the cause of planetary warming, the satellite and balloon temperature record from 1940 to 1980 -- a period of far greater worldwide industrialization -- would show a marked increase in average global temperatures, which it does not. Indeed, such data show temperatures declining.
Nope it shows temperatures rising. Again the data used here is either out of date or incorrect. Also it is believed that aerosols released during this period caused a cooling effect and masked the warming.

A cause and effect relationship, though, has been discovered between solar activity and global temperatures. Danish climatologists Friis-Christensen and K. Lassen (in the 1991 issue of Science) and Douglas V. Hoyt and Dr. Kenneth H. Schatten (in their book, The Role of the Sun in Climate Change) found that "global temperature variations during the past century are virtually all due to the variations in solar activity."
Oh hang on I thought a correlation is not proof of cause....I wonder why the author makes an exception for solar forcings...bias perhaps?

What about carbon dioxide levels? Scientists have found that past carbon dioxide levels, based, again, on historical and pre-historical tree ring, ice core and lake sediment samples, have changed significantly without human influence.
That's irrelevant though, because the recent spike in co2 levels could have been caused by man whether or not co2 levels have risen and fallen naturally in the past.

Note, too, that between 1940 and 1980, when man-made levels of CO2 swelled rapidly, there was a decline in temperatures.
No there wasn't.

If scientific temperature records belie global warming; if scientists conclude that global temperatures are minimally affected by man; where, then, is scientific consensus -- the third claim supporting the notion of global warming? The answer is: there isn't any.
There is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

In 1998, 17,000 scientists, six of whom are Nobel Laureates, signed the Oregon Petition, which declares, in part: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. "

In 1999 over ten thousand of the world's most renowned climatologists, astrophysicists, meteorologists, etc., signed an open letter by Frederick Seitz, NAS Past President, that states, in part: the Kyoto Accord is "based upon flawed ideas."
This is all wrong in a number of ways. It is easier just to read wikipedia's explaination of the Oregon Petition to see why: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition.

First the "open letter" was actually a covering letter for the Oregon Petition. Second there were not ten thousand "most renowned climatologists, astrophysicists, meteorologists, etc". Only 13% of the Oregon Petition signers had degrees in physical or environmental sciences, so the author is revealed as distorting the truth here, probably for some agenda. Third, quoting Wikipedia: The text of the petition is often misrepresented as, for example, "over 17,000 scientists declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis" whereas the petition itself only speaks of catastrophic warming.

Also you can be against Kyoto, but accept global warming btw.

In light of these facts, if the continual resurrection of the issue of global warming in the media is not a consummate example of the Big Lie, I'd be hard pressed to find a better one.
Evolution perhaps? </sarcasm>
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
141
Reaction score
11
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
FireUltra 98 said:
Thank goodness environmental policy isn't based on Wikipedia.
I find many skeptics of global warming tend to oppose it not on scientific grounds, but because they disagree with certain environmental policies which they wrongly think they would have to accept if they accepted man caused global warming.

But I suppose the advocates of bad environmental policies like kyoto would have an easier time promoting them if everyone accepted global warming existed. Perhaps in order to prevent bad policy like Kyoto it is necessary to cover up the evidence for global warming. What do you think?
 

tecoyah

Illusionary
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
10,428
Reaction score
3,836
Location
Louisville, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I think there is more than enough Data to confirm the earth is in a warming Cycle....period. Does this mean we are making it happen...No. But it does mean we should pay attention to it, and accept it is occuring, if we intend to be around in a couple hundred years as a species. There are natural cycles this planet goes through that will cause it to heat and cool. Some involve aspects we have no control over whatsoever (Solar Cycles and such), perhaps if we just quit bitching about what causes it, and focused on what we need to do in a worst case scenario....Our great grandkids wouldnt need 1000SPF sunscreen to pick the shriveled vegetables they grow in the shade.
 

ddoyle00

Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
246
Reaction score
0
Location
3000 miles east of you
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Onion, dismissing the Oregon Petition and citing Wikpedia as proof is hardly conclusive evidence. I could go on-line and fill in my own defintion of global warming on Wikpedia because thats how it works. Anyone can use it and fill in their own definition.

But you are right about the increase in global warming. The July edition of Scientific American (more reliable than Wikpedia) noted that the average temperature has increased__________.7 C in the last decade.

I will post the exact issue since I have copies all over the place later.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
141
Reaction score
11
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
ddoyle00 said:
Onion, dismissing the Oregon Petition and citing Wikpedia as proof is hardly conclusive evidence. I could go on-line and fill in my own defintion of global warming on Wikpedia because thats how it works. Anyone can use it and fill in their own definition.
I think the wikipedia system is generally good when it comes to self-correction. The Oregon petition is clearly about showing opposition to Kyoto. The problem is with it being misinterpreted as saying those who signed it oppose man-caused global warming. A person could sign it who accepted man-caused global warming, but didn't see any evidence that the warming would be catastrophic.
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
306
Location
Geelong, Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I remember from by plant biology classes, my lecturer telling me about global warming;

If we still have the actual biomass remaining, increased carbon dioxide increases the effeciency of rubisco, so photosythetic rates should increase, and we should see a global greening, and in turn a reduction in carbon dioxide as carbon is sequestered from the atmosphere.

Although he did mention that some experiments in increased carbon dioxide glasshouses, had shown that plants show a slight drop in protein production and quality. This could have detremental consequences to agriculture.

Carbon dioxide is not the enemy. What is the enemy is the destruction of the rainforrests that can actually counter balance any change in carbon dioxide levels.
 
F

FireUltra 98

OnionCollection said:
I find many skeptics of global warming tend to oppose it not on scientific grounds, but because they disagree with certain environmental policies which they wrongly think they would have to accept if they accepted man caused global warming.

But I suppose the advocates of bad environmental policies like kyoto would have an easier time promoting them if everyone accepted global warming existed. Perhaps in order to prevent bad policy like Kyoto it is necessary to cover up the evidence for global warming. What do you think?

Thanks for the reply (this was much better than you earlier one). My personal opinions on this issue:

Have we experienced a global warming period, yes.

Is is all due to mankind and industry, no.

Is Kyoto a bad proposal, yes. It doesn't do any good to not include China and India, not to mention the negative impact on our economy. That's why Dems and GOPers didn't approve it and why Blair wanted out.

Should we be promoting more fuel efficient, CO2 reducing technologies, yes. But the market has to want them. What the market wants, the market will get.

Those are my personal opinions on Global Warming. Thanks Onion.
 
F

FireUltra 98

Intersting piece in the SF Chronicle.

Here's the article, link below it.

Debra J. Saunders
Thin green line is bad science
Debra J. Saunders

Thursday, November 17, 2005

THERE IS A MYTH in the American media. It goes like this: The good scientists agree that global warming is human induced and would be addressed if America ratified the Kyoto global warming pact, while bad heretical scientists question climate models that predict Armageddon because they are venal and corrupted by oil money.

A Tuesday Open Forum piece in The Chronicle, written by a UC Berkeley journalism professor and a UC Berkeley energy professor, provided a perfect example of this odd view that all scientists ascribe to a common gospel: "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a U.N.-sponsored group of more than 2,000 scientists from more than 100 countries, has concluded that human activity is a key factor in elevated carbon-dioxide levels and rising temperatures and sea levels that could prove catastrophic for tens of millions of people living along Earth's coastlines." The piece also cited research by "Naomi Oreskes, a science historian at UC San Diego, who reviewed 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed articles on climate change published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and could not find a single one that challenged the scientific consensus that human-caused global warming is real."

The authors then attacked best-selling author Michael Crichton because Crichton accepted an invitation to testify from Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., "who is heavily supported by oil and gas interests" and who -- horrors -- dared to ask whether the global-warming scare is a hoax. That is the sort of McCarthyist guilt-by-association that one would not expect to encounter in the name of science.

Crichton spoke at an Independent Institute event Tuesday night with three apostate scientists.

It's odd that Oreskes couldn't find a single article that didn't follow the thin green line on global warming. Panelist and Colorado State University professor of atmospheric science William M. Gray, a hurricane authority, announced that he thinks that the biggest contributor to global warming is the fact that "we're coming out of a little ice age," and that the warming trend will end in six to eight years.

Said Gray, sagely: "Consensus science isn't science."

No lie. In fact, it's a bizarre argument. Why do global-warming believers keep pushing this everyone-agrees line when consensus uber alles is so, well, unacademic? The ideal should not be scientists who think in lockstep, but those in the proud mold of the skeptic, who takes a hard look at the data and proves conventional wisdom wrong.

Independent Institute President David Theroux hailed that trait in this year's co-winner of the Nobel Prize for medicine, Barry Marshall, who believed ulcers were caused by bacteria, when the establishment knew that Marshall's theory was "preposterous" -- except that Marshall turned out to be right.

Crichton focused on the many times that fad science has been wrong.

Remember Y2K? Ho-hum.

The population-bomb scare? Yawn. Then there's Yellowstone, the national park that declined due to rangers' misbegotten (and often fatal for the wildlife) conviction that they knew what was best for the animals -- in this case, they killed wolves and they overprotected elk until the whole ecosystem suffered.

On Tuesday, Inhofe issued a statement from Capitol Hill that noted how scientists with independent views don't get on too well with the IPCC. Witness Chris Landsea of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who resigned from the IPCC this year because he believed an IPCC top hurricane scientist wrongly linked severe hurricanes to global warming; as a result, he wrote, "the IPCC process has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost."

I've seen this when covering failed educational fads: Curriculum boards chase out the freethinkers, then smugly announce that all the experts agree with them -- so they must be right.

What did Gray think of the Oreskes report? "It shows you how we've all been brainwashed."
This story was brought to you by someone who is 100% sponsored by oil money:2razz:

This is pretty much my position too (can't believe I'm agreeing with somebody from the SF Chronicle). When "global warming" comes up in converstion over coffee or adult beverages, my typical answer is the earth is far too complex and dynamic to think we vain humans are controlling its due course. I'm not against new technologies and the need for clean air and clean water and hybrid vehicles are really cool, I'm just not jumping on any Kyotos that make absolutely no economic sense. Is the world warming yes. Are we to blame for it, I don't believe so. Will the earth cool again, yes. Will we be the cause of it, I don't believe so.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/17/EDGODFP0BQ1.DTL&feed=rss.news
 
F

FireUltra 98

The three "apostate scientists" were,

George H. Taylor is the State Climatologist for Oregon and Professor of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University.

William M. Gray is Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University, head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU, and a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.

Sallie Louise Baliunas is a research astrophysicist and former Deputy Director and Director of Science Programs at Mount Wilson Observatory. The recipient of the Newton-Lacy-Pierce Prize and the Bok Prize, she received her Ph.D. in astrophysics from Harvard University
>
>
Crack pots all . . . like me.
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,264
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
OnionCollection said:
That's grossly wrong. The National Weather Service is not the source of the claim of global warming, and neither is it the source of data that supports that claim.

Not what he, or it says, read more carefully.

This is either incorrect or out of date data, because satellite data show a warming.

Satellite data not shown to be more accurate than locally gathered data, and how long have those satellites been up there? They are good for showing current trending over large areas, tho.


Nope. Rural measurements show a similar warming.

Same trend probably, but same amount of change?


Nope it shows temperatures rising. Again the data used here is either out of date or incorrect. Also it is believed that aerosols released during this period caused a cooling effect and masked the warming.

Again with out of date or incorrect, but no sources.


That's irrelevant though, because the recent spike in co2 levels could have been caused by man whether or not co2 levels have risen and fallen naturally in the past.

And there are more factors in the greenhouse gas issue than co2 that need to be considered.
Whatever the cause of global warming, and whether or not man is a major contributor, I would hazard an unscientific guess that less than 1% of the citizens of the industrialized nations of the earth are doing anything to use less energy, or use it in a more environmentally friendly manner. Probably even less among members of this forum.
It is an issue of the future, when we are actually getting bit on the butt.
THEN, if there is something we can do, we might. But I suspect that there is nothing we can do to stop the warming trend. It will have to run its course much as has always happened here on planet earth.:2wave:
 

Slantedfacts

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Location
Reality Super HiWay
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Joseph said:
What is everyone's oppinion on global warming? Do you believe in it, etc. I don't really know enought of the facts to believe in it or not, but if it does exist, we really need to take measures to stop it.
Great Question!

Let me present a question"

What would the world be like WITHOUT IT?

IF the ice age didn't thaw would Canadian cities be JUST Eskimo igloo's 10-stories high?

Wasn't the thawing of the Ice Age "GLOBAL WARMING"?
 

sissy-boy

Banned
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
1,321
Reaction score
0
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Joseph said:
What is everyone's oppinion on global warming? Do you believe in it, etc. I don't really know enought of the facts to believe in it or not, but if it does exist, we really need to take measures to stop it.

Not believing in global warming is like not believing in gravity. The earth's temperature is raising and this is recognized by most all. Where I think people argue is on the point of of the cause of the warming.
 

sissy-boy

Banned
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
1,321
Reaction score
0
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Slantedfacts said:
Great Question!

Let me present a question"

What would the world be like WITHOUT IT?

IF the ice age didn't thaw would Canadian cities be JUST Eskimo igloo's 10-stories high?

Wasn't the thawing of the Ice Age "GLOBAL WARMING"?

Uhhm. It would be like it was in the lat ice age? Why don't you move back to that time period and tell us what it was like.
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The air I breath is causing it? I need to stop exhaling, for the sake of mother earth! :lol:
 

goligoth

Active member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
323
Reaction score
0
Location
location
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
How much is the earth warming by per year?
 
Top Bottom