Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 6457 posts, RR: 36 Posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2960 times:
Quote: Concerned that too many “deniers” are in the meteorology business, global warming activists this month launched a campaign to recruit local weathermen to hop aboard the alarmism bandwagon and expose those who are not fully convinced that the world is facing man-made doom
KFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3237 posts, RR: 38 Reply 2, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2945 times:
“We’ll empower everyday people to make sure meteorologists understand that their viewers are counting on them to get this story right, and that those who continue to shirk their professional responsibility will be held accountable.”
I'm pretty sure most viewers don't even count on them to get the daily weather right nor hold them personally responsible for it, let alone the supposed trends of weather over the last thousand years.
To say this is laughable means we've already failed in giving them the time of day.
"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 17876 posts, RR: 59 Reply 3, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2943 times:
Oh no, an activist group is doing something ultimately meaningless, but that's sure to piss the other side off!
Quoting aloges (Reply 1): What would convince you that human activity is causing and/or accelerating climate change?
Even if you don't want to accept that global warming is man-made, you can't deny it's happening, nor can you deny the need to make adjustments to limit or mitigate the consequences, which could be very severe in some cases.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 6457 posts, RR: 36 Reply 4, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2927 times:
Quoting aloges (Reply 1): What would convince you that human activity is causing and/or accelerating climate change?
Mathematical proof of a SIGNIFICANT impact. Not just SOME impact. If we are responsible for 1% of a visible change, I don't think it's worth bothering with.
I am Descartes of Borg. I assimilate, therefore I am
FingerLakerAv8r From United States of America, joined May 2011, 259 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2879 times:
One of the meteorologists in my hometown of ROC is Kevin Williams. This man is one of the coolest people on tv because he actually liked the colder weather and had a snow maker in his backyard to make even MORE snow (like Western New York needs more snow lol).
I can see him reading this now and loading up the cannon in his backyard as a one-man army to rid the world of warmth lol
mt99 From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 5640 posts, RR: 8 Reply 7, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2825 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4): If we are responsible for 1% of a visible change, I don't think it's worth bothering with.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 17876 posts, RR: 59 Reply 8, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2801 times:
Quoting FingerLakerAv8r (Reply 6): I can see him reading this now and loading up the cannon in his backyard as a one-man army to rid the world of warmth lol
I'll join him. I went outside without a coat today. In NYC. In January. Something is seriously screwed up.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 9, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2781 times:
Quoting aloges (Reply 1):
What would convince you that human activity is causing and/or accelerating climate change?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
And there is NOTHING editorial or opinionated about the tone of the OP, either.
And it is for this reason that I recuse myself from these debates. There is no debate because there is no convincing a religious zealot.
I'd much rather do something productive, like lobby the government to force parents to vaccinate their kids and eliminate "personal belief" exemptions. That might actually accomplish something.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 1060 posts, RR: 24 Reply 10, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2780 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 3): Even if you don't want to accept that global warming is man-made, you can't deny it's happening, nor can you deny the need to make adjustments to limit or mitigate the consequences, which could be very severe in some cases.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4): Mathematical proof of a SIGNIFICANT impact. Not just SOME impact. If we are responsible for 1% of a visible change, I don't think it's worth bothering with.
This is the argument about global warming I have most problems understanding. What does it matter if it is man-made or not? We leave few natural things alone. Why this?
Don’t repeat earlier generations’ mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
dc9northwest From Romania, joined Feb 2007, 1177 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2769 times:
This is great, more preaching coming to the media. Just what we needed. Global warming is becoming a sort of religion, with preachers and militant atheists fighting it out.
I for one vote for the separation of global warming and state.
Quoting Mir (Reply 8): I'll join him. I went outside without a coat today. In NYC. In January. Something is seriously screwed up.
So whenever it's 40 degrees at night in July I can claim global warming is fake, right? But you're right, it is screwed up, where's all my snow in Chicago in January? We've barely had 10 inches. I think it's because our weathermen are global warming deniers. No, that's definitely it.
Quoting Mir (Reply 3): Even if you don't want to accept that global warming is man-made, you can't deny it's happening, nor can you deny the need to make adjustments to limit or mitigate the consequences, which could be very severe in some cases.
Sure you can, it's a free country, isn't it? You can claim Manbearpig's to blame too. No seriously, what's the big deal that some choose to deny?
Some believe in witchcraft. Some believe in God. Some believe in medicine. Others don't... You're allowed to do all or none of these. So why can't anyone deny global warming? Is it illegal? Immoral? Fattening?
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 12, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2768 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 10): This is the argument about global warming I have most problems understanding. What does it matter if it is man-made or not? We leave few natural things alone. Why this?
Well I'm not on the same boat, but the idea is that since we don't have much impact on the environment, we could pollute a lot more or pollute a lot less and the climate will do the same thing regardless of what we do, so why even try? If you're in that boat, it makes sense
seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 8614 posts, RR: 19 Reply 13, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2752 times:
I have a better "purge of non-complian weather forecasters": Fire all the ones who have a track record of failure. That would be everyone at CBS 5 in San Francisco and KOIN in Portland. Roberta Gonzales (SFO) is a looker, but she probably would have told the people of Louisiana "it will be mild and dry all week and throught the weekend with a slight chance of sprinkles mid-week" when Katrina hit.
Wheel of morality turn, turn, turn. Tell us the lesson that we should learn
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 1060 posts, RR: 24 Reply 14, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2755 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 12): Well I'm not on the same boat, but the idea is that since we don't have much impact on the environment, we could pollute a lot more or pollute a lot less and the climate will do the same thing regardless of what we do, so why even try? If you're in that boat, it makes sense
That is a very defeatist view.
Don’t repeat earlier generations’ mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
canoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2265 posts, RR: 11 Reply 15, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2737 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 13): but she probably would have told the people of Louisiana "it will be mild and dry all week and throught the weekend with a slight chance of sprinkles mid-week" when Katrina hit.
Only because she forgot she wasn't in Portland anymore. Easiest job in America is a weather forecaster in the Pacific Northwest during the winter. 50% chance of rain...for the next 3 months.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 9): And it is for this reason that I recuse myself from these debates. There is no debate because there is no convincing a religious zealot.
I work in this field and you'd have a hard time convincing me that it's 100% due to human causes. Just today, I worked with the EPA on a GHG emissions calculation for a transportation project. I'm not saying we don't influence climate at all, but one only needs to walk through Central Park to see evidence of glaciation or know that Seattle was once under a mile of glacial ice to know that there are variations in climate.
IMHO:
Are humans 100% the cause of climate change...NO
Are natural variations in the climate 100% of what we're seeing...NO
Is it right to blacklist meteorologists who don't preach the current climatological theory...NO
Besides, I'm not sure meteorologists are the right people to be blacklisting anyway. Shouldn't they be after climatologists? Hell, only one of the three network US morning news shows has a real meteorologist on it anyway. The rest are just pretty faces.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 16, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2736 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 14): That is a very defeatist view.
Not really. For a minute, just believe that humans only contribute 1% or whatever. No matter what we do, our impact would be nothing in the scheme of things. If we doubled our fuel burn it would only contribute 2%, if we abandoned all fuels, we'd contribute 0%. So pretty much, no matter what we did, our contribution to the global warming would be basically nothing. If the Earth wants to warm, it will warm no matter if we stopped all fuel from burning. Just the messenger here, that's the argument. And using those parameters, "do nothing" or "stop freaking about global warming" makes sense.
Now how you get to that thought process is the gray area and where most of the debate lies, I'm not really getting into that. I hope that makes sense. (And if you argue that 1% is still significant, bump it down to 0.1%, the % is not the point, the point is what we do and the effect it has on the Earth)
aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 7589 posts, RR: 51 Reply 17, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2722 times:
Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 15): meteorologists who don't preach the current climatological theory
As I was saying, climatologists have been discussing this for longer than I have lived. Global warming is by no means just some fancy theory that is being "preached", it is a development that has been observed and studied for decades. For that reason, the verb should be "taught", if anything.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 16): Not really. For a minute, just believe that humans only contribute 1% or whatever. No matter what we do, our impact would be nothing in the scheme of things.
1% can make a huge difference. If you have a high fever, a 1% increase in your body temperature may even make the difference between life and death.
[Edited 2012-01-31 15:46:04]
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
canoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2265 posts, RR: 11 Reply 18, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2704 times:
Quoting aloges (Reply 17):
As I was saying, climatologists have been discussing this for longer than I have lived. Global warming is by no means just some fancy theory that is being "preached", it is a development that has been observed and studied for decades. For that reason, the verb should be "taught", if anything.
Whenever I see a conversation like this I wonder how we would have reacted if a 1 mile thick glacier was advancing on the Empire State Building with the glacial advance being full of old cars and buildings. Or, the Space Needle in Seattle being pushed over by ice.
As I said above, I'm not saying we don't influence our climate but in my opinion we react these conversations emotionally. If humans are still around in 20,000 years we will see this happen. What will they say then?
GuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1910 posts, RR: 10 Reply 19, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2704 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 3): Even if you don't want to accept that global warming is man-made, you can't deny it's happening, nor can you deny the need to make adjustments to limit or mitigate the consequences, which could be very severe in some cases.
Mir,
with all do respect, out of all of the people here on the opposite side of the political spectrum from me, I feel you bring your argument to the table with more fact, figures, and reasonable thinking than anyone else here.
That being said, yes, the earth has warmed some, well, a little, in the past decade or so. If I don't believe it's human caused, and tend to think it's just the natural change of the earth, which has happened over and over again, how can I "make adjustments to limit or mitigate the consequences?" If we're not causing it, how can we fix it?
Really. We look at a small sliver of time and blame it all on ourselves while ignoring facts, figures, and data of the constant change of the earths temperatures over time. I just don't buy it.
As far as not wearing a coat in NYC on the last day of January? Yep. Got it. It was also bone chilling below normal temperatures in parts of Europe today. Again, with all due respect, don't bring local weather into a world-wide climate debate. That never works!
The CURE for Liberalism is COMMON SENSE! GuitrThree you ask? A STAR to BNA I live under! (Now GuitrFour)
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 1060 posts, RR: 24 Reply 20, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2694 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 16): Not really. For a minute, just believe that humans only contribute 1% or whatever.
Not that I agree with your statement but just going along with it for a moment. We know the CO2 concentration is increasing. If we somehow believe it is not caused by us spewing out CO2 then obviously we need to capture it to counteract.
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 19): how can I "make adjustments to limit or mitigate the consequences?" If we're not causing it, how can we fix it?
We are not causing waves yet we build wave breakers and rebuild beaches to protect us. We redirect water long distances to grow crop in areas with not enough rain and build drainage, flood walls, dams to protect us from where it does. We build houses with heating to protect us from cold and put in AC to protect us from heat. Why is it we can't get involved in CO2 concentrations?
Don’t repeat earlier generations’ mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 7589 posts, RR: 51 Reply 21, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2687 times:
Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 18): As I said above, I'm not saying we don't influence our climate but in my opinion we react these conversations emotionally.
I disagree - "The Day After Tomorrow" was so bad that I didn't even watch it on a transatlantic flight. I didn't care at all for the way climate change was shown to be abrupt and something for which you cannot prepare.
The truth is that the change has been gradual and still is, if we're speaking in terms of a human lifespan. Glaciers are melting at record speeds and icecaps are, on average, getting thinner. Sea levels are rising, but only slowly. We can prepare for much of the damage this will do, but the preparations will be so costly that even we in developed and rich nations will have trouble paying for them - but hundreds of millions live in places like Bangladesh, where too little infrastructure exists to protect them against the results of stronger storms and higher tides. In the long term, this will lead to migration which will cause another set of problems.
At the moment, the planet that we live on is being treated as if we have another one somewhere in a box, ready to be used once this one is spent. I think the stakes are much too high for this experiment to continue.
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
einsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 1639 posts, RR: 1 Reply 22, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2668 times:
I find it curious how it's OK to disagree on global warming (something that can be verified with facts), how it's OK that you do NOT want to be forced into buying green and saving energy, but how it's NOT OK that I would (for example) like prayer to be kept out of public schools, how it's OK that I accept that I won't convince you, and yet I MUST accept what you say.
No wonder the world is so screwed up. Why is it a crime that these people believe in something and want to get their message across? I don't remember seeing anyone complaining when Tea Party protests were held across the nation.
I don't agree with the way they (the activists) are trying to get it across, but hey, it's a free country.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20144 posts, RR: 57 Reply 23, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2643 times:
Meteoroligsts are supposed to provide services based on scientific weather and climate research. When >>90% of all climatologists have a consensus about the state of research which is the underlying scientific base of concrete meteorology, it would be a disservice to viewers if weather(wo)men followed and spread theories which are outliers at best or outright disproved at worst.
If you want a politically GOP-approved weather shaman only saying things that please a political ideology instead of following the state of scientific research, that is absolutely possible. It's just got little to nothing to do with actual science any more in that case, however. You might just as well employ a weather astrologist for pretty much the same effect if it amuses you. Just don't expect proper weather service from either of them.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 6457 posts, RR: 36 Reply 24, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2630 times:
Quoting aloges (Reply 5): That's been discussed and calculated since before I was even born... I hardly agree that we're short on that.
It's been debated, but nobody, NOBODY, has been able to come up with a model that most meteorologists will nod their heads and say, "yep, they've cracked it."
Quoting mt99 (Reply 7): At what % change would you be bothered with?
I dunno. More than 10%? Depends on the cost. If we must revert to a pre-industrial society in order to lower temperatures 0.1 degrees in 50 years, I say screw it. More Air Conditioning sales.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 9): And it is for this reason that I recuse myself from these debates. There is no debate because there is no convincing a religious zealot.
Which is my point exactly. The envirotards are so upset at people not believing their religion, their next step is to persecute and silence the heretics. You don't see everyone else trying to isolate and silence the global warming movement, do you? We may argue with you, but we don't try to get you fired or blacklisted.
Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 15): Besides, I'm not sure meteorologists are the right people to be blacklisting anyway. Shouldn't they be after climatologists?
They are looking people who talk about the weather to people "out there". They want to ensure that the propaganda is reinforced, subtly or not, on a daily/weekly basis. Boffins in labs are too invisible.
Quoting aloges (Reply 17): As I was saying, climatologists have been discussing this for longer than I have lived. Global warming is by no means just some fancy theory that is being "preached", it is a development that has been observed and studied for decades. For that reason, the verb should be "taught", if anything.
• Climate change is happening faster than we realize and it will have catastrophic consequences for mankind.
• There’s very little we can do to stop it at this late stage, but we might be able to save ourselves if we immediately take these necessary and drastic steps:
- Increase our reliance on alternative energy sources and stop using so much oil and other carbon-based fuels;
- Adopt energy-efficient practices in all aspects of our lives, however inconvenient;
- Impose punitive taxes on inefficient or polluting activities to discourage them;
- Funnel large sums of money from developed nations like the U.S. to Third World nations;
- In general embrace all environmental causes.
You of course recognize these as the solutions most often recommended to ameliorate the looming crisis of Global Warming. But there’s a little glitch in the narrative. Because although the book I read was indeed about climate change, it wasn’t about Global Warming at all; it was instead about “The Coming of the New Ice Age,” and it isn’t exactly “new” - it was published in 1977. I personally remember the 70s, and everyone was talking about the coming ice age.
Quoting aloges (Reply 21):
I disagree - "The Day After Tomorrow" was so bad that I didn't even watch it on a transatlantic flight. I didn't care at all for the way climate change was shown to be abrupt and something for which you cannot prepare.
Actually I disagree. Much of the regional climate is heavily dependent on ocean currents. The most famous one is the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe nice and toasty, much warmer than those latitudes would indicate. We also know that periodically, every few hundred centuries or so, the Gulf Stream collapses, and then (on many previous occasions) reformed itself. Such a collapse will certainly be very sudden, Europeans (particularly in the north), might find themselves with a more mid-Canadian or Russian climate within a few months. I don't think there is any question that it will happen. When? Who knows, but it will happen, again and again.
In my home town of Luzern in Switzerland there is the famous Glacier Park. The museum there shows how Luzern has been alternatively buried under glaciers and on the shores of the Mediterranean, several times over just in the past hundred thousand years. Europe's climate is quite precarious, and there is NOTHING man can do about it.
I am Descartes of Borg. I assimilate, therefore I am
25 Quokkas: And that is what it all comes down to. The argument isn't really about whether climate change is occuring and/ or to what extent human activities imp
26 Klaus: The only thing you're showing here is that you don't know how science works. That is never what scientific research ends up as. Absolute certainty in
27 cmf: Something only suggested by the enviro-ostridges. Having to clean sewage has not stopped us. Having to cut out multiple of other components (e.g. lea
28 Mir: Perhaps we can't fix it. But if that's the case, then we should certainly be doing something so that we can continue to survive in the world that wil
29 geezer: Well I believe that climate is like the stock market...............it will ALWAYS fluctuate. Charley
30 seb146: I guess I should have said that, after living in the Northwest for 30 years, I never saw Roberta Gonzales on the TV there. Not lately! I was there tw
31 aloges: There are still a few self-proclaimed scientists who claim that evolution does not and never did occur. While they should of course retain the right
32 cmf: Are you suggesting all the stock market regulations put in place to damper fluctuation are foolish?
33 Klaus: That is certainly true. The fluctuations are just not what's being discussed and researched in this matter. An increasing trend underlying these usua
34 francoflier: What do local weathermen and women have to do with global warming anyway? 'And today, expect some haze in the morning which will clear up in the after
35 rfields5421: If they could improve their daily weather predictions to 50% accuracy, most folks would not care if they called any thing false, or ignored anything
36 windy95: And you can pay for your sin of living by partaking in a carbon trading scam Like that has not happened before? No it is a scam religion that is bein
37 falstaff: 1% change in body temperature isn't really significant if you don't have a fever. I always hear that the average person has a normal body temp of 98.
38 Klaus: "Climatologist" is not someone who writes a rant-filled blog out of his basement based on his political convictions. It means someone with an actual
39 aloges: Oooookay... I guess we're done here. That's why I said what you even quoted:
41 NoUFO: That's the action of a certain group, not climate scientists. Many, if not most of them, might consider the action embarrassing - wouldn't change a b
42 Superfly: So will this weatherman keep his job? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHBHMdulGRQ I'll respond with a more detailed post tomorrow morning.
43 ikramerica: 10. Because we found a way to tax it, that's why. There is little in the developed world that involves changing anything that isn't regulated and tax
44 DeltaMD90: YES. News is so boring anyways, I'd love to see more entertainment
45 cmf: Don't understand how it is taxed is the answer to how man-made or not matters? Based on that argument we should stop flying as it is taxed. Let's at
46 Maverick623: Trust me, this planet is more than capable of taking care of itself. So what if sea levels rise? So what if the ice caps melt? Yeah, a lot of species
47 aloges: And that is fine by you? I don't think that mankind taking a "big hit" is a price worth paying for the current wastefulness.
48 NoUFO: Only that scientists do *not* say CO2 was a pollutant. They say it is a greenhouse gas which is true. Uhm yes, it can and has been proven. If you don
49 canoecarrier: Few people realize that sea levels have been much higher in the relatively recent past. That's why there's evidence of Native American villages well
50 aloges: One might argue that a massive human death toll is exactly the kind of thing that we've been trying to overcome by all the research into e.g. medicin
51 canoecarrier: Put all the faith in medicine and engineering you want, but overpopulation will at some point result in an epidemic that we can not control and will
52 aloges: That is precisely the reason why we shouldn't cause/accelerate it.
53 dc9northwest: But by nature wiping half of the human population out, it's also working to reduce our CO2 emissions, etc. I mean after all.... fewer humans means fe
54 Mir: I think it's fair to say that whatever climate change does, nobody here will be affected. That's not the case, however, for future generations. Are y
55 Maverick623: Humans are animals, nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps you put more faith in humanity than I do.
56 Mir: Most societies do not see it that way. Just take a look at the legality of killing an animal as opposed to killing a human. -Mir
57 GuitrThree: I believe windy95 is correct here, being that Co2 makes up about 0.04% by volume of the atmosphere. And no, that's not 4 percent, that's 4 1/100th of
58 Quokkas: Except that some people are being affected. Areas of land in some island nations have already become inundated and are no longer suitable for agricul
59 Longhornmaniac: These conversations go to prove only one thing: the vast majority of "deniers" have limited to no understanding of even the most basic of scientific
60 DeltaMD90: What really got me is that like 99% of the world believes in man made global warming, everybody but the American republicans (more or less.) I can se
61 Longhornmaniac: And here is the crux of the issue. The truth is, if these ideas had been thought of by Republicans, they would be all over global warming like white
62 aloges: Have you ever eaten a human? Have you ever discussed anything with an animal? It is a major issue precisely because CO2 makes up such a small percent
63 windy95: Bingo. The carbon trading scam is the moneyshot. Well the EPA and the press does.. The IPCC is a very real agenda-driven mis-use of climate data to p
64 Rara: inb4 Windy comes up with another graph proving that everybody's wrong and the climate is just marvellous.. edit: too late While you "self-regulators"
65 aloges: Sigh... some context, a link even, would have helped. I find the whole "if nature kills billions of people due to climate change, that's just self-re
66 captaink: There is a reason it is called CLIMATE CHANGE. No one fully understands the reaction of the planet. Yes we are influencing it believe it or not. But
67 Klaus: Effectively we have the choice to go with the people who are saying: "We don't really have a clue what's going on and if everything's going to hell t
68 captaink: The question was NEVER if the climate is change, the question is how are human activities affecting this change. Interesting comment. You know that t
69 Dreadnought: NO! That is not the choice we are presented with. It's not all black and white, as you guys like to paint us. Just because we don't buy into your rel
70 canoecarrier: My point is more what if we enact all the clean energy programs we can think of and the climate keeps warming up. The result as we've discussed would
72 Rara: That's certainly so, but I much prefer to deal with such honest statements. They give you something to work with, unlike the die-hard deniers who cli
73 windy95: Yes, because the planet stopped warming so the alarmist had to change the propaganda. No warming in over a decade despite a continued rise in CO2. We
74 GBLKD: You've hit the nail on the head as to why the strongest voices who totally deny climate change are right wing Americans who vote Republican. Science
75 cmf: Who is doing the name calling and painting everything black and white...
76 Longhornmaniac: It's (not) amazing to me how little sources the "skeptics" actually have. Basically, their sources come from a very short, predictable list: Roy Spenc
77 Superfly: cmf ask; Well here you have it; There is your answer cmf. Environmentalism IS a religion, they just haven't come to terms with this fact. The whole ca
78 Dreadnought: We don't need sources. We don't have to prove anything. You do. The burden of proof is on you guys to prove that A) Mankind has a significant impact
79 canoecarrier: When Mount St. Helens erupted in WA in '04 it sent between 50-250 tons a day of sulfur dioxide (the cause of acid rain). All of WA state's industries
80 aloges: So "envirotards" is fine by you? You didn't include it in your list. It is certainly interesting to watch the definition of significance change whene
81 DeltaMD90: I have a quick question (not leading anyone down a "trap" question, I don't know myself.) Which is true: 1: There are peer-reviewed sources that agree
82 Longhornmaniac: Not sure what your point is. Volcanic eruptions have a net cooling effect. The burden of proof has switched to anyone who understands the actual stat
83 canoecarrier: Not exactly true. Volcanism is very complex on how it effects our climate. Sure, we have been thrown into little ice ages by huge events due to ash b
84 Dreadnought: Global Warming as a business and racket, yes, I believe it is a lie, while global warming (without capitals) may well be happening. One does not disc
85 mt99: Are you anti-business? Global Warming supported are selling a product - people are buying..
86 Dreadnought: Have you ever heard of the term "Snake Oil Salesman"? Just because someone has come up with something people are foolish enough to buy does not mean
87 mt99: YES!.. free ewnterprise. people buy and sell what they please. Is this Russia?
88 Dreadnought: Glad we agree. So why do you insist that we buy into AGW. We don't wanna.
89 mt99: Dont buy into it, great - but let the crazies keep selling it..
90 NoUFO: Parts per 100, not by volume, I think. But if you cannot imagine that CO2 does have its effects, just take a look at a forest. Besides, the amount of
91 canoecarrier: Can you elaborate a little more than that? I'm not arguing that CO2 doesn't have an effect, but I'm a forester I'd be interested to see your rational
92 NoUFO: canoecarrier, plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis.
93 canoecarrier: I get that, I was just making sure where I knew you were going with that argument.
94 Rara: Let's just say if you are a scientist who discovers that mainstream climatology is fundamentally wrong and you can bring sound evidence that fulfills
95 NoUFO: That's okay, didn't wish to sound patronizing. By the way, those challenging the climate sensibility of CO2 and the mostly man-made reasons for globa
96 Dreadnought: Wrong. You will be pilloried as a pariah, evidence buried as long as possible. You will likely lose any job you have at X University. You don't seem
97 aloges: Weird. Making money by trying to begin solving a problem is wrong, but making much more money by pretending that the problem doesn't exist is fine? I
98 NoUFO: Not if you really come with with arguments that actually hold some water. At best you are confusing cause and effect. If the atmosphere is really tha
99 cmf: No, that isn't even close to my answer. My questions is why Dreadnought find it reasonable to do everything he complains about other doing. It is to
100 zckls04: Everybody gets paid for their work in some way. But it's hard to believe there wouldn't be ample funding available for anybody who challenged AGW who
101 Dreadnought: I think the oil and coal companies' donations are dwarfed by the financial interests who want to see carbon trading come through (eg Goldman Sachs ba
102 zckls04: But you're arguing that a scientist on the other side could not find any funding. Regardless of what you say above, that's obviously not true. The oi
103 Longhornmaniac: Charles, you'd do well to learn a little bit more about the process behind receiving grant money. As stated above, the simple fact is, there is money
104 GuitrThree: Wow. Just because I didn't take the time to subscript the "2" doesn't mean I'm factually wrong. Usually, when such technicalities are used, that's ju
105 Superfly: I find it interesting that Al Gore took only 1 class in college in Climate Science and suddenly he became an 'expert' and has won a Nobel Peace Prize,
106 AustinAllison: Let's not forget that global cooling was apparently happening from the 40's to the 70's. These 'scientists' have been wrong before, and it's not out o
107 Longhornmaniac: Wrong. Not even close to being factually correct. The vast majority of scientists in the 70s were warning of warming. The global cooling scare was de
108 zckls04: Damn those "scientists" for "improving" their climate models and being "willing" to question their previous "findings". They would have my "respect"
109 Superfly: That was because of disco.... I fully support scientific research and making their findings as long as they're aren't passing new laws, new taxes, ne
110 aloges: Wrong. You typed this: which would stand for Cobalt, if not for the "2" you added. That's why I pointed it out; if I went into an A vs B argument in
111 GuitrThree: Agaain. Soo wwhat? i mmade aa typingg missttake. Peopple miisspell wwords alll daay loong andd itt doessnt takke awway fromm thhe truuth. Ooookkay? L
112 aloges: It does when it alters which your mistake has done. Since the entire climate change denial campaign is based on misinterpretations of facts such as t
113 windy95: Not much of a trend either way over 33 years. To bad the temps are not following the IPCC models.
114 aloges: Since your focus is on graphs without context, here's another one from one of your own sources: click for larger image source: Hadley Centre There yo
115 Rara: Since you show us that graph for the second time in this thread already: what about it? There is a 33-year average (which is already much higher than
116 Quokkas: No-one really knows who first said "There are lies, damned lies and there are statistics." Mark Twain attributed a similar remark to Benjamin Disraeli
117 aloges: Just out of interest, did you read the label on the far left? It says "T(emperature) Departure from '81-'10 Avg. (deg. C.)". That is pretty clever in
118 zckls04: Politicians do that, not scientists. I agree that they're scumbags driven by special interest groups and whatever lobbying money they can scrape up i
119 Superfly: Politicians that are blinded by science. Special interest that may be ......... 'scientist'.
120 cmf: Still barking at the wrong tree. The issue is condemning name calling and painting things black and white while doing exactly that in all posts. I wa
122 Longhornmaniac: What the hell do you think all of the global warming research has been? Yet it doesn't seem to matter an ounce to you, because you don't like the imp
123 GuitrThree: Yes. I don't have any response because I haven't had time to read it. Not going to comment if I haven't read it. Maybe if I have enough time to read
124 DeltaMD90: Well I'm closer than neutral than any of the extremes, but I don't think 95% of "global warming people" want this. Instead of the extreme measures yo
125 GuitrThree: No. They don't want the things I listed stopped. That's my point. They want to tell YOU, but not THEM, what to drive, or what temperature to keep YOU
126 NoUFO: They don't. And it gets even worse: They tell you not to dispose your old car tires in a forest, and not to wash your paint down the sink! Imagine ho
127 Longhornmaniac: Because this time what they're printing actually jells with the science. Hell no. I hate the hell out of both of those teams. I can't really think of
128 Superfly: Dreadnought's comment wasn't aimed at other members here in the forum. I was pointing out those that attempted to 'shut down the discussion' by insul
129 GuitrThree: Those are two different animals. Disposing of trash and other pollutions that poison our lakes, streams and land is horrible. Dumping oil in lakes ki
130 BMI727: Exactly! I don't care! I don't want to care, I don't want other people to care, I don't want other people to try and convince me to care, and I refus
131 DeltaMD90: I'm no scientist, but extra CO2 does NOT help plants grow more. They only take in so much, any excess just stays in the air. I believe even if we tur
132 GuitrThree: As always Larry, it's not what THEY do, it's what YOU do that kills the earth. Geeze. Freakin Elite Status, then he comes here preaching about Global
133 Superfly: Ooops, I forgot! I fly frequently too but I haven't earned elite status with Star Alliance but I have earned enough Royal Orchid miles with Thai Airw
134 aloges: Neither were the comments you pointed out, or at least one of them. I know this because I made one of them: "They", not "you". Sorry, but your indign
135 Longhornmaniac: I don't see what I wrote to you has a personal attack. I simply stated that you don't seem to care an ounce what the scientists actually say. That's
136 Superfly: To be on a crusade, I would have to "care" a great deal which I don't. There are a lot of things I respect but I don't want to own. I respect tigers
137 Longhornmaniac: But hey, since I went to your place, next one's on me in Austin! Fair enough. It sure seems like you do, though, since you frequently participate in
138 Superfly: I suppose I could do a trip thought Texas. I owe Sccutler a visit anyway. Just can't let any of my ex's see me. All my ex's lives in Texas. It's the
139 Rara: This is why I always welcome your voice in these threads. What you say sounds outrageous, and yet I think it's deeply representative of almost everyo
140 cmf: Funny thing. It once was considered absolutely fine because lakes and land can take unlimited amounts without problems. A generation later... You're
141 Quokkas: I am sorry, but I had to laugh when I read that. I don't know you or your history so it is unfair to laugh. I just had this image of you tearing down
142 Rara: Absolute - yet we have been getting smarter and more efficient for centuries now, and yet our total resource consumption and emissions have only ever
143 Quokkas: Very good point because efficiency and improvements in science have allowed for population growth both as a result of being able to to produce more a
144 NoUFO: As you said it doesn't affect global warming. But carbon dioxide, although not a pollutant per se, helps to damage the natural environment just like
145 Dreadnought: Let's make something a bit clearer. I'm all for PROTECTING the environment. I am for MINIMIZING OUR IMPACT on the environment. I am in favor of measu
146 Quokkas: Absolutely true. The planet does not and can not be saved by human beings. We might spend all our time worrying about it only to see a giant asteroid
147 cmf: kooks wackos idealistic dreamers Free Love hippies Nice collection by someone objecting to name calling. I'm happy you now claim to be for protecting
148 Dreadnought: Did I object? Ah, "It is about keeping it habitable to us". So screw mother nature, we want to shape it in the way we like it - perpetually the same,
149 NoUFO: Without stimuli for both consumers and producers you won't see much improvement. Sorry? You would need a model to explain those occurences, but the o
150 starbuk7: Funny, this has been happening for centuries, when climates and such changed, people moved. This is documented throughout history, nothing new here.
151 Dreadnought: And the only model for how the earth came to be 200 years ago was Adam and Eve, or similar stories (my favorite is that the universe was barfed out b
152 NorthStarDC4M: Really? I thought the universe was sneezed out by the Great Green Arkleseizure! It is generally regarded as a bad idea anyways, made many people very
153 DeltaMD90: Honestly I think the solution can be achieved without you having to give up flying, tropical fruits, and other luxuries. It's hard to hear the common
154 cmf: Protect the planet so we can continue living here. That is your prerogative. I find it to be one of the smartest ways to implement a cap. Much bigger
155 BMI727: It doesn't bother me enough to actually go out of my way to do anything about it. I'd much rather have the same efficiency and better performance. Un
156 cmf: Electric can give you both. Sadly private industry is not ready to provide it at good price and over long distances.
157 Dreadnought: You're blaming physics on private Industry? And if you think the government can do better, I can show you a Trabant, a Ghiguli or a Lada.
158 Superfly: LOL! Perhaps I should have rephrased my sentence. Government shouldn't punish existing technology in the hope of developing another technology. Presi
159 dc9northwest: I have to agree with that. I'm biased though, taking courses in physics and math. Grad school is technically free, but the stipend isn't really enoug
160 cmf: Blaming physics? Government? Get a grip. I am convinced we will have great performing electrical cars competitive with petrol cars of that period one
161 Superfly: Tuition cost in the United States can be very expensive and I think a lot of students are discouraged to go. Even with grants, scholarships and loans
162 BMI727: ...only if you don't drive far, don't care to do it quickly, don't mind dragging heavy batteries along with you, don't mind waiting hours between tri
163 cmf: Supporting development of technology is one of the best things countries can do to help them to better future. Tuition is just one of many thngs. You
164 cmf: Hmm, one may wonder why you excluded the part of my statement where I said just that.
165 dc9northwest: I'm a big fan of nuclear power. Unfortunately, due to Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island everyone assumes it's inherently dangerous. Well, yo
166 Superfly: You don't have to punish existing technology to attempt to develop new technology. If the new technology is successful, THEN the old technology will
167 Rara: "All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; only the dose permits something not to be poisonous.", said Paracelsus. It's not hard to grasp
168 Superfly: ...and apparently not true. Humans do not emit 100 times the amount of CO2 as mother nature. I guess I wont be a weatherman.
169 Rara: I didn't say that! I said humans emit more than 100 times as much CO2 as volcanos. http://www.skepticalscience.com/volc...nd-global-warming-intermedi
170 Superfly: But volcanoes aren't Mother Nature's's only source of CO2. I think you're worrying too much about nothing.
171 NoUFO: Yes, they are the only natural source that actually adds carbon dioxide. See reply #41.
172 cmf: Nuclear power is wonderful as long as everything works. Problem is the consequences when things go wrong. Three mile island was well contained so isn
173 Rara: I think you're running out of arguments, mate. Anyway, by all means enjoy your life, we all do. Maybe one day you'll find to strength to admit that y
174 Superfly: Not my argument. I really could care less. Sounds just like a Southern Baptist Preacher.
175 4holer: I really try to avoid these threads because they are so frustrating, but I'll chime in with a suggestion I've had before. I'm just a 46 year old non-r
176 Longhornmaniac: I'll take you at your word, and it's always nice to hear about people caring about the environment and supporting greater investments in R&D for
177 Dreadnought: I have sworn off the term and now use the term "envirotrendalist". Has anyone heard this? http://notrickszone.com/2012/02/06/b...-media-outlets-unloa
178 DeltaMD90: This is what ultimately got me. Forget Al Gore, forget governments, forget those obscure scientists with vested interests (in both sides.) I don't th
179 zckls04: Indeed. It's odd how those who seem to believe the government is so incompetent are also those most likely to believe they are capable of a massive c
180 NoUFO: Prof. Varenholt does have his merits, but he's not really a "green activist" , and I would not call him "one of the fathers of Germany’s modern gre
181 Rara: Ah! Not true. Our advances in cleaning up the environment were due to this exact mechanism that you mentioned. It was recognized that industries crea
182 GuitrThree: Really. So you're claiming plants don't use CO2 to live and grow? Ok. And I have no understanding. I guess all of those on your side who run around s
183 Longhornmaniac: No, I'm saying that your implication that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will mean a more suitable atmosphere for additional plant grow
184 DeltaMD90: Wow. Again, ignore the extremes on each side. I dislike Al Gore as much as you do. Look at the random climatologists that have nothing to gain, what
185 Rara: Actually, it seems that for the majority of plants, excess CO2 does more harm than good, because it prevents them from getting nitrate from the soil.
186 flipdewaf: So its all or nothing? Its like saying "Well if I cant drive at 100mph past the school I may as well sell my car" So which is it? saving environment
187 cmf: Please prove the population is growing. The reality is that the total population is poorly known. Of the groups of polar bears that have been followe
188 windy95: Also the Ice caps are above their combined average and a new study shows no ice melt in the Himalayas. Toss in 10 plus years of no rising temps and 2
189 Longhornmaniac: Jesus, windy, where the hell do you find these websites? The difference between you and I is, I know junk science when I see it. Plain and simple. Th
190 DeltaMD90: I respect your opinion and hard work, but can you find peer reviewed sources instead? You and I know that the MSM is notoriously untrustworthy, and a
191 Longhornmaniac: Not only is this the case, but the two CO2 website he provided are both being bankrolled by oil companies. Cheers, Cameron
192 zckls04: In the interest of scientific rigor I should point out that that in itself does not disqualify them from merit, although naturally it suggests furthe
193 Rara: Hahaha, yeah By chance, that was the first link I clicked on, because the URL looked sort of.... you know, legit. Scanned the conclusion, thought "wh
194 ER757: Same here but against my better judgement, I'll weigh in on this one. allow me to explain. One of the effects of warmer temperatures is increased eva
195 4holer: Well put. I would also add that to complicate the glacier equation, in some cases (ie, Kilimanjaro) man can indeed cause glacial retreat not thru CO2
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 6457 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 7589 posts, 
, 5640 posts, 
From Romania, joined Feb 2007, 1177 posts, 
But you're right, it is screwed up, where's all my snow in Chicago in January? We've barely had 10 inches. I think it's because our weathermen are global warming deniers. No, that's definitely it.
From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 1639 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
