[Jawbone54]

From Reporter Herald

Global warming is happening, but humans are not the cause, one of the nation’s top experts on hurricanes said Monday morning.
Bill Gray, who has studied tropical meteorology for more than 40 years, spoke at the Larimer County Republican Club Breakfast about global warming and whether humans are to blame. About 50 people were at the talk.

Gray, who is a professor at Colorado State University, said human-induced global warming is a fear perpetuated by the media and scientists who are trying to get federal grants.

“I think we’re coming out of the little ice age, and warming is due to changes to ocean circulation patterns due to salinity variations,” Gray said. “I’m sure that’s it.”


Gray’s view has been challenged, however.

Roger Pielke Jr., director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said in an interview later Monday that climate scientists involved with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that most of the warming is due to human activity.

“Bill Gray is a widely respected senior scientist who has a view that is out of step with a lot of his colleagues’,” Pielke said. But challenging widely held views is “good for science because it forces people to make their case and advances understanding.”

“We should always listen to the minority,” said Pielke, who spoke from his office in Boulder. “But it’s prudent to take actions that both minimize human effect on the climate and also make ourselves much more resilient.”

At the breakfast, Gray said Earth was warmer in some medieval periods than it is today. Current weather models are good at predicting weather as far as 10 days in advance, but predicting up to 100 years into the future is “a great act of faith, and I don’t believe any of it,” he said.

But even if humans cause global warming, there’s not much people can do, Gray said. China and India will continue to pump out greenhouse gases, and alternative energy sources are expensive.

“Why do it if it’s not going to make a difference anyway?” he said. “Whether I’m right or wrong, we can’t do anything about it anyway.”

But Pielke said it makes sense to reduce humans’ impact on the climate.

“There are uncertainties. It’s not like you

change your light bulbs today, you’re going to have better weather tomorrow,” he said. “It’s even better if those actions you’re taking make sense for other reasons, like getting off Middle Eastern oil or saving money."

This is something that I've agreed with for several years. We've been through several ice ages, according to most scientists. How could they have happened without mankind "raping the world?" This is another part of a cycle that's been going on for a long, long time. This isn't the first scientist that I've read has said this.

[besson3c]

How do we know this scientist is not looking for attention or seeking grant money himself? These arguments work both ways.

We've mapped temperatures and weather coming out of previous ice ages, what is going on now puts us on a far different trajectory. We can't predict the weather in 100 years, but we can observe patterns and trajectories. There is something quite abornmal that has started in the 1970s, and I think too much is at stake to simply discount all of this data as an anomoly that will self-correct.

Furthermore, the argument this article makes about alternatives being more expensive is not at all clear. How is deprecating old technologies and replacing them with new, superior (and even cheaper for us in teh long run) technologies any different than any other technology we have deprecated?

Lots of loose ends here left untied with this piece, IMHO, although I'm sure there is enough red meat in here to cause the usual sorts of knee-jerk reactions.

[itai195]

“Why do it if it’s not going to make a difference anyway?” he said. “Whether I’m right or wrong, we can’t do anything about it anyway."

Ever the optimist, I see.

My problem with global warming discussions in general is that I don't understand why the issue has to be so politicized. If most scientists agree that mankind is responsible for global warming, what is the harm in taking steps to reduce our effect on the environment? I don't see what we have to gain by doing nothing.

Also, scientists in every field want attention and grant money. This isn't a phenomenon limited to climate science, and pointing it out in such a manner seems highly disingenuous.

[Dakar]

Because scientists are anti-capitalism, duh. It's just an excuse to stall our economy through imposing regulation, which benefits the scientists directly.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by itai195

Ever the optimist, I see.

My problem with global warming discussions in general is that I don't understand why the issue has to be so politicized. If most scientists agree that mankind is responsible for global warming, what is the harm in taking steps to reduce our effect on the environment? I don't see what we have to gain by doing nothing.

Also, scientists in every field want attention and grant money. This isn't a phenomenon limited to climate science, and pointing it out in such a manner seems highly disingenuous.

I share the same confusion and puzzlement.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by itai195

Ever the optimist, I see.

My problem with global warming discussions in general is that I don't understand why the issue has to be so politicized. If most scientists agree that mankind is responsible for global warming, what is the harm in taking steps to reduce our effect on the environment? I don't see what we have to gain by doing nothing.

Also, scientists in every field want attention and grant money. This isn't a phenomenon limited to climate science, and pointing it out in such a manner seems highly disingenuous.

Thats like asking why smoking is still legal even though everyone knows it causes cancer...

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

From Reporter Herald

This is something that I've agreed with for several years. We've been through several ice ages, according to most scientists. How could they have happened without mankind "raping the world?" This is another part of a cycle that's been going on for a long, long time. This isn't the first scientist that I've read has said this.

So you are overly sceptical about all the evidence that suggests there is a anthropogenic contribution, but when you find one study that says humans are not to blame, you immediately jump conclusions to support it.

Sounds like you only believe what you want to believe.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Nicko

Thats like asking why smoking is still legal even though everyone knows it causes cancer...

I guess you are right, I am just an optimist though. To think what could have been done if all the time, energy, and money that has been spent arguing over global warming was used to develop cleaner technology instead...

[Monique]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

From Reporter Herald



This is something that I've agreed with for several years. We've been through several ice ages, according to most scientists. How could they have happened without mankind "raping the world?" This is another part of a cycle that's been going on for a long, long time. This isn't the first scientist that I've read has said this.

Since pollution has no consequences on the people's health. You should let your children polluted water with chronium and see what happen, fill their bedroom with fumes from your favorite rafinery, eat food cultivated in polluted ground. After they died then you will change your tune so fast.

[Spliffdaddy]

Like I was saying....the 'global warming' contingent needs some reasonable people.

[goMac]

“I think we’re coming out of the little ice age, and warming is due to changes to ocean circulation patterns due to salinity variations,” Gray said. “I’m sure that’s it.”

Well! There you go! Science says global warming is real, but this Gray guy's gut always trumps science.

[spacefreak]

As always, the fact that the earth is warming is not in doubt. That Americans are the ones causing it is in doubt.

The earth has warmed before, well before the USA even existed.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

As always, the fact that the earth is warming is not in doubt. That Americans are the ones causing it is in doubt.

I did trust science saying Global Warming was man made, but this guys gut feeling has completely changed my mind. Everybody knows gut feelings are far more accurate than scientists.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

As always, the fact that the earth is warming is not in doubt. That Americans are the ones causing it is in doubt.

The earth has warmed before, well before the USA even existed.

You guys are exhausting... first the question is whether humans are causing it, now it's Americans.

Whatever man, look at the trends and the trajectory we are on. Until you can come up with an explanation for what is going on, I'm going to go with the scientists on this one.


When are you guys going to give up this line of argument? What do we have to lose to try to curtail the situation? Global warming will cause flooding. Flooding bad. I think that trying to do something is better than just buying some rain boots, but that's just me.

[Spliffdaddy]

-Feb 21, 2000-
Scientists Warn: Deal With It, It's Too Late To Stop Global Warming
by Seth Borenstein

WASHINGTON - Global warming is so real and hard to stop that Americans will have to learn to cope with a hotter and quite different lifestyle in coming generations, a panel of scientists is saying after more than three years of research.




-October 2002-
"The ice cap on Mount Kilimanjaro may be gone in 20 years."

Jeffrey Chanton, Ph.D., joined the faculty at Florida State University in the Department of Oceanography in 1988. He has authored over 100 peer-reviewed papers and received over 45 grants and contracts to support his research. His research interests focus on greenhouse gases and stable isotope tracing.

-Sept 2006-
SACRAMENTO, Calif., Sept 13 (Reuters) - A leading U.S. climate researcher said on Wednesday the world has a 10-year window of opportunity to take decisive action on global warming and avert a weather catastrophe.

-Jan 2006-
INTERNATIONAL action to halt climate change must be taken within 20 years or global warming will be irreversible, scientists said yesterday.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consensus is such an elusive thing.


19 years ago we were told by a leading authority that we had 20 years to fix this problem.

Today, according to AlGore, we have about 9 years and 6 months.

Mark my words, in 9 years and 6 months we'll still have 10 years to solve the problem. Why is that? Because the problem is constantly being redefined. Which is damn easy to do when the problem doesn't exist.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

19 years ago we were told by a leading authority that we had 20 years to fix this problem.

Today, according to AlGore, we have about 9 years and 6 months.

Mark my words, in 9 years and 6 months we'll still have 10 years to solve the problem. Why is that? Because the problem is constantly being redefined. Which is damn easy to do when the problem doesn't exist.

A scientist might tell you that this is because we have been reducing our Carbon emissions because we were told 19 years ago about this problem, and that has been slowing global warming.

But I still trust this Gray guy's gut.

[besson3c]

Gut feelings are such wonderful things. Spliffdaddy, aren't you getting mixed up with the ozone hole crisis? The depletion of the ozone and such was an issue faced in the 1990s or earlier (that we actually took care of, but I guess that was a coincidence since we don't have an effect on the environment). The discussion about global warming in the context of melting ice caps and high carbon levels seems to be a relatively new discussion.

Of course, Spliffdaddy will say that the ozone hole stuff was all a giant hoax, but whatever...

Perhaps my recollection is inaccurate here and I'm speaking using my own gut feelings, but since it seems popular to do so, what the hell?

BTW, the increasing seal population is becoming a huge problem... my gut tells me this is so!

[TheWOAT]

As probable as man made Global warming is, I DO NOT think entities should start suing business over CO2 emissions... Like Here Calif. Sues Automakers Over Emissions

[goMac]

I believe global warming is not the fault of man, but the work of Lord Xenu, trying to cleanse the last alien souls from Earth.

There.

Really. Who needs science and actual studies and stuff? All some person has to do is say something about what he thinks and that becomes justification for somebody's argument.

[TheWOAT]

I have faith in science.

[Spliffdaddy]

Oh yeah. We fixed the ozone hole. Either that or it wasn't a problem - but simply a natural occurance.

As the Earth begins cooling over the next few decades, I'm certain that the global warming cultists will offer one of the following explanations:

A) We have miraculously fixed the problem - thank you Toyota Prius!

B) The cooling of Earth is a symptom of global warming...er, 'climate change'...or whatever the newest term might be.


The explanation that you will never hear is this one:

A) OK, we were wrong about global warming.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT

As probable as man made Global warming is, I DO NOT think entities should start suing business over CO2 emissions... Like Here Calif. Sues Automakers Over Emissions

I agree, I think this is simply a political stunt.

[TheWOAT]

Yes, He is running for office. So could he then sue CA residents for exhaling CO2?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Whatever man, look at the trends and the trajectory we are on. Until you can come up with an explanation for what is going on, I'm going to go with the scientists on this one.

When are you guys going to give up this line of argument? What do we have to lose to try to curtail the situation? Global warming will cause flooding. Flooding bad. I think that trying to do something is better than just buying some rain boots, but that's just me.

Trends, trajectories... they may or may not mean whatever you want them to mean. Put the same CO2 graph against the temperature graphs of Mars or Venus. Their temperatures over the same period have gone up similar.

Look, we're all for clean air and clean water. We just don't have a guarantee that if we were to clamp down on industrialization that the earth would stop warming. No matter how hard we tried... if we asked every car and factory owner to shut down for the weekend, we couldn't guarantee that next Monday's temperatures would be any lower than last year at the same time. Have you ever heard of an oncoming heatwave, and heard the government and news media promoting that everyone cut back on their driving for the week?

If we can't control short-term, I don't see how we can be arrogant enough to think we can control temperatures long-term. If one can't push a rock a yard, how the hell can one ppush that rock a mile?

When we humans can change today's weather, or any weather in the short-term, then I'll be more apt to listen to some long-term strategies.

[itai195]

That argument is totally illogical.

If you knew you were going to have a heart attack in a week, do you think you could prevent it by eating less cholesterol for that week? Yet eating less cholesterol in general lowers long term risk of heart attacks.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Oh yeah. We fixed the ozone hole. Either that or it wasn't a problem - but simply a natural occurance.

As the Earth begins cooling over the next few decades, I'm certain that the global warming cultists will offer one of the following explanations:

A) We have miraculously fixed the problem - thank you Toyota Prius!

B) The cooling of Earth is a symptom of global warming...er, 'climate change'...or whatever the newest term might be.


The explanation that you will never hear is this one:

A) OK, we were wrong about global warming.

Yes, and when my mom broke her leg, it wasn't the metal rod the doctors installed in it that allows her to walk again, it's just a natural occurrence.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by itai195

My problem with global warming discussions in general is that I don't understand why the issue has to be so politicized. If most scientists agree that mankind is responsible for global warming, what is the harm in taking steps to reduce our effect on the environment? I don't see what we have to gain by doing nothing.

We have lots of supposed greenhouse gas producing products to sell.

[Wiskedjak]

To the human-caused-global-warming extremists: Can you honestly say there is no possible chance that the current global warming is a completely natural phenomena?

To the no-human-caused-global-warming extremists: Can you honestly say that humans have no impact on their environment and climate?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

When we humans can change today's weather, or any weather in the short-term, then I'll be more apt to listen to some long-term strategies.

It's already well known, documented, and easy to verify that we can affect temperature and weather on small scales:
Urban heat island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Urban Heat alters weather patterns

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Can you honestly say there is no possible chance that the current global warming is a completely natural phenomena?

Phenomenon.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

We have lots of supposed greenhouse gas producing products to sell.

Yes, and if greenhouse gas emissions regulations went into effect, we'd have lots of low emission products to develop and sell instead.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

To the human-caused-global-warming extremists: Can you honestly say there is no possible chance that the current global warming is a completely natural phenomena?

To the no-human-caused-global-warming extremists: Can you honestly say that humans have no impact on their environment and climate?

Thank you.

I'm willing to say that perhaps mankind has an effect on the environment. Only a fool would say we're totally incapable of influencing it. The problem comes in when a mass of like-minded radicals scream that humanity is sending itself hurling towards destruction when this has happened MANY TIMES before the industrial age and the internal combustion engine (which has replaced Satan as the source of evil).

To imply that we're the cause for global warming sounds a lot like human arrogance to me.

I would consider myself a conservationist. I don't want Madagascar stripped of its forests. I don't want shark populations to be fished out of existence. I don't want to wake up one day in a world where I can't drive a short distance and find a nice, large natural forest to go camping in. I'm an animal lover (I reiterate that the fish-blending was an accident) who believes that mankind has a responsibility (placed in Adam's hands) to make good use of the earth without being bad stewards of its life and resources.

But I don't buy into the "we're causing it all" theory. And there are many scientists that believe likewise.

Explain to me how the earth experienced global warming and ice ages thousands of years ago without our help, and you'll start making a little bit more sense.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

It's already well known, documented, and easy to verify that we can affect temperature and weather on small scales:
Urban heat island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Urban Heat alters weather patterns

Meanwhile, Richard Branson pledges $3billion towards fighting global warming:

The Virgin boss said he would commit all profits from his travel firms, such as airline Virgin Atlantic and Virgin Trains, over the next 10 years.
"We must rapidly wean ourselves off our dependence on coal and fossil fuels," Sir Richard said.
The funds will be invested in schemes to develop new renewable energy technologies, through an investment unit called Virgin Fuels.
One of the UK's best known entrepreneurs, Sir Richard made the announcement in New York on the second day of the Clinton Global Initiative, an annual conference hosted by former US President Bill Clinton.
Sir Richard, 56, said that transport and energy companies "must be at the forefront of developing environmentally friendly business strategies".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5368194.stm

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

If we can't control short-term, I don't see how we can be arrogant enough to think we can control temperatures long-term. If one can't push a rock a yard, how the hell can one ppush that rock a mile?

When we humans can change today's weather, or any weather in the short-term, then I'll be more apt to listen to some long-term strategies.

See, it's statements like this that make me howl with laughter.

I'm arguing with people who have completely no idea what they're talking about.

Furthermore, considering the amount of posts I've made on here concerning our ability to affect weather patterns on local or regional scales, they also have completely no intention of educating themselves about the issue.

Ahhh well

greg

[Nicko]

Urban Heat islands are nothing compared to the "evil brown cloud"





Particles from airborne pollution, such as the "Giant Brown Cloud," can travel all around the globe. In April of 2001, NASA satellites saw a massive dust storm appear over China. The densest portion of the aerosol pollution traveled east over Japan, the Pacific Ocean, and, within a week, the United States. Click on image to view animation. Credit: NASA
NASA - NASA Eyes Effects of a Giant 'Brown Cloud' Worldwide

---

I read a stat saying that China mines 2billion tons of coal a year

They are also building dozens of new coal plants.

The point is, the "smog cloud" doesn't just stay in Asia, it moves around the world, polluting and poisoning everything in its path.

Oh and Jawbone54 its almost too late for Madagascar
As you can see, the island is quickly turning into a desert:
:/


Here in Kenya there is LESS than 2% of the natural forests left. Even though much of what is left is supposed to be protected people are still cutting them down as fast as they can (slash and burn for agriculture and illegal logging).

No forests means less fresh water...which leads to an increase in droughts... which ultimately leads to more people starving.

To those who deny climate change is directly caused by humans, you are fools.


--

I almost forgot. In East Africa another general side effect of human activity is the misuse of fresh water...which is effecting the efficiency of electricity generation. Thankfully, Kenya is doing ok...although rationing is happening everywhere. However, In Uganda they are cutting back their power 50%! The East African - News

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by itai195

That argument is totally illogical.

If you knew you were going to have a heart attack in a week, do you think you could prevent it by eating less cholesterol for that week? Yet eating less cholesterol in general lowers long term risk of heart attacks.

and yet, now they've discovered that high cholesterol is much more likely caused by heredity than the foods we eat.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

and yet, now they've discovered that high cholesterol is much more likely caused by heredity than the foods we eat.

[FONT=Arial]Denial[FONT=&quot]™

[FONT="Arial"]Oh and high cholesterol is caused by our screwed up diet of too meat and deep fried things...or are you going to back up this baseless claim with proof?...


... I thought not.[/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT]

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

See, it's statements like this that make me howl with laughter.

I'm arguing with people who have completely no idea what they're talking about.

Furthermore, considering the amount of posts I've made on here concerning our ability to affect weather patterns on local or regional scales, they also have completely no intention of educating themselves about the issue.

Ahhh well

greg

What a useful ad hominem. Thanks for your contribution, champ.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

and yet, now they've discovered that high cholesterol is much more likely caused by heredity than the foods we eat.

I wouldn't put it that way. It's clear high cholesterol can be hereditary but high cholesterol levels in the general population, especially extremely high levels, are almost always diet related.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Nicko

[FONT=Arial]Denial[FONT=&quot]™

[FONT="Arial"]Oh and high cholesterol is caused by our screwed up diet of too meat and deep fried things...or are you going to back up this baseless claim with proof?...


... I thought not.[/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT]

You have much worse issues to deal with, like your poor communication skills.

Care to discuss things in a civil manner?

... I thought not.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

What a useful ad hominem. Thanks for your contribution, champ.

Considering your own "contribution," I'd say we should just stay comfortably in our glass houses, hmm?

greg