Must See For Climate Change Skeptics

polaris_x

bigdvs wrote:

your denial of some inconvenient history about the subject, shows that i lack the ability to think independently, well you go on with you bad self you knowledgable free thinker you.

dude ... your repost of these op-ed pieces has been addressed everywhere including here over and over again ...

show me you understand the topic and let's have an honest discussion ... re-posting links of people who say the things you want to hear does not count ... the thing with many of the links you post is that if you think critically, you will see that they hold no substance to them ...

bigdvs

no thanks

i'll continue to ignorantly and indiscriminately add some balance to discussions here, read it, attempt to understand if you want if not dont.

"the only thing I know is that I know nothing"- socrates

polaris_x

bigdvs wrote:

no thanks

i'll continue to ignorantly and indiscriminately add some balance to discussions here, read it, attempt to understand if you want if not dont.

"the only thing I know is that I know nothing"- socrates

i'm not surprised as none of your other skeptic colleagues have taken it up either ...

lukin2006

polaris_x wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Actually it's both...I can still be skeptical without causing unnecessary waste. Then then ban plastic bottles, plastic bags, then give companies a time frame in which to come up with a better solution for packaging their products...whether your a skeptic or believer you can sill do your part...trying to leave the planet cleaner hurts no one...and motivation should matter little.

for sure ... but like i said ... i said not likely part of the solution ... and i don't think i'm off to think someone who doesn't believe in global warming is probably not trying to fix it either ...

Well probably not much more I can do to be part of the solution...I have no more say over what the government environmental policy is, anymore than the next person...but I do try to do my part...

brianlux

lukin2006 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

the biggest difference tho is that you are not likely to be part of the solution ...

...the kids have grown up with recycling...the bins are everywhere...yet the amount of plastic and paper that ends up in the garbage is amazing.

I'm going to stick my neck out a bit on this and say that recycling as a concept is great but as an action, does not do a great deal to alleviate the environmental problems we face-- and I say this as a fanatical recycler. The hidden problem with recycling is that it gives the illusion of it being ok to continue to consume on a huge scale. Resources that are recycled are better than material in a landfill, but enregy is consumed and pollution is produced when products are recycled. So the obvious solution is to just use less stuff in the first place. Do you recyle the plastic clams your lunch came in? Fine. But a better solution- if you get take out, ask for it on a real plate and return the plate. I've done this several times- no kidding-- and no trash. Best solution- make your own meals from scratch. Do you combine trips in your car? Great! But a better idea is to ride share at the same time. The best solution is to walk.

I could bore us all with endless examples of what I'm saying, but the idea is to think and and act in terms of using less.

catefrances

polaris_x wrote:

catefrances wrote:

yes. however increased incidents of cancer doesnt mean we brought it into being. people were dying from cancer since before it was given that name. weve just accelerated it through foolhardy actions, thats all. dont forget even the life giving sun gives us cancer. our existence is a double edged sword that we as a species seem not to have learnt to wield without our actions having some detrimental effect on us and the planet. whether it will end up killing us all is open for discussion.

no one is saying flooding or droughts only existed because of global warming ... all we have done is increased it's likelihood of happening similar to my analogy with cancer ... like you said "accelerated it through foolhardy actions" ...

nor did i say they did. oh and i think we just agreed.

catefrances

lukin2006 wrote:

Actually it's both...I can still be skeptical without causing unnecessary waste. Then then ban plastic bottles, plastic bags, then give companies a time frame in which to come up with a better solution for packaging their products...whether your a skeptic or believer you can sill do your part...trying to leave the planet cleaner hurts no one...and motivation should matter little.

my favourite thing in the supermarket is recycled toilet paper wrapped in plastic.

im assuming by recycled toilet paper they mean toilet paper made from recycled paper.

catefrances

polaris_x wrote:

bigdvs wrote:

no thanks

i'll continue to ignorantly and indiscriminately add some balance to discussions here, read it, attempt to understand if you want if not dont.

"the only thing I know is that I know nothing"- socrates

i'm not surprised as none of your other skeptic colleagues have taken it up either ...

im not a sceptic, just cautiously questioning... like i do with everything.

Jeanwah

catefrances wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Actually it's both...I can still be skeptical without causing unnecessary waste. Then then ban plastic bottles, plastic bags, then give companies a time frame in which to come up with a better solution for packaging their products...whether your a skeptic or believer you can sill do your part...trying to leave the planet cleaner hurts no one...and motivation should matter little.

my favourite thing in the supermarket is recycled toilet paper wrapped in plastic.

im assuming by recycled toilet paper they mean toilet paper made from recycled paper.

My favorite product at the market is the toilet paper that has no core. The commercials for this product emphasizes that it's environmentally aware, (because there's no cardboard core) yet the toilet paper is made from virgin fibers (freshly cut down trees). What idiots that thought up that one.

Godfather.

Jeanwah wrote:

catefrances wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Actually it's both...I can still be skeptical without causing unnecessary waste. Then then ban plastic bottles, plastic bags, then give companies a time frame in which to come up with a better solution for packaging their products...whether your a skeptic or believer you can sill do your part...trying to leave the planet cleaner hurts no one...and motivation should matter little.

my favourite thing in the supermarket is recycled toilet paper wrapped in plastic.

im assuming by recycled toilet paper they mean toilet paper made from recycled paper.

My favorite product at the market is the toilet paper that has no core. The commercials for this product emphasizes that it's environmentally aware, (because there's no cardboard core) yet the toilet paper is made from virgin fibers (freshly cut down trees). What idiots that thought up that one.

probably one of those idiots from the fortune 500. J/K Jen

Godfather.

polaris_x

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/experts-warn-e ... 28260.html

Experts warn epic weather ravaging US could worsen


Epic floods, massive wildfires, drought and the deadliest tornado season in 60 years are ravaging the United States, with scientists warning that climate change will bring even more extreme weather.

The human and economic toll over just the past few months has been staggering: hundreds of people have died, and thousands of homes and millions of acres have been lost at a cost estimated at more than $20 billion.

And the United States has not even entered peak hurricane season.

"This spring was one of the most extreme springs that we've seen in the last century since we've had good records," said Deke Arndt, chief of climate monitoring for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

While it's not possible to tie a specific weather event or pattern to climate change, Arndt said this spring's extreme weather is in line with what is forecast for the future.

"In general, but not everywhere, it is expected that the wetter places will get wetter and the drier places will tend to see more prolonged dry periods," he told AFP.

"We are seeing an increase in the amount (of rain and snow) that comes at once, and the ramifications are that it's a lot more water to deal with at a time, so you see things like flooding."

More than 6.8 million acres in the central United States have been swamped after record spring rainfall overwhelmed rivers already swollen from the melting of a heavy winter snow pack.

Some levees burst under the pressure as the mighty Mississippi River swelled to more than three miles (nearly five kilometers) in width. Others were intentionally breached in order to ease pressure and protect cities downstream.

The latest flooding along the Missouri River has forced mass evacuations and threatened to inundate two nuclear power plants in Nebraska.

Meanwhile, the southern United States is dealing with one of the most extreme droughts since the dust bowl of the 1930s, and the dry conditions have led to massive and uncontrollable wildfires.

More than 4.7 million acres have been burned in some 32,000 separate fires so far this year, which is more than twice the annual average over the past decade, according to the National Interagency Fire Center.

Texas, Arizona and New Mexico have lost the most land, and one fire even spread to the grounds of the top US nuclear research lab on Monday.

As with the plants in Nebraska, officials said the nuclear material stored inside is safe and that no contaminants have been released.

While most people have been able to escape the slow-moving floodwaters and wildfires unharmed, the spring's violent storms have unleashed scenes of apocalyptic destruction.

Tornadoes have killed 542 people so far this year, making 2011 the deadliest tornado season since 1936 and the fourth worst on record, according to the National Weather Service.

Two bad days accounted for nearly all the deaths: an outbreak of dozens of tornadoes that killed 314 people in five southern states on April 27, and a nearly mile-wide twister that cut a six-mile (nearly 10 kilometer) swath of destruction through Joplin, Missouri on May 22, killing 146 people.

Climate change could bring less tornadoes, because while a warmer atmosphere will absorb more precipitation, causing more storms, it could also reduce the wind shear that builds storm intensity when cold and warm fronts collide.

However, the intensity of future droughts, heat waves, storms and floods is expected to rise drastically if greenhouse gas emissions don't stabilize soon, said Michael Mann, a scientist at Penn State University.

"Even a couple degree warming can make a 100-year event a three-year event," Mann, the head of the university's earth systems science center, told AFP.

"It has to do with the tail of the bell curve. When you move the bell curve, that area changes dramatically."

More extreme weather is expected in the coming months, said Jon Gottschalck, head of forecast operations at NOAA's climate prediction center.

"We're expecting warmer than normal conditions to continue across much of the south. The drought is probably going to continue in many areas," he said.

"We also expect wetter than normal conditions to continue for the next season or two in the northern Rockies...and an active hurricane season."

catefrances

polaris_x wrote:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/experts-warn-epic-weather-ravaging-us-could-worsen-083428260.html

Experts warn epic weather ravaging US could worsen


Epic floods, massive wildfires, drought and the deadliest tornado season in 60 years are ravaging the United States, with scientists warning that climate change will bring even more extreme weather.

The human and economic toll over just the past few months has been staggering: hundreds of people have died, and thousands of homes and millions of acres have been lost at a cost estimated at more than $20 billion.

And the United States has not even entered peak hurricane season.

"This spring was one of the most extreme springs that we've seen in the last century since we've had good records," said Deke Arndt, chief of climate monitoring for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

While it's not possible to tie a specific weather event or pattern to climate change, Arndt said this spring's extreme weather is in line with what is forecast for the future.

"In general, but not everywhere, it is expected that the wetter places will get wetter and the drier places will tend to see more prolonged dry periods," he told AFP.

"We are seeing an increase in the amount (of rain and snow) that comes at once, and the ramifications are that it's a lot more water to deal with at a time, so you see things like flooding."

More than 6.8 million acres in the central United States have been swamped after record spring rainfall overwhelmed rivers already swollen from the melting of a heavy winter snow pack.

Some levees burst under the pressure as the mighty Mississippi River swelled to more than three miles (nearly five kilometers) in width. Others were intentionally breached in order to ease pressure and protect cities downstream.

The latest flooding along the Missouri River has forced mass evacuations and threatened to inundate two nuclear power plants in Nebraska.

Meanwhile, the southern United States is dealing with one of the most extreme droughts since the dust bowl of the 1930s, and the dry conditions have led to massive and uncontrollable wildfires.

More than 4.7 million acres have been burned in some 32,000 separate fires so far this year, which is more than twice the annual average over the past decade, according to the National Interagency Fire Center.

Texas, Arizona and New Mexico have lost the most land, and one fire even spread to the grounds of the top US nuclear research lab on Monday.

As with the plants in Nebraska, officials said the nuclear material stored inside is safe and that no contaminants have been released.

While most people have been able to escape the slow-moving floodwaters and wildfires unharmed, the spring's violent storms have unleashed scenes of apocalyptic destruction.

Tornadoes have killed 542 people so far this year, making 2011 the deadliest tornado season since 1936 and the fourth worst on record, according to the National Weather Service.

Two bad days accounted for nearly all the deaths: an outbreak of dozens of tornadoes that killed 314 people in five southern states on April 27, and a nearly mile-wide twister that cut a six-mile (nearly 10 kilometer) swath of destruction through Joplin, Missouri on May 22, killing 146 people.

Climate change could bring less tornadoes, because while a warmer atmosphere will absorb more precipitation, causing more storms, it could also reduce the wind shear that builds storm intensity when cold and warm fronts collide.

However, the intensity of future droughts, heat waves, storms and floods is expected to rise drastically if greenhouse gas emissions don't stabilize soon, said Michael Mann, a scientist at Penn State University.

"Even a couple degree warming can make a 100-year event a three-year event," Mann, the head of the university's earth systems science center, told AFP.

"It has to do with the tail of the bell curve. When you move the bell curve, that area changes dramatically."

More extreme weather is expected in the coming months, said Jon Gottschalck, head of forecast operations at NOAA's climate prediction center.

"We're expecting warmer than normal conditions to continue across much of the south. The drought is probably going to continue in many areas," he said.

"We also expect wetter than normal conditions to continue for the next season or two in the northern Rockies...and an active hurricane season."

the deadliest season in 60 years. wow that long huh?.

polaris_x

catefrances wrote:

the deadliest season in 60 years. wow that long huh?.

:? :(

i find it sad that you continue to post these statements ... embrace your skepticism and join the ranks of the GOP and blockhead and godfather and our conservative brethren here ... because it is clear that like those folks, you choose to ignore the science ... and choose to not spend the time it takes to form a more compelling case ...

meanwhile ... we will continue to see significant suffering because of these events ...

catefrances

polaris_x wrote:

catefrances wrote:

the deadliest season in 60 years. wow that long huh?.

:? :(

i find it sad that you continue to post these statements ... embrace your skepticism and join the ranks of the GOP and blockhead and godfather and our conservative brethren here ... because it is clear that like those folks, you choose to ignore the science ... and choose to not spend the time it takes to form a more compelling case ...

meanwhile ... we will continue to see significant suffering because of these events ...

i doubt youd ever meet a less conservative person than me polaris. what i am not is an hysterical treehugger who runs around screaming the sky is falling. the only thing that could make my carbon footprint any smaller is if i went total solar power instead of just hot water solar.but to me thats neother here nor there. so long as governments allow industry to chug along the way theyve always done, i will always be sceptical of any policy they vomit up... but then again thats got nothing to do with whats actually going on, has it? to me 60 years is miniscule in the lifetime of the earth and if someone is gonna use it as a time measure of ' impending catastrophe' and climate change, then i am gonna have to laugh at them.

i do not choose to ignore the science.. i choose to question it. thats all.. question it. science is about questions. and its about proving theories.. and doing more so than empirically. i want to look at a greater history of the worlds climate patterns than is being thrown up as gospel when it comes to this subject... to establish that mankind is in fact so royally screwing up the planet that she wont recover.

polaris_x

catefrances wrote:

i doubt youd ever meet a less conservative person than me polaris. what i am not is an hysterical treehugger who runs around screaming the sky is falling. the only thing that could make my carbon footprint any smaller is if i went total solar power instead of just hot water solar.but to me thats neother here nor there. so long as governments allow industry to chug along the way theyve always done, i will always be sceptical of any policy they vomit up... but then again thats got nothing to do with whats actually going on, has it? to me 60 years is miniscule in the lifetime of the earth and if someone is gonna use it as a time measure of ' impending catastrophe' and climate change, then i am gonna have to laugh at them.

i do not choose to ignore the science.. i choose to question it. thats all.. question it. science is about questions. and its about proving theories.. and doing more so than empirically. i want to look at a greater history of the worlds climate patterns than is being thrown up as gospel when it comes to this subject... to establish that mankind is in fact so royally screwing up the planet that she wont recover.

i'm not calling you a conservative ... i am just saying you are siding with the conservatives on this one ... folks like the one i mentioned ... i think your comment about hysterical treehugger is indicative of your lack of understanding on this subject ... i work for a big corporation and i can pretty much guarantee you they big wigs vote conservative but even they understand global warming is real ... why? ... because they understand the science ...

i tried to show you earlier your 60 year time frame is absurd with the cancer analogy ... if 60 years is not enough for you ... what is? ... the earth is 4.5 billion years old ... you want a thousand years? ... in the mean time we will continue to see the effects of global warming while you wait ...

saying 60 years is miniscule is not questioning the science ... like i say to every one on here ... read up on the greenhouse effect and question that ... prove to me the greenhouse effect is false, prove to me that temperature isn't a key factor in altering weather, tell me the earth is in fact not warming, tell me air cannot hold more moisture as temperature increases ... tell me anything to prove the fundamental science is wrong - until then, continuing to cast doubt simply because you think there is not enough empirical data (something that has been addressed in the science) does not further our understanding but distracts us from what needs to happen ...

catefrances

polaris_x wrote:

.../

i tried to show you earlier your 60 year time frame is absurd with the cancer analogy ... if 60 years is not enough for you ... what is? ... the earth is 4.5 billion years old ... you want a thousand years? ... in the mean time we will continue to see the effects of global warming while you wait ...

this is the thing polaris... i cant wait.. we as a species cant wait. but we need more than a 60 years time frame. in the lifetime of our planet, that is nothing. in fact in the scheme of thing, mankinds life existence is nothing. however... what mankind has done in that life existence is not to be scoffed at.. and i dont. i know what weve done.. but i also know that within the lifespan of the earth we are like a punch in the face... it friggin hurts but in the end the planet will recover.


does that mean we dont take action to minimise our impact?? NO it does not. do i believe the planet is warming? YES i do. ive stated that before. do i belive the climate of the earth is being changed by the actions of humans??? honestly my jury is still out on that. we definitely have an impact on the environment and ive never said otherwise. but what i question is whether or n ot these changes in climate have/not happened before. do we ride so high on our ego horse that we see a correlation unquestioned between this climate change and our own existence?

im sorry if it offends you that im asking for more evidence over a greater timeframe but thats just the way i am. .. but i will continue to live the way i have and to continue to attempt to lower my footprint, not for any other reason but i think its the right thing to do. if you(generally speaking) want, amongst other things, to continue to drive your gas guzzling vehicle then tha is your concern, not mine.

polaris_x

catefrances wrote:

does that mean we dont take action to minimise our impact?? NO it does not. do i believe the planet is warming? YES i do. ive stated that before. do i belive the climate of the earth is being changed by the actions of humans??? honestly my jury is still out on that. we definitely have an impact on the environment and ive never said otherwise. but what i question is whether or n ot these changes in climate have/not happened before. do we ride so high on our ego horse that we see a correlation unquestioned between this climate change and our own existence?

im sorry if it offends you that im asking for more evidence over a greater timeframe but thats just the way i am. .. but i will continue to live the way i have and to continue to attempt to lower my footprint, not for any other reason but i think its the right thing to do. if you(generally speaking) want, amongst other things, to continue to drive your gas guzzling vehicle then tha is your concern, not mine.

the problem is that everything you say has been addressed in the science ... hence my assertion that you are ignoring it ... it has nothing to do with egos or hysterical treehuggers ... it has everything to do with science ... you should always question science as like everything else we are told ... but asking for more time is absolutely absurd - when time is not a foundation of the science ... we did not need 100 years to link lung cancer to smoking ...

catefrances

polaris_x wrote:

... we did not need 100 years to link lung cancer to smoking ...

...and yet we still allow people access to cigarettes.

polaris_x wrote:

the problem is that everything you say has been addressed in the science ... hence my assertion that you are ignoring it ... it has nothing to do with egos or hysterical treehuggers ... it has everything to do with science ... you should always question science as like everything else we are told ... but asking for more time is absolutely absurd - when time is not a foundation of the science... we did not need 100 years to link skin cancer to smoking...

absurd???? i dont think so. i want to see that the cycle the earth is going through now hasnt happened before. and that seems reasonable to me.

we are on the same side polaris.. im sure you realise that. i am not ignoring the science, i am questioning it.. and i will continue to question it til someone shows me that what we are currently experiencing isnt a repeated pattern. i do not think that is unreasonable. but until someone does i will continue to live as my conscious dictates by stepping lightly and leaving as minimal footprint as i can.

polaris_x

catefrances wrote:

...and yet we still allow people access to cigarettes.

but we aren't debating the fact it can cause cancer

catefrances wrote:

absurd???? i dont think so. i want to see that the cycle the earth is going through now hasnt happened before. and that seems reasonable to me.

we are on the same side polaris.. im sure you realise that. i am not ignoring the science, i am questioning it.. and i will continue to question it til someone shows me that what we are currently experiencing isnt a repeated pattern. i do not think that is unreasonable. but until someone does i will continue to live as my conscious dictates by stepping lightly and leaving as minimal footprint as i can.

listen ... i commend you on the way you live your life but these threads have never been about personal judgement ... you can have a huge footprint and it still doesn't change the context of our discussion ... you are missing my point when you say you are not ignoring it but questioning it ... again, your issues with cyclical patterns and the amount of empirical data has been addressed in the science ... i say you ignore it because you keep saying the same things that have been addressed over and over again ...

Blockhead

manipulation of observational data in order to promote a particular point of view seems to be the norm with the IPCC, seems to be the norm for AGW warmists in general for that matter


Quote:
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report of 2007 (AR4) contained various errors, including the well publicised overestimate of the speed at which Himalayan glaciers would melt. However, the IPCC’s defenders point out that such errors were inadvertent and inconsequential: they did not undermine the scientific basis of AR4. Here I demonstrate an error in the core scientific report (WGI) that came about through the IPCC’s alteration of a peer-reviewed result. This error is highly consequential, since it involves the only instrumental evidence that is climate-model independent cited by the IPCC as to the probability distribution of climate sensitivity, and it substantially increases the apparent risk of high warming from increases in CO2 concentration.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/05/th...ivity-results/

lets see how long it takes the apologists to come into this thread and start making excuses