# Gore's Message To Climate Change Skeptics



## Big Don (Mar 28, 2008)

Excerpt:Read Full Article
*Confronted by Stahl with the fact some prominent people, including the nations vice president, are not convinced that global warming is man-made, Gore responds: "You're talking about Dick Cheney. I think that those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view, theyre almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat, says Gore


--------------------------

*


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 28, 2008)

Careful Al, the VP might invite you out hunting with him......


----------



## Bigshadow (Mar 28, 2008)

As if somehow being in the tiny minority point of view somehow invalidates that point of view or somehow makes it incorrect.

Just because something is favorable to the majority doesn't make it truth or correct. 

_* During a period of time in human history, the majority of people thought the world was flat.*_

In my opinion that was a poor excuse to discount Cheney's point of view.


----------



## MBuzzy (Mar 28, 2008)

I think he is about right.  The amount of people who no longer believe in global warming is shrinking.  Either way, whether you believe that it is completely man made or not, it is impossible to ignore that humans have no influence on the environment.  I still fail to see why people fight it so adamantly, believe it or not, what does it hurt to try to reduce our impact or conserve our natural resources?  

I especially can't understand why national leaders continue to downplay and ignore it, when they are the ones who have the most influence to try to reduce our impact and conserve our resources.


----------



## MBuzzy (Mar 28, 2008)

Bigshadow said:


> As if somehow being in the tiny minority point of view somehow invalidates that point of view or somehow makes it incorrect.
> 
> Just because something is favorable to the majority doesn't make it truth or correct.
> 
> ...


 
So what exactly is Cheney's point of view?  I honestly haven't heard him speak on the subject.


----------



## Bigshadow (Mar 28, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> So what exactly is Cheney's point of view?  I honestly haven't heard him speak on the subject.



I don't know and I really don't care, however my point is that just because a point of view is in the minority doesn't mean that it is wrong or right for that matter.  Just I was pointing out that Gore was suggesting that it be discounted because it is in such a minority.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 28, 2008)

Call me crazy, but i have found if Al Gore supports something, you can be pretty sure it is wrong.


That said, the percentage of people that deny global warming is real IS shrinking

The percentage that have figured out it is a naturally cycle and is not the fault of 150 years of industrialized America is GROWING


----------



## MBuzzy (Mar 28, 2008)

Bigshadow said:


> I don't know and I really don't care, however my point is that just because a point of view is in the minority doesn't mean that it is wrong or right for that matter. Just I was pointing out that Gore was suggesting that it be discounted because it is in such a minority.


 
Oh!  I get it.  That is a good point, that just because a belief is in the minority, it isn't necessarily wrong.  Although I'm not too sure about the minority believe in this case.  Like I said, I really haven't heard any concrete facts or counter points from the minority opinion.  And while some of the global warming claims may be exaggerated, I ALSO don't feel that that is a reason to completely discount that belief.


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 28, 2008)

Every religion has its heresies.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 28, 2008)

Al Gore on the environment and Dick Cheney's on hunter safety.

Yup that aabout covers it


----------



## Ray (Mar 28, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> I think he is about right. The amount of people who no longer believe in global warming is shrinking.


The amount of thinking people also remains small. Evidence in my lifetime suggests it is also shrinking.


MBuzzy said:


> Either way, whether you believe that it is completely man made or not, it is impossible to ignore that humans have no influence on the environment.


Termites also have an impact on their environment.


MBuzzy said:


> I still fail to see why people fight it so adamantly, believe it or not, what does it hurt to try to reduce our impact or conserve our natural resources?


From whence comes the electricity to power your PC and monitor?


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 28, 2008)

We wouldnt have this problem if the tree huggers would STFU and let us build nuclear reactors for electricity.

They are safe, clean, and last forever.

And would someone call the eggheads at MIT, I am tired of waiting on my Mr Fusion. I want to be able to toss a banana peel, and a can of Miller High Life into the tank and drive my car for a week.........


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 28, 2008)

Bigshadow said:


> I don't know and I really don't care, however my point is that just because a point of view is in the minority doesn't mean that it is wrong or right for that matter. Just I was pointing out that Gore was suggesting that it be discounted because it is in such a minority.


 

A "minority" according to Al Gore, no less. *shrug*


----------



## CanuckMA (Mar 28, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> I still fail to see why people fight it so adamantly, believe it or not, what does it hurt to try to reduce our impact or conserve our natural resources?
> 
> I especially can't understand why national leaders continue to downplay and ignore it, when they are the ones who have the most influence to try to reduce our impact and conserve our resources.


 
First of all, I do believe we have an impact on climate change. 

OTOH, leaders and the public balk at making changes like the ones outlined in Kyoto because of the very real economic impact on the nations that are NOT the worst offenders. When China and India agree to abide by Kyoto, then let's go for it.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 28, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> ...what does it hurt to try to reduce our impact or conserve our natural resources?



$$$

It's always sex or money, right?


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 28, 2008)

One of the hallmarks of true skepticism is the willingness to change your mind when confronted with the evidence.  The evidence in favor of anthropogenic global warming in contrast to the alternatives is mountainous.  A scientific consensus has been reached by the researchers involved.  Global warming has been established as a fact in the sense as defined by Gould "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."  Being skeptical of global warming is truly like being skeptical of the Germ Theory of Disease or the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology.

That said, most if not all of the "skeptics" have shown themselves to be nothing of the sort.  If they truly were, they would change their minds upon honestly examining the evidence instead of making up fairy stories about the perfidy of Al Gore, like this former skeptic.  As I indicated, it all comes down to money.  Dealing with the problem will have its costs, and cut dramatically into the profits of certain industries, such as oil and gas.  Hence, the reason why most of the professional "skeptics" are funded by oil money.  You also may note which President and Vice President are heavily invested in that industry.  It is funny to note though that even the Bush Admin. has admitted that global warming exists, and is now treading the "can't do anything about it" path.  The sad thing is that Useful Enablers like Big Don won't even get a cut of the profits for carrying water for someone else's agenda.


----------



## MBuzzy (Mar 28, 2008)

Ray said:


> The amount of thinking people also remains small. Evidence in my lifetime suggests it is also shrinking.


 
I would tend to think that there are far more thinking people than there have ever been - which means that there may not be as many people who agree with the majority or those who have differing opinions.  In my experience, I find that the people who say that everyone else is an idiot (myself included) are generally talking about those who don't agree with them.



Ray said:


> Termites also have an impact on their environment.


 
I don't think that anyone has ever argued that.  Every organism has an effect on their environment.  In fact, most of them, if not kept in check by some other natural "balancing factor" will also destroy their environment.  Termites have their natural predators, I'm sure...one of which is humans.  This keeps their population and impact in balance.

The difference is that humans have the ability to foresee and predict based on experience, scientific evidence and simply logical deduction.  TO ME, it seems that if you have a limited amount of a certain resource and you use it without restriction, eventually it will run out.  Just like if you are doing something that is harmful to the environment, with enoug time and accumulation, and without restriction, eventually it causes a system failure.  

Since humans have the ability to see what we're doing and its consequences, what is the HARM in trying to prevent it - or at least accepting that it is happening?  



Ray said:


> From whence comes the electricity to power your PC and monitor?


 
And the gas in my car that I drive to work and the water that I waste while brushing my teeth, and oxygen I breathe......There are certain things that we have grown accustomed to and depend on.  There are of course a minority of environmentalists who advocate that we go back to the stone age.....personally, I think that is assinine.  But it is possible to reduce and conserve where _possible, economical, and practical_.  No one is going to STOP using their computers to conserve electricity, but how about just turning it off at night?  Buying an energy conserving monitor, turning off lights in rooms that you're not in.  It not only saves the resource, but SAVES YOU MONEY.

SO - my personal conclusion is that in most cases, conserving resources and energy saves me money and can have some limited effect on environmental conservation....where's the harm?

For an example....at my last base, we installed energy saving light switches, the things that automatically turned off light when no one was in the room and changed out all of the light bulbs with energy efficient ones.  In the first year, we saved about $20,000 on our electricity bill for the base.  BUT.....since global warming is not caused by man and is a naturally occuring phenomenon, let's switch them all back!!


----------



## MBuzzy (Mar 28, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> $$$
> 
> It's always sex or money, right?


 
That's true, I've got to say that I've shot down a few energy conservation ideas in facility design in the interest of money.  

I think geothermal energy is the wave of the future, but it is also the first thing that I'll cut when money gets tight....that extra 10-15% of the project cost gets a bit steep.


----------



## tellner (Mar 28, 2008)

Twenty years ago it was pure speculation and science fiction.
Fifteen years ago it was delusional environmentalists.
Ten years ago it was science but not all that well understood.

Today the past's "fastest change" and "worst case" scenarios are today's news. The "I don't wanna know. It's scary!" crew can grab on desperately to the Party Line hoping that comforting lies about how everything is just fine will keep them safe. They are shrinking faster than the West Antarctic Ice Shelf. 

Take a look at what's happening right now. The most pessimistic scientists are saying "Well now. I thought that chunk had another ten years." 

Or this and that and the other thing. Not to mention the Glacier National Park thingies, the Kashmir whatsis and the Chinese dealy-mi-bob . And the trees in New England or the new Northwest Passage. But only a Commie tree-hugger cares about that stuff.

Unfortunately it's not about Al Gore. It's not about the Commies. It's not about the Scary Negroes. It's not about the prancing, depraved (but oh- so-fascinating) gays. It's not about bluestockings, feminists, liberals, quiche-eaters, George Soros, atheists or wimpy girlie cars that don't make a big "Vroom! Vroom!" sound.

It's about observable facts in the physical world. The universe does not change itself to make us feel all warm and snuggly. It just grinds along according to its own rules. If we get crushed in the gears it doesn't turn aside and change itself for our benefit. It doesn't work that way. And no. Asking the Invisible Sky Wizard really really nicely because you really really want the bad things to all go away *will not work*. Just ask these sad deluded parents. Here, I can get them for you wholesale. It may be true that the Divine All-in-All answers every prayer. If that's the case the answer might well be "No".

A real skeptic doesn't say "It isn't true because I don't want it to be true. It can't be true as long as I can find someone else who says it isn't true." Real skepticism is based on the evidence and has a profound regard for facts, even unpleasant ones. That's not the case here.

If hiding the facts and preventing them from being published doesn't work they'll predictably attack anyone who says what they don't want to hear. To make it easier they'll identify an entire issue with one person, throw mud at the person and say that that settles the question. It worked with Margaret Sanger, Willie Horton and Hillary Clinton. Why can't it work with Al Gore?


----------



## Big Don (Mar 28, 2008)

tellner said:


> It worked with Margaret Sanger, Willie Horton and Hillary Clinton. Why can't it work with Al Gore?


This Margaret Sanger?
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]*The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and many others*.[/FONT]
This Willie Horton?
*  *  On June 6, 1986, convicted murderer Willie Horton  was released from the Northeastern Correctional Center  in Concord. Under state law, he had become eligible  for an unguarded, 48-hour furlough. He never came back.*
*  * Horton showed up in Oxon Hill, Maryland, on April  3, 1987. Clifford Barnes, 28, heard footsteps in his  house and thought his fiancée had returned early  from a wedding party. Suddenly Willie Horton stepped  out of the shadows with a gun. For the next seven hours,  Horton punched, pistol-whipped,  and  kicked  Barnes  - and also cut him 22 times across his midsection.*
*  * When Barnes' fiancée Angela returned that evening,  Horton gagged her and savagely raped her twice. Horton  then stole Barnes' car, and was later chased by police  until captured.*
*  * On October 20, 1987, Horton was sentenced in Maryland  to two consecutive life terms plus 85 years. The sentencing  judge refused to return Horton to Massachusetts, saying,  "I'm not prepared to take the chance that Mr.  Horton might again be furloughed or otherwise released.  This man should never draw a breath of free air again."*
The same Hillary Clinton who lied about Chelsea and 9-11, who lied about sniper attack in Bosnia, whose Rose Law Firm records mysteriously appeared in a White House closet? This Hillary Clinton?
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Great role models, a racist, a murderer and Hillary... wonderful.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 28, 2008)

Big Don said:


> This Margaret Sanger?



Wow, I've never seen someone so spectacularly confirm the point that they are supposedly arguing against without meaning to.

Read tellner's sentences that you are responding to, again, very s-l-o-w-l-y, and then read your response.  Try to see what I am talking about.  You have, in fact, proved his point for him.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 28, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Wow, I've never seen someone so spectacularly confirm the point that they are supposedly arguing against without meaning to.
> 
> Read tellner's sentences that you are responding to, again, very s-l-o-w-l-y, and then read your response.  Try to see what I am talking about.  You have, in fact, proved his point for him.


Try to comprehend the context, what he said, in essence, was, none of the three people were as bad as they were made out to be, and identifying their miss deeds is unfair. He was on the verge of telling us that Robert Byrd's KKK membership was but a small part of his life.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 28, 2008)

Tellner,
PROVE it is man made global warming and not a part of a large naturally occuring cyle.

go ahead, I'll wait























still waiting

And BTW, This:
"It's not about the Scary Negroes"

was a pretty crappy thing to say


----------



## Big Don (Mar 28, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Tellner,
> PROVE it is man made global warming and not a part of a large naturally occuring cyle.
> 
> go ahead, I'll wait
> ...


Don't hold your breath.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 28, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Tellner,
> PROVE it is man made global warming and not a part of a large naturally occuring cyle.
> 
> go ahead, I'll wait
> ...


 
Twin Fist, this is not just directed at you it is to all those trying to say it is or is not the fault of the human race.

I've said it before I will say it again

What difference does it make whose fault it is?

Is it getting warmer?

Is ice melting?

Is this a good thing?   No

Maybe we can't stop it.... maybe we can... but it sure would be nice to find out if we can or not and if we can we better start doing something soon. If we can't.... well hope that it does not cause a rapid cooling in the process... think Younger Dryas. 

And if it is not our fault, although I suspect to at least some extent we have contributed to it, we would be better figuring out what we need to do to survive  as a species instead of arguing about whose fault it is.

There has been some discussion that the planet is self correcting... good for the planet... not necessarily good for all the inhabitants of it


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 28, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Try to comprehend the context, what he said, in essence, was, none of the three people were as bad as they were made out to be, and identifying their miss deeds is unfair.



No, that's not what he said at all.  What he said was that associating individuals with a movement or concept and then attacking those individuals is a distraction and an attempt to dodge the main issue.  I'm not surprised that you don't understand this, since attacking Al Gore is your main method of attacking global warming.

What you never seem to understand no matter how many times it is pointed out is that Al Gore is _entirely irrelevant  _to whether or not global warming exists.  The two are not existentially related.  Attacking Al Gore is a dodge and a means of avoiding the main issue, which is that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the existence of global warming.

Tellner was pointing out that similar methods were used in the past to attack birth control by attacking Sanger, crime and democrats by attacking Horton, etc. He said absolutely nothing about those people themselves.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 28, 2008)

Chaps, try and have this conversation without sniping at each other, eh?  

I'm getting a bit tired of logging in, seeing a thread that might prove interesting and then seeing it dissolve into playground bickering.

If you can't carry a reasoned argument in a bucket, then don't try and make up for it by biting each others ankles.


----------



## MBuzzy (Mar 28, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Tellner,
> PROVE it is man made global warming and not a part of a large naturally occuring cyle.
> 
> go ahead, I'll wait


 
As Xue said, who cares whose fault it is.  It is happening, like it or not.  Whether it is natural or man made, of the same magnitude or more than the past occurances is of no consequence.  It is impossible to argue that we have absolutely no effect.....and if you can prove that burning fossil fuels doesn't deplete resources and pollute or that ODCs don't hurt the Earth's UV protection or that at least some of our processes affect the overall climate change, I'm sure that there are millions of scientists who would be interested to hear.

So again, the point is....what does it hurt to be aware?  And what and who does it help to so adamantly argue AGAINST man made environmental effects???  If we can help, why not?


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 28, 2008)

it DOES matter whose fault it is. Here is why:

If this is caused by us, we might be able to correct it.

If this is a natural change, we WONT be able to stop it. In fact we probably shouldnt even TRY

when man tries to interfere in natural processses, it usually ends badly


----------



## Ray (Mar 28, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> I would tend to think that there are far more thinking people than there have ever been - which means that there may not be as many people who agree with the majority or those who have differing opinions. In my experience, I find that the people who say that everyone else is an idiot (myself included) are generally talking about those who don't agree with them.


I didn't say everyone is an idiot.  Also, there may be a greater number of thinking people than there has ever been because the population is larger than ever --- but the percentage of thinking people is smaller.

I only refer to the comments made by Gore.  He preaches and plays politics...gobal warming isn't about science and fact, it's his religion.  When in the presidential debates he refused to follow the rules and said "this is to important" to be bound by rules, it made me realize that he's a prime candidate for dictator.

Global warming may be a real problem.  Mankind might be able to slow or stop the process, but Gore is a festering problem that will rear its ugly head to the misery of us all.


----------



## tellner (Mar 28, 2008)

Twin Fist, if you understood anything about science and how it's done you wouldn't say stuff like that.

First, nothing is *ever* proven in science. Never. Not a bit. No way. Things are *disproven* all the time. That's most of what you end up doing. You can gather evidence. Eventually if you have enough and it's good enough you can say "Unless something really strange comes along and upsets the apple cart we'll go with this hypothesis."

Second, you have some very odd ideas about what can and can't be done based on "natural" and "unnatural". Smallpox is 100% natural. We have undone it. We have "done something" about more species of plants and animals than anything since the great Pleistocene Die Off. We have "done something" about the great forests of the world, the former fish stocks in the oceans and the Colorado River which no longer reaches the ocean. We are currently "doing something" about the pH of the oceans which is leading to the decline of the remaining fish and the rise of squid and jellyfish. The Soviet Union "did something" about the Aral Sea. It has almost completely disappeared and will be gone from the maps in a few years. There's not a magic line on the ground with G-d on one side saying "I did this. You can't touch it." 

Now that we've got that out of the way let's take a look at global warming. 

There's no doubt that it's happening. It's happening in line with the more although not the most pessimistic models. And the rate is accelerating. Even the Bush Administration stopped trying to - in many cases illegally - suppress the evidence and replace truth with its self-serving lies. They just say that it would be too much of a burden to do anything about it, especially for the poor put-upon oil companies.

The Administration's cheerleaders and the oil industry have started saying "Don't worry. It will be warm. Warm is nice." These are the same people who said "The ozone hole doesn't exist." Then they said "It's natural." Then they said "We don't know why it's happening." Then they said "There's nothing we can do about it." Then they said "We couldn't possibly reduce CFCs. It would destroy the world economy." Then they said "People will just have to live with it. UV is good. People will have tans." 

I remember how the Hoover Institution and the American Enterprise Institute suggested that tax incentives for sunblock and sunglasses were all we needed. How they planned to slather SPF-30 on each piece of krill in the Arctic ocean or fit Tibetan musk oxen with Raybans was an exercise left to the reader.

In fact, a somewhat younger Senator Gore was one of the first beating that drum. I think the Right never forgave him for being correct.

Well, it was happening. The evidence pointed to CFCs. Further research confirmed it. The rate was accelerating and doing so in line with both the high and low extremes of the world CFC budget. 

Against the shrill squawking of Big Business global CFCs were drastically reduced. The ozone holes gradually closed although we are not back to where we were before CFCs. The world economy did not collapse. UV-related blindness in humans and birds in areas like Tierra del Fuego went back towards normal levels. 

Go back a little further to acid rain.

Go back further to photochemical smog. 

Go back further to the killer smogs of London.

The lies coming from those with a vested interest in the _status quo_ area always exactly the same. And their dupes and useful idiots follow along like a pack of yammering Bassett Hounds baying on command.

Moving to the present day, the data have been being collected since the 1980s. We've gotten a lot more sophisticated. We can measure solar flux directly and indirectly. We have ice-core data going back hundreds of thousands of years. We're damned good with it. We have gas budgets for areas all over the planet. There are direct and indirect historical records that give a pretty good idea of how much wood, coal, oil and gas we've been burning and how much excess methane has gone into the atmosphere due to agriculture. 

The better the data and the better the tools for analyzing them the clearer the picture.

The current warming trend has been going on since the early Industrial Revolution. It is tied very nicely and cleanly with CO2 emissions from coal and later from petroleum. The ice core data, the other estimates of industrial uses of fuels, and the temperature data all line up as cleanly as you're likely to see in such a large and complicated system.

Solar fluctuations act as a _random_ effect _around_ the mean rise in temperatures. In other words, no matter what Rush told the dittoheads it isn't solar energy that has started mysteriously increasing. The much trumpeted "The Earth is getting warmer, but Science Proves that it's all because of increased solar radiation," turned out to be premature. By "premature" I mean "Actually, it turned out to have been 180 degrees due Mistaken."

No other proposed mechanism has even begun to explain the available data *much less make verifiable predictions*. Throwing up a hundred "maybes" without testing them and without even bothering to say how they might be tested is not scientifically disproving global warming. It's a sign of the absence of science. 

The *hypothesis* is that the world is generally getting warmer and that the rate is accelerating overall. That hypothesis is very well established. We are already seeing a dramatic demonstration of the self-reinforcing nature of the ice-albedo feedback loop.

The _*theory*_ is that the majority of this warming may be attributed to human actions, particularly the burning of wood and fossil fuels, the growth in rice cultivation and cattle husbandry and more recently the unlocking of carbon reserves due to deforestation, the melting of permafrost and ocean die-offs. 

The theory has been gathering momentum as we find more data which support it. The data are robust; they apply over a wide range of conditions, and data from several _entirely different_ sources confirm one another. It does a good job of explaining the observed phenomena and most importantly of predicting future events. It does not seem to be making any egregiously incorrect predictions.

More to the point, there is no other theory out there which explains what we see much less makes predictions which are even vaguely as good as those of the anthropogenic theory of climate change.

If you want to be taken seriously as a grown up much less a scientist here is how to start:

Learn a little about how science is done. It's a fascinating subject that captures the imagination and ennobles the spirit while strengthening the mind. You don't need an advanced degree. A few good books can get you conversant very quickly
Learn to think quantitatively and especially to think statistically. You have no idea how rare and important that ability is. If you say "There are lies, damned lies and statistics" or "Figures don't lie, but liars figure" then go back to the beginning you have serious remedial work to do.
Try to understand at least the broad outlines of the subject under discussion.
Find out what the major theories are.
Get an idea about the data that support or drive them and where those come from.
If you find the theories unsatisfying this is what you need to do:

Find out what the theories you don't like claim
Find out what data they are supposed to explain
Find out what predictions they make and how well those predictions hold up
Come up with a hypothesis that is better supported by the data than the one you are rejecting.
Develop a theory which explains your hypothesis.
Use it to make predictions. These predictions must do a better job of explaining the observed data than the one which you want to discredit.
If you can do all of that, then you are doing serious science. You can't cherry pick. You can't ignore what you don't like. You have to take it all in and be brave and honest enough to change your mind and abandon your pet beliefs if they don't pass that fundamental test. 

As they said at the end of Bible readings in high school chapel "Here endeth the lesson."


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 28, 2008)

We are so freaking totally screwed.


----------



## tellner (Mar 29, 2008)

We may be. I have a growing suspicion that we've hit a point in things where we've set deep systemic changes in motion. It may be outside our capabilities to stop them. But we won't know until we own up to the problem.

Thirty years ago the Pollyannas found that attacking President Carter "solved" the problem of energy independence and "solved" the coming US peak oil event. They ripped the solar panels off the White House, stopped the improvements in rail dead in their tracks (although they took credit for what he'd done), rolled back auto efficiency standards and hid the whole thing with increased dependence on foreign oil.

It got them a lot of votes.

It also got us into the mess we are in now.

Oil production in the US peaked and has begun the predicted slow decline. Last year it peaked worldwide and looks like it will do the same thing just as world oil demand is ramping up.

Research into alternatives like OTEC, fast breeder reactors (neither the Dems nor the GOPs ever understood that one), solar, wind, geothermal and efficient vehicles stopped dead. Our dependence on foreign energy skyrocketed. Now we're in two floundering wars and have bankrupted ourselves in a failed attempt at grabbing the last big fossil fuel reserves.

We could have had thirty years of research and slow policy changes that would have made us more efficient and moved us towards a more economically sound energy budget. It would have also had some very good ecological effects. Instead we took out the credit card and spent our capital. That was directly responsible for the mess we are in now in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's why the price of meat and milk is through the roof. And it's why there was open water all the way to the North Pole and why the ice kept melting all freaking Winter.

Whatever we do now will be wrenching and traumatic. And there's a very good chance we will fail. But we have to try. And it has to be on the basis of actually solving problems. What do we know? How do we know it? What is possible? How can we achieve it?

We have to move beyond "I don't want this to be true. That guy there believes there's a problem. I don't like him. If I call him a poopy head he will go away. Then the problem never happened." It's emotionally satisfying if you have the mind of a five year old. It is a suicidal way to address life and death problems. Suing Al Gore will not change the atmospheric carbon budget.


----------



## tellner (Mar 29, 2008)

Empty Hands has explained it nicely, Don. I'll give it one more whack.

You have a tendency to take difficult issues and identify them with a person. If you dismiss the person you have dismissed the issue. If you like the person then whatever it is is true and good.

Your friend or cousin is serving in Iraq. He's a good guy who is putting his life on the line for the war. Therefore the war is good.

Al Gore believes that global warming exists. Al Gore is the Devil (because the Party tells you he is). Therefore global warming can not exist. 

This is not rational thinking. This is magical thinking. Magical thinking does not solve scientific or engineering problems.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 29, 2008)

An excellent series of posts from *Tellner* there, covering a number of issues in an admirable mix of comprehensively and relative brevity.  Post#31 in particular is the kind of thing I was referring to when I spoke of rational and reasonable argument :sensei rei:.


----------



## MBuzzy (Mar 29, 2008)

As usualy, Tellner is right on - if I may add one more suggestion.....do a google search for Logical Fallacies.  Many of the arguments that people get into are a textbook of them.  In fact, if you are familiar enough with them, you need to know very little about the topic at hand.  They are very enlightening as to the ways that people tend to sway arguments and illogically make conclusions.

And again I will say....we should go back to the root of why people argue so adamantly AGAINST global warming?  What is the reason for this position?  It is difficult to completely deny, so we're simply arguing about fault and whether we should act to reduce and conserve, are we not?  In that case, why is this an argument?  Where is the motivation to argue against reduction and conservation?  

I challenge SOMEONE to answer those questions....

To me - unless you are a stockholder in a major oil or chemical company, or otherwise involved in an industry that stands to lose from conservation, why should we NOT do our best to reduce our impact?

This question can be ignored for as long as people wish, but eventually those who think that global warming is a myth may be forced into environment friendly actions.  Environmental policy grows every day, something else that simply can't be ignored.  If people don't do it themselves, the world community will force them - in my opinion.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 29, 2008)

I quite agree that regardless of cause, it makes little sense not to do what we can to conserve resources and reduce energy consumption - in the end it will benefit us too, even if the motives we start with are the long-term benefit of others.

The point often raised as a counter to such 'efficiency' thnking is that there are growing 'energy hogs' elsewhere in the world who do not yet think in terms of conservation.  To me that does not seem like a valid reason to be profligate ourselves - after all, these are finite resources we're talking about and preserving 'our' portion as long as possible only seems like common sense to me.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 29, 2008)

This is how I see it...

I don't think there's any doubt at this point that some sort of climate change is occurring.  And that other changes have occurred in the past.  There's some room for debate over the exact nature of that change; I think simply calling it "global warming" is too simplistic.

I don't think we know the causation.  It may be a natural cycle or occurrence.  Actually, I'd say the odds are good there's some sort of natural cycle, since it's happened before.

I think that we, meaning mankind, have had an effect, and can influence the environment and world climate.  The scope of that effect?  I don't think that's clear.  But there's absolutely no reason that we shouldn't try to make as positive an influence on the environment as we reasonably can.  That means finding better fuel and energy options, being responsible in our energy use and in what we consume.  The old camping motto of "take only memories, leave only footprints" is a good ideal goal for life in general.

But I also will state categorically that we can't place the blame solely on the USA and other First World nations.  Nor can we exempt "developing nations" from helping to address ecological concerns; we share the same ecology!  I can no more go on a diet, except for my left foot, than we can positively influence climate change and exempt part of the world.

(Nor am I certain that we want to stop climate change...  We don't have a particularly good track record when it comes to knowing what's best for the world or any ecology, and climate change may have important positive benefits that we can't see today.)


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 29, 2008)

Tellner,
Wether you mean to or not, you come across as snotty, condecending, and exceedingly arrogant. Not saying you ARE those things, just that you come across that way. Telling me "if you want to be taken seriously as a grown up"....buddy, thats what us country folk call fightin words. Why do we call them that? because they are snotty, arrogant and condecending.

just Food for thought (though based on experience with other wanna-be-intellectuals,  i doubt you will consider anyone's ideas if they dont match with your own).

Thats another story though.

Here is the thing. 

Every other week, a new news story breaks about how this or that doom and gloom theory about global warming is found to be mostly crap science. Engineered to support a pre-determined opinion.

And no one can get around the FACT that this has happened before. Over and Over in fact. With no cars, no huge herds of cattle, no oil industry. But it still happened. None of you doom and gloomers can get around the FACT that just one, ONE volcanic eruption dumps more crap into the atmosphere than mankind EVER has.

 That it is happening now is not disputed, really. (though the fact that we only have accurate records going back less than 100 years doesnt help the doom and gloom crowd's credibility.

WHY it is happening IS disputed.

And you can claim anything you want, but you cant PROVE it. And i dont care if that's "not the way science works"

You want me to believe something? PROVE it. 

Mind you, I WANT to get off oil. I want to slap a Mr Fusion on top of my car so I can tell the middle east to go bugger a goat. I want nice clean oceans. Nations like Japan that STILL hunt and kill whales and dolphins chap my ***. I WANT nice clean air.

But here is the thing.

You live in the world of theory

I live in the real world. In the real world, the United States USED to have the strongest economy in the world. At the time, our economy was based on manufacture. Now, thanks in part to draconian environmental lobbies, we dont manufacture anything, and our economy is weak. That is surely good for the panet, but it is bad for us, here and now.

I dont wish to return to the days of yore, so to speak, but I do wish there was a happy medium. The Doom and Gloomers, (like yourself perhaps?), will be happy with nothing short of returning the United States to a Dark ages world where there in no industry. Yet turning a blind eye to China and India, who are the REAL criminals today when it comes to pollution.

Your milage may vary, and unlike you, I dont claim to know all the answers, but facts are facts, and the fact is no one can prove it.


Buzzy,
i dont know anyone who denies global warming is happening. So I am not sure where you are comming from. Many people dont agree that it is all man made, like the doom and gloom squad want us to think. And based on the news, that number is growing.


----------



## ChadWarner (Mar 29, 2008)

No global warming can't be attributed to mankind yet... Figure the sun loses 5 metric tons of its mass every day.  Nothing compared to the moon moving farther away from the earth in its orbit or the rotation of the earth slowing down... In galileos time the solar day was about 18 hours, today we are up to 24 hours.   Then plate tectonics have to be considered.  The earth will have a supercontinent again.   It will be called pangea II.  

Because the plates will move the land masses or continents around currents will change.  When currents change ie speed up or slow down our weather is effected.  If a current (say the japanese current which runs basically around the ring of fire) were to slow down we would experience global warming.   The funny thing is the japanese current runs up through the arctic circle where the ice is indeed melting.  

However, in the antarctic the ice is increasing.   So much so that large chunks are breaking off due to the weight and sinking or floating away.   So one pole is shrinking and the other is growing.   The more intelligent amatuer scientist would have to begin to look towards the solar system and its changes.  The days are getting longer and the moon is getting further away.  The moon greatley effects tides by its gravitational pull, so much so that the moon is the primary celestial object known at this time to cause the high and low tides.  All scientist agree on this so it is considered fact.   So because the moons orbital elipse is moving further out the tidal highs and lows will eventually become different.  Could it effect the currents thus effecting the the warming and cooling process of the earth?  

The earths rotation is slowing, that too can cause a minute temperature differential.  

Algore is an oppertunist pure and simple and so is rushlimbaugh.  Their business is making money.   

A side note: algore did not invent the internet... The military did.  The U.S military.  

The final say on corporate welfare... corps are supported by the us government because the pension funds of public workers invest most of their money in the stock market.   Corps have to be propped up from time to time the keep the public workers pension funds solvent.   Everything is comingled and it is just the way of the universe.   

There are many disagreements among scientists- a lot are about public funding to keep their own projects going and to keep themselves employed. 

The evidence shows many things- in fact anything you want to believe can be backed up by re- arranging "facts"


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 29, 2008)

Why is it that those who are not knowledgeable in a field appear to hold the most strident and outspoken opinions?

I get exactly the same sort of gainsaying, offended, responses whenever I try to explain to people that their espousing in the field of economics is not 'on the money' (yeah, monetary science pun attack ).

It's a puzzle.  

*Tellner* outlines above, excellently, the current position of knowledge on the subject in general terms.  *Twin Fist* takes none of it on board and instead reacts in a personaly umbridged fashion. *Chad* turns things in an entirely tangential direction.  *I* shake my head, ponder wandering off to wash my head in a bucket and saying nothing but my sense of disbelief gets the better of me.

What I also fail to grasp and have consistently failed in this for the several years that this Net firestorm has been raging, is why there is such an emotive response to a fairly common sense proposition viz stop wasting the resources we have.  The refusal to do that is what the olden-days agriculturalists used to call bad husbandry, or, to put it another way, stupidity.

Reasoned argument, evidence of correlation of human contribution and postulating that at this point it's foolish to attempt to shift blame when the decision is upon us ... all seem to make no impact - can someone explain why?


----------



## ChadWarner (Mar 29, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> Why is it that those who are not knowledgeable in a field appear to hold the most strident and outspoken opinions?
> 
> I get exactly the same sort of gainsaying, offended, responses whenever I try to explain to people that their espousing in the field of economics is not 'on the money' (yeah, monetary science pun attack ).
> 
> ...


 
In whose opinion is there real evidence?  At least 3 of my professors don't agree that man is causation for anything but making a mess out of the land.   

What resourses are you speaking of?  If indeed your are an economist then you know why mankind wastes things $$$  decrease supply charge more money for the product= deflation right?  Old money loves this philosophy.  

So anyways if the earths rotation has slowed by six hours a day and the sun is now able to radiate more energy this way the same as slow roasting a duck..  If you turn it fast takes longer right?   That is definately one thing to examine to find the exact effect from the slower rotation.   As we move into the perihelion (which means when the earth is closest to the sun in the eliptical orbit we move on)  we rotate slower and cook a little longer.  Could the radiation from the sun be effecting earths temperature?

My point is-  even if mankind is contributing- his contribution to global warming is prolly really small.   Do I like breathing bus fumes, no-  could they run emission free?  Yes.  I had heard of water fuel cells in the 80's when I was repairing motorcycles for a living...  My hunch is the technologhy exits but it would collapse most businesses so the US GOV bought it and shelved the technology.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 29, 2008)

Sukerkin,
I might be more inclined to agree if Tellner hadnt been so insulting. Yes I took it personally, because he insulted me, personally. Not just my opinion, but ME. Or else please explain how this: " If you want to be taken seriously as a grown up" isnt a personal insult?

oh thats right, it IS

And you wonder why i reacted the way I did? OF COURSE I REACTED THE WAY I DID

After that i dont care, let me repete, i DONT CARE what he said. Want me to take an opinion seriously? dont be a wanker. being a wanker makes me lose interest in what you are saying very quickly.

Plus, I was right, he CANT PROVE IT. No one can.

And if you cant prove it, dont tell me there is no other explanation. Dont act like you got all the answers when you clearly DONT.

In this case, it is more accurate to say 'there is no other explanation tellner chooses to believe"




me? I think man is making a TINY contribution to an effect that was already happening. Like Chad said, IF the day is longer, the average temp WILL be higher, and IF the the sun is outputting MORE radiation, then the longer day , which gives the earth MORE exposure, will multiply the effect.

Thats much more likely than 100 years of industry

Occam's razor and all.


----------



## MBuzzy (Mar 29, 2008)

First off, as a science minded individual and engineer, I can't agree with you about Tellner's stance.  What he says is true and in order to scientifically examine the world, it requires objectivity and a divorce from emotion.



Twin Fist said:


> Every other week, a new news story breaks about how this or that doom and gloom theory about global warming is found to be mostly crap science. Engineered to support a pre-determined opinion.


 
I would be very interested to read these.  Particularly if they are from respected sources.  There is plenty of science to back up both sides of the argument and in this case, it depends on which side you choose to READ and pay attention to.  My own survey of what is out there has led me to believe that the global warming "supporting" camp has more ground to stand on...and again, I will say most importantly has the most logical conclusion - TO CONSERVE AND REDUCE.  Again I will ask....what does the opposing argument recommend?  Continue along the current path and in fact, INCREASE our usage and abuse of the environment?  I see no other logical end to an anti-global warming argument.  But I'm sure that this question will be circumvented and ignored yet again.  As it is by all of those of the believe that we should do nothing.  If your opinion is different, please explain....(see below as well please)



Twin Fist said:


> And no one can get around the FACT that this has happened before. Over and Over in fact. With no cars, no huge herds of cattle, no oil industry. But it still happened. None of you doom and gloomers can get around the FACT that just one, ONE volcanic eruption dumps more crap into the atmosphere than mankind EVER has.
> 
> That it is happening now is not disputed, really. (though the fact that we only have accurate records going back less than 100 years doesnt help the doom and gloom crowd's credibility.
> 
> WHY it is happening IS disputed.


 
True, a cyclic global climate is a point of fact, based on ice cores and various other geologic dating and research methods.  I am curious where you get the idea that we only have accurate records back to 100 years though.  That is certainly true about some things, but I don't believe that it applies in this case, as we can determine temperature, atmospheric conditions, pollution levels, and a number of other global circumstances back for a very long time.

I would argue with the magnitude of the previous climate changes though.  We are definately at a steady increase and a spike which is higher than past "hot times."

I also believe that your view of basically anyone who believes in the phenomenon of Global warming is a bit skewed.  In your posts, you refer to anyone who subscribes to the theory as "doom and gloomers."  Which is as good a name as any I suppose, but much like religions, there are only an extremist few who are standing on crate wearing "The End is nigh!" signs.  Most scientists and others simply warn of a gradual change over a long period of time in terms of climate.  Most talk of the depletion of resources, which seems to be a fairly obvious conclusion....I don't call it doom and gloom, just simple mass balance - you have so much of a resources, you use it up....and it is now in another form and no longer available.  Call it what you wish, but I personally tend to believe that by the time oil is no longer available, we'll have alternative sources....I simply advocate that we move to that point BEFORE it is a serious issue.

Yet again....Someone PLEASE tell me why the blame is important???  We can argue forever over why a global climate change is occuring.  It is happening, we can have some effect, small as it may be, to reduce it....so WHY NOT????



Twin Fist said:


> But here is the thing.
> 
> You live in the world of theory
> 
> ...


 
Ok, this comes close to an explanation as to why we should not conserve, reduce and be aware of our environment.  It is quite obvious that if we try to stop polluting, we will be thrust into the stone age.  Though I would be interested in a more in depth explanation of how environmentalism has caused industry to move to other countries.  As in any system, it has probably had an effect, but I just fail to see the causal loop.  I would attribute it much more to labor costs, material availability, an expanded world economy, etc etc etc.

I also have yet to run into ANYONE who "turns a blind eye" to China and India.  There are countries who try and those who don't.  But I fail to see how China's unwillingness to conform to environmental policy set forth by ISO 9000, UN, etc has any impact on whether we should or not.  Looking at graphs of world pollution levels, it is easily seen when the US put certain environmental laws into place.  If you have any doubt as to the impact that the US can have, please reference figure 2 http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html

Take some time to look around EPA's climate change area http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/index.html even if you don't buy into this science mumbo jumbo, it may be interesting to see some of the data that they have collected.  And please feel free to site any source which offers credible opposition.



Twin Fist said:


> Buzzy,
> i dont know anyone who denies global warming is happening. So I am not sure where you are comming from. Many people dont agree that it is all man made, like the doom and gloom squad want us to think. And based on the news, that number is growing.


 
I suppose that the amount of people who believe and don't believe an issue is a matter of conjecture.  Which news sources are you referring to?  I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that those who support environmental awareness is growing rather than shrinking.  

My point is that the fault is insignificant.  You said that no one denies that global warming is happening, but that a vast majority believes that mankind has no impact.  
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html
Again, who is this majority.  The climate change may not be completely man's doing, but *I *don't know of anyone who denies that man has any influence at all.

So again....man made or not - WHO CARES???  We are obviously contributing - even you say that it is not "all" manmade, therefore some must be.  So why not reduce that part?  Why not conserve our resources?  Again, you say yourself that you WANT alternative fuel sources....do it for the money or do it for the environment, either way, it helps.  Who does building a green facility hurt?  It saves orders of magnitude on energy costs, helps the environment, conserves resources, if it fits in the budget, who does it hurt???  If you can't afford it - completely understood, as I said, I have personally cut environmentally friendly additions from a design to save costs.  They are expensive, but WHY NOT?  Where is the pay off in discounting our global impact?

There are many very emotional people on both sides of the issue.  The difference is that those on the "doom and gloom squad" seek the help the environment and provide a better place to live for longer.  Those on the "______ Squad" seek to ______________????????  I no longer expect any response, but if you can fill in the blanks, go for it.


----------



## MBuzzy (Mar 29, 2008)

I feel it important to add that until rather recently, I completely discounted any human influence on global climate change or resource reduction.  I personally believed that there was no conceivable way that we could use up all the oil, or fish out the oceans, or cut down enough trees, or impact the earth enough to hurt.

Then I started doing some real objective research and thinking....and in the end, it seems to me that no matter how small our impact, we can do better - so why not?  I think that there IS evidence that we're depleting resources and causing some global problems - based on my own research.  

If you have the time, read the book "Cod" by Mark Kurlansky....yes, its just about a fish, but if you look deep enough, it is eye opening.  Had a big effect on me.  As did spending a few hours poking around the EPA website.

I just can't see any reason to discount and ignore it.  No matter WHAT we do, we can't destroy the world.  Humans will never do enough to make a major mark on this world, the earth will continue to spin for millions of years whether we're on it or not....but we can make it an awfully uncomfortable place to live if we're not careful.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 29, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> First off, as a science minded individual and engineer, I can't agree with you about Tellner's stance.  What he says is true and in order to scientifically examine the world, it requires objectivity and a divorce from emotion.



I dont care. if you cant prove it, you cant prove it, and "most likely" is a matter of opinion. Not fact. Right or wrong?




MBuzzy said:


> what does the opposing argument recommend?  Continue along the current path and in fact, INCREASE our usage and abuse of the environment?  I see no other logical end to an anti-global warming argument.



I dont see ANYONE saying we should INCREASE our use of fossil fuels. And I already stated my opinion, i want my Mr Fusion. I am sick of needing, using and depending on oil. Sick of it.



MBuzzy said:


> I would argue with the magnitude of the previous climate changes though.  We are definately at a steady increase and a spike which is higher than past "hot times."



prove it. Dont DEDUCE it, PROVE it.



MBuzzy said:


> In your posts, you refer to anyone who subscribes to the theory as "doom and gloomers."  Which is as good a name as any I suppose, but much like religions, there are only an extremist few who are standing on crate wearing "The End is nigh!" signs.  Most scientists and others simply warn of a gradual change over a long period of time in terms of climate.



if you thin it is is man made, you might just be a doom and gloomer. And lets be accurate. I believe in global warming. I do not believe that it is man made.



MBuzzy said:


> I personally tend to believe that by the time oil is no longer available, we'll have alternative sources....I simply advocate that we move to that point BEFORE it is a serious issue.



I agree. For me it is a simple matter, I wish to be rid of the Middle East. i wish they would go back to being an insignificant hell hole with the money thier oil brings them. With thier money gone, they cannot fund the global caliphate they are planning.




MBuzzy said:


> Yet again....Someone PLEASE tell me why the blame is important???  We can argue forever over why a global climate change is occuring.  It is happening, we can have some effect, small as it may be, to reduce it....so WHY NOT????



i already told you this several posts back. the doom and gloomers want to bash us over the face with the so called "fact" that it is man made, and will harrass anyone that doesnt buy into thier voodoo. THAT is why blame is important, because a group is squawkign at the top of thier lungs blaming humanity



MBuzzy said:


> Though I would be interested in a more in depth explanation of how environmentalism has caused industry to move to other countries.  As in any system, it has probably had an effect, but I just fail to see the causal loop.



study history. Recent history. The exodus of corporations overseas started after we starting punching them in the face with regulation after regulation, increasing their costs.  You own a business, and some EPA guy is up your *** all the time? move to mexico. They dont have an EPA.



MBuzzy said:


> Which news sources are you referring to?  I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that those who support environmental awareness is growing rather than shrinking.



it is, but despite the Propaganda from AlBore, more and more people are realizing that there is more to the story than he told us.



MBuzzy said:


> So again....man made or not - WHO CARES???



extreemist like tellner



MBuzzy said:


> Who does building a green facility hurt?  It saves orders of magnitude on energy costs, helps the environment, conserves resources, if it fits in the budget, who does it hurt???  If you can't afford it - completely understood, as I said, I have personally cut environmentally friendly additions from a design to save costs.  They are expensive, but WHY NOT?  Where is the pay off in discounting our global impact?



I agree with you. We NEED to be smarter about these things. But dont go telling me it is man made if you cant prove it. And they cant.

 Those on the "Planet RealitySquad" seek to make things better too, but without the un-proven guilt trip the bunny huggers want to lay on the US


Have a good night Bro


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 30, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Sukerkin,
> I might be more inclined to agree if Tellner hadnt been so insulting. Yes I took it personally, because he insulted me, personally. Not just my opinion, but ME. Or else please explain how this: " If you want to be taken seriously as a grown up" isnt a personal insult?


 
Ahh.  I didn't read that in the same context you did.  I read the 'You' as non-specific.  

Amidst all the very sensibly argued points made in that post tho', it is sad that emotions overcame you so strongly that you didn't seem to absorb anything put the perceived insult.  Do you think you could read the post again, filtering out that bit that outrages you?  There is an awful lot there of value with regard to scientific method.

I note that again and again you're asking for 'proof' in the sense of 'certainty'.  As *Tellner* said, in science (of all disciplines) there is no such thing i.e. you can never prove anything right, you can only prove it wrong.  What there is is evidence and correlation which can be used in argument to defend a theory.

Now up to a few years ago, I held much the same views as yourself; indeed I used, on several occaisions, the claim that there was more in the way of noxious gases released by Mt. St. Helens eruption than man could produce in decades.  I also used to go on about all the methane and carbon compounds released at the mid-ocean ridges and how that was changing the oceans chemistry much more than what we could do.

Then I started to read up on the evidence and search out what those who have researched this issue professionally had to say.  The long and the short of it is that that amateur reseach I performed changed my mind and showed me that what I thought were 'common sense' opinions were actually anything but.

All that said, I still hold that this excessive warming curve is going to the precursor of a tipping point and we'll drop into an ice age pretty quickly - so it just goes to show that sometimes you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink :lol:.

Opinions are what make conversations on the Net interesting.  Sadly, if two diametrically opposed opinions clash in this media then there is no real way of resolving it.  

Which is why this thread is just another in a long line of similar ones on this issue and why those new to the 'merry-go-round' might find that those who are informed on the state of research in the field handle them with less tact than they may be entitled to.  After all there is only so much "Yes it is" vs "No it isn't" that can be endured.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 30, 2008)

ChadWarner said:


> In galileos time the solar day was about 18 hours, today we are up to 24 hours.



:erg:


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 30, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> I just can't see any reason to discount and ignore it. No matter WHAT we do, we can't destroy the world. Humans will never do enough to make a major mark on this world, the earth will continue to spin for millions of years whether we're on it or not....but we can make it an awfully uncomfortable place to live if we're not careful.


 
Depends where you live.  When asked about global warming, Vladimir Putin responded that it would be nice to make Moscow a few degrees warmer.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 30, 2008)

I'm not a scientist, however I can observe things.
The last few winters in my area have been very diferent from those in previous decades. More warm/cold cycles, more extreme, etc.
Summers have been milder too the last couple years. Overall though, they've been a bit warmer.

This might be due to massive changes in the Great Lakes, due to polution effecting them.

I dunno.  I doubt we'll see an overnight IceAge hit like in the movies, but we need to at least stop poluting and start cleaning up our trash.


----------



## tellner (Mar 30, 2008)

The North polar cap has been melting all winter. The energy has to be coming from somewhere. A phase change that turns a buttload of ice into a buttload of water can suck up a lot of energy.

It may not happen overnight. But it's indisputable. 

The events are in line with the predictions, the fast-change predictions to be precise.

Thirty years ago we could have avoided it. Now we're going to have to head off as much as we can and deal with the rest. It will be much more painful.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 30, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> I note that again and again you're asking for 'proof' in the sense of 'certainty'.  As *Tellner* said, in science (of all disciplines) there is no such thing



then dont tell me you KNOW, be honest and say you THINK



Sukerkin said:


> The long and the short of it is that that amateur reseach I performed changed my mind



lots of professional research backs up my belief that mans contribution is tiny, and while bad, isnt THE cause. And the really fun part is, no one, make that NO ONE can prove which is right. But then you got AlBore runnign around saying outright LIES like "there is no debate, this is proven" when it isnt.....



Sukerkin said:


> After all there is only so much "Yes it is" vs "No it isn't" that can be endured.



Well gee, maybe if the fanatics cant handle people disagreeing with them, they shouldnt be acting as cheerleaders for the doom and gloomers.


Just food for thought is all.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 30, 2008)

tellner said:


> The North polar cap has been melting all winter.


 and the southern has been growing.





> Thirty years ago we could have avoided it.


 Thirty years ago the weather fear mongers were forecasting a new ice age





> Now we're going to have to head off as much as we can and deal with the rest. It will be much more painful.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 30, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> lots of professional research backs up my belief that mans contribution is tiny, and while bad, isnt THE cause. And the really fun part is, no one, make that NO ONE can prove which is right. But then you got AlBore runnign around saying outright LIES like "there is no debate, this is proven" when it isnt.....


 
I'd like to see this research if you could provide either links or ISDN numbers.





Twin Fist said:


> Well gee, maybe if the fanatics cant handle people disagreeing with them, they shouldnt be acting as cheerleaders for the doom and gloomers.


 
I think the problem arises because the disagreement is not cogently argued but is, as I hinted before 'playground' negativism.  In this thread alone, I have seen those presenting the case for human impact on global climate instability put it forward in a reasoned way.  Those from the other side of the coin choose a simpler format that is almost designed to agitate and annoy - the internet edquivalent of sticking out the tongue.

In the end, it doesn't matter a jot; unless that is, that those who don't want to acknowledge any significant human input to the change, manage to vote in politicians who will do nothing to change things.

Then it becomes a problem for us all because the main hope of achieving anything lies in international cooperation and the will to do what we can to ameliorate the change. 

Personally, I think it's all to little too late and it saddens me that my old age will be negatively impacted by a large number of scary things that I'd rather not have to deal with.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 30, 2008)

thats funny, to me, the head cheerleader for "it's all our fault, you should hate yourselves" comes across as an insulting prat.

The ones that dont buy it have been, myself included, pretty damned polite


----------



## Big Don (Mar 30, 2008)

Global Warming is like a religion, well, like a bad religion, whose followers need to convert by force and chase out heretics...


Added on edit:
It is a lot like radical Islam, those who choose not to believe are labeled infidels and consigned to second class status.


----------



## Hand Sword (Mar 30, 2008)

Well, there's been quite of few Ice ages and temperature extremes in Earth's history and Humans had nothing to do with them. That's what happens. The earth heats up and cools down. People talk the global warming thing, and sure, I could see what we are doing as a whole is speeding up the process. However, who knows. Maybe the theory is built on the previous Ice age had ended, when it really didn't. Maybe what is going on now is the final thawing out process of what was. North and South, nothing but ice, snow, and permafrost, but, the ice age was over????

Bye the way...is anyone else distrubed by the "competition" advertised on Cable about which team can cut down the most trees?


----------



## tellner (Apr 3, 2008)

In case any of the deniers and Pollyannas are still reading, this from the Beeb: 


*



Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity. 

The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate "sceptics", that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature. 

The idea is that variations in solar activity affect cosmic ray intensity. 
But Lancaster University scientists found there has been no significant link between them in the last 20 years. 
Presenting their findings in the Institute of Physics journal, Environmental Research Letters, the UK team explain that they used three different ways to search for a correlation, and found virtually none.
		
Click to expand...

 
The article addresses other critiques of the solar global warming theory.
 Sorry guys, with the null hypothesis rejected, strong evidence the other way and no theoretical basis for any other explanation we're stuck with the current science.*


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 3, 2008)

Then YOU feel free to believe it.

I wont, because you still cant prove it.

No matter what standard is used, be it scientific, legal or common sense, you doom and gloomers fail every time


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 3, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I doubt we'll see an overnight IceAge hit like in the movies,


 
Not overnight but things can change faster than most think look up the Younger Dryas



tellner said:


> The North polar cap has been melting all winter. The energy has to be coming from somewhere. A phase change that turns a buttload of ice into a buttload of water can suck up a lot of energy.


 
The issue is the Amount of Fresh water being dumped into the oceans. This can and has in the past shut down the oceans conveyor belt system that works kind of like an air conditioning/heating system, again fresh water stops it and energy flow changes drastically. Again see Younger Dryas.

Now for a general post

There are a lot of reasons for global heating and cooling and there are those that we can do something about and those that we can't. 

And face facts gentleman ice is melting in places it has not melted in recent history so this does point to "Global Warming". 

But Global warming does not necessarily mean that the ENTIRE globe is getting warmer it means CLIMATE CHANGE. This means that place that were warm could get MUCH cooler and places that were cool could get warmer but overall there will be fewer cold areas. However this could and has in the past bring on rapid cooling and that is the stuff rapid species extinction is made of (note we are a species that should be VERY concerned about this).

Frankly I would MUCH rather figure out what is causing it to see if there is anything we can do to stop it, slow it, or survive it than sit here pointing fingers and denying anything is happening.

Can we fix it if it is a planetary orbit change (less elliptical to more circular)? Well no 

Can we fix it or slow it if it is found that CO2 is the cause or a contributor? Yes.

But there if it is CO2 there will be or may already have been a point of no return where we can do little to nothing but wait for the inevitable change which could be slow OR fairly rapid.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 3, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Global Warming is like a religion, well, like a bad religion, whose followers need to convert by force and chase out heretics...


 
Well........lookie  here


----------



## MBuzzy (Apr 3, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Then YOU feel free to believe it.
> 
> I wont, because you still cant prove it.
> 
> No matter what standard is used, be it scientific, legal or common sense, you doom and gloomers fail every time


 
It is obvious that if one is unwilling to listen to evidence which contradicts their point of view, the point of view will never change.  

I'm just curious what level of "proof" it is that you seek?

Also....the fact that the "doom and gloomers" fail every time makes absolutely no sense to me.  Please explain, in what way has ANYONE failed?  

Twin fist, I think that you fail to see the point here.  The "doom and gloom" people that you are referring to are simply the manifestion of some preconceived notion about what "environmentalists" are like.  I really don't see many people running around screaming that the sky is falling.  More often, just people who are advocating a better, more environment conscious way of life.  

And again - I will ask, as I have in EVERY POST....WHY NOT?  Blame aside, how does it hurt to be more aware and conscious when it is feasable and economical?  Xue has it right....pointing the finger makes absolutely no difference in this case.  

Also, since it is proof that you seek so fervently, please provide some of your own.  I would really like to read some of the documentation that makes up and supports your opinions.  Making a claim with no supporting evidence helps neither side.  I personally am very interested in reading real scientific evidence that humans have no influence on global climate change if it exists.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 3, 2008)

Buzzy,
I told you this already, but you must have missed it.

In as much as "why shouldnt we try to be cleaner?"  I agree with you. Right up to the point where it would cripple our economy. Up to that point i am all for  being as eco-friendly as possible. Just because it is a good idea. But i will not EVER go live in a cave because some tree humping liberal tells me I am hurting "mother earth"

The SAME people who want to erase oil ALSO wont let you build nuclear plants.

wait....wut?

You cant have it both ways.

it's always the same thing, "reduce the use of fossil fuels" 

with what? They even deny that ethonol is an energy NEGATIVE solution. It takes more energy to produce it than you get out of it.

then they draw a  blank


And lots of people are in fact running around saying that the sky is falling. Ted Turner was on tv over the weekend and said that within 40 years, 75% of the human population would be dead and the rest would be canibals because there wouldnt be any other food.

He got that idea from someone like tellner.

Buzzy, the gloomers like Tellner fail because they claim this or that is a fact when it isnt. Not by legal standards, not by scientific standards,a dn certainly not by the standard of common sense.

they fail, ergo they are failures

one groups says one thing, another comes out and blows the first groups findings out of the water

People like tellner are the ones that are not listening to  any other points of view. I will happy to do so, once  there is an actual scienctific concensus


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 3, 2008)

Big Don said:


> and the southern has been growing.


 
That's not true.  A simple search on yahoo will bring up all kinds of information contradicting this statement.  Ice shelves in Antarctica have been collapsing.  Adelaide Penguin populations have been dropping severely because they feed on critters that live only under the ice shelves.  As those ice shelves have disappeared, the penguins have been forced to swim farther and farther in search of food.  Their populations are collapsing because of it.

Antarctic ice has been shrinking just as Arctic ice has been.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 3, 2008)

Flying Crane said:


> That's not true. A simple search on yahoo will bring up all kinds of information contradicting this statement. Ice shelves in Antarctica have been collapsing. Adelaide Penguin populations have been dropping severely because they feed on critters that live only under the ice shelves. As those ice shelves have disappeared, the penguins have been forced to swim farther and farther in search of food. Their populations are collapsing because of it.
> 
> Antarctic ice has been shrinking just as Arctic ice has been.


 
NAH its all fine, nothing to worry about 

Big difference between the North (artic) and South (Antarctica) pole is that the North Pole melts and you get clear water... a lot of fresh clear water that gives you BIG problems but still clear ocean. The South Pole melts and you get bare land. And that land due to the lack of ice pressure will rebound (push upward) and this may sound just hunky dory but there are a few volcanoes under that ice that will likely become active so......


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 3, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> NAH its all fine, nothing to worry about
> 
> Big difference between the North (artic) and South (Antarctica) pole is that the North Pole melts and you get clear water... a lot of fresh clear water that gives you BIG problems but still clear ocean. The South Pole melts and you get bare land. And that land due to the lack of ice pressure will rebound (push upward) and this may sound just hunky dory but there are a few volcanoes under that ice that will likely become active so......


 
interestingly enough, there have been suggestions that the Antarctic continent could experience an increase in ice due to an increase in precipitation as a predicted effect of a warming climate.

Also, since Antarctica is a huge continent, there are some regions that have shown different effects from other regions and have given mixed information regarding whether or not the continent is heating up.  I've seen one article that suggested that due to its size, Antarctica may even sort of do it's own thing, regardless of what the rest of the globe is experiencing.  But none of these articles have suggested that what is being seen in Antarctica contradicts global warming.

I think that claiming Antarctica is experiencing a growth in it's ice coverage, and this contradicts global warming, is really cherry-picking information and ignoring the big picture.


----------



## tellner (Apr 3, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> The issue is the Amount of Fresh water being dumped into the oceans. This can and has in the past shut down the oceans conveyor belt system that works kind of like an air conditioning/heating system, again fresh water stops it and energy flow changes drastically. Again see Younger Dryas.


I hope to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that we don't see that. Northern Europe gets Fimbulwinter. A lot more drought. More storms. Less climate moderation. 

As the Eddas say:



> Then said Gangleri: "What tidings are to be told concerning the Weird of the Gods? Never before have I heard aught said of this." Hárr answered: "Great tidings are to be told of it, and much. The first is this, that there shall come that winter which is called the Fimbulwinter: in that time snow shall drive from all quarters; frosts shall be great then, and winds sharp; there shall be no virtue in the sun. Those winters shall proceed three in succession, and no summer between; but first shall come three other winters, such that over all the world there shall be mighty battles. In that time brothers shall slay each other for food, and none shall spare father or son in manslaughter and in incest; so it says in Völuspá:
> 
> {p. 78}
> 
> ...





> And face facts gentleman ice is melting in places it has not melted in recent history so this does point to "Global Warming".
> 
> *But Global warming does not necessarily mean that the ENTIRE globe is getting warmer it means CLIMATE CHANGE. This means that place that were warm could get MUCH cooler and places that were cool could get warmer but overall there will be fewer cold areas. *However this could and has in the past bring on rapid cooling and that is the stuff rapid species extinction is made of (note we are a species that should be VERY concerned about this).


That's an excellent point that very few people get, particularly journalists and those with a denying axe to grind.



> Frankly I would MUCH rather figure out what is causing it to see if there is anything we can do to stop it, slow it, or survive it than sit here pointing fingers and denying anything is happening.


Exactly. We may be too late to stop it. But it doesn't mean that we should stuff our fingers in our ears, close our eyes and pretend that it will all go away. It will take a lot of work. Nothing is guaranteed if we try. We are guaranteed a lot of suffering if we give up.



> Can we fix it or slow it if it is found that CO2 is the cause or a contributor? Yes.
> 
> But there if it is CO2 there will be or may already have been a point of no return where we can do little to nothing but wait for the inevitable change which could be slow OR fairly rapid.


It's looking more like it's going to be fast and severe. We've already seen inhabited land sink under the sea for good. Countries like the Maldives and Tuvalu are planning for mass evacuation. The pessimists are surprised at how fast the Arctic and Antarctic ice are disappearing - faster than taxpayer dollars at a hedge fund bailout. 

The Dutch have been fighting a holding action against the Pitiless Sea for centuries. I figure they'll just dome the whole country over and say "By Damn we won't let this bother us." 

At the very least we need to start figuring out how to plan water supplies and agriculture on a global scale and what to do about salinized aquifers and river deltas.


----------



## tellner (Apr 3, 2008)

Big Don said:


> and the southern has been growing.



No Don, it's not. The oil companies' shills have been paid to say so. Rush keeps repeating it. But it's not true.

There has been some thickening in parts of a few of them. But the total area under ice has been decreasing. And the really big shelves like the West and the Ross are coming apart faster than the climatologists had thought possible. There's iceberg calving in places where the ice had been stable for thousands of years.

I'm really sorry to be the bearer of bad news. But that's just the way it is.


----------



## exile (Apr 3, 2008)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:
*
Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sho...d.php?p=427486. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-Bob Levine
-MT Moderator-


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 3, 2008)

Flying Crane said:


> interestingly enough, there have been suggestions that the Antarctic continent could experience an increase in ice due to an increase in precipitation as a predicted effect of a warming climate.
> 
> Also, since Antarctica is a huge continent, there are some regions that have shown different effects from other regions and have given mixed information regarding whether or not the continent is heating up. I've seen one article that suggested that due to its size, Antarctica may even sort of do it's own thing, regardless of what the rest of the globe is experiencing. But none of these articles have suggested that what is being seen in Antarctica contradicts global warming.
> 
> I think that claiming Antarctica is experiencing a growth in it's ice coverage, and this contradicts global warming, is really cherry-picking information and ignoring the big picture.


 
Actually if I remember correctly that is pretty much how glaciers work if the edge is wasting higher up they get thicker in an attempt to maintain a balance. I seem to remember reading something recently about Greenland Glaciers doing this as well.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 3, 2008)

tellner said:


> I hope to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that we don't see that. Northern Europe gets Fimbulwinter. A lot more drought. More storms. Less climate moderation.
> 
> As the Eddas say:
> 
> ...


 
Windmills.... It's all in the windmills


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 3, 2008)

thats it, we're doomed


----------



## Ray (Apr 3, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> Actually if I remember correctly that is pretty much how glaciers work if the edge is wasting higher up they get thicker in an attempt to maintain a balance. I seem to remember reading something recently about Greenland Glaciers doing this as well.


Sounds like they're pretty smart for ice.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 3, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> Actually if I remember correctly that is pretty much how glaciers work if the edge is wasting higher up they get thicker in an attempt to maintain a balance. I seem to remember reading something recently about Greenland Glaciers doing this as well.


** goes off to check and see if there is something to that in baldness and fatness in martial arts **


----------



## newGuy12 (Apr 3, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> ** goes off to check and see if there is something to that in baldness and fatness in martial arts **



Hahaha!  That is the chi-belly, but it is only realized by those who practice the Tai-Chi-Chuan and some American Kenpo guys, hahahaha!!!

No, but you must consider -- why would all of these scientist LIE about all of these things?  How could they benefit themselves by lying?  This is not reasonable.  They have to reason to come up with some story about humans wasting the planet, no motivation for this. 

I say that we should try very hard to reduce our impact JUST IN CASE it is the cause of this, because the danger is too great to take that chance!  

Yes, if these things happen, we are flat out freaking screwed, bit time!  In the worst case scenario, there could be food shortages that would impact the whole world.  

And, yes EVERYBODY, all of the countries, should address this, soon, as in now!  That is how I see it!  Who wishes to take a chance???  The stakes are too high!


----------

