Global Warming

[justone]

Why do I not find this statment the least bit surprising? Perhaps because you have absolutely nothing as a source that is relevant to the argument and I've easily shown how you're arguments are completely irrelevant.
Oh and by the way, here's a http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2003/Pentagon-Climate-Change1oct03.htm"]DOD report titled [/URL] on Global warming as well. Here's the pdf version in case you'd like to print it out.
As well as a DOD ="https://www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/Library/Climate/docs.html"]webpage that you can educate yourself on this matter.

this is your source:

Imagining the Unthinkable

The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable – to push the boundaries of current research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on United States national security.

We have interviewed leading climate change scientists, conducted additional research, and reviewed several iterations of the scenario with these experts. The scientists support this project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First, they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller.

We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible, and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately.

This is Pentagon. They have to have scenarios for nuclear wars, too.
Then you cry about ""plans"" of using nukes in Iran. No, jfuh , you have absolutely nothing as a source that is relevant to the argument and you yourself easily show how you're arguments are completely irrelevant.

 

[Stinger]

>>Why do I not find this statment the least bit surprising? Perhaps because you have absolutely nothing as a source that is relevant to the argument and I've easily shown how you're arguments are completely irrelevant.<<

Which you have not done. The arguement is not whether there is a long term global warming trend, but what changed the consenus agreement of just 25 years ago. What is the demonstrable evidence that we went from global cooling leading to an ice age to global warming leading to predicted devistation. You said it was because we cleaned soot out of the air, I rebutted with a study that says quite the opposite.

Try again, what was the big discovery?

And again you dodge the direct question, what if we had listened to the scientist plan to warm the globe to prevent the coming ice age they were so convinced was coming.

And your DOD study is a plausibilty and imagined scenario, not evidence of anything, it is NOT a report on Global Warming. It was a bogus cite.

 

[jfuh]

this is your source:

Imagining the Unthinkable

The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable – to push the boundaries of current research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on United States national security.

We have interviewed leading climate change scientists, conducted additional research, and reviewed several iterations of the scenario with these experts. The scientists support this project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First, they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller.

We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible, and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately.

This is Pentagon. They have to have scenarios for nuclear wars, too.
Then you cry about ""plans"" of using nukes in Iran. No, jfuh , you have absolutely nothing as a source that is relevant to the argument and you yourself easily show how you're arguments are completely irrelevant.

That's not the point now is it. The point is that even the Pentagon is acknowledging what would happen when we pass the tipping points of green house gas concentrations. Glad you are missing the point all together and showing it as well.

 

[jfuh]

>>Why do I not find this statment the least bit surprising? Perhaps because you have absolutely nothing as a source that is relevant to the argument and I've easily shown how you're arguments are completely irrelevant.<<

Which you have not done. The arguement is not whether there is a long term global warming trend, but what changed the consenus agreement of just 25 years ago. What is the demonstrable evidence that we went from global cooling leading to an ice age to global warming leading to predicted devistation. You said it was because we cleaned soot out of the air, I rebutted with a study that says quite the opposite.

Try again, what was the big discovery?

And again you dodge the direct question, what if we had listened to the scientist plan to warm the globe to prevent the coming ice age they were so convinced was coming.

And your DOD study is a plausibilty and imagined scenario, not evidence of anything, it is NOT a report on Global Warming. It was a bogus cite.

Hey I thought you weren't going to bother responding anymore. Must have picked that thorn in your thigh a bit huh?
Well the DOD study is meant to show of the many plausible outcomes that would happen in the event that we tipped the scales on green house gas concentrations. Which thank goodness has not happened yet, and deffinetely not happened back in '04.
The point of the source was to show that the case was important enought hat the dod needed to make up plans to deal with the situation in the event that things do happen. That's what a plan is called.
However, unlike you who cite misunderstood data from 2 decades past and perhaps even still believe in blood letting you have failed to present any source that counters anything I've said nor cited. I've disproved every part of your claims. Suck it up man, you know nothing about science.
Quite lame.

 

[alphamale]

Once again, there is no proof, NONE, that human activities provide a significant contribution to the current global warming.

 

[bandaidwoman]

After looking at some of the papers, the climatologists seem split on wether humans contribute to the overall climate change (notice I did not say global warming) . In fact the position paper by the Climatology society does not polarize like the coservative or liberal position on this matter.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/aasc/aascclimatepolicy.pdf#search='climatologists%20conclusions'

The upshot is we still don't know. Good scientists know that this field is still in the hypothesis and testing stage and there is a very healthy discourse amongst themselves although the media latches onto one or the other side of the postion. A good scientist knows we cannot prove the negative hypothesis -human behavior does not contribute to climate change or the positive hypothesis-humans definately contribute to overall climate change...at least not yet.

However, epidemiology (see my previous post) has shown that emissions (human products) do impact on public health. For some, that is reason enough to act.

 

[Gill]

That's not the point now is it. The point is that even the Pentagon is acknowledging what would happen when we pass the tipping points of green house gas concentrations. Glad you are missing the point all together and showing it as well.

I'm sure the Pentagon has plans in case aliens invade the Earth... so what is your point??

The upshot is we still don't know. Good scientists know that this field is still in the hypothesis and testing stage and there is a very healthy discourse amongst themselves although the media latches onto one or the other side of the postion. A good scientist knows we cannot prove the negative hypothesis -human behavior does not contribute to climate change or the positive hypothesis-humans definately contribute to overall climate change...at least not yet.

Thank you!! This is the whole point. Ecowackos like jfuh want to wreck the world's strongest economy on an unproven hypothesis.

 

[Stinger]

Hey I thought you weren't going to bother responding anymore. Must have picked that thorn in your thigh a bit huh?
Well the DOD study is meant to show of the many plausible outcomes that would happen in the event that we tipped the scales on green house gas concentrations.

Which adds nothing to YOUR claim, there are scenarios for all sorts of unthinkable occourances.

Which thank goodness has not happened yet, and deffinetely not happened back in '04.
The point of the source was to show that the case was important enought hat the dod needed to make up plans to deal with the situation in the event that things do happen.

Which addresses nothing that we have been discussing.

However, unlike you who cite misunderstood data from 2 decades past and perhaps even still believe in blood letting you have failed to present any source that counters anything I've said nor cited.

And that is an outright lie on your part.

Yep I should have heeded my last position and given up on trying to have an honest discussion with you.

I've disproved every part of your claims. Suck it up man, you know nothing about science.
Quite lame.

You've done nothing of the sort, have avoid the issue I raise and posted lies about what I have in fact posted. I think anyone reading this thread will clearly see that.

 

[jfuh]

The upshot is we still don't know. Good scientists know that this field is still in the hypothesis and testing stage and there is a very healthy discourse amongst themselves although the media latches onto one or the other side of the postion. A good scientist knows we cannot prove the negative hypothesis -human behavior does not contribute to climate change or the positive hypothesis-humans definately contribute to overall climate change...at least not yet.

However, epidemiology (see my previous post) has shown that emissions (human products) do impact on public health. For some, that is reason enough to act.

Actually the positive hypothesis is also prooven.

 

[jfuh]

I'm sure the Pentagon has plans in case aliens invade the Earth... so what is your point??

WEll if global warming is just a myth as you and your employer put it, why should the pentagon even be worried or make a scenario about it.

Thank you!! This is the whole point. Ecowackos like jfuh want to wreck the world's strongest economy on an unproven hypothesis.

Perhaps you missed her last sentence.
Oh and how does protecting the environment wreck the world's strongest economy? Are you saying then that destroying the environment contributes to growth of the economy?

 

[jfuh]

Which adds nothing to YOUR claim, there are scenarios for all sorts of unthinkable occourances.

REally? Every unthinkable occurance huh? So there're scenarios for dinosaurs taking over the planet?

And that is an outright lie on your part.

Yep I should have heeded my last position and given up on trying to have an honest discussion with you.

Honest? :rofl all you've done is :spin:. Presenting data from 1975 that was not fully understood back then and claiming invalidly that since it's wrong then, it's wrong now. I know ppl like you reject science when it's not in your favor of opinion. I wouldn't be surprised if you rejected evolution as well. I have not lied at all, I've exagerated on the blood letting, but everything else has been an exact explaination of what you've been doing. Going around in circular reasoning and :spin:

You've done nothing of the sort, have avoid the issue I raise and posted lies about what I have in fact posted. I think anyone reading this thread will clearly see that.

You're right about the anyone else will clearly see the lame attempts of spin you've made, not limited to but inclusive of this thread.
In fact not only have you shown you understand nothing about global warming, but lack any grasp of scientific knowledge.
With regards to science, you're far below par.

 

[Gill]

WEll if global warming is just a myth as you and your employer put it, why should the pentagon even be worried or make a scenario about it.


Perhaps you missed her last sentence.
Oh and how does protecting the environment wreck the world's strongest economy? Are you saying then that destroying the environment contributes to growth of the economy?

You have no clue who my employer is. Keep guessing.:rofl

Like I said earlier, it is the Pentagon's job to have scenarios for every conceivable thing.

At this point, global warming has cost 150 billion dollars and the world has reduced the temperature by 0.0015 degree. At that rate, it will take 667 years and 100 TRILLION dollars to reduce temperatures by 1 degree C. What kind of economical affect do you think it will have??

Global warming has nothing to do with the environment. It has everything to do with reducing the influence of America on the world AND getting billions of dollars in research money for its proponents.

 

[jfuh]

You have no clue who my employer is. Keep guessing.:rofl

I don't know who specifically, but if you've been in the cracking industry for 27 years, that dictates that you're employeed in big oil.

Like I said earlier, it is the Pentagon's job to have scenarios for every conceivable thing.

Such as dragons over running the earth?

At this point, global warming has cost 150 billion dollars and the world has reduced the temperature by 0.0015 degree. At that rate, it will take 667 years and 100 TRILLION dollars to reduce temperatures by 1 degree C. What kind of economical affect do you think it will have??

What kind of economical effect will global warming run amoke have on the economy? That would be the total destruction of any economy.

Global warming has nothing to do with the environment. It has everything to do with reducing the influence of America on the world AND getting billions of dollars in research money for its proponents.[/quote]

 

[bandaidwoman]

Perhaps you missed her last sentence.

You are right, funny, no one has addressed the public health issue with any solid counter evidence. :smile: It's easier to rag on the climatology evidence.

 

[Gill]

I don't know who specifically, but if you've been in the cracking industry for 27 years, that dictates that you're employeed in big oil.

Such as dragons over running the earth?

What kind of economical effect will global warming run amoke have on the economy? That would be the total destruction of any economy.

Global warming has nothing to do with the environment. It has everything to do with reducing the influence of America on the world AND getting billions of dollars in research money for its proponents.

And how many industries rely on the petroleum industry for products??? It's probably only a few hundred thousand. :lamo

Yep, wouldn't be surprised if dragons are in one of their scenarios. They get paid to think of everything.

Global warming, if it exists, will have a zero net effect on the economy. Everyone will adjust.

 

[jfuh]

You are right, funny, no one has addressed the public health issue with any solid counter evidence. :smile: It's easier to rag on the climatology evidence.

It's much easier to point to yell and scream about the economic effects that support to stop global warming has vs the actual physiological and ecological effects that global warming would have. It's also easy to simply dismiss it as mythicism. Ignorance is bliss.

 

[Gill]

You are right, funny, no one has addressed the public health issue with any solid counter evidence. :smile: It's easier to rag on the climatology evidence.

Ok, tell me Doc... how does carbon dioxide adversely affect the human body. Don't forget, carbon dioxide is the only emission that is being controlled by Kyoto.

 

[jfuh]

Ok, tell me Doc... how does carbon dioxide adversely affect the human body. Don't forget, carbon dioxide is the only emission that is being controlled by Kyoto.

Show me where or how I spoke about Kyoto here.
Perhaps you could debate without all your big oil propaganda :spin:

 

[Gill]

Show me where or how I spoke about Kyoto here.
Perhaps you could debate without all your big oil propaganda :spin:

Oh ok... I guess you don't advocate reductions in CO2 then... sorry.

 

[Gill]

Here's a new article regarding Canadian scientists concerns over global warming.

Open Kyoto to debate
Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming
Special to the Financial Post
Published: Thursday, April 06, 2006
Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.

While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational

headlines, they are no basis for mature policy

formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise."

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

 

[jfuh]

Oh ok... I guess you don't advocate reductions in CO2 then... sorry.

:2funny:You must really be desperate now since you have nothing to back up your claims. You are aware that there are other policies (ie the new california emmissions bill) that also reduce CO2 right? Also, the only reason why the US did not sign onto KYOTO has nothing to do with emission control, but because neither China nor India get smacked down for emission control due to thier designation as developing nations.

 

[Gill]

:2funny:You must really be desperate now since you have nothing to back up your claims. You are aware that there are other policies (ie the new california emmissions bill) that also reduce CO2 right? Also, the only reason why the US did not sign onto KYOTO has nothing to do with emission control, but because neither China nor India get smacked down for emission control due to thier designation as developing nations.

Any policy that limits CO2 can be thrown in with Kyoto then... doesn't bother me a bit.

 

[jfuh]

Any policy that limits CO2 can be thrown in with Kyoto then... doesn't bother me a bit.

Thus you're dishonesty and arrogance.

 

[Stinger]

REally? Every unthinkable occurance huh? So there're scenarios for dinosaurs taking over the planet?


Honest? :rofl all you've done is :spin:. Presenting data from 1975 that was not fully understood back then and claiming invalidly that since it's wrong then, it's wrong now. I know ppl like you reject science when it's not in your favor of opinion. I wouldn't be surprised if you rejected evolution as well. I have not lied at all, I've exagerated on the blood letting, but everything else has been an exact explaination of what you've been doing. Going around in circular reasoning and :spin:

You're right about the anyone else will clearly see the lame attempts of spin you've made, not limited to but inclusive of this thread.
In fact not only have you shown you understand nothing about global warming, but lack any grasp of scientific knowledge.
With regards to science, you're far below par.

Once again proving you have nothing but hyperbole and misstatments to bring to the table.

 

[jfuh]

Once again proving you have nothing but hyperbole and misstatments to bring to the table.

Turn around and run away stinger. Afterall you're out of your elements here.