[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by subego 

They don't shut down the canal as in occupy it. It gets shut down for safety reasons. No one wants radiation in their Doritos.

Dude! Glowing Doritos, man! Glowing Doritos! Awesome!

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Taking the average temperature of our globe from before the Industrial age to today, I'd say there's a very unlikely chance global warming will destroy our way of life. However, this does not negate the importance of acting in a preemptive fashion based on the conventional wisdom of the potential dangers involved... or so I'm told.

I mean, isn't this fear-mongering?

Oh, no shi† eh? Like these short-term temperatures, or these short-term CO2 levels, or these atmospheric constituent levels, or these studies which show the lower side of estimated Greenland ice cap melting....

The key, of course, is that climate change – at least in the short-term, "centuries" perspective, might not affect our comfortable selves in the Western world all that much (so to speak...not that the ~14,000 who died in Europe in the hot summer of 2003 probably appreciate that much). It's all those poorer areas of the world that will almost certainly not have the technological or resource base to cope with such changes.

But, hey...it's not like the last 10,000 years of abrupt human success on this globe correlate to an amazingly stable global temperature period within an ideal range for us and our favourite food sources. I don't see how changing the temperature in 200 years could seriously affect our way of life at all.

But, hey...you're right. This is "fear mongering." The dangers of Islam are of a far more pressing concern to us – after all, they can blow themselves up! And kill thousands of people!

[/sarcasm]

greg

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

(Macrobat's sig)

"One day, our grandchildren, those loving in coastal cities such as Reno, Dallas, Atlanta, and Pittsburgh, wearing air filters to keep pollutants out of their lungs may ask us what we did when Islamic fascism threatened the free world and why we did nothing to ensure they could experience Disney Land and Disney World and breath clean air. Some will say we were fighting that threat wherever possible; others will say they fought carbon dioxide emissions. One of us will look bad."
Dennis Prager

Fixed

[marden]

Originally Posted by marden
(Macrobat's sig)

"One day, our grandchildren, those loving in coastal cities such as Reno, Dallas, Atlanta, and Pittsburgh, wearing air filters to keep pollutants out of their lungs may ask us what we did when Islamic fascism threatened the free world and why we did nothing to ensure they could experience Disney Land and Disney World and breath clean air. Some will say we were fighting that threat wherever possible; others will say they fought carbon dioxide emissions. One of us will look bad."
Dennis Prager

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Fixed

Leave it to you liberals to concern yourselves with where people do their loving!

those loving in coastal cities

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Oh, no shi† eh? Like these short-term temperatures,

UN IPCC is part of an advocacy process, organized by the United Nations Environment Program, which strongly advocates Kyoto Protocol. anyone can post a bunch of links to support their own views on Global Warming

This scientist says such and such. Oh yeah? Well this scientist says such and such. Yeah? Well my scientist can beat up your scientist.

or these short-term CO2 levels,

CO2 is not pollution. What of it? Most of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has occurred during the past 50 years, and the increase has continued during the past 20 years. There's been no significant increase in atmospheric temperature during those 50 years, and during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, temperatures have decreased. GLOBAL COOLING!! OHHHHH NOOOOOOO!

or these atmospheric constituent levels, or these studies which show the lower side of estimated Greenland ice cap melting....

Antarctic ice sheets are getting thicker, did man cause this too? Did this occur shortly after the Industrial age or has it really been cow manure all along? [/sarcasm]

The key, of course, is that climate change – at least in the short-term, "centuries" perspective, might not affect our comfortable selves in the Western world all that much (so to speak...not that the ~14,000 who died in Europe in the hot summer of 2003 probably appreciate that much). It's all those poorer areas of the world that will almost certainly not have the technological or resource base to cope with such changes.

Well, they can blame that on the Gulf Stream I suppose, but scientists don't believe there'd be enough fresh water even with the entire ice cap melted to account for a massive increase in European heat. You're not really trying to suggest the warmest summer in Europe is evidence of global warming are you? What about the 100 or so cars being burned by terrorists in France every night? Isn't that accounting for some of these greenhouse gases? Priorities. Jobs pay money, money buys air conditioners. They'd do well to work out that pesky unemployment problem in Europe, eradicate the ones destroying vehicles, and maybe put Global Warming on the back burner (so to speak) for a while. I don't mean to sound cold, but egadz.

Speaking of Europe, why haven't they had this hot a summer since? Hybrid Hondas? It's 10 degrees where I'm sitting and I'm getting together 15 of my friends to spray our aerosol cans into the atmosphere. Hurry it up already!!! When there is a hot summer, even a record hot summer, there is no shortage of chicken littles. When there is a cold winter, even a record cold winter, there is no shortage of chicken littles. Now I realize you've heard these arguments before, but if I have to hear news one more time of yet another Global Warming conference getting canceled due to in-climate winter weather I just don't know what...

But, hey...you're right. This is "fear mongering." The dangers of Islam are of a far more pressing concern to us – after all, they can blow themselves up! And kill thousands of people![/sarcasm]

Sarcasm indeed. People dying in cold winters has got to be evidence of global cooling. At least this was the fear-mongering, research grant-procuring conventional wisdom of the 70's. Nevermind the guy in your backyard with the AK, I'm much more concerned about the natural variation of global surface temperature. The only question is, do we use the satellite measurements or the questionable surface measurements? After all, they seem to contradict considerably. Scientists say; "may, might, could be, don't know...", but Shortcut to Montcon is convinced, educated and enlightened above these mild-mannered morons. It is so.

You're not going to change my mind. There is nothing to do, but drive a large vehicle if you need one, burn fossil fuels if you need to, and use aerosol cans if they're more convenient. Period. The only other option is to listen to a bunch of pinheads who do the above warn us about global warming. I mean really, what do you drive? The last time I asked a global warming preacher this question I didn't hear back. My guess is either a Ford F-150, BMW X5, or Hummer.

- Find an efficient way to farm to avoid the effects of cow manure.
- Bring the Honda Hybrid down to at least the cost of an Audi A4.
- Figure out where the billion or so will work next decade, and...
- Ensure the cheaply thrown together, "environmentally-friendly" trash bags aren't three times as costly as the good ol' sturdy trash bags I'm used to.

Until then, it's snake oil, fear-mongering, and a money grab.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Oooooo, I like this. Arguing about environmental issues, eh? Sure you're not out of your home territory here? I'd love another thread about this, but since it's in here....

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

UN IPCC is part of an advocacy process, organized by the United Nations Environment Program, which strongly advocates Kyoto Protocol. anyone can post a bunch of links to support their own views on Global Warming

Ohhhhhhhh, nice call on that one. Really helping your argument here. The infamous David E. Wojick, Ph.D. He of the undergrad in civil engineering, Ph.D in mathematical logic and philosophy of science (weird, I don't see anything about "climate" stuff there, do you? I don't even see "scientist." I see "engineering" though – long a bastion of conservative, big-business interests; not that it's necessarily a bad thing, but hardly a "climate change" pedigree. How odd!). He who covers climate change for Electricity Daily – which I'm quite sure encourages a wonderfully unbiased view of climate change. He who notes on his own site that "My work combines engineering, mathematics and management science, but it is not academic." He who makes bold claims about the inaccuracy of the IPCC report on his site you linked, but when smacked down on issues like "urban bias adjustment" of course doesn't bother to note such information on his own site. Come on, tell me you were just being facetious, right? That was a joke? You were just giving a ridiculous example of how people can post anything they want? Pretty please. What's next, junkscience.com?!

Your dismissal of the IPCC doesn't make sense. UNEP strongly advocates Kyoto partly because of the work of the IPCC, not the other way around (the IPCC was formed in the later 1980s, years before Kyoto was even being considered).

When you can show me how the IPCC data is merely their "own views," feel free to do so – because it's pretty funny that you bring up an irrelevant (and inexpert) third party instead of actually trying to establish your view that the IPCC is inherently biased. Honestly, that's a pretty pathetic argument.

This scientist says such and such. Oh yeah? Well this scientist says such and such. Yeah? Well my scientist can beat up your scientist.

No, he can't. That's because you've got ten scientists sitting there (...or, well, wait, I guess one non-scientist I guess), while I've got a thousand. Your scientist can't beat up jack

I beg of you, please. Find 50 climate scientists who have produced papers that indicate that global warming "isn't real." Even better, find that same number who think that global warming itself (or climate change) isn't real. Even better, find 50 of those who aren't funded by large multinational companies who might lose profits if serious steps are made about the issue.

In the meantime, there's probably at least a couple-hundred climate scientists working with the IPCC alone. And each publication, you know, goes through two reviews where other expert climate scientists get to criticize the scientific/technical/socio-economic and balance aspects of the draft, and then governments get to have a go at it.

Good luck on that one. You're gonna need it.

CO2 is not pollution. What of it? Most of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has occurred during the past 50 years, and the increase has continued during the past 20 years. There's been no significant increase in atmospheric temperature during those 50 years, and during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, temperatures have decreased. GLOBAL COOLING!! OHHHHH NOOOOOOO!

Well I never said anything about CO2 being "pollution," but good call bringing out the old "it's natural!" argument. So's any other host of compounds that are horrible for humans. Excuse me while we use the same logic to advocate spreading acid and mercury around. [/sarcasm]

Oops, not showing much knowledge about the subject here, eh?? I don't know what you're talking about when you say "increase has continued during the past 20 years." CO2 levels weren't "the highest in the 1950s and 1960s, ebuddy. CO2 increases have increased since that time, and are now much higher than at any time in the modern period (ie. a few hundred thousand if not millions of years).

Your ideas on global cooling and temperature decreases in the 1970s are simplistic and also lack a basic knowledge of the subject. You know, we really used to be big on these cool things called "sulphate aerosols," which contribute to global dimming – ie. "global cooling." They also caused acid rain – you remember all those scares in the 70s? Yeah that's right, we banned them. Funny, how global warming continued upwards within a few years afterwards.

Antarctic ice sheets are getting thicker, did man cause this too? Did this occur shortly after the Industrial age or has it really been cow manure all along? [/sarcasm]

I love it when you get East Antarctica and West Antarctica confused. It's almost like...you don't really know the subject. Or how East Antarctica is the only terrestrial ice body that is gaining mass. Or how West Antarctica is losing ice, and its glaciers are increasing runoff into the sea. Or how global-warming models actually predicted that East Antarctica will indeed see more snowfall as weather patterns change. Or how it looks like net melting on the underside of the ice sheets may be exceeding the net snowfall on the top of the sheets. (Look: 9 scientists with their names underneath the title! You're falling behind!) Or how Greenland and Antarctica temperatures are historically out of sync anyway.

Huh, you know, I bet if you knew much about the subject, in retrospect you probably wouldn't have brought up the ice sheets at all. It makes you look...bad. But thanks for giving me some ammo anyway.

Well, they can blame that on the Gulf Stream I suppose, but scientists don't believe there'd be enough fresh water even with the entire ice cap melted to account for a massive increase in European heat. You're not really trying to suggest the warmest summer in Europe is evidence of global warming are you? What about the 100 or so cars being burned by terrorists in France every night? Isn't that accounting for some of these greenhouse gases? Priorities. Jobs pay money, money buys air conditioners. They'd do well to work out that pesky unemployment problem in Europe, eradicate the ones destroying vehicles, and maybe put Global Warming on the back burner (so to speak) for a while. I don't mean to sound cold, but egadz.

I have no idea what you're talking about. You don't even know what you're talking about. Since when does the Greenland ice cap melting make Europe warmer?!

Ignoring the rambling bit about terrorists and air conditioners and unemployment in Europe; nowhere did I say that Europe 2003 was a direct product of global warming – I used it as an example of how "short-term" climate events can indeed affect even those in modern Western countries. However, it does fit the bit of "extreme climate variations" that are a result of climate change. It also fits at least some models of future weather events in Europe. Take that as you wish.

Speaking of Europe, why haven't they had this hot a summer since? Hybrid Hondas? It's 10 degrees where I'm sitting and I'm getting together 15 of my friends to spray our aerosol cans into the atmosphere. Hurry it up already!!! When there is a hot summer, even a record hot summer, there is no shortage of chicken littles. When there is a cold winter, even a record cold winter, there is no shortage of chicken littles. Now I realize you've heard these arguments before, but if I have to hear news one more time of yet another Global Warming conference getting canceled due to in-climate winter weather I just don't know what...

You're getting "climate" and "weather" confused. Hint: "climatic normal" is based on a 30-year average. "Weather" is not.

Again, see the bit about "extreme weather events." Such things as hotter summers, colder winters, less and more rains, and less and more snow(s). Sound familiar? It should.

And: see the comment above about aerosols. Ouch.

Sarcasm indeed. People dying in cold winters has got to be evidence of global cooling. At least this was the fear-mongering, research grant-procuring conventional wisdom of the 70's. Nevermind the guy in your backyard with the AK, I'm much more concerned about the natural variation of global surface temperature. The only question is, do we use the satellite measurements or the questionable surface measurements? After all, they seem to contradict considerably. Scientists say; "may, might, could be, don't know...", but Shortcut to Montcon is convinced, educated and enlightened above these mild-mannered morons. It is so.

Show me links for these contradictions, please. You haven't gotten much else right so far, so that's the least you can do.

You're not going to change my mind. There is nothing to do, but drive a large vehicle if you need one, burn fossil fuels if you need to, and use aerosol cans if they're more convenient. Period. The only other option is to listen to a bunch of pinheads who do the above warn us about global warming. I mean really, what do you drive? The last time I asked a global warming preacher this question I didn't hear back. My guess is either a Ford F-150, BMW X5, or Hummer.

I take the bus, or walk. But I'm a student, so I guess that's irrelevant really. In other news, attacks about what global warming advocates drive is childish, petty, and actually pretty funny. In other news, I'm sure your logic is without fault though – "global warming preachers" drive X5s and Hummers, while hybrid cars are driven by...others. Yesssssss.

I don't expect to change your mind; you're a solidly right-wing middle-aged engineer, are you not? Hardly a candidate for mind-changing. I'm just going to show you how everything you base your "mind" on is wrong. That's enough for me.

- Bring the Honda Hybrid down to at least the cost of an Audi A4.

The Honda Hybrid, eh. What one is that? They've got a few hybrid models, none of which are actually called the "Hybrid." But see, according to Audi Canada, the base A4 starts at over 35 grand (the A3, 34 grand if you wish). And see here, the Honda Civic Hybrid and Insight Hybrid (discontinued elsewhere I think) start at around 26 grand, while the Accord Hybrid runs in at 38 grand. Or that the Toyota site lists the Hybrid Camry at 32-35 grand, and the Prius at 31-39 grand. And it's always fun to point out that those Hybrid cars usually have near-top-of-the-line packages.

Not much of an argument for you there, I'm afraid. Try again?

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Ohhhhhhhh, nice call on that one. Really helping your argument here. The infamous David E. Wojick, Ph.D. He of the undergrad in civil engineering, Ph.D in mathematical logic and philosophy of science (weird, I don't see anything about "climate" stuff there, do you? I don't even see "scientist." I see "engineering" though – long a bastion of conservative, big-business interests; not that it's necessarily a bad thing, but hardly a "climate change" pedigree. How odd!).

Why is that so odd? I'm being told about global warming by a... What do you do again? What are your credentials again?

He who covers climate change for Electricity Daily – which I'm quite sure encourages a wonderfully unbiased view of climate change.

Why would it be biased one way or the other? Electricity is known for wanting to destroy the earth or something?

He who notes on his own site that "My work combines engineering, mathematics and management science, but it is not academic." He who makes bold claims about the inaccuracy of the IPCC report on his site you linked, but when smacked down on issues like "urban bias adjustment" of course doesn't bother to note such information on his own site. Come on, tell me you were just being facetious, right? That was a joke? You were just giving a ridiculous example of how people can post anything they want? Pretty please. What's next, junkscience.com?!

Of course not, more experts;

John Christy, director of Earth System Science Center and critic of severe warming predictions, says forecasting the future "gets messy quickly."

"The Earth system has more unknowns that we are generally willing to acknowledge," he told CNN via e-mail. "It is very difficult for [scientists] to say, 'I don't have a clue.'...Our pronouncements often express more confidence than is warranted given the level of ignorance in which we presently operate."

- Natural climate variability is not well understood and may be greater than once thought.
- Computer models are oversimplifications that cannot simulate the complexities of the real climate.
- Temperature extrapolations of the past are not precise enough to make dire conclusions about "normal" warming.

Richard Lindzen, a respected meteorologist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says in light of these uncertainties, pronouncements about climate change are both self-serving and unscientific.

"Scientists make meaningless or ambiguous statements. Advocates and media translate statements into alarmist declarations. Politicians respond to alarm by feeding scientists more money," said Lindzen at a scientific conference this January. He added that the accepted evidence is "entirely consistent with there being virtually no problem at all."

Your dismissal of the IPCC doesn't make sense. UNEP strongly advocates Kyoto partly because of the work of the IPCC, not the other way around (the IPCC was formed in the later 1980s, years before Kyoto was even being considered).

I never said IPCC was formed to support Kyoto protocol, I said it advocates it. Are you going to read the posts or just kneejerk.

When you can show me how the IPCC data is merely their "own views," feel free to do so – because it's pretty funny that you bring up an irrelevant (and inexpert) third party instead of actually trying to establish your view that the IPCC is inherently biased. Honestly, that's a pretty pathetic argument.

Why is that a pathetic argument. You mentioned "the doctor's" connection to business and eeevill electricity as I knew you would.

I beg of you, please. Find 50 climate scientists who have produced papers that indicate that global warming "isn't real." Even better, find that same number who think that global warming itself (or climate change) isn't real. Even better, find 50 of those who aren't funded by large multinational companies who might lose profits if serious steps are made about the issue.

Find scientists writing papers on climate variation? You're not serious are you? After all, we can say the globe is warming, we don't know how much and we certainly can't project with much a degree of accuracy. That little chart on the link you cited, where levels continue on through the roof? Ridiculous fear-mongering.

In the meantime, there's probably at least a couple-hundred climate scientists working with the IPCC alone. And each publication, you know, goes through two reviews where other expert climate scientists get to criticize the scientific/technical/socio-economic and balance aspects of the draft, and then governments get to have a go at it.

Good luck on that one. You're gonna need it.

Why do I need any luck? I don't disagree there could be global warming, my main gripe is with the supposition that it is something we can control. Consensus science is bloodletting for diarrhea.

Your ideas on global cooling and temperature decreases in the 1970s are simplistic and also lack a basic knowledge of the subject. You know, we really used to be big on these cool things called "sulphate aerosols," which contribute to global dimming – ie. "global cooling." They also caused acid rain – you remember all those scares in the 70s? Yeah that's right, we banned them. Funny, how global warming continued upwards within a few years afterwards.

You're saying the globe warmed up as a result of our discontinuing the use of sulphate aerosols???

The rest of your post is the same ol' scare-mongering, research funding grab dribble. I bring up Antarctic ice sheet thickening as a joke, you bring up polar ice caps melting. You tell me I've got my facts wrong and start differentiating East from West Antarctica. So... you're denying consensus science now?

West Antarctic sheets thickening

I asked you how that could be? You brought up people dying in Europe due to record heat in summer of 2003. Of course, you're not suggesting it is due to global warming, you just brought it up because you're an activist for a heating and air company???

You're a zealot through and through. Look, I'm using air conditioners and anything else I need to use and there's not a danged thing you can do about it. I don't care because I'm a right-wing engineer.

and you're a.... what again? Expert link-poster?

If you want the global warming scare to take hold, you'll need to;

- Find an efficient way to farm to avoid the effects of cow manure.
- Bring go-cart looking Hybrids down to at least the cost of an Audi A4.
- Figure out where the billion or so will work next decade, and...
- Ensure the cheaply thrown together, "environmentally-friendly" trash bags aren't three times as costly as the good ol' sturdy trash bags I'm used to.

Until then, it's snake oil, fear-mongering, and a money grab. You can continue to quote scientists who propogate the fear. I'll continue to post scientists and others who claim it's fear-mongering. Period.

[Wiskedjak]

It would appear from this discussion that there is at least a 1% chance that global warming is human caused and could dramatically affect our way of life.

[Troll]

Part of the global warming issue is the fact that the earth is heating up FASTER than ever before. We can accept that the earth naturally gets hotter and cooler over time but for life to survive those swings, it needs time to evolve to the new conditions. Scientists are saying that this change is happening too fast for certain plants and animals and their extinction will have a potentially disastrous knock-on effect.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Wow; that you continue to post hilarious stuff like this makes me shake my head and laugh. You obviously have no clue about the subject, but yet you keep responding with detailed and involved posts anyway!

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why is that so odd? I'm being told about global warming by a... What do you do again? What are your credentials again?

First off: you know it's going to be a great response when you start ad-hominizing in the first line. Way to go, ebuddy.

Secondly, you're "being told" by the entire body of earth-atmospheric-climate-geology-etc. scientists throughout the world. There's thousands upon thousands of them, last time I checked. They've produced thousands of research papers on the subject.

Thirdly, I'm just finishing up my B.Sc undergraduate in Biology – following an environmental biology and ecology path – with a Minor in History (more specifically, the history of science, modern warfare, and Canada). So wow, look at that – some credentials of sorts to be talking about the subject after all, eh?!? What are your credentials again?

That's right, I thought so. Have a seat, son.

Why would it be biased one way or the other? Electricity is known for wanting to destroy the earth or something?

Don't play ignorant. Electricity generation (especially coal-fired) has been one of the largest producers of greenhouse (and pollutant) gases in the last hundred years.

Of course not, more experts;

[i]John Christy, director of Earth System Science Center and critic of severe warming predictions, says forecasting the future "gets messy quickly."

Christy has issues with global models, but AFAIK he hasn't said much about global warming itself.

Richard Lindzen meteorologist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says in light of these uncertainties, pronouncements about climate change are both self-serving and unscientific.

Lindzen is quite respected within the scientific community, and I've read some of his stuff a few times. He's got some good points, but there's nothing new here. There's a decent article about his House of Lords testimony here should you want to read some rebuttals, including a comment about his "alarmist" claims.

I never said IPCC was formed to support Kyoto protocol, I said it advocates it. Are you going to read the posts or just kneejerk.

Again, this isn't even an argument – it's a comment. Of course it advocates Kyoto – it's the only international (or even national) policy measure that addresses the IPCC's work. That seems logical to me. How does that in any way make its findings scientifically unsound? That's right, I thought so – it doesn't.

Why is that a pathetic argument. You mentioned "the doctor's" connection to business and eeevill electricity as I knew you would.

Same deal. You claim that the IPCC is somehow biased because it supports Kyoto, then counter it with a non-expert, non-academic, writes-for-one-of-the-largest-drivers-of-GHG-emissions, won't-change-his-information-even-when-it's-not-correct, not-even-a-scientist opinion of its work. Am I supposed to take your argument seriously?

Again, electricity isn't inherently evil. However, there can be no debate that electricity companies have a history of making erroneous statements about human effects on the climate, and that they have a significant momentum towards not having policies in place which would limit their emissions.

Find scientists writing papers on climate variation? You're not serious are you? After all, we can say the globe is warming, we don't know how much and we certainly can't project with much a degree of accuracy. That little chart on the link you cited, where levels continue on through the roof? Ridiculous fear-mongering.

Nice try at avoiding the subject. That isn't what I said at all, now, is it? I asked you to find me 50 scientists writing papers on global warming or climate change who didn't believe it was true. I guess you might have one above. It's a good start, though. *pats ebuddy's head*

Furthermore, those levels are based on many estimates, and as such have a high and low range which is clearly shown. Even the lowest estimates are far above today's levels – which are themselves apparently the highest in 20 million years. Even better, you see that slight overlap between "measured" and "predicted" levels on those graphs? Yeah, that's what happens as the years pass. So far, the predictions are fairly correct.

Again: you obviously know almost nothing about the subject, and yet you state that predicted levels of CO2/GHGs in the next century are "ridiculous fear-mongering." Where's your proof of this, ebuddy? Where's your rebuttal? Or is this a gut feeling of yours?

Why do I need any luck? I don't disagree there could be global warming, my main gripe is with the supposition that it is something we can control. Consensus science is bloodletting for diarrhea.

No idea what this means. "Consensus science?" When scientists agree, it's "bloodletting for diarrhea"? Hyuck. That's hilarious! Remind me to never trust anything that scientists agree on again. Gravity? Ho boy, with all that hot air goin' on, don't be trustin' that there gravity, ebuddy. And don't even get me started on physics! Consensus science, all of it! Bunk!

[/sarcasm]

You're saying the globe warmed up as a result of our discontinuing the use of sulphate aerosols???

Hahahaha...I'm saying that you really show your lack of knowledge about the subject here, because sulphate aerosols cool the globe. When you're arguing about global warming and then say "It's not real! Besides, my summer's been cool – I'm going to spray sulphate aerosols to warm things up!" it makes people point and laugh.

And since you're laughing, I'm assuming you don't actually believe that sulphate aerosols cool the globe. It's called "global dimming," ebuddy. It's easily observable – see, volcanoes spew them out when they erupt, and big eruptions like Mount Pinatubo in the early 90s caused a worldwide temperature drop for a year or so (they don't last terribly long in the atmosphere). I won't go into the chemistry of the reaction, but you can look that up yourself (which you won't, I'm sure, since you're clearly not going to examine anything that actually might make you change your opinion like that).

And yes, we did see an increase in warming after most of the modern Western world banned them in the 1970s. However, now it's estimated that their use in third-world countries and China has resulted in more present than ever. Since they cause a well-documented and chemically accurate cooling process in the atmosphere, what does that say about where our climate might be if they weren't present?

And before you start being silly and advocating spraying more around...yes, they're very bad for us.

The rest of your post is the same ol' scare-mongering, research funding grab dribble. I bring up Antarctic ice sheet thickening as a joke, you bring up polar ice caps melting. You tell me I've got my facts wrong and start differentiating East from West Antarctica. So... you're denying consensus science now?

West Antarctic sheets thickening

You obviously didn't read my post, or the articles I posted, or even this article you're posting now. Either that, or you just really don't understand what's going on. First off, this article is 4 years old (three years older than the Nature article I posted), but it makes the exact same point I made to you – that Western Antarctica is gaining mass, but other areas of Antarctica (like, East Antarctica) are losing it. Furthermore, as I also said, this is the only terrestrial body gaining mass, and all indications are that Antarctica traditionally does get colder when the Arctic gets warmer (a "sloshing" effect if you will). In this context, your blanket comment about "Antarctica ice sheets getting thicker" was clearly only half the story – because, after all, the other half doesn't support your viewpoint.

Either way, examples like these just help the point I'm making. And hurt yours.

I asked you how that could be? You brought up people dying in Europe due to record heat in summer of 2003. Of course, you're not suggesting it is due to global warming, you just brought it up because you're an activist for a heating and air company???

You're being silly again. Stop it. I brought up people dying in Europe because it shows how extreme heat (and weather events) can affect even first-world countries like ourselves. It makes it easy to see how third-world countries without our resources will be affected.

You're a zealot through and through. Look, I'm using air conditioners and anything else I need to use and there's not a danged thing you can do about it. I don't care because I'm a right-wing engineer.

and you're a.... what again? Expert link-poster?

I'm a zealot – this coming from the guy who supports every Conservative, right-wing, Christian cause ever brought up on this board with 3000 page-long multi-posts like these in the past 3 years?

Talk about "failed ad-hominem" right there.

If you want the global warming scare to take hold, you'll need to;
...
Until then, it's snake oil, fear-mongering, and a money grab. You can continue to quote scientists who propogate the fear. I'll continue to post scientists and others who claim it's fear-mongering. Period.

Love the way you change your stance when I point out that you're wrong. It's always fun arguing with people who change their arguments slightly every time you crush them, just so you have to do it all over again. Wonderful.

I'll continue to quote the entire world scientific body of thousands upon thousands of scientists, and almost all of the world's top scientists. You can continue to quote the same, tired handful of non-scientists, marginal scientists and the occasional top scientists who are skeptical of the whole deal.

In the meantime, any comments from your side about "money-grabbing" are so incredibly hypocritical it isn't even funny. You ask where a billion people are to work – I don't even know what that means or has to do with the subject at hand – and then accuse the environmentalists of money-grabbing?! What, they're money-grabbing by apparently putting a billion people out of work?! I ask you: when you post, don't you stop to think, you know, that this might be a little contradictory here?


greg

[Nicko]

This is an example of global warming caused directly by humans (ie. us):



Pollution 'reducing rice harvest'
Pollution-laden clouds may be partly to blame for India's dwindling rice harvests, according to research.

A US team found brown clouds, which cloak much of South Asia, have a negative impact on rice output by reducing sunlight and rainfall.

They discovered elevated levels of greenhouse gases also reduced yields.

The study, reported in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, came a day after researchers said new crops adapted to a warmer climate are needed.

This research...gives policy makers a lever to increase rice output
Maximilian Auffhammer, University of California

Since the 1980s, India has faced ever-declining growth rates in harvests of its staple food, raising concerns that shortages could occur.

To investigate the cause, researchers looked at the impact of the "brown clouds" or "Asian haze" which cover the region.

South Asia has one of the most widespread atmospheric brown clouds on the planet.

Blocking the rays

These layers of air pollution, which contain soot and other fine particles, are primarily created from burning fossil fuels and other organic matter.

The clouds interfere with the local climate by blocking the Sun's radiation from reaching the ground, leading to cooler and dimmer conditions. Recent research has revealed the polluted haze can also reduce rainfall.

Using climate models and historical data on Indian rice harvests, the team built up a picture of the brown clouds' effect on rice growth over the years.

"We found if there had been no atmospheric brown clouds between 1985 and 1998, the annual rice harvest yield would have been 11% higher than it was," said Maximilian Auffhammer of the University of California at Berkeley.

The team concluded the clouds had a negative effect on rice yields.

He said while the cooler night-time temperatures caused by the clouds were beneficial for the rice, the negative impact of the decreasing rainfall outweighed these benefits.

Useful levers

Yields would also have been higher under lower concentrations of greenhouse gases, the researchers found.

Many researchers, Dr Auffhammer told the BBC News website, had been worried that reducing brown clouds could boost temperatures and so further diminish rice yields.


This was because previous research found the clouds' cooling properties can mask the heating effect of greenhouse gases.

But, he said, the team's findings revealed that reducing clouds alone or with reductions in greenhouse gases would benefit rice output.

He added the study only looked into farming regions which primarily used rain to water their crops. He said the effect would be less pronounced on areas which relied on other irrigation methods.

On Monday, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), the global network of research centres devoted to farming in developing countries, warned of an urgent need to develop new strains of staple crops, including rice, which are tailored to the changed conditions of the future.

The researchers said they now plan to look at other countries with polluted atmospheres, such as China and Indonesia.

Dr Auffhammer said: "I think this research is crucial because it gives policymakers a lever to increase rice output.

"This study shows that decreasing the levels of these particulates may boost agricultural output."

The government-run Indian Council of Agricultural Research (Icar) said it was not immediately concerned with the findings.

Dr Shukla, deputy director general of Icar, told the BBC that global warming and air pollution could not be limited to a specific country and would have a global impact.

He said his organisation was more concerned about the issues of water management, nutrients and rice varieties.
Story from BBC NEWS:
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Pollution 'reducing rice harvest'

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Until then, it's snake oil, fear-mongering, and a money grab. You can continue to quote scientists who propogate the fear. I'll continue to post scientists and others who claim it's fear-mongering. Period.

Does it mean nothing to you that we have so many more scientists? I mean *SO MANY MORE* that it's not even funny? Seriously, global warming has become such a consensus. We may not know what exactly the consequences are going to be, but that we are having an impact is doubted by only a few reactionaries writing term papers in their mothers' basements.

And wait a second..."fearmongering?" Aren't you one of the people who supports the "war on terror?"

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by DBursey 

So I'm supposed to follow these damned lateral trains? Since when have WMD's been discussed in terms of meteorological anthropomorphization?

Hey, I've been bored of the WMD debate for years! As soon as I saw this I ran like hell with it!

Have to call on this. With arguable exceptions, almost all progressive electrical utilities advocate for electrical conservation in terms of both industrial / commercial / residential design and of absolute consumption. That and accelerated investments in renewable sources of electrical generation are the new norms in the electrical industry.

Imagine that. An industry that advocates customers purchase less of its commodity.

Mmmmmmm. While I agree in part with the push towards renewable energy, I question your linkage of electrical utilities' advocation of energy conservation with their current emissions. (As well, please note that you're in Toronto, aren't you? – which has had a recent push towards public awareness in conservation since the 2003 blackout. You find much less of that, say, here in Alberta. )

I don't have any data on me at the moment, and I've got a 4000-word essay due Thursday afternoon which I'm about to start researching for...but AFAIK most large electrical utilities still operate largely from the burning of fossil fuels. There may be a recent trend towards investigation into renewable or low-footprint electricity, but I'd probably be willing to bet that's a fairly low proportion of most utilities' output. (Of course, hydro power is also a large GHG emitter.)

If you know more about it, let me know.

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Wow; that you continue to post hilarious stuff like this makes me shake my head and laugh. You obviously have no clue about the subject, but yet you keep responding with detailed and involved posts anyway!

Detailed and involved? I'm basically making a mockery of your having brought up global warming in a discussion on WMDs.

First off: you know it's going to be a great response when you start ad-hominizing in the first line. Way to go, ebuddy.

By asking for credentials? You summed up your disagreement with a link I provided (showing that indeed anyone can post them) by discrediting this man's lack of knowledge. The fact that he has a PhD is irrelevant of course because you've taken biology 101?

Secondly, you're "being told" by the entire body of earth-atmospheric-climate-geology-etc. scientists throughout the world. There's thousands upon thousands of them, last time I checked. They've produced thousands of research papers on the subject.

I've already shown you that "the entire body of earth-atmospheric-climate-geology-etc. scientists throughout the world" express disagreements with one another on the measurement of global warming, the causes, the effects, and future projections. Remember patting me on the head for the link you couldn't address at all? At least it's nice to know that I've gotten under the skin of yet another zealot who thinks he's an expert because he's an undergraduate.

Thirdly, I'm just finishing up my B.Sc undergraduate in Biology – following an environmental biology and ecology path – with a Minor in History (more specifically, the history of science, modern warfare, and Canada). So wow, look at that – some credentials of sorts to be talking about the subject after all, eh?!? What are your credentials again?

Your reading comprehension is so poor I'd recommend you withdraw from those classes and spend the money on something more worthwhile like... recycled trash bags. You know, get out while you're still awake in academic and career development.

That's right, I thought so. Have a seat, son.

I'm supposed to have a seat so I can listen to someone who's been in college for one year? Hell man you're probably still taking general chemistry at this point big shooter. You're certainly no more qualified to espouse BS than the PhD I provided earlier.

Christy has issues with global models, but AFAIK he hasn't said much about global warming itself.

What are you talking about?

Lindzen is quite respected within the scientific community,

Thanx, I read that too Rev. Einstein.

Again, this isn't even an argument – it's a comment. Of course it advocates Kyoto – it's the only international (or even national) policy measure that addresses the IPCC's work. That seems logical to me. How does that in any way make its findings scientifically unsound? That's right, I thought so – it doesn't.

I never said unsound. I said biased. When there is considerable debate on a particular subject, you might know one's advocacy and endorsements apply.

Same deal. You claim that the IPCC is somehow biased because it supports Kyoto, then counter it with a non-expert, non-academic, writes-for-one-of-the-largest-drivers-of-GHG-emissions, won't-change-his-information-even-when-it's-not-correct, not-even-a-scientist opinion of its work. Am I supposed to take your argument seriously?

You don't have to take anything seriously At least to the extent you'd continue providing these silly little detailed and involved posts. I've also posted others on the topic. You found them inconvenient to address apparently. At least you're able to comprehend that they're respected in their fields.

Nice try at avoiding the subject. That isn't what I said at all, now, is it? I asked you to find me 50 scientists writing papers on global warming or climate change who didn't believe it was true.

That's just it, they're still trying to get a handle on temperature variation to establish whether or not the issue is problematic. After all, this is the crux of the debate. Whether global warming is manmade, whether or not it will cycle back as any natural variant, and improving projection models. These are central elements to any sober scientific claim.

Again: you obviously know almost nothing about the subject, and yet you state that predicted levels of CO2/GHGs in the next century are "ridiculous fear-mongering." Where's your proof of this, ebuddy? Where's your rebuttal? Or is this a gut feeling of yours?

No, the temperature Dr. Seuss, the temperature. Can you even read?

Hahahaha...I'm saying that you really show your lack of knowledge about the subject here, because sulphate aerosols cool the globe. When you're arguing about global warming and then say "It's not real! Besides, my summer's been cool – I'm going to spray sulphate aerosols to warm things up!" it makes people point and laugh.

You really can't read can you? I laughed at you for attempting to make the claim that the globe warmed as a result of our discontinuing the use of sulphate aerosols. Adding to this mind-numbing stupidity you fail to acknowledge how CFCs affect global warming. While CFCs deplete ozone and cool the stratosphere, the surface temperature may continue to incline. A depleted ozone allows more UV light through oceans and destroys plankton. Plankton enables oceans to draw carbon dioxide from the atmosphere making oceans important “carbon sinks.” Loss of these “sinks” exacerbates global warming by increasing the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

And since you're laughing, I'm assuming you don't actually believe that sulphate aerosols cool the globe. It's called "global dimming," ebuddy.

Yeah and I'm still laughing while you continue to misread just about everything I've said. You brought up the fact that the globe has warmed since we've discontinued using sulphate aerosols. I'm laughing even harder now. You're killing me shortcut to Mont-common sense.

And yes, we did see an increase in warming after most of the modern Western world banned them in the 1970s.

Wait! You did get it? So why the last three paragraphs? What's wrong with you man? What percentage of increase has been attributed to the discontinued use of sulphate aerosols shortcut? We don't know? That's what I thought. Sit down then boy.

However, now it's estimated that their use in third-world countries and China has resulted in more present than ever. Since they cause a well-documented and chemically accurate cooling process in the atmosphere, what does that say about where our climate might be if they weren't present?

Gee, why not just use them to counteract the disastrous affects of global warming then?!?

You're being silly again. Stop it. I brought up people dying in Europe because it shows how extreme heat (and weather events) can affect even first-world countries like ourselves. It makes it easy to see how third-world countries without our resources will be affected.

I never knew hot summers could kill people. Please stop shortcut, you're killing me with your BS. Honestly.

I'm a zealot – this coming from the guy who supports every Conservative, right-wing, Christian cause ever brought up on this board with 3000 page-long multi-posts like these in the past 3 years?

Are you stalking me now? So, my support of gay marriage is the typical Conservative, right-wing, Christian cause? Or maybe it's me defending some of the Muslims on this board that's got you all wriled up. Disagreeing with stickers in text books against evolution and against teaching ID or Creationism in the public schools? Which of these is it going to be Rev. HotAir?

When you're ready to;

- Bring go-cart looking Hybrids down to at least the cost of an Audi A4.
- OIL MEANS JOBS. Figure out where the billion or so will work next decade, and...
- Ensure the cheaply thrown together, "environmentally-friendly" trash bags aren't three times as costly as the good ol' sturdy trash bags I'm used to...

We can talk.

Until then, save your proselytizing and snake oil sales tactics for another thread. This thread's about real problems.

[DBursey]

** stuffs family-pack of cloth shopping bags into ebuddy's christmas stocking **

STM, I'm inclined to give credit for most of what you say in context of power generation's history. Even Hydroelectricity has its black eyes in certain contexts. I just wanted to give an insider's view on waht the industry currently represents and where it's heading. And yes, Toronto has been a Canadian leader in that regard.

Not that you'd get wind on any of that in Canada's carbon-belch, er belt. After all, Kyoto died in Canada and it's buried in Ft McMurray's black sand.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Hahaha...yeah, no ****! If it's a resource, we're gonna use it! All of it!

greg

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Did this occur shortly after the Industrial age or has it really been cow manure all along? [/sarcasm]

Until then, it's snake oil, fear-mongering, and a money grab.

Actually, my students and I were reading this guy Ruddiman who argues that global warming started some 8,000 years ago with the advent of mass agriculture--which did indeed augment methane levels from large livestock, but mostly from the decomposition of various plant matter in the artificial swamps formed for rice cultivation.

He argues that the natural processes that regulate our climate would have swung us back toward a glaciation thousands of years ago if it were not for human activity.

And who exactly do you think is grabbing money, by the way? This is argument I've not heard just yet. Who is it you think stands to profit from widespread belief in global warming? I mean, it's obvious which moneyed interests oppose global warming research, but I've got to give you kudos for having the chutzpah to suggest that its the *other* side that's fueled by greed.

Really, bravo, you deserve a Nobel prize in selective attention.

[Spliffdaddy]

I've seen a lot of the world. It's a big place. Far too big to be impacted in any meaningful way by human beings.

Every generation fancies themselves as being significant - and expects the world to die along with them since it will no longer be necessary. This belief has repeated itself for probably millions of generations. Human nature resists the notion that humans are wholly insignificant.

What we have with 'climate change' is naive humans *wishing* they were able to affect change to this planet.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

As I said, what I liked best was the two lines right after each other:
"1 billion people will be out of work" and "it's a money grab."

I have no idea how or why he thinks 1 billion people will be put out of work by...what? Doing something about global warming? His answer "oil means jobs" is pretty hilarious though – apparently, 1 in 6 people on the planet are in the oil industry.

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

I've seen a lot of the world. It's a big place. Far too big to be impacted in any meaningful way by human beings.

Every generation fancies themselves as being significant - and expects the world to die along with them since it will no longer be necessary. This belief has repeated itself for probably millions of generations. Human nature resists the notion that humans are wholly insignificant.

What we have with 'climate change' is naive humans *wishing* they were able to affect change to this planet.

I'm sorry, but this is such a stupid view. I've made it look silly more times than we can count, but every time you bring it back. At this point, I'm sure it's just deliberate baiting on your part. :

The world isn't a big place. Hell, I can videoconference with people in the Arctic and Antarctic circles at the same time. For the first time in earth's known history there is no place on the globe where an organism, or their byproducts, are not present in significant quantities.

You just don't really know anything about global warming, and you really don't know anything about human history. "Human nature" means that "millions of generations" expected the world to die along with them? Where did you pull that from?!

Humans affect the planet every day. The contrails our jets leave in the sky make the temperatures in some busy areas cooler. The temperature around our cities is warmer than in rural areas. We've cut down trees and turned forested areas into the deserts of Iraq. We have nuclear technology that can wipe life off the face of the earth - I suppose you think biological life has no affect on the atmosphere?

Stick to making fast Peecees, Spliffdaddy. We both know this isn't your element.

greg

[Spliffdaddy]

keep wishing. it's the stuff dreams are made of.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Every generation fancies themselves as being significant - and expects the world to die along with them since it will no longer be necessary. This belief has repeated itself for probably millions of generations. Human nature resists the notion that humans are wholly insignificant.

Millions of generations?! But the Earth is only 3,000 years old, Satanist!

I'll believe scientists' climate predictions on the fifty-year effects of human CO2 emissions into the atmosphere when they can predict the weather fifty years in advance. For thousands of years, humans have tried to predict the weather, and they've never been successful. Therefore, they never will be. QED, Spliffdaddy-style!

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

By asking for credentials? You summed up your disagreement with a link I provided (showing that indeed anyone can post them) by discrediting this man's lack of knowledge. The fact that he has a PhD is irrelevant of course because you've taken biology 101?

No. Stop the lame ad-hominizing. The fact that he has a Ph.D that's not related in any way to climate or earth science makes his views irrelevant. Would his doctorate in mathematical logic and the philosophy of science enable him to critique the accuracy of the Human Genome Project results, or of some landmark Chemistry paper, or of some comprehensive study of an ecological system? No. So why do you think he's somehow relevant to the topic of climate change?

I've already shown you that "the entire body of earth-atmospheric-climate-geology-etc. scientists throughout the world" express disagreements with one another on the measurement of global warming, the causes, the effects, and future projections. Remember patting me on the head for the link you couldn't address at all?

*snort*
You brought up one scientist who disagrees with global warming, and one scientist who disagrees with the accuracy of climate models...and this counts as the "entire body" for you?

Hilarious, truly. But you're wrong. The entire body of scientists throughout the world is in a shockingly united agreement on global warming, the causes, the effects, and future predictions.

I'm supposed to have a seat so I can listen to someone who's been in college for one year? Hell man you're probably still taking general chemistry at this point big shooter. You're certainly no more qualified to espouse BS than the PhD I provided earlier.

I guess you wouldn't know, but when one is in the "last year" of a university undergrad degree one has generally been around for longer than a year. Me, I'm in fifth year, but I'm a slow learner like that.

I am not espousing anything on the subject. I'm telling you what the experts have said. That's the difference between me and your phony "expert."

You don't have to take anything seriously At least to the extent you'd continue providing these silly little detailed and involved posts. I've also posted others on the topic. You found them inconvenient to address apparently. At least you're able to comprehend that they're respected in their fields.

No idea what you mean. What was I supposed to be addressing? I did post a link wherein some of one guy's ideas were examined by another scientist. That they're "respected" in their fields is irrelevant. There's hundreds more who are even more respected yet who have differing opinions; one dissenter does not an idea-killer make.

That's just it, they're still trying to get a handle on temperature variation to establish whether or not the issue is problematic. After all, this is the crux of the debate. Whether global warming is manmade, whether or not it will cycle back as any natural variant, and improving projection models. These are central elements to any sober scientific claim.

No. No one is "trying to establish whether or not the issue is problematic." Do you even read scientific literature, ebuddy? (I know you don't; it's rhetorical.) The issue is problematic, and there is no evidence to conclude that it is not man-made; there is more than enough evidence to conclude that it is. Unless you can provide some evidence for me? I thought not.

No, the temperature Dr. Seuss, the temperature. Can you even read?

More hilarity. You referred to "that little chart." I had already posted multiple charts, either of which could've been the one you were referring to. I love how you try to turn the blame on my when you can't even clarify what you're talking about.

You really can't read can you? I laughed at you for attempting to make the claim that the globe warmed as a result of our discontinuing the use of sulphate aerosols. Adding to this mind-numbing stupidity you fail to acknowledge how CFCs affect global warming. While CFCs deplete ozone and cool the stratosphere, the surface temperature may continue to incline. A depleted ozone allows more UV light through oceans and destroys plankton. Plankton enables oceans to draw carbon dioxide from the atmosphere making oceans important “carbon sinks.” Loss of these “sinks” exacerbates global warming by increasing the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Yeah and I'm still laughing while you continue to misread just about everything I've said. You brought up the fact that the globe has warmed since we've discontinued using sulphate aerosols. I'm laughing even harder now. You're killing me shortcut to Mont-common sense.

You seem to be contradicting yourself, or at the very least being completely unclear about what you're talking about.

You started talking about aerosols, not me.

I don't need the lecture on CFCs, thanks – I'm sure getting your little spiel off the internet was nice, but I can draw you the chemical structure and have performed experiments showing how CFC molecules react in the atmosphere. The fact remains that they are irrelevant in the context of what we were discussing, and of the argument in general. If you think we can't talk about aerosols without bringing up every possible contributer to global warming then we'd be here all night.

Yes, the globe has warmed since the Western world discontinued the use of sulphate aerosols. Human contribute to both anthropogenic forcing on both levels – warming and cooling. The warming forcing has been a steady trend particularly since the 1970s.

Maybe you could clearly state what's so funny, or what exactly you're talking about here. Your original quote was

Speaking of Europe, why haven't they had this hot a summer since? Hybrid Hondas? It's 10 degrees where I'm sitting and I'm getting together 15 of my friends to spray our aerosol cans into the atmosphere. Hurry it up already!!!

which I took to mean "it hasn't been as hot in Europe since 2003, and it's only 10 degrees where I am now, so we're going to spray aerosol cans into the atmosphere to heat things up." That seems like a reasonable interpretation - even though it's an incorrect one.

(Oh, and by the way...you're wrong. Europe did get hotter than 2003 in subsequent years.)

I never knew hot summers could kill people. Please stop shortcut, you're killing me with your BS. Honestly.

Heat doesn't kill people? Is this a joke? I'm confused.

- OIL MEANS JOBS. Figure out where the billion or so will work next decade, and...

Ahhhh. 1 billion people in the oil industry, eh. I trust that's a rough estimate?

greg

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by tie 

Millions of generations?! But the Earth is only 3,000 years old, Satanist!

I'll believe scientists' climate predictions on the fifty-year effects of human CO2 emissions into the atmosphere when they can predict the weather fifty years in advance. For thousands of years, humans have tried to predict the weather, and they've never been successful.

not sure what CO2 has to do with being able to predict the weather, but it seems to be the crux of your "point".

there will always be variability in weather. in fact, there may be increased variability in weather (see the common, oh it snowed on the day of the "global warming" conference!). even at the height of human civilization and intellect, we won't be able to predict the outcome of a roll of a die with any certainty. though the outcome of successive rolls will always aproach an average of 3.5. the averages are important. and unlike the dice game, the temperatures have been slowly increasing, as predicted.

the analogy of temperature as water in a bathtub is apt for this discussion. if the tub is 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 or completely full, there will always be ripples and sloshing regardless at what level it is ie the weather. everything ultimately levels out. but each situation is significantly different in where it ultimately levels out. our bathtub is filling up slowly (with sloshing happening all the time) and that doesn't appear to be changing any time soon unless someone starts to think about closing the tap.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Remember patting me on the head for the link you couldn't address at all? At least it's nice to know that I've gotten under the skin of yet another zealot who thinks he's an expert because he's an undergraduate.

I patted you on the head when I talked about finding 50 climate scientists. You didn't post any link concerning that point that I can see. And the only thing you did post, about Christy and Lindzen, wasn't a link – but I provided an article about which was a fair response from a scientist.

You seem very confused. Half the time you're not even really very coherent in this thread, so it's hard to follow what you're trying to get at.

greg

[Nicko]

How can people look at the asian brown cloud and deny that human's aren't causing climate change? It boggles the mind.

This generation is going to face the most challenges:

- global fish stocks are collapsing
- dought and desertification are accelerating
- deforestation is accelerating - leading to loss of biodiversity, extinctions, loss of ground water
- most ground water is polluted
- farming is becoming less productive

---

A few months ago in Kenya they were having the worst drought for years. Now they are having record rain falls causing flooding.

This is for you Moncton, (my sister lives in Edmonton, I hear its damn cold there right now) :


From front page NYT yesterday.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Every generation fancies themselves as being significant - and expects the world to die along with them since it will no longer be necessary. This belief has repeated itself for probably millions of generations. Human nature resists the notion that humans are wholly insignificant.

For millions of generations, humans have wanted to fly. This desire has persisted for uncounted millennia, and has claimed the lives of hundreds -- perhaps thousands -- of inventors. Yet human nature stubbornly holds onto its dreams despite all odds.

We have never been, and never will be, able to fly.

QED, Spliffdaddy style!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

*snort*

You should take care of this nasal condition.

You brought up one scientist who disagrees with global warming, and one scientist who disagrees with the accuracy of climate models...and this counts as the "entire body" for you?

Fair enough. There's also Dr. Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist from the Racah Institute of Physics of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Prof. Jan Veizer a geochemist at the University of Ottawa in Canada and Ruhr University in Germany, conducted a study and concluded that the significant majority of warming (75%) is causes other than manmade and that a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions will not have a significant impact on global temperature. Chief Hurricane scientist from NOAA also argues against the "manmade" supposition. These are not idiots, they are not bent in any oil interest, they are scientists who simply disagree. Conventional wisdom is that global temperatures are rising. The debate is the accuracy of the models for future projections, natural variability, and the degree of man's influence on these factors.

I guess you wouldn't know, but when one is in the "last year" of a university undergrad degree one has generally been around for longer than a year. Me, I'm in fifth year, but I'm a slow learner like that.

What this means is that you're in your fifth year of college and you have yet to attain so much as a bachelor's degree. Do your parents know what they're paying for?

I am not espousing anything on the subject. I'm telling you what the experts have said. That's the difference between me and your phony "expert."

I've posted other experts and they also disagree with you. I've shown you that I too can post links to experts who disagree with you. It means nothing. So while folks like those at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change author studies concluding that projections models are in dire need of improvement, and other scientists debate variability, man's role, and flaws in projections models, you say unabashadly, IT IS SO AND IT'S OUR FAULT! IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING IMMEDIATELY PEOPLE ARE DYING IN HOT SUMMERS. This is what I take issue with.

No. No one is "trying to establish whether or not the issue is problematic." Do you even read scientific literature, ebuddy? (I know you don't; it's rhetorical.)

Actually, if you talk to other posters who have posted links to scientific data, while we may disagree from time to time, I think they'd agree that I'm reading their links. I'm usually more than fair in this regard because I am interested in what bolsters one's arguments. On most things I'm not beyond convincing and usually the subject matter is interesting. I'd go so far as to say that I engage this data more than most here.

The issue is problematic, and there is no evidence to conclude that it is not man-made; there is more than enough evidence to conclude that it is. Unless you can provide some evidence for me? I thought not.

The burden of proof is not on me soldier of misfortune, it is on you. You're the one screaming the sky is falling. You're the one saying this is all our fault. How about giving me a figure (you know, evidence) to show unequivocally, this is a manmade phenomena. You can't shortcut, you simply cannot.

More hilarity. You referred to "that little chart." I had already posted multiple charts, either of which could've been the one you were referring to. I love how you try to turn the blame on my when you can't even clarify what you're talking about.

You know, for most people the statements; "warming", "climate variation" would've suggested I was talking about the surface temperature projections.

You started talking about aerosols, not me.

... clearly as a joke shortcut. I guess this topic is too sensitive of one for you to allow for some humor.

I don't need the lecture on CFCs, thanks – I'm sure getting your little spiel off the internet was nice, but I can draw you the chemical structure and have performed experiments showing how CFC molecules react in the atmosphere. The fact remains that they are irrelevant in the context of what we were discussing, and of the argument in general. If you think we can't talk about aerosols without bringing up every possible contributer to global warming then we'd be here all night.

You're certainly right about that. We could be here all night discussing all the contributing factors to global warming that have absolutely nothing to do with Industrialization or any other manmade contribution to warming.

Yes, the globe has warmed since the Western world discontinued the use of sulphate aerosols.

That's not what I asked you. Try again. I asked what percentage of warming has been attributed to our discontinued use of sulphate aerosols and suggested you had no idea. Thanx for affirming my suspicions. You're rolling around half-cocked like a zealot. Is the Green Party paying you per post or something?

Maybe you could clearly state what's so funny, or what exactly you're talking about here. Your original quote was
which I took to mean "it hasn't been as hot in Europe since 2003, and it's only 10 degrees where I am now, so we're going to spray aerosol cans into the atmosphere to heat things up." That seems like a reasonable interpretation - even though it's an incorrect one.

I was tickled by several things actually. I'll list them for you;
- having brought up global warming in a WMDs thread
- having suggested that global warming has occurred as a result of our discontinued use of sulphate aerosols
- your degree of zeal in general
- your inability to comprehend what you're reading
- bringing up the deaths of Europeans in hot summers then back-peddling when I called you out on how patently absurd it was to bring that up in the context of global warming. Though I do appreciate you detailing how it is people can die of heat.

Heat doesn't kill people? Is this a joke? I'm confused.

Which is why I suspect you've enjoyed the college experience no less than five years having not yet attained the coveted bachelor's degree.

Ahhhh. 1 billion people in the oil industry, eh. I trust that's a rough estimate?

greg

Oh it's definitely a rough estimate to indicate what an incredible influence the industry has on our livelihoods. I expect some discipline when suggesting a massive change in behavior on this front when accounting for;
- refining
- auto industry
- heating
- electricity
- fuel sales
- global economy

... and on and on.

I appreciate the fact that there are bulldogs like you fighting for this cause. It makes it so people like me can continue to guzzle gas, burn leaves and other debris as I see fit, spill motor oil and anti-freeze down the sewer drains, and advocate a massive build-up in greenhouse gas emitting substances. I give you reasons to exist.

- Find an efficient way to farm to avoid the effects of cow manure.
- Bring go-cart looking Hybrids down to at least the cost of an Audi A4.
- Figure out where the billion or so will work next decade, and...
- Ensure the cheaply thrown together, "environmentally-friendly" trash bags aren't three times as costly as the good ol' sturdy trash bags I'm used to.

Until then, it's snake oil, fear-mongering, and a money grab. You can continue to quote scientists who propogate the fear. I'll continue to post scientists and others who claim it's fear-mongering. Period.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Until then, it's snake oil, fear-mongering, and a money grab. You can continue to quote scientists who propogate the fear. I'll continue to post scientists and others who claim it's fear-mongering. Period.

Atleast your view is in the minority. The majority of the world's leaders, multinationals, and experts agree that global warming is a reality caused by humans.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Atleast your view is in the minority. The majority of the world's leaders, multinationals, and experts agree that global warming is a reality caused by humans.

Yep, and the majority of people are still guzzling gas, buying Glad trash bags, leaving the lights on, running air conditioners and heat non-stop, cutting trees and telling you that your world's leaders, multinationals, and experts are all failing at their craft on this and most other issues.

They can worry about what the weather will be 50 years from now. I'll try to plan around the mistake they made on tomorrow's weather while the rest of us maintain our planet today.

In the meantime...

- Find an efficient way to farm to avoid the effects of cow manure.
- Bring go-cart looking Hybrids down to at least the cost of an Audi A4.
- Figure out where the billion or so will work next decade
- Ensure the cheaply thrown together, "environmentally-friendly" trash bags aren't three times as costly as the good ol' sturdy trash bags I'm used to and...
- Get tomorrow's weather correct

Until then, I'm convinced as are most that it's just more hype for snake oil sales, a political chess piece, and a money grab.

[Spliffdaddy]

The end is near!!!

[turtle777]

A patient mod did this ?

Last time I checked, all the posts would have been deleted and people "infracted" for derailment...

-t

[Uncle Skeleton]

Here's the problem with global warming. Neocons wanted us to be all bothered about the threat of WMDs in Iraq. But I was never going to buy that threat until they actually showed us the WMDs. They didn't, and I wasn't convinced. Conversely, I want the neocons to be worried about global warming, but for the same reason I didn't buy the WMDs, they're not going to buy global warming until we can actually show them the globe is warming (as opposed to us knowing it will warm in the future). Of course, that won't happen until it's too late to stop it. And perhaps if Iraq did have WMDs, we wouldn't have seen them until they had destroyed a few American cities. Not likely in my opinion, but hypotheticals are endless.

Anyway, what do we do about it? I think science is in a precarious position that very few scientist feel comfortable thinking about, if they even recognize it. Science doesn't necessarily contribute to society. It is supported by an elaborate system of begging. Basically it is at the mercy of all the stock traders and bus drivers and actors etc that most scientists frankly look down upon. My point is that science should be telling people about things they can do, not things they can't do. Findings of doom and gloom should be the minority, and we should be finding technological solutions that don't involve "normal" people sacrificing a large amounts of quality of life. The golden age of science (which perhaps was a fantasy, but no less something to aspire to for it) was when it was giving people fast cars and other fancy toys, not taking them away.

In my opinion, climate change science is probably mostly right, but whether it is or not, it had better come up with some solution besides people giving up a lot of the comforts science has provided in the past. I've said this as a joke before, but it really would be nice: it's about time we start controlling the weather, rather than just predicting it, 'cause we kind of suck at that.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by marden 

Leave it to you liberals to concern yourselves with where people do their loving!

Leave it to conservatives to decide who's allowed to love.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

The end is near!!!

Human population has grown exponentially. Therefore, a constant fraction of the humans who have ever lived are in fact alive today. I figure that the probability of me being born in any generation is proportional to the number of people in that generation.

Then why am I alive today, instead of in the far future, when the human population is going to be much, much higher? It must be the case that the end of the world is nigh -- at least with very high probability!

QED

.. always ready to help you out, Spliffdaddy.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Conventional wisdom is that global temperatures are rising. The debate is the accuracy of the models for future projections, natural variability, and the degree of man's influence on these factors.

This is the point I have tried to make time and time again. It falls on deaf ears…er, eyes.

Greg, since you fancy yourself a student of History you should have NO problem finding that historically science has has had, many time at least, very POOR results in predicting the future. Even when they get it right it is usually a single or small group of scientists who disagree with the mainstream.

Just like the climate change debate.

And, like it or not the IPCC is a political organization. There have been complaints among members about their opinions being slanted or edited by the POLITICIANS in charge.

Finally, um, in previous threads you told me you were pre-law didn't you?

Your arrogance and tone really belie your age. There are plenty of others here who agree with you that aren't smug assholes, maybe you should try to follow their examples.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

AFAIK I've never said anything to anyone about being "pre-law." I hate the term, along with "pre-med" (everyone in first-year biology is pre-med! ). Besides, it looks silly when you tell everyone you're "pre-law" and then never get into law school!

But yeah, my goal is to get into law school, if I can. I'd like to study environmental law. *shrug* We'll see how the LSAT I just wrote goes...if I bombed it, then I'm content being a snowboard hobo and mooching off friends' couches for the rest of my life....

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Conventional wisdom is that global temperatures are rising. The debate is the accuracy of the models for future projections, natural variability, and the degree of man's influence on these factors.

Originally Posted by smacintush

Greg, since you fancy yourself a student of History you should have NO problem finding that historically science has has had, many time at least, very POOR results in predicting the future. Even when they get it right it is usually a single or small group of scientists who disagree with the mainstream.

I absolutely agree that it is often a single individual or small group of the whole that causes a revolution in science (the ability to "think different" so to speak...also one of my criticisms of socialism!). The easy rebuttal of your argument, however, is that science at this time, and particularly climate science, is not a collective whole. It is a disparate and widely scattered group of individuals who are often in very different disciplines – chemistry, biology, meteorology, climatology, paleontology, ecology, geology, yadda yadda yadda – and they are all almost to a man (or woman) arriving at the same conclusion. The fact that I've openly challenged ebuddy to come up with 50 scientists to publicly don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, or even global warming in general – and he's been able to provide me with, what, 4 or 5 names? more on that later – only emphasizes how united and how much science this movement has.

Yep, and the majority of people are still guzzling gas, buying Glad trash bags, leaving the lights on, running air conditioners and heat non-stop, cutting trees and telling you that your world's leaders, multinationals, and experts are all failing at their craft on this and most other issues.

They can worry about what the weather will be 50 years from now. I'll try to plan around the mistake they made on tomorrow's weather while the rest of us maintain our planet today.

I love it. So your argument is: even though the global warming may be serious, everybody (and when you say the majority here, I'm assuming you're talking about the Western world – we'll just ignore the billions who are most in danger because of possible global warming effects) is mostly ignoring the issue anyway, so there is no reason why any individual should be concerned over it. Tragedy of the commons, anyone?

- Bring go-cart looking Hybrids down to at least the cost of an Audi A4.

This is just silly. It's revolutionary new technology, but you want it cheaper than decades-to-century-old technology before you will buy it? Please, name a viable technology industry that operates on this mindset. New technology == more expensive until more people buy them and the cost of production comes down.

Your assertion (after I initially proved you wrong, natch) that the Civic, Camry or Prius look like "go-carts" just seems silly.

- Find an efficient way to farm to avoid the effects of cow manure.

This isn't even an argument – it's merely an attempt to avoid the topic. By analogy, we shouldn't take steps to lower our environmental footprint until we can avoid the emissions effects of driving, heating, producing energy, farming, making cement, etc. etc. etc. It's just a cheap attempt to point out something that isn't fixable as an excuse for not making any changes.

There might not be ways to avoid the effects of cow manure, but I'm sure there are ways to reduce our manure output or even reduce the effect that mathane has. However, you've already negated any possible way to go about this when you claim "I'm just going to keep doing what I'm doing."

It's seriously a hilarious circular argument: I won't believe in action against global warming until they take care of some problems, but I will make taking care of those problems impossible by not believing and just continuing on with no change.

- Get tomorrow's weather correct

Tomorrow weather has nothing to do with climate change or global warming. That tired argument has been made thousands of times, and it's simply a false one. When you descend to such comparisons, you look silly.

and a money grab.

You keep saying this. I've called you on it, and others in the thread have called you on it. Where's the money grab, ebuddy? How do you reconcile your assertion that taking action on climate change will simultaneously throw a billion people out of work, and be a money grab?

As well, your "billion people out of work" is classic fear-mongering. There is no one educated on the subject who predicts anything like this will happen.

greg

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

greg

I think you're wasting your time. Some people just aren't capable of critical thinking. Others are just annoying. Accept it and move on.

[Doofy]

Not this again.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Fair enough. There's also Dr. Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist from the Racah Institute of Physics of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Prof. Jan Veizer a geochemist at the University of Ottawa in Canada and Ruhr University in Germany, conducted a study and concluded that the significant majority of warming (75%) is causes other than manmade and that a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions will not have a significant impact on global temperature.

These are two people who have been working together and produced a couple papers on the subject at best (AFAIK). Furthermore, theirs and others' studies on cosmic rays have been criticized to a great degree (A recent example). In addition, this is a quote directly from their paper:

our conclusion about the dominance of the CRF over climate variability is valid only on multimillion-year time scales

Yes, note that bit at the end there. To add to this, there was a rebuttal paper by Rahmstorf et al. published a year later, and then a pretty good exchange between the authors of those two on the use of unreliable and rather selective adjustments of data in the paper.

My point? The issue is that cosmic rays have an order of magnitude less of science behind them than GHGs. That's what is so completely contradictory and hypocritical about your approach to the entire issue – you point out that global warming/climate change science is not yet completely accurate and has potential problems, and then bring up an even less-accurate and less-certain and far-less studied issue to illustrate how the "mainstream science" may be wrong.

Your hypocritical views are once more emphasized from the thread on WMDs that spawned this one, where you boldly stated

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Why only consider the evidence that might caste doubt. What about the evidence that affirms guilt?

in response to questions about the validity of WMDs in Iraq. Well that's weird: when it comes to an trillion-dollar invasion of Iraq you would rather not focus on the evidence that casts doubt, but on the evidence that affirms guilt; but when it comes to doing anything at all on climate change, you would rather focus exclusively on the evidence that casts doubt – even though this evidence is an order of magnitude less conclusive than what you dismiss in the case of Iraq!

(I won't even get into the "balance of probabilities" bit. Marden thinks 1% was enough for Iraq...)

As well, I giggled like a schoolgirl when you used Jan Veizer as an example of how "global warming science" could be wrong, to support your viewpoint that we shouldn't take any steps at this time:

Originally Posted by Jan Veizer, 2000

Veizer is sympathetic to arguments that we should reduce pollution. He simply does not want those arguments to be premised on incomplete science. And on that basis he suggests that we should in fact continue with plans to lower CO2 emissions, even if it is for entirely different reasons.

"In the end, I am all for it, because it is in fact pollution and we only have one planet to live on," he says.

These views of the man you point to in order to rationalize your decision to "continue to guzzle gas, burn leaves and other debris as I see fit, spill motor oil and anti-freeze down the sewer drains, and advocate a massive build-up in greenhouse gas emitting substances" jives rather poorly with your own.

What this means is that you're in your fifth year of college and you have yet to attain so much as a bachelor's degree. Do your parents know what they're paying for?

Well, a bachelor's degree is 4 years...so I just took an extra semester of courses because of some fooling around and financial problems that made me lose/drop a few credits in the first couple years. But, paid entirely by me and my loans.

The burden of proof is not on me soldier of misfortune, it is on you. You're the one screaming the sky is falling. You're the one saying this is all our fault. How about giving me a figure (you know, evidence) to show unequivocally, this is a manmade phenomena. You can't shortcut, you simply cannot.

This is ridiculous. You demand evidence to show unequivocally that global warming is a man-made phenomena?? ebuddy, very little in science can be shown unequivocally. Why is it that you demand that climate-change science provide a higher burden of proof than is generally even required by the criminal courts of North America?

You're certainly right about that. We could be here all night discussing all the contributing factors to global warming that have absolutely nothing to do with Industrialization or any other manmade contribution to warming.

But...aerosols and CFCs – which is what we were talking about, and which you brought up – are directly linked to industrialization and/or manmade causes.

That's not what I asked you. Try again. I asked what percentage of warming has been attributed to our discontinued use of sulphate aerosols and suggested you had no idea. Thanx for affirming my suspicions. You're rolling around half-cocked like a zealot. Is the Green Party paying you per post or something?

Aerosol forcing is one of the most debated topics in climate science right now, and there is a lot of problems getting any "exact percentage" as you demand (again, another unreasonable "unequivocal" argument) because of such uncertainties as cloud cover and physics. However, this doesn't change my argument in the slightest. Because aerosols most certainly contribute significant to "global dimming" in any case, and since we cannot keep increasing aerosol levels at the same rate as we're increasing GHG levels because of health effects, at some point the warming trend will of necessity significantly outweigh the cooling trend.

Originally Posted by [URL="http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/altscenario/"

James Hansen et al.[/URL]]Climate forcing by anthropogenic aerosols may be the largest source of uncertainty about future climate change. The approximate global balancing of aerosol and CO2 forcings in the past (Figure 1) cannot continue indefinitely. As long-lived CO2 accumulates, continued balancing requires a greater and greater aerosol load. This, we have argued (Hansen and Lacis 1990), would be a Faustian bargain. Detrimental effects of aerosols, including acid rain and health impacts, will eventually limit aerosol amount, and thus expose latent greenhouse warming.

Abstract for a recent study by Chung et al, and another abstract for a recent study by Bellouin et al. Finally, while I was searching for Bellouin I just ran into a realclimate.org page entitled An Aerosol Tour de Forcing that provides an lengthy but readable overview of the subject and the differences in these two papers. It concludes by saying:

Progress will come by more systematic comparisons among studies to identify key uncertainties. The unambiguous distinction between individual aerosol species within models will eventually become possible by direct observation as a result of more discerning instruments. Nonetheless, models will remain valuable for their ability to distinguish natural and anthropogenic sources of the same aerosol species. While Bellouin et al. assume that all soot particles over the ocean are anthropogenic, naturally occurring forest fires contribute as well. As consensus emerges regarding the global aerosol forcing, attention will turn to regional values that cause local changes to climate and heat redistribution by the atmosphere. Because of the added complexity of cloud physics, the aerosol indirect effect may be even more resistant to consensus. Aerosol forcing remains a crucial problem because its offset of greenhouse warming is expected to decrease with time as governments address the health problems associated with aerosols. Because of their comparatively short lifetimes, the concentration of aerosols decreases much faster than that of CO2 given a reduction in fossil fuel use. Regardless of the absolute amount of the forcing, future reductions in aerosol emissions will be a positive forcing, amplyfying the warming effects of increasing greenhouse gases.

- bringing up the deaths of Europeans in hot summers then back-peddling when I called you out on how patently absurd it was to bring that up in the context of global warming. Though I do appreciate you detailing how it is people can die of heat.

I didn't "detail" how people can die of heat; stop creating silly straw men. I also didn't backpeddle on my comment, because it was an example of how a warming planet can affect humans. I also fail to see how it is "absurd" to bring up in the context of global warming – in fact, can you please explain how bringing up a recent extreme weather event involving heat is "absurd" in the context of global warming? Thanks.

Oh it's definitely a rough estimate to indicate what an incredible influence the industry has on our livelihoods. I expect some discipline when suggesting a massive change in behavior on this front when accounting for;
- refining
- auto industry
- heating
- electricity
- fuel sales
- global economy

...emphasis on massive change in behaviour, of course. I fail to see how a massive change in behaviour in any way means 1 billion people losing their jobs. This is the exact same approach used by industry over the Clean Air debate in the 1970s. Fear monger much?

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

I think you're wasting your time. Some people just aren't capable of critical thinking. Others are just annoying. Accept it and move on.

Heh heh...however much a waste of time it may be, I enjoy honing my debate skills in this area. Plus, I like smacking people around a little.

greg

[tie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I think this basically summarizes things. The scientists are all telling us there is a problem. Common sense supports most of their claims.

And you guys are just willing to sleep through it, because the effects are on too long a time scale.

I mean come on, at least try to come up with some serious counterarguments! Not more of this, "We can't perfectly predict future weather -- therefore we can't predict whether or not it will be colder this winter than last summer."

(Answer: Unless you live in San Francisco, I predict with 99% certainty that it will be colder in the winter.)

[Spliffdaddy]

If you're worried about "climate change" then do whatever you want to fix it. But if you're asking me to help, then take a number and wait your turn. I'm kinda booked-up on doomsday scenarios.

[tie]

Like Iraqi WMD, you mean?

Don't fret yourself, just go to sleep. You and Doofy.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

AFAIK I've never said anything to anyone about being "pre-law." I hate the term, along with "pre-med" (everyone in first-year biology is pre-med! ). Besides, it looks silly when you tell everyone you're "pre-law" and then never get into law school! But yeah, my goal is to get into law school, if I can. I'd like to study environmental law. *shrug* We'll see how the LSAT I just wrote goes...if I bombed it, then I'm content being a snowboard hobo and mooching off friends' couches for the rest of my life....

OMG you're all over the place.

I absolutely agree that it is often a single individual or small group of the whole that causes a revolution in science (the ability to "think different" so to speak...also one of my criticisms of socialism!).

Great, so while you criticize socialism, understand that science is not a consensus discipline. There are general agreements and debate, but science continues on as science does without regard for who believes what and at what point. Darwin, a hobbyist did not enjoy much consensus on his science, but this did not deter him. There are many others throughout history like this as well. Your assertions and chest-pounding over "fact by virtue of numbers" makes no sense for someone who claims to be the least bit knowledgeable of science. I'm not sure I'm even buying the fact that you're in school at this point. I mean, other than grade school.

The easy rebuttal of your argument, however, is that science at this time, and particularly climate science, is not a collective whole. It is a disparate and widely scattered group of individuals who are often in very different disciplines – chemistry, biology, meteorology, climatology, paleontology, ecology, geology, yadda yadda yadda – and they are all almost to a man (or woman) arriving at the same conclusion. The fact that I've openly challenged ebuddy to come up with 50 scientists to publicly don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, or even global warming in general – and he's been able to provide me with, what, 4 or 5 names? more on that later – only emphasizes how united and how much science this movement has.

So... it's not political. It's not a money-grab or an agenda, but it's a movement. First of all; Science is not contingent upon a consensus as you've already been corrected.
Second of all; I've already stated to you that the global climate is understood to be rising. The argument is centered on projections models, natural variability in general and the degree of man's culpability in the issue. Again, while the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and a host of others conclude that projections models are in dire need of specificity and improvement, you can band together with a host of other monkeys crashing hand-cymbals together on the evils of skepticism.

Among the skeptics;

Patrick Michaels from the Department of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia
Richard Lindzen of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Robert Balling of Arizona State University
Sherwood B. Idso of the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory [30]
S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist and professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.
Robert M. Carter an Australian marine geophysicist.
Frederick Seitz
William M. Gray, emeritus professor at Colorado State University and one of the world's leading experts on tropical storms. Gray claims that there is no link between increasing ocean temperatures and more intense hurricanes in recent decades. He also rejects the usefulness of computer models as tools for weather and climate research.
Roy Spencer, known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work
Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center.
Kary Mullis, biochemist and inventor of PCR

I love it. So your argument is: even though the global warming may be serious, everybody (and when you say the majority here, I'm assuming you're talking about the Western world – we'll just ignore the billions who are most in danger because of possible global warming effects) is mostly ignoring the issue anyway, so there is no reason why any individual should be concerned over it. Tragedy of the commons, anyone?

Mob rules anyone? So if most scientists believe something is so, it is so??? You're not going here yet again are you? I can see you now, cheering the doctors on as they blood-let for diarrhea.

There might not be ways to avoid the effects of cow manure, but I'm sure there are ways to reduce our manure output

Let's cork the cows up with our old aerosol cans!

It's seriously a hilarious circular argument: I won't believe in action against global warming until they take care of some problems, but I will make taking care of those problems impossible by not believing and just continuing on with no change.

You're kidding right? I mean, you don't pour your motor oil down the sewer drain or your anti-freeze into the toilet??? Where else can you put the stuff?

Tomorrow weather has nothing to do with climate change or global warming. That tired argument has been made thousands of times, and it's simply a false one. When you descend to such comparisons, you look silly.

As silly or more silly than the scientists who screamed GLOBAL COOLING in the mid 70's urging Congress to act, touting melting polar ice caps as evidence! C'mon man, look at yourself, you're a right mess.

You keep saying this. I've called you on it, and others in the thread have called you on it. Where's the money grab, ebuddy? How do you reconcile your assertion that taking action on climate change will simultaneously throw a billion people out of work, and be a money grab?

- $125 million in private and government grants from 2000-2002 according to a report from the George C. Marshall Institute.
- EPA grants to private groups that advocate climate treaty; $7million.
- The NRDC and Environmental Defense also raise money from a Who's Who of private U.S. foundations. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation gave $300,000 to both groups to maintain the "momentum" for imposing global warming regulations. Ted Turner's foundation handed the NRDC $800,000 and Environmental Defense $100,000. The Public Welfare Foundation gave the NRDC $1 million.
- Energy Foundation gave $970,000 to Environmental Defense for global warming.
- Big Insurance backing hype to scare future consumers
- Due to reluctance to tax Americans for arguable science, many foundations fund state-level climate change initiatives. Last year, the Pew Charitable Trusts gave $550,000 to the NRDC to promote global warming initiatives in the West and Northeast.
- Environmental Defense received grants from the Dyson Foundation ($25,000 in 2002) and the Wallace Global Fund ($10,000 in 2002) for state climate-change campaigns; The NRDC got money from the Bullit Foundation for this effort ($110,000 in 2001).
- The Energy Foundation of San Francisco is a cash cow for state-level climate change. Since 2001 it has given five grants totaling more than $610,000 to NRDC and four grants worth $520,000 to Environmental Defense for climate-change programs in places like California.
- Carbon credits; Russia, one of the worst polluters is being rewarded by a carbon credit scheme and can simply maintain current levels of emission while sitting on carbon credits valued at over a billion dollars.

As well, your "billion people out of work" is classic fear-mongering. There is no one educated on the subject who predicts anything like this will happen.

The "inconvenient truth" is that any government making the first move to significantly increase environmental costs or regulations in a bid to reduce emissions would definitely see investment and jobs moving elsewhere, thus making the nation uncompetitive. Those concerned about joblessness such as Tony Blair, our Administration, Australian government... Shell alone employs some 122,000 people. Now take into account any occupation relevant to fuel sales, heating, electricity, auto industry, etc... why on earth would nations be reluctant to sign on to treaties that improve the environment? Are they simply evil? Why would oil companies not want to jump on the global warming band-wagon?

Is it possible that everyone is serving personal interests or is greed exclusively an oil-industry phenomena?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

See, it's kinda hard to take your arguments seriously when you say stuff like this. Do you try to give examples like these? Where did you get this list – junkscience.org? This is what I found in a quick search for some of these, off Wiki, etc.:

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Among the skeptics;

Patrick Michaels from the Department of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia
Writing in Harpers Magazine in 1995, author Ross Gelbspan noted that "Michaels has received more than $115,000 over the last four years from coal and energy interests. World Climate Review, a quarterly he founded that routinely debunks climate concerns, was funded by Western Fuels."

Michaels has written papers claiming that satellite temperature data shows no global warming trend. But he got this result by cutting the data off after 1996. (Every year after 1996 the satellite measurement showed warming.) Another paper made the bizarre claim that the temperature increases were meaningless because they correlated closely to GDP, without explaining how the GDP caused the increase warming. (A more likely explanation is that high-GDP countries tend to be at higher lattitudes, where global warming has the most impact).

Dr. John Holdren of Harvard University told the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, "Michaels is another of the handful of US climate-change contrarians... He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science."

Richard Lindzen of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Already mentioned.

Robert Balling of Arizona State University
Balling has acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead). Contributors include ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC.

In August 2004 Balling told Business Week "I'm convinced there will be engineering schemes that will allow our children's children to have whatever climate they want".

Sherwood B. Idso of the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory
The President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. AFAIK he published some papers in the 1980s questioning CO2's role in global warming.

According to Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change received $10,000 from ExxonMobil in 2001. StopExxon.org reports Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has received $65,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2003. The Center works with the Greening Earth Society, a front group of the Western Fuels Association.

The Center is run by Keith E. Idso and Craig Idso, along with their father, Sherwood B. Idso. Both Idso brothers have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another.

S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist and professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.
Oooo, love this choice. Singer was a Big Tobacco shill in the late 1980s and 1990s. He was also on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces on "junk science," defending the industry's views.

In 1994, Singer was Chief Reviewer of the report Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (industry-funded, of course). This was all part of an attack on EPA regulation on environmental tobacco smoke funded by the Tobacco Institute. At that time, Mr. Singer was a Senior Fellow with AdTI.

In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association.

Robert M. Carter an Australian marine geophysicist.
Carter is a member of the Australian astroturf Lavosier Group, comprised of global warming skeptics. It was founded and funded by the Western Mining Corporation (WMC). Carter also wrote non-peer-reviewed articles on global warming for Tech Central Station, which received 63% of its income in 2003 from ExxonMobil.

He recently wrote There IS a problem with global warming...it stopped in 1998. Of course, what Mr. Carter fails to point out is that 1998 was a record year for temperatures, at well above the warming trend of the past century, and the strongest El Nino of the century helped increase temperatures. He was also a little early in publishing such a wonderful article – because NASA has now placed 2005 slightly above it in the "warming trend." But, you know.

Frederick Seitz
Ouch. You had to go there, didn't you? The first link I clicked on when I searched for this guy: The Indisputable Corruption of Frederick Seitz. This guy helped head the Big Tobacco labs that couldn't seem to find any link between smoking and cancer.

Insert "LOL" here.

William M. Gray, emeritus professor at Colorado State University and one of the world's leading experts on tropical storms. Gray claims that there is no link between increasing ocean temperatures and more intense hurricanes in recent decades. He also rejects the usefulness of computer models as tools for weather and climate research.
Link to an analysis and rebuttal on some of Gray's ideas and claims.

Kary Mullis, biochemist and inventor of PCR
Hahahaha! Biochemist. Biochemist. A brilliant and Nobel Peace Prize-winning one, mind you, but a biochemist nonetheless. And, I know a little about him anyway, because a couple years ago a Chem prof brought him up when talking about possible ethical issues.

He was a potential witness for the defense in the OJ Simpson trial, but didn't go on the stand because the prosecution would have torn his personal life apart (he's had problems with drugs like LSD, I think his wife, etc.) He publicly believed that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. There were also a lot of problems about exactly whether or not he "invented" PCR, or whether it was more of a team effort than it looked.

I mean, seriously? That's what you give me? Look, most of these people are "scientists" per se, but they don't even do any work in the field! And they don't publish papers! And they're paid by oil companies! Jesus H. Christ!

- $125 million in private and government grants from 2000-2002 according to a report from the George C. Marshall Institute.
- EPA grants to private groups that advocate climate treaty; $7million.
- The NRDC and Environmental Defense also raise money from a Who's Who of private U.S. foundations. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation gave $300,000 to both groups to maintain the "momentum" for imposing global warming regulations. Ted Turner's foundation handed the NRDC $800,000 and Environmental Defense $100,000. The Public Welfare Foundation gave the NRDC $1 million.
- Energy Foundation gave $970,000 to Environmental Defense for global warming.
- Big Insurance backing hype to scare future consumers
- Due to reluctance to tax Americans for arguable science, many foundations fund state-level climate change initiatives. Last year, the Pew Charitable Trusts gave $550,000 to the NRDC to promote global warming initiatives in the West and Northeast.
- Environmental Defense received grants from the Dyson Foundation ($25,000 in 2002) and the Wallace Global Fund ($10,000 in 2002) for state climate-change campaigns; The NRDC got money from the Bullit Foundation for this effort ($110,000 in 2001).
- The Energy Foundation of San Francisco is a cash cow for state-level climate change. Since 2001 it has given five grants totaling more than $610,000 to NRDC and four grants worth $520,000 to Environmental Defense for climate-change programs in places like California.
- Carbon credits; Russia, one of the worst polluters is being rewarded by a carbon credit scheme and can simply maintain current levels of emission while sitting on carbon credits valued at over a billion dollars.

Wow. What's that....maybe....$150 million? 160? I love how you give me a nice big list of the funding global warming has gotten in the past few years, and that list is probably a few times smaller than Exxon's profits last quarter. Yeapp, real money grab going on there for sure.

At least you could've pointed out government funding...that might've helped your point a little more.

Is it possible that everyone is serving personal interests or is greed exclusively an oil-industry phenomena?

I hope not. Your examples don't seem to prove otherwise, though.

greg

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Among the skeptics;
Kary Mullis, biochemist and inventor of PCR

All right. It was a good argument, but I think ebuddy has the best of us. Not only do the skeptics include real PhDs (!), but they include the inventor of PCR (!!!). I concede.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

See, it's kinda hard to take your arguments seriously when you say stuff like this.

Good. Diamonds come out of your rear end on this man, I'm worried about you.

bla,bla,bla... listing out each of my examples, indicting them of drug abuse and collecting money from big oil. Links for each one with the amount of money collected. This goes on for months.

I've said;

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Conventional wisdom is that global temperatures are rising. The debate is the accuracy of the models for future projections, natural variability, and the degree of man's influence on these factors.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Is it possible that everyone is serving personal interests or is greed exclusively an oil-industry phenomena?

Originally Posted by ebuddy

When there is considerable debate on a particular subject, you might know one's advocacy and endorsements apply.

The above points are inarguable. They are not subject to debate. They are what they are and they are fact. Period.

- anyone can post links and establish connections between advocates and their respective endorsements. In fact, some of them might be crooks and cheats who beat up little puppy dogs.
- There's nothing evil about oil profits.
- I gave you a list of funding from the Federal Government and others to Global Warming interests equaling in your words; "Wow. What's that....maybe....$150 million? 160?"
- You gave me a list of funding from Big Oil crooks totaling what's that...maybe...$598 thousand? *hint; if one is small, the other is smaller. Yours. Which explains a lot.

Wow. What's that....maybe....$150 million? 160? I love how you give me a nice big list of the funding global warming has gotten in the past few years, and that list is probably a few times smaller than Exxon's profits last quarter. Yeapp, real money grab going on there for sure.

Companies are in business to profit. You think the Federal Government doesn't have much clout? Hmm. Insurance companies? Yep, broke. They literally make big oil look like an ice-cream parlor.

At least you could've pointed out government funding...that might've helped your point a little more.

What do you call the EPA? Yeah, you missed one. As usual.

I hope not. Your examples don't seem to prove otherwise, though.

Let's see;
- We get into the dollars and "sense" of our argument and I show you hundreds of millions at which you scoffed. For whatever reason, the hundreds of thousands you "showed" me was more nefarious.
- You bring up Global Warming in a WMDs thread, then bring up the Iraq invasion in a Global Warming thread.
- At one point in our conversation you're "just finishing up your B.Sc undergraduate in Biology following an environmental biology and ecology path – with a Minor in History (more specifically, the history of science, modern warfare, and Canada). Then, all of a sudden it's not specifically the history of science, modern warfare and Canada anymore, you're interested in law.
- Your "goal is to get into law school, if I can. I'd like to study environmental law. *shrug*"
So was that an environmental biology and ecology path, or a history of science path, or a modern warfare and Canada path or a law school path? Nevermind.

- I've got a projections model for you Shortcut; at the current pace of your educational experience, you'll have a masters in general education which while admirable, will take you approximately 35 more years.

I apologize ShortcutToMoncton, whatever point you were trying to make I just missed it. It's not your fault.

[Spliffdaddy]

*SMACK (by GOD) DOWN*

Folks, we have just witnessed the holy mother of smackdowns.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Let's see;
- We get into the dollars and "sense" of our argument and I show you hundreds of millions at which you scoffed. For whatever reason, the hundreds of thousands you "showed" me was more nefarious.
- You bring up Global Warming in a WMDs thread, then bring up the Iraq invasion in a Global Warming thread.
- At one point in our conversation you're "just finishing up your B.Sc undergraduate in Biology following an environmental biology and ecology path – with a Minor in History (more specifically, the history of science, modern warfare, and Canada). Then, all of a sudden it's not specifically the history of science, modern warfare and Canada anymore, you're interested in law.
- Your "goal is to get into law school, if I can. I'd like to study environmental law. *shrug*"
So was that an environmental biology and ecology path, or a history of science path, or a modern warfare and Canada path or a law school path? Nevermind.

- I've got a projections model for you Shortcut; at the current pace of your educational experience, you'll have a masters in general education which while admirable, will take you approximately 35 more years.

I apologize ShortcutToMoncton, whatever point you were trying to make I just missed it. It's not your fault.

Ahhhhahahahaha! Wow! You're really got nothing, eh?! You've resorted to ignoring half my posts in order to try and insult me! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I love it when The Right™ in this place breaks from Bush or Iraq topics and tries to argue against global warming. Don't worry, ebuddy, Spliff and Doofy know enough to stay out of this one by now, and give encouragement from the sidelines. It doesn't help you much, though...unfortunately for your pride.

Obviously you've never been to college – which I already know, since you've conspicuously ignored my questions on the subject whenever I've asked in other threads. Well, let me explain how university works then ebuddy.

Just so you know: where or what you do your undergraduate degree in has very little effect on getting into law school. You can do it in political science, or engineering, or business, or science like myself – what matters is that you've got the requirements to get in.

So, my undergrad is in Biology – and I've followed an environmental/ecology path, as opposed to Zoology, or entomology, or genetics, or other forms of biology like that. However, my minor is in history, because I love history – but I don't get a "path" in that, because it's only a minor. So I've focused on a few areas of history, because since it's my minor I can take whatever I want in it.

And finally, law school is a professional school, so my undergrad degree doesn't mean jack if I ever get in. (Exactly the same, for example, as if an Arts student got into medical school). But, I want to do environmental law – which is in decent demand at the moment – because that's what I'm interested in and that's what I studied to get my undergrad.

See how that works? Undergrad – Major and Minor. Law school – totally separate.

It's all right, baby. You were getting mauled pretty badly anyways. If you completely ignore the topic for just a couple more posts, throw in a few weak insults to try and distract everyone's attention, you can retire in peace, with your "pride" intact. Fire away...just remember, whenever you want to get back and start actually trying to respond to digs like

Well that's weird: when it comes to an trillion-dollar invasion of Iraq you would rather not focus on the evidence that casts doubt, but on the evidence that affirms guilt; but when it comes to doing anything at all on climate change, you would rather focus exclusively on the evidence that casts doubt – even though this evidence is an order of magnitude less conclusive than what you dismiss in the case of Iraq!

I'll be here...waiting to smack you down, again and again.



greg

[ebuddy]

Well, I've been to college Shortcut and from what I can see, you may need a life-coach more than another class. I will say it's heartening to see that you're more compelled to defend your scholastic integrity than a vulnerable globe. Progress. After all, It's one thing to be in a movement, you musn't forget about taking care of yourself. I'm proud of you Shortcut. No. Seriously. You're a winner in my book.

Until then, I'll be looking forward to our Global Cooling discussion in 2020.