Global Warming has been cancelled. Sorry.....

[fett]

I will take a very simplistic view on this. There can be nothing good about throwing all this stuff in the air. All I have to do is clean the windows on my van to see the soot from diesel trucks. The earth is like a big balloon. The shit can only go so far up and it gets trapped. One side is right in that we don't have enough history in weather to draw any real historical pattern. The other side makes a very good point in that it's only been a few hundred years that man has been spewing. And they are seeing changes. I don't know the answer. If I wanted to take sides, I would go with any effort that reduces the crap that we throw into the air. I'm 56 so I won't be around to see how you guys figure out what to do. I just hope you do the right thing.

[hippietim]

I will take a very simplistic view on this. There can be nothing good about throwing all this stuff in the air. All I have to do is clean the windows on my van to see the soot from diesel trucks. The earth is like a big balloon. The shit can only go so far up and it gets trapped. One side is right in that we don't have enough history in weather to draw any real historical pattern. The other side makes a very good point in that it's only been a few hundred years that man has been spewing. And they are seeing changes. I don't know the answer. If I wanted to take sides, I would go with any effort that reduces the crap that we throw into the air. I'm 56 so I won't be around to see how you guys figure out what to do. I just hope you do the right thing.

Bravo Fett.

[hippietim]

Why don't you also say secondhand smoke kills. Even though the studies prove that the effects are negligible, it still kills.

What studys? The ones conducted in the 50's by the tobacco companies?

[hippietim]

You're one of the most closed minded people I've ever met.

[SeventhSon]

Just wow... You're one of the most closed minded people I've ever met.

ad-hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

The fact is that climate modeling of the earth is such an impossible task that we do not currently have the technology or intellectual prowess to complete anything remotely realistic.

It takes the most powerful supercomputers in the world years to model the explosion of a thermonuclear explosion, and not even near the resources have been used to 'predict' the incredibly vast and dynamic nature of the whole planet.

You can spin your beliefs however you wish, but climatology modeling is still science fiction.

i'm sure that's news to the many climatologists who have received their doctorates in the field...

And the fact is, many of the very scientists that are claiming global warming now were claiming global cooling a couple of decades ago.

Again you perpetuate the myth. No such prediction was made by scientists. Here's another link to that fact since you didn't seem to bother to read the 1st one: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

If you had bothered to even read the PDF I posted, it is not one sided, it presents facts from both sides, as well as facts that the global warmists don't tell you.

And I guess you're also going to claim that all of the record cold that North America has been experiencing is due to global warming too. :p

I read the 1st 10 pages. He criticizes the media, makes hay about scientists joining his ranks and signing petitions (again funded by big oil), but nowhere is there any link or reference to a peer reviewed article that refutes global warming. Also, they don't link to the NAS report. They link to HIS COMMENTARY on the NAS report which completely misquotes the NAS report. Why not link directly to the NAS report? Because it concludes (despite what his commentary says it concludes) that global warming is happening and that it is most likely caused by humans. What chutzpah!

Here's the kicker...from the PDF...

But this symbolism may be hiding a dark side. While greenhouse gas limiting proposals may cost the industrialized West trillions of dollars, it is the effect on the developing world’s poor that is being lost in this debate.

So I completely agree...having both sides of the debate is extremely important and, despite what you say, I am completely open minded on the subject. I've given you links to peer reviewed reports from the National Academy of Sciences signed by staff of the current administration. But all you have given me is propoganda. Honestly, I cannot chase any links from that PDF file to any scientific paper.

So from a scientific perspective, I have not seen a peer reviewed scientific article that refutes global warming. How can this be? You have the oil companies willing to fund dissenters, you have the administration that doesn't want to sign the kyoto agreement...why not make life easy for everyone and settle the scientific debate once and for all? using the age old scientific technique of publishing one's findings that an existing theory is not correct? If it's so obvious and trivial to burst the global warming baloon, why hasn't anyone done it from a scientific perspective?

patiently awaiting your next insult and/or labeling of me...

[fett]

I have lived my whole 56 years with second-hand and first-hand smoke. I'm more worried about the fine particulates that diesels and power plants spew. And wood burning stoves. The smoke from a fag can cause cancer but it's an in and out. The particles we breath are actual pieces of shit that can get imbedded in our lungs. And that's what worries me. The crap that China is producing will eventually get to the West Coast of the US. It's a bit off topic but that scares me more than general global warming.

[markb]

Theres lots of good money to be made on either side of the debate. I wouldnt argue too hard one way or the other, since you don't know. Asking people to consume less??? Ah hahahahahah People who already possess a shiny trinket (like our lifestyle] will only either: trade it for something equally shiny or tasty, or have it ripped away by death and destruction, like a good tornando or some such thing. Desire and fear... make your money now before the truth cuts away half of the profit opportunities. Now thats inconvenient.

[fett]

For me, it comes down to my footprint on the world. I buy most everything I need second hand. Clothes, cars, GUITARS and anything else I need. There are a few reasons I do this. 1: I am a cheap bastard. 2: Most everything I buy second hand is made way better than the new stuff. 3: It's fun. 4: It's just what I have been doing for 30 years even though I now have the money to buy new stuff. And E: I sound like a fukking hippie.

[Tashtego]

Here is an interesting tidbit that relates to the 'no peer reviewed papers' mantra. http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm

[Outlander]

wow! is it getting hot in here or is it just me?

[SeventhSon]

Thank you for that. I disagree with Science not posting those rebuttals. I've often quoted the original.

Here is Bush in 2001 speaking on global warming. I think this is a remarkably thoughtful reflection on the subject at the time...

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

What is worth noting is his respect for the National Academy of Science.

And that is the last I will post on this god forsaken thread! Bye now!

[Bert]

The fact is that scientists regularly make determinations based on studies and later conclude that their original results were skewed, based on improper sampling, or using models that weren't accurate or didn't factor important information that could change the results completely.

And that's exactly the nature of science. When your conclusions are faulty, there are plenty of scientists out there working on the same problem who will jump at the opportunity to demonstrate the faults. I should know, as I serve on the editorial boards of a couple of scientific journals (though not in climate science.) But in most cases where conclusions are overturned, the predictions were based on limited evidence. This seems more common than it really is because the media love to highlight the latest headline-grabbing scientific "finding" before it's stood any test of time. Unfortunately for your argument, anthropogenic global warming doesn't fall into this category.

Another fact is that we have not existed long enough to know with any certainty if global warming or cooling is something that humanity can influence in any measurable fashion

Much evidence supporting global warming predates our existence, for example that based on geologic findings. Just because we weren't around when it happened doesn't mean we can't find out what happened. There is of course error in those predictions, but a betting man would be foolish to ignore them simply because uncertainty exists. Another trick of the deniers is to cite a single line of evidence and demonstrate how the predictions from that line of evidence have too much uncertainty. Unfortunately for the case of global warming, there are multiple lines of evidence. Each individually uncertain perhaps, but together they tell a pretty consistent story.

and 'predicting' these results and screaming end of the world is a tactic pushed by political activism, is horribly overstated and has way too many variables and factors that are impossible to quantify.

Agreed the evidence and implications should not be over-stated, and agreed that there are those (the media especially) that like to do so since it sells advertising. But that's no reason to dismiss it outright.

Right now the arguments of the anti-warming crowd seem to hinge on the assertion that their arguments are being suppressed by some widespread conspiracy of politically influenced scientists. Truth is, scientists are some of the least easily influenced groups. They want to see the data, not hear the rhetoric.

Tell ya what, let's regroup in a few years and see where everyone still stands. If you anti-warming folks are still crying liberal conspiracy, maybe you should start questioning your position. I promise I'll question mine & eat crow to boot if the peer-reviewed evidence starts showing I'm wrong.

For the record, my JCF track record on important issues such as "Zakk Wylde 357 guitar promo: fact or fiction?" is pretty good. :ROTF:

[Accept2]

Why do you call us "anti-warming?" There has never been a denial that things are changing. Its another example of throwing labels out at people who disagree with popular belief in order to discredit them.............

[Tashtego]

It is all B.S. anyway as far as policy making goes. The developing countries will ignore any CO2 emmision rules or caps and no one will force them to comply. The Kyoto signatories in the most modern and developed countries only signed it with the most cynical intentions and will continue to ignore the treaty obligations, it is economic and political suicide not to. No Kyoto like treaty will pass the U.S. senate, not even if every state had a drunken murderer and a spineless appeaser as their senate wonder twins.
CO2 emmisions from human activities are not going away until some economically & technically feasable and socially acceptable energy production methods are developed. I think pretty much every policy maker & political leader in the world knows this. I'm convinced that the fear mongering is simply a political expediency and as I've argued in this thread the real damage being done is to the spirit of independent inquiry and scientific freedom. Anyone who suffers from any self doubt about the legitimacy or rationality of questioning the man-made global warming gospel need only refer to some of the easily assessable references made it this thread to reassure themselves that their opinion is in good company.

[SeventhSon]

Why do you call us "anti-warming?" There has never been a denial that things are changing. Its another example of throwing labels out at people who disagree with popular belief in order to discredit them.............

Yes, you dislike ad-hominem attacks in a debate just like everyone else...rightly so...

let's look at the labels used thrown around this thread by you and your supporters...

• those who had already planned on spending all those billions....
• the "Were all going to Die!!!!" side
• global warming activist
• They become pasionate because they feel that their own rationality dictates that something must be true.
• doomsday climate change global warming prognosticators
• secular progressives

and my favorite...
"Bert, your Birkenstocks are showing."