So who's the real environmentalist?

[kernel crash]

TWO HOUSES

House #1 A 20 room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern "snow belt" area. It's in the South.

House #2 Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university. This house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet ( 4 bedrooms ) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F. ) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.

~~~~~
HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville, Tennessee; it is the abode of the "environmentalist" Al Gore.

HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas; it is the residence the of the President of the United States , George W. Bush.

An "inconvenient truth".

[noreaster]

Hmm… let's just do some really basic fact checking… it seems Mr. Gore just bought the old house in 2002 and has been performing renovations on it:

Kalee Kreider, a spokeswoman for Gore, called the statement misleading.

"The power coming into their residence is green, renewable power," she said, explaining that the Gores participate in a program called Green Power Switch, which is run through the public Tennessee Valley Authority. Green Power Switch supplies energy from renewable sources to its members.

Kreider added that a renovation of the Gores' house is underway to make it more energy efficient, an update that will include the addition of solar panels. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/28/AR2007022801823.html

Kreider said the 60- to 70-year-old house is undergoing renovations to add solar panels to reduce consumption off the power grid, and energy-efficient windows have been installed. The home also uses "compact" fluorescent light bulbs and other energy-saving technology, the Gores drive hybrids and participate in two programs that indirectly reduce carbon emissions http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254908,00.html

Hmm, even Fox reported this more truthfully than you. You should be proud.

So Gore is renovating - recycling if you will - an old house. Bush built a new house from raw materials. And he should be commended for doing so in such a efficient manner. In fact, he should push legislation for others to follow more easily in his footsteps. As someone investigating exactly this type of home, let me tell you, it's damn hard to try to do the right thing. Gore's own locale wouldn't even let him put solar panels on the roof, do to zoning restrictions!

And one's house is just one component of one's carbon footprint. How one makes other decisions has at least as much impact on the health of the environment. If we take the total impact of each man, Bush's government policies have wreck havoc on the the environment, in ways one house can never make up for. Not to mention political white-washing of science, you know, instead of using scientific methods - you know, perpetual repetition of bull. And yet you fall for green-washing like this. Typical.

Gore's one damn movie has done more to help the environment than Bush has done in his whole damn life. Think about that next time you're drinking a glass of tap water, with new higher amounts of legally allowed arsenic.

[kernel crash]

"Not to mention political white-washing of science, you know, instead of using scientific methods - you know, perpetual repetition of bull."

The only white-washing I see is coming from the lunatic left trying desperately to sell this man made global warming agenda. And by the way, the latest polls would indicate that a lot of people just aren't buying it.

"A change in climate history data at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies recently occurred which dramatically alters the debate over global warming. Yet, this transpired with no official announcement from GISS head James Hansen, and went unreported until Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit discovered it Wednesday.

For some background, one of the key tenets of the global warming myth being advanced by Hansen and soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore is that nine of the ten warmest years in history have occurred since 1995. McIntyre has been crunching the numbers used to determine such things as published by GISS, and has identified that the data have recently changed such that four of the top ten warmest years in American history occurred in the 1930s, with the warmest now in 1934 instead of the much-publicized 1998. Most importantly, according to the GISS, 1998 is no longer the warmest year in American history. That honor once again belongs to 1934.

As global warming is such a key issue being debated all around this country and on Capitol Hill, wouldn't such a change by the agency responsible for calculating such things be important to disseminate? When this correction was made by Hansen's team at the GISS, shouldn't it have been reported?

In fact, it is quite disgraceful that it wasn't, as it suggests that a government agency is actually participating in a fraud against the American people by withholding information crucial to a major policy issue now facing the nation."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/09/did-media-or-nasa-withhold-climate-history-data-changes-public

[noreaster]

Yeah, lunatic left keeps trying to sell us this science bullsh!t, next they'll be telling us the Earth is round, and that gravity exists. Damn them and their overwealming scientifically-sound evidence. These gov't scientists with their doctorates who make like $30k/yr have so much to gain from global climate change! :rolleyes:

Oh, and your latest theory is false, too:

Sum total of this change? A couple of hundredths of degrees in the US rankings and no change in anything that could be considered climatically important (specifically long term trends).

However, there is clearly a latent and deeply felt wish in some sectors for the whole problem of global warming to be reduced to a statistical quirk or a mistake. This led to some truly death-defying leaping to conclusions when this issue hit the blogosphere. One of the worst examples (but there are others) was the 'Opinionator' at the New York Times (oh dear). He managed to confuse the global means with the continental US numbers, he made up a story about McIntyre having 'always puzzled about some gaps' (what?) , declared the the error had 'played havoc' with the numbers, and quoted another blogger saying that the 'astounding' numbers had been 'silently released'. None of these statements are true. Among other incorrect stories going around are that the mistake was due to a Y2K bug or that this had something to do with photographing weather stations. Again, simply false. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/

Anytime you last few people want to dig your heads out of the sand, we'll be waiting. Hey, I'm a big fan of skepticism, and I appreciate your skepticism, but it just doesn't ring true here. There just isn't anything there that I see that sounds whistles. Why is conservation is so difficult for conservatives? Ben Franklin could do it 200+ years ago: "Waste not, want not." Damn scientists ruin everything. :(

[FriedRys]

I have taken up gathering discarded car tires. I'm building a small house in Greenland out of them. When the house is complete, I plan on filling it with can's of hairspray and setting it on fire. I figure if the oceans rise enough, I can have waterfront property.

[kernel crash]

"Oh, and your latest theory is false, too:"

No actually what I stated is FACT. You seem to be relying on too much info from blogs which can be put out from anybody.

"In the United States, the calendar year 1998 ranked as the hottest of them all – until someone checked the math. After a Toronto skeptic tipped NASA this month to one flaw in its climate calculations, the U.S. agency ordered a full data review. Days later, it put out a revised list of all-time hottest years. The Dust Bowl year of 1934 now ranks as hottest ever in the U.S. – not 1998. More significantly, the agency reduced the mean U.S. "temperature anomalies" for the years 2000 to 2006 by 0.15 degrees Celsius."


http://www.thestar.com/News/article/246027

[kernel crash]

By the way, the comment about the world being flat is getting pretty old. I realize its one of the talking points of the warming global alarmist when they don't have a better comeback. So just for the record I do believe the world is indeed round. I also believe the earth had been warming and cooling for hundreds of centuries, long before man made his impact here. So obviously there are other elements at work here that makes our potential impact look paltry by comparisons. And now we see evidence that Mars may also be warming. Are we causing that too?

Are we in a warming trend right now? Quite possibly. How long will it last? Five years? Ten years? Six months? Is it man made? Nobody knows the answer to that question. What we get is a lot of theory and speculation of what "might" happen and what "could" happen. And this is from the same people that told us we were entering a cooling period about 30 years ago. Just for the record they got that wrong. Meanwhile the weather experts can't get the weather forecast right 7 days out. What about those hurricane predictions for last year and the recently scaled down predictions for this year?

I get very suspicious when somebody is trying too hard to sell me something. To the point where they leave out facts to make their case. I gave an example today of how NASA had to be shown from an outside source that they got their numbers wrong. They corrected their numbers but didn't feel the need to make that information public. Also the now infamous report put out by the UN. (Now there's a body of work to be skeptical about). They published their findings and put out the "hockey stick" graph which clearly showed that the last 50 years shown an unprecedented rise in global temperatures. The only problem with the graph is that they left out information that would have weaken their case. The left out the medieval warming period during the 1400 that showed that the earth was warmer back then than now!

I can give many, many more examples like this. I don't know about you but I see enough here to raise many red flags. Speaking of red flags, lets look at Al Gore. He is not a Scientist. He is a politician. He's been a politician all his life. I don't believe anything that comes out of his mouth. Didn't he invent the internet? Many credible scientists have already pointed out many mistakes in his documentary. They want to debate him on these issues. He refuses. Why? I would pay money to watch that debate. If he really believes what he's talking about, wouldn't he stand up to defend it? Wouldn't you? Meanwhile China and India will continue to burn fossil fuel till the cows come home. They are playing catch up. They’re not going to refrain from doing something that the rest of the world has already been doing for a hundred years. We do have real problems and we need real solutions. Paying carbon taxes might make for a feel good solution for some people, but its really quite a joke. So meanwhile I'm waiting to see if somebody can get Al Gore to challenge his detractors in a public forum. How long must I wait?

[Slappy]

Ahhh...global warming, the issue that I just can't seem to give a damn about.

Yes, the planet will shake us off at some point.
Nope, there's nothing that will stop it from happening.

Next!

[SANITARY ENGINEER]

A greater contribution to any trend in mean global temperature change appears to be the political hot air associated with this "Chicken Little-esque" argument as to whether or not mean global temperature trends are actually affected by a species that, in terms of the life of this planet set to a 24 hour clock, has only been around for the last 30 seconds. Really!

I call 'New Topic'. How about debating something really important - like whether or not a goat's horns are in front of his ears, or behind them?

[BG]

http://deeddee.ytmnd.com/

Otherwise...i got nothin'

[SANITARY ENGINEER]

"I'll remember you said that."
- John Wayne

[splat]

I call 'New Topic'. How about debating something really important - like whether or not a goat's horns are in front of his ears, or behind them?

I say they are his ears!!!

[BG]

"I say they are his ears!!!"

[BadDNA]

I call 'New Topic'. How about debating something really important - like whether or not a goat's horns are in front of his ears, or behind them?

Between.

[noreaster]

You know, what's truly sad is you're destroying the economy. See, I can't concentrate at work when you're out here spreading ridiculous FUD. And if the economy goes south, it would affect you.

Let's have a look:
You seem to be relying on too much info from blogs which can be put out from anybody.

Mmm, right. I link to actual NASA scientists talking about the NASA data you're misinterpreting.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10

Heck, your own source refutes you in the same way my source refutes you, except yours was filtered some newspaper staff writer, and mine came from a climatolgist.

From your source:
NASA officials have dismissed the changes as trivial. Even the Canadian who spotted the original flaw says the revisions are "not necessarily material to climate policy." But the revisions have been seized on by conservative Americans, including firebrand radio host Rush Limbaugh, as evidence that climate change science is unsound.

Laughable. Back to your claims:

is getting pretty old. I realize its one of the talking points

Correction. It's an analogy. You're the one citing talking points. Let's follow the money. Who has the most to lose from the connection between carbon and climate change? The same people who pour money into the right-wing think tanks who think up your talking points.

We can go round-and-round point for point, but you've buried your head in the sand. Fine.

But just to prove my point, let's go back and have a look at a couple points:

same people that told us we were entering a cooling period about 30 years ago.
True, there were a few scientist who believed the Earth was cooling! And better yet, they were right, it was. However, the trend was not long term. And that's why there wasn't any where near the consensus there is today. There were no daily headlines. There was no avalanche of scientific articles. There were no United Nations treaties or commissions. No G8 summits on the dangers and possible solutions. No institutional pronouncements. You could find broader "consensus" on a coming alien invasion. To summarize: "...they recommended more research, not action." For the whole history: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94 (actual scientist, not political operative!)

Meanwhile the weather experts can't get the weather forecast right 7 days out.
Short term weather prediction, and studying thousands of years of geologic and glacial record are two completely different things. How do you think we know it there were warmer periods of time, and cooler periods of time? You use this as an argument yourself!

You like NASA data, as you've been citing it, let's ask them again:
The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today, however, has turned out to be incorrect
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

Al Gore. He is not a Scientist. He is a politician. They want to debate him on these issues. He refuses.

Should we have debates that the holocaust happened to, just because some fruit cake in Iran thinks it didn't happen? And if we do, should we send politicians to debate, or historians? Historians? Good call. So why should politicians debate climate change with fringe groups?

Didn't he invent the internet?
Hehe, you opened to the wrong page in your talking-points manual. This line isn't about climate change at all! But, it's still wrong. He never claimed to invent the Internet, but he was instrumental in the political portion of creating large networks and taking the 'net from being a governmental, educational and military network, to a public one.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

Vint Cerf, someone who actually designed parts of the internet says of Al Gore, "He is indeed due some thanks and consideration for his early contributions" -- http://web.archive.org/web/20000125065813/http://www.mids.org/mn/904/vcerf.html

Like I said, we can go round and round, but I can't waste my time like this. There's an answer to everyone of your talking points. There's a reason you're in the minute minority as a "doubter." The facts just are there to support you. I can see why oil and auto companies want to deny this. They have vested capital, and want maximum returns, and they'll be dead before it gets really uncomfortable for human kind. What I can't see though, is what's in it for you to go out of your way to doubt this stuff?

[Mr_Cheeze]

It's the alarmism, don't you get that? It goes too far. Everything has become subject to the dreaded climate change. And for what? You complain that the right has political reasons for denying the science. Well, that may be true, but you don't get off scott free, either. The left wants so bad to be back in the oval office, this climate change has become, for many, the cause celebre for jumping all over republicans.

The truth is somewhere in the middle, and most reasonable people know that. In the meantime, it's getting to the point where it's getting easier to simply tune out the alarmists and shunting them aside like PETA.

[kernel crash]

"It's the alarmism, don't you get that? "

CORRECT

Going Green' Consumer Bandwagon Stalling, Poll Finds

Despite unwavering attention from the media, government and business, global warming is only of moderate concern to most consumers, according to a new survey of consumers and their environmental attitudes. "Consumers are not drinking the Kool-Aid when it comes to green," said J. Walker Smith, president of the Yankelovich, Inc., marketing firm, which released the survey results on Monday.

Chris Horner, senior fellow with the free market environmental group Competitive Enterprise Institute, told Cybercast News Service on Tuesday that the results of the survey indicate that global warming alarmists have "overplayed their hand."

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200708/CUL20070815a.html

[kernel crash]

"There's a reason you're in the minute minority as a "doubter.""

See my previous link. Looks like your actually in the minority.

"Let's follow the money."

OK lets follow the money.

"But as Marc Morano, of the minority staff of the Senate's Committee on Environment and Public Works, disclosed in a posting, “proponents of man-made global warming have been funded to the tune of $50 BILLION in the last decade or so,” not even counting the impact of one-sided media reporting, “while skeptics have received a paltry $19 MILLION.”"

[noreaster]

Riiiiiiiiight. All these scientists are in the pockets of marketers trying to make a buck off of "going green." Must be it. That's like your doctor thinking "Jeeze, I hope this next guy has cancer, I'd really like to diagnose cancer today, that's a big money maker."

Here's my point: whether or not you think this is "alarmism" you can't fight facts with lies. And that's what you're doing. Every time you've posted your bunk in the forum (hell, you didn't even post a picture of the correct Gore house - doesn't look like it's in a Nashville neighborhood with that big farm around it, does it? Here's a pic of the actual house from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/postphotos/orb/asection/2007-03-01/8.htm)) it's been rebuked with actual fact, from actual sources. Then instead of answering for the lies, you change the subject, and throw out some more bull. FUD, FUD, FUD.

$50 BILLION in the last decade or so And how much do you think Big Oil lobbying cost in the last month?

CNSnews.com - LOL! what a source! Did you know that it's founder, Brent Bozell is a Republican operative? http://www.mediatransparency.org/personprofile.php?personID=21 Follow the money!

That stinks of desperation, and I can't understand why? What's in it for you to bury your head in the sand?

[Mr_Cheeze]

Both Noreaster and Slider, as well as other proponents of the alarmism agenda, like to perpatuate this falsehood that a) most scientists and researchers are fully on board the left's climate change bandwagon, and b) most Americans are also on board. This myth is an obvious and time word tactic, say something enough and people will believe it.

When more people are turning in the SUV's for hybrids, then I'll believe the hype.

[kernel crash]

Whether the house is the correct photo or not, the facts remain the same. The biggest promoter of global warming, Al Gore, is also one of the biggest users of energy that he would like to get the rest of us to cut back on. Yeah he feeling the "heat" so to speak to make changes at home and thats all well and good.

So your facts are facts and my facts are lies. Ok. If that makes you feel better. Your obviously not persuading me or the majority of Americans for that matter and that seems to be getting under your skin. I mean I've never referred to your postings as lies, told you you have your head in the sand, made references to alien invasions, or references to denying the holocaust or believing the earth is flat. All that stuff is coming from you guys and just might be one of the reasons why millions of Americans are being turned off to this stuff. So until I see a discussion with BOTH SIDES represented at the table, I remain a skeptic. If you want to believe I receive a check from big oil every week, then that's OK too.

[SANITARY ENGINEER]

The left is well polished at delivering accusations, knowing that no matter how blatantly false they are, those accusations carry more credibility than any factual rebuttal in the minds of 'sheeple' simply because the accusation was heard first. Those who question such accusations looking for evidence of truth are met with name calling and personal attacks. This tactic has been used for generations. in much the same way as Democrats use entitlements to buy votes.

[BG]

Reminds me of a couple of jokes;

"According to a new U.N. report, the global warming outlook is much worse than originally predicted. Which is pretty bad when they originally predicted it would destroy the planet."

"The report on climate change said that humans are very likely making the planet warmer. To which Hillary Clinton said, 'Hey, can't blame me for that one.'"

Jay Leno

[noreaster]

heh, Jay Leno should have you guys writing jokes for him.

You're barking up the wrong tree, I'm not a Democrat, and don't give a damn about Hillary Clinton.

Whether the house is the correct photo or not, the facts remain the same.

On the contrary: it means you're just parroting whatever you're being told. Did you just paste this in from an email, without checking the facts? I mean it said "Nashville Neighborhood," where's the neighborhood in that picture? Shouldn't that raise a little bit of a red flag?

The problem is such: you can't have "both sides" at the table, because "your side" doesn't have any facts. When people intentionally present facts that are false, those are called "lies." Hence the analogy with the holocaust: there's a side that most reasonable people agree with who have evidence to support their view, and there's a side that has no evidence, that denies the existence of the tragedy because it is personally beneficial for them to do so.

This is not a veiled way of calling you personally a holocaust denier, but it's the best anaolgy I can come up with. Do you believe there should be a debate between historians and holocaust deniers? I don't. And it's not because I just believe everything I'm told. Skepticism is the corner stone to critical thinking, and science. I'm a skeptic. You can't have a debate between two groups when one side has evidence, and the otherside has nothing to backup their claims.

Your obviously not persuading me or the majority of Americans

85% of Americans believe that Global Warming is impacting us now, or will in the future. 89% believe Global Warming is a serious problem or a high priority for governments to address. http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/042607environment.pdf

I found it funny that when looking for stats on what Americans think about climate change, that at the bottom of the "Climate Change Denial" entry in Wikipedia is a section, Holocaust denial analogy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#Holocaust_denial_analogy) - I thought I had created an original analogy.

Bottom line: I don't like people trying to change opinions based on fact by lying about the facts. I've refuted every argument presented with hard science and citations. You have been unable to stand up for your so-called facts. Show me where I'm wrong. Explain to me why 99% of scientists around the world agree that this is a problem we need to address - how are they so wrong? What's in it for them?

Like I said, I'm naturally inclined to skepticism, so I should agree with you if you're right. But I don't see one shred of evidence that makes a convincing argument that carbon emissions are not damaging our environment to mankind's peril. Last time we saw this, the thinning of the ozone layer, we were able to band together as a planet, make minute adjustments to our way of life, and the holes are nearly recovered. Now it's time to reduce emissions. I don't see how this is so awful. It doesn't mean giving up modern conveniences, it just means being a little more considerate when it comes to the things you choose. And almost everything you do that's good for the environment (like riding a bike instead of driving a car to pick up a quart of milk), is also beneficial for you anyhow (saves gas, saves money, gives you exercise, gives you an excuse to by that new carbon bike).

See we can all get along: I support carbon sequestration - in bike parts!

[off piste]

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/6148/popcorn4jj.gif

[Mr_Cheeze]

85% of Americans believe that Global Warming is impacting us now, or will in the future. 89% believe Global Warming is a serious problem or a high priority for governments to address.

This is where you lose the argument, just like Slider did, and is why he pretty much gave up. Of course most people aren't denying global warming or the data that proves it is happening. The debate, as you continue to want to gloss over, is over whether this phenomenon is directly caused by human beings. So please stop trying to make stupid analogies that make no sense. The Hitler family would appreciate it.

As far as the "facts" pertaining to the real debate, both sides have presented thought provoking arguments; however, one cannot prove the claim that a majority of the world's scientists and researchers firmly believe that we are causing climate change. For every one of your studies showing ice core evidence, there is another showing solar and/or cosmic influence. Simply stating that any alternate theory than the ones into which you buy lacks credibility does not make it so. Sticking to a narrow theory only smacks of an obvious political agenda when words like "Republicans" and "Al Gore" and "oil corporations" are thrown into the fray.

And don't try and make like only your side is being reasonable. You want to use analogies? Well, that's like any Christian sect claiming to have the only path to salvation. You want to save the world and go to heaven? Well, stop driving your SUV's and switch to flourescent bulbs, else you are damned to HELLLLLLL!!!!!!
:burndev:



The only truly reasonable people are agnostics and those who understand the politics behind both sides of the global warming discussion.

[kernel crash]

"On the contrary: it means you're just parroting whatever you're being told."
And your NOT!!!

"you can't have "both sides" at the table, because "your side" doesn't have any facts."
Unlike you I still have a very open mind on the subject. This debate is not over.

"Do you believe there should be a debate between historians and holocaust deniers? I don't."
WTF? There are no predictions involved. We have the benefit of hindsight with the holocaust. I don't see any real analogy there. One happened in the past. The other is a prediction of what MIGHT happen in the future.

"You can't have a debate between two groups when one side has evidence, and the other side has nothing to backup their claims."
That's your personal opinion. You seem to gloss over the FACT that we KNOW the earth has been much warmer in the past than it is right now. That's a fact. Man played no role in that warming.

"I've refuted every argument presented with hard science and citations. You have been unable to stand up for your so-called facts."
No you haven't. You think you have. Your just spouting off the talking points from your side of the debate. Meanwhile every point I make is a lie.

"Show me where I'm wrong."
Heres one - 99% of scientists around the world agree that this is a problem. You don't really believe that do you?

"I'm naturally inclined to skepticism"
Well the latest polls would indicate that most Americans are more skeptical than you. And that poll was released this week. But how would you know that. It got no attention from the Main Stream Media. Why is that? Sacremento California broke a record earlier this week for a record low temperature. All we heard from the media was how hot it was down South. The Sacremento story doesn't fit in with the agenda so it gets no play. That's the way the game is played.

[noreaster]

Well, if I had to guess at the reason Slider has given up (and why I'm sure my own run here in the politics will be short lived) is that "your side" doesn't present facts. You present attacks (eg - the beginning of this thread is an attack on an "environmentalist" for being a "hypocrite") with "facts" that are either entirely erroneous, or at best cherry-picked half truths.

Listen, I love debating, if it isn't obvious in this thread. But debating is just arguing unless both sides have substantiated facts. I've thrown out a metric assload in this thread, and none have been rebuked. You've thrown out accusations that have been rebuked. Clearly the talking points don't work on me.

Now that said,

For every one of your studies showing ice core evidence, there is another showing solar and/or cosmic influence.

if you'd like to put up the "opposition research" I'd be happy to look at it. The problem I see, though, and what you'll have a hard time convincing me of, is that if you do have something that holds water, it's not one-for-one, as you claim. Right now, it's one-to-one thousand. And you know what? If your study holds water, then it should spark more research on said effect. And if (and this is an enormous "if") the absolute truth is that you've found the thing that debunks this whole line of reasoning - great! But it doesn't mean that continuing to pollute our planet, waste natural resources and generally treat the Earth like a big dump, that's simply irresponsible.

So get to disproving it. Show me the evidence. I think if you honestly look, you'll see that it's overwhelming the proof that emitting carbon into the atmosphere is a bad idea. All this evidence is like a BRIDGE OUT sign on the highway. You can slow down and have a look, but at 70MPH, you better damn well take some action, even if you're not totally convinced, because the alternative isn't so hot.

[noreaster]

"On the contrary: it means you're just parroting whatever you're being told."
And your NOT!!!

My quotes have been from scientific studies, and yours have been from conservative operatives. How does that compare? Like historians versus…

One happened in the past. The other is a prediction of what MIGHT happen in the future.
Actually, climate change science is all about what happened in the past. We have reliable records on past atmospheric conditions, and you keep pointing that out.

Your just spouting off the talking points from your side of the debate. Meanwhile every point I make is a lie.

Scientific studies are talking points? Since when? What would qualify as evidence to sway your "open mind?" Until you substantiate your claims, I will classify them as lies.

Heres one - 99% of scientists around the world agree that this is a problem. You don't really believe that do you?
OK - now substantiate your claim - SHOW ME THE SCIENCE.

broke a record earlier this week for a record low temperature.
A perfect example of cherry-picking, or perhaps simply an honest misunderstanding about what Global Climate Change is. The temperature of one place at one time is just weather, and says nothing about climate. Global warming is the long-term increase in global, averaged surface temperatures.

There's no game.

[off piste]

http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/images/smilies/smiles2/stirthepot.gif

Go, Earth, Go!! Have your fever and wipe out all the disgusting, filthy little microbes crawling on your skin that have been irritating you for a few million years now (a couple weeks to you).

I only hope and pray to all the equally false gods that I live long enough to have confirmation that the Human Race has Darwin'd itself beyond recovery and know without a shadow of a doubt that it'll pass into oblivion after me, or better yet with me. Go, baby, go!!!

Let the Slam Dance begin -- I've got a few 10 thousand rounds of components to assemble into ammo.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/08/17/arctic_sea_ice_shrinks_to_record_low/

Arctic sea ice shrinks to record low

By Randolph E. Schmid, AP Science Writer | August 17, 2007
WASHINGTON --There was less sea ice in the Arctic on Friday than ever before on record, and the melting is continuing, the National Snow and Ice Data Center reported.
"Today is a historic day," said Mark Serreze, a senior research scientist at the center. "This is the least sea ice we've ever seen in the satellite record and we have another month left to go in the melt season this year."
Satellite measurements showed 2.02 million square miles of ice in the Arctic, falling below the Sept. 21, 2005, record minimum of 2.05 million square miles, the agency said.
Sea ice is particularly low in the East Siberian side of the Arctic and the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska, the center reported.
Ice in the Canadian Archipelago is also quite low. Along the Atlantic side of the Arctic Ocean, sea ice extent is not as unusually low, but there is still less than normal, according to the center located in Boulder, Colo.
The snow and ice center is part of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado. It receives support from NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Science Foundation.
Scientists began monitoring the extent of Arctic sea ice in the 1970s when satellite images became available.
The polar regions have long been of concern to climate specialists studying global warming because those regions are expected to feel the impact of climate change sooner and to a greater extent than other areas.
Sea ice in the Arctic helps keep those regions cool by reflecting sunlight that might be absorbed by darker land or ocean surfaces. Exposed to direct sun, for example, instead of reflecting 80 percent of the sunlight, the ocean absorbs 90 percent. That causes the ocean to heat up and raises Arctic temperatures.
Unusually clear sky conditions have prevailed in the Arctic in June and July, promoting more sunshine at the time when the sun is highest in the sky over the region.
The center said this led to an unusually high amount of solar energy being pumped onto the Arctic ice surface, accelerating the melting process. Fairly strong winds also brought in some warm air from the south.
But, Serreze said in a telephone interview, while some natural variability is involved in the melting "we simply can't explain everything through natural processes."
"It is very strong evidence that we are starting to see an effect of greenhouse warming," he said.
The puzzling thing, he said, is that the melting is actually occurring faster than computer climate models have predicted.
Several years ago he would have predicted a complete melt of Arctic sea ice in summer would occur by the year 2070 to 2100, Serreze said. But at the rates now occurring, a complete melt could happen by 2030, he said Friday.
There will still be ice in winter, he said, but it could be gone in summer.

[SANITARY ENGINEER]

Well, if I had to guess at the reason Slider has given up (and why I'm sure my own run here in the politics will be short lived) is that "your side" doesn't present facts. You present attacks (eg - the beginning of this thread is an attack on an "environmentalist" for being a "hypocrite") with "facts" that are either entirely erroneous, or at best cherry-picked half truths.

Listen, I love debating, if it isn't obvious in this thread. But debating is just arguing unless both sides have substantiated facts. I've thrown out a metric assload in this thread, and none have been rebuked. You've thrown out accusations that have been rebuked. Clearly the talking points don't work on me.

Now that said,



if you'd like to put up the "opposition research" I'd be happy to look at it. The problem I see, though, and what you'll have a hard time convincing me of, is that if you do have something that holds water, it's not one-for-one, as you claim. Right now, it's one-to-one thousand. And you know what? If your study holds water, then it should spark more research on said effect. And if (and this is an enormous "if") the absolute truth is that you've found the thing that debunks this whole line of reasoning - great! But it doesn't mean that continuing to pollute our planet, waste natural resources and generally treat the Earth like a big dump, that's simply irresponsible.

So get to disproving it. Show me the evidence. I think if you honestly look, you'll see that it's overwhelming the proof that emitting carbon into the atmosphere is a bad idea. All this evidence is like a BRIDGE OUT sign on the highway. You can slow down and have a look, but at 70MPH, you better damn well take some action, even if you're not totally convinced, because the alternative isn't so hot.

Why would anyone care to debate, since you've already announced that you wouldn't believe any "cherry-picked half truths", as well as proclaiming that even if you were shown significant data offsetting the global warming camp's data, you wouldn't believe it because it could not stack up to the "facts" you have already presented. This is precisely what I alluded to in a previous post.

By the way, Al Gore is yesterdays politician NOT an environmentalist

[Slider]

Slider gave up for two reasons, one being that he's incredibly busy on the new job, with lots of business travel. After a 12 hour day in Minneaapolis, the last thing he'd want to do is slap around the same arguments over and over again, especially when logic doesn't work very well here. Most don't even get the basic concepts, whether we're talking environment or Constitutional law.

The other reason is that noreaster is doing a great job of running circles around you guys, and he writes well too. Not much I can add.

Slider

[off piste]

Slider gave up for two reasons, one being that he's incredibly busy on the new job, with lots of business travel. After a 12 hour day in Minneaapolis, the last thing he'd want to do is slap around the same arguments over and over again, especially when logic doesn't work very well here. Most don't even get the basic concepts, whether we're talking environment or Constitutional law.

The other reason is that noreaster is doing a great job of running circles around you guys, and he writes well too. Not much I can add.

Slider


Hey, at least you're alive. We were beginning to worry!

[Slider]

Barely. Didn't mention my third bout with Lyme disease, diagnosed last Friday before a four day trip to Philly. The only good news is that it seems to get less nasty with each repeat infection. Instead of sleeping 14 hours a day and feeling explosions in my head, I sleep 10, and just ache a little.

I think global warming is a boon for the tick population. :D

Slider

[MTBME]

Didn't mention my third bout with Lyme disease, diagnosed last Friday before a four day trip to Philly.
Slider

Oh. And I thought they said you were a chick magnet. Me Bad.

[off piste]

Oh. And I thought they said you were a chick magnet. Me Bad.

OK, it took me about 45 minutes, but I finally got that after I forgot about it and spontaneously burst out laughing. Slow on the bike and off. That's me.

[Slider]

Wy wife keeps tellng me we need some chicks, the poultry kind. All that pecking isn't aimless. They're supposed to be great at keeping the tick population down. I just know who'll be getting up to check on coyote/fishercat/dog problems at 3AM, and it won't be her.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Enough niceties.



The other reason is that noreaster is doing a great job of running circles around you guys, and he writes well too. Not much I can add.

Slider

The only circles he's running is in using the same arguments you do, which is to say simply discrediting every opposing argument out of hand. Yes, out of hand. So, no there isn't much you can add since it's all rehash. If Noreaster wants to bore himself by referring back to the previous threads on the subject, he would see the numerous articles and data which showed that there is certainly nowhere close to a concensus on the cause of global warming.

http://www.nemba.org/forums/showthread.php?t=19338

The real agenda behind the claim that we are the cause is in blaming those in power who aid and abet our use of fossil fuels (energy corporations, defense contractors, big industry... in other words, REPUBLICANS) and who decide on governmental policies overseeing environmental regulation (again, those nasty Republicans). So please, at least do us a minor favor, Noreaster, by trying to make believe that you are not a Democrat. Tell us the last Republican you voted for.

[Slider]

You clearly don't understand what "out of hand" means. noreaster cites primary data, you guys respond with third or fourth hand, non-expert opinion. That's exactly why I gave up the fight.

Slider

[noreaster]

simply discrediting every opposing argument out of hand. Yes, out of hand.

Using scientific data is out of hand? I wish I had this all in my head, but you'd find the same data too if you just googled your claim to verify it. I certainly won't go back and refute all of your previous FUD, cause I have a life to live. I think I've demonstrated it's mostly talking points and not science.

So please, at least do us a minor favor, Noreaster, by trying to make believe that you are not a Democrat. Tell us the last Republican you voted for.

Still not a Democrat. Staunch independent. I vote for ideas, not people, and I haven't had an occasion to vote for a Republican whose ideas I favored. I have voted against Democrats, though, when they weren't doing what they should be (IMO). I have family friends involved at politics at the local level in my hometown who are Republicans, and I'd vote for them. They don't suffer from the same crap the national ones do.

Sadly, the world is spectrum of ideas, and all we have to represent that in this country is a lame duopoly. On the spectrum of ideas, I'm a progressive libertarian. What that means to me is that you can do anything you want with yourself, or your business, as long as it doesn't negatively affect others who are trying to do the same. Gov't's role should be to step in to regulate those who don't obey that simple premise. Thus, given this country's terrible track record with corporate stewardship of the environment, I feel the gov't should act upon the best scientific data we have (not FUD by those who have a vested, short-term, monetary interest) to regulate what a company (or a citizen, if they pollute) puts out in to our common water and air. On the business side, I don't feel businesses should have to flip the bill medical care in this country, when they don't have to in the rest of the world, imagine how much easier labor disputes could be set to rest without that on the table, and I think SOX is just awful legislation. It won't prevent another Enron, and just serves to waste business's money.

If the Republicans nominated Ron Paul, I'd consider voting for him. He doesn't think the way I do, but it would be nice to have his opposing view point in Washington. In some cases, I'd vote for Green Party candidates, too.

[kernel crash]

85% of Americans believe that Global Warming is impacting us now, or will in the future. http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/042607environment.pdf

Bottom line: I don't like people trying to change opinions based on fact by lying about the facts. I've refuted every argument presented with hard science and citations. You have been unable to stand up for your so-called facts. Show me where I'm wrong.


According to that poll Northeaster provided a link to, 49% think global warming is having a serious impact now. That is on page one and that poll was taken in April 2007. Not quite the 85% he mentioned in his posting. I sent a link of a more recent poll taken last week that stated “that only 34 percent of consumers feel much more concerned about environmental issues today than a year ago.

[Slider]

I found pretty quickly where noreaster got that stat. The report says:

IS GLOBAL WARMING HAVING AN IMPACT?
----------------------------------Now-------6/2001
Yes, now--------------------------49%------35%
Will in the future-------------------36%------41%
Won’t have an impact--------------11%------17%

Add the 49% for now, and the 36% for in he future, and you get the 85%.

Does that work for you?

Slider

[noreaster]

“that only 34 percent of consumers feel much more concerned about environmental issues today than a year ago."

Well I don't feel more concerned today. I feel equally concerned as I did last year. And this was the same poll that came from your source who is run by a Republican operative. Not anywhere in the piece are we linked to the actually stats of the survey, nor the process, the wording of the questions, nor a demographic description of the participants, who are only described as "consumers." And then the "journalist" calls the Competitive Enterprise Institute for quotes! LOL.

[kernel crash]

Well that makes you wonder about that poll when on the very same page you get...

“In Fact, when asked to volunteer what environmental problem they consider most important, global warming is mentioned second, behind only air pollution. Air pollution is volunteered by 23%. Global warming is mentioned by 15%.”

[Slider]

Well that makes you wonder about that poll when on the very same page you get...

“In Fact, when asked to volunteer what environmental problem they consider most important, global warming is mentioned second, behind only air pollution. Air pollution is volunteered by 23%. Global warming is mentioned by 15%.”

I don't see a problem there, either. Certainly, air pollution is a major contributor to the warming/CO2 problem, and it is a lot more obvious as an immediate contributor to a decline in quality of life. Smelling smog is more in your face than a few degrees of temperature rise over decades. Lung cancer or emphysema due to smog is more clear than, say, dying from a flood, or starvation after a crop failure, both of which can be tied to warming.

Making those less obvious ties is why we do research.

Slider

[kernel crash]

I don't see a problem there, either.
Slider

Really. My point is the numbers don't add up. Even if you add the 23% (air pollution) and the 15% (global warming) you only come up with 38%. That's a far cry from the 85% that was mentioned earlier. I realize where not talking about quite the same thing here but it is a little strange to get such a swing in percentages from the same poll on the first page of the poll! But then again the poll is from the main stream media...

[noreaster]

It's simple, really. Don't over-think it: in one question they ask someone to name issues out of the blue. In another they ask given issue "x" how are you concerned about it? People generally have a more difficult time recalling issues they're not experts on, than if they're given some context. It doesn't mean they don't care about the issue. Remember much of this polling is done by surprise over the telephone. It's not a MSM trick, that's just how polling is conducted.

[Slappy]

Uhh...what the hell does it really matter what the public is 'concerned' about? Overall, more people are probably 'concerned' about Paris Hilton's latest trip to detox. Guess that makes her more important then.
Polls mean **** and statistics can be manipulated six ways to Sunday. You all know this but you still argue about some meaningless percentage points one way or the other? Sheer silliness.

[Mr_Cheeze]

First off, citing a CBS/New York Times poll is about as useful as somone quoting a Newsmax poll. They have their obvious agenda that cannot be disputed. Slappy has it exactly correct, main stream media polls do not mean squat.

Secondly, and this goes right to the heart of this notion that "most" of the public believe in the existence of global warming. It's unfortunate that I have to keep saying this, because the fact of the matter is, most people do believe that there is global warming. That's not even debatable. However, most people, nor scientists, do not believe that it is necessarily induced from human related causes. This is where the left, and their complicit media, are using demagoguery promote a political platform. This is understandable considering their anti-war, anti-defense startegy has largely backfired come election time.

So yes, I do believe these dismissals are given out-of-hand when attempts at reason and counterpoint are not considered because they are simply contradictory. Implying that everyone else is stupid for not getting on the bus is lazy. Fearmongering is what those on the far left, as well as the far right, are best at.

Another form of proof that the real public is not overly concerned about global warming is that there is no real Presidential candidate taking up the cause. (They use real, accurate polling data, by the way. Not the New York Times.) Don't you think that if Al Gore had reason to believe that there was such a clamor for something to be done, because, Jesus Christ save us, the world is going to end by 2080, then he would be running today. But he isn't, and that's because he knows that the issue is hardly one on which to center a platform.

So which is it? Is a majority of the people so concerned that we are causing global warming? Or are not enough people concerned enough to warrant some political expediency with a green candidate?

[Slider]

Unlike Newsmax, CBS and NYTimes both publish the methodology and specific questions asked in their polls. Usually, there's an independent research company managin the process. That at least lets you determine the degree of bias for yourself. And it is true, polls are often useless.

But public opinion has nothing to do with scientific validity. Yet again, I'll state the simple fact that no researcher working with primary data has argued that CO2 is not related to warming.

Go ahead, cite that freak from Russia with the Mars data, or something else as unfounded.

Round and round.....

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

http://www.bayareaveg.org/gallery2/d/1020-2/ingrid_newkirk.jpg

Now according to this lady, Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA, all of us meat eaters are to blame for global warming, as, according to her, the deforestation for pastures and creation of too much methane by cow and sheep flatulance has a much greater impact on the planet's climate.

So come on, how could anyone not believe such an attractive woman.
You gotta hand it to the Brits. They sure do churn out the beauties.