Global Warming Debate

[hectorberlioz]

So the general consensus is that it IS happenening, and here at least, the debate is whether it is man-made.

My personal opinion is that when the earth warmed in previous times, it was not because of the SUVs. So I guess I'm among the doubters that it is man-made at least.

Also would like to post this link:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...n_id=&Issue_id

and this one too:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...n_id=&Issue_id

I also think there is room to doubt that it is happening at all, and whatever this weird weather is, it may not be weird, it may be that we only have Al Gore fresh in our minds.

# Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930's the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920's until the 1960's they warned of global warming. From the 1950's until the 1970's they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate's fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.
# The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity could have possibly impacted the Earth's climate. In fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland.
# What the climate alarmists and their advocates in the media have continued to ignore is the fact that the Little Ice Age, which resulted in harsh winters which froze New York Harbor and caused untold deaths, ended about 1850. So trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today's temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.
# Something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that C02 has been the driving force in global warming. Alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970's, prompting the media and many scientists to fear a coming ice age.
# A letter sent to the Canadian Prime Minister on April 6, 2006 by 60 prominent scientists who question the basis for climate alarmism, clearly explains the current state of scientific knowledge on global warming. The 60 scientists wrote: "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary." The letter also noted: "‘Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise."
# In 2006, the director of the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks Alaska, testified to Congress that highly publicized climate models showing a disappearing Arctic were nothing more than "science fiction."
# "Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again." That sentence appeared over 100 years ago in the February 24, 1895 edition of the New York Times.
# A front page article in the October 7, 1912 New York Times, just a few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, declared that a prominent professor "Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age." The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an article warning that the "Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold." An August 10, 1923 Washington Post article declared: "Ice Age Coming Here."
# By the 1930's, the media took a break from reporting on the coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global warming: "America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise" stated an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933.
# The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles. An August 9, 1923 front page article in the Chicago Tribune declared: "Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada." The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that large parts of Europe and Asia would be "wiped out" and Switzerland would be "entirely obliterated."
# A December 29, 1974 New York Times article on global cooling reported that climatologists believed "the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade." The article also warned that unless government officials reacted to the coming catastrophe, "mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence" would result. In 1975, the New York Times reported that "A major cooling [was] widely considered to be inevitable."
# On February 19, 2006, CBS News's "60 Minutes" produced a segment on the North Pole. The segment was a completely one-sided report, alleging rapid and unprecedented melting at the polar cap. It even featured correspondent Scott Pelley claiming that the ice in Greenland was melting so fast, that he barely got off an ice-berg before it collapsed into the water. "60 Minutes" failed to inform its viewers that a 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showing that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice and mass and that according to scientists, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930's than today.
# According to data released on July 14, 2006 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the January through June Alaska statewide average temperature was "0.55F (0.30C) cooler than the 1971-2000 average."
# In August 2006, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, a scientist who heads the space research sector for the Russian Academy of Sciences, predicted long-term global cooling may be on the horizon due to a projected decrease in the sun's output.

from here

[Nurvingiel]

There is no debate Hector, humans have definitely contributed to global warming.

Even the UN agrees on this!

There is no room for doubt about the existence of global warming either. Sorry bud, but it really is happing. It's quite a disaster and I wish it wasn't happening, but it really is.

About the first link: those guys sound like a bunch of rent-a-scientists to me.

About the second link: Bill Nye the science guy and a weather channel host are probably not the most qualified individuals to debate global warming. Personally I'd rather see publishing scientists who are up to date on the issue debating.

Here's a good link.

[Earniel]

I was thinking of making a thread about it, but I see you've beaten me too it.

While the earth has been through warmer and cooler periods in the past, I do think humans have a hand in this one. I'm not saying we're the only ones to blame, but if the warming had been a recurring thread, human behaviour certainly augmented it. The weather and climate are tricky and difficult subjects.

Never mind Al Gore, sir David Attenborough has made some pretty damning documentaries about it too, and on conservation, he's one man who's opinion I trust. Not to mention that his documentary chilled my blood and not in a good way.

That reminds me, I still have to watch the conclusion of the BBC's climate change computer project where they had dozens of computers running different climate modules.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

There is no debate Hector, humans have definitely contributed to global warming.

You didn't say that on purpose to annoy me did you?

Even the UN agrees on this!

Even the UN is the one perpetrating the misconceptions about it.

There is no room for doubt about the existence of global warming either. Sorry bud, but it really is happing. It's quite a disaster and I wish it wasn't happening, but it really is.

Explain the medieval warming that most undoubtedly DID happen without SUVs. Did too many cows fart at once?

There is plenty of room for doubt, and if you ask me, saying that there isn't is comparable to Nazism, IMO

"NO! There is no room for debate! The World IS flat!!!"

About the first link: those guys sound like a bunch of rent-a-scientists to me.

Compared to Al Gore, the greatest scientist ever, I'm sure they do.

About the second link: Bill Nye the science guy and a weather channel host are probably not the most qualified individuals to debate global warming. Personally I'd rather see publishing scientists who are up to date on the issue debating.

Nurv, the former President of the/some meteorological society says that it is a bunch of overblown BUNK. That guy was at the TOP of "the weather world".
And of course he is now cursed by the same organization he headed.

I just want you to know that the full consensus is not only on one side of the scientists, while the rest of them are just whackos. Heck, Michael Crichton thinks its a huge scam. Amateur scientist there, though he did go to medical school, but the point it is that you can hardly pin HIM down as an "ignorant fundamentalist".

[hectorberlioz]

I honestly don't think humans, with the very small amount of space [comparitively] we inhabit on earth, have the capacity to generate enough of a difference to our planet's weather.

Sure, in smog filled Chicago man-made global warming seems a reality, but when you're out in some super-high African mountain, I think you'd start to realize that we sure think we're big stuff when we aren't.

That is not to excuse smog pollution, I'm just as much for reducing polluting emissions as anyone else.

[Lizra]

There is no debate Hector. (((((((echo)))))))))

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

You didn't say that on purpose to annoy me did you?

Would I ever do a thing like that?

I didn't say that to annoy you, it's just that responsible, reputable scientists have reached a general consensus that global warming is happening, and that humans have influenced it. So there isn't much to debate on whether or not global warming is happening.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Even the UN is the one perpetrating the misconceptions about it.

Like what?

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Explain the medieval warming that most undoubtedly DID happen without SUVs. Did too many cows fart at once?

Haha. The temperature of the Earth naturally fluctuates (see: Ice Age), but humans have exacerbated whatever natural warming may have been going on during the 20th and 21st century.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

There is plenty of room for doubt, and if you ask me, saying that there isn't is comparable to Nazism, IMO

"NO! There is no room for debate! The World IS flat!!!"

Oh come on Hector, don't break Godwin's law on me.

I generally try not to quash debate, or say that there is only one way to think. In this case though, humans are contributing to global warming, and global warming is happening.

It is akin to insisting the world approximates a sphere. There is no debate there either.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Compared to Al Gore, the greatest scientist ever, I'm sure they do.

Ahahaha, well played Hector, well played.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Nurv, the former President of the/some meteorological society says that it is a bunch of overblown BUNK. That guy was at the TOP of "the weather world".
And of course he is now cursed by the same organization he headed.

What guy is this?

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I just want you to know that the full consensus is not only on one side of the scientists, while the rest of them are just whackos. Heck, Michael Crichton thinks its a huge scam. Amateur scientist there, though he did go to medical school, but the point it is that you can hardly pin HIM down as an "ignorant fundamentalist".

Michael Crichton isn't ignorant, and if he went to med school i bet he's very intelligent and knowledgeable in science. However, he's not an actively publishing scientist in a field relevent to this issue, so, he can go ahead and be as skeptical as he wants, but his opinion holds very little weight in this case.

Edit:

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I honestly don't think humans, with the very small amount of space [comparitively] we inhabit on earth, have the capacity to generate enough of a difference to our planet's weather.

You'd be surprised my friend. There's a couple of important factors involved as to why we have the unfortunate ability to influence our planet's weather.

1. CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, so it's the result of many years of pollution, not just the current year, that is sitting in the atmosphere. The property of CO2 that contributes to global warming, as you probably know, is that they do not allow heat from the Earth to radiate. Instead, the radiation is trapped inside the atmosphere, which is why it's called the "Greenhouse effect" - because this is the same effect of the glass in a greenhouse.

2. Humans have a truly amazing capacity to dump CO2 into the atmosphere. Coal-burning power plants are one of the worst offenders. I'm looking at you China, and Ontario, and hundreds of places all over the world.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Sure, in smog filled Chicago man-made global warming seems a reality, but when you're out in some super-high African mountain, I think you'd start to realize that we sure think we're big stuff when we aren't.

A high African mountain like Mount Kilimanjaro? The one that whose permanent ice and snow is disappearing at the rate of about one and a half feet per year? That high African mountain? Link. In this case, we actually are big stuff.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

That is not to excuse smog pollution, I'm just as much for reducing polluting emissions as anyone else.

Absolutely. Even if global warming weren't happening, there really is no excuse to pollute the way we do. It's just that global warming makes it quite a priority that we stop as of about 50 years ago.

[The Gaffer]

In my view those arguments are completely idiotic. SUVs in the Middle Ages. Get a grip man.

You can't have 100% certaintly about something like this. The oil lobby has successfully exploited this to undermine any efforts to date to do anything about it. In the main, it's only people who don't understand science that are fooled by these tactics. I hope the Right is satisfied, greedily supping at the oil teat while the flood waters rise.

The debate is over. The question now must be what can be done.

[Nurvingiel]

Aw give Hector a break man. His arguments aren't completely idiotic, many people have probably thought the same thing. If we happen to know something about global warming, we can share this knowledge without giving him too hard of a time. </Mom lecture>

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

The oil lobby has successfully exploited this to undermine any efforts to date to do anything about it.

On a completely unrelated note, Exxon Mobil made $40 billion dollars profit last year.

[The Gaffer]

Perhaps I should make clear that what I think is idiotic is the argument that the ME had no SUVs/fossil fuels therefore current climate change can't be due to them.

And in the current context, the act of raising the issue is a tactic for doing nothing. Look, see, they've even got us doing it.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

In my view those arguments are completely idiotic. SUVs in the Middle Ages. Get a grip man.

Hey, I think SUVs in medieval times is stupid too

So what do you mean get a grip? Do you know what caused the warming then?

You can't have 100% certaintly about something like this. The oil lobby has successfully exploited this to undermine any efforts to date to do anything about it.

Funny, I thought all the conspiracy was all on the global warming hysterics side....

In the main, it's only people who don't understand science that are fooled by these tactics.

Assertions assertions....

I hope the Right is satisfied, greedily supping at the oil teat while the flood waters rise.

How dramatic.

The debate is over. The question now must be what can be done.

The Debate IS over. There is just NO WAY that something else causes global warming even though we have reason to believe that there is. America, you can't escape from this one!!!!

So before you slapdash more assertions and certainties in the vein of THEDEBATEISOVER Gaffer, give me some REAL reasons why this time Global Warming is man-made.

I don't know if you guys remember, but there was some fairly recent news that came out saying that cows, of all people, caused more global warming than suvs. It was then that I knew that global warming, at least man-made, was junk. I'll look up the link...

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Perhaps I should make clear that what I think is idiotic is the argument that the ME had no SUVs/fossil fuels therefore current climate change can't be due to them.

But thats precisely it, isn't it? If fossil fuels aren't enough to burn our earth down, what does all this weather mean? It may mean that this kind of weather is not unusual at all.

And in the current context, the act of raising the issue is a tactic for doing nothing. Look, see, they've even got us doing it.

I'll just ignore that

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I didn't say that to annoy you, it's just that responsible, reputable scientists have reached a general consensus that global warming is happening, and that humans have influenced it. So there isn't much to debate on whether or not global warming is happening.

And they are who? Al Gore, Kofi Annan...thats two

Haha. The temperature of the Earth naturally fluctuates (see: Ice Age), but humans have exacerbated whatever natural warming may have been going on during the 20th and 21st century.

Ok, let's say we exacerbated it. The question is weather...er, whether, starting from the premises that global warming has happened before, whether it is dangerous at all.

Temperatures during the 1930's were warmer than they have been in the past few years.

What guy is this?

MIT professor Richard Lindzen.

Michael Crichton isn't ignorant, and if he went to med school i bet he's very intelligent and knowledgeable in science. However, he's not an actively publishing scientist in a field relevent to this issue, so, he can go ahead and be as skeptical as he wants, but his opinion holds very little weight in this case.

He has more weight than either me or you individually, on this matter.

You'd be surprised my friend. There's a couple of important factors involved as to why we have the unfortunate ability to influence our planet's weather.

1. CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, so it's the result of many years of pollution, not just the current year, that is sitting in the atmosphere. The property of CO2 that contributes to global warming, as you probably know, is that they do not allow heat from the Earth to radiate. Instead, the radiation is trapped inside the atmosphere, which is why it's called the "Greenhouse effect" - because this is the same effect of the glass in a greenhouse.

2. Humans have a truly amazing capacity to dump CO2 into the atmosphere. Coal-burning power plants are one of the worst offenders. I'm looking at you China, and Ontario, and hundreds of places all over the world.

It is a possibility, but it is a slim candidate among other factors.

A high African mountain like Mount Kilimanjaro? The one that whose permanent ice and snow is disappearing at the rate of about one and a half feet per year? That high African mountain? Link. In this case, we actually are big stuff.

Undeniable, but perhaps not the first time. Does Al Gore know that Kilimanjaro lost insurmountable amounts of ice, say, during the 1400's? Do any of us?

[Lizra]

Hector....you amaze and depress me. Honestly....Since you've started posting a lot in general messages, (you never used to) I'm getting the impression you briefly pull your head out of the sand to read Mallard Fillmore, and then quickly stick it back in again. Sure, I'm a liberal atheist, and you're a whatever you are.....but seriously dude, Get a grip is right. I sincerely believe everything the Gaffer has posted......and imo, it is shameful to waste anymore time in denial about global warming (Hell. it was shameful 20 years ago! ). Enjoy the oily milk.

[The Gaffer]

Hector, you really need to read about the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.

Brief overview
News report with more details

The IPCC reviews the complex body of evidence on climate change and updates it over time.

NB: The US delegation supported its conclusions.

Imagine if Gore had got in, how much further down the road to doing something about it we would be. Still, at least Dubya has sniffed the opportunity to hand tax dollars to yet more of his mates er I mean acknowledge the problem in his recent state of the union address.

[tolkienfan]

http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question...5071844AAANvEB
I have to say I agree with Hector here. If it is occuring, it is most likely not all our fault. The sum total of all carbon dioxide produced by human activity is aproximately 3% of the carbon dioxide produced by the other processes that make up the carbon cycle. (thanks for the interesting quote in your first post Hector. what exactly are you quoting though?) Or are they all just various quotes, and you put it all together yourself. Sorry, I'm not very experienced at online debating. This is the first time I've put a link into a post, lets see if it works.
http://www.apologiaonline.com/conf/ecohyst.pdf

[The Gaffer]

So what? Cycle: things come and go. Add a bit to the plus side (emissions) and take something away form the minus side (cutting down forests), and pretty soon you've got a build-up. Guess what? Observations show CO2 is building up. So I can take your factoid and make an argument in favour of climate change out of it.

You see, those sorts of factoids mean absolutely nothing, but are routinely pulled out of context and paraded around to cast doubt in our minds.

The people who have looked at all of the scientific evidence in an impartial way say it is "over 90% likely that current climate change is being caused by human activity".

[tolkienfan]

The way in which carbon dioxide is added to the air is very important in the greenhouse effect. When people burn fuels, carbon dioxide is not the only gas that is released. Many other gases are released as well. Some of these gases tend to reflect light rather that absorb it. This actually reduces the amount of energy absorbed by the earth, causing a net cooling effect. It could be that any increase in the greenhouse effect due to human-produced carbon dioxide is offset by the cooling caused by the other chemicals associated with human activity.

-Exploring Creation With Biology
So the build up does not neccesarily come from humans. If you take from that 3% the cooling gases we add, would there be a significant change in the greenhouse gases added to the air? What would be a significant change anyway? From the standpoint of the greenhouse effect, we really do not know.

[Lizra]

I'm sorry TF, I do not believe your quote. It sounds more like wishful thinking than actual statistical science.
Hello!.....Everything is melting alarmingly fast. This is an extremely well documented fact. Ecosystems are rapidly being alterd/destroyed, the atmospheric scale is unbalanced.... and tipping dangerously far. Humans need to quickly stop adding to the tipping scale, and do what they can to balance it again....if they care.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Hector, you really need to read about the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.

Brief overview
News report with more details

For your incredible information Gaffer, thats the freakin' Overview, which does NOT list or explain everything. Not surprisingly, it only talks about the one driving point of Al Gore's. In other words, the selective overview is politicially driven.

The IPCC reviews the complex body of evidence on climate change and updates it over time.

When the real report comes out, you should look at what it actually contains.

btw, thanks for the help Tolkienfan