Kyoto is awesome

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by White Doors

So i tried it: the first one that popped up was:

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu...ndRobinson.pdf

LOL.

I STILL contend that there is NOT a scientific consensus on human caused global warming.

I don't know if you'll ever get consensus on something so complicated. What about a majority though? Someone else asked this question (to you I think) -- what ratio of yays vs. nays would it take for you to believe they were onto something?

[White Doors]

It's not a ratio of yes's or no's, it's what they admit that they don't know and the timeline that they are using. The former is alot and the latter is not long enough.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by White Doors

It's not a ratio of yes's or no's, it's what they admit that they don't know and the timeline that they are using. The former is alot and the latter is not long enough.

The other thread listed references to a large amount of scientific concensus. Its not 100%, but I doubt that there ever would be until it is too late to do anything.

And you mention that with regards to the scientists there is "alot" they don't know, and their timeline is "not long enough". Have you read them to make that statement? Or how did you come up with that assessment?

I'll agree that there is a lot they don't know, but they know more than I ever will, and as much as anyone currently does. Its not like thay are a bunch of hockey fans on a forum debating this - that is their livelyhood.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by White Doors

It's not a ratio of yes's or no's, it's what they admit that they don't know and the timeline that they are using. The former is alot and the latter is not long enough.

What are you basing this on? Your own copious research into climatology? So far all you've produced in terms of real scientific research is either outdated, not in a major refereed journal or produced by a conservative think tank. The other side has weighed in with the NAS, the IPCC, and Science--which in case you don't know, is along with Nature, the leading journal in the sciences, not some left wing screed. The conclusion? The overwhelming evidence leads to a consensus among scientists that anthropogenic global warming has been happening for 50 years.

Yet you choose to side with the fringe scientists, for reasons I don't quite get. Why won't you apply your same test to those guys? There's a lot they don't know--because they spend more time trying to debunk the research of others than on doing research of their own. They don't admit to their lack of knowledge--they often present their fringe viewpoint as if it were accepted fact. And generally speaking they use no timeline at all.

Also, why have people like Tim Ball suddenly changed their tune from "global warming is a myth" to "global warming isn't caused by humans"? To borrow a favourite rhetorical flourish of yours--if you can't see the agenda there, it's because you don't want to.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

What are you basing this on? Your own copious research into climatology? So far all you've produced in terms of real scientific research is either outdated, not in a major refereed journal or produced by a conservative think tank. The other side has weighed in with the NAS, the IPCC, and Science--which in case you don't know, is along with Nature, the leading journal in the sciences, not some left wing screed. The conclusion? The overwhelming evidence leads to a consensus among scientists that anthropogenic global warming has been happening for 50 years.

I'm basing it on the fact that global climate fluctuates on it's own. it has been much higher in our past than it is now - why is that? The Egyptians weren't touring around in Peugots. Human release of GHG's account for somehting like 0.14% of the total GHG's.. Clearly and undeniably - that is not sufficient enough to raise the CO2 in the atmosphere from 200 ppm to 360 now is it?

Yet you choose to side with the fringe scientists, for reasons I don't quite get. Why won't you apply your same test to those guys? There's a lot they don't know--because they spend more time trying to debunk the research of others than on doing research of their own. They don't admit to their lack of knowledge--they often present their fringe viewpoint as if it were accepted fact. And generally speaking they use no timeline at all.

Also, why have people like Tim Ball suddenly changed their tune from "global warming is a myth" to "global warming isn't caused by humans"? To borrow a favourite rhetorical flourish of yours--if you can't see the agenda there, it's because you don't want to.

I can't speak to Tim Ball's motivations - but the facts he presented were clear and not in disoute as far as I can tell. Can you see some FACTS that are incorrect?

[RougeUnderoos]

Okay simpleton question. Maybe one of the science types or experts can answer it for a laymoron like me.

Where does all the smoke go? You know, smoke from cars, powerplants, furnaces, that smoke. Where does it and all the stuff it carries end up? As far as I know there ain't no big old chimney up there somewhere so it seems like it must stick around in some form or other. Forget global warming, that just can't be good for us.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Okay simpleton question. Maybe one of the science types or experts can answer it for a laymoron like me.

Where does all the smoke go? You know, smoke from cars, powerplants, furnaces, that smoke. Where does it and all the stuff it carries end up? As far as I know there ain't no big old chimney up there somewhere so it seems like it must stick around in some form or other. Forget global warming, that just can't be good for us.

I've read that 70-80% of it gets dissolved naturally in the atmosphere and oceans.

[Azure]

Red Mile Style, do you have a link to your statement?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by White Doors

I can't speak to Tim Ball's motivations - but the facts he presented were clear and not in disoute as far as I can tell. Can you see some FACTS that are incorrect?

Well, you've cited one fact, not "facts." Reputable scientists don't generally group their research into convenient "myths" and "facts," but since we've established that Dr. Ball is a rhetorician and not a researcher, we'll set it aside.

I'm not a climatologist. However, I would be surprised if there WEREN'T times in our history when the Earth was warmer than it is now. It's a single data point in a complicated system--and temperature is in any case only one part of "climate," which is a good deal more complicated.

A better question, is if Dr. Ball has access to all of these "FACTS" that are apparently lost on the rest of the scientific community, why doesn't he publish his findings in a reputable journal?

I know the reason. I think you do too.

[White Doors]

Nasa Weighs in:

(climate change / greenhouse gases / aerosols / air pollution)
James Hansen*,, Makiko Sato*,, Reto Ruedy*, Andrew Lacis*, and Valdar Oinas*,§

* National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University Earth Institute, and § Center for Environmental Prediction, Rutgers University, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025 Contributed by James Hansen, June 16, 2000
A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. The growth rate of non-CO2 GHGs has declined in the past decade. If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change. Such a focus on air pollution has practical benefits that unite the interests of developed and developing countries. However, assessment of ongoing and future climate change requires composition-specific long-term global monitoring of aerosol properties

It is very clear that, not only is there not a consensus on CO2, there is not even one for human caused global warming.
It's human causes CO2 emissions... No wait.. it's human caused CFC emissions.. Nope - it's CH4 and O3 not from fossil fuels..

Pardon me for being skeptical that this is not a well proven scientific theory.

[Textcritic]

I personally believe that it would be foolish to suggest that the planet is not currently warming up, or that humans and technology have not contributed to current trends in global warming. What concerns me about this subject is not whether or not it is happening, but how the scientific and political communities have responded to the trend. I am all for protecting environmental "balances" (is there any such thing asa "balance" in nature?), and for ensuring sustainability, but at what cost, and based upon what certainties? I become skeptical when scientists and politicians begin waving their arms and screaming about certain inevitable doom which will doubtlessly occur within the next 100 years because of what they have observed over the last 15.
Consider the following:
• In the late 50's, Carl Sagan and a host of other scientists led a campaign and compiled copious amounts of evidence to suggest that the effects of "nuclear winter" would destroy our planet. The science behind the claims has long since been debunked.
• In 1976, capitalizing upon growing concerns about global climatological trends, Lowell Ponte wrote his best-selling The Cooling in which he used scientific evidence to support his position that "since the 1940s the northern half of our planet has been cooling rapidly.... Mass global famine in our lifetime, perhaps even within a decade, if current cooling trends continue." It never happened.
• In 1991, after Saddam Husein began setting fires to the oil fields in Kuwait, the emminent aforementioned Dr. Sagan cited scientific reasoning to suggest that the planet would experience a full year without summer and sunshine as a result. Summer arrived on schedule.
The planet appears to be warming, and human interaction with the environment appears to be having an effect. Through MASS SPECULATION members of the scientific community have PROJECTED catastrophic results of this trend, very similar to the predictions of Sagan about nuclear winter; similar to Paul Ehrlich about the population explosion (which incidently appears to be slowing rapidly) in the 1990's which would devastate the planet; similar to the massive and ridiculous projections which were constantly espoused regarding Y2K. Alarmist positions of this magnatude are short-sighted and irresponsible. And you are kidding yourself if you believe that environmental enthusiasts do not opperate from their own ideological agenda, much like the oil companies and conservative think-tanks.
I personally believe that the truth is to be found somehwhere in the middle. Global warming is happening, and we need to learn how to respond effectively, but this does not mean our planet is doomed. Earth has never experienced a global catastophe (nothing even close to it!) in hundreds of thousands of years of human history, and it is probably an exaggeration to believe that our species wields enough influence to cause one.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I personally believe that it would be foolish to suggest that the planet is not currently warming up, or that humans and technology have not contributed to current trends in global warming. What concerns me about this subject is not whether or not it is happening, but how the scientific and political communities have responded to the trend. I am all for protecting environmental "balances" (is there any such thing asa "balance" in nature?), and for ensuring sustainability, but at what cost, and based upon what certainties? I become skeptical when scientists and politicians begin waving their arms and screaming about certain inevitable doom which will doubtlessly occur within the next 100 years because of what they have observed over the last 15.
Consider the following:
• In the late 50's, Carl Sagan and a host of other scientists led a campaign and compiled copious amounts of evidence to suggest that the effects of "nuclear winter" would destroy our planet. The science behind the claims has long since been debunked.
• In 1976, capitalizing upon growing concerns about global climatological trends, Lowell Ponte wrote his best-selling The Cooling in which he used scientific evidence to support his position that "since the 1940s the northern half of our planet has been cooling rapidly.... Mass global famine in our lifetime, perhaps even within a decade, if current cooling trends continue." It never happened.
• In 1991, after Saddam Husein began setting fires to the oil fields in Kuwait, the emminent aforementioned Dr. Sagan cited scientific reasoning to suggest that the planet would experience a full year without summer and sunshine as a result. Summer arrived on schedule.
The planet appears to be warming, and human interaction with the environment appears to be having an effect. Through MASS SPECULATION members of the scientific community have PROJECTED catastrophic results of this trend, very similar to the predictions of Sagan about nuclear winter; similar to Paul Ehrlich about the population explosion (which incidently appears to be slowing rapidly) in the 1990's which would devastate the planet; similar to the massive and ridiculous projections which were constantly espoused regarding Y2K. Alarmist positions of this magnatude are short-sighted and irresponsible. And you are kidding yourself if you believe that environmental enthusiasts do not opperate from their own ideological agenda, much like the oil companies and conservative think-tanks.
I personally believe that the truth is to be found somehwhere in the middle. Global warming is happening, and we need to learn how to respond effectively, but this does not mean our planet is doomed. Earth has never experienced a global catastophe (nothing even close to it!) in hundreds of thousands of years of human history, and it is probably an exaggeration to believe that our species wields enough influence to cause one.

Very nice. I agree with what you say. If you look back at my posts I have always said that Humans are contributing to pollution and C02 emissions. I dont think that we are the cause of global warming.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Very nice. I agree with what you say. If you look back at my posts I have always said that Humans are contributing to pollution and C02 emissions. I dont think that we are the cause of global warming.

That's not what was said.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I personally believe that it would be foolish to suggest that the planet is not currently warming up, or that humans and technology have not contributed to current trends in global warming.

[dawgbone98]

nm

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

That's not what was said.

I said I agree that Humans have contributed. He doesn't say they are the cause.

Man.

Read it.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I said I agree that Humans have contributed. He doesn't say they are the cause.

Man.

Read it.

So, you agree with what he says, but don't agree with what he says?

I'll quote again:

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I personally believe that it would be foolish to suggest that the planet is not currently warming up, or that humans and technology have not contributed to current trends in global warming.

To paraphrase: It is foolish to suggest humans have not contributed to global warming.

As I understand Textcritics position, it is more a "yes it is happening, but I don't believe the situation is as bad as people are attempting to portray". If I misunderstand I will allow Texcritic to clarify the statement.

And regarding the ad hominems, they aren't helping your argument.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

So, you agree with what he says, but don't agree with what he says?

I'll quote again:

To paraphrase: It is foolish to suggest humans have not contributed to global warming.

As I understand Textcritics position, it is more a "yes it is happening, but I don't believe the situation is as bad as people are attempting to portray". If I misunderstand I will allow Texcritic to clarify the statement.

And regarding the ad hominems, they aren't helping your argument.

I have explained my position enough to you. If you cant understand it then re-read all my posts.