[typoon]

Scientists fear they've oversold global warming | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

I hate to bring up the Global warming threads again but I found this article pretty interesting.

[Chuckit]

The article has some good points, but on the other hand, you can make a story of the form "Scientists have been claiming X for a long time…but look, here are some scientists who question X!" about pretty much any subject.

[BRussell]

There definitely is a huge gulf between how the "global warming debate" is portrayed in the media and how it is thought about among scientists who study it. It's not unlike the gulf between scientists' views and the public debate over evolution.

[tie]

I think global warming is a dead issue. The problem is clear, and there is no serious debate. There is a clear laundry list of things we need to do. And yet we aren't doing anything. And no matter what the facts are, we won't do anything. (We = US nationally)

[IceBreaker]

global warming as caused by mankind is a myth. It is a political idealogy to be imposed, to pretend it is anything otherwise is absurd.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by IceBreaker 

global warming as caused by mankind is a myth. It is a political idealogy to be imposed, to pretend it is anything otherwise is absurd.

If it's an absurd myth, it's an absurd myth that those lying liberal America-hating scientists feel is supported by the evidence. According to the world's most prestigious scientific journal, Science:

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.

and

The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.

The only debate about whether humans are causing global-warming exists in the media and on the internets, where the anti-science crowd have directed their lies. But we live in a world of relativism, where any bozo who posts on the internet has just as "valid" of an opinion as the consensus of the world's scientists. Yippeee!

[Doofy]

It's very odd how the cure for "man made" global warming is to ban all the things which "the left" has always hated, no?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It's very odd how the cure for "man made" global warming is to ban all the things which "the left" has always hated, no?

Such as…what? Guns? Child labor? Economic inequity?

[Doofy]

Personal freedom (cars), capitalist operations (industry).

[UNTeMac]

I love it when people are so biased that they see bias in everyone else.

[torsoboy]

calling voodoo, come in voodoo.... what do you have to say about this? as a biologist i mean. is global warming (caused by man) a myth, or a fact? and the biggest question of all.... is it caused by smokers?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

calling voodoo, come in voodoo.... what do you have to say about this? as a biologist i mean. is global warming (caused by man) a myth, or a fact? and the biggest question of all.... is it caused by smokers?

What? Voodoo is a biologist? If that is so I would like to know from him how he blends together the story of Adam and Eve with the theory of evolution. I stated this question already in the evolution-thread, but it drew no answers there: http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...n-teaching/10/

Taliesin

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Personal freedom (cars), capitalist operations (industry).

Going for the straw man today, are we?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Going for the straw man today, are we?

So, this thread isn't about scientists thinking that the politicians have gone overboard with GW then? My mistake.

So the article in question didn't say this then:

and with a new Democratic-led Congress, federal action on climate change may be at hand.

? My mistake.

I can't help it if you guys aren't observant enough to notice that those on the left are using climate change as a way of bashing everyone over the head with their social equality policies. Like this:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...p;refer=europe

The European Union plans to introduce a green tax on motorists

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

The only debate about whether humans are causing global-warming exists in the media and on the internets, where the anti-science crowd have directed their lies.

You mean like this:

I think global warming is a dead issue. The problem is clear, and there is no serious debate.

or this:

But we live in a world of relativism, where any bozo who posts on the internet has just as "valid" of an opinion as the consensus of the world's scientists.

Since when does stymying debate and espousing the merits of "consensus" have ANYTHING to do with science? These things go directly against what science is supposed to be about.

And do you really believe that we should all blindly march behind the "experts"? By this logic you and the rest of the lefties here should be behind the Bush administration 100%. I mean, I guarantee that Bush, Cheney, Rove etc. know a hell of a lot more about politics, policy, foreign affairs etc than anyone here. Who are YOU to question them?

Or maybe we should all listen to Bill Gates and buy Windows machines since he obviously knows far more than any of us about computers. Plus there is that vast consensus of computer experts and users alike who all know the true superiority of Windows.

Hell, by this logic then we shouldn't question hardly ANYTHING.

Calling the skeptics anti-science is a huge load of crap that people like you need to use in order to discredit them. It is no different than when people accuse liberals of hating America.

[Kevin]

I think it's proponents overplay it more than Scientists.

Their is BIG BIG MONEY in Global Warning.

There is also BIG BIG money to be LOST if it's not true.

[Millennium]

Science is all about debate and questioning. If there ceases to be debate on a given topic, then it has ceased to be scientific and mutated into something quite different. I suspect this is what the scientists in the article are worried about.

Well, that and the morons claiming that global warming caused Katrina and this year's unusual temperatures. Even the most dire scientific projections don't work on that kind of scale: they speak of single degrees and decades, not multi-degree heat waves over the course of a couple of years.

[IceBreaker]

the part I find really pathetic is how the libs are seeking to silence opposition to their political objectives by calling for Nuremberg type trials for those who don't support their agenda.

spiked | Global warming: the chilling effect on free speech

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I think it's proponents overplay it more than Scientists.

This could be the case. But when is it that no proponent of anything plays up on fears of people. War on Terror / Iraq anyone?

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Their is BIG BIG MONEY in Global Warning.

There is also BIG BIG money to be LOST if it's not true.

How is there big money in Global Warming? Be specific. I could understand if you said lobbying, but you would have to accept that there is also a BIG MONEY oil lobby as well. Ocean-side real estate may be another one.

[Dakar²]

Clever name.

[Troll]

Somebody show me a scientific paper that says human activity is not responsible for global warming. AFAIK, none exist.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Somebody show me a scientific paper that says human activity is not responsible for global warming. AFAIK, none exist.

http://www.lomborg.com/critique.htm

The Danish Community on Scientific Dishonesty found that his work was in keeping with the standards of good scientific practice.

His book is of course, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...eskepticale-20

Is he correct? perhaps, perhaps not. But now you know more than you did previously, someone did write a scientific paper challenging the notion that climate is changing for the worse, and additionally challenging the notion that humans are responsible.

[Sky Captain]

Remember Global Cooling?

Goggled this in no time!

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Bjorn Lomborg

The Danish Community on Scientific Dishonesty found that his work was in keeping with the standards of good scientific practice.

His book is of course, Amazon.com: The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World: Books: Bjorn Lomborg

Is he correct? perhaps, perhaps not. But now you know more than you did previously, someone did write a scientific paper challenging the notion that climate is changing for the worse, and additionally challenging the notion that humans are responsible.

Huh? I said "scientific paper". Lomborg holds a Masters in political science and lectured statistics before becoming a professor at Copenhagen Business School. He is as qualified to write about global warming as I am.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Remember Global Cooling?

Goggled this in no time!

I like the warming better. Bikinis and stuff.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Remember Global Cooling?

Goggled this in no time!

I just yawned violently. No joke.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Remember Global Cooling?

Goggled this in no time!

"Antarctica overall has cooled measurably during the last 35 years - despite a global average increase in air temperature of 0.06 degrees Celsius during the 20th century - making it unique among the Earth's continental landmasses"

That seems to CONFIRM global warming not deny it. It says that ONE single continent is cooling while everything else is warming up. As you no doubt know, there are many possible explanations for why certain areas cool when the globe heats up. The Gulfstream has for example stopped before as a result of warming and that caused an ice age. The title of the article you posted is misleading and that's probably what got you.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Since when does stymying debate and espousing the merits of "consensus" have ANYTHING to do with science? These things go directly against what science is supposed to be about.

Let's not kid ourselves that we're doing science here posting on MacNN. It's not a scientific debate for some bozo to post that global warming is a myth. People can spout whatever unfounded nonsense they want, and the serious research goes on regardless. Let's not confuse the two.

And do you really believe that we should all blindly march behind the "experts"? By this logic you and the rest of the lefties here should be behind the Bush administration 100%. I mean, I guarantee that Bush, Cheney, Rove etc. know a hell of a lot more about politics, policy, foreign affairs etc than anyone here. Who are YOU to question them?

Or maybe we should all listen to Bill Gates and buy Windows machines since he obviously knows far more than any of us about computers. Plus there is that vast consensus of computer experts and users alike who all know the true superiority of Windows.

Hell, by this logic then we shouldn't question hardly ANYTHING.

There's a difference between questioning what politicians want us to believe or what companies want us to buy - these are based on values and tastes - and questioning empirical matters, which are based on evidence. I'm sorry, but one person's unfounded opinion does not hold the same value as an opinion based on evidence, when it comes to empirical matters. I know the idea that every opinion is equally valid is as American as apple pie and baseball, but I'm sorry, it stinks.

Calling the skeptics anti-science is a huge load of crap that people like you need to use in order to discredit them. It is no different than when people accuse liberals of hating America.

OK, then at what point can you say people are anti-science. It's the same basic group of people, i.e., social/religious conservatives, who reject the very foundation of the earth and life sciences. They try to get Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" DVD banned because, I quote, "The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn't in the DVD." These are the same people, smacintush, or at least there is a huge overlap between them. They are America's social/religious conservatives. At what point would you be willing to acknowledge that they really are fundamentally anti-science?

[tie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It's very odd how the cure for "man made" global warming is to ban all the things which "the left" has always hated, no?

No, you're right. You saw through us all. And here I was hoping we'd finally be able to ban cars and capitalist industry. Shucks.

Originally Posted by smacintush

Since when does stymying debate and espousing the merits of "consensus" have ANYTHING to do with science? These things go directly against what science is supposed to be about.

My post was because we have had dozens of debates on this forum, and in none of them have the opponents been able to muster a logical argument. A lot of people argue based on religion, occasionally trying to disguise it. A few say broadly that humans are too insignificant to change anything on earth (apparently they haven't gone outside recently) or that the earth will be around long after us anyway (which they find somehow reassuring). A very few try to pick and choose facts they like without mentioning facts they don't like. (In the most recent thread, I think Doofy carried on this whole argument about cows before eventually realizing that cows are domestic animals so the effects are still human-caused.)

And meanwhile, the science has continued to advance, always in the same direction. So even the arguments based on science get easier every year. (Except the religious nuts still pop up -- guys, the earth really is more than three thousand years old.) At the moment, we need action.

Science is about debate, yes, but this is not a science forum. It is a political forum. Don't pretend that debating here has anything to do with the scientific process.

You know that your analogy to politics is very flawed.

Calling the skeptics anti-science is a huge load of crap that people like you need to use in order to discredit them. It is no different than when people accuse liberals of hating America.

Or when Doofy accuses liberals of hating capitalism? And isn't this the main thrust of Bush/Cheney/Rove's politics? Hmm, then it is probably a good strategy.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

How is there big money in Global Warming? Be specific. I could understand if you said lobbying, but you would have to accept that there is also a BIG MONEY oil lobby as well. Ocean-side real estate may be another one.

'Scientist' Group's Funding Comes with Liberal 'Strings Attached' -- 01/23/2007

I accept that there is big money on both sides and that man-made global warming is neither a fact or a myth. It's an unproven idea which has validity, but has been severely oversold just as global cooling before it.

Of course, ask the partisans in the media or politics, and you won't here such common sense.

[ink]

'Smoking gun' report to say global warming here - CNN.com

Andrew Weaver, a Canadian climate scientist and study co-author, went even further: "This isn't a smoking gun; climate is a batallion of intergalactic smoking missiles."

The first phase of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is being released in Paris next week.

This segment, written by more than 600 scientists and reviewed by another 600 experts and edited by bureaucrats from 154 countries, includes "a significantly expanded discussion of observation on the climate," said co-chair Susan Solomon a senior scientist for the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Companies press Bush to reduce global warming pollution - AM New York

A coalition of environmental groups and major corporations such as Lehman Brothers, DuPont, General Electric and several energy providers today announced a joint effort -- known as the U.S. Climate Action Partnership -- to prod Congress and the President into enacting mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions, widely seen as the chief agents of global warming.

[ .... ]

"The overall goal is to cut global warming pollution enough to stop the worst impacts and do it in a way that stimulates the economy," Krupp said, while easing the country's dependence on oil. "We're recommending a very realistic, step-by-step approach and that's one of the reasons why we need to start immediately."

Yeah, all those power-crazed liberals are just trying to tell you what to do.

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by Troll 

"Antarctica overall has cooled measurably during the last 35 years - despite a global average increase in air temperature of 0.06 degrees Celsius during the 20th century - making it unique among the Earth's continental landmasses"

That seems to CONFIRM global warming not deny it. It says that ONE single continent is cooling while everything else is warming up. As you no doubt know, there are many possible explanations for why certain areas cool when the globe heats up. The Gulfstream has for example stopped before as a result of warming and that caused an ice age. The title of the article you posted is misleading and that's probably what got you.

You're correct.
But I do recall ideas being floated around for "darkening" the polar caps in the mid 1970's.
Heck, even National Geographic published a global cooling article.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by tie 

No, you're right. You saw through us all. And here I was hoping we'd finally be able to ban cars and capitalist industry. Shucks.

This is precisely what's happening in the UK with the global warming movement.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/discussions/posts/list/376.page

Time to ban cars
They pollute.
They're dangerous.
They're unnecessary.
They use up our natural resources at a frightening rate.
Sell your cars, people. Buy a bike. Use public transport.
Don't be slave to autogeddon.

Re:Time to ban cars
You're totally right.
I think Ken Livingstone's doing a brilliant job in London, getting people to use public transport more. There should definitely be congestion charges rolled out in more built up areas, maybe even motorways, and buses needs a lot of improvement.

Re:Time to ban cars
I agree wholeheartedly with Loki, Cars should be banned. If all private cars were banned it would definitely cut down on pollution, It would totally cut down on road congestion. Drunk driving would be obliterated, More parking places for government and emergency vehicles and most of all would hurt the oil companies. So I say, BAN ALL PRIVATE CARS.

And I assure you, what these idiots are saying is also being said in Whitehall.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by tie 

(In the most recent thread, I think Doofy carried on this whole argument about cows before eventually realizing that cows are domestic animals so the effects are still human-caused.)

No, that was the point. The left's expecting me to give up my SUV whilst at the same time they won't give up their even-more-polluting meat habit. But then the left has never really hated meat-eating like it hates SUVs, has it?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No, that was the point. The left's expecting me to give up my SUV whilst at the same time they won't give up their even-more-polluting meat habit. But then the left has never really hated meat-eating like it hates SUVs, has it?

Are you trying to suggest vegetarianism is mainly a conservative movement?

[Sky Captain]

No, a left leaning movement.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

No, a left leaning movement.

So…the left is made up of a bunch of vegetarians with a meat habit?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

You're correct.
But I do recall ideas being floated around for "darkening" the polar caps in the mid 1970's.
Heck, even National Geographic published a global cooling article.

Well, okay, fine, let's assume that scientists have been wrong in the past. Why does that mean they're wrong now?

I say again, if someone has a scientific report suggesting that we are not the cause of global warming, let's see it. As far as I know, none exist. On top of that, I think that anyone that thinks that we aren't in deep, deep, deep trouble isn't looking out of the window. There has been hardly any snow on the Alps this season. There was a hurricane in Germany! The temperature has yet to drop below 0 in Paris. More hurricanes around the world last year than any other year in history. 5 years ago, I thought the changes were imperceptible. Not so anymore.

[ink]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No, that was the point. The left's expecting me to give up my SUV whilst at the same time they won't give up their even-more-polluting meat habit. But then the left has never really hated meat-eating like it hates SUVs, has it?

Still no scientific evidence to back that up, right Doofy? Just some guy that said something about how a Jeep Cherokee emits less CO2 than a cow...?

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Well, okay, fine, let's assume that scientists have been wrong in the past. Why does that mean they're wrong now?

I say again, if someone has a scientific report suggesting that we are not the cause of global warming, let's see it. As far as I know, none exist. On top of that, I think that anyone that thinks that we aren't in deep, deep, deep trouble isn't looking out of the window. There has been hardly any snow on the Alps this season. There was a hurricane in Germany! The temperature has yet to drop below 0 in Paris. More hurricanes around the world last year than any other year in history. 5 years ago, I thought the changes were imperceptible. Not so anymore.

We are part of it absolutely.
There's 4+ billion carbon emitters here.
And volcanic activity hasn't been factored in.
Unless we're expected to combat nature?
And stop building. And farming. And driving.

Personally, I'd like to see an real alternative to fossil fuel engines.
One that will truly kill the gasoline automobile engine.
And break the chains of gasoline slavery. While saving the planet.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ink 

Still no scientific evidence to back that up, right Doofy? Just some guy that said something about how a Jeep Cherokee emits less CO2 than a cow...?

You need scientific evidence to figure out that a cow puts out CO2 24/7? And that its lung capacity is larger than a Grand Cherokee's? (clue: Your lung capacity is larger than a Grand Cherokee's displacement)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Are you trying to suggest vegetarianism is mainly a conservative movement?

Nope, I'm trying to suggest that folks telling others what to do whilst blissfully ignoring their own faults is generally a lib thing.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by IceBreaker 

the part I find really pathetic is how the libs are seeking to silence opposition to their political objectives by calling for Nuremberg type trials for those who don't support their agenda.

spiked | Global warming: the chilling effect on free speech

One of "Blair's Babes" (the hideous hags in the UK government cabinet) actually put GW doubters right up there with Holocaust deniers a few months back (actually mentioned both in the same sentence). And then went on to say that they should be denied any media coverage.

So much for free speech and discussion.

[ink]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You need scientific evidence to figure out that a cow puts out CO2 24/7? And that its lung capacity is larger than a Grand Cherokee's? (clue: Your lung capacity is larger than a Grand Cherokee's displacement)

I'll take that as a "no" then.

[Sky Captain]

And the Weather Channel™ "scientists" are seeking to have GW skeptics decertified.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Personally, I'd like to see an real alternative to fossil fuel engines.
One that will truly kill the gasoline automobile engine.
And break the chains of gasoline slavery. While saving the planet.

While saving the planet? I thought it was all just a bunch of scientists' lies. How could it save the planet if it's all just lies and liberal propaganda rather than empirical information?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Personal freedom (cars)

"Personal freedom" = cars? Every law restricts personal freedom. If the push was to outlaw meat, as you seem to prefer, that would be against personal freedom too. If the push was to outlaw hacky sacks and the peace symbol, that would be against personal freedom too. But those things are hardly "all the things 'the left' has always hated."

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

calling voodoo, come in voodoo.... what do you have to say about this? as a biologist i mean. is global warming (caused by man) a myth, or a fact? and the biggest question of all.... is it caused by smokers?

Biology doesn't make you an expert on global warming.

I'm in biology too, and I honestly don't care about global warming.

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

What? Voodoo is a biologist? If that is so I would like to know from him how he blends together the story of Adam and Eve with the theory of evolution. I stated this question already in the evolution-thread, but it drew no answers there: http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...n-teaching/10/

Taliesin

Yeah I was sad that thread died too, but what does Adam and Eve have to do with biology?

Originally Posted by Millennium 

Science is all about debate and questioning.

No, absolutely wrong. Science is all about evidence. Questioning without evidence is philosophy, not science. "Something else entirely" indeed.

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Remember Global Cooling?

Goggled this in no time!

Heh, what goggling was that? Your "America, **** Yeah" goggles?

So scientists have been wrong in the past, so now scientists can never be right about anything ever again? Have you ever gotten a vaccine? And why on earth would you trust the science of 40 years ago over the science of today? Did past scientists have access to some profound knowledge that we no longer have?

I'm all for alternative theories, but bring some evidence for them. Without evidence, you're no more convincing than the Flat Earth Society.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

'Scientist' Group's Funding Comes with Liberal 'Strings Attached' -- 01/23/2007

I accept that there is big money on both sides and that man-made global warming is neither a fact or a myth. It's an unproven idea which has validity, but has been severely oversold just as global cooling before it.

Of course, ask the partisans in the media or politics, and you won't here such common sense.

Hurrah. I agree.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ink 

I'll take that as a "no" then.

That being so, he is still right.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Biology doesn't make you an expert on global warming.

I'm in biology too, and I honestly don't care about global warming.

This is true, it doesn't automatically make one an expert, but as you should know climate is a huge part of biology.

So, speak for yourself. My main field is ecology and toxicology (along with zoology) of which climate plays a huge part.

V