• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Global warming revisited

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
New facts seem to be gearing to blow the global warming Junk science out of the water.
Text
Caught a blurb on the news this morning also about a researcher at the University of Wisconsin Madison who is now saying that the warming trend actually ended in 2000 and that we have started a new cooling trend.
I wish I could remember what he called his theory.. It was chaotic something or other that basically offered a natural explanation of cooling and warming trends. will have to try and find a link later when I have more time.

Don't expect the Gore congregation however to give up as it will now just become a more generic form of impending doom.
 

retrospooty

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2002
2,031
74
86
Yup... I never thought too much of it, this planaet has survived far worse than us puny humans, many times in the past. It may not be a great time to buy beachfront property, but we will be fine. =)
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Yup... I never thought too much of it, this planaet has survived far worse than us puny humans, many times in the past. It may not be a great time to buy beachfront property, but we will be fine. =)
The big concern is not the planet, it's us. The planet would surely survive most of the catastrophic events we can think of; short of an impact with a celestial body of enormous mass or our sun going supernova (which it isn't even remotely large enough to do anyway), there's really nothing that's going to destroy the planet itself. But us? We're fragile. The planet may survive an impact by a 10 mile wide meteor, but we'd probably all die. The concern with global warming is not that it will destroy the planet, it's that it would destroy humans (and, to a lesser extent, other life).
 

retrospooty

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2002
2,031
74
86
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Yup... I never thought too much of it, this planaet has survived far worse than us puny humans, many times in the past. It may not be a great time to buy beachfront property, but we will be fine. =)
The big concern is not the planet, it's us. The planet would surely survive most of the catastrophic events we can think of; short of an impact with a celestial body of enormous mass or our sun going supernova (which it isn't even remotely large enough to do anyway), there's really nothing that's going to destroy the planet itself. But us? We're fragile. The planet may survive an impact by a 10 mile wide meteor, but we'd probably all die. The concern with global warming is not that it will destroy the planet, it's that it would destroy humans (and, to a lesser extent, other life).
Short of a major catastrophe such as a large asteroid, or full out nuclear war... There really isnt much that could hurt us either. Global warming at worst could have the sea levels rise, losing some valuable beach front property. Its not like mankind ceases to exist. Some science says that it could make the oceans less salty, disrupting the ocean currents and plunge us into an ice age - still, primitive man survived that last ice age - I am sure modern man with modern tech will do the same. - not that its going to happen =)
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,605
3,732
126
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Yup... I never thought too much of it, this planaet has survived far worse than us puny humans, many times in the past. It may not be a great time to buy beachfront property, but we will be fine. =)
The big concern is not the planet, it's us. The planet would surely survive most of the catastrophic events we can think of; short of an impact with a celestial body of enormous mass or our sun going supernova (which it isn't even remotely large enough to do anyway), there's really nothing that's going to destroy the planet itself. But us? We're fragile. The planet may survive an impact by a 10 mile wide meteor, but we'd probably all die. The concern with global warming is not that it will destroy the planet, it's that it would destroy humans (and, to a lesser extent, other life).
Short of a major catastrophe such as a large asteroid, or full out nuclear war... There really isnt much that could hurt us either. Global warming at worst could have the sea levels rise, losing some valuable beach front property. Its not like mankind ceases to exist. Some science says that it could make the oceans less salty, disrupting the ocean currents and plunge us into an ice age - still, primitive man survived that last ice age - I am sure modern man with modern tech will do the same. - not that its going to happen =)
"Us" doesn't really mean Species. Or should I say: "I don't give a fuck about the Species. What about your Children and their Children, what kind of Life do you want them to have?"

Is it ok to cause a disaster because your Descendant will find a way for a few to survive to repopulate afterwards?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Yup... I never thought too much of it, this planaet has survived far worse than us puny humans, many times in the past. It may not be a great time to buy beachfront property, but we will be fine. =)
The big concern is not the planet, it's us. The planet would surely survive most of the catastrophic events we can think of; short of an impact with a celestial body of enormous mass or our sun going supernova (which it isn't even remotely large enough to do anyway), there's really nothing that's going to destroy the planet itself. But us? We're fragile. The planet may survive an impact by a 10 mile wide meteor, but we'd probably all die. The concern with global warming is not that it will destroy the planet, it's that it would destroy humans (and, to a lesser extent, other life).
Short of a major catastrophe such as a large asteroid, or full out nuclear war... There really isnt much that could hurt us either. Global warming at worst could have the sea levels rise, losing some valuable beach front property. Its not like mankind ceases to exist. Some science says that it could make the oceans less salty, disrupting the ocean currents and plunge us into an ice age - still, primitive man survived that last ice age - I am sure modern man with modern tech will do the same. - not that its going to happen =)
Well add disease and famine. The problem is that there is this religious faith that technology will produce a deux ex machina and rescue us at the last minute. I don't know what the eventual outcome of the warming debate will be, but if the climate heads south and there are massive crop failures you'll know it.

Despite our cozy surroundings, you are a week away from starvation.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
141
116
I don't doubt man can survive global warming or global cooling.

The problem has to do with how we'll maintain our standard of living through such a period.

The answer is: we can't.

Any major global environmental event has serious consequences for our way of life. It's almost analogous to our banking meltdown. When times were good, we supported reckless growth and consumption. When times are bad, that house of cards falls apart.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,686
25,764
136
What I think is funny is that the article mentions the fact that the IPCC has long said that natural factors can certainly compensate for the increased CO2 levels, and so seeing some sort of constant increase is not necessarily going to happen it is the long range forecast is one of increased temperatures.

Then, someone comes out and says the exact same thing, and it's celebrated by the MAsher folks as some sort of BREAKTHROUGH ON THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM. Give me a break people.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
29
86
For every "expert," there is an equal but opposite "expert"

You might get a better understanding of the problem if you get off your pre-conceived biases and start with just a few of facts.

1. Expanding human population and production of greenhouse gasses and waste material per human being have both expanded greatly in the last century.

2. The quantity and the very nature of waste materials being produced, today, including plastics and other previously non-existent materials, is also growing. At least some of the long term effects of some of these newer materials is unknown simply because they haven't been around long enough to know how they will behave.

3. There is no question or doubt that the chemical balance of our atmosphere and our rivers, lakes and oceans has been altered by this increased production.

4. There is no question or doubt that at least some of the known chemical components are harmful to human beings and our society.

The LEAST likely assumption regarding the possilbity that this change in the balance of components is that they will have no effect. The dumbest, most pig headed, stupid response to these facts is to do nothing and wish that the problem would go away.

The smartest, most enlightened response to this increased pollution is to use our intelligence and creativity to reduce the causes of such pollution. If we do, the worst that could happen is that global warming and other effects believed to be caused by increased pollution are not as grave as the worst case scenario, and we end up saving a ton of money due to increased efficiencies in transportation and anything else that uses energy to operate.

I can live with that. :thumbsup:

OTOH, the worst that could happen if we keep our heads in our asses and ignore it is a catastrophy for which we're not prepared and, even if we COULD HAVE dealt with it had we been smart enough to try. :shocked:
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,686
25,764
136
Actually Harvey, for each anti-global warming 'expert' there are dozens and dozens of pro-global warming 'experts'.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,220
26
91
Remember guys, its "Climate change" now. That way, no matter what happens, it can be attributed to the impending doom. Oh, and so the studies can keep being funded. But that is a whole different issue ;)
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
29
86
Originally posted by: eskimospy

Actually Harvey, for each anti-global warming 'expert' there are dozens and dozens of pro-global warming 'experts'.
Actually, I know that. I was just trying to make it easy for the scientifically and mathmatically challenged. :thumbsup:

Was that you I saw riding around on that dinosaur the other day? ;)
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Remember guys, its "Climate change" now. That way, no matter what happens, it can be attributed to the impending doom. Oh, and so the studies can keep being funded. But that is a whole different issue ;)
What do you actually KNOW about global climate change (it's been called that since the studies started in the early 60's)?

Have you actually studied the abstracts, there are A LOT of them, do you know how to contract data from studies? Do you understand that the entire worlds scientists (apart from the odd nutcase who also denies that evolution is even possible) agree that this is actually happening? No, they don't know the pace, but for a COOLING PERIOD the temperature is too warm and what about the next WARMING PERIOD then?

Christ, don't comment on things because you feel that it will further your party line, i haven't studied it much but i know tons more than most others, it seems.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,993
100
106
Sigh, so much FUD about global warming. These days, people are so scientifically illiterate that they think snow in DC in the winter is proof positive that GW does not exist. Sure, there is some evidence that shows a temporary leveling off or slowing down of the trend, but the overall trend still overwhelmingly supports GW. Since we know for the most part what causes it, both natural and man-made, that trend is unlikely to reverse itself in the intermediate term, barring some abrupt event non-climatalogical in origin (large volcano, asteroid/meteor, nuclear war, etc, etc) changing things.

The planet will happily go on without us. What we do here and now is what will affect our children and grandchildren as far as climatological conditions go. Over geologic time scales, the planet can ultimately correct whatever we screw up, but that is little consolation to our immediate progeny.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,260
4
81
such waste time and effort. there's going to be a geomagnetic shift on Dec 21, 2012 and 99% of us will die.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: JS80
such waste time and effort. there's going to be a geomagnetic shift on Dec 21, 2012 and 99% of us will die.
If it was anyone but you i'd thought it was sarcasm, but since it IS you i think your preacher told you that and you believe it.

I'm just suprised you don't blame it all on homosexuals or abortionists or islamists this time around, you usually do that.
 

retrospooty

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2002
2,031
74
86
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Yup... I never thought too much of it, this planaet has survived far worse than us puny humans, many times in the past. It may not be a great time to buy beachfront property, but we will be fine. =)
The big concern is not the planet, it's us. The planet would surely survive most of the catastrophic events we can think of; short of an impact with a celestial body of enormous mass or our sun going supernova (which it isn't even remotely large enough to do anyway), there's really nothing that's going to destroy the planet itself. But us? We're fragile. The planet may survive an impact by a 10 mile wide meteor, but we'd probably all die. The concern with global warming is not that it will destroy the planet, it's that it would destroy humans (and, to a lesser extent, other life).
Short of a major catastrophe such as a large asteroid, or full out nuclear war... There really isnt much that could hurt us either. Global warming at worst could have the sea levels rise, losing some valuable beach front property. Its not like mankind ceases to exist. Some science says that it could make the oceans less salty, disrupting the ocean currents and plunge us into an ice age - still, primitive man survived that last ice age - I am sure modern man with modern tech will do the same. - not that its going to happen =)
"Us" doesn't really mean Species. Or should I say: "I don't give a fuck about the Species. What about your Children and their Children, what kind of Life do you want them to have?"

Is it ok to cause a disaster because your Descendant will find a way for a few to survive to repopulate afterwards?
OF course its not OK to cause a disaster, and of course I want a good life for my children/grandchildren etc... Who doesnt?

What I am saying is that we are NOT causing a disaster.

We need to get off of oil for these reasons, in order

#1 Economically - we spend way too much money on power, most of which is spent importing Oil
#2 Political - Most of what we spend on Oil is funding countries that hate America and our way of life (for example Saudi Arabia)
#3 Environment. Its not good breathing all the crap in the air. Smog in major cities is rediculous.

Global warming is not proven, and what science is out there is highly debatable. Get it?
 

Pacfanweb

Lifer
Jan 2, 2000
13,131
54
91
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Sigh, so much FUD about global warming. These days, people are so scientifically illiterate that they think snow in DC in the winter is proof positive that GW does not exist. Sure, there is some evidence that shows a temporary leveling off or slowing down of the trend, but the overall trend still overwhelmingly supports GW. Since we know for the most part what causes it, both natural and man-made, that trend is unlikely to reverse itself in the intermediate term, barring some abrupt event non-climatalogical in origin (large volcano, asteroid/meteor, nuclear war, etc, etc) changing things.

The planet will happily go on without us. What we do here and now is what will affect our children and grandchildren as far as climatological conditions go. Over geologic time scales, the planet can ultimately correct whatever we screw up, but that is little consolation to our immediate progeny.
GW might be real, but whether it's man-made is VERY highly debatable, and there is FAR from a consensus of scientists that agree on this. In fact, it may well be that more scientists disagree about man-made GW than agree.

Read these links:

Text
Text

Fifty nine additional scientists from around the world have been added to the U.S. Senate Minority Report of dissenting scientists, pushing the total to over 700 skeptical international scientists ? a dramatic increase from the original 650 scientists featured in the initial December 11, 2008 release. The 59 additional scientists added to the 255-page Senate Minority report since the initial release 13 ½ weeks ago represents an average of over four skeptical scientists a week. This updated report ? which includes yet another former UN IPCC scientist ? represents an additional 300 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial report?s release in December 2007.

The over 700 dissenting scientists are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers
That's from the last link
edit: Also, in the last link, read the quotes from many very prominent scientist about their skepticism of man-made GW.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Yup... I never thought too much of it, this planaet has survived far worse than us puny humans, many times in the past. It may not be a great time to buy beachfront property, but we will be fine. =)
The big concern is not the planet, it's us. The planet would surely survive most of the catastrophic events we can think of; short of an impact with a celestial body of enormous mass or our sun going supernova (which it isn't even remotely large enough to do anyway), there's really nothing that's going to destroy the planet itself. But us? We're fragile. The planet may survive an impact by a 10 mile wide meteor, but we'd probably all die. The concern with global warming is not that it will destroy the planet, it's that it would destroy humans (and, to a lesser extent, other life).
Short of a major catastrophe such as a large asteroid, or full out nuclear war... There really isnt much that could hurt us either. Global warming at worst could have the sea levels rise, losing some valuable beach front property. Its not like mankind ceases to exist. Some science says that it could make the oceans less salty, disrupting the ocean currents and plunge us into an ice age - still, primitive man survived that last ice age - I am sure modern man with modern tech will do the same. - not that its going to happen =)
"Us" doesn't really mean Species. Or should I say: "I don't give a fuck about the Species. What about your Children and their Children, what kind of Life do you want them to have?"

Is it ok to cause a disaster because your Descendant will find a way for a few to survive to repopulate afterwards?
OF course its not OK to cause a disaster, and of course I want a good life for my children/grandchildren etc... Who doesnt?

What I am saying is that we are NOT causing a disaster.

We need to get off of oil for these reasons, in order

#1 Economically - we spend way too much money on power, most of which is spent importing Oil
#2 Political - Most of what we spend on Oil is funding countries that hate America and our way of life (for example Saudi Arabia)
#3 Environment. Its not good breathing all the crap in the air. Smog in major cities is rediculous.

Global warming is not proven, and what science is out there is highly debatable. Get it?
It's been deemed sound science by the overwhelming majority of the worlds scientists but perhaps YOU know better?

Perhaps you really don't, get it?
 

retrospooty

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2002
2,031
74
86
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Yup... I never thought too much of it, this planaet has survived far worse than us puny humans, many times in the past. It may not be a great time to buy beachfront property, but we will be fine. =)
The big concern is not the planet, it's us. The planet would surely survive most of the catastrophic events we can think of; short of an impact with a celestial body of enormous mass or our sun going supernova (which it isn't even remotely large enough to do anyway), there's really nothing that's going to destroy the planet itself. But us? We're fragile. The planet may survive an impact by a 10 mile wide meteor, but we'd probably all die. The concern with global warming is not that it will destroy the planet, it's that it would destroy humans (and, to a lesser extent, other life).
Short of a major catastrophe such as a large asteroid, or full out nuclear war... There really isnt much that could hurt us either. Global warming at worst could have the sea levels rise, losing some valuable beach front property. Its not like mankind ceases to exist. Some science says that it could make the oceans less salty, disrupting the ocean currents and plunge us into an ice age - still, primitive man survived that last ice age - I am sure modern man with modern tech will do the same. - not that its going to happen =)
"Us" doesn't really mean Species. Or should I say: "I don't give a fuck about the Species. What about your Children and their Children, what kind of Life do you want them to have?"

Is it ok to cause a disaster because your Descendant will find a way for a few to survive to repopulate afterwards?
OF course its not OK to cause a disaster, and of course I want a good life for my children/grandchildren etc... Who doesnt?

What I am saying is that we are NOT causing a disaster.

We need to get off of oil for these reasons, in order

#1 Economically - we spend way too much money on power, most of which is spent importing Oil
#2 Political - Most of what we spend on Oil is funding countries that hate America and our way of life (for example Saudi Arabia)
#3 Environment. Its not good breathing all the crap in the air. Smog in major cities is rediculous.

Global warming is not proven, and what science is out there is highly debatable. Get it?
It's been deemed sound science by the overwhelming majority of the worlds scientists but perhaps YOU know better?

Perhaps you really don't, get it?
As mentioned above - For every scientist that says global warming is a catastrophe, there is another that disagree's... So like I said, its highly debatable. This is not what "I know", this is what the worlds scientists are debating... Nothing is proven.

Regardless, we need to get off oil and stop our nasty emissions. Not necesarily becasue of global warming, but for the other reasons I outlined. If the fear of global warming helps get it done, then good. I am all for it =)
 

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Yup... I never thought too much of it, this planaet has survived far worse than us puny humans, many times in the past. It may not be a great time to buy beachfront property, but we will be fine. =)
The big concern is not the planet, it's us. The planet would surely survive most of the catastrophic events we can think of; short of an impact with a celestial body of enormous mass or our sun going supernova (which it isn't even remotely large enough to do anyway), there's really nothing that's going to destroy the planet itself. But us? We're fragile. The planet may survive an impact by a 10 mile wide meteor, but we'd probably all die. The concern with global warming is not that it will destroy the planet, it's that it would destroy humans (and, to a lesser extent, other life).
Short of a major catastrophe such as a large asteroid, or full out nuclear war... There really isnt much that could hurt us either. Global warming at worst could have the sea levels rise, losing some valuable beach front property. Its not like mankind ceases to exist. Some science says that it could make the oceans less salty, disrupting the ocean currents and plunge us into an ice age - still, primitive man survived that last ice age - I am sure modern man with modern tech will do the same. - not that its going to happen =)
You have an odd view of hurt.

Global warming could kill the world's grain baskets. That's famine. It will make droughts more common, prompting countries with less water to attack those with more. That's war. It will force mosquitos and other vector carriers to migrate to more hospitable climes, such as middle Europe and middle America. That's pestilence. It's not a pretty picture. Sure, in 200 years, mankind will probably be over the worst excesses caused by global warming, but do you really want to leave that kind of world for your immediate descendants?
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,993
100
106
Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Sigh, so much FUD about global warming. These days, people are so scientifically illiterate that they think snow in DC in the winter is proof positive that GW does not exist. Sure, there is some evidence that shows a temporary leveling off or slowing down of the trend, but the overall trend still overwhelmingly supports GW. Since we know for the most part what causes it, both natural and man-made, that trend is unlikely to reverse itself in the intermediate term, barring some abrupt event non-climatalogical in origin (large volcano, asteroid/meteor, nuclear war, etc, etc) changing things.

The planet will happily go on without us. What we do here and now is what will affect our children and grandchildren as far as climatological conditions go. Over geologic time scales, the planet can ultimately correct whatever we screw up, but that is little consolation to our immediate progeny.
GW might be real, but whether it's man-made is VERY highly debatable, and there is FAR from a consensus of scientists that agree on this. In fact, it may well be that more scientists disagree about man-made GW than agree.

Read these links:

Text
Text

Fifty nine additional scientists from around the world have been added to the U.S. Senate Minority Report of dissenting scientists, pushing the total to over 700 skeptical international scientists ? a dramatic increase from the original 650 scientists featured in the initial December 11, 2008 release. The 59 additional scientists added to the 255-page Senate Minority report since the initial release 13 ½ weeks ago represents an average of over four skeptical scientists a week. This updated report ? which includes yet another former UN IPCC scientist ? represents an additional 300 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial report?s release in December 2007.

The over 700 dissenting scientists are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers
That's from the last link
edit: Also, in the last link, read the quotes from many very prominent scientist about their skepticism of man-made GW.
Even so, the way it has been portrayed in the media has been that it is an either/or choice on whether it is man-made or not. No scientist would claim that this is the case. Besides, skepticism is warranted on some of the more specific claims of GW. Not all of the direct links are understood, but what we do know what certain scenarios are should specific thresholds be crossed. I would go so far as to say that a consensus exists on GW as a whole, just not the relative weight of the causes. Where most outright disagreement occurs is when people try to craft policy from this....which is more politics than science.

I don't necessarily agree with the metric they used for this, comparing whether a selected group of UN scientists agree with one report or another. There is way more out there in terms of research on climate change and I'm not even sure that the survey is statistically significant compared to the actual number of scientists who work on climatological research. I'm not dismissing your links, I just remain skeptical. :)

Thanks for the links. :beer:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY