Who believes in Global Warming?

“Mr Darklight, you're not interested in the facts. You're simply interested in telling 'lefties' what they think. Like Rush, the Fox news team, and half of their sheep-like supporters on here.”

“Turns out globally, 2005 was the hottest year on record.

Many sources confirm this, but here's one:

Over the last 100 years, temperatures have risen on average by 0.8° C or about 1.4° F. And the five warmest years were 2005, then 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004.

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/2005_warmest_year.html”

“---
mr dark - you mean like the right ignoring the opinion of 95% of the world's scientists covering the matter, and 95% of the world's government, simply because it doesn't suit a political agenda.
---

Well you'll have to be more specific. For example, is this 95% of the world's scientists, or 95% of the world's CLIMATE scientists? Also, are they in agreement that the earth is warming, or are they in agreement that it is caused by humans? Do they agree that it is going to continue? Do they agree on the causes?

No, 95% of scientists (even climate scientists) do not agree with all that. You've done what the left always accuses the right of: You've taken a subtle and complex argument and made it a black-and-white issue.”

“I would have thought 95% of the world's scientists covering the matter would have narrowed down the field enough for you.

There is a widespread consensus amoungst those studying all elements of climate change that humans are having a degree of impact on global temperatures. The results are starting to pan out to reflect the prediction models that have been built.

The ignoring of research to suit a political agenda mebbe?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060129/wl_afp/uswarmingnasa_060129094100”

“The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/”

“IPCC? UNEP? Sounds like a bunch of Commies.

If our Admin says there's no global warming then I believe them!”

“Am I the only one who does not know mrdarklight? You people are conversing like you've known him/her for a while and vice versa. Probably you have, probably we all have. It appears to be a regular TT person posting under another new name. I sure can't think of any TT person who might do that. But it still seems to me that mrdarklight should be afforded the warm welcome. So, welcome mrdarklight.
Troll Alert!”

“Troll ALERT!!!! BEEPBADEEPBEEP!!!”

“Mr Dark it is a black and white issue, simple really, do not screw with the air I must breathe or water I must drink, pretty black and white I think”

“I'm not a troll, and I'm not anyone else posting under a new name.

The thread is titled "Who believes in Global Warming?" Why is answering that question and expressing an opinion being a troll?
last edited: 2/07/06 1:31:08 PM”

“---
There is a widespread consensus amoungst those studying all elements of climate change that humans are having a degree of impact on global temperatures. The results are starting to pan out to reflect the prediction models that have been built.

The ignoring of research to suit a political agenda mebbe?
---
Humans having "a degree of impact on global temperatures" is a long way from catastrophic global warming.

Even I believe that we are having "a degree of impact on global temperatures". From what I can see, though, science hasn't yet come up with a reasonable explanation of how much we are affecting the climate.

It is people that have already made up their mind that refuse to acknowledge that science is an ongoing process.

Consensus is the realm of politics, not science.

Just a couple of the many places you can broaden your horizons on this issue:

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/

http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/OSGWD.htm

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

(That last one is where 17,200 scientists signed a petition urging the US to reject the Kyoto Protocol.)”

“From what I can see, though, science hasn't yet come up with a reasonable explanation of how much we are affecting the climate.

Exactly.”

“Surprising as it might seem to you I have looked at alternative views and come to the conclusion that many of the studies have been heavily influenced either by funding by the likes of Exxon, or those with a political agenda who don't want any greater degree of regulatory control of industry.

There is no conclusive proof, just as there is no direct link as to why some develop lung cancer while they smoke, while others lead long lives. That doesn't mean everyone should continue smoking as there's not a full understanding of the processes involved. Better to stop smoking but continue the research.

Admittedly there is no current understanding of exactly what human-induced warming will mean, but it's far better not to take risks with something so potentially catastrophic. Moderate and progressive action taken now is a step in the right direction. As someone else posted, at the very least less polluted air and water is a good thing.

Also rejecting the Kyoto Protocol is one thing. It's a flawed document, but it was simply a first step and not the complete solution.”

“Interesting enough DL the petition project has been dissed pretty widely out there

The Petition Project is apparently a deliberate attempt by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and the Marshall Institute - identified as the article authors’ affiliations - to deceive the scientific community with misinformation on the subject of climate change. The Project’s conclusions reflect the authors’ political ideology, not objective peer-reviewed science. If this petition is circulating in your department, please consider urging your colleagues NOT to sign it.”

“As long as your "scientific studies" are reversable....they are not now and never have been. You know around April here we have global warming...called Spring.”

“So let me see, what do we have so far, various postings on The Global Warming Skeptic, the other side of global warming and a discredited report and petition.

Good sources there. Guess you'd rather remain with a rather dark light shining on the issue.

I'm sure if you search hard enough and are willing to quote anybody without regard to their standing then you can google and find supposed support for almost any extremist right-wing agenda.”

“Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

From SourceWatch

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.

The OISM is located on a farm about 7 miles from the town of Cave Junction, Oregon (population 1,126). Located slightly east of Siskiyou National Forest, Cave Junction is one of several small towns nestled in the Illinois Valley, whose total population is 15,000. Best known as a gateway to the Oregon Caves National Monument, it is described by its chamber of commerce as "the commercial, service, and cultural center for a rural community of small farms, woodlots, crafts people, and families just living apart from the crowds. ... It's a place where going into the market can take time because people talk in the aisles and at the checkstands. Life is slower, so you have to be patient. You'll be part of that slowness because it is enjoyable to be neighborly." The main visitors are tourists who come to hike, backpack and fish in the area's many rivers and streams. Cave Junction is the sort of out-of-the-way location you might seek out if you were hoping to survive a nuclear war, but it is not known as a center for scientific and medical research. The OISM would be equally obscure itself, except for the role it played in 1998 in circulating a deceptive "scientists' petition" on global warming in collaboration with Frederick Seitz, a retired former president of the National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine”

“A smarter troll wouldn't have flagged oism with that statement.

compelled me to look into OISM. Found Sourcewatch in seconds.”

“mrdarklight - you are eligible for troll status because your actions are troll like:

1. Your name is new here. 2/6/06.
2. You have not supplied any other data about yourself on your information page.
3. This is a controversial subject and you jumped right into it.

However, your viewpoints are welcome. Thank you for the links.”

“As long as your "scientific studies" are reversable....they are not now and never have been. You know around April here we have global warming...called Spring.”
XL400236
2:06:12 PM
2/07/06

Only this year it's happened in january ;o).... I know I know, that doesn't prove anything.”

“So Mutt, on a serious note for a change - you think it's wise to do nothing significant until there's exact causal proof of the extent of human damage to the climate?”

“Yes. What I would like to see is valid, reliable, and replicated research showing the exact human contribution to global warming. Then we can talk about what level justifies the severe economic strain that kyoto-like solutions require.

ETA: I'm all in favor of action now that doesn't bring about economic repurcussions.
last edited: 2/07/06 2:33:13 PM”

“Well I guess that's where we differ, I don't think it would be severe. The UK for example, has been able to get on track for kyoto targets without too much economic dislocation, and the US economy is fundamentally much stronger that the UK's.

I think my main problem with kyoto is that it's a little soft on nations like China and India. But the pressure could have been cranked up every few years to bring everyone to the same standard.

After the treaty was ditched Bush promoted voluntary reductions from industry, but they simply haven't happened.

Lessening emissions typically involves making more efficient uses of energy we already use. Cutting the costs by using energy more efficiently has got to be good for the American economy.
last edited: 2/07/06 2:54:40 PM”

“Climate Change Makes Russian Bears Aggressive - WWF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mail this story to a friend | Printer friendly version

RUSSIA: February 6, 2006

MOSCOW - Russians have had to shoot three unusually aggressive polar bears so far this year, in what environmental group WWF said was a sign the bears' feeding patterns were being disrupted by global warming.

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=34880”

“Yeah but how did we screw up Mars?...there is global warming going on there too.”

“Global warming is a theory. When you ask these intellectuals for supporting facts the conversation usually changes direction.”

“Global warming is a theory

Well that shows "us"!

"just" a theory? jesus christ! How many times does the obvious have to be pointed out?”

“I guess until the pinheads stop trying to blame America for every bad thing that happens.”

“There will never be enough facts for some people BM. It just doesn't suit their political agenda or their view of the world.
Nothing will shift them from this view.

They see anyone who believes in some form of human-influenced global warming as 'environmental wackos', even though it's a mainstream opinion in most of the world.

Instinctively they don't want to be seen to be associating with 'libbie wackos' and so clutch at straws - trying to muddy the picture with anything, point at what we don't know rather than what we do.

It also doesn't suit them that some form of action might be needed in every country on the planet. That smacks to them of the UN and 'socialism' so they react against it.

Also accepting there is a problem means something should be done about it, and that might involve regulations and restictions, which goes against the belief that a completely free market is the solution to everything.

So they're incredibly prejudiced from the start. No amount of evidence will be enough for them.

People could be swimming in their front yards in the gulf, or battling malaria mozzies in Michigan in January and they'll still be sitting there #&%!$ing the stupid tree-huggers.”

“And they also get this victim bunker mentality and think that everyone is out to get them.”

“Bacpac...we are guilty for making it so easy for them.”

“Well I guess that's where we differ, I don't think it would be severe.

Fair enough. I've read plenty of speculation that it would. Although no one really knows, the risk is too great in my mind without some really compelling evidence (which obviously doesn't exist).

So they're incredibly prejudiced from the start. No amount of evidence will be enough for them.

I hope you're talking about wingnuts on both ends of the continuum.”

“Bet i can't prove to you the World is round.”

“Yeah, I do mutt. I don't see much point in crippling the economy unecessarily. Economic collapse would also do a huge amount of harm to America, and in turn every other country in the world, and also push and environmental imporvements further down the list of improvements.

I just feel that more could be being done to improve the situation than is being done at the moment. Rather than trying to pretend there's no problem, the efforts would be better directed to find solutions, one small step at a time.
For example, I read the other day that if every American home ditched three light bulbs in favor of energy-efficient ones, a sizable amount of greenhouse gasses would not be going into the air.
Also not running all electric appliances on standby would help. Insulating houses is another thing. Encouraging more telecommuting is another.
These are simple steps which won't hit the American economy at all, but it's something that can done stright away. Sure more will be needed, but lets make a start.”

“The Weather Channel just stated the lake-effect snow machine has continued to operate to this time of winter because the lakes haven't thoroughly frozen over as they generally have in passed years by this time.”

“---
“Interesting enough DL the petition project has been dissed pretty widely out there

The Petition Project is apparently a deliberate attempt by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and the Marshall Institute - identified as the article authors’ affiliations - to deceive the scientific community with misinformation on the subject of climate change. The Project’s conclusions reflect the authors’ political ideology, not objective peer-reviewed science. If this petition is circulating in your department, please consider urging your colleagues NOT to sign it.”
---
I don't see how the author's bias has any impact on this petition. It's a poll - you either sign it or you don't. You are free to read the petition and decide for yourself, as a responsible scientist, whether you will support it.
Yes, the author clearly has a bias, but the 17,200 scientists were free to sign it or not sign it, bias included.”

“---
The OISM would be equally obscure itself, except for the role it played in 1998 in circulating a deceptive "scientists' petition" on global warming in collaboration with Frederick Seitz, a retired former president of the National Academy of Sciences
---

Wow, that is a really laughable attempt to discredit the petition. How can it be a "deceptive petition"? Are scientists morons? Can they not tell what words mean? Do you think they didn't consider the content of the petition before they signed it?

You should let go of your preconcieved notions and stop swallowing this drivel. Really.

Edit: Oh, and it doesn't matter if it was written by a monkey - the scientists who signed either agree with what the poll states or they don't. They are fully free to not sign it, and in fact that is the easiest course of action for them.
last edited: 2/07/06 6:11:36 PM”

“---
“mrdarklight - you are eligible for troll status because your actions are troll like:

1. Your name is new here. 2/6/06.
2. You have not supplied any other data about yourself on your information page.
3. This is a controversial subject and you jumped right into it.

However, your viewpoints are welcome. Thank you for the links.”
---

Lol. Ok, well, if being new and having an opinion make me a troll, then I'm a troll. But thanks for the (left-handed) welcome. :)”

“In addition to the bulk mailing, OISM's website enables people to add their names to the petition over the Internet, and by June 2000 it claimed to have recruited more than 19,000 scientists. The institute is so lax about screening names, however, that virtually anyone can sign, including for example Al Caruba, a pesticide-industry PR man and conservative ideologue who runs his own website called the "National Anxiety Center." Caruba has no scientific credentials whatsoever, but in addition to signing the Oregon Petition he has editorialized on his own website against the science of global warming, calling it the "biggest hoax of the decade," a "genocidal" campaign by environmentalists who believe that "humanity must be destroyed to 'Save the Earth.' . . . There is no global warming, but there is a global political agenda, comparable to the failed Soviet Union experiment with Communism, being orchestrated by the United Nations, supported by its many Green NGOs, to impose international treaties of every description that would turn the institution into a global government, superceding the sovereignty of every nation in the world."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
last edited: 2/07/06 6:25:01 PM”

“"The mailing is clearly designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
last edited: 2/07/06 6:24:17 PM”

“When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine”

“Hmm, I see the smear machine has been in operation since long before I found this site.

Why can't you just take the petition on its merits? Scientists read the petition, they can decide for themselves whether to sign it, they don't have a gun to their head. He's pretty clear on the home page how many of each scientific discipline have signed.

I mean, you can smear him all you want, but the petition is still signed by over 17,000 scientists. Like I said before, he can be a monkey in coveralls, if what he wrote is acceptable to 17,000 scientists, I think his petition stands on its own merits.”

“---
eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research.
---

Oh no! He's eccentric! Well, if he's a global warming skeptic, he'd have to be, wouldn't he?

And a Christian at that? Who let one of THOSE into the building?!”

“None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary (home-schooled by his dad), along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon. Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research. It is a conservative think tank that was initially founded during the years of the Reagan administration to advocate funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative--the "Star Wars" weapons program

In 1988, Robinson's wife died suddenly and he took over the home-schooling of their six children, leading to a profitable side business. He assembled a set of 22 CD-ROM disks containing public-domain versions of various books and educational materials such as the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica, Robinson Crusoe and McGuffey's Readers, which the family now markets as a home-schooling kit. The kits sell for $200 each, and Robinson says the curriculum has been purchased by more than 32,000 families. The OISM website markets the cirriculum as a way to "teach your children to teach themselves and to acquire superior knowledge as did many of America's most outstanding citizens in the days before socialism in education." The OISM website also offers educational links to a creationist website and an online discussion group called RobinsonUsers4Christ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RobinsonUsers4Christ), "for Bible & Trinity-believing, God-fearing, 'Jesus-Plus-Nothing-Else' Christian families who use the Robinson Curriculum to share ideas and to get and give support

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine”

“Source watch investigates all. You should check it out sometime before you post crap.”

“Oh yes, Source Watch... they're an independent, non-biased group...

It's funny that you go immediately there and repeat what they say on this forum, but it's supposed to be me who can't think for himself.”