[Moderator]

Of course....Kevin and the right wing know it all's here aren't worried. Who would you rather trust?

http://www.livescience.com/environme...g_climate.html

[Shaddim]

Not starting off very well.

[Dakar]

To be fair, environmental science isn't Hawking's area, something which the scientific community has been quick to point out.

[vmarks]

Hawking also fears we must all become cyborgs, and that we must leave the Earth and populate space.

There's something to be said for picking and choosing among his statements for the ones worth listening to.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/09...rg_ascendancy/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06...s_leave_earth/

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Hawking also fears we must all become cyborgs,

Well he has been part of a chair forever.

BTW very classy of the journalist to be so condescending of one of the greatest minds in theoretical physics of the past 50 years.

Originally Posted by vmarks

and that we must leave the Earth and populate space.

That makes sense. One asteroid could wipe us out. Or maybe a nuclear war. Its just basic increasing the odds.

[besson3c]

Whatever. As far as I'm concerned the debate over global warming is over. The NSA says its over, the consensus among scientists agree, everybody who is not an extreme on either side and who knows this stuff basically agrees on the important facts here. Even George W. Bush agrees that global warming exists, and he knows all!

If it's good enough for all these people, it's good enough for me. There is too much at stake to *not* take this seriously. Damaging the economy? Pfft... not if done gradually in a way that slowly phases out old technologies, personal and industrial habits and replaces them with new ones. This will be a slow transition, it's not as if we are going to drastically cut off anybody from the teat tomorrow.

We need to start now, and the way to start is to get everybody on the same page. What Al Gore is doing is great.

Try to avoid the knee-jerk political reactions about Gore and in general. This is not a political issue - end of story.

[besson3c]

If you look at Gore's website about things that can be done, many of the suggestions can actually *save* average and ordinary people money in gains in efficiency. I don't buy into the imminent collapse of the economy if we change our lifestyles concept. To me, this is about deprecating old and crufty technologies that have been around for years, and replacing them with new ones. This is not about giving up our luxuries and going back to pre-electricity days.

[pooka]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Whatever. As far as I'm concerned the debate over global warming is over.

Then you're no better than the dummies on the right who can barely pronounce "global" without ejecting large quantities of saliva onto their chins.

Debate goooooooooood...

[smacintush]

As far as I'm concerned the debate is over…Hawking has lost his mind.

He also believes that artificial intelligence will develop to a point where machines will take over the world.

Being an expert on your field doesn't mean you should automatically have credibility anywhere else.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Try to avoid the knee-jerk political reactions about Gore and in general. This is not a political issue - end of story.

If it's not a political issue then why are you praising a career politician? He is not and never was a scientist and much of his preachings on global warming have been debunked.

Try praising a real scientist, at least you will have the start of some credibility.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush

If it's not a political issue then why are you praising a career politician? He is not and never was a scientist and much of his preachings on global warming have been debunked.

Try praising a real scientist, at least you will have the start of some credibility.

I'm praising Al Gore for his efforts, nothing more. From what I can gather, he is mostly just reguritating other scientific opinions, he is not credited as having any of his own. He is in a unique position to help affect policy on this issue. Politicians have a great deal of responsibility in influencing the outcome of all of this, but the heart of the issue itself is not a political one that should be drawn down partisan lines.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I'm praising Al Gore for his efforts, nothing more. From what I can gather, he is mostly just reguritating other scientific opinions, he is not credited as having any of his own. He is in a unique position to help affect policy on this issue. Politicians have a great deal of responsibility in influencing the outcome of all of this, but the heart of the issue itself is not a political one that should be drawn down partisan lines.

Real scientists have said that Gore is cherry picking worst case predictions and exaggerating. Is this OK in your eyes? If the threat is so dire why the need for Gore to be dishonest?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Real scientists have said that Gore is cherry picking worst case predictions and exaggerating. Is this OK in your eyes? If the threat is so dire why the need for Gore to be dishonest?

This argument always seems to inevitably go this direction: who are these real scientists, and are they credible?

My answer: I don't really care. Whether this is a severe threat or just a modest threat, let's do something about it. There is no logic in putting off resolving an inevitable problem.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c

This argument always seems to inevitably go this direction: who are these real scientists, and are they credible?

My answer: I don't really care. Whether this is a severe threat or just a modest threat, let's do something about it. There is no logic in putting off resolving an inevitable problem.

You don't care? Even a scientist who is NOT involved in Climate Science has MORE credibility than Gore does on this issue…Why can't you just admit that Al Gore is not a credible source and he has no business hyping up this issue?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush

You don't care? Even a scientist who is NOT involved in Climate Science has MORE credibility than Gore does on this issue…Why can't you just admit that Al Gore is not a credible source and he has no business hyping up this issue?

This is just pure distraction... None of this matters.

It doesn't matter whether Gore is hyping up the issue or not. It doesn't matter how much credibility he has on the issue. I don't care about what is revealed dissecting him, whether he is being an opportunist, whatever. He is far from the only one suggesting we are in trouble, he is just another voice (a vocal one) trying to bring this issue into the public consciousness. I commend him for that, but I really don't care about him, I care about the issue and what it represents.

At the end of the day, this remains an issue. That is the bottom line.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Moderator

Of course....Kevin and the right wing know it all's here aren't worried. Who would you rather trust?

WTH, I haven't been a proponent of the argument that much either way.

How bizarre.

[tie]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Being an expert on your field doesn't mean you should automatically have credibility anywhere else.

Exactly. I respect Hawking, but don't think being a superstar physicist makes him an expert on climate change.

Real scientists have said that Gore is cherry picking worst case predictions and exaggerating. Is this OK in your eyes? If the threat is so dire why the need for Gore to be dishonest?

..Real "scientists" who just coincidentally happen to work at real big oil companies. I'll believe Hawking over Exxon.

[Wiskedjak]

I think there is a very real chance that a planet-wide environmental catastrophe could happen at any moment and without warning. However, I also think the chance of that is very small. From what I understand of what Hawking is talking about, he's seeing a likelihood of catastrophe some time over several thousand years, and for someone who thinks in terms of millions of years, he's possibly thinking we'd better get outta Dodge before it's too late.

By the way, from my perspective, I don't see much difference between someone like Gore cherry picking worst case predictions and exaggerating about environmental catastrophe and someone like Bush cherry picking worst case predictions and exaggerating about WMDs. They're both fear mongering.

[MinM]

Originally Posted by tie

..Real "scientists" who just coincidentally happen to work at real big oil companies. I'll believe Hawking over Exxon.

Who do you think funds scientists who advocate theories of anthropogenic global warming? It couldn't possibly be environmental organizations who depend on the never-ending "threat" of global warming and/or man-made climate change for funding purposes, could it?

[Kevin]

I just want to point out, this was another "Post and run" by moderator.

Nice job.

[Doofy]

I'm worried about hippies. And ManBearPig.

I'm not worried about global warming. Warmer = more chicks in bikinis, more of the time. Sounds like a winner to me.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by MinM

Who do you think funds scientists who advocate theories of anthropogenic global warming? It couldn't possibly be environmental organizations who depend on the never-ending "threat" of global warming and/or man-made climate change for funding purposes, could it?

The USA's NSA? Doesn't the government sponsor them? You heard that they've also verified the existence of global warming, haven't you? The investigation was even initiated by a Republican, if I recall.

Hopefully it's just a matter of time before the naysayers see the writing on the wall.

[Kevin]

How about the ones that don't really care either way?

[tie]

Originally Posted by MinM

Who do you think funds scientists who advocate theories of anthropogenic global warming? It couldn't possibly be environmental organizations who depend on the never-ending "threat" of global warming and/or man-made climate change for funding purposes, could it?

No, it couldn't. These environmental organizations just don't have the money. (And they anyway don't need to cook the research.) Feel free to try to prove me wrong, but you won't be able to. For example, I would be very interested in hearing how the Sierra Club is secretly funding NASA researchers.

Exxon made $10 billion in profit on $100 billion in revenue in the last quarter. The Sierra Club's annual budget for 2006 is $80 million (according to Google). Just BTW.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by MinM

Who do you think funds scientists who advocate theories of anthropogenic global warming? It couldn't possibly be environmental organizations who depend on the never-ending "threat" of global warming and/or man-made climate change for funding purposes, could it?

Wow. The Dumb Comment award goes to....

greg

[Kevin]

Why was it dumb? Global Warming scare is big business.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Why was it dumb? Global Warming scare is big business.

Huge business. As is all fear mongering.

[Kerrigan]

Didn't the experts all say that by 2000 we wouldn't be able to step outside without an umbrella and a gas mask?

[darth-vader000]

I'm not scientist but do I play one on tv

Seriously while Gore probably as a lot of valid points in his movie/book (I haven't seen the movie nor read his book yet). I also believe some of the scientists have some valid points in refuting his movie.

how can that be? Well perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle, both Gore and the opposing camp are probably right to a degree.

Perhaps the great catastrohpes gore speaks of will never emerge, but our climate could be altered in a very real and bad way.

I don't know what's going to happen with this gloabal warming thing, but I do know we (the world not just the US) are dumping huges amounts of pollution in the air, in the sea and in the earth. Additionally rain forests are gettng cut down at an alarming rate (these rain forests produce a lot of the oxygen for the planet) No one can deny this and to be honest I don't think anyone can deny that this is a good situation. The problem arises in how long it will take to effect hummanity and how much is it going to cost us.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Why was it dumb? Global Warming scare is big business.

How so? In what way? And how is it bigger business than just continuing to not care about human affects on the planet?

greg

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by darth-vader000

Seriously while Gore probably as a lot of valid points in his movie/book (I haven't seen the movie nor read his book yet). I also believe some of the scientists have some valid points in refuting his movie.

I would buy that.

[MinM]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Wow. The Dumb Comment award goes to....

How substantive.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Moderator

Of course....Kevin and the right wing know it all's here aren't worried. Who would you rather trust?

http://www.livescience.com/environme...g_climate.html

Yeah, and he also belived in Worm Holes.

[Kerrigan]

I don't why we should be listening to Stephen Hawking on global warming, when the man rides around everywhere in his CO2 emitting wheelchair.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

I don't why we should be listening to Stephen Hawking on global warming, when the man rides around everywhere in his CO2 emitting wheelchair.

Did you think that up all by yourself?

[Sky Captain]

This was sent to me:

1. What gas is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse warming effect on Earth?
Enviro-twit answer: Carbon dioxide, of course.

2. Is the United States a net A) absorber, or B) emitter of carbon dioxide?
Enviro-twit answer: Net emitter, of course.

3. Is the global climate today A) cooler, or B) warmer than it was about 1,100 years ago?
Enviro-twit answer: Warmer, of course.

Anyone who responds with those answers, and yet still has (and is willing to voice) an opinion about anthropogenic warming, should simply be taken out and shot ignored. The real answers are:

1. Water vapor is the gas responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect on Earth. While part of that is clouds, the majority of the effect is the simple water vapor content (expressed as pounds of water per pound of dry air, as in a psychrometric chart) in the air around us. CO2 is responsible for only about 1% to 1-/1/2% (depending on whose model you use) of the greenhouse effect on Earth. Methane has a far higher effect.

2. The US absorbs far more CO2 than we produce, largely through the effects of huge areas of croplands and forest. Did you know that the US now has MORE forested area than it did pre-Columbian? Another number that the enviro-twits love to trot out is that with only (x)% of the worlds population, we use 25% of the world's energy. The number they DON'T add behind that is that the US also PRODUCES about 30% of the world's GNP. We use more, but we're FAR more efficient at using it, and produce FAR more with it than anybody else.

As a bonus question, ask whether this same is true of 1) Germany, 2) France, 3) Japan? And then ask if there's maybe just the teeny-tiny possibility of a political/economic agenda going on?

3. It's cooler now. Remember, in 900 AD the Norsemen were raising trees and crops (!!!) of oats in Greenland, and had probably colonized Newfoundland ("Vinland", with the grapes), which at the time was fecund. The era is referred to in climatology texts (but only those written prior to the 1980's) as the "Medieval Climate Optimum". It was followed by the period referred to as the "Little Ice Age", from the 1,300's to the late 1,700's. We're still emerging from that era, so an overall warming trend (globally, and of minor import) is expected.

- Bonus question: What was the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere in 1000 AD?
There's a huge amount of speculation among climatologists about the strong correlation between the MCO and a period of almost zero sunspots referred to as the "Maunder Minimum", but as of now it's only a correlation, and not proof of causation.

For a while the GHG/Anthro-GW crowd was trying to claim that "Well, the Medieval Climate Optimum was limited to only the tiny part of the western side of the Northern Hemisphere", but they've pretty much given even that up now, with huge amounts of evidence that it was global. Unless, of course, the following areas are considered to be within the western part of the Northern Hemisphere:

Africa:
Tyson, P.D., Karlen, W., Holmgren, K. and Heiss, G.A. 2000. The Little Ice Age and medieval warming in South Africa. South African Journal of Science 96: 121-126.

Huffman, T.N. 1996. Archaeological evidence for climatic change during the last 2000 years in southern Africa. Quaternary International 33: 55-60.

Holmgren, K., Lee-Thorp, J.A., Cooper, G.R.J., Lundblad, K., Partridge, T.C., Scott, L., Sithaldeen, R., Talma, A.S. and Tyson, P.D. 2003. Persistent millennial-scale climatic variability over the past 25,000 years in Southern Africa. Quaternary Science Reviews 22: 2311-2326

Lamb, H., Darbyshire, I. and Verschuren, D. 2003. Vegetation response to rainfall variation and human impact in central Kenya during the past 1100 years. The Holocene 13: 285-292

I can cite studies like this for Antarctica, Asia, North America, Australia/New Zealand, and South America…but you get the point.

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

The evidence is that the solar cycles, both long- and short-term cycles, have a bigger influence on the global temperature than does GHG concentrations. Example:

- There's a planet in the Solar System that is currently suffering an apparent global warming. It's weather patterns are changing, and long-term patterns show that the polar caps appear to be shrinking.

- Only one problem: The planet is Mars, and we haven't got our fleets of SUV's emitting CO2 there yet.

The IPCC has systematically drummed out (or have had resign on them) anyone who dares to disagree with their orthodoxy. Since anthropogenic global warming is based purely on faith, it is essentially a religion, with adherents who cling tenaciously to it's tenets, regardless of what facts might step in their way. The IPCC is an almost purely political group, with an extremely strong collectivist agenda. Their program to control the worlds economy through coercion is simply using the excuse of GHG's to drive through their control agenda. Now, this probably doesn't bother your average sKerry/Gore worshippers, since their collectivist ethos fit right in with that world view Example:

- The IPCC's early report, 694 pages long, contained within the body of the report the comment (from memory, don't have time to go home and track it down): "No correlation could be found between global temperature increases and greenhouse gas concentrations". Did you read that report? I did, and have a hard-copy of it somewhere at home. What's difficult to understand about "no correlation"?

- But the 25-page political summary stated just exactly the opposite of what the scientific report said, and claimed that there WAS a correlation…which led to the mass resignations from the IPCC of hundreds of climatologists, who put their honesty and honor above the politically-motivated grant-withdrawal penalty. And they've been penalized.

- Guess which one the scientifically-illiterate reporters bothered to read?
- Guess which portion of which report got all the publicity?

Let's ignore the fact, as admitted by even the IPCC, that FULL and COMPLETE implementation would have, as it's BEST possible outcome, according to their (shitty) models, a reduction in global temperatures of only 0.1 degrees C over the next 100 years…and that the Kyoto Protocols aren't even going to be considered to be signed by China and India, whose energy growth is (to say the least) prodigious. Or the FACT that they hypocritical assholes in the EU have missed their GHG emissions targets…and have actually INCREASED their CO2 emissions in the past year. So we'll cripple the global economy (and coincidentally, simultaneously condemn billions to death, and take control of what's left) for a literally unmeasurable difference. Hey, makes sense to me.

The latest release is a simple recycling of garbage from bad sources.

-------------It's utter and complete bullshit...to quote:
Climate scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes had concluded the Northern Hemisphere was the warmest it has been in 2,000 years. Their research was known as the "hockey-stick" graphic because it compared the sharp curve of the hockey blade to the recent uptick in temperatures and the stick's long shaft to centuries of previous climate stability.

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

The "hockey stick" graph has been thoroughly debunked, and not even the IPCC is willing to stand behind it anymore. The statistical methodology used to create it by Mann et. al. has been demonstrated to take ANY data set, regardless of actual trends, and create the same shape. NO respectable climatologist even references it anymore, other than out of derision for the political science (as opposed to atmospheric science) that created it. As noted above, the current period of "global warming" started back in the middle-1600's or thereabouts. If you carefully pick a starting point for your data of around 1650 AD, you can safely say that it's the warmest it's been in about 350 to 400 years...but if you go farther back than that, the theory falls completely apart.

As for claims of consensus, a petition is circulating with more than 19,00 signatures of scientist and engineers (and more than 2,600 climatologists) which decries the current GHG/AGW pseudo-science. It's available on-line at OISM.org

[Nicko]

Sky Captain, do you send your bank account number to your nigerian friends you get chain mail/spam from them as well? Just curious.

[Sky Captain]

This is from a friend of mine in Alaska.
He works for the NOAA.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Nicko

Sky Captain, do you send your bank account number to your nigerian friends you get chain mail/spam from them as well? Just curious.

Nicko makes funny