'Smoking gun' report to say global warming here

[Johnny Punani]

I will try, although I admit that 1600 pages is a pretty big haul.

Again, however, I note that you are using one person's actions using it to project similar motivations upon the entire scientific community. There are always those who overstate things. I am sure that some people got very frustrated by the 30 years that the tobacco industry obfusticated the connection between cigarettes and cancer, and said stupid things. Didn't make their "side" wrong, it just made that individual a jerk.

The present stuation is no different.

I am not projecting similar motivations on anyone. I am just giving you one example of what happens all the time.

[kwitt]

How can we belive that humans are causing global warming? How long have records been kept of the earth's weather? I'm guessing that number will not compare to the life of Earth.

I think it is rather egotistical to believe that we can be the cause of climate change. The earth has undergone some incredible changes over time and has experienced much more severe natural global catastrophes such as super volcanos and massive meteor collisions. Yet, we are depleting the ozone layer with our emissions? I think this is laughable.

The planet may be warming but it is probably more likely due to the fact that we are coming out of a mini ice age. Global warming advocates don't look at the long history of this planet and fail to see the big picture. The Earth has been around 4.6 billion years.

[CounterTrey]

Global warming is here. I saw the Inconvienient truth which was quite good but also a ton of other data other than the Al Gore flick. Global warming is gonna be our biggest threat this century. Obviously the GOP and Bush don't think so, and nor does mjaority of other stupid politicans. But ultimately the general popluation has to accept the fact that Global warming is going to be a concern for us in the next 20 years.

Polar ice caps are melting at alaming rates, its getting warmer and warmer every years, storms are getting bigger, its happneing right now and we got to stop it before it gets too late.

[CounterTrey]

Just in time to get Gore 2 oscar nominations for his joke film.

Yawn. wake me up when it's 110 degrees in December, until then I'll happily watch the scare tactics used by the left to advance their environmental socialist agenda.

I hope your kidding. maybe Not!

[CounterTrey]

and what does terrorism have to do with the topic of global warming again?

another example of a lefty using the proxy argument format to skirt the facts at hand.

Heck, if enough socialists say "global warming" (except when its cooling) is caused by man more than mother nature it must be true, right?

In the long run, I am pretty much on the side of protecting the earth. so if there are laws to be passed, then lets at least be sure that those poor "underdeveloped" and poor nations are held to the exact same industrial standards as the advanced ones.

hey, we all share the earth

Do you even know the facts. We export more harmfull pollutants than anyone other country on Earrth. yes we the US, use alomst 50% of the worlds resources and export more Carbon intot he air than anyone else. On top of that we have politicans who don't support the Kyoto protocol and also car companies that basically killed the progress of complete Electric cars - "Who kiiled the Electric car" is a movie everyone should see.

I know you want to protect earth in the long run, I'm pretty sure we all want to, but to come here and pin left vs right on an issue like Global warming where we all are involved is just retarted. After seeing the Gore flick and a couple other movies, I decided that each person is going to have to pull his weight and so I have decided to recycle more than I have been doing, use less electricity in my house, drive only when i need to, and to purchase a hybrid car as my next purchase for a vehicle.

We can reduce our carbon emissions if we all relize how big a threat Global Warming is to all of us and the next generation. I for one don't want to wait like this above poster for it to 110% in Dec, yawning away blaming left vs right till then.

Do you is the question?

[No_Pressure]

Ok, what would constitute "knowing" for you? I guess, as a philosophical matter, we are never 100% rock-ribbed certain about anything until after the fact. Is the overwhelming concensus of the scientific community not enough?

Scientists have all agreed before and all been wrong before. Why should it be different now? They all thought in the past they were at the pinnacle of their knowledge- the best there could be, and yet they were all wrong, I remember a quote from some scientist in the mid to late 1800's who said that everything that could be invented has been invented. Some people in the scientific community get arrogant in my opinion and believe they have all the answers when they really dont.

Some people still claim that it is not "proven" that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer (especially people who happen to be funded by the tobacco industry).

You can see a person's lungs when they are healthy and you can see their lungs when they are smokers. I cannot see the earth's weather patterns for anything over the last century. It would be arrogant of me to think that in the billions of years this planet has exsisted, I could make a proclaimation that people are changing the climate based on 100 years of recorded weather trends.

The "debate" about whether or not man made global climate change exists has been created almost entirely by Exxon, through a circle of think tanks that it has funded for the past 15 years. It really is no longer a credible argument.

Why? Because you said so? Because people who have a century of weather trends say so?

I would link a bunch of articles that demonstrate this, but you probably would dismiss them as being from "liberal" publications or orgizations. So I'll link this press release from Senator Snowe (R-ME) instead.

http://snowe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=9acba744-802a-23ad-47be-2683985c724e

Again, I admit - what to DO about the problem is a lot harder question. But the problem is real.

Only republicans dont believe in global warming apparently? I havent even stated my political orientation and I dont have any idea what it has to do with a discussion about the planet's weather and a bunch of scientists. For the record im not a republican so the press release about something I never even talked about means even less to me.

Just because exxon mobil has been funding the debate on global warming doesnt mean global warming can be proved or disproved. Again, I never said here that it was not happening, all I said was that we need to be sure before we spend trillions of dollars fixing a problem based on 100 years of records. In the history of the entire planet, 100 years is the blink of an eye. Are we ready to disrupt our entire economy to fix a problem that could be less serious than it appears? As for your political agenda, im sure there are different organizations with a political or commercial agenda funding the opposition to exxon, there are always two sides to every argument and two groups with political agendas pulling their strings. That isnt even what I was coming close to talking about anyway so im not sure why you brought it up.

If you are to listen to one thing I say at all on this thread please listen to the following words that I have repeated a couple of times already:

I am not saying global warming isnt happening. I am not saying it is happening. I am saying scientists can be wrong as often as they are right, even entire scientific communities have been wrong in the past. The implications of global warming are big. We would have to change virturally everything in the world we know that runs on a type of fossil fuel, or emits some other type of pollution. This is such a big matter- this planet is thought to be 4.55 billion years old. The planetary state, climate, appearance, temperature, inhabitance has changed so many times from one extreme to another. Going on 100 years of information we think we can safely say what the earth's climate is doing. There is no way we can know that.

My personal opinion is that global warming is happening to a less severe degree than the general population thinks. Politically I dont think we should have a leader that tries to fix everything all at once. The earth has proven to be pretty flexable so if we started a long term program to research, develop, and implement better sources of energy and production, we could correct the problem in time. Why do I say we cannot prove it is happening? Because what I just stated is my opinion.

Just because I said it and 100 or 1000 other people say it doesnt make it a fact. I have about as much knowledge of the planet's 1,000 year, 100,000 year, 1,000,000 year weather patterns as scientists today do, its all guesswork. What they are trying to do is put together a 50,000,000 piece jigsaw puzzle while the picture of the box only shows like .000000000006 percent of what the puzzle should look like when its finished, and pretending they know what the finished picture is after they put about 4 pieces together.

I think that the current coverage and debate of global warming is an over-reaction. It could be a threat, and sure it may be better to be safe than sorry and change the way the world works, just not all at once. People seem to only think that the way to solve a potentially "extreme" problem is with an extreme reaction. I think that would be the worst possible thing for us to do. Think for the long term, we need to get off oil anyways, pass it off as a global warming bill and stick it to exxon, I dislike them as much as the next person and would love nothing more than to give my money to a cheaper, renewable, comparable, cleaner source of energy. Im just not freaking out about it. In the next blink of the planet's eye (100 years) we will more than likely have made even more strides scientifically towards all the good things I just stated and the earth can be saved.

[Reic]

All I can say is I am glad I am becoming a Marine Biologist. All I will deal with is what is already under water .

I am sure my being a creationist/scientist and full fledged belief in god will be sour with some of my future colleagues whenever a "Gglobal warming" discussion arrises.

This global warming debate will go around and around and no one will ever figure it out.

Does it exist? Maybe to an extent. I highly doubt, however, it is to the extent that a lot of people think it is.

[Coach Williams]

My post wsn't specific to the pollution in PHX, I was hoping someone would mention the gapping hole over Greenland/ Iceland......

[Johnny Punani]

My post wsn't specific to the pollution in PHX, I was hoping someone would mention the gapping hole over Greenland/ Iceland......

what hole?

[Duncan]

From my rudimentary understanding, sulfates will limit how much warming occurs in certain areas. Other areas, will also see a cooling primarily because they will be under water (as many coastal cities are predicted to be if the polar ice caps continue to melt) or due to drastic changes in weather patterns as a result of other areas continuing to warm.

Try this is if you want something to rack your brains (I won't pretend to understand all the scientific talk).

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q3

How do you explain the polar ice caps melting on Mars?

[AJ_Skins]

"Aliens Cause Global Warming"

A lecture by Michael Crichton

California Institute of Technology

Pasadena, CA

January 17, 2003

"...There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period...."

[twa]

How do you explain the polar ice caps melting on Mars?

Them darn probes we sent

[dreamingwolf]

Them darn probes we sent

I was very specific in where those probes were to go, one guy fufills a fantasy and polar ice caps melt. We are giving aliens a bad name.

[The 12th Commandment]

Climate change is a fact that is incontrovertible. We are warming and we might have something to do with it. Who's to say though that the bankrupting, drastic measure that some groups are proponents of would slow it down? That's as arrogant as believing we are the sole cause of it in the first place.

We need to accept that it's going to happen. Plan accordingly and consider that the climate will swing the other way as well. When all that ice melts it doesn't take as long as most people think for it to reverse course. Within as little as 10 years of the "conveyor belt" stopping there will be an ice age in the northern hemispheres.

We've undertaken expensive and dramatic studies on how to stop asteroids that might strike the earth causing havoc. Why on earth (hehe) wouldn't we study how to deal with something that is much more likely? In fact, not likely at all, but inevitable.

Temps on average have risen. The fighting about how to stop it is, well, juvenile to me. What are we gonna do WHEN it happens. The drastic migrations that are going to be inevitable are a much easier thing to deal with actually than the prospect of engineering the planets climate, hard as they will be.

And a warmer planet, although it will decrease the amount of land we have to live off of, will be MUCH easier to deal with than a frozen one. Time and again in the historical climate record warm ups are just the precursor to cool downs which are much longer lasting and are on average the normal "state" of the earth.

We've been lucky that the rise in human dominance of the earth has happened during a short term warm period. It's not the norm and it won't last and the changes happen quicker than most people believe.

[Jaded-Dragon]

Hey, all I know is that a couple weeks ago in DC we were having Spring time weather. People say we should be sure about global warming before we spend trillions of dollars trying to fix it, or to reduce it. Who cares about the money. Let me see, on one hand we have spending trillions of dollars on something we need anyway (cleaning up the air quality), and on the other hand we have death for our civalization. I'll choose spending trillions of dollars.

Maybe it is false, maybe we really aren't responsible for a climate shift. But consider the alternative if we are. Consider the alternative if we spend the next 8 years debating over whether we are causing a shift or not. Which is perfectly feasible considering that we (America) have been debating over the existence of holes in the O-zone since the 80's.

[The 12th Commandment]

Hey, all I know is that a couple weeks ago in DC we were having Spring time weather. People say we should be sure about global warming before we spend trillions of dollars trying to fix it, or to reduce it. Who cares about the money. Let me see, on one hand we have spending trillions of dollars on something we need anyway (cleaning up the air quality), and on the other hand we have death for our civalization. I'll choose spending trillions of dollars.

Maybe it is false, maybe we really aren't responsible for a climate shift. But consider the alternative if we are. Consider the alternative if we spend the next 8 years debating over whether we are causing a shift or not. Which is perfectly feasible considering that we (America) have been debating over the existence of holes in the O-zone since the 80's.

Here's the thing...spending the trillions of dollars is no gaurantee to stop global warming. Climate change will happen no matter what we do. Spend the trillions of dollars (if they must be spent) on studying how we are going to react when things get hot/cold.

[Kilmer17]

I have no doubt that humans affect and increase the temp of the planet. So do cows, broccoli, rocks etc.

I dont believe that we are in aperiod of global warming caused by increases in greenhouse gasses. I dont believe the Al Gores of the world and the chicken littles.

ALl of that said, we need to do more for the environment. Not just now, but forever. So everytime we increase the fuel standards in the US, we need to say they need to be more the very next day. However, we cannot ignore the other side of the coin. Doing so WILL mean an increase in costs and ultimately an increase in inflation. Ther can be a happy medium, but let's not think Al Gore and Co are part of the solution. They had 8 years in power and didnt pass a clean air act until their final day in office. If it meant that much, they would have worked it hard from the beginning (and dont get me started on his campaign canoeing trip where he had a reservoir emptied so the river would flow more).

The fact is that this is now a political issue, and neither side cares 1 bit about the outcome itself, only about how the outcome will be played in the media.

I suggest everyone read Kilmer17s favorite Democrat Brian Schweitzer's ideas on energy. For starters he recommends, brace yourself, a MINIMUM floor of 40 dollars per barrell for any imported oil. At that rate, it makes it worthwhile for other energy sources to be developed without fear that OPEC will simply dump their prices to kill competition.

Bright guy folks. He's the real deal.

[The 12th Commandment]

I have no doubt that humans affect and increase the temp of the planet. So do cows, broccoli, rocks etc.

I dont believe that we are in aperiod of global warming caused by increases in greenhouse gasses. I dont believe the Al Gores of the world and the chicken littles.

ALl of that said, we need to do more for the environment. Not just now, but forever. So everytime we increase the fuel standards in the US, we need to say they need to be more the very next day. However, we cannot ignore the other side of the coin. Doing so WILL mean an increase in costs and ultimately an increase in inflation. Ther can be a happy medium, but let's not think Al Gore and Co are part of the solution. They had 8 years in power and didnt pass a clean air act until their final day in office. If it meant that much, they would have worked it hard from the beginning (and dont get me started on his campaign canoeing trip where he had a reservoir emptied so the river would flow more).

The fact is that this is now a political issue, and neither side cares 1 bit about the outcome itself, only about how the outcome will be played in the media.

I suggest everyone read Kilmer17s favorite Democrat Brian Schweitzer's ideas on energy. For starters he recommends, brace yourself, a MINIMUM floor of 40 dollars per barrell for any imported oil. At that rate, it makes it worthwhile for other energy sources to be developed without fear that OPEC will simply dump their prices to kill competition.

Bright guy folks. He's the real deal.

In a nutshell...let's be moderate in our response but let's respond none the less. I agree wholeheartedly. I bought a car to have along with my truck, it gets much better mileage. I CONTRIBUTE!

[chomerics]

Why do you have to be such a prick about everything? Is it possible for you not to be anti-religion/anti-republican in any thread?

Is it possible for you to actually act respectful for once? You know being a god fearing Christian, I would think you calling people "pricks" is not what Jesus taught you.

Thanks again for serving as a glaring example as to why I hate religious people that think they can be holier then thou because they go to church. Just because you worship a god does not give you a free pass to act like an ass :2cents:

But then again, I was not the one who brought politics into this discussion, but you couldn't but pass up taking a cheap shot at me and calling you a prick now could you. . . how Christian of you

[chomerics]

and what does terrorism have to do with the topic of global warming again?

another example of a lefty using the proxy argument format to skirt the facts at hand.

Heck, if enough socialists say "global warming" (except when its cooling) is caused by man more than mother nature it must be true, right?

It has nothing to do with global warming, it has to do with the republicans fear mongering, and how they get people to believe what they want.

If you can't see the analogy between global warming and terrorism, then you really need to open up your eyes.

[Skins24]

its happneing right now and we got to stop it before it gets too late.

Yeah, maybe we should get everyone on one side of the earth to flatuate at the same time. Hopefully the force will be strong enough to move us a little further away from the sun.

[Duncan]

"Aliens Cause Global Warming"

A lecture by Michael Crichton

California Institute of Technology

Pasadena, CA

January 17, 2003

"...There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period...."

That was a great read, thanks.

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. "

[chomerics]

How do you explain the polar ice caps melting on Mars?

Look at Mars' rotation about its axis, you will find all the information you need there. The earth has a relative stable axis because of the moon, Mars does not (it has two very small moons which don't hold its axis wobble steady), so its axis varies by up to 60 degrees. This variation in its wobble is what causes the ice caps on Mars to melt.

http://www.geosociety.org/news/pr/05-37.htm

[Duncan]

Not a bad idea...

"Just as we have established a tradition of double-blinded research to determine drug efficacy, we must institute double-blinded research in other policy areas as well. Certainly the increased use of computer models, such as GCMs, cries out for the separation of those who make the models from those who verify them. The fact is that the present structure of science is entrepeneurial, with individual investigative teams vying for funding from organizations which all too often have a clear stake in the outcome of the research-or appear to, which may be just as bad. This is not healthy for science.

Sooner or later, we must form an independent research institute in this country. It must be funded by industry, by government, and by private philanthropy, both individuals and trusts. The money must be pooled, so that investigators do not know who is paying them. The institute must fund more than one team to do research in a particular area, and the verification of results will be a foregone requirement: teams will know their results will be checked by other groups. In many cases, those who decide how to gather the data will not gather it, and those who gather the data will not analyze it. If we were to address the land temperature records with such rigor, we would be well on our way to an understanding of exactly how much faith we can place in global warming, and therefore what seriousness we must address this. "

[chomerics]

That was a great read, thanks.

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. "

That is obfuscating the issue and just disagreeing with scientists because they are on the opposite side of an argument.

If you actually look at the scientists who oppose GW as linked on Wikipedia, even they don't deny the earth is heating up. They state that they are not sure of the answer, and they know we are heating up. They also state that CO2 has been linked to warming in the past, but that is not evidence enough to predict the future. I can agree with them to that extent. I have a problem doing nothing though, when you know little things now make it sooooo much cheaper in the longrun.

That is my theory on a lot of things though, preventative maintenance. We should try to prevent everything we can within reason, and as to minimize the impact on the economy. I heard someone say we shouldn't spend trillions of dollars on GW, I agree, we should not. That also doesn't say that introducing higher standards which will cut pollution is bad, that is a good idea. It is also not a trillion dollar idea, but 1/100th of that cost to the economy.

When we've spent over $500billion on Iraq, complaining about spending $10billion to help reduce pollution levels is a no-brainer, but don't let the facts get in the way of the argument

I actually agree whit a lot of what they say thoug, but there are a lot of research scientists which do not have policy in mind. Heck, look at the NASA scientist who was castigated because his data showed opposite of the president's position. i believe the problem is the way the right does business, so they automatically assume the left does it the same way, which is not correct at all.

The right will fund frauds to back their case, and hold these frauds up front and center despite how ludicrous the situation. look at the Schaivo bit for one. You have Frist, who medically diagnosed her from a videotape. You also have the other doctor who said he could train her to to get back to understanding people. This doctor was placed up front and center by the GOP, yet he lost his license in two states. They claimed he was "nominated for a Noble Prize", yet it was a politician who "suggested" he should be nominated, and not the Noble commission.

This is the way the right does business. They have a position, and they pay people top back their position whether or not the science backs it. Just because it is the way the right handles things, it is not the way the left does, or general science for that matter. Instead they let the facts decide the outcome, not let the outcome decide the facts. Two distinct differences, yet it should also be noted in how the operate.