backtop


Print 179 comment(s) - last by masher2.. on Jun 26 at 8:54 AM

Global warming has been a popular topic among scientists

The Earth's average temperature over the past quarter century has been the hottest in four centuries -- and part of the world has been warmer during the past 25 years than any period in the past 1,000 years, according to the National Academy of Sciences in a recently published report.  The data published in the report contains "additional supporting evidence: "that human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming."  Congressman Sherwood Boehlert, chairman of the House Science Committee, requested the 141-page report by the National Academy of Sciences.

However, since proper thermometer records were not kept until the mid-19th century, scientists have had to use a number of interesting methods to infer temperature averages from different eras.  Scientists preferred to measure the width of rings inside trees that were growing during the middle ages and also checked the ratios of oxygen isotopes in polar ice cores.

Climate scientist Michael Mann's "hockey stick" chart of past temperatures, which shows the constant temperature rise since A.D. 900, has been a popular target of global warming critics.  The recently published report supports the work that Mann and two of his colleagues did while at the University of Virginia.

The report was published a few days after astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said that humans need to colonize a planet or moon because the Earth potentially faces destruction due to a man made disaster.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

A lot of disbelievers
By asmielia on 6/23/2006 12:44:46 PM , Rating: 3
Some of the comments in here are outrageous, you guys must be Bush lovers. Only that can explain the blind faith you have in humanity's ability to keep "doing what we're doing" and have everything be hunky dory. So why not enjoy life, drive an SUV and live in your 5000 square foot home wasting electricity?

Some of you guys are wasting time arguing whether life will survive even with global warming. Of course it will survive, I've never heard anyone argue that global warming will kill us off. Even if global temperatures went up 10 degrees C, I'm sure the Earth would still be teeming with life and still be able to support many billions of people.

In the meantime though, millions and millions of people will be affected in a negative way. Glaciers that took thousands of years to build will be gone within a generation. There will be mass starvation due to lack of water in highly populated areas. Many species will die out never to appear again.

I have no faith in humanity after reading these comments. In a forum populated by supposedly intelligent human beings, half of them are denying global warming exists or is a problem. That's very very scary. Our planet is definitely f*cked.




RE: A lot of disbelievers
By Xenoid on 6/23/2006 12:55:24 PM , Rating: 2
I'm a believer in science, and science says that this planet is quite 'alive'. It has its own cycles and that includes ice ages and magnetic shifts and whatnot.

If you did any research beyond tree-hugging websites made by Hollywood stars you'd know that about every 100k years this planet warms up temporarily. These interglacial periods last 15-20k years and so far we are 18k years since our last ice age.

Also, these things can occur on a smaller scale. From about 1400AD to 1860AD there was a "mini" age-age. This resulted in temperatures being about 1/2C cooler than usual. Want to come up with an excuse for that?

Whatever the reverse of fossil fuels are, they must have been using them! Damn vikings! Oh, and do some real research before you believe everything you're told by Hollywood's best. The reverse is true of anything said by the opposite field as well.


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By asmielia on 6/23/2006 1:12:00 PM , Rating: 3
I've actually read a lot about this. I don't blindly follow what anyone tells me.

Yes, yes, there were periods of global warming and cooling in the past. These changes occurred over much longer periods of time than they are now. Temperatures are currently skyrocketing upwards at an ever increasing rate. Although the changes seem minimal now, give it another 20-30 or 50 years at our current pace of not really giving a sh*t and I guarantee the planet will attain temperatures it hasn't seen for millions of years.


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2006 1:19:33 PM , Rating: 2
> "Temperatures are currently skyrocketing upwards at an ever increasing rate..."

On the other thread, I posted the exact temperature data proving this false. Even during the past 100 years, we've had periods of *cooling*. A large warming trend from 1900 to the 1940s...mild cooling to the '70s, then warming continuing. Even since the 1970s, there have been many years where average temperatures dropped, not rose.

The *data* supports no accelerating trend. That all comes from global modeling simulations.


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By asmielia on 6/23/2006 1:34:04 PM , Rating: 2
I understand what you're saying masher2, the current data sample for global warming is very small. It's tough to come to a definite conclusion with so little to work with. I understand that there were variations throughout this very century, but also keep in mind that the total human output of greenhouse gases was relatively small to what it is now until fairly recently.

Yes, there are years where it dropped year over year in the past 35 years, but that's why it's called a trend.

Anyone would be lying if they said all questions have been answered when it comes to global warming, but I have no doubt in my mind that our greenhouse gas emissions are having a profound effect on global temperatures based off all the data I've seen.

The dangerous thing is how warm recent years have been. We could just dismiss everything and say "Well, we'll wait and see" but in 30 years, it's going to be way too late.


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2006 1:47:52 PM , Rating: 3
> "keep in mind that the total human output of greenhouse gases was relatively small to what it is now until fairly recently."

And yet, during the early part of the last century-- when those greenhouse gases were so low-- the warming trend was strong and vivid. Then for 30 years-- when those gases were increasing even more rapidly-- the trend was cooling. Now, the trend is again warming.

Do you realize that, 450 million years ago, CO2 levels were ten TIMES higher than they are today? And yet the planet was in the middle of the coldest spell its ever experienced since? The correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature is quite loose. CO2 is one of the weakest greenhouse gases there is...water vapor is actually far more effective.





RE: A lot of disbelievers
By asmielia on 6/23/2006 2:00:47 PM , Rating: 2
450 Million years ago? Alright, I don't know how admissable that is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_...

Things move slowly on planetary scale. If we kept the exact same level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as there are now, the global temperature would keep rising slowly for a long time. So just because temperatures are at a certain point today, with a certain CO2 concentration, doesn't mean we can necessarily compare that with historical averages.

The planet reacts slowly to changes, but that's what's masking the scale of the impact our actions are having on the planet.


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2006 2:15:34 PM , Rating: 2
> "Things move slowly on planetary scale"

Lol, so you can believe that CO2 levels rising a few percent can cause massive temperature changes in just 100 years...but CO2 levels rising 1000%, and remaining there for five million years, isn't enough time for the earth to warm up? The entire earth remained cold for millions of years, despite CO2 levels far higher than current levels.

Read my repost of an open letter below, signed by just a few of the hundreds of climatologists and atmospheric scientists who aren't quite as convinced as you are.



RE: A lot of disbelievers
By asmielia on 6/23/2006 2:25:30 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not arguing against your point about 450M years ago, cause I don't know anything about it or what other factors were involved. All I know is that in all the data I've seen covering the past few hundred thousand years, there's a very distinct parallel between CO2 levels and global temperatures.

I'm sure you can find an endless list of people who disagree over technicalities while avoiding the real problems.


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By Squidward on 6/23/2006 1:13:00 PM , Rating: 2
How dare you try and place logic in a forum like this!

tsk tsk...


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By Squidward on 6/23/2006 1:14:33 PM , Rating: 2
umm this comment isn't supposed to be on this page ignore it please


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By BPB on 6/23/2006 12:55:54 PM , Rating: 2
You, my friend, need to calm down. I'm not sure anybody here denies the possibility of global warming. What does bother many is that there are so many who say it is a fact as though some higher being told them it was a fact. I don't dey it may be happening, but I will not simply make like a lemming and follow, I'll think about it first. Funny how disbelievers are losers for not believing and behaving in a manner you don't like. But you and those like you can say things just as bad or worse but that's ok. Not exactly following the Golden Rule are we?

Beyond that, I'm glad you don't run things. You'd tell us what to drive, where to live, how large the home may be, and probably ration electricity and other energy. All hail asmielia! For asmielie is all knowing and all good!


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By asmielia on 6/23/2006 1:20:08 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, good point. I think you're right that we should just follow the current standard. Everyone gets to do whatever they want however they want. They shouldn't be told how efficient or how large their cars need to be. Everything always works itself out in the end.

Maybe you should take a look at the Easter island scenario which happened on this very planet. Small enclosed ecosystem, growing population, highly dependant on the resources of the island. The result: nearly total destruction of the supporting ecosystem and as a result the population in a matter of a few centuries.

That's exactly what this world needs. Someone telling ignorant and selfish individuals and governments what to do for the global good of the planet.


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2006 1:40:37 PM , Rating: 2
> "Maybe you should take a look at the Easter island scenario which happened on this very planet. "

Yes, we should learn a lesson from it. If you live on a small island, and cut down all your trees to build statues, you're going to have trouble building fishing boats. Write that one down.

The decline of the Rapa Nui civilization is *theorized* by some to be partially due to their stripping the island of trees. War is also another theory, and was definitely at least a factor. Another possibility is the coming of the "Little Ice Age", a natural cooling event that occurred just as the Rapa Nui went into decline. There's a dozen other theories as well.

By the way, despite what you might have read, their civilization wasn't "destroyed". There were 3,000 people on the island when Europeans first discovered it...down from perhaps as many as 10,000


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By asmielia on 6/23/2006 1:45:33 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say it was destroyed. I said nearly total destruction of the ecosystem (barely any trees left) and as a result the civilization.

Sure they still had a few thousand people left. But the civilization had turned to cannibalism and was a shadow of its former self in terms of organization.

You can make fun of it or ignore it if you want, but if human beings living in such a small ecosystem can't observe the damage occurring to that very ecosystem over the course of a relatively short period, how can humans, who are notoriously self serving, short sighted and selfish, expect to prevent massive damage to the planet on a global scale?


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2006 1:53:02 PM , Rating: 2
> "I said nearly total destruction of the ecosystem "

Not even close. They cut down all their large trees, and ruined the basis of their economy. That's all. The "ecoysystem" survived just fine. We can't even pin the cannibalism on that event...after all, dozens of other South Pacific tribes turned to cannibalism on their own. On islands, catching people is often easier than catching food animals.

In any case, drawing parallels between Easter Island and global warming is specious at best. The Earth has been naturally warming up since the end of the last major ice age. It will very likely get a few degrees warmer. Even IF the worst-case atmospheric models are all correct, then we're going to experience most of that warming regardless, even if we destroy every car, factory, and power plant on earth.

Luckily, there is no hard evidence to suggest that warming will be harmful to civilization. The most likely scenario is an overall, slight benefit.





RE: A lot of disbelievers
By asmielia on 6/23/2006 2:08:16 PM , Rating: 2
So your solution I presume is to not react at all? As long as there is historical precedent to what's happening on Earth, we have nothing to worry about?

Even if, for argument's sake, we could isolate global warming as the only effect our polluting has on the world, and an increase in temperatures concentrated at the poles was the only thing we had to deal with, it would still be a tremendously rapid variation. If all the coral reefs located in the tropics "bleach" themselves from water temperatures that are too high, they would not simply relocate themselves overnight. Most vegetation will not be able to adapt in time and will die off. Under natural warming conditions, it would have time to slowly migrate to a new area.

As it is though, we definitely can not isolate global warming as the only effect, and our polluting will cause a great deal more problems to compound the issue.


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2006 2:19:58 PM , Rating: 2
> "So your solution I presume is to not react at all?"

My solution is not to waste trillions on dollars on a problem that doesn't even exist, especially when the "action" we take might ultimately be harmful...and even in the most optimistic scenario, won't stop the earth from warming anyway.

> "If all the coral reefs located in the tropics "bleach" themselves from water temperatures that are too high,"

I already posted a rebuttal of the coral reef nonsense some time ago. In brief, a) it wasn't due to global warming, but rather local warming, and b) many coral reefs thrived, and grew larger during the period. There is no mass die-off occurring.


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By Punisher77 on 6/23/2006 2:27:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My solution is not to waste trillions on dollars on a problem that doesn't even exist, especially when the "action" we take might ultimately be harmful.

How is reducing our dependance on oil harmful to anyone except the oil companies which are currently reaping record profits?


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By asmielia on 6/23/2006 2:28:39 PM , Rating: 2
OK, it's pretty obvious that I'm wasting my time arguing with you.

There's no need to "waste" trillions doing anything. How is reducing our dependance on a limited and progressively more expensive resource "wasting"? How is reducing our electricity use "wasting" money? We're saving money for god sakes by conserving and by using renewables.


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2006 2:33:08 PM , Rating: 2
> "How is reducing our electricity use "wasting" money? "

Why not actually READ the Kyoto Protocol sometime, instead of accepting the spoonfed media version of it? It involves costs of several trillion dollars...its not just a big document asking people to "drive less" and "turn off your lights".

Furthermore, it places those costs strictly upon the US and Europe. Developing nations are pretty much free to pollute how they wish...including China and India, the two largest populations on the planet.




RE: A lot of disbelievers
By Punisher77 on 6/23/2006 2:37:21 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Why not actually READ the Kyoto Protocol sometime, instead of accepting the spoonfed media version of it?

Arn't we talking about global warming here?

Reducing electricity, increasing efficiency and reducing our dependance on fossil fuels will be a benefit to the economy (citizens save money on electricity and efficiency while the private sector sees gains from increased spending on new technology). It might also have the added benefit of reducing global warming.

I personally think that it will help reducing global warming, you do not. Either way, reducing our overal consumption, increasing efficiency and reducing our dependance on fossil fuels is a good thing.


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2006 2:42:06 PM , Rating: 2
> "Arn't we talking about global warming here? "

Yes, and the Kyoto Treaty is the action plan by which rabid environmentalists are attempting to convince us we can prevent it.

Higher efficiency is always good. Reduction of waste is good. But if you're trying to claim that's all the global warming action crew is advocating then you, sir, are sadly mistaken.


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By Punisher77 on 6/23/2006 2:47:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, and the Kyoto Treaty is the action plan by which rabid environmentalists are attempting to convince us we can prevent it.

I haven't mentioned it once and I don't think that you should be making the assumption that I think it's a great idea. It has failed and was destined to fail. However, I am happy that is had raised the profile of global warming slightly and has increased the amount of discussion about the subject.

quote:
Higher efficiency is always good. Reduction of waste is good. But if you're trying to claim that's all the global warming action crew is advocating then you, sir, are sadly mistaken.

How do you feel about reducing our dependance on oil? You keep skirting the issue.


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2006 3:14:22 PM , Rating: 2
> "How do you feel about reducing our dependance on oil? You keep skirting the issue"

The issue is-- as you point out-- global warming, not "dependence on oil". So let's be honest...I'm not skirting any issue, its you who want to change the subject.

But still, I'm happy to answer. How do we reduce our depending on oil? We build a couple dozen "pebble-bed" style nuclear reactors around the nation, and use the resultant energy to either catalyze water into hydrogen. We convert our vehicles over to hydrogen, and burn it instead. End of problem.


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By Punisher77 on 6/23/2006 3:36:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The issue is-- as you point out-- global warming, not "dependence on oil". So let's be honest...I'm not skirting any issue, its you who want to change the subject.

Fair enough.

quote:
We build a couple dozen "pebble-bed" style nuclear reactors around the nation, and use the resultant energy to either catalyze water into hydrogen. We convert our vehicles over to hydrogen, and burn it instead. End of problem.

That's pretty much how I feel. I think it's also a good idea to invest in some alternative energies such as wind, hydro, tidal, solar, etc. just so that we don't have all of our eggs in one basket.

I would much rather focus debate on these issues than the issue of global warming. There is plenty of common ground in the solutions proposed above regardless of whether it will solve global warming (if you think it is/isn't a problem).


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By asmielia on 6/23/2006 3:41:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How do we reduce our depending on oil? We build a couple dozen "pebble-bed" style nuclear reactors around the nation, and use the resultant energy to either catalyze water into hydrogen. We convert our vehicles over to hydrogen, and burn it instead. End of problem.


So in the end, after all that arguing, we actually don't disagree on solutions by much at all. I would be really happy with the decision if our governments decided to do this. It would be way better than what we're doing now.

You're in favour of conservation and greater energy efficiency, and not emitting any greenhouse gases for use in transportation.


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By number999 on 6/24/2006 5:11:47 PM , Rating: 2
I do think HTGRs like the generation 3 (or is it gen 4)reactors like the pebble bed style (being developed in South Africa) are the future, esp with breeders but what's wrong with conservation. Not that I think a hydrogen future is on the horizon, esp with the cost.

Interestingly your immediate response was not to change usage patterns but generation patterns going immediately into hi-tech and keeping your usage exactly the same as if it was inviolate.

It is much cheaper to be more efficient so that extra gallon of gas doesn't need to be looked for, drilled for, refined, and transported, esp from the middle east or the Sudan or Veneuzula.

People have the right to existance but not at the right for any existance especially not at the cost of other people. Your choice of a lifestyle should not limit other peoples right to better theirs. Why does the average US family have 4 cars when the average US family size is less? Spend your money on something else. Why are companies building buildings in the middle of nowhere so you have to commute. Why do some towns don't have sidewalks and you have to drive everywhere or risk your life on the road? Why does society allow this short term BS to continue?


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2006 12:30:23 AM , Rating: 4
> "does the average US family have 4 cars when the average US family size is less? "

Where do people get such nonsense? According to the DOE, the US per-capita ownership of vehicles is just over 800 per 1000 people. Meaning less than one per person.

Worse, the entire logic behind the statement is skewed. Usage doesn't depend on the number of vehicles; it depends on total mileage driven. If I own five cars...I can still only drive one at a time. My usage doesn't rise.

> "keeping your usage exactly the same as if it was inviolate."

Standard of living is based on energy available per capita. In fact, with enough cheap energy, any problem is solvable.

Increasing efficiency is always good. But conservation is a different matter. Telling people they have to travel less, live in smaller houses, own fewer possessions, is a step backwards in quality of life.

It'd be a different matter if our survival really depended on it. But it doesn't...and saying otherwise is simply the same sky-is-falling scare tactics that people have been preaching since the 1960s.

Listen to any rabid environmentalist in 1965, and within 30 years we'd all be starving to death from lack of food from overpopulation. Today-- we're better fed than ever in history.

Listen to that same environmentalist in 1975, and they were saying we had "30 years of oil left, period" and we were facing imminent destruction from global cooling.

Today, we have higher proven oil reserves than we did in 1975...and we're told pollution is causing warming instead.

In another 20 years, the factiods will all be different, but the message will be the same. A catastrophe is coming...and the only thing that can save us is socialistic policies and a lowering of our standard of living.




RE: A lot of disbelievers
By number999 on 6/25/2006 3:47:08 AM , Rating: 1
Actually a prof of mine told me that number. Doing some rechecking and according to EIA that number is probably around 2.77 cars per household, which is still higher than the 2004 census figure of 2.6 people per household, is that factoid good enough for you. Still more vehicles than people per household for frags sake.

As for usage, the percentage of utility vehicles in the american fleet has gone up. Urban sprawl has increased basically everwhere. A friend went golfing in NC and had to take a car to go just a couple of buildings down on the main street. Why, no sidewalks, just ditches. Yah keep saying usage of cars is going down with urban planning like that.

Standard of living is not based on energy available per capita but based on services provided. The Japanese have a fairly high standard of living and they do it using a heck less energy than the US (about 50% in equivalent barrels of oil per person in 1988). It is a total fallacy to think that it is based on available energy. Its the service that is important.

Conservation is about increasing efficiency most of all. I can buy a compact flourescent lighbulb that lasts for 2-3 years so far on average for me and it uses a fifth of the electricity but that isn't conservation? Building a better house that pays for itself a few years isn't conservation? Some of the figures I've seen are for 40% paybacks on $300 just in insulation. You get the same services with easily obtainable returns with equivalent standard of living with cash saved in your pocket. Yah you have no bias against conservation. I don't think you have actually looked into it.


As for availability of oil that is always based on some assumed price. As price goes up so does the derived commodity.

As for socialistic policies, well all systems contain a mixture of policies and there is nothing wrong with any of that. The Japanese and European countries priced gasoline through the roof. Why? To lower their dependencies on foreign oil. What happened? During the 73 energy crunch the American car manufacturers got raked over the coals and foreign cars esp the Japanese moved right in. Let America and its consumers be shortsighted and provincal, when the next crunch comes you bet you'll travel less and wish you were more farsighted.

As for global warming and brave scientists fighting the system to get the real message out, with George W. as the president and his *hmph* science advisors, I think the brave ones are the ones talking global warming.


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2006 10:39:14 AM , Rating: 2
> "2004 census figure of 2.6 people per household, is that factoid good enough for you"

No, because its incorrect. There are less than 1 vehicle per capita in the US. Source data is at:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts...

US vehicle ownership per capita actually DECLINED in 2003 and 2004.


> "brave scientists fighting the system to get the real message out..."

Lol, not hardly. I read both Science and Nature on a regular basis. Papers containing climate research are common. Any of these papers which don't fit the public belief in impending global warming doom are never reported...however, the paper that seems to support it makes headlines in ever paper

No scientist who believes in a global warming catastrophe has to "fight" to get the message out. Quite the opposite. The few crackpots who believe are widely quoted from coast to coast. The majority who are doing good, solid research are rarely, if reported, reported.

I gave a list of just a few of those scientists in this thread.

> "a better house that pays for itself a few years isn't conservation?"

That falls into the category of efficiency. The same size house, the same temperature...just less energy. Now, when rabid environmentalists tell us we need to buy *SMALLER* homes (as they commonly do) that's lowering our standard of living.

Unfortunately, telling us to buy smaller homes and cars is just the start of the environmentalist agenda. Travelling less, buying fewer consumer goods, having less children, the list goes on and on.

> "Yah you have no bias against conservation. I don't think you have actually looked into it."

Oh really? I have a 6500 sq. foot home that uses less power than my prior home which was half its size. High-density triple insulated ceilings, argon-filled windows with low-E glass, and an HVAC system zoned to allow temperature control for individual rooms.



RE: A lot of disbelievers
By number999 on 6/25/2006 2:09:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, because its incorrect. There are less than 1 vehicle per capita in the US


Your figure is more up to date than mine. But mine is actually a more useful stat than yours because of the comparison of cars to actual households. Your stat divorces that number and makes it harder for average people to actually see the cars. As for the decline in ownership, in what demographic did it decline it? Urban, with access to public transportation? Most likely.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/rtecs/toc.html

Obviously I assumed a constant rate of change from the 2001 stat to get present day numbers but even on your graph, it shows the US as a car centric nation. The closest number to it is Canada at 600 per 1000.

Add to this the fact with the differing social/economic levels in all societies, probably means that upper/middle class families have more cars than drivers in each household on average. Oh, by the way I misremember what my prof told me. It wasn't a stat it was the fact that 4 garage houses were starting to be built in the US.

quote:
No scientist who believes in a global warming catastrophe has to "fight"

Actually the context of the message was about the Bush administration and their viewpoints and their willingness to pay those who disagree with the administration especially in the area of science.

When that fact is taken into consideration, who do you think gets gov't money.


That open letter letter doesn't specifically say global warning doesn't exist or that man doesn't contribute to it. It just says the models are faulty. I must also repeat about the context of this open letter. A change to a conservative minority gov't who openly oposes Kyoto and has to sell it's point of view and the National Post, the right wing Canadian Paper which I use to get a good laugh. It's a nice list of scientists. To see if they are truly objective, I would like to see where and how they get their funding as well as any past bias for or against before I start using their names for gospel. An open letter especially one this short doesn't actually show any facts and reasoning.

And guess what, you aren't the only ones to read those journals. And of course the papers are sensational. They require readers. But they also require a minimum amount of truth in them and if it gets people more interested in learning something than all the better.

quote:
That falls into the category of efficiency

Most people when they talk about conservation they are talking about efficiency. I don't know where you get this idea that it's about attacking the standard of living.

Standard of living has more to do with ability to get services and access to services. In the house, it includes hot running water, tv, toilet, refrigeration and cooking but it also includes externalities like health care. Beyond a certain size and number of gooods I would think that house size contributes diminishing returns. Do most people need a computer built into a fridge? According to sales, they don't.

As for telling you what to do, it's usually economic factors that do that. When there was a West Germany, it had negative population growth in its later years. It wasn't any group of people telling the rest of the population. Some of those economic factors are totally artificial in nature and create artificial conditions. Early industrialization had people living next to the factories. Differing tax laws promote the hollowing out of cities. You may not think it, but you're being told what to do anyway.

quote:
I have a 6500 sq. foot home

Good for you. You're a have in society. Now why is it that what you have isn't it a national standard for housing. It does pay for itself.

Here's some considerations though:
How much farther did you move from work? How much more do you spend in traffic? How much more do you spend in gas? You're willing to pay for that? Fine. The road connecting your new house and your neibours to the main urban center. Who paid for that? The costs of connecting to the grid?

Are there even sidewalks? Distance to the supermarkets and how you go shopping. Is there any public transportation?

Oh yeah, a couple of things before I go. At 6500 sq. ft. for a single dwelling how many vehicles do you own and how many drivers are in your household?

My bet is that you fall into catagories that cast you in unfavourable light according to your environmentalists. How much is your position about defending your choices?

PS. You like picking on things to attack with but in all the arguements you don't actually give people any sense at all that any of their points are or could be valid.


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2006 3:24:01 PM , Rating: 2
> " Obviously I assumed a constant rate of change from the 2001 stat "

You "assumed"? Lol...linear extrapolation of a rate of change is not only highly inaccurate, its called "lying" when you quote it as fact.

Even more amusing, you didn't even do the math correctly. From your own link the 2001 rate was 1.78 cars/household. Assuming the 1994-2001 rate of increase continued for 3 more years, you have 1.78[(1.026)/(1.014)]^3 = 1.84 cars/household in 2004. No clue how you skyrocketed all the way to 2.6...but its wholly inaccurate.


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By number999 on 6/25/2006 4:55:05 PM , Rating: 2
It isn't lying when hey it's an honest mistake but heck I must be getting to you.

It must be also noted that the stat excludes heavy trucks which means that the statistic doesn't include the large SUV's. My mistake but hey at least I can admit to them.


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2006 6:22:04 PM , Rating: 2
> "It isn't lying when hey it's an honest mistake "

The mistake was your math error that inflated the figure far above normal growth. The lie was presenting an extrapolated estimate as factual data. Even had you done the math correctly, that sort of omission would, were you a research scientist, have discredited you quite thoroughly.

> "It must be also noted that the stat excludes heavy trucks which means that the statistic doesn't include the large SUV's"

Oops, wrong again. Heavy trucks are a specific US DOT category, that has nothing to do with SUVs.


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By number999 on 6/25/2006 7:49:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
nothing to do with SUVs.

Weight classes and such are used to classify vehicles and the federal gov't uses that to apply certain efficiency laws. And SUV's are a part of that.


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2006 9:59:43 PM , Rating: 2
> "Weight classes and such are used to classify vehicles "

God, you are truly amazing. The "heavy truck" category is vehicles 10 tons and up. SUVs are "light trucks", a totally different category. SUV figures ARE included in those values.

I think I've never met someone so consistently unwilling to admit to being wrong, even on such trivial errors. Have you no shame whatsoever?


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2006 3:36:54 PM , Rating: 2
> "but even on your graph, it shows the US as a car centric nation"

Of course it is. Do you own a car yourself? If you do, then you're a hypocrite. If not, then feel free to criticize the rest of us.

> "That open letter letter doesn't specifically say global warning doesn't exist or that man doesn't contribute to it. It just says the models are faulty"

It says far more than that, as I summed up in my post below. Among its major points, it clearly states that fear of a climate catastrophe are unfounded, and that current proposals for reducing greenhouse gases are wholly unwarranted.

> "I don't know where you get this idea that it's about attacking the standard of living. "

I get that from Greenpeace, Earth First, Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club, and other environmental organizations.

> "Do most people need a computer built into a fridge?"

In reality, we don't need anything but a cave and a club...everything above that is just standard of living. Who are you, though, to tell people what they "need"? And worse, to tell them to "save the earth" by giving up something they want?

> "My bet is that you fall into catagories that cast you in unfavourable light according to your environmentalists"

Well, you've been wrong on everything else, so why start being correct now? I work in a research lab, but since I have alternate facilities in my home, I only need commute a couple times a week. A commute of about 10 miles...round trip.

Care to try again?




RE: A lot of disbelievers
By number999 on 6/25/2006 4:11:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of course it is. Do you own a car yourself? If you do, then you're a hypocrite. If not, then feel free to criticize the rest of us.


The problem is the short sightedness that has created a situation in which the the easiest cure is in itself the problem. Yah, and sidewalks in the downtown corrider of a town are not as expensive as having to make the assumption that you have to drive a couple of stores down and it certainly gives people no option.

quote:
I summed up in my post below</quote
Yes, you summed up and intrepreted. I read the bloody thing too and it made no mention that your point of view was fact, it didn't. It was about being skeptical and what you've written so far seems to be in concrete.

Still atttacking on small points though hmm. I wonder how close my other questions were to the mark?


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2006 6:30:58 PM , Rating: 2
> "The problem is the short sightedness that has created a situation "

Oops, you missed my question. I'll repeat it for you. You've spent several posts griping about "too many cars" in the US. Do you own one yourself? Don't be afraid of the question; a simple yes or no will suffice.

> "Yes, you summed up and intrepreted"

I summed up. Not interpreted. Name one specific point in where ich I changed the meaning, and you win a cookie.

> "Still atttacking on small points though hmm"

Lol, are you serious with this? I've given countless facts, data, quotes, logical arguments, and sources in this thread. The only thing you've done is make vague accussations of my misrepresenting the situation-- without ever providing a single specific-- and you accuse me of "attacking on small points"? Across all your posts, the only "fact" you ever provided was a trumped up figure that you yourself admit was totally incorrect.

Truth is stranger than fiction. You've already lost the argument; have the good grace to admit it.


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By number999 on 6/25/2006 8:45:39 PM , Rating: 2
And does owning a car invalidate any points I made about it? As for 4 car households
http://www.hgtv.com/hgtv/ah_real_estate_building/a...
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%224+car%22+ga...

just to show you what's being made and no they're not mansions. Hey, a two bedroom 4 car house. A car for the dog? And no, I don't presently own a car. I live inside a city and have access to public transportation and a bike that I take on 40km trips.

How about
"Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations"
and
"and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise.""
say that given a change in circumstance, they would be willing to change their minds?

quote:
I've given countless facts, data, quotes, logical arguments, and sources in this thread

No you've given one sided biased facts that supported an already developed opinion, from the start, everywhere you have posted. You are as bad or worse then those you say you are sick of.

You have picked certain of my arguements and pronounced everything as wrong while staying away from others that were less vulnerable. You did not go point to point and destroy each.

It must be nice to know that you are so right in each and every aspect. Fanatism is so comforting. For you that is.

Here's an URL for those looking looking for reasonable information instead of being trolled at by fanatics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_contro...

at least I'm willing to show both sides of this issue.



RE: A lot of disbelievers
By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2006 10:08:04 PM , Rating: 3
> "And does owning a car invalidate any points I made about it?"

When you consistently whine that Americans own "too many cars" while you yourself own one-- that makes you a hypocrite.

> "...that given a change in circumstance, they would be willing to change their minds? "

Of course. They're scientists. If new evidence comes to light, they'd certainly be willing to change their minds. Until that time, however, they remain firmly convinced there is no need to fear any climate catastrophe, and no reason to take any immediate action.

> "Here's an URL for those looking looking for reasonable information "

Lol, your own link disproves you. The (sadly dated) Wikipedia reference demonstrates quite clearly there is NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS on global warming.

> "You have picked certain of my arguements and pronounced everything as wrong while staying away from others that were less vulnerable. You did not go point to point and destroy each. "

So let me get this straight. You're unhappy because I DIDN'T destroy each and every of your arguments? Because I only disproved some of the more glaring examples?

I'll be honest-- I took pity on you.



RE: A lot of disbelievers
By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2006 10:45:04 AM , Rating: 3
> As for socialistic policies, well all systems contain a mixture of policies and there is nothing wrong with any of that."

That speaks for itself. I have news for you-- there is vast deal "wrong with" socialistic policies. Especially when they come disguised as "environmental solutions".

If you doubt the inherent irrationality of socialist agendas, I suggest you check out the booming economies of Cuba, North Korea, or any area of the former USSR.

> no sidewalks, just ditches. Yah keep saying usage of cars is going down with urban planning like that...

I have news for you...building a city-wide network of sidewalks requires a substantial amount of energy...as does the manufacture of the millions of cubic yards of concrete required for the project.

Is installing such a network a net energy gain, just for the odd citizen who might choose to walk a couple blocks now and then? For some cities, yes...for most cities, no. Especially those with low population densities, or those with high rates of inclement weather.

Care to try again, chum?


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By number999 on 6/25/2006 4:15:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I suggest you check ...

what china isn't socialist enough for you?

As for the rest of it. Well we'll see when gas doubles in price and people may have to walk a little or want that option.

And what, a city wide network of roads for cars is cheap?


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2006 6:43:53 PM , Rating: 3
> "what china isn't socialist enough for you?"

Not really. As you'd know had you visited the nation, as I have. They're a curious mix of socialism and capitalism at present. And coming from a person who accuses me of "attacking on the small points", this is a sad excuse for a rebuttal.

Address the point. You claim there is nothing wrong with Socialist policies. Do you wish to retract this nonsense...or maybe just claim I "misinterpreted" you?

> "As for the rest of it. Well we'll see when gas doubles in price and people may have to walk a little or want that option."

Interestingly enough, it is the environmentalists themselves who are calling for far higher gas prices...as well as the adoption of new fuels which would result in prices far above "double" our current gas prices.

> "a city wide network of roads for cars is cheap? "

So, you're proposing we REPLACE our network of roads with sidewalks? Lol, you're getting more ridiculous with each post.

Address the point. Building tens of thousands of miles of new sidewalks around the nation might indeed convince a few people to walk now and then instead of drive. Would that enormous network result in a net energy savings, however? Especially if built in areas of low population density, or high levels of inclement weather?

You can't balance that network against the nation's roads...not unless you're talking about replacing some of those roads. And that would mean areas you could not reach by car, no matter what. Have a week's worth of groceries and its pouring outside? Sorry...carry them. It's only six blocks. Having a heart attack or a stroke? Sorry...the paramedics can jog to your house.

Yeah, this sidewalk idea is a real winner.



RE: A lot of disbelievers
By number999 on 6/25/2006 7:38:17 PM , Rating: 2
Part of what created modern day China was socialism and it is part of every economic system. No system is totally capitalistic or communistic and each has good and bad points to them. The fact that you cannot get beyond your own prejudices is your own problem.

quote:
you're proposing we REPLACE our network of roads

Where and when did I say replace. And when was taking away the ability to actually walk a short distance considered desirable.


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2006 10:14:48 PM , Rating: 2
> "Part of what created modern day China was socialism ...No system is totally capitalistic or communistic..."

Oops, you've confused Socialism with Communism. Not the same thing at all.

> "each has good and bad points to them."

There are no "good points" to Socialism. I've visited most of the Socialist nations on the planet...and lived in one of them. I can speak with authority.

> "Where and when did I say replace [our network of roads]"

Since you can't seem to understand the implications of your own remarks, let me walk you through them slowly. You advance "a network of sidewalks" as a solution to our energy problems. I point out that, in certain areas, the energy cost of building them would be higher than any savings they'd generate. You then reply with a comment about the cost of our network of roads. The clear (and correct) implication beind that roads are more costly than sidewalks.

Now, either you were making a random and wholly inappropriate remark. Or you were suggesting that sidewalks would be a cheaper ALTERNATIVE to roads, at least in some cases.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and assumed you were making a logical argument, instead of disjointed, random statements. Was I wrong or not?



RE: A lot of disbelievers
By number999 on 6/25/2006 11:26:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oops, you've confused Socialism with Communism. Not the same thing at all.

Webster-
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
mmm.

It must be infuriating that a socialistic state is succeeding so well. As for socialism in the US. lets see medicare, old age pension, the VA, they do exist.

And no I did not advance a solution of sidewalks to solve the energy problem. Stop putting your spin on the fact I remarked that to go from a hotel to a store a stones throw away in a downtown core of a town requires a car, is that reasonable enough for you and as for viability, the population density in the downtown core was sufficient to support foot traffic but they had the foresight to do nothing but force people to use cars.

You are obviously trolling especially considering the fact that you can't even admit any points in which you could be mistaken. As for the Wikipedia, what some of the entries are dated recently as May 2, 2006 which said "that the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments which concluded that there is "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system."" What, you don't like it?

Hey, expert and opionated that you are why don't you write an entry and actually have it checked to the wazoo. The wiki at least contains various opinions from expert sources including the scientists you named. What you have to be right for your ego? Don't bother answering.

The wiki and general searches tell others to at least where to look for balance and that's enough for me. It gives an overview of how things came to be.

Your fanatical approach is a total turnoff and accomplishes nothing. The way you put others down does nothing. Even if you were right, just the way you approach these forum entries means that people just won't listen to what you say. Just keep howling in the wind.

This is my last entry in this to you. I'm sure you will call it a victory for yourself, mores the pity to you. I'm sure it stroke your ego and prove to yourself you're better. Oh, and double check your own links, considering how dead they were, I wouldn't start throwing around accusations of old data.


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 8:48:43 AM , Rating: 2
> "Webster- Main Entry: so·cial·ism "

I'm not the one confusing Socialism with Communism. They're two different entities, which I'm sure your quick trip to Websters confirmed for you.

> "It must be infuriating that a socialistic state is succeeding so well"

Of which Socialist state do you speak? There are very few left nowadays. China certainly counts no longer; their semi-conversion to Capitalism has driven a truly immense economic boom in the nation.

> "And no I did not advance a solution of sidewalks to solve the energy problem..."

So you make a series of posts whining about the lack of sidewalks in cities...but you don't think we should actually build any? Sounds like you're a terribly confused individual.

Why not spend a few moments and try to formulate a logical statement, instead of wasting our time with complaints that even you don't regard as solutions?

> "You are obviously trolling especially considering the fact that you can't even admit any points in which you could be mistaken"

What sort of pudding-headed logic is this? When you find me wrong on a point, I'll admit to it.

Personally, I love being proven wrong. It means I learned something new. Unlike you, I don't throw a temper tantrum when it happens.


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 8:54:23 AM , Rating: 2
> "Hey, expert and opionated that you are why don't you write an entry and actually have it checked to the wazoo."

I have my own research papers to write, on topics quite different from climatology. As for submitting a Wiki entry; that's a source for laymen, not a scientific journal.

Now, a suggestion for you? Instead of relying upon spoonfeed media reports, why not actually read some of the source research papers on climate change? You'll find the topic fascinating...and the results quite different than what you're being told.

> "Your fanatical approach is a total turnoff and accomplishes nothing"

Let's see...one of us is frothing at mouth, screaming the sky is falling, and we need immediate action to prevent global catastrophe. And the other is calmly stating this is all rubbish.

It's clear which of us is the fanatic here.


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By number999 on 6/24/2006 5:33:49 PM , Rating: 2
Why in the world should developing countries shoulder a burden created mainly by the developed world? Besides which all countries go through a developing phase where carbon emissions are high and they decrease as more efficient technologies take root. The later the country developes the lower the carbon output/gdp ratio. The fact is, developed countries should see this as an opportunity to increase efficiency while developing technologies to sell to developing countries. (scientific american 1990,special ed)


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2006 2:38:19 PM , Rating: 2
> "it's pretty obvious that I'm wasting my time arguing with you. "

Unfortunately, this is the standard response. Someone tells you anthropomorphic global warming is indisputed scientific fact. You prove them wrong with countless references and scientific data...and they suddenly lose all interest in the argument.

I don't wish to be maudlin...but such an attitude is truly sad.



RE: A lot of disbelievers
By asmielia on 6/23/2006 3:18:32 PM , Rating: 2
I never said it was indisputed. You're disputing it, so by definition it's not indisputed. In your mind you've proved me wrong. In my mind you pick and choose the data you wish to use and believe what you want to believe. Maybe I'm guilty of the same sometimes. I'm losing interest in arguing because you're not guilty of being ignorant (I'll give you that), so it's basically your opinion vs mine. If 95% (an admitted guess) of the global scientific community can't convince you that global warming is real, then I seriously doubt I can.


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2006 4:00:24 PM , Rating: 3
> "If 95% (an admitted guess) of the global scientific community "

A guess that is nowhere near being correct. I notice you utterly ignored my post listing the names of just a few of the many hundreds of climatologists, atmospheric scientists, and other researchers who debunk the popular believe in global warming scare scenarios. What are you afraid of?

I read research journals on a regular basis...only those papers which seem to support global warming are ever reported by the media. And they're almost always reported in a misleading fashion...just like the paper that started this entire thread. Why not read them for yourself...and see what science is REALLY saying?


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By number999 on 6/24/2006 4:43:56 PM , Rating: 2
Both of you believe what you are saying is the "truth". You try to send your facts and the other person tries to convert the other with his facts.

Science isn't just about facts especially in this case. There is no mathematical proof and ergo there's the answer. Everyone has biases and beliefs and what we know and listen to and speak through is filtered by them, even scientists.

Scientists have been, are, and will be affected by the environment they have been raised in, work in, and publish in.

These include the scientists who don't believe in global warming as well as those who do.

What is truly sad is the lack of complete dialogue. Trying to "win" by defeating your opponent rather than trying to get points across or information.

Maclaughin, once wrote that debates and TV didn't create opinion but reinforced ones that already existed. This is just that.

btw, I personally think you're wrong. Most if not all your links are dead for one. Two, say you're right, any money spent goes to science to increase efficiency and generate power more effiently, which is whoafully underfunded anyway (I remeber a fact that the US populace spends billions on porn for ^&% sake compared to just hundreds of millions of dollars spent on energy efficiency). If you're wrong, the environmental degradation and the costs created to combat it will make the cost of Katrina look like pocket change. What's stupid is Bush spending money for what is essentially short term BS but not anything meaningful or longterm.


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By number999 on 6/24/2006 5:26:17 PM , Rating: 2
Actually they degraded their environment and continued to ignore the warning signs. Trees had a part in it but they also destroyed their other resources. I saw a documentary where they excavated their garbage heaps and it detailed some of their usage patterns including their diet patterns and their food resources.

Ignoring the environment and dwindling resources, they continued to live their live oblivious to the consequences until....


By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2006 2:09:23 PM , Rating: 3
In an open lettter to Canada's Prime Minister Harper:

quote:

...Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based...

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise."...

[snip]

Signed:


Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards

Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.

Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.

Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant

Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology

Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta

Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria

Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax

Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.

Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta

Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.

Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.

Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists

Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review

Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia

Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.

Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.

Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment

Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change

Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand

Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z.

Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut

Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.

Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.

Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service

Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society

Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.

Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland

Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.

Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.

Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health

Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist

Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.


http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/s...





By number999 on 6/24/2006 3:45:55 PM , Rating: 2
I tried those other links you posted. All but one were dead links. As for this open letter, it proves that there are scientists who believe in global warning. The snippet seems to warn of a climate of fear being generated.

Frankly, this snippet has to be taken in the context of the time and the publication. The National Post is a totally right wing rag which has a good economics section and is garbage for anything else. I used to get it and read it for laughs even though I tend towards classic liberal economics. Two, Harper's conservative government is known to be trying to get out of Kyoto. This is just a bit of rhetoric and propaganda to prep the masses for their eventual "Canadian Solution" to the problem which will be another do nothing but the status quo.


By number999 on 6/24/2006 5:36:42 PM , Rating: 2
sorry "don't believe in global warming"


By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2006 10:57:52 AM , Rating: 2
> "for this open letter, it proves that there are scientists who believe in global warning..."

It proves there are a vast number of scientists who believe there is NO REASON TO FEAR a looming global climate catastrophe.

> "National Post is a totally right wing rag "

Oh, no no no. You can't pull a cheap trick like that. This open letter was published in many different publications...and the credentials of the 60 scientists who authored it are inarguable.

Trying to denigrate their research and knowledge simplye because of which papers chose to report them is the cheapest trick in the propaganda book. Had these same 60 scientists concluded there was reason to fear...well then, you'd find their paper in the NYT and every other paper across the nation.


By number999 on 6/25/2006 2:44:44 PM , Rating: 2
I've read it and what it says is their belief that it is unwise to continue with the gov't present course on Kyoto especially based on the modeling done with Kyoto. Don't interpret an open letter and then give your interpretation.

They admit skeptism. Whoa. They don't say humans don't contribute to global warming, they just say they can't tell if it does or doesn't and that the gov't should do nothing.

I would like to know more about the background of these scientists before taking their ideas to my bosum as should everyone.

quote:
published in many different publication

Yes but you choose this quote from this publication and people should know the context from which it derives.

This open letter was to the Canadian PM and the paper you choose to quote from is a right wing paper known to promulgate right wing messages in Canada. You did not choose a more neutral source and opened the door to this thread and questioning.

You have denigrated other media for their favoritism to global warming fear mongering and the suppression of "truth". The context of where and to who and in what paper it was said is germaine because it is about pushing agendas whether they be "pro" or "nay" and if you can say pro environmental agendas get pushed in media in their context then people should get to see the whys of the nay side getting pushed.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2006 3:16:45 PM , Rating: 4
> "I've read it and what it says is their belief that it is unwise to continue with the gov't present course on Kyoto especially based on the modeling done with Kyoto. "

They say far more than that. Let's sum up their major points:

a) "Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future."

b) Even if the models were correct, the courses of action suggested for reducing greenhouse gases will have little to no benefit.

c) There is no scientific "consensus" on the causes of global warming.

d) Fear of impending climate catastrophe is unwarranted.

d) scientifically unqualified environmental groups are making sensational pronouncements without factual basis.

f) allocating funds to "stopping climate change" is irrational at this point.

> "Don't interpret an open letter and then give your interpretation."

A bit of redundancy in that statement, no? In any case, I "interpreted" nothing. The meaning of their statements is clear; nothing was in any way altered, folded, spindled, or mutilated.

> "I would like to know more about the background of these scientists "

Lol, but when some crackpot biologist claims the sky is falling, you have no interest in his credentials, do you? How utterly predictable.

The "background" of the named scientists is above reproach. Most have multiple Ph.D.s and have been involved in relevant research for decades or more. Some are legends in their field (who hasn't heard of Freeman Dyson?) Drs. Lindzen and Morgan have given testimony before Congress on several occasions; both were chosen to be on the UN's IPCC (Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change). Dr. Tennekes is Holland's best known research Meteorologist. Dr. Morner one of the top five experts on Geodynamics in the world. Dr. Leroux is aprofessor emeritus of climatology at the University of Lyon, France, and author of over 100 research papers in the field. He's published two books under the auspices of the World Meteorological Association.

You can certainly attempt to smear these men because their science doesn't agree with your beliefs. But don't expect
anyone eles to fall for it.



By number999 on 6/25/2006 4:41:42 PM , Rating: 2
I noticed that you forget to mention that they don't say that human endevours don't contribute to global warming. Thay they don't deny global warming doesn't exist.

Why don't you mention that when you interpret things for other people then just picking your points and spewing them forth.

As for the UN's IPCC (Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change) why don't you mention that the 2000 scientists on it concluded that human activity was the cause of the rising CO2 and that it would cause rising temperatures. Why don't you offer that in your listing of scientists and organizations that refute global warming or is it you only listen to people that agree with you.



By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2006 6:52:13 PM , Rating: 4
> " noticed that you forget to mention that they don't say that human endevours don't contribute to global warming"

Had you bothered to read my posts, you'd know the answer to that. They don't say it doesn't because there is no proof either way. What they DO say is what they can prove-- which is that IF humans are contributing to global warming, then a) there is still no call for alarm, and b) all the so-called "solutions" for preventing that will accomplish nothing worthwhile.

> "they don't deny global warming doesn't exist"

Of course not, because the earth has warmed up the last 100 years. By almost a full degree. That's a fact. What's fiction is the sky-is-falling interpretion of that as a human-induced impending disaster.

> "why don't you mention that the 2000 scientists on the UN IPCC concluded that human activity was the cause of the rising CO2 and that it would cause rising temperatures"

Because the "2000 scientists" concluded no such thing. The executive summary which reached that conclusion was controlled by a much smaller group, most of which weren't scientists at all, but policy-makers.

Dr. Lindzen (himself a member of the IPCC, and a signatory to the open letter I cite above) talks in great depth about how the political process affected the executive summary, and how it distorted the results to fit their agenda. He testified to Congress about it, in fact.



By number999 on 6/25/2006 7:46:13 PM , Rating: 2
Sick and tired of this. You obviously think you know it all already and present it as such. Here is a link for others to check out. Frankly, the from the way you present your data, you are opinionated and are more concerned about being right than than anything else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on...
which outlines various organizations and the consensus that they hold.

Here is another link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_contro...
which oulines the other side of the controversy.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2006 10:28:04 PM , Rating: 2
> "Sick and tired of this"

Having your points consistently disproven and your "facts" exposed as frauds must be tiring.

> "Here is a link for others to check out"

I'll see your link and raise you one. Testimony by Dr. Lindzen before the US Senate, on the UN IPCC draft(the "2000 scientists" report you cited earlier):

quote:
It has become common to deal with the science by referring to the IPCC ‘scientific cconsensus.’ Claiming the agreement of thousands of scientists is certainly easier than trying to understand the issue or to respond to scientific questions; it also effectively intimidates most citizens...

In truth, neither the full text of theIPCC documents nor even the summaries claim any such agreement [of scientific consensus]...

The media reports rarely reflect what is actually in the IPCC Summary...The media’s emphasis on increased storminess, rising sea levels, etc. is based not on any science, but rather on th efact that such features have more graphic impact.

The summary does not reflect the full document....

The vast majority of participants played no role in preparing the summary, and were not asked for agreement .

The preparation of the report, itself, was subject to pressure [from] IPCC 'coordinators' who insisted [that]criticism of models be toned down , and that ‘motherhood’ statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults...


http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/...


Speculation
By Alphafox78 on 6/23/2006 8:18:03 AM , Rating: 2
Seeing as there werent propper temperature readings untill the 19th century, that leaves the prior centuries up to speculation. im sure that whoever was reading the tree ring isotopes were inclined to slant the results so that we could all blame bush personally for all the evil smog he has generated. good thing his term is up in 08 otherwise we wont have any ice caps, oh boy!




RE: Speculation
By Exsomnis on 6/23/2006 9:03:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
im sure that whoever was reading the tree ring isotopes were inclined to slant the results so that we could all blame bush personally for all the evil smog he has generated

Yeah... And I'm sure God put those isotopes there to test our faith too, right? 8)


RE: Speculation
By ksuWildcat on 6/23/2006 9:47:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah... And I'm sure God put those isotopes there to test our faith too, right?


LOL! This is the best comment I've read for a long time. I got a good chuckle out of it - what do you bet that someone actually thinks this.


RE: Speculation
By DefyingxGravity on 6/23/2006 10:29:09 AM , Rating: 2
That's nothing. Someone once told my friend, in response to her being asked about dinosaurs, that "Oh, you mean those bones that God put in the ground to give archeologists something to do?" ^_^


RE: Speculation
By rrsurfer1 on 6/23/2006 11:13:59 AM , Rating: 1
HA! Religion tends to breed ignorance. Which is the point, an ignorant populace is far easier to manage and guide.


RE: Speculation
By dice1111 on 6/23/2006 12:59:39 PM , Rating: 1
*sigh*

I love you guys! :)


RE: Speculation
By Eris23007 on 6/23/2006 4:31:00 PM , Rating: 2
"Give us de mahney, Lebowski. Ve are nihilists, ve believe in NOSSINK." "Ya, Lebowski, nossink!" "Give us de money or ve cuts off your JOHNSON!"

LOL!


RE: Speculation
By Eris23007 on 6/23/2006 4:31:50 PM , Rating: 2
sigh... was supposed to be a reply to the comment about evil/destructive religions (of which nihilism might be considered one)...

DT - please fix the reply feature on your boards...


RE: Speculation
By rushfan2006 on 6/23/2006 2:49:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
HA! Religion tends to breed ignorance. Which is the point, an ignorant populace is far easier to manage and guide.


I believe everyone is free to believe in whatever religion they want, so long as A) its not a religion about death and destruction (ie. not a "evil" religion) and B) they don't force me to believe it to.

But I will say I tend to respect people more for believing in something greater than they are, then those that believe in nothing. IMHO those are the really weak minded and ignorant folks. ;)


RE: Speculation
By Zelvek on 6/24/2006 2:25:35 AM , Rating: 2
Personaly I think the oposite. People are so pathetic that they need to have something greater than them to explain the complexities that we still have yet to understand. what is so great in cling in to the idea that there is an after life. I mean what is week in not folowing the rest of the sheep. Considering as how moder religions ownly started to apear a little over 2000 years ago how can one be so blind?


humans on Moon (Mars?)
By logan77 on 6/23/2006 7:03:13 AM , Rating: 2
>"astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said that humans need to colonize a planet or moon because the Earth potentially faces destruction due to a man made disaster."

So if the people are the problem, what remedies this when thay go to different planets/moons ? Wouldn't it face the same disaster whereever "we" go, if the sentence by S.H. is true ? If it isn't, then perhaps we don't "have to colonize a planer or a moon" OR we should do this, but for different reasons.

Is colonizing another planet/moon easier than avoiding climate changes here on Earth ?




RE: humans on Moon (Mars?)
By logan77 on 6/23/2006 7:04:42 AM , Rating: 2
sorry for double (triple?) posting - did it from one window :(
where is darn edit ? in outer space I guess


RE: humans on Moon (Mars?)
By Sword on 6/23/2006 7:11:05 AM , Rating: 3
You have to understand what he means correctly.

By colonizing other planets/moon, we are going to understand and develop many advanced recuperation system that will reduce any form of pollution to nearly zero because of the nature of space.

If we can develop these technologies and then bring them to earth we might have a chance to save the planet.

My 0.2$


RE: humans on Moon (Mars?)
By logan77 on 6/23/2006 7:26:07 AM , Rating: 2
>"You have to understand what he means correctly."

I think I do :) thank's for your concern.


>"By colonizing other planets/moon, we are going to understand and develop many advanced recuperation system that will reduce any form of pollution to nearly zero because of the nature of space."

So we won't be able to do this without colonizing "other worlds" ? Please don't change the meaning of my question while answering :) (that's in advance, but sth tell's me...)


>"My 0.2$"

Twenty cents ? I hope you ment 2 cents :)

just my 2 euro-cents :)


RE: humans on Moon (Mars?)
By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2006 8:09:40 AM , Rating: 2
> "You have to understand what he means correctly. "

You totally misrepresent the content of his remarks. Hawking believes-- as do many other great minds-- that humanity being based only upon a single planet is "having all our eggs in one basket".

He isn't speaking simply about pollution, or indeed about man-made disasters. There are a vast number of *natural* disasters which could destroy human civilization or indeed, all life upon the planet.


RE: humans on Moon (Mars?)
By bob661 on 6/23/2006 11:21:48 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
If we can develop these technologies and then bring them to earth we might have a chance to save the planet.
I'm still waiting for someone to prove that the planet needs saving.


RE: humans on Moon (Mars?)
By rushfan2006 on 6/23/2006 2:25:12 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I'm still waiting for someone to prove that the planet needs saving.


1. Britney Spears
2. Paris Hilton
3. Rap "Music" (and all the varieties of it ..."gansta, hip hop", etc.)
4. Disrespectful punk kids, particularly 18 and younger...
5. Stupid parents who neglect the hell out of their kids until it is a matter of convenience for them...
6. MTV (Remember when the "M" stood for Music?)
7. "Reality" TV Shows everywhere (Remember when there were actual real shows on TV?)


There's your proof, just a short list...I could go on....:)



RE: humans on Moon (Mars?)
By PrinceGaz on 6/23/2006 9:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
1. Britney Spears

What is wrong with Britney Spears? I Still Believe in her music!

2. Paris Hilton

Okay, maybe you're right.

3. Rap "Music" (and all the varieties of it ..."gansta, hip hop", etc.)

You need saving, you forgot to put the "C" in front of "Rap"

4. Disrespectful punk kids, particularly 18 and younger...

Ah, "generation gimme". I blame the parents.

5. Stupid parents who neglect the hell out of their kids until it is a matter of convenience for them...

Which explains #4.

6. MTV (Remember when the "M" stood for Music?)

I do, but that was many years ago. Times have moved on (for the worse in the case of MTV).

7. "Reality" TV Shows everywhere (Remember when there were actual real shows on TV?)

We still get a lot of good dramas and documentaries here in the UK, though we do also get loads of reality cr@p. I'm sure the ever growing backlash against so-called reality TV will soon reach critical mass.

So yeah, maybe the planet does need saving, but maybe we'll save ourselves. But either way a bit of Britney can only help us :)


Accuracy?
By McGuffin on 6/23/2006 4:12:27 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
By masher2 on 6/23/2006 11:14:28 AM

First of all, the entire North Pole could melt, and not change sea levels by a millimeter. Floating ice doesn't have an effect.


Definition of "melting":
"In physics, melting is the process of heating a solid substance to a point (called the melting point) where it turns liquid." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting]

Therefore, the ice-cap melting would liberate a volume of liquid water slightly less than the original volume of ice (because ice is approx. 8% less dense than liquid water [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice]).

But, according to masher2, melted ice is still somehow frozen, even though that's the exact opposite of what any normal, reasonably literate person would understand by the term.

Such an elementary mistake doesn't inspire confidence in the rest of his claims, does it?




RE: Accuracy?
By dgingeri on 6/23/2006 5:02:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Definition of "melting":
"In physics, melting is the process of heating a solid substance to a point (called the melting point) where it turns liquid." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting]

Therefore, the ice-cap melting would liberate a volume of liquid water slightly less than the original volume of ice (because ice is approx. 8% less dense than liquid water [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice]).

But, according to masher2, melted ice is still somehow frozen, even though that's the exact opposite of what any normal, reasonably literate person would understand by the term.

Such an elementary mistake doesn't inspire confidence in the rest of his claims, does it?


ok, there is a little problem here: in the 'melting complaint, there is part of the ice, the ~8% you mention, floating above the waterline. If you take a glass or bowl, fill it halfway with water, put a few ice cubes in, mark the water line, then wait for the ice to melt, the level will not move. That is what is call buoyancy. it is the reason things, particularly ice, float. if ice floating in the arctic melts, the sea levels will not move. Duh.

Ok, now on to more important things. In the bible times, 3500BC-1AD, the sea levels fluctuated quite a bit. according to maps we have, there were several cities along the coast of the dead sea and the Mediterranean that are now hundreds to thousands of feet from the coast. The sea levels were higher, the temperatures were higher, and people still lived quite nicely. as a matter of fact, the middle east had an estimated nearly 5 times the food production and 10 times as much rainfall during those times. It has become this barren only in the last 2000 years.

Sure, if the sea levels rise, it will cause damage to cities like Miami, Tampa, and New Orleans, and countries like Netherlands, but that's their fault for building on such land that they think they can control.

Note that this says that it's warmer, by a mere 0.2F, than the last 400 years. That means that is was warmer before then. Things change. that is the way of the world. About 400 years ago, a change in the activity, luminosity, and flare freqnency of the sun caused something called the 'little ice age' (look it up). I'd prefer it to be a little warmer than having snow in July in Massachusetts. (that was one of the things that happened about 400 years ago.) Maybe things are actually getting back to normal from that! Did anyone happen to think of that?


RE: Accuracy?
By logan77 on 6/23/2006 7:56:18 PM , Rating: 2
Actually masher2 was correct, provided, that indeed this whole North Pole ice cap is floating. I lean towards admitting that there is no _proof_ of global warming driven by human activity, but that doesn't mean that there isn't one. Another aspect is - if there is this mankind impact on climate change - should we worry ? What termperatures are best and for who ? Humans ? Trees ?
As somebody already mentioned - there are bigger concerns, than warming - e.g. overall deterioration of natural environments (pretty much irreversible), pollution from fossil fuels and industrial waste. AFAIR Sweden set a goal of dropping dependance on fossil fuels by 2020 in favour of renewable sources. Maybe this noble example will pave the way for other "non believers".


RE: Accuracy?
By PrinceGaz on 6/23/2006 10:03:38 PM , Rating: 2
If the entire north polar ice-cap melts, it will make zero difference to sea-level as it is just like a (very big) ice-cube floating in a drink. The water around it is already supporting the weight of the ice above the surface therefore raising its level, so when the ice melts the end result will be no change.

The same is not true of the south polar ice-cap though, because it is largely over the continent of Antarctica. All the ice that melts from Antarctica causes an increase in global sea-level because it is currently sitting on top of a land-mass. When it melts and falls into the sea, the sea level rises.

There are also knock on effects of the melting ice-caps. Here in the UK for instance, the Gulfstream ocean-current ensures warm waters from the Carribean make our winters relatively mild compared to those in many countries nearer the equator. The Gulfstream has already been shown to be slowing down due to climate-change, and if it stops (as seems likely) the UK will have winters similar to Alaska. Much of Western Europe will be affected by the shutdown of the Gulfstream from the Carribean.

Of course the shutdown of the Gulfstream won't harm the US and A, as they don't benefit from the flow of warm water north towards Europe. In fact America will be better off because the Carribean area will become that much hotter and warmer sea temperatures are great for tourists. There might be the odd category 5+ hurricane every few days (a category 6 will probably be needed sooner or later) but that shouldn't be a problem as a bit of wind never hurt anyone. Heh!


RE: Accuracy?
By logan77 on 6/24/2006 7:53:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Gulfstream has already been shown to be slowing down due to climate-change, and if it stops (as seems likely) the UK will have winters similar to Alaska. Much of Western Europe will be affected by the shutdown of the Gulfstream from the Carribean.


And the bed news is ? Seriously - I can't wait for this to happen.


RE: Accuracy?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2006 10:52:18 AM , Rating: 2
> "The Gulfstream has already been shown to be slowing down due to climate-change, and if it stops (as seems likely) the UK will have winters similar to Alaska"

Oops, there's one large problem with this theory. A few months ago, the UK's National Oceanographic Center published a paper on just this. They found that, indeed, the Gulf Stream had slowed 30%. However they also found that, despite this, the North Atlantic had *warmed* slightly...leading them to believe the Gulfstream shutdown may not have the cooling effect as first thought.

The truth is the theories about shutdown of thermohaline circulation are just theories...and ones that, at present, aren't supported by any hard data.


RE: Accuracy?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2006 11:02:29 AM , Rating: 2
> "But, according to masher2, melted ice is still somehow frozen..."

Well, a few other posters have already thoroughly discredited your remarks, but I do want to add the following. Ice is 8% less dense than water. Floating ice (such as an iceberg) keeps 8% of its mass above the waterline. This is the reason that, when ice melts, ocean levels are unaffected. The two factors balance.

The melting of the South Pole would indeed affect sea level. However, the South Pole has been steadily melting for the past 7,000 years....many of those years melting much faster than it appears to be doing at present.


Bull
By Chadder007 on 6/23/2006 9:17:57 AM , Rating: 1
4 centuries???...BullCrap, they don't even have an accurate record of temps going back past 100 years.




RE: Bull
By ohiobill on 6/23/2006 9:38:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
4 centuries???...BullCrap, they don't even have an accurate record of temps going back past 100 years.


Really? Are you suggesting that "they" just made up temperatures? Why would anyone do that?


RE: Bull
By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2006 11:51:09 AM , Rating: 3
> "Are you suggesting that "they" just made up temperatures? "

They didn't "make up" temperatures, but they did reconstruct them from many sources. Coral growth patterns, tree rings, sediment deposits on lakebeds...even by looking at paintings of glaciers from several hundred years ago, and trying to estimate what temperature would result in a glacier that size (lets hope the artist was accurate, eh?)

This is why even the authors of the study don't have a high degree of confidence in temperature data from more than 400 years ago.


RE: Bull
By Sh0ckwave on 6/23/2006 7:52:35 PM , Rating: 2
"They didn't "make up" temperatures, but they did reconstruct them from many sources. Coral growth patterns, tree rings, sediment deposits on lakebeds...even by looking at paintings of glaciers from several hundred years ago, and trying to estimate what temperature would result in a glacier that size"

Therefore the study is flawed, because obviously temperature is not the only thing that causes differences in plant growth paterns.

As always the scientists leave out the variables that dont agree with what they want their study to show.


RE: Bull
By Zelvek on 6/24/2006 2:32:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
even by looking at paintings of glaciers from several hundred years ago, and trying to estimate what temperature would result in a glacier that size (lets hope the artist was accurate, eh?)


Well when you see that a Glacier has receded a few miles Its firlly easy to see that the climate is warmer now isn't it?


RE: Bull
By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2006 12:13:39 AM , Rating: 2
> "Well when you see that a Glacier has receded a few miles Its firlly easy to see that the climate is warmer now isn't it? "

No, this is easily proven false by a simple thought experiment. Let's suppose Greenland suddenly warmed 10 degrees. Glaciers would then slowly begin to retreat.

Now, 100 years later, Greenland cools off 5 degrees. The Glaciers would still continue to retreat, as they wouldn't yet be in thermal equilibrium with the old temperature yet, much less the new.

Its actually far more complex than this, as mean temperatures are only one of several dozen factors affecting glacial growth and movement. Which explains why even the authors of the study don't place much certainty in their data more than 400 years back. (despite how the media reported the paper)



I'm lost?
By creathir on 6/23/2006 11:31:59 AM , Rating: 1
How on earth did they take tempuratures 400 years ago? It was not until the 1700s that Fahrenheit came up with his scale... (the oldest "modern" scale)

No tempurature devices were really devised until the early 1700s.... so how on earth could they know that 400 years ago the average tempurature for the entire planet was X???

This is COMPLETE BS...

- Creathir




RE: I'm lost?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2006 11:41:51 AM , Rating: 2
> "so how on earth could they know that 400 years ago the average tempurature for the entire planet was X??? "

Statistical analysis of climactical data, historical records on agriculture, etc. They even looked at paintings men did of glaciers from 400 years ago, and tried to reconstruct their resultant size.

Not complete BS at all...but a method that does, understandably, lead to a lot of uncertainty in the end result.



RE: I'm lost?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2006 11:42:54 AM , Rating: 2
My god, did I actually type "climactical"? Someone punish me, please.


RE: I'm lost?
By jskirwin on 6/23/2006 12:10:23 PM , Rating: 2
Two tickets to Al Gore's polemic/movie are on their way.


RE: I'm lost?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2006 1:15:01 PM , Rating: 2
> "Two tickets to Al Gore's polemic/movie are on their way"

Jesus, the punishment should fit the crime. I didn't murder anyone, after all...


RE: I'm lost?
By creathir on 6/23/2006 12:20:55 PM , Rating: 3
I'm sorry... but this is just guessing...
There are some glaciers that have INCREASED in size since we have been monitoring them... On top of this, glaciers move, and so do people. One painter could be standing at point X, with a certain point of view, while the glacier may have moved or we may not be standing in the same spot for proper comparison.

This method would be akin to looking at an old painting of a person, then comparing it to a picture of today... to determine how hot it was...

What if the painting was made during a cold spell? A warm spell? I am sorry, but this is just hogwash. These people throw out the scientific method in order to push their preconceived notion. That is not science.

- Creathir


humans on Moon (Mars?)
By logan77 on 6/23/2006 7:03:01 AM , Rating: 3
>"astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said that humans need to colonize a planet or moon because the Earth potentially faces destruction due to a man made disaster."

So if the people are the problem, what remedies this when thay go to different planets/moons ? Wouldn't it face the same disaster whereever "we" go, if the sentence by S.H. is true ? If it isn't, then perhaps we don't "have to colonize a planer or a moon" OR we should do this, but for different reasons.

Is colonizing another planer/moon easier than avoiding climate changes here on Earth ?




RE: humans on Moon (Mars?)
By Sunbird on 6/23/2006 10:42:21 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe he thinks we can "outrun" ourselves to avoid our destructive nature.

"Is colonizing another planer/moon easier than avoiding climate changes here on Earth?"

Maybe... Remember, we are over 6 billion people, and we all want better lifes (that means using lots of planetary resources), we'd all have to buy in to reducing our demands and that just wont happen.


RE: humans on Moon (Mars?)
By PrinceGaz on 6/23/2006 8:48:21 PM , Rating: 2
Bearing in mind that **every person reading this article** almost certianly uses more natural resources than our current planet can sustain, and there are more people like us every day using ever increasing resources, we either need to cut down our consumption or find somewhere else that can help us out.

The Earth has coped pretty well with our demands so far but it is already clear we have passed the point where nature can adapt to our increased consumption, especially when that is paired with the destruction of ever increasing amounts of natural environments.

Unfortunately moving to another planet (Mars is the only viable option) isn't going to happen in the next few decades except at best by a few dozen or maybe hundred people on a permanent base, so we're going to have to treat Earth as best we can for now. Which we aren't.

Our Moon would only be a possibility for colonisation if we excavated a deep underground colony, because the Moon has insufficient gravity to sustain any sort of atmosphere, and the lack of an ionosphere would mean that solar radiation would kill anyone on the surface within a few weeks (one big solar storm any you're a goner). The Moon is also rather lacking in raw materials needed to sustain life, such as water and the oxygen that can be seperated from it, which would mean any base there would be dependent on Earth.

The same radiation problem applies to Mars as well, but at least creating an atmosphere is possible there and there is also lots of water locked in the icecaps that would be very helpful for any sort of permanent base. The problem is political will, and the many many billions of dollars that would be needed to construct any sort of self-sustaining permanent base on Mars.

We can't even get the ISS (International Space Station) finished and its future is in doubt depending on whether the Space Shuttle can hobble along for a few more years. If it wasn't for the Russian space programme it would already have been abandoned and we'd be lucky to be even sending anyone into orbit, let alone land them on the Moon or Mars for any length of time.

Solving climate-change on the one planet we have is the only solution, and as energy consumption isn't going to reduce in the near future, the only way to avoid a disaster is by reducing the effects of it-- by cutting carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions. I'm not about to go all tree-hugger on you and suggest renewables as the future as they can't provide for our needs, the only viable solution for the forseeable future is a major switch to nuclear power. Modern reactors are safe and efficient, and the only sensible answer.


RE: humans on Moon (Mars?)
By jkostans on 6/24/2006 6:00:21 PM , Rating: 2
We should probably figure out how to deal with nuclear waste first..... But I agree this route is better than our current system


RE: humans on Moon (Mars?)
By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2006 12:04:48 AM , Rating: 2
We "figured out" how to deal with nuclear waste decades ago. It's a complete nonissue, as anyone with even a passing knowledge of the industry realizes.


By AxemanFU on 6/23/2006 10:44:58 AM , Rating: 3
Big surpise. Old news. Temps go up, temps go down. It's been happening for millions of years. It's happening now. These same scientists DON'T tell you that even if we went to 0 emissions worldwide from human sources, and all starved to death, the temps will still keep climbing in their models, albeit a tiny fraction slower and a tiny fraction less high. So while we're reduced to stone age population and global chaos ensues, we're still going to be warmer, which they now tell us ironically may start an ice age, which ALSO happened before many many many times. Who the hell are these loons, and why do they call themselves scientists? I see the data, read the conclusions, but unlike these politically driven and self important whakos, I don't panic and scream the "sky is falling, we're all gonna die!" while running around like my hair is on fire. I say..well, warming is already going to happen, and apprently because it is cyclical, it would happen if humans were here or not eventually...lets deal with it and make the best of it, as life seemed to do just fine in the past when global temps were 10 or 15F warmer worldwide..I.E. the carboniferous period.

Jeez...get ahold of yourselves and stop panicing enviros! I understand the left leaning one worlder socialists love to use this scare "science" to gain popular power and control, and "order" our lives via regulation by dictum, but can't poeple see through that? Can't they think and comprehend for themselves and see through the hyped BS, to the real data and draw more reasoned and accurate conclusions? Global warming is real and happening to some extent, but beyond that, nothing is solidly established yet. Let's not panic and make the treatment worse than the disease.




By AxemanFU on 6/23/2006 10:48:02 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry for the rantlike nature of my post, but I'm really getting fed up with the bombardment of parenoia driven garbage-called-science these days. The data may be correct, but the conclusions drawn are often streched beyond belief.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2006 10:51:51 AM , Rating: 1
> "These same scientists DON'T tell you that even if we went to 0 emissions worldwide from human sources, and all starved to death, the temps will still keep climbing in their models,"

Don't give scientists a bad rap. Many of them are saying just this. The models are unreliable, and even if they weren't, that the earth will probably continue warming a bit, even if mankind reverts to a Stone Age culture.

It's the media that doesn't report what scientists are saying. A dozen papers can be published showing the antarctic isn't melting, or that natural influences are causing the majority of the warming, and you'll never see them published.

But a single alarmist paper hits a journal, and it makes headlines worldwide. Dissenting scientists aren't interviewed, or their remarks are very careful edited. Good journalism at its finest.


By Sprockster on 6/23/2006 2:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, and do you know what accompanied these natural rises and falls of the global temperature? There were several transgressions and regressions of the sea level. Now I wasn’t alive in the Carboniferous, but I can safely say the number of coastal towns was slightly lower. A simple 2-3 mile transgression of the sea level could destroy thousands of coastal communities.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2006 2:29:20 PM , Rating: 2
> "A simple 2-3 mile transgression of the sea level could destroy thousands of coastal communities."

Right. We know for a fact that sea levels were as much as 180 meters lower and as much as 40 meters higher in the past. Natural sea-level variations.

Now, lets assume we believe a large rise will occur in the near future. A big assumption, but lets play along, ok?
So do we, a) spend trillions of dollars in trying to cut CO2 emissions, when that won't stop warming over the next 100 years by even a small fraction of the modelled amount? Or do we b) spend that money to relocate anyone living on ground less than 10 meters above sea level? Or c) do we spend that money on a project to actively _cool_ the earth (a number of proposals have been floated about in the literature...stratospheric dust can be quite effective).

Or do we d) realize that the real scientists are far from convinced there's anything worth worrying about, and thus we pipe down and stop trying to politicize the process until we have real data to act upon.


A few decades ago...
By MrEMan on 6/23/06, Rating: 0
RE: A few decades ago...
By ohiobill on 6/23/2006 9:34:21 AM , Rating: 2
How the typical lay-person decides that the world full of legitimate scientists with universal agreement on global warming (or evolution, or the Big Bang, or...) are somehow wrong and that they know more never ceases to bewilder me.

And you are right, global warming and evolution are, indeed, both faith-based: faith in fact and evidence and logic and experience and science and education and intelligence and common sense and so, so much more.


RE: A few decades ago...
By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2006 10:56:16 AM , Rating: 2
> "How the typical lay-person decides that the world full of legitimate scientists with universal agreement on global warming (or evolution, or the Big Bang, or...) "

Placing "Global Warming" on the same level as Evolution or the Big Bang is about as intellectually dishonest as it gets.

There is pretty much universal agreement that the Earth has relatively warmed by a bit less than one degree. There is widespread scientific disagreement over how much of that trend, if any, is caused by humanity, and further disagreement over how long such warming is expected to continue, and whether or not it will be ultimately beneficial or harmful to civilization.


RE: A few decades ago...
By Eris23007 on 6/23/2006 4:36:28 PM , Rating: 2

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

By the Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. It is tough to argue that an MIT prof is not a legitimate scientist; even Noam Chomsky is a legitimate scientist - in the field of linguistics, not politics.


RE: A few decades ago...
By Oderus on 6/23/2006 9:38:04 AM , Rating: 1
Have you ever thought you we're right and then found out you're not? Does the time between ignorance and clarity make a difference? No. Every day we are learning more and more and it stands to reason that scientists' position would also change due to newly learned techniques etc. Astrologists thought there would be liquid hydrocarbon on Titan and since a probe landed there, they learned they were wrong.

That's the fundemental difference between science and religion. Science is open to change. FYI: evolution has been confirmed, unlike religion. Fossils, human / non-human remains and deposits tell a lot about how things were.

Enjoy your ignorance.


RE: A few decades ago...
By PrinceGaz on 6/23/2006 9:25:37 PM , Rating: 2
The beauty of science (unlike religion) is that once there is a sufficent weight of undeniable evidence behind an alternative explanation to what has been generally accepted, scientists will switch their view and adopt the new understanding. That is what has been happening in the global-warming debate as ever increasing amounts of clear evidence about the rate of climate change are measured.

Pretty much the only scientists you'll find these days who dispute mankind's contribution to global-warming are those being paid by large corporations and as govermental advisors being paid by those corporations. It is almost universally accepted that mankind is accelerating global-warming on a scale the planet has never seen, and to an extent we cannot yet predict.

These leading scientists who believe in global-warming aren't the sort who would jeapordise their reputation by jumping on a bandwagon that is trendy. They've all individually studied the evidence and decided that we are the cause of climate-change. Remember, most scientists views change only when the weight of evidence is such that the opposing view is clearly flawed-- and most scientists (those not being paid to express a particular view) now agree that climate-change is the most serious threat to our planet.


The world has been warm before
By AlexWade on 6/23/2006 9:41:25 AM , Rating: 1
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/...
That is all the records of US temps. You have to make sure every entry reads 1895 to 2005. Did you know 2 of the 3 hottest years were under Gore/Clinton? Did you know that the trend since 1895 is for the US to get warmer by 0.011 degrees F per year. Oh, that is scary! If next year is 0.011 degrees warmer, the earth will end! (See the link, and be sure to use annual temps and records from 1895 to 2005. Long-term trends are more important than short-term trends.)

The world has been warmer than it is now. Greenland used to be farmed. It had to be very warm a long time before that would happen. Quit giving these wackos who in the early 1970's said the earth was getting too cool your time and money.




RE: The world has been warm before
By Oderus on 6/23/2006 9:51:04 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Long-term trends are more important than short-term trends.)


How simplistic. Short-term trends point to changes in the Long-term trends. Do you know what an exponential graph looks like? The earth *could* be in a devastating cycle in which most humans would die and then whoever survived would have to re-populate earth only to face the same fate as we did. There are several examples of civilizations becoming extinct and no one knows why. Tell them the long-term is more important. Unbeleivably short-sighted.


RE: The world has been warm before
By ohiobill on 6/23/2006 9:52:25 AM , Rating: 2
Another genius taking a list of temperatures from a website and determining that the entire scientific community is wrong. Sad.


RE: The world has been warm before
By Oderus on 6/23/2006 10:01:47 AM , Rating: 2
<sarcasm> The US department of commerce could not possible be wrong. </sarcasm> I love how people read one website and believe it as if it were infallable. I wonder how biased they would be in favor of making money?


substitution
By derdon on 6/23/2006 7:02:44 AM , Rating: 2
s/colonize/terrorize




RE: substitution
By ZoZo on 6/23/2006 7:24:37 AM , Rating: 2
What's there to terrorize? The planets and moons that we can reach aren't inhabited.


RE: substitution
By PrinceGaz on 6/23/2006 8:24:22 PM , Rating: 2
I think he's referring to the american (wrong ;) way of spelling those words with a "z" instead of an "s".


Humans on moon
By Chicksy Dicks on 6/23/2006 9:35:12 AM , Rating: 2
Earth First ! We'll mine the other planets later.




RE: Humans on moon
By ohiobill on 6/23/2006 9:48:49 AM , Rating: 2
Another genius taking a list of temperatures from a website and determining that the entire scientific community is wrong. Sad.


RE: Humans on moon
By Chicksy Dicks on 6/23/2006 10:03:15 AM , Rating: 2
Just adding a little levity to your stodgy life Bill.

We have a problem when non-scientists like Al Gore start feeding us with an inconvenient dogma.

There is a McCarthyistic attitude toward dissent in the
scientific community. Colorado State Scientist Bill Gray,
one of the foremost hurricane experts in the world, says his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.

Gray cites a 1975 Newsweek article warning us of an impending nuclear winter/ice age:

Climatologists," reads the piece, "are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change. ... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."


What differences does it make?
By Punisher77 on 6/23/2006 2:04:07 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, so obviously people don't agree with how the current trend of global warming is caused. Fine. History will prove one side wrong.

I would like to raise the point that reducing our dependance on fossil fuels is a GOOD thing. Oil is runing out and nobody can deny that since it is a non-renewable resource. Why not start using alternative energies now while we still have a steady supply of "cheap" oil? This will have the added benefit of reducing our impact on the environment which might just be the cause of global warming.




RE: What differences does it make?
By PrinceGaz on 6/23/2006 10:12:11 PM , Rating: 2
Good point. The only snag is that there are no currently available renewable power generation technologies that can supply the needs of an advanced country, unless they happen to be blessed with lots of rivers and hills and can therefore generate massive amounts of hydro-electric power, and possibly even export some to it's neighbours.

For the rest of us, the only viable way to generate large amounts of electricity with minimal carbon emissions is nuclear, and a lot of the population of most western countries don't like that idea. Now we're paying the price as gas and oil prices go ever higher and security of supply becomes increasing uncertain, and France's policy of investing heavily in nuclear seems to be paying off.


By number999 on 6/24/2006 3:56:19 PM , Rating: 2
Actually not quite true.

All technologies have benefits and costs. For example farm incomes can be increased with wind turbines on them and only a small number of states would be needed to supply the continental united states. (Energy For Planet Earth, Scientific American, 1990) Only problem is wind turbines only last 20 years and you would need massive infrastructure costs. Even if you could dam up every river, it would cause sever problems. Arsenic buildup happens on dams built on shield rock for example. I don't think the US has built a dam since the Grand Teutons failed.



so?
By Anemone on 6/23/2006 6:26:06 PM , Rating: 2
We measure temperature and weather patterns on Earth in 10's of thousands of years. The comparison is like having a 110 degree day in a single year. That would not at all be indicative of a "hot year". Same thing applies to the 4 centuries thing. It's a pathetically small sample size, and then to draw out some grand conclusion from it? Why not say the sun moved 15 feet closer to the earth during that time? It would be about as meaningful.

Do we have to be careful what we emit to the air? Oh yes indeed we do! But don't throw useless facts into the mess because it just makes a "cry wolf" out of the whole thing and doesn't add long term motivation to dealing with out situation.

grr.




RE: so?
By PrinceGaz on 6/23/2006 10:21:13 PM , Rating: 2
It's good to see that so many visitors to a technical website are happy to bury their heads in the sand and pretend the current climate changes have nothing to do with our actions.

They'll have to bury their heads in the soil well away from the current beach in three or four decades though, otherwise they'll drown.


RE: so?
By theprodigalrebel on 6/24/2006 3:05:02 AM , Rating: 2
Global Warming is a myth perpetrated by the scaremongering liberal elite. ;-)


loose with the facts ... again
By slawless on 6/23/2006 9:57:35 AM , Rating: 2
"we haven't seen warming like this in a thousand years" What more proof do we need, mankind must be warming the planet. Unless of coures you have a little knowledge. Yes that statement is true. However in context it becomes alittle shady. They just happend to leave out that for 800 of the last thousand years the earth was cooling. remember the little ice age. The earth has been warming about 3 degree a millennium since the last ice age. the only weird millennium was 1000-2000. We didn' warm at all. we started warm, cooled, then warmed again.

I see this type deception all the time in man made warming arguments. If they have the truth, why must they lie about it?




RE: loose with the facts ... again
By michal1980 on 6/23/06, Rating: -1
By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2006 10:47:31 AM , Rating: 3
> "Lets assume, that global warming is occuring. "

The Earth has recently gotten warmer, this is fact. By about 0.8 degrees C. Less than one degree.

> "Is there any data that can accuratly seperate what these scientists are claiming is man-made global warming. "

What scientists believe is a little different than what is reported in the media. The scientific dispute is over how much, if any, of the warming trend is an anthropomorphic signal. No scientist believes mankind is responsible for 100% of the warming. Many believe man is having a significant, even

However, there is certainly NO consensus belief that mankind is causing warming that will lead to cataclysmic events. A certain degree of warming is likely to be beneficial to mankind, especially since the majority of the warming is in the coldest regions of the earth....the tropics aren't warming at all. In fact, many tropical regions are showing cooling trends. Furthermore, there is no hard evidence that the warming will continue unchecked. A hotter planet radiates more heat...and much evidence exists that the earth may simply be returning to a more natural temperature, after the cooling of the 'Little Ice Age' from 1600-1850 AD.

> "heck one large volcano erupts and can lower tempratures for days by degrees in a day."

A large volcano eruption can lower global temperatures for several *years*, actually


the real truth
By dgingeri on 6/23/2006 4:42:08 PM , Rating: 2
RE: the real truth
By number999 on 6/25/2006 10:54:55 AM , Rating: 1
The problem with a site like JunkScience is that it seems full of facts and throws them at you so obviously the arguments it presents must be correct.

Talk about obviously wrong. Lots of facts but no references to where they came from, who made them, who even funded them. This isn't a schoolarly site even if it presents itself as such.

It tries to lule you into thinking it is trying to be reasonable and then it takes a position picking and choosing the facts that support its own claims only.
It tries to make a case by pointing out mistakes that have been made in the climate model. That isn't proof that your own position is correct ever.

Sites like this are for indoctrination and propanda used for specious arguments. Frankly I would look at this site with a jaundiced eye and would perfer a more schoolarly/journalistic source but that would be too open to true debate by people more knowledgeable than me and truthfully, they probably couldn't take it.


RE: A lot of disbelievers
By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2006 11:13:03 AM , Rating: 3
> "As for global warming and brave scientists fighting the system to get the real message out"

Here are some remarks from Richard Lindzen about those "brave scientists". Dr. Lindzen is the Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, and a former member of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Let's hear what he has to say:

quote:
Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm...Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse...

In 1992, [Senator Gore] ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred as a [tool] of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism....Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza [lost their funding] for raising questions...

In 2003, when the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the NRC instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen...






By jskirwin on 6/23/2006 9:33:28 AM , Rating: 2
Beginning in the early 1900s, when statistics began to be kept, the home run count per season continuously increased until the end of the 2004 season.

Perhaps all that shouting and clapping increases greenhouse gases and temperatures.





Try doing a little reading
By BPB on 6/23/2006 9:35:09 AM , Rating: 2
Try doing a little reading. You'd be amazed what they were growing in England a few centuries ago. Things that would NEVER grow there now because it's too cool. Any reader of texts and stories from say 16th or 17th century Europe will notice plants and fruits being grown there that simply won't grow there today. Too bad the poor bastards didn't know they were somehow causing a cooling period that rid them of the wonderful foods they can no longer grow. Must have been caused by all those fireplaces and such since industry hadn't yet got started. Of course there weren't nearly as many people there as now, they must have been lazy and kept there fireplaces running 24/7. Stupid humans....




God will take care of it - right?
By Plester on 6/23/2006 9:58:40 AM , Rating: 2
First there is Denial and then there is Despair.




What is important
By Squidward on 6/23/2006 10:27:06 AM , Rating: 2
regardless of viewpoint, it can be easily surmised that greenhouse gases will eventually take a toll on the planet whether it's started already or not isn't as important as trying to curb emissions before things do become a problem. However there's that whole money thing that gets in the way, because it's a costly endeavor and the U.S. has so far made very little effort to try and curb our emissions.

What can be certain is that the longer it takes to be proactive the more difficult it will be make change.

My .02 :)




About time...
By Lazarus Dark on 6/23/2006 11:21:30 AM , Rating: 2
All I can say is its about time we saw the global temperature start to normalize.

yeah for Global Normalization!




So... it's happened before?
By Saist on 6/23/2006 11:27:47 AM , Rating: 2
So let me get this straight. This isn't the first time this planet has been this "warm" The last time it was this warm was when there was no technological build up at all and in order to cause that warmth it would have had to have come from natural causes.

Did the enviromentalist freaks realize how badly this hurts their claims of global warming? I'm betting no. ah well, yet another proof that the global warming scientists in the 1980's and 1990's didn't have a single clue about what they were talking about.




By L1NUXownz1fUR1337 on 6/24/2006 12:06:50 PM , Rating: 2
If u |\|o085 would stop running pentium 4s we would be a lot cooler planet.

Also running windos3 causing global warming since the virus scanners are running the cpus at 100%

Do your part run only Linux and stop using pentium 4s.

Think of your children's future.... more freedom + cooler planet - it's a win-win!!1!!1




Translated out of alarmist rhetoric
By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/06, Rating: -1
RE: Translated out of alarmist rhetoric
By Shoal07 on 6/23/06, Rating: 0
RE: Translated out of alarmist rhetoric
By dice1111 on 6/23/2006 11:00:31 AM , Rating: 3
We might not "bake" our selves, but we will melt the ice cap's thus raising the water level, thus reducing land mass, also allowing for ocean current shifts, thus cooling the planet, thus global ice age.

God, has no one seen "The day after tomorrow"?????

:p


RE: Translated out of alarmist rhetoric
By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2006 11:14:28 AM , Rating: 2
> "We might not "bake" our selves, but we will melt the ice cap's..."

First of all, the entire North Pole could melt, and not change sea levels by a millimeter. Floating ice doesn't have an effect.

As for Antarctic ice, here's a recent article from Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 8 (2006). It demonstrates an overall increase in Antarctic mass balance:

http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU06/08427/EGU06-J...

Here's another, from Science, Nov 2005 (reprinted):

quote:
A Norwegian-led team used the ERS data to measure elevation changes in the Greenland Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2003, finding recent growth in the interior sections estimated at around six centimetres per year during the study period


http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/esa...

Another from Science:


quote:
Satellite radar altimetry measurements indicate that the East Antarctic ice-sheet interior north of 81.6°S increased in mass by 45 ± 7 billion metric tons per year from 1992 to 2003


http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308...

One from Nature last year, showing growth in the East Antarctic:

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050516/full/050516...

An earlier one, showing similar growth in the West Antarctic:


quote:
The West Antarctic ice sheet has been retreating for several thousand years, so to look now and see that it is growing is staggering to me ," [Professor] Tulaczyk said.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/02013...

Another, this one back in 2002:


quote:
We find strong evidence for ice-sheet growth (+26.8 gigatons per year), in contrast to earlier estimates indicating a mass deficit (20.9 gigatons per year).


http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/295...



RE: Translated out of alarmist rhetoric
By bob661 on 6/23/2006 11:22:52 AM , Rating: 2
Masher2, you are my hero.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2006 11:38:49 AM , Rating: 2
Just to clarify, there's also as much research showing possible loss of Antarctic ice mass. I'm merely pointing out what every good scientist knows. The issue is far from resolved. And that, given that the icecaps have been steadily melting for the past 7000 years, we shouldn't fall prey to alarmist rhetoric, regardless of the end result.

From just after the last ice age, we have historical records of sea levels rising as much as 100 mm in a single year. Since 1900, we've seen levels rising by anywhere from 0.04 to 4mm per year...and actually declining in some years. The data supports no "sky is falling" scenario.



RE: Translated out of alarmist rhetoric
By dice1111 on 6/23/2006 12:37:12 PM , Rating: 2
Masher2, you didn't see "Day after Tomorrow" did you?

:p


By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2006 1:12:24 PM , Rating: 2
> "Masher2, you didn't see "Day after Tomorrow" did you? "

I saw it...a good comedy flick.

:p


RE: Translated out of alarmist rhetoric
By Sh0ckwave on 6/23/2006 7:28:28 PM , Rating: 2
Right on masher2

I dont realy care what their "scientific" studies show.

What I do know is that in my country (New Zealand) we are currently having the coldest winter in 25 years.

So maybe it is a bit warmer in the few countries the they have been measuring, but that doesn't mean the whole globe is warming.

I seriously doubt they have been measuring all parts of the world for the last few centuries anyway.


RE: Translated out of alarmist rhetoric
By Zelvek on 6/24/2006 2:02:14 AM , Rating: 2
All of you totaly missunderstand the effects of global warming it does not make the whole world warmer it shifts the climates of each environment dramaticaly, making deserts into ice feilds and rain forist into deserts. No I don't believe in or against global warming 100%. However I do know that our carelessness has many other proven bad effects that should be enough for us to realize we should make an effort to change. It was not so long ago that our parents were saying that CFC and other polutants that get amplified through biomass were BS theories and yet they are now known to be true.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2006 12:08:09 AM , Rating: 1
> " shifts the climates of each environment dramaticaly, making deserts into ice feilds and rain forist into deserts"

Honestly, its frightening to me that people actually believe such claptrap. Deserts into "ice fields"? Did they stop teaching science entirely in the public school system?




RE: Translated out of alarmist rhetoric
By Griswold on 6/23/2006 11:25:49 AM , Rating: 3
Ok thats a huge load of bullshit. Higher average temperature will actually translate to lower temperatures in certain regions. If greenlands ice cap melts, the cold water will interrupt the gulf stream which is vital for europes climate. The result will be a nice little "ice age" in terms of temperature for europe.


RE: Translated out of alarmist rhetoric
By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/06, Rating: 0
RE: Translated out of alarmist rhetoric
By Griswold on 6/23/2006 11:47:47 AM , Rating: 2
Why dont you stop acting like a scientist when all you do is quote some, partly horribly, outdated articles.

This is a very interesting topic indeed since you find "proof" for any given opinion. You just gotta know where to look.

Maybe you want to step up and explain it for us laymen without using links. Come on, if you try really hard you can do it. You might fail, I'm sure you will, but hey, all you have to lose is your image as a smartass.

Otherwise, shut the fuck up.



By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2006 11:56:08 AM , Rating: 2
> "Why dont you stop acting like a scientist when all you do is quote some, partly horribly, outdated articles."

Horribly outdated? The most recent article is from March of this year. This is outdated?

> "Maybe you want to step up and explain it for us laymen without using links"

I did that. People accused me of not having sources. So I provided them.

> "Otherwise, shut the fuck up. "


Temper tantrums will get you nowhere.




By rushfan2006 on 6/23/2006 2:41:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe you want to step up and explain it for us laymen without using links. Come on, if you try really hard you can do it. You might fail, I'm sure you will, but hey, all you have to lose is your image as a smartass.


Actually I just scanned this whole thread, and I come to this exchange with you challenging Masher. The only one that looks like a smartass is you quite frankly. You are esstentially pissed because someone is smacking down your opinion with supporting facts, while providing the very source for those facts.

Yet you seem to be talking with no supporting facts but you have the apparent arrogance of "What I say is right damn it".

It doesn't work that way. Especially with such a topic as that , that has science behind it.

So I do believe you should STFU or fire back with supporting facts instead of lame insults.



By slunkius on 6/23/2006 8:46:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Another way of saying that, more than 1,000 years ago, the world was warmer than it is now


where did you found that? out of 1000 years analyzed, these 25 years are the warmest. of course you are free to research those other years.


RE: Translated out of alarmist rhetoric
By ohiobill on 6/23/2006 9:12:50 AM , Rating: 2
Nowhere in the study does it say that it was warmer more than 1,000 years ago. In fact, the temperatures of times before 1,000 years ago were not included in the study at all.

Your assumption that it was warmer is simply meant to support your "position."


RE: Translated out of alarmist rhetoric
By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2006 9:33:10 AM , Rating: 4
> "In fact, the temperatures of times before 1,000 years ago were not included in the study at all"

Lol, did you even read the study? I think we can safely say no, since the title of it was "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 years".

Since you skipped it, let me quote for you. "It can be said with a high degree of confidence that global mean temperatures are higher [now] than in the past four centuries". Of course, the Earth was coming out of the Little Ice Age 400 years ago, so this "news" is hardly surprising...its been known for decades.

To continue, "less confidence can be placed in large-scale temperature reconstructions from the period 900 AD to 1600 AD. The uncertainties in reconstructing [mean] temperatures from these data increase substantially backwards in time and are not yet fully quantified". Hardly a stellar endorsement, now is it?

Fact. The earth has been warmer in the past countless times than it is now. Sometimes, much MUCH warmer. Recent core samples from the Actic region show that 55 million years ago it was an average 74 degrees. Year-round. At the North Pole.

By the way, the National Academy of Scientists is the politically-charged group that, in the 1970s, told us pollution was causing global *cooling*.



RE: Translated out of alarmist rhetoric
By ksuWildcat on 6/23/2006 9:45:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the National Academy of Scientists is the politically-charged group


Can you claim that you are not politically charged? Everything you have posted up to this point sounds like conservative propaganda to me.


RE: Translated out of alarmist rhetoric
By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2006 9:56:06 AM , Rating: 3
> "Can you claim that you are not politically charged?"

If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger, eh? By the way, still waiting for your list of "respected scientists" on the space exploration thread.

> "Everything you have posted up to this point sounds like conservative propaganda to me..."

Except...that I'm not a conservative. Oops.

Here's some food for thought from research published in Nature, a few weeks ago:

quote:
The new analysis confirms that the Arctic Ocean warmed remarkably 55 million years ago, which is when many scientists say that the extraordinary planetwide warm-up called the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM, must have been caused by a massive outburst of greenhouse gases like methane and carbon dioxide. But no one has found a clear cause for the gas discharge...


A vast increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Occurring long before a single SUV existed. And...a planet far warmer than it is today. And life surviving just fine...thriving, in fact.



RE: Translated out of alarmist rhetoric
By Griswold on 6/23/2006 11:41:12 AM , Rating: 3
55 million years ago, right. No, life didnt survive just fine. Many species were extinct. Like it happened many times before that and after. But whos to say we're the one species surviving our own little global warming experience "just fine"?

You really sound like one of those who say "hey, mother nature did it before, so it cant be that bad".


By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2006 11:48:17 AM , Rating: 2
> "Many species were extinct..."

And many new species formed during this period. The process of species extinction and creation is a constant cycle.

What DIDN'T happen, though, is illustrative. The earth didn't become a barren and lifeless wasteland of deserts and intense storms. There was no mass extinction event. Despite temperatures far hotter than even the wildest-eyed alarmist environmentalist predicts anytime in the next 1000 years.

A global warming event of a couple degrees over a century isn't going to hurt civilization. Odds are, it will help it.

And let's face a few facts. If the models are corect (a big if), then even if we destroy every car, factory, and power plant on the planet, we're still going to see the majority of that warming.


RE: Translated out of alarmist rhetoric
By ksuWildcat on 6/23/2006 5:22:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger, eh? By the way, still waiting for your list of "respected scientists" on the space exploration thread.


I am not attacking you. Merely questioning your motives since you have a history of spewing conservative propaganda, even if it is unintentionally. The National Academy of Sciences is not as liberal as you make them out to be, I would argue that they are progressive. But you will label everyone as you see fit, so what I say does not matter anyway.

I already responded on the space exploration thread. You need to read what NASA and JPL scientists are saying about human space travel to the edge of our solar system and beyond. They have formed a pretty uniform consensus that a major technological breakthrough will be required if we wish to pursue interstellar travel. The most feasible route will be to build a spacecraft capable of travelling c , or a significant fraction thereof, in order to take advantage of relativity and time-dilation.

Pluto is a minimum of 2.7 billion miles from Earth. Even with an ion-propulsion drive spacecraft capable of travelling 100,000 mph, it would require at least 3 years to reach Pluto. This is not feasible for human purposes. The next closest star system is Alpha Centauri, which is about 4.3 lightyears away (~2.5 trillion miles), so it would take that same spacecraft roughly 2,800 years to get there. Time to rethink your argument on this subject. I am not going to debate you any longer.

For starters, you need to review:

http://nasa.gov/
http://jpl.nasa.gov/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/02...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_travel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

On global warming...no one knows with absolute certainty about our effects on the environment. But the data does show a stark correlation between the time of industrialism and a sharp increase of the mean surface temperature, one which is far greater than any other period during the last 500,000 years. It may not pose a signicant problem to us, but it might for our descendants.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2006 1:07:27 AM , Rating: 3
> " But you will label everyone as you see fit"

You're the one spewing labels left and right. The only "labelling" I did is to identify the National Academy of Sciences as politically charged. This is simple fact. The NAS is not a research body; their entire rationale for existence is to give advice to politicians and public servants. Their

> "Pluto is a minimum of 2.7 billion miles from Earth. Even with an ion-propulsion drive spacecraft capable of travelling 100,000 mph, it would require at least 3 years to reach Pluto"

The way you phrase your statement reveals a basic misunderstanding of space propulsion. Ion drives are not limited to any set speed limit...no form of propulsion is. Velocity (actually Delta-V) is limited either by energy or reaction mass.

Chemical propulsion wastes most of its reaction mass accelerating fuel. The specific impulse isn't high enough. With either nuclear or ion propulsion, your total D-V is far higher.

A ship accelerating at 1g for as little as one day will reach a speed of 850 km/sec. That's 1.8 million mph. Could a ship boost at 1g all the way to Pluto, it would reach it in 9 days. DAYS!

Of course, ion drives aren't capable of 1g acceleration. 1/100 of 1g is more reasonable. But since travel time varies by the square root of acceleration, that raises the travel time to 85 days. Assuming you want to wind up with zero relative velocity when you actually reach Pluto (decelleration for half the trip) and your travel time rises to 120 days. Or a round trip of 9 months.

Our first nuclear craft would be capable of much higher accelerations...but not sustained for so long. Still, such craft would be more practical for travel to Mars, and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. Round trip travel times of a few weeks for the inner planets is expected.

Any ship capable of accelerating to light speeds would be far beyond Pluto before it even came close to that speed. Lightspeed travel isn't practical for travel within the solar system.

BTW, I am STILL waiting for your list of "respected scientists" who backs up these infantile notions on on space travel. Hell, just name one. Saying "here, go review www.nasa.gov" doesn't cut it.


By ksuWildcat on 6/23/2006 9:40:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Another way of saying that, more than 1,000 years ago, the world was warmer than it is now.


A lot more than 1,000 years ago. It has been nearly 150,000 years since the planet's last warming period.

quote:
Naturally warmer. And humanity survived just fine.


Naturally warmer then, yes. Humans were a new species during that time period. They didn't thrive until the last ice age started and the planet began to cool again.

This is hardly alarmist rhetoric. Never during the last quarternary has the mean temperature increased so rapidly as it has during the past 100 years. Most indicators point toward a global warming trend, influenced greatly by the greenhouse effect and modern industrialization. Conservatives are in denial. Of course, they want to make sure that everyone continues to drive their SUVs and build big new homes on wetlands, so this really shouldn't be too surprising.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2006 10:21:38 AM , Rating: 2
> "It has been nearly 150,000 years since the planet's last warming period. "

You never tire of being wrong, do you? The most recent warming event was the MCO, the Medieval Climate Optimum, from AD 1000 to AD 1400 (just preceeding the Little Ice Age)

Before that, we had the mid-Holoecene warming period, (from 5000-7000 years ago), in which the earth was *substantially* warmer than it is today. This is the period in which the vast "peat bogs" formed in Britain, due to hot, swampy conditions there. The Black Sea in Russia also rose several HUNDRED feet during this period.

Before that was the warming which caused Meltwater Pulse 1A, in which sea levels rose 20 METERS in a scant 500 years. That was some 14,000 years ago.

Between 115,00 and 14,000 years ago, there have been TWENTY FOUR warming events (known as Interstadials) recorded in Greenland ice core samples.

In short, you couldn't be more off base.


By bob661 on 6/23/2006 11:24:10 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
You never tire of being wrong, do you?
lol!


By ksuWildcat on 6/23/2006 4:28:56 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, there have been small warming cycles during the last ice age. But during the last 150,000 years, it has been very cyclical (as I explained before, and provided links to the data to back this up, if you would bother to read them) and balanced...that is until the last 100 years or so, when the mean surface temperature rose much more quickly than before. This trend is not only disturbing in the short term, but the long term as well. I can't debate a point with you since you selectively choose what to read and argue about. Maybe in a thousand years, humans will know if our actions have significantly contributed to global warming in a manner. Perhaps scientists are wrong. But I am not willing to bet the future of my descendants on it. BTW: I have not been wrong, your interpretation of the available data is merely different than the accepted view by most scientists and climatologists. Perhaps it is you that is wrong, my friend.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2006 1:14:00 AM , Rating: 2
> "Yes, there have been small warming cycles "

Lol, first you claim no warming periods at all...then when you're shown wrong, you say, "well I really meant, no LARGE warming cycles"? How pathetic.

And let's faact facts. Several of those warming periods were quite large...much larger than what we've seen in this one. Large enough to melt the north pole, raise ocean levels 40 meters over current levels, large enough to peel hundreds of miles off Greenland glaciers, large enough to shift the course of rivers, create new deserts, and shift existing ones across entire continents.

All this long before a single SUV ever roamed the planet.

> "your interpretation of the available data is merely different than the accepted view by most scientists and climatologists"

I posted the views of 60 different scientists and climatologists. THEIR interpretation of the data is that no global warming catastrophe is looming. I can scratch up another 60 easily enough. How about you?


By psychobriggsy on 6/23/2006 12:36:51 PM , Rating: 2
No. It's just that the data gets unreliable all that time ago.

Fact is, we're coming out of an ice age and have been for thousands of years - global warming is perfectly natural. The Earth is still in one of its coolest ever periods.

The rate of temperature increase however is the issue - is human activity accellerating what would take 1000 years into 100 years? It makes adaptation to the new climate more difficult because of the sudden shift.

The original scientific paper is probably very specific on all this stuff, it's just the reports on the paper that are misinterpreting it (possibly deliberately according to an agenda), or lacking basic logical understanding, like: 'it is the hottest time in the past 400 years' does not imply 'it was hotter over 400 years ago'.

The reports should be assessed by governments in order to decide what is the best way to spend money to deal with the problem. Spending loads to delay the inevitable by a few years seems silly when the same money could be spent on dealing with said inevitability up front, for example.


"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki