Watch the web for climate change truths

[Enig101]

Originally posted by: IGBT
..the Carbon-Con is on and your all in play. the eco-theists will cut heads off rather then admit it's all a racket and a hoax. Both sides of the isle see huge revenue from punitive tax and Carbon-Con credits racket. The green slime balls are frothing at the mouth to punish us all for using energy.

I like that hat. Tin foil is it? Very fashionable.

 

[NeoV]

'watch the web" for climate change truths - of course if you link to an op piece that is the truth, right?

How about listening to actual scientists?

"NASA's satellite observations showed that while this winter's ice extent didn't dip below previous records, it was still well below the average amount seen in the past."

Hmm- that doesn't seem to match "highest ever recorded" now, does it?

http://www.livescience.com/env...318-polar-sea-ice.html

"The Carbon--Con" - does that come with a tin-foil hat?


PJ is beyond reasoning with.

Pale - while I agree that our current state of ethanol 'frenzy' in this country is a bad thing, in a few years it will be a much more profitable, integrated industry - it won't be using corn, food prices will stabilize, and in the long run it will do what it's being put in place to do - to lessen our reliance on oil - mostly foreign oil, I might add -which, global warming or not, is a good thing.

The GW discussion is a good thing, if for no other reason, than people are finally talking about it - talking about hybrid or electric cars no longer makes you the butt of a joke - it's technology that this country should have started to develop after the oil crisis in the mid 70's - see Brazil.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Craig234
You're caught up in the irrelevancies.

The only people I've heard act like the important is is whether it's man-made are the right.

To try to respond to them, and as part of understanding the issue and causes, the scientists try to respond. I see the right try to look for any little cracks they can in whether it's 99.8 or 99.3 percent man-made and pretend that they're discussing something important, that if they can find some detail that might not be confirmed, then they've debunked Global Warminng as an issue. It's a lot of hooey.

What's important is what will the effects be, including the probabilities, and what can we do to mitigate them, and what makes sense to do.

The right's seeming to be so mired down in trying to treat it as a two-sided political issue they have to 'win' not because it's right but because that's all they know how to do with the 'other side', that they're once again working hard to miss the important issue, once again putting politics ahead of the important things.

Hey, PH, I see you found another chance to work your 'nanny' political attack into a topic, to try to make some ideological point that the left is trying to make people feel 'guilty'.

You miss the important issue, you actively are battling those who are trying to do the right thing. Why don't you back off the politics an try to stick to the sicence and the issue?

and, once again, you lump me in with "teh evul right," as though everyone who opposes you wears the same damn robe.

I've stated 1000 times on this forum that I believe some GW-related regulaton and legislation can't hurt; because, regardless of the actual causes of GW, anything any of us do to live more cleanly can only help.

IOW, changing certain habits and being innovative certainly wont hurt, so GW-inspired change cant be all bad.

The only problems I really have are when the regulation or legislation become TOO invasive, or when folks like Gore try to make everyone feel guilty. After all, the title of his craptastic film is "An Inconvenient Truth" -- if that's not meant to inspire guilt within all who wander by, by title alone, I don't know what is.

I also have a problem when members of either party, or either "side," dismiss articles and opposite POV's outright -- just as you have in this thread.

It makes some of us wonder why you're so quick to dismiss criticism... especially the "op-ed" angle many posters here have taken.

Once again, is the following quoted data fact, or is it merely "opinion" as many of you have claimed?

On April 24 the World Wildife Fund (WWF), another body keen to keep the warmist flag flying, published a study warning that Arctic sea ice was melting so fast that it may soon reach a "tipping point" where "irreversible change" takes place. This was based on last September's data, showing ice cover having shrunk over six months from 13 million square kilometres to just 3 million.

What the WWF omitted to mention was that by March the ice had recovered to 14 million sq km (see the website Cryosphere Today), and that ice-cover around the Bering Strait and Alaska that month was at its highest level ever recorded. (At the same time Antarctic sea ice-cover was also at its highest-ever level, 30 per cent above normal).

If it's fact, and the WWF has effectively been spreading FUD in order to inspire guilt and a legislative response, then why is PJ under attack for linking to an article that points that out?

Is it possible that the article, like most, is a combination of fact and opinion? *gasp*... imagine that...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

"Oh noes!!! the data doesn't fit our model!! Quick change the model!!!"

That's how modeling works. If your model doesn't fit the data, then you adjust the model until it agrees with the data. What would you rather them do - change the data to fit their model? :roll:

Now that you've demonstrated your ignorance beyond any reasonable doubt, kindly leave science to the scientists and we will leave the knuckle dragging to knuckle draggers like you. You have no idea about the scientific merit of any of these theories and just believe whatever your political overlords tell you to believe. I'm sick of every idiot on the internet who has read an op-ed piece thinking that they understand the complexities of climate science. No one understands all of the complexities of climate science, which is why people still study it. If you think that we should have a comprehensive, completely accurate model that tells us everything about the planet's weather patterns, then you are absolutely clueless about anything science related.

I believe PJ's main problem, and mine, is the maniacal nature of some GW preachers who spend their entire lives trying to convince everyone that the entire phenomenon is man-made, rather than a natural cyclical event; and that we should all feel guilty for the rest of our lives -- their goal being to guilt all of us into giving the government more of our money to try and make up for our apparent destructiveness through pointless regulation and invasive nanny-esque legislation.

Then there are maniacal anti-GW people who try to first deny that GW exists, then say that human influence has any significant effect.

The first step is ridiculing the vast majority of climate scientists, then affixing names to lists opposing GW, who never signed it, then marginalizing them via Rush tactics.

Since the research may wind up costing businesses money, or altering the economic foreground, it's best to kill it.

And before someone brings up Gore, let it be known I haven't signed aboard his ship.

Businesses and uber free marketers want to kill any notion that GW has any connection with human action because it may cost money. Too effin bad I say.

While we are at it, what's all this "It's going to cost so much to fix things" attitude? The Industrial revolution was free? Oil? Electricity? Interstates?

They all CREATED wealth, but the established who would not invest lost, and no doubt the same mentality exists. Someone is going to invent new technologies if we don't exterminate it first. Some new industries and progress will happen. But in their mission to prevent businesses from "suffering" and promoting the free market, the free market must be constrained to stay with old technology by those who have a vested interest in keeping the status quo.

There is a problem. It nature and scope of it needs to be identified, and it ties in with the energy and political problems around the world. Americans have excelled BECAUSE of challenges, not because they submarine those who raise concerns and are willing to address them.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Yep, global warming is all a conspiracy by the godless liberals who want to impact the bottom line of those wonderful corporations who look out for human kind's best interest...:roll:

Awesome.. you just proved exactly what the article in the OP said.

Note the line "Last summer sea ice in the North shrank to a record low" in your article.

Then note that they left out the fact that "by March the ice had recovered to 14 million sq km (see the website Cryosphere Today), and that ice-cover around the Bering Strait and Alaska that month was at its highest level ever recorded."

ROFL! You are proving my point. There are arguments and opinions on both sides of the GW issue, both claiming the other side are morons.
If you go to the NOAA site in the link I posted, you'll find this:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/s...8/20080502_arctic.html

"Arctic: Experienced seasonal temperatures that at times were more than four degrees Fahrenheit warmer than usual"

"Arctic: Summer sea ice loss was greater and declining more rapidly than climate models projected. "

"Arctic: There are multiple causes for change.
?In the Arctic, there is a combination of factors, such as warming of the air because of more greenhouse gases, an unusual wind pattern, and warming of the ocean water in regions with reduced sea ice,? said Overland."

"Arctic: Sea ice losses will continue. The study says that a combination of factors has sent the Arctic into a new state of sea ice loss, which is occurring much earlier than projected by climate models subject to greenhouse gases alone.
?Additional warming of the ocean and an overall thinning of the sea ice makes it difficult for the Arctic to now return to earlier conditions,? says Overland."


NOAA, after all, is a branch of the US Government, not some liberal "think tank" who's trying to make money by selling carbon credits...


Myself, I believe that Global Warming is real, but is not totally man-caused. I DO believe however, that we are making things worse with all the pollution we're pumping into the atmosphere.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: glenn1
Ya know Prof John, you certainly spend a lot of time trying to disprove something you say doesn't exist. If you honestly disbelieved it, you'd let the rubes have their little manmade-global warming fantasy without interfering.

Their little fantasy is causing the price of food to rise globally and if the fools in congress get their way we will be seeing a lot more of our paycheck disappear in an effort to fight GW.

You need a fact-checker, PJ, considering you seem to have no idea what's causing the price of food to rise globally.

 

[piasabird]

A lot of silly assumptions are made. For Instance the Arctic Ice and the currrents in the Arctic are not constant. NASA says that there is a 10 year cycle of general thawing and freezing due to changes in the water currents.

 

[Genx87]

All I know is this last Winter in MN was awful. I think we were off about 5-7 degree's on avg. I'd love to see how we faired in April. The lakes are finally shedding their ice up north, about a month late.

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Yep, global warming is all a conspiracy by the godless liberals who want to impact the bottom line of those wonderful corporations who look out for human kind's best interest...:roll:

Awesome.. you just proved exactly what the article in the OP said.

Note the line "Last summer sea ice in the North shrank to a record low" in your article.

Then note that they left out the fact that "by March the ice had recovered to 14 million sq km (see the website Cryosphere Today), and that ice-cover around the Bering Strait and Alaska that month was at its highest level ever recorded."

ROFL! You are proving my point. There are arguments and opinions on both sides of the GW issue, both claiming the other side are morons.
If you go to the NOAA site in the link I posted, you'll find this:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/s...8/20080502_arctic.html

"Arctic: Experienced seasonal temperatures that at times were more than four degrees Fahrenheit warmer than usual"

"Arctic: Summer sea ice loss was greater and declining more rapidly than climate models projected. "

"Arctic: There are multiple causes for change.
?In the Arctic, there is a combination of factors, such as warming of the air because of more greenhouse gases, an unusual wind pattern, and warming of the ocean water in regions with reduced sea ice,? said Overland."

"Arctic: Sea ice losses will continue. The study says that a combination of factors has sent the Arctic into a new state of sea ice loss, which is occurring much earlier than projected by climate models subject to greenhouse gases alone.
?Additional warming of the ocean and an overall thinning of the sea ice makes it difficult for the Arctic to now return to earlier conditions,? says Overland."


NOAA, after all, is a branch of the US Government, not some liberal "think tank" who's trying to make money by selling carbon credits...


Myself, I believe that Global Warming is real, but is not totally man-caused. I DO believe however, that we are making things worse with all the pollution we're pumping into the atmosphere.

Whether global warming is real or not, or man-caused or not is completely beside the point. What *is* important is what you do with that point of view vis a vis the policies you advocate, and whether those policies have any realistic chance of being adopted. Right now, those who believe in manmade global warming have the same success ratio as the tinfoil hat wearers who want us to go back to the gold standard.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: glenn1
Ya know Prof John, you certainly spend a lot of time trying to disprove something you say doesn't exist. If you honestly disbelieved it, you'd let the rubes have their little manmade-global warming fantasy without interfering.

No, because it affects him through appeals to government, taxes, etc. If he believes it does not exist, it makes sense to try and disprove it.

I am interested in both sides. I recorded a two hour long "separating fact from fiction" on tv with tom brokaw and deleted it after 10-15 minutes. The entire thing was one-sided, he was interviewing only scientists who had a vested interest in seeing support for GW. It was really bad journalism.

 

[2Xtreme21]

"Smoking doesn't cause lung cancer! All those fanatics are just trying to spew false rumors about people dying from our obviously harmful product. Quick! Let's buy off some people to make up counter evidence!"

"The world isn't round! All those fanatics who say it is are just trying to spew false rumors about what we OBVIOUSLY know to be the truth!"

"The earth is the center of the universe! All those fanatics who say it isn't are just trying to blaspheme everything we believe in!"

When are you idiots going to realize that reality doesn't have to be a political issue and that denial isn't just a river in Egypt?

How can every major CREDIBLE scientist (not those on the payroll of Exxon/Mobil) and ALL COUNTRIES BUT 2 IN THE WORLD be oh so wrong about this?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: glenn1
Ya know Prof John, you certainly spend a lot of time trying to disprove something you say doesn't exist. If you honestly disbelieved it, you'd let the rubes have their little manmade-global warming fantasy without interfering.

No, because it affects him through appeals to government, taxes, etc. If he believes it does not exist, it makes sense to try and disprove it.

I am interested in both sides. I recorded a two hour long "separating fact from fiction" on tv with tom brokaw and deleted it after 10-15 minutes. The entire thing was one-sided, he was interviewing only scientists who had a vested interest in seeing support for GW. It was really bad journalism.

How do you know what the rest of the show was about if you only watched 10-15 minutes? Saying something is one sided after watching 8% of it isn't very responsible. If they were accurately portraying the views of the scientific community they should have devoted probably 90%+ of the time to those scientists who support the idea of man made global warming.

Just because there are two sides to something doesn't mean that both sides deserve equal time or have equal merit.

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
"Smoking doesn't cause lung cancer! All those fanatics are just trying to spew false rumors about people dying from our obviously harmful product. Quick! Let's buy off some people to make up counter evidence!"

"The world isn't round! All those fanatics who say it is are just trying to spew false rumors about what we OBVIOUSLY know to be the truth!"

"The earth is the center of the universe! All those fanatics who say it isn't are just trying to blaspheme everything we believe in!"

When are you idiots going to realize that reality doesn't have to be a political issue and that denial isn't just a river in Egypt?

How can every major CREDIBLE scientist (not those on the payroll of Exxon/Mobil) and ALL COUNTRIES BUT 2 IN THE WORLD be oh so wrong about this?

Your angst amuses me. This is why I appreciate the two sides going at it, nothing is more satisfying that the gnashing of teeth from people like you and ProfJohn on such trivial topics.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: glenn1
Ya know Prof John, you certainly spend a lot of time trying to disprove something you say doesn't exist. If you honestly disbelieved it, you'd let the rubes have their little manmade-global warming fantasy without interfering.

No, because it affects him through appeals to government, taxes, etc. If he believes it does not exist, it makes sense to try and disprove it.

I am interested in both sides. I recorded a two hour long "separating fact from fiction" on tv with tom brokaw and deleted it after 10-15 minutes. The entire thing was one-sided, he was interviewing only scientists who had a vested interest in seeing support for GW. It was really bad journalism.

How do you know what the rest of the show was about if you only watched 10-15 minutes? Saying something is one sided after watching 8% of it isn't very responsible. If they were accurately portraying the views of the scientific community they should have devoted probably 90%+ of the time to those scientists who support the idea of man made global warming.

Just because there are two sides to something doesn't mean that both sides deserve equal time or have equal merit.

You know, it amazes me the parallels between the anti-science n00bs and the anti-evolutionist ID proponents. "Teach the controversy!" they both scream, when their true agenda is crystal clear to everyone involved. Meanwhile ... the only controversy is how low the anti's will stoop to and what lame strategy they will come up with next.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Just because there are two sides to something doesn't mean that both sides deserve equal time or have equal merit.

As it stands today, on this particular issue, neither side has more merit than the other.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: glenn1
Ya know Prof John, you certainly spend a lot of time trying to disprove something you say doesn't exist. If you honestly disbelieved it, you'd let the rubes have their little manmade-global warming fantasy without interfering.

If I don't believe PJ exists, will that make him go away... PLEE-E-E-E-EZE? :roll:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Just because there are two sides to something doesn't mean that both sides deserve equal time or have equal merit.

As it stands today, on this particular issue, neither side has more merit than the other.

That's completely false and you know it.

 

[jonks]

Smoking isn't bad for you, look at all the scientists paid by tobacco companies that have proven such. Let's have a real debate, this one sided assault on the supposed "evils" of tobacco has gone on far too long. There's arguments to be heard on both sides about the health effects of tobacco. On one side is 99.9% of scientists, and on the other side is 0.1% of scientists. Let's have an honest debate.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Smoking isn't bad for you, look at all the scientists paid by tobacco companies that have proven such. Let's have a real debate, this one sided assault on the supposed "evils" of tobacco has gone on far too long. There's arguments to be heard on both sides about the health effects of tobacco. On one side is 99.9% of scientists, and on the other side is 0.1% of scientists. Let's have an honest debate.

:laugh:

Oooo can we debate about how the world is only 6000 years old too? I'm sure if you paid me enough money I could write a dozen or so theses supporting that "fact."

 

[BMW540I6speed]

The nonsensical hatred of Al Gore notwithstanding...

Suppose all these data points mean nothing and the climate is just humming along nicely. Should we then ignore the overfished oceans, the depletion of soils, the air pollution, the degradation of ecosystems worldwide?

What on earth is the advantage to ignoring these alarms? Oh, right, it's more comfortable that way. Less work, less thinking - very appealing for those who claim that it's all just Sooo complicated, so how could we possibly make up our minds about anything?

Climate change is just a symptom of the problem - the problem being that we're trying to run a linear process (market capitalism) in a finite system (the earth).

Whether it's climate change, overfishing, air pollution, drought, topsoil depletion, deforestation, desertification, or whatever, there are limits to growth. We're running up against them right now, only we don't see it because we're busy externalizing the costs of business as usual and exporting to the third world the pollution and environmental degradation required by an economy based on consumerism.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
The nonsensical hatred of Al Gore notwithstanding...

Suppose all these data points mean nothing and the climate is just humming along nicely. Should we then ignore the overfished oceans, the depletion of soils, the air pollution, the degradation of ecosystems worldwide?

What on earth is the advantage to ignoring these alarms? Oh, right, it's more comfortable that way. Less work, less thinking - very appealing for those who claim that it's all just Sooo complicated, so how could we possibly make up our minds about anything?

Climate change is just a symptom of the problem - the problem being that we're trying to run a linear process (market capitalism) in a finite system (the earth).

Whether it's climate change, overfishing, air pollution, drought, topsoil depletion, deforestation, desertification, or whatever, there are limits to growth. We're running up against them right now, only we don't see it because we're busy externalizing the costs of business as usual and exporting to the third world the pollution and environmental degradation required by an economy based on consumerism.

There are no limits to growth. We have an entire solar system available of resources. If we go by your logic, we are damning to eternal poverty all 3rd world countries. And eventually, if we are in fact a finite system, developed countries will also end up back in caves or worse because we have no more resources and didn't bother to go get those resources in our own backyard.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: dphantom
There are no limits to growth. We have an entire solar system available of resources. If we go by your logic, we are damning to eternal poverty all 3rd world countries. And eventually, if we are in fact a finite system, developed countries will also end up back in caves or worse because we have no more resources and didn't bother to go get those resources in our own backyard.

Or, we'll prioritize sustainable technologies to avoid disaster.

 

[Throckmorton]

I just want to point out to anyone that doesn' t know, that palehorse and IGBT are admitted creationists. Take what they say about science with a grain of salt.

 

[miniMUNCH]

Without going into detail here...

We should be focusing on green engineering and renewable energy for geo-political and socio-economic reasons.

The positive impact on the environment is a great bonus (and could plausibly be extremely important).

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
The nonsensical hatred of Al Gore notwithstanding...

Suppose all these data points mean nothing and the climate is just humming along nicely. Should we then ignore the overfished oceans, the depletion of soils, the air pollution, the degradation of ecosystems worldwide?

What on earth is the advantage to ignoring these alarms? Oh, right, it's more comfortable that way. Less work, less thinking - very appealing for those who claim that it's all just Sooo complicated, so how could we possibly make up our minds about anything?

Climate change is just a symptom of the problem - the problem being that we're trying to run a linear process (market capitalism) in a finite system (the earth).

Whether it's climate change, overfishing, air pollution, drought, topsoil depletion, deforestation, desertification, or whatever, there are limits to growth. We're running up against them right now, only we don't see it because we're busy externalizing the costs of business as usual and exporting to the third world the pollution and environmental degradation required by an economy based on consumerism.

There are no limits to growth. We have an entire solar system available of resources. If we go by your logic, we are damning to eternal poverty all 3rd world countries. And eventually, if we are in fact a finite system, developed countries will also end up back in caves or worse because we have no more resources and didn't bother to go get those resources in our own backyard.

Of course there are limits to growth. Certainly in the pace of growth if not the eventual expanse. This is obvious from any study of the growth of a society, or really any group of animals. It's why growth rates tend to follow a bell shaped curve, eventually the limiting factors catch up to the capabilities of the population in a finite system.

This does not exactly copy over to our current situation as the advance of technology allows us to address the limiting factors placed upon us far moreso then the other populations available for study. To think that we've somehow transcended them altogether though is certainly wrong. What I got from BMW's writing was that we are running into these limits based on the manner in which we currently do things. In order to get past them, we've got to change how we grow and what we do.

One of the weaknesses of capitalism is the externalization of costs for exactly these reasons. It is not in a business' benefit (for the most part) to pursue more environmentally sound policies outside of a PR perspective, and so the runaway attempt to strip out as much as we can as fast as we can could have some real negative consequences. Maybe ones we should address before we have a huge problem.

PS: PH is a creationist!?!?