Cold, hard facts take the heat out of some hot claims

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Not really. I said someone who 'denied' that humans played 'any' part in global warming.

I think we would all agree that humans are contributing to global warming, pollution, etc, etc....thing is, we DO NOT know how much of an effect we have had, and will have in the future on the environment.

But its nice of you to pick and choose comments to try and prove your point.

My bad though if you misunderstood....next time I'll capitalize the 'not'...in 'not contributing to global warming'....and it might be easier to understand.

There is a huge difference is saying our effect is minuscule .... and saying we are NOT contributing to global warming...which nobody here in this thread has.

You asked for it and you got it. Don't act all offended because you were proven wrong.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Azure

Not really. I said someone who 'denied' that humans played 'any' part in global warming.

Maybe we should have a poll then.

A) There is no global warming.
B) There is global warming, but human activity is uninvolved.
C) There is global warming, contributed by human activity, but not enough to warrant immediate action
D) There is global warming completely caused by human activity and we need to act NOW to avoid dire consequences

It is your belief that everyone on this board (and by extension, the public at large) would fall into C or D?

[Save Us Sutter]

Originally Posted by Azure

Not really. I said someone who 'denied' that humans played 'any' part in global warming.

I think we would all agree that humans are contributing to global warming, pollution, etc, etc....thing is, we DO NOT know how much of an effect we have had, and will have in the future on the environment.

But its nice of you to pick and choose comments to try and prove your point.

My bad though if you misunderstood....next time I'll capitalize the 'not'...in 'not contributing to global warming'....and it might be easier to understand.

There is a huge difference is saying our effect is minuscule .... and saying we are NOT contributing to global warming...which nobody here in this thread has.

We're just arguing semantics here dude.

You're right, no one has said the sentence "Humans are not contributing to global warming at all"

But if you're being honest you cannot read those quotes without realizing the sentiment is that it's not our fault, we can't do anything to change it and should therefore continue living how we are guilt free.

And there is no difference in saying our effect is miniscule and saying we are NOT contributing. Both lead to the opinion that we have no reason to change our current behaviours... when overwhelming scientific evidence says we do.

[Save Us Sutter]

I'm sorry if I am offending anyone, but I just don't understand how you can keep denying that humans are effecting our climate.

From the UN scientific panel... which I hope we can agree is un-biased?

declared that the evidence of a warming trend is "unequivocal," and that human activity has "very likely" been the driving force in that change over the last 50 years.

and

added new momentum to a debate that now seems centered less over whether humans are warming the planet, but instead over what to do about it

I am on my way to a BBQ, but if this thread is still going when I get back I will dig up some non-NY Times articles!!

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/s...nyt-classifier

Yeah, yeah it's the NY Times... liberal bias... blah blah blah. The fact remains that the results come from a UN team of scientists....

[lifer]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Maybe we should have a poll then.

A) There is no global warming.
B) There is global warming, but human activity is uninvolved.
C) There is global warming, contributed by human activity, but not enough to warrant immediate action
D) There is global warming completely caused by human activity and we need to act NOW to avoid dire consequences

It is your belief that everyone on this board (and by extension, the public at large) would fall into C or D?

I know you're probably aware of this, but an answer that many would look for (including myself) would be like this:
e) This is global warming. Humans are contributing to a portion of it, and it is important to look at ways to reduce human contributions to global climate change in a manner that will not cripple the Albertan economy.

I think that answer is similar to what the Conservative position is, and I think it would be the most commonly selected answer. It would be mine.

[Save Us Sutter]

Originally Posted by lifer

I know you're probably aware of this, but an answer that many would look for (including myself) would be like this:
e) This is global warming. Humans are contributing to a significant portion of it, and it is important to look at ways to reduce human contributions to global climate change in a manner that will not cripple the Albertan economy.

I think that answer is similar to what the Conservative position is, and I think it would be the most commonly selected answer. It would be mine.

fixed for you

[lifer]

ha. That's fixed for some people...

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

You asked for it and you got it. Don't act all offended because you were proven wrong.

Proven wrong?

Nobody here has said that humans are NOT....'not'....'not'...'not'...(get it?)...contributing to global warming.

See, this is the problem in the first place. Seems like people figure either we are, or we aren't. No in between.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Save Us Sutter

I'm sorry if I am offending anyone, but I just don't understand how you can keep denying that humans are effecting our climate.

From the UN scientific panel... which I hope we can agree is un-biased?

declared that the evidence of a warming trend is "unequivocal," and that human activity has "very likely" been the driving force in that change over the last 50 years.

and

added new momentum to a debate that now seems centered less over whether humans are warming the planet, but instead over what to do about it

I am on my way to a BBQ, but if this thread is still going when I get back I will dig up some non-NY Times articles!!

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/s...nyt-classifier

Yeah, yeah it's the NY Times... liberal bias... blah blah blah. The fact remains that the results come from a UN team of scientists....

and a political organization like the UN isn't biased?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Save Us Sutter

We're just arguing semantics here dude.

You're right, no one has said the sentence "Humans are not contributing to global warming at all"

But if you're being honest you cannot read those quotes without realizing the sentiment is that it's not our fault, we can't do anything to change it and should therefore continue living how we are guilt free.

And there is no difference in saying our effect is miniscule and saying we are NOT contributing. Both lead to the opinion that we have no reason to change our current behaviours... when overwhelming scientific evidence says we do.

Yes I am right....so lets move on.

Sentiment is that we really don't know. And we don't. Which is why suddenly shutting down oil production tomorrow is pointless. Instead we should work that in 10-20 years, we don't need SO MUCH oil.

I'm not going to deny that we are having an effect on our planet...but I would rather work for the long-term goal....which would be different sources of energy.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Maybe we should have a poll then.

A) There is no global warming.
B) There is global warming, but human activity is uninvolved.
C) There is global warming, contributed by human activity, but not enough to warrant immediate action
D) There is global warming completely caused by human activity and we need to act NOW to avoid dire consequences

It is your belief that everyone on this board (and by extension, the public at large) would fall into C or D?

I would choose none of those.

My answer would be something like lifer said.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Proven wrong?

Nobody here has said that humans are NOT....'not'....'not'...'not'...(get it?)...contributing to global warming.

See, this is the problem in the first place. Seems like people figure either we are, or we aren't. No in between.

The kids call it "pwned" I believe.

But I don't see the need to sidetrack this any further. If the posters who made those statements want to clarify then I'm sure they will.

I don't figure we either are or we aren't.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Save Us Sutter

Is that what I said??? I don't think so. But it's hard to deny the economy of this province is pretty much run by the oil companies. Not exactly a enviormentally friendly group.

Most here wouldn't disagree with you at all. Companies are always going to try to do exactly what they're allowed to do, no less. That's why the government and science has to be involved to do it the best way possible.

Originally Posted by Save Us Sutter

No, they don't burn them all within their own borders. Are you saying that extracting the oil doesn't cause environmental problems???

Depends on how the oil is extracted, and how the problems are managed. But if the oil is going to be extracted one way or another, is it better to do it in Alberta where there is at least a government in place that could be persuaded to help manage environmental issues, or let Chavez do it with no regard at all for the environment?

Originally Posted by Save Us Sutter

Other countries mostly. I know in Nova Scotia we don't get out oil from Alberta, we have to import it. But that's a whole different topic altogether.

It doesn't really matter where a specific barrel of oil comes from.

Originally Posted by Save Us Sutter

The problem is consumtion, yes, but to say production is causing no harm is pretty naive.

Of course oil production causes harm, but sorry the doing harm to the planet with so many humans boat sailed loooong ago. Farming causes harm too. So does building houses. Everything does. The point is to manage things, try to find better ways to do things. Take the oil out of the oil sands, put it back and reclaim the land, make it mandatory. Build a nuclear reactor so they don't have to burn natural gas. Or whatever else can be done.

Originally Posted by Save Us Sutter

Look guys, I'm sorry my comments were mistaken as an attack on Albertans.

Any time you take a group of people and paint them with the same brush you're going to get a reaction.

[Bobblehead]

Well, back on the original topic, yeah, nice job by the blogger. I wonder why it took so long to discover this when both sides have been at each other's throat.

But in the grand scheme of things, it only changes values by tiny amounts, and even then it is only the US values that are affected. The overall trends are unchanged by this correction.

All the source data for any of these reports should be open for review, and methodologies made public so they can be evaluated.

[Alter Haudegen]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Well, back on the original topic, yeah, nice job by the blogger. I wonder why it took so long to discover this when both sides have been at each other's throat.

But in the grand scheme of things, it only changes values by tiny amounts, and even then it is only the US values that are affected. The overall trends are unchanged by this correction.

All the source data for any of these reports should be open for review, and methodologies made public so they can be evaluated.

Problem is, the author of the article, Australian Michael Duffy, is not some objective journalist, an outsider searching for the truth. He has long been a denier of the human impact of global warming and been criticized more than once, for being a little too liberal with the handling of his sources (he generally declares his sources as independent scientists and forgets to mention their links with big - mining - companies who naturally have an interest in this position on global warming).

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Alter Haudegen

Problem is, the author of the article, Australian Michael Duffy, is not some objective journalist, an outsider searching for the truth. He has long been a denier of the human impact of global warming and been criticized more than once, for being a little too liberal with the handling of his sources (he generally declares his sources as independent scientists and forgets to mention their links with big - mining - companies who naturally have an interest in this position on global warming).

There is far more money to be made in linking Global warming to human activity then in denying it. The links to big companies are often thrown out there without just cause to devalue what credible scientists are saying. Eliminate those who are making a profit on the man caused/impending doom side of the equation and you would find very little unbiased research has been done.

[Alter Haudegen]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

There is far more money to be made in linking Global warming to human activity then in denying it. The links to big companies are often thrown out there without just cause to devalue what credible scientists are saying. Eliminate those who are making a profit on the man caused/impending doom side of the equation and you would find very little unbiased research has been done.

Both sides are guilty of it, but if you really believe there is more money behind linking global warming to human activity then there is to denying it you are seriously misleaded.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Alter Haudegen

Both sides are guilty of it, but if you really believe there is more money behind linking global warming to human activity then there is to denying it you are seriously misleaded.

lol ok buddy, you think climate scientists or any scientist for that matter finance's their research on there own? give you head a shake...

you think that the EU who desperately wants to even the economical playing field with the US doesnt poor millions into studies claiming global warming is man-made knowing full well it could cost North America trillions...

its already been widely reported, if you are a climate scientist wishing to get a grant, you better support the man-made theory....if there was more money pouring into the anti- man made group, you would have way more scientists on that band wagon...

as far as anti-man made scientist getting funded by oil companies, which came first the opinion/research or the cash? christ it only makes sense big oil would fund those scientists...

[Alter Haudegen]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

lol ok buddy, you think climate scientists or any scientist for that matter finance's their research on there own? give you head a shake...

you think that the EU who desperately wants to even the economical playing field with the US doesnt poor millions into studies claiming global warming is man-made knowing full well it could cost North America trillions...

its already been widely reported, if you are a climate scientist wishing to get a grant, you better support the man-made theory....if there was more money pouring into the anti- man made group, you would have way more scientists on that band wagon...

as far as anti-man made scientist getting funded by oil companies, which came first the opinion/research or the cash? christ it only makes sense big oil would fund those scientists...

You obviously know nothing about the EU if you think it has a single opinion on global warming. Maybe you should follow the the debate in Germany about this issue. Every time a politician wants to cut back C0² emission you get an outcry from the (car and energy) industry. Chancellor Merkel (who depends as much on the support of economic leaders as George Bush does) already stated that she is against prescriptive limits.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Alter Haudegen

(he generally declares his sources as independent scientists and forgets to mention their links with big - mining - companies who naturally have an interest in this position on global warming).

Thats funny i've yet to meet a scientist who doesn't get their funding from somewhere.