From the Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=060722_Ne_A1_Heatw72040%22):
quote:
...Is U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, who believes that manmade global warming is "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," losing the public relations battle on that issue?
The Oklahoma Republican and chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee concedes that those on the other side of the global warming debate have dominated the air waves lately, but he remains confident that his side will be proved right in the end...
-----------------
The article is just your normal Oklahoma Senatorial lunacy, but the
really fun stuff is the lib comments at thinkprogress.org (//%22http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/24/inhofe-third-reich/%22). Somebody calls him Senator Blutarsky, as in, "Zero. Point. Zero."
Holy crap, there's some grade-A snark there (over 150 posts!):
------
"Senator, you are a dolt and an idiot.
As Earth becomes Hell, watch & learn.
You may have the perfect family, but all is naught when you decide most of the people I created are beneath you. I don't recall appointing you anyone's personal Ayatollah of Ethics, including he with the name of vegetation. Beware! I am an angry God, & right now I'm really p*ssed at you.
See you Sunday,"
------
"OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKLAHOMA!!!!!!!!
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKLAHOMA!!!!!!!!
Citizens of Oklahoma, I beg of you, please just use some common sense next time you go to the polls. Both senators from your state are a national security threat."
------
"Seriously, what the hell is wrong with the water in Oklahoma?!?! This is a serious question. I demand answers!!!"------
When is the next senate election? It can't come fast enough. I can tolerate Coburn to an extent even though his strong pro-life/anti-gay agenda bothers me but Inhofe has lost all credibility.
If Inhofe's so sure that global warming is a hoax, why doesn't he organize a debate against Al Gore, and we'll see who's more persuasive?
I have trouble getting worked up over a 1 degree shift across 140yrs, especially when most of the "colder" times didn't have real instruments to measure.
sgrizzle stop thinking NOW before you infect us all.
Debating Al Gore[|)]...zzzzzz...yaawwwnnn...oh, sorry...I fell asleep just thinking about it. As if Al Gore is some sort of an expert, come on, at least suggest he debate a scientist or someone who is armed with something substantive to speak about. That movie was nothing more than a 2 hour political campaign ad.
Did you actually see the movie, iplaw?
Yes, I sat through about 3/4 of it before I got up and went to the white lion to get a beer and wash the bad taste out of my mouth.
There really is no scientific debate anymore about whether or not global warming is occurring. Its also clear that greenhouse gasses are contributing to it. You can check out the latest IPCC report (//%22http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/un/syreng/spm.pdf%22) if you doubt that.
Global warming is happening, and we are partly to blame, but there is still a debate as to whether this presents an imminent danger to us all. Some of the stuff is clearly happening: rising temparatures and melting ice. But nobody can say for certain when the predicted nasty side effects (increased droughts and floods, rising sea levels, super-hurricanes, etc.) will start to happen. Maybe they are happening already or maybe we won't see much more than slightly hotter temparatures for another 200 years. Who really knows, it could already be too late to do anything about it.
Ultimately, its a value judgement. Do you really want to change the way you live today in hopes that it might make a difference for your kids....or great-great-grandkids? I do, but for me, its not just altruism.
I think energy independence is important. The middle east is awash in oil money, and IMO, there are groups and countries over there that present a much greater threat to us than global warming does currently. Bush thought he could settle them down with a little forced "democracy", but now they're more riled than ever and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.
If a few million windmills and solar panels can kill two birds with one stone, I'm all for it. Safer, cleaner, and all that...that's just good management in the long run. Guys like Inhofe might be banking on the second coming, but I'm not.
Saw Jimmy boy at a party the other night and was tempted to take him outside for a discussion and see if he sweats....I just could not get up for an attack on a guy I have been at odds with politically for years.
Then I decided that would be a waist of my time. Why spend the energy. He was a good mayor.
The sad thing was the guy looks great and will live forever aka Strom Thurman.
I wish the man a long life. He's the prince in the neo con den....
"For them, Afghanistan and Iraq will not suffice. They want to take out Syria and Iran, and speed full steam ahead towards World Wars III and IV. The Weekly Standard asks simply, "Why wait?"
According to Newt Gingrich, there is no need to wait at all. On Meet the Press this past Sunday he offered that the Israel-Hezbollah conflict "... is, in fact, World War III" and "the U.S. ought to be helping...."
And how might the US help fight Newt's World War? The Weekly Standard provides the answer: "It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions - and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement."
George Will - not exactly your run-of-the-mill, card-carrying liberal - describes the neocons as "so untethered from reality as to defy caricature."
But what has caused them to become so completely unhinged (even more so than before, if one can imagine that possibility)?
With the deteriorating occupation in Iraq and a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan the neocons have been completely discredited. Meanwhile, the Bush administration is engaging in a "muddled multilateralism" - not quite pursuing diplomacy but not acting unilaterally at the whims of the Decider et al., either.
And this simply infuriates them. As Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) told The Washington Post, "I don't have a friend in... any part of the conservative foreign policy establishment who is not beside themselves with fury at the administration."
Well, perhaps The Weekly Standard staffers, editors, and allies at the likes of AEI will harness some of their "fury", put on flak jackets and (poorly) funded armor (is there enough to go around after Iraq?), and go fight their own failed war in defense of their own failed ideology.
Meanwhile, the rest of us will remain here on this planet." http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?bid=7&pid=103829
quote:
Originally posted by SXSW
When is the next senate election? It can't come fast enough. I can tolerate Coburn to an extent even though his strong pro-life/anti-gay agenda bothers me but Inhofe has lost all credibility.
Inhofe says incredibly backward things and then (at least he) secures some federal money for Oklahoma.
Coburn says incredibly backward things and does nothing to secure federal money for Oklahoma.
Both are the worst of a party that has seen better days.
If anyone thinks the blue states laugh off Oklahoma I'm here to tell you that we are held personally responsible for a great deal of the nation's ills.
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
He was a good mayor.
Nuh-uh. He was the guy that worked with development interests to deliver the Haikey Creek sewer plant, which allowed BA and South Tulsa to sprawl. He is the godfather of the "good 'ole boys". Tulsa's paying for his 25-year-old mistakes today.
Oh, no more on Iraq please, I beg you. I hate to tell you but I can't also cite to numerous experts who say that the human factor in global warming tenuous if not bogus. Comes down to dueling experts, nothing more, but to say no scientific debate exists is a lie. Just because one side of the debate declares it finished doesn't mean it's so.
quote:
If a few million windmills and solar panels can kill two birds with one stone, I'm all for it.
It won't. Nuclear is the only viable alternative, but it won't solve our vehicle fuel issue as the two are distinct problems.
So it isn't viable for AEP-PSO to put up those wind turbines in the western part of the state?
Funny ... you'd think if it wasn't viable, they wouldn't be doing it.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
If a few million windmills and solar panels can kill two birds with one stone, I'm all for it.
It won't. Nuclear is the only viable alternative, but it won't solve our vehicle fuel issue as the two are distinct problems.
I'm pro-nuke. And I'm pro squeezing every last drop of oil out of the ground around here, too. But I think we should aim higher than that. I'm also pro-denser, greener, cities so we don't waste energy. There is no magic bullet. And with energy prices the way they are, these are
all viable alternatives. If our country is going to remain on top for another 200 years, it'll be because we pioneered the technologies that lead to better efficiency, and safer, cleaner, renewable energy. If China does it intstead, then we have only ourselves to blame. I, for one, want a grand strategy.
Just throwing up a hundred nuke plants by themselves and declaring that "everything's fine" is not the solution, IMO.
How bout a lil gas-x for the cattle that should stop global warming in it's tracks....
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
So it isn't viable for AEP-PSO to put up those wind turbines in the western part of the state?
Funny ... you'd think if it wasn't viable, they wouldn't be doing it.
Do your research. Possibility and viability shouldn't be confused. Look at the numbers and you will see that to make a significant dent in the current energy climate you need far more wind turbines than we would be willing to put up with. Not to mention the enviro freaks already on the warpath complaining of aesthetic and environmental damage.
Even if wind power was the answer it does nothing to solve our current energy crisis over vehicle fuel as they pertain to two different energy needs.
Chicken Little:
I am 100% on the alternative fuel bandwagon. I just don't happen to think solar and wind are the way to go when you look at the statistics. I think E85 and biodiesel are wonderful and if Brazil can make it happen so can we.
Inhofe is a smart man. Global warming is a huge lie. The world goes through warming and cooling cycles. We are currently on the warm end, but global warming? No.
quote:
Originally posted by Cubs
Inhofe is a smart man. Global warming is a huge lie. The world goes through warming and cooling cycles. We are currently on the warm end, but global warming? No.
Inhofe not smart man. Global warming God's truth. Being punished for sins of liberals. [:O]
quote:
Originally posted by Cubs
Inhofe is a smart man. Global warming is a huge lie. The world goes through warming and cooling cycles. We are currently on the warm end, but global warming? No.
Like your ball team..... loser.
It's about keeping the house clean for the future... do you poop where you eat?
quote:
Originally posted by Cubs
Inhofe is a smart man. Global warming is a huge lie. The world goes through warming and cooling cycles. We are currently on the warm end, but global warming? No.
I'm curious how many other people, especially Oklahoman's, believe Inhofe and support his ultra-conservative drivel? You obviously do, may I ask why?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Oh, no more on Iraq please, I beg you. I hate to tell you but I can't also cite to numerous experts who say that the human factor in global warming tenuous if not bogus. Comes down to dueling experts, nothing more, but to say no scientific debate exists is a lie. Just because one side of the debate declares it finished doesn't mean it's so.
quote:
If a few million windmills and solar panels can kill two birds with one stone, I'm all for it.
It won't. Nuclear is the only viable alternative, but it won't solve our vehicle fuel issue as the two are distinct problems.
I'd be really interested in seeing a list of some of the experts that say that we're not in a state of global warming. And I'm not talking about Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly types. I'm talking about credentialed physical scientists, meteorologists, etc. Can ya get us a list, iplaw?
quote:
Originally posted by SXSW
quote:
Originally posted by Cubs
Inhofe is a smart man. Global warming is a huge lie. The world goes through warming and cooling cycles. We are currently on the warm end, but global warming? No.
I'm curious how many other people, especially Oklahoman's, believe Inhofe and support his ultra-conservative drivel? You obviously do, may I ask why?
There have been Republican politicians that I've been able to respect. I like McCain--I even agree with him a lot of the time. I disagreed with a lot of Bob Dole's politics but I doubt that there have been very many to walk the halls of Congress who had his kind of integrity. But Jim Inhofe is one of the sleaziest people that the good people of Oklahoma have ever been fool enough to re-elect.
quote:
Originally posted by Cubs
Inhofe is a smart man. Global warming is a huge lie. The world goes through warming and cooling cycles. We are currently on the warm end, but global warming? No.
Global warming is not a lie; its real. The world does go through cycles, but over 900 scientists at the ISCC agree that we are currently contributing to global warming. Nobody knows if the current warming trend is entirely man-made, or if we are in fact just adding to a natural cycle. Either way, is that an excuse to bury our heads in the sand? 'Cause that's what Inhofe seems to want us to do. Ignore it. I wonder why he'd advocate a strategy like that? Hmmm...
I'm sure that this moral man wouldn't be swayed by any of these contributors:
1 Oil & Gas $311,208
2 Electric Utilities $180,907
3 Retired $145,771
4 General Contractors $116,611
5 Leadership PACs $100,347
6 Lobbyists $99,741
7 Lawyers/Law Firms $95,372
8 Commercial Banks $79,925
9 Health Professionals $77,550
10 Building Materials & Equipment $75,267
11 Air Transport $75,069
12 Insurance $72,171
13 Automotive $63,250
14 Misc Finance $61,500
15 Defense Aerospace $60,500
16 Real Estate $58,555
17 Business Services $53,766
18 Mining $52,600
19 Pro-Israel $49,300
20 Chemical & Related Manufacturing $47,010
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Cubs
Inhofe is a smart man. Global warming is a huge lie. The world goes through warming and cooling cycles. We are currently on the warm end, but global warming? No.
Global warming is not a lie; its real. The world does go through cycles, but over 900 scientists at the ISCC agree that we are currently contributing to global warming. Nobody knows if the current warming trend is entirely man-made, or if we are in fact just adding to a natural cycle. Either way, is that an excuse to bury our heads in the sand? 'Cause that's what Inhofe seems to want us to do. Ignore it. I wonder why he'd advocate a strategy like that? Hmmm...
I'm sure that this moral man wouldn't be swayed by any of these contributors:
1 Oil & Gas $311,208
2 Electric Utilities $180,907
3 Retired $145,771
4 General Contractors $116,611
5 Leadership PACs $100,347
6 Lobbyists $99,741
7 Lawyers/Law Firms $95,372
8 Commercial Banks $79,925
9 Health Professionals $77,550
10 Building Materials & Equipment $75,267
11 Air Transport $75,069
12 Insurance $72,171
13 Automotive $63,250
14 Misc Finance $61,500
15 Defense Aerospace $60,500
16 Real Estate $58,555
17 Business Services $53,766
18 Mining $52,600
19 Pro-Israel $49,300
20 Chemical & Related Manufacturing $47,010
If that doesn't show you the ulterior motives behind Inhofe's agenda and the Republican Party in general you are blind and/or naive. Supporting an organization that supports rampant corruption and environmental degradation while also promoting "family (Christian) values" is hypocrisy at its best.
I sure can. Just give me a bit papaspot. And BTW, was that a jab at me? Just curious.
Here are a few:
Patrick Michaels from the Department of Environmental Services at the University of Virginia
Ross McKitrick (anti-global warming treaties, accepts the temperature rise as real, but not yet properly explained)
Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident that [the] global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago... [but] we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future.
Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and an associate professor of geography at Arizona State University: "At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models."
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how much you can attribute to mankind."
William M. Gray, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential." Mr. Gray, who has worked in the field for 50 years, has labeled global warming "one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."
Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."
Sallie Baliunas, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air". In 2003 Baliunas and Soon wrote that "there is no reliable evidence for increased severity or frequency of storms, droughts, or floods that can be related to the air's increased greenhouse gas content."
Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities."
Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.
Fred Singer, president of the Science & Environmental Policy Project: has changed his position from "The earth is not warming significantly" (paraphrase) to "The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it"
Robert M. Carter, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia. Dr. Carter says, "The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown."
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada. Dr. Patterson states, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Jan Veizer, Professor Emeritus, University of Ottawa, writes: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model that advocates the leading role of greenhouse gases, particularly of CO2, and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge." (In J. Veizer, "Celestial climate driver: a perspective from four billion years of the carbon cycle", Geoscience Canada, March, 2005
Sherwood Idso, President Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, formerly a research physicist at the USDA Water Conservation Laboratory and adjunct professor Arizona State University: "[W]arming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. ... [W]e have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming."
Here is a link that lists some of these experts and more:
http://www.envirotruth.org/myth_experts.cfm
I only list these individuals to show that we can do the dance of dueling experts all day long. There is no consensus.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
From the Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=060722_Ne_A1_Heatw72040%22):
quote:
...Is U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, who believes that manmade global warming is "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," losing the public relations battle on that issue?
The Oklahoma Republican and chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee concedes that those on the other side of the global warming debate have dominated the air waves lately, but he remains confident that his side will be proved right in the end...
-----------------
The article is just your normal Oklahoma Senatorial lunacy, but the really fun stuff is the lib comments at thinkprogress.org (//%22http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/24/inhofe-third-reich/%22). Somebody calls him Senator Blutarsky, as in, "Zero. Point. Zero."
Holy crap, there's some grade-A snark there (over 150 posts!):
------
"Senator, you are a dolt and an idiot.
As Earth becomes Hell, watch & learn.
You may have the perfect family, but all is naught when you decide most of the people I created are beneath you. I don't recall appointing you anyone's personal Ayatollah of Ethics, including he with the name of vegetation. Beware! I am an angry God, & right now I'm really p*ssed at you.
See you Sunday,"
------
"OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKLAHOMA!!!!!!!!
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKLAHOMA!!!!!!!!
Citizens of Oklahoma, I beg of you, please just use some common sense next time you go to the polls. Both senators from your state are a national security threat."
------
"Seriously, what the hell is wrong with the water in Oklahoma?!?! This is a serious question. I demand answers!!!"
------
These same enviromental wack jobs believed in global cooling around 30 years ago,they even claimed there was evidence on temperatures lowering.Now these same scumbag anti-american enviromentalist nutjobs claim there is all this global warming and it's man's fault.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
In the 1970s, there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945.
Jim Inhofe must have not smoked his brain cells away with heavy drug use considering the fact he still remembers the global cooling nonsense by the enviromentalist wack jobs
Shhhh. They don't want you to remember about global cooling.
I'm going to add fodder to the debate. Cecil Adams, the respected science columnist for the Chicago Reader and other newspapers, weighed in about global warming a few weeks ago.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060407.html
http://www.internetweekly.org/2006/07/cartoon_senator_inhofe_vs_the_babes.html
The laughing stock of a nation....
http://www.senatemajority.com/outrageous_quote_of_the_day_james_inhofe
I hate it when people compare things to Hitler or Nazis regardless of the topic. If he would have restricted his comments to the first line about it being a hoax he would have merely echoed the quote of William M. Gray from Colorado State University, but he chose to go the hyperbole rout. DUH...choose your words more wisely Inhofe.
Read the Wikipedia article.
Seems to me that there was observed a temporary cooling in the 70s. The science of monitoring and modeling global temperatures was just starting and naturally "just getting its bearings" so to speak. As this cooling was noticed hypothesis to explain how this could be occuring were put out. It seems that some of them were correct, the cooling did happen during that time and some of the causes postulated (particulate pollution, smog etc.) were having an effect in that direction.
However it appears that as time went on and they gathered more data and started refining their models they noticed that the temporary cooling effects of particulate pollution that did happen in the 70s were starting to become outweighed by the warming effects of carbon monoxide and other greenhouse gasses.
Now it appears that the earth is actually getting warmer and and at a faster pace than seems to be consistent with natural fluctuations.
When glaciers that have been around for tens of thousands of years or more could vanish within a persons lifetime. That does not seem to be a normal fluctuation. When animals (like polar bears) which as far as we know take quite a while to evolve to be suited for specific habitats, have those habitats start to recede at such rapid rates that they cant evolve to keep up. This again seems to indicate a more rapid than normal fluctuation.
Now I dont know either way if man is causing or influencing what appears to be this apparent change. But it at least makes me want to know more, as do many scientists I am sure. And I sure as heck dont know enough to be so bold as to demonize either camp.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Here are a few:
Patrick Michaels from the Department of Environmental Services at the University of Virginia
Ross McKitrick (anti-global warming treaties, accepts the temperature rise as real, but not yet properly explained)
Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident that [the] global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago... [but] we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future.
Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and an associate professor of geography at Arizona State University: "At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models."
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how much you can attribute to mankind."
William M. Gray, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential." Mr. Gray, who has worked in the field for 50 years, has labeled global warming "one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."
Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."
Sallie Baliunas, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air". In 2003 Baliunas and Soon wrote that "there is no reliable evidence for increased severity or frequency of storms, droughts, or floods that can be related to the air's increased greenhouse gas content."
Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities."
Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.
Fred Singer, president of the Science & Environmental Policy Project: has changed his position from "The earth is not warming significantly" (paraphrase) to "The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it"
Robert M. Carter, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia. Dr. Carter says, "The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown."
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada. Dr. Patterson states, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Jan Veizer, Professor Emeritus, University of Ottawa, writes: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model that advocates the leading role of greenhouse gases, particularly of CO2, and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge." (In J. Veizer, "Celestial climate driver: a perspective from four billion years of the carbon cycle", Geoscience Canada, March, 2005
Sherwood Idso, President Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, formerly a research physicist at the USDA Water Conservation Laboratory and adjunct professor Arizona State University: "[W]arming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. ... [W]e have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming."
Here is a link that lists some of these experts and more:
http://www.envirotruth.org/myth_experts.cfm
I only list these individuals to show that we can do the dance of dueling experts all day long. There is no consensus.
If you take all the names listed on this obviously anti-global warming site, they still represent a microscopic fraction of the number of scientists that say that there is no question that we are in a state of global warming. It's kind of like the 9/11 conspiracy folks, they can also find a handful of "experts" that say that the government was behind 9/11. But in fairness, I'll look more closely into it. I'm curious as to how many of the people listed there KNOW that they're listed there. (They've listed email addresses and I'm going to email several of them and we'll see how many responses I get.) A problem that you run into with anti-global warming sites, 9/11 government conspiracy sites, etc. is that they will misrepresent what "experts" have said in order to make it fit their agenda. We'll see.
Just want to add a bit of clarity for people who arent versed in science. The media, and many careless scientists often misuse the word "theory".
I remember from my 8th grade biology class the stages of development are like so.
1. Idea or notion: (hmm this apple seems to have fallen to the ground pulled by some force)
2. Hypothesis: Presented as testable, able to be proven false and verifiable. The test is written and given an answer. (I think the apple fell because of...and here is how we can test for this) (according to mathematical models a large enough star will under certain conditions collapse and become so gravitationally dense that even light cannot escape"hypothesis for the existence of black hole")
3. Theory: Once a hypothesis has stood up to being argued against and repeated attempts to be proven wrong, can it become a theory. The test is given and the answer is tried to be disproven but stands. (Theory of gravity) (The model of a black hole stands up to scrutiny and arguments, possible canditates for a black hole are found using indirect evidence"theory for the existence of black holes")
4. Law: After time a theory can gain the status of law if it is sufficiently verified and stands up to repeated observational truthand consensus. (Law of Gravity) (a black hole is found and proven to exist "law of the existence of black holes" they are still only theories)
I am sure my examples are less than perfect lol, and its also important to note that there may not be a specific moment when say a hypothesis becomes a theory, or a theory a law.
The reason I am putting this up is because I see, even on this thread, examples of where the term "theory" is improperly used. In the Wikipedia article about Global Cooling it sates that it was a theory. It could not have been a theory at that time because only after a hypothesis has been formed and repeatedly tested can it become a theory. The study of global climate change was too new in the 70s for it to have been properly tested to become a theory.
The reason this is important, is because one often hears about a theory being proven wrong when in reality it was a Hypothesis that was proven wrong. People will then use this incorrect statement of a "theory being proved wrong" to suggest that other actual theories are on equally tenuous ground. The misuse of the word theory, when hypothesis should have been used, degrades the term. In science, unlike politics, the terms MUST be uniform, consistent, and as precise as possible. Otherwise arguments and discussions will end up running around in circles.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Just want to add a bit of clarity for people who arent versed in science. The media, and many careless scientists often misuse the word "theory".
I remember from my 8th grade biology class the stages of development are like so.
1. Idea or notion: (hmm this apple seems to have fallen to the ground pulled by some force)
2. Hypothesis: Presented as testable, able to be proven false and verifiable. The test is written and given an answer. (I think the apple fell because of...and here is how we can test for this) (according to mathematical models a large enough star will under certain conditions collapse and become so gravitationally dense that even light cannot escape"hypothesis for the existence of black hole")
3. Theory: Once a hypothesis has stood up to being argued against and repeated attempts to be proven wrong, can it become a theory. The test is given and the answer is tried to be disproven but stands. (Theory of gravity) (The model of a black hole stands up to scrutiny and arguments, possible canditates for a black hole are found using indirect evidence"theory for the existence of black holes")
4. Law: After time a theory can gain the status of law if it is sufficiently verified and stands up to repeated observational truthand consensus. (Law of Gravity) (a black hole is found and proven to exist "law of the existence of black holes" they are still only theories)
I am sure my examples are less than perfect lol, and its also important to note that there may not be a specific moment when say a hypothesis becomes a theory, or a theory a law.
The reason I am putting this up is because I see, even on this thread, examples of where the term "theory" is improperly used. In the Wikipedia article about Global Cooling it sates that it was a theory. It could not have been a theory at that time because only after a hypothesis has been formed and repeatedly tested can it become a theory. The study of global climate change was too new in the 70s for it to have been properly tested to become a theory.
The reason this is important, is because one often hears about a theory being proven wrong when in reality it was a Hypothesis that was proven wrong. People will then use this incorrect statement of a "theory being proved wrong" to suggest that other actual theories are on equally tenuous ground. The misuse of the word theory, when hypothesis should have been used, degrades the term. In science, unlike politics, the terms MUST be uniform, consistent, and as precise as possible. Otherwise arguments and discussions will end up running around in circles.
Yes, well, haven't you heard that the theory of gravity has been
refuted by the experts?
Intelligent Falling is the real culprit:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
Seriously, good point. Sometimes it is important for us to return to high school to remember the importance of precision in language.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Just want to add a bit of clarity for people who arent versed in science. The media, and many careless scientists often misuse the word "theory".
I remember from my 8th grade biology class the stages of development are like so.
1. Idea or notion: (hmm this apple seems to have fallen to the ground pulled by some force)
2. Hypothesis: Presented as testable, able to be proven false and verifiable. The test is written and given an answer. (I think the apple fell because of...and here is how we can test for this) (according to mathematical models a large enough star will under certain conditions collapse and become so gravitationally dense that even light cannot escape"hypothesis for the existence of black hole")
3. Theory: Once a hypothesis has stood up to being argued against and repeated attempts to be proven wrong, can it become a theory. The test is given and the answer is tried to be disproven but stands. (Theory of gravity) (The model of a black hole stands up to scrutiny and arguments, possible canditates for a black hole are found using indirect evidence"theory for the existence of black holes")
4. Law: After time a theory can gain the status of law if it is sufficiently verified and stands up to repeated observational truthand consensus. (Law of Gravity) (a black hole is found and proven to exist "law of the existence of black holes" they are still only theories)
I am sure my examples are less than perfect lol, and its also important to note that there may not be a specific moment when say a hypothesis becomes a theory, or a theory a law.
The reason I am putting this up is because I see, even on this thread, examples of where the term "theory" is improperly used. In the Wikipedia article about Global Cooling it sates that it was a theory. It could not have been a theory at that time because only after a hypothesis has been formed and repeatedly tested can it become a theory. The study of global climate change was too new in the 70s for it to have been properly tested to become a theory.
The reason this is important, is because one often hears about a theory being proven wrong when in reality it was a Hypothesis that was proven wrong. People will then use this incorrect statement of a "theory being proved wrong" to suggest that other actual theories are on equally tenuous ground. The misuse of the word theory, when hypothesis should have been used, degrades the term. In science, unlike politics, the terms MUST be uniform, consistent, and as precise as possible. Otherwise arguments and discussions will end up running around in circles.
With all due respect to your 8th grade biology teacher, he has given you an archaic definition of the word theory. The problem with this definition is that it causes more confusion than it dispels. People like creation pseudo scientists will use it to point to the theory of evolution and claim that it's ONLY A
THEORY. Well, it's not called a theory because it there are doubts about it or because it hasn't been proven. It's called a theory of evolution because the definition of a theory is "body of principles" that explains something. Look the word up. Look at how it's used.
And the word "law" is no longer used because someone is always coming along and throwing a monkey wrench in the works. Take your example of Newton's "law of gravity". By your teacher's definition, it shouldn't be possible to prove a law wrong. But even Newton's "law of gravity" doesn't stand up in its entirety under the weight of the theories of relativity. (The "law of gravity" involves a lot more than the simple notion that what goes up must come down.)
1. Papaspot, you asked for expert opinion from scientists who don't believe in global warming, not a technical critique of them.
2. That list, as I said, was a short list of scientists who don't buy in, not an exhaustive one. No one has done a polling of scientific minds to determine statistically who buys in and who doesn't. To assert that most scientists believe a theory presumes to know with certainty how many do and don't believe and we simply don't know.
3. There is a fundamental flaw in your analogy to the 9/11 folks because most of the "experts" they use are speaking about topics they are not "experts" in. In their case you have mostly philosophy PHDs talking about engineering and physics. That isn't the case here, most of the people in that list are qualified to speak on the subject.
They may all be kooks, but if that was the point you were wanting to make all along you could have made it without having me waste my time looking them up.
The biggest reason I question the theory is that one of my best friends has a PHD in Geophysics and currently works for ONI. We have discussed this topic on multiple occasions and he has stated that the current computational methods for modeling geophysical events like climate change are fundamentally inadequate. Basically that we don't have the computing methods sufficient to make calculations that correctly model the earth, it's too complex.
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Just want to add a bit of clarity for people who arent versed in science. The media, and many careless scientists often misuse the word "theory".
I remember from my 8th grade biology class the stages of development are like so.
1. Idea or notion: (hmm this apple seems to have fallen to the ground pulled by some force)
2. Hypothesis: Presented as testable, able to be proven false and verifiable. The test is written and given an answer. (I think the apple fell because of...and here is how we can test for this) (according to mathematical models a large enough star will under certain conditions collapse and become so gravitationally dense that even light cannot escape"hypothesis for the existence of black hole")
3. Theory: Once a hypothesis has stood up to being argued against and repeated attempts to be proven wrong, can it become a theory. The test is given and the answer is tried to be disproven but stands. (Theory of gravity) (The model of a black hole stands up to scrutiny and arguments, possible canditates for a black hole are found using indirect evidence"theory for the existence of black holes")
4. Law: After time a theory can gain the status of law if it is sufficiently verified and stands up to repeated observational truthand consensus. (Law of Gravity) (a black hole is found and proven to exist "law of the existence of black holes" they are still only theories)
I am sure my examples are less than perfect lol, and its also important to note that there may not be a specific moment when say a hypothesis becomes a theory, or a theory a law.
The reason I am putting this up is because I see, even on this thread, examples of where the term "theory" is improperly used. In the Wikipedia article about Global Cooling it sates that it was a theory. It could not have been a theory at that time because only after a hypothesis has been formed and repeatedly tested can it become a theory. The study of global climate change was too new in the 70s for it to have been properly tested to become a theory.
The reason this is important, is because one often hears about a theory being proven wrong when in reality it was a Hypothesis that was proven wrong. People will then use this incorrect statement of a "theory being proved wrong" to suggest that other actual theories are on equally tenuous ground. The misuse of the word theory, when hypothesis should have been used, degrades the term. In science, unlike politics, the terms MUST be uniform, consistent, and as precise as possible. Otherwise arguments and discussions will end up running around in circles.
Well, it's not called a theory because there are doubts about it or because it hasn't been proven. It's called a theory of evolution because the definition of a theory is "body of principles" that explains something. Look the word up. Look at how it's used.
Take your example of Newton's "law of gravity". By your teacher's definition, it shouldn't be possible to prove a law wrong. But even Newton's "law of gravity" doesn't stand up in its entirety under the weight of the theories of relativity. (The "law of gravity" involves a lot more than the simple notion that what goes up must come down.)
My apologies, I was in a rush and didnt lay things out as they should have been. When you said a theory is a body of principles that explains something, I agree, what I was trying to get at was the stages of getting to those principles. One must have one or several hypothesis that then become those principles. Those principles have to come from somewhere and be proven to be principles first. Once hypothesis stand, then they become those principles or Theory.
Yes my "law of gravity" was a gross oversimplification, my bad.
What I think that I see in science these days is the lack of consistancy and prescision of usage of terms. And you know what, it gets them into trouble. They have fallen into the trap of using words too loosely, like the common person usually does. After all they are still people, but when I was a kid it was drilled into me that you MUST be as precise as possible when doing science. But here we are today with muddled meanings because they dont. I look at those Wikipedia definitions and shudder at how vague they often are. How common usage is accepted often over what was once specific usage.
One must also be aware that in different fields of science one word can have different meanings. One word or term as sociologist would use it may be different than the same words meaning in say anthropoogy or psychology. And all of those definitions could be specifically different than how it is commonly used. And each slight change in definion of the same word can be critically important in understanding what is going on.
Often times we get trapped by generalities or models. Like at one level in school you are taught that an atom is composed of electrons, neutrons and protons. A hydrogen atom is one proton and one electon zipping arount it. This model works for basic chemistry and visualization. But then when you get to say High School chemistry. Well I remember my chemistry teacher saying, "Remember all that stuff you learned about atoms? Forget it, its wrong" Then she spent the next hour scribbling X,Y,Z axis, valances, probability formulas and the like on several walls of blackboards lol. I just wanted to go back to grade school lol.
But my original contention stands. I believe that Global Cooling in the 70s was more in the league of a Hypothesis "at that time untested principles and formulations" not yet a Theory or set of accepted principles that had withstood scienific scrutiny.
Even by your "body of principles" definition you must contend that when the average person says "Well I have a theory about that" that that is not a real theory. Its more of a hypothesis or contention. This is common usage and many scientists also use the word this loosely and muddle, to their own detriment, the conversation and arguments. Thus allowing Inhofe his easy play. Perhaps its not his fault but the scientists fault for not being more precise as to what they are talking about.
I have it from a very reliable source that global warming is a result of the smoke from all of the weed these conspiracy theorists are smoking.[8D]
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I have it from a very reliable source that global warming is a result of the smoke from all of the weed these conspiracy theorists are smoking.[8D]
Now now, havent you learned anything? Wouldnt that be conspiracy hypothesists?[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
1. Papaspot, you asked for expert opinion from scientists who don't believe in global warming, not a technical critique of them.
I clicked on about a dozen and a half of the profiles and (of the few that weren't broken links) I didn't find a single person listed there that said that they don't believe in global warming. Perhaps you could narrow it down for me?
quote:
2. That list, as I said, was a short list of scientists who don't buy in, not an exhaustive one. No one has done a polling of scientific minds to determine statistically who buys in and who doesn't. To assert that most scientists believe a theory presumes to know with certainty how many do and don't believe and we simply don't know.
Spend some time in the scientific journals. You'll find lots of discussion about global warming. You WON'T find anyone saying that it doesn't exist.
quote:
3. There is a fundamental flaw in your analogy to the 9/11 folks because most of the "experts" they use are speaking about topics they are not "experts" in. In their case you have mostly philosophy PHDs talking about engineering and physics. That isn't the case here, most of the people in that list are qualified to speak on the subject.
And most of the people on the list give no indication that they don't believe in global warming.
quote:
They may all be kooks, but if that was the point you were wanting to make all along you could have made it without having me waste my time looking them up.
And how much time did you waste? A minute? A minute and a half?
quote:
The biggest reason I question the theory is that one of my best friends has a PHD in Geophysics and currently works for ONI. We have discussed this topic on multiple occasions and he has stated that the current computational methods for modeling geophysical events like climate change are fundamentally inadequate. Basically that we don't have the computing methods sufficient to make calculations that correctly model the earth, it's too complex.
When you're talking about computer modeling, you're talking about predictions for the FUTURE. It doesn't take a computer model to determine what's going on right now.
I know of no credible scientist that claims that we're not in a state of global warming. The evidence is there and its indisputable. There is some controversy as to how much of it is caused by human activity. But even there, the evidence is strong that human activity is at least a significant factor.
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2005/1128ice.shtml
Tiny air bubbles trapped in ice give a history of the earth's atmosphere kind of like tree rings give a history of weather. The current level of greenhouse gasses is 27% higher than the highest point in the last 650,000 years. That kinda suggests that a condition or conditions exist now that have never existed before (or at least not for the past 0.65 million years). Now, what could that be?
quote:
Tiny air bubbles trapped in ice give a history of the earth's atmosphere kind of like tree rings give a history of weather. The current level of greenhouse gasses is 27% higher than the highest point in the last 650,000 years. That kinda suggests that a condition or conditions exist now that have never existed before (or at least not for the past 0.65 million years). Now, what could that be?
That is assuming that the current scientific theories and procedures are correct and can accurately reflect what the air bubbles in the ice mean. Obviously, internal combustion engines and other sources that burn hydrocarbon fuels emit CO, CO2 and other gasses, but how can we be for certain this is causing global warming and it's not just another warming cycle in the life-cycle of the planet.
This is a whole lot of worry about nothing right now. The more imminent threat to us at the moment are the muslim extremists bent on destroying our way of life as we know it.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
The more imminent threat to us at the moment are the muslim extremists bent on destroying our way of life as we know it.
Not to mention those Christian extremists or Conservative extremists bent on destroying our way of life as we know it either. [;)]
Maybe I should have been more specific to say that they don't disbelieve in global warming. They are skeptical about the human factor so as to argue against jumping to conclusions and adopting massive changes that effect our economy like signing on to the Kyoto protocol. Sorry if you thought I was arguing otherwise or I made it sound like I was.
quote:
Tiny air bubbles trapped in ice give a history of the earth's atmosphere kind of like tree rings give a history of weather. The current level of greenhouse gasses is 27% higher than the highest point in the last 650,000 years. That kinda suggests that a condition or conditions exist now that have never existed before (or at least not for the past 0.65 million years). Now, what could that be?
Why don't we leave answers to questions like these up to experts who know what they are talking about unlike you and I who like to take "facts" like this possibly out of context to try and prove our point.
quote:
But even there, the evidence is strong that human activity is at least a significant factor.
Define significant. This is where I think the argument rests and where dueling experts come into play. If you are adamant about your position then provide us with some scientists who can quanitfy that statement and not make generalities.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Tiny air bubbles trapped in ice give a history of the earth's atmosphere kind of like tree rings give a history of weather. The current level of greenhouse gasses is 27% higher than the highest point in the last 650,000 years. That kinda suggests that a condition or conditions exist now that have never existed before (or at least not for the past 0.65 million years). Now, what could that be?
That is assuming that the current scientific theories and procedures are correct and can accurately reflect what the air bubbles in the ice mean. Obviously, internal combustion engines and other sources that burn hydrocarbon fuels emit CO, CO2 and other gasses, but how can we be for certain this is causing global warming and it's not just another warming cycle in the life-cycle of the planet.
This is a whole lot of worry about nothing right now. The more imminent threat to us at the moment are the muslim extremists bent on destroying our way of life as we know it.
Concentrations of CO2 in an air sample is not exactly unproven science. And it's been scientifically accepted for centuries that the further you drill down into the polar ice, the farther back you're looking. No, it's not "proven" to anyone that's determined to not believe it. I suppose that we could just ignore it and go on with business as usual until it's too late to reverse it.
As far as Muslim extremists go, I think that's in another thread somewhere.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
No one has done a polling of scientific minds to determine statistically who buys in and who doesn't. To assert that most scientists believe a theory presumes to know with certainty how many do and don't believe and we simply don't know.
Wrong.quote:
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Science Journal article regarding survey of 928 peer-reviewed studies (//%22http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686%22)
quote:
From NY Times Film Review: Perhaps the most amazing statistic in An Inconvenient Truth is that of 900-plus peer-reviewed studies in recognized journals, not one has challenged the idea of global warming, whereas more than 53 percent of articles in the mainstream media have presented it as a theory or been careful to include the demurrals of a tiny handful of bought-and-paid-for scientists or politicians.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Maybe I should have been more specific to say that they don't disbelieve in global warming. They are skeptical about the human factor so as to argue against jumping to conclusions and adopting massive changes that effect our economy like signing on to the Kyoto protocol. Sorry if you thought I was arguing otherwise or I made it sound like I was.
quote:
Tiny air bubbles trapped in ice give a history of the earth's atmosphere kind of like tree rings give a history of weather. The current level of greenhouse gasses is 27% higher than the highest point in the last 650,000 years. That kinda suggests that a condition or conditions exist now that have never existed before (or at least not for the past 0.65 million years). Now, what could that be?
Why don't we leave answers to questions like these up to experts who know what they are talking about unlike you and I who like to take "facts" like this possibly out of context to try and prove our point.
quote:
But even there, the evidence is strong that human activity is at least a significant factor.
Define significant. This is where I think the argument rests and where dueling experts come into play. If you are adamant about your position then provide us with some scientists who can quanitfy that statement and not make generalities.
I think the AAAS did a pretty good job of explaining what it meant even if we WERE idiots. (Why do you assume that I can't figure out what this means? I sure don't remember offering my credentials here.) But that's irrelevant anyway because it doesn't take a PhD. in physics to figure out that if the CO2 level in the atmosphere is 27% higher than it's been in over half a million years, something's going on that hasn't gone on before. Sure, global temperatures fluctuate and there are trends and cycles in that and many other things related to Earth science. But none of the cycles last anywhere NEAR 650,000 years. After 650,000 years, you're not talking about a cycle anymore.
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Tiny air bubbles trapped in ice give a history of the earth's atmosphere kind of like tree rings give a history of weather. The current level of greenhouse gasses is 27% higher than the highest point in the last 650,000 years. That kinda suggests that a condition or conditions exist now that have never existed before (or at least not for the past 0.65 million years). Now, what could that be?
That is assuming that the current scientific theories and procedures are correct and can accurately reflect what the air bubbles in the ice mean. Obviously, internal combustion engines and other sources that burn hydrocarbon fuels emit CO, CO2 and other gasses, but how can we be for certain this is causing global warming and it's not just another warming cycle in the life-cycle of the planet.
This is a whole lot of worry about nothing right now. The more imminent threat to us at the moment are the muslim extremists bent on destroying our way of life as we know it.
Concentrations of CO2 in an air sample is not exactly unproven science. And it's been scientifically accepted for centuries that the further you drill down into the polar ice, the farther back you're looking. No, it's not "proven" to anyone that's determined to not believe it. I suppose that we could just ignore it and go on with business as usual until it's too late to reverse it.
As far as Muslim extremists go, I think that's in another thread somewhere.
Considering that we've only been exploring the polar areas of the earth for about a century, not centuries, that pretty well shoots your statement down about drilling into polar ice for centuries.
Are you aware that you can create CO2 with acid and carbonate minerals which are commonly found in rocks and water? Are you aware that hydrochloric acid is a by-product of sodium choride (salt), which is abundant in sea water? Through various heating and cooling cycles over time, it is possible for the sea to create it's own CO2, as well as the normal plant life-cycle.
Collecting data from polar ice is based on theory.
It is easy to manipulate data to reflect what ever point a scientist wishes to prove. A scientist who sets out to prove there is global warming will eventually be able to prove it. A scientist who sets out to disprove global warming will eventually be able to dis-prove it.
If there had been an average rise in temperature over the last century of say, 10 degrees, then sure, I'd be more worried about it. In reality, what are we talking about, one degree in the last century?
The fact that carbon dioxide and methane levels were lower during the relatively mild warm periods of the two additional cycles, compared to the warmer warm periods of the last 400,000 years, is especially interesting for the study of climate sensitivity, which is a measure of how the climate system reacts when atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations double, explained Science author Dominique Raynaud from LGGE in Grenoble, France.
First, interesting how CO2 levels doubled in the past without human interaction.
Second, another simple question one might ask is why these "tiny bubbles" of air trapped in the ice seem to ignore Fick's Law of Diffusion (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fick's_law_of_diffusion%22). I do remember enough from my properties of materials class to remember that gasses can and do diffuse through a solid membrane. Sounds like a plausible scenario to me to explain why this is an unreliable method of measuring ancient CO2 levels, but what do I know since I don't read all the good scientific journals.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
If there had been an average rise in temperature over the last century of say, 10 degrees, then sure, I'd be more worried about it.
If there had been an average rise in temperature over the last century of "say, 10 degrees," I doubt you would be even slightly worried about it. You would probably be dead.
No one want to explain to me how Fick's Law doesn't apply?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Tiny air bubbles trapped in ice give a history of the earth's atmosphere kind of like tree rings give a history of weather. The current level of greenhouse gasses is 27% higher than the highest point in the last 650,000 years. That kinda suggests that a condition or conditions exist now that have never existed before (or at least not for the past 0.65 million years). Now, what could that be?
That is assuming that the current scientific theories and procedures are correct and can accurately reflect what the air bubbles in the ice mean. Obviously, internal combustion engines and other sources that burn hydrocarbon fuels emit CO, CO2 and other gasses, but how can we be for certain this is causing global warming and it's not just another warming cycle in the life-cycle of the planet.
This is a whole lot of worry about nothing right now. The more imminent threat to us at the moment are the muslim extremists bent on destroying our way of life as we know it.
Concentrations of CO2 in an air sample is not exactly unproven science. And it's been scientifically accepted for centuries that the further you drill down into the polar ice, the farther back you're looking. No, it's not "proven" to anyone that's determined to not believe it. I suppose that we could just ignore it and go on with business as usual until it's too late to reverse it.
As far as Muslim extremists go, I think that's in another thread somewhere.
Considering that we've only been exploring the polar areas of the earth for about a century, not centuries, that pretty well shoots your statement down about drilling into polar ice for centuries.
Oh my gosh!! I have exaggerated! You have completely refuted my point based on an exaggeration for effect!!
quote:
Are you aware that you can create CO2 with acid and carbonate minerals which are commonly found in rocks and water?
No! Seriously? Are you aware that there are a few major differences between rocks and ice?
quote:
Are you aware that hydrochloric acid is a by-product of sodium choride (salt), which is abundant in sea water? Through various heating and cooling cycles over time, it is possible for the sea to create it's own CO2, as well as the normal plant life-cycle.
So would you care to offer a theory of the mechanism of how this might have happened?
As far as the plant life-cycle, we're not talking about the rain forest here. We're talking about the polar cap. Plants are kinda sparse in that part of the world and a complete lack of fossil evidence suggests that it's been pretty devoid of plants for some time. (Like the last 650,000 years or so.)
quote:
Collecting data from polar ice is based on theory.
Pretty much like all the REST of science, wouldn't you say?
quote:
It is easy to manipulate data to reflect what ever point a scientist wishes to prove. A scientist who sets out to prove there is global warming will eventually be able to prove it. A scientist who sets out to disprove global warming will eventually be able to dis-prove it.
Okay, as a lawyer and an engineer, I expected iplaw to be very concise and exact in what he said yet he clarified that by "global warming" he didn't mean global warming but meant human induced warming. Is that what you mean? If you're going to talk with credibility about science, it's helpful if you say exactly what you mean so that there's no ambiguity. If you really ARE saying that we are not in a state of global warming, then I won't waste any more time arguing with you.
quote:
If there had been an average rise in temperature over the last century of say, 10 degrees, then sure, I'd be more worried about it. In reality, what are we talking about, one degree in the last century?
If we had had a ten degree rise in the average global temperature, even YOU would not be arguing that the science isn't there.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
The fact that carbon dioxide and methane levels were lower during the relatively mild warm periods of the two additional cycles, compared to the warmer warm periods of the last 400,000 years, is especially interesting for the study of climate sensitivity, which is a measure of how the climate system reacts when atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations double, explained Science author Dominique Raynaud from LGGE in Grenoble, France.
First, interesting how CO2 levels doubled in the past without human interaction.
Second, another simple question one might ask is why these "tiny bubbles" of air trapped in the ice seem to ignore Fick's Law of Diffusion (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fick's_law_of_diffusion%22). I do remember enough from my properties of materials class to remember that gasses can and do diffuse through a solid membrane. Sounds like a plausible scenario to me to explain why this is an unreliable method of measuring ancient CO2 levels, but what do I know since I don't read all the good scientific journals.
1. Fick's Law of Diffusion applies to a material in a mixture and you are trying to apply it to ice and CO2. They are not a mixture.
2. Yes, gasses CAN diffuse across a membrane. But a solid casing of ice is hardly a membrane.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
No one want to explain to me how Fick's Law doesn't apply?
I just did. Sorry that I wasn't fast enough for ya. I'll try to be faster next time. I mean, I know how rude it is to keep someone waiting on a message forum for TWENTY-SIX MINUTES while you reply to other posts. How shameful of me. I promise...it won't happen again.
quote:
1. Fick's Law of Diffusion applies to a material in a mixture and you are trying to apply it to ice and CO2. They are not a mixture.
Wrong, it relates equally as well to a scenario such as a two liter bottle of soda which can be analogized. Plastic bottle is the ice, soda contains CO2 like air trapped in the bubbles does. The membrane is much thicker in the sense of a glacier but the delta of time is MUCH greater 650,000 years which is plenty of time for diffusion to take effect.
quote:
2. Yes, gasses CAN diffuse across a membrane. But a solid casing of ice is hardly a membrane.
Wrong again. Gasses do diffuse through materials even as dense as metal such as hydrogen through palladium. You read too much into the term membrane it's not that restrictive. Don't believe me? Leave a can of your favorite beer in the pantry for a few years and crack it open to see what you get. NO BUBBLES. You are also assuming that glaciers just appeared as a solid block. They were formed with successive layers over years, each layer was itself subject to diffusion.
I am sure SOMEONE would have thought of the possibility that gases trapped in ice could change in relative concentration over time and would have taken that into account if needed. The fact that there are bubbles in the ice means that at least not all gases follow this flicks law in this instance.
As for the idea that the lower you go down into the ice, seems to me it cant be too far from the Law of Superposition, which dates from the 17th century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Superposition
Regardless of whether it layers or not, Fick's law actually INCREASES diffusion when pressure increases. Actually argues for my point and not against it.
quote:
The fact that there are bubbles in the ice means that at least not all gases follow this flicks law in this instance.
This statement is just dumb. It's not called a law if things don't behave accordingly. I never asserted that ALL gasses, 100% of the concentration would dissapear. It just happens to be that all those damn deltas in the eqations create too many variables, like time and pressure which we can't supply data for. I.E. the equation can't be solved without proper data.
quote:
I am sure SOMEONE would have thought of the possibility that gases trapped in ice could change in relative concentration over time and would have taken that into account if needed.
And you would think that scientists would remember to convert units before making calculations too wouldn't you. Surely SOMEONE would have caught this.
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
1. Fick's Law of Diffusion applies to a material in a mixture and you are trying to apply it to ice and CO2. They are not a mixture.
Wrong, it relates equally as well to a scenario such as a two liter bottle of soda which can be analogized. Plastic bottle is the ice, soda contains CO2 like air trapped in the bubbles does. The membrane is much thicker in the sense of a glacier but the delta of time is MUCH greater 650,000 years which is plenty of time for diffusion to take effect.
Wrong. It is concentrations that are being measured. Yes, a minute amount of CO2 will escape the bubbles...along with minute amounts of the OTHER gasses involved. A concentration is a RATIO. You conveniently overlook that fact.
quote:
2. Yes, gasses CAN diffuse across a membrane. But a solid casing of ice is hardly a membrane.
quote:
Wrong again. Gasses do diffuse through materials even as dense as metal such as hydrogen through palladium. You read too much into the term membrane it's not that restrictive. Don't believe me? Leave a can of your favorite beer in the pantry for a few years and crack it open to see what you get. NO BUBBLES. You are also assuming that glaciers just appeared as a solid block. They were formed with successive layers over years, each layer was itself subject to diffusion.
That's a pretty wild assumption. When they make a beer can without seams, your analogy might be relevant. And again, you completely and conveniently ignore the fact that we are talking about ratios--partial pressures, not total content.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Regardless of whether it layers or not, Fick's law actually INCREASES diffusion when pressure increases. Actually argues for my point and not against it.
You ignore the fact that the casing also increases in density with the increase in pressure. An increase in density causes a decrease in diffusion. This would be important if not for the fact that we are STILL talking about concentrations and NOT total quantities of CO2.
By the way, iplaw, I'm disappointed in you. After chiding us for not responding to you fast enough, it took you THIRTY-SEVEN MINUTES to respond. [}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
The fact that there are bubbles in the ice means that at least not all gases follow this flicks law in this instance.
This statement is just dumb. It's not called a law if things don't behave accordingly. I never asserted that ALL gasses, 100% of the concentration would dissapear. It just happens to be that all those damn deltas in the eqations create too many variables, like time and pressure which we can't supply data for. I.E. the equation can't be solved without proper data.
quote:
I am sure SOMEONE would have thought of the possibility that gases trapped in ice could change in relative concentration over time and would have taken that into account if needed.
And you would think that scientists would remember to convert units before making calculations too wouldn't you.
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/
Things dont always have to appear to obey one law. Other possibilities or laws can interfere. Take the law of superposition, older layers on the bottom, younger on top, but if you have a thrust fault, folding, inclusions,etc. what you will find is an example of lower layer that is younger than the one on top. This doesnt negate the first law just means you have to be on the look out for the exceptions.
As for that spacecraft incedent, puleeeeze. Thats why you do multiple tests, blind tests, have different labs do the tests, scientists argue against the tests etc. They know mistakes are going to be made. Eventually you get a consensus or more than one spacecraft into orbit lol.[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
The fact that there are bubbles in the ice means that at least not all gases follow this flicks law in this instance.
This statement is just dumb. It's not called a law if things don't behave accordingly. I never asserted that ALL gasses, 100% of the concentration would dissapear. It just happens to be that all those damn deltas in the eqations create too many variables, like time and pressure which we can't supply data for. I.E. the equation can't be solved without proper data.
quote:
I am sure SOMEONE would have thought of the possibility that gases trapped in ice could change in relative concentration over time and would have taken that into account if needed.
And you would think that scientists would remember to convert units before making calculations too wouldn't you. Surely SOMEONE would have caught this.
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/
Lemme guess...Republican? You're comparing a mistake made by a couple of engineers to something that has been reviewed by MANY scientists. You got that spin thing goin' real good for ya.
You speak of air like it's a singular molecule and not a homogeneus mixture of different molecules. It is totally possible for the ratio of molecules to be changed based upon the nature of the membrane it passes through, I.E. local variations in the crystaline structure of the ice surrounding it allowing smaller molecules to pass more easily than the larger ones. Again, yet another variable.
Lemme guess, Democrat? No that was a blunder by an entire team of NASA scientists not just a couple. Those who failed to check their work are as guilty as those who made the mistakes. Nice spin though.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
You speak of air like it's a singular molecule and not a homogeneus mixture of different molecules. It is totally possible for the ratio of molecules to be changed based upon the nature of the membrane it passes through, I.E. local variations in the crystaline structure of the ice surrounding it allowing smaller molecules to pass more easily than the larger ones. Again, yet another variable.
And the variables are accounted for in the calculations. You talk about laws being consistent...the rate of diffusion is calculable. The bottom line is that you will ignore any evidence that's inconvenient because you've decided that you will accept the right-wing assertion that there's nothing that humans are doing or can do to alter the atmosphere. It's the same line that the 9/11 conspiracy folks take. If you are determined enough to believe something, you will always be able to make a mountain out of a molehill of evidence while ignoring a mountain of evidence.
But it's all a big conspiracy by the govern...er...liberal scientists of the world in order to deprive oil companies of their well deserved profit, right?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Lemme guess, Democrat?
Wrong again. Libertarian.
quote:
No that was a blunder by an entire team of NASA scientists not just a couple. Those who failed to check their work are as guilty as those who made the mistakes. Nice spin though.
It was a blunder by people who FAILED to check it...not by thousands of scientists who checked it and misinterpreted the data. You spin it like it's a great analogy. It isn't. It's a piss poor analogy with a nice wax job.
quote:
the variables are accounted for in the calculations. You talk about laws being consistent...the rate of diffusion is calculable. The bottom line is that you will ignore any evidence that's inconvenient because you've decided that you will accept the right-wing assertion that there's nothing that humans are doing or can do to alter the atmosphere. It's the same line that the 9/11 conspiracy folks take. If you are determined enough to believe something, you will always be able to make a mountain out of a molehill of evidence while ignoring a mountain of evidence.
Nice dodge. I haven't made up my mind any more than you buy the dem version hook line and sinker.
So now this study was conducted by thousands of scientists? To assert that complex endevors like NASA projects don't go through layers of review is a joke.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
You speak of air like it's a singular molecule and not a homogeneus mixture of different molecules. It is totally possible for the ratio of molecules to be changed based upon the nature of the membrane it passes through, I.E. local variations in the crystaline structure of the ice surrounding it allowing smaller molecules to pass more easily than the larger ones. Again, yet another variable.
Absolutely, that was my point, and I am sure these changes occur at predictable rates. I am no scientist but that is the very first thing I thought of when someone mentioned measuring the gases in ice bubbles. And I can think of several more variables as well. I can only assume those who are actually thinking of how to do these tests would have thought of something an amateur like myself would find obvious to check for. I am just an artist for goodness sake lol.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
the variables are accounted for in the calculations. You talk about laws being consistent...the rate of diffusion is calculable. The bottom line is that you will ignore any evidence that's inconvenient because you've decided that you will accept the right-wing assertion that there's nothing that humans are doing or can do to alter the atmosphere. It's the same line that the 9/11 conspiracy folks take. If you are determined enough to believe something, you will always be able to make a mountain out of a molehill of evidence while ignoring a mountain of evidence.
Nice dodge. I haven't made up my mind any more than you buy the dem version hook line and sinker.
The difference is that I base my conclusions on the SCIENCE. You base yours on the politics. What kind of neo-con would you be if you didn't deny human induced global warming? You'd be laughed right out of the Elk's club.
No you base your SCIENCE on scientists who support your position, many of who stand to profit from their positions by increased funding. Experts disagree or we there wouldn't be a fricken debate going on about it right now. Global warming is a FACT. Human causality is NOT.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
So now this study was conducted by thousands of scientists? To assert that complex endevors like NASA projects don't go through layers of review is a joke.
Oh, you're GOOD! What spinning! What TWISTING!! You really should have been an acrobat!
No, counselor, the whole global warming thing has been examined by thousands of scientists.
Are you SURE that you're a lawyer and an engineer? I mean, did you REALLY misunderstand that or were you just spinning? If you honestly didn't understand it, I find it hard to believe that you could have made it through law school, let alone a college of engineering. I realize that engineers aren't scientists but they're not exactly stupid.
But ya don't really seem stupid so I'm guessing that you understood but were just spinning things your way.
Yada yada yada papaspot, attack me all you want but at least I'm not dodging the debate, by declaring it's over cause someone else told you it was.
Yes, it's been covered by MANY scientists and there is no consensus despite what you say. Saying it louder or attacking me isn't helping your point.
BTW thanks for editing to add that last line, cause it was getting nasty and personal and not your typical attitude. Goes to show this is a charged debate at least.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Yada yada yada papaspot, attack me all you want
'Scuse me, pot?
quote:
but at least I'm not dodging the debate, by declaring it's over cause someone else told you it was.
Neither am I. What's your point? Oh, wait! Spin! That's right. I said it's all over because you say that I said it's all over.
quote:
Yes, it's been covered by MANY scientists and there is no consensus despite what you say. Saying it louder or attacking me isn't helping your point.
No one's attacking you, Skippy. I just pointed out the FACT that you're doing more spinning than anything else--just like you're doing NOW.
quote:
BTW thanks for editing to add that last line, cause it was getting nasty and personal and not your typical attitude. Goes to show this is a charged debate at least.
I didn't add the last line to cool things down. I added the last line because I believe it. You're NOT stupid. In fact, I consider you to to be pretty sharp. That's the point I was making. You DIDN'T misunderstand what I said, you were just trying to spin it.
Couple of todays articles from one of my daily science website reads.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060727180326.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060727180833.htm
Here is another article for today.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyid=2006-07-31T185105Z_01_N31362626_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-HURRICANES.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
Damn NOAA!
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Here is another article for today.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyid=2006-07-31T185105Z_01_N31362626_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-HURRICANES.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
Damn NOAA!
Did you read your link? All it said was that there wasn't a consensus as to whether global warming was causing more powerful hurricanes. I haven't seen anyone say in this thread that it's a foregone conclusion that global warming is causing more powerful hurricanes.
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Tiny air bubbles trapped in ice give a history of the earth's atmosphere kind of like tree rings give a history of weather. The current level of greenhouse gasses is 27% higher than the highest point in the last 650,000 years. That kinda suggests that a condition or conditions exist now that have never existed before (or at least not for the past 0.65 million years). Now, what could that be?
That is assuming that the current scientific theories and procedures are correct and can accurately reflect what the air bubbles in the ice mean. Obviously, internal combustion engines and other sources that burn hydrocarbon fuels emit CO, CO2 and other gasses, but how can we be for certain this is causing global warming and it's not just another warming cycle in the life-cycle of the planet.
This is a whole lot of worry about nothing right now. The more imminent threat to us at the moment are the muslim extremists bent on destroying our way of life as we know it.
Concentrations of CO2 in an air sample is not exactly unproven science. And it's been scientifically accepted for centuries that the further you drill down into the polar ice, the farther back you're looking. No, it's not "proven" to anyone that's determined to not believe it. I suppose that we could just ignore it and go on with business as usual until it's too late to reverse it.
As far as Muslim extremists go, I think that's in another thread somewhere.
Considering that we've only been exploring the polar areas of the earth for about a century, not centuries, that pretty well shoots your statement down about drilling into polar ice for centuries.
Oh my gosh!! I have exaggerated! You have completely refuted my point based on an exaggeration for effect!!
The whole global warming argument is an exaggeration of scientific data
quote:
Are you aware that you can create CO2 with acid and carbonate minerals which are commonly found in rocks and water?
No! Seriously? Are you aware that there are a few major differences between rocks and ice?
quote:
Are you aware that hydrochloric acid is a by-product of sodium choride (salt), which is abundant in sea water? Through various heating and cooling cycles over time, it is possible for the sea to create it's own CO2, as well as the normal plant life-cycle.
So would you care to offer a theory of the mechanism of how this might have happened?
As far as the plant life-cycle, we're not talking about the rain forest here. We're talking about the polar cap. Plants are kinda sparse in that part of the world and a complete lack of fossil evidence suggests that it's been pretty devoid of plants for some time. (Like the last 650,000 years or so.)
Ahhh, yes, there aren't very many CO2-producing vehicles in the polar regions either. You are talking about "global" warming aren't you? What part of the poles are not included in the globe, or did I flunk that part of geography? Gasses have always and will always be dispersed about the globe.
quote:
Collecting data from polar ice is based on theory.
Pretty much like all the REST of science, wouldn't you say?
quote:
It is easy to manipulate data to reflect what ever point a scientist wishes to prove. A scientist who sets out to prove there is global warming will eventually be able to prove it. A scientist who sets out to disprove global warming will eventually be able to dis-prove it.
Okay, as a lawyer and an engineer, I expected iplaw to be very concise and exact in what he said yet he clarified that by "global warming" he didn't mean global warming but meant human induced warming. Is that what you mean? If you're going to talk with credibility about science, it's helpful if you say exactly what you mean so that there's no ambiguity. If you really ARE saying that we are not in a state of global warming, then I won't waste any more time arguing with you.
quote:
If there had been an average rise in temperature over the last century of say, 10 degrees, then sure, I'd be more worried about it. In reality, what are we talking about, one degree in the last century?
If we had had a ten degree rise in the average global temperature, even YOU would not be arguing that the science isn't there.
I agree with IPLAW's explaination of the diffusion of the gasses. Pressure from new layers of ice will eventually become heavy enough to further compact older ice, therefore pushing out gasses and air- this also is true of about every other substance known to man- put enough pressure on it and eventually there will be no room for gasses, so IMO, the "core mining" in the polar regions really tells us nothing reliable about the air quality 650,000 years ago.
Okay, we aren't in a state of global warming...let's see if that gets you to calm down.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Okay, we aren't in a state of global warming...let's see if that gets you to calm down.
ROFL!! YOU seem to be the one doing all the yelling. Why are you telling ME to calm down?
You can claim all you want to that we aren't in a state of global warming. That doesn't change the facts. Show me a single credible scientist that says that we aren't in a state of global warming. You don't appear to know much about science, though.
Pat Robertson bails on InhofeFrom American Family Association:
quote:
...Televangelist Pat Robertson says he hasn't been a believer in global warming in the past, but this summer's record-breaking heat is, quote: "making a convert out of me." On his 700 Club broadcast, Robertson said, "It is getting hotter, and the icecaps are melting and there is a buildup of carbon dioxide in the air." Switching sides on an issue that divides evangelical Christians, Robertson said, "We really need to address the burning of fossil fuels." The religious broadcaster told viewers, "If we are contributing to the destruction of this planet, we need to do something about it."
[more] (//%22http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/8/afa/32006h.asp%22)
It's a sin (//%22http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2281620,00.html%22)
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
It's a sin (//%22http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2281620,00.html%22)
Wow! Can you imagine the look of shock on the peoples faces if they heard a sermon like that at some of these suburban mega churches here? The parking lots are virtually a sea of sin. Imagine the irony of walking up to your huge SUV or Hummer with the Jesus sticker on it after hearing that. They would likely vote to get rid of the pastor lol.
Actually, there has been a fairly solid "Green" evangelical movement going for quite a while, here's a NY Times article from last February:
Evangelical Leaders Join Global Warming Initiative (//%22http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/national/08warm.html?ex=1154836800&en=6ba80585394d27ca&ei=5070%22)
Robertson's johnny-come-lately endorsement of the movement could be a real tipping point. Its ironic that it would take a particular heat wave, i.e. something that is virtually impossible to scientifically link to global warming, to get him to weigh in. On one level, it shows how unimportant science (as opposed to "truthiness (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness%22)") is to certain people.
But I welcome the endorsement. I always considered him an evangelical Dispensationalist (//%22http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004/10/27/scherer-christian/%22)...an "end is near" type.
Many of that vein believe in global warming, but think that it is hastening the apocolypse and it is therefore unproductive and even un-christian, to interfere. Its extremely comforting to hear somebody from that camp, for whatever reason, say that we shouldn't be, "...contributing to the destruction of the planet".
Sometimes you can be so far to the right you come out on the left.....
Strange. Who tricked these extremists into a theatre to see Al Gore's movie?
1. The sun is hotter. Period. This fact cannot be denied. The sun is going through a lengthy period of increased activity that causes it to radiate more heat into space. Is it really that hard to believe that a hotter sun would lead to a hotter earth?
2. Our polar ice caps are melting? Sure looks like it. But .. the polar ice caps on Mars are melting also. So, are we to believe that this is caused by man on the Earth but by the hotter sun on Mars?
3. And while we're talking about ice caps melting, it's worth noting that the ice pack in the heart of Antarctica is actually getting thicker!
4. Scientific data clearly shows that the Earth has undergone warming and cooling cycles for millions of years. Why, all of a sudden, does a warming cycle just have to be caused by the actions of man?
5. Scientists who work on government grants are more inclined to blame global warming on the actions of man than are scientists who do not depend on continued government (political) funding.
6. And just how much warmer has our atmosphere become in the last 100 years? One degree. That's it. Just one degree.
7. Many of the people who are so involved in promoting the man-made global warming theme are people who are also involved in anti-capitalist movements. So, what is their true goal? Do they want to solve the global warming problem, or do they want to cripple the capitalist systems they so hate?
8. The U.S. Senate snubbed the Kyoto treaty by a vote of 99-0. This was during the Clinton years! What did these 99 senators know about the Kyoto Accords that we don't know?
9. Speaking of the Kyoto accords, they would severely impact the U.S. economy, but would leave China absolutely alone! China has one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Since a huge number of Kyoto proponents can also be called anti-American, could this cause you to wonder what the true goal of Kyoto is?
And just how many years ago was it that these very same scientists were warming us about the earth getting cooler?
It is fascinating that so many are becoming environmentalists. It brings worth to my lifetime career of propaganda.
The "Green" movement has been blitzed in the last 12 months with interest. Many envangelical groups have been calling my office, architects and builders are creating all kinds of demand for green products, even mainstream media is buying in. Newsweek Magazine did a full cover story two weeks and Fortune magazine cover story this week on a company embracing the sustainable movement.
I am going to present at the September 15th Oklahoma Sustainability Conference held at the Tulsa Convention Center on this topic.
My speech is titled "Green...it's the new Red, White and Blue".
quote:
Originally posted by LilMikey
1. The sun is hotter. Period. This fact cannot be denied. The sun is going through a lengthy period of increased activity that causes it to radiate more heat into space. Is it really that hard to believe that a hotter sun would lead to a hotter earth?
2. Our polar ice caps are melting? Sure looks like it. But .. the polar ice caps on Mars are melting also. So, are we to believe that this is caused by man on the Earth but by the hotter sun on Mars?
3. And while we're talking about ice caps melting, it's worth noting that the ice pack in the heart of Antarctica is actually getting thicker!
4. Scientific data clearly shows that the Earth has undergone warming and cooling cycles for millions of years. Why, all of a sudden, does a warming cycle just have to be caused by the actions of man?
5. Scientists who work on government grants are more inclined to blame global warming on the actions of man than are scientists who do not depend on continued government (political) funding.
6. And just how much warmer has our atmosphere become in the last 100 years? One degree. That's it. Just one degree.
7. Many of the people who are so involved in promoting the man-made global warming theme are people who are also involved in anti-capitalist movements. So, what is their true goal? Do they want to solve the global warming problem, or do they want to cripple the capitalist systems they so hate?
8. The U.S. Senate snubbed the Kyoto treaty by a vote of 99-0. This was during the Clinton years! What did these 99 senators know about the Kyoto Accords that we don't know?
9. Speaking of the Kyoto accords, they would severely impact the U.S. economy, but would leave China absolutely alone! China has one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Since a huge number of Kyoto proponents can also be called anti-American, could this cause you to wonder what the true goal of Kyoto is?
And just how many years ago was it that these very same scientists were warming us about the earth getting cooler?
1. Source?
2. Source?
3. Source?
4. Source?
5. Source?
etc...
quote:
Originally posted by LilMikey
1. The sun is hotter. Period. This fact cannot be denied. The sun is going through a lengthy period of increased activity that causes it to radiate more heat into space. Is it really that hard to believe that a hotter sun would lead to a hotter earth?
2. Our polar ice caps are melting? Sure looks like it. But .. the polar ice caps on Mars are melting also. So, are we to believe that this is caused by man on the Earth but by the hotter sun on Mars?
3. And while we're talking about ice caps melting, it's worth noting that the ice pack in the heart of Antarctica is actually getting thicker!
4. Scientific data clearly shows that the Earth has undergone warming and cooling cycles for millions of years. Why, all of a sudden, does a warming cycle just have to be caused by the actions of man?
5. Scientists who work on government grants are more inclined to blame global warming on the actions of man than are scientists who do not depend on continued government (political) funding.
6. And just how much warmer has our atmosphere become in the last 100 years? One degree. That's it. Just one degree.
7. Many of the people who are so involved in promoting the man-made global warming theme are people who are also involved in anti-capitalist movements. So, what is their true goal? Do they want to solve the global warming problem, or do they want to cripple the capitalist systems they so hate?
8. The U.S. Senate snubbed the Kyoto treaty by a vote of 99-0. This was during the Clinton years! What did these 99 senators know about the Kyoto Accords that we don't know?
9. Speaking of the Kyoto accords, they would severely impact the U.S. economy, but would leave China absolutely alone! China has one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Since a huge number of Kyoto proponents can also be called anti-American, could this cause you to wonder what the true goal of Kyoto is?
And just how many years ago was it that these very same scientists were warming us about the earth getting cooler?
Goodness, what a bevy of wrong info you must have run into. Where to start...
Reply to 1.
Yes the sun has fluctuations that cause more or less radiation to reach the earth. These obvious factors have been added to researchers equations when looking at global warming and the extent of possible human causes.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990408/
Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun did have an effect on global warming.
He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarming/warming2.html
For #2.
Has some info about the "Mars thing".http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/
For #3.
It was thought that the ice pack in Antarctica could be getting thicker. Just read a study a week or so ago that said to the scientists suprise this wasnt so. One notion for why some places should be getting more snow is that as the earth gets warmer there is more moisture in the atmosphere to fall as snow. As you may know its veeery cold in some places, it only needs to be at freezing for it to snow. Some places are waaay below freezing so even if they get warmer they can still be below freezing but possibly have more moisture in the air to freeze, thus more snow even though its warmer. So you may even see more snow in parts of the US during winter, as long as its still cold enough to freeze as snow. Say if its normally 27 F but instead its 28 F, its still cold enough to snow.
This is not the most recent article I was talking about but it works lol.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060317112333.htm
For #4.
Yes the earth does go through cycles of temperature change. And no it doesnt have to be because of human activity. Mt Pinatubo eruption caused global temperatures to drop for a couple years. We understood why, there was a direct correlation etc. We also know what greenhouse gases do, its easy math and chemistry. And we can keep trying to factor in other causes of natural temperature changes to find out the balance, to add or subtract each factors effect and see just how much an effect greenhouse gasses are having in the aggregate. We also note that the temperatures seem to be changing/rising far quicker than appears to be usual in any historic records or scientific data we can find. So they are looking for all the possible causes, and perhaps if it has actually happened before so quickly to try and determine just how much an impact we are having.
One thing to also note, even though the effect of temperature change by man may be minor
so far. What worries people most is whats going to happen if current trends continue for the next 50 or 100 years. Also, when balancing out the possible variations of, sun, pollution, deforestation, clouds, volcanoes, etc. the effects that those things have on the environment are often smaller than the effects that our measurable and most likely increased, output of CO2 and other greenhouse gases can have over the next generation.
Say the sun is getting warmer, we can measure it but its still not accounting for what temperature changes are occuring. We know that greenhouse gasses make the earth warmer, they cant not, its what they do lol. And even if it is getting warmer because of the sun, why keep adding wood to the fire so to speak? Wouldnt that be all the more reason to lessen the known impact of manmade greenhouse gasses?
I could keep going, but I want to get out and enjoy my evening lol. Its Friday!!!! woo hooo[8D]
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I could keep going, but I want to get out and enjoy my evening lol. Its Friday!!!! woo hooo[8D]
Just for fun and amusement, I'll take it up where you left off.
quote:
Originally posted by LilMikey
5. Scientists who work on government grants are more inclined to blame global warming on the actions of man than are scientists who do not depend on continued government (political) funding.
Scientists who work for and/or hold stock in the petroleum and coal industries are more inclined to deny that global warming is contributed to by the actions of man than those that don't depend on petroleum and coal industries for income.
quote:
6. And just how much warmer has our atmosphere become in the last 100 years? One degree. That's it. Just one degree.
Well, I gotta admit that it sounds pretty insignificant when you spin it like THAT. But the truth is that the biggest part of that increase came in the last few years of the last 100 years. You also ignore the fact that the rate of increase was (and will be) exponential due to the greenhouse effect. The increase for the last 100 years was one degree. The predicted increase for the NEXT 100 years (LESS than 100 years, actually) is between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees.
National Geographic (//%22http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0420_040420_earthday.html%22)
Do a little research and see what effect this will have on sea levels and what effect each foot in rise of sea levels will have on high population areas like the eastern seaboard.
quote:
7. Many of the people who are so involved in promoting the man-made global warming theme are people who are also involved in anti-capitalist movements. So, what is their true goal? Do they want to solve the global warming problem, or do they want to cripple the capitalist systems they so hate?
Many of the people who are involved in denying man-made global warming are also involved in promoting the health and profit of big oil. They want to turn America into an aristocracy because they hate America like she is. (That sounds pretty absurd but it's no more ludicrous than your argument.
quote:
8. The U.S. Senate snubbed the Kyoto treaty by a vote of 99-0. This was during the Clinton years! What did these 99 senators know about the Kyoto Accords that we don't know?
LOL! Yes, we all know that the Senate (and Congress in general) is ALWAYS INFORMED of all issues before they vote. [}:)]
In response to your spin about the vote being during the Clinton Administration, I won't bother to steal the thunder from your spin by pointing out that this was done by a REPUBLICAN Senate because many Democratic senators ALSO received large campaign donations from petroleum industry lobbyists.
quote:
9. Speaking of the Kyoto accords, they would severely impact the U.S. economy, but would leave China absolutely alone! China has one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Since a huge number of Kyoto proponents can also be called anti-American, could this cause you to wonder what the true goal of Kyoto is?
And just how many years ago was it that these very same scientists were warming us about the earth getting cooler?
If you didn't destroy your credibility with invalid points and spin, you reveal your true mentality with this "anti-American" bull crap. It takes a very arrogant and narrow-minded mental midget to ASSume that disagreeing with a right winger equates to being "anti-American". You wanna know what's "anti-American"? Crapping all over our children and grand children's future just so big oil can make obscene profits is "anti-American". Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it.
Some evolutionists put the earth's age ay millions of years. Creationists, however, put the earth's age at between 5 and ten thousand. Just for the sake of arguement let's assume the creationist theory is correct and the earth is only about ten thousand years old. (Remember, this is only for an example.)
Out of ten thousand years, we have only had the technology to "detect" global warming for about 50 years (75 tops), that makes the above figures 50 in 10,000 (roughly putting the odds at 1 in 200).
Ain't it wonderful that we just happened to discover this technology just in the nick of time to avert a catastrophic demise? (For those of you who couldn't figure it out, I am being sarcastic here.)
One creative person took my points and put
1. Source?
2. Source?
3. Source?
4. Source?
etc. You get the idea.
For the sun getting warmer, I Googled "Is the Sun Getting Warmer?" What came up were literally thousands of websites (including NASA) each providing evidence that the sun is indeed getting warmer.
Furthermore, the current scientists conveniently forget that the earth has indeed warmed up tremendously BEFORE we had the technology. Events like the Oklahoma Dustbowl occurred before we even knew what the greenhouse effect was.
The science at best just seems a little too convenient, if not self-serving for personal political interests.
Who's to say whether scientists have a political axe to grind?
Other than the Bush Administration being demonstrably hostile to science in general.
Never mind.
quote:
Originally posted by LilMikey
Some evolutionists put the earth's age ay millions of years. Creationists, however, put the earth's age at between 5 and ten thousand. Just for the sake of arguement let's assume the creationist theory is correct and the earth is only about ten thousand years old. (Remember, this is only for an example.)
Out of ten thousand years, we have only had the technology to "detect" global warming for about 50 years (75 tops), that makes the above figures 50 in 10,000 (roughly putting the odds at 1 in 200).
LOL! Can you say "circular argument"? You base your argument on an assumption that most people do not accept and then use the assumption as evidence.
quote:
Ain't it wonderful that we just happened to discover this technology just in the nick of time to avert a catastrophic demise? (For those of you who couldn't figure it out, I am being sarcastic here.)
You don't keep up with science much, do ya? This is not new technology.
quote:
One creative person took my points and put
1. Source?
2. Source?
3. Source?
4. Source?
etc. You get the idea.
You seem to be about the only one that has yet to offer a single source.
quote:
For the sun getting warmer, I Googled "Is the Sun Getting Warmer?" What came up were literally thousands of websites (including NASA) each providing evidence that the sun is indeed getting warmer.
Already addressed. Already refuted.
quote:
Furthermore, the current scientists conveniently forget that the earth has indeed warmed up tremendously BEFORE we had the technology. Events like the Oklahoma Dustbowl occurred before we even knew what the greenhouse effect was.
Did you bother to read my post? Did you bother to read anyone's sources? Did you bother to read ANYTHING?
Ya know what? People used to believe that people with epilepsy were possessed by demons. How CONVENIENT that they discovered that demons WEREN'T the cause
just in time to prevent some people from being locked up for demon possession. Coincidence? I don't THINK so!
The greenhouse effect was pretty mild in the dust bowl days. And NO one has said that there are not cyclic fluctuations. But the fact that some greenhouse gasses are 27% HIGHER than they've been in over a half million years (before which no one has yet been able to measure) suggests very strongly that this is a little more than a fluctuation.
quote:
The science at best just seems a little too convenient, if not self-serving for personal political interests.
Political interests? You mean political interests like oil company profits?
More....off topic to some degree. Now our over the hill senator claims there is no nor will be civil war in Iraq. What a joke.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=060805_Ne_A1_Inhof6004_0
CODE BLUE
Could global warming melt the Republican majority?
http://www.slate.com/id/2146980/
Make okies look big across the nation by calling for Senator Inhofe's resignation.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=060805_Ne_A1_Inhof6004_0
How does one go about removing a Senator from his high horse office?
Rummy too....
http://www.internetweekly.org/2006/08/cartoon_rummy_comics.html
Again,
Yes the sun has been getting warmer. But the percentage of that warming is not enough to account for the amount of warming that has been noticed.
Also the warming (indicated by sunspot activity) has leveled off yet the earth has still been been getting even warmer.
We KNOW what greenhouse gases do. Just like we KNOW what the sun does. More of either push it to be warmer. No matter what planet you are on.
If you could decrease the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere you could make the earth colder despite the sun warming. You could make venus colder than the earth if you removed enough greenhouse gases and Mars warmer than the earth if you added enough. Yes the sun has an effect but so do greenhouse gasses. And we are putting more into the atmosphere, Are we not?
The real questions are.... Whats the extent or degree of the effect our greenhouse gases are having on the earth when ALSO considering natural and manmade cooling and heating effects? Aaand is this causing AND OR exacerbating what we have been seeing?
The amount of increased warming from the sun is not enough to account for the warming thats been seen.
I am not at the point where I know if the balance of all the natural and man made warming and cooling effects can prove that what we are doing is causing this recent warming trend. But from the info I have seen, more and more the evidence keeps pointing in that direction. Time, and more info, will tell.
Yes, Papaspot - this is relatively new technology.
Almost ALL major technology that we currently enjoy has only been in existance since the 1950's - - - 1930's at the earliest. The actual technology being used as sensory techniques as well as data storage is even newer. If you can think of ANY technology we are using which was invented before the time frame I've mentioned, I would certainly be interested in hearing about it. Again, using the creationist theory (and it is ONLY a theory), we just developed this technology just in the nick of time . . .
And as far as using the creationist example, I was simply going by the youngest estimates. If you use the oldest estimates, my point is even more vivid (the odds are much longer).
Before we ever invented the idea of global warming, the record high temperature ever recotred was in 1922 when the mercury climbed to 132 in Lybia The highest ever recorded in the United States was in 1913 when it reached 134 in Death Valley. Both records ocurred before the Chicken Little science was introduced, and since then we haven't come close to breaking the records. (And for those who yell about my sources, use Google. It will take you to a lot of sites like weather.com, NOAA and so forth. But if you type in "global warming," most of what you will find are left-wing groups; very little science.)
Also, I know one other thing people love to yeall about is that our polar caps are melting. Well, guess what. The polar caps are also melting on Mars. Global warming warming there too?
And yes, some of the scientists have political agendas, too. After all, most of them are in competition for government funding - the more doomsday forecasts their data can produce, the more money they can coax from the system.
One more thing, everytime we have a hurricane, someone blames it on global warming. Harsh winters have been blamed on global warming. Too much rain has been blamed on global warming. Not enough rain has been blamed on global warming. Too many tornadoes - global warming. So many claims, and the believability factor completely falls out of site.
quote:
Originally posted by LilMikey
Yes, Papaspot - this is relatively new technology.
Almost ALL major technology that we currently enjoy has only been in existance since the 1950's - - - 1930's at the earliest. The actual technology being used as sensory techniques as well as data storage is even newer. If you can think of ANY technology we are using which was invented before the time frame I've mentioned, I would certainly be interested in hearing about it. Again, using the creationist theory (and it is ONLY a theory), we just developed this technology just in the nick of time . . .
1930s? LOL! You DON'T keep up with going on in science. I would hardly call a scientific technology from the 1930s NEW.
quote:
And as far as using the creationist example, I was simply going by the youngest estimates. If you use the oldest estimates, my point is even more vivid (the odds are much longer).
You like to ignore the fact that the technology and studies can determine greenhouse gas levels up to 600,000 years ago. Where did you ever get the idea that they have only been able to determine the composition of the atmosphere back to the 1930s?
quote:
Before we ever invented the idea of global warming, the record high temperature ever recotred was in 1922 when the mercury climbed to 132 in Lybia The highest ever recorded in the United States was in 1913 when it reached 134 in Death Valley. Both records ocurred before the Chicken Little science was introduced, and since then we haven't come close to breaking the records.
I see that you know little about scientific method. Temperature readings from a single day tell nothing except the temperature on that single day. I could cite just as many records from the last couple of years. Single day records mean nothing.
quote:
(And for those who yell about my sources, use Google. It will take you to a lot of sites like weather.com, NOAA and so forth. But if you type in "global warming," most of what you will find are left-wing groups; very little science.)
Just as I thought. You're winging it. (Right-winging it, I would say.)
quote:
Also, I know one other thing people love to yeall about is that our polar caps are melting. Well, guess what. The polar caps are also melting on Mars. Global warming warming there too?
Again, this has already been addressed. It's not my fault if you don't read the posts. I know that the Republican Party has had pretty good luck with making lies stick by repeating them over and over but that doesn't work very well here.
quote:
And yes, some of the scientists have political agendas, too. After all, most of them are in competition for government funding - the more doomsday forecasts their data can produce, the more money they can coax from the system.
OR...the more they can keep regulations away from oil companies, the more money they make.
quote:
One more thing, everytime we have a hurricane, someone blames it on global warming. Harsh winters have been blamed on global warming. Too much rain has been blamed on global warming. Not enough rain has been blamed on global warming. Too many tornadoes - global warming. So many claims, and the believability factor completely falls out of site.
Was there a point to this? Some things can be linked to global warming and some can't. The fact that some people may try to link some things to global warming that can't be linked doesn't mean jack.
quote:
Originally posted by LilMikey
Also, I know one other thing people love to yeall about is that our polar caps are melting. Well, guess what. The polar caps are also melting on Mars. Global warming warming there too?
I have answered this one and all your other contentions in my previous posts. Wish you would read them, we read yours.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/
Just in the news today, has some interesting tidbits.
http://www.physorg.com/news74359045.html
Just called time & temperature a minute ago, and it said the temperature was 108.
I thought that had to be way off, so I turned on channel 53... it said 108 as well.
The websites for channels 6 and 8 disagree though... they say it's only 103.
At 7pm.
Wake me when it's October. [V]
You know, we are just one catastrophic volcanic eruption away from an ice age or at least a cool snap. All we really need to do to ease the warming trend is pump a lot of dust into the atmosphere to effectively block solar radiation (the human volcano effect). Our efforts over the past few decades to reduce particulate matter while ignoring the amount of CO2 that we allow into the atmosphere has only worsened the effect of global warming. That is if you agree that the recent increase in global temperatures is caused by one (or a few) of the myriad factors that affect climate (i.e. increases of CO2 in the atmosphere from the combustion of fossil fuels).
For me the cause is still up in the air. Is what we are seeing a natural phenomenon or are we to blame? We certainly cannot tell from weather records, as they do not go back far enough in time. You can use dendrochronology or ice core samples, but frankly they do not reveal temperature, just growth favorability or possibly atmospheric gas content (you can certainly make inferences, however). I am certain that the greed of man can cause all kinds of calamity; however, I am still not absolutely positive what we are seeing is solely because of us. Nevertheless, I think we would be wise to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels, not only because of their polluting nature, but because they are non-renewable.
Whether you believe that humans have an impact on global warming or not , what is the harm in respecting the planet?
Exactly, AR. And what's the harm in developing some energy alternatives to decrease our dependence on foreign oil?
Remember, the more active the sunspot cycle, the "hotter" the sun is. We are currently between cycles with low sunspot activity. Boy it sure is hot anyway lol. Looks like the tiniest hint of the new sunspot cycle has appeared and scientists say the next cycle could be a doosey. So if you think its hot now and you believe its caused by a hotter sun, just wait a few years for the next cycle to get roaring lol.
Here is an article about the first "Backwards Sunspot" of the season. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/15aug_backwards.htm
Looks like Richard Branson missed the comments in this thread that state "There is no such thing as Global Warming"...
Inhoffe will more than likely not be getting any campaign contributions from Virgin...
That's OK... Inhoffe will next attempt to prove there is no such thing as a virgin ...[:D]
Here is a link to a report regarding Sir Richards
3 Billion Dollar Pledge...
$3 Billion$ (//%22http://nydailynews.com/business/story/454622p-382591c.html%22)
Remember this about Sir Richard: first and foremost he's one of the best self-promoters that ever lived after P.T. Barnum.
Revenue at Virgin Air must have been dropping off and they needed another PR boost.
Interesting note: According to an article on the NOAA web site, the average ocean temp went up between 2003 and 2005. According to NOAA researchers, they still don't know what this means.
Regardless of upward and downward trends, they are still talking fractions of a degree.
Very interesting thread. I hope to read the rest of it tomorrow. I believe that from 1455-1855, we had a mini ice age and we're just coming out of it and really warming up again. Our glaciers have now melted to where they were 600 years ago. They've found evidence that the Dakotas and well into Canada were once tropical. Does anyone know the history of OK's weather?[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Jammie
Very interesting thread. I hope to read the rest of it tomorrow. I believe that from 1455-1855, we had a mini ice age and we're just coming out of it and really warming up again. Our glaciers have now melted to where they were 600 years ago. They've found evidence that the Dakotas and well into Canada were once tropical. Does anyone know the history of OK's weather?[:)]
"We" did not have a mini ice age, that was relegated to parts of Europe. It may be that as the planet warms those same parts could see colder weather once again as the gulf current may shift away from that area.
Oklahoma was once tropical with swamps,palms, ferns, and ocean front property.... Millions of years ago. Weather patterns do fluctuate. But baring extreme, isolated, events they dont fluctuate as rapidly as what appears to be occurring. The earth may indeed be in a natural warming cycle, BUT our adding greenhouse gasses is adding wood to the fire. The real debate is, How much wood and how fast are we fanning the flames? Are we going to be able to handle those changes? What effect will they have on where people live and plant crops? Are animals and ecosystems going to be able to adapt and migrate quickly enough? We have set aside areas, parks, reserves etc, but if the climate changes as rapidly as some have suggested it could in the next 150 years, will we be able to relocate them? and us? In some areas animals survive in tiny preserved spaces because we have encroached on their habitats and they and the flora they live with cant migrate as easily with the changing weather, weather that may be changing faster than they are able to adapt to.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/09/15/global.warming.sun.reut/index.html
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Remember this about Sir Richard: first and foremost he's one of the best self-promoters that ever lived after P.T. Barnum.
Revenue at Virgin Air must have been dropping off and they needed another PR boost.
Virgin Profits Jump (//%22http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4585779.stm%22)
From Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=060926_Ne_A1_Inhof%22)
quote:
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Jim Inhofe linked God to weather cycles as he lashed out at the media and others Monday for recklessly promoting what he sees as alarmist warnings against global warming.
"God's still up there, and we still have the cycles every 1,500 years or so," the Oklahoma Republican said in a Senate speech.
"And every time this happens, the alarmists get out there and say we're all going to die."
Inhofe, who views warnings about manmade global warming as a scientific hoax, once again took on the media and the issue during remarks.
This was his eighth floor speech on the topic.
Inhofe addressed more recent developments on the controversial topic and delivered more criticism of former Vice President Al Gore's movie on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth" -- which Inhofe again said he has not seen -- and a television documentary by former NBC anchorman Tom Brokaw.
His harshest broadside, however, was reserved for the media, which he said have alternated between scares on global warming and those on the next ice age.
Media alarmists have been falsely warning of climate disas ters for many decades, he said.
"They don't really care," said Inhofe, who is the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. "They just want to scare you."
His targets ranged from major networks and national publications to wire services.
"Many in the media have taken it upon themselves to drop all pretense of balance on global warming and instead become committed advocates for the issue," he said.
Once again Inhofe denied specific claims by others such as melting glaciers, endangered polar bears and linking of specific weather events such as recent storms to rising temperatures.
"The media endlessly hypes studies that purportedly show that global warming could increase mosquito populations, malaria, West Nile virus, heat waves and hurricanes, threaten the oceans, damage coral reefs, boost poison ivy growth, damage vineyards and global food crops, to name just a few of the global warming-linked calamities," he said.
"Oddly, according to the media reports, warmer temperatures almost never seem to have any positive effects on planet or animal life or food production."
Borrowing a term from a British group, the senator challenged the media to give up their addiction to "climate porn."
"The American people deserve better -- much better -- from our Fourth Estate," Inhofe said. He predicted, however, that giving up the profits such hysteria produces will not be easy.
Inhofe's views on global warming have earned him internation al attention.
Reporters, he said, sometimes test him.
Pretending to be a media horde, he peppered himself with questions:
"What if you're wrong, Inhofe?"
"What if you're wrong to doubt the dire global warming predictions?"
"Will you be able to live with yourself?"
Inhofe said he had a blunt answer ready for them:
"The history of the modern environmental movement is chock-full of predictions that never came true.
"The more the eco-doomsayers' predictions fail, the more the eco-doomsayers predict."
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
From Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=060926_Ne_A1_Inhof%22)
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Jim Inhofe linked God to weather cycles as he lashed out at the media and others Monday for recklessly promoting what he sees as alarmist warnings against global warming.
"God's still up there, and we still have the cycles every 1,500 years or so," the Oklahoma Republican said in a Senate speech.
"And every time this happens, the alarmists get out there and say we're all going to die."
Wow, I almost forgot about all the crazy Visigoth doomsayers in the year 503 AD and the even nuttier global-warming pronouncements made by those alarmist Phoenicians in 1012 BC. And how could we overlook that old coot Pharaoh Shepseskaf in 2494 BC babbling on about how much hotter the desert was getting every year?
Good thing that the great historian Jim Inhofe is around to remind us. Thanks Jim!
quote:
Originally posted by BixB
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
From Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=060926_Ne_A1_Inhof%22)
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Jim Inhofe linked God to weather cycles as he lashed out at the media and others Monday for recklessly promoting what he sees as alarmist warnings against global warming.
"God's still up there, and we still have the cycles every 1,500 years or so," the Oklahoma Republican said in a Senate speech.
"And every time this happens, the alarmists get out there and say we're all going to die."
Wow, I almost forgot about all the crazy Visigoth doomsayers in the year 503 AD and the even nuttier global-warming pronouncements made by those alarmist Phoenicians in 1012 BC. And how could we overlook that old coot Pharaoh Shepseskaf in 2494 BC babbling on about how much hotter the desert was getting every year?
Good thing that the great historian Jim Inhofe is around to remind us. Thanks Jim!
I bet y'all also believe that Nostradamus predicted 9/11. [}:)]
Just wanted to mention that the weather channel will be doing a segment on global warming. I am personally not convinced of it because I feel it's just another cycle the earth goes through. But I do plan on watching the show about it and hope they have something new and interesting on there. As I said, it's on the weather channel and I believe it's on at 4pm CST Sunday afternoon.[:)]
I think it's just laughable that Inhofe criticizes the science of global warming, then makes "scientific" leaps of logic himself that are so preposterous that it's no wonder people with brains don't him seriously on the issue.
Secondly, even IF global warming doesn't exist, that doesn't mean you should pollute the air and water and waste fuel with impunity. I'm old enough to remember the dirty air and water of the 1970s and have no desire to relive that period.
Do what you can to recycle, conserve energy, etc., etc., simply because it's the RIGHT thing to do.
That's what's being lost here in the arguments, and I'm disappointed that Inhofe at least isn't taking some sort of moral high ground with this. Instead, he seems to be either talking from the dog-eared, tattered GOP playbook, or he's trying to shield a bunch of energy corporations.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
I think it's just laughable that Inhofe criticizes the science of global warming, then makes "scientific" leaps of logic himself that are so preposterous that it's no wonder people with brains don't him seriously on the issue.
Inhofe is to science what Bozo the Clown was to particle physics. The difference between Inhofe and Bozo is that Bozo was smart enough to keep his mouth shut on the topic of particle physics so we don't really KNOW the depth of his ignorance on the matter.
Eliminate Dihydrogen Monoxide!
We need people to sign a petition demanding strict control or total elimination of the chemical "dihydrogen monoxide."
And for plenty of good reasons, since:
It can cause excessive sweating and vomiting,
It is a major component in acid rain,
It can cause severe burns in its gaseous state,
Accidental inhalation can kill you,
It contributes to erosion,
It decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes,
It has been found in tumors of terminal cancer patients.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
I think it's just laughable that Inhofe criticizes the science of global warming, then makes "scientific" leaps of logic himself that are so preposterous that it's no wonder people with brains don't him seriously on the issue.
Secondly, even IF global warming doesn't exist, that doesn't mean you should pollute the air and water and waste fuel with impunity. I'm old enough to remember the dirty air and water of the 1970s and have no desire to relive that period.
Do what you can to recycle, conserve energy, etc., etc., simply because it's the RIGHT thing to do.
That's what's being lost here in the arguments, and I'm disappointed that Inhofe at least isn't taking some sort of moral high ground with this. Instead, he seems to be either talking from the dog-eared, tattered GOP playbook, or he's trying to shield a bunch of energy corporations.
Since you remember the 70s you will remember all the ozone, smog pollution etc. that actually act as cooling agents. Thus scientists when they first started looking at global climate change thinking that if the trend continued the earth could further cool. Apparently Inhofe remembers what they predicted in the 70s but somehow didnt get the memo that we reduced smog, ozone, cfc's and reversed any potential trend (and hopefully the ozone hole will continue to repair as well). And that during this time we have been learning more and more about the different factors that can affect global climate change and we have been churning out more and more greenhouse gasses.
From Todaze NYT...
Inhofe makes Tulsa look like a city for morons...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/opinion/12thu2.html?th&emc=th
Doubting Inhofe
Published: October 12, 2006
In a recent speech in the Senate, James Inhofe of Oklahoma called himself "the senator who has spent more time educating about the actual facts about global warming." Too bad he is not the senator who has spent more time educating himself.
His speech, one in a series on global warming, was a brisk survey of the way the news media have covered climatic predictions over the past century. Cooling, warming — we never get it right. Naturally, Mr. Inhofe dismisses what he calls media "hysteria," which is also a way of dismissing not just Al Gore but the consensus among mainstream scientists and the governments of nearly every industrialized nation concerning manmade climate change.
Mr. Inhofe is particularly hard on James Hansen, whom he calls a "NASA scientist and alarmist." Mr. Hansen is a timely target, since he is co-author of a new climatological report in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The report concludes that because of rapid warming in the past 30 years, the earth is approaching and will soon surpass the warmest temperatures in the past 12,000 years — since the end of the last ice age, in other words. And, as the study notes, recent warming "has brought global temperature to a level within about one degree Celsius of the maximum temperature of the past million years." The shift in temperature isn't uniform. Higher latitudes are warming faster, as are the Indian and western Pacific Oceans.
We do not expect Mr. Inhofe to see the light — or feel the heat — any time soon. He and his staff are serious collectors of opposition research. But the essence of his strategy is to seize upon a mistaken or overblown story to try to undermine the broad consensus. If that fails, he can always question his opponents' politics and motives, as with his insinuations that environmentalists dreamed the whole thing up to scare people and raise money.
Mr. Inhofe has buttressed himself with a small jury of scientists who argue that climate change is only natural. But he has really buttressed himself with the will to disbelieve. He accuses scientists and the media of hysteria. But if there is such a thing as a hysteria of doubt, then Mr. Inhofe is its master.
What's tragic is how little Inhofe has accomplished for OK after 18 years in the House and Senate, and particularly in his role as the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee. Has there been a past Oklahoma senator in such a high ranking position who did any less for his home state?
quote:
Originally posted by BixB
What's tragic is how little Inhofe has accomplished for OK after 18 years in the House and Senate, and particularly in his role as the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee. Has there been a past Oklahoma senator in such a high ranking position who did any less for his home state?
BIG SNAP!!!
Crackle and pop!
Funny stuff here...
http://www.radaronline.com/features/2006/10/americas_dumbest_congressmen_a_radar_special_report.php
3. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)
Inhofe is best known for his categorical claim that global warming is "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people"—a rhetorical flourish he recently refined by likening climate change theories to Nazi propaganda. And here's the scary part: Those are the sentiments of our chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. It's a bit like making Lyndon LaRouche the American Ambassador to England.
But that's not the half of it. As far back as 1972, he called for Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern to be "hanged with Jane Fonda" for referring to alleged atrocities committed by American troops in Vietnam. In 2001, he took to the Senate floor to announce that Israel was justified in whatever treatment it handed out to Palestinians because, after all, God had promised the Jews the land they occupied. For good measure, he also called Palestinian terror bombers practitioners of "satanic evil," and intimated to the New Republic that both Bill and Hillary Clinton were out to assassinate him.
And then there was the recent debate over the latest constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, when Inhofe assured Senate colleagues of his own virility and that of his manly forbearers. "My wife and I have been married 47 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids. I'm really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we've never had a divorce or a homosexual relationship." It's the same flawless gene pool that produced a man who thinks our situation in Iraq is "nothing short of a miracle."
U.K. report: Warming will damage economy
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061030/ap_on_sc/britain_global_warming
"Raising the stakes in the global warming dispute with the United States and China, Britain issued a sweeping report Monday warning that the Earth faces a calamity on the scale of the world wars and the Great Depression unless urgent action is taken."
If your buying into this global warming horsesh!t.....Your the onw out of touch with reality......
Inhofe must go because he is just a repug patsy.
He does nothing to help the citizens in his home state.
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
If your buying into this global warming horsesh!t.....Your the onw out of touch with reality......
That's one possibility. The other is that you listen to the scientists instead of the right wing talking heads. Personally, I kinda feel like the scientists might know more about this than Rush Limbaugh. But I do understand that a lot of people find it easier for politicians and political inciters (and yes, I spelled that correctly) to do their thinking for them than for them to think for themselves.
Inhofe = despicable sack of you-know-whut.
I'll take the "whirled" over the "daily disappointment" any day... jackass Inholfe believes this crappola...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
If your buying into this global warming horsesh!t.....Your the onw out of touch with reality......
yeah, cuz you're a real expert... not.
Idiot.
Yeah I'm the idiot...When was the thermometer invented.....?
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
Yeah I'm the idiot...When was the thermometer invented.....?
If you're suggesting that we have no way of knowing what conditions were prior to the invention of the thermometer then either your first statement is right or you know less about science and technology than just about any person on the planet. Either way that puts YOU "way out of touch with reality".
But that's what happens when you rely on Rush Limbaugh for your scientific information.
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
Yeah I'm the idiot...When was the thermometer invented.....?
If you're suggesting that we have no way of knowing what conditions were prior to the invention of the thermometer then either your first statement is right or you know less about science and technology than just about any person on the planet. Either way that puts YOU "way out of touch with reality".
But that's what happens when you rely on Rush Limbaugh for your scientific information.
Keep digging...The hole your in is getting deeper...Try and answer the question if you can....
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
Yeah I'm the idiot...When was the thermometer invented.....?
If you're suggesting that we have no way of knowing what conditions were prior to the invention of the thermometer then either your first statement is right or you know less about science and technology than just about any person on the planet. Either way that puts YOU "way out of touch with reality".
But that's what happens when you rely on Rush Limbaugh for your scientific information.
Keep digging...The hole your in is getting deeper...Try and answer the question if you can....
What question? When was the thermometer invented? You gotta be joking. Tell me how the question is relevant and I might take a shot at answering it. I'm not into playing games. I'm also not impressed with cryptic comments that are supposed to sound mysterious. Ya got something to say, say it. I prefer honest arguments out in the open but I smell bait.
It's a very simple question.....