In the Rush to Help - Global Warming

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Did I ever link global warming to the electoral college?

I feel certain that if I did, I must have had a good reason.

I was just joking, Mark. I know it wasn't banned. And yet I also did refrain from starting a discussion on the topic 2-3 times because of the closing of the other thread, too. FWIW.

Steve

Actually, it was global warming and healthcare! And I'm pretty sure it was JL...and maybe me.

[sctx]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Actually, it was global warming and healthcare! And I'm pretty sure it was JL...and maybe me.

yeah, maybe it was healthcare.... doesn't really matter, every possible angle had been covered at least 5 times in it's 153 pages so I really don't see the need for any emotional attachment..... it had become so lame that I might as well had changed the title to "Al Gores Internet Party Thread"

[ryberg]

Well as long as you guys have started it up again...

Arctic sea ice cover at record low

• Ice cover in the Arctic Ocean shattered the all-time low record this summer
• Arctic ice pack equal to just less than half the size of the United States
• Senior research scientist: The decline is "astounding"
• Sea ice loss could alter the Arctic ecology, threatening polar bears and sea life

Mark Serreze, senior research scientist at NSIDC, termed the decline "astounding."

"It's almost an exclamation point on the pronounced ice loss we've seen in the past 30 years," he said.

Most researchers had anticipated that the complete disappearance of the Arctic ice pack during summer months would happen after the year 2070, he said, but now, "losing summer sea ice cover by 2030 is not unreasonable."

But I'm guessing this can all probably be written off, you know, it goes on to say

Scores of peer-reviewed scientific studies have documented a steady, worldwide decline in ice cover...

So you know right there it's all just politically motivated academic BS stemming from the VLWC.

Steve

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Actually, it was global warming and healthcare! And I'm pretty sure it was JL...and maybe me.

I thought everyone was aware that allowing Americans to visit the doctor of their choice causes global climatic change.

Great video Jacko!

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Well as long as you guys have started it up again...

But I'm guessing this can all probably be written off, you know, it goes on to say

So you know right there it's all just politically motivated academic BS stemming from the VLWC.

Steve

Please be careful when presenting these kinds of articles and commenting upon them. No one is arguing that global warming isn't occurring. Global warming and cooling has been occurring, in fact, since the beginning of time. The debate concerns manmade global warming. As the amount of warming and cooling has varied from period to period, there is no scientific way to measure man's contribution, if any, to the current warming trend. It is all guesswork and computer models. Computer models which depend on data input from human beings. If one of these data is off by a fraction, it throws the whole model off by hundreds times more. Now, imagine all the data that goes into these models and how much of it is guesswork. You end up with a model that is, essentially, worthless.

When you present an article regarding the effects of natural global warming, with comments that take swipes at those who doubt the theory of manmade global warming, it is, at best, misleading. One can believe in the naturally occurring warming and cooling of the earth without buying into a suspect theory that allows the funding of the theorists to continue.

As more and more countries awake to the idiocy of reactionary policies when it comes to manmade global warming, the debate is slowly turning to one of cleaning the environment and making economically viable changes to pollute less. Kyoto, and its unfair provisions, is dead. The idea of science as wealth redistributor is, as well.

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Please be careful when presenting these kinds of articles and commenting upon them. No one is arguing that global warming isn't occurring. Global warming and cooling has been occurring, in fact, since the beginning of time. The debate concerns manmade global warming. As the amount of warming and cooling has varied from period to period, there is no scientific way to measure man's contribution, if any, to the current warming trend. It is all guesswork and computer models. Computer models which depend on data input from human beings. If one of these data is off by a fraction, it throws the whole model off by hundreds times more. Now, imagine all the data that goes into these models and how much of it is guesswork. You end up with a model that is, essentially, worthless.

When you present an article regarding the effects of natural global warming, with comments that take swipes at those who doubt the theory of manmade global warming, it is, at best, misleading. One can believe in the naturally occurring warming and cooling of the earth without buying into a suspect theory that allows the funding of the theorists to continue.

As more and more countries awake to the idiocy of reactionary policies when it comes to manmade global warming, the debate is slowly turning to one of cleaning the environment and making economically viable changes to pollute less. Kyoto, and its unfair provisions, is dead. The idea of science as wealth redistributor is, as well.

I hadn't heard of this last theory. Gosh, unfettered capitalism has been doing such a great job, why in the world would anyone use science for anything?

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Please be careful when presenting these kinds of articles and commenting upon them. No one is arguing that global warming isn't occurring. Global warming and cooling has been occurring, in fact, since the beginning of time. The debate concerns manmade global warming. As the amount of warming and cooling has varied from period to period, there is no scientific way to measure man's contribution, if any, to the current warming trend. It is all guesswork and computer models. Computer models which depend on data input from human beings. If one of these data is off by a fraction, it throws the whole model off by hundreds times more. Now, imagine all the data that goes into these models and how much of it is guesswork. You end up with a model that is, essentially, worthless.

When you present an article regarding the effects of natural global warming, with comments that take swipes at those who doubt the theory of manmade global warming, it is, at best, misleading. One can believe in the naturally occurring warming and cooling of the earth without buying into a suspect theory that allows the funding of the theorists to continue.

As more and more countries awake to the idiocy of reactionary policies when it comes to manmade global warming, the debate is slowly turning to one of cleaning the environment and making economically viable changes to pollute less. Kyoto, and its unfair provisions, is dead. The idea of science as wealth redistributor is, as well.

I understand the difference. However the reduction in polar ice has already been linked numerous times to manmade global warming in the debate, and conversely, skeptics in the debate have on numerous occasions pooh-poohed the whole idea that there's even valid evidence for natural warming (notably in their sadly humorous personal anecdotes of the type that refer to how much more snow they saw last winter in their particular part of the world).

Thus I conclude that I have not done anything wrong or out of place in bringing up this article and the points it covers.

Steve

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by ryberg

I understand the difference. However the reduction in polar ice has already been linked numerous times to manmade global warming in the debate, and conversely, skeptics in the debate have on numerous occasions pooh-poohed the whole idea that there's even valid evidence for natural warming (notably in their sadly humorous personal anecdotes of the type that refer to how much more snow they saw last winter in their particular part of the world).

Thus I conclude that I have not done anything wrong or out of place in bringing up this article and the points it covers.

Steve

Well, how does one go about explaining this?

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | DNA reveals Greenland's lush past

[ryberg]

You may want to check out for example this helpful entry from our beloved Dr Jeff Masters, especially the "Flashback to 1974" section regarding "human-generated" (his words) effects on the ozone layer over the south pole due to CFCs, the PR battle by big business to label the researchers who pointed it out as Chicken Little types, and the ensuing confirmation of those researchers' views, with corresponding international action taken to protect the environment. This is the same south pole whose disappearing ice cap we're discussing, of course.

But you see, we've already got the same thread we had before, just again. So I'm not sure what the point of the discussion is.

Steve

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Well, how does one go about explaining this?

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | DNA reveals Greenland's lush past

Precisely, If one can find one single study about an area once being warmer than it obviously negates the overwhelming preponderance of peer reviewed scientific research on global climatic change. You are on to those of us who want to scientifically redistribute the worlds wealth. Good work!

[ryberg]

See what I mean? We've already returned to the links and the importance of the preponderance of evidence -- can health care be far behind?

Steve

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

Precisely, If one can find one single study about an area once being warmer than it obviously negates the overwhelming preponderance of peer reviewed scientific research on global climatic change. You are on to those of us who want to scientifically redistribute the worlds wealth. Good work!

The study I posted shows that Greenland was once a forest. It is now under 2 kilometers of ice. It shows that cooling and warming are natural. No one is disputing that, are they? Therefore, if it is natural, and you have no baseline for what is "normal", how can you claim that this warming period is worse due to man? Obviously, if Greenland was once forest, it was a lot warmer then. To claim otherwise is nonsensical.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

The study I posted shows that Greenland was once a forest. It is now under 2 kilometers of ice. It shows that cooling and warming are natural. No one is disputing that, are they? Therefore, if it is natural, and you have no baseline for what is "normal", how can you claim that this warming period is worse due to man? Obviously, if Greenland was once forest, it was a lot warmer then. To claim otherwise is nonsensical.

This does not seem like rational, critical thinking or deducing using the best of our science or scientific methods..eh?

I suggest you read more and keep an open mind as you read...you will then see how your first premise in this statement can rationally lead to the claim in the second....

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Jacko

This does not seem like rational, critical thinking or deducing using the best of our science or scientific methods..eh?

I suggest you read more and keep an open mind as you read...you will then see how your first premise in this statement can rationally lead to the claim in the second....

Greenland, a lush forest full of plant life and insects. Today, a block of ice. Not too hard to deduce that Greenland was warmer then (when there were no humans to emit greenhouse gasses).

There exists no scientific evidence that X amount of greenhouse gas results in Y amount of temp change. There isn't even any evidence that X and Y are related, other than in theory.

[ryberg]

In my opinion, and for what it may be worth, a persistent problem with the skeptics' approach in general in this debate is that a particular anecdote is presented here or there that is at least perceived to be (and may well be) challenging to the currently predominant and increasingly accepted theory (that people are causing global warming), but then the skeptics leave off as if that were the whole matter.

However, if you want to unseat a theory, you need to follow up such problems with the theory you're challenging by providing a better theory of your own, one that accounts for more phenomena than the theory you're challenging.

I don't see skeptics doing much of that. I mean unless you count a view like "see, all you all are just whacked!" as a theory, which I don't think you can reasonably do. They seem to stop short. It's like a big fight in which you knock the guy down but don't finish him off properly, so he gets up and keeps fighting you. If you really want to kill the current theory, you have to present a better theory, not just point out what may be some problems with the current one.

Steve