The American Thinker Slaps Down Global Warming

[KempoGuy06]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/12-10-2004-62758.asp
Ever been to the San Diego Zoo? They had a polar bear exhibit when I went twenty years ago. I was fascinated. I made my dad stand there for over an hour. I wanted to see a polar bear out of the water. I never got to. They just kept swimming around and around...

 

[Big Don]

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

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]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Senior Moderator-

 

[FearlessFreep]

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]

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.

3. Polar bears in the Polar Basin Convergent Ecoregion may persist through mid-century, but they most probably will be extirpated at and beyond year 75.
……
8. Because recently observed declines in sea ice extent continue to outpace most GCM projections, more extensive sea ice seems an increasing unlikely future. Yet, to qualitatively alter outcomes projected by our models and head off the projected loss of 2/3 of the world’s current polar bears, future sea ice would have to be far more extensive than is projected by even conservative General Circulation Models.

 

[michaeledward]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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.

...

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.

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]

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]

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.

As for Keeling Chart, yes, you are correct.

Thanks.

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...