"Man-made global warming is junk science"

[mikey_the_redneck]

Wait a minute here.................the U.S. government has come up with a way to reverse global warming! (sarcasm)

http://www.infowars.com/the-governme...e-environment/

Kind of scary..........

[photon]

Chemtrails?

This thread has jumped the shark.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by puckhog

This article (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...0-deniers.aspx) claims to have a petition of 32,000 credentialed scientists who disagree with the opinion of climate change being the result of human activities. 9000 of the people who signed this have PhDs.

I don't know how much credence I would lend to Dr. Geri Halliwell. Perry Mason seemed like a smart guy, so maybe there is something to this naysaying.

Anyone here with a computer degree can get on that list. With 300,000,000 people in the U.S., of which about half tend to vote Republicans, and with the fake or duplicate names, I don't know how much you want to take that 32,000 number as proof of anything one way or another.

The solar cycle article appears to have been written by a seven year old rather than any kind of journalist:

While the NASA study acknowledged the sun's influence on warming and cooling patterns, it then went badly off the tracks. Ignoring its own evidence, it returned to an argument that man had replaced the sun as the cause current warming patterns. Like many studies, this conclusion was based less on hard data and more on questionable correlations and inaccurate modeling techniques.

NASA's position on global warming has been very consistent:
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global...worldbook.html
The scientists concluded that man is warming the planet just as sun cycles have in the past. But the blogger guy dismissed those findings and since blogger guy knows far more than the scientists that actually did the study I'm going believe whatever blogger guy says.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by photon

Chemtrails?

This thread has jumped the shark.

I'm not sure what "jumped the shark" means...........

[ken0042]

^^ In what episode did "Happy Days" stop being good, and after which started to just become painful to watch?

Hint- Fonzie jumped something.

[puckhog]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I don't know how much credence I would lend to Dr. Geri Halliwell. Perry Mason seemed like a smart guy, so maybe there is something to this naysaying.

Anyone here with a computer degree can get on that list. With 300,000,000 people in the U.S., of which about half tend to vote Republicans, and with the fake or duplicate names, I don't know how much you want to take that 32,000 number as proof of anything one way or another.

The article itself acknowledges that Geri Halliwell was a fake name, it also says that it was the only one proven to be fake. The others (Perry Mason, Michael Fox) actually turned out to have legitimate scientific backgrounds. As for duplicates, it is possible for two people to share the same name.

That being said, I agree that the number 32,000 is probably not entirely accurate; however, it lends credence to the idea that there are people out there who dissent from what seems to be the popular scientific position. And these aren't just some whack-jobs, they're smart people, people who have equally fancy degrees to the people on the other side of the debate. Your point that all you need is a computer degree does nothing to address the 9,000 names on the list who have PHDs. Additionally, David Suzuki has a degree in zoology, how is that any more relevant to a climate debate than a computer degree?

Clearly, your arguments aren't going to convince me, and mine aren't going to convince you on the root issue. All I'm trying to point out is that as much as some people want to believe that this issue is open-and-shut, there is still doubt.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by puckhog

Additionally, David Suzuki has a degree in zoology, how is that any more relevant to a climate debate than a computer degree?

Clearly, your arguments aren't going to convince me, and mine aren't going to convince you on the root issue. All I'm trying to point out is that as much as some people want to believe that this issue is open-and-shut, there is still doubt.

Not too many CS graduates host their own national science show for 30 years where they learn about other branches of science and learn from other scientists in other fields. I think I would respect the opinion of someone with exposure to other branches of science than I would any of the computer dorks I graduated with or even my own dorky self for that matter.

But speaking of David, in "Time for Change" he said, let's assume there is a debate. Let's say it's a 50/50 chance. If there is global warming, we should reduce our consumption of fossil fuels by develop alternative energies, buying smaller cars, using public transportation, making industry pollute less, reward companies that invest in green technology. Would you be willing to do that for a 50/50 chance? His question was, what does the percentage assuredness would a logical people need before they risk the future?

I personally think the percentage is 110% but as per my post in "Earth 2100" I'm extremely cynical and have quit the environmental movement due to the jaded cynicism. Almost 100% of people will take "GIVE ME EVERYTHING I WANT NOW" over their children's future. Buying an unnecessary SUV now is awesomeness, screw this vague threat of the future with a 50% chance of being junk science....

[Resolute 14]

Given the weather today, I would just like to mention that global warming really is junk science.

[Nage Waza]

Alright, I have about six years of formal education on climate...and in fact, I think the Michael Fox (mentioned above) was my prof several times.
Here is the thing: When I read and watch some of the stuff on TV, it makes me cringe because most of it is babble. The logic, quotes and reenactments are usually really bad and junk science. The point though is that the earth goes through regular climatic patterns...we basically are just coming out of an ice age. We have also had smaller ice ages since the last major ice age. The sun is the culprit and there are ways we can deal with the sun, by manipulating the gasses and the surface of our planet.
So, since we all basically live in this Petri dish, anything we do WILL HAVE AN IMPACT. The argument is then, what impact will we have? We are clearly ruining this planet, and no scientist argues that (of course you might find a couple from Edmonton or something). The oceans are in DEEP trouble, man likes to blow each other up, and we are polluting like crazy. So just like politics, humanity has polarized itself into two groups, group 1 that is radically for conservation and group 2 that is for doing anything, as long as the REAL science proves it.
Group 1 (sorry liberals) use scare tactics and a bunch of hogwash to get their point across which to me, rubs the group 2 guys wrong.
Man for sure is impacting the climate. Go stand somewhere a developer has ripped out the vegetation, then go stand in a forest. Major difference. But is it enough to overcome the impact of solar cycles? I don't know, we would be fools not to try. The ice age (iirc) start from a four degree drop in ocean temperatures, it is that little. When the next ice age comes, society as we know it is likely over.
I can get into technical babble with the geologists in here since they do study the earth and universe, but most of the cool stuff in commercials do not include any real science of any sort.
I have been on the building side of nearly a dozen mine sites from scratch, and there is a very REAL impact on the local environment and climate.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Given the weather today, I would just like to mention that global warming really is junk science.

I believe it was Stephen T. Colbert that said "Today's freezing cold temperatures are proof positive that global warming is a hoax to those of us that do not understand the difference between climate and weather."

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Alright, I have about six years of formal education on climate...and in fact, I think the Michael Fox (mentioned above) was my prof several times.
Here is the thing: When I read and watch some of the stuff on TV, it makes me cringe because most of it is babble. The logic, quotes and reenactments are usually really bad and junk science. The point though is that the earth goes through regular climatic patterns...we basically are just coming out of an ice age. We have also had smaller ice ages since the last major ice age. The sun is the culprit and there are ways we can deal with the sun, by manipulating the gasses and the surface of our planet.
So, since we all basically live in this Petri dish, anything we do WILL HAVE AN IMPACT. The argument is then, what impact will we have? We are clearly ruining this planet, and no scientist argues that (of course you might find a couple from Edmonton or something). The oceans are in DEEP trouble, man likes to blow each other up, and we are polluting like crazy. So just like politics, humanity has polarized itself into two groups, group 1 that is radically for conservation and group 2 that is for doing anything, as long as the REAL science proves it.
Group 1 (sorry liberals) use scare tactics and a bunch of hogwash to get their point across which to me, rubs the group 2 guys wrong.
Man for sure is impacting the climate. Go stand somewhere a developer has ripped out the vegetation, then go stand in a forest. Major difference. But is it enough to overcome the impact of solar cycles? I don't know, we would be fools not to try. The ice age (iirc) start from a four degree drop in ocean temperatures, it is that little. When the next ice age comes, society as we know it is likely over.
I can get into technical babble with the geologists in here since they do study the earth and universe, but most of the cool stuff in commercials do not include any real science of any sort.
I have been on the building side of nearly a dozen mine sites from scratch, and there is a very REAL impact on the local environment and climate.

Yep the sky is falling crowd are at best an annoyance and more of a hindrance than a help. The shrill nagging effect produces the same reaction from me each time no matter who is doing it--I act like I'm listening and nod while I'm thinking about something else. In other words I add it to the things I couldn't care less about.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

So just like politics, humanity has polarized itself into two groups, group 1 that is radically for conservation and group 2 that is for doing anything, as long as the REAL science proves it.

It's impossible to prove when we don't have consensus on things like EVOLUTION. And when you had cigarette companies paying scientists to say that cigarettes were not damaging to people's health, there was a huge debate on the issue and people were saying the same thing "we should act when there is consensus". It wasn't until there were successful lawsuits that the science was laid to rest.

There will never be enough evidence to prove to someone that the sky is blue if it is in that person's personal benefit to believe that the sky is purple.

-=-=-=-

As for "scare tactics" and "the sky is falling", if not protecting the environment from decay a prime motivator? If people DIDN'T suggest that environmental degradation was a possibility, then what motivation is there?

I go into my boss's office and tell him "We need to upgrade the server" and he tells me "we don't have the budget this year". I got into my boss's office and tell him "we need to upgrade the server or else the process that creates the payroll cheques will grind to a halt and crash", and he tells me "I'll find the money". When consequences are laid out, people are more motivated to act. Not mentioning the consequences of not acting is neutering the message.

[puckhog]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Not too many CS graduates host their own national science show for 30 years where they learn about other branches of science and learn from other scientists in other fields. I think I would respect the opinion of someone with exposure to other branches of science than I would any of the computer dorks I graduated with or even my own dorky self for that matter.

But speaking of David, in "Time for Change" he said, let's assume there is a debate. Let's say it's a 50/50 chance. If there is global warming, we should reduce our consumption of fossil fuels by develop alternative energies, buying smaller cars, using public transportation, making industry pollute less, reward companies that invest in green technology. Would you be willing to do that for a 50/50 chance? His question was, what does the percentage assuredness would a logical people need before they risk the future?

I personally think the percentage is 110% but as per my post in "Earth 2100" I'm extremely cynical and have quit the environmental movement due to the jaded cynicism. Almost 100% of people will take "GIVE ME EVERYTHING I WANT NOW" over their children's future. Buying an unnecessary SUV now is awesomeness, screw this vague threat of the future with a 50% chance of being junk science....

Well, there's also nothing to say that those CS grads haven't taken the time to learn about other fields. Having a national science show isn't a requirement to become educated in other areas. My only point in my previous posts is that there is still debate about the extent to which climate change is man-made; I won't argue that human activities have zero effect, to do so would be foolish. This is a long video, in 9 parts, but it's a pretty good debate from both sides (Global Warming Debate)

As to your second point, as much as it pains me to agree with David Suzuki, I think those suggestions are all good ones. We should be trying to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, and develop alternative energy sources, as much as possible where it makes sense to do so. Where I differ is that I don't believe those actions will have significant, if any, impact on climate; I'm supportive of them because I recognize that we're going to run out of fossil fuels, and I want to be confident in having stable, reliable energy sources well into the future.

Mostly, I feel that this issue has become so highly political that the science has taken a back seat. Everyone is using this issue to promote their own agenda, and, frankly, I don't like being scared into taking drastic action by doom-and-gloom scenarios.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by puckhog

Mostly, I feel that this issue has become so highly political that the science has taken a back seat. Everyone is using this issue to promote their own agenda

I'd be interested in knowing what my agenda is.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I believe it was Stephen T. Colbert that said "Today's freezing cold temperatures are proof positive that global warming is a hoax to those of us that do not understand the difference between climate and weather."

I'm pretty sure Resolute was just lamenting the late snowfall in Calgary, and wasn't trying to prove a point with it.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I'd be interested in knowing what my agenda is.

My guess is he wasn't talking about you, unless you have some prominent role in the global debate.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I believe it was Stephen T. Colbert that said "Today's freezing cold temperatures are proof positive that global warming is a hoax to those of us that do not understand the difference between climate and weather."

Does Colbert have a saying for those of you that don't understand sarcasm?

[puckhog]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I'd be interested in knowing what my agenda is.

As Displaced Flames Fan pointed out, I wasn't literally referring to "everyone" in my post. I meant politicians, scientists, corporations, environmental organizations, NASA, etc. Hell, even some religious leaders have made themselves part of this debate.

[FlamesFaninTO]

If anyone is really interested in this topic I read a really interesting book that changed me from mildly starting to buy into man made global warming to a skeptic now. It features some world renowned scientists from all kinds of different fieldsthat lay out very compelling arguments against the prevailing view that the science is decided. Some of them challenge the idea that the earth is actually warming at all and others simply challenge the idea that if it is that man has much to do with it.

One quote that was especially powerful for me was from this guy who doesnt get much more qualified to comment about polar ice warming or lack thereof.

Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now

http://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Renown...4312223&sr=8-3

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Alright, I have about six years of formal education on climate...and in fact, I think the Michael Fox (mentioned above) was my prof several times.
Here is the thing: When I read and watch some of the stuff on TV, it makes me cringe because most of it is babble. The logic, quotes and reenactments are usually really bad and junk science. The point though is that the earth goes through regular climatic patterns...we basically are just coming out of an ice age. We have also had smaller ice ages since the last major ice age. The sun is the culprit and there are ways we can deal with the sun, by manipulating the gasses and the surface of our planet.
So, since we all basically live in this Petri dish, anything we do WILL HAVE AN IMPACT. The argument is then, what impact will we have? We are clearly ruining this planet, and no scientist argues that (of course you might find a couple from Edmonton or something). The oceans are in DEEP trouble, man likes to blow each other up, and we are polluting like crazy. So just like politics, humanity has polarized itself into two groups, group 1 that is radically for conservation and group 2 that is for doing anything, as long as the REAL science proves it.
Group 1 (sorry liberals) use scare tactics and a bunch of hogwash to get their point across which to me, rubs the group 2 guys wrong.
Man for sure is impacting the climate. Go stand somewhere a developer has ripped out the vegetation, then go stand in a forest. Major difference. But is it enough to overcome the impact of solar cycles? I don't know, we would be fools not to try. The ice age (iirc) start from a four degree drop in ocean temperatures, it is that little. When the next ice age comes, society as we know it is likely over.
I can get into technical babble with the geologists in here since they do study the earth and universe, but most of the cool stuff in commercials do not include any real science of any sort.
I have been on the building side of nearly a dozen mine sites from scratch, and there is a very REAL impact on the local environment and climate.

Are we? The Earth has had much much much much worse things happen to it, yet it still springs life again...Bottom line the earth will survive, we won't.