• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

AdamT said:
Petermann Glacier Picture: Before And After Images Show Extent Of 2010 Greenland Ice Break (PHOTOS)
Click to expand...

The science of climate change is only getting better as we speak - its stuff like this that you want to refrain from, however. The Earth is a huge place and is most certainly not in equilibrium. Pointing to pictures of a small part of it percentage-wise does not strengthen arguments. The Earth, as a whole has gotten generally warmer and is continuing to trend that way. However, I can certainly point to parts of it (bigger than what you showed), that have gotten colder.
 
iamitter said:
The science of climate change is only getting better as we speak - its stuff like this that you want to refrain from, however. The Earth is a huge place and is most certainly not in equilibrium. Pointing to pictures of a small part of it percentage-wise does not strengthen arguments. The Earth, as a whole has gotten generally warmer and is continuing to trend that way. However, I can certainly point to parts of it (bigger than what you showed), that have gotten colder.
Click to expand...

That's true. But Greenland is of particular concern given the vast amount of ice there and very serious effect it would have on sea levels if it goes bye bye.
 
AdamT said:
That's true. But Greenland is of particular concern given the vast amount of ice there and very serious effect it would have on sea levels if it goes bye bye.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's true. It doesn't have any particular significance in terms of proof, though. About as much as going into a room of 30 people and saying they all wear blue shirts, while using one persons shirt as evidence.
 
Catawba said:
Glad you learned something!
Click to expand...

And what was that? That the earth's temperature is going to change by six degrees?

I suppose I'll have to take your word for that.

Any idea what the cause might be?
 
Catawba said:
LOL! Thanks for your uneducated opinion there anonymous internet guy, it has added so much to the discussion. :sun
Click to expand...

Are you really that thick or did you genuinely not understand the point being made? If you don't understand I'll explain it to you again, but only once.
 
 
Grant said:
Who exposed them as "grad students" and where are they located?
Click to expand...

They exposed themselves. From the start. They didn't expect morons from the media to pick up the story and **** it up beyond all recognition. It was the friggin plot of a movie, for cryin' out loud. Seriously, there was a movie made that had that as the exact plot.

The ultimate moron in anyone who gets their science information from journalists.
 
Tucker Case said:
They exposed themselves. From the start. They didn't expect morons from the media to pick up the story and **** it up beyond all recognition. It was the friggin plot of a movie, for cryin' out loud. Seriously, there was a movie made that had that as the exact plot.

The ultimate moron in anyone who gets their science information from journalists.
Click to expand...

Well it seems like we can now relax and let nature take its course.

Lawrence Solomon: Science getting settled | FP Comment | Financial Post
 
iamitter said:
Yes, that's true. It doesn't have any particular significance in terms of proof, though. About as much as going into a room of 30 people and saying they all wear blue shirts, while using one persons shirt as evidence.
Click to expand...

Globally, glaciers are decreasing on average.
 
Tucker Case said:
I would like to reiterate the last sentence of my previous post:

"The ultimate moron in anyone who gets their science information from journalists."
Click to expand...

Well you can go directly to the source, if you prefer. It's right there in the article.

Do you need help in understanding what the scientists are telling us? Do you understand that much of the information we receive comes from the media? Do you ever get information from the media?

I realize you're trying to make a point of some sort but you're just coming across as quite a thick human being.
 
Grant said:
Well you can go directly to the source, if you prefer. It's right there in the article.
Click to expand...

I've read teh actual article by CERN, not the misinterpretations by people trying to sell more books.

Do you need help in understanding what the scientists are telling us?
Click to expand...

No, do you need help learning the difference between a journaist who has an open agenda and a scientist? Obviously you do since you are clearly under the asinine belief that Solomon is a scientist.

Do you understand that much of the information we receive comes from the media?
Click to expand...

I do not get any of my scientific information from journalists because journalists are so often clueless about science.

Do you ever get information from the media?
Click to expand...

Depends on how you define media. If you define media to include real scientific publications, I will get my scientific information from them from time to time.

Scientific American, for example, is a publication I will read. I usually go to the primary sources anyway, though.

I realize you're trying to make a point of some sort but you're just coming across as quite a thick human being.
Click to expand...

I only come across as thick to those who prefer to wallow in ignorance.
 
Here's a few things to think about for those of you who don't understand science:

The lead editor of Remote Sensing, the journal that carried the Spencer paper that was met with great fanfare by the climate-ignorant has resigned. He stated:

"I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal."
Click to expand...
You see, we were right to be skeptical of a paper with a short time horizon published in an off-topic journal...

Second, the much ballyhooed publication of some initial findings by CLOUD at CERN concerning cosmic ray's influence on cloud nucleation concludes that "atmospheric concentrations of ammonia and sulphuric acid are insufficient to account for observed... nucleation." Good explanation of the science here.

I'm confident after having listened to Mr. Kirkby's interview in the Nature podcast (previous link) that he would concur with some previous findings, such as "No solar hiding place for greenhouse sceptics," by Quirin Schiermeier, also published in Nature.

Sun not to blame for global warming.

A study has confirmed that there are no grounds to blame the Sun for recent global warming. The analysis shows that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays.
Click to expand...

The Kirkby research is important, as it will increase the level of detail of climate models... but to conclude that it somehow disproves - or even contradicts AGW in any way is simply preposterous.

Remember, deniers: science is real. It is politics that are full of BS.
 
nijato said:
The Kirkby research is important, as it will increase the level of detail of climate models... but to conclude that it somehow disproves - or even contradicts AGW in any way is simply preposterous.
Click to expand...

What that research did was pop the pompous declarations that GCM were science, that the science was settled and that there was nothing to debate. Well, those were indefensible positions for GCM were not accounting for this phenomenon, the science clearly was not settled, and there was plenty room to debate many aspects of climate science. The fact that we know how individual processes work doesn't mean that GCM were accurately modeling the system. They couldn't accurately model the system because the scientists writing the code clearly didn't understand how the system worked for they were completely ignorant of a major subsystem in the climate.
 
ric27 said:
What about...Al Gore, the prophet spouting pseudo-science?

I'm (as well as many others) understandably are wary of the Al Gore hysteria crowd because I have strong concerns about their motives. I think that there are folks who are just concerned with the science of it all, but I think they are being coached/funded/channeled or otherwise manipulated to come up with findings that will further certain social/political/economic agendas that are at odds with the continued well being of the United States of America.

Kinda reminds me reminds me a bit about nuclear disarmament arguments, you'd hear back in the 80's. The left I hate America crowd was screaming at the top of their lungs for the western democracies to dismantle their nuclear arsenals, while no similar request was being made of the Soviet Union. WTF???

Fast forward 30 years and the I hate America assholes want western democracies to charge off of a proverbial economic cliff as a knee jerk reaction to the probability that human industrialization is contributing to the Earth's climate change cycles by having everyone make the leap of faith that human civilization can retool itself in such a way that will reverse the process. Yet, even though China surpassed the United States as the world's largest emitter of CO2 in 2006, no indignation is shown at their cavalier attitude towards climate change or any other environmental issue for that matter.....again WTF???? Indeed China, India, and just about every region besides North America and western Europe is conveniently ignored by "I hate America" dumbasses global warming gurus. ...The reality is that if you do make that leap of faith and agree that we can somehow undo the effect human society is having on climate change, attacking the problem by draconian means in just Europe and America isn't going to accomplish **** but remove America from it's superpower status. Europe is already economically irrelevant on the world stage, so comparatively speaking they have little to lose with such a grand experiment.


Global warming hysteria is big business now, and fortunes stand to me made if government regulations can be massaged in the right way.

Thats the bottom line
Click to expand...

Let me clarify a couple of things. First, is it possible to be aware of AGW and not be in the "hate-America crowd?"

Second, here's the real story about money: it's cheaper to mitigate now than adapt later. Also just a fact some are aware of and others are not.
 
nijato said:
Second, here's the real story about money: it's cheaper to mitigate now than adapt later. Also just a fact some are aware of and others are not.
Click to expand...

The opposite is a more defensible position.
 
ric27 said:
For the sake of discussion, if everyone buys into the idea that humans are at fault here there are still two questions that need to be answered. And both of them have serious and potentially culture crushing political and economic implications. 1) What can be done about it and by whom? 2) Who is to administer the necessary changes?

How are you going to convince the peasants who are deforesting South America so they can build farms to feed themselves? How are you going to convince the leadership of China or India who don't care about anything other than gaining an economic upper hand over the west? How are you going to convince the countless tinpot banana republic dictators who shamelessly rape their countries natural resources with old school heavy industry?
Click to expand...

In short, the economic system needs to be altered in two fundamental ways:

1. There needs to be a financial value to ecosystem services provided by natural and made-made environments. As the current economy works, resources gain massive value for being converted into products - with little incentive to retain stocks or ecosystem services (such as water cycling, biodiversity, erosion prevention, habitat, etc.)

2. The costs of putting carbon and other GHGs in the atmosphere needs to be internalized to the market for those who do it. Since carbon in the air contributes to climate instability, the producers of that carbon should pay a price commensurate with the damage it causes.
 
nijato said:
In short, the economic system needs to be altered in two fundamental ways:

1. There needs to be a financial value to ecosystem services provided by natural and made-made environments. As the current economy works, resources gain massive value for being converted into products - with little incentive to retain stocks or ecosystem services (such as water cycling, biodiversity, erosion prevention, habitat, etc.)

2. The costs of putting carbon and other GHGs in the atmosphere needs to be internalized to the market for those who do it. Since carbon in the air contributes to climate instability, the producers of that carbon should pay a price commensurate with the damage it causes.
Click to expand...

Which country do you believe is better equipped to address the consequences which arise from various forms of pollution, the US or Mexico?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom