So, still think this global warming stuff is crap?

[Glengoyne]

I'm rarely as close to entirely agreeing with RendeR as I am with his points at the top of this page(post #51).

Sure the world is warming.

The world has been this warm before, did humans cause that too? All those bronze age power plants? Yes, there is quite a bit of hyperbole there, but I guess my point is that man isn't DEFINITELY the cause of this phenomenon. Therefore, who do we think we are to claim that we know that we can reverse this trend?

While I agree with that point directly above, I'll also add that there is nothing wrong with trying to advance technology in alternative energy sources. I'm also big on thinking that I'd rather have nuclear plants generating power than coal/natural gas burning power plants. So yes I'm pro alternative energy, but I don't think it is a good idea to go "kyoto" on this issue. We shouldn't cripple or even strain our economy to do so. Yes, while Bush opposed the Kyoto treaty he isn't alone. Clinton didn't sign...although he did allow/direct Gore to symbolically sign the treaty. The US Senate voted something on the order of 99-1 or 97-0 in opposition of the treaty as it existed then. I don't believe the objectionable sections of the treaty have significantly changed since then.

I don't think it is a good idea to go for broke in the fight against global warming. There is just too big a chance that we won't get any, or at least, not much bang for our buck.

As for people needing to feel important..I liken Al Gore, and those of his ilk, to the Y2K alarmists. So yes I think some of this is about seeking attention as well as funding, and it should be obvious that both poles of this debate are politically motivated.

I also think the tack taken the last couple of years by the environmentalists is next to brilliant..."There is no debate about humanity's role in global warming. That question is resolved" I don't buy it, but it certainly sells.

[Logan]

So as I was walking to work today, freezing my balls off with it being just under 30 degrees here in NYC, I was thinking about this thread.

Did we manage to reverse all the wrongs we had done to the world in a week?

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Logan

So as I was walking to work today, freezing my balls off with it being just under 30 degrees here in NYC, I was thinking about this thread.

Did we manage to reverse all the wrongs we had done to the world in a week?

freezing your balls off? Try this on for size (and keep in mind the temps are celcius): http://www.weather.ca/weather/cities...s/CAMB0244.htm

As for the cause, I blame it on the Ozone layer healing itself. Fucking hippies screw us again.

[albionmoonlight]

Hmmm...one more foray into this thread.

To attack the idea that humans are causing global-scale climate change is to attack the entire concept of peer-reviewed science as a means of discovering the truth about the natural world.

Now, perhaps peer-reviewed science is critically flawed (though I have to give props to anything that leads to discoveries that eventually become something as awesome as the iPhone). I am certainly open to that possibility. Scientists are, after all, human.

But, if one accepts peer-reviewed science, then one must also accept the conclusions that it reaches. And peer-reviewed science has reached the conclusion that humans cause global scale climate change.

Again, I'm not saying that one has to beleive in human caused climate change. I am, however, saying that one should acknowledge what they are claiming when they state that they don't beleive it.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

freezing your balls off? Try this on for size (and keep in mind the temps are celcius): http://www.weather.ca/weather/cities...s/CAMB0244.htm

As for the cause, I blame it on the Ozone layer healing itself. Fucking hippies screw us again.

Yeah, and you'd probably be sweating your balls off around here in May when it's 75 degrees (F) .

[duckman]

We an icestorm coming our way this weekend and possibly the longest cold "snap" since 1983. I guess I better get some kerosene lamps and/or candles, so I can study.

[albionmoonlight]

Oh--and for what it is worth, it was cold this morning. Definitely a two-cup-of-hot-coffee morning.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

To attack the idea that humans are causing global-scale climate change is to attack the entire concept of peer-reviewed science as a means of discovering the truth about the natural world.

Now, perhaps peer-reviewed science is critically flawed (though I have to give props to anything that leads to discoveries that eventually become something as awesome as the iPhone). I am certainly open to that possibility. Scientists are, after all, human.

But, if one accepts peer-reviewed science, then one must also accept the conclusions that it reaches. And peer-reviewed science has reached the conclusion that humans cause global scale climate change.

There are plenty of objections to that peer-reviewed science (Discover had a great article from one of the NOAA's premier hurricane specialists a year or two back). And peer-reviewed science has been wrong before. Especially when there is a ton of money available for supporting a heavily-politicized cause.

As a sample, I'd point out all the peer-reviewed science related to human diet over the last 20-30 years (or even over the last 10). Peer-reviewed science helps make progress, but it's important to remember that it is only a step along the path to knowledge, they don't know everything yet and are constantly discovering new things and other factors.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

There are plenty of objections to that peer-reviewed science (Discover had a great article from one of the NOAA's premier hurricane specialists a year or two back). And peer-reviewed science has been wrong before. Especially when there is a ton of money available for supporting a heavily-politicized cause.

As a sample, I'd point out all the peer-reviewed science related to human diet over the last 20-30 years (or even over the last 10). Peer-reviewed science helps make progress, but it's important to remember that it is only a step along the path to knowledge, they don't know everything yet and are constantly discovering new things and other factors.

I agree. I object to the idea that there is somehow a split in the scientific community over this issue that reflects the split in the politicial community over this issue. There is not.

But, I totally agree with the idea that the entire scientific community may be operating under some pressures and biases that make the entire system rotten and place their conclusions under suspicion. (I'm not saying that it is, but I am open to the possibility that it is the case).

[Ryche]

One thing I saw on the NBC news I think Monday night struck me as funny. They had a climate expert on a few days before and they asked him whether the warm weather we were experiencing was caused by global warming. The scientist responded no, it's El Nino, El Nino, El Nino. So Monday night they had 2 more scientists on two say that yes indeed, global warming was part of the cause. But the first scientist they had on didn't actually say that, he repeated the El Nino theory. The second guy, a professor of Enviro Studies at Stanford, then emphatically said global warming was indeed a major cause.

I probably didn't describe the story too well, but two things struck me.
1. They felt the need to have another voice on their when the first climatologist said global warming was not causing the warm weather.
2. They used an environmental studies professor to refute it rather than another climatologist.

[King of New York]

Sure, the climate is getting warmer, and scientists can demonstrate that using peer-reviewed studies and objective standards. But at present there is no way for scientists to determine why that is happening. It might be due to human action and carbon emissions, or it might be due to other factors entirely--take your pick.

Until scientists can figure out a way to isolate all of the individual factors that affect climate, measure each one, and then perform repeatable experiments while controlling for each factor, they cannot say with any certainty, or even lilkeliness, which factor is most repsonsible for contributing to the observed outcome.

The closest that scientists can come to this is computer modelling, but in all honesty, right now computer models are highly sophisticated guesses.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ryche

I probably didn't describe the story too well, but two things struck me.
1. They felt the need to have another voice on their when the first climatologist said global warming was not causing the warm weather.
2. They used an environmental studies professor to refute it rather than another climatologist.

El Nino isn't interesting.

No matter what the truth of global warming is, it's completely absurd to claim that it can be observed in a regional, seasonal temperature fluctuation. Like I said, if a specific regional temperature is 30 degrees above normal, and that increase was caused by global warming, we'd all be LONG dead already.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by molson

El Nino isn't interesting.

No matter what the truth of global warming is, it's completely absurd to claim that it can be observed in a regional, seasonal temperature fluctuation. Like I said, if a specific regional temperature is 30 degrees above normal, and that increase was caused by global warming, we'd all be LONG dead already.

That was pretty much my point in bumping this thread after realizing that we're back to normal cold January temperatures. If you're going to say global warming is a huge concern because we saw some high temperatures for a 2 week period in January, you should be called out on it.

[Warhammer]

I think there is something approaching consensus that the earth is warming (although even there I am not sure I agree 100% with it, the consensus). There is certainly no consensus on the fact that humans have caused the warming.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I think there is something approaching consensus that the earth is warming (although even there I am not sure I agree 100% with it, the consensus). There is certainly no consensus on the fact that humans have caused the warming.

I look at it a little bit differently. I would agree to a certain extent about humans contributing a little to the warming (as oppose to 'no effect'). However, we can kill off a substantail percentage of the population (through lowering the standard of living, significantly reducing consumption of fossil fuels, using biomass for fuel causing loss of forests, etc.) and the earth wil still be getting warmer. We will look around at all of the deaths and impoverishment and wonder why the air is dirtier and there are still record high temperatures. The alternative is to continue to invest in technologies and let the regulatory threshold keep at a rate equal to technology and reasonable cost of implementation. To invest more heavily into alternative energies will require substantial trade-offs and many are not willing or cannot afford to go there yet.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by King of New York

Sure, the climate is getting warmer, and scientists can demonstrate that using peer-reviewed studies and objective standards. But at present there is no way for scientists to determine why that is happening. It might be due to human action and carbon emissions, or it might be due to other factors entirely--take your pick.

Until scientists can figure out a way to isolate all of the individual factors that affect climate, measure each one, and then perform repeatable experiments while controlling for each factor, they cannot say with any certainty, or even lilkeliness, which factor is most repsonsible for contributing to the observed outcome.

The closest that scientists can come to this is computer modelling, but in all honesty, right now computer models are highly sophisticated guesses.

But the debate is over. Albionmoonlight said so.

I'm telling you, the "issue is resolved" tactic of the environmentalists has traction with folks.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

But the debate is over. Albionmoonlight said so.

I'm telling you, the "issue is resolved" tactic of the environmentalists has traction with folks.

I think they learned it from my girlfriend.

[Cringer]

This week in Federal Way schools, it got a lot more inconvenient to show one of the top-grossing documentaries in U.S. history, the global-warming alert "An Inconvenient Truth."

After a parent who supports the teaching of creationism and opposes sex education complained about the film, the Federal Way School Board on Tuesday placed what it labeled a moratorium on showing the film. The movie consists largely of a computer presentation by former Vice President Al Gore recounting scientists' findings.
Al Gore's documentary
Zoom Paramount Classics
Al Gore's documentary about global warming may not be shown unless the teacher also presents an "opposing view."

"Condoms don't belong in school, and neither does Al Gore. He's not a schoolteacher," said Frosty Hardison, a parent of seven who also said that he believes the Earth is 14,000 years old. "The information that's being presented is a very cockeyed view of what the truth is. ... The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn't in the DVD."

hcringerp://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/299253_inconvenient11.html?source=mypi

Just throwing this out there, I thought it was funny.

[sabotai]

"Condoms don't belong in school, and neither does Al Gore. He's not a schoolteacher," said Frosty Hardison, a parent of seven who also said that he believes the Earth is 14,000 years old.

*snickers*

[Fidatelo]

You know its friggin' cold out when your teammates are complaining they are cold... in the indoor rink. My steering wheel was stiffer than Bob Dole driving home from my buddy's place tonight.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

My steering wheel was stiffer than Bob Dole driving home from my buddy's place tonight.

Two things.

1. Your buddy knows Bob Dole?

2. Your buddy really made Bob Dole stiff?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by King of New York

Until scientists can figure out a way to isolate all of the individual factors that affect climate, measure each one, and then perform repeatable experiments while controlling for each factor, they cannot say with any certainty, or even lilkeliness, which factor is most repsonsible for contributing to the observed outcome.

I'm not discounting all the other arguments in this thread, but I can peel this one off as a horrible argument. There's no way you can isolate all the individual factors nor do you need to. Just because 5 out of 1000 3-pack-a-day smokers die from car accidents doesn't mean smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. Similarly, just because there is a cold day outside, that doesn't mean the world is just fine (I always love how cold days mean no global warming while warm days mean there is global warming). And, back to your original point, just because there are other things that can contribute to making the earth more warm doesn't mean that burning fossil fuels doesn't significantly have an effect and haven't been measured.

SI

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm not discounting all the other arguments in this thread, but I can peel this one off as a horrible argument. There's no way you can isolate all the individual factors nor do you need to. Just because 5 out of 1000 3-pack-a-day smokers die from car accidents doesn't mean smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. Similarly, just because there is a cold day outside, that doesn't mean the world is just fine (I always love how cold days mean no global warming while warm days mean there is global warming). And, back to your original point, just because there are other things that can contribute to making the earth more warm doesn't mean that burning fossil fuels doesn't significantly have an effect and haven't been measured.

SI

At its heart, I don't think it is all that terrible an argument. I think expanding the argurment to require that we "Isolate all of the individual factors" takes it too far. At least not if I correctly follow the point he was making.

Back ten years ago, the scientists on the UN commission on Global Warming declared that no anthropogeneic cause could be determined. The reason was simple. There were too many variables. Simply WAY too many variables in the equation. I think it is valid to say that technology hasn't grown significantly enough in the interim to account for that. Given that, I'm concerned that the certainty about that declaration that we see espoused now is motivated by something other than science.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Cringer

Two things.

1. Your buddy knows Bob Dole?

2. Your buddy really made Bob Dole stiff?

1. Intimately
2. I think an inanimate carbon rod might make Bob Dole stiff.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm not discounting all the other arguments in this thread, but I can peel this one off as a horrible argument. There's no way you can isolate all the individual factors nor do you need to. Just because 5 out of 1000 3-pack-a-day smokers die from car accidents doesn't mean smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. Similarly, just because there is a cold day outside, that doesn't mean the world is just fine (I always love how cold days mean no global warming while warm days mean there is global warming). And, back to your original point, just because there are other things that can contribute to making the earth more warm doesn't mean that burning fossil fuels doesn't significantly have an effect and haven't been measured.

SI

Were you trying to make a point? I haven't seen any proof/evidence that says burning fossil fuels does significantly have an effect. I'm confused.

[dbd1963]

If global warming was all hooey, then you'd expect no change in administration posture on issues surrounding the topic. But the administration has been making (admittedly weak) noises for a year now that they were beginning to look for a change in policy. Here's the latest example:

On Saturday I put the case for a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system to James Connaughton, the head of the Council on Environmental Quality at the White House. Far from denouncing these policies as eco-socialist nonsense, Connaughton sounded open to them. "In concept I can agree with you," he said. Something must be done to stem demand for climate-warming energy, and although there are several ways of getting there, a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system would be the most "elegant."Whoa! This may be spin, but it's certainly new spin. Only a few months ago, Al Hubbard, director of Bush's National Economic Council, brushed aside the idea of a carbon tax: "The American people are not interested in paying more for gasoline," he told me

Taken from a Washington Post OpEd:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...011400888.html

And about that argument over this year's weather in the Eastern US..

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...rmth/#more-388


A relevant snippet from the above link:

while El Nino typically does perturb the winter Northern Hemisphere jet stream in a way that favors anomalous warmth over much of the northern half of the U.S., the typical amplitude of the warming

is about 1C (i.e., about 2F). The current anomaly is roughly five times as large as this. One therefore cannot sensibly argue that the current U.S. winter temperature anomalies are attributed entirely to the current moderate El Nino event.

There's a lot more to think about if you go looking, but of course Al Gore made it all up and you all know that because you are tenured scientists of the best quality..

[Mateo]

All I know is I had to scrape ice off my car windshield this morning.

Ice... in Southern California. Yeah, this global warming stuff is crap.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Mateo

All I know is I had to scrape ice off my car windshield this morning.

Ice... in Southern California. Yeah, this global warming stuff is crap.

Yep. A cold front one Winter in California means that the rise in average global temperatures over the last century hasn't actually happened. Yep. That's some logical thinking right there...

[Mateo]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Yep. A cold front one Winter in California means that the rise in average global temperatures over the last century hasn't actually happened. Yep. That's some logical thinking right there...

I actually wasn't being literal. My point was that anyone that says that global warming doesn't exist just has to look at the recent temperature fluctuations and know that it's all related. Ice in SoCal is not normal. Springtime temperatures in January back East isn't normal. Global warming is indeed a reality, and I fear it's too late to do anything. (Much like my attempt to explain my lame-ass joke in this thread)

Perhaps I should have added /sarcasm or a little at the end.

[Logan]

n00b.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Mateo

Perhaps I should have added /sarcasm or a little at the end.

That would've helped, yes.

One of the problems I think with the Global Warming debate is that people that only have a basic understanding of weather here that term and then do think the idea is crap because their area has had a really bad Winter or a very mild Summer or whatnot; while technically speaking Global Warming is an accurate term, I think a better term that encompasses the reality of the complexity of weather changes would be Climate Change.

[Fidatelo]

-29 degrees celcius right now, and I'm dreaming of some serious climate change. Fuck the Polar Ice Caps, I want to be able to walk 2 blocks without my cheeks being flayed from my skin by a slight breeze.

[CU Tiger]

well it was 78 here in Carolina today, and I rode home with the sunroof open and played soccer with my son in shorts.

Damn, global warming is reality, Damn you Dubya, Damn you...why couln't Al Gore have won...then we would have no global warming, no 9/11, and Saddam would be a happy little troll, handing out cigars and wine bottles to all the citizens just like the good ole days and Castro....

[JPhillips]

[MIJB#19]

Overhere in the Netherlands, 2006 was far and beyond the hottest day in like 300+ years. This winter we have had only 1 cold day so far. It's midway January and it has yet to freeze in a country that is know for it's outdoor speedskating tradition. Not blaming anybody, but the weather definately is different from what it used to be.

[Butter]

2+ solid weeks of 90+ degree temperatures predicted for us here in Dayton over the next couple of weeks of June. Can't wait to see how things are in August!

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

2+ solid weeks of 90+ degree temperatures predicted for us here in Dayton over the next couple of weeks of June. Can't wait to see how things are in August!

suck it up, buttercup

[Warhammer]

Hmmmm... Maybe I need to open an AC shop up in Ohio...

[lighthousekeeper]

I hope this thread is still around in a few years after it's been fully "proven" that global warming is a reality.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

2+ solid weeks of 90+ degree temperatures predicted for us here in Dayton over the next couple of weeks of June. Can't wait to see how things are in August!

After a solid week here in Raleigh of mid-70s.

Good article in Discover about a guy doing research on solar affects on temperatures, including how solar output affects cloud cover and how that affects temperatures. He talks about attempts to quash his research back in the mid-90s because it wasn't about greenhouse gases, for those who don't see politics miring this debate.

(and he also talks about things like using compact fluourescent lights since reducing pollution is a good idea anyway, so nicely balanced)

[Marc Vaughan]

I think that Global Warming does exist to at least some extent - but also find it interesting how people claim its a 'definite' considering the lack of scientific data there is available on weather generally - in England weather records go back less than 200 years and in most countries their records are even shorter than this ....

(incidentally is there a site where you can see record temperatures (max & min) for countries and when these were set/broken last - as that would be very interesting to me)

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

After a solid week here in Raleigh of mid-70s.

Good article in Discover about a guy doing research on solar affects on temperatures, including how solar output affects cloud cover and how that affects temperatures. He talks about attempts to quash his research back in the mid-90s because it wasn't about greenhouse gases, for those who don't see politics miring this debate.

(and he also talks about things like using compact fluourescent lights since reducing pollution is a good idea anyway, so nicely balanced)

Glad someone other than me posted this. Someone might actually read it then.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

I hope this thread is still around in a few years after it's been fully "proven" that global warming is a reality.

I'm sure it will have melted by then.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Glad someone other than me posted this. Someone might actually read it then.

Don't count on it...

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Don't count on it...

How silly of me, thinking someone might read something that might challenge some of their beliefs.