Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
FutureSDguy
ParticipantThe premise upon which this AGW house of cards rests is with CO2, particulaly man-made CO2. I’m not claiming humans have NO impact on climate, only that it’s much smaller than the natural variation. Empirical data (not models) shows this. CO2 has been rising since 1800, well before humans came up, and the climate has both cooled and warmed in that time period. CO2 is a lagging metric when you look at the temperature trends over 400,000 years.
Just because I do not believe in the models that IPCC puts forth does not mean I don’t care about the environment. I just see a lot of damage in scientific thought as this “global warming” hysteria grows. Futhermore, we simply do not know enough about climite to really predict it. The bullying tactics of environmental organizations (including IPCC), and corresponding squelching of scientific dissent among qualified climate scientists are quite known and articles can be easily found by searching the web. It is not publicized, because the media is very one-sided in giving the public the story.
Participant“Oh, so you think climate science is a bigger business than the petroleum industry? That Exxon can’t afford to pay for the research? Didn’t they just report record profits?”
Huh? You lost me there buddy.
“Easy answer, that statement is totally false”
How is it totally false?
Participant“Climate change is happening, humans are almost certainly to blame, and there almost certainly will be hard consequences if we don’t start dealing with it soon”
And we come full circle. There is NO proof of this, which is why there’s such vitriol. It’s purely speculation based on models that make assumptions. e.g. Industry causes CO2, CO2 causes warming; using GDP to measure industrial output, extrapolate future GDP and from that, extrapolate future warming. That’s the ESSENCE of what IPCC’s report does!
Mark’s mentality: “even there is no conclusive proof, let’s do it anyway,” is fine and dandy, but convince companies that will go bankrupt to go along with you. There’s a lot of things humans do based on perceived, rather than real, benefit. If using science to understand global warming doesn’t matter in the end, what’s the point of being scientific?
jrp1: “In fact, it would be historic if anyone can conclusively prove that AGW is a farce.”
Exactly!
I was asked: “Anyways, I have a question for you, futureSDperson. Do you consider offering $10K cash awards to anyone that will dismiss scientifically determined results a good method to discover the truth? Discuss.”
I find that odd, because the other people have already countered the IPCC report. The oil companies would be better off coordinating these various people to come up with a good peer review of the IPCC report.
I don’t care who’s behind it or how much money is involved (but I do care that funding is given to both sides fairly, which isn’t happening). When it comes to science, the more scutiny you give to a theory, the better. This is obvious.
My counter question: The earth was warm enough to offer the vikings an ice-less Greenland 1000-1200. How did this happen without human-caused CO2?
Participant“Why are you so eager to dismiss the opinion of 2000+ hard working climate scientists whose scientific reputations are on the line, and rather spout the pseudo-science of a registered lobbyist for the oil industry?”
I’m eager because I want the truth to reign. Similarly, I believe in evolution, and I am concerned with Creationists taking over the curriculum.
Science should be based on logic, not consensus. Should I be swayed if someone said “2000+ top clergymen say that the Earth was divinely created, then it must be so?”
So “2000+ hard working climate scientists” is an empty phrase to me. 20 lead scientists wrote the IPCC report, and that’s the count I’m interested in. Read earlier in this thread and you’ll see that 60 high ranking scientists, who worked just as hard (likely harder because they get less money and put up with character assassinations) disputed the report.
Oil companies funding climate science is better than politicians doing it, because they’re initimately involved. It doesn’t matter who is behind the research, so long as talented scientists on both sides are given equal opportunity to be funded. When science is done correctly, the money becomes irrelevant.
If there was a global panic about baby food causing ear infections, don’t you think it would be reasonable for Gerber to fund research to disprove it?
The hockey-stick graph that was used in earlier debates about CO2 is perfect example of what I consider “pseudo-science.” This was supposed to have been the smoking gun, but it no longer isnt.
“And, in general, isn’t it interesting that the same people who claim that AGW is a hoax are largely the same people that claimed that smoking didn’t cause cancer, that DDT was not a problem, that asbestos did not cause cancer, that we would be greeted with flowers in Iraq and the war would pay for itself, etc etc?”
I’m not one of them. I just say that AGW is almost certainly a hoax, and I draw this conclusion first on my own scientific intuition, and secondly from scientific evidence. The rest of your points are strawmen. Instead of sticking to hard science, people have to resort to fuzzy logic and character smears. Hiding behind catch phrases like “oil company,” “think tanks,” “shady people,” etc do not relieve one from seeking the truth, and IMO, environmentalists don’t really care about the truth so much as find ways to further their emotionally-based agenda. (Now I admit I’m using the term environmentalist as if its a bad thing… it’s generally not… I’m sure most will understand whom I’m referring to.)
Your arguments about CO2 are very good, by the way. Unfortunately for you, it doesn’t prove AGW.
“Why would you try to dismiss that or downplay that?”
Why would you dismiss evidence disproving AGW? You and I shouldn’t be the ones to have to convince each other (although it’s noble to try). What society needs are truly impartial scientists, funded fairly, who *haven’t* staked their reputations on the outcome. Science over superstition is always a good thing.
ParticipantCan’t the buyer simply say “represent both of us for 3% or I’ll walk?”
ParticipantIf you’re looking for someone that doesn’t believe that man can’t change the order of the world about him, that someone is not me. I believe that we can do damage: we can make really ugly messes: we spill oil, we create smog, we cause erotion, and we affect the food chain. We can make animals extinct or at least challenge their populations through excessive hunting and building hydroelectric dams.
And I do believe the Earth has warmed in the last century. A sad misconception that largely results from the media reporting is that AGW = GW. Global warming and cooling happens naturally, and to believe that man has caused it is a serious scientific question that needs to be validated, otherwise we’re a bunch of knee-jerk ignoramuses. If you look at the actual hard science, there is more evidence against AGW than for it.
What really drives me crazy is that people who support reduction in CO2 emissions don’t help out convincing me with science. They think painting (making-up in most cases) disaster scenarios is sufficient science to convince me. Please, stop it with the “if you don’t stop X, Y will happen”, because I’ve heard it throughly, and start spending more time proving that X causes Y.
sd_csr said “Methane is hugely more influential in climate than CO2.” True, volume-for-volume, it is. (See http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html), but according to IPCC itself, the concentration has not changed in the last 420,000 years (but does say that humans activity is part of its recent variation). I’ve never heard anyone say that methane is a more serious problem than CO2, but it is interesting to read about.
That same site summarizes:” The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later. Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%.”
There is no true consensus of the greenhouse effect of CO2. But lets be outrageously generous for the sake of demonstrating mathematical absurdity: lets say CO2 is the *sole* reason for earth temperature variation (throw out solar variation, changes in earth’s inclination and orbit, etc etc). This is to say that the doubling of CO2 this past century is solely responsible +0.6C in temperature. 0.6 C / 200% = 0.003 C rise in temp per percentage rise (Cper%) in CO2. With Kyoto reducing CO2 by 0.035%, we can work the math: 0.035% times 0.003 Cper% = 0.000105 C. A ten-thousandths of a degree Celsius decrease as a result of full compliance of Kyoto!
sdnativeson linked me to a useful site earlier in this thread. For those who believe in anthropogentic global warming, but at the same time aren’t militant and are patient enough to read opposing viewpoints, I’d strongly suggest a read of: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
(The Take-Home Messages at the end give a convenient summary).But the optimist in me says that this “craze” (which is exactly what it is) will wear off. Good science usually prevails.
Well I’m exhausted. 🙂 Have a great weekend, everyone!
ParticipantKewp was simply trying to refute my point about CO2 not being a greenhouse gas (in the sense of being heat blanket) and intimidate me with Wow sarcasm.
Other problems with CO2 explanation: 1/2 of the warming in the last century occurred before the 1940’s, yet most of the CO2 emissions occurred after the 1940’s. So there’s a lack of correlation here: if CO2 is the cause, then what happened prior to 1940?.
Other sources also tell me that temperature change grows logarithmically w.r.t. CO2 increase, meaning that the more CO2 we put out, the less of a difference it makes.
ParticipantEasy Town: “Why don’t the critics provide us with information showing that atmospheric carbon dioxide has had rates of growth during previous climate cycles anywhere equivalent to the past 100 years.”
Why don’t you just look at the data. Here’s a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg
(Notice that temperature rise precedes CO2 rise, which is opposite of what environmentalists would like to have in order to support their agenda.)
“Why don’t they provide us with information showing that carbon dioxide does not have a tendency to trap heat.”
Why don’t the scientists in support of AGW show that CO2 *does* have a tendanacy to trap heat? This is a theory that came out of seeing correlations between CO2 and temperature, but correlation does not mean causation.
But if you want a refutation, here is one: http://freenet-homepage.de/klima/indexe.htm. Too bad that energy of scientists have to be spent on refuting junk science instead of devoting time discovering truths.
“Why don’t they show that we are not really pumping billions of tons of pollutants into the air each year.”
Nobody disputes that. Reducing emissions will result in cleaner air–that’s easy to show. But will it result in cooling the Earth? (BTW, smog cools the Earth, so perhaps we should be polluting more, not less!)
Most of people only hear the anthrogenic global warming stuff, and assume its skeptics are ignorant. This is lazy. There is plenty of material out there that refutes AGW if you turn off your TV, take time away from your hippie friends, and go look for it.
You’re not a hippie? So sorry. We all make grand assumptions don’t we?
ParticipantIts refreshing to see some saner minds jump into this debate. With NBC News continually hammering “Global Warming and what we can do about it” into our minds every week, its no wonder that people are all too willing to throw science out the window and take anthrogenic (man-made) global warming as a given.
The IPCC, International Panel for Climate Change, part of UN, came up with a report that was largely written by 20 scientists. The other thousands are basically of hand-picked scientists, chosen apriori for their beliefs about Global Warming. Dissenters were not allowed to join. So much for healthy skepticism, critical thinking, and weighing multiple theories.
The IPCC was behind the deliberate manipulation of data to acheive what they wanted to show, an exponential rise in temperature in the last century (popularly known as the “hockey stick.”) Tree ring records that favored global warming were factored in the data, but magnified 370 times, while data that included the medieval warming period–which contradicted the agenda–was censored out. A later review found that with the tree ring data along with completely made-up (random) data still resulted in the hockey stick, hence proving nothing. So this graph was used to get nations on board to sign the Kyoto Treaty, a trillion dollar proposal to solve a non-existant problem. Scary stuff.
The UN tries to pull a snowjob to get the masses to believe that man-made CO2 is causing global warming, despite ice-core readings showing that CO2 rise happens after temperature rise (sometimes as much as 800 years), and despite there is no physical proof that CO2 reflects infrared back to the surface.
Climate scientists tend to be poor physicists. I could not find any material that shows laboratory demonstrations of CO2 reflection. In fact, electromagnetic radiation of all kinds reflect through colorless materials when there is a phase transition, i.e. gas-to-solid. That’s why clouds (water vapor) act as a green house gas.
95% of green house gases is water vapor. CO2 is second, and only a tiny fraction of it is man-made. In fact, .28% of all green house gases is man-made.
Greenland. It’s called that because it once *was* green. In the 1400’s, the Vikings colonized the area and became farmers. But global cooling set in and farmland became frozen over with permafrost. This cooling is called the Maunder Minimum.
We are coming out of a mini-ice age. The rate of temperature rise over the last century is relatively dramatic (0.8 degrees C), but this sort of temperature rise has been seen in geological records.
The medieval warming period brought temperatures that were even warmer than we see at the present. Either the horses upon which the Knights rode emitted lots of CO2, or the temperature change was natural.
As a previous poster said, we are just beginning to understand climate and we only recently really paid attention to temperature.
Someone once noticed that when sunspots become numerous the price of wheat fell (due to surplus). While that was a casual observation, it later suggests a link between sunspots and temperature. Scientists, the honest ones who aren’t paid by politicians, are still in the process of understanding it, and thankfully using the scientific method to validate their hypotheses.
Personally, I have always believed in the Occam’s Razor: the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one. Applying that here, the simplest explanation for global warming is that the sun is getting warmer. After doing some research, I found that the increase in solar radiance hasn’t increased that much to account for temperature change, but what is striking is the sunspot record. Using Beryllium-10 measurements, they have determined that sunspots actually completely disappeared for a long stretch of time, right smack during the Maunder Minimum! (Enjoy a video on this: http://capnbob.us/blog/?p=610). The actual link isn’t clear (to me at least), but there is evidence that the increase in cosmic rays resulting from sunspots give rise to low-level clouds on earth, which does warm the surface.
This kind of real science is coming out of the woodworks, folks. Some scientists even predict a return to colder temperatures by 2025. I don’t know exactly will happen and I’m not trying to put my weight against any particular theory (I’m only a curious person in search of truths). But what I do know is that the current antrogenic global warming is based on junk science and the amount of counter-evidence against it is quite abundant.
LostCat, who seems lost in more ways than one, said that as a population we can’t [typo correction mine] afford to ignore it.
Whether we ignore it, can afford to ignore it, or can’t afford to ignore it, it doesn’t matter when global warming is natural.
ParticipantHouse Hunters is an odd show. Realtor shows three houses, sometimes very different than one another, and buyer chooses one of the three. Sure….
It’s funny to watch the realtor show the houses and try to add value in the decision making process. In most cases, they’re pointing out the obvious: “look at this red kitchen.”
“Isn’t that wallpaper wonderful?”
“No, I hate it.”
“Well the wonderful thing is that you can take it down and customize this room to your tastes.”
“And I’m paying you HOW much to tell me this?”ParticipantDont take this personally, blackbox, but you’re a mean-spirited idiot.
ParticipantLostcat: “Nice looking community. I actually like the court yard thing. Who needs a back yard?”
Dogs.
February 1, 2007 at 10:30 AM in reply to: January Sales look strong some places and not so strong others #44594ParticipantAh, now we know why this particular RE broker isn’t such a spinster like the others. 🙂 He isn’t so fiscally dependent. Good luck in your new business.
ParticipantThat’s whats so weird about Gore, Concho. He lies when he doesn’t have to. Consider this article:
-
AuthorPosts
