By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Convention held in New York for Global Warming science..... the truth

Sqrl on 04 March 2008
steven787 said:
Sqrl said:
Just for the record we've had this debate on this site before and I believe the last time we had the debate it ended shortly after (but not necessarily due to) me pointing out that according to the alarmist's own data, even if we were to attribute all of the C02 increases over the last 250 years to mankind the worst case estimate you could create for C02 as a climate driver is that it (quoting from memory) was responsible for ~19% of the warming in the same time period. Keep in mind that assumes that ALL of the additional C02 from the last 250 years was man-made and gives literally zero credit to some of the largest contributers of C02 during that period...like the ocean and volcanoes etc... The actual numbers for mankind's yearly *net* contribution is less than 50% BTW.

The climate is changing, there is no doubt. But C02, much less C02 contributed by mankind, is not a major driver of that change.

I'll leave this discussion at that, I've done more research than probably the rest of the posters in this thread combined (exeggerating most likely, and I beg you not to take my word for it and think for yourself) on this topic and I feel extremely confident in my position. And for the record I am a fierce supporter of scientific research that has been thoroughly vetted such as evolution and the moon landings to borrow some examples from above. Anthropogenic global warming is simply no where near as vetted as those other examples and to suggest otherwise is an outright insult to the scientific process you claim to support. The fundamental concepts being left out in the cold are that a consensus is not equivalent to proof, and that correlation does not imply causation.

PS - You can't trust Mr Beck's movie any more than you can Mr Gore. Both are politicians and based on that alone should be greeted with extreme skepticism the moment they step out of the realm of politics, especially when they step into the realm of science. Both movies have lengthy documentation on their factual errors to support that conclusion.
Not true.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/47/18866

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

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/paper-II-en.pdf

http://www.unep.org/Themes/climatechange/PDF/factsheets_English.pdf

 

If you google the topic you are going to get a bunch of websites that claim what you are saying... they are lying or wrong. This is the UN, the IPCC, the US government, and PNAS (the official science Journal of the UN).

The following is President Bush's press release announcing the switch in the traditional Republican to the international and scientific consesus on climate change.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html

The Senate'sresponse to his budget request mentioning climate change

http://energy.senate.gov/public_new/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=d1e428e9-75ea-413b-9e08-d3b65c7ff57f

 

Here are some other countries' research links or positions.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/research/index.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/studies.htm

http://en.g8russia.ru/g8/history/gleneagles2005/7/ (Russia's stance at the G8)

http://www.climate-change.ir/en/ or more specifically http://www.climate-change.ir/en/concept/#gg (Iran)

http://www.mct.gov.br/index.php/content/view/13986.html (Brazil)

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ec.gc.ca%2Fclimate%2Fhome-e.html&ei=CQvNR5ORNJaYeoLJvQ4&usg=AFQjCNHQb8w627xTQq5edpgE1mrPL0yJaA&sig2=iG2wP-4hHnB_jHH748rNEQ (Canada)

http://cambio_climatico.ine.gob.mx/ccygob/ccygobingles.html (Mexico)

 

There are 174 signatories of the Kyoto Protocol. Many of them are developing nations and third world countries; this is important because it is internationally understood that anti-Greenhouse Gas emission regulation is bad for growth. They sign it any way, because it is needed.


You really need to examine your own sources.

First of all you sited 4 government sources with this line:

"If you google the topic you are going to get a bunch of websites that claim what you are saying... they are lying or wrong. This is the UN, the IPCC, the US government, and PNAS (the official science Journal of the UN)."

So the UN (political body), IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change...a committee that is part of a political body) , US government (political body), and PNAS(the science journal of a political body) all have no political agenda then? Truthfully your entire post boiled down to claiming I was wrong and provided nothing in the way of an argument but instead providing links to a bunch of sites with political ties..ironically the numbers I cited are built from numbers aspoused by groups like the ones you cited.

As for the signatories on the Kyoto Protocol, the reason those developing nations are signing up is because the Kyoto protocol is built as a global socialist program. The developing nations without huge emissions are able to sell their carbon credits to large nations like the US who would have to purchase them to avoid massive fines. In short its a huge boon for those countries not a hinderence.



To Each Man, Responsibility
Around the Network
timmah on 04 March 2008
Slimebeast said:
. 
I'm sceptic, because there have been alarms about catastrophies in the past that never became true, and the debates around those disappeared quickly (fear of nuclear war, starvation and overpopulation in the world, the thinning of the ozone layer). But we "need" a new threat. And voilá, Global warming!
.
akuma587 said:

What do people gain from lying about global warming? What do people gain from keeping the current policies from changing? There is a lot more to gain from the latter than the former.

hsrob said
Out of interest, for the people that aren't on the global warming bandwagon, what do you think is the motivation for people to exaggerate claims of global warming?

 

Gamerace said:
I don't understand the argument that global warming is political.

As for scientist being political.. huh?? How do you get people from all over the world, with totally different political needs, economic needs, etc, to unite to create a false belief? They may be wrong, it's happened before, but to say they are just making it up is akin to saying the dinosaurs are just a lie made up by scientist to disprove the bible.


I can think of several reasons to create fear and exaggerate the risks about global warming:

- There's always people that have a need to control other people, and if Global warming is a tool for it, they'll use it (for example politicians that love regulations and a strong state, "the nanny state" concept etc. In this case you also have hippies, ultra-environmentalists, socialists and whatnot, who want to restrict consumption in the West in general, for ideological reasons)

- weather/environment research, all sorts of self-proclaimed experts on the subject, and all the lawyers and legislators around this, have an opportunity to get funds and money (compare this to the business around illegal narcotics and the military industry - lots of policemen, businessmen, politicians, legislators and lawyers want these institutions to thrive, and will obstruct any attempts to downsize them)

- Leaders in some countries, like Bush recently, see that measures taken to slow down global warming have the side-effect of making the West less dependant on oil. In other words, the Middle east.

- New businesses arise, like farmers making ethanol from crops. There's already a strong corn-lobby in the US

 


I've got one more: FUNDING!!! Scientists get hundreds of millions of dollars more to fund research when there's a catastrophe than when there is not. Congress isn't going to approve nearly as much money for research if there's no impending catastrophe, hence, the scientists take a theory, drum it up, blow it out of proportion, and get their precious funding. There are plenty of scientists out there who disagree with the human caused global warming theory, but they are laughed at and discredited (and broke).

Which brings me to my next point... Recognition! Scientists want to be known, make a name for themselves, and not be 'discredited'. So they jump on the bandwagon of whatever is the most popular idea. Since the sensationalized news media LOVES disasters & calamities, there will always be some scientifically 'proven' impending disaster for them to become the face of. From the hole in the ozone layer, to the aforementioned 'overpoplulation' (that was going to cause mass death & famine decades ago), to the global cooling movement in the '70s, there will always be a trumped up disaster, and there will always be the masses of sheep willing to follow.

As for political motivations, governments can grab power and control much more easily when there is something they can use to instill fear in the masses. Fear of the end of the world is enough for people to be ok with the banning of incandescent lightbulbs (it's already happened, and the new problem will be all the MERCURY from the compact florescent bulbs), or 'green taxes' to help fight something we can't control anyway (case in point, the world has been MUCH cooler and MUCH warmer without SUVs). So power and money, the two driving forces in government, are a great motivation for the political world (regardless of nationality) to get behind this.

I'm not saying we shouldn't work to decrease our emmissions and create the cleanest planet we possibly can, just that the panic is, as always, WAAAYY over the top.



akuma587 on 04 March 2008
Sqrl said:
 

You really need to examine your own sources.

First of all you sited 4 government sources with this line:

"If you google the topic you are going to get a bunch of websites that claim what you are saying... they are lying or wrong. This is the UN, the IPCC, the US government, and PNAS (the official science Journal of the UN)."

So the UN (political body), IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change...a committee that is part of a political body) , US government (political body), and PNAS(the science journal of a political body) all have no political agenda then? Truthfully your entire post boiled down to claiming I was wrong and provided nothing in the way of an argument but instead providing links to a bunch of sites with political ties..ironically the numbers I cited are built from numbers aspoused by groups like the ones you cited.

As for the signatories on the Kyoto Protocol, the reason those developing nations are signing up is because the Kyoto protocol is built as a global socialist program. The developing nations without huge emissions are able to sell their carbon credits to large nations like the US who would have to purchase them to avoid massive fines. In short its a huge boon for those countries not a hinderence.


 At least he provided information.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

timmah on 04 March 2008

EVERYBODY READ THIS!!!

The temperature drop over the last year has WIPED OUT 100 YEARS of global warming!

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

Where did global warming go?? Shouldn't the warming trend continue in a linear way if it's really tied so tightly to 'Greenhouse Gasses'? Or is what I've been saying for years really true, could temperature changes REALLY be related to the thingy that warms the planet (the sun)?? That's crazy talk!

LET'S ALL PANIC ABOUT GLOBAL COOLING NOW!!! AAAAAAHHHHH! EVERYBODY RUN! (that's for all you sheep out there).

Me on the other hand, I'm gonna actually look at the data and realize that these trends have been going on long before we were here, and will continue regardless of what we do.

I choose not to panic with the rest of the masses of sheep.

Let's be responsible with our world, produce the cleanest energy we can, live in the best balance we possibly can, and let's take the demagoguery of the fear mongers with a grain of salt.

Edit: You won't see this on the mainstream news stations, magazines, or newspapers. They'll keep this under wraps for as long as they possibly can. But remember, they're not biased...

Here's something else I've been talking about for a long time. Warming is better than cooling...

"Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.

Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news. "



ph4nt on 04 March 2008

Whether or not it's real, no one can deny that the controversy has benefited us. Pollution has gone down, and hopefully soon i won't have to worry about going outside if it's too smoggy. I'll finally be able to see the mountains and sky the way it should be, without a glaze of smog covering it up.

Plus it's the only thing pushing us to get away from gas and oil, it's going to run out eventually and if it did and we had no other technology, we'd be screwed. The only time people react is when a problem is staring them right in the face, if we didn't have the global warming controversy, we wouldn't be finding alternative fuel sources until we found out we'd run out of oil in 5 years. Sad but true.



Around the Network
supermariogalaxy on 04 March 2008

Global warming isn't real, its a myth! Like the Loch Ness Monster or North Dakota!


LOL Who know where that is from???



 

epsilon72 on 04 March 2008
ph4nt said:
Whether or not it's real, no one can deny that the controversy has benefited us. Pollution has gone down, and hopefully soon i won't have to worry about going outside if it's too smoggy. I'll finally be able to see the mountains and sky the way it should be, without a glaze of smog covering it up.

Plus it's the only thing pushing us to get away from gas and oil, it's going to run out eventually and if it did and we had no other technology, we'd be screwed. The only time people react is when a problem is staring them right in the face, if we didn't have the global warming controversy, we wouldn't be finding alternative fuel sources until we found out we'd run out of oil in 5 years. Sad but true.

Huh?  It sure hasn't around here.  Where are you getting this information? 

Even though our oil supplies are finite, we definitely won't be running out in 5 years. 

 



kenzomatic on 04 March 2008

Take what you'd like from that I think its funny.



"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."

Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist. Especially if you think the moon landing was faked.

ioi + 1
ChichiriMuyo on 04 March 2008
Astrodust said:
dtekdahl00 said:
Bias exists either way. You're either labled a fool for dissenting the common view, or you're hailed for buying into an ideology thats not scientific

There is no common view when it comes to global warming. It's not an issue like cigarettes cause cancer. The problem is that people are not educated on the issues and form oppinions.


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations"

"While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC,[8] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions"

There is a goddamned concensus on the matter.  Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot or a liar, and anyone who rejects the idea outright is worse.  Global Warming IS real and we DO have to fight it.  People didn't think CFCs were destroying the environment in the 70s and, lo and behold, yes they were.  It took until the 80's had almost ended to fix the problem, and the ozone layer is not expected to recover for an additional 35-85 years because of our innaction.  Once again we are faced with a real threat, and it's time we enacted policy that will curb this threat and protect all of humanity from self distruction.

And if you think I'm a liar, tell me why the Pentagon agrees with me.

Really, why has the Pentagon created (but not published, in spite of leaks) documents that state that global climate change is happening, that it is human caused, and that it is the greatest threat to national security?  And, moreso, why are they doing this in regards to a situation that certain people wish weren't true?

It's because global warming is real, and it is a much more real threat to our nation than any terrorist other than the fear mongers in the Bush administration.  And perhaps even more of a threat than those constitution defiling scumbags.

Yes, even the Pentagon says that global warming is not only a real threat to our nation, but also a clear and imminent danger.  And it should be treated like one.  Stomped out of existence, left only as a memory of how the government improved our lives.  Yet no one who has the power to do anything about it comes with the requisite balls to use that power for the good of all men.  Because people are stupid, and can be convinced that anything is a lie, be it moon landings or global warming.  All they have to do is want to believe, and a liar like our President can convince them that they were right when the evidence UNEQUIVICABLY* states otherwise.

*Note:  This is the word of the international science community.  They have said that human-influenced climate change is as real as the keyboard I'm pounding on now and the food you will eat at your next meal.  Let us hope it is not your last.



You do not have the right to never be offended.

Kasz216 on 04 March 2008
ChichiriMuyo said:
Astrodust said:
dtekdahl00 said:
Bias exists either way. You're either labled a fool for dissenting the common view, or you're hailed for buying into an ideology thats not scientific

There is no common view when it comes to global warming. It's not an issue like cigarettes cause cancer. The problem is that people are not educated on the issues and form oppinions.


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations"

"While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC,[8] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions"

There is a goddamned concensus on the matter. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot or a liar, and anyone who rejects the idea outright is worse. Global Warming IS real and we DO have to fight it. People didn't think CFCs were destroying the environment in the 70s and, lo and behold, yes they were. It took until the 80's had almost ended to fix the problem, and the ozone layer is not expected to recover for an additional 35-85 years because of our innaction. Once again we are faced with a real threat, and it's time we enacted policy that will curb this threat and protect all of humanity from self distruction.

And if you think I'm a liar, tell me why the Pentagon agrees with me.

Really, why has the Pentagon created (but not published, in spite of leaks) documents that state that global climate change is happening, that it is human caused, and that it is the greatest threat to national security? And, moreso, why are they doing this in regards to a situation that certain people wish weren't true?

It's because global warming is real, and it is a much more real threat to our nation than any terrorist other than the fear mongers in the Bush administration. And perhaps even more of a threat than those constitution defiling scumbags.

Yes, even the Pentagon says that global warming is not only a real threat to our nation, but also a clear and imminent danger. And it should be treated like one. Stomped out of existence, left only as a memory of how the government improved our lives. Yet no one who has the power to do anything about it comes with the requisite balls to use that power for the good of all men. Because people are stupid, and can be convinced that anything is a lie, be it moon landings or global warming. All they have to do is want to believe, and a liar like our President can convince them that they were right when the evidence UNEQUIVICABLY* states otherwise.

*Note: This is the word of the international science community. They have said that human-influenced climate change is as real as the keyboard I'm pounding on now and the food you will eat at your next meal. Let us hope it is not your last.


There was a consensus on global cooling as well i believe.  Due to deforstation i believe.

The truth is... they've found some correlation, but no causation. Even then the correlation isn't exact enough to where i'd fully believe it was the case.

After all natural green house gas production is far far bigger then our own greenhouse production. The only arguements i've seen on this is that somehow nature can tell natural green house gasses from man made ones and selectivly filters out only the natural causes.