[Troll]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Not really. They come home, hot and sweaty from that bike ride and hike the air conditioning down another 2-3 degrees.

LOL. Are you seriously arguing that the couple of minutes of cool down in front of the aircon has the same environmental impact as commuting by car??

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm glad you enjoy your ferry-ride. We don't have those here in the midwest.

D-uh - lack of public transportation is part of the problem. How do you get more of it? Collect more tax money and spend it building infrastructure. How do you get more tax money? Increase the gas tax. What happens when you increase the gas tax? More people look for other transportation solutions. See the trend?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

****ing common sense should tell you that riding your bike to work or taking a ****ing ferry when the wind chill the past two weeks has been -15 degrees are not options.

Millions of New Yorkers and millions of Europeans say you're wrong.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

In fact, if you know someone selling a nice Jeep Wrangler for cheap, let me know. I'm tired of slipping around in a foot of snow around here.

Suzuki? Daihatsu? Subaru? Toyota? Renault? Fiat? Makers of economical 4x4s. Spot the American company in the herd.

i.e. so many problems, so little time. Your little global warming concern is at the bottom of my list. It's at the bottom of most people's lists. Unless you're a politician or the climate-change enthusiast of the day, looking for a buck.

What's on your list? AIDS? Tuberculosis? Malaria? Bird flu? Poverty? Environmental degradation (other than climate change)? No wait, let me guess - at the top of your list is terrorism right!

[Kevin]

I think Macrobat's sig would be a good quote to post right about now. But I don't feel like hunting down his account to copy and paste it.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Troll 

I've forgotten who it was who suggested that there was money in saying climate change is caused by humans. Seems the opposite is true.

Actually, both are true. You can get energy companies to finance you if they think your research will point out the flaws in GW theory. You can get the left-leaning educational establishment and enviro-orgs to finance you if they think you'll back current GW theory.

You're more likely to gain though if you go pro-GW since a good portion of the research is done via the educational establishment (Universities, etc., controlled by the far left) and it likes to punish and censor those out of their "mainstream" views.

The mistake though is when people try and point to either senario and insist that all research on either side is done for profit. Sure, that might be a motivator, but it's not the only one. There are some scientists on both sides that simply believe so passionately in their own pre-conceived notions that they'd write what they do for pleasure, not profit. A few might also do it because they actually care about the truth and science as well.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You're more likely to gain though if you go pro-GW since a good portion of the research is done via the educational establishment (Universities, etc., controlled by the far left) and it likes to punish and censor those out of their "mainstream" views.

Well, either way, it's clear that the oil industry is throwing money at any scientists that might criticise and we still don't have a single peer reviewed scientific paper that says global warming is not man-made. That suggests that the evidence is so overwhelming that the money can't buy Exxon the science they need.

[Kevin]

Can you show me where this is "clear" Troll?

[smacintush]

Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.

All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.

"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."

The real deal?

[Kevin]

Oh what does Canada know about Global Warming.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

The real deal?

"Astrophysicist ... Dr. Shariv ... has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites." Oh right, cause the movement of meteorites and the global climate are like two peas in a pod right?

Anyway, can you point us to his peer-reviewed scientific paper?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Anyway, can you point us to his peer-reviewed scientific paper?

No.

Was I supposed to?

[smacintush]

December 1, 2006
Are Humans Involved in Global Warming?

A recent issue of Environmental Geology contains an article entitled “On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?” by two scientists at the University of Southern California. Before we examine the article, let’s get a few things on the table. First of all, the two authors (Khilyuk and Chilingar) are faculty members at what most would agree is a world-class academic institution. If their work was not up to the standards of the University of Southern California, they wouldn’t be there for long. Second, Environmental Geology is an international multidisciplinary journal concerned with all aspects of interactions between humans, ecosystems, and the earth. It is published by Springer which is one of the leading academic publishing companies in the world. The editorial board of Environmental Geology includes 53 leading scientists from every corner of the planet; US institutions listed as primary affiliations of board members include the US Geological Survey, the University of New Orleans, the University of Missouri, the University of Kansas, the University of Oklahoma, Temple University, Wesleyan University, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and so on.

The point is that Environmental Geology is a first-class journal, papers submitted to the journal are peer-reviewed by scientists at major institutions, and the journal is certainly not part of any industry-funded conspiracy to undermine actions on global warming. Submitting a paper to any journal in which you question whether humans are involved in global warming will assure a more stringent review than normal.


OK – what on earth is this paper all about? How in 2006 could credible scientists seriously question whether humans are involved in global warming? Recall that Khilyuk and Chilingar are writing for a professional journal in geology, not climatology, and it is only natural to expect geologists to look at trends in the context of very long periods of time. Their perspective on climate change would be quite naturally different from someone trained in looking at annual, decadal, or 100 year changes in climate.

The authors begin the article with the sentence “Identification and understanding of global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate is crucial for developing adequate relationship between people and nature, and for developing and implementing a sound course of action aimed at survival and welfare of the human race.” Now who would argue with that statement? From there, they review the literature on solar output variations and earth’s temperature and show that a “one percent increase in current solar radiation reaching the Earth’s body translates directly into approximately 0.86 K increase in the Earth’s global temperature.” They show that the earth’s orbit about the sun changes over long periods of time resulting in up to a 7.5 K (1 K = 1°C = 1.8°F) modulation of the earth’s temperature. They describe how outgassing alters the composition of the atmosphere over long periods thereby altering the temperature of the earth over by over 50 K. They finally review microbial activities at the interface of the lithosphere and atmosphere that also substantially alter the composition and temperature of the global atmosphere at geological time frames. Initially, the article seems fairly tame, but as one reads more, the article becomes quite controversial.

Khilyuk and Chilingar repeatedly quantify the effect of the various processes that alter global temperature and conclude “The scope and extent of these processes are 4–5 orders of magnitude greater than the corresponding anthropogenic impacts on the Earth’s climate (such as heating and emission of the greenhouse gases).” This seems fair enough given the geological time scales considered by the authors, but you can see where the global warming crowd would be getting more uncomfortable.

The authors place the recent warming into an interesting perspective noting “the global warming observed during the latest 150 years is just a short episode in the geologic history. The current global warming is most likely a combined effect of increased solar and tectonic activities and cannot be attributed to the increased anthropogenic impact on the atmosphere. Humans may be responsible for less than 0.01°C (of approximately 0.56°C (1°F) total average atmospheric heating during the last century)”. Holy cow, can you imagine the letters and e-mails they must have received in response to that conclusion? They even show that over the last 3,000 years, the earth has cooled, or if you look just at the last 1,000 years, the earth has been cooling as well (the earth was in the Medieval Warm Period 1,000 years ago).

Their conclusions with respect to potential policy will more than raise some eyebrows as well as they write “Any attempts to mitigate undesirable climatic changes using restrictive regulations are condemned to failure, because the global natural forces are at least 4–5 orders of magnitude greater than available human controls.” They show that the climatic effects of the Kyoto Protocol would be negligible, leading them to state “Thus, the Kyoto Protocol is a good example of how to achieve the minimum results with the maximum efforts (and sacrifices). Impact of available human controls will be negligible in comparison with the global forces of nature. Thus, the attempts to alter the occurring global climatic changes (and drastic measures prescribed by the Kyoto Protocol) have to be abandoned as meaningless and harmful.”

Our World Climate Reports uncover and present interesting results we find in the peer-reviewed professional scientific journals, and as we have seen over and over, there are many absolutely amazing papers published regularly in outstanding journals. The global warming crusade would denounce this paper as outrageous, but it survived rigorous peer-review, the editor elected to publish it, and like it or not, this paper is part of the serious science literature. Dismissing the paper is made more difficult given the affiliation of the authors and the prestige of the journal.

The debate on climate change is never boring, the debate is full of surprises, and anyone claiming the debate is over is simply dismissing a significant number of papers that appear regularly in the major journals.

Reference:

Khilyuk, L.F., and G. V. Chilingar. 2006. On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved? Environmental Geology, 50, 899–910.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

No.

Was I supposed to?

Not if you accept that there is no debate in the scientific community about the cause of global warming.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Not if you accept that there is no debate in the scientific community about the cause of global warming.

There is NO debate, yet there are scientists who disagree…hmmm…

anyone claiming the debate is over is simply dismissing a significant number of papers that appear regularly in the major journals.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

December 1, 2006
Are Humans Involved in Global Warming?
...

Humans may be responsible for less than 0.01°C (of approximately 0.56°C (1°F) total average atmospheric heating during the last century)”.

Can we have a source for the article please? I left the most important part of the article in tact - a supposed quote of the scientific conclusion. That is, in answer to the question "Are Humans Involved in Global Warming," these scientists said "yes". Humans are definitely partly responsible, says the paper. They MAY be responsible for 2% of global warming. Of course, it also follows that they MAY be responsible for more.

So, was this article supposed to be the smoking gun?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Can we have a source for the article please? I left the most important part of the article in tact - a supposed quote of the scientific conclusion. That is, in answer to the question "Are Humans Involved in Global Warming," the answer is yes.

So, was this article supposed to be the smoking gun?

The source is referenced at the end of the article and no it's not supposed to be a smoking gun. You asked for ONE peer reviewed paper and I referenced ONE.

If you think I am trying to "disprove" anything you haven't been paying attention.

It is quite telling which part you felt was the most important…you're just like the rest of them, you aren't going to give credence to anything unless it goes along with your pre-determined opinion.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You people?

The Americans who think like you.

Wasn't it you who told me about emissions tax on vehicles? How's that going for the environment by the way? Would you say the government has been good stewards of our money and our environment? One of the complaints is that higher gas prices specifically did NOT curb our gas guzzling. Remember?

Yes - again, that seems to be a specifically American problem.

Emissions tax and gas tax seem fairly effective: As mentioned, Germany has cut CO2 emissions by 15%.

****ing common sense should tell you that riding your bike to work or taking a ****ing ferry when the wind chill the past two weeks has been -15 degrees are not options.

The ****ing ferry is HEATED. I don't know if you Mid-Westerners have developed the concept or the technology yet.

You certainly seem to have no concept of "public transportation"!

[Sky Captain]

Coincidence?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by analogika 

You certainly seem to have no concept of "public transportation"!

You do realize that we are the third largest population in the world on the third largest land mass? We could have better public transportation, but to compare ours with a European country the size of one of our states is ridiculous.

[Sky Captain]

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsst...2006/story.htm

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by analogika 

The ****ing ferry is HEATED. I don't know if you Mid-Westerners have developed the concept or the technology yet.

You certainly seem to have no concept of "public transportation"!

Public transportation will not work for the bulk of the midwest. It's simply too big and too spread out.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

There is NO debate, yet there are scientists who disagree…hmmm…

There are no reputable scientists who disagree.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

There are no reputable scientists who disagree.

Reputable scientists = Those that agree with global warming and what causes it.

Everyone else is just a crackpot.

We get it.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika 

The Americans who think like you.

Oh so the Europeans that think like us don't count.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

There are no reputable scientists who disagree.

Yeah I know.

Richard Lindzen is not reputable. He's just a right-wing hack like the rest.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

The source is referenced at the end of the article

I asked for the source of the ARTICLE not the source of the scientific paper.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

It is quite telling which part you felt was the most important…you're just like the rest of them, you aren't going to give credence to anything unless it goes along with your pre-determined opinion.

I think the CONCLUSIONS are the most important. That's what the writer of the article thought too.

Either way, the paper says that global warming is happening and that humans are at least partly responsible. So even geologists seem to agree with the core findings of climate experts.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

There are no reputable scientists who disagree.

Jan Veizer

Richard Lindzen

Tim Patterson

William M. Gray

Roy Spencer

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Troll 

I think the CONCLUSIONS are the most important. That's what the writer of the article thought too.

Either way, the paper says that global warming is happening and that humans are at least partly responsible. So even geologists seem to agree with the core findings of climate experts.

I guess you missed the part that said:

The current global warming is most likely a combined effect of increased solar and tectonic activities and cannot be attributed to the increased anthropogenic impact on the atmosphere.

I would say that .01ºC is hardly substantial over a century and considering that the above was just before the sentence you quoted the scientists who wrote the paper seem to agree. Nice try though.

Look, admitting that you are wrong and that there are real scientists who have done real research that disagree with the Holy Consensus™ is NOT the same as admitting that you were wrong about climate change. Really, it's Ok.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I guess you missed the part that said:

No I didn't miss that part although as you point out, it's a bit of a bizarre paper that says in one sentence that global warming cannot be attributed to an INCREASE in human activity and then says that human activity may be responsible for some global warming. I actually went and read the paper. Did you? They clearly recognise that climate change is partly human-induced but they argue that "human-induced climatic changes are negligible."

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I would say that .01ºC is hardly substantial

I'm not qualified enough to say that and suspect neither are you. Because I have no idea what that kind of change in temperature might do, I listen to scientists. But if you read carefully, that paper says that human activity MAY be responsible for a .01ºC increase. It MAY of course be responsible for more. Note that these GEOLOGISTS weren't looking to determine how much warming human activity was responsible for.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Look, admitting that you are wrong and that there are real scientists who have done real research that disagree with the Holy Consensus™ is NOT the same as admitting that you were wrong about climate change. Really, it's Ok.

I'm sorry. Did I miss the part where you showed us a peer reviewed scientific paper? I was a bit suspicious about why you wouldn't give us the source of that article, so I looked it up. A blog. Not only that, a blog that "points out the weaknesses and outright fallacies in the science that is being touted as “proof” of disastrous warming. It’s the perfect antidote against those who argue for proposed changes to the Rio Climate Treaty, such as the Kyoto Protocol, which are aimed at limiting carbon emissions from the United States."

I also took the time to look up some info on that paper. So what did Scientific American have to say about it?

Unfortunately, humanity's output of greenhouse gases can't be compared to "geologic history." We prefer to work on shorter timescales, especially since we are noted more for our absence than presence over the course of geologic time.

"A highlight of the outgassing theory of Khilyuk and Chilingar (2006) is their comparison of the total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission of 1.003x1018 g with the hypothesized total mass of CO2 degassed from the mantle throughout geologic history of 4.63x1023 g. This is used to declare that the total anthropogenic CO2 emission "constitutes less than 0.00022 percent of the total CO2 amount naturally degassed from the mantle during geologic history" and conclude that "the anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission is negligible (indistinguishable) in any energy-matter transformation processes changing the Earth's climate." It seems that the authors forgot to take the time factor into account. The anthropogenic emission happened during 200 years, whereas the natural degassing during geologic history spanned 4.5 billion years. Thus, the above numbers yield a yearly anthropogenic flux that is about 50 times larger than the mantle degassing flux, which hardly is negligible. It appears that the authors assume that the 4.63x1023 g of CO2 degassed from the mantle all remained in the atmosphere. Yet, the present day atmosphere contains less than 3x1018 g of CO2, and compared to this number the total anthropogenic CO2 emission of 1x1018 g certainly is significant."

The quoted part came from W. Aeschbach-Hertig of the University of Heidelberg. Pretty basic error to ignore 4.5Bn years of time!!

For those who are interested, the original paper is available here.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Troll 

I also took the time to look up some info on that paper. So what did Scientific American have to say about it?
The quoted part came from W. Aeschbach-Hertig of the University of Heidelberg. Pretty basic error to ignore 4.5Bn years of time!!

For those who are interested, the original paper is available here.

I guess the idea of recycling is lost on them as well. Much of the mantle outgassed CO2 could be recycled back into the crust, or trapped in the coal beds, which took millions of years to form, that we have been burning in the past 300 or so years.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Troll 

I'm not qualified enough to say that and suspect neither are you.

No, I'm not. Can you show us a peer-reviewed paper that tells us the precise impact of that .01ºC?

I'm sorry. Did I miss the part where you showed us a peer reviewed scientific paper?

I never said that I showed you a peer-reviewed paper.

I was a bit suspicious about why you wouldn't give us the source of that article, so I looked it up. A blog.

The source of the article is irrelevant.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I never said that I showed you a peer-reviewed paper.

Can you come up with some peer-reviewed articles?

Originally Posted by smacintush 

The source of the article is irrelevant.

It's not. Unless an article has undergone peer-reviewed, it has no scientific credibility.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

No, I'm not. Can you show us a peer-reviewed paper that tells us the precise impact of that .01ºC?

Hello? Did you read my post? The 0.01ºC figure is based on a fundamental and basic error. Of course I can't show you science to back up your crazy number.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I never said that I showed you a peer-reviewed paper.

Precisely. Which is why you still haven't managed to show that there's any debate in the scientific community.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

The source of the article is irrelevant.

No, it's relevant. It's relevant to the point that I've been making for the last few pages. The point is that the press (and just for a laugh, let's include blogs in "press") are misrepresenting the state of science. The press (apparently motivated by politics or money) is making out that scientists don't agree either that global warming is happening or that humans are (partly) responsible. And who can blame them when oil companies are throwing money at anyone prepared to argue their cause? If you look at peer reviewed scientific journals, you find that the truth is that there is no debate on these points. At least there was none prior to December 2006. There may now be some new crackpots whose theories haven't been solidly criticised but that doesn't change much.

Let me ask you this, what percentage of peer reviewed scientific articles would have to agree with a proposition before you considered the scientific findings to be actionable? 60%, 80%, 90%?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If not our demise (as greg has stated so often before), then what?

I'm not sure where this comes from. I have stated firmly before that I do not believe climate change will cause the demise of the human race. I do, however, see it completely changing our current way of life and having disasterous effects on many areas of the world.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Yes I did. Richard Lindzen.

Read much?

How about Bob Carter?

Or Fred Singer?

Roy Spencer?

All real scientists. All disagree with the lemmings…I mean "consensus". (I beginning to hate that word)

I'm sorry, I have to call your idiotic bullshit here. These names have been discussed recently in other threads, and I have repeatedly shown how completely false this list is. There are only a couple scientists doing work in the field in this list, and there are no recent or notable publications at all regarding climate change from these names.

In addition, complete "big oil" shills are included in this list. You examples are an embarrassment for your own cause, just Timothy Ball also is.

Originally Posted by Macrobat

BTW, the release of the IPCC Report's summary well in advance of the actual report is completely unheard of and without precedence. Since the "science" section of the report is what is causing the delay while it is circulated to governmental "experts" for redaction and editing - gee, written by scientists, edited by politicians - typical.

More misinformation. It seems like it's expected every time you post nowadays.

From RealClimate � Climate Science:

The process of finalising the SPM (which is well described here and here) is something that can seem a little odd. Government representatives from all participating nations take the draft summary (as written by the lead authors of the individual chapters) and discuss whether the text truly reflects the underlying science in the main report. The key here is to note that what the lead authors originally came up with is not necessarily the clearest or least ambiguous language, and so the governments (for whom the report is being written) are perfectly entitled to insist that the language be modified so that the conclusions are correctly understood by them and the scientists. It is also key to note that the scientists have to be happy that the final language that is agreed conforms with the underlying science in the technical chapters. The advantage of this process is that everyone involved is absolutely clear what is meant by each sentence. Recall after the National Academies report on surface temperature reconstructions there was much discussion about the definition of 'plausible'. That kind of thing shouldn't happen with AR4.

The SPM process also serves a very useful political purpose. Specifically, it allows the governments involved to feel as though they 'own' part of the report. This makes it very difficult to later turn around and dismiss it on the basis that it was all written by someone else. This gives the governments a vested interest in making this report as good as it can be (given the uncertainties). There are in fact plenty of safeguards (not least the scientists present) to ensure that the report is not slanted in any one preferred direction. However, the downside is that it can mistakenly appear as if the whole summary is simply up for negotiation. That would be a false conclusion - the negotiations, such as they are, are in fact heavily constrained by the underlying science.

Finally, a few people have asked why the SPM is being released now while the main report is not due to be published for a couple of months. There are a number of reasons - firstly, the Paris meeting has been such a public affair that holding back the SPM until the main report is ready is probably pointless. For the main report itself, it had not yet been proof-read, and there has not yet been enough time to include observational data up until the end of 2006. One final point is that improvements in the clarity of the language from the SPM should be propagated back to the individual chapters in order to remove any superficial ambiguity. The science content will not change.

Had it been up to us, we'd have tried to get everything together so that they could be released at the same time, but maybe that would have been impossible. We note that Arctic Climate Impact Assessment in 2004 also had a similar procedure - which lead to some confusion initially since statements in the summary were not referenced.

Wow, look at that, one of the more "open" processes involving redrafts and rewrites and massive participation - and of course now that the science is becoming so certain they have to start complaining about such an "open" process. Maybe we should've had a nice little group write it off by themselves, huh?...I'm sure you wouldn't've have any problem with that.

greg

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Hello? Did you read my post? The 0.01ºC figure is based on a fundamental and basic error. Of course I can't show you science to back up your crazy number.

Good god are you on drugs? It's not MY CRAZY number and I said that in response to what YOU said. Whether the number is valid or not isn't the point.

Precisely. Which is why you still haven't managed to show that there's any debate in the scientific community.

I have shown that there are scientists who have reviewed that research that has been done and still disagree. Did you see that? I guess not. And whether or not you like it that paper that was referenced in the article I posted WAS peer-reviewed. If there was a fundamental error that makes it garbage then that just amuses me even more.

Let me ask you this, what percentage of peer reviewed scientific articles would have to agree with a proposition before you considered the scientific findings to be actionable? 60%, 80%, 90%?

This is a retarded question. Am I supposed to assign an arbitrary number? There isn't some fixed criteria in my head that I use to judge the validity of something. That's just asinine.

You haven't been paying attention. I AM NOT TRYING TO DISPROVE ANYTHING. Did you catch it that time? Maybe if you look real, REAL hard you can ascertain my point. Then again, maybe not.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I'm sorry, I have to call your idiotic bullshit here. These names have been discussed recently in other threads, and I have repeatedly shown how completely false this list is. There are only a couple scientists doing work in the field in this list, and there are no recent or notable publications at all regarding climate change from these names.

In addition, complete "big oil" shills are included in this list. You examples are an embarrassment for your own cause, just Timothy Ball also is.

Really? I have seen articles by Lindzen and Carter from the end of '06. Are you trying to imply that they have now changed their mind?

And I see you haven't paid attention either. I don't have a "cause".

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Sorry, but you don't make any sense here. You claimed that science had no `tangible effect', giving a very specific example.

No, I said it puts nothing tangible at stake. Do you even know what "at stake" means?

Why don't I fix global warming?

You implied the issue was one of convenience. It's not. It's a huge undertaking, one that we don't even know we can have an effect on. It's not a small sacrifice (like reduced skiing is). It's a major lifestyle change (including, as you mentioned, everyone moving their house closer to their job).

It depends on where you live. In most areas of Germany, there's some sort of public transportation.

You're not getting it. Once they get to work, they can't do that work without transportation. For example, you can be a bus-boy and live right above your restaurant, but that restaurant can't do any business without transportation to deliver the food every day. Our society can't function without transportation, and even a small increase in costs will have a big effect.

Because it's a topic that everybody has to deal with... Sooner or later you'll have to deal with it and if you don't do it now, it'll come back with a vengeance.

No, it's not, and no, it won't. It doesn't affect me personally. Just because you let it affect you personally, doesn't mean you have to be a dick and thrust that mistake on everyone around you as well.

To `stop a contribution' doesn't make any grammatical sense.
I imply that I would cut my emissions to zero (which I think is what you mean by `stopping my contribution'), but I cut them back nevertheless.

I think you missed a "not" in there somewhere.

Anyway, here's what you said:
"We don't need to give up our way of life to stop contributing to global warming. "
That's not right. In order to truly "stop contributing to global warming," we would have to change our way of life significantly.

And to conclude that my efforts don't have an impact is also a childish conclusion to make: it's not just me riding the bus and the subway to work or to live in a well-insulated home. Over the last ten, fifteen years, emissions in Germany have been cut back by more than 15 %.

So what you're saying is that even in a country that's more able and more willing to implement green technologies, you can only curb them by 15%? Do you think a permanent 15% drop in the world's output will curb global warming?

I'm not going on this wild goose chase with you here. Proof by exhaustion doesn't work with me.

And I'm not buying in to the wild goose chase of global warming for you. It's a deal.

So buy a smaller car.

So it's your impression that the small cars won't also be more expensive because of green regulations? Cars are a big expense already, no matter what size they are. I already told you the car I have now I got for free. Most people can't make buying decisions based on the environment, when it's something that large. They just can't afford it.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, I said it puts nothing tangible at stake. Do you even know what "at stake" means?

I can't believe you are still trying to argue this. You've lost the argument already since you gave a very specific example and you've been proven wrong. Move on.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You implied the issue was one of convenience. It's not. It's a huge undertaking, one that we don't even know we can have an effect on. It's not a small sacrifice (like reduced skiing is). It's a major lifestyle change (including, as you mentioned, everyone moving their house closer to their job).

Exactly, it's a major undertaking. And I said that you base your opposition on convenience, not that global warming is an issue of convenience vs. lack of convenience.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You're not getting it. Once they get to work, they can't do that work without transportation. For example, you can be a bus-boy and live right above your restaurant, but that restaurant can't do any business without transportation to deliver the food every day. Our society can't function without transportation, and even a small increase in costs will have a big effect.

Oh puleeze. Just take a look at other countries, we have delivery services, too. They can still exist in a world of more efficient cars and public transportation

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I think you missed a "not" in there somewhere.

No, I haven't.
You wrote `stop a contribution', whether it's negative or not doesn't matter. It's grammatically wrong and I was not even sure what you meant. `Stop contributing' does make sense.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That's not right. In order to truly "stop contributing to global warming," we would have to change our way of life significantly.

Yes and no. We would have to change significantly, but that doesn't mean we have to lower our standards of living. At least where I am, cutting CO2 emissions and trying not to waste energy, water and the likes hasn't reduced my standard of living.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So what you're saying is that even in a country that's more able and more willing to implement green technologies, you can only curb them by 15%? Do you think a permanent 15% drop in the world's output will curb global warming?

It's a start and 15 % is not the end of our efforts. (To be more exact, there was a 15 % reduction from 1990 to 2002 in CO2 emissions, I haven't found any numbers for subsequent years.) You questioned that my individual actions contribute to curbing CO2 emissions and you were incorrect again.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So it's your impression that the small cars won't also be more expensive because of green regulations? Cars are a big expense already, no matter what size they are. I already told you the car I have now I got for free. Most people can't make buying decisions based on the environment, when it's something that large. They just can't afford it.

It's not whether they want to, it's whether they have to. Last year, the gas prices surged (because the price for crude oil went up), so many people were complaining about the increase in energy costs and gas prices. But there's nothing anybody could do about it and it didn't have zit to do with `green regulations'. This is more than enough to make people think about getting a more efficient car or use alternative means of transportations. You just think of `green regulations', but a lot of it is really beyond this and has nothing to do with green or regulation.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Good god are you on drugs? It's not MY CRAZY number and I said that in response to what YOU said. Whether the number is valid or not isn't the point.

It is entirely the point. How can you ask me to show you science that backs up a figure you provided and that I showed to be bulldust?

I have showed you an article referencing every peer reviewed scientific paper written on the topic over a specified, recent period. And those papers said that global warming is happening and the cause is human. That article shows that none of the peer reviewed papers that were studied disagreed with those statements. I never said a thing about how many degrees of increase we're responsible for. I think that's irrelevant. I understood you to be suggesting that we were responsible for 0.01 degrees of increase and that this amount was irrelevant. It should be up to you to prove the statements you make. It's not up to me to prove your argument for you.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

This is a retarded question. Am I supposed to assign an arbitrary number? There isn't some fixed criteria in my head that I use to judge the validity of something. That's just asinine.

Why is that asinine? It seems perfectly reasonable to me to say that 10% agreement is not actionable and it seems perfectly reasonable to me to say that 99% agreement is. Why do you not believe that the earth is flat?

It's not government's job to study up on the science. They need to listen to the evidence and take a view. And they do that by looking at how many people agree (which is the way most of us deal with areas that we don't have expertise in).

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

you gave a very specific example and you've been proven wrong.

Ug. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that English is not your first language, and you're just not aware of your misunderstanding. "Putting something at stake" means putting it at risk, threatening it, causing it to be gone when it would otherwise not be. A scientific discovery like the structure that creates memories does not cause memories to go away, nor does your brain surgeon example in any way put memories more at risk than they otherwise would be.

To oversimplify for you, what I said means scientific conclusions are "good" or "neutral" for "costs," and policy decisions can be "bad" for "costs." The reason you're wrong and I'm right in your example is because the scientific conclusion (knowing the memory structure) is "good" (spares it from the surgeon's careless blade) and does not "cost" anything (the surgeon does not care that he has to avoid the structure). The knowledge of where memories are is in no way "bad," and certainly not "worse" than we would be without that knowledge; it incurs no additional "costs." This is my point, this is true of all scientific discoveries (aka "conclusions"), when they stay in the scientific sphere where they belong.

Exactly, it's a major undertaking. And I said that you base your opposition on convenience, not that global warming is an issue of convenience vs. lack of convenience.

Ok, again this may be a matter of you not understanding the language, but "major undertaking" is not consistent with "issue of convenience." That's simply a logical impossibility.

Also, you completely ignored the "possibly futile" aspect. I'm not aware of any scientific evidence that anything we do can "fix" climage change, whether we caused it in the first place or not.

No, I haven't.
You wrote `stop a contribution', whether it's negative or not doesn't matter. It's grammatically wrong and I was not even sure what you meant. `Stop contributing' does make sense.

You're the one who said "stop contributing!" Here's exactly what you said:
"We don't need to give up our way of life to stop contributing to global warming. "
You've got to be putting me on. Nobody can be this thick in real life.

Yes and no. We would have to change significantly, but that doesn't mean we have to lower our standards of living. At least where I am, cutting CO2 emissions and trying not to waste energy, water and the likes hasn't reduced my standard of living.

I don't know how to tell you this, but your situation does not apply to everyone. Also, statistically speaking there's going to be a lot of people for whom adopting your standard of living is probably going to be a downgrade

It's not whether they want to, it's whether they have to. Last year, the gas prices surged (because the price for crude oil went up), so many people were complaining about the increase in energy costs and gas prices. But there's nothing anybody could do about it and it didn't have zit to do with `green regulations'. This is more than enough to make people think about getting a more efficient car or use alternative means of transportations. You just think of `green regulations', but a lot of it is really beyond this and has nothing to do with green or regulation.

So what? I've said from the start that the free market is the best way to regulate this. You're kind of proving my point.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Why is that asinine? It seems perfectly reasonable to me to say that 10% agreement is not actionable and it seems perfectly reasonable to me to say that 99% agreement is. Why do you not believe that the earth is flat?

Actually, that's an excellent example of why smac is right in this case. It's not reasonable to believe something because of consensus. That is faith, not reason. Reason would be believing something for the same reason as the consensus does. In other words, the evidence. That's why your example is perfect. People believe the earth is round because they see pictures of the round earth. Before pictures, you could see the curvature of the horizon. If the only thing people had to go on for a round earth was being told so, it would not be very widely accepted.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I can't believe you are still trying to argue this. You've lost the argument already since you gave a very specific example and you've been proven wrong. Move on.

On what basis has he been proven wrong? His argument is more logical than yours.

Exactly, it's a major undertaking. And I said that you base your opposition on convenience, not that global warming is an issue of convenience vs. lack of convenience.

No, you miss his point completely. You confuse "convenience" with "neccesity." Though in your mind public transportation is an inconvenience, for people like my father without private transportation he doesn't get to put food on the table. Public transportation is simply not an option for most of the main-stream working class of America. hell, its hard enough to get people to carpool...

Oh puleeze. Just take a look at other countries, we have delivery services, too. They can still exist in a world of more efficient cars and public transportation

And much smaller land masses.

No, I haven't.
You wrote `stop a contribution', whether it's negative or not doesn't matter. It's grammatically wrong and I was not even sure what you meant. `Stop contributing' does make sense.

I'll say it a different way. Unless you cut your emissions to zero or close to zero, you have no business telling me what kind of car I can and cannot buy. Its easy to tell others to change when that change doesn't bother you a bit.

Yes and no. We would have to change significantly, but that doesn't mean we have to lower our standards of living. At least where I am, cutting CO2 emissions and trying not to waste energy, water and the likes hasn't reduced my standard of living.

There is a huge distinction between "trying to cut emissions" and what troll and analogika have in mind. The sginificant standard of living decrease is a far more certain thing in my mind then "man causes global warming" when your talking about getting rid of private transportation, gas taxes, etc.

It's a start and 15 % is not the end of our efforts. (To be more exact, there was a 15 % reduction from 1990 to 2002 in CO2 emissions, I haven't found any numbers for subsequent years.) You questioned that my individual actions contribute to curbing CO2 emissions and you were incorrect again.

"It's a start" isn't justification for you to tell me I should give up my way of life, especially when its much easier for a smaller country like germany to do so.

And he was not incorrect, you simply dodged his question. What have you personally done to curb emissions?

It's not whether they want to, it's whether they have to. Last year, the gas prices surged (because the price for crude oil went up), so many people were complaining about the increase in energy costs and gas prices. But there's nothing anybody could do about it and it didn't have zit to do with `green regulations'. This is more than enough to make people think about getting a more efficient car or use alternative means of transportations. You just think of `green regulations', but a lot of it is really beyond this and has nothing to do with green or regulation.

Exactly. Why would the masses give a rats poop about something that doesn't affect them? Its not proven that it will affect them. Its not proven that they are the cause. Its not even proven that they can fix whatever you say the problem is. If you think otherwise give real world examples with undisputable proof of the cause, and the cause of the cause.

Like Uncy Skeleton said. Your GW scientists are a solution without a problem. I don't think you quite understood the analogy to a brain surgeon. I'll try one more time for the hell of it.

There is no affect from GW today. The specialist clamoring on about it have all these solutions when in the real world there is no problem.

The specialist you see for a brain tumor is one that you only see if you have a brain tumor.
There are no ill effects from GW at this point in time, so why in the hell would we need to see a GW specialist? Thats the only way you're going to affect the masses. Otherwise they don't want to be bothered and i don't blame them...hell i'm one of them.

[Macrobat]

Um, this group of lawyers is suing who they think is the actual cause of GW:

Groupthink :: Activist Lawsuit: God Guilty of Malicious Climate Change

lol

[Macrobat]

BTW, the price of crude oil went up because OPEC needed more money to fight the WoT, then the Saudis decided to screw Iran and raised their country's output to deliberately drop that price in a sort of economic guerilla warfare against the Iranian government's treasury.

It had NOTHING to do with Global Warming or taxation.

[Macrobat]

Funny, not one of you has even attempted to rebut the Monckton report, maybe you all need a "shortcut" to it?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Really? I have seen articles by Lindzen and Carter from the end of '06. Are you trying to imply that they have now changed their mind?

And I see you haven't paid attention either. I don't have a "cause".

Articles from the end of '06 have not been subject to peer review and can safely be ignored until they have been reviewed, discussed, and, as will ultimately be the fate of these particular ones, dismissed by the scientific community.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Good god are you on drugs? It's not MY CRAZY number and I said that in response to what YOU said. Whether the number is valid or not isn't the point.



I have shown that there are scientists who have reviewed that research that has been done and still disagree. Did you see that? I guess not.

He did, and in fact he saw it so clearly that he managed to take apart your sources in about two sentences.

Did you see that? I guess not. Maybe he was just too fast for you.

Geologists are not authorities on climate change. Their opinion is irrelevant.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I already told you the car I have now I got for free. Most people can't make buying decisions based on the environment, when it's something that large. They just can't afford it.

Well, if the car you got for free cost you $750 in taxes every year, plus $3000 MORE a year in gasoline than a car that might cost you an extra $10,000 to buy, then making a buying decision IN FAVOR of the environment is actually quite an easy thing to do, and it doesn't even take any green sympathy to make the sensible decision.

you couldn't afford NOT to.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Oh puleeze. Just take a look at other countries, we have delivery services, too. They can still exist in a world of more efficient cars and public transportation

Oddly, all delivery services here in Hamburg appear to drive those little smart cars, which get 4.7L/100km or 60 mpg.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by analogika 

He did, and in fact he saw it so clearly that he managed to take apart your sources in about two sentences.

Did you see that? I guess not. Maybe he was just too fast for you.

Geologists are not authorities on climate change. Their opinion is irrelevant.

Then so is yours

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Then so is yours

ZOMG what a monster of argumentative skills!

You really killed me there by attacking...not my opinion.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Can you show me where this is "clear" Troll?

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/cl...004397,00.html