That was very interesting; I'm passing it on to my Dad, who's been a volunteer w/ the Nat'l Weather Service for years, and has told me about the cold water and the currents really dictating everything. Knowing him, he'll probably already know about it, but what's most interesting is that Green Lake is within 2 hours of where he lives. That part of it was wild!
it was in a 5 or so part series from the BBC called Earth: A Biography it's a really great series, worth checking out. that was from the episode on oceans
Ever notice that the people on the far right who try and discredit global warming as some liberal scam for profit and agenda are the same group of people who have unlocked the doors to the corporate agenda and de-regulation of privatized industries? Pretty funny when people point the finger to others on an issue (whether right or wrong), when they are more guilty of the crime they are alluding too. Sweet irony, no?
Also, I find it hard to believe anyone can seriously try and debunk global warming. Someone can make the arguement on how much mankinds actual influence on that is, but in the end of the day, we are just as strong a force as nature changing on it's on and for some to argue we should sit on our hands is insane and trily an ill-advised option on the matter.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
dude ... it is playing out exactly like i said ... overzealous climate skeptics who are paid by lobbyists are rolling with this ... it will (LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE) fade away because ultimately it has ZERO merit ... all it does is allow people who want to believe one thing to continue to tow the corporate line ...
it's like i'm saying you are an alien ... and the basis is some article that says you have 4 belly buttons ... well, you can have link after link ... video after video on everything and someone's gonna believe you're an alien ... the problem is that you don't have 4 belly buttons ... the emails are much ado about nothing ...
A political viewpoint won't get you very far in the debate of GW. Your best bet is to cite scientific sources. This is a science issue, not a political issue.
Ever notice that the people on the far right who try and discredit global warming as some liberal scam for profit and agenda are the same group of people who have unlocked the doors to the corporate agenda and de-regulation of privatized industries? Pretty funny when people point the finger to others on an issue (whether right or wrong), when they are more guilty of the crime they are alluding too. Sweet irony, no?
Also, I find it hard to believe anyone can seriously try and debunk global warming. Someone can make the arguement on how much mankinds actual influence on that is, but in the end of the day, we are just as strong a force as nature changing on it's on and for some to argue we should sit on our hands is insane and trily an ill-advised option on the matter.
Of course. It's because they have there money in the status quo so not only are they not going to make any money on going green they will lose millions. And I'm supposed to trust there take on the issue.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
A political viewpoint won't get you very far in the debate of GW. Your best bet is to cite scientific sources. This is a science issue, not a political issue.
This is a political issue, now....and there are lobbyist on both sides...
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
A political viewpoint won't get you very far in the debate of GW. Your best bet is to cite scientific sources. This is a science issue, not a political issue.
This is a political issue, now....and there are lobbyist on both sides...
you're right and it boils down to is pollution harmful or beneficial?
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
The ETS in the australian parliment at the moment is so flawed that from what I can learn is that the scheme is so flawed that the big poluters can continue business as usual tactics. Why should we stop at just reducing carbon emissions, why not lower the impact of farming and other practices impact on the plannet.
Rod Laver Arena - Feb 18, 2003
Rod Laver Arena - Nov 13, 2006
Adelaide Oval - Nov 17, 2009
Etihad Stadium - Nov 20, 2009
BDO Melbourne - Jan 24, 2014
New York - May 02 - 2016
A political viewpoint won't get you very far in the debate of GW. Your best bet is to cite scientific sources. This is a science issue, not a political issue.
This is a political issue, now....and there are lobbyist on both sides...
Only because it affects certain industries as the idea of regulation and alternative energy comes to play. The Oil and Coal industries have such strongholds on Washington, that any idea of the gov't considering the environment, rather than big business and fossil fuels, to be something worth looking into and possibly changing our ways, hurts the big money going into these industries. Hence the heavy lobbying. It's all about money when dealing with the political side of climate change, it has nothing to do with our best interests for our future (as with anything political, it seems).
A political viewpoint won't get you very far in the debate of GW. Your best bet is to cite scientific sources. This is a science issue, not a political issue.
Wrong. This is unfortunately a political issue to some. If it wasn't everyone would be thrilled to hear a bunch of rouge scientists were lying about man made global warming but instead people are acctually arguing in favor of man made global warming. Get real people...Global Warming = Global Goverment and Global Goverment = the end of the US as it was given to us by our grandparents.
A political viewpoint won't get you very far in the debate of GW. Your best bet is to cite scientific sources. This is a science issue, not a political issue.
Wrong. This is unfortunately a political issue to some. If it wasn't everyone would be thrilled to hear a bunch of rouge scientists were lying about man made global warming but instead people are acctually arguing in favor of man made global warming. Get real people...Global Warming = Global Goverment and Global Goverment = the end of the US as it was given to us by our grandparents.
It's only a political issue because those in power know that they can use it to push their agendas. Otherwise, it's scientific, and if people kept up on the science, rather than the hoopla, it would be understood a hell of a lot better by all.
Groupthink and the global warming industry
The Climatic Research Unit scandal unearths some very inconvenient truths — namely that scientific as well as journalistic tribalism have encumbered an honest debate.
By Jonah Goldberg
By now you might have heard something about the scandal rocking the climate change industry, though you can be forgiven if you haven't, since it hasn't gotten nearly the coverage it should. Computer hackers broke into the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England and downloaded thousands of e-mails and other documents. The CRU is one of the world's leading global warming data hubs, providing much of the number crunching to global policymakers on climate change. And, boy, can they crunch numbers.
In a long string of embarrassing e-mail exchanges, CRU scientists discuss with friendly outside colleagues, including Penn State University's Michael Mann, how to manipulate the data they want to show the world, and how to hide the often flawed data they don't. In one exchange, they discuss the "trick" of how to "hide the decline" in global temperatures since the 1960s. Again and again, the researchers don't object to just inconvenient truths but also inconvenient truth-tellers. They contemplate and orchestrate efforts to purge scientists and journals who won't sing the same global warming hymnal.
In one instance, Phil Jones, the CRU director, says a scientific journal must "rid (itself) of this troublesome editor," who happened to publish a problematic paper. In another, Jones says we "will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
Muffling dissent
These documents reveal the trick behind how they hide the dissent. Climate change activists often dismiss critics by noting that the skeptics haven't offered their arguments in peer-reviewed literature. Hence why they work so hard to keep dissenters out of the literature! Indeed, whatever the final verdict on the CRU's shenanigans, two things are already firmly established by even a sympathetic reading of these documents.
First, the climate change industry is shot through with groupthink (or what climate scientist Judith Curry calls "climate tribalism"). Activists would have us believe that the overwhelming majority of "real" scientists agree with them while the few dissenters are all either crazed or greedy "deniers" akin to flat-earthers and creationists. These e-mails show that what's really at work is a very large clique of scientists is attempting to excommunicate perceived heretics for reasons that have more to do with psychology and sociology than physics or climatology.
Second, the climate industry really is an industry. Climate scientists make their money and careers from government, academia, the United Nations and foundations. The grantors want the grantees to confirm the global warming "consensus." The tenure and peer-review processes likewise hinge on conformity. That doesn't necessarily mean climate change is untrue, but it does mean sloppiness and bias are unavoidable.
How big a scandal this is for the scientific community is being hotly debated on the Internet. But in big newspapers and TV news, the story has gotten less attention. And that's a scandal, too. The New York Times' leading climate reporter, Andrew Revkin (whose name appears in some of the e-mails), won't publish the contents of the e-mail on the grounds it would violate the scientists' privacy. Can anyone imagine the Times being so prissy if such damning e-mails were from ExxonMobil, never mind Dick Cheney?
Journalistic tribalism
Indeed, the closer you look at the scandal the more you realize it's all one big outrage. The same journalistic tribalism that allowed Dan Rather to destroy his career over "Memogate" keeps reinforcing itself. Rather picked sources who said what he wanted to hear, then he reported what they said as if it were indisputable. The same thing is happening on climate change. Ideological bias is a major factor in the news media's work as a transmission belt for the climate industry. But part of the problem is also that the journalists do a bad job when the majority of "respected" experts agree on anything complicated. For instance, it was pretty impossible for reporters to independently investigate whether Saddam Hussein had WMDs, and since the most established authorities agreed he had to have them, the news media reported the consensus, which turned out to be wrong.
Likewise, most journalists aren't qualified or capable of working through the climate data. So they opt for the consensus. But there are important differences, too. While there's often reason for governments to hide classified intelligence, there's no reason for climate data to be classified. If the science is a slam dunk, why are CRU researchers keen on hiding their research? After the WMD fiasco, journalists agonized over their mistakes. Why no soul-searching over the CRU fiasco? Climate change hasn't been "debunked" by these documents. But the integrity of the "consensus" has been.
Also, keep in mind that the stakes are higher. In Copenhagen this month, the U.S. government will try to join the global bandwagon to spend trillions in fighting climate change. That money will not only enrich corporations, weaken U.S. sovereignty and hinder global growth, it will come out of funds that could be spent on fighting disease and poverty. Surely that's worth some journalistic skepticism?
Jonah Goldberg, a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors, is editor at large of National Review Online.
I find it absurd that anyone who doesn't subscribe to the "global warming" myth is somehow a right-winger and in favor of corporations being able to destroy our environment. I guess now though, with snow falling earlier than I've ever seen it fall here in TEXAS, I should stick to the more correct term of "climate change", because we all know that pretty much covers everything.
Let's take a reasonable look at "climate change". Let me preface this by saying that I believe everyone should do their part to take care of the Earth. Just because I don't believe in man-made climate change does not mean that I dump my used oil in the yard, burn tires, or that I'm in favor of living in a filthy polluted environment, nor am I in favor of allowing big corporations the right to cause excessive pollution.
So with that being said, let us just establish a basic time frame for reference. Scientists believe the earth is approximately 4.5 Billion years old. So as to not get ridiculous with the numbers, we will focus our time frame on just 0.1% (one tenth of one percent) of the entire existence of the Earth, which is just the last 4,500,000 years.
Let's break this down even further and represent our 4,500,000 years as just a single year to give us a better reference. So a full 365 day calendar year will represent our 4,500,000 years. We have been taking relatively accurate weather records for about 150 years. 150 years is only 0.003% of our 4,500,000 years. Using our one year reference scale, that equals about 15 minutes out of of the year. So as you can see, we have only kept records for a very small amount of time. Think about 15 minutes in regards to a full year. It's nothing. Yet scientists will present theories as absolute inarguable fact based on their 15 minutes of data. Just for fun, if we had based our one year scale on the full age of the Earth (4.5 Billion years), we would have only been taking weather readings for about 0.9 seconds (9 tenths of a second) of that year.
People say, yeah but we can dig down and get core samples of the earth and know what the weather was like 100,000 years ago. I say, why stop at 100,000 years, let's go down 225,000 years. That 225,000 years still only equals 18 days on our scale, or about 5% of our 4,500,000 years. You cannot establish a valid scientific theory on such minimal data. In that 225,000 years we have had both warming and cooling periods, which had nothing to do with carbon footprints or SUV's. These changes throughout history had nothing to do with man, so why now?
Is this to say climate change is bogus? Absolutely not. Man-made climate change is what I have a problem believing. We simply do not have enough evidence to support this as fact. The Earth's climate is, and always has been, somewhat cyclical. There have been dramatic changes in climate even in the last 1,200 years. There was a substantial warming during Medieval times, so much so that the Vikings could actually establish productive farms on Greenland.
30+ years ago, they were telling us we were on the verge of an ice age:
Since that didn't work out for them, they had to shift their focus towards global warming. Now that we've had one of the coolest years on record, I'm curious how the argument will start to shift once again when this trend continues.
I have no idea what causes global warming or cooling, and being that we have so little data to track the actual variations in temperature over any reasonable period of time (when talking about a planet that is 4.5 billion years old), I don't see how any real scientist could ever feel confident in their ability to say exactly what the Earth is going to do in regards to temperature. The fact is, it has happened in the past, well before the Industrial Revolution, and the changes were dramatic and came with alarming speed. I find it funny how so many scientists just throw out scientific reasoning when it comes to jumping on the climate change bandwagon.
I find it absurd that anyone who doesn't subscribe to the "global warming" myth is somehow a right-winger and in favor of corporations being able to destroy our environment. I guess now though, with snow falling earlier than I've ever seen it fall here in TEXAS, I should stick to the more correct term of "climate change", because we all know that pretty much covers everything.
edited for space
i'm sorry but you are repeating the same talking points that have absolutely zero relevance ... if you truly are concerned then all one has to understand is this:
1. the greenhouse effect - do you understand what that is and do you believe in it?
2. if yes to 1 - the most important factor in determining weather patters is temperature ... by altering the temperature we are affecting weather patterns - hence the presence of more extreme weather events (which could mean heat waves but also extreme cold spells)
it's really that simple ... if i google global warming myth and read everything that pops up - i'm probably gonna be a skeptic too ...
look - there is always dissention amongst the scientific community ... if you guys want to believe climate change activitists are part of some larger conspiracy to ... i'm not really sure what we are conspiring to do? ... save electricity? ... not cut trees down? ... not sure ... in any case - so be it ... but as i've said for years on this and previous boards ... if you really care - the answers are quite simple ...
i'm sorry but you are repeating the same talking points that have absolutely zero relevance ... if you truly are concerned then all one has to understand is this:
1. the greenhouse effect - do you understand what that is and do you believe in it?
2. if yes to 1 - the most important factor in determining weather patters is temperature ... by altering the temperature we are affecting weather patterns - hence the presence of more extreme weather events (which could mean heat waves but also extreme cold spells)
it's really that simple ... if i google global warming myth and read everything that pops up - i'm probably gonna be a skeptic too ...
look - there is always dissention amongst the scientific community ... if you guys want to believe climate change activitists are part of some larger conspiracy to ... i'm not really sure what we are conspiring to do? ... save electricity? ... not cut trees down? ... not sure ... in any case - so be it ... but as i've said for years on this and previous boards ... if you really care - the answers are quite simple ...
Actually I didn't realize I was repeating any talking points in my analogy and I've never Googled "global warming myth" although maybe I should. I was just using what some might call, common sense. My argument did nothing more than simplify the big picture, and scale down the time frame we are dealing with so that you can see how little we actually know about this topic. You can't base a scientific theory on such a relatively small amount of data.
In regards to your question, I absolutely believe in the greenhouse effect. I also realize that without this greenhouse effect, we would all be dead. You do realize that the greenhouse effect is essential for life on this planet don't you? I mean it's really that simple.
What I don't believe is that humans have produced an enhanced greenhouse effect. There is no basis for this belief. You do realize there are other influences out there, such as the sun (which ironically has been very very quiet over the last year, a year that has been unusually cool). Volcanic activity also has a big influence on global temperature. One only has to go back to 1991 when Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines to see where we had a 1.1 degree F cool down in a 9 month period due to that single eruption.
Is our air "dirtier" than it was 200 years ago? Sure it is. Is that a good thing? Hell NO! However, the simple fact of the matter is, in the last decade our greenhouse gas emissions have increased significantly, and as a result our temperatures should have also continued to increase. The truth is, they have not increased, and actually from 2007 to the present have had one of the biggest decreases on record of 0.9 degrees F. It does nothing for your argument when you say man made global warming is caused by the emissions we are putting into the air, and then as those emissions continue to increase the temperature decreases. Should we do whatever we can to make our environment and our air as clean as we possibly can? YES!!! However, I don't believe scare tactics, carbon taxes, etc. are needed to get that done. I would say more on this subject, but I'm about to run to the store and buy a bigger jacket. We are forecast to get several inches of snow here tomorrow, possibly the most snow on record for this area, certainly the earliest snowfall of it's kind, and I want to be prepared.
An average warming doesn't mean it linearly rises every year. OK, the temperature went down 0,7 degrees for those two years. How do we know whether it should have been a full degree or even more if it weren't for our emissions? That low should perhaps have been lower.
Point is, if you look at a development curve, it swings up and down a lot, but the trend is for an increase. Meaning if you level out the highs and lows, you get an average rise. The low have to go on for a lot longer than two years to have an impact on that general average level. If it peaks up again in a year or two, then it meant nothing. Just seasonal variation.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
An average warming doesn't mean it linearly rises every year. OK, the temperature went down 0,7 degrees for those two years. How do we know whether it should have been a full degree or even more if it weren't for our emissions? That low should perhaps have been lower.
Point is, if you look at a development curve, it swings up and down a lot, but the trend is for an increase. Meaning if you level out the highs and lows, you get an average rise. The low have to go on for a lot longer than two years to have an impact on that general average level. If it peaks up again in a year or two, then it meant nothing. Just seasonal variation.
Peace
Dan
I'll give you that, but I only used those two years as an example. The bigger point is we have not been experiencing an increase in global temperature in a little over a decade. That's nearly 8% of the entire time we've been keeping accurate records. How long does a halt in temperature increase have to go before it is no longer considered a seasonal variation? I realize that the people who believe in man made global warming will point out we had significant temperature increases from 1970 to 1998. The thing I don't understand is why these same people don't look at the fact that we had a similar warming spell from 1918 to 1940 (a time well before major industrialization occurred), followed by a cooling from 1940 to 1965 (which I believe was when our emissions were increasing at an insane rate).
I'll give you that, but I only used those two years as an example. The bigger point is we have not been experiencing an increase in global temperature in a little over a decade. That's nearly 8% of the entire time we've been keeping accurate records. How long does a halt in temperature increase have to go before it is no longer considered a seasonal variation? I realize that the people who believe in man made global warming will point out we had significant temperature increases from 1970 to 1998. The thing I don't understand is why these same people don't look at the fact that we had a similar warming spell from 1918 to 1940 (a time well before major industrialization occurred), followed by a cooling from 1940 to 1965 (which I believe was when our emissions were increasing at an insane rate).
Are you talking US numbers by any chance? What counts is world temperatures, as different regions get different results.
Even decades is really too small a timeframe in this context. All the models (the garbled graph is a number of different temperature models for the past) make a marked jump just around the early 1900s.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Actually I didn't realize I was repeating any talking points in my analogy and I've never Googled "global warming myth" although maybe I should. I was just using what some might call, common sense. My argument did nothing more than simplify the big picture, and scale down the time frame we are dealing with so that you can see how little we actually know about this topic. You can't base a scientific theory on such a relatively small amount of data.
In regards to your question, I absolutely believe in the greenhouse effect. I also realize that without this greenhouse effect, we would all be dead. You do realize that the greenhouse effect is essential for life on this planet don't you? I mean it's really that simple.
What I don't believe is that humans have produced an enhanced greenhouse effect. There is no basis for this belief. You do realize there are other influences out there, such as the sun (which ironically has been very very quiet over the last year, a year that has been unusually cool). Volcanic activity also has a big influence on global temperature. One only has to go back to 1991 when Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines to see where we had a 1.1 degree F cool down in a 9 month period due to that single eruption.
Is our air "dirtier" than it was 200 years ago? Sure it is. Is that a good thing? Hell NO! However, the simple fact of the matter is, in the last decade our greenhouse gas emissions have increased significantly, and as a result our temperatures should have also continued to increase. The truth is, they have not increased, and actually from 2007 to the present have had one of the biggest decreases on record of 0.9 degrees F. It does nothing for your argument when you say man made global warming is caused by the emissions we are putting into the air, and then as those emissions continue to increase the temperature decreases. Should we do whatever we can to make our environment and our air as clean as we possibly can? YES!!! However, I don't believe scare tactics, carbon taxes, etc. are needed to get that done. I would say more on this subject, but I'm about to run to the store and buy a bigger jacket. We are forecast to get several inches of snow here tomorrow, possibly the most snow on record for this area, certainly the earliest snowfall of it's kind, and I want to be prepared.
yes ... your points have been used in rebuttals in the past but using the world's history as a time frame for basis is essentially saying that science is useless ...
from what i can gather - your basic denial is simply that you refuse to believe ... well, that is what the IPCC did - they did the science and the work and it's there ... simply follow the science and if all you are left with is - i refuse to believe that we have that much influence ... well, that isn't quite enuf to discount the work of all the leading climate scientists in the world is it?
what do you think the motivation is for climate activists to want to create some global conspiracy?? ... why are hippies and treehuggers aligned with most gov'ts in the world calling for action on global climate change ... we have been forecasting extreme weather events and just as you have had your earliest snowfall and we have had our first snow-free november here - you can continue to deny our influence on climate or you can refuse to believe ... at least you think clean air is important ...
I'll give you that, but I only used those two years as an example. The bigger point is we have not been experiencing an increase in global temperature in a little over a decade.
I'll give you that, but I only used those two years as an example. The bigger point is we have not been experiencing an increase in global temperature in a little over a decade. That's nearly 8% of the entire time we've been keeping accurate records. How long does a halt in temperature increase have to go before it is no longer considered a seasonal variation? I realize that the people who believe in man made global warming will point out we had significant temperature increases from 1970 to 1998. The thing I don't understand is why these same people don't look at the fact that we had a similar warming spell from 1918 to 1940 (a time well before major industrialization occurred), followed by a cooling from 1940 to 1965 (which I believe was when our emissions were increasing at an insane rate).
Are you talking US numbers by any chance? What counts is world temperatures, as different regions get different results.
Even decades is really too small a timeframe in this context. All the models (the garbled graph is a number of different temperature models for the past) make a marked jump just around the early 1900s.
Peace
Dan
That garbled graph is supposedly in dispute though. So I don't know if it can really be trusted.
That garbled graph is supposedly in dispute though. So I don't know if it can really be trusted.
The warming is beyond dispute at this point, and so is the fact that man contributes to this with emissions. What debate there is concerns just how much we influence it, or whether other factors account for a greater part than what we seem to see now.
So far, most of the circumstancial evidence points towards us being an important cause. Both by our emissions (increasing CO2), and from deforestation (reducing the uptake of CO2 into plants). We have little evidence to the contrary so far. It seems risky to avoid doing anything because it may turn out it wasn't needed. Should the police ignore a distress call until they had more evidence something really criminal was going on? This is kinda like that. Immensely better to do something that turned out not to be necessary, than not to do something that turned out to be essential.
So far, the majority of the evidence and research is firmly on the side of man-made global warming. We should definitely keep researching the issue, but while we wait, we should prepare for the worst. The weather forecast may be wrong, but if it says it's gonna rain tomorrow, you're best off packing that raincoat...
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
That garbled graph is supposedly in dispute though. So I don't know if it can really be trusted.
The warming is beyond dispute at this point, and so is the fact that man contributes to this with emissions. What debate there is concerns just how much we influence it, or whether other factors account for a greater part than what we seem to see now.
So far, most of the circumstancial evidence points towards us being an important cause. Both by our emissions (increasing CO2), and from deforestation (reducing the uptake of CO2 into plants). We have little evidence to the contrary so far. It seems risky to avoid doing anything because it may turn out it wasn't needed. Should the police ignore a distress call until they had more evidence something really criminal was going on? This is kinda like that. Immensely better to do something that turned out not to be necessary, than not to do something that turned out to be essential.
So far, the majority of the evidence and research is firmly on the side of man-made global warming. We should definitely keep researching the issue, but while we wait, we should prepare for the worst. The weather forecast may be wrong, but if it says it's gonna rain tomorrow, you're best off packing that raincoat...
Peace
Dan
I disagree, I don't think warming is beyond dispute judging from the content of those released emails discussed earlier in this thread. It appears to me that scientific integrity was not upheld by some of the scientists conducting these studies so I believe it needs to be further researched.
I disagree, I don't think warming is beyond dispute judging from the content of those released emails discussed earlier in this thread. It appears to me that scientific integrity was not upheld by some of the scientists conducting these studies so I believe it needs to be further researched.
Agreed. The content of those emails would have never existed if this theory was as iron clad as everyone tries to make it out to be.
it should come as no surprise that scientists sometimes disagree ... the context of most of the emails have been distorted to try help feed the skeptics ... there is no smoking gun in the emails - basing your rebuttal on inuendo ultimately serves no purpose in the overall heart of this issue ... what you guys are hanging onto is mostly scientists who got frustrated because they were pressed for more information ...
I disagree, I don't think warming is beyond dispute judging from the content of those released emails discussed earlier in this thread. It appears to me that scientific integrity was not upheld by some of the scientists conducting these studies so I believe it needs to be further researched.
I'm not saying stop researching. But those mails do nothing to the evidence for global warming. It just showed that some of the scientists were using dodgy tactics against their opponents. An academic scandal indeed, but because of bad behaviour by some of the individuals, not because the data is faulty. The conclusions of the IPCC is supported by a great majority of the scientists in the field, and they have produced studies to support it. That a couple of the bigwigs engaged resorted to dirty tactics does not change that.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
it should come as no surprise that scientists sometimes disagree ... the context of most of the emails have been distorted to try help feed the skeptics ... there is no smoking gun in the emails - basing your rebuttal on inuendo ultimately serves no purpose in the overall heart of this issue ... what you guys are hanging onto is mostly scientists who got frustrated because they were pressed for more information ...
Linking me to realclimate.org isn't going to help sway my belief here. You just linked me to the site that is used as a front for those scientists who created the leaked emails. It is clearly displayed in those emails that those scientists use that site to promote only their side of things and badmouth any dissenters.
I disagree, I don't think warming is beyond dispute judging from the content of those released emails discussed earlier in this thread. It appears to me that scientific integrity was not upheld by some of the scientists conducting these studies so I believe it needs to be further researched.
I'm not saying stop researching. But those mails do nothing to the evidence for global warming. It just showed that some of the scientists were using dodgy tactics against their opponents. An academic scandal indeed, but because of bad behaviour by some of the individuals, not because the data is faulty. The conclusions of the IPCC is supported by a great majority of the scientists in the field, and they have produced studies to support it. That a couple of the bigwigs engaged resorted to dirty tactics does not change that.
Peace
Dan
But that's just it. It showed some scientists using dodgy tactics against their opponents and part of that was using dodgy tactics in their studies to make them seem irrefutable. So in essence you have studies that are produced that are indeed potentially faulty. The emails themselves, if you read them, show that some of the data has been manipulated to strengthen the case in favor of CO2 being the major factor in warming here.
Here we have an attempt by some scientists to suppress dissenting voices. From what I understand this guy is a respected scientist in the climate field and has posted his thoughts on his blog here:
I think those two blog posts point out exactly why this is an important issue.
You can also glean the fact from some of those emails that one of the scientists has made it a point to delete his information and data if any of the other scientists he disagrees with were to do FOIA request. Lo and behold, one of those requests went through and magically it is reported that the files requested were inadvertently deleted.
Everything is fine. It's a myth. There is no way spewing trillions and trillions of tons of pollution into the atmosphere while deforesting the the planet has an effect. It is just common sense.
Comments
http://www.infowars.com/lord-monckton-p ... criminals/
Also, I find it hard to believe anyone can seriously try and debunk global warming. Someone can make the arguement on how much mankinds actual influence on that is, but in the end of the day, we are just as strong a force as nature changing on it's on and for some to argue we should sit on our hands is insane and trily an ill-advised option on the matter.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
dude ... it is playing out exactly like i said ... overzealous climate skeptics who are paid by lobbyists are rolling with this ... it will (LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE) fade away because ultimately it has ZERO merit ... all it does is allow people who want to believe one thing to continue to tow the corporate line ...
it's like i'm saying you are an alien ... and the basis is some article that says you have 4 belly buttons ... well, you can have link after link ... video after video on everything and someone's gonna believe you're an alien ... the problem is that you don't have 4 belly buttons ... the emails are much ado about nothing ...
A political viewpoint won't get you very far in the debate of GW. Your best bet is to cite scientific sources. This is a science issue, not a political issue.
Of course. It's because they have there money in the status quo so not only are they not going to make any money on going green they will lose millions. And I'm supposed to trust there take on the issue.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
you're right and it boils down to is pollution harmful or beneficial?
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Rod Laver Arena - Nov 13, 2006
Adelaide Oval - Nov 17, 2009
Etihad Stadium - Nov 20, 2009
BDO Melbourne - Jan 24, 2014
New York - May 02 - 2016
Powered by Pearl Jam
Wrong. This is unfortunately a political issue to some. If it wasn't everyone would be thrilled to hear a bunch of rouge scientists were lying about man made global warming but instead people are acctually arguing in favor of man made global warming. Get real people...Global Warming = Global Goverment and Global Goverment = the end of the US as it was given to us by our grandparents.
Groupthink and the global warming industry
The Climatic Research Unit scandal unearths some very inconvenient truths — namely that scientific as well as journalistic tribalism have encumbered an honest debate.
By Jonah Goldberg
By now you might have heard something about the scandal rocking the climate change industry, though you can be forgiven if you haven't, since it hasn't gotten nearly the coverage it should. Computer hackers broke into the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England and downloaded thousands of e-mails and other documents. The CRU is one of the world's leading global warming data hubs, providing much of the number crunching to global policymakers on climate change. And, boy, can they crunch numbers.
In a long string of embarrassing e-mail exchanges, CRU scientists discuss with friendly outside colleagues, including Penn State University's Michael Mann, how to manipulate the data they want to show the world, and how to hide the often flawed data they don't. In one exchange, they discuss the "trick" of how to "hide the decline" in global temperatures since the 1960s. Again and again, the researchers don't object to just inconvenient truths but also inconvenient truth-tellers. They contemplate and orchestrate efforts to purge scientists and journals who won't sing the same global warming hymnal.
In one instance, Phil Jones, the CRU director, says a scientific journal must "rid (itself) of this troublesome editor," who happened to publish a problematic paper. In another, Jones says we "will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
Muffling dissent
These documents reveal the trick behind how they hide the dissent. Climate change activists often dismiss critics by noting that the skeptics haven't offered their arguments in peer-reviewed literature. Hence why they work so hard to keep dissenters out of the literature! Indeed, whatever the final verdict on the CRU's shenanigans, two things are already firmly established by even a sympathetic reading of these documents.
First, the climate change industry is shot through with groupthink (or what climate scientist Judith Curry calls "climate tribalism"). Activists would have us believe that the overwhelming majority of "real" scientists agree with them while the few dissenters are all either crazed or greedy "deniers" akin to flat-earthers and creationists. These e-mails show that what's really at work is a very large clique of scientists is attempting to excommunicate perceived heretics for reasons that have more to do with psychology and sociology than physics or climatology.
Second, the climate industry really is an industry. Climate scientists make their money and careers from government, academia, the United Nations and foundations. The grantors want the grantees to confirm the global warming "consensus." The tenure and peer-review processes likewise hinge on conformity. That doesn't necessarily mean climate change is untrue, but it does mean sloppiness and bias are unavoidable.
How big a scandal this is for the scientific community is being hotly debated on the Internet. But in big newspapers and TV news, the story has gotten less attention. And that's a scandal, too. The New York Times' leading climate reporter, Andrew Revkin (whose name appears in some of the e-mails), won't publish the contents of the e-mail on the grounds it would violate the scientists' privacy. Can anyone imagine the Times being so prissy if such damning e-mails were from ExxonMobil, never mind Dick Cheney?
Journalistic tribalism
Indeed, the closer you look at the scandal the more you realize it's all one big outrage. The same journalistic tribalism that allowed Dan Rather to destroy his career over "Memogate" keeps reinforcing itself. Rather picked sources who said what he wanted to hear, then he reported what they said as if it were indisputable. The same thing is happening on climate change. Ideological bias is a major factor in the news media's work as a transmission belt for the climate industry. But part of the problem is also that the journalists do a bad job when the majority of "respected" experts agree on anything complicated. For instance, it was pretty impossible for reporters to independently investigate whether Saddam Hussein had WMDs, and since the most established authorities agreed he had to have them, the news media reported the consensus, which turned out to be wrong.
Likewise, most journalists aren't qualified or capable of working through the climate data. So they opt for the consensus. But there are important differences, too. While there's often reason for governments to hide classified intelligence, there's no reason for climate data to be classified. If the science is a slam dunk, why are CRU researchers keen on hiding their research? After the WMD fiasco, journalists agonized over their mistakes. Why no soul-searching over the CRU fiasco? Climate change hasn't been "debunked" by these documents. But the integrity of the "consensus" has been.
Also, keep in mind that the stakes are higher. In Copenhagen this month, the U.S. government will try to join the global bandwagon to spend trillions in fighting climate change. That money will not only enrich corporations, weaken U.S. sovereignty and hinder global growth, it will come out of funds that could be spent on fighting disease and poverty. Surely that's worth some journalistic skepticism?
Jonah Goldberg, a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors, is editor at large of National Review Online.
(Illustration by Sam Ward, USA TODAY.)
Let's take a reasonable look at "climate change". Let me preface this by saying that I believe everyone should do their part to take care of the Earth. Just because I don't believe in man-made climate change does not mean that I dump my used oil in the yard, burn tires, or that I'm in favor of living in a filthy polluted environment, nor am I in favor of allowing big corporations the right to cause excessive pollution.
So with that being said, let us just establish a basic time frame for reference. Scientists believe the earth is approximately 4.5 Billion years old. So as to not get ridiculous with the numbers, we will focus our time frame on just 0.1% (one tenth of one percent) of the entire existence of the Earth, which is just the last 4,500,000 years.
Let's break this down even further and represent our 4,500,000 years as just a single year to give us a better reference. So a full 365 day calendar year will represent our 4,500,000 years. We have been taking relatively accurate weather records for about 150 years. 150 years is only 0.003% of our 4,500,000 years. Using our one year reference scale, that equals about 15 minutes out of of the year. So as you can see, we have only kept records for a very small amount of time. Think about 15 minutes in regards to a full year. It's nothing. Yet scientists will present theories as absolute inarguable fact based on their 15 minutes of data. Just for fun, if we had based our one year scale on the full age of the Earth (4.5 Billion years), we would have only been taking weather readings for about 0.9 seconds (9 tenths of a second) of that year.
People say, yeah but we can dig down and get core samples of the earth and know what the weather was like 100,000 years ago. I say, why stop at 100,000 years, let's go down 225,000 years. That 225,000 years still only equals 18 days on our scale, or about 5% of our 4,500,000 years. You cannot establish a valid scientific theory on such minimal data. In that 225,000 years we have had both warming and cooling periods, which had nothing to do with carbon footprints or SUV's. These changes throughout history had nothing to do with man, so why now?
Is this to say climate change is bogus? Absolutely not. Man-made climate change is what I have a problem believing. We simply do not have enough evidence to support this as fact. The Earth's climate is, and always has been, somewhat cyclical. There have been dramatic changes in climate even in the last 1,200 years. There was a substantial warming during Medieval times, so much so that the Vikings could actually establish productive farms on Greenland.
30+ years ago, they were telling us we were on the verge of an ice age:
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/outreach/proceedings/cdw29_proceedings/Reeves.pdf
Since that didn't work out for them, they had to shift their focus towards global warming. Now that we've had one of the coolest years on record, I'm curious how the argument will start to shift once again when this trend continues.
I have no idea what causes global warming or cooling, and being that we have so little data to track the actual variations in temperature over any reasonable period of time (when talking about a planet that is 4.5 billion years old), I don't see how any real scientist could ever feel confident in their ability to say exactly what the Earth is going to do in regards to temperature. The fact is, it has happened in the past, well before the Industrial Revolution, and the changes were dramatic and came with alarming speed. I find it funny how so many scientists just throw out scientific reasoning when it comes to jumping on the climate change bandwagon.
edited for space
i'm sorry but you are repeating the same talking points that have absolutely zero relevance ... if you truly are concerned then all one has to understand is this:
1. the greenhouse effect - do you understand what that is and do you believe in it?
2. if yes to 1 - the most important factor in determining weather patters is temperature ... by altering the temperature we are affecting weather patterns - hence the presence of more extreme weather events (which could mean heat waves but also extreme cold spells)
it's really that simple ... if i google global warming myth and read everything that pops up - i'm probably gonna be a skeptic too ...
look - there is always dissention amongst the scientific community ... if you guys want to believe climate change activitists are part of some larger conspiracy to ... i'm not really sure what we are conspiring to do? ... save electricity? ... not cut trees down? ... not sure ... in any case - so be it ... but as i've said for years on this and previous boards ... if you really care - the answers are quite simple ...
Actually I didn't realize I was repeating any talking points in my analogy and I've never Googled "global warming myth" although maybe I should. I was just using what some might call, common sense. My argument did nothing more than simplify the big picture, and scale down the time frame we are dealing with so that you can see how little we actually know about this topic. You can't base a scientific theory on such a relatively small amount of data.
In regards to your question, I absolutely believe in the greenhouse effect. I also realize that without this greenhouse effect, we would all be dead. You do realize that the greenhouse effect is essential for life on this planet don't you? I mean it's really that simple.
What I don't believe is that humans have produced an enhanced greenhouse effect. There is no basis for this belief. You do realize there are other influences out there, such as the sun (which ironically has been very very quiet over the last year, a year that has been unusually cool). Volcanic activity also has a big influence on global temperature. One only has to go back to 1991 when Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines to see where we had a 1.1 degree F cool down in a 9 month period due to that single eruption.
Is our air "dirtier" than it was 200 years ago? Sure it is. Is that a good thing? Hell NO! However, the simple fact of the matter is, in the last decade our greenhouse gas emissions have increased significantly, and as a result our temperatures should have also continued to increase. The truth is, they have not increased, and actually from 2007 to the present have had one of the biggest decreases on record of 0.9 degrees F. It does nothing for your argument when you say man made global warming is caused by the emissions we are putting into the air, and then as those emissions continue to increase the temperature decreases. Should we do whatever we can to make our environment and our air as clean as we possibly can? YES!!! However, I don't believe scare tactics, carbon taxes, etc. are needed to get that done. I would say more on this subject, but I'm about to run to the store and buy a bigger jacket. We are forecast to get several inches of snow here tomorrow, possibly the most snow on record for this area, certainly the earliest snowfall of it's kind, and I want to be prepared.
Point is, if you look at a development curve, it swings up and down a lot, but the trend is for an increase. Meaning if you level out the highs and lows, you get an average rise. The low have to go on for a lot longer than two years to have an impact on that general average level. If it peaks up again in a year or two, then it meant nothing. Just seasonal variation.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I'll give you that, but I only used those two years as an example. The bigger point is we have not been experiencing an increase in global temperature in a little over a decade. That's nearly 8% of the entire time we've been keeping accurate records. How long does a halt in temperature increase have to go before it is no longer considered a seasonal variation? I realize that the people who believe in man made global warming will point out we had significant temperature increases from 1970 to 1998. The thing I don't understand is why these same people don't look at the fact that we had a similar warming spell from 1918 to 1940 (a time well before major industrialization occurred), followed by a cooling from 1940 to 1965 (which I believe was when our emissions were increasing at an insane rate).
Are you talking US numbers by any chance? What counts is world temperatures, as different regions get different results.
The global projections are shown nicely here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperatur ... 1000_years
Even decades is really too small a timeframe in this context. All the models (the garbled graph is a number of different temperature models for the past) make a marked jump just around the early 1900s.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
yes ... your points have been used in rebuttals in the past but using the world's history as a time frame for basis is essentially saying that science is useless ...
from what i can gather - your basic denial is simply that you refuse to believe ... well, that is what the IPCC did - they did the science and the work and it's there ... simply follow the science and if all you are left with is - i refuse to believe that we have that much influence ... well, that isn't quite enuf to discount the work of all the leading climate scientists in the world is it?
what do you think the motivation is for climate activists to want to create some global conspiracy?? ... why are hippies and treehuggers aligned with most gov'ts in the world calling for action on global climate change ... we have been forecasting extreme weather events and just as you have had your earliest snowfall and we have had our first snow-free november here - you can continue to deny our influence on climate or you can refuse to believe ... at least you think clean air is important ...
how can you say that?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 101419.htm
That garbled graph is supposedly in dispute though. So I don't know if it can really be trusted.
The warming is beyond dispute at this point, and so is the fact that man contributes to this with emissions. What debate there is concerns just how much we influence it, or whether other factors account for a greater part than what we seem to see now.
So far, most of the circumstancial evidence points towards us being an important cause. Both by our emissions (increasing CO2), and from deforestation (reducing the uptake of CO2 into plants). We have little evidence to the contrary so far. It seems risky to avoid doing anything because it may turn out it wasn't needed. Should the police ignore a distress call until they had more evidence something really criminal was going on? This is kinda like that. Immensely better to do something that turned out not to be necessary, than not to do something that turned out to be essential.
So far, the majority of the evidence and research is firmly on the side of man-made global warming. We should definitely keep researching the issue, but while we wait, we should prepare for the worst. The weather forecast may be wrong, but if it says it's gonna rain tomorrow, you're best off packing that raincoat...
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I disagree, I don't think warming is beyond dispute judging from the content of those released emails discussed earlier in this thread. It appears to me that scientific integrity was not upheld by some of the scientists conducting these studies so I believe it needs to be further researched.
Agreed. The content of those emails would have never existed if this theory was as iron clad as everyone tries to make it out to be.
you guys can read further on those emails ...
it should come as no surprise that scientists sometimes disagree ... the context of most of the emails have been distorted to try help feed the skeptics ... there is no smoking gun in the emails - basing your rebuttal on inuendo ultimately serves no purpose in the overall heart of this issue ... what you guys are hanging onto is mostly scientists who got frustrated because they were pressed for more information ...
I'm not saying stop researching. But those mails do nothing to the evidence for global warming. It just showed that some of the scientists were using dodgy tactics against their opponents. An academic scandal indeed, but because of bad behaviour by some of the individuals, not because the data is faulty. The conclusions of the IPCC is supported by a great majority of the scientists in the field, and they have produced studies to support it. That a couple of the bigwigs engaged resorted to dirty tactics does not change that.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Linking me to realclimate.org isn't going to help sway my belief here. You just linked me to the site that is used as a front for those scientists who created the leaked emails. It is clearly displayed in those emails that those scientists use that site to promote only their side of things and badmouth any dissenters.
But that's just it. It showed some scientists using dodgy tactics against their opponents and part of that was using dodgy tactics in their studies to make them seem irrefutable. So in essence you have studies that are produced that are indeed potentially faulty. The emails themselves, if you read them, show that some of the data has been manipulated to strengthen the case in favor of CO2 being the major factor in warming here.
Here we have an attempt by some scientists to suppress dissenting voices. From what I understand this guy is a respected scientist in the climate field and has posted his thoughts on his blog here:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2 ... lackboard/
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2 ... u-website/
I think those two blog posts point out exactly why this is an important issue.
You can also glean the fact from some of those emails that one of the scientists has made it a point to delete his information and data if any of the other scientists he disagrees with were to do FOIA request. Lo and behold, one of those requests went through and magically it is reported that the files requested were inadvertently deleted.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/ ... -data.html