Global Warming likely man-made, new study finds

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by 7960

sweet, so the decent coastal land we'll lose will be replaced by re-forested inland deserts......... global warming is a zero-sum game!!


:mockery:

Not to be cynical or anything. But the millions displaced by rising ocean temperatures will eventually be ok. However, the added rainfall will cure a lot of ills in the Sahara and African regions where people have to walk miles to get clean water and grow food. Increased rainfall in those regions could save countless lives from famine.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by 7960

sweet, so the decent coastal land we'll lose will be replaced by re-forested inland deserts......... global warming is a zero-sum game!!


:mockery:

omg man has to adjust his living condititons to the changing climate


let me guess you guys would be shooting the cavenmen for starting fires because they melted the icesheets

[motivez]

Yeah, that's a completely valid comparison.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by motivez

Yeah, that's a completely valid comparison.

Science teaches us:
climates change
Animals either adjust or die
Humans have the ability to adjust outside of evolution by inventing things.

Humans have already gone through massive iceages, warming beyond today's temp, sudden cooling periods, sudden warming periods, years without a summer etc....

But somehow this warming is going to kill everyone ?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

But somehow this warming is going to kill everyone ?

I don't think the argument is that global warming is going to kill everyone.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I don't think the argument is that global warming is going to kill everyone.

take a look at the bs coming out.

"The temp is going to jump 10F in 100 years" (the temp has only swung a whole 10C/20F in the history of the world).

"The oceans are going to rise 10s of feet in the next 100 years."
etc

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

take a look at the bs coming out.

"The temp is going to jump 10F in 100 years" (the temp has only swung a whole 10C/20F in the history of the world).

"The oceans are going to rise 10s of feet in the next 100 years."
etc

There's a lot of BS coming out on both sides of this issue. Taking the extreme view from either side isn't ideal. Unless I'm mistaken and this is now the norm.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by JaJae

There's a lot of BS coming out on both sides of this issue. Taking the extreme view from either side isn't ideal.

except those statements are coming from the msm and the "experts".

A WARMING WORLD / Climate Change Report / Grim global warming prognosis for Western U.S. / International group says quick action can mitigate some effects

said Linda Mearns, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder and lead author of a section on future regional climate.

In the U.S., we're choosing a business-as-usual scenario. But we could make some choices: No, we don't want to live in a world with a 10-degree Fahrenheit increase,'' said Mearns.

Global warming to continue for centuries - Yahoo! News
From the UN report

If nothing is done to change current emissions patterns of greenhouse gases, global temperature could increase as much as 11 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

let me guess you guys would be shooting the cavenmen for starting fires because they melted the icesheets

Whoa there tonto, I'd be helping him make the fire bigger so we could get our brontosaurus burgers done up nice and medium-well!

[JSmythe]

Originally Posted by 7960

Whoa there tonto, I'd be helping him make the fire bigger so we could get our brontosaurus burgers done up nice and medium-well!

I like mine medium.

[Thorgrim]

When did the topic switch from the new study to what some extremist friend told you over lunch on either side?

I still have no idea why people are so eager to gamble the fate of the entire world until we know global warming's every single fact, I mean we still haven't mastered all the secrets of gravity and its a fucking law and we've been studying it for hundreds of years by millions of scientists

What you guys doing is pretty simple, be "skeptical" about anything that might potentially down the road require a sacrifice, and despite overwhelming evidence just ignore it and think we can't possibly cause environmental disaster around the world through basic things I do at home

It's the ozone debate, take 2

Afterwards, you'll just pretend you never took part in the debate, or go "oh well, i was challenging the mainstream, someone has to be a skeptic, we can't all be zombies" when what you should have said was "i saw some people that looked like hippies were for it so i decided to oppose them even if it meant i was trying to stop a global movement to help the world"

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

When did the topic switch from the new study to what some extremist friend told you over lunch on either side?

the study isnt new and has extreamist statements.

I still have no idea why people are so eager to gamble the fate of the entire world until we know global warming's every single fact,

Arent you for kyoto ? That is gambling the fate of the entire world based on little info.

What you guys doing is pretty simple, be "skeptical" about anything that might potentially down the road require a sacrifice, and despite overwhelming evidence just ignore it and think we can't possibly cause environmental disaster around the world through basic things I do at home

It's the ozone debate, take 2

Little to no cfc's being produced/used but the whole is widening today.


interesting, from wiki

There is a slight caveat to this, however. Global warming from CO2 is expected to cool the stratosphere. This, in turn, would lead to a relative increase in ozone depletion and the frequency of ozone holes. The effect may not be linear; ozone holes form because of polar stratospheric clouds; the formation of polar stratospheric clouds has a temperature threshold above which they will not form; cooling of the Arctic stratosphere might lead to Antarctic-ozone-hole-like conditions. But at the moment this is not clear.

wonder how much the recent warming was responsible.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I still have no idea why people are so eager to gamble the fate of the entire world until we know global warming's every single fact, I mean we still haven't mastered all the secrets of gravity and its a fucking law and we've been studying it for hundreds of years by millions of scientists

Because it would cost a lot of money to "fix", that is why.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Now these are only a few members of the EPA and they wouldn't put these opinions in writing if they ever wanted to see grant money or tenure in the future. But it is what they lectured and taught. And, I really haven't seen any counter evidence to disprove what they were saying other than "scientists agree." You either agree with the common belief that makes people money or you're a right-wing nut job who doesn't understand that it's not ok to believe the same theory as everyone else just because it's more popular. Keep in mind these people speaking out in favor of global warming do so for a living. They live off of grant money. If they deny global warming or go against the hype they basically end their career and start flipping burgers at McDonalds.

...or maybe they're rightly suspect of right wing opinions on the subject because they usually have direct financial ties with those industries who would be hurt most if man-made global warming is found to be true. Come on man, it's a simple market concept. Follow the money trail. Why would anyone blindly accept paid-for 'opinions' on any subject?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by R-Type

...or maybe they're rightly suspect of right wing opinions on the subject because they usually have direct financial ties with those industries who would be hurt most if man-made global warming is found to be true. Come on man, it's a simple market concept. Follow the money trail. Why would anyone blindly accept paid-for 'opinions' on any subject?

These scientists don't do this as a hobby, they do it for a living. And in order to get a paper published it has to go through a screening process. Many studies don't even get printed in journals if they're anti-global warming. If you attempt to release something against mainstream global warming you're branded and your career is basically finished. So you either publish what everyone wants to hear or you don't publish at all. And if you don't publish at all you're career is down the tubes like the internets, and if you don't understand those tubes can get clogged, listen.. I got an internets sent to me this morning and I didn't get it until the next day because the tubes were clogged...

Now I'm not saying their opinions were bought and paid for, but there is a strong influence on their work and what gets published and what doesn't. And quite often you get crap they know is completely false like the hockey stick graph and it gets repeated over and over and over and over again because they really have no other evidence other than "it seems to be correlated and everyone else thinks it is." In reality, Mark Styne put it well recently. If you listen to a most of these news reports you'll hear people saying "the science is solid" over and over. They never say what science they're referring to. Just that it's solid. Hard to argue with that kind of scientific backbone!

The new report released on new climate models doesn't mention the fact that the computer simulation is nothing more than their guess. The reality is that it's programmed by people who have to "guess" what they think the future will bring and how influential those factors will be and then have a computer software program/algorithm they just so happened to write interprate their biased guesses. So basically they're saying, "we wrote a program that unreliably guesses what we wanted it to" and somehow this is supposed to be the new end all be all "study."

[Thorgrim]

I have no idea what you are talking about, this report was huge, one of the biggest scientific reports in history...not some grad student needing a grant who borrowed money from the sierra club

even if you want to discount all models as...well models, you are right, we can't predict the future with complete accuracy, that machine has yet to be invented

so fine, ignore that

This is overwhelming scientific consensus: It is almost certain, 90% chance, that we are the cause of global warming, and global warming is occuring

Take it one step at a time if you can't take it all at once

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by JaJae

These scientists don't do this as a hobby, they do it for a living. And in order to get a paper published it has to go through a screening process. Many studies don't even get printed in journals if they're anti-global warming. If you attempt to release something against mainstream global warming you're branded and your career is basically finished. So you either publish what everyone wants to hear or you don't publish at all. And if you don't publish at all you're career is down the tubes like the internets, and if you don't understand those tubes can get clogged, listen.. I got an internets sent to me this morning and I didn't get it until the next day because the tubes were clogged...

I will agree that science suffers from groupthink mentality just like any other human endeavor that involves more than a few people. The difference between it and politics is that objective truth rears its ugly head at some point, and starts cutting the skulls of the stupid/ignorant/arrogant. It is unfortunate that politicians get involved because they muddy the waters with their special interest motives making it hard to tell what's fact, what's paid-for FUD, and what's just groupthink brought on by in-house academic bickering. I also realize that grants provide the livelihood of most endeavors, but problems occur when reality is ignored whenever it won't coincide with profit...thus only profitable ventures are funded. This particular issue suffers heavily from that.

Originally Posted by JaJae

Now I'm not saying their opinions were bought and paid for, but there is a strong influence on their work and what gets published and what doesn't. And quite often you get crap they know is completely false like the hockey stick graph and it gets repeated over and over and over and over again because they really have no other evidence other than "it seems to be correlated and everyone else thinks it is." In reality, Mark Styne put it well recently. If you listen to a most of these news reports you'll hear people saying "the science is solid" over and over. They never say what science they're referring to. Just that it's solid. Hard to argue with that kind of scientific backbone!

Well who's to say that graph ISN'T accurate? This boils down to credentials and legitimacy. All things being equal, I'd pick a group of scientists who've been studying climatology for 30 years over a few breakaways who are funded by the very industries that'll take the hit should warming pan out as truth. Right now, I see the pro side having altruistic (or even survival driven) motivations, and the nay side with obvious financial stakes. It's really hard for me to take the latter seriously. If you're implying that pro-warming scientists are also being paid off by someone, I'd like to know who, and why. ..and yes media coverage of this issue is all bullshit.

Originally Posted by JaJae

The new report released on new climate models doesn't mention the fact that the computer simulation is nothing more than their guess. The reality is that it's programmed by people who have to "guess" what they think the future will bring and how influential those factors will be and then have a computer software program/algorithm they just so happened to write interprate their biased guesses. So basically they're saying, "we wrote a program that unreliably guesses what we wanted it to" and somehow this is supposed to be the new end all be all "study."

Well, I don't think any of us here are qualified to question their numbers. I am not a climatologist and neither are you (are you?). Stock market brokers make guesses about our economy every day and decide famine or fortune for millions of people. If that's ok, then isn't it reasonable to accept, for now, scientists' predictions about our ecology? Hey, if some seriously credible, alternative, financially untainted evidence shows up, I'm willing to listen. For now, though, all I have to do to see that environmental pollution is bad is step outside and sniff the air. Even if man-made global warming is a complete farce, any effort made to clean up emissions would lead to better quality of life for all of us.

You mentioned you were an enviro-science major at one point.. Have you considered perhaps that your professors were also politically motivated when they were making their off-the-record statements? You never know. Until the final, cold facts do shake out, I would take everyones' opinions with grains of salt while cruising the most prudent course of action whenever possible: reducing emissions. After all, there IS credible evidence that man can negatively affect the global ecology.

[JSmythe]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I have no idea what you are talking about, this report was huge, one of the biggest scientific reports in history...not some grad student needing a grant who borrowed money from the sierra club

even if you want to discount all models as...well models, you are right, we can't predict the future with complete accuracy, that machine has yet to be invented

so fine, ignore that

This is overwhelming scientific consensus: It is almost certain, 90% chance, that we are the cause of global warming, and global warming is occuring

Take it one step at a time if you can't take it all at once

s'truth. the report is legit. It's time to stop burning chemicals that clearly impact our global ecosystem when we could easily turn to alternative sources, if only we tried.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I stopped reading there. He is not a climatologist.

He is.

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruc