Only the most urgent global warming mission

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » October 12, 2007, 11:29 am

I would like to direct your attention to about 5 or 6 posts up.

Post by **Sylvus** » October 12, 2007, 11:39 am

Man, how laughable are Nobel Peace Prizes these days? They're as bad as the Golden Globes. They just pass them out to any Tom, Dick or Harry fighting something that no one can prove exists...

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 12, 2007, 1:13 pm

This is simply yet another untrue statement made by you. We have proof that the intarweb exists and Al Gore invented it!!

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » October 12, 2007, 1:14 pm

I am dubbing today "The day the Nobel died".

That is all.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » October 12, 2007, 1:32 pm

Wow, the man who lost the presidential election was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize? I wonder what Dubya would've done if he had lost the election? My bet is more coccaine. Even though many people will try and blow this off as nothing special, I feel it is an amazing and obvious measure of the difference between Bush and Gore. America made a huge mistake that we'll be paying for, literally, for decades. Well, the middle class will be paying, but you get my point.

I'll throw my opinion out that I think Hillary is going to win. I don't even think it's going to be that close. I also don't think voter turn out will be as high as the last presidential election.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » October 12, 2007, 2:28 pm

Perhaps another point to make with regard to global warming and the main made cause would be to look at the actual contribution of man made carbon dioxide. Lets add up the total amount of CO2 man is "responsible" for and compare that to overall yearly CO2 production levels. After you check those if you want to come back and explain that we have a significant impact to the overall environment because of CO2 production we can talk.

We should also talk about what global warming means and how we study it. Understanding the affects of land use impacting local temperature change vs true global temperature change is also a significant point that is in debate. Understanding the cycle of time involved in the study provides even more interesting data.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » October 12, 2007, 2:31 pm

Nick wrote:That's cool, except it is of course, undeniably, an indictment on the United States of America that it is so incredibly sexist as to avoid voting in a female President after even ridiculous 3rd world countries already did so long ago (even Britain did it nearly a half century ago for christs sake).

Well, to be fair, look at how Thatcher handled power. It might be a good idea to pass on female presidents

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » October 12, 2007, 2:46 pm

I blame the volcano.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » October 12, 2007, 3:20 pm

Looks like you need some Volcano Insurance.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » October 12, 2007, 3:21 pm

Seriously, whether you support Gore or not in his crusade against global warming, how is this worthy of a Peace prize? How does it advance or promote peace aside from possibly pointing out a common problem? It does nothing to defuse world tensions or end any conflict. Some type of award for science or the environment, maybe even a humanitarian award (although I think thats a stretch for the same reason) are more acceptable but the Peace Prize to Gore for this is a mockery.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · October 12, 2007, 3:24 pm

Wulfran wrote:Seriously, whether you support Gore or not in his crusade against global warming, how is this worthy of a Peace prize? How does it advance or promote peace aside from possibly pointing out a common problem? It does nothing to defuse world tensions or end any conflict. Some type of award for science or the environment, maybe even a humanitarian award (although I think thats a stretch for the same reason) are more acceptable but the Peace Prize to Gore for this is a mockery.

It doesn't. It has nothing to do with peace. It's an artifical award given to an artificial person for an artifical cause.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » October 12, 2007, 3:50 pm

Wulfran wrote:Seriously, whether you support Gore or not in his crusade against global warming, how is this worthy of a Peace prize? How does it advance or promote peace aside from possibly pointing out a common problem? It does nothing to defuse world tensions or end any conflict. Some type of award for science or the environment, maybe even a humanitarian award (although I think thats a stretch for the same reason) are more acceptable but the Peace Prize to Gore for this is a mockery.

It is a total mockery to all the people that have received the award in the past, and all the other people that are busting their asses every day to do things that truly do bring about or promote peace. Hence the reason I dubbed today the day the nobel died.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » October 12, 2007, 8:21 pm

Wulfran wrote:Seriously, whether you support Gore or not in his crusade against global warming, how is this worthy of a Peace prize? How does it advance or promote peace aside from possibly pointing out a common problem? It does nothing to defuse world tensions or end any conflict. Some type of award for science or the environment, maybe even a humanitarian award (although I think thats a stretch for the same reason) are more acceptable but the Peace Prize to Gore for this is a mockery.

They include environmental activism, work on poverty, human rights, democracy in the peace prize category these days. Maathai got it in 2004 for environmental activism. And actually if the scenarios play out as expected over the next century we may well see regional warring over water, arable land etc. So forestalling it could be construed as reducing the probability of those conflicts.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » October 13, 2007, 9:03 am

This is about the most ignorant thread I have read in weeks. Assume for a single moment that the hype about global warming is true. If it is true, it would follow that eventually the resources critical to humans for survival, namely food, drinkable water, and shelter, will become more and more scarce, and wars will inevitably break out for these resources. Peace right now and peace in the future are not mutually exclusive, nitwits.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · October 13, 2007, 9:43 am

Xyun wrote:This is about the most ignorant thread I have read in weeks. Assume for a single moment that the hype about global warming is true. If it is true, it would follow that eventually the resources critical to humans for survival, namely food, drinkable water, and shelter, will become more and more scarce, and wars will inevitably break out for these resources. Peace right now and peace in the future are not mutually exclusive, nitwits.

Consider for a moment that God is true. Consider that this other man made creation is real. Consider this not just another exhibition of mans belief he can do/change everything.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » October 13, 2007, 10:00 am

scientific evid...... wait.. i forgot you're a monkey... i almost tried to communicate. oops.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · October 13, 2007, 10:03 am

Xyun wrote:scientific evid...... wait.. i forgot you're a monkey... i almost tried to communicate. oops.

Here's where the arrogance of man comes in. Again I ask, how long have we had the ability to accurately record the temperature?

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » October 13, 2007, 10:27 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Xyun wrote:scientific evid...... wait.. i forgot you're a monkey... i almost tried to communicate. oops.
Here's where the arrogance of man comes in. Again I ask, how long have we had the ability to accurately record the temperature?

The arrogance of a man...I can appreciate that you fail to understand inferential logic and correlative analysis...Don't assume the rest of the world is developmentally stuck in concrete operations...

Midnyte_Ragebringer · October 13, 2007, 10:38 am

Let's assume science is faitly accurate. Was it man that caused the temperature changes before?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · October 13, 2007, 10:46 am

More recently, we have...

Was it man who caused the temperature to rise? Was it Gore great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather who saved the world back then, very time, that caused the earths temperature to drop? Who was it responsible for bringing us out of the ice ages and mini ice ages?

Animale · Post by **Animale** » October 13, 2007, 2:00 pm

Okies Mid... enough of your contradictory bullshit.

FACT: carbon dioxide levels are rising in an uncontrolled manner due to mankind's burning of fossil fuels
FACT: carbon dioxide levels in the past correspond with the earth's temperature

Now, given those two things ALONE, is it unreasonable to say that we should probably do something about the energy situation to lower fossil fuel usage? Or do we just sit on our bums and wait for our hot-tubs to warm up?

You are so infuriating at times. Now, since I want to help you, if you actually want to get the "big picture" go pick up the August issue of Scientific American. In it is an article called "The Physical Science Behind Climate Change." Now it's Scientific American, so it has big words... but it is written for the lay audience so everyone should be able to understand it. In it is stuff about how climate models work, what goes into them, how the scientists determine whether or not their systems are accurate, etc. etc.

Climate study IS real science. Climate change IS occuring. It IS mankind-driven. The sooner begin to make real efforts to change our ways, the less trouble we'll be in (of course, there are quite a few climate scientists who think its ALREADY too late to stop major changes is 50-100 years... hopefully they are wrong). I just hope that my children/grandchildren don't come to me some day and say something along the lines of "Why was your generation so stupid?!?" when I tell them about people commuting to work in single occupancy SUV's and the world is burning from war's for the last scarce resources...

Now take your uninformed ass over to the article and buy it if you want to continue the discussion. If not, shut your ignorant pie-hole.
Animale
Chemist actually WORKING to try and fix this problem

Markulas · Post by **Markulas** » October 13, 2007, 2:05 pm

I'm trying to think of scientists that are saying we are the only cause of temperature variation, but google isn't finding anything! Ahh I need another fact source.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » October 13, 2007, 2:09 pm

Animale wrote:Climate change IS occuring. It IS mankind-driven.

I agree that we affect the changes, but I do not believe we are the only factor driving them. That attitude is what many find "wrong" with the Global Warming initiatives. That is also the one thing that supporters refuse to acknowledge. Just like in your post.

It's a perfect example of how people here get pissed off without actually paying attention to what is pissing them off.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » October 13, 2007, 3:17 pm

Animale wrote:Okies Mid... enough of your contradictory bullshit.

FACT: carbon dioxide levels are rising in an uncontrolled manner due to mankind's burning of fossil fuels
FACT: carbon dioxide levels in the past correspond with the earth's temperature

Now, given those two things ALONE, is it unreasonable to say that we should probably do something about the energy situation to lower fossil fuel usage? Or do we just sit on our bums and wait for our hot-tubs to warm up?

You are so infuriating at times. Now, since I want to help you, if you actually want to get the "big picture" go pick up the August issue of Scientific American. In it is an article called "The Physical Science Behind Climate Change." Now it's Scientific American, so it has big words... but it is written for the lay audience so everyone should be able to understand it. In it is stuff about how climate models work, what goes into them, how the scientists determine whether or not their systems are accurate, etc. etc.

Climate study IS real science. Climate change IS occuring. It IS mankind-driven. The sooner begin to make real efforts to change our ways, the less trouble we'll be in (of course, there are quite a few climate scientists who think its ALREADY too late to stop major changes is 50-100 years... hopefully they are wrong). I just hope that my children/grandchildren don't come to me some day and say something along the lines of "Why was your generation so stupid?!?" when I tell them about people commuting to work in single occupancy SUV's and the world is burning from war's for the last scarce resources...

Now take your uninformed ass over to the article and buy it if you want to continue the discussion. If not, shut your ignorant pie-hole.
Animale
Chemist actually WORKING to try and fix this problem

Try this one: FACT - there are just as many scientists that disagree with you and what you are saying. Way to be another arrogant prick that pops up every once in a while to toss insults around at the people "destroying" this forum. I thought I new you to be better than that.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » October 13, 2007, 4:11 pm

Animale wrote: FACT: carbon dioxide levels are rising in an uncontrolled manner due to mankind's burning of fossil fuel

Not fact, theory. I have seen some scientists theorize that the although human generated CO2 is a contributing factor, the cyclical temperature rise is actually fueling the release of CO2 from the oceans (an effect similar to evaporation or boiling if you prefer.).

I'm not going to argue the climatology isn't real science, because it is, but your other statements aren't in the clear. Climate change MAY be occuring outside its regular cycles and mankind MAY be driving it to some degree. Intuitively, I agree with some of the assumptions: that emmissions from fossil fuel consumption don't have beneficial side effects therefore reducing them is a good idea. I agree with conservation of resources from the whole "waste not, want not" perspective. But the case in support of Gore, Greenpeace et al isn't as open and shut as many people want to believe, thus the debate is NOT over as Gore and his sycophants may wish. There are some major assumptions in popular climate change dogma that are NOT proven (or disproven to be fair) but show that more investigation needs to be done.

Personally, I believe the increasing population of humanity and its subsequent need of resources to sustain itself is a bigger threat to our survival, as a species and a planet, than climate change. I find it more that human influence on climate change is more a symptom than a disease.

And as for telling someone to read your sources or STFU, how much of a hypocrite are you? Science advancement is about research into proving or disproving theories/hypotheses. Its not about "consensus opinions" because they become so much more bullshit if a breakthrough disproves them. Science is methodology, consensus is about politics: don't confuse the two.

This shit is as bad as a religion: the true believers want to crucify anyone who questions, never mind disagrees with their conclusions. Yes, lets thank Al Gore for that!

Midnyte_Ragebringer · October 13, 2007, 4:14 pm

Indeed Funk and Boog. It's their arrogance and conviction that they KNOW, which is what drives many of us away. Even when presented with evidence showing natural and drastic climate changes constantly thorought earths history they still upon their perch screaming at all the non-believers.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · October 13, 2007, 4:16 pm

I'm virtually hugging you right now Wulf.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » October 13, 2007, 4:21 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:Try this one: FACT - there are just as many scientists that disagree with you and what you are saying.

This is simply wrong. What on earth gives you the impression that there is large scale disagreement among scientists with the fact that we are driving global warming? It is simply not there. None of the scientists I know disagree with the idea. I have read no journal or even popular science articles in 5 years that debate the issue. I do occasionally see a popular press article about one or two scientists who disagree. I assure you the huge majority of scientists take global warming driven by human carbon dioxide emission as a given.

Animale · Post by **Animale** » October 13, 2007, 4:31 pm

Go read the fucking article. There are disagreements over the magnitude, but not the fact that it is occurring among the vast majority of scientists that publish in peer reviewed journals (which is where I consider science to be... if you aren't publishing in peer reviewed journals then you AREN'T a scientist - it's not that hard to get published if you can back up your conclusions with evidence, experiments, and protocol)

Now, I'd like to see your evidence for your "FACT." I sourced mine... how about your assertion of "there are just as many scientists" who don't think global warming is happening due to mankind's influence? <crickets>

That's right... it's just not true.

Just go read the article, it's not that long. It's not hard to understand. It basically points out that man-caused global warming is nearly universally agreed upon by climate scientists, it is substantiated, but the models can and are getting better (they are not perfect yet, but if we wait for perfect modeling of anything we'll be waiting forever).

You need to change your mind on this. I cannot pussyfoot around it, this is not a matter of opinion. YOU ARE WRONG. Mankind caused increase in global carbon dioxide levels is happening. Whether this results in global apocalypse, or merely shifts the global climate in small ways, is up to us.

Animale

edit to address Wulfran
The global carbon dioxide budget is not 100% understood. Now, the entire carbon dioxide budget is VERY large, and mankind's release is only ~ 1-5% of that (depending on which numbers you use). So, the global carbon dioxide budget dwarfs that of man. Unfortunately, the global carbon dioxide budget (plants taking in CO2, oceans taking in CO2, etc, vs. decomposition, respirations, ocean release) turns out to be pretty close to zero (again, depending on which numbers one uses... it isn't perfect and a lot is still not known, especially as you mentioned about the ocean's net balance). This again shows how we need to be VERY careful in what we are doing... we are running an experiment that we don't know the result of ON OUR HOME. I know that if I don't have any clue about what will happen if I do something, I usually don't do it.

Now, if we look at the evidence for why CO2 levels are rising, the C12 to C13 ratios are actually quite informative. It turns out that currently, quite a bit of the "excess" CO2 in the lower atmosphere is pretty much exclusively due to mankind's emissions (the ratio in oil/coal is different than that from natural sources). People have also looked at plant incorporation of carbon, and found that in certain areas they are growing at a faster rate and incorporating this labeled CO2 as sugars, etc.

Again, the debate is more or less on the magnitude, not the actuality of it. And yes, I agree with you that it is population growth that is, ultimately, the bad actor here. But talking to people about population control is a lot harder that talking to people about conservation. It's a non-starter in today's world... maybe sometime in the future it won't be, but now it just isn't going to happen. Therefore, we need to work on finding a solution outside those bounds (technological generation of energy/fuel from sunlight (or fusion)).

Read the article, you'll understand climatology better. You'll see what evidence they use. You'll understand the "disagreements" that ARE going on, and be able to look through the bullshit fed to us by people who don't understand the difference between fact and theory (in science, theory is as close to fact as you are going to get... unfortunately in order for people to do something one has to translate from science speak to real person speak... and in that translation theory = fact). Also, consensus opinion is what drives science. Without it, nothing gets done... and also nothing gets proven. Consensus does have a political side, but in general everybody is out to disprove everybody else. When it doesn't happen over the long run... then you know you have something that is reasonable to act upon. Man-caused carbon dioxide rise has not been disproven. The scale on which this will alter global climate is under debate, since we cannot do more than one experiment on our planet. Only the models can help guide, but they will never be perfect.

Also, I really on get angry at those who have an opinion and don't spend the time to read the evidence (or if they do, choose to ignore the evidence because their opinion is so much more comfy than the conclusion that the evidence points to).
READ THE ARTICLE. SEE IF YOU STILL THINK IT'S BOGUS.

edit for Mid:

Now, the stuff in earth's past is another issue entirely. Many of those catastrophic changes appear to be due to massive releases of gases from volcanic events, often coupled with enormous asteroid impacts. Since the changes from those events (CO2 in the atmosphere, etc.) appear to be on the same scale as what we're doing now... shouldn't we try to avoid it? I just don't understand the apathy toward this (oh, it happened in the past so it's OK now... the earth survived then, it'll survive now). Personally, I'd like to avoid a cataclysm if at all possible. Just because it's "natural" for temperatures to fluctuate widely over eons, doesn't mean it's natural what's happening now. Go read the article... seriously.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · October 13, 2007, 4:39 pm

http://www.globalwarming.org/primer/scienceFAQs

Science FAQs
Isn’t there a scientific consensus that global warming is real and bad for us?

There is no "scientific consensus" that global warming will cause damaging climate change. Claims that there is such a consensus mischaracterize the scientific research of bodies like the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
What do scientists agree on?

Scientists do agree that: 1) global average temperature is about 0.6°Celsius—or just over 1° Fahrenheit—higher than it was a century ago; 2) atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2 ) have risen by about 30 percent over the past 200 years; and 3) carbon dioxide, like water vapor, is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the Earth’s atmosphere.
Doesn’t this mean we should be worried?

As Richard Lindzen of MIT summarized it in The Wall Street Journal, "These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man’s responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn’t just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn’t happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming." [Emphasis in original]
What don’t scientists know yet?

Scientists do not agree on whether: 1) we know enough to ascribe past temperature changes to carbon dioxide levels; 2) we have enough data to confidently predict future temperature levels; and 3) at what level temperature change might be more damaging than beneficial to life on Earth.
Didn’t the National Academy of Sciences say greenhouse gases cause global warming?

The National Academy of Sciences reported in 2001 that, "Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing agents…a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established." It also noted that 20 years’ worth of data is not long enough to estimate long-term trends.
Hasn’t the Earth warmed precipitously over the past 100 years?

The temperature rise of 0.6°C over the last century is at the bottom end of what climate models suggest should have happened. This suggests that either the climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought or that some unknown factor is depressing the temperature.
Don’t climate models warn of alarming future warming?

Predictions of 6°C temperature rises over the next 100 years are at the extreme end of the IPCC range, and are the result of faulty economic modeling, not science (see economics section below).
What are the realistic current estimates of future warming?

Both James Hansen of NASA—the father of greenhouse theory—and Richard Lindzen of MIT—the most renowned climatologist in the world—agree that, even if nothing is done to restrict greenhouse gases, the world will only see a global temperature increase of about 1°C in the next 50-100 years. Hansen and his colleagues "predict additional warming in the next 50 years of 0.5 ± 0.2°C, a warming rate of 0.1 ± 0.04°C per decade."
What about satellite temperature measurements?

Evidence from satellite and weather balloon soundings suggests that the atmosphere has warmed considerably less than greenhouse theory suggests. These measurements, which cover the whole atmosphere and show only a very slight warming, show a disparity with the surface temperature measurements, which cover only a small fraction of the Earth but show sustained warming.
Hasn’t the disagreement between satellite and surface temperatures been resolved?

No. There is still substantial disagreement between the mid-range of the satellite measurements and the mid-range of the surface measurements. This presents a problem for climate models.
Do other man-made factors besides greenhouse gases influence temperature?

New research suggests that the role of greenhouse gases in warming has been overestimated, as factors like atmospheric soot, land use change, and solar variation9 all appear to have contributed significantly to recent warming.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » October 13, 2007, 5:05 pm

I'm going to take an agnostic approach on this issue. I'm not a scientist, I'm not an MIT graduate, or a public figure with a lot of spare time and money like Al gore. I don't aspire to be a scientist nor is science a hobby of mine. I doubt I ever prove or disprove a scientific theory, especially global warming. There's plenty of scientists out there that will figure this shit out. I have complete faith in them. I can't concern myself with global warming. I could google some differing articles and post pretty graphs with squiggly lines and such, but I don't know what I'm talking about in relation to this issue, so I'll STFU.

Animale · Post by **Animale** » October 13, 2007, 5:46 pm

Not exactly an unbiased source, Mid... but it is what it is - an alternative voice. Of course, very few of the articles they link are peer-reviewed science articles (most of them are economic in nature), but even there they say that the increase is occurring. Now, they hem and haw about what is causing this increase, and appear to have a particularly interest in halting any restrictions on carbon emissions to avoid the problem of economic slowdown. The problem is that because we only have ONE system to look at, and ONE experiment to do... there will always be uncertainty regarding the results, particularly in a system as complex as the earth is.

Now, from speaking with one of the writers of the most recent IPCC report, it does have it's problems. However, the problems are largely from the red-tape of being a multinational governmental report, where the lawyers get final say on what is within it. They removed quite a bit of the science in order to soften the results and make them look less alarmist. Also, the modeling in the report is not the cutting edge due to the time to write the report, so some of the models have less data in them than one would necessarily like (i.e. the satellite data problem). That doesn't mean that it's conclusions are completely bogus, however. It is conclusions to the best of our ability at the time... and from that point he stated that the models are actually becoming MORE dire, particularly for North America, not less so.

Now, assuming that the 1 degree C rise in surface temperatures (which is on the low end of predictions) is correct... do we really want to sit idly by and do NOTHING with that. One degree is pretty substantial, and will have dramatic consequences on the hydrology of our country... particularly in the west and southwest. My feeling on this is why NOT make a major move to create a carbon neutral future NOW. It's something that will need to be done anyway (oil/coal/etc. will run out eventually) and we have the means to attack the problem in a major way now. It's an investment in the future, and if America doesn't do it we will be behind when some other country... Japan, China, and India are beginning to invest pretty heavily in alternative energy research - do we really want to be buying our technological knowhow from overseas?

Again, I hope I'm wrong and none of this comes to pass. But if it does, will we be saying "oh, you were right... here's a cookie!", or will we be actually in the process of solving the problem. It's called foresight, we have it right now... we should be using it.

Animale

Midnyte_Ragebringer · October 13, 2007, 5:51 pm

Spang wrote:I'm going to take an agnostic approach on this issue. I'm not a scientist, I'm not an MIT graduate, or a public figure with a lot of spare time and money like Al gore. I don't aspire to be a scientist nor is science a hobby of mine. I doubt I ever prove or disprove a scientific theory, especially global warming. There's plenty of scientists out there that will figure this shit out. I have complete faith in them. I can't concern myself with global warming. I could google some differing articles and post pretty graphs with squiggly lines and such, but I don't know what I'm talking about in relation to this issue, so I'll STFU.

We are not so different. I feel exactly the way you do. My mission is not to disprove the theory of global warming at all. It is to simply show we don't know. And to say we do, call it catastrophic, hand out awards, call each other stupid, etc. based on something we truly don't know is ridiculous and psychotic.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » October 13, 2007, 6:21 pm

If this were a debate, I would have to side with Animale.

I'm not a scientist, but when it's 65 fucking degrees in the middle of January in both Michigan and Chicago, I'm thinking one wouldn't have to be in order to figure out there is indeed something strange going on with the weather. I'm not wanting to point the finger at anyone, but I would like to be prepared if/when climate change is going to have huge consequences. If there is something the public can do to help, I think we should be informed.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · October 13, 2007, 6:29 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:If this were a debate, I would have to side with Animale.

I'm not a scientist, but when it's 65 fucking degrees in the middle of January in both Michigan and Chicago, I'm thinking one wouldn't have to be in order to figure out there is indeed something strange going on with the weather. I'm not wanting to point the finger at anyone, but I would like to be prepared if/when climate change is going to have huge consequences. If there is something the public can do to help, I think we should be informed.

So then it is safe to assume you believe in God. I'm sure you believe in it just in case it's true that if you do not, then you might go to hell for eternity when you die. Right?

Animale · Post by **Animale** » October 13, 2007, 6:36 pm

Go read the article Mid. If you don't want to pay for it, go to your local library - I'll bet they carry Scientific American. This isn't some pie in the the sky BELIEF... it's something backed up by firm evidence and data with people trying to make the best models they can.

Again... we have only ONE shot at this. If we are wrong, it's not only us who suffers, but everybody else on the entire planet. Your comparison is apples and oranges. Hell, it's not even that close... how about apples and giraffes.

Animale

Midnyte_Ragebringer · October 13, 2007, 6:43 pm

Animale wrote:Go read the article Mid. If you don't want to pay for it, go to your local library - I'll bet they carry Scientific American. This isn't some pie in the the sky BELIEF... it's something backed up by firm evidence and data with people trying to make the best models they can.

Again... we have only ONE shot at this. If we are wrong, it's not only us who suffers, but everybody else on the entire planet. Your comparison is apples and oranges. Hell, it's not even that close... how about apples and giraffes.

Animale

Seriously? You're still on this after the past dozen replies talking about how we truly don't know? What does reading your one-sided report do for me? I already understand what they believe is happening. All I watch with the kids are specials on this shit. You're the stubborn one, not me. I'm fine with prudence. I'm glad we have been having indutries live up to emission standards on cars, plants, etc. I'm glad people are working on cleaner energy sources. I do not believe it is a crisis. Why don't I? Because the scientists charged with this mission aren't sure it's a crisis.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » October 13, 2007, 6:59 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: What does reading your one-sided report do for me?

Scientific American being notoriously biased...

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » October 13, 2007, 7:11 pm

the day the nobel died.

lol. Typical Funk cluelessness. Other than this recent award to Al Gore (who only received half of it by the way as it was shared with the Panel on Climate Change based in Geneva) I bet you didn't know fuckall about Nobel and the prizes in general. You don't even know who all else was nominated so I'm not sure you can label it a "mockery." Come back in 50 years when the nominations are made public. If there was a more deserving organiation or indivudual I'll take back what I said.

The only real issue I can see is the category in which it was awarded. However when you look at the remamining areas they don't really fit either. It's a global issue and it affects everyone. I personally don't really see a problem with this particular award. Here's the actual announcement which I think frames it in a better context as to why it was awarded as it was:

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.

Indications of changes in the earth's future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.

Through the scientific reports it has issued over the past two decades, the IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming. Thousands of scientists and officials from over one hundred countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming. Whereas in the 1980s global warming seemed to be merely an interesting hypothesis, the 1990s produced firmer evidence in its support. In the last few years, the connections have become even clearer and the consequences still more apparent.

Al Gore has for a long time been one of the world's leading environmentalist politicians. He became aware at an early stage of the climatic challenges the world is facing. His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted.

By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is seeking to contribute to a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world’s future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind. Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control.

Based on the responses in this thread some people are missing the "big picture."

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » October 13, 2007, 7:33 pm

Members List of Cooler Heads (globalwarming.org)

Alexis de Tocqueville Institution
Americans for Tax Reform
American Legislative Exchange Council
American Policy Center
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Fraser Institute, Canada
Freedom Works
Frontiers of Freedom
George C. Marshall Institute
Heartland Institute
Independent Institute
Istituto Bruno Leoni, Italy
JunkScience.com
Lavoisier Group, Australia
Liberty Institute, India
National Center for Policy Analysis
National Center for Public Policy Research
Pacific Research Institute
Seniors Coalition
60 Plus Association
Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council

I'm glad the 60+ association and the Seniors Coalition have taken up climatology to keep them occupied in their golden years...Notice anything missing? Like say climatologists? These are mostly antiregulatory lobby groups. No bias there right?...

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » October 13, 2007, 7:46 pm

And for reference

http://www.ipcc.ch/about/faq/IPCC%20Who%20is%20who.pdf

there is the IPCC's membership...hmmm look a bunch of PhDs in climatology, paleoclimatology etc etc...as well as teams of multidisciplinary PhDs working on impacts/analysis in their areas of specialty...

Note the MIT Professor and the NOAA Director taken out of context on globalwarming.org are both members of the IPCC...

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 13, 2007, 8:01 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:If this were a debate, I would have to side with Animale.

I'm not a scientist, but when it's 65 fucking degrees in the middle of January in both Michigan and Chicago, I'm thinking one wouldn't have to be in order to figure out there is indeed something strange going on with the weather.

Not taking sides here but what does that matter if it's a natural cyclical warming trend? From the little I've seen reported on the melting ice caps, the release of CO2 from the animal shit and plants that have been trapped under the ice will create a rapid increase the warming as they are exposed.

What I find interesting are the plants and animals that seem to have been "insta" frozen in Antarctica. That evidence points to a catastrophic change in climate (pole shift, magnetic anomalies) in a short period of time.

Animale · Post by **Animale** » October 13, 2007, 8:19 pm

Mid...

The article in Scientific American is about the methods they utilize to come up with their conclusions. Don't you think that is pertinent? Or do you just continue to stay in your apathy because somebody else says "Scientists don't agree so don't do anything!!!!" Scientists almost never agree on anything, it's our nature to be contrary. We're trained to question everything... so of course we don't agree on all the details. Your whole thing about this point is just obscuring the issue, however.

The majority of scientists in this field DO think its a crisis, they are just facing enormous economic/political pressures to not say so. The IPCC report was couched by lawyers and politicians from the participating nations in the U.N. It is the "rosiest" assessment possible considering the data. The reports numbers on population/pollution growth INCLUDE conservation at a rate two to three times greater than today. Their numbers INCLUDE a conservative estimate on population growth. Their numbers INCLUDE a conservative estimate on economic growth (your source is wrong on that one by the way - they used "wrong" numbers alright... but wrong numbers on the conservative side).

Basically, the IPCC report is the best case scenario of what happens if we do nothing except extensive personal conservation (fluorescent lights etc.) This scenario is still pretty bad... the worst case scenarios are catastrophic.

There are immense amounts of money to be made in the field of alternative fuels... don't you want our leaders caring about the issue instead of just sweeping it under the rug? Just look at the Detroit auto industry, they are doing horribly because they rejected the idea of more efficient cars (hybrid, electric, etc.) 10+ years ago. Now the time has come when the public is actually demanding such technology, and they are playing catch up to the Japanese and Koreans who saw the need for this and developed the capability to do so. DO WE WANT THIS TO HAPPEN TO OUR ENTIRE ECONOMIC BASE? I think not.

For our future security (both economic and physical) we need to treat this as a crisis. If a scientific solution is found tomorrow (unlikely) it will take 10-20 years to implement on a large scale at the minimum. Since we are no nearer a solution now than we were in the 1970's, doesn't it make sense to sufficiently fund those who wish to do this work?

Apathy is infuriating... but you are a champion at that Mid. A champion for the status quo, that's you.

Animale

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » October 14, 2007, 4:15 am

Winnow wrote:What I find interesting are the plants and animals that seem to have been "insta" frozen in Antarctica. That evidence points to a catastrophic change in climate (pole shift, magnetic anomalies) in a short period of time.

Ermmm what animals would those be? And how would a pole flip cause instant flash freezing? There are a lot of fossils being uncovered right now thanks to the reduction of ice. But I've heard nothing about flash frozen Gondwana fauna.

Edit: Wait on second though wtf?...Antarctica gradually became a polar climate as the continent drifted into its current position...it wasn't at the even at the south pole when it was largely populated with macrofauna...So yeah the flash freezing idea is nonsense...You aren't reading your science on your conspiracy theory websites now are you Winnow?

Bagar- · Post by **Bagar-** » October 14, 2007, 5:58 am

I have a question... just a hypothetical.

Ignore global warming. Ignore Al Gore.

Why is it harmful that we cut down on waste and find more effecient and (potentially?)environmentally friendly ways of leading our lives? why is this touted as a negative thing? I'm asking a serious question.

We can't sustain our current lifestyle as the earth's population continues to rise. I don't see any plagues or epidemincs killing off half the population anytime soon, although I wouldn't rule it out, so logically speaking, if something isn't done REGARDLESS of global warming, carbon dioxide, etc., there's going to be a problem. The solutions are simple, and you choose to disregard them because Mr. Gore supports them? Because they're inconvienent to you? That's foolish and apathetic to the finest degree.

Get rid of the excessive waste, the excessive polution, and become a more effecient society, or our future generations will pay the price. Regardless of global warming or political agendas, this is an inevitable truth.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 14, 2007, 7:07 am

Arborealus wrote:
Edit: Wait on second though wtf?...Antarctica gradually became a polar climate as the continent drifted into its current position...it wasn't at the even at the south pole when it was largely populated with macrofauna...So yeah the flash freezing idea is nonsense...You aren't reading your science on your conspiracy theory websites now are you Winnow?

Forget that nonsense. Have a look at my favorite alternative science theory!

http://books.google.com/books?id=_DT38I ... er#PPA1,M1

Midnyte_Ragebringer · October 14, 2007, 10:09 am

Bagar- wrote:I have a question... just a hypothetical.

Ignore global warming. Ignore Al Gore.

Why is it harmful that we cut down on waste and find more effecient and (potentially?)environmentally friendly ways of leading our lives? why is this touted as a negative thing? I'm asking a serious question.

.

Here's the reading of peoples post problem we have. No one has said that.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » October 14, 2007, 12:22 pm

Adding some more fuel to the fire::

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/ ... 38792.html

ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

At his first appearance since the award was announced in Oslo, Mr Gore said: "We have to quickly find a way to change the world's consciousness about exactly what we're facing."

Mr Gore shared the Nobel prize with the United Nations climate panel for their work in helping to galvanise international action against global warming.

But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.

However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.

"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.

During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error.

He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.

"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.

He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science.

"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."

Midnyte_Ragebringer · October 14, 2007, 12:27 pm

Fash wrote:However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.

"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.

If that does happen, people like Gore will say it was due to their efforts.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » October 14, 2007, 1:21 pm

Yeah Gray's position is old news...he said that last year during NHC's Hurricane Week. The guy is a great climatologist and understands the ITCZ better than probably single person alive. His ideas aren't supported by any data.