:p

anyone else is safer.

...and we've had this debate before as well.... :D

On one side is pretty much every respected climatologist and scientists from various related disciplines, sporting eleventy billion Nobel Prizes, and on the other side are a handful of professional skeptics bankrolled by the energy industry... and MBBF.

Honestly, it would be easier to debate a topic that is less settled, such as whether or not Barry Bonds used steroids.

I don't know, it takes a brave man to argue with what seems like kindof a "duh" statement:
Speaking at the Summit of the Americas in the Caribbean nation of Trinidad and Tobago, Steven Chu says some islands could disappear if water levels rise as a result of greenhouse-gas induced climate change."

Really? So if glaciers melt, ocean levels rise, and some islands would go under? That seems pretty obvious.

SI

Of course. It's just like that. Sounds like that topic is resolved. Return to your regularly scheduled fear-mongering.

For the Children's sake do NOT send them to American Colleges to be brainwashed....fearmongering fah shaw!

And this is flat-out untrue. I've posted links to articles / interviews with other well-respected scientists / climatologists that disagree, including a former major player in hurricane work with the NOAA (interview from Discover). They just get shouted down and/or have trouble publishing (let alone get funding from any source BUT the energy industry), so it LOOKS like the situation you describe.

I'm happy to concede that Greg has a point (unlike, say, MBBF). The problem, Greg, as I see it, is that what you're hoping for is that the vast majority (by numbers) are wrong and it's the outlying challengers who are correct. That's certainly possible. Galileo, for instance, was a minority of one with his theories (later proven correct).

I don't think the debate is really helped by often being framed by the arguments of its extreme opponents. For instance: "There's no way humans could affect the Earth's climate" vs. "OMG! Everyone will be under water!!! Like Waterworld!!!!"

Of course, because he basically restated the point I was making. Much of what Greg mentions is what I was referring to, but don't let that stop you.


I think this comment is something we've seen far too often in recent weeks from supporters of the Obama administration and the administration itself. The idea that there is a huge swell of support for everything that the current administration pushes and anyone against that train of thought is in the extreme minority. We've seen it with global warming, stimulus packages (Obama's "I won" comments), and the 'pitchfork' comments to the CEO's of major financial institutions.

Just because the administration asserts a stance does not make it so.

I'm not a scientist in this field so any opinion I would have on climate change is uneducated. What I can say is that the ones who seem to be against it are the ones on the right. The same side of the aisle that believes our Earth is 6,000 years old. You can see why it's tough to take their side on an issue of science.

Yes, because nearly all Conservatives have a firm belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old, hence you can't believe a word they say.

Who's bringing the stupid in this discussion?

So if you don't believe in global warming you believe the earth is 6,000 years old? What?

Just stop.

The point being made has nothing to do with Obama. It is the majority of scientists on one side, mostly in full agreement over their interpretation of the data, and a small minority on the other.

There are also a small(er) minority of scientists who think evolution is wrong, and they also keep getting parroted about when creationism/evolution is argued. As someone with a lot of respect for scientists, I tend to believe it when a large majority of them say one thing versus one guy who says another. Like the rest of us here at FOFC, I am woefully unqualified to make my own judgements on these things so I have to rely on the views of those who study this for a living.

No, but the majority do. I'm just saying that the issue is being pushed hard by the right. When you have such a ridiculous track record on science, doesn't it make it harder to trust that side?

Not at all. I'm saying that some of the largest anti-global warming advocates are on the same side of the 6,000 year old Earth.

So the Energy Secretary is making these claims independent of any backing by his boss? Interesting assertion. Obama needs to get control of his cabinet if that truly is the case. As mentioned before by Greg, there are plenty of reputable scientists who offer significant evidence to contradict those theories. It's far from the open and shut case that you and Flere would like to paint.


There's a huge difference between the evolution argument and the global warming argument.

This should be fun.

:popcorn:

Of course there is. But there is a correlation between those who are against global warming but for the 6,000 year old Earth.

My ceiling needs painting this weekend, I figure with that broad brush of yours you should be able to get it done in 1 stroke.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf


9 out of 10 of all scientists say the earth is warming, and 4 out of 5 believe it is human-driven. Those that study the climate itself skew even higher.


Yes, there is. My point was that the manner in which it is attacked by the dissenting side is similar.

You really think the majority of "conservatives" think the earth is 6,000 years old? Or even don't beleive in global warming? That's the silliest thing I've heard in this thread yet.

No, Greg makes his points in a logical manner that have remained consistent through this argument for the past several years, as opposed to cloaking his arguments (on whatever topic) in thinly veiled partisan attacks.

To whit:


Really? The concept that the scientific argument about global warming is over is a recent declaration? Really?

The claim that serious scientific argument over global warming is basically over predates, in fact, Obama's presence on the national stage. It even predates An Inconvenient Truth.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/Re...eationism.aspx

Then call Gallup silly. I'd also add that conservatives tend to be farther to the right than just the general "Republican" term and would probably have a higher percent.

No, it's an open and shut case in the opinion of an overwhelming majority of scientists in relevant disciplines (such as the Energy Secretary).

Anyway, if FOFC wants to have this argument again, complete with citations and the picking apart of scientific conclusions, knock yourselves out, folks.

MBBF /= Polling data or it's conclusions

Fabulous stuff there on what you selected to present. You took out the fact that just over 100 actual climate scientists actually participated in the study, which is a pretty small sample size and then stated that 9 out of 10 of all scientists say the earth is warming. Note that the vast majority of those scientists included in the study were NOT climatologists. Also note that it was merely an opinion-based poll with no requirements as to actually prove what they were saying.

This also doesn't even mention just how much money is being driven into the climatology field from government and private funding on both sides of the issue, which only furthers the amount of money to be made by keeping this discussion going. If it was so cut and dry as you mention, why are billions being spent to prove one side or the other?

I'm guessing it's just a re-education system for all of us 6,000 year old book beaters.

youve cited CATO before!

I'm pretty sure a lot of that money being spent (especially on the government side) is actually to research workable methods to slow down or reverse the process.

But perhaps you know differently.


I'm sure we'd all take your posts a lot more seriously if you didn't play the martyr card at every opportunity.

I'd also add that virtually every major conservative advocacy/research group supports creationism in schools and believe global warming is a myth. That includes:

-Family Research Council
-Discovery Institute
-American Conservative Union
-American Family Association
-Citizens United
-John Birch Society
-Heritage Foundation
-Cato Institute
-American Enterprise Institute

You can read into it however you want. I don't know how you don't see a correlation between those who believe in creationism and are against global warming. I'm just saying from a completely neutral observer on this topic, which side would you gravitate toward based on track records in science?

If there's anything that we can count on, it's that the government is spending taxpayer money for all the right reasons.

We all applaud your newfound circumspection of government expenditures.

There have been a ton of polls that used just climatologists. AGI did one last year I believe that had 97% of their climatologists stating they believed in global warming.

If you believe all those scientists are wrong, that's one thing. If you are trying to say that the vast majority of climatologists don't believe in global warming, that's just plain wrong.

Perhaps you should read again? My one mistake was not noting that is was 9 out of 10 earth scientists rather than all scientists. This was in fact an oversight on my behalf. And I would think said oversight would, if anything, bolster the case. They received responses from 157 climatologists out of around 520 polled (using their response rate). Just how many climatologists do you think there are to poll? As far as it being opinion-based, I'm not sure what other kind of poll you would be looking for. Of course it's opinion based.



Um, maybe because those scientists who think this is a problem would like to find some way to stop it?



I'm bewildered what this has to do with anything I've said. This is why we can't take you anywhere, MBBF.

OK, I was considering "conservatives" as a group larger than Republicans (and including libertarian types, basically anything not "liberal"), but that's just semantics.

But I admit I've very surprised the numbers are that high - on both sides.

I never really though, totally understood the conection between being "conservative", and religion/environmental views. Can't I dislike Obama, be strongly opposed to Democratic fiscal and national security ideas (and be completely annoyed at liberal smugness and arrogance when it rears its head), not not care about religion (but am annoyed when people beat it up for no reason) and be pro-environment and acknowledge global warming? Or all of those views tainted because "some of the same people" have certain ideas that the majority disagrees with? (it's becoming a classic FOFC logic).

I don't care what they believe, which is my whole point. Show me a poll that asks whether they can provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a direct correlation between man and global warming. Then we'll talk.

It should be noted in case you haven't noticed that I'm not dismissing the possibility that it exists. I just think there should be more absolute proof before Chicken Little becomes the Energy Secretary and his boss is blessing this kind of behavior.

It's like 2002 all over again.

Very true. You would think that the current administration would try to avoid repeating those kinds of mistakes. Evidently not.

That's a little much to ask, isn't it? Why would we apply the criminal conviction standard to enironmental policy? What's the downside? Fresh air, renewable energy, and a energy independence? I mean, would that suck if we achieved all that and it turned out we were wrong about global warming?

I'm curious how likely you think man-man global warming is, and at point we should try to do something about it. You say "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is something like 99% sure. What if we were 85% sure? Should we still just blow it off? What if there was even a 50% risk, say, that a catastrophe would impact civlization. Wouldn't you look into ways to mitigate that?

I don't think conservatives are that large. A libertarian for instance would be conservative fiscally, but very liberal socially. I think the country is probably around 25% conservative and 25% liberal. The rest kind of just lean a little one way or the other and are probably mixed (like me). If conservatives had a huge base, there is no way McCain would have gotten that nomination.

I'm also surprised by the numbers. I think younger people believe in it much less and we are probably around them most of the time.


Of course you can. I'm just saying as a whole, those who are against global warming tend to be more likely to believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. I think it's fair to point out that many of the groups pushing an anti-global warming agenda also believe Jesus lived amongst dinosaurs. If you are judging this independently than great, but a lot of people are just being told what to believe by their "flock leaders". Those same leaders who have a laughable track record on science.

"dont care but certainly will use them to bolster my stance"...I remember the Cato poster being the most terrific example of your hypocrisy.

Doctor: We'd like to put you on this drug that will help kill the infection.

MBBF: Can you prove without a reasonable doubt that this drug will kill my infection?

Doctor: No, but we have a lot of data that shows that this drug is effective in killing these types of infections.

MBBF: No thanks, talk to me when you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

As I mentioned before, I think it's a great idea to do everything feasibly possible to mitigate any harmful man-made effect on the environment. Pick up trash, reduce fossil fuel reliance, etc. I just am totally opposed to the idea that we need scare tactics based on questioned research to move that process forward.

There's a whole lot of Chicken Little's out there who aren't actually doing much to back up their global warming talk. If it's such an important thing, why aren't they acting on those assertions?

Once again, an argument that has no relevance. Antibiotic research is proven far beyond a reasonable doubt, but don't let that stop you.

I think you're confusing "speculation" with "scientific conclusions".

...and now we move from challenging the assertion to attacking the messenger.... If we keep this up at this pace I think we can be through the re-hash of this argument by dinnertime.

Fixed.

When said messenger is a hypocrite, the challenge is without question well-warranted.

At least we're agreed that you're confused, then. That's progress. :D

That's almost zen, especially coming from you.

Wasn't that a given? I'm just removing the layers of haze. :D


Well, I'm no Al Gore, but.............

*sigh*

Regarding climate change, have a look at the facts. Do your own research and find your own charts. Temperatures in the past have been MUCH hotter than they are presently. CO2 levels have been multiple times higher than they are today. The earth has been without polar ice caps multiple times in its history (this is theorized).

That said, the opposite is also true. The earth has been much cooler than it is now. CO2 levels have been lower. The earth has gone through several eras in which the ice caps reached the middle latitudes.

I've mentioned it before, my best friend is a scientist. I know how these studies get funded and how they get published. Right now, with the political climate as it is, any climate scientist that wants to have a job, and wants to make money, essentially is going to back either AGW or climate change. Because if they don't their funding will dry up. If they go and accept money from the energy companies, they are perceived to be selling out and lose face in the community. Also, do you not think it is interesting that the biggest names of the skeptics are all at the end of their careers when they cannot be threatened by not accepting the "mainstream" theory?

[Side story regarding science:
My best friend once gave me the story on what happened to one of his professors when I asked what the guy was doing now. His professor was one of the nation's foremost nuclear engineering professors. However, he signed off on a paper regarding cold fusion. His reputation in the community was ruined because cold fusion is "junk" science. However, the reason why he backed the paper was not due to support for cold fusion, but due to interesting interactions that took place in the experiment that he felt warranted additional research. However, cold fusion is a taboo subject and should not be supported in any way or form, so his reputation was ruined.]

The result is that many studies do show evidence of AGW. But what happens if you look at the data? Since 1998, the earth has cooled. The last couple of years, we've eliminated much of the warming that we saw from 1980-98. So which trend is true? The 1980-98, or the 1998-2009? The fact remains that the only accurate data we have regarding temperatures is the last 20 years. So how the heck do we model this? On top of that, when we are talking .5 deg C, how much of what we see is an actual trend and what is just "weather?"

Also, I would encourage people to look at temperature data for the last 5000 years. It is interesting to note that times of warmer weather (warmer than today even) is associated with good times, the rise of civilization, the rise of Rome, etc., while cooler eras are associated with worse times.

Finally, let's not forget, everything is based upon models. Many of these models do not take into account solar inputs, or a changing solar input. If you do not account for the single biggest driver of our climate, how the heck can you have an accurate model?

Basically, I am a skeptic due to what I know of the science. Much of it does not make sense when put under the microscope. Is that to say it is not true? No, but I find it interesting that much of the message from the AGW guys has turned from getting warmer to climate change. I also find it interesting that some trends are deemed significant, while others are billed as merely "weather". Certain items are focused on, such as CO2 as a pollutant which it is not. We focus on that, but disregard the most significant greenhouse gas H2O because we cannot control levels of it in the atmosphere.

Here are some questions for the peanut gallery:

Do you realize that plants love CO2? Increased levels of CO2 means a better environment for plant and tree biomass.

Do you realize that we need some levels of CO2 for our respiration? Hiccups are the body's mechanism to correct the level of CO2 in our system.

Did you know that the Earth is currently in an interglacial period which means the temperatures are relatively unstable and will oscillate between warm and cool?

Did you know that the era of the "Little Ice Age" ended just when we began to keep more accurate weather data? (which means there will be a natural positive bias in our temperature data.)

Again, I'm not saying that AGW can't happen. However, it is not a done deal when looking at it objectively and understanding what is happening in the scientific community.

Thanks Warhammer for putting that together. That summarizes a lot of my feelings / results of my research as well. The politicization of science and the apparent increase in fraudulent / directed research in LOTS of areas (not just global warming) scares me more than all the global warming talk.

And as a counterpoint, as someone who studied science, works in science administration, and has many relatives in science, I'm just not seeing that same politicization that is apparently endemic.

The point is that scientists use assumptions and beliefs based on data they are given all the time. Your doctor will come to a belief that you have something regardless of whether he can actually see the physical problem himself under a microscope. He will prescribe you a drug based on a belief that it will cure you (although it may not).

It's just absurd to say their opinions have no merit in a poll because they are not giving a 3 hour long presentation along with it.

Not when those opinions can be directly motivated by the monetary gain that can be derived from that opinion.

You could say that about almost every single scientific discovery. Why trust any prescribed drug as it was motivated by monetary gain?

You don't have to tell me that. My mother died suddenly from a drug that was later pulled from the market. All drugs are motivated by monetary gain, with some producing disasterous results.

or the opposite, do you think the energy companies are givbing money to support their scientists out of benevolence?

They're giving money to protect the need for their product. You're making the assumption that stance is causing some sort of global warming. It's a much different situation than the drug issue, where a company knowingly forced through something that they knew was hazardous. There's no definitive proof of global warming.

Im assuming nothing. I just am astounded by the amount of scientific studies that draw the same conclusions and than the few, in contrast, that come to different conclusions or come to no conclusion other than to cast doubt on the other side's conclusions, in an effort to, as you say, protect their product or keep global change from occurring which some (you) would assume would bring about tax changes as well on individuals and corporations thus falling right into place with your fiscal assumptions of the future personally and governmentally. They do go hand in hand. Luckily you have been wrong so many times in this thread, even when you refuse to admit it going ALL the way back to the beginnings, then got all high and mighty to have to be shown your hypocrisy, to this regurgitated vocalization of the same crap youve spouted time and again to no avail. Thank goodness your side's position is better expanded upon by people who still have some credibility or else all would be lost....

Im afraid for you there will never be definitive anything until it supports your already developed stance and soapbox.

So you refuse to take any prescribed drugs I'm assuming.

It certainly changed my perspective on that. I usually only take generic drugs when absolutely needed, which have been on the market for a period of time and generally have a proven track record. Not only is it safer, but it's also cheaper.

Just don't limit yourselves to generics. Many generics are not "the same" as they and the insurance companies would have you believe, but instead have their own side effects you may or may not be able to tolerate.

This is true. Generic drugs are usually similar in structure only. They are not made by the same processes and are regulated (safety-wise) quite differently. Many of the different generics use different carriers (corn starch, etc) and not all are tested thoroughly. Also, many of them are made overseas where the regulations are also quite different.

So you come down with cancer and you're going to tell your doctor to only give you the cancer drugs that are 10+ years old. I highly doubt that.

I definitely agree. It's a balancing act all its own. I'm thankfully free of any real allergies to any medicines thus far, so I've been lucky in that regard. I certainly wouldn't hesitate to take a certain medicine if it truly was needed, but I usually look for more than one opinion just in case.

FWIW......my father was the one who prescribed the medicine that eventually killed my mother. There's obviously an extreme amount of guilt there. You can understand my general lack of trust for most government institutions and the corporations that they are in bed with. It's not always properly placed, which I'll admit, but experiences like that directly affect my opinion on these situations.

Most of that treatment is done in a hospital, which is a totally different situation than what we're discussing in this case.

Generics are still extremely safe. In fact, a lot of the generics come from the same assembly line that the name-brand does. My brother worked for Abbot for years and they would sell their drugs to the generic companies and just put the generic's label on it.

How so?

The administration of those kinds of drugs is done in a hospital where the patient can be monitored during the treatments. That's much different than someone who is taking a pill at home with no direct supervision.

I'm not here to argue the merits of prescription drugs. I was burned before, hence my critical nature towards government being the ultimate right/wrong adjudicator. That's all.

LOL.


"In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone's recollection.






As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.
Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example."

Link for that article?

See, that's the fun part: I've watched there be "overwhelming scientific evidence" for global warming, global cooling, don't eat protein, don't eat fat, don't eat carbohydrates, margiarine is better than butter, margiarine is worse than butter, high cholesterol is bad, actually it's the ratio of cholesterol that is important, blah blah blah blah blah. It really is hard to know what to believe these days, especially when it involves the ability to sell something (like, say, carbon offsets, or using the Kyoto Protocol to hinder American industry).

Yeah, see that's the great thing. If you just pay enough people to muddy up any issue, people will throw their hands up in the air and not believe anyone.

Or was that not your point?

SI

It is not true that the Earth has cooled since 1998.



1998 is the spike you see prior to the 2000 line, then the temp drops for 2 years before going back up to 1998 levels until the end of the chart (2007). I guess it gives the AGW deniers a talking point, that 1998 was such a warm year and then it went down for a few years after, but to say temperature has gone down since 1998 is just completely wrong, as is saying that we've eliminated "much of the warming from 1980-1998".

2007 Was Tied As Earth's Second Warmest Year

Quite the opposite. There have just been too many things that had "overwhelming evidence" for a few years that turned around with "overwhelming evidence" the other way. As pointed out above, the language used in the 70s and 80s for global cooling has a pretty high correlation with the language used in the 90s and 00s for global warming. And while I've seen some evidence that indicates the earth may be a bit warmer than it was back in the 80s, I haven't seen much that has pointed out man's actions as the primary culprit. And the recent trends have actually been cooling a bit as mentioned above in another post.

It's not anywhere near as cut and dried as supporters would like to have you believe, and that's just me listening to the arguments in favor of the global warming side of things (I'm not sure I've read all that many energy-industry papers opposing it). It's mostly scare tactics from what I've been able to see that ignore plenty of other evidence and lines of research that might help prove what's going on, including backing their own position in the end.

It was a Time Magazine article from June 24, 1974 - "Another Ice Age?" - hxxp://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html".

Interestingly, they have another article from 1994 called "The Ice Age Cometh".

I guess we're due for another one in 5 years.

Actually, my favorite part of the original article comes from page 2 (which I neglected to post). Check out this nugget of what we're doing to our atmosphere:

"Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth."

Oh, and here's the requisite "doom and gloom - we're all gonna die!" paragraph:

"Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years."

Personally, I do believe there is some global warming going on, but I also believe it's a case of Chicken Little. I can remember being told in 8th grade science glass that, due to the ice caps melting, New York City (and other coastal areas) will be underwater within 20 years. I was dumbfounded and wondered why no one was doing anything about it. Yet, here we are 25 years later - New York City still exists and celebrities continue to tell me to recycle and "go green" and then hop on a private jet to head home after making rounds on the morning infotainment programs (how's that for a non-sequitir?).

Here's one piece that I have never seen satisfactorily answered and would genuinely like a link to an article on: how do scientists arrive at the global temperature for time periods before, say, 1980, let alone back in 1880?

But if you reversed the chart the Earth would be getting cooler. Who's really to say what's happening?

One other thing - Reid A. Bryson, the climatologist mentioned in the Time article predicting the coming Ice Age in the 70's was a skeptic regarding global warming. While he admitted global warming is occurring, he said it had nothing to do with man.

"All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd," Bryson continues. "Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air."

Oddly enough, Bryson died in 2008 due to global warming.

Ok - I put that last part in myself.

FWIW, while I may argue the warming trends periodically in here, this is the camp I mostly find myself in. My main arguments with the warming trend tend to surround the doom&gloom predictions that seem to ignore the typical climatic cycles the earth has always gone through. We had flat temperatures for 40 years or so leading up to the 70s, and now 40 years of slightly rising temperatures (maybe half a degree or so), I'm not sure why I should believe that it's going to go up a handful of degrees all of a sudden over the next decade or two like I see predicted all the time.

Well this all depends on if you think we can reasonably approximate temperatures going back thousands or millions of years by measuring other things. This includes tree rings, coral reefs (they form annual layers like trees), lake sediments, isotopes of oxygen 18 and 16 (and sometimes hydrogen) from ice cores and other sources. Basically, there are a lot of methods that scientists use to approximate temperatures from many years ago.

If you don't really think these work, then you'll probably reject the approximate temperatures that scientists come up with and still think of a half degree Celsius of global average temperature to be insignificant.

If you do, then you'll probably accept the approximate temperatures that scientists come up with and see even a half degree Celsius of global average temperature to be pretty significant.

It's been awhile since I read a lot about the issue, but I believe (if you accept the findings) that there really aren't that many degrees Celsius of global average temperature between today and the Ice Age(s). Like a 5 or 6 degrees difference between the two. If that's true, then what seem to be minor or insignificant changes are actually pretty big changes. (http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDe....aspx?cid=1219 is where I'm pretty sure I heard this from)

I think one thing to keep at least in mind a little bit is that while the earth has been warm and cold before, people have not been on the earth all that long. So, just because the earth can be X degrees- suddenly the world isn't going to just blow up or all life cease to exist. However, we, people on this earth do have different needs. So, just because historically things have happened doesn't mean it's ideal or even good for us.

SI

This is along my lines of thinking as well. Environmentally, there wouldn't be as much impact in temperate zones going from 70 degrees average to 72 degrees average. But in an arctic zone, there would be tremendous impact going from 31 degrees average to 33 degrees average.

I just think you're full of it when saying you would not take a drug that could save your life because it wasn't made in the last 10 years or administered in a hospital. If you become ill and the doctor says that you need to take 3 of these pills a day to live, you won't be asking if they are in generic form or if you can come in and have him watch you everytime you take them.

And even if you did stand by this moral code, it's not statistically smart. You simply increase your chance of death and reduce your potential lifespan.

Nonetheless, my point was that you trust the beliefs of scientists everyday you live. To all of a sudden say you don't believe in what scientists is just silly.

Since this isn't the thread for an AGW debate (nor do I feel like getting into one), I'll just say that I highly recommend the above lecture series from The Teaching Company. He gives a pretty thourough overall explaination of the science behind climate change (not just temperature charts or jokes about a teacher who once got the plate techtonics thing wrong).

If you read McIntyre's work, he debunks the original Mann hypothesis due to the use of one of the smaller tree proxies.

Plus, I can play the same game...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:In...ure_Record.png

Sorry, we wiped out all warming since about 1990 in the last two years, I stand corrected.

My point is, we do not have enough hard data. Everything that is used prior to roughly 1850 is not good data. They are approximations that are used. Even now when we make determinations about weather, I question if we have enough data. Think about the number of "proxies" that we use for past data. We use what we know of current climate and then make appoximations based upon that. However, as we have seen, what is happening in Colorado due to events, might not mean that the rest of the nation saw the same conditions. Essentially, we look at tree rings and say that since the rings are close together, contain these minerals/compounds, this was happening in this area. However, since when this happens here today, THAT happens in Florida, it must have been that way before, therefore, X. I contend that without more data, we cannot settle to using this. Just because it we had a Thunderstorm in Memphis today, and there was rain in Nashville too, it does not mean that every time we get Thunderstorms in Memphis that there is rain in Nashville.

We talk about catastrophic things happening. Cartman mentions the peril of the polar regions creeping above 32 degrees. The problem is that the critical temperature in polar regions is lower. Salt water freezes at a lower temperature than fresh water. So the salt water would melt fresh water at a temperature lower than 32 degrees. Not sure what it is off the top of my head though because salinity comes into play as well as localized concentrations of salt. Finally, the amount of ice comes into play as well.

Many people also assume the ice sheets as being stable unmoving objects. However, they are constantly moving in many areas. The Arctic ice pack is constantly moving can be dramatically affected by the winds in the area moving the ice south in to warmer waters.

Additionally, let's look at things another way. If we look at a 1% increase in temperature, we should not look at moving from 70 to 72 degrees as a 2.7% increase, but rather as a .4% change in temperature (alternately, you could measure it from the universal ambient of roughly -455 deg. F), since all temperatures should be properly measured from absolute zero. Another way to look at this is imagine if the sun increased its solar by 1%. The impact on global temperature should be much higher than the mere 2 degrees we talk about. Hell, the .4 deg C that is thrown about amounts to .7 deg F.

Also, let's not forget that much of the urban island effect is not accounted for or studied. The fact that much of our temperature data comes from these urban islands taints some of the data.

Again, much of my problem comes from the lack of perspective and understanding regarding the climate systems of Earth. Yet, we are willing to make wholesale changes to how we live based upon something we do not fully understand. No thanks.

I would certainly say that to get both sides of the debate people shoul certainly give it a whirl. I will say this though, he still gets the CO2-temperature relationship wrong Increase in temperature leads to more CO2 in the atmosphere as the ice cores show, not the other way around.

The data here shows the relationship in history regarding temperature and CO2. Remember to read right to left and you will see temperatures rise first, then the CO2 rises. If CO2 drives climate change, than why have temperatures not increased by 15% as CO2 has over the last 50 years? This points to CO2 as a modest contributor to warming (yes, I acknowledge it has some impact, but not enough to support the models out there).

Since I recommended the lecture series, I feel I should correct this since Warhammer is misrepresenting what Wolfson says.

In the lectures, Wolfson explains the relationship of temperature and CO2 and how they work off of each other, and that a rise in temperature will cause an increase in CO2 but that an increase in CO2 will also increase temperature. And the same is true for decreasing one will decrease the other. This can lead to a runaway effect until other factors (and there are many) put a stop or reverse one or both of them.

Before I listened to this lecture series (2 years ago, I believe), I was leaning to the AGW-deniers side. This didn't single handedly change my mind, but it did answer a lot of questions and gave me a really good overview of all of the actual science.

Not sure why the administration would do this, but they omitted parts of the intelligence memos when they were released saying that direct attacks on the U.S. were stopped directly because of the interrogation techniques used on the terrorists.

NYT: Harsh techniques worked, intel chief says - White House- msnbc.com

Maybe because the memos DON'T say that direct attacks on the US were stopped.


If there really was a ton of urgent, valuable information received from the torture/enhanced physical interrogation methods, you don't think that the Bush Administration would have released the documents themselves? Now that it is the Obama Administration, the folks like Cheney can sit back and say, "well, they aren't telling the whole picture, they are withholding the true information", etc.

Wasn't this stuff held back from release during the Bush Admin because it would harm national security? Why is Cheney so eager to do it now?

Mainly because it's being used for political attacks and only the portions that back the Obama administrations claims are being released. The damage has already been done. Releasing the info that Cheney is talking about won't do any more damage than has already been done by the initial release.

Wait. So the specific information about what terrorist attacks were prevented by torture is not the part that would do the damage, but rather the fact that torture was being done?

The memos may not directly say that and the Admiral is certainly doing an excellent job of spinning his original comments, but there is very strong evidence that a Los Angeles attack was silently thwarted directly due to information obtained from waterboarding the 9-11 mastermind.......

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/conten...x?RsrcID=46949

The release of any of that information is damaging. It allows the terrorists a window into how things work and it also can give them hints as to where we might have obtained data, which could endanger operatives.

Listen, if Obama wanted to condemn this kind of thing, fine. Make a statement saying that he wouldn't do these kinds of things and even take a cheap shot at Bush if he'd like to do so. But releasing the inside information is a boneheaded move at best. It's only motivation can be political gain. It doesn't move us any closer to safety in regards to security. If anything, it moves us further away from that. It's a stupid move that is only compounded by the revelation that his staff only released those portions of the information that assisted their political gain.

Sorry, I was not trying to misrepresent what he says, he comments on it, and I was pointing out the proper relationship between the two because there is a lot of misunderstanding of it.

There is a good amount of negative feedback on Earth though. This means that things trend towards an equilibrium and will notgo off the scale one way or another. That is why we have never had a permanent "Snowball Earth" or had a hot dry planet Earth. The mechanisms in place work against it.

:banghead: :lol:

Or maybe the reason for the torture wasn't to discover plots against America. Maybe it was trying to find non-existent links between Al-Qaeda and Iraq.

Report: Abusive tactics used to seek Iraq-al Qaida link | McClatchy

Im beginning to think MBBF was parsing data out of polls to root on his dog in the race last year...

and that MBBF hasn't passed judgment yet on this administration since it hasnt been 4 months yet, no? (lemme look back a few pages)