Global Warming

[LMTC]

<-----DENIER

I believe my comment above contains as much rational evidence and honest invitation to discuss and debate as any post made by those who have been assigning sarcastic labels (name-calling) to those who disagree with them. And it saves me time. Thanks to all who have given me a moniker to hang my hat on.

 

[N80]

I see. So any phenomena that shows the climate is warming up (ice disappearing, etc) is "not related".

You missed my point, how I don't know, but you did. The old addage of "true, true and unrelated" does not suggest that no two observed phenomenon are unrelated, OBVIOUSLY. It relates to people observing two phenomenon and assuming they are related without proof. Like: 97% of the people who were diagnosed with cancer last year had eaten carrots within 3 months of their diagnosis. What does that mean to you? You have two phenomenon 1) people getting cancer and 2) those same people eating carrots. How are they related? (Come on, its not that hard). They are not related, of course. Same as your polar bears.

Good rebuttal NOT!

Believe me, I was not expecting you to appreciate it.

 

[N80]

Harry, that stuff is regional observational data applied to a global (essentially planetary) phenomenon. Citing bad science is no worse than citing nothing. Don't think you get a free pass on "show me the evidence" by doing a Google search.

 

[N80]

Oh PALEEZE, you are going to cite Democratic House Committee hearings to suggest that Bush is a bad guy. OMG that may be the most nearsighted thing I've ever seen!

For what its worth I've seen equally polarized and possibly equally as meanigless stories that scientists who disagree with global warming theories are being harrassed and ostracized by certain scientific communities and liberal governments in Europe.

Tit. Tat. Got us nowhere.

 

[N80]

Read a story today where Al Gore wants pension funds to begin investing in global warming as a long term approach.

That is all that anyone needs to know about global warming. Redistribution of wealth. And if it seems unfair that good science has been contaminated by such political motives, well, that's just too doggone bad and is hardly the fault of the skeptical. You need to choose your friends as carefully as your enemies. Regardless, in the last thread regarding this we covered much more solid data and research than this one is unearthing and to date, I haven't seen anything I'd call good science to support the global warming cause anyway.

It is the new religion. It is Al Gore's last sad attempt to have the world take him seriously. It is the propaganda cash cow for environmental activists. It is the new global threat, rather poorly filling the void left by Reagan's distruction of the threat of mutually assured destruction (a philosphy, I might add, born of liberal democrats like Kennedy and Macnamara). It is a cultural phenomenon not a scientific one.

I've said it before, there is almost no possibility that this planet could undergo gradual climate change and not benefit someone or something somewhere. And remember, the UN report that made such a big splash said this would be a process that took centuries as in plural. Al Gore's visions of tsunamis in Brooklyn next month are Hollywood hysteria. But until I hear some scientist who buys into manmade global warming give a rational and realistic assessment of who will benefit from these changes, then I will not even be willing to listen to them for that alone exposes the unscientific basis and idealogy tainted nature of their work. The whole notion that global warming is 'bad' exposes an almost intolerable irony and hypocrisy as it comes from people who have no moral compass and defend the fact that in a world of science and reason there can be no moral compass! They are their own compass. The people they don't like are doing something they don't like, therefore it must be 'bad and bad has no meaning in their world without values.

So let's get on board with this global warming thing. Al Gore is right, it is getting hotter by the minute and it is our fault. But let's make this a happy faith, an optimistic religion! Its getting hot, we're doing it and we like it that way! We will be dedicated to exploiting every global benefit a warmer world can afford!

 

[tallyho8]

On March 3 we had 3 threads on this topic closed. I am surprised that another thread on this topic has lasted this long. However, it is very entertaining and educational and this thread has a good bit of merit as long as we can all behave like gentlemen and not resort to name calling and derogatory remarks about our fellow TBNers.

 

[turnkey4099]

You missed my point, how I don't know, but you did. The old addage of "true, true and unrelated" does not suggest that no two observed phenomenon are unrelated, OBVIOUSLY. It relates to people observing two phenomenon and assuming they are related without proof. Like: 97% of the people who were diagnosed with cancer last year had eaten carrots within 3 months of their diagnosis. What does that mean to you? You have two phenomenon 1) people getting cancer and 2) those same people eating carrots. How are they related? (Come on, its not that hard). They are not related, of course. Same as your polar bears.



Believe me, I was not expecting you to appreciate it.

Now there's a brilliant post. So an animal that depends on ice for it's survival is in decline while the ice is also in decline is not related...uhuh.

When you have two points of data that are _clearly_ related and you try to deny that it says a world about you.

Harry K

 

[turnkey4099]

N80: (quote)I've said it before, there is almost no possibility that this planet could undergo gradual climate change and not benefit someone or something somewhere. And remember, the UN report that made such a big splash said this would be a process that took centuries as in plural. Al Gore's visions of tsunamis in Brooklyn next month are Hollywood hysteria. But until I hear some scientist who buys into manmade global warming give a rational and realistic assessment of who will benefit from these changes, then I will not even be willing to listen to them for that alone exposes the unscientific basis and idealogy tainted nature of their work. The whole notion that global warming is 'bad' exposes an almost intolerable irony and hypocrisy as it comes from people who have no moral compass and defend the fact that in a world of science and reason there can be no moral compass! They are their own compass. The people they don't like are doing something they don't like, therefore (end quote)

While I don't agree with everything in that, most is right down my line of thinking.

Evidence of a Warming Earth - The Woods Hole Research Center
-------------------------------------------
(lead in paragraph)
Through the study of ancient ice cores from Antarctica it is possible to compare atmospheric concentrations of the dominant greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere with temperature variations over the past 400 thousand years of the earth's history (Fig 1). A visual comparison of the two trends indicates a very tight connection between their performance, with fluctuations in one plot almost exactly mirrored in the other for more than 400 thousand years. But suddenly in the 1800s, as the Industrial Revolution takes off, atmospheric CO2 concentrations begin an unprecedented upward climb, rising rapidly from 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) in the early 1800s to a current level of 376 ppmv, 77 ppmv above the highest concentrations previously attained in the course of the preceding 400 thousand years.
(followed by a chart that shows temp/co2 mirroring each other. Due to the compressed time scale it is hard to tell which is leading).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus the argument that CO2 does not cause warming is specious as you can check either one and know what the other is doing, i.e., if you have a high co2 reading you know the temp will also be up and vice versa.

Trying to argue there is no correlation is straining at a gnat.

Claiming that man has not affected the CO2 level is clearly erronious per the above paragraph.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CO2-temperature correlation | Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist

A very good article on the specific point of CO2 following Temp
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Collapse of giant Arctic ice shelf 'incredible'

1 of many articles on the 40 sq mile (66 km) ice shelf that departed Ellesmere Isle.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
delawareonline ¦ The News Journal ¦ Bird count may point to global warming

The article on birds extending range north. After reading it I find that my recollection was off. The data is still tentative and is loaded with "may" and 'could be", etc.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

OKay, there is a bunch of cites to back up almost every thing I said in my reply to Eddie. If I missed something anyone wants a cite for just ask.

Still waiting for the antis to give any cites.

Someone up thread said something about poor science. Almost every cite above is from very reputable sources or from reputable papers. That data doesn't agree with you is not the fault of the data.

I must say that I am learning some things through this search. Thus far I have found nothing that contradicts my stance that:
1. GW is happening and is a natural cycle.
2. Man is augmenting it beyond anything in the past.

Harry K

 

[MikePA]

On March 3 we had 3 threads on this topic closed.

Four threads is more than enough for now. Perhaps this can be continued on a Global Warming discussion web site. How about a nice tractor related thread?