Political Crossfire Forums

[MLBrandow]

ieatfood wrote: Bottom line--you people need to trust scientists

Fact #1: scientists know more about global warming than you
Fact #2: any "logical" argument that you can come up with against global warming is likely naiive and stupid, compared to what a scientist knows.
Fact #3: there is a scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming occurs
Fact #4: there is no scientific consensus on what impact this global warming will have on humans
Fact #5: global warming may be disastrous or it may be not so bad--we just don't know

These are the facts. You can decide for yourself what your position is. But facts are facts. Sorry.

Like it or not, Scientists aren't always objective. If they want more funding for their research, they need to convince people that it's important. If global warming were a sham (which I believe it is, and at best not provable one way or the other), they would all be out of jobs.

Therefore, you come out with slanted data that scares everyone into hyperbole. Then you get all the money you want.

Do not underestimate the politics of science.

[Free Thinkr]

Citizendave wrote: Quote: The bottom line is this: these so-called "climatologists" were wholly unaware that the sun's intensity at the surface had gone down. They had no idea.


The description of the NOVA story gives a false impression. Since I did not see the show, I don't know to what degree the show does the same thing. I read on the other thread that you did see the show. Since I can't pick apart the show, so I'll tackle the description.

Quote: "Dimming the Sun" investigates the discovery that the sunlight reaching Earth has been growing dimmer...

Quote: Working in Israel, Dr. Gerald Stanhill was one of the first to discover the surprising fact that less solar energy is reaching the Earth's surface.
[url] www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/about.html [/url]


They are making Stanhill's research sound like a new discovery, and he's only verifying and advancing. The understanding of the concept is quite old.

Quote: While his measurements were met with skepticism...

The mesurements were questioned because of their dramatic nature. Not becuase he was laying out a revoultionary concept.

Quote: Scientists have long known that increasing air pollution—the smog that clouds urban skies—endangers our respiratory health. But they had underestimated the impact of pollution on the amount of sunlight reaching Earth.

If someone is going to "underestimate" the impact, that means they are aware of the condition. The page with the description of the NOVA show has a link to a slide show which talks about the refinement of a very old concept.

Quote:
paraphrising the slide show:
Benjamin Franklin proposed the idea in 1783 that a volcano in Iceland erupted and caused temperatures to lower in Europe.

In the early 1900's scientists tried and failed to link the same two events.

In the 1940's the first handbook of aerosol science. While scientists knew that particles could block sunlight, they did not link it to climate science.

By the 1950's science was aware the human activity was creating clouds which was blocking sunlight.

In the 1960 science began to focus on haze, and documented that particles sent into the air can ramain in the air a long time, and travel long distances.

Late 1970's, early 1980's, ice cores reveal that, after volcanic eruptions, temperatures get lower. Also, confirmation that certain particles can remain in the air for years.

Mid 1970's, early climate computer models factor in aerosols and their sunlight-reflective properties. They overstate their ability to refect sunlight, and erroneously predict a dramatic cooling trend.

1980 - Building on the emerging knowledge related to aerosols, researchers suggest that the dinosaurs were killed off by debris sent airborn by an asteroid hitting the earth 65 million years ago.


There are 4 or 5 pages more noting additional scientific advancement on the subject. The last page says that "Stanhill was not alone in measuring" the drop in sunlight." Pollution particles hanging in the air is and has been a part of every modern climate model.
You misunderstand me, I think. I'm not saying that people were unaware of the concept, but that they were unaware of the measurements. They weren't familiar with the figures. They were going on about global warming, the whole time apparently unaware that the sunlight reaching the surface had decreased a full 20% in many areas.

20% of sunlight at the Earth's surface. What else don't they know?

[bob.appleyard]

emt3197 wrote: For example, many scientists claim that the polar ice caps are melting which is causing sea levels to rise worldwide. However, a lot of recent data shows that the ice caps are thickening, and there has been no rise in sea levels.

Actually, the polar ice cap has been in steady decline since the mid 70s. Anyone with even a modicum of scientific education would know that floating ice does not affect the water level, though, so I have the suspicion you're plucking stuff out of the air here.

The things which will affect water levels are things like the Greenland glaciers. They're falling into the sea faster than ever, and the rate at which they're doing so is increasing.

[Citizendave]

Quote: The bottom line is this: these so-called "climatologists" were wholly unaware that the sun's intensity at the surface had gone down. They had no idea.

You would have been more accurate to say "partially aware" since a reduction in sunlight due to particles in the air is a part of every climate model.

Quote: What else don't they know?

I think they don't know plenty about how climate operates. The major climate models, while somewhat successful, can't replicate climate data. That doesn't mean that CO2 isn't messing up the world climate. Because of the industrial revolution, CO2 levels are higher now than they have been in hundreds of thousands of years.

Governments don't have to have 100% of the information in before they ban a certain medicine, or begin to act on restricting CO2.

The major companies have been gradually caving in on GW since 2003 when they disbanded their advocacy of non-peer reviewed scientific claims. There will be fighting over implementation of regulations, but the big picture is mostly only being disputed by people on the sidelines.

[MLBrandow]

bob.appleyard wrote: emt3197 wrote: For example, many scientists claim that the polar ice caps are melting which is causing sea levels to rise worldwide. However, a lot of recent data shows that the ice caps are thickening, and there has been no rise in sea levels.

Actually, the polar ice cap has been in steady decline since the mid 70s. Anyone with even a modicum of scientific education would know that floating ice does not affect the water level, though, so I have the suspicion you're plucking stuff out of the air here.

The things which will affect water levels are things like the Greenland glaciers. They're falling into the sea faster than ever, and the rate at which they're doing so is increasing.

uh huh..

So because we all know water expands when it freezes (and contracts when it melts)

then therefore the ice at and below sea level melting means that the water will go.... up?

Try again!

[GTTofAK]

MLBrandow wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: emt3197 wrote: For example, many scientists claim that the polar ice caps are melting which is causing sea levels to rise worldwide. However, a lot of recent data shows that the ice caps are thickening, and there has been no rise in sea levels.

Actually, the polar ice cap has been in steady decline since the mid 70s. Anyone with even a modicum of scientific education would know that floating ice does not affect the water level, though, so I have the suspicion you're plucking stuff out of the air here.

The things which will affect water levels are things like the Greenland glaciers. They're falling into the sea faster than ever, and the rate at which they're doing so is increasing.

uh huh..

So because we all know water expands when it freezes (and contracts when it melts)

then therefore the ice at and below sea level melting means that the water will go.... up?

Try again!

Uh No.

[bob.appleyard]

MLBrandow wrote: uh huh..

So because we all know water expands when it freezes (and contracts when it melts)

then therefore the ice at and below sea level melting means that the water will go.... up?

Try again!

No, try it if you're not sure. Put some ice in a glass of water and fill it right to the top. It won't overflow when the ice melts.

[Citizendave]

There is a substantial problem associated with melting sea ice, and here is an easy to read description of it.

Quote:

Donald Perovich has studied sea ice for thirty years....

....Perovich’s particular area of expertise, in the words of his crrel biography, is “the interaction of solar radiation with sea ice."

....An ideal white surface, which reflected all the light that shone on it, would have an albedo of one, and an ideal black surface, which absorbed all the light, would have an albedo of zero. The albedo of the earth, in aggregate, is 0.3, meaning that a little less than a third of the sunlight that hits it gets reflected back out. Anything that changes the earth’s albedo changes how much energy the planet absorbs, with potentially dramatic consequences.....

At one point, Perovich asked me to imagine that we were looking down at the earth from a spaceship above the North Pole. “It’s springtime, and the ice is covered with snow, and it’s really bright and white," he said. “It reflects over eighty per cent of the incident sunlight. The albedo’s around 0.8, 0.9. Now, let’s suppose that we melt that ice away and we’re left with the ocean. The albedo of the ocean is less than 0.1; it’s like 0.07.

“Not only is the albedo of the snow-covered ice high; it’s the highest of anything we find on earth," he went on. “And not only is the albedo of water low; it’s pretty much as low as anything you can find on earth. So what you’re doing is you’re replacing the best reflector with the worst reflector." The more open water that’s exposed, the more solar energy goes into heating the ocean. The result is a positive feedback, similar to the one between thawing permafrost and carbon releases, only more direct. This so-called ice-albedo feedback is believed to be a major reason that the Arctic is warming so rapidly.

[url] http://www.wesjones.com/climate1.htm [/url]



In 1979 satelite data showed 1.7 billion acres of perennial sea ice. These days, it is more or less 250 million acres. Of course, if you were a hard core skeptic or denier, you could just say,"well, for the majority of earth's existence, there was no ice at either pole, so this just doesn't matter to me. I trust in God and the good judgement of George Bush."

So much sea ice has melted off, that governments are poised to change the way the shipping companies do business.

Quote:
February 25, 2005
As Arctic Ice Melts, Rush Is on for Shipping Lanes, More

....Governments are jostling for political control over new passages for ships between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

The Arctic sea ice has receded by about 40 percent since 1979. By the end of this century the region could be ice free during the summer months, according to Michael Oppenheimer, a geoscientist at Princeton University in New Jersey.
[url] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0225_050225_arctic_landrush.html [/url]

[The Impeacher]

MLBrandow wrote: ieatfood wrote: Bottom line--you people need to trust scientists

Fact #1: scientists know more about global warming than you
Fact #2: any "logical" argument that you can come up with against global warming is likely naiive and stupid, compared to what a scientist knows.
Fact #3: there is a scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming occurs
Fact #4: there is no scientific consensus on what impact this global warming will have on humans
Fact #5: global warming may be disastrous or it may be not so bad--we just don't know

These are the facts. You can decide for yourself what your position is. But facts are facts. Sorry.

Like it or not, Scientists aren't always objective. If they want more funding for their research, they need to convince people that it's important. If global warming were a sham (which I believe it is, and at best not provable one way or the other), they would all be out of jobs.

Therefore, you come out with slanted data that scares everyone into hyperbole. Then you get all the money you want.

Do not underestimate the politics of science.

do not underestimate the "use" and abuse of science for political purposes either.

[Citizendave]

Since I believe the scientists have it right, I support their spin. Predictions involve degrees of certainty. To get our society moving in the right direction, any scientist or journalist who trots out remote possibilities to get attention and establish momentum has my personal approval.

I would not support outright lies, because that could slow down the much needed changes.

[MLBrandow]

bob.appleyard wrote: MLBrandow wrote: uh huh..

So because we all know water expands when it freezes (and contracts when it melts)

then therefore the ice at and below sea level melting means that the water will go.... up?

Try again!

No, try it if you're not sure. Put some ice in a glass of water and fill it right to the top. It won't overflow when the ice melts.

I do appologize for making fun of you, especially since you didn't get it.

Water levels go down when ice melts, not up.

If every ounce of ice melted today, ocean levels would rise six feet.

97% of the ice caps are below sea level.

Water expands about .01% when it freezes.

if 100% of the ice were above sea level, sea levels would rise 200 feet.

Because 97% of ice is below sea level, only thee 3% might possibly melt. Ocean levels would rise about nine feet.

If 100% of the ice caps melted, sea level would only rise six feet, because 1% of the volume of ice to water contraction.

[GTTofAK]

MLBrandow wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: MLBrandow wrote: uh huh..

So because we all know water expands when it freezes (and contracts when it melts)

then therefore the ice at and below sea level melting means that the water will go.... up?

Try again!

No, try it if you're not sure. Put some ice in a glass of water and fill it right to the top. It won't overflow when the ice melts.

I do appologize for making fun of you, especially since you didn't get it.

Water levels go down when ice melts, not up.

If every ounce of ice melted today, ocean levels would rise six feet.

97% of the ice caps are below sea level.

Water expands about .01% when it freezes.

if 100% of the ice were above sea level, sea levels would rise 200 feet.

Because 97% of ice is below sea level, only thee 3% might possibly melt. Ocean levels would rise about nine feet.

If 100% of the ice caps melted, sea level would only rise six feet, because 1% of the volume of ice to water contraction.

How much is above or below sea-level is unimportant. All that matters is if it is floating. Archimedes' principle states that an object floats when the mass of fluid it displaces is equal to its mass. Ice and water are the same thing in different states. And ice has a lower specific volume than water. Therefor, when floating ice melts the water level has to drop. Becasue the volume of water displaced by the ice is always greater than the volume of water in the ice.

[Free Thinkr]

Citizendave wrote: Quote: The bottom line is this: these so-called "climatologists" were wholly unaware that the sun's intensity at the surface had gone down. They had no idea.

You would have been more accurate to say "partially aware" since a reduction in sunlight due to particles in the air is a part of every climate model.
There's some of that good 'ole John Kerry nuance.

Quote: Quote: What else don't they know?
I think they don't know plenty about how climate operates. The major climate models, while somewhat successful, can't replicate climate data.
Indeed!

Quote: That doesn't mean that CO2 isn't messing up the world climate. Because of the industrial revolution, CO2 levels are higher now than they have been in hundreds of thousands of years.
Human advancement = bad. Business = bad. Despite the fact that climatologists are basically guessing what impact these alleged rising CO2 levels will have, let's set all kinds of wholly arbitrary regulations that we have no idea whether or not will provide any actual benefit. That's about it, right?

Quote: Governments don't have to have 100% of the information in before they ban a certain medicine, or begin to act on restricting CO2.
Well, considering the latter effects the livelihood of everyone, I think there ought to be some pretty high certainty; the fact of the matter is that the certainty is extremely low/non-existant.

[Citizendave]

Quote: There's some of that good 'ole John Kerry nuance.

I saw John Kerry in an interview on 60 minutes, and he was pathetic. I still voted for him, since Bush decided to take America on his own personal version of "Family Fued" in Iraq. Odd prediction here, I think that Bush, knowing that he will go down as the worst president in the history of the nation, will enact substantial regulations to fix global warming.

The conservatives now have the "Kerry Problem" on GW. On the subject on GW, the liberals now have the semantic advantage. We can put the problem in a nutshell, while skeptics are left sputtering, needing paragraphs to explain (the science is...), explain (the scientists are....). That's why every so often John Galts posts these HUGE articles.

Here are some of our semantic advantages, in a nutshell.
Quote:
The level of CO2 is higher than it has been in 650,000 years.

Species are migrating in reaction to temperatures rising.

Ocean temperature is rising.

Sea ice is melting for the same reason.

Snow is falling in places where the air used to be too cold to allow it.

For many years there has been a sicentific consensus that human induced GW is happening.


When conservatives make a succinct point, it is frequently "Global warming is a hoax." "The environmentalists are saying it for the money." "Environmentalists were wrong about other issues in the past." The points tend to be defensive, and less science based. When they are science based, they lack the punch that our statements have.

Regarding the inability to replicate climate, do you really expect that one day we will be able to say,"A tornado is going to form at 11:30 this Tuesday morning so those of you who live in Smallville, Kansas, be sure to get in a safe place." Or maybe, "There's going to be one heck of a hurricane on June 14th of 2008." The climate models don't need to be right before we start enacting CO2 regulations, because the problem has been confirmed, to an acceptable degree of certainty, in a number of other ways.

Quote: Human advancement = bad. Business = bad
Continued progress in the wrong direction is bad. The movement to reign in business on CO2 output is going to succeed because global warming is real. Other issues environmentalists have put forth in the past either were wrong or simply not persuasive.

Quote: climatologists are basically guessing what impact these alleged rising CO2 levels will have, let's set all kinds of wholly arbitrary regulations that we have no idea whether or not will provide any actual benefit.

OK, there's that word "wholly" again. Do you actually mean "partially" when you use "wholly?" Or maybe you actually mean "woolly" like "woolly mammoth." (An extinct, lumbering beast who lumbered around and didn't have much personality, didn't have much to say, who lost the argument with evolution and is currently history.)

Quote: Well, considering the latter effects the livelihood of everyone, I think there ought to be some pretty high certainty; the fact of the matter is that the certainty is extremely low/non-existant.

Certainty is in the mind of the beholder. Christians are "certain" that they will reside in the Kingdom after they die. If you go to the websites of the major oil companies, they are talking about how burning fossil fuels is causing climate change. We can be certain that they conducted an extensive in-house and external review, and reached the correct conclusion, in spite of economic motivations pointing them in the opposite direction.

ExxonMobil gave 100 million to Stanford to study alternatives energy. They could have invested that money with skeptics and deniers. They chose not to.

Really, who is it that you think is going to come along and provide evidence that this is not happening?

[mathurin]

Citizendave wrote: Since I believe the scientists have it right, I support their spin. Predictions involve degrees of certainty. To get our society moving in the right direction, any scientist or journalist who trots out remote possibilities to get attention and establish momentum has my personal approval.

I would not support outright lies, because that could slow down the much needed changes.

so if i said that if the heater breaks we will all freeze to justify getting a new heater, it is worth it, even though in reality we would not freeze, we would just get alittle chilly

those trotting out apocolyptic bull to get attention and funding are the people you should be attacking if you honestly believe the GW theory, only reasonably accurate predictions will help your cause, if someone today says that the oceans will rise by 3 feet in the next 20 years, 20 years go by and there is a minimal rise of say, 2 to 4 inches, then your attention attracting friend has just become another reason to disbelieve GW, just as the ones predicting the temp increase would be around 15 degrees by right now, they were wrong, they were using extreme data which they probably knew was false to support their political agenda

[Free Thinkr]

Citizendave wrote: Quote: There's some of that good 'ole John Kerry nuance.

I saw John Kerry in an interview on 60 minutes, and he was pathetic. I still voted for him,
Says a lot.

Quote: since Bush decided to take America on his own personal version of "Family Fued" in Iraq.
This says a lot about your deductive skills. It seems you don't limit yourself to buying global warming propaganda, but will unquestioningly swallow any leftist propaganda. That's comes as no surprise to this veteran observer.

Quote: Odd prediction here, I think that Bush, knowing that he will go down as the worst president in the history of the nation, will enact substantial regulations to fix global warming.
:lol:

Worst President in the history of the nation, eh? Bush's legacy will be one of actually having the courage to face down a looming threat; liberals like yourself will look like the non-interventionist Europeans of the 1930s. And you're also wrong about the GW bit; Bush will do nothing.

Quote: The conservatives now have the "Kerry Problem" on GW. On the subject on GW, the liberals now have the semantic advantage. We can put the problem in a nutshell, while skeptics are left sputtering, needing paragraphs to explain (the science is...), explain (the scientists are....). That's why every so often John Galts posts these HUGE articles.
The problem, perhaps. You've successfully brainwashed the population into believing all sorts of wild-assed doomsday scenarios, but you have no solution.

Quote: Here are some of our semantic advantages, in a nutshell.
Quote:
The level of CO2 is higher than it has been in 650,000 years.

Species are migrating in reaction to temperatures rising.

Ocean temperature is rising.

Sea ice is melting for the same reason.

Snow is falling in places where the air used to be too cold to allow it.

For many years there has been a sicentific consensus that human induced GW is happening.


When conservatives make a succinct point, it is frequently "Global warming is a hoax." "The environmentalists are saying it for the money." "Environmentalists were wrong about other issues in the past." The points tend to be defensive, and less science based. When they are science based, they lack the punch that our statements have.
I doubt it. Americans aren't so stupid as to give up their Ipods and SUVs because a bunch of tree-huggers say the end is near. Everyone will act all concerned like they always do, but in the end, nothing will get done. And that's a good thing too; we could totally halt 100% of our CO2 output, and it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference; China alone will make up the difference in the next 20 years.

Quote: Regarding the inability to replicate climate, do you really expect that one day we will be able to say,"A tornado is going to form at 11:30 this Tuesday morning so those of you who live in Smallville, Kansas, be sure to get in a safe place." Or maybe, "There's going to be one heck of a hurricane on June 14th of 2008." The climate models don't need to be right before we start enacting CO2 regulations, because the problem has been confirmed, to an acceptable degree of certainty, in a number of other ways.
No, not really. The temperature has risen .6C. Everything else is a bunch of fear-mongering, based on wildly varying climate models.

Quote: Quote: Human advancement = bad. Business = bad
Continued progress in the wrong direction is bad.
What progress is that, exactly?

Quote: The movement to reign in business on CO2 output is going to succeed because global warming is real. Other issues environmentalists have put forth in the past either were wrong or simply not persuasive.
Wrong on both counts. Environmentalists have had actual issues in the past, and made real impacts to problems that had actual effects on people. This is not the case here.

Quote: Quote: climatologists are basically guessing what impact these alleged rising CO2 levels will have, let's set all kinds of wholly arbitrary regulations that we have no idea whether or not will provide any actual benefit.

OK, there's that word "wholly" again. Do you actually mean "partially" when you use "wholly?"
No. Unlike liberals, I mean what I say and say what I mean. These regulations that are posed are wholly arbitrary, with no assurance of any benefit whatever. You know I'm right, which is why you go on this wholly unfunny diatribe:
Quote: Or maybe you actually mean "woolly" like "woolly mammoth." (An extinct, lumbering beast who lumbered around and didn't have much personality, didn't have much to say, who lost the argument with evolution and is currently history.)

Quote: Quote: Well, considering the latter effects the livelihood of everyone, I think there ought to be some pretty high certainty; the fact of the matter is that the certainty is extremely low/non-existant.
Certainty is in the mind of the beholder. Christians are "certain" that they will reside in the Kingdom after they die. If you go to the websites of the major oil companies, they are talking about how burning fossil fuels is causing climate change. We can be certain that they conducted an extensive in-house and external review, and reached the correct conclusion, in spite of economic motivations pointing them in the opposite direction.

ExxonMobil gave 100 million to Stanford to study alternatives energy. They could have invested that money with skeptics and deniers. They chose not to.
Tobacco companies spend millions of dollars on ads encouraging kids to not smoke. PR needs to be considered. They probably see liberals foaming at the mouth to nationalize them, and are moving to get in their good graces by whatever means possible.

Quote: Really, who is it that you think is going to come along and provide evidence that this is not happening?
No need. Time will carry on, India and China will build an eff-ton more factories, CO2 levels will continue to rise exponentially, and disaster won't happen regardless. History will once again prove the doomsayers to be nutters, and Free Thinkr will be laughing.

[bob.appleyard]

MLBrandow wrote: . . . silly nonsense calculations . . .

The water level will not change. Ice expands, but it will only displace the volume it took up when it was water. That's why it floats -- the excess volume pops out of the top. When it melts, it will displace the same volume. Seriously, check it out for yourself. This is elementary stuff, no need for silly calculations, which are based on totally flawed assumptions anyway.

[Kindred]

bob.appleyard wrote: MLBrandow wrote: . . . silly nonsense calculations . . .

The water level will not change. Ice expands, but it will only displace the volume it took up when it was water. That's why it floats -- the excess volume pops out of the top. When it melts, it will displace the same volume. Seriously, check it out for yourself. This is elementary stuff, no need for silly calculations, which are based on totally flawed assumptions anyway.

water.....comming.......from......land? Not 'floating ice'..........

[Citizendave]

mathurin -

Quote: those trotting out apocolyptic bull to get attention and funding are the people you should be attacking
I wouldn't attack them unless they told an outright lie. Fear can be a tremendous motivator, and if it can get the world economy headed in a beneficial direction, so be it.

Quote: if someone today says that the oceans will rise by 3 feet in the next 20 years, 20 years go by and there is a minimal rise of say, 2 to 4 inches, then your attention attracting friend has just become another reason to disbelieve GW
Science is self correcting as time goes by. Five years into this period that you imagine, estimates will have been adjusted down. What you suggest doesn't worry me one itty bitty bit.

Quote: just as the ones predicting the temp increase would be around 15 degrees by right now, they were wrong,
Do you have a link on that? I like to read about climate research that turns out to be mistaken.


Free Thinkr -

Free Thinkr wrote: Says a lot.
John Kerry was pathetic and could not give a straight answer, and 55 million people still voted for him. That says a lot.

Quote: but [you]will unquestioningly swallow any leftist propaganda.
This thread is about GW, and I mentioned the war as I believe it will motivate Bush's response to GW. Even so, I would like to point out, the current insurgency between factions in Iraq was not a planned for event. As an invading force, we needed to broker a deal. We didn't and now we are paying the price.

Quote: Bush's legacy will be one of actually having the courage to face down a looming threat
If you mean terrorism, Sadam was a secular dictator who allowed organized religion to continue within his country. Since the terrorists are devoutely religious people, it's no surprise to me that a credible connection between Sadam and the terrorists hasn't emerged.

Quote: Americans aren't so stupid as to give up their Ipods and SUVs because a bunch of tree-huggers say the end is near
Probably not, but I can quote an opinion poll which shows that many people believe in human-induced GW.

Quote:
Time magazine did a survey which it published earlier this month.

31% of 1000 adults think the planet is hotter due to human actions.
49% said the world is heating up for a mixture of natual and human contributions.
20% said the increase is due to nature only.

68% responded "Yes" to the question,"Do you think the Federal Government should do more to try to deal with global warming?"

Looks like the tree huggers are winning the debate for now. People who think like you are in the minority every time I see an opinion poll on GW.

Quote: China alone will make up the difference in the next 20 years.
When we pass the right kind of laws, new technologies will emerge which the Chinese can employ to reduce the problem.

Quote: The temperature has risen .6C. Everything else is a bunch of fear-mongering, based on wildly varying climate models.

As I said to you on the previous page, mid level population estimates are for 9 billion people on the planet by the year 2050, and you've alluded to the increasing world wide industrialization. A friend told me how the streets of Bejing are being re-worked to discourage the bike riders and encourage cars. Climate science is about trends. It isn't about accomodating people who think like you.

Quote: What progress is that, exactly?
I said, "Continued progess in the wrong direction is bad." By that I meant, we need to take steps in the direction of reducing CO2 output, rather than doing nothing and continuing down the current path as you suggest.

Citizendave wrote: OK, there's that word "wholly" again. Do you actually mean "partially" when you use "wholly?"

Free Thinkr wrote: No. Unlike liberals, I mean what I say and say what I mean
....How could climatologists, whose field is so utterly dependent on this data, have been unaware?

.....The bottom line is this: these so-called "climatologists" were wholly unaware that the sun's intensity at the surface had gone down. They had no idea.
As I said before, the climate models DO and HAVE made allowances for particles in the air (see below). This would mean that what you said earlier was wrong. Can you admit that?

Quote: In 1991 Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines exploded. A mushroom cloud the size of Iowa burst into the stratosphere, where it deposited some 20 million tons of SO2, more than any other 20th-century eruption. Hansen's group saw an opportunity in this "natural experiment." It could provide a strict test of computer models. From their calculations they boldly predicted roughly half a degree of average global cooling, concentrated in the higher northern latitudes and lasting a couple of years.(84) Exactly such a temporary cooling was in fact observed.

[url] http://www.aip.org/history/climate/aerosol.htm#L_1988 [/url]

Quote: You know I'm right
I suspect you are very, very wrong.

Quote: PR needs to be considered.

You say that to explain a gift of 100 million dollars to research alternative fuels? In addition the major CO2 polluters are now voluntarily keeping and reporting their output. If they don't believe GW is happening, wouldn't economic motivations compel them to fight the concept?

Quote: No need. Time will carry on, India and China will build an eff-ton more factories, CO2 levels will continue to rise exponentially, and disaster won't happen regardless. History will once again prove the doomsayers to be nutters, and Free Thinkr will be laughing.
I hope this does happen, because I don't see alternative fuels picking up the slack very well.

[Free Thinkr]

Citizendave wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Says a lot.
John Kerry was pathetic and could not give a straight answer, and 55 million people still voted for him. That says a lot.
Indeed it does, but probably not about what you're thinking.

Quote: Quote: but [you]will unquestioningly swallow any leftist propaganda.
This thread is about GW, and I mentioned the war as I believe it will motivate Bush's response to GW. Even so, I would like to point out, the current insurgency between factions in Iraq was not a planned for event. As an invading force, we needed to broker a deal. We didn't and now we are paying the price.
They're hardly factions, in any real sense; that implies a much greater level of organization than what is going on. What you're seeing is mainly small militant groups making just enough trouble to remain relevant and retard progress. But this is off topic.

Quote: Quote: Bush's legacy will be one of actually having the courage to face down a looming threat
If you mean terrorism, Sadam was a secular dictator who allowed organized religion to continue within his country. Since the terrorists are devoutely religious people, it's no surprise to me that a credible connection between Sadam and the terrorists hasn't emerged.
Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terrorism. Not only did he allow terrorist training camps within his borders, but he also encouraged terrorism by paying the families of suicide bombers.

Quote: Quote: Americans aren't so stupid as to give up their Ipods and SUVs because a bunch of tree-huggers say the end is near
Probably not, but I can quote an opinion poll which shows that many people believe in human-induced GW.

Quote:
Time magazine did a survey which it published earlier this month.

31% of 1000 adults think the planet is hotter due to human actions.
49% said the world is heating up for a mixture of natual and human contributions.
20% said the increase is due to nature only.

68% responded "Yes" to the question,"Do you think the Federal Government should do more to try to deal with global warming?"

Looks like the tree huggers are winning the debate for now. People who think like you are in the minority every time I see an opinion poll on GW.
Again, so what? Most Americans would probably be all concerned about the rainforests in a similar poll. Does anything get done about it though? No. Why? Because when it gets right down to it, they don't care. They just like to say they do.

Quote: Quote: China alone will make up the difference in the next 20 years.
When we pass the right kind of laws, new technologies will emerge which the Chinese can employ to reduce the problem.
Baseless optimism paired with a bald assertion. I have no reason to believe any laws would make the development of such technologies any more likely. Do you know what energy dependence would be worth? Believe me, the incentive is already there. It just happens to be damn hard to develop such energy sources.

Quote: Quote: The temperature has risen .6C. Everything else is a bunch of fear-mongering, based on wildly varying climate models.
As I said to you on the previous page, mid level population estimates are for 9 billion people on the planet by the year 2050, and you've alluded to the increasing world wide industrialization. A friend told me how the streets of Bejing are being re-worked to discourage the bike riders and encourage cars. Climate science is about trends. It isn't about accomodating people who think like you.
And what trends do they have so far? That the global temperature has increased .6 degrees over an arbitrary time period of 31 years, which just happens to be at the end of a cooling period where the Earth's temperature dropped, wait for it, .6 degrees. That's it. That's the whole of their trend. They claim, not know, but claim that these increases in industry will result in a linear or possibly worse increases in temperature. I call BS.

Look at the date in the lower right, and check out the graph.

Quote: Quote: What progress is that, exactly?
I said, "Continued progess in the wrong direction is bad." By that I meant, we need to take steps in the direction of reducing CO2 output, rather than doing nothing and continuing down the current path as you suggest.
Ok.

Quote: Citizendave wrote: OK, there's that word "wholly" again. Do you actually mean "partially" when you use "wholly?"

Free Thinkr wrote: No. Unlike liberals, I mean what I say and say what I mean
....How could climatologists, whose field is so utterly dependent on this data, have been unaware?

.....The bottom line is this: these so-called "climatologists" were wholly unaware that the sun's intensity at the surface had gone down. They had no idea.
As I said before, the climate models DO and HAVE made allowances for particles in the air (see below). This would mean that what you said earlier was wrong. Can you admit that?
You're talking apples and oranges. I never said that they were unaware that particles in the air could be a factor, I said they were wholly unaware to what extent they were a factor. Again, 20% at the surface. That is a huge amount. And they had no idea. That's incredible to me. It should be to you. Kinda calls their expert status into question.

Quote: Quote: You know I'm right
I suspect you are very, very wrong.
Yet in 20 years, the Earth will be little if any warmer, and you'll be scuttling to understand why.

Quote: Quote: PR needs to be considered.
You say that to explain a gift of 100 million dollars to research alternative fuels? In addition the major CO2 polluters are now voluntarily keeping and reporting their output. If they don't believe GW is happening, wouldn't economic motivations compel them to fight the concept?
Sometimes its easier to go with the flow. Like the tobacco companies.

Quote: Quote: No need. Time will carry on, India and China will build an eff-ton more factories, CO2 levels will continue to rise exponentially, and disaster won't happen regardless. History will once again prove the doomsayers to be nutters, and Free Thinkr will be laughing.
I hope this does happen, because I don't see alternative fuels picking up the slack very well.
And they won't. But what's important to note is that there really isn't much we can do until they can. You can talk about cutting CO2 all you like, but when it comes down to it, that entails massive lifestyle changes for Americans, and what's worse, it's not going to make a difference because America's CO2 output will soon become a small fraction of world-wide CO2 output. You can doom-monger and regulate all you like, but in the end you're pissing in the wind.

Winchester made a good point in the other thread: if what the doomsayers say is true, our energy would be better spent adapting to the changes, because realistically, we won't be avoiding them. If what the doomsayers say is true, believe me, we are doomed to a warmer Earth.