# The American Thinker Slaps Down Global Warming



## Big Don (Nov 29, 2007)

In this article are included almost SIX HUNDRED separate things (some of which Directly Contradict each other) that have been blamed on Global Warming.
Interesting.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/11/everything_is_caused_by_global.html


----------



## Empty Hands (Nov 30, 2007)

What effects global warming would be predicted to have has no bearing on whether or not it is occuring.  David Icke could claim that global warming will cause our Lizardoid alien overlords to exterminate all life on Earth and it would say nothing about the data that shows whether or not global warming is occuring.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Nov 30, 2007)

The United States is the only industrialized nation that even accepts doubt of the existence of global warming.

The debate of whether or not we humans caused it is still out in the international community -- but only just.

The debate of whether or not it's actually an emergency is also still out.  Doomsday scenarios don't help.  When you hear people hollering that the temperature change will kill all the bats and flood New York City, people don't take it seriously.  Which means that when people point to substantial evidence that global warming is linked to heavier weather and faster desertification...well, people don't take that seriously either.

I tire of the doomsayers and people who use the issue (on either side) for political cache.  Here I'm talking to *you* Al Gore and _*you*_ George Bush.


----------



## tellner (Nov 30, 2007)

An emergency? The scientific consensus is definitely "yes". That doesn't mean NYC will be underwater next year. But the temperature change, ice reduction and date of first permanent disappearance of inhabited land are all more rapid than the previous "fast case" scenarios. It's real. It's happening now. It's happening quickly. And the final results are still unknown.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 30, 2007)

The problem is that humans just don't live long enough to really understand these things.  One generation of humans barely lives long enough to witness even a fraction of the change.  There are so many things I could say about this, but one thing that keeps coming to mind is that we are poorly evolved species when it comes to dealing with global environmental issues.  Our lifespan is just too short and there are too many of us who have decided to cover their eyes and pretend that nothing ever changes.

It's human through and through.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 30, 2007)

tellner said:


> An emergency? The scientific consensus is definitely "yes". That doesn't mean NYC will be underwater next year. But the temperature change, ice reduction and date of first permanent disappearance of inhabited land are all more rapid than the previous "fast case" scenarios. It's real. It's happening now. It's happening quickly. And the final results are still unknown.


Consensuses have been woefully wrong in the past, and are not, therefore, science.
The world is, neither flat, nor the center of the universe. Earth, Fire, Wind and Water are not all the elements. These were all scientific consensuses at their times. 
Science is fact that can be proven and reproduced, i.e., a stone dropped from a fixed height will always fall to the ground at the same speed, this is how we prove gravity, it will not fall sideways or upwards things only fall to the ground.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 30, 2007)

Look, if its just to hard to grasp, give up!  Smarter people will solve your problems...


----------



## Ray (Dec 1, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Consensuses have been woefully wrong in the past, and are not, therefore, science.
> The world is, neither flat, nor the center of the universe. Earth, Fire, Wind and Water are not all the elements. These were all scientific consensuses at their times.
> Science is fact that can be proven and reproduced, i.e., a stone dropped from a fixed height will always fall to the ground at the same speed, this is how we prove gravity, it will not fall sideways or upwards things only fall to the ground.


As science learns more about a thing, scientists propose better explanations of why a thing is the way it is.  The explanation may change as knowledge grows.  Scientific fact is consensus of the scientists. Sometimes it takes a while for science to accept a new explanation.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 1, 2007)

Ray said:


> As science learns more about a thing, scientists propose better explanations of why a thing is the way it is.  The explanation may change as knowledge grows.  Scientific fact is consensus of the scientists. Sometimes it takes a while for science to accept a new explanation.


If fact is nothing more than a consensus of scientists, then the earth really was flat, and the center of the universe, because that is what the scientists of the time agreed. Belief cannot alter fact. If it did I'd have a washboard stomach, some other assorted awesomeness in physical appearance and be the baddest Mofo on two legs in sparring...

There are far too many politicians involved in global warming for anyone to take it seriously. Politicians are well known for being untrustworthy, but the IPCC says "Global warming is a threat" and they are believed? These people have a vested interest in global warming being considered a threat. Gore, for example buys carbon credits from a company he owns... he's a pretty good salesman...

Facts are indisputable, global warming is disputed by a fairly large number of actual scientists and believed by an alarming number of politicians. That ought to be a pretty good indicator something isn't quite right...

The biggest problem I have with the idea of global warming is the overwhelming arrogance of it. We have virtually no understanding of how weather works, and yet, some claim our actions can alter it? I'd be more apt to believe that were the 5 day forecast ever 100% correct...

TV weathermen are the ONLY people outside of government service or elected office that can be completely wrong 100% of the time and stay employed.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 1, 2007)

The way I see it... the Earth has been around for hundreds of millions of years. Humans have been around far less than _that_. Humans have begun understanding the earth and it's climate(s) far less than *THAT*. 
How do we KNOW that this isn't a regular cycle that the earth goes through every ... ohh, 10,000 years or so... (a blink of an eye in geological time). The dinosaurs went through their cycle... mebbe we'll be doing the same thing. 
Oh sure we are polluting the atmosphere and the oceans and all of that... and it's terrible, and I'd dare say it is having an effect upon the earth. Upon the biological species of the earth but I'm not quite sure if it's effecting the effect is enough to change the climate and how the earth is (continually) forming. 

We should continue to prepare for whatever this unknown planet is going to give us in terms of climatological changes. Either that or end up as ice cream bars.


----------



## Ray (Dec 1, 2007)

Big Don said:


> If fact is nothing more than a consensus of scientists, then the earth really was flat, and the center of the universe, because that is what the scientists of the time agreed. Belief cannot alter fact. If it did I'd have a washboard stomach, some other assorted awesomeness in physical appearance and be the baddest Mofo on two legs in sparring...
> 
> There are far too many politicians involved in global warming for anyone to take it seriously. Politicians are well known for being untrustworthy, but the IPCC says "Global warming is a threat" and they are believed? These people have a vested interest in global warming being considered a threat. Gore, for example buys carbon credits from a company he owns... he's a pretty good salesman...
> 
> ...


Fact : Things fall.  Scientific fact is the accepted explanation of why things fall; Scientific fact gets closer and closer to the "truth" all the time.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 1, 2007)

Don,

What is your actual position on global warming? Do you believe it is not occuring, or do you believe that it is occuring but that it isn't a threat, or what?

I am curious because you naysay it, but I am not clear on what you actually believe.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 1, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Don,
> 
> What is your actual position on global warming? Do you believe it is not occuring, or do you believe that it is occuring but that it isn't a threat, or what?
> 
> I am curious because you naysay it, but I am not clear on what you actually believe.


It may be occurring, however, we don't have the power to change it. When Mount Pinatubo erupted in  the  Philippines a  few years ago it put all kinds of crap out into the air, more sulfur dioxide, CO2 and other pollutants than mankind  can pump out in a century of industry, and yet, changing to CFL light bulbs is going to make things better?
I am a global warming (Pay attention, I am about to coin a profundity!) agnostic. I don't know if global warming is happening, but, I believe we are neither powerful, nor capable enough to have any effect on it. 
There is so much information that stands in direct contradiction to the idea of human caused (or even influenced) global warming that to force changes on people in the form of taxes, fees and banning products is nothing more than a simply amazing degree of arrogance.
The warmest year on record is 1934, when there was a dramatically smaller amount of industry, a much more agrarian and hence, rural society with only a tiny fraction of the automobiles that are on the road today, but, we are supposed to drive less, because global warming is going to kill us all? Kind of hard to believe that.




> [FONT=times new roman,times] Agricultural land increase[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Africa devastated,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]African aid threatened[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Africa hit hardest,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]air pressure changes[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Alaska reshaped[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]allergies increase[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Alps melting[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Amazon a desert[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]American dream end[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]amphibians breeding earlier (or not)[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]ancient forests dramatically changed[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]animals head for the hills,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Antarctic grass flourishes[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]anxiety[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]algal blooms[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]archaeological sites threatened,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Arctic bogs melt[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Arctic in bloom[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Arctic lakes disappear[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]asthma[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Atlantic less salty[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Atlantic more salty[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]atmospheric defiance[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]atmospheric circulation modified[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]attack of the killer jellyfish[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]avalanches reduced[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]avalanches increased[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]bananas destroyed[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]bananas grow[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]beetle infestation[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]bet for $10,000[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]better beer,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]big melt faster,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]billion dollar research projects[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]billions of deaths[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]bird distributions change[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]bird visitors drop[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]birds return early[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]blackbirds stop singing[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]blizzards[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]blue mussels return[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]bluetongue[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]boredom[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]bridge collapse (Minneapolis),[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Britain Siberian[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]British gardens change[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]brothels struggle[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]bubonic plague[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]budget increases[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Buddhist temple threatened[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]building collapse[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]building season extension[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]bushfires[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]business opportunities[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]business risks[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] butterflies move north[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]cancer deaths in England[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]cardiac arrest[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]caterpillar biomass shift[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]challenges and opportunities[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]childhood insomnia,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Cholera[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]circumcision in decline[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]cirrus disappearance[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]civil unrest[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]cloud increase[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]cloud stripping[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],   [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]cockroach migration,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]cod go south,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]cold climate creatures survive[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]cold spells (Australia)[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]computer models[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]conferences[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]coral bleaching[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]coral reefs dying[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]coral reefs grow,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]coral reefs shrink[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] , [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] cold spells[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]cost of trillions[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]cougar attacks[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]cremation to end[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]crime increase[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]crocodile sex,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]crumbling roads, buildings and sewage systems[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]cyclones (Australia)[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]damages equivalent to $200 billion[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Darfur[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Dartford Warbler plague[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]death rate increase (US)[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Dengue hemorrhagic fever[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]dermatitis[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]desert advance[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]desert life threatened[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]desert retreat[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]destruction of the environment[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]diarrhoea,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]disappearance of coastal cities[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]diseases move north[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Dolomites collapse[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]drought[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]drowning people[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]ducks and geese decline[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]dust bowl in the corn belt[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]early marriages[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]early spring[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]earlier pollen season[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Earth biodiversity crisis[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Earth dying[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Earth even hotter[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Earth light dimming[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Earth lopsided,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Earth melting[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Earth morbid fever[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Earth on fast track[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Earth past point of no return[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Earth slowing down[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Earth spinning out of control[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Earth spins faster,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Earth to explode[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] earth upside down[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Earth wobbling[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]earthquakes[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]El Niño intensification[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]erosion[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]emerging infections[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]encephalitis,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]equality threatened[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Europe simultaneously baking and freezing[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],   [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]evolution accelerating[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]expansion of university climate groups[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], *extinctions* ([/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]human[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]civilisation,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] logic[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Inuit[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]smallest butterfly[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]cod,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]ladybirds[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]bats[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]pandas[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]pikas[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]polar bears[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]pigmy possums[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]gorillas[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]koalas[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]walrus[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]whales[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]frogs[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]toads[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]turtles[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]orang-utan[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]elephants[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]tigers[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]plants[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]salmon[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]trout[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]wild flowers[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]woodlice[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]penguins[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]a million species[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]half of all animal and plant species[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]not polar bears[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]barrier reef[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]leaches)[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]experts muzzled[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]extreme changes to California[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]fading fall foliage[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]famine[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]farmers go under[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]fashion disaster[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]fever[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]figurehead sacked[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]fir cone bonanza[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]fish catches drop[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] fish catches rise[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]fish stocks at risk[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]fish stocks decline[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]five million illnesses[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]flesh eating disease[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]flood patterns change[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]floods[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] floods of beaches and cities[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Florida economic decline[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]food poisoning[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]food prices rise[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]food security threat (SA)[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]footpath erosion[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]forest decline[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]forest expansion[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]frostbite[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]frosts[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]fungi fruitful[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]fungi invasion[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]games change[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Garden of Eden wilts[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]genetic diversity decline,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]gene pools slashed[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]gingerbread houses collapse[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]glacial earthquakes[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]glacial retreat, [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]glacial growth[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]glacier wrapped[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]global cooling[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]global dimming[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]glowing clouds[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]god melts[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]golf Masters wrecked[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Gore omnipresence[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]grandstanding[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]grasslands wetter[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Great Barrier Reef 95% dead[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Great Lakes drop[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]greening of the North[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Grey whales lose weight[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Gulf Stream failure[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]habitat loss[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],   [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]harvest increase[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]harvest shrinkage[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]hay fever epidemic[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]hazardous waste sites breached[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]health of children harmed[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]heart disease,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]heart attacks and strokes (Australia)[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]heat waves,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]hibernation ends too soon[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]hibernation ends too late[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]homeless 50 million[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]hornets,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]high court debates[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]human development faces unprecedented reversal[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]human fertility reduced[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]human health improvement,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]human health risk[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]hurricanes[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]hurricane reduction[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]hydropower problems[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]hyperthermia deaths[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]ice sheet growth[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]ice sheet shrinkage[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]illness and death[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]inclement weather[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]infrastructure failure (Canada)[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Inuit displacement[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Inuit poisoned[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Inuit suing[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]industry threatened[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]infectious diseases[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  i[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]nflation in China[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]insurance premium rises[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]invasion of cats[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]invasion of herons[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]invasion of midges[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] island disappears[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]islands sinking[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]itchier poison ivy[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]jellyfish explosion[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Kew Gardens taxed[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]kitten boom[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]krill decline[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]lake and stream productivity decline[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]lake shrinking and growing[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]landslides[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]landslides of ice at 140 mph[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]lawsuits increase[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]lawsuit successful,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]lawyers' income increased (surprise surprise!)[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]lightning related insurance claims[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]little response in the atmosphere[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]lush growth in rain forests[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Lyme disease[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Malaria,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]malnutrition,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]mammoth dung melt[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Maple syrup shortage[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]marine diseases,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]marine food chain decimated,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]marine dead zone[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Meaching (end of the world)[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]megacryometeors[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Melanoma[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]methane emissions from plants[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]methane burps[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]melting permafrost[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Middle Kingdom convulses[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]migration[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]migration difficult (birds)[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]microbes to decompose soil carbon more rapidly[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]monkeys on the move[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Mont Blanc grows[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]monuments imperiled[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]more bad air days[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],   [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]more research needed[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]mountain (Everest) shrinking[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]mountains break up[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]mountains taller[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]mortality lower[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]mudslides[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]National security implications[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]new islands[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]next ice age[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Nile delta damaged[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]no effect in India[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Northwest Passage opened[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]nuclear plants bloom[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]oaks move north[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]ocean acidification[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]ocean waves speed up[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]opera house to be destroyed[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]outdoor hockey threatened[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]oyster diseases[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]ozone loss[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]ozone repair slowed,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]ozone rise[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Pacific dead zone[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]personal carbon rationing[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]pest outbreaks[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]pests increase[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]phrenology shifts[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]plankton blooms[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]plankton destabilised[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]plankton loss[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]plant viruses[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]plants march north[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] polar bears aggressive[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]polar bears cannibalistic[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] polar bears drowning[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]polar bears starve[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]polar tours scrapped[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]porpoise astray[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]profits collapse[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]psychosocial disturbances[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]puffin decline[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]railroad tracks deformed[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]rainfall increase[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]rainfall reduction[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]rape wave[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]refugees[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]reindeer larger[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]release of ancient frozen viruses[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]resorts disappear[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]rice threatened,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]rice yields crash,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]riches[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]rift on Capitol Hill[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]rioting and nuclear war,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]rivers dry up[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]river flow impacted[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]rivers raised[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]roads wear out[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]rockfalls[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]rocky peaks crack apart[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]roof of the world a desert,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Ross river disease[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]ruins ruined,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]salinity reduction[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]salinity increase[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Salmonella,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]salmon stronger,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]satellites accelerate[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]school closures[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]sea level rise[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]sea level rise faster[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]seals mating more[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]sewer bills rise[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]sex change[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]sharks booming[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]sharks moving north[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]sheep shrink[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]shop closures[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]shrinking ponds[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] shrinking shrine[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]ski resorts threatened[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]slow death[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] smaller brains[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]smog[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]snowfall increase[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]snowfall heavy[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]snowfall reduction,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]societal collapse[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]songbirds change eating habits[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]sour grapes[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]space problem[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]spiders invade Scotland[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]squid population explosion[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]squirrels reproduce earlier[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]spectacular orchids[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]stormwater drains stressed[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]street crime to increase[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]suicide[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]taxes[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]tectonic plate movement[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]teenage drinking[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]terrorism[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]threat to peace[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]ticks move northward (Sweden)[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]tides rise[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]tourism increase[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]trade barriers,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]trade winds weakened[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]tree beetle attacks,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]tree foliage increase (UK)[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]tree growth slowed[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] trees could return to Antarctic[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]trees in trouble[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]trees less colourful[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]trees more colourful[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]trees lush[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]tropics expansion[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]tropopause raised[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]tsunamis[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]turtles crash[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]turtles lay earlier[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]UK Katrina[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Vampire moths[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Venice flooded[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]volcanic eruptions[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]walrus displaced[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]walrus pups orphaned[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]war[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]wars over water[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]wars threaten billions[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]water bills double[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]water supply unreliability[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]water scarcity (20% of increase),[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]water stress[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]weather out of its mind[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]weather patterns awry[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]weeds[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Western aid cancelled out[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]West Nile fever[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]whales move north[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]wheat yields crushed in Australia[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]white Christmas dream ends[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]wildfires[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]wind shift[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]wind reduced,[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] wine - harm to Australian industry[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]wine industry damage (California)[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] wine industry disaster (US)[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] wine - more English[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]wine -German boon[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]wine - no more French [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]winters in Britain colder[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]wolves eat more moose[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]wolves eat less[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]workers laid off[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]World bankruptcy[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]World in crisis[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]World in flames[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Yellow fever[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times].[/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times] That is the list from the original article, notice how there are more than a few things that global warming is supposed to have caused that clearly and directly contradict each other. That makes it hard to believe... That believers in global warming want skeptics silenced REALLY makes it hard to believe. If it was a fact, skeptics would be laughed at, but, to suggest legal sanctions against them would be like locking up little kids who don't believe in Santa. The sheer number of politicians involved in promoting fear of global warming ought to tell you something.
[/FONT]


----------



## Blindside (Dec 1, 2007)

Big Don said:


> [FONT=times new roman,times]That is the list from the original article, notice how there are more than a few things that global warming is supposed to have caused that clearly and directly contradict each other. That makes it hard to believe... [/FONT]


 
Though global warming is a global (duh) event, effects may be localized differently.  Assuming that global warming happens, a increase in temperature in North America might cause the grain belt to shift north, so harvest yields in OK, KS, and NE might decrease, on the other hand Manitoba and Saskatchewan might benefit, resulting directly contradictory impacts.  

Similarly, southern areas would presumably lose snowpack, resulting in fewer avalanches, northern areas might get more freeze/thaw/freeze patterns in their winter snowpack resulting in more frequent shear surfaces that increase avalanch dangers.

I'm not saying that is why these examples were given, but just giving examples of why you might see such contradictory findings, and that just because they are contradictory doesn't mean they are invalid.  

Lamont


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 1, 2007)

Big Don said:


> [FONT=times new roman,times] That is the list from the original article, notice how there are more than a few things that global warming is supposed to have caused that clearly and directly contradict each other. That makes it hard to believe... That believers in global warming want skeptics silenced REALLY makes it hard to believe. If it was a fact, skeptics would be laughed at, but, to suggest legal sanctions against them would be like locking up little kids who don't believe in Santa. The sheer number of politicians involved in promoting fear of global warming ought to tell you something.
> [/FONT]




There is pretty much a consensus that global warming and climate change are occurring.  That is accepted.

What is in question is what the long term effects are going to be, some of the factors that have led to it, and if it can be stopped.

Denying a theory based on contradicting hypothesis about pieces of a problem that the theory does not yet explain is a strawman.  That's like denying a Christmas present exists because different people have conflicting guesses about what is inside it.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 1, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> There is pretty much a consensus that global warming and climate change are occurring. That is accepted.
> 
> What is in question is what the long term effects are going to be, some of the factors that have led to it, and if it can be stopped.
> 
> Denying a theory based on contradicting hypothesis about pieces of a problem that the theory does not yet explain is a strawman. That's like denying a Christmas present exists because different people have conflicting guesses about what is inside it.


 

And thats the problem.  Hypothesis, not fact.  

Remember one thing, scientific epistimology states that nothing can be known as 100% true.  

Now, having said that, try proving the cause of an effect to an open system which has thousands of different influences, some of which are certainly not still known.

I will not necessarily deny that the earth *may* be warming.  However, trying to find the most prevelant cause of the warming is very difficult.


----------



## dragonswordkata (Dec 1, 2007)

I was glad to see this disscusion didn't rely on the intelectual and scientific wisdom of not only the head in the sand folks nor the sign carrying doom sayers.
I wish that more of society was as articulate, respectful and well spoken as are here on Martail talk.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 1, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I will not necessarily deny that the earth *may* be warming.  However, trying to find the most prevelant cause of the warming is very difficult.



Well, we know that greenhouse gases cause warming.  That is established.

We know that greenhouse gases are higher now then they have ever been.

We know that this is do to human actions.

So to completely deny that humans have anything to do with the earths climate getting warmer is pretty hard to do with a straight face IMO.  We might not be the only cause, but we are one of the causes.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 1, 2007)

Hey, it is really not that big a deal, as one of my professors said in College some scientists feel the Earth just might be self correcting and that is what you really have to worry about, how does it self corrects if you mess it up enough and will any of us (meaning humans) survive that correction.

So is global warming occurring, yup. Will it make things better lusher and greener, maybe. But in some areas with that come all sorts of nasty little things that are currently relegated to warmer climates. In other areas there will be I one heck of a lot more ice than there use to be. Mess with the climate and it will bite you. 

And as previously mentioned, we are not here long enough to notice the aftermath of what is or could be occurring right now. Melt enough ice and dump ALL that fresh water into the oceans and you will shut down the oceanic conveyor belt system, but dont worry about that, you wont be here to see what that really does but your great grand kids will.

Americans think a week is a long time, Chinese think 100 years is a long time but the planet works on geological time and 100 years is not really all that long to the planet


----------



## tellner (Dec 1, 2007)

Science doesn't prove anything. Ever. But eventually, with enough evidence you can say "I'm leaning towards", "I'm pretty sure" or "I'm very very confident" about something. Disproof comes easily.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the climate is getting warmer and has been for about 150 years. There is no doubt that the rate has accelerated in the past twenty years. And there is no doubt that it has tracked the rise in CO2 levels remarkably closely. There just isn't any evidence to the contrary and plenty of evidence for it. Detailed weather reports over three hundred years in the Bordeaux region, ice core data, direct measurement of temperature, measurement of the Earth's albedo, indirect measurement of past temperature by means other than ice cores and several others with which I am not sufficiently familiar to comment are all in general agreement. Those are *very *robust data.

There isn't proof positive about how much of this is due to human activity. But there is a lot of evidence to that effect. There is no evidence that it is due to changes in solar radiation, random fluctuations or anything else for which we have any sort of plausible model or unambiguous supporting data.

The theoretical models we have are pretty robust and are very good for climatology. They explain the vast bulk of the data and seem to be borne out by new data as they arrive. Unfortunately, the ones that do the best job are also the most pessimistic. 

The detractors started off saying "It couldn't possibly happen" and then moved on to "It isn't happening", "It looks like it's happening, but it really isn't", "It's happening, but it's not our fault", "It's happening but we can't do anything about it", "It's happening, but it's a good thing", "It's happening but it would cost too much to do anything" and are now at "Anyone who believes it's happening is a Commie who hates America". They offer no evidence, no data, no theoretical underpinnings other than cherrypicking to try and poke holes in the margins and thereby discredit the solid center. 

There is nobody in climatology, planetary science, oceanography or atmospheric science who is outside the consensus on this one. There is one Dane who, it turns out, is having his salary paid by the oil companies. And even he has changed his tune to "It's happening, but there's nothing to be done. Bugger you Jack, I've got mine." The founder of the Weather Channel and a political pundit with no scientific training or history of working in the field do not count. Neither does the Tobacco and Oil Lobby hired gun who calls everything environmental-related "junk science". 

The only questions at this point are "how much?", "how fast?", "what results?", and "what can we do?". We don't know everything, but we know an awful lot, and what we know is not promising. We are already seeing large systemic changes. Permafrost which has been solid since the last glaciation is melting in Siberia and Canada. Inhabited land is now permanently under water. There have been open seas to the North Pole for the first time in recorded history. There has been a striking and continuous loss of ice in the Antarctic and a retreat of glaciers worldwide from Kilimanjaro to Glacier National Park and Kashmir. Pinot noir grapes are failing in Napa because the temperature has risen too far, and they are beginning to be viable in British Columbia. 

And so on.

These are simple verifiable facts.

The deniers offer no science of their own except the most hypothetical. One side has offered falsifiable predictions and robust evidence from a variety of sources. The other is reduced to calling the scientists names and instructing political hacks to edit the conclusions of government studies to more closely approximate the Administration's frankly science-hostile preconceptions.


----------



## Blindside (Dec 1, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> So to completely deny that humans have anything to do with the earths climate getting warmer is pretty hard to do with a straight face IMO. We might not be the only cause, but we are one of the causes.


 
Sure, but are we a significant cause?  Minor climatic shifts have been happening regularly throughout our recorded history, the Little Ice age ended in the 1850s, a 1 degree shift in global temperature that corrected (or changed) in something like 5 years (according to ice cores pulled from the Rockies).  The Little Ice Age ended the Medieval Optimum, a time when they were growing grapes in Greenland.  What caused the Little Ice Age?  What caused the Medieval Optimum?  Does either period represent whatever the average climate is supposed to be? 

Quite frankly I'm pretty skeptical that humans will get it together and solve the greenhouse gas issue, it is a "Tragedy of the Commons" on a global scale.

Lamont


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 1, 2007)

Excellent re-iteration of the salient undercurrents and attitudes, *Tellner* (can't rep you because you've been buffed elsewhere this evening (ooh er missus!)).


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 1, 2007)

To tellner :asian:

Not to tellner but his post did cause me to post this

The planets axis moves, it wobbles actually and... well.. there is nothing we can do about that... Oh and the planets orbit around the sun... well that changes as well between very circular (time of the Dinosaurs - no not me) to elliptical, (now)... and oh yes the planets orbit is slowing,  has been since it started spinning and we can do absolutely nothing about any of that.... but green house gases... come on.

Yes the planet warms and cools in cycles but generally not this fast. If my memory serves me, and I could be wrong here (if I am feel free to correct me) the cycle that we are suppose to be in right now is a cooling cycle heading towards another ice age... not a warming cycle.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 1, 2007)

I don't know why this issue keeps coming back to life.  

Climate changes - that's a given.  If you argue against that then your rights to cognitive activity need to be revoked forwith .

There are several mechanisms which control global temperatures - some we understand to an extent and some we do not.

One of these mechanisms is that certain atmospheric gases work to ensure that the planet retains more heat than it radiates.  That's why life can exist here in the first place.

Human actions have resulted in a monumental increase in at least one of those so-called 'greenhouse' gases.  This process has suddenly escalated because the CO2 sump of the oceans is now saturated and they can no longer soak up as much of the excess as they have been doing.

Global temperatures have started to rise, having wide-ranging and unpredictable effects on global weather patterns and, more importantly, global sea currents.

Countervailing 'natural' mechanisms may kick in to reduce the temperature rise or they may not; we don't know enough to say.

Can we do anything about it?  That's the important question.  The short answer is, no, we can't.  But that's no reason to get behind the effect and push.

We should have been entering a deepening ice age as of a couple of decades ago and it's (speculatively) largely been human activity that has ensured this has not occurred due to the enhanced greenhouse effect.  However, the cycles that govern the planet will only be denied for so long and chaotic inversions of steady (ish) states are the norm rather than the exception.  

These inversions tie in pretty closely with extinction events (*Blindside* will know much more about this than me I suspect) so rather than bickering about whose fault it is and if we're to blame or not, it would be much more intelligent to begin to plan how we can survive the possibility of rising average temperatures and sea levels with their concommitant dis-ordering of the weather patterns upon which our societies are predicated.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 1, 2007)

I know that the globe is warming and I'm pretty sure humans figure into the equation.  That's not a debate for me.  What is debateable, is the political side.  I'm very skeptical of the "solutions" that are being proposed and I'm afraid that these "solutions" will just become another vehicle for the elite to push their agenda.  What's to stop this issue from starting a global corruption racket that does nothing but line the pockets of the uberrich at the expense of us little folk?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 2, 2007)

This may sound like a sarcastic question, but its quite serious:

If given a list of scientists who do not  believe in man-made global warming, who here would believe them, or perhaps become a little more skeptical?


----------



## Big Don (Dec 2, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> This may sound like a sarcastic question, but its quite serious:
> 
> If given a list of scientists who do not  believe in man-made global warming, who here would believe them, or perhaps become a little more skeptical?


That is a very good question. 





> However, a 2003 survey of 530 international climate scientists from 27 different countries by two German environmental scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, tell a different story.http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=72914&src=
> To the question "Are humans causing climate change", 55.8 percent agreed but 14.2 percent were unsure and 30 percent disagreed.


 That's not a consensus... A consensus is when EVERYONE agrees, not when nearly a third disagree. Science is not a democracy.


> Grist Magazines staff writer David Roberts called for the Nuremberg-style trials for the bastards who were members of what he termed the global warming denial industry.
> 
> Roberts wrote in the online publication on September 19, 2006, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg.


http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2006/9/19/11408/1106?show_comments=no
That isn't science, it is at best, politics at its worst. 

Or, perhaps it is a religion. 

Dictionary.com defines religion as:


> 1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.   2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.    3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.    4.the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.    5.the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.   6.something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
The definition sure fits the behavior.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 2, 2007)

I have to say that in some ways your views a bit 'off', *Don*, when it comes to the nature of science.

The breadth of investigation covered under the mantle of the single word 'Science' is staggering and consensus, meaning in this case _generally_ accepted rather than universally, is the order of the day.

As Todd said earlier, nothing is ever proven, something can only be disproven.  Even then, if it's 'close enough' for practical use then it'll do - for example,  Newton's Theory of Gravity is actually wrong but it approximates well enough for us to use it.

As always with a matter such as the one under discourse inthe thread, personal opinion and prejudices are going to count for more than all the links and reasoned argument in the world.  

I can understand why people dig their heels in when they see those whose motives they distrust getting 'in on the act' but the flip-side to that is that to flatly deny human impact on the environment is pretty near to wilful disbelief.  

The globe seems a huge place but it's a mass of interlinked complex systems that are quite delicately balanced in some cases - as I said before, we don't understand how an awful lot of it works in detail but a rough 'close enough' picture has formed of late.  That picture can be painted in an 'alarmist' colour scheme or a 'pragmatist' one but in the end it turns out looking fairly similar.

Of course, one orbital wobble or solar blip and all bets are off as it then becomes as significant as arguing about whose fault it was whilst the house burns down around you .


----------



## Blindside (Dec 2, 2007)

> http://gristmill.grist.org/print/200...ow_comments=no
> That isn't science, it is at best, politics at its worst.
> 
> Or, perhaps it is a religion.


What does that comment have to do with science?  Just because some blogger is ranting about something, even a blogger who has "editor" by his name, it doesn't really impact the general scientific opinion.

Lamont


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 2, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> I have to say that in some ways your views a bit 'off', *Don*, when it comes to the nature of science.
> 
> The breadth of investigation covered under the mantle of the single word 'Science' is staggering and consensus, meaning in this case _generally_ accepted rather than universally, is the order of the day.


 


> The globe seems a huge place but it's a mass of interlinked complex systems that are quite delicately balanced in some cases - as I said before, we don't understand how an awful lot of it works in detail but a rough 'close enough' picture has formed of late. That picture can be painted in an 'alarmist' colour scheme or a 'pragmatist' one but in the end it turns out looking fairly similar.


 
I would absolutely agree with your point on scientific epistimology. However, how do you react to his showing that 44.2% vs. 55.8% of scientists surveyed either disagree or are skeptical about man-made global warming? That is hardly an insignificant number.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 2, 2007)

Quite true there, *Kenpo*.  

I have to confess that I've been very lax and not followed that link to see what my impressions are on the survey (and the surveyed).  

I also have to confess that I'm not a climate scientist, I'm just what used to called "Well read"  so my words carry no 'professional weight.

The reason why I tend to get drawn into these discussions repeatedly is not that I'm an evangelist for the Global Warming Corporate Mafia; indeed, I'm still more than ready to believe that this sudden warming explosion will trigger an inversion.  It's that I consistently fail to grasp why there is so much resistence to trying to do what we can to make sure we're not making things worse then they need to be.

That's particularly true when it comes to developing non-polluting alternative sources of energy.  It's a given that petrol is a magnificent energy store and the oil companies, via vast economies of scale, are able to get it to us for a ludicrously low price.  Those attributes make it hard to beat, especially when most of the proposed alternatives are simply the same 'model' dressed up in new clothes with a different 'fuel' that isn't as good.  Even those that look superficially great, like many of the electric car designs for example, simply move the pollution a step back towards the source and generate an even worse problem with other elements of the technology (the batteries are an ecological nightmare to dispose of).

There are approaches that could break the mould if fully developed tho' e.g. photo-voltaic cells combined with fuel cells to use the sun to provide the power to get the hydrogen you need to drive the car.  No magic bullets as yet tho' .


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 2, 2007)

Big Don said:


> The world is, neither flat, nor the center of the universe. Earth, Fire, Wind and Water are not all the elements. These were all scientific consensuses at their times.


 
To claim that these things were consensus because of "science" is a lie; either intentional or from ignorance. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of the past 5,000 years of human culture. In the West, the consensus that the world is flat, or the center of the universe, came not from science but from the collective myths and legends of a sky god.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 2, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> If given a list of scientists who do not believe in man-made global warming, who here would believe them, or perhaps become a little more skeptical?


 
Not Me. I would not believe anything because of a list of names. 

Instead, show the evidence for their claims. 
Show me who is funding their research. 

Show me the evidence that is contrary to their claims. 
Show me where their funding is sourced.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 2, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Not Me. I would not believe anything because of a list of names.
> 
> Instead, show the evidence for their claims.
> Show me who is funding their research.
> ...


Because people, like Al Gore who make money by exploiting fear of global warming caused disaster are somehow more trustworthy?


----------



## Big Don (Dec 2, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> To claim that these things were consensus because of "science" is a lie; either intentional or from ignorance. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of the past 5,000 years of human culture. In the West, the consensus that the world is flat, or the center of the universe, came not from science but from the collective myths and legends of a sky god.


No, not a lie at all. When the "great" scientists of the time all believed the earth was flat and/or the center of the universe that was indeed, regardless of where the idea came from, a consensus of scientists, just as you claim there are now, supporting the idea of man-caused global warming leading to mass hysteria, dogs and cats living together, etc


----------



## Big Don (Dec 2, 2007)

Blindside said:


> What does that comment have to do with science?  Just because some blogger is ranting about something, even a blogger who has "editor" by his name, it doesn't really impact the general scientific opinion.
> 
> Lamont


 That blogger suggests trying those who don't agree with his perception of the world as some kind of war criminals. No, that doesn't really impact the general scientific opinion, but, should I be able to try British people as criminals because they are so "stupid" as to spell COLOR with a U?
 Dictionary.com defines religion as:


> 1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.


Those who blame man for global warming have a set of beliefs concerning the cause and nature of global warming. 





> 2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.


 Those believing in human caused global warming are clearly a group with a fundamental set of beliefs 





> 3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.[/ quote] There is clearly a body of persons who adhere to the idea that man is causing global warming
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 2, 2007)

*Don*, I hate to have to say it but you're really not on-the-money with some of these remarks with regard to the history of science.

As a discipline, there was no such thing until the dawn of the Renaissance and even then these Rational Thinkers were more multi-disciplinarian philosophers than anything we would regard as scientists.  Further still, there were so few of these men that it is not really accurate to try and speak of a consensus in the sense of a large body of thinkers believing the same thing.

The promoters of the world is flat and the centre of the universe were the clergy, excercising their vested (yeah, clerical pun attack ) interests in keeping the mass of the population uneducated and under control.

Don't get me wrong, it's okay to have an opinion (even a contentious one) and to argue your corner, it's what the forum is for after all.  But supporting it with mis-information will garner no favours :lol:.

EDIT: that last bit didn't work, I don't think.  It was supposed to have been a humerously meant sound-alike for "a rolling stone gathers no moss" but re-reading showed it didn't come out that way at all, it just sounded vaguely insulting :O.  Sorry ...


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 2, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> To claim that these things were consensus because of "science" is a lie; either intentional or from ignorance. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of the past 5,000 years of human culture. In the West, the consensus that the world is flat, or the center of the universe, came not from science but from the collective myths and legends of a sky god.



Well, the earth being the center of the universe has some pretty good supporting evidence, until you invent the telescope that is.

Until the telescope the earth would appear to be stationery, because it's motion in relation to the position of the stars was so small it could not be detected by the eye alone.  So it would appear that we are stationery relative to the position of the stars, with the sun, moon and visible planets rotating around us.  Except that the planets did some funny loops along the way.

Science can, and has, made some pretty big mistakes.  But it's willingness to admit too and correct those mistakes is what makes science possible 

The Earth however was never believed to be flat by scientists however.  This can be observed with the eye.  The horizon is curved, when a ship sails out to see it goes over that horizon and disappears, etc.

4 elements...5 depending on who you ask, is scientific in origin.  And it does have some connection to what is observable.  Everything can be made into either a solid (earth), liquid (water), gas (air) or converted to energy (fire).  While it was a large misunderstanding, I can see how it could be arrived at by observation and experimentation.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Dec 2, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Those who blame man for global warming have a set of beliefs concerning the cause and nature of global warming.


You might want to point out how the belief that man caused global warming is "concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs". Man-made global warming, simplified, is the idea that current human behavior is increasing the amount of solar heat retained by our atmosphere. That's physical science, not superhuman agency, devotional observance, or moral code. 



> Those believing in human caused global warming are clearly a group with a fundamental set of beliefs


 
You're using "fundamental beliefs" a bit too liberally here. There's a big difference between performing studies to see if a result has occurred and insisting on a notion despite any contrary evidence. 




> There is clearly a body of persons who adhere to the idea that man is causing global warming


 
And this makes it a religion? There's also clearly a body of persons who adhere to the idea that Cuba is 90 miles south of Miami, FL. Should I form the church and fill out the forms for tax-exemption? 


> Those who believe man is the cause of global warming clearly practice those beliefs and ritually observe that idea That man caused global warming is something some follow devotedly, as a point or matter of ethics or conscience.


 
"Ritual" implies far more than simply continuing to believe something. As for the ethics or conscience, that would be in response to what should be done about the portion of global-warming that is man-made, not whether man-made global warming is actually occurring. You have to separate the "how we shoudl respond" from the "whether it's happening".

Here's a point to ponder: these scientific whackos are claiming that human activity like burning fossil fuels and driving "more cars than the beach got sand" (Dave Matthews Band, _Too Much_) and presenting their ritualistic "studies", "data", and other voodoo magic to back it up. The critical response is to deny, deny, deny, despite the evidence. Which side's being more religious? All of your definitions that you pulled from the dictionary can be easily turned around on those who insist that global warming _isn't _affected by human behavior, and with a bit more merit, methinks.


----------



## Ray (Dec 2, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> I have to say that in some ways your views a bit 'off', *Don*, when it comes to the nature of science.
> 
> The breadth of investigation covered under the mantle of the single word 'Science' is staggering and consensus, meaning in this case _generally_ accepted rather than universally, is the order of the day.
> 
> As Todd said earlier, nothing is ever proven, something can only be disproven. Even then, if it's 'close enough' for practical use then it'll do - for example, Newton's Theory of Gravity is actually wrong but it approximates well enough for us to use it.


What part of Newton's description of the force of gravity is at variance with the understanding since relativity?  None that I know of.  Newton didn't explain the cause of gravity, he explained the force of attraction between two masses in a neat, tidy formula.    He didn't discribe the reason (gravitons and/or the curvature of space/time due to mass).  Help me out here.

When I was a kid in HS, everybody was worried about global cooling.  

CFCs were introduced as a means to reduce pollution. Later Sagan and friends discovered the potential impact that CFCs would have on the ozone layer.

Maybe we should set up an international body to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases.  It could be budgeted based on populations (the most populated area gets the most) or maybe on square footage of a country.  Maybe Al Gore could be the leader of this organization and we could buy our permits from him.  Such a noble thing...

We humans are pretty smart, but not smart enough.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 2, 2007)

Hi *Ray*

A quick look at your profile doesn't help me out, so I wonder if you could tell me your background?  Why?  Because I can't work out if you're pulling my leg or not {smilies are a mans best friend in the interwebs :lol:}?  

Newtonian gravitational theory is an approximation and it's flaws get larger the bigger the masses involved and further away from the observer you get.  Einsteinian relativity inherited this inaccuracy and it's only these days that we're starting to get in the ball park of a theory of gravity that both works and sits consistently with the other major forces.

However, as ever with any statements I make like this, the sub-clause is I am *not* a physicist {insert other discipline here as necessary}.  I just study a lot (which is why there are more letters after my name than are in it ).

As an aside to everything in this thread other than the nature of science and it's development, this makes an interesting read (it's a paper by some chaps with one theory of gravity who are at odds with another chap who also has a theory of gravity): http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0407/0407059v4.pdf.


----------



## Ray (Dec 2, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> Hi *Ray*
> 
> A quick look at your profile doesn't help me out, so I wonder if you could tell me your background? Why? Because I can't work out if you're pulling my leg or not {smilies are a mans best friend in the interwebs}?


I am a factory worker. I haven't had a lot of physics homework lately so I haven't read the latest and greatest theories and discoveries. I am serious that: we humans are smart but not smart enough.


Sukerkin said:


> Newtonian gravitational theory is an approximation and it's flaws get larger the bigger the masses involved and further away from the observer you get. Einsteinian relativity inherited this inaccuracy and it's only these days that we're starting to get in the ball park of a theory of gravity that both works and sits consistently with the other major forces.


 Thanks for the link that you posted. Do you have a link that describes the flaws/inaccuracies? I'd like to read up on it a bit.


Sukerkin said:


> As an aside to everything in this thread other than the nature of science and it's development, this makes an interesting read (it's a paper by some chaps with one theory of gravity who are at odds with another chap who also has a theory of gravity):


 with dvali, sundrum and like drivel I haven't see a whole lot that I like.


----------



## Karatedrifter7 (Dec 2, 2007)

What argument are you trying to make? So you take someone way out of the mainstream thought, to prove a point? Thats who David Icke is. Somebody could easily solicit the opinions of creationists conservatives, that tell us the world was created in six days. Does this also mean that global warming is a fallacy?


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 2, 2007)

I'll keep this brief as we're close to wandering OT - for the simplest exemplar that Newtonian gravity is not accurate but close enough for everyday purposes, look no further than page ten of Steven Hawkings "A Brief History of Time".


----------



## Ray (Dec 2, 2007)

Karatedrifter7 said:


> What argument are you trying to make? So you take someone way out of the mainstream thought, to prove a point?


Who me?


Karatedrifter7 said:


> Thats who David Icke is. Somebody could easily solicit the opinions of creationists conservatives, that tell us the world was created in six days. Does this also mean that global warming is a fallacy?


I don't disagree that global warming may be man made, that it may become a problem...but I haven't seen sufficient information to be converted (even though my 18-year old boy did make me watch Al Gore's flick with him). BTW, it's 23 degrees F where I am; I wouldn't mind a little more heat and sunlight.

The earth is much older than human-kind, if we create our own destruction the earth will do okay without us; something better is bound to evolve. We try real hard to do the "right thing" but we fail time and time again.

So I say, we humans are pretty smart, but not smart enough.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 2, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Because people, like Al Gore who make money by exploiting fear of global warming caused disaster are somehow more trustworthy?


 
I say "evidence" ... and you say "Al Gore". 

Is there a language barrier here? 



			
				Big Don said:
			
		

> No, not a lie at all. When the "great" scientists of the time all believed the earth was flat and/or the center of the universe that was indeed, regardless of where the idea came from, a consensus of scientists, just as you claim there are now, supporting the idea of man-caused global warming leading to mass hysteria, dogs and cats living together, etc


 
Please put a name the "great" scientists of which you speak. One or two scientists who argued for a flat earth, that did not go by the title "Your Holiness", will do. 

You see, the scientific method, as we understand it today, is generally accepted to come into existance in the 1600's, more or less (at least here in the West). Prior to that time, whatever it was that brought about your supposed 'consensus', it was not science. More likely, it was religious decree.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 2, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> Quite true there, *Kenpo*.
> 
> I have to confess that I've been very lax and not followed that link to see what my impressions are on the survey (and the surveyed).
> 
> ...



Be very careful here.  When you start making statements like thhis, skeptics may start to say, "Hm, good point."

Like I've said in other threads about global warming, it is not that I don't necessarily believe that man may be helping to cause global warming.  It's that those in the debate (not necessarily the science) are so vitriolic in their attitude towards those who are skeptical or don't belive.  That raises the question mark above my head, especially when there is some evidence to the contrary.

But none of that means that, hey, it could be possible, so why not mitigate if it is may be true and when we can.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Not Me. I would not believe anything because of a list of names.
> 
> Instead, show the evidence for their claims.
> Show me who is funding their research.
> ...



I suppose I should have made explicit what I thought was implicit.  I did mean to imply that the list would include their research.

And do you necessarily believe that their source of funding has an absolute correlation with their findings and therefore to be disregarded , or to you would this to be a situation where you might take what they say with a grain of salt?


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 2, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> And do you necessarily believe that their source of funding has an absolute correlation with their findings and therefore to be disregarded , or to you would this to be a situation where you might take what they say with a grain of salt?


 
The source of funding needs to be considered and weight appropriately. Modern scientists do two things .... they examine the world around them, and they write grant requests. 

The entities that fund those grants may very well have an agenda. If the scientist were to desire further grants from that entity, it may be important that the research is in line with the aforementioned agenda. 

Here, I would like to quote directly from my cousin's web-page. David is a geologist with the University of South Carolina. I understand he recently received an extensive grant to study the geology of Antartica.


> *Advice for my graduate  students and graduate student applicants*
> ...
> 3. _Generating funding is an important aspect of being a geologist and a practice you will need to perfect._  Regardless of existing funding, take every opportunity to apply for grants no matter how small.  If you aren't trying to support yourself, I will be less likely to expend my effort to support you.  If I have to suggest to you to apply for a grant or a fellowship, you aren't doing your job.



I point to this paragraph specifically for that first sentence in his third bullet point. He has learned how to write grants, and is encouraging his grad students right up front that it is an important part of the vocation. 

I wonder if it might be easier to get a grant from Exxon Mobile if I am willing to say Global Warming is a myth.


----------



## Ray (Dec 2, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I wonder if it might be easier to get a grant from Exxon Mobile if I am willing to say Global Warming is a myth.


Generally I have a good feeling about the motives of scientists.  If you're right, then I should examine the motives of all of them? 

I'd rather examine their work than their motives.  I'm hoping peer review keeps them mostly honest, but I'm naive and trusting.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 2, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The source of funding needs to be considered and weight appropriately. Modern scientists do two things .... they examine the world around them, and they write grant requests.
> 
> The entities that fund those grants may very well have an agenda. If the scientist were to desire further grants from that entity, it may be important that the research is in line with the aforementioned agenda.
> 
> ...



I can understand, an can agree with your post.  I was just wondering what your position to be, which is that the evidence would be foremost, but, not being a scientist (and hence, able to test) you may take it with a grain of salt.

And as Ray said, the evidence and peer review should speak for itself.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 2, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I say "evidence" ... and you say "Al Gore".
> 
> Is there a language barrier here?


If oil company funded research is so obviously biased and therefore, not to be trusted, simply because an oil company funded it,then the fact that Al Gore makes money by fomenting the fear of global warming, ought to disqualify him from commenting on it, in your little "follow the money" world.

The question "Where does the money come from" works both ways, and while you and others may like to think of oil companies as the focus of evil in the world, there sure are a lot of crackpots and criminals on the global warming bandwagon, and, btw, entirely too many politicians...


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 2, 2007)

Ray said:


> Generally I have a good feeling about the motives of scientists. If you're right, then I should examine the motives of all of them?
> 
> I'd rather examine their work than their motives. I'm hoping peer review keeps them mostly honest, but I'm naive and trusting.


 
"Generally", Ray, I think that most of us would agree with your statement about motives. However, individual arguments and positions are not being put forth 'Generally'. They are raised and put forth by 'specific' people. Just because Sean Hannity yells twice as loud, for twice as long, as anyone else on television, it doesn't mean he is four times more correct. 

Any population can be represented by 'the Bell Curve' ... where most individual metrics 'Generally' end up in the mushy middle. It is the extremes on either side of that Bell Curve that do not fit in to that "Generally" descriptor. 

The requests for specific researchers, studies, and funding sources is to try and determine if the position is one of the 'Generally Accepted' positions, or if it is an idea that is three or four standard deviations out on the Bell Curve.

Notice how Big Don keeps bringing up Al Gore. He hopes that the myth of Al Gore has pushed the name far enough out on the end of the Bell Curve to paint the information presented as extreme. It seems to escape the notice of those crying 'Al Gore' that Mr. Gore is not a scientist. He did not perform the studies reported on in his film or book. He just reports the information. A more credible attack would be to attack the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. Of course, screaming the NOAA is biased doesn't have the same ring. 

So, yes, Peer Review will usually cause things to 'self-correct'. Except when power and authority wish for it to not self-correct. Did you hear about the head of the Texas science teachers organization got thrown out of a job because of an email raising awareness about 'Intelligent Design'? I thought Dover settled that matter. But, alas, it is an extreme position four, five, or six standard deviations away from the norm, that keeps getting play.  

And just as with ID, there are some that will disupte the Keeling Curve ... which I just found out turned 50 this year.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 2, 2007)

No, Al Gore isn't a scientist, he is someone who makes money selling carbon credits and making movies hyping global warming fears. That is exactly why anything he is involved this deeply in should face much more serious scrutiny. Especially since, while he counsels everyone else to reduce their carbon footprint he still flies on private jets. Notice how Michael Edward refuses to explain why he considers industry funded research as biased but, research and statements made by proponents of global warming are not suspect...


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 2, 2007)

How is it that so many discussions on the issue of global warming turn into personal attacks on the credibility of Al Gore?  As if he was the leading authority  on the matter.  He isn't, he is a activist, not a scientist.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 3, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> How is it that so many discussions on the issue of global warming turn into personal attacks on the credibility of Al Gore?  As if he was the leading authority  on the matter.  He isn't, he is a activist, not a scientist.


Gore has portrayed himself as an expert and an authority on global warming, mostly, imho, to advance his bank accounts.
I have merely asked why, if studies funded by industry must automatically be suspect, why those on the other side of the debate are not suspect at all, even when the most famous activists implore people to walk, ride bicycles, carpool, or use mass transit while they continue to flit, hither and yon on private jets, arriving to be picked up in limousines. Yet, none here wish to address the blatant hypocrisy of those who claim to champion the environment.
They blithely ignore the pronouncements of scientists past, 


> If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.


 UC Daviss Kenneth Watt said, Earth Day 1970
They liken skeptics of global warming to NAZI war criminals 


> "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg.


http://gristmill.grist.org/print/200...ow_comments=no   
Which should have invoked *Godwin's law. 
*They distort  (Polar bears at risk of drowning) they sensationalize (The Day after Tomorrow) they call anyone who dares disagree with them fools or lackeys of corporate interests.
Gore gets brought in to the discussion because he has desperately tried to portray himself as some kind of environmentalist hero, while flying private jets and running up $40000 MONTHLY gas and electric bills.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 3, 2007)

Michael Chriction gave a rather brilliant speech about global warming at the National Press Club Jan 25th 2005. You can read it on his website.


----------



## tellner (Dec 3, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Michael Chriction gave a rather brilliant speech about global warming at the National Press Club Jan 25th 2005. You can read it on his website.


 
Brilliant in that he agreed with you? 

I saw the transcript. It was pretty much science-free but full of veiled personal attacks on anyone who disagreed with him.

When he went after Jared Diamond, Dr. Diamond put it very, very well:



> Everything you say is true. There are a couple of things to be added to it. One is that my previous book, "Guns, Germs, and Steel," has sold more copies than Michael Crichton's one and a half million, so I think my new book will get to more readers. And the other thing is that *Michael Crichton is a very skilled writer of fiction. And fiction is, by definition, the telling of stories that are untrue. He's very good at that. And I'm a writer of nonfiction, which aims to be the telling of stories that are true*.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 3, 2007)

tellner said:


> Brilliant in that he agreed with you?
> 
> I saw the transcript. It was pretty much science-free but full of veiled personal attacks on anyone who disagreed with him.
> 
> When he went after Jared Diamond, Dr. Diamond put it very, very well:


No, brilliant as in well researched and documented. Science free? The debunking of Mann's Hockey Stick was more mathematical than scientific, so, OK...
Diamond's comments sound like sour grapes, which is odd, being that his book out sold Chricton. Perhaps he doesn't earn as much per copy, maybe he should talk to his publisher...


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 3, 2007)

Okay chaps, the posts are getting shorter, sharper and more pointed.  

It wont take much more for things to begin getting heated (yeah, global warming pun attack !) or at best devolve into "Tis!" vs "Tisn't".  Is that really where you want the thread to go?

Laying out your reasons why you think something, accepting the validity of certain criticisms of those foundations and counter-arguing why you still believe what you do is a good way to discourse an issue.  Becoming defensive to the point of sniping is a bad way.

As always, it's a free medium so the choice is up to the participants but I'm sure prior experience has shown that flames lead to thread-lock as sure as CO2 leads to a temperature rise .


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 3, 2007)

Big Don said:


> They distort (Polar bears at risk of drowning) they sensationalize (The Day after Tomorrow) they call anyone who dares disagree with them fools or lackeys of corporate interests.


 
Bear scientists have recently published studies that tell us that seven of the eight bear species on the planet are projected to be extinct within the next 100 years. This is not a claim of Environmental scientists, but the claims of those who study bears. (Just in case some were confused between bears and the environment.).

I suppose the comforting thought is that the North American Black Bear is the one species that is expected to survive. 

Oh, and "The Day after Tomorrow" is a work of FICTION. You aren't confusing fiction with science, are you?


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Dec 3, 2007)

Show me empirical proof that what humans are doing is "causing" an increase in global warming. Global warming has happened before, is happening now and will happen again. We are not the direct cause of global warming

B


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 3, 2007)

KempoGuy06 said:


> Show me empirical proof that what humans are doing is "causing" an increase in global warming. Global warming has happened before, is happening now and will happen again. We are not the direct cause of global warming
> 
> B


 
Please see the afore-referenced "Keeling Curve".


----------



## Blindside (Dec 3, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Bear scientists have recently published studies that tell us that seven of the eight bear species on the planet are projected to be extinct within the next 100 years. This is not a claim of Environmental scientists, but the claims of those who study bears. (Just in case some were confused between bears and the environment.).


 
Could you point out where this is cited?  'Cause I ain't buying it.  I could see 6 of the 8, but don't see any reason why the Brown should go extinct.

The sun bear, spectacled bear, Asiatic black, sloth bear, and giant panda are going because of loss of habitat and human hunting, not because of global warming.

Lamont


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 3, 2007)

This, while it is wiki, is well referenced and gives a overview of what different scientific organizations have to say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change


Pay particular attention to this:


> With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no scientific bodies of national or international standing are known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 3, 2007)

Blindside said:


> Could you point out where this is cited?  'Cause I ain't buying it.  I could see 6 of the 8, but don't see any reason why the Brown should go extinct.
> 
> The sun bear, spectacled bear, Asiatic black, sloth bear, and giant panda are going because of loss of habitat and human hunting, not because of global warming.
> 
> Lamont


But, don't you know, all those things are caused by Global warming.


----------



## Blindside (Dec 3, 2007)

Big Don said:


> They distort (Polar bears at risk of drowning)


 
So are you saying that the arctic pack perrenial ice hasn't a steady (and in recent years, not so steady) decrease in thickness and extent?  That perrenial ice does not represent a critical hunting habitat for Polar bears, and that open water swimming between lower amounts of perennial ice represents a dangerous portion of the bear life cycle, and that increasing the frequency and distance of that portion will present a threat to the species?  

Or are you simply objecting to the fact that they are using a large charismatic mega-fauna as their poster child?

Lamont


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 3, 2007)

Blindside said:


> Could you point out where this is cited? 'Cause I ain't buying it. I could see 6 of the 8, but don't see any reason why the Brown should go extinct.
> 
> The sun bear, spectacled bear, Asiatic black, sloth bear, and giant panda are going because of loss of habitat and human hunting, not because of global warming.
> 
> Lamont


 
I didn't spend too much time thinking about whether it would be 5, or 6, or 7 of the bear species. And, I did not make the claim that the cause of the loss was going to be environmental ... unless you count the loss of habitat as environmental.

Does it really matter if the great species disappear because of human beings being jerks with internal combustions engines, or because human beings being jerks with a chainsaw? I mentioned the point because Big Don is mocking the decimation of the Polar Bear. As if any reason is acceptable for extintion. 

A thousand years from now, will the Constellations Ursa Major and Ursa Minor be more like Draco ... a sky image of a mythical creature? 

http://www.amazon.com/Bear-Reaktion-Books-Robert-Bieder/dp/1861892047

http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2007/11/20071105_b_main.asp


----------



## Big Don (Dec 3, 2007)

Blindside said:


> So are you saying that the arctic pack perrenial ice hasn't a steady (and in recent years, not so steady) decrease in thickness and extent?  That perrenial ice does not represent a critical hunting habitat for Polar bears, and that open water swimming between lower amounts of perennial ice represents a dangerous portion of the bear life cycle, and that increasing the frequency and distance of that portion will present a threat to the species?
> 
> Or are you simply objecting to the fact that they are using a large charismatic mega-fauna as their poster child?
> 
> Lamont


I am not saying that pack ice is screwing the polar bears, but scientists are...
I am simply objecting to the fact that they used computer generated (that means FAKE) polar bears to make it look like they were gonna die because they couldn't get on a different piece of ice, when polar bears are in fact capable of swimming for MILES... I simply object to people falsifying science to promote a movie, a political cause and, yes, the fattening up of their wallets while they simultaneously attempt to silence anyone who dares show them to be the charlatans they are. You know, by using real science.
http://eteam.ncpa.org/news/new-study-points-to-an-inconvenient-truth-about-global-warming


> Recent claims that polar bear populations are threatened by global warming ignore the fact that only two polar bear populations are declining (both in regions were temperatures are falling), while others are increasing and most are stable.





> *The Arctic: *The film asserted that at present the Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth. In fact, Arctic temperatures in the 1930s and 1940s, like temperatures throughout North America, were as warm or warmer than they are today (Briffa _et al., _2004), and there is some historical evidence (including a letter from one of the Popes in the Vatican archives describing how at the end of the mediaeval warm period the ice hath come in from the north), that the Arctic was warmer than the present in mediaeval times. The film did not explain that Arctic temperature changes are more closely correlated with changes in solar activity than with changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations (Soon, 2005). The film inaccurately said polar bears are drowning due to melting ice when in fact 11 of the 13 main groups in Canada are thriving, and polar bear populations have more than doubled since 1940, when the Arctic was at its warmest in recent times (Taylor, 2006). Further evidence for the thriving polar-bear populations is in a recent report by the World Wide Fund for Nature, in which a graph is displayed showing that in those places where temperature has increased the polar-bear population has increased; in those places where it has declined the polar-bear population has declined; and that in the majority of the Arctic where there has been no recent trend in temperatures the polar-bear population has remained stable.


http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/errors_in_al_gore_s_an_inconvenient_truth.html
"Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, represents 'partisan political
views' and must be treated as such by teachers in British schools, a
British High Court judge has indicated.http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/10-09-2007/0004678743&EDATE=


> "The British High Court properly recognized that Al Gore's movie is
> nine parts political propaganda and one part science. Virtually every
> assertion that Gore makes in the movie has been strongly contradicted by sound science





> > They [polar bears]have very good swimming ability and can swim many miles without any halt.
> > They generally swim at 5 to 7 miles per hour. They can go up to a depth of 16 to 17 feet.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Big Don (Dec 3, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I didn't spend too much time thinking about whether it would be 5, or 6, or 7 of the bear species. And, I did not make the claim that the cause of the loss was going to be environmental ... unless you count the loss of habitat as environmental.
> 
> Does it really matter if the great species disappear because of human beings being jerks with internal combustions engines, or because human beings being jerks with a chainsaw? I mentioned the point because Big Don is mocking the decimation of the Polar Bear. As if any reason is acceptable for extintion.
> 
> ...


11 of 13 polar bear populations are THRIVING, how is thriving decimation? I don't appreciate you lying about and mischaracterizing what I have said. Especially when the facts about polar bears are far from what Gore's movie presents.


----------



## Grenadier (Dec 3, 2007)

_*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*

_Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Senior Moderator-


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 3, 2007)

Politics, all politics.

When one political party is trying to convince me of X and the other is trying to convince me of Not X, I look at how X relates to that parties traditional or espoused ideals.  If the issue has nothing to do with those ideals then I look at how X appeals to that party's base of power.  Usually that says a lot more about the real issue; one party's advocacy of X and the other party's discouragement of X has little to do with any moral or intellectual belief in the rightness of truth of an idea and a lot to do with maintaining or gaining political power.

Environmentalism, global warming, greenhouse gases and CFCs and holes in the ozone and logging and mining and oil and habitats having *nothing* to do with conservative ideals or liberals ideals.  Liberal ideals could be used to implement a goal of conservation through government regulation; conservative approaches could be used to implement a goal of conservation through government minimalism.  Environmentalism is orthogonal to the line between liberals and conservatives; both philosophies could provide approaches and solutions within the context of their motivations.

However, where environmental issues do align with groups of people is not along the line of conservative vs liberal but the line of Democrat vs Republican, and not based on ideals or even (desire for) truth, but power and money.

So when one party is pushing one view the other party is pushing the other, it's clear that the politicians don't care about the truths and the facts of  the issue.  The 'issue' becomes just a dividing line of 'us' vs 'them' in a calculated attempt to convince more people to be part of 'us'

Democrats don't care about the environment, they care about Environmentalists voting Democrat.
Republicans don't hate the environment, they care about businessmen voting Republican.

Neither really thinks much about the environment where we live, it's just another battleground for them to fight over.

and the rest of us on this earth are both the spoils and the victims


----------



## Blindside (Dec 3, 2007)

Big Don said:


> 11 of 13 polar bear populations are THRIVING, how is thriving decimation? I don't appreciate you lying about and mischaracterizing what I have said. Especially when the facts about polar bears are far from what Gore's movie presents.


 
Decimation refers to a loss of 1 in 10, look at the Roman roots of the word.  (scary)  Anywho, we'll be incredibly lucky if we only lose one in ten.

I haven't seen the Gore movie, and don't really care to, but what Polar Bears are doing now don't have much to do with what polar bears will be doing in the future under predicted ice declines.

This link to a USGS- Biologic Resource Division paper, uses predictive modeling of minimal, average, and maximal predicted ice conditions to estimate polar bear populations for the next 100 years.  The writers acknowledge that this is a fairly conservative model.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/docs/USGS_PolarBear_Amstrup_Forecast_lowres.pdf

I'm excerpting some stuff from the discussion section, but please read the link to find out how this was developed.



> 1. Polar bear populations in the Polar Basin Divergent and Seasonal Ice ecoregions will most likely be extirpated by mid century.  Approximately 2/3 of the worlds current polar bear population resides in the combined area of these two ecoregions.
> 
> 2. Polar bear populations in the Archipelago Ecoregion appear likely to persist through the middle of the century.  Some modeling scenarios suggest persistence of polar bears in this ecoregion toward the end of the century.  The number of bears will likely be less than at present due to the reduced amount of habitat and other factors.
> 
> ...


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 3, 2007)

FearlessFreep said:


> Democrats don't care about the environment, they care about Environmentalists voting Democrat.


 
Nobody in this country votes 'Democrat'. They vote 'Democratic'. Misusing language is also politics.


----------



## Bigshadow (Dec 3, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> how does it self corrects if you mess it up enough and will any of us (meaning humans) survive that correction.




And that is the biggest fear of mankind!  Especially those people who have fantasies of controlling others, wealth, and resources.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 3, 2007)

You know, if evolution is how it is, wouldn't the extinction of some species allow other species to come forth? 
Oh, I forgot, not allowed to use logic...


----------



## Blindside (Dec 3, 2007)

Big Don said:


> You know, if evolution is how it is, wouldn't the extinction of some species allow other species to come forth?
> Oh, I forgot, not allowed to use logic...


 
Who are you replying to?  What are you trying to say?  Are you saying that extinction of a species is unimportant to you?  Certainly on the face of it, your statement is simply incorrect, you don't need extinction of one species to allow others to come forth, evolution doesn't work like that.  Loss of a species because a particular niche is lost, doesn't open up that niche for another species, that niche is gone.  

Habitat destruction in the face of anthropogenic changes usually results in the increase of "weedy" species at the expense of niche specialists, this doesn't make new species, just expands the range of organisms that do well in sites that humans disturb.  Barred owls, American crow, red fox, raccoon, cheatgrass, perennial pepperweed, Canada thistle, Russian thistle, etc etc.

Lamont


----------



## tshadowchaser (Dec 3, 2007)

just for the record I believe we have had major global warming and environmental changes before. Remember something called the ice age, that is no longer around. Oh yes,   dinosaurs, woolly mammoths, who knows how many species after them.
Now before anyone takes this wrong I think it is  crime the way current species of animals are becoming lost. Hell folks I choose to  use the Snow Leopard for an emblem for more than one reason
Politics, and politicians can only do so much. Mankind itself needs to care about this earth and stop eradicating so much animal and plant life


----------



## Ray (Dec 3, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> "Generally", Ray, I think that most of us would agree with your statement about motives. However, individual arguments and positions are not being put forth 'Generally'. They are raised and put forth by 'specific' people. Just because Sean Hannity yells twice as loud, for twice as long, as anyone else on television, it doesn't mean he is four times more correct.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


I never put forth the suppostion that yelling twice long and twice as loud makes anyone 4 times as correct.  That is absolute marlarky to say such a thing in reference to my post and you know better than to do that.

The keeling curve that you posted has no values on the vertical axis.  I know you don't mean it to be misleading, but that is one of the ways people can use charts to mislead.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 3, 2007)

Ray said:


> I never put forth the suppostion that yelling twice long and twice as loud makes anyone 4 times as correct. That is absolute marlarky to say such a thing in reference to my post and you know better than to do that.
> 
> The keeling curve that you posted has no values on the vertical axis. I know you don't mean it to be misleading, but that is one of the ways people can use charts to mislead.


 
absolute marlarky? Really? ...  

You did make a point about "scientists", "Generally". I drew a *contrast* between your description of "group' behavior and the behavior of an "individual" to demonstrate a point. Much in the same way that some are using 'scientific consensus' and 'Al Gore'; to conflate and confuse. I did not accuse you, of putting forth a supposition about an individual's behavior. *I *drew_ comparisons_ to demonstrate the difference between individuals and groups. Compare and Contrast. You know. Right?

In fact, in my post, and in the sections you quoted, I twice attempted to make a distinction between 'group' and 'individual'; once with Mr. Hannity on talk Radio, and once with Intelligent Design an the Texas Teachers.

I thought that you would be able to get the point, Ray. I apologize if it got past you. 



As for Keeling Chart, yes, you are correct. I did not notice when I saved the jpeg that the vertical axis was not saved with the image. The chart trends the past fifty years and runs approximately from 315 parts per million by volume CO2 in 1957 to approximately 378 parts per million by volume CO2 in 2005.

Interestingly, some articles tell us that this Keeling Chart is as representative to Global Climate Change as the Doulbe Helix is to human biology. If this is true, the Keeling Chart itself should not need either the X or Y axis defined. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7120770.stm


----------



## Ray (Dec 3, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I thought that you would be able to get the point, Ray. I apologize if it got past you.


Go ahead, hurl some more insults young man.


michaeledward said:


> As for Keeling Chart, yes, you are correct.


Thanks.


michaeledward said:


> If this is true, the Keeling Chart itself should not need either the X or Y axis defined.


It may be true that the keeling chart is very popular in some circles, but...


----------



## tellner (Dec 3, 2007)

Don, Do you really want an explanation of mass extinctions and adaptive radiation, or are you just trying to make a blind-faith dig at biology, geology, and systematic ecology as well as climatology, atmospheric science and oceanography? What do you know about these areas? Do you have any education in them past the high-school level? What sort of reading or other self-education have you done in them? I'm asking because it will be difficult to have a meaningful discussion if we can not have a meeting of minds on the fundamental terms and definitions.

So far, I'm sorry to say, you have not exhibited a very thorough understanding of any aspect of the physical or biological sciences. You seem unable to come to grips with the basics of scientific inquiry, its methods or philosophy. And you have difficulty with matters of settled history - cf. our discussion on the history of sexual and marriage mores and practices during the 18th and 19th centuries - when they contradict what you believe.

The fundamental principle of the sciences is that what is, is. If belief and the evidence are in irreconcilable conflict the beliefs must change. The late Richard Feynman (ztl) called it "A way of keeping ourselves honest with ourselves". Now like anything else that involves human beings it is imperfectly practiced. But generally scientists do a very good job of following that dictum. 

What follows from this? It's quite simple. What you want is not important. What is true is important. If your cherished belief or pet theory is not substantiated it must be modified or abandoned. That sort of radical honesty is how scientific progress is made and how we get a better understanding of the world. 

You seem to argue from faith. And your version of science is to find search for anything that might contradict theories you do not like, whether it be _ad hominem_ attacks against people who espouse them, false dichotomies, cherry-picked research regardless of or provenance, the appeal to authority or the fact that you find the conclusions, as you told me concerning the prevalence of prostitution in the past "offensive". What has been remarkably absent is a statement of precisely what you believe much less evidence for it. Those are not the signs of an intellectually mature argument. It is very difficult for fact or reason to have a place at such a table.

Your intellectual stance is not uncommon. It is typical of those whose beliefs are based on inarguable religious faith whether the religion is based on a Supreme Being, Marxist Dialectical Materialism or The Omnipotent Market. All of these and their kin are characterized by a ratchet mentality, intellectual inflexibility, and a tendency to shoot the arrows and then draw circles around them. That is one reason why I firmly believe that revealed religion of any sort is fundamentally incompatible with scientific inquiry. The basic honesty is lacking. That includes my own religion which is a source of much soul searching on my part. But that's a different topic better suited for a philosophy of science forum.

Your entire laundry list of beliefs may be true. But since they are inarguable matters of faith it is impossible for those of use who aspire to argument from reason and evidence to address them.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 3, 2007)

Ray said:


> Go ahead, hurl some more insults young man.
> Thanks.
> It may be true that the keeling chart is very popular in some circles, but...


 
I just want to let you know, I did read this post.

Good Day.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Dec 4, 2007)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS - SECOND WARNING*

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful. Stick to debating the topic at hand and avoid personal attacks. 

Pamela Piszczek
MT Super Moderator


----------



## Big Don (Dec 4, 2007)

> However, a 2003 survey of 530 international climate scientists from 27 different countries by two German environmental scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, tell a different story.http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=72914&src=
> To the question "Are humans causing climate change", 55.8 percent agreed but 14.2 percent were unsure and 30 percent disagreed.


Tellner, please explain how 44.2 percent being unsure or outright disagreeing with the idea is a consensus? Please explain why when some groups are clearly distorting the facts of global warming, they should be trusted because they believe man has harmed the climate. Please explain why industry, who, yes, has a vested interest in global warming cannot be trusted but, those, who buy carbon credits from companies they own stock in are implicitly trustworthy and above reproach, even when the "documentaries" they make have blaring errors and glaring distortions? No, I am not a scientist, nor am I well versed in scientific theorums. I am, however, able to see when someone is full of crap, and the lies and misdirections, double talk and squashing of dissent by the global warming activists is ten pounds of BS in a two pound bag...
Science says there are 206 bones in the human body, that is a fact, it has nothing whatsoever to do with consensus. Science says humans have a four chambered heart, that is also a fact and not open to consensus.


----------



## Blindside (Dec 4, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Tellner, please explain how 44.2 percent being unsure or outright disagreeing with the idea is a consensus?


 
Don,

You and your wife (girlfriend, whatever) are having a baby.  The first time you go in for an ultrasound the ultrasound tech says you are having a boy.  Yahoo!  The second time a different ultrasound tech says that you are having a girl.  Yahoo!  but what the hell?  You run 100 ultrasounds on your wife/girlfriend because the two of you really want to know.  70 think its a boy, 20 think its a girl, 10 don't know.  The fact is you are having a boy or girl, but you won't know for sure for another four months.  You need to paint the room blue or pink, the wife/girlfriend has got some hormones flowing and is nesting, and unless you want your next four months to be a living hell, this needs to get done today.  What color do you paint the room?  

With regard to the Bray/Storch survey, if you look at the original paper:
http://dvsun3.gkss.de/BERICHTE/GKSS_Berichte_2007/GKSS_2007_11.pdf

You'll see that they weren't directly examining what was quoted in your linked newspaper opinion piece.  They were examining trends in climate scientists beliefs in the underlying knowledge about global warming and the differences in those beliefs between years.  Their main findings can be summarized to say that climate scientists in 2003 compared to 1996 were significantly more likely to beleive that given the current state of scientific knowledge we can make accurate predictions for: inter-annual variability, climate variability on a decadal scale, climate variability on a 100 year scale, and climate variability on a >100 year scale.  

Bray/Storch released a blog about what some people were interpreting their paper to mean:
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/08/climate_scientists_views_on_cl_1.html

I'm excerpting a pertinant paragraph or two.


> On the skeptical side, the survey has often been used to create the impression that most scientists were not in support of anthropogenic causes of ongoing climate change: Specifically, it was noted that &#8220;For example more climate scientists &#8216;strongly disagree&#8217; than &#8216;strongly agree&#8217; that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.&#8221; This interpretation is certainly biased.
> We had requested responses on a scale from 1-7 to the question &#8220;Climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.&#8221; &#8211; with 1 representing &#8220;strong agreement&#8221; and 7 &#8220;strong disagreement&#8221;. Thus, scales 1-3 signal agreement, 4 an ambivalent position, and 5-7 disagreement. The frequency distribution for the two surveys in 1996 and 2003 are:
> 
> 
> ...


 
Lamont


----------



## Big Don (Dec 4, 2007)

I just find it interesting that a those who believe in human caused global warming are so desperate to shut down any discussion of other causes, or scientists with differing views.
That seems a little too much like faith, and faith, surely cannot have anything to do with legitamate science.


----------



## Blindside (Dec 4, 2007)

Big Don said:


> I just find it interesting that a those who believe in human caused global warming are so desperate to shut down any discussion of other causes, or scientists with differing views.
> That seems a little too much like faith, and faith, surely cannot have anything to do with legitamate science.


 
Don't go to activists (on either side) and attempt to get an unbiased response, thats just stupid, activists aren't scientists.  I'm not saying scientists are completely unbiased, they aren't, but do you really believe that the entire climate science community is doing this as some vast hoax on the rest of us?  That there is discussion and that there is controversy, indicates that hypothesis testing should still be in effect.  Skepticism is encouraged in science, we can't prove anything, we can only disprove it.

Lamont


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 4, 2007)

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570002/Ice_Ages.html

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570002_2/Ice_Ages.html

From 
"Ice Ages," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2007
http://encarta.msn.com © 1997-2007 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.



> Future Ice Ages
> 
> The record of previous glacial activity is the best indicator for future ice ages. Scientists examine the evidence for the numerous 100,000-year glacial-interglacial cycles within the present ice age to attempt a forecast of future ice ages. Since all previous ice ages lasted tens of millions of years, our present ice age will likely continue for a considerable amount of time. Each glaciation begins slowly and may take 80,000 years or more to reach its maximum extent. A rapid melting of these expanded glaciers within just a few thousand years follows. Then the next glaciation begins to build, only 10,000 to 20,000 years after the maximum of the previous glaciation occurred.
> 
> Evidence from both land and sea environments indicates that, at least prior to the human-induced global warming of the last two centuries, the worldwide climate has been cooling naturally for several thousand years. Ten thousand years have already passed since the end of the last glaciation, and 18,000 years have passed since the last maximum. This may indicate that Earth has entered the beginning of the next worldwide glaciation.



Technically speaking we are suppose to be in a cooling trend, but here is an interesting side effect of warming if it goes on long enough, more water vapor in the atmosphere which reflects sunlight and causes cooling. Mess with the climate and it will casue you problems

More info on warming and cooling

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/03_1.shtml

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/warnings/stories/nojs.html

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/why_4_cool_periods.html

EDIT:

OOPS sorry forgot one

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/


----------



## Big Don (Dec 4, 2007)

Then you see this:http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195546797524&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFulland you are forced to wonder, are these people intentionally being stupid, or does it just come naturally.
One less candle? So, Jews should alter their beliefs because it isn't environmentally hunky dory? That is just asinine, for more reasons than bear typing.


----------



## Ray (Dec 4, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> Technically speaking we are suppose to be in a cooling trend, but here is an interesting side effect of warming if it goes on long enough, more water vapor in the atmosphere which reflects sunlight and causes cooling. Mess with the climate and it will casue you problems


I believe we've just come out of a mini-cooling (tiny ice age) period.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 4, 2007)

Ray said:


> I believe we've just come out of a mini-cooling (tiny ice age) period.


 
There was the mini ice age that possibly was in part was brough on by a rather large volvanic eruption but in geological terms we should be in an over-all cooling stage heading towards the next big ice age, not a rabid warming phase. 

But as I said a rapid warming phase can cause a cooling phase too.

There are lots of reasons for warming and CO2 is one of them and you have to admit we produce one heck of a lot of CO2.


----------



## Shotochem (Dec 5, 2007)

I am far from an enviornmentalist or an activist. 

 The latest flavor of the month doomsday apocalyptic theory is "Global Warming"


Here is a blast from the past......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

There will always be a big bad wolf or monster in the closet for all to be worried about.

I wonder what's next?

-Marc-


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 5, 2007)

I&#8217;m not calling it a monster or the big bad wolf, it is simply a fact it is getting warmer, ice is melting and sea level is rising.

As to cooling we are suppose to be in a cooling phase heading towards the next ice age, but that does not mean the next ice age is suppose to be here next Tuesday, we are talking thousands of years.


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 6, 2007)

I think people have such a hard time with this because it is being made into a political game.  The proponents and opponents of global warming both seem to be using it as a platform for their own agenda and to make money off of it.

Al Gore's documentary was seen by opponents of global warming as nothing more than a political manuever to put himself in the spotlight again.  Then you have all this data that supposedly "refutes" the claims of his movie, and guess what it's funded by the oil companies, who obviously want their product and profits to keep increasing.

In the time of the dinosaurs it was supposedly very hot and tropical on earth than we had the ice age.  Is global temperature a cyclical thing and we are now slowly going back up regardless of what we are doing as humans?

It's interesting to note how throughout history man has ALWAYS blamed weather pattern changes on his own behavior.  Ancient times, if man "sinned" the gods punished him by causing a drought and he had to make amends.  Now modern man thinks that he is still causing the drought by his actions and he has to make amends.


----------



## Shotochem (Dec 6, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> Im not calling it a monster or the big bad wolf, it is simply a fact it is getting warmer, ice is melting and sea level is rising.
> 
> As to cooling we are suppose to be in a cooling phase heading towards the next ice age, but that does not mean the next ice age is suppose to be here next Tuesday, we are talking thousands of years.


 

Personally, I like it a little warmer...:wink1:

One would hope that in a thousand or so years if we don't kill ourselves off, we would have the knowledge, technology and means to fix the problem if there is one. Or who knows, settle another planet?

By no means am I condoning needless polluting and wasting of resources, just implying that we tend to worry and over-politicize everything as long as it can help ones own personal agenda.

-Marc-


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 6, 2007)

Shotochem said:


> Personally, I like it a little warmer...:wink1:
> 
> One would hope that in a thousand or so years if we don't kill ourselves off, we would have the knowledge, technology and means to fix the problem if there is one. Or who knows, settle another planet?
> 
> ...


 
Personally I like it colder, which could be why I'm complaining so much.... 

But I do whole heartedly agree when it comes to things get overly politicized and ends up being a tool for someone&#8217;s personal agenda.

It&#8217;s getting warmer and a lot of ice is melting, Ok let&#8217;s find out, if at all possible, the reason or reasons. I do believe that CO2 emissions are a contributing factor but are they the only cause :idunno: 

Introduce a lot of fresh water into the ocean and you mess up the climate big time, a large volcanic eruption can mess up the climate big time too. So if it is CO2 what can we do? Can we do anything or is it already to late?

But instead it ends up a political debate not a scientific study. 
 
Who cares its and election year we have better and less inflamatory things to debate. 

I am also not a big fan of politics either... dem or rep...


----------



## Big Don (Dec 6, 2007)

All those who hate the amount of CO2 going into our athmosphere can make one simple change to permanently halt their carbon footprint...

Don't exhale.

Animals exhale CO2 into the environment, now we're down to fourth grade science. Hunting and meat eating and capital punishment, then, must help the environment by removing living animals, little CO2 pumps that they are, from the equation... Shoot, if you really want to take that to extremes you can say Saddam was a great environmentalist, look at all the people he whacked and put in mass graves (Composting?) Likewise Hitler, Stalin and Mao were way ahead of their time. Maybe that is why they aren't appreciated...


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 6, 2007)

Big Don said:


> All those who hate the amount of CO2 going into our athmosphere can make one simple change to permanently halt their carbon footprint...
> 
> Don't exhale.
> 
> Animals exhale CO2 into the environment, now we're down to fourth grade science. Hunting and meat eating and capital punishment, then, must help the environment by removing living animals, little CO2 pumps that they are, from the equation... Shoot, if you really want to take that to extremes you can say Saddam was a great environmentalist, look at all the people he whacked and put in mass graves (Composting?) Likewise Hitler, Stalin and Mao were way ahead of their time. Maybe that is why they aren't appreciated...


 
Believe what you will but I might suggest not buying property in low lying areas. Just as an example if the Laurentide ice sheet melts completely, and it is melting, Florida has a lot to worry about as to a lot of other areas. Also if I remember correctly it may be enough to reverse flow on the Hudson river and oh wont that be fun. And that is just one source of melting ice. 

Point fingers, deny, argue, label, come up with reasons and agendas whatever you want but it is still getting warmer and ice is still melting and arguing and politicizing does nothing to make it better or to REALLY understand what is happening and why. There are a multitude of reasons for change in weather patterns, it is just no other appear to be evident at this time

Note: I also said I believe CO2 is a factor not the sole cause. 

And even if it is only a factor will stopping it do anything to make it better at this point in time, I am certainly not sure if it will or not. We may just have to huddle together on the hot high ground and hope for the best. 

But warming does not mean everywhere is hot. Some places that were hot will remain hot some will get colder, some will get hotter. Some places that are cold will remain cold some will get colder and some will get warmer. There will just be fewer cold places than there are now and there will be less above water land mass too. And just to note I believe under Antarctica there are at least 6 volcanoes that are currently dormant. Remove the ice and the ground pushes back up and it is likely before the ice is fully melted at least one may become active. Quick melt and a lot of fresh water enter the system and a lot of ash enters the atmosphere. 

This is a rather interconnected system we have on old planet earth and it is a lot to think about that many do not even consider because they are to busy arguing over mans impact on the planet instead of trying to figure out if we can stop it the warming or not.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 6, 2007)

:standing ovation:

Ordinarily I have a heavy distaste of "Me too!" responses to well constructed posts but that one was a good example of how to comprehensively and intelligently argue a point without being contentious or antagonistic.  Well done, sir :rei:.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 6, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> Point fingers, deny, argue, label, come up with reasons and agendas whatever you want but it is still getting warmer and ice is still melting and arguing and politicizing does nothing to make it better or to REALLY understand what is happening and why.


 
I agree, with you, and there in lyes my stance and frusteration with the issue.

People are too focused on 'why,' and to me that is ridicules. I wouldn't ask "why" if I was defending myself from an attacker, for example. The why isn't important when a problem is occuring; "How will it effect us" and "how do we fix it" and "what do we do" should be the real discussion. But instead, we are left with various opinions on whether or not it is our fault.

Seems nutty to me...


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 6, 2007)

The "Why" is definately important, as if we don't know why something is happening it is hard to know how to stop it.  It just shouldn't be about blame, if it was humans, it was all of us, we're all guilty, but now it's time to fix it, or at least try to.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 6, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> I agree, with you, and there in lyes my stance and frusteration with the issue.
> 
> People are too focused on 'why,' and to me that is ridicules. I wouldn't ask "why" if I was defending myself from an attacker, for example. The why isn't important when a problem is occuring; "How will it effect us" and "how do we fix it" and "what do we do" should be the real discussion. But instead, we are left with various opinions on whether or not it is our fault.
> 
> Seems nutty to me...


 
I see your point, but I think it's very important to recognize what is causing it because any solution to the problem lies with the cause.  There is vast scientific evidence indicating that human activity is greatly contributing to this phenomenon, even if it is not the sole cause.  The activity that is contributing to it must be changed, or it will continue to escalate, faster and faster.  

The burning of fossil fuels, for example, is a huge contributor to the pollution that is intimately tied to global warming.  We desperately need alternative, renewable fuel sources so that we can eliminate, or at least drastically reduce these kinds of emissions.  This is where human behavior needs to be changed quickly and drastically, if we want any chance of fixing the problem before huge damage is done to the globe.  It is entirely possible that global warming could alter the globe so drastically that vast regions become uninhabitable.  The problem is, those regions are currently inhabited.  Millions of people could die in a very very short period of time, as food and water sources are eliminated, disease begins to spread as sanitation issues build, and the very land itself becomes hostile to human and other animal and plant presence.

This is a rather extreme vision of what may come, but I think it's important to look at the worse case scenario because it really could happen and we need to recognize how bad it might become.  I've seen several times where the scientists have revised their predictions of how quickly this may happen, because actual observations of the progression of these problems have manifest much more quickly than initially thought possible.  Not long ago the prediction was that this may be a problem for our grandchildren.  Now, many scientists believe we will see many of these effects in our own lifetimes.


----------



## Ray (Dec 6, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> The burning of fossil fuels, for example, is a huge contributor to the pollution that is intimately tied to global warming. We desperately need alternative, renewable fuel sources so that we can eliminate, or at least drastically reduce these kinds of emissions. This is where human behavior needs to be changed quickly and drastically, if we want any chance of fixing the problem before huge damage is done to the globe. It is entirely possible that global warming could alter the globe so drastically that vast regions become uninhabitable.


I have come to the conclusion that we need to reduce the population of the earth to 2 billion max, through attrition.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 6, 2007)

The hydrocarbons in the Earth's crust took hundreds of millions of years to accumulate into the petroleum, coal, and natural gas that we have used for the past one hundred and fifty years to power our industrial engine. All of those hydrocarbons will be consumed in the next two centuries by man. Just thinking about that causes me to be filled with wonder, awe and sadness.

The hydrocarbon creation to consumption time line.

Alex, What is 1,000,000,000 years to 400 years?


I think that my mother used to teach me to share, and not be selfish. One can't help but wonder what Mother Nature thinks . . .


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 6, 2007)

Well, I guess what I mean to say when I say 'why,' is 'who's fault.' You have one camp whoeing and self hating the human race for our parisitic behavior, and the other trying to pretend that we can somehow do whatever we want and it will have little consequence. The conversation, on a social and scientific level, is totally unproductive. Again, the real question is can/do we do about it.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 7, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Well, I guess what I mean to say when I say 'why,' is 'who's fault.' You have one camp whoeing and self hating the human race for our parisitic behavior, and the other trying to pretend that we can somehow do whatever we want and it will have little consequence. The conversation, on a social and scientific level, is totally unproductive. Again, the real question is can/do we do about it.


 

It seems to me that one who uses language such as 
_"self-hating the human race'_​and 
_"conversation ... is totally unproductive"_​might be painting a self-portrait.

I wonder how the word 'hate', and all the adjectives it receives, gained such prominence. It seems to me that is an especially unhelpful word in gaining understanding. It appears to have become a shorthand antonym for patriot; either you are a patriot, or you hate. You follow official doctrine, or you hate. You are a believer or you hate.

Personally, I think there is a hell of a lot less hate in the world than we hear about every day.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 7, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Well, I guess what I mean to say when I say 'why,' is 'who's fault.' You have one camp whoeing and self hating the human race for our parisitic behavior, and the other trying to pretend that we can somehow do whatever we want and it will have little consequence. The conversation, on a social and scientific level, is totally unproductive. Again, the real question is can/do we do about it.


 
I think we agree here

It really does not matter whose fault it is, it is here. We can argue, point fingers and deny but it changes nothing and accomplishes nothing as well. 

TO be honest I really don't care if we can to cannot prove that the sole cause is mans impact on the planet or not. I do however care about how can we fix it, if in fact we can? 

It would seem to me that no matter what the cause, if we can fix it we should try and that IS our responsibility, since I seriously doubt the cows will do anything about it if in fact it was ever proven it was their fault as was once metioned by someone a few years back. 

What other species on the planet has the ability to do something about it if in fact it is not already to late or if anything can be done at all?


----------



## Big Don (Dec 7, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> What other species on the planet has the ability to do something about it if in fact it is not already to late or if anything can be done at all?


What makes you think mankind has the ability to do anything about it?


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 7, 2007)

Big Don said:


> What makes you think mankind has the ability to do anything about it?




Would you prefer to try, or just ignore major problems and hope they go away?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 7, 2007)

Big Don said:


> What makes you think mankind has the ability to do anything about it?


 
I did not say mankind could do anything about it; it may be too late or simply not possible. What I said was as follows



> I do however care about how can we fix it, *if in fact we can?*



and



> What other species on the planet has the ability to do something about it *if in fact it is not already to late or if anything can be done at all*?"


 
But you must admit, humans are more likely capable of doing something about than cows or just about any other species on the planet, that is, if something can be done.

If you want to sit back do nothing and let it go, look for something to blame or vindication so be it that is your choice, as I said just avoid purchasing land in low lying areas.


----------



## Ray (Dec 7, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> But you must admit, humans are more likely capable of doing something about than cows or just about any other species on the planet, that is, if something can be done.


Aren't other species more regulated by their environment than humans? 

In a land without humans, would a certain number of quadraped mammals like deer be running about and their numbers controlled by the available resources (increasing the population) and the quantity of predators (decreasing the population).  The predators would likewise be controlled by the quantity of deer, etc.  

We seem to be good at changing our surroundings to reap the short term benefit, but not so good at looking at the long term.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 7, 2007)

Ray said:


> Aren't other species more regulated by their environment than humans?


 
Actually other species are more regulated by humans if for no other reason encroachment and interference. Other species tend to be fairly adaptable to environmental changes if the changes are slow. Not so good if the changes are fast like what appears to be happening now. We don't do so well at it either, just better than some, not as well as others. But then it depends on the speed and severity of the change 



Ray said:


> In a land without humans, would a certain number of quadraped mammals like deer be running about and their numbers controlled by the available resources (increasing the population) and the quantity of predators (decreasing the population). The predators would likewise be controlled by the quantity of deer, etc.
> 
> We seem to be good at changing our surroundings to reap the short term benefit, but not so good at looking at the long term.


 
True.

But deer are just no damn good at scientific research and things like chemistry; they have a hell of a time holding test tubes with their hooves


----------



## Shotochem (Dec 7, 2007)

Evolution.

We are at the top of the food chain at the moment.  We evolved to the level of being able to change our enviornment to suit us.

When we can no longer do so, we will be replaced.

Don't know about everyone else, but I like it on top.  No matter what the cause or our ability to fix it, we should still conserve our resources as much as we can.

If even for the selfish reason of them lasting longer, which is by the, way another example of using the enviornment for the advancement and propagation of our species.

  Its hardwired into us and every creature ...... survival the only difference is that we have a greater chance that most others.

-Marc-


----------



## Lisa (Dec 7, 2007)

Most excellent thread this is.

Many good arguments brought forth.

Me, I look at it this way.

The world is changing and while the jury for some people might still be out on whether it is "all" humanities fault or not, there are little things I can do to help the environment.  Things that really aren't such a big deal for me to do:

I have all fluorescent compact bulbs in my house.  

I "click off" as the commercial says.

I have lights and block heaters on timers.

I recycle.

I use phosphate free detergents.

All these simple little things, that really don't put me out, I do to help the environment.  It has been said if everyone helped out a little, it would help a lot.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 7, 2007)

Ray said:


> I have come to the conclusion that we need to reduce the population of the earth to 2 billion max, through attrition.


 
It's a grim thought, but I think there may be a good deal of truth in it.


----------



## Ray (Dec 7, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> Actually other species are more regulated by humans if for no other reason encroachment and interference. Other species tend to be fairly adaptable to environmental changes if the changes are slow. Not so good if the changes are fast like what appears to be happening now. We don't do so well at it either, just better than some, not as well as others. But then it depends on the speed and severity of the change


We are part of their environment.  



Xue Sheng said:


> But deer are just no damn good at scientific research and things like chemistry; they have a hell of a time holding test tubes with their hooves


Exactly.  All the good we have done making crops more productive, harnessing the atom, making travel so quick are all the things that have helped get us in the predicament we're in.  We are successful, but how successful can we be before success becomes our downfall?


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 7, 2007)

Ray said:


> We are part of their environment.
> 
> Exactly.  All the good we have done making crops more productive, harnessing the atom, making travel so quick are all the things that have helped get us in the predicament we're in.  We are successful, but how successful can we be before success becomes our downfall?




Successful doesn't mean being reckless with our resources.  Remember the dot-com bubble and how companies spent everything like there was no tomorrow?  Best not do that on a much, much larger scale.  We need to restrict resource usage and find ways to produce the resources we need (renewable fuel) or we're going to run out and be left with nothing but a big mess.  

Do it smart and we can probably go a lot farther then where we are.

Of course those young upstarts with fooseball tables, leather sofas and big screen tv's in there office didn't want to hear that either, much easier to enjoy the comforts that a whole lot of capital given to you all at once can provide then to put it to use so that in a few years there is still something left.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 7, 2007)

Ray said:


> Exactly. All the good we have done making crops more productive, harnessing the atom, making travel so quick are all the things that have helped get us in the predicament we're in. We are successful, but how successful can we be before success becomes our downfall?


 
Yes, exactly.  Most people as individuals have become very separated from food production.  Most of us don't know how to raise crops, raise animals, hunt, or fish, clean and dress an animal, etc., food production on the very basic level.  We have come to rely upon a network of food supply, so we as individuals do not have to be involved in it.  For the vast majority of us, if we cannot buy it at the grocery store and cook it up on our gas or electric stove, we wouldn't know what to do with it.

IF the network of food supply were somehow interrupted for any length of time, millions of people in urban population centers would literally starve to death.  Once the current stock of food in the grocery stores and in people's pantrys was exhausted, it would become pretty desperate pretty damn quick, if those supplies could not be adequately restocked.

Oil is becoming more and more expensive.  We really do not know how long the current supplies will last.  Maybe a couple hundred years, maybe a few months.  We really do not know with any true certainty.  Right now, we have no alternate energy source that could replace oil on any large scale, if we suddenly found ourselves unable to extract and refine more oil for fuel.

Guess what everyone: that food supply network is intimately reliant on the oil supply.  That food needs to be transported everywere, or people don't get to eat, especially people in large cities where there is no room for individuals to raise their own food.  No oil to transport food in, no oil for people to leave the city and go elsewhere.  All you have is one tank of gas in your car, a bicycle, and your feet.  How far do you think you could get, if your entire city became a starvation zone over the course of a couple of weeks?  

Our success has potentially painted us into a corner.  We need the forsight to recognize this problem now, and take big steps to fix it, before the potential problem becomes a real problem.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 7, 2007)

Lisa said:


> Most excellent thread this is.
> 
> Many good arguments brought forth.
> 
> ...


 
You know in one of my post a while back in this thread I actaully put in 

:lisafault:

As one possible cause..but I edited it out... I now regret that decision


----------



## Lisa (Dec 7, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> You know in one of my post a while back in this thread I actaully put in
> 
> :lisafault:
> 
> As one possible cause..but I edited it out... I now regret that decision



I knew it was just a matter of time....sigh...I shoulda stayed out of this thread. lol.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 7, 2007)

Most things aren't a big deal to do and are in fact fine ideas, however, when you get people, like Sheryl Crow talking about a maximum amount of toilet paper, and don't for one minute think she was joking, you run into the realm of the insanities.
Corn as a fuel crop is beset by huge obstacles and is almost criminally wasteful. Does that mean that the idea is bad? Of course not, just that it needs more work. Likewise the Kyoto agreement had a lot of good points, however, putting the lion's share of cost on the nations that are actually trying to behave in a more environmentally sound manner and exempting nations such as China whose billion man population is over three times that of the US and thus, has three times the power generation and fuel needs and would be capable of wreaking three times the environmental pollution as the US, that isn't fair, it isn't just and it isn't sane. You cannot exempt the poorer nations from taking responsibility for their actions. Sure, the wealthier nations are more able to foot the bill, but, many of the poorer nations have loads of natural resources that, with modern (western) technologies can be safely and profitably exploited to everyone's best interest. Look at the Arab oil states. How many of them actually do the hands on work on their fields? Answer: NONE, why, because the eeevil oil companies (yes, those bastards) have the tools, the skills and the abilities to do it cleaner, and more efficiently then the Arab nations, and so they farm the work out to Shell and BP.
Industries are, at the heart, businesses and as businesses they have a vested interest to do things with an absolute minimum amount of waste and loss and most pollution has been wasted product that, had it been more efficiently handled could have gone much further.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 7, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Likewise the Kyoto agreement had a lot of good points, however, putting the lion's share of cost on the nations that are actually trying to behave in a more environmentally sound manner and exempting nations such as China whose billion man population is over three times that of the US and thus, has three times the power generation and fuel needs and would be capable of wreaking three times the environmental pollution as the US, that isn't fair, it isn't just and it isn't sane. You cannot exempt the poorer nations from taking responsibility for their actions.


 
Every nation has a responsibility in this, including the up and coming industrial nations such as China and India.

However, the United States consumes something like 80% of all fuel resource consumption on the globe.  But our population is about 6% of the globe.  That's pretty heavily out of balance.  We have set a standard of living that everyone else strives to match, but if the rest of the world matched our per capital consumption of resources and the waste that goes with it, it would be absolutely catastrophic for the globe.  We cannot sit back and refuse to give up some portion of our own wasteful lifestyles, while telling all the poorer nations on the globe that they cannot have what we have, and they need to reduce their own pollution while we do not have to reduce ours.  If anything, I think the US has a far far greater responsibility to reduce pollution than anyone else.  

Yes, as nations like China develop and increase their own need for energy, their capabilities should be managed in such a way as to be as efficient and clean as possible.  But the US is the biggest culprit in energy use and waste and pollution.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 7, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Most things aren't a big deal to do and are in fact fine ideas, however, when you get people, like Sheryl Crow talking about a maximum amount of toilet paper, and don't for one minute think she was joking, you run into the realm of the insanities.
> Corn as a fuel crop is beset by huge obstacles and is almost criminally wasteful. Does that mean that the idea is bad? Of course not, just that it needs more work. Likewise the Kyoto agreement had a lot of good points, however, putting the lion's share of cost on the nations that are actually trying to behave in a more environmentally sound manner and exempting nations such as China whose billion man population is over three times that of the US and thus, has three times the power generation and fuel needs and would be capable of wreaking three times the environmental pollution as the US, that isn't fair, it isn't just and it isn't sane. You cannot exempt the poorer nations from taking responsibility for their actions. Sure, the wealthier nations are more able to foot the bill, but, many of the poorer nations have loads of natural resources that, with modern (western) technologies can be safely and profitably exploited to everyone's best interest. Look at the Arab oil states. How many of them actually do the hands on work on their fields? Answer: NONE, why, because the eeevil oil companies (yes, those bastards) have the tools, the skills and the abilities to do it cleaner, and more efficiently then the Arab nations, and so they farm the work out to Shell and BP.
> Industries are, at the heart, businesses and as businesses they have a vested interest to do things with an absolute minimum amount of waste and loss and most pollution has been wasted product that, had it been more efficiently handled could have gone much further.


 
OK then how do we (everybody not just the US) make it better?

How do we find out what is causing global warming?

How do we figure out IF we can fix it?

How do we fix it if we can?

Saying it is expensive and not our burden to bear alone is just another version of it is not all our fault so why should we fix it. 

It solves nothing. 

And you are right, China is a big polluter and so is India and they have more people that we do but the majority by comparison to the US are quite poor. Lichtenstein has fewer people than we do by far but they are all (for the most part) quite wealthy so I imagine they should contribute next to nothing. European countries are all smaller than we are, and even though the euro is stronger right now, then they should also do less work on this than the US. And of course there is Russia and vast nation with very few by comparison to the US per square mile BUT they too are a big polluter but again they tend to be rather poor compared to us. 

So how do we divvy up the work?


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 7, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> However, the United States consumes something like 80% of all fuel resource consumption on the globe. But our population is about 6% of the globe.


 
OK, these numbers are off, I was writing from a faulty memory.

However, some good info is at this site: http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=294

It seems that the collective 15% of the world's population that makes up the industrialized nations, which includes the US, use up about 68% of the worlds energy consumption.  That's still heavily out of balance, in my opinion.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 7, 2007)

For those of you who use compact flouresent lightbulbs, watch out:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268747,00.html

Be careful not to break them, because the mercury levels inside of them could cause significant financial/health risks.

What people seem to want to not understand, is that everything is a trade-off.  There is no perfect answer.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 7, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> It seems to me that one who uses language such as _"self-hating the human race'_​
> and _"conversation ... is totally unproductive"_​might be painting a self-portrait.
> 
> I wonder how the word 'hate', and all the adjectives it receives, gained such prominence. It seems to me that is an especially unhelpful word in gaining understanding. It appears to have become a shorthand antonym for patriot; either you are a patriot, or you hate. You follow official doctrine, or you hate. You are a believer or you hate.
> ...


 
I am not at all sure what you are trying to say here, Micheal. But, (and I am guessing here) if you are being criticial of language that puts an issue up on 2 polarizing extremes ('hate' and 'patriot'), then we are in agreement, actually. That is what I am saying; that in the political arena, issues are discussed from on 2 opposite sides of an extreme, and it is often very unproductive. Especially in this case. So instead of scientests and politicians discussing in a reasonable manner what we can do and what the effects may be, they are instead arguing from polar oppisite sides of the question of "who's fault" it is.

And, that leaves us with very unproductive discussions over the global warming.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 7, 2007)

I am just getting tired of arguments against persons, rather than ideas or facts. When one describes a position as being held by 'self-hating' anthing ... the adjective outweighs the noun. 

Can we get a survey ... Those here who hate yourself, please raise your hand? 

I don't think anyone would step up and accept that charge; being a self-hater. Not from the first person point of view. If we use that language to describe the position held by a person or group, we are participating in the pushing the discussion to the extremes.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 7, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> For those of you who use compact flouresent lightbulbs, watch out:
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268747,00.html
> 
> ...


As the vast majority of the CFL's are made in China, they are probably loaded with lead too...
I watched a show on the Discovery Channel or the History Channel, I don't remember which, about Ecison. They showed his house, now a museum, which is lit a minimum of 14 hours per day with lightbulbs handmade by Edison and his assistants. Perhaps a more environmentally friendly light bulb would just last for years. My dad has bought some CFLs, the light is dimmer, and they last about the same length of time, here, as regular incandescent bulbs do.http://www.roadsideamerica.com/set/lightbulbs.htmlWhile not about Edison's bulbs, 102 years and still functional beats the hell out of what I usually get out of the bulbs I buy. Making fewer bulbs would use both, fewer resources and less energy, why then are the lightbulb manufacturers allowed to engineer bulbs to wear out? Isn't planned obsolescence inherently dishonest? Lets tackle things that are EASY to change rather than trying to force changes on the masses with disputed and often dubious science.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 7, 2007)

Forgive me if I don't take fox news for granted, here's another source that addresses the concern:

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/energystar/english/consumers/questions-answers.cfm#better-environment

"The average mercury content in a CFL is about 3 milligrams  roughly the amount it would take to cover the tip of a ball-point pen. By comparison, older thermometers contain 500 milligrams of mercury  the equivalent of more than 100 CFLs. A common wristwatch battery contains five times more mercury than a CFL."





5-0 Kenpo said:


> For those of you who use compact flouresent lightbulbs, watch out:
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268747,00.html
> 
> ...


----------



## Big Don (Dec 7, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Forgive me if I don't take fox news for granted, here's another source that addresses the concern:
> 
> http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/energystar/english/consumers/questions-answers.cfm#better-environment
> 
> "The average mercury content in a CFL is about 3 milligrams  roughly the amount it would take to cover the tip of a ball-point pen. By comparison, older thermometers contain 500 milligrams of mercury  the equivalent of more than 100 CFLs. A common wristwatch battery contains five times more mercury than a CFL."


None of which changes the fact that any mercury spill is a hazardous materials spill.


> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Swiss, SunSans-Regular]A little mercury can cause a world of problems. Breaking or improperly disposing of mercury-containing devices can release toxic fumes into the environment for years. While such releases might be quite small, any release adds to mercurys build-up. To stop such emissions, many organizations are sweeping their facilities for mercury, properly disposing of it and seeking to make their buildings virtually mercury free.
> 
> Since beginning its mercury-elimination program in 2001, the staff at St. Charles Mercy Hospital in Oregon, Ohio, has uncovered mercury throughout its facilities, including maintenance areas, clinical rooms, pathology labs, and housekeeping, kitchen and storage areas.





> [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Swiss, SunSans-Regular]For example, if a thermometer is broken it is considered hazardous waste and must be handled by a vendor who is licensed to pick up and dispose of hazardous waste. The EPA would rather pick-up mercury-containing devices that are intact than respond to spills or the improper disposal of these devices, he says.


[/FONT]http://www.facilitiesnet.com/ms/article.asp?id=2397&keywords=mercury, hospital
Hating the source(Fox News) doesn't change the fact that mercury is poisonous and, therefore hazardous.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 7, 2007)

You're ignoring something though:

"by decreasing the demand for electricity from coal-fired generation plants &#8211; one of the largest sources of mercury emissions in Canada &#8211; CFLs can actually reduce mercury levels in the environment"

and the US is more dependent on coal then Canada.

Burning coal releases mercury into the air, and the difference in energy saved would have released more mercury then is in the CFL.  So making a argument against CFL's due to mercury is just not going to fly, using them decreases the amount of mercury being pumped into our atmosphere.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 7, 2007)

I wonder if there are effects in generating electricity at a factor five times greater for those incandescent bulbs.

Coal burning power plants
Mountain top removal

hmm?


----------



## Big Don (Dec 7, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I wonder if there are effects in generating electricity at a factor five times greater for those incandescent bulbs.
> 
> Coal burning power plants
> Mountain top removal
> ...


Like I said, why not force companies to manufacture and bring to market incandescent bulbs that don't die as fast, reverse engineer the planned obselescense out of them? Wouldn't that save money for millions of people, save tons of materials, and save megawatts of power used in making them and, by the way, not put hazardous chemicals in the bedrooms of children?
Why not ask Gore? He had a zinc mine... 





> Al Gore has profited from zinc mining that has released millions of pounds of potentially toxic substances near his farmstead


Massive white mountains of leftover rock waste are evidence of three decades of mining that earned Gore $570,000 in royalty payments for the mineral rights to his property.


> New owners plan to start mining again later this year, after nearly four years of inactivity. In addition to bringing 250 much-needed jobs to rural middle Tennessee, mine owners will resume paying royalties to some residents who, like Gore, own land adjacent to the mine and leased access to the zinc under their property.



http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03-18-goremine_n.htm
Oh, and he made a load of money from his investments in Occidental Petroleum too... (Another EVIL OIL COMPANY), but don't take my word for it:http://www.thenation.com/doc/20000522/silverstein



Yes, I will bring the dreaded name of Gore back into this, because he is a sterling example of the hypocritical environmentalist movement. They claim we should all change, yet they continue to fly hither and yon on private jets, they couldn't bear to ride coach with the peasants. They ***** and moan about mass transit and hybrids while being chauffeured in limousines. I am still waiting to see if their hypocrisy knows any bounds, but, from their excesses and self-righteous pronouncements, I doubt it does.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 7, 2007)

So is it still Ad Hominem if you are attacking someone that is not involved, or even relevant?

Al Gore has nothing to do with this, he is a political activist.  If attacking politicians because they support a idea they don't live up to then we can just forget anything else because there will always be one.

You are looking for a perfect solution, there isn't one.  So you are attacking what really amounts to a minor detail in the proposed "better" option, when in fact the other option is a worse offender on the grounds you are attacking the better one.  Less effecient incandescent bulbs will, in the end, put more mercury into the atmosphere then CFL's.  The amount of mercury in a bulb is too small to be a health risk to humans on its own.  

Yes, there is mercury.  Yes, mercury is bad.  But there is less mercury involved when you go CFL because they use less power, and generating power means releasing mercury when it is done by burning coal, which is still one of the primary sources of electricity.

If you want to attack CFL there is better ways to do it then on the basis of mercury.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 7, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> So is it still Ad Hominem if you are attacking someone that is not involved, or even relevant?
> 
> Al Gore has nothing to do with this, he is a political activist.  If attacking politicians because they support a idea they don't live up to then we can just forget anything else because there will always be one.


 If Gore were the only hypocrite in the environmental movement you would have a valid point, but, when the majority of the high profile environmentalists are wealthy people who choose to preach one thing and practice another, then he is nothing more than a very visible example.





> You are looking for a perfect solution, there isn't one.  So you are attacking what really amounts to a minor detail in the proposed "better" option, when in fact the other option is a worse offender on the grounds you are attacking the better one.  Less effecient incandescent bulbs will, in the end, put more mercury into the atmosphere then CFL's.  The amount of mercury in a bulb is too small to be a health risk to humans on its own.


 Reading from the back of the package of CFL's from my cupboard:*WARNING:Contains Mercury. Dispose of in accordance with local, state and federal laws
*Gee, there is enough to warn me about and enough to encourage legal disposal, however it can't hurt me? 





> Yes, there is mercury.  Yes, mercury is bad.  But there is less mercury involved when you go CFL because they use less power, and generating power means releasing mercury when it is done by burning coal, which is still one of the primary sources of electricity.


 Then by all means use nuclear power, hydroelectric power or wind power (If you can get those environmentalist Kennedy's to allow a wind farm...)





> If you want to attack CFL there is better ways to do it then on the basis of mercury.


How about enriching the Communist Chinese government? I've yet to see a CFL not made in China. This is a country whose human rights abuses make South Africa's Apartheid era look like nursery school. Is that a "good enough" reason to oppose CFL's or how about quality? Is the fact that the light of a CFL doesn't come close to that of an incandescent important? Or the fact that they still cost significantly more? Or how about the fact that they, like incandescents are engineered for planned obsolescence?


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 7, 2007)

Big Don said:


> If Gore were the only hypocrite in the environmental movement you would have a valid point, but, when the majority of the high profile environmentalists are wealthy people who choose to preach one thing and practice another, then he is nothing more than a very visible example.



Maybe it has to do with power and politics, and not environmentalism.  Or is it only environmental issues that rich folks are hypocritical about?



> Gee, there is enough to warn me about and enough to encourage legal disposal, however it can't hurt me?



Read some more warning labels, there are lots of nasty things around your house, providing you are not stupid with them, they are really not a problem.  Got a CRT tv or computer monitor around?  The insides of those are certainly not good for you, yet no one ever complains about them.



> This is a country whose human rights abuses



People who live in glass houses...


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 7, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I am just getting tired of arguments against persons, rather than ideas or facts. When one describes a position as being held by 'self-hating' anthing ... the adjective outweighs the noun.
> 
> Can we get a survey ... Those here who hate yourself, please raise your hand?
> 
> I don't think anyone would step up and accept that charge; being a self-hater. Not from the first person point of view. If we use that language to describe the position held by a person or group, we are participating in the pushing the discussion to the extremes.



An argument can be hateful or loathing towards anything, self or not.

But perhaps my wording isn't right.

I am not arguing against any person, I am simply saying that with global warming, the prevailing dialog tends to follow one extreme or another on where the blame lies, rather then heads coming together to come up with solutions.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 8, 2007)

I would suggest, Paul, that you are not arguing against any identifiable person. But, when you use the world 'self', you most definately arguing about a person, rather than an idea. 



As for supposed 'hypocritical behavior' among environmentalists. To make the argument more meaningful, there really needs to be two equally available choices for any given situation; one of which is environmentally sound, and one of whish isn't. If there is a choice between a decision that creates less pollution and one that creates more pollution, and the environmentalist chooses the latter, then the argument becomes valid. 

To simply say that Enviro-wacko A flies on private jets; therefore he is a hypocrit, abandons the alternative viable choice. I would suggest that if were to examine the alternative, it would be found insufficient in some critical manner.


As for the idea of 'forcing corporations' to do anything, there is an interesting idea. First question is "how"? Are you suggesting that government create regulations and force a company to do something. Well,that's and interesting thought, isn't it. 

 A corporation is an entity that has an obligation first to its shareholders. If an improved design was viable, and would generate capital, the obligation to the shareholders would cause that to design to exist. In a free and open market place, if a superior design (a bulb which didn't die in 2000 hours) could be effectively and competitively manufactured, competition in the market place would cause it to exist.

Maybe, the free and open market place has decided the 'better' light bulb is the compact flourescent. In my house, approximately 80% of the lamps are CFL's.  The Remaining 20% are older fixtures, into which I can not place a CFL. It is a better design; the better mousetrap. And, I have a utility drawer full of replacement CFL's. So when these die, I've got my next batch ready to go. (Our change over from incandescent to flourescent came about directly because of Al Gore's Movie).


----------



## Big Don (Dec 8, 2007)

A little something from today's Daily Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=500424&in_page_id=1811
MichaelEdward, if environmentalists aren't trying to force corporations to modify behavior and business practices, what exactly _are_ they doing?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 8, 2007)

It is so nice to see this thread go back to finger pointing, politics, nationalism and the &#8220;it&#8217;s not my fault so why should I do anything about it&#8221; game and yet get absolutely nothing accomplished in post after post after post.

Hey if it makes everybody happy it&#8217;s the Chinese fault because they were paid by the democrat hating republicans to pollute the earth to make Al Gore look bad

Now isn&#8217;t that better, it sure as hell solved the problem now didn&#8217;t it. 

Global warming has stopped and the ice caps started growing again the penguins are dancing in Antarctica.

Oh&#8230; wait&#8230; I&#8217;m sorry it accomplished absolutely nothing&#8230;. Please carry on.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 8, 2007)

Big Don, I thought you said, a few posts back, that companies should be forced to manufacture products in different ways. It was not an environmentalist making that ascertion, as I recall, it was you.



Big Don said:


> Like I said, why not force companies to manufacture and bring to market incandescent bulbs that don't die as fast, reverse engineer the planned obselescense out of them? ...


 
Why is it that you can make the demand to force a company to manufacture something, by you decry the environmentalists for doing the same thing?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 8, 2007)

One last thing 

This entire topic both on and off MT is, to me, like a bunch of guys get together and decide to build a boat. Some start from the beginning and some come in later but in the end they have built a great boat. They then decide to go on vacation on the boat and they bring all their tools along just incase they need to do something. 

Well they get out to sea and they are having a great time drinking, fishing, making business deals amongst themselves, watching the ocean and all sorts of things you can do on a boat that are fun and distracting when all of a sudden they hit something, they dont know what they hit but it has damaged the boat slightly and it has caused a small leak. 

So they start discussing who will fix the boat since they are all capable but they cant seem to agree who should fix it. Eventually that discussion escalates into multiple arguments; 

I did more work to build the boat that you so you fix it 
I did not have as much to do with the building of the boat so you fix it
I wasnt driving so Im not fixing it
Hey didnt the Chinese guy design this boat so he should fix it
Well maybe I designed it but you have more money than me you fix it

And of course some are saying

I dont believe we hit anything so I see no reason to fix anything, 

And of course politics enters into it, can't have a good argument without politics

Hey wait a minute you guys are republicans so YOU should fix it since the whole boat idea was yours, 
Well it was the democrats that said we hit something in the first place so they should fix it 

And the arguments go on and on and on from reason to reason as to why someone else should fix the boat

And while all this arguing is going on the hole is getting bigger and bigger. 

What happens? 

Well the boat sinks and they all drown. But at least the accomplished one thing, even though they could not work together to fix the problem they did at least drown together.. 

Argue away gentlemen.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 8, 2007)

Quite right, *Xue*.  If my grandfather were still alive there'd've been a simple solution to the repeated nonsense we've seen again and again on issues like this.  Sadly that solution would've ended up with fewer members here at MT.

Equally sadly, in that it prevents me from venting my true feelings on certain issues, I accepted a position as a Mentor here which means I have to rise above such things and not give in to petty argumenting.  

Then again, I've ever been of the mindset that if, online, something I write will have no effect on how people think, even momentarily, I'd prefer to stay silent.

That's a good policy ... click.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 9, 2007)

I don't know that global warming is real, but I know it is really profitable....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=500586&in_page_id=1766&ito=1490


----------



## That One Guy (Dec 9, 2007)

bushidomartialarts said:


> The United States is the only industrialized nation that even accepts doubt of the existence of global warming.
> 
> The debate of whether or not we humans caused it is still out in the international community -- but only just.
> 
> ...



took the words right out of my mouth man.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 11, 2007)

Fark has the following headline on a link:


> Al Gore: World savior or profiteering douchebag? You decide


Even if you don't like Gore being mentioned, that is funny.


----------



## tellner (Dec 11, 2007)

We don't mind Al Gore being mentioned. What we mind is the way you abandon logic, reason, and facts in favor of the equation Al Gore = Evil, Al Gore = Global Warming, thus Global Warming is false. 

First, he isn't evil.
Second, he isn't personally responsible for the laws of nature.
Third "I don't like him, so anything he says can't be true" is the worst sort of fuzzy thinking and willful stupidity. It's classic Republican Lie Machine tactics from "Harlem for Muskie" and "Don't Vote Jewish" to Willie Horton, Swift Boat and so on. Find an issue where the facts are against you. Identify them with a person. Demonize the person. Pretend that you've taken care of the issue.

That is most of what you've been doing here.

Just another little factlet...



> Greenland ice sheet melting at record rate
> 10 Dec 2007 22:42:43 GMT
> Source: Reuters
> 
> ...


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 11, 2007)

Heres a little factlet:  *S*




> By: Philip V. Brennan
> 
> As much of the U.S. is being blasted by vicious ice storms, a blockbuster report published in a prestigious scientific journal insists that the evidence shows that climate warming is both natural and unstoppable and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant.
> 
> ...


 

So I would say the jury is still out....


----------



## CoryKS (Dec 11, 2007)

So to sum up:  we got a bunch of people who see things changing, not necessarily for the better, and want to keep the world just as they've always known it.  To do this, they are demanding that we do more of the things we ought to do, and stop doing the things we oughtn't.  The outcome of these actions is not certain.  And all in the name of a theory which has not been proven.

Buncha conservative religious whackjobs, trying to take away our rights!


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 11, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Heres a little factlet: *S*
> 
> So I would say the jury is still out....


 
See, the really cool thing about the internet, is you just run over to 'The Google', and you pop in the name ... David H. Douglass ... And up comes a link to a web site  'ExxonSecrets.Org'. And if you follow that, you find connections to the Cato institute for Mr. Douglass, and Mr. Singer, too, by the way.

It sure would be nice if we found, in the first 10 links, a scientific journal. You know, like the American Meteorological Society  http://www.ametsoc.org/ ... or  the International Journal of Meteorology  http://www.ijmet.org/ ... 

But, we don't seem to find his name referenced in these sites. Instead, we find he is connected to a Right Wing Think Tank, and to Exxon Funding.

As long as these guys are out there .... the Fascist controllers at Exxon can hang one of these banners over their desks.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 11, 2007)

I and I would imagine, a number of others, would be more inclined to believe there is a genuine threat from global warming if there weren't so many people who, like Gore are getting rich(er) from it.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 11, 2007)

People make money off of everything you can imagine. Every war in hostory, there have been people that made money off of it.  People have made a ton of money off of the Taliban threat.  People have made a ton of money saying global warming isn't happening, althought thats getting harder to do now...

Point is, there will always be people making money off both sides of the issue.  Al Gore has made money doing his work, most people do like to make money with what they do.  He's good at it, so he's made a good amount of money (he's also donated a fair chunk to enviromental groups).  I see no problem with him making money off teaching enviromentalism.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 11, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> People make money off of everything you can imagine. Every war in hostory, there have been people that made money off of it.  People have made a ton of money off of the Taliban threat.  People have made a ton of money saying global warming isn't happening, althought thats getting harder to do now...
> 
> Point is, there will always be people making money off both sides of the issue.  Al Gore has made money doing his work, most people do like to make money with what they do.  He's good at it, so he's made a good amount of money (he's also donated a fair chunk to enviromental groups).  I see no problem with him making money off teaching enviromentalism.


To paraphrase a catchphrase from the Clinton Campaign in 91: Its the hypocrisy stupid! Lining your pockets on global warming after screaming about how someone else "Played on our fears" seems a bit like the pot calling the kettle black...


----------



## Blindside (Dec 11, 2007)

Big Don said:


> To paraphrase a catchphrase from the Clinton Campaign in 91: Its the hypocrisy stupid! Lining your pockets on global warming after screaming about how someone else "Played on our fears" seems a bit like the pot calling the kettle black...


 
I completely agree on the appearance of hypocrisy.  I have many friends who fall into the "environmentalist" camp, and many of them are very much into the reduce, reuse, recycle, and minimal impact lifestyles.  I have much less problem with a guy living in a yurt powered by solar electricity telling me about all the ways I can reduce my carbon footprint than a man living in a 20,000 foot mansion.  One person is walking the walk, the other is just running his mouth.  I don't however, think James talking is changing all that many people's minds, he is just a hippy who lives out in the woods.  Most of the enviromental movement runs off the "act locally, think globally" motto, Gore seems to do the opposite.

I don't mind Gore making money off of new markets, capitalism is the name of the game.  Should I think critically about the claims he has made, yes absolutely, just as I think critically about some of the claims made by an oil energy spokesman.

And thinking critically about where the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence is leaning, I think that global warming is happening, and I think that carbon emissions from humans are large contributing factor.  Unfortunately, I believe that without a massive change in energy production technology (like fusion), we won't get out of this dependence on carbon based energy.  As I said earlier in this thread, it is a Tragedy of the Commons on a global scale.

Lamont


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 11, 2007)

Just to point something out here, Al Gore's house is also his office.  I imagine he also has a few other folks working fro him there.  It does use more energy, but I imagine that if any of us set up a office in our house with a few employees, our house would start sucking back power a little faster.  Anyways: http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp

Basically it uses renewabal energy sources and has a "carbon footprint" of zero, which is what Al Gore has been asking people to do.


----------



## Blindside (Dec 11, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Basically it uses renewabal energy sources and has a "carbon footprint" of zero, which is what Al Gore has been asking people to do.


 
Then he is a piss poor environmentalist, the first thing you do in any situation is REDUCE.  You use less, you have to offset less, my god, we can't ask people to make any sacrifices to save the planet.   

I have a home based office in our house.  I quite literally cannot tell the difference in energy use on the electric bill (two computers, one fax, one two printer/copiers, one paper shredder, phone).  I can easily detect the difference in running the dryer three extra times (one hour each time) a month.

I couldn't believe that all Gore was asking was to "use renewable energy sources and have a carbon footprint of zero," because that would be so incredibly stupid.  So I looked on the climatecrisis.com website, excerpted from the front page:



> You have the power to make a difference. Small changes to your daily routine can add up to big changes in helping to stop global warming.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I'm going to assume that Gore, being a good environmentalist, is doing all the things in his house that he suggests to others to do.  If so, then why is he using 12-20 times the amount of power as an average American home?  According to that Snopes article it is ONLY "four times the size of an average American home."

As for offsetting, the entire carbon market is a joke, to make it viable, it is intentionally designed to ignore forestry/deforestation related issues all together, which is a bit silly since it is huge source of carbon emissions (something like 20% of world emissions).   The carbon markets can't handle the relatively cheap credits of paying someone not to log.

So yeah, I'm sticking with "hypocrite."

Lamont


----------



## Big Don (Dec 11, 2007)

Blindside said:


> I completely agree on the appearance of hypocrisy.  I have many friends who fall into the "environmentalist" camp, and many of them are very much into the reduce, reuse, recycle, and minimal impact lifestyles.  I have much less problem with a guy living in a yurt powered by solar electricity telling me about all the ways I can reduce my carbon footprint than a man living in a 20,000 foot mansion.  One person is walking the walk, the other is just running his mouth.  I don't however, think James talking is changing all that many people's minds, he is just a hippy who lives out in the woods.  Most of the enviromental movement runs off the "act locally, think globally" motto, Gore seems to do the opposite.
> 
> I don't mind Gore making money off of new markets, capitalism is the name of the game.  Should I think critically about the claims he has made, yes absolutely, just as I think critically about some of the claims made by an oil energy spokesman.
> 
> ...





> *Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores*...
> Kreider added. "They also use compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy efficiency measures and then they *purchase offsets for their carbon emissions* to bring their carbon footprint down to zero."


 Emphasis mine.
Is buying the offsets from companies you own or have an interest in really doing anything more than lining your pockets? 
Isn't Bush's mainly silent and yet more environmentally sound way better in real effect? A four thousand square foot home is huge, ten thousand is a bit excessive, even if you work out of it. Shouldn't he set an example by living more modestly? A ten thousand square foot home is a hell of a lot of wasted space with only two inhabitants...
By the way, here is Snopes on Bush's Texas home:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp


----------



## Blindside (Dec 11, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Emphasis mine.
> Is buying the offsets from companies you own or have an interest in really doing anything more than lining your pockets?


 
At best it is the equivelent of getting something wholesale, if I buy my karate gi from myself, I don't really think it means I'm "lining my pockets."
I don't have any problem saving money that way, do you?

Lamont


----------



## Big Don (Dec 11, 2007)

Blindside said:


> At best it is the equivelent of getting something wholesale, if I buy my karate gi from myself, I don't really think it means I'm "lining my pockets."
> I don't have any problem saving money that way, do you?
> 
> Lamont


Yeah, but, if you buy a gi from yourself you don't expect people to praise you for it...


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 11, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> See, the really cool thing about the internet, is you just run over to 'The Google', and you pop in the name ... David H. Douglass ... And up comes a link to a web site 'ExxonSecrets.Org'. And if you follow that, you find connections to the Cato institute for Mr. Douglass, and Mr. Singer, too, by the way.
> 
> It sure would be nice if we found, in the first 10 links, a scientific journal. You know, like the American Meteorological Society http://www.ametsoc.org/ ... or the International Journal of Meteorology http://www.ijmet.org/ ...
> 
> ...


 

So, just to understand, your going to base you opinion, not on the fact that they were published in a peer reviewed professional journal, but on the basis of what links show up when you google their names.  OK then.

As one who is fond of telling others that they are using the ad hominem fallacy, you seem to be doing the same here.  You dont like their supposed funding, therefore what they are saying must be a lie.  Rather than showing counter-arguments to their assertions.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 11, 2007)

Come along, gentlemen, calmly and without barbs is the way to discuss things with people who are not real-world friends face-to-face with you in a convivial location.  

All involved at this point know that they're not going to convince the other of the rightness of their point of view and whilst 'setting the world to rights' around the table in the pub can be vastly entertaining, the internet equivalent is nowhere near as satisfying.

To be blunt, I fear that those who do not believe that the rise in average global temperatures is a real phenomenon are 'whistling in the graveyard'.  It's an observed and recorded phenomenon and gainsaying the thermometer does not get us anywhere.  

Neither does having a go at someone who speaks out just because they are not as pure as Jesus (and we even nailed Him to a tree).  Al Gore does not need the money he makes from his activism on this issue - that's why the profits from his DVD "An Inconvenient Truth" went to charity not into his pocket.  If the best his detractors can do is point the finger at his 'carbon footprint' then they have no argument of substance worth debating (lack of effective counter-points ever being the driving force behind such tangential attacks).

Saying that human input to this effect is _arguable_ carries more water.  The mechanisms involved are complex and imperfectly understood, as has been covered already.  

However, certain things are given, regardless of less than solid web-links referred to earlier.  One of these is that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses (including water vapour by the way) increase the amount of energy trapped in a system heated by radiated energy - that's why one of the major ways considered of terraforming Mars is to essentially build automated Smog Factories there.

So trying to counter-argue that industrialised societies waste products are not having an effect is interest-group sophistry at best.  Yes, volcanoes, sub-oceanic rift activity and sundry other natural events also have a very great impact but that's not an excuse to make things worse when we can do something about our input.

Likewise, the argument that cow-farts have a greater impact that car emissions is a near-true but misleading statement to make.  Agriculture is a big component of the total mass of greenhouse gases created, that's undeniable.  The 'but' (or should that be 'butt'?) in this paragraph tho' is that there is not a lot we can do about that as long as we like to have burgers with our chips.  We can reduce the amount of fossil fuel expenditure that goes into food production and transport but, without a huge number of very large corks, we can't do much about the byproducts of bovine digestion.

Of course, we have to be careful about what we do in well-intentioned changes in our behaviour.  It has been estimated that the smog and atmospheric particulates reduction that has happened in recent decades has actually made the global warming problem worse.  Whilst it had the benefit of improving ground-level atmospheric conditions and reducing the 'soot' fallout on vulnerable habitats, it also cleared the upper atmosphere (over time) allowing more radiant energy to penetrate.  Swings and roundabouts and Mephistophlean deals with the Devil seem to be our lot .

At the end of the day {it goes dark :lol:} I personally believe that the juggernaut is rolling now and it's actually too late to stop the consequences of our actions in destabalising a dynamically balanced system.  

Getting emissions under control and improving energy-efficiency has good effects besides it's climatological impact, so it's still worth doing, as is the related research into non-fossil fuel energy (tho' the 'burning food' solutions are a travesty of their very own).  The lag effect in the climate system means tho' that by the time you see a problem developing the momentum is already strong for a tipping point incident.

Earth's history is full of these sudden reversals of trends and I am still more than half convinced that the sudden warming we are seeing now will be followed by an equally sudden cooling.  It's happened before and it'll happen again, even when, as we technically are, the planet is in an Ice Age.

I always end my serious posts on this issue by referring to the Magnetic Polar Shift that is under way.  As a species that is absolutely nothing we can do about that and we can even be virtuous and say that nothing we have done has affected it.  The by-products of this inevitable inversion are very bad tho' and rival the worst case scenario's of temperature change.  Without reliable power modern society cannot function and with the advent of near-quantum-state electronics the pole shift becomes even more devastating to our technology and energy and transport systems.  That doesn't even approach the problems a global cancer and mutation epidemic will cause.

Hot-House or Ice-Age matters not in the face of this.  We fry one way or the other.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 11, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> So, just to understand, your going to base you opinion, not on the fact that they were published in a peer reviewed professional journal, but on the basis of what links show up when you google their names. OK then.
> 
> As one who is fond of telling others that they are using the ad hominem fallacy, you seem to be doing the same here. You dont like their supposed funding, therefore what they are saying must be a lie. Rather than showing counter-arguments to their assertions.


 

Which peer reviewed journal are you referring to?

OK. I'm looking ... and I find this. 

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/117857349/ABSTRACT

However, the article is not available online at the moment. From the abstract, it is not clear this is the article to which you refer. 



> We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 Climate of the 20th Century model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data. Copyright © 2007 Royal Meteorological Society



This abstract does not seem to represent any conclusions being drawn concerning climate change. Rather, it is talking about measurements not seeming to be repeatable. From that evidence, one does not throw out the existing body of knowledge, but rather examines the assumptions under each of the differing experiments in attempts to normalize. 


Maybe this isn't the article you mean. Perhaps, you could connect us to the article in question, rather than someones interpretation of what it says.

I could buy the article, for 25 bucks ... but so far, I don't see sufficient reason to do that. Convince me, and I will.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 11, 2007)

And there is this .. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22199230/

I'm sure Al Gore is mentioned in here somewhere ... and he's to blame anyhow. 

http://www.amazon.com/Earth-Balance...bs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197429704&sr=8-2


----------



## tellner (Dec 11, 2007)

Of course all of this is Al Gore's lies and extremists who hate America...



> 2007 shattered records for Arctic melt in the following ways:
> - 552 billion tons of ice melted this summer from the Greenland ice sheet, according to preliminary satellite data to be released by NASA Wednesday. That's 15 percent more than the annual average summer melt, beating 2005's record.
> - A record amount of surface ice was lost over Greenland this year, 12 percent more than the previous worst year, 2005, according to data the University of Colorado released Monday. That's nearly quadruple the amount that melted just 15 years ago. It's an amount of water that could cover Washington, D.C., a half-mile deep, researchers calculated.
> - The surface area of summer sea ice floating in the Arctic Ocean this summer was nearly 23 percent below the previous record. The dwindling sea ice already has affected wildlife, with 6,000 walruses coming ashore in northwest Alaska in October for the first time in recorded history. Another first: the Northwest Passage was open to navigation.
> ...


----------

