Global Warming

[Ziggy]

I read a pretty good book back a few years ago written by Michael Creighton called "State of Fear". Its much like most of his books that are fiction but filled with actual facts that back up the story. The bibliography was something like 25 pages long. Anyways, it basically was a blast on both sides of the global warming debate that was actually an easy read. If you have some free time and looking for a new book to read, I would recommend it. Supposedly, before writing it he was a stanch supporter of Global Warming, and as he did his research for the story, he realized how screwed up both sides arguments were.

[huskerXman]

http://www.politikdi...cane-irene.html

 

See, you're conflating again. The silly media that likes nothing more than to run around waving their arms and screaming, 'OMG!', they aren't scientists, and these efforts aren't taken seriously by scientists. Alarmist claims have always been just that, alarmist.

 

It is pretty foolhardy to attempt to use that to discredit what no scientific body in the world disputes.

Global warming controversy

 

The global warming controversy refers to a variety of disputes, significantly more pronounced in the popular media than in the scientific literature,^[157][158]regarding the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming. The disputed issues include the causes of increased global average air temperature, especially since the mid-20th century, whether this warming trend is unprecedented or within normal climatic variations, whether humankind has contributed significantly to it, and whether the increase is wholly or partially an artifact of poor measurements. Additional disputes concern estimates of climate sensitivity, predictions of additional warming, and what the consequences of global warming will be.

 

In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,^[159][160] though a few organisations hold non-committal positions.

 

From 1990–1997 in the United States, conservative think tanks mobilized to undermine the legitimacy of global warming as a social problem. They challenged the scientific evidence; argued that global warming will have benefits; and asserted that proposed solutions would do more harm than good.^[161]

 

 

But I'm sure those political think tanks are on the right track.

 

you are not going to give us a link to the site you grabbed you quite from?

[Nebula]

I 100% believe the planet warms and cools.. not a doubt in my mind.

Me too. I also believe that Venus might just have the hottest surface of any planet in our solar system, due to the atmosphere.

 

Since the Industrial Age, we have churned emissions into our atmosphere at a rate that grows exponentially along with the world population. These are unnatural additions to the balance of the planet's ecosystem. Will it cause some kind of apocalyptic destruction? I have no idea. Maybe. Because it's possible, it's worth consideration.

 

Politics has nothing to do with that. I'm fully aware that during the last Ice Age, research indicates that it appeared that the world was cycling out of the bitter freeze when temps plummeted yet again. This is based off anthropological archeology, so I didn't witness it. But I believe it happened. That has nothing to do with human activity.

 

I'm not saying climate change is happening and I'm not saying it isn't. But it could be. It's insane that we've divided up into two groups, one which will adamantly reject the concept and the other embrace it fervently, and no cordial, rational, intelligent conversation can take place.

[zoogs]

you are not going to give us a link to the site you grabbed you quite from?

 

My bad, I forgot to put in the link. Not on purpose: http://en.wikipedia..../Global_warming

 

 

I'm not saying climate change is happening and I'm not saying it isn't. But it could be. It's insane that we've divided up into two groups, one which will adamantly reject the concept and the other embrace it fervently, and no cordial, rational, intelligent conversation can take place.

 

Well, I think an issue here is there is a strong scientific consensus, but the nature of that consensus has been distorted pretty badly by as mentioned before, a human disposition for alarmism. The popular perception of what is being claimed by science is far from accepted; on the other hand, there is a strong consensus in the literature about certain things, and of course new research coming up all the time to amend or challenge existing models.

 

And countering that is a non-scientifically-based crowd arguing, "No, it's all shoddy".

 

There is room for scientific debate, but not when the claims are as above.

 

It's good to be educated about issues, and you're right that it's never about belief. However, there is such thing as being too balanced or neutral on a topic -- political motivations have driven a number of these purely scientific topics into "everyone should have their own opinion" matters, and it's crazy.

[knapplc]

Politics comes into play because Big Business lobbies the American government to prevent curbs on their pollutants. It's not political, it's about money.

[huskerXman]

Politics comes into play because Big Business lobbies the American government to prevent curbs on their pollutants. It's not political, it's about money.

 

and when the government pays big money to further and agenda.

 

You said you knew all the ins and outs of this subject, surely you know the amount of funding FOR global warming is incredibly.

[huskerXman]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=38d98c0a-802a-23ad-48ac-d9f7facb61a7

 

Global Warming 'A Big Cash Grab'

Meteorologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, formerly a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center and currently principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, called the Newsweek article part of a “coordinated assault” on skeptics.

“[Newsweek] alleges that a few scientists were offered $10,000 (!) by Big Oil to research and publish evidence against the theory of manmade global warming. Of course, the vast majority of mainstream climate researchers receive between $100,000 to $200,000 from the federal government to do the same, but in support of manmade global warming,” Spencer wrote in an August 15, 2007 blog post. (LINK)

[knapplc]

Politics comes into play because Big Business lobbies the American government to prevent curbs on their pollutants. It's not political, it's about money.

 

and when the government pays big money to further and agenda.

 

You said you knew all the ins and outs of this subject, surely you know the amount of funding FOR global warming is incredibly.

 

What agenda does "the government" have? And when you answer that, let's bear in mind that the US agency tasked with monitoring climate change has been around for more than 20 years, through four presidents. And it was founded under a Republican administration.

 

So.... what's this agenda of which you speak so eloquently?

[Nebula]

I 100% believe the planet warms and cools.. not a doubt in my mind.

 

EDIT: let me add that you couldn't be more wrong about the bold.. I had a link where scientist for global warming had a few choice words for those that don't believe but I can't find it now.

That's not science, it's rhetoric. A true scientist isn't "for" anything other than proving or disproving hypothesis through fact and data. Sometimes discovering you were wrong can be just as exciting an event for a scientist than discovering you were correct. Whatever link you had won't do either of us any good. I don't want to listen to Al Gore and his emotionally and politically driven mouthpieces nor Republican skewed political/campaign donation influenced rhetoric.

 

I just want research and open minded discourse. Is that so much to ask for #$@%#$@^%$$%^#$$%& sake?

 

(Don't answer the last question. Rhetorical. I already know the answer. And I'm not talking about you. I think you may have jumped the gun in making up your mind, but what the hell. I saw a lot worse flipping through the mug shots on the online Chicago Trib yesterday. Damn.)

[huskerXman]

I 100% believe the planet warms and cools.. not a doubt in my mind.

 

EDIT: let me add that you couldn't be more wrong about the bold.. I had a link where scientist for global warming had a few choice words for those that don't believe but I can't find it now.

That's not science, it's rhetoric. A true scientist isn't "for" anything other than proving or disproving hypothesis through fact and data. Sometimes discovering you were wrong can be just as exciting an event for a scientist than discovering you were correct. Whatever link you had won't do either of us any good. I don't want to listen to Al Gore and his emotionally and politically driven mouthpieces nor Republican skewed political/campaign donation influenced rhetoric.

 

I just want research and open minded discourse. Is that so much to ask for #$@%#$@^%$$%^#$$%& sake?

 

(Don't answer the last question. Rhetorical. I already know the answer. And I'm not talking about you. I think you may have jumped the gun in making up your mind, but what the hell. I saw a lot worse flipping through the mug shots on the online Chicago Trib yesterday. Damn.)

 

I hear ya, BUT, the very scientist that claim man-made global warming is fact are the ones behind the rhetoric. Go figure..

 

 

EDIT: I know you say you don't know for sure one way or the other, but it sure seems like you have already made up your mind as well.

[huskerXman]

Politics comes into play because Big Business lobbies the American government to prevent curbs on their pollutants. It's not political, it's about money.

 

and when the government pays big money to further and agenda.

 

You said you knew all the ins and outs of this subject, surely you know the amount of funding FOR global warming is incredibly.

 

What agenda does "the government" have? And when you answer that, let's bear in mind that the US agency tasked with monitoring climate change has been around for more than 20 years, through four presidents. And it was founded under a Republican administration.

 

So.... what's this agenda of which you speak so eloquently?

 

I don't know, I can only guess it is more control.. At no time in history has the government had more control of the people than they do today.. A number of regulations have been put in place, from global warming, that furthers the power grab.

[carlfense]

"I don't trust those damn scientists.

 

...Here's some 'science' to support my claims. You should believe me because it's scientific. And has charts, and stuff."

. . . complete with lists of scientists whose claims happen to support my ideological beliefs.

 

Well done zoogies. You summed it up perfectly. We can't trust ~90% of scientists because they are just protecting their research dollars and all work in liberal academia anyways . . . but HEY! Look at the ~10% of scientists who agree with me!

 

(Don't know the exact percentages but will check it out. Edit: looks like the figure I was remembering was 90% certainty.)

 

I honestly hope that people are trolling this thread.

[knapplc]

Politics comes into play because Big Business lobbies the American government to prevent curbs on their pollutants. It's not political, it's about money.

 

and when the government pays big money to further and agenda.

 

You said you knew all the ins and outs of this subject, surely you know the amount of funding FOR global warming is incredibly.

 

What agenda does "the government" have? And when you answer that, let's bear in mind that the US agency tasked with monitoring climate change has been around for more than 20 years, through four presidents. And it was founded under a Republican administration.

 

So.... what's this agenda of which you speak so eloquently?

 

I don't know, I can only guess it is more control.. At no time in history has the government had more control of the people than they do today.. A number of regulations have been put in place, from global warming, that furthers the power grab.

 

So the Republican administration who gave us the government agency charged with examining climate control just wanted more control?

 

Control over what? You? Me? Stuff?

[BigRedBuster]

So, let me get this straight. The government funds scientists work. If politicians don't believe it's a problem then they don't fund the research. The way they think it's a problem is information from the "scientists".

 

Politicians gain political power by claiming they are concerned about global warming which makes average Joes on the street think it's a major problem and everyone's going to die if it isn't fixed. The only way it's going to get fixed is if you vote for the candidate that preaches all about global warming (Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Bob Kerry). The other side (Bush) are the cause of global warming because they support those big mean corporations that are destroying our planet. Bush was the cause of Hurricane Katrina because he caused global warming (yes, that is what some liberals were saying at the time).

 

Heck, Al Gore goes off and makes his own movie about global warming and how we are all going to die when the world is destroyed and the entire thing was politically driven.

 

And you can't figure out how this issue is political?

[carlfense]

So the Republican administration who gave us the government agency charged with examining climate control just wanted more control?

 

Control over what? You? Me? Stuff?

You know, knapplc . . . control! Controoooool.