Global warming...
-
The average global temps have not changes with the exception of siberia which has increased less than a degree. I'm no sherlock but it's pretty ovbious to me that at the end of an ice age, which is where we are in the cycles, that it should be warming! What really gets my curiosity up is when they say that it hasn't been this hot for a thousand years. What was going on then that warmed it up? Humans couldn't have done it! ed ~"Watch your thoughts; they become your words. Watch your words they become your actions. Watch your actions; they become your habits. Watch your habits; they become your character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny." -Frank Outlaw.
-
In reference to a conversation had here a few weeks ago when it was said that the prospect of global warming was largely overstated http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7488[^] Followed by http://www.cnn.com/2005/AUTOS/06/08/toyota_us.reut/index.html[^] But hey! Don't Let facts spoil the gas-guzzling party guys. [edit] And of course the government of the "free world" helped: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/06/08/climate.us.official.reut/index.html[^] [/edit]
fakefur wrote: But hey! Don't Let facts spoil the gas-guzzling party guys. I live in England. That's a fact. It's also a fact that 10,000 years ago (that's a blink of an eye in geological terms) the north of England was under 1KM (over half a mile) of ice. Here's another fact for you. 3,000 years ago, people were living in the Outer Hebrides, (islands at the northern tip of England), where it was 3 degrees warmer than it is now. The world changes. Are you saying that those changes were caused by cavemen in Jeep Cherokees?
-
In reference to a conversation had here a few weeks ago when it was said that the prospect of global warming was largely overstated http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7488[^] Followed by http://www.cnn.com/2005/AUTOS/06/08/toyota_us.reut/index.html[^] But hey! Don't Let facts spoil the gas-guzzling party guys. [edit] And of course the government of the "free world" helped: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/06/08/climate.us.official.reut/index.html[^] [/edit]
Well, the problem is that none of the articles you cite actually have any facts regarding global warming. It is just a bunch of people talking about global warming. If you want to talk about people editing documents, take a look at the 2001 IPCC report. Not only is the poster child hockey stick broken http://www.techcentralstation.com/102704F.html[^], but the summary document which is what is normally cited instead of the actual body was created by a political body and not a scientific body. There are many examples of phases such as "There exists no evidence of ..." that were removed from the report to create false urgency. There is also evidence of political pressure on the scientist to support a political stance. Critiques of papers in the report was specifically disallowed. Mann's hockey stick report is a perfect example of why these papers need to be reviewed, his paper is horrifically flawed. When asked about the problems, Mann replied "I can still get the data to show want I want it to show." So I guess true science isn't a concern of Mann, just political bias. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
-
Well, the problem is that none of the articles you cite actually have any facts regarding global warming. It is just a bunch of people talking about global warming. If you want to talk about people editing documents, take a look at the 2001 IPCC report. Not only is the poster child hockey stick broken http://www.techcentralstation.com/102704F.html[^], but the summary document which is what is normally cited instead of the actual body was created by a political body and not a scientific body. There are many examples of phases such as "There exists no evidence of ..." that were removed from the report to create false urgency. There is also evidence of political pressure on the scientist to support a political stance. Critiques of papers in the report was specifically disallowed. Mann's hockey stick report is a perfect example of why these papers need to be reviewed, his paper is horrifically flawed. When asked about the problems, Mann replied "I can still get the data to show want I want it to show." So I guess true science isn't a concern of Mann, just political bias. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
-
So I repeat my question as above... Are you saying that all the scientists (including american scientists) are wrong? That there is nothing to worry about? :wtf:
I try to keep in mind that scientists also release reports that say, for example, eating eggs everyday is asking for heart trouble one year, then years later, scientists release a report saying a study found eggs really aren't so bad. It's all part of learning. The problem is when people write about the reports stating the findings are now a Golden Rule, some folks get into a frenzy. I say until we can get accurate weather reports on a consistent basis that we don't understand climate enough to make statements about global warming. I might be an idiot for that, but I it take these things with a grain of salt. This doesn't mean I think it's a good idea to pollute or waste raw materials, the harms of which are plain. It's just that I think we still have a lot to learn. BW
All the chickens get it.
And them singing canaries get it.
Even strawberries get it. -
I try to keep in mind that scientists also release reports that say, for example, eating eggs everyday is asking for heart trouble one year, then years later, scientists release a report saying a study found eggs really aren't so bad. It's all part of learning. The problem is when people write about the reports stating the findings are now a Golden Rule, some folks get into a frenzy. I say until we can get accurate weather reports on a consistent basis that we don't understand climate enough to make statements about global warming. I might be an idiot for that, but I it take these things with a grain of salt. This doesn't mean I think it's a good idea to pollute or waste raw materials, the harms of which are plain. It's just that I think we still have a lot to learn. BW
All the chickens get it.
And them singing canaries get it.
Even strawberries get it.Do you honestly think that hundereds of the worlds leading scientists aren't aware of what they are talking about? That they are scaremongering because... because what? So they can buy a new SUV on the cheap when others don't want them? I find it really staggering that the so-called 1st world clings onto its way of life despite all the evidence that it is causing irreperable harm to the whole planet. Staggering and disgusting.
-
Do you honestly think that hundereds of the worlds leading scientists aren't aware of what they are talking about? That they are scaremongering because... because what? So they can buy a new SUV on the cheap when others don't want them? I find it really staggering that the so-called 1st world clings onto its way of life despite all the evidence that it is causing irreperable harm to the whole planet. Staggering and disgusting.
It's been a pleasure having this most rational discussion. BW
All the chickens get it.
And them singing canaries get it.
Even strawberries get it. -
It's been a pleasure having this most rational discussion. BW
All the chickens get it.
And them singing canaries get it.
Even strawberries get it. -
Do you honestly think that hundereds of the worlds leading scientists aren't aware of what they are talking about? That they are scaremongering because... because what? So they can buy a new SUV on the cheap when others don't want them? I find it really staggering that the so-called 1st world clings onto its way of life despite all the evidence that it is causing irreperable harm to the whole planet. Staggering and disgusting.
fakefur wrote: I find it really staggering that the so-called 1st world clings onto its way of life despite all the evidence that it is causing irreperable harm to the whole planet. It is very hard to find cause and effect on a planetary scale. Although we "believe" understand most of the formulas involved in the fluid dynamics of atmosphere and ocean, we are still short by about 1,000,000 times, even with the largest parallel processing machine. It doesn't help that scientists rarely get much time on machines of the larger scale. So "proof" is a relative term. There is an equal amount of "proof" that the Sun has been in a smaller "Maunder Minimum" than in other times, by doing sunspot counts and radiation studies. We know the harder Maunder Minimums of the past produce global cooling, we don't know what a lesser one will do. Most people inappropriately list this as proof we are heading into an Ice Age, technically possible (just as global warming) it is an end product not a proper term for the evidence. A Maunder Minimum can signal the beginning of an Ice Age, but we still have no where near the knowledge to determine when a minimum does not recover and turns into the longer cycle of an Ice Age. So it comes down to an argument of "possible" futures without any real evidence of an "end" but lots of evidence of a possible path toward that end. Since we know nothing of a path of either an ice age, or a global warming cycle produced by carbon production... we have nothing to base the evidence on, so scientifically it is not proof, it is relagated to "theory" in that midpoint area between a hypothesis and proof/fact. So where does that leave us? I don't know, nor does anyone else. So in the end it comes down to 1) I don't know, I don't care, when it is fact, talk to me 2) I don't know, I don't mind the ridicule of possibly being wrong, so I will say what I feel anyway. I actually own a hybrid, because I believe in doing my own part. I do massive driving, and I could afford the gas, most people here and other places make fun of me. I believe in erring on the side of caution, I didn't hurt anyone else in choosing a hybrid, so I find it ironic that I am often "the enemy" over a personal choice. But I also know that there is no proof on either side, only evidence of various theories of various possible futures. We actually will not have proof until it happens. Scientific method requires repeatable tests, which means we would need to find some way to do atmospheric studies d
-
fakefur wrote: I find it really staggering that the so-called 1st world clings onto its way of life despite all the evidence that it is causing irreperable harm to the whole planet. It is very hard to find cause and effect on a planetary scale. Although we "believe" understand most of the formulas involved in the fluid dynamics of atmosphere and ocean, we are still short by about 1,000,000 times, even with the largest parallel processing machine. It doesn't help that scientists rarely get much time on machines of the larger scale. So "proof" is a relative term. There is an equal amount of "proof" that the Sun has been in a smaller "Maunder Minimum" than in other times, by doing sunspot counts and radiation studies. We know the harder Maunder Minimums of the past produce global cooling, we don't know what a lesser one will do. Most people inappropriately list this as proof we are heading into an Ice Age, technically possible (just as global warming) it is an end product not a proper term for the evidence. A Maunder Minimum can signal the beginning of an Ice Age, but we still have no where near the knowledge to determine when a minimum does not recover and turns into the longer cycle of an Ice Age. So it comes down to an argument of "possible" futures without any real evidence of an "end" but lots of evidence of a possible path toward that end. Since we know nothing of a path of either an ice age, or a global warming cycle produced by carbon production... we have nothing to base the evidence on, so scientifically it is not proof, it is relagated to "theory" in that midpoint area between a hypothesis and proof/fact. So where does that leave us? I don't know, nor does anyone else. So in the end it comes down to 1) I don't know, I don't care, when it is fact, talk to me 2) I don't know, I don't mind the ridicule of possibly being wrong, so I will say what I feel anyway. I actually own a hybrid, because I believe in doing my own part. I do massive driving, and I could afford the gas, most people here and other places make fun of me. I believe in erring on the side of caution, I didn't hurt anyone else in choosing a hybrid, so I find it ironic that I am often "the enemy" over a personal choice. But I also know that there is no proof on either side, only evidence of various theories of various possible futures. We actually will not have proof until it happens. Scientific method requires repeatable tests, which means we would need to find some way to do atmospheric studies d
Wow! That's impressive. I read and understand your points but they do not actually answer my simple question: When many many many of the top scientists in the world from many nations all agree that we are heading towards some very bad things because of our behaviour surely it is prudent to listen to them no? Or (as I originally asked) do you think they have all got it wrong? And yes I have made my choices and face ridicule daily for it in this country. Of course that bothers me not at all. I laugh at it because in the end it matters not whether people believe the scientific opinions or not. The scenarios they predict will inevitably come to pass and the lifestyle changes they recommend will become mandatory. For example, when gas costs $5+ per gallon (as it does in Europe already) you will see all those giant SUVs slowly disappear from the roads. Evidence? GM laying off 25000 jobs over the next few years. Reason? Sales of SUVs are down drastically. This will continue. America (and parts of Europe) will be dragged kicking and screaming into behaving more responsibly. We all know of the global economy and we respect its rules. We now have to understand that our actions have global consequences and start behaving like good global citizens. Thank you for your reply. I really appreciate the logical reasoned discussion. :)
-
Just so I am understanding this right... You're saying that all those scientists have got it wrong? :wtf:
No, he's saying that you should look beyond the hype, and investigate the facts. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
Do you honestly think that hundereds of the worlds leading scientists aren't aware of what they are talking about? That they are scaremongering because... because what? So they can buy a new SUV on the cheap when others don't want them? I find it really staggering that the so-called 1st world clings onto its way of life despite all the evidence that it is causing irreperable harm to the whole planet. Staggering and disgusting.
deleted due to unconfirmed virus report. Christian Graus
-
Huh? Does that mean you have no comment except trying to imply that I'm not being rational? Is that your idea of reasoned discussion? :confused:
You're being about as rational as most people who have an agenda they pursue at all costs. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
Just so I am understanding this right... You're saying that all those scientists have got it wrong? :wtf:
Are you saying that all the other scientists that say 'Global Warming' is junk science got it wrong? You have to remember that there is also a political side to the 'Global Warming' bunch too...basically blame it on the US. Look at the 'Treaty' they are complaining about the Bush admin not signing..the only country that is liable for anything in the treaty is the US. I'm not saying there isn't 'warming' going on. But we are at the end of an ice age when it is supposed to be warming! Enough chicken little! Man in his entire existence hasn't put as much pollution in the atmosphere as one volcanic eruption. That is a measurable fact. And since eruptions have taken place several times in my lifetime, let alone in mans existence it goes to prove that man cannot influence the weather as much as the 'Global Warming' crowd says man can. Given that man produces hardly a thousands percentage (read so small a percentage that it doesn't rate) of the so called green house gas that supposedly causes 'Global Warming' I'm going with the scientist that are calling the chickens bluff. We can't forecast the weather well enough to say it's warming in the first place! But I'm not saying let's pollute! Don't get me wrong. I'm just saying the 'Global Warming' crowd has something other than the 'good of the world' as it's goal. ed ~"Watch your thoughts; they become your words. Watch your words they become your actions. Watch your actions; they become your habits. Watch your habits; they become your character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny." -Frank Outlaw.
-
deleted due to unconfirmed virus report. Christian Graus
-
You're being about as rational as most people who have an agenda they pursue at all costs. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
LOL. Seriously, every attempt at discussion you meet with 'so you think all scientists are liars ?'. That's not how to discuss something, that's irrational hyperbole. Christian Graus
-
Are you saying that all the other scientists that say 'Global Warming' is junk science got it wrong? You have to remember that there is also a political side to the 'Global Warming' bunch too...basically blame it on the US. Look at the 'Treaty' they are complaining about the Bush admin not signing..the only country that is liable for anything in the treaty is the US. I'm not saying there isn't 'warming' going on. But we are at the end of an ice age when it is supposed to be warming! Enough chicken little! Man in his entire existence hasn't put as much pollution in the atmosphere as one volcanic eruption. That is a measurable fact. And since eruptions have taken place several times in my lifetime, let alone in mans existence it goes to prove that man cannot influence the weather as much as the 'Global Warming' crowd says man can. Given that man produces hardly a thousands percentage (read so small a percentage that it doesn't rate) of the so called green house gas that supposedly causes 'Global Warming' I'm going with the scientist that are calling the chickens bluff. We can't forecast the weather well enough to say it's warming in the first place! But I'm not saying let's pollute! Don't get me wrong. I'm just saying the 'Global Warming' crowd has something other than the 'good of the world' as it's goal. ed ~"Watch your thoughts; they become your words. Watch your words they become your actions. Watch your actions; they become your habits. Watch your habits; they become your character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny." -Frank Outlaw.
-
You'll need to check with the lawyers who are lining up to line their pockets. ed ~"Watch your thoughts; they become your words. Watch your words they become your actions. Watch your actions; they become your habits. Watch your habits; they become your character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny." -Frank Outlaw.
-
deleted due to unconfirmed virus report. Christian Graus
Please don't do that again!! :) ed ~"Watch your thoughts; they become your words. Watch your words they become your actions. Watch your actions; they become your habits. Watch your habits; they become your character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny." -Frank Outlaw.