real science has no part in global warming

[Diamond Cross]

Yes, like it doesn't matter how much evidence or proof that supports global warming, it's got to be denied because it's only a liberal belief or socialist belief or whatever.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Yes, like it doesn't matter how much evidence or proof that supports global warming, it's got to be denied because it's only a liberal belief or socialist belief or whatever.

Not a chance. When there is indisputable proof that supports our cause of global warming, then there will be very few who continue disbelieve it. Those are probably the same people who think 9/11 was controlled by the US government.

At this point, there isn't indisputable proof...hence the dispute.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Since when does a writer for the Boston Globe represent the scientific community?

Why is it that when one conservative is picked out, such as Sean Hannity, its unfair to label all conservatives as such, yet its perfectly fine for anecdotal comments from a writer i've never heard of...

Here is your own quote:



"They hate people like Al Gore, and usually democrats in general, with a passion I'll never be able to describe......

They really would rather see Florida wiped off the map, plains turn to desert, 100 million refugees and a host of other disaster than ever admit to that kind of reality

It's the same logic why many people don't want to get out of Iraq, how could they possibly make the most liberal congressmen in Washington look like the smart ones and the ones who really knew what was best for America?

Don't look for reason in hatred"


Now you tell me who is throwing a wet blanket over people who don't buy into the Gore version of the environment?


My only point is you have politics driving both sides of the debate and the left can get just as ugly as the far right.

[RMNIXON]

Some scientist:

A professor of meteorology at MIT, Richard Lindzen, for example, says, "I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves. And there's a lot of confusion in this and, you know, at the heart of it, we're talking of a few tenths of a degree change in temperature. None of it in the last eight years, by the way. . . . [i]f there's anything that there is a consensus on, [it is that we] will do very little to affect climate. . . . And I think future generations are not going to blame us for anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree panic us. And I think nobody is arguing about whether our climate is changing. It's always changing. Sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age. The experts on it in the IPCC have freely acknowledged there's no strong evidence it's accelerating."

I think Lindzen is underplaying things. But what do I know. I am not a climatologist?

One more:

Then there's Chris Landsea, the scientist who resigned from the IPCC last year, accusing the organization of being "subverted, its neutrality lost." "It is beyond me why my [IPCC] colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming," wrote Landsea. "My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy."

Townhall.com::Global Warming Turns People Gay::By Larry Elder

Now I can agree with Landsea! A rush to prove your preconceptions may end up as crying wolf and cause a backlash against "real" gradual climate change we can do something about when alarmist predictions prove false.

[ballz2wallz]

ibnegreps for using Townhall as a source.

[RMNIXON]

And the Czech President takes on Gore an IPCC:

DRUDGE:

[b]President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity
Mon Feb 12 2007 09:10:09 ET

Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.

In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:

Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?•

A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.•This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...•

A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

• Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?•

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.•

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?•

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.•

Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...•

A: ...I am right...•

Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?•

A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.•

Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?•

A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.

[7960]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

ibnegreps for using Townhall as a source.

Ignore all of Elder's opinions in that article and a professor of meteorology still said "[i]f there's anything that there is a consensus on, [it is that we] will do very little to affect climate" and a scientist who quit the ICPP still said the IPCC has been "subverted, its neutrality lost."

[Diamond Cross]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Not a chance. When there is indisputable proof that supports our cause of global warming, then there will be very few who continue disbelieve it. Those are probably the same people who think 9/11 was controlled by the US government.

At this point, there isn't indisputable proof...hence the dispute.

Then the dispute of the evidence on a point for point basis should be done, not character assasinations and emotional arguments. Character assasination s and emotional arguments are not true disputes of scientific data. Scientific data must be disputed with other scientific data.

And so far there is no posting of scientific data to refute global warming. So therefore the conclusion must be that the scientific data supports global warming.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Then the dispute of the evidence on a point for point basis should be done, not character assasinations and emotional arguments. Character assasination s and emotional arguments are not true disputes of scientific data. Scientific data must be disputed with other scientific data.

The only character assasinations I've seen have been on those that dispute global warming. Who exactly are you talking to here? Al Gore was only brought up as a counter to an initial character assassination

And so far there is no posting of scientific data to refute global warming. So therefore the conclusion must be that the scientific data supports global warming.

The only thing I've been stessing is that the current 'proof' to support global warming is not proof at all. I've done nothing but question the science itself, no matter who states it. There is no scientific data proving or disproving global warming. That's the whole point, isn't it?

You cannot draw your conclusion from any of this.

[Diamond Cross]

But you have not shown how it is not real proof, just question it. You have not done anything to show how it is not evidence, nor have you shown any other scientific data that might support your conclusion. You need scientific data to refute scientific data, not just logic or reason or emotion.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

But you have not shown how it is not real proof, just question it. You have not done anything to show how it is not evidence, nor have you shown any other scientific data that might support your conclusion. You need scientific data to refute scientific data, not just logic or reason or emotion.

You make a valid point. But you have two different sets of data working on this issue.


1. Evidence that the earth is now in a period of global warming.

2. Evidence that human industrial activity is a cause or a major contributor of that warming. That it is not part of a regular cycle of earth and solar related changes.


They are not the same thing and I suspect most people are very hard pressed to seperate the two.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

But you have not shown how it is not real proof, just question it. You have not done anything to show how it is not evidence, nor have you shown any other scientific data that might support your conclusion. You need scientific data to refute scientific data, not just logic or reason or emotion.

You don't need an experiment to show that another experiment is questionable.

Working with the body, it's easy to assess the way things work when outside of the total system. In vitro results rarely equal in vivo results. That's just the way it is: things are completely different when in the reality of the bigger picture. The same is true for the earth. Sure, there is data that supports what happens in the atmosphere when this or that is released into the environment. But those are in a closed system. How does one measure the affects oif CO2 in the atmospheric system? You can't.

And for your information, there is plenty of evidence that refutes a lot of that data. Nature is the best way to tell what's goin on, and so far Nature has not played along with man's assumptions.

[Diamond Cross]

That's the problem with global warming, one has to be wary of the politcs on both sides.

[Diamond Cross]

And I just can't agreee.

It's ridiculous to say that human chemicals have no impact on enviroment at all in light of historical evidence.

Two examples are DDT and corporate polluting that poisoned the enviroment, even killing people.

Another example is the effects of radiation poisoning making a part of the world completely inhabitable for centuries.

Tons upon tons of green house gasses are being released intot he atmosphere at alarming rates which are having an effect on the general enviroment. Acid rain is another one of those effects of human pollution.

Humans impact the enviroment in many many ways. Global warming is just another one.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

And I just can't agreee.

It's ridiculous to say that human chemicals have no impact on enviroment at all in light of historical evidence.

Of course it's ridiculous. It's also ridiculous to call CO2 a human chemical.

[Diamond Cross]

And we can and do monitor the amount of greenhouses gasses released and their effects on the atmosphere:

Greenhouse Gas Overview

Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often called greenhouse gases. This section of the EPA Climate Change Site provides information and data on emissions of greenhouse gases to Earth’s atmosphere, and also the removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. For more information on the science of climate change, please visit EPA's climate change science home page.

Some greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes and human activities. Other greenhouse gases (e.g., fluorinated gases) are created and emitted solely through human activities. The principal greenhouse gases that enter the atmosphere because of human activities are:

• Carbon Dioxide (CO2): Carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and also as a result of other chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is also removed from the atmosphere (or “sequestered”) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle.
• Methane (CH4): Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and by the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills.
• Nitrous Oxide (N2O): Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.
• Fluorinated Gases: Hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride are synthetic, powerful greenhouse gases that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are sometimes used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (i.e., CFCs, HCFCs, and halons). These gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities, but because they are potent greenhouse gases, they are sometimes referred to as High Global Warming Potential gases (“High GWP gases”).

Greenhouse Gas Inventories

A greenhouse gas inventory is an accounting of the amount of greenhouse gases emitted to or removed from the atmosphere over a specific period of time (e.g., one year). A greenhouse gas inventory also provides information on the activities that cause emissions and removals, as well as background on the methods used to make the calculations. Policy makers use greenhouse gas inventories to track emission trends, develop strategies and policies and assess progress. Scientists use greenhouse gas inventories as inputs to atmospheric and economic models.

To track the national trend in emissions and removals since 1990, EPA develops the official U.S. greenhouse gas inventory each year. The national greenhouse gas inventory is submitted to the United Nations in accordance with the Framework Convention on Climate Change.

In addition to the U.S. inventory, greenhouse gas emissions can be tracked at the global, state and local levels as well as by companies and individuals:

• Many other countries also develop national greenhouse gas inventories, which can be compiled into global inventories.
• Many states prepare greenhouse gas inventories, and EPA provides guidance and tools to assist them in their efforts.
• Corporate greenhouse gas inventories provide information on the emissions associated with the operations of a company.
• Individuals produce greenhouse gas emissions through everyday activities such as driving and using air conditioning or heating. EPA provides an online calculator for estimating personal emissions.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) publishes internationally accepted inventory methodologies that serve as a basis for all greenhouse gas inventories, ensuring that they are comparable and understandable. The 2006 IPCC Guidelines were completed and accepted by the IPCC in May 2006.
Emission Trends & Projections

Estimates of future emissions and removals depend in part on assumptions about changes in underlying human activities. For example, the demand for fossil fuels such as gasoline and coal is expected to increase greatly with the predicted growth of the U.S. and global economies.

The National Research Council concluded, in assessing current trends, that "emissions of some greenhouse gases are increasing, but others are decreasing. In some cases the decreases are a result of policy decisions, while in other cases the reasons for the decrease are not well understood" (NRC, 2001)

Many, but not all, human sources of greenhouse gas emissions are expected to rise in the future. This growth may be reduced by ongoing efforts to increase the use of newer, cleaner technologies and other measures. Additionally, our everyday choices about such things as commuting, housing, electricity use and recycling can influence the amount of greenhouse gases being emitted.

The United States government prepares projections of emissions and removals of all greenhouse gases. The following links provide more detailed information on projections:

• Greenhouse Gas Projections, Chapter 5 of the U.S. Climate Action Report (PDF, 11 pp., 322 KB, About PDF): In Chapter 5 of the Climate Action Report, the U.S. forecasts future emission levels using information developed from models.
• International Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emission Projections
• Methane Projections
• Nitrous Oxide Projections
• Fluorinated Gases

References

• National Research Council (NRC), 2001. Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

Link:


Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

[7960]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

That's the problem with global warming, one has to be wary of the politcs on both sides.

both?

i see the "we're causing teh warming " crowd screaming "we're causing teh warming and oceans will rise and millions will drown and baby seals will have no home" but I only see the anti-warming crowd pretty much saying "we're not sure if it's warming, and if we are we're not sure what's causing it."

one side........... "we're killing teh bunnies!!!"
other side......... "we're not sure"


I'd say that "both" might be an overstatement.