Yet more proof Global Warming does not exist

[TrailBate]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/11/22/norway.warming.reut/index.html


I'm sure Reindeer were due for extinction anyway....

[GeepNutt]

http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/mag184.htm

Forget about the hurricanes.......

[TrailBate]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11951694/

You've got to be a bonehead (republican) to believe global warming does not exist.

[Slider]

http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/mag184.htm

Forget about the hurricanes.......


That was the party line dictated by The Moron in Charge. This is the real story, and it says that lots of researchers see a direct link between warming and hurricane intensity.

Slider


Statement Acknowledges
Some Government Scientists
See Link to Global Warming

By ANTONIO REGALADO and JIM CARLTON
February 16, 2006; Page A4

Amid a growing outcry from climate researchers in its own ranks, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration backed away from a statement it released after last year's powerful hurricane season that discounted any link to global warming.

A corrected statement, which says some NOAA researchers disagree with that view, was posted to NOAA's Web site yesterday.

The change is part of a high-stakes fight over the issue of global warming, and what some scientists complain is a widening gap between what their research shows and White House climate policy.

Three NOAA scientists, speaking in interviews, said the agency has begun keeping closer tabs on their comments to journalists. One of them also said the agency has declined to let him take part in interviews on controversial topics.

Such charges have been publicly leveled by scientists outside the agency since December. They gained force last week when James Hansen, a climate researcher at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, again accused NOAA of censoring scientific communication. Dr. Hansen has said NASA public-affairs officials had tried to discourage him from presenting his views that human activities could lead to severe global warming.

Late Tuesday, NOAA administrator Conrad C. Lautenbacher Jr., sent an email to agency staff saying that he encourages "scientists to speak freely and openly" and rejected charges that NOAA scientists have been discouraged from commenting on whether human-caused global warming is influencing hurricanes.

In the wake of Dr. Hansen's comments, some NOAA scientists say they are now speaking out.

Pieter Tans, a researcher who studies carbon dioxide at NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., says public-affairs "minders" now sit in on more interviews, something that didn't happen before. He said he sees it as an attempt to control comments about the dangers of climate change.

A ruckus erupted after the November issue of the agency's magazine said there was a "consensus" among NOAA hurricane experts that increases in hurricane activity were primarily the result of natural factors -- even though within NOAA some believed man-made warming was a key cause.

Kerry Emanuel, a climate researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said he found the statement problematic because it appeared to represent an official NOAA position, and might discourage agency scientists from contradicting it. Dr. Emanuel, who believes global warming is making hurricanes worse, was among the first to publicly criticize NOAA's policy at a major meeting in December, where he termed it "censorship."

Scott Smullen, NOAA's deputy director of public affairs, said the article was never meant to be an official position, and added that the use of the word "consensus" was a mistake made by one of his staff members. "There is no consensus," Mr. Smullen said.

Thomas Knutson, a research meteorologist with the agency's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J., said he believes his views have been censored by the NOAA public-affairs office because of his view that global warming could be making hurricanes worse. Last October the public-affairs office said no to a scheduled interview with CNBC television, he said.

"NOAA public affairs called and asked what I would say to certain questions, like is there a trend in Atlantic hurricanes," Dr. Knutson said. "I said I thought there was a possibility of a trend emerging that tropical hurricanes were becoming more intense. They turned down that interview."

Mr. Smullen says he wasn't aware of that particular case, but notes that Dr. Knutson gives dozens of interviews a year, and that interview requests can be turned down for numerous reasons.

On another occasion, Dr. Knutson said he had been invited around the time of Hurricane Katrina to appear on a television show with Ron Reagan, the son of former President Reagan who is co-host of a show on MSNBC. But shortly before he was to appear, he got a voice mail from a person in public affairs. "He said, 'The White House turned it down,' " Dr. Knutson said.

White House officials said they weren't immediately aware of any attempt on their part to block Dr. Knutson's interview, but added they don't censor government scientists. They added NOAA researchers gave numerous interviews during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. "Dr. Tom Knutson took part in those interviews and is a leading climate modeler and well respected in the scientific community," said White House spokeswoman Michele St. Martin.

NOAA officials say the White House doesn't rule on their media requests. They also say they weren't immediately aware of the Ron Reagan matter, but add they usually decline media requests when it appears they are frivolous. "If someone were to call in and it is in the nature of a food fight, we decline that," said Jordan St. John, director of NOAA's public affairs. "We are a serious science agency."

[TrailBate]

I actually heard Rush Limbaugh the other day repeat the retarded "fact" that cars do NOT cause pollution. He did not cite any sources. He just said he is right 99% of the time (according to the Sullivan Group....whatever that is). he went on to say Mt. Pinatubo created more pollution in one day that all mankind has produced throughout history.

Oh, and Pat Robertson also said the other day that liberal college professors beat and abuse students, along with brainwashing.

[TrailBate]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/26/coverstory/index.html

Funny. Rush Limbaugh says global warming does not exist. He also says he's right 99.9% of the time. Hmmm.....

[kernel crash]

Sunday, March 26, 2006

Sunday morning's low of 47 degrees at Palm Beach International Airport, recorded at 6:36 a.m., was the coolest on record, according to the National Weather Service in Miami.

The old record was set in 1979, when the overnight temperature dropped to 48 degrees.

[TrailBate]

Sunday, March 26, 2006

Sunday morning's low of 47 degrees at Palm Beach International Airport, recorded at 6:36 a.m., was the coolest on record, according to the National Weather Service in Miami.

The old record was set in 1979, when the overnight temperature dropped to 48 degrees.




point?

[Slider]

Sunday, March 26, 2006

Sunday morning's low of 47 degrees at Palm Beach International Airport, recorded at 6:36 a.m., was the coolest on record, according to the National Weather Service in Miami.

The old record was set in 1979, when the overnight temperature dropped to 48 degrees.


If you think that any specific temperature, anywhere on the globe, has something to do with global warming, you don't understand the process. It is about the temperature of the planet as a whole, which is undeniably increasing at the fastest rate we've seen.

Slider

[BG]

Science, politics, bulshit or aliens?

BG

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

[Slider]

Science, politics, bulshit or aliens?

BG

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html


Pure idiotic blathering, already pretty well parsed here:

http://www.nemba.org/NEMBAforum/index.php?board=37;action=display;threadid=7642;st art=30

Slider

[BG]

"Pure idiotic blathering"

Pretty much what's going on here.

BG

[Slider]

"Pure idiotic blathering"

Pretty much what's going on here.

BG


Everyone here is welcome to speak for themselves, as you clearly do.

Slider

[BG]

"Everyone here is welcome to speak for themselves, as you clearly do."

Thank You, and ditto.
Without idotic blathering the world as we know and love it would cease to exist.
Is that where we are headed?

BG

[Slider]

"Everyone here is welcome to speak for themselves, as you clearly do."

Thank You, and ditto.
Without idotic blathering the world as we know and love it would cease to exist.
Is that where we are headed?
BG


Not only headed, but where we come from, too.

Slider

[catbbq]

I am going to have to agree with Trailbait on this one. Global warming seems like a load of methane producing cow crap.

Just look at the infallible data of NASA.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif

Global temps went down from 1945 to 1955ish and again from 1960 to 1965. Yet CO2 levels didn't show any decrease during that time. (Sorry, having trouble finding that data.)

Seems like Trailbait is right it that there is pretty good evidence against global warming.

Real question is why does Crichton have such a cobb up his butt about it?

[TrailBate]

I am going to have to agree with Trailbait on this one. Global warming seems like a load of methane producing cow crap.

Just look at the infallible data of NASA.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif

Global temps went down from 1945 to 1955ish and again from 1960 to 1965. Yet CO2 levels didn't show any decrease during that time. (Sorry, having trouble finding that data.)

Seems like Trailbait is right it that there is pretty good evidence against global warming.




are you answering my sarcasm with more sarcasm? Touche!

[catbbq]

I am going to have to agree with Trailbait on this one. Global warming seems like a load of methane producing cow crap.

Just look at the infallible data of NASA.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif

Global temps went down from 1945 to 1955ish and again from 1960 to 1965. Yet CO2 levels didn't show any decrease during that time. (Sorry, having trouble finding that data.)

Seems like Trailbait is right it that there is pretty good evidence against global warming.




are you answering my sarcasm with more sarcasm? Touche!


Sarcasm?

[Slider]

I am going to have to agree with Trailbait on this one. Global warming seems like a load of methane producing cow crap.

Just look at the infallible data of NASA.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif



I think we have to separate out some terms to make sure we're talking about the same things.

Your NASA graph pretty clearly shows a strong trend toward increasing temps. That would be "global warming." But, if I am reading your post correctly, you are arguing about the relationship between CO2 and the overall rise in temps (AKA "The Greenhouse Effect"), saying they're unrelated. This is untrue.

You cite as evidence the fact that we've seen other trends in temperature, up and down, and, I am guessing, you can't see an immediate correlation to CO2 level changes. This is because CO2 is not the only factor effecting temperatures on the earth. There are many, many others, including solar activity. One massive asteroid would be pretty, um, impactful, too.

But that says nothing about the relationship between CO2 and temperature. Virtually ALL research into climate history shows that higher temps are always accompanied by elevated CO2 levels. Note that you have to ignore the short term trends, because of the many factors that can effect temps on a day-to-day basis. The meaningful trend, from a climatological perspective, is the overall temperature trend, correlated to the overall CO2 trend. Both are climbing like Lance Armstrong in the mountains.

The NASA graph, helpfully, starts just about the time the Industrial Revolution started, when we really began boosting the amount of CO2 we humans produce, mostly due to the burning of fossil fuels. That was the key bit of evidence that put the many researchers worldwide on the job of defining the relationship between humans and climate. The big jump at the same time in both temperature and CO2 suggested the two were related, and lots more follow-up research has supported that idea.

Slider

[BG]

There's ton's of "evidence" againg global warming, just gotta look in the "right" places.

BG

[Slider]

There's ton's of "evidence" againg global warming, just gotta look in the "right" places.

BG


No, there's literally no evidence against global warming. Virtually all primary researchers looking into it have come to the same conclusion. The only "evidence" is second or third hand misinterpretations of the first hand research, like that BS Crichton was trying to pass off as reason.

If you got something, let's see it.

Slider

[BG]

http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoQuestionsAnswers.html

Sarcasm?

BG

[kernel crash]

So we know that the earth has gone through several ice ages where the oceans have risen and fallen. Huge sheets of ice have covered many areas of North America. Obviously the temps were also rising and falling. Damn those prehistoric cave dwelling mo fo's with their hummers! Or could it be something else? Maybe something that we don't have a complete handle on. Maybe that was the point Crichton was trying to make.

[Slider]

http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoQuestionsAnswers.html

Sarcasm?

BG


That isn't research. It is a political position paper, and a very dated one at that.

Slider

[Slider]

So we know that the earth has gone through several ice ages where the oceans have risen and fallen. Huge sheets of ice have covered many areas of North America. Obviously the temps were also rising and falling. Damn those prehistoric cave dwelling mo fo's with their hummers! Or could it be something else? Maybe something that we don't have a complete handle on. Maybe that was the point Crichton was trying to make.


No, he was saying there's no relationship between CO2 and temperature. He was saying, in a very convoluted way, that the researchers were misinterpreting their own data. Mostly, he was saying that the scientific method was an invalid approach to researching truth. His solution? Set up a scientific experiement, using the very methodology that he was criticizing. So science works for his attempt to prove that there's no Greenhouse Effect, but not to prove there is one. Interesting and revealing.

You mention sheets of ice covering the planet, and temps rising and falling. Guess what? At the same time, the CO2 levels were rising and falling, right along with the temps. Looking at ancient ice is one of the best sources for gauging past CO2 levels.

There are lots of sources of CO2, volcanoes being an obvious one. Kill lots of plants, and they stop converting that CO2 to oxygen, so you get more CO2. Drop a large asteroid on the planet, kill lots of plants and at the same time push lots of crap into the atmosphere so that more plants die, and CO2 will rise. No Hummers required.

The atmosphere is a constantly changing mix of gasses. Right now, CO2 is on the rise. It is no coincidence that temperature is, too.

Slider

[catbbq]

I think we have to separate out some terms to make sure we're talking about the same things.

Your NASA graph pretty clearly shows a strong trend toward increasing temps. That would be "global warming." But, if I am reading your post correctly, you are arguing about the relationship between CO2 and the overall rise in temps (AKA "The Greenhouse Effect"), saying they're unrelated. This is untrue.

You cite as evidence the fact that we've seen other trends in temperature, up and down, and, I am guessing, you can't see an immediate correlation to CO2 level changes. This is because CO2 is not the only factor effecting temperatures on the earth. There are many, many others, including solar activity. One massive asteroid would be pretty, um, impactful, too.

But that says nothing about the relationship between CO2 and temperature. Virtually ALL research into climate history shows that higher temps are always accompanied by elevated CO2 levels. Note that you have to ignore the short term trends, because of the many factors that can effect temps on a day-to-day basis. The meaningful trend, from a climatological perspective, is the overall temperature trend, correlated to the overall CO2 trend. Both are climbing like Lance Armstrong in the mountains.

The NASA graph, helpfully, starts just about the time the Industrial Revolution started, when we really began boosting the amount of CO2 we humans produce, mostly due to the burning of fossil fuels. That was the key bit of evidence that put the many researchers worldwide on the job of defining the relationship between humans and climate. The big jump at the same time in both temperature and CO2 suggested the two were related, and lots more follow-up research has supported that idea.

Slider



So your suggesting what to prevent (stop, reverse, whatever) global warming? Lowering temps so CO2 levels go down? Some type of astroid defense system? A big shiny sheet to block solar activity?


I read Crichton's speech. I didn't see anything I could disagree with. Where is the fallacy?

[BG]

http://www.cei.org/pdf/4691.pdf

BG

[MTBME]

Hey if Al Gore didn't write it, it aint true.

[Slider]

So your suggesting what to prevent (stop, reverse, whatever) global warming? Lowering temps so CO2 levels go down? Some type of astroid defense system? A big shiny sheet to block solar activity?

I read Crichton's speech. I didn't see anything I could disagree with. Where is the fallacy?

Cat,

Read the past discussion in this forum. I think his arguments are very transparent, and described exactly how here:

http://www.nemba.org/NEMBAforum/index.php?board=37;action=display;threadid=7642;st art=30

The methods for stopping the warming are the reason Bush and his ilk want to deny its existence: They'll hurt his industry pals, who paid him, literally, to protect them. Primarily, we're talking the oil industry. Burning fossil fuels are the biggest source of man-made CO2. Any reduction, to Bush's mind, will impact them and the economy generally. Of course, this ignores the far greater impact the violent climactic change will bring. Very typical for Bush, missing the bigger picture completely.

Slider

[BG]

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/category/climate-changes/

BG

[catbbq]

Cat,

Read the past discussion in this forum. I think his arguments are very transparent, and described exactly how here:

http://www.nemba.org/NEMBAforum/index.php?board=37;action=display;threadid=7642;st art=30

The methods for stopping the warming are the reason Bush and his ilk want to deny its existence: They'll hurt his industry pals, who paid him, literally, to protect them. Primarily, we're talking the oil industry. Burning fossil fuels are the biggest source of man-made CO2. Any reduction, to Bush's mind, will impact them and the economy generally. Of course, this ignores the far greater impact the violent climactic change will bring. Very typical for Bush, missing the bigger picture completely.

Slider


Guess I am missing it. That thread and this one too seems to have you suggesting that CO2 is the major cause of global warming. Yet the very data the so called scientists are using to prove global warming has huge holes in it. In the case of the data I cited (NASA data), it has a mean temp drop between 1940 and 1970. So it seems quiet obvious that other things besides CO2 are causing it. And if CO2 isn't the major cause, then the idea that we can stop it by decreasing CO2 emmissions is ludicrous.

And that is assuming there is something to stop.

[Slider]

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/category/climate-changes/

BG


Wow!! I haven't seen such a load of crap assembled into one place in a long time. Pure spin, with no real competing counterpoint other than some kind of backhanded slap at, well, I am not sure. Any weather related research, I guess.

I mean, they're saying all this research is what? Fabricated? The product of some great conspiracy among them damn geek scientists? It is pretty hard to find what, exactly, they do believe other than it is not what the researchers say. They clearly have some sort of inside line that the professionals missed.

Slider

[BG]

"Wow!! I haven't seen such a load of crap assembled into one place in a long time."

I don't believe that for one second, there i'm over it. You are lying to me now i just know it. Here's some more for you.
Read it and weep

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

BG

[Slider]

Guess I am missing it. That thread and this one too seems to have you suggesting that CO2 is the major cause of global warming. Yet the very data the so called scientists are using to prove global warming has huge holes in it. In the case of the data I cited (NASA data), it has a mean temp drop between 1940 and 1970. So it seems quiet obvious that other things besides CO2 are causing it. And if CO2 isn't the major cause, then the idea that we can stop it by decreasing CO2 emmissions is ludicrous.

And that is assuming there is something to stop.


A 30 year span is meaningless because of potential short term influences - a volcanic eruption, for example. But looking longer term, the trends are more obvious. Your NASA graph is a good example of that. The temperature is obviously climbing, and the rate of temperature increase is increasing, too.

During the same time span, the amount of CO2 we humans pump into the atmosphere has increased dramatically. Any ancient climates that we look at say the same thing: When the earth had a warmer climate, it also had higher levels of CO2. That makes it extremely likely that the two are connected.

Slider

[Slider]

"Wow!! I haven't seen such a load of crap assembled into one place in a long time."

I don't believe that for one second, there i'm over it. You are lying to me now i just know it. Here's some more for you.
Read it and weep

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

BG



He's saying there's a lot of water vapor in the air? OK. How nice. Lots of scientists think so, and study it, too. No one ignores it, which is what this fellow is claiming.

Water is, um, pretty important, and plays a key role in lots of the mechanisms that move carbon around in the atmosphere. This guy seems to be saying he discovered that fact. Sorry, someone beat him to it.

Slider

[catbbq]

Wow!! I haven't seen such a load of crap assembled into one place in a long time. Pure spin, with no real competing counterpoint other than some kind of backhanded slap at, well, I am not sure. Any weather related research, I guess.


http://www.nemba.org/NEMBAforum/index.php?board=;action=usersrecentposts;userid=12 92;user=TrailBate&viewscount=10

[TrailBate]

I can (sorta) understand arguing WHY global warming is happening, but you can't argue whether or not it IS happening. The evidence is overwhelming and irrefutable.

[BG]

" The evidence is overwhelming and irrefutable."

That dosen't necessarily make a difference with anything anymore.

BG

[FriedRys]

I can (sorta) understand arguing WHY global warming is happening, but you can't argue whether or not it IS happening. The evidence is overwhelming and irrefutable.
I'm gonna have to agree, it's definately getting warmer. Whether or not its from car's and coal plant's or volcanos and a natural cycle the world is going through, who knows?

[off piste]

Wow -- when the body wants to get rid of a pesky, irritating microbe, what's the first reaction it has?

FEVER

Heh, heh, heh......

[Slider]

Fever definitely helps our bodies kill things off. On the earth, higher temps do the same thing.

Coral reefs are the foundation for the whole tropical food chain. It is a very, very bad thing.

Slider

Caribbean coral suffers record die-off
World's coral reef loss 'an underwater holocaust'

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A one-two punch of bleaching from record hot water followed by disease has killed ancient and delicate coral in the biggest loss of reefs scientists have ever seen in Caribbean waters.

Researchers from around the globe are scrambling to figure out the extent of the loss. Early conservative estimates from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands find that about one-third of the coral in official monitoring sites has recently died.

"It's an unprecedented die-off," said National Park Service fisheries biologist Jeff Miller, who last week checked 40 stations in the Virgin Islands.

"The mortality that we're seeing now is of the extremely slow-growing reef-building corals. These are corals that are the foundation of the reef ... We're talking colonies that were here when Columbus came by have died in the past three to four months."

Some of the devastated coral can never be replaced because it only grows the width of one dime a year, Miller said.

Coral reefs are the basis for a multibillion-dollar tourism and commercial fishing economy in the Caribbean. Key fish species use coral as habitat and feeding grounds. Reefs limit the damage from hurricanes and tsunamis. More recently they are being touted as possible sources for new medicines.

If coral reefs die "you lose the goose with golden eggs" that are key parts of small island economies, said Edwin Hernandez-Delgado, a University of Puerto Rico biology researcher.

On Sunday, Hernandez-Delgado found a colony of 800-year-old star coral -- more than 13 feet high -- that had just died in the waters off Puerto Rico.

"We did lose entire colonies," he said. "This is something we have never seen before."

On Wednesday, Tyler Smith, coordinator of the U.S. Virgin Islands Coral Reef Monitoring program, dived at a popular spot for tourists in St. Thomas and saw an old chunk of brain coral, about 3 feet in diameter, that was at least 90 percent dead from the disease called "white plague."

"We haven't seen an event of this magnitude in the Caribbean before," said Mark Eakin, coordinator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Coral Reef Watch.

The Caribbean is actually better off than areas of the Indian and Pacific ocean where mortality rates -- mostly from warming waters -- have been in the 90 percent range in past years, said Tom Goreau of the Global Coral Reef Alliance. Goreau called what's happening worldwide "an underwater holocaust."

And with global warming, scientists are pessimistic about the future of coral reefs.

"The prognosis is not good," said biochemistry professor M. James Crabbe of the University of Luton near London. In early April, he will investigate coral reef mortality in Jamaica. "If you want to see a coral reef, go now, because they just won't survive in their current state."

For the Caribbean, it all started with hot sea temperatures, first in Panama in the spring and early summer, and it got worse from there.

New NOAA sea surface temperature figures show the sustained heating in the Caribbean last summer and fall was by far the worst in 21 years of satellite monitoring, Eakin said.

"The 2005 event is bigger than all the previous 20 years combined," he said.

What happened in the Caribbean would be the equivalent of every city in the United States recording a record high temperature at the same time, Eakin said. And it remained hot for weeks, even months, stressing the coral.

The heat causes the symbiotic algae that provides food for the coral to die and turn white. That puts the coral in critical condition. If coral remains bleached for more than a week, the chance of death soars, according to NOAA scientists.

In the past, only some coral species would bleach during hot water spells and the problem would occur only at certain depths. But in 2005, bleaching struck far more of the region at all depths and in most species.

A February NOAA report calculates 96 percent of lettuce coral, 93 percent of the star coral and nearly 61 percent of the iconic brain coral in St. Croix had bleached. Much of the coral had started to recover from the bleaching last fall, but then the weakened colonies were struck by disease, finishing them off.

Eakin, who oversees the temperature study of the warmer water, said it's hard to point to global warming for just one season's high temperatures, but other scientists are convinced.

"This is probably a harbinger of things to come," said John Rollino, the chief scientist for the Bahamian Reef Survey. "The coral bleaching is probably more a symptom of disease -- the widespread global environmental degradation -- that's going on."

Crabbe said evidence of global warming is overwhelming.

"The big problem for coral is the question of whether they can adapt sufficiently quickly to cope with climate change," Crabbe said. "I think the evidence we have at the moment is: No, they can't.

"It'll not be the same ecosystem," he said. "The fish will go away. The smaller predators will go away. The invertebrates will go away."

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[BG]

http://www.mediarights.org/festival/presentation/hc_threats.htm

BG

[off piste]

Don't worry -- in a few more years when Bush is out of office, everything will return to normal......

[Slider]

http://www.mediarights.org/festival/presentation/hc_threats.htm

BG


This particular bleaching event followed a long period of record high water temps. The other things on your list may have played a role, but the temps stand out.

Slider

[Slider]

Don't worry -- in a few more years when Bush is out of office, everything will return to normal......


It would be nice if our century of environmental abuse could be negated so easily. Instead, we're only digging a deeper and deeper environmental hole, just like the economic, diplomatic and fascisistic ones he's leading us into.

There's no such thing as getting the time back.

Slider

[BG]

Don't worry -- in a few more years when Bush is out of office, everything will return to normal......


LMAO, that's almost as funny as this site.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=muppet

BG

[off piste]

Don't worry -- in a few more years when Bush is out of office, everything will return to normal......


It would be nice if our century of environmental abuse could be negated so easily. Instead, we're only digging a deeper and deeper environmental hole, just like the economic, diplomatic and fascisistic ones he's leading us into.

There's no such thing as getting the time back.

Slider



Don't work yourself into a stroke over everything. Theworld will be fine, as it always has been. It'll endure and be a great place ---


When we're gone.......

[BG]

Maybe the quicker WE go, the better off the WORLD will be.

BG

[off piste]

http://www.shirtfreaks.com/19/index.php

But not until I do a little more trailwork.........

[Slider]

Don't work yourself into a stroke over everything. Theworld will be fine, as it always has been. It'll endure and be a great place ---
When we're gone.......


No matter what we do? This sounds simply idiotic.

Slider

[BG]

Yeah, personally i think it's pretty cool that mankind is taking on the responsibility of it's own destruction as opposed to allowing some "natural" calamity to randomly take it's course. Maybe something even more hideous will spawn in the polluted oceans and rise to the challange to take over where we left off.

BG

[kernel crash]

"Maybe something even more hideous will spawn in the polluted oceans and rise to the challange to take over where we left off. "

Exactly. That's what evolution is all about.

[off piste]

Don't work yourself into a stroke over everything. Theworld will be fine, as it always has been. It'll endure and be a great place ---
When we're gone.......


No matter what we do? This sounds simply idiotic.

Slider


I was getting the impression from your diatribe that you thought we were past the point of no return. As that's apparently not the case, then what do you offer up as a solution, and how do you propose we get there? Or do you just want to continue blowing the horn and passing it off as taking action?

[Slider]

I was getting the impression from your diatribe that you thought we were past the point of no return. As that's apparently not the case, then what do you offer up as a solution, and how do you propose we get there? Or do you just want to continue blowing the horn and passing it off as taking action?


There is nothing to return to, or leave. There's only sane stewardship and a realistic assessment of our place in the creation of the planet's climate. We're part of a process, and we have to respect our role and understand the consequences of our actions. It won't take us back to some pristine Eden, but it can help us leave something viable to our descendants.

If we're talking about warming, the subject of this thread, then we need to restrict things that produce the greenhouse gasses. It took the U.S. Court of Appeals to force Bush to enforce the Clean Air Act, and lots more pollution entered the atmosphere in the meanwhile. There are many, many more examples that show the idiocy of Bush's envinromental stance. We need several decades of sound management to make even a slight dent in the warming trend. No better time to start than now.

Slider

[TrailBate]

luckily, Bush is selling off forests and parks. Which is a good thing, since as any Reagan Republican will tell you, trees cause more pollution than cars.

[off piste]

Ok, well, that's a start. So, how you propose we accomplish what you've just stated? You've implied that we're not past the point of no return, but now again you're implying that one man and his policies are the reason for Global Warming. Then, two posts back, you acknowledge that this process has been going on for more than a century. So, to say that this one administration is having more of an effect than all the preceeding activities of all humanity over the past century and a half seems to make it look like you endow the Bush Administration with the god like ability to go forward and push us over the cusp, of change course and stop us from going to destruction.

So, all this has been going on for a century and a half, so what do you propose we do? You gift to the world Democrats and your genius adversaries the Republicans have been in control of it all since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. So, give us some answers. Maybe if you'd managed to put a decent frontrunner that could be taken seriously into the race other than that joke Kerry, then you'd at least be able to blame your failures on the fact that it'd take at least 4 consecutive Democratic terms do undo the damage the Republicans did.....

[BG]

luckily, Bush is selling off forests and parks. Which is a good thing, since as any Reagan Republican will tell you, trees cause more pollution than cars.


Free Republic
Home · Browse · Search News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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

Skip to comments.

Pines recycle pollutants, study finds (President Reagan was right)
The Globe and Mail ^ | Thursday, March 13, 2003 | ANNE McILROY


Posted on 03/13/2003 7:12:11 AM PST by Isara


Coniferous forests may produce more smog components than traffic does, calculations suggest

Maybe Ronald Reagan was right after all about trees being big polluters. A new study suggests the Scotch pine and other northern evergreens may emit more nitrogen oxides -- key components of smog -- than all the cars and industrial plants on the planet.

It has been known for years that some plants emit small amounts of nitrogen oxides. Now, a team of Finnish and U.S. researchers has found that Scotch pine needles increase those emissions substantially when they are exposed to ultraviolet radiation from the sun. This led the researchers to make a provocative calculation.

"Our findings suggest that global nitrogen-oxides emissions from boreal coniferous forests may be comparable to those produced by worldwide industrial and traffic sources," says the paper, published in today's edition of the British journal Nature.

This would have delighted Mr. Reagan, the former U.S. president now incapacitated by Alzheimer's disease. Environmentalists ridiculed him in the early 1980s for declaring that "trees cause more pollution than automobiles."

Although he grossly overstated the case for plants as polluters, Mr. Reagan's so-called "killer tree" statement was based on science.

In the mid-1960s, U.S. researcher Reinhold Rasmussen, intrigued by the blue haze or atmospheric mist over Virginia's Blue Ridge Mountains, published the first paper making the connection between trees and smog. Ten years ago, other researchers began building on his work, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency is studying trees' contribution to pollution in the southeastern U.S.

But Mr. Reagan's mistake, at least with nitrogen oxides, was in saying that trees cause air pollution. Trees emit nitrogen oxides, but they are recycling what is already in the atmosphere, not producing more, said William Munger, a Harvard University atmospheric scientist and co-author of the Nature paper.

In other words, trees are not like cars. One hundred years ago, concentrations of nitrogen oxides in the atmosphere were far lower, Dr. Munger said. A little bit of them is produced naturally, by such things as lightning strikes and forest fires.

"The industrial world has made huge changes in that amount," he said.

This means that trees are probably recycling more nitrogen oxide. But that may not create smog, perhaps because the other chemical components aren't readily available. Tests in northern Quebec, for example, have found low levels of smog in the forests.

Recent work in Greenland found that snow also emits nitrogen oxides. Again, the snow is recycling the gas, not producing it, Dr. Munger said. (This is good news for Canada, as it is rich in both snow and evergreens.)

Researchers don't know much about how nitrogen-oxide cycling works, so the finding that sunlight is involved is significant, he said.

Kevin Percy, a researcher at the Canadian Forest Service, agrees that the finding is interesting. But he is not sure it is correct to assume that all evergreens produce nitrogen oxides.

He said the study's researchers may have overestimated the number of Scotch pines in the world -- the trees are common in Northern Europe, but in Canada's boreal forests, black spruce and trembling aspen predominate -- and may have been bombarding the pine needles with high levels of ultraviolet radiation not found in most of Canada.

[Slider]

Ok, well, that's a start. So, how you propose we accomplish what you've just stated? You've implied that we're not past the point of no return, but now again you're implying that one man and his policies are the reason for Global Warming. Then, two posts back, you acknowledge that this process has been going on for more than a century. So, to say that this one administration is having more of an effect than all the preceeding activities of all humanity over the past century and a half seems to make it look like you endow the Bush Administration with the god like ability to go forward and push us over the cusp, of change course and stop us from going to destruction.

So, all this has been going on for a century and a half, so what do you propose we do? You gift to the world Democrats and your genius adversaries the Republicans have been in control of it all since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. So, give us some answers. Maybe if you'd managed to put a decent frontrunner that could be taken seriously into the race other than that joke Kerry, then you'd at least be able to blame your failures on the fact that it'd take at least 4 consecutive Democratic terms do undo the damage the Republicans did.....


Blah blah blah.

All we need is sane policy, and a president who upholds his oath to enforce the law.

Slider

[off piste]

Ok, well, that's a start. So, how you propose we accomplish what you've just stated? You've implied that we're not past the point of no return, but now again you're implying that one man and his policies are the reason for Global Warming. Then, two posts back, you acknowledge that this process has been going on for more than a century. So, to say that this one administration is having more of an effect than all the preceeding activities of all humanity over the past century and a half seems to make it look like you endow the Bush Administration with the god like ability to go forward and push us over the cusp, of change course and stop us from going to destruction.

So, all this has been going on for a century and a half, so what do you propose we do? You gift to the world Democrats and your genius adversaries the Republicans have been in control of it all since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. So, give us some answers. Maybe if you'd managed to put a decent frontrunner that could be taken seriously into the race other than that joke Kerry, then you'd at least be able to blame your failures on the fact that it'd take at least 4 consecutive Democratic terms do undo the damage the Republicans did.....


Blah blah blah.

All we need is sane policy, and a president who upholds his oath to enforce the law.

Slider


Really? And once again, you acknowleged that global warming has been going on for over a century. Over the last century we've had many presidents. Not that blaming global warming on American policy versus the combined activities of all Humanity for over a century isn't moronitude personified in the first place.....

Nice side step though

[Slider]

Really? And once again, you acknowleged that global warming has been going on for over a century. Over the last century we've had many presidents. Not that blaming global warming on American policy versus the combined activities of all Humanity for over a century isn't moronitude personified in the first place.....

Nice side step though


Sidestep of what?

I never placed blame for the warming on anyone other than, collectively, all of us. Like you, I drive a car, heat my house, take the occasional plane flight. I exhale regularly, too. They all contribute C02 to the atmosphere, and the amount of that CO2 is growing at an ever increasing pace.

Recently, within the last couple of decades, we've started to understand what all that CO2 does to the climate. That grasp helps us make laws, like the Clean Air Act, that can help minimize the bad effects of our wasteful lifestyle. Then we have to enforce those laws. This is where your boy Bush just seems to not get the point. Too bad it took the Court of Appeals to help him understand his responsibility. And too bad there are so many other issues where he is equally clueless.

Slider

[BG]

"All we need is sane policy, and a president who upholds his oath to enforce the law."

The people have spoken, they don't wan't that.
They want cheap gasoline and cheap produce untill the dire end.

BG

[Slider]

"All we need is sane policy, and a president who upholds his oath to enforce the law."

The people have spoken, they don't wan't that.
They want cheap gasoline and cheap produce untill the dire end.

BG


I dunno. What's the approval rating these days? 32% or so, I think.

People don't know what they want, but they know what they don't want.

Slider

[off piste]

"All we need is sane policy, and a president who upholds his oath to enforce the law."

The people have spoken, they don't wan't that.
They want cheap gasoline and cheap produce untill the dire end.

BG




I dunno. What's the approval rating these days? 32% or so, I think.

People don't know what they want, but they know what they don't want.

Slider


Yep, they don't want the Republicans, and they didn't want Kerry. You're right -- they're getting sick of the same old BS you and your "adversaries" (LOL!) have been giving us for all these generations.

[Slider]

You're right -- they're getting sick of the same old BS you and your "adversaries" (LOL!) have been giving us for all these generations.


Really, you give me far too much credit. I gave up my membership in the Iluminati a long time ago. It was interfering with my bike time.

And what, dare I ask, has your role been?

Slider

[off piste]

You're right -- they're getting sick of the same old BS you and your "adversaries" (LOL!) have been giving us for all these generations.


Really, you give me far too much credit. I gave up my membership in the Iluminati a long time ago. It was interfering with my bike time.

And what, dare I ask, has your role been?

Slider


I invented the Internet.......

[BG]

"I invented the Internet....... "

I hate you now.

BG

[off piste]

"I invented the Internet....... "

I hate you now.

BG


That's my middle of the road stance -- I thought I was Al Gore for a second. Give me a minute, and I'll switch Right and go outside and throw asbestos around on the street.

[Slider]

Wow, so you were the one Al Gore encouraged when he said he "took the initiative in creating the internet"? I thought he meant he proposed and supported legislation that funded the research. I guess it was more direct than that. Thanks for filling in the missing history.

Slider

[off piste]

No, actually my intent was to drop a bare, unbaited hook in the water and induce in you the predictable response of completely dropping the argument at hand and going into defense mode when an old stereotype of a Democratic "icon" was used. Not that it implies that you have a blinder-like, party-based agenda or anything.

Don't have a stroke -- the world'll be a better place -- when we're all gone!

Sorry for the humor......

[BG]

"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made."

-- Vice President Al Gore to Sam Donaldson, 8/17/93

I can relate to this one

BG

[Slider]

No, actually my intent was to drop a bare, unbaited hook in the water and induce in you the predictable response of completely dropping the argument at hand and going into defense mode when an old stereotype of a Democratic "icon" was used. Not that it implies that you have a blinder-like, party-based agenda or anything.

Don't have a stroke -- the world'll be a better place -- when we're all gone!

Sorry for the humor......



Party based? I've been pretty specifc in defense of my posts. I don't need tricks to change the subject, because I can support what I say.

Slider

[BG]

Party based? This is more bouillabaissed than anything.

BG

[off piste]

Really? And once again, you acknowleged that global warming has been going on for over a century. Over the last century we've had many presidents. Not that blaming global warming on American policy versus the combined activities of all Humanity for over a century isn't moronitude personified in the first place.....

Nice side step though


Sidestep of what?

I never placed blame for the warming on anyone other than, collectively, all of us. Like you, I drive a car, heat my house, take the occasional plane flight. I exhale regularly, too. They all contribute C02 to the atmosphere, and the amount of that CO2 is growing at an ever increasing pace.

Recently, within the last couple of decades, we've started to understand what all that CO2 does to the climate. That grasp helps us make laws, like the Clean Air Act, that can help minimize the bad effects of our wasteful lifestyle. Then we have to enforce those laws. This is where your boy Bush just seems to not get the point. Too bad it took the Court of Appeals to help him understand his responsibility. And too bad there are so many other issues where he is equally clueless.

Slider



My boy Bush? Surprise -- wanted Bush out in the last election. If your side had put someone decent in the election, maybe thing's would be different, but I doubt it. Another surprise -- even though you put that joke up for election -- I voted Kerry! :o

Why? Because I knew he didn't stand a chance of getting elected, and I didn't want to have to take my 1/50000000th (or whatever) part of the responsibility for putting Bush there.

[BG]

OK, the "soup" is getting to thick for me here. I need to go find my "inner idiot" and relax. (the dvd, good flick)

BG

[off piste]

Only an Inner Idiot would eat soup with a knife.....

Later Bob

[Slider]

My boy Bush? Surprise -- wanted Bush out in the last election. If your side had put someone decent in the election, maybe thing's would be different, but I doubt it. Another surprise -- even though you put that joke up for election -- I voted Kerry! :o

Why? Because I knew he didn't stand a chance of getting elected, and I didn't want to have to take my 1/50000000th (or whatever) part of the responsibility for putting Bush there.


OK. So why are we having this conversation? Hasn't Bush lived down to your worst expectations? Wouldn't ignoring the Clean Air Act, and getting slapped in court for it, be a great example of how inept/corrupt/idiotic the guy is?

Slider

[off piste]

My boy Bush? Surprise -- wanted Bush out in the last election. If your side had put someone decent in the election, maybe thing's would be different, but I doubt it. Another surprise -- even though you put that joke up for election -- I voted Kerry! :o

Why? Because I knew he didn't stand a chance of getting elected, and I didn't want to have to take my 1/50000000th (or whatever) part of the responsibility for putting Bush there.


OK. So why are we having this conversation? Hasn't Bush lived down to your worst expectations? Wouldn't ignoring the Clean Air Act, and getting slapped in court for it, be a great example of how inept/corrupt/idiotic the guy is?

Slider





Sorry if I'm not making myself clear. I'll try and type slow this time.

I don't believe your side is the answer either. In fact, I think yours is the other side of the same evil, vile coin. When your side gets in, there'll be no difference, just a continuation of the downward slide.

[Slider]

Ah, I see. Cynicism. It really isn't that bad. I mean, eliminate the Iraq war, the Haliburton handouts, and the rape of the Bill of Rights and the environment, and the country is a far better place.

Small decisions and big ones do make a difference. Democracy is a pretty good system, if it is respected, defended and protected. The fact that it isn't now is the biggest problem we face, but the inherint strength of the concept is what will save us.

Even the environmental situation is something we can survive, but I wouldn't want to live on this planet in 50 years. That is one of the main reasons I don't have kids. But, truth be told, the future residents of the planet will not miss what we now have, but instead they'll have their own issues. The bottom line is that they'll cope just fine, as do we.

Slider

[off piste]

Ok, I got it. Your outlook isn't as bleask as these hundreds of pages between you and Trailbait would lead us to believe. You reallydo see everything that's troubling you as stemming from the Bush administration, and its elimination will make things right again.

I see the public service that your'e performing for us now! By getting up on your box and sounding the air raid siren, you're alerting us all to take action! I hear you brother! I guarantee you, I and everyone else will follow your lead and vote Bush out in the next election!!! He won't get a 3rd term if we can help it, by gum!

[Slider]

Ok, I got it. Your outlook isn't as bleask as these hundreds of pages between you and Trailbait would lead us to believe. You reallydo see everything that's troubling you as stemming from the Bush administration, and its elimination will make things right again.

I see the public service that your'e performing for us now! By getting up on your box and sounding the air raid siren, you're alerting us all to take action! I hear you brother! I guarantee you, I and everyone else will follow your lead and vote Bush out in the next election!!! He won't get a 3rd term if we can help it, by gum!




Long before that, if we really want to defend democray, we can impeach him. He does a lot more harm than you seem to think. I guess we can agree to disagree on that.

Slider

[MTBME]

Sound familiar?

Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will1.asp

[kernel crash]

Well you know what they say, If you don't like the weather, just wait a few years ;)

[Slider]

Are you saying three decades of vastly increased and improved global remote sensing and data processing has been meaningless?

Slider

[kernel crash]

"Are you saying three decades of vastly increased and improved global remote sensing and data processing has been meaningless?"

It depends. Who's doing the data processing and what's their motivation? It would appear that some of these alleged "experts" have been all over the place on this issues for a very long time. (And they still are by the way). Why should we assume they got it right this time? These are the same blockheads that said we were heading for an ice age 30 years ago!

[TrailBate]

Sound familiar?

Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will1.asp





If anything, this is just more alarming evidence of how much of a severe impact we are having on our planet. You can’t just say “oh well, the Earth was warming anyway.” We have actually reversed a cooling trend. How scary is that?

[off piste]

Are you saying three decades of vastly increased and improved global remote sensing and data processing has been meaningless?

Slider







Just because electronic sensing has developed over 30 years doesn't mean data collection methods before that are vastly inferior:

The exact size of the stadion he used is no longer known (the common Attic stadion was about 185 m), but it is generally believed that Eratosthenes' value corresponds to 39,690 km. The circumference of the Earth around the poles is now measured at around 40,008 km.

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

[MTBME]

"How scary is that? "

Or maybe its the earth going through some of its natural processes that we don't yet fully understand. But how can that be? We are man. We have all the answers. We have it all figured out. But don't worry. If you believe this guy, the earth's population will soon be reduced by 90% as the earth tries to clean up its own mess. See how easy this mess all gets cleaned up.

http://story.seguingazette.com/drudge.html

[Slider]

Are you saying three decades of vastly increased and improved global remote sensing and data processing has been meaningless?
Slider


Just because electronic sensing has developed over 30 years doesn't mean data collection methods before that are vastly inferior:

The exact size of the stadion he used is no longer known (the common Attic stadion was about 185 m), but it is generally believed that Eratosthenes' value corresponds to 39,690 km. The circumference of the Earth around the poles is now measured at around 40,008 km.

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


Eratoshenes didn't even know what CO2 was. Our understanding has improved a bit, which is the point here.

How do a few measurements of a shadow cast by a stick relate to vast volumes of data, derived from measurements taken by hundreds of extremely sophisticated satellites?

Slider

[TrailBate]

"How scary is that? "

Or maybe its the earth going through some of its natural processes that we don't yet fully understand. But how can that be? We are man. We have all the answers. We have it all figured out. But don't worry. If you believe this guy, the earth's population will soon be reduced by 90% as the earth tries to clean up its own mess. See how easy this mess all gets cleaned up.

http://story.seguingazette.com/drudge.html



Look at your own argument. 40 years ago scientists believed the earth was cooling. In that short 40 year span, we've turned it into unprecedented warming. Why would this happen normally? The sun is not hotter. It is not closer. The earth's core is not getting warmer. All the scientific evidence points to man. There is no way this could happen naturally.

[Slider]

"How scary is that? "

Or maybe its the earth going through some of its natural processes that we don't yet fully understand. But how can that be? We are man. We have all the answers. We have it all figured out. But don't worry. If you believe this guy, the earth's population will soon be reduced by 90% as the earth tries to clean up its own mess. See how easy this mess all gets cleaned up.

http://story.seguingazette.com/drudge.html



So let's burn a few animals in offering to the gods. Maybe sacrifice a firstborn or two. I mean, that is what the Greeks would have done.

Slider

[TrailBate]

Nah, let's do what the Mayans did: Sacrifice some virgins at the top of a temple, and let the blood flow down the steps.

[MTBME]

I am not a scientist. Neither are you. This is not my field of expertise. Nor yours. I don't pretend to understand all the various theories and angles to this subject. I leave that up to the "experts". But lets not kid ourselves. The experts do not agree on the root cause of this problem. Nor do they agree on man's role, or on a solution. So you can insist on getting your last words in on the subject but it doesn't make your arguments any more valid than anybody elses.

[off piste]

Are you saying three decades of vastly increased and improved global remote sensing and data processing has been meaningless?
Slider


Just because electronic sensing has developed over 30 years doesn't mean data collection methods before that are vastly inferior:

The exact size of the stadion he used is no longer known (the common Attic stadion was about 185 m), but it is generally believed that Eratosthenes' value corresponds to 39,690 km. The circumference of the Earth around the poles is now measured at around 40,008 km.

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


Eratoshenes didn't even know what CO2 was. Our understanding has improved a bit, which is the point here.

How do a few measurements of a shadow cast by a stick relate to vast volumes of data, derived from measurements taken by hundreds of extremely sophisticated satellites?

Slider






I was using that as an example that just because a data collection method pre-dates fancy electronic apparatus, doen't make it any less valid.

Can you help me out and provide some cites that state that what we have in place equates to vastly more accurate meterology? I couldn't find that, but granted I didn't do hours of research. All I found was similar to the following:

Polar orbiting satellites provide soundings of temperature and moisture throughout the depth of the atmosphere. Compared with similar data from radiosondes, the satellite data has the advantage that coverage is global, however the accuracy and resolution is not as good.

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

A radiosounde, I found was a weather balloon, which were first used in 1936, and are concidered more accurate than the new-fangled satellites.

While the ability to gather data has no doubt improved 1000's of times over in the 3 decades in question, the fact that the forecasters still can't predict accuratly what will happen 3 days out leaves me wondering if the ability to crunch this data into meaningful results is all that different than i't ever been.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Seems to me there is an unlimited supply of hydrogen atoms to blast and create energy with no negative effect upon earth's ozone layer and greenhouse gas supply. This is a no brainer.

[Slider]

I am not a scientist. Neither are you. This is not my field of expertise. Nor yours. I don't pretend to understand all the various theories and angles to this subject. I leave that up to the "experts". But lets not kid ourselves. The experts do not agree on the root cause of this problem. Nor do they agree on man's role, or on a solution. So you can insist on getting your last words in on the subject but it doesn't make your arguments any more valid than anybody elses.



Not true at all. The vast majority of people doing direct climate research agree that warming is a problem, and man is a primary cause. Hit the site for any major climate research group: NASA, NOAA, AES, all the universtity affilaites like Scripps, WHOI, NCAR, etc. All of them say the same thing. See the take on consensus in the Crichton rant. What consensus do you suppose he is taking offense to?

Now, you can always find a few contrarians. More power to them, as they try to make their case. Does that mean we also have to think that maybe the extraterrestrials are the true cause? Perhaps it really is the Iluminati after all? Or, per people like Pat Roberts, maybe we just don't pray enough?

You really gotta filter in these days of info overload. The whole idea that there's not a consensus comes from those who simply don't read close enough to grasp the weight of the evidence. We are all pretty skeptical these days, but there is a baby in that bath water. Careful before you pull the plug on all the reliable info that is available.

Slider

[off piste]

Nah, let's do what the Mayans did: Sacrifice some virgins at the top of a temple, and let the blood flow down the steps.


Is that how they stock up Heaven for the Muslims?

[Slider]

Can you help me out and provide some cites that state that what we have in place equates to vastly more accurate meterology?

While the ability to gather data has no doubt improved 1000's of times over in the 3 decades in question, the fact that the forecasters still can't predict accuratly what will happen 3 days out leaves me wondering if the ability to crunch this data into meaningful results is all that different than i't ever been.


You have to differentiate between climate and weather. Weather is a day to day thing, and trends that short term are far harder to predict than the far longer ones related to climate.

I don't know where that Wikipedia thing comes from, but it is a simplistic representation of a vast field of study. NASA is a great source. Plug "remote sensing" into the NASA search field. Here are a few links retrieved that way:

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/F_Remote_Sensing.html

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/fact_sheets/radar.pdf

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/home/F_What_is_Remote_Sensing.html

Slider

[off piste]

Can you help me out and provide some cites that state that what we have in place equates to vastly more accurate meterology?

While the ability to gather data has no doubt improved 1000's of times over in the 3 decades in question, the fact that the forecasters still can't predict accuratly what will happen 3 days out leaves me wondering if the ability to crunch this data into meaningful results is all that different than i't ever been.


You have to differentiate between climate and weather. Weather is a day to day thing, and trends that short term are far harder to predict than the far longer ones related to climate.

I don't know where that Wikipedia thing comes from, but it is a simplistic representation of a vast field of study. NASA is a great source. Plug "remote sensing" into the NASA search field. Here are a few links retrieved that way:

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/F_Remote_Sensing.html

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/fact_sheets/radar.pdf

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/home/F_What_is_Remote_Sensing.html

Slider



Thanks for the links -- lots to peruse there.

[BG]

http://www.ivu.org/religion/articles/argument3.html

2. The Environmental Argument against meat-eating

Many of the world's massive environmental problems could be solved by the reduction or elimination of meat-eating, including global warming, loss of topsoil, loss of rainforests and species extinction.

The temperature of the earth is rising. This global warming, known as "the greenhouse effect," results primarily from carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels, such as oil and natural gas. Three times more fossil fuels must be burned to produce a meat-centered diet than for a meat-free diet. If people stopped eating meat, the threat of higher world temperatures would be vastly diminished.

Trees, and especially the old-growth forests, are essential to the survival of the planet. Their destruction is a major cause of global warming and top soil loss. Both of these effects lead to diminished food production. Meat-eating is the number one driving force for the destruction of these forests. Two-hundred and sixty million acres of U.S. forestland has been cleared for cropland to produce the meat-centered diet. Fifty-five square feet of tropical rainforest is consumed to produce every quarter-pound of rainforest beef. An alarming 75% of all U.S. topsoil has been lost to date. Eighty-five percent of this loss is directly related to livestock raising.

Another devastating result of deforestation is the loss of plant and animal species. Each year 1,000 species are eliminated due to destruction of tropical rainforests for meat grazing and other uses. The rate is growing yearly.

To keep up with U.S. consumption, 300 million pounds of meat are imported annually from Central and South America. This economic incentive impels these nations to cut down their forests to make more pastureland. The short-term gain ignores the long-term, irreparable harm to the earth's ecosystem. In effect these countries are being drained of their resources to put meat on the table of Americans while 75% of all Central American children under the age of five are undernourished.


Solved...it's you damn meat eating bastards.

BG

[off piste]

it's all making sense now:

http://www.periniranch.com/mediakit/hi-cover1.jpg

[BG]

http://www.freemarketproject.org/specialreports/2004/globalwarming_study/sr20041108.asp


Yep, it's meat and politics.

BG

[GeepNutt]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/04/060404150343.0ufe6r2g.html

[Slider]

http://www.freemarketproject.org/specialreports/2004/globalwarming_study/sr20041108.asp


Yep, it's meat and politics.

BG


There's a nice unbiased piece. Gotta admit, Fox RULES when to comes to balance.

This is sarcasm, in case you were unclear. These are culled from the story:

"Thousands of scientists challenge the thinking behind this new treaty, but the opposite view is in force on network news shows. "

"Many reputable scientists argue the entire foundation for global warming is questionable. Even many warming supporters raise questions about the extent of mankind’s contribution to the possible problem."

"Scientists have been debating the reality of climate change and its potential impact for years."

Note that there is not one single piece of support for this multiply repeated claim. No attribution, no research citation, nothing other than the claim itself. This is not only bad science, but incompetent journalism, much like the stuff they are claiming the media to be passing off.

In summary, sort of, it says this: "If you didn’t know any better, you would think climate change already is a problem of Biblical proportions."

If you didn't know any better, you might think this was another incredibly balanced piece of science with no agenda behind it at all. Not knowing any better is what they're counting on.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Global Warming? Not so fast. (http://www.theonion.com/2056-06-22/news/6/)

[Slider]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/04/060404150343.0ufe6r2g.html


Did you read the Colorado study that this refers to? It isn't about whether hurricanes are linked to global warming, but only about whether we can prove it from the existing body of research. It says nothing about whether it may be possible, or seems to make sense, only that is hasn't yet been proven.

But the final line is the most telling. It says: "There are also much, much better ways to justify climate mitigation policies than with hurricanes."

Just so you don't miss the point, they're saying global warming is a problem, but there are more easily demonstrated threats to us than worse hurricanes, so use the easier connections to justify changes in policy.

Slider

[BG]

http://differentriver.com/archives/2006/03/07/global-warming-causes-record-snowfall-right/

There's more proof.
Yep, it's meat and politics and snow.

BG

[Slider]

Not sure I see his point. Snow in places where it has not recently fallen can easily be part of the huge body of evidence for global warming. Because this fellow doesn't understand the connection, it can't be true, I guess.

Slider

[BG]

"In Rhode Island, production agriculture is a $78 million annual industry, three-fourths of which comes from crops. The major crops are silage, potatoes, and hay. Climate change could reduce potato yields by 30-66%. Silage, hay, and pasture yields could fall as much as 39%."

Damn it, there goes the potatoes too. No meat if we want to help stop global warming, no potatoes if we don't...
Might as well let the end come.
Beer, maybe that's good for the environment. Naw, that's just a "Satanic Liquid." Damn Satanic Liquids, Satanic Gases...what the hell.

BG

[Slider]

"In Rhode Island, production agriculture is a $78 million annual industry, three-fourths of which comes from crops. The major crops are silage, potatoes, and hay. Climate change could reduce potato yields by 30-66%. Silage, hay, and pasture yields could fall as much as 39%."

Damn it, there goes the potatoes too. No meat if we want to help stop global warming, no potatoes if we don't...
Might as well let the end come.
Beer, maybe that's good for the environment. Naw, that's just a "Satanic Liquid." Damn Satanic Liquids, Satanic Gases...what the hell.

BG


Time to face the facts, BG. We're talking a vegetarian, car-less future, with plenty of time on our hands to take up lots of low-impact, creative crafts like basket-making.

Slider

[BG]

"In Rhode Island, production agriculture is a $78 million annual industry, three-fourths of which comes from crops. The major crops are silage, potatoes, and hay. Climate change could reduce potato yields by 30-66%. Silage, hay, and pasture yields could fall as much as 39%."

Damn it, there goes the potatoes too. No meat if we want to help stop global warming, no potatoes if we don't...
Might as well let the end come.
Beer, maybe that's good for the environment. Naw, that's just a "Satanic Liquid." Damn Satanic Liquids, Satanic Gases...what the hell.

BG


Time to face the facts, BG. We're talking a vegetarian, car-less future, with plenty of time on our hands to take up lots of low-impact, creative crafts like basket-making.

Slider

So your saying we will all become Hindu because of this global warming thing? I was hoping to go Chinese.

BG

[Slider]

So your saying we will all become Hindu because of this global warming thing? I was hoping to go Chinese.
BG


You can go Chinese, but takeout only. And you have to walk. And the walking will be through the worst hurricanes ever.

Slider

[FriedRys]

"In Rhode Island, production agriculture is a $78 million annual industry, three-fourths of which comes from crops. The major crops are silage, potatoes, and hay. Climate change could reduce potato yields by 30-66%. Silage, hay, and pasture yields could fall as much as 39%."

Damn it, there goes the potatoes too. No meat if we want to help stop global warming, no potatoes if we don't...
Might as well let the end come.
Beer, maybe that's good for the environment. Naw, that's just a "Satanic Liquid." Damn Satanic Liquids, Satanic Gases...what the hell.

BG


Time to face the facts, BG. We're talking a vegetarian, car-less future, with plenty of time on our hands to take up lots of low-impact, creative crafts like basket-making.

Slider



If that's all the future holds, why bother saving the enviroment?

[BG]

"If that's all the future holds, why bother saving the enviroment?"

Damn it man...do it for the potatoes

BG

[off piste]

"If that's all the future holds, why bother saving the enviroment?"

Damn it man...do it for the potatoes

BG


It's already begun.......

http://www.spudstravels.com/Travel%20Archive/North%20America/USA/Washington%20DC/District%20of%20Columbia%20images/Protesting%20Potatoes%20-%20Landscape.jpg

[Mr_Cheeze]

Do it for the snowmen, dammit.

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/Nation's-Snowmen-C.jpg

[BG]

WOW...Iv'e never thought of it that way before.
What WOULD Jack Frost do???
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98232

BG

[TrailBate]

[Washingtonpost.com] Employees and contractors working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, along with a U.S. Geological Survey scientist working at an NOAA lab, said in interviews that over the past year administration officials have chastised them for speaking on policy questions; removed references to global warming from their reports, news releases and conference Web sites; investigated news leaks; and sometimes urged them to stop speaking to the media altogether. Their accounts indicate that the ideological battle over climate-change research, which first came to light at NASA, is being fought in other federal science agencies as well.

[GeepNutt]

More proof the earth has been warming for the last 2000 years.....

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/family/8503574/detail.html

[Slider]

More proof the earth has been warming for the last 2000 years.....

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/family/8503574/detail.html


The earth has been warming pretty steadily since the end of the last ice age, roughly 15,000 years ago. That is, until the last 100 years or so, when the pace picked up rapidly. Guess why that is.

Slider

[off piste]

More proof the earth has been warming for the last 2000 years.....

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/family/8503574/detail.html


The earth has been warming pretty steadily since the end of the last ice age, roughly 15,000 years ago. That is, until the last 100 years or so, when the pace picked up rapidly. Guess why that is.

Slider


Because there were more Republican presidents in that time frame than Democrats? ???

[Slider]

Well, we've only identified the problem within the last 20 years. So a more accurate description would be that, in that time, our collective paralysis in responding to the threat has let it advance more quickly than it would have otherwise.

But, regardless of our response, warming would still be occuring. We can't turn the clock back on a couple of centuries of activity. We can only manage rationally as we go forward. Unfortunately, we're not doing that right now.

Slider

[off piste]

I'm ready to drive a Prius -- if I could afford one.

[catbbq]

The earth has been warming pretty steadily since the end of the last ice age, roughly 15,000 years ago. That is, until the last 100 years or so, when the pace picked up rapidly. Guess why that is.

Slider


You and trailbait's constant blowing of hot air?

[Slider]

Hot air implies there's no fondation for a given point, and that only applies to all those "warming does not exist" posts. So that means they'd be a far more likely cause.

Slider

[Slider]

I'm ready to drive a Prius -- if I could afford one.


Just announced today. 0 interest on Ford hybrid SUVs. It has me thinking about it.

Slider

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/04/06/ford_offering_interest_free_loans_on_hybrid_suvs (http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/04/06/ford_offering_interest_free_loans_on_hybrid_suvs)

[catbbq]

There was a recent article in Wired about GM's engineers tearing down competitor's cars. The said they tore a Prius apart several years ago and immediately decided to not offer a hybrid. Too many things to go wrong.

The natural gas Honda Civic is still the best for low emissions.

[off piste]

I'm ready to drive a Prius -- if I could afford one.


Just announced today. 0 interest on Ford hybrid SUVs. It has me thinking about it.

Slider




It's a good start, but it only gets about 25-30 MPG. Plus, it's a Ford. I already own a Ranger, my 4th in a row, but think it'll be my last Ford. Besides, I need a truck, not an SUV -- but I want to park the truck and stop using it as a car and get something for mileage and emissions. Now, if Ford could come out with a reliable hybrid Focus, for a bargain price with 0%, then they have my attention.

[Slider]

Yeah, I guess waiting until the service life of the things is clear makes good sense. OK, back to saving for the Porsche. ;D

Slider

[GeepNutt]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm

From 1998....

[catbbq]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm

From 1998....


This is just more of Crichton's pleas for attention. Oh, wait, he didn't write this piece? Must be some Bush / Blair ploy.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Scientists blame sun for global warming


And in other news, scientists blame rain for flooding, ground for earthquakes.

[Slider]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm

From 1998....


This is just more of Crichton's pleas for attention. Oh, wait, he didn't write this piece? Must be some Bush / Blair ploy.


Here's what our own National Climate Data Center says on that:

Can the observed changes be explained by natural variability, including changes in solar output?

Since our entire climate system is fundamentally driven by energy from the sun, it stands to reason that if the sun's energy output were to change, then so would the climate. Since the advent of space-borne measurements in the late 1970s, solar output has indeed been shown to vary. There appears to be confirmation of earlier suggestions of an 11 (and 22) year cycle of irradiance. With only 20 years of reliable measurements however, it is difficult to deduce a trend. But, from the short record we have so far, the trend in solar irradiance is estimated at ~0.09 W/m2 compared to 0.4 W/m2 from well-mixed greenhouse gases. There are many indications that the sun also has a longer-term variation which has potentially contributed to the century-scale forcing to a greater degree. There is though, a great deal of uncertainty in estimates of solar irradiance beyond what can be measured by satellites, and still the contribution of direct solar irradiance forcing is small compared to the greenhouse gas component. However, our understanding of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the climate system is minimal. There is much need to refine our understanding of key natural forcing mechanisms of the climate, including solar irradiance changes, in order to reduce uncertainty in our projections of future climate change.

In addition to changes in energy from the sun itself, the Earth's position and orientation relative to the sun (our orbit) also varies slightly, thereby bringing us closer and further away from the sun in predictable cycles (called Milankovitch cycles). Variations in these cycles are believed to be the cause of Earth's ice-ages (glacials). Particularly important for the development of glacials is the radiation receipt at high northern latitudes. Diminishing radiation at these latitudes during the summer months would have enabled winter snow and ice cover to persist throughout the year, eventually leading to a permanent snow- or icepack. While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale. Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters, however for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

[TrailBate]

HONG KONG - China evacuated more than 600,000 people as the strongest typhoon on record to enter the South China Sea in May bore down on the south coast on Wednesday, causing flight and shipping delays around the region.

[kernel crash]

So now every storm is tied in to global warming?
I was waiting for someone to blame this latest rainfall in NE to global warming. I think it's coming real soon.

[Slider]

So now every storm is tied in to global warming?
I was waiting for someone to blame this latest rainfall in NE to global warming. I think it's coming real soon.


If you don't see the way that increased temperature affects every weather cycle on the planet, you must not get the idea of a closed system.

Ever heat up a sealed can?

Slider

[TrailBate]

So now every storm is tied in to global warming?
I was waiting for someone to blame this latest rainfall in NE to global warming. I think it's coming real soon.


not necessarily. But the pattern of record-breaking storms sure does.

[catbbq]

HONG KONG - China evacuated more than 600,000 people as the strongest typhoon on record to enter the South China Sea in May bore down on the south coast on Wednesday, causing flight and shipping delays around the region.


The strongest typhoon on record since the records were wiped out by a typhoon 6 years ago.

[catbbq]

Heard an article on NPR yesterday that clouds the evidence of global warming even more. Seems the scientists aren't so sure that the climate data prior to 1600 since no one was recording data at that time. Tree rings are not the best judge.

In their words "Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee fi nds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium."

http://www.nationalacademies.org/morenews/20060622.html

Which right wing organization sponsors the national academies?

[Mr_Cheeze]

How is it that you conclude that the information provided here "clouds" the picture even more? In reading through the summary, it seems that this report is not intended to support or deny the existence of global warming as much as it is a treatise on the accuracy of scientific measurements within specific timeframes. You are reaching if you think that this is somehow proof that global warming is a concoction of agenda driven environmentalists.

[SteveC]

So now every storm is tied in to global warming?
I was waiting for someone to blame this latest rainfall in NE to global warming. I think it's coming real soon.


I've been waiting for someone to bring up the subject of global dimming......have we discussed this yet??

[Mr_Cheeze]

No, but I'm sure that somehow the Republicans will get blamed for it.

[catbbq]

How is it that you conclude that the information provided here "clouds" the picture even more? In reading through the summary, it seems that this report is not intended to support or deny the existence of global warming as much as it is a treatise on the accuracy of scientific measurements within specific timeframes. You are reaching if you think that this is somehow proof that global warming is a concoction of agenda driven environmentalists.


Your right, it doesn't prove anything. That is why I said "clouds" and not "complete disproves". I am simply pointing out that the scientific facts that many use to prove global warming are not actually facts but data that is open to interpretation.

The poke at the agenda driven environmentalist was just that, a poke.

[Slider]

Heard an article on NPR yesterday that clouds the evidence of global warming even more. Seems the scientists aren't so sure that the climate data prior to 1600 since no one was recording data at that time. Tree rings are not the best judge.


Interesting interpretation that flies in the face of, literally, every analysis of the data set you're referring to. You and W are clearly on the same page, but the book has no text.

Exactly what part about the relationship between CO2 and the Greenhouse Effect is disproven? Did you really think, before the recent NSF/NCAR report, that Christopher Columbus was taking detailed temperature readings? Maybe DeGama, or Cortez were gathering CO2 samples as they trekked? The science, in no way, relies on those measurements.

Last question: How are you more qualified than the legions of researchers who've made understanding the workings of climate their life's work? I mean this literally. Why exactly should your offhand, uncomprehending opinion have any weight at all, especially when you can't support it at all.

Slider

[TrailBate]

from dailykos:

GOP Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, who chairs the House Science Committee, requested that the National Academy of Sciences conduct a review of the evidence on global warming. The request was triggered by wingnut Rep. Joe Barton launching an investigation into the research of leading scientists in the field.

The NAS report is in.


The academy had been asked to report to Congress on how researchers drew conclusions about the Earth's climate going back thousands of years, before data was available from modern scientific instruments. The academy convened a panel of 12 climate experts, chaired by Gerald North, a geosciences professor at Texas A&M University, to look at the "proxy" evidence before then, such as tree rings, corals, marine and lake sediments, ice cores, boreholes and glaciers.

Combining that information gave the panel "a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years," the panel wrote. It said the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia," though it was relatively warm around the year 1000 followed by a "Little Ice Age" from about 1500 to 1850.

... it considered the evidence reliable enough to conclude there were sharp spikes in carbon dioxide and methane, the two major "greenhouse" gases blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere, beginning in the 20th century, after remaining fairly level for 12,000 years.


In response to the findings, Boehlert responded remarkably sanely, for a Republican.


"This report shows the value of Congress handling scientific disputes by asking scientists to give us guidance," Boehlert said Thursday. "There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change."

[jakazz]

hey "trailbait and Slider" were u guys on debate teams in school? because u guys dig up facts like my dog digs holes in my lawn.....

Oh and I love this....(Banned by Right Wing websites) ;D ;D

[Slider]

Facts are good. Too bad more people don't recognize that fact.

Some people, here and elsewhere, can't tell the difference between spin and reality. There are lots of people willing to take advantage of them. That's the reason we're here debating one of the most well-established facts in atmospheric science. Since the fact of global warming doesn't fit into the political objectives of those who'd put short term profit over sane policy, and since not enough people explore the facts before they subscribe to a given perspective, we'll continue to rape the planet and make our own future a lot harder.

Slider

[SteveC]

Verry interesting.......

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/dimming.html

[catbbq]

Interesting interpretation that flies in the face of, literally, every analysis of the data set you're referring to. You and W are clearly on the same page, but the book has no text.



Do you know what "literally" means?


Exactly what part about the relationship between CO2 and the Greenhouse Effect is disproven?


None. I didn't mention CO2 or the greenhouse effect or anything being disproven.


Did you really think, before the recent NSF/NCAR report, that Christopher Columbus was taking detailed temperature readings? Maybe DeGama, or Cortez were gathering CO2 samples as they trekked? The science, in no way, relies on those measurements.


What are you talking about? I am talking about a recent interpretation of the facts.



Last question: How are you more qualified than the legions of researchers who've made understanding the workings of climate their life's work? I mean this literally. Why exactly should your offhand, uncomprehending opinion have any weight at all, especially when you can't support it at all.

Slider


Call you legions, for you are many? I never claimed to be more qualified than anyone. Certainly not the doom sayers who have been predicting the end of the world due to CO2 for years.

Another fact is that I never claimed one way or the other the existence of global warming. I recognize that there are larger forces at work that I certainly don't understand. And I am not a thoughtless, mindless robot that unconditionally and with complete faith believes everything that the media, my parents, my church, my friends, my politcal party tells me.

There is big money in global warming just like everything else. That money sponsors research. That research finds what the money wants.

[Slider]

Do you know what "literally" means?

In this case, it means that 100% of the qualified researchers who've had a read of the dataset we're talking about says it fully supports the notion of global warming due to an increase in human-generated CO2. Use of literally here is, literally, apt.


I didn't mention CO2 or the greenhouse effect or anything being disproven.


You're right. Here's what you said: "Heard an article on NPR yesterday that clouds the evidence of global warming even more. "

If it clouds the evidence in some way, then it would have to weaken the foundation for the argument somehow. My question is what part of the argument, exactly, is weakend by the fact that we don’t have direct climate measurements from the pre-colonial era.

In fact, it clouds nothing, but in truth offers more support to the idea of CO2 related warming.


Did you really think, before the recent NSF/NCAR report, that Christopher Columbus was taking detailed temperature readings? Maybe DeGama, or Cortez were gathering CO2 samples as they trekked? The science, in no way, relies on those measurements.



What are you talking about? I am talking about a recent interpretation of the facts.


You said "Seems the scientists aren't so sure that the climate data prior to 1600 since no one was recording data at that time. "

Since this fact seemed to surprise you, I was asking, clearly, I thought, who you thought might have been taking those missing readings. You present it as if it has relevance to the global warming discussion, when none of the science is based on measurements remotely related to direct, historic temperature or CO2 readings. You can even ignore the temperature graph for the last 500 years and still make an argument for CO2's relationship to global warming.



There is big money in global warming just like everything else. That money sponsors research. That research finds what the money wants.


This is the crux of the anti-warming argument. It seems to come from some sort of cynical attitude toward the researchers doing the actual work. There's no foundation in fact for it at all. It only arises because the science itself is overwhelming in its detail, depth, and universal acceptance. Can't undermine the logic? Attack the integrity of the logician.

Do you know anything about the scientific process? The path to having a research paper published? Peer review? Duplication of experimental results? How about the researchers themselves? Ever meet any of them? Did you accuse them directly of lying, fabrication, or somehow else committing professional prostitution for the sake of grant money? Do you really believe that there's some sort of profession-wide conspiracy to deceive the world with a "sky is falling" story, when it would require the support of every single one of their colleagues from across the globe?

There’s no conspiracy. The scientific process is intact. Atmospheric researchers are not, en masse, fabricating their data of fudging their results. It is a tired, baseless claim.

Slider

[MTBME]

by woodsguy
"I just got back from seeing "An Inconvenient Truth". And I have two things to say.
1) Everyone MUST see this movie.
2) Al Gore would have made an excellent president."

1- Whats in this movie that we haven't already heard. About how we are destroying this planet, which by the way, there is still plenty of disagreement in the scientific community. and

2 - I doubt that. Your looking at the "new" Gore who is busy reinventing himself like a Madison Ave. marketing firm to make himself more easy to digest to the American public.

[Slider]

1- Whats in this movie that we haven't already heard. About how we are destroying this planet, which by the way, there is still plenty of disagreement in the scientific community.


For the umpteenth time, this is not true. Find the work of ONE researcher working with primary research data who claims that global warming is not a fact. One.

Now note, a researcher working with primary data is not some blogger, or a Fox news reporter, or a Fred's University of Misinterpreted Data lab tech. It is someone using, say NASA's remote sensing satellite data, or a paleoclimatologist using ice sample data, or a carbon cycle researcher, or someone in any of many geophysical disciplines, who is actually looking at the research data directly. Not someone doing a survey of past research, or someone funded by the oil industry to cloud the real arguments, or someone in the Bush administration looking to help the oil industry screw us all.

Find ONE climate researcher who says global warming is not a fact, or that it is not related to CO2 introduced into the atmosphere by humans. Just one.

Slider

[MTBME]

I never said global warming is not happening at this time. It is. But what is causing it? We do know that the earth has gone in and out of ice ages. And that these events repeat themselves over the course of thousands of years. I'm just saying that not all scientist are in agreement over why and how its hapening and I don't think Al Gore is some kind of expert. In anything.

[Slider]

He won't see the movie, and it woudn't change his mind. Al Gore could introduce the idea of gravity, and present the research of everyone from Newton through Einstein, and those who are choosing to deny the connection between CO2 and warming would still argue against gravity.

Because it isn't science, it is politics.

Slider

[Ozzy]

Global warming, as a result of human 'pollution' is a bunch of bunk. The relationship between global temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2), on which the entire scare is founded, is not linear, but instead is logarithmic, essentially meaning that every molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere contributes less to warming than the previous one. Unfortunately, all of the environmentalist propaganda on future temperature are being calculated based upon linear data and are therefore inaccurate. In realty water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other minor greenhouse gases. In total, carbon dioxide accounts for between 4.2% and 8.4% of Earth's greenhouse effect. This means, to double the pre-Industrial Revolution warming from CO2 alone would require about 90,000ppmv, but we'd never see it - CO2 becomes toxic at around 6,000ppmv. Also consider that there is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend -- global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising; just more proof that Carbon Dioxide plays a relatively small role in global warming.
At any rate humans can only claim responsibility, if that's the word, for abut 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually, the rest of it is all natural. So technically speaking our effect on global warming in regards to Carbon Dioxide ‘pollution’ is somewhere between .14% and .28% of the overall effect. It should be mentioned as well, the LARGEST verifiable increase in temperature over the last 100 years, is about .6 celcius. The margin for error in determining Earths mean temperature is +- .7celcius. There was also a GREATER upward increase in mean temperature than the one we are currently experiencing in the 1700's; last time I checked there weren't a lot of cars causing pollution back then.

[Slider]

Since you seem to disagree with pretty much every qualified researcher, some sources for your data would seem to be appropriate, yes?

Slider

[Slider]

Never mind. Found it. The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a conservative public policy organization, and the fellow who chairs their global warming committee has no scientific credentials at all. They don't produce science, just propaganda.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Global warming, as a result of human 'pollution' is a bunch of bunk. The relationship between global temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2), on which the entire scare is founded, is not linear, but instead is logarithmic, essentially meaning that every molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere contributes less to warming than the previous one. Unfortunately, all of the environmentalist propaganda on future temperature are being calculated based upon linear data and are therefore inaccurate. In realty water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other minor greenhouse gases. In total, carbon dioxide accounts for between 4.2% and 8.4% of Earth's greenhouse effect. This means, to double the pre-Industrial Revolution warming from CO2 alone would require about 90,000ppmv, but we'd never see it - CO2 becomes toxic at around 6,000ppmv. Also consider that there is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend -- global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising; just more proof that Carbon Dioxide plays a relatively small role in global warming.
At any rate humans can only claim responsibility, if that's the word, for abut 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually, the rest of it is all natural. So technically speaking our effect on global warming in regards to Carbon Dioxide ‘pollution’ is somewhere between .14% and .28% of the overall effect. It should be mentioned as well, the LARGEST verifiable increase in temperature over the last 100 years, is about .6 celcius. The margin for error in determining Earths mean temperature is +- .7celcius. There was also a GREATER upward increase in mean temperature than the one we are currently experiencing in the 1700's; last time I checked there weren't a lot of cars causing pollution back then.


I just like how he presented a bunch of spiffy data as if he thought it up himself. No citation, no credit. Nice job Einstein.

[FriedRys]

You guys are looking at global warming as a bad thing, but you just gotta change your perspective a bit. Earth gets warmer and our riding season gets longer, leading to more time to ride. And I'm guessing that some of you guys are getting to be pretty damn old and need all the ride time you can get. Besides, by the time the enviorment really starts to fail, we'll all be dead. ;D

[Ozzy]

You guys are looking at global warming as a bad thing, but you just gotta change your perspective a bit. Earth gets warmer and our riding season gets longer, leading to more time to ride. And I'm guessing that some of you guys are getting to be pretty damn old and need all the ride time you can get. Besides, by the time the enviorment really starts to fail, we'll all be dead. ;D


Actually, a scientific FACT is that CO2 is good for the enviornment in terms of crop yields, and forest growth. Most large scale farming operations actually try to increase CO2 levels in there crops. Find me some data contradicting that if you would. As far as reacting -vs- not reacting... .6 degree increase over 100 years isn't much to talk about. As far as the source, which you have all found... http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
You'll see that they have openly invited anyone and everyone to dispute their calculations and data, and I've yet to see it happen. Does someone want to disagree that CO2 is only 8% of the greenhouse effect? Do you want to argue that its linear as opposed to logarithmic in nature? DO you want to argue how much CO2 we put into the environment every year? I'm very open to data that shows the data I am basing my opinion on as invalid. I have searched and searched to no avail, please enlighten me.

[Slider]

Unlike something printed by a genuine science journal, this article has had no peer review, and no challenge to the underlying claims. No authors are listed, and no credentials for them are cited. There’s a reason the scientific community requires so many stringent conditions before something is accepted for publication. It ensures that we all don’t have to wade through crap like the Junk Science piece to find out how sound it is. The story is Junk Science at its best.

I followed each of the reference links in the Junk Science piece.

1. http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF8/817.html

This is an explanation of how an increase in CO2 leads to temperature increase. Not a word against the idea.

2. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html

This is a link to a NASA site discussing the statistical validity of the idea of absolute surface temperature. Again, not a word or even a implication that CO2 and temperature are not related. NASA researchers are strong warming proponents, as indicated by the recent flap about expressing “unofficial” public opinions, which Bush tried to reign in, since they undermined his agenda.

3.http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf

This is a study of the factors involved in determining the total absorption and loss of heat by the earth. Nothing more. Like all scientists, the authors acknowledge margins for error. It comes from the Bulletin of the American Meteorology Society, among the main proponents of the idea of global warming. Junk Science seems to be saying they understand the concepts better than the researchers.

4.***http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-1.htm

This is a carbon cycle study. The Woods Hole graph is the easiest to grasp. Woods Hole is a major proponent of the idea that CO2 and global warming are related.

The next several links focus on disparities between the results of different research efforts to measure the volume of carbon in the atmosphere. So what? The actual rate and volume is irrelevant to the connection between CO2 and temperature. No one is claiming to know precisely how much carbon it takes for an X increase in temperature. Junk Science is trying to use normal statistical variables and error margins as evidence that the underlying concept is invalid. It’s a parlor trick.

Later, they make the same erroneous claim that Crichton makes. They say that the future warming projections come from computer models. I think this is where Crichton got his idea, or maybe it was the other way around. Either way, it is wrong, or at least mostly wrong. Modeling is a very effective tool used for lots of things like designing boat hulls, planes, race cars, speaker systems. It also helps a lot in climate study. But it is not the sole method used to relate CO2 and warming. Direct, empirical measurement is the basis for the arguments. Paleoclimate study, combined with a comparison to current climate is all that is needed to show that CO2 and climate are inextricably linked. The models are simply attempts to make some projections, and they contain all the usual margins for error that any statistical study contains. The current warming is clearly measurable, without models.

Next, they try to attack the empirical measurements, because they have to in order to make their point, knowing they’re own model criticism is BS. ALL OFF THE GRAPHS they use to support their idea that the earth is not warming as quickly as the global warming proponents say show a clear upward trend in temperature, and that the rate of increase is climbing. That, in a word, is what global warming is all about.

Then, they go into there “Take Home” messages. Sound like talking points, don’t they?

Their big close is the water vapor stuff. None of it is supported with research. Not one sentence.

Again, Junk Science at its best.

Slider

[catbbq]

There is big money in global warming just like everything else. That money sponsors research. That research finds what the money wants.


This is the crux of the anti-warming argument. It seems to come from some sort of cynical attitude toward the researchers doing the actual work. There's no foundation in fact for it at all. It only arises because the science itself is overwhelming in its detail, depth, and universal acceptance. Can't undermine the logic? Attack the integrity of the logician.



Your right. But it is also the crux of nearly every anti-anything argument, be it global warming or big oil being behind the world's woes. Everytime you mention a research facility sponsored by big oil or right wing money, your doing exactly the same thing.



Do you know anything about the scientific process? The path to having a research paper published? Peer review? Duplication of experimental results? How about the researchers themselves? Ever meet any of them? Did you accuse them directly of lying, fabrication, or somehow else committing professional prostitution for the sake of grant money? Do you really believe that there's some sort of profession-wide conspiracy to deceive the world with a "sky is falling" story, when it would require the support of every single one of their colleagues from across the globe?



So if I can provide a single climatologist that doesn't believe (and yes, it is a belief, not a fact) that the sky is falling because of CO2, then you will agree that you COULD be wrong? Its a pointless exercise since you will just do what you accuse me of and say they are supported by oil money or have some other agenda.

Let's do it anyway.

Some scientists.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
http://www.sepp.org/leipzig.html


Some articles, if not necessarily peer reviewed.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/


Of course, a classic.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

[FriedRys]

You guys are looking at global warming as a bad thing, but you just gotta change your perspective a bit. Earth gets warmer and our riding season gets longer, leading to more time to ride. And I'm guessing that some of you guys are getting to be pretty damn old and need all the ride time you can get. Besides, by the time the enviorment really starts to fail, we'll all be dead. ;D


Actually, a scientific FACT is that CO2 is good for the enviornment in terms of crop yields, and forest growth. Most large scale farming operations actually try to increase CO2 levels in there crops. Find me some data contradicting that if you would. As far as reacting -vs- not reacting... .6 degree increase over 100 years isn't much to talk about. As far as the source, which you have all found... http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
You'll see that they have openly invited anyone and everyone to dispute their calculations and data, and I've yet to see it happen. Does someone want to disagree that CO2 is only 8% of the greenhouse effect? Do you want to argue that its linear as opposed to logarithmic in nature? DO you want to argue how much CO2 we put into the environment every year? I'm very open to data that shows the data I am basing my opinion on as invalid. I have searched and searched to no avail, please enlighten me.
Holy **** dude, get a sence of humor.

[MTBME]

"He won't see the movie, and it woudn't change his mind. "

Not true. I'll see the movie when it comes around on Cable, which shouldn't be that long. As far as Co2, look back. I never said there was no connection to Co2 and global warming. My point was there is more to it than that.

"Because it isn't science, it is politics."

Al Gore is not an expect or a scientist. He is a mouthpiece for a particular viewpoint regarding global warming. I think he has an ulterior motive. This is his way of keeping himself in the spotlight, keeping his name recognition high. We'll see how this plays out.

[lee]

Just to add some fuel to the fire....

WASHINGTON - The Earth is running a slight fever from greenhouse gases, after enjoying relatively stable temperatures for 2,000 years. The National Academy of Sciences, after reconstructing global average surface temperatures for the past two millennia, said Thursday the data are "additional supporting evidence ... that human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming."


Other new research showed that global warming produced about half of the extra hurricane-fueled warmth in the North Atlantic in 2005, and natural cycles were a minor factor, according to Kevin Trenberth and Dennis Shea of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a research lab sponsored by the National Science Foundation and universities.

The academy had been asked to report to Congress on how researchers drew conclusions about the Earth's climate going back thousands of years, before data was available from modern scientific instruments. The academy convened a panel of 12 climate experts, chaired by Gerald North, a geosciences professor at Texas A&M University, to look at the "proxy" evidence before then, such as tree rings, corals, marine and lake sediments, ice cores, boreholes and glaciers.

Combining that information gave the panel "a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years," the panel wrote. It said the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia," though it was relatively warm around the year 1000 followed by a "Little Ice Age" from about 1500 to 1850.

Their conclusions were meant to address, and they lent credibility to, a well-known graphic among climate researchers — a "hockey-stick" chart that climate scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes created in the late 1990s to show the Northern Hemisphere was the warmest it has been in 2,000 years.

It had compared the sharp curve of the hockey blade to the recent uptick in temperatures — a 1 degree rise in global average surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere during the 20th century — and the stick's long shaft to centuries of previous climate stability.

That research is "likely" true and is supported by more recent data, said John "Mike" Wallace, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington and a panel member.

Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y., chairman of the House Science Committee, had asked the academy for the report last year after the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Rep. Joe Barton (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, launched an investigation of the three climate scientists.

The Bush administration has maintained that the threat from global warming is not severe enough to warrant new pollution controls that the White House says would have cost 5 million Americans their jobs.

"This report shows the value of Congress handling scientific disputes by asking scientists to give us guidance," Boehlert said Thursday. "There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change."

The academy panel said it had less confidence in the evidence of temperatures before 1600.

But it considered the evidence reliable enough to conclude there were sharp spikes in carbon dioxide and methane, the two major "greenhouse" gases blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere, beginning in the 20th century, after remaining fairly level for 12,000 years.

Between 1 A.D. and 1850, volcanic eruptions and solar fluctuations had the biggest effects on climate. But those temperature changes "were much less pronounced than the warming due to greenhouse gas" levels by pollution since the mid-19th century, the panel said.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private organization chartered by Congress to advise the government of scientific matters.

[Mr_Cheeze]

This is another endless and unproductive circular argument. Is there global warming or is there not? If so, is it the fault of the human race? I think that even the most strident arguers against the science trying to prove the existence of global effects know the warming trend to be true on some level, denials notwithstanding. Their attempts to debunk the science stems more from a selfishly knee-jerk reaction to defend either industry or lifestyle. To agree that humans affect world climate suggests, perhaps, some modicum of guilt. Can we stop it? What do we need to do to stop it? Use less energy, meaning change the way we are used to living. Forcing industry to change their methods to improve environmental impact will obviously cost them money, which, in the end, will cost us money. Using less energy implies all sorts of potential sacrifices that many folks are just not willing to face. All of these things, just to improve our planet... one in which will live eons past our each personal demises, regardless of what we do or do not in our lifetimes to try and better our Home.

The crux of the argument is one of certain morality. Here the right suffers some major hypocrisy. They porport to be the purveyors what is moral. Yet, they often don't seem to feel that protecting the planet on which we live, the very land that their god has created for them, is an ethical enough practice worthy of consideration. Oh, and far be it for them to go against the big business that supports their agendas. Funny the strange bedfellows that be religion and money.

Perhaps it's merely a political thing. Most of the loud environmentalists seem to derive from the opposite side of the political spectrum. Perhaps the rights' disagreements stem more from a natural tendency to be contrarian. Can't agree with a liberal! Why, that would be... weak!

Yet, the left are not without their unrealistic expectations on this issue. Many of them like to preach about our need to conserve and change and so on. Again, most people could agree with this point to a degree. But you get the extremists who tend to be the loudest and the most unrealistic or counterproductive. Take the Kyoto treaty. This seems to be a pet issue and one that is often bought up to prove the western nations (read: United States) to be the most irresponsible. Whoever failed to sign it must be evil. But this treaty was designed to punish the richer industrial nations with overreaching expectations and demands at the behest of other, growing powers like China. They signed it because they had nothing to lose by it. Clinton was right to snub this treaty. ("Oh yea", the lefties think, in unison, "Clinton didn't sign it before Bush even got a chance not to.")

And then you have the self righteous greenies who feel it is encumbant upon us all to live like Henry David Thoreou, or at least try to to some extent. We should all feel guilty for driving to work and using our PC's, TVs, DVD players, etc; and that unless we stop doing all of these things, massive hurricanes and typhoons are going to destroy us in 100 years. These chicken-little types are no better than the bible toters who think that the end days are near and are just as easy to tune out.

There is a happy medium. I think most of us are probably there. We know that things need to change, but we also know that we can only do so much. I'm not going to stop driving where I need to. Nor am I going to stop watching television. But I can recycle and find other things to do on vweekends and vacation once in a while that doesn't require driving long distances. But that's me. It's not my place to tell others what they should do. If you don't feel that it's up to you to at least do a small part, what can I say. Just don't try and tell me that all of the science is junk or questionable and act like the motivations behind such disagreements aren't openly selfish or, at least, based on a knee-jerk partisan reaction.

[Slider]

Your right. But it is also the crux of nearly every anti-anything argument, be it global warming or big oil being behind the world's woes. Everytime you mention a research facility sponsored by big oil or right wing money, your doing exactly the same thing.


So let's compare dollars. Global warming grants run from a few thousand dollars to whatever a NASA Satellite costs. The dollars being chased by the anti-warming faction, led by the oil industry and Bush, their shill, quite easily dwarf all the research dollars combined.

If we're talking about an incentive to feed the public some BS, the anti-warming faction beats the researchers hands down.


So if I can provide a single climatologist that doesn't believe (and yes, it is a belief, not a fact) that the sky is falling because of CO2, then you will agree that you COULD be wrong? Its a pointless exercise since you will just do what you accuse me of and say they are supported by oil money or have some other agenda.

Let's do it anyway.

Some scientists.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
http://www.sepp.org/leipzig.html

Some articles, if not necessarily peer reviewed.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Of course, a classic.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html


None of your links present any actual research, just a rehash of other stuff, and some of the references are very old.

The Cato Institute's self-described mission: "The Cato Institute seeks to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets and peace."

How do you suppose their mission would color their take on the idea of warming? If proven, warming would require large scale government initiatives, the reigning in of personal liberty, and put a severe crimp on the free market. It would even threaten the peace of the world, since the US is far more energy-intensive on a per-capita basis than any other country. If we are dragging down the planet, it would make sense for other countries to try to stop us.

The Leipzig Declaration was made in 1995 and 1997, and is specifically directed at the 1992 Global Climate Treaty. That treaty may well be flawed as they claim, but it reflected the best research available at the time. There has been a LOT more supporting research done since then. The Leipzig Declaration has nothing to do with the current state of global warming science.

Crichton is full of ****, and not a researcher. He has no qualifications in climate research at all.

That leaves Richard Lindzen. I guess I was setting myself up in asking for just one dissenter. He is one, with the research qualifications to back up his opinions. Since you are the one who brought up the corruption that dollars bring to "anything", we have to look at the dollars supporting Lindzen. He gets $2500/day, mostly from oil-related businesses. His famous 1991 trip to DC to testify before a Senate committee was underwritten by Western Fuels. OPEC underwrote his speech attacking the concensus on the idea of CO2-driven warming. As you say, dollars do corrupt.

Slider

[catbbq]

That leaves Richard Lindzen. I guess I was setting myself up in asking for just one dissenter. He is one, with the research qualifications to back up his opinions. Since you are the one who brought up the corruption that dollars bring to "anything", we have to look at the dollars supporting Lindzen. He gets $2500/day, mostly from oil-related businesses. His famous 1991 trip to DC to testify before a Senate committee was underwritten by Western Fuels. OPEC underwrote his speech attacking the concensus on the idea of CO2-driven warming. As you say, dollars do corrupt.

Slider


As I suspected. I provide the one and you claim him to be a corrupted by big oil. I could have written your post myself.

[Slider]

He is actually one of a group that are waging a campaign against the idea of CO2-based warming. They are a small minority in the overall research community.

I guess the largest group would be the Leipzig folks, but they made their statement 10 years ago, and it was not about warming per se, but about the 1992 treaty. They'd need to be re-polled to see where they now stand, and maybe with some broader questions thrown in. That would be an interesting project!

Slider

[TrailBate]

We should cut down all the forests, since trees cause more pollution than cars. Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh said so.

[Mr_Cheeze]

I just don't understand the reason for dissent. Can catbq or anyone else tell me what purpose it serves to continually deny or undermine the science and data? Isn't the issue more philosophical at this point? What realistically can be expected and/or accomplished, both on societal and personal levels, to repair or, at least, maintain a healthy environment? Exactly what purpose does it serve to resist such an effort? And how can conservatives rectify their position in this debate with their firm belief that they are better equipped to understand morality?

Heavy questions, I know. But you guys keep tossing around data that doesn't really get into the real nitty gritty of the issue. If this were abortion, nobody would have a problem explaining why they are for or against it. Maybe this isn't as cut and dry, but in the grander scheme of things, it is far, far more important.

[Slider]

I can make the denial case in one sentence: It will hurt industry.

If you are Bush, trying to keep the Republican ship afloat under the weight of abysmal approval ratings, and if you want to keep your ass out of a Democrat-led impeachment effort, you absolutely cannot put any burdens on the economy without handing both houses to the opposition.

Slider

[catbbq]

I just don't understand the reason for dissent. Can catbq or anyone else tell me what purpose it serves to continually deny or undermine the science and data? Isn't the issue more philosophical at this point? What realistically can be expected and/or accomplished, both on societal and personal levels, to repair or, at least, maintain a healthy environment? Exactly what purpose does it serve to resist such an effort? And how can conservatives rectify their position in this debate with their firm belief that they are better equipped to understand morality?

Heavy questions, I know. But you guys keep tossing around data that doesn't really get into the real nitty gritty of the issue. If this were abortion, nobody would have a problem explaining why they are for or against it. Maybe this isn't as cut and dry, but in the grander scheme of things, it is far, far more important.


For me, it has nothing to do with politics in the 2 party sense nor with industry. It is more a matter of recognizing I don't know what I don't know. Current mainstream science preaches that global warming is a fact, that CO2 emmissions by people is the cause, and that if we don't stop we will be very very sorry. They maybe absolutely true, but it has not been proven. Yes, there is evidence that supports that, but the climate is a big system and the scientific method doesn't hold up in such a system. So we can't experiment to help support that claim. We can only look at historical trends and try to extrapolate. Again, I got no problem with that at all. But it doesn't prove anything. It just supports a particular hypothesis.

Just because a majority of knowledgeable well educated people agree to something doesn't make it true. There has been several majorities in the past that have agreed to several wrong beliefs.

All I am doing is saying that global warming very well could be one of those wrong beliefs. Not saying it is, just that it could be.

Many on here, however, would rather make personal attacks than even suggest that there is a possibility that they could be wrong. No different than religious fanatics.

[TrailBate]

Many on here, however, would rather make personal attacks than even suggest that there is a possibility that they could be wrong. No different than religious fanatics.


No, religious fanatics believe something without a shred of evidence, and/or despite evidence to the contrary.

Global warming is based on science, which demands evidence, experiments, proven and disproven hypothesis, and results that can be duplicated and verified.

[Slider]

I think the "personal attack" thing was directed at me. Looking back, maybe it came from this question I pointed at catbq:

"Last question: How are you more qualified than the legions of researchers who've made understanding the workings of climate their life's work? I mean this literally. Why exactly should your offhand, uncomprehending opinion have any weight at all, especially when you can't support it at all."

Let me explain my frustration.

1. There is a huge consensus on the issue.
2. People who say otherwise are most often swayed by disinformation from the likes of Junk Science, the Cato Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
3. These are non-research organizations, with no atmospheric research qualifications.
4. Agenda-driven groups like these are undermining our ability as a nation to make sound policy.
5. All it takes is a little critical analysis, and some willingness to dig a little deeper, in order to see through their agendas.

Instead, we go round and round and then some newcomer then reposts some inanity that was dealt with long ago. If my question was offensive, I didn't mean it that way. But I did express some frustration in my choice of phrasing. I apologize for that.

Slider

[catbbq]

Many on here, however, would rather make personal attacks than even suggest that there is a possibility that they could be wrong. No different than religious fanatics.


No, religious fanatics believe something without a shred of evidence, and/or despite evidence to the contrary.

Global warming is based on science, which demands evidence, experiments, proven and disproven hypothesis, and results that can be duplicated and verified.


There are no global warming experiments. Can't be done. You can model it, but the results are only as good as your model. Weather forcasting models will only work for short term weather (good for hours, ok for days, bad for weeks) because the system is too big to be modelled completely. Same with the climate.

As for results, there are no results to be duplicated or verified. Only data to be interpreted and reinterpreted.

[jakazz]

I remember back in the 80's there was a study on the amount of methane cows produce, it stated that at the rate of the agri- business of beef was continuing on the increase would have a detrimental effect on the amount of methane in the atmosphere. I dont recall the specifics but each cow produced an enormous amount, I think I might have read it in mother earth news, but the study was funded and I think carried out by the feds.

Basically I do believe that gore has an agenda, but who doesnt that is connected with the gov. or big bus.

no real comment either way on the cause, but its seems kinda obvious dont u think?

[catbbq]

I think the "personal attack" thing was directed at me. Looking back, maybe it came from this question I pointed at catbq:

"Last question: How are you more qualified than the legions of researchers who've made understanding the workings of climate their life's work? I mean this literally. Why exactly should your offhand, uncomprehending opinion have any weight at all, especially when you can't support it at all."

Let me explain my frustration.

1. There is a huge consensus on the issue.
2. People who say otherwise are most often swayed by disinformation from the likes of Junk Science, the Cato Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
3. These are non-research organizations, with no atmospheric research qualifications.
4. Agenda-driven groups like these are undermining our ability as a nation to make sound policy.
5. All it takes is a little critical analysis, and some willingness to dig a little deeper, in order to see through their agendas.

Instead, we go round and round and then some newcomer then reposts some inanity that was dealt with long ago. If my question was offensive, I didn't mean it that way. But I did express some frustration in my choice of phrasing. I apologize for that.

Slider


Your not the only one. It was directed at everyone that either outright says or implies that someone is stupid or wrong because they interpret facts differently. I know I may be wrong. I also know you may be wrong.

The interesting thing about global warming and religion and everything else. It is either right or wrong. Regardless of what you believe or the majority believes, global warming exists, or it doesn't. Same with God, gravity, radio waves, and aliens.

[kernel crash]

"it's time to move past a debate over whether human activity is a significant factor behind global warming and into a discussion of possible remedies. "

"I have said consistently that global warming is a serious problem. There's a debate over whether it's manmade or naturally caused,"

"We ought to get beyond that debate and start implementing the technologies necessary to enable us to achieve a couple of big objectives: One, be good stewards of the environment; two, become less dependent on foreign sources of oil, for economic reasons as for national security reasons,"

George Bush

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/26/060626184958.a9erm3mw.html

[Ozzy]

Unlike something printed by a genuine science journal, this article has had no peer review, and no challenge to the underlying claims. No authors are listed, and no credentials for them are cited. There’s a reason the scientific community requires so many stringent conditions before something is accepted for publication. It ensures that we all don’t have to wade through crap like the Junk Science piece to find out how sound it is. The story is Junk Science at its best.

I followed each of the reference links in the Junk Science piece.

1. http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF8/817.html

This is an explanation of how an increase in CO2 leads to temperature increase. Not a word against the idea.

2. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html

This is a link to a NASA site discussing the statistical validity of the idea of absolute surface temperature. Again, not a word or even a implication that CO2 and temperature are not related. NASA researchers are strong warming proponents, as indicated by the recent flap about expressing “unofficial” public opinions, which Bush tried to reign in, since they undermined his agenda.

3.http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf

This is a study of the factors involved in determining the total absorption and loss of heat by the earth. Nothing more. Like all scientists, the authors acknowledge margins for error. It comes from the Bulletin of the American Meteorology Society, among the main proponents of the idea of global warming. Junk Science seems to be saying they understand the concepts better than the researchers.

4. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-1.htm

This is a carbon cycle study. The Woods Hole graph is the easiest to grasp. Woods Hole is a major proponent of the idea that CO2 and global warming are related.

The next several links focus on disparities between the results of different research efforts to measure the volume of carbon in the atmosphere. So what? The actual rate and volume is irrelevant to the connection between CO2 and temperature. No one is claiming to know precisely how much carbon it takes for an X increase in temperature. Junk Science is trying to use normal statistical variables and error margins as evidence that the underlying concept is invalid. It’s a parlor trick.

Later, they make the same erroneous claim that Crichton makes. They say that the future warming projections come from computer models. I think this is where Crichton got his idea, or maybe it was the other way around. Either way, it is wrong, or at least mostly wrong. Modeling is a very effective tool used for lots of things like designing boat hulls, planes, race cars, speaker systems. It also helps a lot in climate study. But it is not the sole method used to relate CO2 and warming. Direct, empirical measurement is the basis for the arguments. Paleoclimate study, combined with a comparison to current climate is all that is needed to show that CO2 and climate are inextricably linked. The models are simply attempts to make some projections, and they contain all the usual margins for error that any statistical study contains. The current warming is clearly measurable, without models.

Next, they try to attack the empirical measurements, because they have to in order to make their point, knowing they’re own model criticism is BS. ALL OFF THE GRAPHS they use to support their idea that the earth is not warming as quickly as the global warming proponents say show a clear upward trend in temperature, and that the rate of increase is climbing. That, in a word, is what global warming is all about.

Then, they go into there “Take Home” messages. Sound like talking points, don’t they?

Their big close is the water vapor stuff. None of it is supported with research. Not one sentence.

Again, Junk Science at its best.

Slider



Slider, I think you're missing the point of everythin on that page. No where does anyone claim that there is NO LINK between CO2, but that its not nearly as drastic as suggested. In fact, other factors involved in gloabl warming have much more effect than CO2 does. This is how one year the temperature can rise X amount, you can add MORE CO2, and the following year, the temperature DROPS Y amount. IF CO2 was the major driving force in temperature, then for AT LEAST the last 100 years, EVERY YEAR, the temperature would increase as did CO2... That is clearly not the case, there's been a lot of bumps and ups and downs along the way.

Everything I've read to date implies that CO2 is resposnible for anywheres between 5% to 10% of the greenhouse effect, regardless of whether temperature goes up or down. Its also widely accepted that of that 5-10% we only own 3%; so when you break the numbers down, how much affect can we seriously have? I just don't see it, from a common sense point of view, nevermind breaking it down into numbers.

Let's put it this way... That 100 gallons of water at 50 degrees, and add .25 gallons of water at 60 degrees every year, tell me how long its gonna take for the 100 gallons to reach 51, 53, or 55 degrees? I know this isn't a 'correct' scientific study here, but its meant to frame it in a very simple way. Sure we have an effect, but is it even worth mentioning? .6 degrees over one hundred years... Its certainly not an alarming trend by any stretch of the imagination. Would you deny that the earth, absent of mankind and/or motor vehicles and our CO2 'pollution' has managed to find a way to go through many mean temperature swings that meet or exceed .6 degrees? You need to be able to explain how those came to be, and rule out every factor within the earths natural cycle first before I'll buy into the idea that humanity is the cause here, there's forces much bigger than us in effect here, and to be honest, the scientific community doesn't even have a grasp on it, otherwise we wouldn't be here discussing this.

[Slider]

Nice stats. The biggest problem with them is that very few of the people qualified to interpret them agree with you. There's lots of evidence that those who do agree have ultrerior motives. And you've provided no reason for anyone to think you're more qualified than, say, the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Slider

[Ozzy]

Nice stats. The biggest problem with them is that very few of the people qualified to interpret them agree with you. There's lots of evidence that those who do agree have ultrerior motives. And you've provided no reason for anyone to think you're more qualified than, say, the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Slider


Those people who are qualified can't even tell me if its going to rain a week from now with any success rate, now I'm supposed to believe they can predict the weather 50 years from now?

[Slider]

Is a statement like that supposed to make us more comfortable that you know more than the NSF, NCAR, WHOI, AES, NASA and everyone else who supports CO2 based warming?

If you mean it, it shows a complete lack of understanding of the processes that make climate. Climate is not weather.

Slider

[Slider]

"it's time to move past a debate over whether human activity is a significant factor behind global warming and into a discussion of possible remedies. "

"I have said consistently that global warming is a serious problem. There's a debate over whether it's manmade or naturally caused,"

"We ought to get beyond that debate and start implementing the technologies necessary to enable us to achieve a couple of big objectives: One, be good stewards of the environment; two, become less dependent on foreign sources of oil, for economic reasons as for national security reasons,"

George Bush

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/26/060626184958.a9erm3mw.html


We need to see the vid so we can tell which side of his mouth he talking out of.

Slider

[jakazz]

I'm pro nuc myself, look at the facts, done correctly its less dangerous than what the chem companies, manufacturers, and other big business has been dumping carcinigenic chemicals into our eco-systems for a 100 years now. With nuc power at least we have a good idea where the s**t going. And on a saffety issue its one of the safest out there. Chernobel aside, bad technology,goverment, and lack of funding is what made chernobel fail, not the technology.

And if your worried about waste, use fusion instead of fission like the french do, their waste product is like a 4th or 5th of our old tech. And I may be confused about which they use and which we use.

And on alternative energy, if the gov. really wanted us to decrease our energy use we could mandate that all new construction use geo-thermal heat pumps which at this point are almost the same effiecancy as a oil fired burner, without the emissions and costs associated with it.

Also nyit, has a hydrogen based power plant for household use, which is the size of a small bedroom, it uses a seperation system to get the hydrogen out of water, then burns it and reconstitutes the water through an evaportor setup, and returns it to the start of the process. They say it will be ready for commercial use in @ 10 years, now with better funding I could see it in less than 5, imo.

Then if you look at solar panels, the elect voltaic systems are getting more efficient and easier to apply to houses, if the gov mandate their use then we decrease the amount of energy that we use, and if you think of the huge warehouses and office buildings with flat roofs, we could use them as eregy grids and decrease our use there.

In a basic statement, which I have already gone past, I f we wanted to we decrease our consumption by a great deal if the gov. would just say it, but without the gov involvement in a pro-enviromental, energy wise, agenda then we will just keep giving the energy consortium our money and our freedom.

[splat]

And if your worried about waste, use fusion instead of fission like the french do, their waste product is like a 4th or 5th of our old tech. And I may be confused about which they use and which we use.


the French are using fusion ? really ? better check that one, I think you'll find it is still an experimental Tocamac , just like the ones at MIT, Princton and Livermore .


But i did hear a Great quote about this subject ,

"Global warming is just a theory , Ice ages are a fact "

[Mr_Cheeze]

I just don't understand the reason for dissent. Can catbq or anyone else tell me what purpose it serves to continually deny or undermine the science and data? Isn't the issue more philosophical at this point? What realistically can be expected and/or accomplished, both on societal and personal levels, to repair or, at least, maintain a healthy environment? Exactly what purpose does it serve to resist such an effort? And how can conservatives rectify their position in this debate with their firm belief that they are better equipped to understand morality?

Heavy questions, I know. But you guys keep tossing around data that doesn't really get into the real nitty gritty of the issue. If this were abortion, nobody would have a problem explaining why they are for or against it. Maybe this isn't as cut and dry, but in the grander scheme of things, it is far, far more important.


For me, it has nothing to do with politics in the 2 party sense nor with industry. It is more a matter of recognizing I don't know what I don't know. Current mainstream science preaches that global warming is a fact, that CO2 emmissions by people is the cause, and that if we don't stop we will be very very sorry. They maybe absolutely true, but it has not been proven. Yes, there is evidence that supports that, but the climate is a big system and the scientific method doesn't hold up in such a system. So we can't experiment to help support that claim. We can only look at historical trends and try to extrapolate. Again, I got no problem with that at all. But it doesn't prove anything. It just supports a particular hypothesis.

Just because a majority of knowledgeable well educated people agree to something doesn't make it true. There has been several majorities in the past that have agreed to several wrong beliefs.

All I am doing is saying that global warming very well could be one of those wrong beliefs. Not saying it is, just that it could be.

Many on here, however, would rather make personal attacks than even suggest that there is a possibility that they could be wrong. No different than religious fanatics.


Your and Ozzy's arguments make little or no sense. What kind of position is it to say, "Well, nobody really knows for sure, so I can't say where I stand. The data may or may not be true, so we shouldn't worry it." Totally empty argument without explaining the entire motivation behind attempting to disprove any data.

Get off the fence, man.

[catbbq]

He probably meant breeder reactors, not fusion. U.S. facilities only run the fuel through 1 time. The resulting waste is less dangerous, but still has tons of energy.

[Ozzy]

Your and Ozzy's arguments make little or no sense. What kind of position is it to say, "Well, nobody really knows for sure, so I can't say where I stand. The data may or may not be true, so we shouldn't worry it." Totally empty argument without explaining the entire motivation behind attempting to disprove any data.


All arguments on the issue aside, I can agree on one thing. Regardless of whetheror not we have a discernable influence on global warming, someone posted above about geothermal heating/cooling and photovoltic cells for electricty. I would be on board in a second if the government would make a major push to switch homes over to these new technologies. They're almost completely non-polluting,and I would have to imagine more fuel is burned in a year to heat/cool and power my house, then to do the same for my truck. Geothermal is already there, already efficient, and widely used in some countries overseas, and somewhat used here in the U.S. If I could take myself off the grid and be 100% self sufficient when I have money to buy my next house, I'll be doing it in the blink of an eye. I still think global warming is largely a farce, but I have no problem 'helping' the issue, if it helps me too.
Considering how 'severe' the problem is, and considering the rolling black outs and brown outs that we;ve seen on the west coast, and are predicted to see here, in the Northeast with the next several years, doesn't it just make a lot more sense to go after the biggest problem first, especially since the technology already exists?!!? I spend more on JUST heating oil in a year than I do on diesel for my truck. Throw electricity into the mix, and it seems making changes in the home would have a far greater impact than worrying about autos... At the same time I wonder why that is, such a big problem, but we're only addressing the auto industry, why is that?

[Ozzy]

Just more evidence that this isn't so cut and dry and that the 'evidence' isn't as transulcent as some would like us to think. At any rate, its going to the Supreme Court, so I think we'll all be interested on the opinions from the justices on this one.

From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13554243/


The administration maintains that carbon dioxide — unlike other chemicals that must be controlled to assure healthy air — is not a pollutant under the federal clean air law, and that even if it were the EPA has discretion over whether to regulate it.

A federal appeals court sided with the administration in a sharply divided ruling.

One judge said the EPA’s refusal to regulate carbon dioxide was contrary to the clean air law; another said that even if the Clean Air Act gave the EPA authority over the heat-trapping chemical, the agency could choose not to use that authority; a third judge ruled against the suit because, he said, the plaintiffs had no standing because they hadn’t proven harm.

[Ozzy]

http://www.junkscience.com/jan05/breaking_the_hockey_stick.html

http://www.junkscience.com/jan05/lone_gaspe_cedar.html

[MTBME]

"We need to see the vid so we can tell which side of his mouth he talking out of."

"I think that its great the Bush is finally on board with global warming but I think his reasons aren't genuine. If you note his solutions, coal and nuclear, it seems to me that he is just using global warming to help his coal buddies. He probably has nuclear buddies as well seeing how much he is pushing nuclear."

Now this is why nothing will get done in our lifetime. Solutions are suggested. Ulterior motives are supected. There is NO answer to this problem without the Nuclear option. It ain't getting done with fuel economy and wind turbines. Your dreaming.

[Ozzy]

Now this is why nothing will get done in our lifetime. Solutions are suggested. Ulterior motives are supected. There is NO answer to this problem without the Nuclear option. It ain't getting done with fuel economy and wind turbines. Your dreaming.


We have issues with wind turbines here in the Berkshires right now. There's about 30 proposed in different locations, and now, all of the sudden the people who claim to be worried about the environment want to stop them from being put up! "They kill birds, and ruin the view"... Same thing off of Cape Cod... "It would ruin the view!" Make up your mind, you can't stop 'global warming' and shut down companies who want to offer clean energy technologies. Several months back I read ac article how some energy companies had proposed some huge banks of solar panels in the desert to generate electricty; solar power plants. Environmentalist shut that down, citing 'possible' effects on some type of lizard and their habitat.

Theres simply no winning with these people; I'm sure if one suggested we return to rustic living, (no electricty), there would be a problem with us buring a wood stove to heat our meager cabins. ::)

[off piste]

Now this is why nothing will get done in our lifetime. Solutions are suggested. Ulterior motives are supected. There is NO answer to this problem without the Nuclear option. It ain't getting done with fuel economy and wind turbines. Your dreaming.


<SNIP>

Theres simply no winning with these people; I'm sure if one suggested we return to rustic living, (no electricty), there would be a problem with us buring a wood stove to heat our meager cabins. ::)


Well, of course, silly!! That would entail killing trees.

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2006/06/23/1151048568_1913.jpg

[Mr_Cheeze]

It's hard to buy the President's sincerity on two fronts. One, Bush comes from a long line of oil men. He will hardly be motivated to undermine the very industry that got his family its wealth.

Secondly, if you buy into the plausibility that oil is the A-number-one reason for our entry into Iraq, it makes it real hard to buy his sudden change of heart. In the end, Bush is still a politician, and he and his people know how to tell people what they want to hear. I don't believe for a minute that he's going to expend any real political capital on this issue.

[catbbq]

It's hard to buy the President's sincerity on two fronts. One, Bush comes from a long line of oil men. He will hardly be motivated to undermine the very industry that got his family its wealth.


Why not? He's got his.



Secondly, if you buy into the plausibility that oil is the A-number-one reason for our entry into Iraq, it makes it real hard to buy his sudden change of heart. In the end, Bush is still a politician, and he and his people know how to tell people what they want to hear. I don't believe for a minute that he's going to expend any real political capital on this issue.


I don't disagree that I doubt he will spend any political capital on it, not that he has much to spend.

But oil is not the reason we are in Iraq. There are places like Venezuela much closer to home that we could invade for oil. And any country with oil is going to sell it, even to the U.S.

[GeepNutt]

Theres simply no winning with these people; I'm sure if one suggested we return to rustic living, (no electricty), there would be a problem with us buring a wood stove to heat our meager cabins. ::)


Here is the answer...... ;D

http://www.800padutch.com/atafaq.shtml

[off piste]

Theres simply no winning with these people; I'm sure if one suggested we return to rustic living, (no electricty), there would be a problem with us buring a wood stove to heat our meager cabins. ::)


Here is the answer...... ;D

http://www.800padutch.com/atafaq.shtml



Screw the Amish -- nothing but a bunch of criminals.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/28/amish.rawmilk.ap/index.html

[Ozzy]

Screw the Amish -- nothing but a bunch of criminals.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/28/amish.rawmilk.ap/index.html


Maybe if the government would stop paying people to drive around and harrass the Amish we could stop global warming. ;

Always wondered this as well, let's say an Amish teen goes and gets drunk, and then takes dad's carriage into town... Can he be pulled over and given a DUI? :-\

[Mr_Cheeze]

But oil is not the reason we are in Iraq. There are places like Venezuela much closer to home that we could invade for oil. And any country with oil is going to sell it, even to the U.S.


Yea, but Venezuela doesn't have a scapegoat (Saddam), geographical proximity to the boogieman (Al Qaeda), and geographical proximity to a good friend with nukes that they're willing to use if necessary (Israel).

[catbbq]

Theres simply no winning with these people; I'm sure if one suggested we return to rustic living, (no electricty), there would be a problem with us buring a wood stove to heat our meager cabins. ::)


Here is the answer...... ;D

http://www.800padutch.com/atafaq.shtml



Screw the Amish -- nothing but a bunch of criminals.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/28/amish.rawmilk.ap/index.html


I don't get it. Was the milk poison? Did this poor milk-hungry individual die from the Amish Poison Milk? Are the Amish in to biological warfare now? Perhaps we should occupy Ohio.

[TrailBate]

We have issues with wind turbines here in the Berkshires right now. There's about 30 proposed in different locations, and now, all of the sudden the people who claim to be worried about the environment want to stop them from being put up! "They kill birds, and ruin the view"... Same thing off of Cape Cod... "It would ruin the view!" Make up your mind, you can't stop 'global warming' and shut down companies who want to offer clean energy technologies. Several months back I read ac article how some energy companies had proposed some huge banks of solar panels in the desert to generate electricty; solar power plants. Environmentalist shut that down, citing 'possible' effects on some type of lizard and their habitat.

Theres simply no winning with these people; I'm sure if one suggested we return to rustic living, (no electricty), there would be a problem with us buring a wood stove to heat our meager cabins. ::)


I never understood this either. It ticks me off when supposed environmentalists do this.

[catbbq]

We have issues with wind turbines here in the Berkshires right now. There's about 30 proposed in different locations, and now, all of the sudden the people who claim to be worried about the environment want to stop them from being put up! "They kill birds, and ruin the view"... Same thing off of Cape Cod... "It would ruin the view!" Make up your mind, you can't stop 'global warming' and shut down companies who want to offer clean energy technologies. Several months back I read ac article how some energy companies had proposed some huge banks of solar panels in the desert to generate electricty; solar power plants. Environmentalist shut that down, citing 'possible' effects on some type of lizard and their habitat.

Theres simply no winning with these people; I'm sure if one suggested we return to rustic living, (no electricty), there would be a problem with us buring a wood stove to heat our meager cabins. ::)


I never understood this either. It ticks me off when supposed environmentalists do this.


This is no different than any other sacrifice people are asked to make for the greater good. People can always find a reason not to do something when they are the ones that have to do the work or live with the change.

"I gotta drive my tanklike SUV to get my kid to soccer practice."
"I gotta fly my private jet cause I'm a senator."
"I gotta have a 3500 square foot house for my family of 3 cause we need our space."
"I can't have windmills in my ocean because that is where the fish live."


From an asthetic perspective, the turbines should be off the coast far enough that you couldn't see it, right? Even if not, I think a cluster of white turbines is pretty cool looking. I wouldn't mind living near one. My wife is already looking into a personal one, assuming we ever find a house.

[Longshanks]

It's not just about ruining the view. It's also about selling off areas of the ocean. As I said previously - you give Cape Wind this area of turbines, then the Buzzards Bay one, then the one off the national seashore. Then where does it stop? Is the whole ocean for sale? That's what I want to know before I decide where I stand on this issue.

[Slider]

Seems to me that more, smaller projects spread around the state would sidestep lots of the objections. Put a few offshore, a few more at Otis, maybe a couple at each location where state land is sold off to developers. Definitely a couple in my back yard, at $90K/year each in lease fees, like a cell tower. Works for me!

Slider

[TrailBate]

It's not just about ruining the view. It's also about selling off areas of the ocean. As I said previously - you give Cape Wind this area of turbines, then the Buzzards Bay one, then the one off the national seashore. Then where does it stop? Is the whole ocean for sale? That's what I want to know before I decide where I stand on this issue.


I think this is a bit of an alarmist view. But if it gets our arses out of terrorist countries, and cleans up the air, water in the process, and reverses the green house effect, then go ahead.

I wish they WOULD put some turbines in my back yard. One new one did go up fairly recently in Buzzards Bay at the Maritime academy. There was another new one nearby recently, as well, but I can't remember where.....

[catbbq]

It's not just about ruining the view. It's also about selling off areas of the ocean. As I said previously - you give Cape Wind this area of turbines, then the Buzzards Bay one, then the one off the national seashore. Then where does it stop? Is the whole ocean for sale? That's what I want to know before I decide where I stand on this issue.


Who owns it now? Assuming the state (MA or US), then yes, it should all be for sale. Most of it is unusable for wind power and most other applications.

Thinking about public land (or water) use in general, it would make sense to install wind and solar generation cells around the edges. I ride at LDT State Forest weekly and there is a cell tower installed there. Never has it interfered with my ride or hikes in the area. Put a turbine next to it and surround it with solar cells. Then provide the power to the immediate community at a discount. Money talks, and cheaper power bills would go along way toward making the view nicer.

[BrianK]

We put oil platforms in the middle of the Gulf so why not wind turbines in the ocean as well?

I don't think you have to worry about paying a toll to cross the atlantic anytime soon. ;)

[jakazz]

simply mandate any company that has a building over a certain sq footage "must" attach a solar array on it. quite simple really, if the gov can sanction emmininet domain for commercial gain then they should use it for the common good like it was intended. Take the roof tops and screw them, put solar on every rooftop in the country, you would see a great reduction of elect power consumption from gas and coal.

I believe i saw or read something about europe is far ahead of us in its residential solar program, and speaking of europe and elect. if we used the same tech that they do 220 volt system u actually use less electricity in most common circuits and motors. But instead we use a system thats not energy efficient. just stupid >:(

[Mr_Cheeze]

simply mandate any company that has a building over a certain sq footage "must" attach a solar array on it. quite simple really, if the gov can sanction emmininet domain for commercial gain then they should use it for the common good like it was intended. Take the roof tops and screw them, put solar on every rooftop in the country, you would see a great reduction of elect power consumption from gas and coal.



Huh, you think it's really that simple? Not with pro-industry lobbyists lurking about and trying all they can to prevent their clients from having more overhead thanks to new environmental legislation. Why do you think more hasn't been done to this point to exact tougher clean air and water bills? Industry resists these type actions, and our elected officials are swayed by the almighty dollar.

[Ozzy]

Huh, you think it's really that simple? Not with pro-industry lobbyists lurking about and trying all they can to prevent their clients from having more overhead thanks to new environmental legislation. Why do you think more hasn't been done to this point to exact tougher clean air and water bills? Industry resists these type actions, and our elected officials are swayed by the almighty dollar.


The whole lobbyist thing is a joke. It needs to be banned IMHO. If a congressmen can't make up his own mind without someone offering him kickbacks, then he shouldn't be where he is today... Talk about corruption. I say if the CEO of GE wants something done, or not done, on capitol hill, he can drag his ass up there and do the talking himself.

[FriedRys]

Why does the Goverment have to compel people and industry to do any of this? If you feel so strongly about global warming, take the initiative. People love to bitch when the goverment steps in and tells them they have to do something, now people are bitching about the goverment NOT forcing them to do something?

Heres an unpopular concept for ya'...Personal Responcibility.

[Mr_Cheeze]

I agree with you to an extent. The libertarian in me hates the idea of government forcing anything. Perhaps instead of bullying businesses and industries to follow certain environmental guidelines, they might coerce action based more on incentive. I think this is probably already done to some extent, but not enough. Start with a broad increase of taxes to any business and industry that produces certain kinds of waste (exhaust, chemical, wastewater, etc) and work backwards from there. Those who comply get more breaks. Sound reasonable? Unfortunately, we all know government and logic and generally exclusive to one another.

[catbbq]

Its a slipperly slope when the government starts making us use solar or wind power against our will and at our own expense. We should not start down that slope.

Otherwise, we should go whole hog and have the government completely run our lives. Eliminate all cars and put in a mass transist system. Make people move into block housing to save on energy. Force butcher shops to cut meat into bite size chucks so people don't need knives. In fact get rid of butcher shops since meat isn't good for us.

Soylent Green is people!

[FriedRys]

Unfortunately, we all know government and logic and generally exclusive to one anotherAin't that the sad goddamn truth. >:(

[jakazz]

ok here, if the gov mandates that every company over a certain size needs to get"lets say energy credits" and they cant trade them which in itself is a crock of s**t. but anyway, you get rid of some the tax breaks going to these guys, then you give them the energy credit option to save money, so in other words executive benny's like free lunch and dinners, are gone, and u replace it with an incentive to spend cash on energy production not saving. In this way they make out by reducing their costs on energy, and if you want to go further you allow them to get "credits" for supplementing community energy grids.

Of course if the ceo's are getting over a mill. per year tax them and spend it on residential solar, and geothermal production. Large corp. and eductaional facilities are allready using these and reaping the benefits.

I believe I read that vehicle use of petroleum products is not as great as commercial, residential, and manufacturing use for energy in the US.

When I say mandate I mean take something away and give it back to them in a way to benefit the country as a whole, not just the top 1%.

[Mr_Cheeze]

I don't think that tackling the environmental issues will make any headway by turning it into a Robin Hood fairy tale. Attacking the rich will not solve our energy problems. Remember, without those top 1% employing millions upon millions of people, we don't have a United States. I really hate it when Democrats think that the easiest solution is to go after the people with the money. Talk about anti-constitutional. If anything, by attacking those rich folks, you are giving the CEO's and their shareholders even more incentive to fight back with heavy artilliary against what should be good and logical environmental legislation. We're not Communist, here. Government has no business intruding to the extent that you suggest.

[catbbq]

I agree with you to an extent. The libertarian in me hates the idea of government forcing anything. Perhaps instead of bullying businesses and industries to follow certain environmental guidelines, they might coerce action based more on incentive. I think this is probably already done to some extent, but not enough. Start with a broad increase of taxes to any business and industry that produces certain kinds of waste (exhaust, chemical, wastewater, etc) and work backwards from there. Those who comply get more breaks. Sound reasonable? Unfortunately, we all know government and logic and generally exclusive to one another.


This is still bullying them, only now your pushing instead of pulling.

[Slider]

I think you are right about the government not being able to force change. The free market has to be involved. If that is the case, the best role for government is to encourage change via tax breaks, research support, plus industry and residential subsidies. Clean air standards already on the books need only to be enforced, and those who violate them need to be held accountable.

If government plays no role, the planet will be a toilet long before it would happen under reasonable, enforced policy.

Slider

[jakazz]

I don't think that tackling the environmental issues will make any headway by turning it into a Robin Hood fairy tale. Attacking the rich will not solve our energy problems. Remember, without those top 1% employing millions upon millions of people, we don't have a United States. I really hate it when Democrats think that the easiest solution is to go after the people with the money. Talk about anti-constitutional. If anything, by attacking those rich folks, you are giving the CEO's and their shareholders even more incentive to fight back with heavy artilliary against what should be good and logical environmental legislation. We're not Communist, here. Government has no business intruding to the extent that you suggest.


OK first, I'm a true wasp in all aspect of what a wasp is, that means me my family and everyone associated with them are conservitive republicans, "BUT" this bs with executive privilige, pushing the envelope of presidential powers, and the fact fact that bush and the current administration is pushing the envelope farther than any administration has pushed it is starting to get sickening, and sometimes scary.

I'm 43 years old and have voted the republican ticket without question since 1980, so dont call me a blue blood liberal, I choose my color, and my morals, I spent enough time in Nicaragua, Hondoras, & El Salvador during the reagan years to be able to see the effect of foreign policy and the lack of Human rights condoned by the US.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Ok, so you're republican. Geez. Although, I'm not sure what lineage has to do with one's political beliefs. Sounds kind of like the religion phenomenon: I'm a catholic because my parents were catholics and their parents were catholics. Great reason to be Catholic, there, buddy. I digress. Even you, jakazz, being the Republican that you claim to be, would have to admit that you fall in the vast, vast minority if you truly believe that the top 1% of income earners in the United States, many of which happen to operate oil refineries, no doubt, or earn more than 1 million dollars, as you stated, which, I might add, actually falls somewhat higher on the percentage scale these days; if you feel that they deserve to be forced to pay a greater share of taxes merely because they have the money, all of which you imply that they don't necessarily deserve... well, you, my friend, speak more like a liberal democrat on this front, red blood and all.

[catbbq]

Wow. Yet again, I have completely lost track of the conversation. It must be the last couple days of great riding weather.

[GeepNutt]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

[Mr_Cheeze]

That opinion piece is pretty much exactly the same argument that Michael Crichton makes. The problem is, ok, so there's no concensus. That much is obvious. Whenever is there a consensus on any friggin thing? Never. So where does that leave us. Again, these attempts at undermining the global warming policy seekers seem to have no purpose than to be naysayers. It's being contrary for the sake of being contrary, and is completely pointless. Why don't any of these people come out with a suggestion as to what exactly we should do, then. Nothing? Is that the implication? I'm waiting for one of you guys to get to explaining it.

[catbbq]

One issue I have with global warming is the cost to fix the problem. Its not just a matter of throwing my money at it. Many who think it is a problem want governments to spend spend spend on it. But they also want governments to regulate more so that companies have to spend spend spend.

What do we get for all that spending? Slightly less carbon in the atmo. China, India, etc, aren't going to spend it and aren't going to stop it. Soon they will be out burning us, so in the end the US is plundged into an economic disaster of global warming proportions and we still burn up.

[Slider]

First, we need to assume there is a problem with CO2 and temps. Most of those who know the topic are very alarmed. So, even if you disagree, let's get past that for the sake of discussion.

Rising temps affect every atmospheric and biological proces on the planet. Rainfall changes can make deserts from tropical forests and vice versa. Water temperature changes mean the habitat ranges for any given ocean species will change, too. Those mano-of-wars off the Mass coast are just following the warmer water. They represent a far more impactful change affecting, literally, every species in the ocean.

Now, change happens naturally all the time, and humans have a knack for overhunting and overfishing to the point of extinction. Then, we adapt and pick something else to wipeout. Among animals, we're the best adapted to making changes when needed for survival, and quickly if necessary.

Animals, too, evolve, both behaviorally and genetically. Some become extinct and others fill in the gaps. Evolution is a continuous process.

The problem with the current CO2 and temp rise is that it is happening faster than any such changes have occurred before, other than the handful of major meteorite impacts that did things like wipeout the dinosaurs.

Instead of a few millenia to see temps rise 3 degrees, we're talking a few decades. This is way too fast for genetic changes to have an impact. So lots and lots of species will be wiped out, in a very short period of time.

Man can and will adapt, but the world will be a drastically different place. The question is: What is it worth to us to slow the processes involved, to buy some time to understnad the changes and their impact, to attempt to hand our children a world with at least some resemblance to the diverse, inspiring and beautiful one we now know?

Your call. And mine. And I vote: Let's check into what we can do, and bite the bullet if necessary.

Slider

[TrailBate]

Too bad we're already trillions of dollars in debt, paying for important things, like boogeymen, and oil company tax breaks.

[Mr_Cheeze]

One issue I have with global warming is the cost to fix the problem. Its not just a matter of throwing my money at it. Many who think it is a problem want governments to spend spend spend on it. But they also want governments to regulate more so that companies have to spend spend spend.

What do we get for all that spending? Slightly less carbon in the atmo. China, India, etc, aren't going to spend it and aren't going to stop it. Soon they will be out burning us, so in the end the US is plundged into an economic disaster of global warming proportions and we still burn up.


What did we get for all of that spending on this needless war in Iraq? To date, 18,356 wounded US soldiers, and 2,537 dead. Bin Laden still alive... and will likely remain so if you believe this report: http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=N05339821

The biggest problem with your argument here is that we don't know the cost to prevent global warming. We know neither cost or effect on either side of the issue. What we do know is that steps can be taken to at least reduce the amount of air and water pollution. Are you truly going to argue that it's not worth the effort to try and make improvements on that front? Because China and India aren't going to do their part?

Personal responsibility. It's up to us to worry about what we can do. Success begets followers, and success always begins with small steps, steps that George W. Bush has erased with his turning back the clock on clean air and water.

[catbbq]

What did we get for all of that spending on this needless war in Iraq? To date, 18,356 wounded US soldiers, and 2,537 dead. Bin Laden still alive... and will likely remain so if you believe this report: http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=N05339821

The biggest problem with your argument here is that we don't know the cost to prevent global warming. We know neither cost or effect on either side of the issue. What we do know is that steps can be taken to at least reduce the amount of air and water pollution. Are you truly going to argue that it's not worth the effort to try and make improvements on that front? Because China and India aren't going to do their part?

Personal responsibility. It's up to us to worry about what we can do. Success begets followers, and success always begins with small steps, steps that George W. Bush has erased with his turning back the clock on clean air and water.


The particular unwinnable war we are talking about on this thread is global warming, not the war on Iraq or the war on drugs. Take those discussions somewhere else. Same for politics. If Bush is keeping you from stopping global warming, then it is your fault, not his.

And pollution is much different than CO2. Pollution you can see, smell, feel, touch. If I dump oil on a beach and then the seagulls are covered in oil, the cause is known. If I crank out CO2 in Hudson NH and an ice sheet melts in Anartica the relationship is much more fuzzy.

[Mr_Cheeze]

And pollution is much different than CO2. Pollution you can see, smell, feel, touch. If I dump oil on a beach and then the seagulls are covered in oil, the cause is known. If I crank out CO2 in Hudson NH and an ice sheet melts in Anartica the relationship is much more fuzzy.


You have just shown that you lack a fundamental understanding of the nature of global warming if you want to separate the CO2 element from the pollution element. They are one and the same. One of the main components of air pollution is CO2. Every kind of combustion induced exhaust is comprised of carbon dioxide. It just so happens that that very element is the one which causes the greenhouse effect.


And as far as Bush goes, and the point behind evoking his name, was to show the tendency by certain biased individuals, not just to defend the President on every turn, but to defend the typical pro-Republican agenda, and how this bias does not seem to necessarily be subject to the idea of spending gobs of taxpayers' money as long as it's being spent on something that the President supports, like the war in Iraq. Politics has everything to do with it, whether you care to admit it or not. Were you with Bush when he chose to weaken the clean air and water acts? It's all part and parcel of the same general principle. The global warming thing... maybe it's not as scary as the prospect of al Qaeda blowing up the Sears tower, but it has far greater implications for the future of humanity than any single armed conflict.

[catbbq]

You have just shown that you lack a fundamental understanding of the nature of global warming if you want to separate the CO2 element from the pollution element. They are one and the same. One of the main components of air pollution is CO2. Every kind of combustion induced exhaust is comprised of carbon dioxide. It just so happens that that very element is the one which causes the greenhouse effect.


And as far as Bush goes, and the point behind evoking his name, was to show the tendency by certain biased individuals, not just to defend the President on every turn, but to defend the typical pro-Republican agenda, and how this bias does not seem to necessarily be subject to the idea of spending gobs of taxpayers' money as long as it's being spent on something that the President supports, like the war in Iraq. Politics has everything to do with it, whether you care to admit it or not. Were you with Bush when he chose to weaken the clean air and water acts? It's all part and parcel of the same general principle. The global warming thing... maybe it's not as scary as the prospect of al Qaeda blowing up the Sears tower, but it has far greater implications for the future of humanity than any single armed conflict.


Lets keep it clear. While CO2 is a component of exhaust, so is water. Does that mean that water is a pollutant? Just because it comes out of a car doesn't mean its bad. By the way, water vapor is much more of a green house gas than CO2.

Also, global warming may or may not have anything to do with the green house effect. The greenhouse effect is the mechanism by which many are claiming that global warming will take place. If global warming turns out to be true, it could be caused by something else such as shrinking farm land or aliens.

Correlation is not causation.

[lee]

another article, published by various government agencies, warning of the impacts of CO2...


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060705/ap_on_sc/acid_oceans_1

[Slider]

Give Richard Lindzen some time, fer cryin' out loud. He'll have some BS debunking the ocean pH analysis any day now, once he gets some funding from Exxon.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Lets keep it clear. While CO2 is a component of exhaust, so is water. Does that mean that water is a pollutant? Just because it comes out of a car doesn't mean its bad. By the way, water vapor is much more of a green house gas than CO2.

Also, global warming may or may not have anything to do with the green house effect. The greenhouse effect is the mechanism by which many are claiming that global warming will take place. If global warming turns out to be true, it could be caused by something else such as shrinking farm land or aliens.

Correlation is not causation.


So now you're going to play with semantics. I'll try to keep it clear for you, then. Carbon Dioxide is created by burning fossil fuels. One method for reducing CO2 in the air that we have control over would be to reduce the burning of fossil fuels. Simple and clear enough. But the benefits don't end there. We reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, we reduce our reliance on people who hate us. Causation: regulate the amount of CO2 power companies and other industries produce, as well as, create alternative forms of energy; reduce the artificially produced CO2 in the air that may or may not be contributing to global warming. I fail to understand why anyone would align oneself against such a reasonable issue unless, as I state again, one if being blatantly partisan.

[catbbq]

I fail to understand why anyone would align oneself against such a reasonable issue unless, as I state again, one if being blatantly partisan.


Don't blame me for your lack of understanding. My politics has nothing to do with it.

[Ozzy]

[quote author=Große Herr Cheeze link=board=37;threadid=8219;start=225#72059
You have just shown that you lack a fundamental understanding of the nature of global warming if you want to separate the CO2 element from the pollution element. They are one and the same. One of the main components of air pollution is CO2. Every kind of combustion induced exhaust is comprised of carbon dioxide. It just so happens that that very element is the one which causes the greenhouse effect.


Water and water vapor has a much greater effect of global warming than CO2 does. So is water vapor pollution now? Were all of the environmentally minded folks, who have been pushing and pushing for Hydrogen cars off their rockers, suggesting we switch to a drive train that puts tons of water vapor (pollution) into the atmosphere?

Someone also mentioned 3 degree's in a decade... Where are you getting these numbers? The journal that originally published the hockey stick data, along with numerous scientist, has already stated that there were major issue's with some of the data that significantly altered its output, so I hope its not based upon that.

Just out of curiosity, how much would having implemented the Kyoto protocal lowered our 'estimated' temperature in 20 years, or 50... and a link to the info would be much appreciated.

[Ozzy]

[quote author=Große Herr Cheeze link=board=37;threadid=8219;start=225#72094]
I fail to understand why anyone would align oneself against such a reasonable issue unless, as I state again, one if being blatantly partisan.


Because if the economic impact to everyone. To make a silly example here: If some people come to the belief that Kentucky Blue Grass may lead to global warming, and lets say, 95% of Americans have Kentucky bluegrass in their yards, do you think everyone's gonna run out and pay thousands upon thousands of dollars to re sod their lawn without getting a better explanation than... "We _think_ bluegrass might be the problem, but we're not sure, and even if you rip up your lawn, we aren't sure what effect it will really have, because, it could really be caused by something else, like maybe oak trees..."

Thats why people like myself are particularly skeptical. Don't get me wrong, I can't stand the big oil companies, I'd like to see nothing more than their downfall, but the potential economic impacts have to addressed as well. If I was going to throw trillions of dollars at something, I'd sure wanna make sure I knew what those trillions of dollars were buying me.

[TrailBate]

I think you're missing the whole point of science. I already posted this, but science is based on experiments, and measurable, verifiable results that can be duplicated.

You keep passing off global warming as some unprovable idea, like Intelligent design.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Ozzy, you're not the first to bring up water vapor, using the example as a means to somehow minimize the CO2 argument, but that doesn't work, and here is why. Too much emphasis is being directed towards this whole CO2 side of the equation, both by the proponents and opponents. The real issue, as I stated earlier, is pollution. Carbon Dioxide, as well as other compounds, are only parts of the equation. You can question all of the CO2 reports and theories ad nauseum, but none of it will gloss over the reality that pollution can be reduced, and should be. It's as simple as that. Those who wish to defend Republicans at every turn love nothing better than to complicate the issue as a means to marginalize it. The big picture gets lost. Reducing CO2 is but an effect of reducing air pollution as a whole. Let's not get lost in a bunch of overly scientific reports that neither prove or disprove the effect of fossil fuel induced carbon dioxide on the climate. It's simply more accurate and effective to focus on getting refineries and factories to clean their emissions. Are you going to deny that this should be done? If so, why? I'm yet to be convinced that certain people aren't just siding against the "enviro-weenies" out of political bias. Instead of attacking my line of questioning, catcq, maybe you could explain your position outside of disbelieving the CO2/global warming reports.

[Ozzy]

I think you're missing the whole point of science. I already posted this, but science is based on experiments, and measurable, verifiable results that can be duplicated.

You keep passing off global warming as some unprovable idea, like Intelligent design.


Global warming _is_ occuring, thats provable.

An increase of 3 degree's in 20-30 years is _NOT_ provable.

The fact that man-made CO2 is soley responsible, is _NOT_ provable.

The fact that man-made C02 is partically responsible, is _NOT_ provable.

Models in the early eighties, if believed, would have had us 2-3 degree's warmer today, compared to then... in fact, we are only .6 degrees warmer since 1900. These same scientist have been shown to be wrong before. How about the 'cool' down in the 70's, and the earth freezing... Oops.

[Ozzy]

Ozzy, you're not the first to bring up water vapor, using the example as a means to somehow minimize the CO2 argument, but that doesn't work, and here is why. Too much emphasis is being directed towards this whole CO2 side of the equation, both by the proponents and opponents. The real issue, as I stated earlier, is pollution. Carbon Dioxide, as well as other compounds, are only parts of the equation. You can question all of the CO2 reports and theories ad nauseum, but none of it will gloss over the reality that pollution can be reduced, and should be. It's as simple as that. Those who wish to defend Republicans at every turn love nothing better than to complicate the issue as a means to marginalize it. The big picture gets lost. Reducing CO2 is but an effect of reducing air pollution as a whole. Let's not get lost in a bunch of overly scientific reports that neither prove or disprove the effect of fossil fuel induced carbon dioxide on the climate. It's simply more accurate and effective to focus on getting refineries and factories to clean their emissions. Are you going to deny that this should be done? If so, why? I'm yet to be convinced that certain people aren't just siding against the "enviro-weenies" out of political bias. Instead of attacking my line of questioning, catcq, maybe you could explain your position outside of disbelieving the CO2/global warming reports.


I think there's a huge difference between CO2 and sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and other chemical's that are not natural is an significant quanitity, and that have an adverse affect on plant and animal populations. CO2 is usually good for plants, yielding better growth rates, and more healthy plants = more oxygen... good for animals. As for Republicans, I was one once, now I think they're all corrupt, republican, democrat, independant, I wouldn't mind sending everyone of them off to a prison island.

[Ozzy]

Of interest:

http://www.thebusinessonline.com/Stories.aspx?US%20beats%20Europe%20over%20CO2%20co ntrol&StoryID=02E2E5EB-2572-4ACC-8CD7-FD0153EED7CE&SectionID=F3B76EF0-7991-4389-B72E-D07EB5AA1CEE

[catbbq]

Ozzy, you're not the first to bring up water vapor, using the example as a means to somehow minimize the CO2 argument, but that doesn't work, and here is why. Too much emphasis is being directed towards this whole CO2 side of the equation, both by the proponents and opponents. The real issue, as I stated earlier, is pollution. Carbon Dioxide, as well as other compounds, are only parts of the equation. You can question all of the CO2 reports and theories ad nauseum, but none of it will gloss over the reality that pollution can be reduced, and should be. It's as simple as that. Those who wish to defend Republicans at every turn love nothing better than to complicate the issue as a means to marginalize it. The big picture gets lost. Reducing CO2 is but an effect of reducing air pollution as a whole. Let's not get lost in a bunch of overly scientific reports that neither prove or disprove the effect of fossil fuel induced carbon dioxide on the climate. It's simply more accurate and effective to focus on getting refineries and factories to clean their emissions. Are you going to deny that this should be done? If so, why? I'm yet to be convinced that certain people aren't just siding against the "enviro-weenies" out of political bias. Instead of attacking my line of questioning, catcq, maybe you could explain your position outside of disbelieving the CO2/global warming reports.


I must have misread something of yours earlier, because this seems like a different argument. I agree with you completely that pollution is an issue. That is something that can be seen and measured with a causal effect. And I have no problem reducing pollution through regulation. You said earlier that personal responsibility is important and I can't agree more. And your right that pollution is harmless enough at the source that the polluters need some heavy handed guidance. Its the downstream guys that suffer.

As for global warming, I never said it isn't happening, I just said there is doubt. There is doubt. There are very few things I believe whole heartedly without any doubt.

I don't blame oil companies for doing what they do. I don't blame Wal-Mart for doing what it does. I don't blame bands for selling out either. Businesses are in the business of making money. They should do it responsibily and legally but not be forced to enact expensive regulations that may or may not help with solving a real or imaginary problem.

[catbbq]

I think you're missing the whole point of science. I already posted this, but science is based on experiments, and measurable, verifiable results that can be duplicated.

You keep passing off global warming as some unprovable idea, like Intelligent design.


Your missing the point of science. There are no experiments that you can perform on the climate. You can measure things like CO2 levels and temperature, but you are drawing conclusions that could be wrong when you form a relationship between them.

An experiment is when you measure something, make a prediction, change a variable, and see the predicted outcome. It requires control. There is no control with the climate.

Global warming with man as the cause is, with science at its current state, an unprovable theory. Just like evolution. That isn't saying that it is wrong, just that you can't prove it.

If you could prove it, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Slider]

I was avoiding yet another turn on this circle, so I will keep it simple. I won't argue any of the specifics and only say this:

There is no argument in the scientific community. The vast majority - I mean 95% or more - of the researchers who study climate are alarmed at the correlation between CO2 and warming. These are the people who have made it their life's work to understand the processes, and they have a pretty good grasp.

To verify this, look at the official stance of ALL of the worldwide government agencies related to climate. EVERY SINGLE ONE has policy statements that call for CO2 reduction.

The opposition is funded solely by those who fear an impact on their business once we actually start to make the inevitable changes to our economy. Richard Lindzen is a shill. Junk Science is not a research agency, but one whacko's opinion. Those are the sources for the opposition "information" that keeps this inane argument alive.

So when you toss of "water vapor" as more crucial than CO2 as far as the current warming trend, cite a source FROM THE RESEARCH that upholds that. If you look, you will see that there is no source from research, and their are legions of researchers who study nothing other that the hydrologic cycle. If you want to know water's impact, ask them, not Crichton, or Lindzen. Those two don't know WTF they're talking about.

Slider

[Slider]

Of interest:

http://www.thebusinessonline.com/Stories.aspx?US%20beats%20Europe%20over%20CO2%20co ntrol&StoryID=02E2E5EB-2572-4ACC-8CD7-FD0153EED7CE&SectionID=F3B76EF0-7991-4389-B72E-D07EB5AA1CEE


Here's an axcerpt that says it all:

"The US is frequently criticised for having the highest CO2 emissions in the world – 19.5 tons per person. This is more than twice the level of Britain, at 9.5 tons a head, which itself is sharply ahead of nuclear-driven France at 6.8 tons a head.

The Bush administration has said this is because the US generates more wealth than any country in the world, and it has instead said carbon emissions should be judged as a function of economic wealth created, not per capita."

In other words, reducing human-generated CO2 will hurt the economy. That is the sum of the argument, with no weight at all applied to the long term consequences, or cost, of delaying the necessary responses.

There are lots of long term costs, plus seconday things like famine and disease. If you want to screw up the economy, then ignore those things. But Bush and his ilk care about nothing past the end of his term.

Slider

[FriedRys]

No need to worry about global warming, nuclear winter will head it off. :o

[catbbq]

Here are some secondary sources about the greenhouse gas, water vapor. I will leave it to you to tell me how these guys are all sponsored by big oil and to find the primary sources.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming.html
http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/09.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/warmer_wetter_000128.html
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2000/200001271632.html

Quote from Frank Wentz, a physicist at Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, CA.
"Water vapor is really the primary greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and has a greater influence on global warming than carbon dioxide, but we're not sure whether this increase of water in the atmosphere will lead to an increase in global warming."

[Slider]

Did you read the stories?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming.html
"According to a team of Swiss scientists, heat from other greenhouse gases is causing more water to evaporate, releasing the vapor into the atmosphere above Europe. That vapor in turn, adds to the greenhouse effect, further warming the region.

So, fight the greenhouse gasses, not the water vapor. It is secondary.

http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/09.html

"Increasing amounts of human-made greenhouse gases would lead to an increase in the globally averaged surface temperature. However, as the temperature increases, other aspects of the climate will alter, including the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. While human activities do not directly add significant amounts of water vapor to the atmosphere, warmer air contains more water vapor. Since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, global warming will be further enhanced by the increased amounts of water vapor. This sort of indirect effect is called a positive feedback."

Same thing: Vapor is secondary to CO2

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/warmer_wetter_000128.html
"Wentz cautioned that 11 years is a very short time to observe changes in global climate. The study did not consider any possible human contributions to climate change. "

They didn't consider why temps are increasing, or how CO2 is related.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2000/200001271632.html

Same story as above.


Quote from Frank Wentz, a physicist at Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, CA.
"Water vapor is really the primary greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and has a greater influence on global warming than carbon dioxide, but we're not sure whether this increase of water in the atmosphere will lead to an increase in global warming."

Again, this is the fellow who said specifically that he did not consider the relation to CO2 or human activity. He just confirmed that warmer=wetter, and warmer and wetter are where we are heading.

All of your citations are, in fact, support for the idea that warming is a problem. The ones that considered the reasons say that CO2 and other man-made influences are making it happen.

Slider

[catbbq]

I was simply providing some evidence for water vapor being an important green house gas. You said "So when you toss of "water vapor" as more crucial than CO2 as far as the current warming trend, cite a source FROM THE RESEARCH that upholds that."


I never claimed the links were evidence against global warming or even CO2. Just that water vapor is a more important greenhouse gas.

[Slider]

But the examples you provided, when they considered the question, said that CO2 is more fundamental to the warming process, and water vapor is increasing as a result of CO2-based warming.

That makes CO2 "more crucial."

But I am confused as to why this is even an issue. All the additional water has long been considered, which is one reason that hurricanes are predicted to increase in number and strength along with increasing temperature.

Slider