Who believes in Global Warming?

“Face it bud, the sources you quote have been completely discredited. Obvously the checking of sources is a 'smear machine.'
I will take this petition on it's merits - an example of bad science, which hasn't passed peer review, tring to mimic a respected scientific body, cobbled together in a backwoods farmhouse by a group of right-wing wackos with a political agenda and signed by a whole bunch of people barely qualified to hold an opinion.
Hopefully you don't use sources like this as a basis for all your opinions.”

“Yes, yes, I know... SourceWatch told me so...”

“I've never even looked at sourcewatch.
So let me get this - you're putting this petition, that could be signed by anyone with a BSc, whose most prominant signatories worked on right-wing think tanks, against the most-respected specialists on the subject in the world, and claiming that this petition is what we should believe?


And I'm the one with the closed-mind?”

“I didn't say you couldn't think for yourself. I said your source is complete crap.”

“Well, I tire of this pissing match, mostly because it's diverging from what I believe toward a "I'm right, you're wrong" melee.

As I said before, I am a skeptic. This means that I don't just swallow what someone feeds me, no matter who that someone is. I said that I don't believe the current state of climate science is sophisticated enough to tell us how much we are changing the climate. There are a lot of questions that need to be answered, in my opinion, before we can come to the rather alarming conclusion that the polar ice caps are going to melt and Bangladesh is going to be the next Atlantis.
Do you not agree that there is substantial disagreement among scientists about many facets of the global warming debate? If you've done your research, you would have to admit that there is, and not everyone who disagrees with you is a "wacko".

For example, from NPR, hardly a GWB organ:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1893089”

“You're a skeptic, fine, but your skepticism appears to driven more by pre-established political ideology than facts.”

“"Wacko"???? I called no one a wacko. I was once a skeptic. All of Science was skeptical. New ideas are always attacked. But now a majority concur that Global Warming is happening and we are the source.

On a side note - I hate when people suggest Science is full o left wing liberal tree hugging wackos. Science is so frikken Conservative it's scary. Conservative in that any new idea is gonna be attacked like it's the worse cancer of Humankind in History.”

“---
You're a skeptic, fine, but your skepticism appears to driven more by pre-established political ideology than facts.
---

Well, I could say the same about you, couldn't I?

But like I said, I'm done with the "I'm right, you're wrong" thing. I think there is plenty of doubt about how the climate works and how it's going to change due to human activity. That's all!”

“You should have said:

A skeptic, you are. Driven more by pre-established political ideology than facts, your skepticism appears.

Y2 - Why do you so often turn to ad-hominem and personal attacks? Seriously dude, come back with a witty come-back or attack me or whatever makes you feel better - but it is a pattern.”

“Bear, gotta ask...who is this "WE" is this the same bunch that said "coffee was bad for you" now it is okay, who said Tomatos will kill you....Oat Bran will help?

Sorry but I guess it is a matter of perspective. I do not believe that there is anything major WE as humans can do to the World. Hell this is a planet that has been hit by killer asteroids and survived.

Remember the HOLE IN THE OZONE over Antarctica? Yeah it is cyclical. My may oppositoin is this. When these so called experts turn out totally wrong (Oceans will be dead in 10 year in 1992) there is no counter to the inaccuracies. These clowns will come up with another, 'UNLESS WE ALL SUFFER WE WILL DESTROY THE EARTH" plan....this is the main tenant of Socialisim.

I belive that mankind is not that bad. I think this WORLD will be spinning millions of years after we leave.”

“In 2001 we were supposed to be going to Jupiter and being taken over by cocky computers.



last edited: 2/07/06 8:36:03 PM”

“Did Lizs have anything to do with "disarming" the Cocky Computers?

Dave..what are you doing?

This is not Dave, this is Lizs.

HAL understands, I am shutting down, just don't try and fix anything.....”

“

"For example, from NPR, hardly a GWB organ: ..."
mrdarklight

Sorry, but you hit a sore spot with me on that one. A lot of good music slots on NPR have been replaced with editorials, primarily during commuter rush hours. Many of these have been made by or under government direction and, thus, constitute government propaganda. My understanding is that participating stations are required to include these in their broadcasts. Previously, the stations used to reveal the source of these programs, but under GWB they do not do so.
last edited: 2/07/06 8:52:51 PM”

“Well not really Darklight. The 'vast majority' of climate experts think human activity is effecting the climate of the planet and will continue to do so to increasing degrees unless action is taken.

You choose to ignore this and instead focus on the few skeptics out there - it's kind of like those who claim various historical events are conspiracies.
If accepting the findings of leading scientists makes me ideologically driven rather than someone who actively seeks out the few dissenting views, then indeed, we are both driven by pre-established ideologies.”

“I hadn't heard that NS - there do seem to be more of these editorials. I'm not normally a fan of any opinion peices.

Look DL, I accept that all is not known about the human role in climate change, but when the evidence is pointing in this direction, it seems ludicrous to me to try not to minimize the risk until more details are known.”

“---
If accepting the findings of leading scientists makes me ideologically driven rather than someone who actively seeks out the few dissenting views, then indeed, we are both driven by pre-established ideologies
---
See, even this sentence I find suspicious. You say "leading scientists"... this sounds a lot like the supposed "consensus" of scientists that anthropomorphic global warming is real. The problem is, I don't see this "consensus", and I've looked pretty thoroughly.
I've seen a great degree of variability in the opinions of scientists, actually. I can't find anything that says "most climate scientists believe...." other than unsubstantiated claims.”

“mrdarklight...post your email, tell us where in Northern CA you live. Your bio doesn't say much, except you not a troll.

I'm going skiing this weekend, wanna go?”

“here's a nice quote for you

Researchers under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have pondered the evidence and concluded that the earth is warming, that humans are probably the cause, and that the threat is real enough to warrant an immediate response. "There is no dispute that the temperature will rise. It will," says Donald Kennedy, editor-in-chief of Science. "The disagreement is how much." Indeed, "there is a real potential for sudden and perhaps catastrophic change," says Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change: "The fact that we are uncertain may actually be a reason to act sooner rather than later."

It's an interesting article on how all are taking steps and the extremist naysayers are being left on the sidelines.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_33/b3896001_mz001.htm”

“mrdarklight - Thank you for entering additional information on your User Information Page. My next questions, which you do not have to answer, follow: How did you get to this site? Are you here for a specific reason? You indicated that you are not a hiker, yet. Most folks just start with, "Hello, I'm new here." You sort of jumped right into the middle of things. Do you really plan to get into hiking? Do you plan to continue here in this Forum? Have you looked at the "Trips Page" yet? (You can continue to be considered a troll until you meet and hike with some of the people here. At that time you will learn the secret password and the TT handshake. You will, also, learn about Eugene.)”

“How did you get to this site?
I have it bookmarked. I probably found it originally while looking for gear (which I have, by the way... just haven't used it yet)
Are you here for a specific reason?
Hmm... I guess as much as anyone is.
You indicated that you are not a hiker, yet. Most folks just start with, "Hello, I'm new here." You sort of jumped right into the middle of things. Do you really plan to get into hiking?
Yes, definitely. I've got the gear, just don't know any other hikers. Alas, I can't stay out of a political discussion. :)
Do you plan to continue here in this Forum?
Yes
Have you looked at the "Trips Page" yet?
Yes
(You can continue to be considered a troll until you meet and hike with some of the people here. At that time you will learn the secret password and the TT handshake. You will, also, learn about Eugene.)”
OK, fair enough, I guess. :)”

“pedxing . . . about seventy posts ago your comments about global warming and 2005 seemed to go unnoticed in the tide of political diatribe.
Just wanted you to know the post is worthy and has been shared.

huge difference between weather and climate.

though they influence each other in the big picture.

have you taken a look at the jet stream this winter? wow.

from 60 to 29 in north alabama in just a few days.”

“Attack of the Giant Ice Balls! "In January 2000, Spain came under attack from an unknown assailant. ...
In a 10-day period, 15 basketball-sized ice balls weighing up to 8 pounds pelted southern Spain. ... The ice balls are getting larger too: 25 and 35 pounders are frequently reported. Recently, Brazil reported a 440-pound behemoth. ...

Global warming might be to blame: The researchers found a meteorological anomaly on the days preceding the megacryometeorological events; ozone levels were unusually low over southeastern Spain, which allowed more solar radiation to reach the troposphere, thereby cooling the lower stratosphere."
last edited: 2/08/06 6:55:43 AM”

“then indeed, we are both driven by pre-established ideologies.

Yes. This is the problem with the debate.”

“I got a week long trip to the mountains comin up........will have my own version of "ice balls"..............”

“Actually, I don't feel like I am driven by an ideology. I feel more like I am just resisting another ideology's attempt to do something hasty.

I'm a conservationist, I understand that we have a pollution problem, I understand that we have urban sprawl and that it is a problem. I even supported the reintroduction of wolves into Idaho/Montana when the vast majority of conservatives opposed it. I'm totally in support of protecting (and expanding) wild areas in the US and elsewhere.

So it's not that I'm a non-thinking conservative. It's just that from the evidence I've seen, there are a lot of questions about global warming, and we should definitely understand it more before we go shutting down economies. I also think the Kyoto Protocol was deeply flawed, in that the most polluting countries were given a pass. At that point, it started sounding like more of a "screw the developed world" effort than an environmental one.

Just as an example of the questions that bother me about global warming, this is the testimony of John Christy, Head of the Department of Atmospheric Science and Earth System Science Laboratory at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, to a Senate committee on global warming:

http://www.senate.gov/comm/environment_and_public_works/general/105th/chri0710.htm

This is a scientist who teamed up with some NASA scientists, and others, and gathered masses of satellite data to see if he could find a global temperature trend, and apparently did not.

Now, if this guy's right, then the whole issue of global warming doesn't even exist. Period. Never mind whether it is man-made or not.

I read things like that, from someone who is apparently a well-regarded scientist, and I put him up against a lot of people who are definitely proponents and advocates of the global warming theory, and I think I rightly have doubts about their veracity.”

“mrdarklight is stupid.

stupid

adj 1: lacking or marked by lack of intellectual acuity [ant: smart] 2. without much intelligence, a person who is not very bright.”

“HA!

Wow... that's a great response, BB. That just says it all.”

“"Bear, gotta ask...who is this "WE" is this the same bunch that said "coffee was bad for you" now it is okay, who said Tomatos will kill you....Oat Bran will help?

Sorry but I guess it is a matter of perspective. I do not believe that there is anything major WE as humans can do to the World. Hell this is a planet that has been hit by killer asteroids and survived..."
XL400236
9:31:32 PM
2/07/06

I see your point but discarding one scientific conclusion by saying other conclusions were "wrong" is not a valid argument.

Science does its best to give the best results.

If a majority of scientists say the environment is going into the crapper unless we do something about it Then we should do something about it and I think we will.

If we do, and the environment improves someone in the future will point to it and say the "doomesday" scientist were wrong.

In fact, this has already happened. i remember the Northeast air before and after the Clean Air Act. I remember multi-colored sunsets in the 70's. I didn't live in a city, but 50 miles South Of Buffalo. The air was #&%!$. Scientists sounded the alarm and the Clean Air Act was passed.

Today, that Act is being chipped away, no?

I also remember when lake Eire was almost declared dead. That's a big Lake to kill. I also remember a 100% turn around in the Lake.

We forget how bad things were so easily and say the Science was crap. Why?

Done with my rant. Enjoy.”

“When a hole is discovered in the top of your tent, it is best to repair it. Otherwise, if it rains while the tent is in use, water(or acid rain) will likely leak into the tent.

When you cause development of a large hole in the sky, it is best to repair it. Otherwise, something is going to leak through that hole and you may not enjoy the results of that leak. At that point I doubt that a lot of cover-up, smokescreen paperwork will help the situation.
last edited: 2/08/06 3:40:26 PM”

“bearmagnet, Lake Erie is still in bad shape. We have a huge "dead zone" in the middle of the lake, that is so toxic, fish can't be there. This damage was caused by big business polluting the river and lake over the years. Further, we are now dealing with the threat of zebra mussels and other alien sea life, which, got to the lake becuase big business emptied thier bilge water where they weren't supposed to .”

“Thanks Hiking.

I notice that you and MrDL both refer to the distinction between climate and weather. I'm wondering if the distinction to either of you goes beyond the idea that climate is an aggregate of weather over time and space (a much larger scale for both in climate than for weather).”

“---
“Thanks Hiking.

I notice that you and MrDL both refer to the distinction between climate and weather. I'm wondering if the distinction to either of you goes beyond the idea that climate is an aggregate of weather over time and space (a much larger scale for both in climate than for weather).”
---

Yes, I'll agree with that.

Weather is essentially the result of the interactions between heat, wind and water, and at it's root is how the earth removess and disperses heat. Basically. :)”

““http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=1594019&page=1”

lonesurveyor

Hey Lonesurveyor, the way I see it is if you love the Creator then take care of his creation. The creation is a gift from him/her for to to use. We sometimes act like a spoiled child. If we tear it up because mommy will buy us a new one. Global warming definitely has happened in the past without the help of man. I think we have a lot to do with this cycle. The key is though the planet will survive with or without us. In 10 million years mans time as top predator will be totally erased. A skull or two may fossilize and be dug up by some future species. They will probably scratch their heads for centuries pondering what made us die out. All the ships, all the buildings, all the computers, all of our great cities will have crumbled away into dust. The earth will still live.
What we do for the environment is for our own well being. The earth will heal and she could give a crap less about us.”

“When India and China use the same amount of fossil fuel per capita as the US, call me and tell me things are okay. Okay?”

“How much fuel they use per-capita is a really misleading indicator. First, their population is way higher than ours (China is about 4x, India is about 3.5x), so even if they used as much energy, they'd use only about 1/4 the energy "per capita".
Secondly, the amount of energy that is used is not really the issue, at least not to me. I don't care if they use 10 times as much energy as we do. The question is, what are their pollution laws like, and how much pollution do they create? They may use less energy but, with more lax pollution regulations, pollute more.”

“bearmagnet, Lake Erie is still in bad shape. We have a huge "dead zone" in the middle of the lake, that is so toxic, fish can't be there
Buddha Bear
4:38:56 PM
2/08/06

Didn't know that. Damn. I do remember the zebra mussels coming.

China & India are the biggest concerns regarding energy. They are catching up and they are going through the pains of an Industrial revolution. Which means current laws are lax.

They also don't need to catch us in use. If they used they same amount per capita as Japan then the World would have to double oil production within 20-30 years.

China & India, however, are starting to lead the way in renewable technologies.”

“If oil production (and consumption)is doubled then the reserves will only last half as long

which instead of about 30 years

we are only looking at 15 years until oil is essentially all used up.

More likely, because of India and China and increasing demand in other places (like Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, South Korea, Egypt, Nigeria, Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam, growing fast) so long as the world economy is 'hot', within about 5 years the demand maybe be triple what it is now, so virtually out within 10 years

and then the turmoil can be avoided no longer.
last edited: 2/09/06 6:30:31 PM”

“China is an incredible polluter, if they keep growing without cleaning up their act, we are all in trouble. Of course the total lack of environmental responsibility is one reason they can sell stuff so cheap.”

“ped - I was just at a briefing with a leading Chinese Environmentalist. They are going through the same thing we went through in the early years of Industrialization. There is good news:

1. They have a growing NGO network with no govt interference. No support though, either

2. their emissions standards will be the toughest in the World. Much to the chagrin of the Auto World.

3. They have developed cost effective and efficient solar water heating capabilities.

They are leading the way in new ideas and know the Western Model of Industrialization is not the way to go.

It's a shame our govt. won't help them.


Y2 - stop spreading inflammatory paranoia!”

“Also note:

US produces more Carbon Emissions than China and our Ecological Footprint is still larger.

So the US is a larger polluter, no?”

“India, China will lead green tech demand -UK report
09 Feb 2006 00:01:48 GMT

Source: Reuters


Most of the world has signed up to the Kyoto Protocol on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

But the world's biggest polluter the United States has rejected it as economic suicide and neither China -- which is building one coal-fired power station a week -- nor India are bound by its targets.

But Kyoto only runs to 2012, and the diplomatic search is now on to find ways of taking it forward, broadening both its scope and membership.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L08336651.htm


So we chastize China & India yet refuse to sign?
last edited: 2/09/06 10:21:02 PM”

“I saw Sunita speak in DC. All I can say is "Wow". She sat there and chastized the sheeite out of Us.

"The western model of growth that India and China wish to emulate is intrinsically toxic. It uses huge resources—energy and materials—and generates enormous waste. The industrialized world has mitigated the adverse impacts of wealth generation by investing huge amounts of money. But... it remains many steps behind the problems it creates. India and China have no choice but to reinvent the development trajectory."

Sunita Narain
Director, Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi, India”

“Stop driving so much.”

“---
"1. They have a growing NGO network with no govt interference. No support though, either

2. their emissions standards will be the toughest in the World. Much to the chagrin of the Auto World."
No government interference, and yet they'll have the toughest emissions standards in the world... right...

"3. They have developed cost effective and efficient solar water heating capabilities."
I don't believe a word of it. If it's true, they can sell it here... God knows they sell everything else here. Yet I haven't seen any of these. Sounds like propoganda to me.

"They are leading the way in new ideas and know the Western Model of Industrialization is not the way to go."
Great, I can't wait to see what they do with it. So far, it looks like their "model" is the same as our "model" though, except they're a dictatorship and have fewer freedoms, of course.

"It's a shame our govt. won't help them."
We're spending billions of dollars there every year, their economy is exploding. They don't need help.
---”

“True, but the economy is not where they need help.”

“Where do they need the help then?”

“Industrial technologies so they can control pollution better, have safer mines, etc.”