The Official Global Warming/Climate Change Thread

[schm0 27]

Finally, a site that has combined responses to the myths about global warming (which I have been disputing for quite some time) into one Q&A formatted resource. It also cites references for it's answers to these common myths and misunderstandings. Check it out.

Climate Future Group: Myths & Misinformation

Unfortunately, most of you have been let to believe bad science. Here's yet another site to prove it.

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: schm0 Finally, a site that has combined responses to the myths about global warming (which I have been disputing for quite some time) into one Q&A formatted resource. It also cites references for it's answers to these common myths and misunderstandings. Check it out.

Climate Future Group: Myths & Misinformation

Unfortunately, most of you have been let to believe bad science. Here's yet another site to prove it. quote>

Thank you for providing the link   Have a few questions though;

1)  How do they explain the fact that Vikings settled and farmed Greenland if the Medieval Warm Period is supposed to be colder than it is now?

2)  I looked but I'm having difficulty finding evidence that supports the idea that an increase in CO2 only produces a short term gain in bioproductivity and that ultimately the plants "acclimatise".

3)  "MYTH: The science behind the theory of global warming is too uncertain to draw conclusions useful to policy makers.

FACT: The primary scientific debate is about how much and how fast, rather than whether, additional warming will occur as a result of human-produced GHG emissions. The climate could change even more dramatically than most models predict. Scientists have given society an early warning on its  dangerous, irreversible and widespread impacts."

That doesn't really disprove that "myth".  We still don't know exactly how much of an impact humans are having, and therefore what kind of an impact our efforts would have.  You can't really quantify a policy when you don't know what the quantity required is.  Should we spend $5, or $5 trillion?

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: MrFingers

Thank you for providing the link   Have a few questions though;

1)  How do they explain the fact that Vikings settled and farmed Greenland if the Medieval Warm Period is supposed to be colder than it is now?quote>

They don't attempt to explain why the Vikings decided on settling that area. They're scientists, not archeologists. And besides, they merely say that there is "uncertainty" as to the actual temperatures of the time.

Re-read the answer to the question posed on the website:

Ten independent scientific studies all have found a large 20th-century warming trend compared to temperature changes over the past millennium or two. Uncertainty exists as to exactly how warm the present is compared to the MWP.  Some studies are said to underestimate that difference, while other studies, using different methods, still find no evidence of any period during the last 2,000 years that was warmer than the 1990s. Most importantly, whether the present is warmer than the MWP has little effect on the finding that humans likely have caused most of the warming over the past 50 years. 

2)  I looked but I'm having difficulty finding evidence that supports the idea that an increase in CO2 only produces a short term gain in bioproductivity and that ultimately the plants "acclimatise".quote>

Here you go:

[LINK]

Citation:

Ainsworth, E.A.,  A. Rogers, H. Blum, J. Nosberger and S.P. Long. 2003. Variation in acclimation of photosynthesis in Trifolium repens after eight years of exposure to Free Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE)

Journal of Experimental Botany, 54, 2769–2774.

3)  "MYTH: The science behind the theory of global warming is too uncertain to draw conclusions useful to policy makers.

FACT: The primary scientific debate is about how much and how fast, rather than whether, additional warming will occur as a result of human-produced GHG emissions. The climate could change even more dramatically than most models predict. Scientists have given society an early warning on its  dangerous, irreversible and widespread impacts."

That doesn't really disprove that "myth".  We still don't know exactly how much of an impact humans are having, and therefore what kind of an impact our efforts would have.  You can't really quantify a policy when you don't know what the quantity required is.  Should we spend $5, or $5 trillion?

quote>

Well, it does in the fact that it recites what I have been saying all along: The world is warming, and will continue to do so, and a vast majority of scientists in the world agree. The science behind the conclusions are not "uncertain" in any way.

As for the cost, if you have no problem with the moral conundrum of putting a price on human life, then you could easily calculate the cost in human life and the strife that follows the relocation of millions of people from coastal and island regions. Nobody can see the future. However, with understanding, we may predict and prepare for it. The third IPCC report will cover the possible solutions that it recommends, and most likely a good idea on total possible costs. I'm no economist, but personally, I think our planet is priceless.

[MrFingers 0]

Ok.

Regarding the Vikings, you don't need to be an expert to see that farming Greenland is quite imposible today.  If it was possible in the past, then clearly the temperature must have been higher.

Your link on plant acclimatisation was similar to things I was already finding.  If you read the abstract, it says that the plants were nitrogen fixing, and that even though some acclimatisation occured, there were still significant benefits from increased CO2 levels a decade into the experiment (which is present).

And about the policy making.  If we don't know how much of an effect we are having on our global climate, then it is impossible to know if trying to make a difference will actually make a difference.  If we are only responsible for 0.28% of greenhouse gases (which is the figure when you include water vapour), then we are limited to control over 0.28% of the greenhouse gases.  How much of an effect we can have with that fraction of control, it is difficult to say, save it being minimal.

[coolotter88 2]

not necessarily, considering how weather is a chaotic system, any imbalance (no matter how small) could be magnified many times and the consequences of that imbalance could be catastrophic.

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 not necessarily, considering how weather is a chaotic system, any imbalance (no matter how small) could be magnified many times and the consequences of that imbalance could be catastrophic.quote>

Which would lead one to the conclusion that the only way to have any intentional effect over it is to make our species cease to exist.  If it is a chaotic system (which it sort of is), then there is no way that you can decide what the outcome of your input will be, other than without any input at all, you will not have an effect.

[millsmed 0]

New to the site and a frienda mine said to check it out - lol I gotta say the dude talking about Venus is a trip! lol you're gonna compare our planet to a planet with 96% Carbon Dioxide? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure you could burn every ounce of petroleum on the planet, plus all the plastic products, and you still wouldn't increase CO2 levels above anything more than what, 5%? lol that's kinda like feeling a light summer breeze in Iowa and saying well if the corn's all cut down it'll decrease wind resistance and we could see a Hurricane. lol Also liked the comment about coconuts in antarctica lol I know that one was a joke but just had to say it was a fun one.

But yeah - both sides are a lot of conjecture and theories. The only thing I dislike a whole lot is the manmade folks adopting their beliefs as doctrine rather than maintaining that they're theories based on computer models with thousands and thousands of variables, and a few variables shifting by tenths of a percentage in either direction will skew the results. Also - with respect to schmO's post to AnF - I know him and he's an obama supporter and didn't support anyone in the first election so the whole "you won florida" thing doesn't really compute and is fairly ignorant to presume that anyone who doesn't like Al gore must be an evil republican and a Bush supporter - I'm onea those but he's not, and that comes off as really childish. And with regards to that election's results - Bush won the election and he's the president. Get over it, pansy. The electoral college was in effect then and still is now - it's in the constitution and as far as I'm concerned we arrived at the best possible outcome in both of the last elections. I don't agree with quite a few of Bush's policies, but the Democratic front runners have always scared me.

[MrFingers 0]

I hate Bush, but not as much as I loath Al Gore. Al Gore is a disgrace to America, the scientific community, and the whole human race.

The world would be a better place if he did not exist.

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: MrFingers Ok.

Regarding the Vikings, you don't need to be an expert to see that farming Greenland is quite imposible today.  If it was possible in the past, then clearly the temperature must have been higher.quote>

...in Greenland.

Your link on plant acclimatisation was similar to things I was already finding.  If you read the abstract, it says that the plants were nitrogen fixing, and that even though some acclimatisation occured, there were still significant benefits from increased CO2 levels a decade into the experiment (which is present).quote>

Well, that being said, I don't think we should dislocate millions of people, melt the icecaps and glaciers, increase extreme weather patterns, redirect or halt ocean currents and flood the oceans just to increase crop yield by an slight percentage. The reason for starvation in the world is not lack of crops, but economic conditions which would be drastically changed should we do nothing to prevent global warming in the first place.

And about the policy making.  If we don't know how much of an effect we are having on our global climate, then it is impossible to know if trying to make a difference will actually make a difference.  If we are only responsible for 0.28% of greenhouse gases (which is the figure when you include water vapour), then we are limited to control over 0.28% of the greenhouse gases.  How much of an effect we can have with that fraction of control, it is difficult to say, save it being minimal.quote>

The "amount" is arbitrary. It will take decades of legislation to get every carbon-producing country on the globe to comply with a standard that will equal an acceptable level of carbon dioxide reductions. What that level will be is as of yet undetermined... the fact remains that we have to do something. Efforts such as the Kyoto Treaty and other local (state) laws have made significant steps towards setting higher standards for reductions. And that's all we're really talking about... reducing the greenhouse gases to near-former levels to produce a more temperate climate. If this "minimal" (on a global scale we are talking about vast quantities, i.e. millions and millions of TONS) amount is reduced, we should see the Earth correct itself over the course of several dozen decades and reverse the current trend of warming.

Originally posted by: millsmed New to the site and a frienda mine said to check it out - lol I gotta say the dude talking about Venus is a trip! lol you're gonna compare our planet to a planet with 96% Carbon Dioxide? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure you could burn every ounce of petroleum on the planet, plus all the plastic products, and you still wouldn't increase CO2 levels above anything more than what, 5%?quote>

I've never seen such calculations, but I'm sure that an experiment like that would have drastic and severely deadly effects on the global climate. You may think I'm "a trip" but the arguments of those who oppose global warming theory need extreme examples to counter their extreme (and mostly uncorroborated) claims.

lol that's kinda like feeling a light summer breeze in Iowa and saying well if the corn's all cut down it'll decrease wind resistance and we could see a Hurricane.quote>

Hardly. You underestimate the scale and complexity of the global climate. Besides hurricanes occur in coastal regions, not where corn is typically grown. I believe you are referring to a tornado.

 

lol Also liked the comment about coconuts in antarctica lol I know that one was a joke but just had to say it was a fun one.

But yeah - both sides are a lot of conjecture and theories.quote>

Actually, one is made up of theory, which is backed up by thousands of reports, studies and peer-edited review. It is the opponents of this theory that mainly offer conjecture, mostly based on disproved or incorrect information.

The only thing I dislike a whole lot is the manmade folks adopting their beliefs as doctrine rather than maintaining that they're theories based on computer models with thousands and thousands of variables, and a few variables shifting by tenths of a percentage in either direction will skew the results.quote>

Please see the website I posted above. There is a fine line between a "belief" and a "theory." Look them up if you don't believe me.

Also - with respect to schmO's post to AnF - I know him and he's an obama supporter and didn't support anyone in the first election so the whole "you won florida" thing doesn't really compute and is fairly ignorant to presume that anyone who doesn't like Al gore must be an evil republican and a Bush supporter - I'm onea those but he's not, and that comes off as really childish. And with regards to that election's results - Bush won the election and he's the president. Get over it, pansy.quote>

I could have never gathered that from his post... And the majority of people bashing Al Gore reflect the opinion of right-leaning individuals. I believe my original assumption to be a fair one. I do stand corrected. You created an account on this website to join the debate. What "comes off as really childish" (to me) is the fact that in doing so, you decided to flame me with your first post. You are entitled to your opinion, but please leave your insults at the door.

As for AnF, I apologize for my assumption.

 

The electoral college was in effect then and still is now - it's in the constitution and as far as I'm concerned we arrived at the best possible outcome in both of the last elections. I don't agree with quite a few of Bush's policies, but the Democratic front runners have always scared me.quote>

The Constitution of the United States also provided it's citizens to own slaves as property and barred women from having the right to vote. I would hardly call either election "the best possible outcome," but that is an issue for another forum. Bush has ordered the censor of several EPA reports specifically linked to global warming to diminish their findings and hide the truth.

Originally posted by: MrFingers I hate Bush, but not as much as I loath Al Gore. Al Gore is a disgrace to America, the scientific community, and the whole human race.

The world would be a better place if he did not exist.quote>

So much hatred for man with a laser pointer and a Powerpoint presentation? I will never understand it.

[cheese91 9]

Hey guys--

Just a friendly reminder to discuss the topic of the thread, not each other.

Thanks!

-91

[MrFingers 0]

Shm0, I wish I knew you in person so I could make a bet with you that in 10-20 years time the world will start cooling again.

[millsmed 0]

I've never seen such calculations, but I'm sure that an experiment like that would have drastic and severely deadly effects on the global climate. You may think I'm "a trip" but the arguments of those who oppose global warming theory need extreme examples to counter their extreme (and mostly uncorroborated) claims.quote>

That's fine to say, but the use of extreme examples that will never happen undermines the relevance of your point.

Hardly. You underestimate the scale and complexity of the global climate. Besides hurricanes occur in coastal regions, not where corn is typically grown. I believe you are referring to a tornado. quote>

Hurricane - tornado doesn't really matter I picked hurricane cause a hurricane will never hit Iowa.. or will it?

Actually, one is made up of theory, which is backed up by thousands of reports, studies and peer-edited review. It is the opponents of this theory that mainly offer conjecture, mostly based on disproved or incorrect information.quote>

See that's exactly what people are talking about where you dismiss a point of view that has statistical data backing it up rather than a climate model in a computer. Both sides have statistics, and both sides need to be evaluated, but when one side believes its own claims trump all others and aren't willing to have a dialog that is a problem, particularly when people in Washington and elsewhere in the world are considering policy decisions that will affect hundreds of millions of people in this country. I can question the validity of your information the same way you can do it with mine, and I can find plenty of articles from the growing number of sources speaking out against this railroading. The truth of it is you really don't know what you're talking about any more than I do. I'm not a climatologist, and I'm pretty much positive you're not either. I don't know more than you - you don't know more than me because all of this is theory and you can dispute that all you like, but it's theory. What can we state firmly?

The average temperature of the planet is warming. But what is the cause of this warming? You can claim what you do and say there's a consensus but there isn't a consensus and unfortunately there isn't nearly as much money behind the non-man-made movement as there is behind the man-made movement, and the man-made movement's unwillingness to discuss the issues with anyone who isn't first willing to accept/aknowledge that this is a man-made problem is bad science - it's the opposite of what science is supposed to be.

but please leave your insults at the door.quote>

I appologize - had a long day and was sort of fetching for a fight. I'm cool now and feeling rather embarassed re: the pansey comment.

The Constitution of the United States also provided it's citizens to own slaves as property and barred women from having the right to vote. I would hardly call either election "the best possible outcome," but that is an issue for another forum. Bush has ordered the censor of several EPA reports specifically linked to global warming to diminish their findings and hide the truth.quote>

My comments with regards to the constitution pertained to the electoral college for how the president is elected. The popular vote doesn't matter in our system. It isn't necessarilly "right" but it is what it is and noone's cared enough to raise it as an issue to date (probably because they figure some day it could bite them in the ass lol).

[millsmed 0]

I'm also 100% in favor of improving the efficiency of everything lol I'd love to see a thousand MPG automobile. I own a hybrid pickup truck, and when they eventually do come out with alternate fueled vehicles I'll be driving onea those too (unless the new fuel costs way more). I'm not even really saying anything like we should ignore potential problems. But if there are scientists who have an opposing opinion it HAS to be discussed openly not dismissed as "oil company propaganda". Oil companies don't support climatologists lol they don't need to - our cars run on gasoline and it'll take a lot to shift that.

But I'm also opposed to a carbon tax, absolutely opposed. Drive auto makers to improve efficiency or design new systems and then people to purchase those through tax incentives, but don't make a carbon tax that costs the average american $1200 a year or even $500 a year - for some people that's food taken off the dinner table. I opperate my own business, and have several vehicles on the road and that can mean the difference for me between employing 14 people and 15 people, that 15th person loses his job and it all goes from there. Short sighted reactionism to things that may not be happening for the reasons these folks say is serious.

[coolotter88 2]

stop! stay with gasoline, new research point out major flaws in ethanol-burning vehicles IE excess ozone output (therefore more smog and respiratory problems)

I will not buy an ethanol burning car even if it "prevented global warming" I don't want myself or anyone else getting asthma from this.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=07520EDF-E7F2-99DF-3F39F759D467DFCD&ref=rss

[jweekle1 1]

My biggest problem buying into this whole idea is that fact that all of the so-called global warming champions are hypocrites. Not to mention the problem of if the U.S. says fine we'll go as green as possible and then all the dirty industry will go to the third world countries and china and india where they would rather have neon green rivers than have starving children. Its the same problem with the rain forests. The people that deforest it don't have the option to stop cutting it down. They cut it down and make money to feed and clothe their families.

back to the hypocrites. Al Gore, how much more energy do you consume than I do. And its me that has to cut back on taking road trips while you fly coast to coast in a private jet any whim you choose. Get real.

[hymewales 13]

I'm with MrFingers Schm0...If I knew you person to person, I'd make a bet that in 10-20 years there will be better scientific data which shows that "man made" global warming was a myth (not the cooling part though that MrF refers to) and that man was only responsible for x% (I predit a low percentage).

Schm0, I never got to respond to your last post before they closed down the MrF thread in favor of this one and rebut some of what you said. I guess I never will...

I love how you bring up computer models and the many scientists and thier theories, including those who are 90% certain (IPCC) that the increase in CO2 is causing global warming. Here's what I'll give you: Yes...CO2 is increasing. Yes...the climate is warming. But you can't just use that one variable when there are many other variables that contribute to global warming, some of which have yet to be researched and do have something to do with climate change (I'm not regurgitating them because I've made up my mind on this issue until I can see all of the variables factored in and I'm not changing it until then) and history shows spikes in the past just like this with warming periods warmer than now before man became industrialized. You're gonna bring up the last 50 years, blah, blah, blah (I'm not changing my mind). The computer models are just that...models. It does not make them fact. Heck, weathermen can't even predict the weather a week in advance and resort to the use of statistics to make their predictions.

Yes...I'd support changes in fuel, coal, natural gas consumption for pollution reasons; which has nothing to do with global warming like I said in the last thread (See your own myth link on the pollution vs global warming). What I don't support is the band wagon jumping everyone is doing without taking a step back and resort to being narrow minded (not referring to you when I say this, but rather the media who jump all over this trying to make everyone feel bad) and making the scientists' statement that they are probably 90% sure that CO2 is causing the global warming and turning it into fact (90% does not make anything fact). Both sides have only theories and little facts to support them. In 10-20 years, it will be resolved as "myth" for one side or the other. On that note, I'll read the posts and lurk...laughing at all the time and effort you are spending Schm0 trying to convice others of what you believe...

I'm off to mow my grass now with my polluting lawnmower, while breathing my CO2 into the atmosphere. At least the 6 trees I planted will take of that. My wife will be home soon from work driving her Subaru SUV (best gas mileage of all non hybrid SUV's). My computer and power in my house is being run by a mixture of hydro-electric and coal power. My Honda sits in my garage (with my recyclables) where it only gets driven on the weekends when I go out alone because it's too small for the wife and kids. My Government rig, a less efficient Ford SUV mind you, is in the shop getting a new engine at only 22k miles. And my job requires me to travel frequently, which means flying.( Trust me, in my line of work, you don't want me showing up at your door (don't worry, I'm not)). I live in the US where it is one of only 2 nations with growing acreage of forests, and since the 1970's with the EPA regulations in charge has made breathing better for everyone by reducing pollutants. History shows me man will do what's right when it's time, at least here in the US. While you think of worst case scenarios, I think of...

Maybe in 10-20 years, I'll be driving a fully electric/solar vehicle, in my house powered by efficient solar panels with nuclear power the main power plant for the US. I'll be cutting my grass in shorts and a short sleeve shirt (because it's summer, not becuase it's warmer then than it is now) with a non polluting mower. My kids will have vehicles by then, hopefully like mine. And flying will be pollutant free. And you'll be paying because you lost the bet...or myself likewise. Peace...

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: millsmed

That's fine to say, but the use of extreme examples that will never happen undermines the relevance of your point.quote>

Very well. How about this: carbon dioxide is causing global warming and there is an exorbitant amount of data and research showing this to be true.

Hurricane - tornado doesn't really matter I picked hurricane cause a hurricane will never hit Iowa.. or will it?

Actually, one is made up of theory, which is backed up by thousands of reports, studies and peer-edited review. It is the opponents of this theory that mainly offer conjecture, mostly based on disproved or incorrect information.quote>

See that's exactly what people are talking about where you dismiss a point of view that has statistical data...quote>

Show me the money. The truth is, your "science" has little to no backing because there is no evidence for increases in solar energy to explain this most recent and ABRUPT climate change. On a timeline, the two do not correlate.

...backing it up rather than a climate model in a computer. Both sides have statistics, and both sides need to be evaluated, but when one side believes its own claims trump all others and aren't willing to have a dialog that is a problem, particularly when people in Washington and elsewhere in the world are considering policy decisions that will affect hundreds of millions of people in this country.quote>

Two or three studies does not make a body of statistics. Try hundreds and thousands of reports all coming to the same conclusions. That is a body of data that is worth looking at. In this stage, your hypotheses are not backed up by science and need more research. Do I think it's possible for them to have some effect on the climate? Of course. Do I think they are responsible for the recent rise in global temperature since the 1970's? No.

I can question the validity of your information the same way you can do it with mine, and I can find plenty of articles from the growing number of sources speaking out against this railroading. The truth of it is you really don't know what you're talking about any more than I do. I'm not a climatologist, and I'm pretty much positive you're not either. I don't know more than you - you don't know more than me because all of this is theory and you can dispute that all you like, but it's theory. What can we state firmly?quote>

That a majority of scientists from across the world all believe that global warming is man-made. It has been a subject of study for 50 years. There are volumes of research and data that have gone into this conclusion. There is little or no evidence to support your claims. All of these statements are the truth.

The average temperature of the planet is warming. But what is the cause of this warming? You can claim what you do and say there's a consensus but there isn't a consensus and unfortunately there isn't nearly as much money behind the non-man-made movement as there is behind the man-made movement, and the man-made movement's unwillingness to discuss the issues with anyone who isn't first willing to accept/aknowledge that this is a man-made problem is bad science - it's the opposite of what science is supposed to be.quote>

I'm completely willing to discuss it with you, as long as you admit the possibility that you do not have nearly the amount of evidence or sound understanding in the field to make a conclusive theory feasible.

but please leave your insults at the door.quote>

I appologize - had a long day and was sort of fetching for a fight. I'm cool now and feeling rather embarassed re: the pansey comment.

The Constitution of the United States also provided it's citizens to own slaves as property and barred women from having the right to vote. I would hardly call either election "the best possible outcome," but that is an issue for another forum. Bush has ordered the censor of several EPA reports specifically linked to global warming to diminish their findings and hide the truth.quote>

My comments with regards to the constitution pertained to the electoral college for how the president is elected. The popular vote doesn't matter in our system. It isn't necessarilly "right" but it is what it is and noone's cared enough to raise it as an issue to date (probably because they figure some day it could bite them in the ass lol).quote>

The popular vote does matter. It shows who the majority of people wanted for President in the country. I digress... I could go on for hours on this matter. It's completely unrelated.

Originally posted by: millsmed I'm also 100% in favor of improving the efficiency of everything lol I'd love to see a thousand MPG automobile. I own a hybrid pickup truck, and when they eventually do come out with alternate fueled vehicles I'll be driving onea those too (unless the new fuel costs way more). I'm not even really saying anything like we should ignore potential problems. But if there are scientists who have an opposing opinion it HAS to be discussed openly not dismissed as "oil company propaganda".quote>

I never used the words "oil company propaganda." But I can't look at a report by BP or Exxon without taking it's obvious bias into consideration. I am open to discussing the body of work that you describe, but I believe it will need a vast amount of research to determine the effect, if any, it may have.

Oil companies don't support climatologists lol they don't need to - our cars run on gasoline and it'll take a lot to shift that.

But I'm also opposed to a carbon tax, absolutely opposed. Drive auto makers to improve efficiency or design new systems and then people to purchase those through tax incentives, but don't make a carbon tax that costs the average american $1200 a year or even $500 a year - for some people that's food taken off the dinner table. I opperate my own business, and have several vehicles on the road and that can mean the difference for me between employing 14 people and 15 people, that 15th person loses his job and it all goes from there. Short sighted reactionism to things that may not be happening for the reasons these folks say is serious.quote>

I believe that the companies producing the carbon emissions should pay. They already make enough profit.

Originally posted by: jweekle1 My biggest problem buying into this whole idea is that fact that all of the so-called global warming champions are hypocrites. Not to mention the problem of if the U.S. says fine we'll go as green as possible and then all the dirty industry will go to the third world countries and china and india where they would rather have neon green rivers than have starving children.quote>

It should be a global effort, not limited to the United States. China is going to pass the US in carbon emissions in the next decade, so the U.S. will no longer hold the #1 spot. And how exactly am I a hypocrite?

Its the same problem with the rain forests. The people that deforest it don't have the option to stop cutting it down. They cut it down and make money to feed and clothe their families.quote>

So we re-educate them to work in environmentally friendly jobs. Is it going to take a lot of effort to change the way we think and act when it comes to global warming? Of course. But that doesn't mean we should accept the status quo because doing something requires change. There's a reason they call it progress.

back to the hypocrites. Al Gore, how much more energy do you consume than I do. And its me that has to cut back on taking road trips while you fly coast to coast in a private jet any whim you choose. Get real.quote>

If you took the time to read the other forums, which I gather from your 4 posts that you haven't, you would have seen my post explaining the myths concerning Al Gore's energy fingerprint. I would like to point out that you most likely live in a mansion, which would considerably increase the energy that you consume. Do you live in the South? Do you pay your bills by buying green energy credits? Are you renovating your mansion to make it more eco-friendly? Al Gore is.

If you have a better way for Al Gore to get to Japan that is more effecient than taking a jet, I would love to see your suggestion. Do you suggest he swim across the Pacific to make his point?

Originally posted by: hymewales I'm with MrFingers Schm0...If I knew you person to person, I'd make a bet that in 10-20 years there will be better scientific data which shows that "man made" global warming was a myth (not the cooling part though that MrF refers to) and that man was only responsible for x% (I predit a low percentage).quote>

You would be out a large sum of money.

Schm0, I never got to respond to your last post before they closed down the MrF thread in favor of this one and rebut some of what you said. I guess I never will...

I love how you bring up computer models and the many scientists and thier theories, including those who are 90% certain (IPCC) that the increase in CO2 is causing global warming. Here's what I'll give you: Yes...CO2 is increasing. Yes...the climate is warming. But you can't just use that one variable when there are many other variables that contribute to global warming, some of which have yet to be researched and do have something to do with climate change...quote>

Of course there are other greenhouse gases, and they contribute to global warming as well. This isn't just a focus on CO₂, but all negative effects on the global climate.

(I'm not regurgitating them because I've made up my mind on this issue until I can see all of the variables factored in and I'm not changing it until then) and history shows spikes in the past just like this with warming periods warmer than now before man became industrialized.quote>

Perhaps, but on time scales of centuries and thousands of years, and never in a period of 30 years.

You're gonna bring up the last 50 years, blah, blah, blah (I'm not changing my mind). The computer models are just that...models. It does not make them fact. Heck, weathermen can't even predict the weather a week in advance and resort to the use of statistics to make their predictions.quote>

Weather models and climate models are different. Both use probability and statistics, and most are accurate. The fact that we can even predict what the weather is going to be like tomorrow is a scientific achievement. How can you say that we should be so technologically advanced as to globally predict the weather with perfect accuracy 7 days into the future, but if we can't it means that all climate and weather models must be scientifically flawed? There is a reason they call them "weather forecasts" and "climate models." Nobody has a crystal ball. Your expectations are unreasonable.

Yes...I'd support changes in fuel, coal, natural gas consumption for pollution reasons; which has nothing to do with global warming like I said in the last thread (See your own myth link on the pollution vs global warming). What I don't support is the band wagon jumping everyone is doing without taking a step back and resort to being narrow minded (not referring to you when I say this, but rather the media who jump all over this trying to make everyone feel bad) and making the scientists' statement that they are probably 90% sure that CO2 is causing the global warming and turning it into fact (90% does not make anything fact).quote>

Let's say you're playing cards against your buddy and 9 times out of 10, he wins. Would you bet everything you owned to play him one more time? Of course not. Because you're a reasonable person and you see that 90% of the time, he has better cards than you. While you might have a chance to win, the odds are against you. While I don't discount that there may be other factors, they  (the arguments you subscribe to) add to the longer-term trend and not explain the abrupt climate change we are seeing today.

Both sides have only theories and little facts to support them.quote>

That is the most preposterous statement I have ever heard. If you research the topic, you will find a VAST amount of data and research supporting the global consensus.

In 10-20 years, it will be resolved as "myth" for one side or the other. On that note, I'll read the posts and lurk...laughing at all the time and effort you are spending Schm0 trying to convice others of what you believe...quote>

As you noted earlier, I will not be able to change some people's minds. However, to the casual reader, I hope to point out the inconsistencies and flaws in your data, logic (that's a loose term), and conclusions. They are not sound science; they and are based on uncorroborated, unfounded and invalid data.

I'm off to mow my grass now with my polluting lawnmower, while breathing my CO2 into the atmosphere. At least the 6 trees I planted will take of that.quote>

Listen to the story here on NPR. Click on the audio link and fast forward to about 18:40 in the program. The announcer's synopsis:

"...And when people talk about curbing climate change one option they discuss  to 'suck in the carbon' is to plant more trees. You know, trees they take up co2 from the atmosphere, they serve to offset the release of CO2 somewhere else in the world, sounds simple enough right? We've been told that's one way to fight it, but new research says 'maybe not.'.... it turns out you have to plant the trees in the right place."quote>

A link to the report from the PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) by G.Bala, lead author.

My wife will be home soon from work driving her Subaru SUV (best gas mileage of all non hybrid SUV's). My computer and power in my house is being run by a mixture of hydro-electric and coal power. My Honda sits in my garage (with my recyclables) where it only gets driven on the weekends when I go out alone because it's too small for the wife and kids. My Government rig, a less efficient Ford SUV mind you, is in the shop getting a new engine at only 22k miles. And my job requires me to travel frequently, which means flying.( Trust me, in my line of work, you don't want me showing up at your door (don't worry, I'm not)).quote>

The above link to the radio show also cites one author on the show who says flying is the form of transportation that most needs change.

I live in the US where it is one of only 2 nations with growing acreage of forests, and since the 1970's with the EPA regulations in charge has made breathing better for everyone by reducing pollutants. History shows me man will do what's right when it's time, at least here in the US. While you think of worst case scenarios, I think of...quote>

That time is now. Not 50 years from now.

Maybe in 10-20 years, I'll be driving a fully electric/solar vehicle, in my house powered by efficient solar panels with nuclear power the main power plant for the US. I'll be cutting my grass in shorts and a short sleeve shirt (because it's summer, not becuase it's warmer then than it is now) with a non polluting mower. My kids will have vehicles by then, hopefully like mine. And flying will be pollutant free. And you'll be paying because you lost the bet...or myself likewise. Peace...quote>

As for your efforts to reduce your pollution imprint and increase your energy effeciency, they are truly noble. If only there were more people like you to change the way we use energy. Now, if we could only work on changing your mind...

On another note, am I the only one left to defend the theory of global warming?

[MrFingers 0]

Schm0, every time you do that you kill the thread.

[coolotter88 2]

That's why I respond without even reading those long posts

[Micah 16]

Please, let's talk about the topic, not each other.

[plus01 0]

well when someone become bias in what they read, doesn't that seem to imply they are selectively ignoring those against their own viewpoint...

[schm0 27]

(This post is about the thread, not about certain individuals.)

Originally posted by: MrFingers Schm0, every time you do that you kill the thread.quote>

Originally posted by: coolotter88 That's why I respond without even reading those long posts quote>

Originally posted by: plus01 well when someone become bias in what they read, doesn't that seem to imply they are selectively ignoring those against their own viewpoint...quote>

This thread is for debate and discussion concerning the Global Warming phenomenon. I have posted numerous times on this topic, and it brings me a lot of pleasure to read what other people have to say and argue for what I believe in. 

My posts typically quote the author to give the reader a reference-point for my rebuttal and to respond, if necessary, line by line. I feel it is a good measure to be as clear and informative about my arguments as possible. There will be those that disagree with what I have to say, as will there be those with whom I disagree. However, there should be no limit on the length of such argument, for to do so would limit the depth of explanation and clarity that is required to debate. Furthermore, I do not think that it is above the expectation(s) of the reader to read the entirety of the argument, if they truly care about the issues being discussed.

I will continue to debate the issues and discuss with others the facts and theories surrounding the causes, effects and possible ways to stop global warming. I believe that doing so is healthy and encourages an open forum for which people can form or establish (or re-establish) a viewpoint or opinion on the topic. These are my beliefs and opinions, and as far as I know, I have stayed within the scope of this thread and the rules for posting in this forum.

On a separate but related note, I wish everyone a happy Earth Day! Take the time today to be thankful for such a wonderful planet! (Check out Google before it's too late! )

Sincerely,

The Thread Killer

[confused04 14]

I support you schm0, I'm just too busy to type out a response.

I suggest reading the "Six Degrees of Global Warming". Its a real good read and disturbing. By 6 Degrees of global (just above the upper limit of IPCC's prediction so the guy just rounded it to 6) we might be living in a world resembling the Permian extinction. I will someday join this dicussion if it stays civil. As I was the scapegoat for all the natural global warming camp in the other threads, I'm wary of joining.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[coolotter88 2]

no, mass extinctions won't happen until your great-grand children...then you should advise them to buy gas masks.

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 no, mass extinctions won't happen until your great-grand children...then you should advise them to buy gas masks.quote>

Extinctions have increased dramatically in the last several decades.

Extinctions since 1970

A snippet from the above website:

"The extinction of species is natural and expected, but all evidence suggests that recent and current extinction rates are considerably higher than would be expected without human influence."

quote>

[coolotter88 2]

mass extinctions as in something like the dinosaurs...and a lot of the "extinct" animals are only not found...the word extinct is used too loosely.

[MrFingers 0]

Entire ecologies are destroyed ALL the time, with absolutely no human contribution whatsoever. I'm sure that we only know of the species that are extinguished that we have been in contact with. So it is easy to misrepresent to what extent our interaction with species has been responsible for global extinctions.

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 mass extinctions as in something like the dinosaurs...and a lot of the "extinct" animals are only not found...the word extinct is used too loosely.quote>

Perhaps... I don't see mass extinctions on the scale of dinosaurs any time soon. After all, it's not like an asteroid or comet is plummeting towards the planet. But we will drastically alter our ecology if we don't do anything to abate this abrupt and unprecedented climate change.

Originally posted by: MrFingers Entire ecologies are destroyed ALL the time, with absolutely no human contribution whatsoever. I'm sure that we only know of the species that are extinguished that we have been in contact with. So it is easy to misrepresent to what extent our interaction with species has been responsible for global extinctions.quote>

All the time? I am buying you a dictionary.

Most recent extinctions are due to direct human influence, not in a natural or Darwinistic way. I don't want to dwell on this sub-topic too long. The effects of climate change will have an impact on ecologies, as it is already doing. Coral reefs are among the most recent declining ecosystems and are fundamental to the survival of thousands of sea-dwelling species. This is directly due to the warming of the Earth's oceans due to climate change, which is caused by man.

We have been in contact with a majority of the world's species, and almost every part of the world (except the polar circles) has been inhabited. Moreover, the global population is increasing at a drastic rate. It is easy to point out speculation concerning some species when there also exists a good portion where evidence to which human influence can be directly linked. It may not happen in all instances, but it does happen, and is happening more frequently.

Originally posted by: confused04 I support you schm0, I'm just too busy to type out a response.

I suggest reading the "Six Degrees of Global Warming". Its a real good read and disturbing. By 6 Degrees of global (just above the upper limit of IPCC's prediction so the guy just rounded it to 6) we might be living in a world resembling the Permian extinction. I will someday join this dicussion if it stays civil. As I was the scapegoat for all the natural global warming camp in the other threads, I'm wary of joining.quote>

Thank you for your support! As for joining the debate, please do... I need something refreshing. It seems that I have been painted as a close-minded individual. I would like to point out that it is not the case. Do I think we are causing climate change? Of course. But I also believe that there are certainly other factors that may influence, on large and small scales, the change we are experiencing. However, I do not believe that these "other" forces are not the major impetus to warming the globe and need further research, which I wholly support.

[MrFingers 0]

I have a dictionary thanks. and yes, species die out all the time. if you chose that to mean every last femtosecond, [Edited for being off-topic] Marc .