I'm all for reducing pollution and I admit I'm not qualified to judge the science, but I'm skeptical of the Global Warming CO2 doomsday scenarios. 1. We've heard this exaggerated song and dance before. In the 70's we were told we would run out of oil and the whole world would be starving by 2000. If they can't get that right, how can we trust their predictions of 100 years from now. 2. Global warming proponents claim the science is decided and attack their opponents instead of their arguments. They're holocaust deniers or pawns of industry. They neglect to mention there's government money to be made if you support the consensus. You even have politicians and celebraties trying to suppress GW "Deniers". 3. People whose opinion I respect offer arguments against the hysteria. They include William Gray, Chris Landsea, Richard Lidzen, John Stossel, and Michael Crichton. William Gray, by the way claims his funding was cut during the Clinton/Gore admin. 4. During the 30's & 40's temps rose, lowered later in the century when CO2 was increasing, then rose in the later part of the century. Looks cyclical to me. 5. GW proponents who generate more CO2 in a month, then I do in a year, tell me I have to sacrifice. Al Gore claims he buys carbon credits to offset his CO2 footprint. He never mentions he's founder and chairman of the firm that he buy's the credits from. 6. Seems every day we hear some new horror. Mutant poison ivy or drowning polar bears. Polar bear populations are increasing but the hysterics are trying to list them as endangered. 7. It's hard to see where CO2 going from 3 one-hundredths of one percent to 6 one hundredths of a percent is going to cause disaster. 8. The US would have suffered most under Kyoto, while India and China are exempt. 9. The global warming proponents are pushing taxation, buying carbon credits, and alternative energy solutions that would have a very small effect on rising CO2. If they were sincere they would be calling for the elimination of coal power plants and replace them with nuke plants. It's hard to believe the French are the ones acting responsibly. 10. Al Gore claims that he has been fighting CO2 induced global warming since college. I have to wonder when he ever found time to invent the internet.
I have 1 big problem with Al. I don't even have a problem with him claiming 20' sea level rise when even the IPCC predicted 7-20". I do have a problem with him and his pals that who try to stiffle the voice of those who disagree with them. I can respect but disagree with someone like Hansen, but seriously, does anyone believe Al Gore has been fighting CO2 emmissions since college?
Originally posted by skeptical yank: .....I admit I'm not qualified to judge the science....
Then you're taking the word of someone that you trust to judge the science. Let me tell you. Scientists are like everybody else. There are those who will say anything to keep those research grants coming in.
Or, perhaps you're taking the word of someone else who is not qualified to judge the science. I don't know what to say about that.
After all, this is just the kind of issue that scientists study and give expert opinions about. This is not a religious or a political issue.
If you disagree, do try to hire a politician the next time somebody you care about needs an operation.
If you disagree, do try to hire a politician the next time somebody you care about needs an operation.[/QUOTE]
But how am I to detemine who's correct. I'm told the glaciers in Greenland, and Antartic are melting. I see other studies from who I'm told are reputable scientists that the ice is getting thicker in some places. Is it true that it's warmed just 1 degree farenheit this century? Is it true that the southern hemisphere isn't warming?
That's because you are quoting scientific information to make your point, but you state at the beginning that you don't understand the science, or words to that effect.
How are we supposed to argue points when you state that you don't even understand your own?
How are we supposed to argue points when you state that you don't even understand your own?[/QUOTE]
I consider myself fairly scientifically literate but when you have conflicting results from reputable scientists, how can we judge who's correct? I'm skeptical but I'm willing to concede that the global warmers may be correct. My biggest frustration is their refusal to address my points.
But how am I to detemine who's correct. I'm told the glaciers in Greenland, and Antartic are melting. I see other studies from who I'm told are reputable scientists that the ice is getting thicker in some places. Is it true that it's warmed just 1 degree farenheit this century? Is it true that the southern hemisphere isn't warming?[/QUOTE]
No it's not true that the southern hemispher isn't warming. There have been numerous stories even in the news media about the glaciers disappearing in southern Chile and about pieces of the Antarctic ice sheet as big as some countries breaking off and floating away. Don't know how you missed that.
As for the rest, especially regarding the arctic glaciers and ice sheets, there are reports even in the regular news all the time about how much thinner the ancient ice sheets have become, and that they are melting much faster than predicted, even by global climatologists who specialize in the effects of global warming. Just a couple of weeks ago there was a story about how "new" islands are becoming known around the coast of Greenland. It was not known before that they were islands because they were covered with the same ice pack that covers Greenland itself. I've read reports from Navy scientists and submariners about the thinning of the arctic ice. The scientific evidence of these things, and of global warming in general, are just overwhelming.
But to be a good scientist, I have to add that there is no way to prove whether the warming is caused by human activity or whether it's some natural cycle. But either way the effects will be tremendous. Better to try to stay on the safe side, I would think.
And even a 1 degree rise in the average temp of the whole Earth is a gigantic amount of energy. Energy that will melt glaciers and affect plant and animal life. I just recently had some bushes die in my yard, and the state agricultural agent told me that it was because the rise in temperature had killed off that species in this area. We were no longer in its range of occurrence.
If the majority of reputable scientists in the world are saying one thing, and a few others perhaps with ties to industry or conservative government are saying something different, it is easy to decide who to believe. Of course to be good at this you would have to know at least who some of the prominent scientists are, which would require some reading on the subject.
I would advise against making scientific arguments that start with an admission of not understanding the science.
Originally posted by elfuente: If the majority of reputable scientists in the world are saying one thing, and a few others perhaps with ties to industry or conservative government are saying something different, it is easy to decide who to believe. Of course to be good at this you would have to know at least who some of the prominent scientists are, which would require some reading on the subject.
I would advise against making scientific arguments that start with an admission of not understanding the science.
I didn't say I didn't understand the science. I and I suspect the majority reading this forum would have difficulty determining who is right between competing PHDs.
Why is it always necessary to slander the opposition. Writing off skeptics as pawns of industry doesn't refute their arguments. Industry doesn't pump as any more money into the debate, than government or environmental groups who subsidize global warmers. James Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz (as in the wife of John Kerry) foundation but I don't attack his motives. As far as legitimate scientists, are all these scientists prostitutes for industry? Here’s just a few that I’m familiar with.
Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville William M. Gray, professor of atmospheric science and meteorologist, Colorado State University Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia Roger A. Pielke, Jr. professor in the Environmental Studies Program at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. Christopher Landsea, formerl research meteorologist with Hurricane Research Division of Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory at NOAA, Science and Operations Officer at the National Hurricane Center . In January, 2005, Landsea withdrew from the IPCC the IPCC report had become politicized. Claude Allegre Ph D in physics, University of Paris, former director of geochemistry and cosmochemistry program at the French National Scientific Research Centre, member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the French Academy of Science.
Originally posted by elfuente: No it's not true that the southern hemispher isn't warming. There have been numerous stories even in the news media about the glaciers disappearing in southern Chile and about pieces of the Antarctic ice sheet as big as some countries breaking off and floating away. Don't know how you missed that.
elfuente, sorry about your plants, but their demise does not prove the link between CO2 and catastrophic warming. Climate is always changing. I've heard meteorologists mention that citrus grew in Alabama (that’s north of Florida) in the early part of the century. I’ve yet to hear proof that my suspicions are incorrect. I’ve heard the stories of glacial melts you mention in the media. I just saw a story today that brothel owners in Bulgaria are blaming global warming for staff shortages. The BBC had an interesting report on Global Warming Reporting. The mainstream media isn’t always the best source for evaluating science. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4923504.stm The claims about the southern hemisphere and some glaciers thickening come from, Lidzen, Singer, Spencer, and others. I’m looking forward to someone providing proof that the skeptics are wrong without reverting to name calling and innuendo.
There is no doubt that the Earth is getting warmer. What can't be known for sure is whether the current warming is due to human activity or not. All of the evidence is circumstantial. Climate changes all the time. Much of the middle east, for example, was rich agricultural land 2000 years ago, in biblical times. Now that same land is mostly desert. You may have read about the "Little Ice Age" that happened from about 1650 until the 19th century. Cooler temperatures, but no glaciers, over much of the higher latitudes in the northern hemisphere (including much of Europe). Growing seasons were shorter. Winters were longer and colder.
Some of these changes follow short term patterns (even 2000 years would be considered to be short-term in Earth-science history) and there are some long term, like ice ages with glaciers covering much of the Earth every 12,000 years or so. We're overdue for one of those.
So again, it cannot be absolutely proven that human activities, such as burning fuel, are the cause of the current warming, but there is no doubt that it's happening.
"Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback increase temperature in Europe" Philipona et al.
I'm a bit to busy to go into the rest of the original post right now but....
Michael Crichton doesn't qualify as a sceptic, he's used duff data and flawed arguments repeatedly.
Roger Pielke has a blog that can be interesting (sometimes I think he gets things wrong). But I find broad agreement with his conclusions: http://climatesci.colorado.edu/main-conclusions/ "Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide... ...The forecasts, therefore, do not provide any skill in quantifying the impact of different mitigation strategies on the actual climate response that would occur."
I wouldn't call him a skeptic of the consensus that humans are altering climate. He's more a skeptic of details (which IMHO he sometimes get's lost in, but "hey whaddo I know?").
the world needs to be in a state of equal balance, before human invention and intervention, the world had this. The amazon and rainforest still had all their trees, the world was still green and fruitful, the co2 that was being release by volcanoes and rotting vegetation was being absorbed by the trees - as this is there reason for being. But since humans came along, the forests are all being cut down, whilst nuclear power stations are being built. The world isnt in equal balance any longer, we lack the resources to offset the emisions naturally because theyre all being cut down to make nice 3 piece suites and dining tables.
You dont need to be a scientist to work that out, you dont even have to like al gore. Its common sense, which a lot of scientists dont exactly have.
I think Greg Palast has already exposed the peak oil myth as being something dreamt up by the major oil companies in a bid to keep their product at an artificially high price. My main reason for skepticism is that it's another report that's not got general consensus amongst the scientific community. it's a report written by the former chief economist and vice president of the world bank [research the world banks activities since 1949] The only consensus i see is from the governments of europe mainly who see in it. another tax opportunity. I don't even wanna mention the nasa report about climate change on mars
